Company departed, and left me feeling exhausted. I've been making
very slow progress on the upstairs bedroom/closet project, but have
very little to show for it, other than a gargantuan mess. I have a
lot of sanding to do -- hopefully tomorrow will be good enough,
after which I move on to primer and (still undecided) paint. The
paneling for the closet is cut, and so far seems to fit. After an
initial misstep -- one of way too many to count -- I think I bought
the right glue today, and also some screws (which are more likely
to work than the prescribed process of nailing around the edges).
I can imagine someone who knows what they're doing wrapping this
up in two days (plus breaks to let paint dry), but it's probably
going to take me another week. And the soreness just adds to the
frustration.
Somehow, in my spare time I knocked out a rather substantial
Speaking of Which yesterday. I added a couple small bits
today, as I don't have a file open for next week, and without
searching found a few items worth noting (e.g., an obituary
for rapper Ka, whose recent records are noted below, and a
record review by Allen Lowe).
More records this week than last. Probably more next week than
this, although it's hard to imagine ever getting back to normal.
New records reviewed this week:
Jessica Ackerley: All of the Colours Are Singing
(2022 [2024], AKP): Canadian guitarist, based in New York, has
several previous albums since 2019, this one backed with bass
and drums, plus viola/violin (Concetta Abatte) on four (of seven)
tracks).
B+(*) [sp]
Adekunle Gold: Tequila Ever After (2023, Def Jam):
Nigerian Afrobeats singer-songwriter, Adekunle Kosoko, went through
a Silver phase before he turned Gold. Has an interesting beat I
can't quite match up elsewhere.
B+(**) [sp]
Bad Moves: Wearing Out the Refrain (2024, Don Giovanni):
DC-based power pop quartet, third album after a 2016 EP, doesn't seem
like much as first, but grows on you, especially with earworms like
"I can't get the part where you fucked up out of my head."
B+(***) [sp]
John Chin/Jeong Lim Yang/Jon Gruk Kim: Journey of Han
(2024, Jinsy Music): Piano/bass/drums trio, some electric keyboards,
six originals by Chin, one each by the others, plus a few standards.
B+(*) [cd]
Guy Davis: The Legend of Sugarbelly (2024, M.C.):
Blues singer-songwriter, son of actors Ruby Dee and Ossie Davis,
first album 1978, has been remarkably consistent since his third
album in 1993.
B+(***) [sp]
The Kris Davis Trio: Run the Gauntlet (2024,
Pyroclastic): Pianist, from Canada, a major figure since 2004,
with Robert Hurst (bass) and Johnathan Blake (drums). This is
very good, rewards patient listening, but never quite grabs me.
B+(***) [cd]
Wendy Eisenberg: Viewfinder (2022-23 [2024],
American Dreams): Jazz guitarist, more than a dozen albums since
2017, singer-songwriter here, the songs focusing on seeing,
occasioned by eye surgery. But the shift to instrumentals,
chopped and skewed, gets more interesting.
B+(**) [sp]
Frode Gjerstad Trio: Unknown Purposes (2023 [2024],
Circulasione Totale): Norwegian saxophonist, started in Detail in
the early 1980s, many albums since 1996, Discogs lists 22 just for
his Trio, here with Jon Rune Strřm (bass) and Paal Nilssen-Love
(drums).
B+(***) [bc]
Frode Gjerstad/Margaux Oswald/Ivar Myrset Asheim: Another
Step (2024, Circulasione Totale): Relatively short live set
(2 pieces, 30:41), the leader on alto sax and clarinet, backed with
piano and drums.
B+(*) [bc]
Joel and the Neverending Sextet: Marbled (2023
[2024], Motvind): Norwegian cellist Joel Ring, second group album,
with Karl Hjalmar Nyberg on tenor sax/clarinet, backed with piano,
tuba, bass, and two drummers.
B+(***) [sp]
Ka: The Thief Next to Jesus (2024, Iron Works):
Rapper Kaseem Ryan, just got news of his death at 52 and recalled
that he had a recent album that I had trouble finding.
B+(**) [sp]
Omer Leshem: Play Space (2024, Ubuntu Music):
Tenor saxophonist, from Israel, based in New York, third album
since 2017, Bandcamp shows two releases (2008, 2016) from what
seems to be a different Omer Leshem (plays guitar, in Israel),
Discogs is no help here (one co-credit with Naama Gheber for an
arrangement that could go either way). Original pieces, backed
with guitar, piano, bass, and drums, nicely done postbop.
B+(**) [cd]
Terence McManus: Music for Chamber Trio (2024,
Rowhouse Music): Guitarist, albums start around 2010 with several
duos, including ones with Ellery Eskelin (tenor sax) and Gerry
Hemingway (drums), who return to fill out this trio. "Chamber"
seems to mean soft and slow, which over 71 minutes can add up
to plodding, but it's always nice to hear Eskelin.
B+(***) [cd]
Kate Pierson: Radios & Rainbows (2024, Lazy
Meadow Music): B-52s singer-songwriter from 1976 on, released a
solo album in 2015, and now this second one. The herky-jerk one
seems to have been Fred Schneider, but occasionally you get a
whiff of that here. Notable lyric: "If you give your heart to
science, I will give you mine."
B+(**) [sp]
Dafnis Prieto Sí o Sď Quartet: 3 Sides of the Coin
(2024, Dafnison Music): Cuban drummer, moved to New York in 1999,
debut album in 2004 was widely acclaimed, won a MacArthur in 2011,
never any doubt about his chops but I've been slow to warm to his
records, at least until this utter delight, with Ricky Rodriguez
on electric bass, and star turns by Martin Bejerano on piano and
Peter Apfelbaum on soprano sax, tenor sax, and flute.
A- [cd]
Dave Rempis/Jason Adasiewicz/Joshua Abrams/Tyler Damon:
Propulsion (2023 [2024], Aerophonic): Saxophonist
(alto, tenor, baritone) from Chicago, first appeared replacing
Mars Williams in Vandermark 5 and immediately established
himself as one of the world's greats. He's been releasing 3-5
new albums per year, some a bit rough for my taste, but most
are so brilliant even that can be an advantage. Not much to
differentiate his many releases, but key value added here
comes from the vibraphonist.
A- [cd]
Dred Scott/Moses Patrou/Tom Beckham/Matt Pavolka: Cali
Mambo (2023 [2024], Ropeadope): Piano, vibes, bass,
percussion. One original, the rest standards, with "Manteca"
especially fine as a closer.
B+(**) [cd]
M Slago/Homeboy Sandman: And We Are Here (2024,
Fly 7 Music): Hip-hop producer Chris Jones, originally from
Nashville but based in Dallas, has a previous (2021) solo album,
Sandman is presumably the rapper ("feat." on all tracks, but
joined on a couple, one with Aesop Rock).
B+(***) [sp]
Walter Smith III: Three of Us Are From Houston and Reuben
Is Not (2024, Blue Note): Tenor saxophonist, from Houston,
debut 2006 -- with bassist Reuben Rogers, who returns here (he's
from the Virgin Islands), along with two other Houston natives who
have made names for themselves: Jason Moran (piano) and Eric Harland
(drums). Exemplary postbop, nicely balanced, ever-shifting, sketchy
but pointed.
A- [sp]
Sulida: Utos (2023 [2024], Clean Feed): Norwegian
trio of Marthe Lea (tenor sax/flute), Jon Rune Strřm (bass), and
Dag Erik Knedal Andersen (drums), first group album (but all three
have albums under their own names), all songs joint credits. Very
solid effort.
B+(***) [sp]
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
Kampire Presents: A Dancefloor in Ndola ([2024],
Strut): "Up-and-coming" DJ Kampire spins fourteen East African
grooves, some dating back to the 1970s, others "present day,"
details hard to come by, although influences include Congo and
Zambia -- home to Ndola, where the Kenya-born DJ grew up before
landing in Uganda, where his parents started.
A- [sp]
Miami Sound: Rare Funk & Soul From Miami, Florida
1967-1974 (1967-74 [2023], Soul Jazz): Pretty rare, with
George and Gwen McRae the most recognizable names, but funk, for
sure. [Rhapsody version is truncated from 17 to 9 tracks.]
B+(**) [r]
Miami Sound: More Funk and Soul From Miami, Florida
1967-1974 (1967-75 [2024], Soul Jazz): More adds up
to 20 songs, a few more artists I'm familiar with (Betty
Wright, Latimore).
B+(**) [r]
Old music:
Ka: Languish Arts (2022, Iron Works): One of a
pair of short albums released same day, at least digitally (vinyl
and CD came out in 2023). Ten songs, 28:23.
B+(**) [sp]
Ka: Woeful Studied (2022, Iron Works): Same day
release, ten more songs (26:27), not sure this is any better but
his calm narration over modest squiggles of sound may be growing
on me.
B+(***) [sp]
Don Walser: Rolling Stone From Texas (1994, Watermelon):
Country/western swing singer-songwriter (1934-2006), best known for
his yodeling, started a group called the Panhandle Playboys in 1950,
later led the Texas Plainsmen, but spent most of his adult years as
a mechanic and auditor in the National Guard, before "retiring" in
1994 and recording this career-defining album. Wikipedia notes that
"his extraordinary vocal abilities earned him the nickname 'the
Pavarotti of the Plains," which definitely overlooks Roy Orbison --
a comparison that occurred to me as soon as the opening sea of yodel
parted, although it took a couple of covers -- "Shotgun Boogie" and
"That's Why I'm Walking" -- to clarify into something uniquely his
own. Per John Morthland: "perhaps the last of God's great pure
country singers."
A- [sp]
Don Walser: Texas Top Hand (1996, Watermelon):
Second album, opens with a yodel on the title song, drifts
through various covers from "Tumbling Tumbleweeds" to "Weary
Blues From Waiting" to "Divorce Me C.O.D." to "Danny Boy."
B+(**) [sp]
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
Caleb Wheeler Curtis: The True Story of Bears and the Invention of the Battery (Imani, 2CD) [11-01]
Andy Haas: For the Time, Being (Resonant Music) []
Shawneci Icecold/Vernon Reid/Matthew Garrison & Grant Calvin Weston: Future Prime (Underground45) [09-01]
Laird Jackson: Life (self-released) []
Pony Boy All-Star Big Band: This Is Now: Live at Boxley's (Pony Boy) [08-09]
I had the thought of writing up a "top ten reasons for voting for
Kamala Harris and the Democrats this year," but haven't gotten much
further than considering the possibility of adding a second list of
"top five reasons why voting for Kamala Harris and the Democrats
won't be enough." The former is obviously dominated by how bad the
Republican offerings are, although you still have to establish that
at least in some significant respects, Democrats are preferable. If
you can't show that, you can't reject the "third party" option. The
second list might even help there, in that most of my reservations
are about programs that don't go far enough. The exceptions there
are Israel/Palestine and Russia/Ukraine, where Harris doesn't go
anywhere at all.
So while I have zero doubt that I will vote for Harris/Walz, and
most likely for every other Democrat who bothers to run here in Kansas,
I've spent most of my time here dealing with the pressing issues of
war, which the election will have little obvious impact on. The best
hope I can offer is a mere hunch that Harris has locked herself into
a Netanyahu dittohead position out of the calculated fear that any
sign of wavering might precipitate a sudden pro-Israel shift toward
Trump, and scuttle her campaign, but that once she wins, she'll have
more room to maneuver behind the scenes, and ease back toward the
more viable ground of decency. In any case, decency isn't even an
incidental prospect with Trump.
Monday night, I ended this arbitrarily, with little sense of how
much more I didn't get to.
Israel's media have acted this way for years. They conceal the
occupation and whitewash its crimes. No one orders them to do this; it
is done willingly, out of the understanding that this is what their
consumers want to hear. For the commercial media, that is the top and
foremost consideration. In this way Israel's media have become the
most important agent for dehumanization of the Palestinians, without
the need for censorship or a government directing it to do so. The
media take on this role in the knowledge that this is what their
customers want and expect of it. They don't want to know anything
about what their state and army are carrying out, because the best way
to be at peace with the reality of occupation, apartheid and war is
with denial, suppression and dehumanization.
There is no more effective and tried means to keep alive an
occupation so brutal and cruel as dehumanization via the
media. Colonialist powers have always known this. Without the
systematic concealment, over dozens of years, and the dehumanization,
it may well be that public opinion would have reflected greater
opposition to the situation among Israelis. But, if you don't say
anything, don't show anything, don't know anything and have no desire
to know anything, either, if the Palestinians are not truly human --
not like us, the Israelis -- then the crime being committed against
them goes down easier, can be tolerated.
The October 7 war brought all of this to new heights. Israel's media
showed almost nothing of what was happening in Gaza, and Israelis saw
only their own suffering, over and over, as if it was the only
suffering taking place. When Gazans counted 25,000 fatalities in less
than four months, most of them innocent noncombatants, in Israel there
was no shock. In fact, shock was not permitted, because it was seen as
a type of disloyalty. While in Gaza 10,000 children were killed,
Israelis continued to occupy themselves exclusively with their
captives and their own dead. Israelis told themselves that all Gazans
were Hamas, children included, even the infants, and that after
October 7, everyone was getting just what they deserved, and there was
no need to report on it. Israelis sank into their own disaster, just
theirs.
The absence of reporting on what was happening in Gaza constituted
the Israeli media's first sin. The second was only slightly less
egregious: the tendency to bring only one voice into the TV studios
and the pages of the printed press. This was a voice that supported,
justified and refused to question the war. Any identification with the
suffering in Gaza, or worse, any call to end the war because of its
accumulating crimes, was not viewed as legitimate in the press, and
certainly not by public opinion. This passed quietly, even calmly, in
Israel.
In Israel, people were fine with not having to see Gaza. The Jewish
left only declined in size, great numbers of people said they had the
scales removed from their eyes -- that is, October 7 led to their
awakening from the illusion, the lies, the preconceptions they had
previously held. It was sufficient for a single cruel attack for many
on the left to have their entire value system overturned. A single
cruel attack was sufficient to unite Israelis around a desire for
revenge and a hatred not only of those who had carried out that
attack, but of everyone around them. No one considered what might be
taking place in the hearts and minds of the millions of Palestinians
who have been living with the occupation's horrors for all these
dozens of years.
What kind of hatred must exist there, if here in Israel such hatred
and mistrust could sprout up after a single attack, horrific as it may
have been. This "waking up" among the left has to raise serious
questions about its seriousness and resilience. This wasn't the first
time that the left crumbled in the face of the first challenge it
encountered.
I've long been struck by the fickleness of the "peace camp" in
Israel: in particular, by how quickly people who should know better
rally behind Israeli arms at the slightest provocation. Amos Oz
and David Grossman are notorious repeat-offenders here, but the
effect is so common that it can only be explained by some kind of
mass psychology so deep-seated that it can be triggered any time
some faction sees an opportunity for war.
Top story threads:
Israel's year of infamy:
Mondoweiss: A
website founded by Philip Weiss which has moved beyond its origins
as a vehicle for progressive Jews to express their misgivings about
Israel by providing an outlet for a wide range of Palestinian voices,
this has long been my first stop for news about Israel/Palestine, and
has been extraordinarily invaluable over the past year. Here's their:
Palestinians reflect: One year of genocide:
Michael Arria: [10-10]
A year of genocide, a year of protest: "Despite the horror we
are watching unfold in Palestine, the movement challenging Israel
has seen unprecedented growth and accomplishments in the past
year." A reminder that every action produces a reaction -- perhaps
not "opposite and equal," but things have a way of settling out
over time.
It has exposed the enduring colonial nature of international law
This is a U.S. genocide of Palestinians
Universities are an extension of the state's coercive apparatus
Zionism has no moral legs to stand on
Racism and power -- the invisibility and power of Palestinians
Tareq S Hajjaj: [10-07]
After October 7, my home became a bag I carry with me: "I have
lived through my own Nakba and understand why thousands of Palestinians
fled their homes in 1948. I made the most difficult decision of my life
and left Gaza, not knowing that what I carried might be all I will ever
possess of my homeland."
Reem A Hamadaqa: [10-07]
My martyrs live on: "Out from under the rubble, I see my martyrs
waving for me. They all stand again. They smile. They live. They go
back home."
Hebh Jamal: [10-10]
The Gaza I knew is gone with our martyrs: "We do not fight for
Palestine for our family. I am no longer clinging to the hope of
reunification and survival. We fight for Palestine because the
liberation of its people means the liberation of us all."
Ghada Karmi: [10-08]
The true lesson of October 7 is that Israel cannot be reformed:
"The year since October 7 has shown us that Israel can neither
be accommodated nor reformed. It must be dismantled, and Zionism
must be brought to an end. Only this will finally alleviate the
Palestinians' terrible ordeal over the past 76 years." This is
an argument that I instinctively dislike and recoil from, but I
do take the point that it is incumbent on Israelis to show that
they are open to reform, the first step to which would be the
recognition that they have done wrong, and the resolve to stop
doing so, and to start making amends. Whether they can salvage
some sense of Zionist legacy is an open question. The strands of
thought and culture that drove Israel to genocide are woven deep
in their history, and won't be easy to dispose of, but I wouldn't
exclude all hope that Israel might recover.
Qassam Muaddi: [10-09]
After a year of extermination, Palestine is still alive:
"Palestinians have endured 76 years of the Nakba and now the 2024
genocide. Despite Israel and the West's desire to erase our existence,
we continue to declare, 'We won't leave.'"
Salman Abu Sitta: [10-07]
From ethnic cleansing to genocide: "I am a survivor of the 1948
Nakba who lived to witness the 2024 genocide. I may not live to see
justice be made, but I am certain our long struggle will be rewarded.
Our grandchildren will live at home once again."
Alice Austin: [10-07]
A year after the Nova massacre, survivors are still paralyzed with
grief: "The Nova festival was the site of October 7's largest
massacre. Now, survivors and the families of those murdered are
suing the state for negligence." One section head here is in quotes:
"It's impossible to heal, because it's never-ending." But the
massacre itself ended almost as quickly as it started. What has
never ended has been the political use and psychological abuse
of that massacre as a pretext for genocide. End that, and everyone
can start healing.
Ramzy Baroud: [10-11]
A year of genocide. "No one had expected that one year would be
enough to recenter the Palestinian cause as the world's most pressing
issue, and that millions of people across the globe, would, once
again, rally for Palestinian freedom." In some limited sense that
may be true, but I don't see how it works out. Not for lack of
trying, but those "millions of people" haven't been very effective,
nor is their fortune likely to change.
Since October 7, organizations of the American Jewish establishment,
like the Jewish Federations and the Anti-Defamation League, have
weaponized our grief, decontextualized it, promoted falsehoods about
what happened that day, and deployed Israeli propaganda talking
points to justify a genocidal onslaught against the Gaza Strip.
Within days of October 7, Israeli political and military leaders
publicly declared their intention to exact vengeance by destroying
Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip. Leading with a campaign of
mass bombing in densely populated areas that could only result in
massive civilian deaths, they have done so. Israel's conduct of the
war does not conform to any reasonable definition of self-defense.
The second half of the piece is devoted to relatively old history,
especially an event in 1971, which leads into the final paragraph:
The January 2, 1971 attack on the Aroyo family and Israel's brutal
response to it prefigure, albeit on a much smaller scale, the events
of October 7, 2023 and their aftermath. Shlomo Gazit was correct.
Israeli security cannot be achieved by committing war crimes and
ethnic cleansing. Palestinian liberation cannot be achieved by
murdering civilians.
Helen Benedict: [10-03]
Ending the cycle of revenge: "Bereaved Israelis and Palestinians
use their grief to advocate for reconciliation and peace together."
Robert Grenier: [10-05]
How Israel's brutal war strategy has remade the Middle East:
"Israel set out to reestablish military superiority. It succeeded --
at catastrophic human cost." Article misses the obvious question,
which is why "military superiority" matters to anyone other than
the military budget makers, as well as why the Hamas attack on
October 7 made them think they had something to prove. As for
"remaking the Middle East," it really looks much like it did just
over a year ago, except for the humanitarian crisis which Israel
itself is solely responsible for. (Sure, blame America for aiding,
but had Israel not wanted to launch its multi-front war, Americans
would have bowed and scraped just the same.)
Anis Shivani: [10-11]
Israel won: I considered pairing this piece with Baroud (above)
as a sobering counterpoint, but it has its own problems. While
Palestinians have lost much, it's hard to say what (if anything)
Israel has won. Also, he seems to be stuck on the notion that
the US is the architect of Israel's foreign policy, whereas the
opposite seems much closer to the truth.
Last year,
images and
video of the survivor of the October 7, 2023, strike in Abasan
Al-Kabira, 11-year-old Tala Abu Daqqa, circulated online. In a short
video, the young girl -- her face peppered with tiny cuts -- appears
glassy-eyed, broken, shattered. That day, the first of the war, she
became one of the now 2.1 million Palestinians in Gaza who have
witnessed or directly experienced conflict trauma and one of the
1 million children in need of mental health and psychosocial support.
Since the attack, at least 138,000 fellow Gazans have been killed or
wounded.
Numbers can't tell the full story of the suffering of children
and adults living under a year of Israeli bombardment. No matter
how accurate, figures can't capture the scope of their sorrow or
the depth of their distress. An estimate of how many million tons
of rubble Israeli attacks have produced can offer a sense of the
scale of destruction, but not the impact of each strike on the
lives of those who survived, and the effect on the future of Gaza
given how many didn't.
Numbers are wholly insufficient to explain Tala Abu Daqqa's
anguish. Statistics can't tell us much about how living through
such a catastrophe affects an 11-year-old child. Heartache defies
calculation. Psychological distress can't be reduced to the score
on a trauma questionnaire. There is no meaningful way to quantify
her loss except, perhaps, by offering up two basic, final numbers
that will stay with her forever: two parents and three sisters
killed.
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
[10-07]
Day 367: Israel orders new evacuations in Gaza, expands bombing in
Lebanon: "The Israeli ground invasion of southern Lebanon
continues to face stiff resistance along the border one week on,
while the Israeli army has renewed its assault on northern Gaza,
laying siege to Jabalia refugee camp for the sixth time since
October 7."
Jonathan Adler:
Israel's paradoxical crusade against UNRWA: "Israeli officials
are relying on UNRWA to prevent a polio epidemic -- while the
Knesset advances laws to expel the agency." Paradox?
Israeli defense officials
told Haaretz on Sunday that the Israeli government is not
seeking to revive ceasefire talks with Hamas and is now pushing for
the gradual annexation of large portions of the Gaza Strip. . . .
The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth has
reported that Israeli forces in Jabalia are carrying out a
"scaled-down" version of the "general's plan," an outline for the
complete ethnic cleansing of northern Gaza and the killing of any
Palestinians who choose to stay, whether by military action or
starvation. The UN's World Food Program said Saturday that no
food aid has entered northern Gaza since October 1. . . .
If Israel is successful in cleansing northern Gaza of its Palestinian
population, it would pave the way for the establishment of Jewish-only
settlements in the area, an idea openly supported by many Israeli
ministers and Knesset members. The general's plan calls for the
tactics to be used in other parts of the Strip once the north is
cleansed.
Tareq S Hajjaj: [10-09]
Inside Israel's ongoing invasion of Jabalia in northern Gaza:
"Israel laid siege to Jabalia in northern Gaza on the anniversary
of October 7. Residents tell Mondoweiss that the Israeli army is
forcibly conscripting civilians as human shields and shooting
residents who attempt to evacuate."
Mairav Zonszein: [10-07]
On Israeli apathy. I resisted the word "apathy" here. It's a
commonplace that many (most?) Israelis have lost the ability to
recognize Palestinians as human beings -- a loss of empathy that
makes them indifferent to horrendous violence. But it's easier to
understand that as hatred than as apathy. And no doubt much Israeli
propaganda is devoted to stoking hate, but that goes hand-in-hand
with efforts to desensitize Israelis to the effects of violence
directed at others, and ultimately to keep Israelis from realizing
that their own violence is doing to themselves.
The lawlessness and state violence directed at Palestinians for so
long have started to seep into Jewish Israeli society. Mr. Netanyahu's
refusal to assume responsibility for the security failures of Oct. 7,
his grip on power despite corruption trials, his emboldening of some
of the most radical and messianic elements in Israel are a testament
to that. The nearly carte blanche support Israel has received from
the Biden administration throughout much of this war has further
empowered the most hard-line elements of the nation's politics. And
yet many Israelis are still not making the connection between their
inability to get the government to prioritize Israeli life and how
expendable that government treats Palestinian life.
Without this realization, it is hard to see how Israelis can pave
a different path forward that does not rely on the same dehumanization
and lawlessness. This, for me, has made what is already a dire,
desperate reality seemingly irredeemable. For Israelis to start
carving a way out of this mess, they will have to feel outraged
not only by what is being done to them, but also what is being done
to others in their name, and demand that it stop. Without that, I'm
not sure that I, like other Israelis with the privilege to consider
it, see a future here.
Any state that allows such abuse will ultimately turn its anger
and callousness on its own people.
Lebanon:
Elia Ayoub: [10-04]
Killing Hezbollah leaders failed 30 years ago. It won't work now:
"Instead of debilitating Hezbollah, Israel's assassination of Hassan
Nasrallah may prove to be a major PR boost for the embattled
organization." Useful mostly for background, especially Israel's
1992 assassination of Hezbollah co-founder Abbas al-Musawi, which
only intensified the struggle against Israel's occupation of south
Lebanon, as new leaders like Nasrallah took over.
[10-09]
Israel invaded Lebanon because the United States let it: "The
leveling of Lebanese border towns is the continuation of Israel's
Gaza policy: total destruction and ill-defined objectives." I also
found an earlier article I had meant to mention:
Sunjeev Bery: [10-10]
US foreign policy has created a genocidal Israel: "Without
massive, unconditional US military subsidies, Israel would have
had to practice diplomacy with their neighbors years ago." One
could just as easily argue that Israel has steered the US toward
increasing embrace, if not (yet) of full-blown genocide, then at
least to the leading policies of "extraordinary rendition," "black
sites," and "targeted assassination," as Israel became first the
model, then the laboratory for the "war on terror" -- really just
a cult that believes that sheer force can overcome all obstacles.
Or one can argue that genocide is encoded in the DNA of our shared
settler-colonial origins, a latent tendency which flowers whenever
and wherever conditions allow.
There can be no doubt that the American "blank check" has
contributed significantly to those conditions. And on the surface,
it would seem that the rare occasions when American presidents
attempted to restrain Israel were successful: in 1956, Eisenhower
forced Israel to retreat from Egypt; in 1967 and 1973 the US and
Russia brokered UN ceasefire resolutions; in 1978, Carter halted
Israel's intervention in Lebanon, and in 1979 Carter brokered a
peace agreement with Egypt; in 1990-91, Bush restrained Israel
from retaliating against Iraq, and pressed for peace talks, which
ultimately led to Israelis replacing the recalcitrant Shamir with
Rabin, leading to the ill-fated Oslo Accords. But in fact, every
apparent accommodation Israeli leaders made to US pressure was
systematically subverted, with most of the offenses repeated as
soon as allowed: the war against Egypt that Eisenhower ended was
relaunched with Johnson; the invasion of Lebanon that Carter held
back returned with Reagan; the sham "peace process" under Clinton
was demolished -- well, actually repackaged in caricature -- with
GW Bush. But under Trump and Biden, American subservience -- which
is part pure corruption, but also imbued in war-on-terror culture --
has become so complete that Netanyahu no longer bothers to pretend.
Actually, Israel's die was set in two previous events where a
realistically alternative path was possible and rejected -- in both
cases, by David Ben-Gurion. The first was in 1936, when British
authorities realized what a mess of their mandate in Palestine,
and proposed, through the Peel Commission, to solve their problem
with a program of partition and mandatory transfer: divide the
land into two pieces, and force all the Jews to one side, and all
the Arabs to the other. The division, of course, was unfair, not
just in the ratio of people to land but especially in that nearly
all of people forcibly uprooted and "transferred" would be Arabs.
But Ben-Gurion, whose power base at the time was the Hebrew-only
union Histadrut, saw in the proposal the prospect of an ethnically
pure Jewish state, which could with independence and time build up
a military that could seize any additional lands they thought they
needed.
The British proposal was not only rejected by the Palestinians,
but precipitated a revolt which took the British (and the Israeli
militias they encouraged) three years to suppress, and then only
when the British to the main Palestinian demand, which was to
severely limit Jewish immigration. But Ben-Gurion kept the drive
for partition alive, eventually persuading the UN to approve it
in diluted form -- the "transfer" was sotto voce, but when the
British withdrew in 1948, Israel's militias merged into the IDF,
significantly expanded beyond the resolution's borders, and drove
more than 700,000 Palestinians from their homes into exile. The
resulting Israel wasn't as large or as pure as Ben-Gurion had
hoped, but it soon became as powerful, as became clear in its
wars against Egypt in 1956 and 1967 (and its defense in 1973).
One can argue that Ben-Gurion did what needed to be done in
order to found and secure Israel. But once Israel was free and
secure, it had options, one of which was to treat its new minority
fairly, earn its respect and loyalty, and disarm its neighbors by
normalizing relations. Ben-Gurion didn't do that, but he did give
way to his lieutenant, Moshe Sharrett, who was much more inclined
to moderation. Ben-Gurion's second fateful decision was to return
to politics, deposing Sharrett, and returning Israel to the path
of militarism, ethnocracy and empire building. This led straight
to the 1956 war, and its 1967 reprisal. Ben-Gurion had retired
again before the latter, but he had left successors who would
carry on his maximalist objectives (notably, Moshe Dayan, Golda
Meir, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, and Ariel Sharon; meanwhile,
he had rehabilitated his old enemies from the Jabotinsky wing,
from Menachem Begin to Benjamin Netanyahu, and integrated into
the political system the followers of the ultra-orthodox and
ultra-nationalist Kook rabbis -- pretty much the entire spectrum
of current Israeli politics).
I like to think of Ben-Gurion's return to power as similar to
Mao's Cultural Revolution: the last desperate attempt of an aging
revolutionary to recreate his glory days rather than simply resting
on his laurels. It is interesting that Ben-Gurion advised against
the 1967 war, arguing that Palestinians wouldn't flee from Israel's
advancing armies like they did in 1948, so any land gained would
reduce the Jewish demographic majority he had fought for, and be
burdened with a heavy-handed occupation. But once the war ended so
decisively, he was delighted, and his followers were confident they
could handle the occupation -- the bigger threat was that Egypt and
Syria would fight to get their land back, as they did in 1973.
While Ben-Gurion has had extraordinary influence on Israel's
entire history, he has at least in one respect been eclipsed of
late: he always understood that occupation was a burden, one that
can and should be lightened by some manner of decency, and he also
understood that Israel needs friends and alliances in the world,
which again demands that Israel show some decency and respect.
Shlomo Avineri ends his The Making of Modern Zionism with
chapters on Ben-Gurion, Jabotinsky, and Kook. Ben-Gurion at least
understood the rudiments of social solidarity, and saw practical
value in it, even if his socialism was radically circumscribed by
his nationalism. Most Israelis today no longer feel the need:
like Jabotinsky, they believe that power conquers all, and that
the powerful should be accountable to none; while some, like
Kook, see their power as divinely ordained, as is their mission
to redeem greater Eretz Yisrael, and purge it of its intruders.
To them, America is just a tool they can use for their own ends.
Indeed, it's hard to explain why Biden and his predecessors have
indulged Israel so readily. Which, I suppose, is why Bery's
thesis, that American power has always been rotten, cannot be
easily dismissed. His conclusion is not wrong, except inasmuch
as he implies conscious intent:
The simple reality is that U.S. foreign policy remains just as
bloody and horrific as it has always been. In earlier decades,
"acceptable" losses included the 1 to 2 million civilians killed
in Vietnam, another million dead in Indonesia, the carnage of
U.S.-backed dictators across Latin America, and the hundreds of
thousands killed during the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Today's U.S. military and diplomatic interventions in the Middle
East are no different.
To end Israel's horrific actions in the Middle East, we must
change the politics of America itself. This is no easy task, given
the robust power and influence of pro-Israel -- and pro-war --
networks, donors, and lobbying groups inside the U.S. But it is
the task at hand, and it should be the focus of every person of
conscience, both within and outside the borders of the United
States. As has been true in other regions of the world, U.S.
foreign policy is the fundamental obstacle to justice, democracy,
and peace in the Middle East.
Page also included a link to a year-old article which adds
background depth here:
Khader Jabbar: [10-06]
Israel and Iran: Unpacking Western media bias with Assal Rad:
"Assal Rad joins The Mondoweiss Podcast to discuss media coverage
of recent events in Palestine and Lebanon and the persistent
pro-Israel bias in Western media."
Jake Johnson: [10-13]
Alarm as Pentagon confirms deployment of US troops to Israel:
"Netanyahu is as close as he has ever been to his ultimate wish:
making the US fight Iran on Israel's behalf." The deployment is
pretty limited -- "an advanced antimissile system and around 100
US troops" -- but it encourages Israel to provoke further armed
responses from Iran, while making American troops handy targets
for all sorts of terrorist mischief. Washington, conditioned to
see Iran as a potential aggressor, probably sees this as purely
defensive, urgent given Iran's threats (and occasional but mostly
symbolic practice) of retaliation, and practical in that trained
troops can get the system operative much faster than just handing
the weapons over to Israel. Netanyahu, on the other hand, will see
this as confirmation that the Americans are on the hook for war
with Iran. They also understand that if/when Iran wants to hit
back in ways that actually hurt, the US has many easier targets
to hit than the patch of Israel this weapon system is meant to
protect.
The first thing we have to do is to disabuse ourselves of the notion
that the United States has any reservations about what Israel is doing.
Israel is doing what it is doing in careful and close coordination with
Washington, and with its full approval. The United States does not just
arm and diplomatically protect what Israel does; it shares Israel's
goals and approves of Israel's methods.
The tut-tutting, the pooh-poohing, and the crocodile tears about
humanitarian issues and civilian casualties are pure hypocrisy. The
United States has signed on to Israel's approach to Lebanon -- it
wants Israel to destroy Hezbollah and Hamas. It does not have any
reservations about the basic approach of Israel, which is to attack
the civilian population in order to force change in Lebanon and
obviously in Gaza. . . .
The United States helps Israel in targeting Hezbollah and Hamas
leaders -- that is a fact. Anybody who ignores that and pretends
that there's any daylight between what Israel does and what the
United States wants it to do is lying to themselves or is lying to us.
I don't have any evidence to contradict this, but this doesn't
fit the model I have of American interests and motivations. The
most likely part of this story is the low-level sharing of signals
intelligence and targeting information, because that doesn't have
to go through diplomatic levels where questions might be asked
about what it's being used for. That sort of thing is pre-approved,
not because Israel is doing America's dirty work but because US
officials have, as a matter of political convenience, given up
any pretense of independent thought where Israel is concerned.
Ben Samuels: [10-02]
In US election, Israel might be the ultimate October surprise:
"For the first time, there's a real chance that Israel may help sway
the race. Election Day is 34 days away. Undoubtedly, many more surprises
are in store, and none of them are likely to be pleasant."
Dahlia Scheindlin: [10-01]
Hamas and Hezbollah trapped Israel on October 7. Now Israel is trapping
Iran and America: "Tehran and Washington are facing tremendous
dilemmas, trapped between two highly fraught options. Their choices
will determine the fate of the Middle East for both the short term
and for years to come." But the only real choice here is Israel's,
as they can keep doing this until they get their desired result,
which is America and Iran at war.
Ishaan Tharoor: [10-09]
How Netanyhahu shattered Biden's Middle East hopes: "The Israeli
prime minister tested and bested President Joe Biden's diplomatic
strategy around the growing conflict in the Middle East." The logical
fallacy here is in thinking that Biden ever had his own plans for
anything involving Israel.
"Reading the health experts, I am starting to think with horror that
if it's not stopped, Israel's assault could end up exterminating almost
the entire population in Gaza over the next couple of years," Francesca
Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine,
wrote on Friday on social media.
Albanese cited
a recent report from University of Edinburgh global public health
chair Devi Sridhar finding that the true death toll from Israel's
genocide could be estimated at 335,500 as of September.
Sridhar based this rough calculation
off of an estimate by public health researchers published in
The Lancet in July regarding typical indirect death counts
from previous conflicts, citing research hailed as the gold standard
in the field. At that time, the researchers estimated that the true
death toll could be roughly 186,000, stemming from direct killings
like bombings as well as Israel's destruction of the health, food
and sanitation systems in Gaza.
The death toll, then, could be between 15 and 20 percent of the
population by the end of this year, Albanese said, in just over a
year of Israel's genocide. And, as Sridhar writes in her Guardian
report, the calculation that she borrows from The Lancet
editorial is highly conservative -- meaning the death toll could be
even higher than her 335,500 estimate.
There is a good bit of evidence that suggests Israel is unraveling
from within. It now appears that Zionism, like communism, is a
self-defeating project. In June of this year, renown Jewish historian,
Ilan Pappé, suggested [link follows] that the collapse of Zionism
may be imminent. According to Pappé, "We are witnessing a historical
process -- or, more accurately, the beginnings of one -- that is
likely to culminate in the downfall of Zionism."
In a manner eerily reminiscent of ancient Israel, modern Israel is
quickly dividing into two separate states: the State of Israel and the
State of Judea. The former identifies as a secular liberal democracy
while the latter consists of far right religious zealots who want to
establish a theocracy, and believe that God has promised them all the
land between the Nile and the Euphrates.
Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich is a leading figure of
this latter group. In a new documentary produced by Arte, Smotrich
claimed that "the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus."
Not surprisingly, Smotrich's vision for the State of Judea includes
annexing territories presently belonging to Egypt, Jordan, Syria,
Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. The members of this group, including,
Itamar Ben-Gvir, Minister of National Security, believe that the events
which transpired on October 7 provide the perfect pretext for them to
realize their vision of Greater Israel.
It should be noted hee that Smotrich's party only holds seven seats
(out of 120) in the Knesset, although they seem able to use their
limited leverage to dominate the coalition government agenda.
Adam Johnson/Othman Ali: [10-14]
A study reveals CNN and MSNBC's glaring Gaza double standard:
"Palestinians received far less sympathetic and humanizing coverage
than either Israelis or Ukrainians, a Nation analysis has
found." Nice to have the charts and all the rigor, but the
conclusion has been obvious for many years. It's been engineered
by "hasbara" architects, and reinforced by the whispers of money
in editors' ears.
By scapegoating Netanyahu, who has dominated the Israeli political
system for most of the past fifteen years, liberal Zionists have
been able to preserve in their imaginations the idealized Israel
many of them fell in love with decades ago -- the Israel that was
founded by secular socialists from Eastern Europe and that branded
itself as a paragon of enlightened governance, even as it engaged
from the beginning in colonization, land theft, murder, and expulsion
on a scale that Netanyahu's coalition can only envy. By denying the
essential nature of the Zionist project and its incompatibility with
progressive values, liberal Zionists have also been in denial at
every stage about the war to which they have pledged at least
conditional support. They have insisted that the situation is
"complicated," which is the framing Ta-Nehisi Coates absorbed
during his tenure at the predominantly liberal Zionist Atlantic,
and which he denounced as "horseshit" following a trip to the occupied
West Bank in the summer of 2023. "It's complicated," Coates
toldNew York magazine last month, deriding that common
talking point, "when you want to take something from somebody."
A year after October 7, no one seriously believes there will be
peace between Israel and the Palestinians in our lifetime. The bombed
and starved children of Gaza will never forget what they've been
subjected to, nor the world's general indifference; while it's not
on the same scale, their counterparts in Israel will never forget
the national trauma of the attacks. The "two-state solution" that
liberal Zionists have verbally supported for years as the only
possible just outcome is an obvious fantasy. Other, far more
disturbing outcomes seem likelier; at present, it is hard to see
what consequences Israel will face from continuing to kill and
displace Palestinians on all fronts while seizing and occupying
more and more of their land. If there is one lesson to be taken
from the past dismal year, it's this: the liberal Zionist
interpretation of the conflict has no predictive value, no analytical
weight, and no moral rigor. It is a failed dream of the previous
century, and it is unlikely to survive this one.
The loss of humanity in public discourse is a contagious and sometimes
fatal disease. Recovery is very difficult. Israel has lost all interest
in what it is doing to the Palestinian people, arguing that they "deserve
it" - everyone, including women, children, the elderly, the sick, the
hungry and the dead.
The Israeli media, which has been more disgraceful over the past
year than ever before, voluntarily carries the flag of incitement,
inflaming passions and the loss of humanity, just to gratify its
consumers.
The domestic media has shown Israelis almost nothing of the
suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, while whitewashing manifestations
of hatred, racism, ultra-nationalism, and sometimes barbarism,
directed at the enclave and its population.
Said Zeedani: [10-08]
Gaza's governance must remain in Palestinian hands: "Amid plans
for external interventions, it is vital to build a consensus around
an interim body to manage Gaza's urgent needs and pave the way for
unity." I have no idea who's saying what about "external interventions,"
but nothing serious can happen until Israel implements a ceasefire
(with or without any Hamas consent -- even if the hostages are not
repatriated immediately, they will be much safer with a ceasefire),
agrees to withdraw its forces, and renounces any claim to the land
of Gaza and/or its people. If we've learned anything from the last
year, it's that Israel is not fit to occupy land without citizens.
That shouldn't be a hard sell to Israel, as they have no settlers
in Gaza to contest claims, and they've more than made their point
about what they will do to people who attack them.
Once Israel is out of the picture, other people can get involved,
immediately to rescue the people -- for the most part de-housed,
with many diseased and/or starving -- and eventually to repair and
rebuild. Gazans have great needs and no resources or leverage, so
reconstruction will depend on the generosity of donors -- which may
quite reasonably come with strings attached (especially to respect
Israel's security, to avoid future repeats of its brutality). The
one point which must be respected is that in due course Gaza must be
self-governing, its sovereignty vested in the people who live there
and are free to choose their own leaders. Any "interim authority"
must lead without prejudice to such a democracy. Among other things,
this means that it should not ensconce previous political parties
(like Fatah or Hamas), nor should it exclude former members. Gaza
should rebuild on a clean slate.
B'Tselem:
The pogroms are working - the transfer is already happening:
I've cited this report
before, but it popped up again in Mazin Qumsiyeh's newsletter,
and is worth repeating, as it helps put the post-Oct. 7 genocide
into its much deeper historical context, as a continuation of a
process which Israelis were diligently working on before they could
accelerate it under the "fog of war." (You may recall that the Nazi
extermination program only began after they invaded Russia, although
the Nazis were rabidly antisemitic from the start, and committed
many heinous crimes against Jews well before they crossed the line
we now know as genocide.)
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.
Election notes:
Gail Collins/Bret Stephens: [10-07]
How could the election be this close? Good question, to which the
article only offers the oblique of answer of demonstrating how clueless
two New York Times opinion columnists can be. Stephens, at least, wears
his ignorance on his sleeve, going out of his way to quote arbitrary
Blacks and Hispanics who think Harris is "too liberal," "overall
untrustworthy," and "unsure how prepared she is to be president."
(And see those traits as worrisome compared to Trump?) Stephens also
wants Harris to "name some widely respected policy heavyweights as
members of her brain trust -- people like Robert Rubin and David
Petraeus. And announce that Liz Cheney will be her secretary of
state." Collins keeps her cluelessness hidden better. She has a
reputation for humor, but here it's mostly just egging Stephens on
to say stupid things.
PS: Speaking of stupid Stephens things, this piece came to my
attention:
Despite what those afflicted with sociopathy at the top want us to
believe, we are hardwired to help each other. We've heard how the
military has to work so hard to train killers, to erase that
hesitation to kill, and how so many shots taken in war are purposely
missed ones. When we see such wanton glee at killing we can bet that
an immeasurable number of hours have been spent in the indoctrination
of hatred, to erase the inclination for community and mutual aid. . . .
But we all know how kids often turn out after living in violent
and hate-filled homes and that's basically what all of us have been
toiling under our whole lives. We all know we've been propagandized,
it's a constant task that we need to be aware of this fact and we
need to recognize things like "passive voice" so popular in newspapers
like the New York Times. All these people dying, not being killed!
Children being called adult terms to take away our natural gut reaction
to their deaths . . . I think many have been able to break out of the
arrogant decrees that are brought down by religious institutions but
still are enamored with the liberal intelligentsia media. If they say
it, it must be true and there is no slant to the way it's delivered.
Well, it will take some time and critical thinking for those "esteemed"
edifices to be brought down. But for now, New York Times, you can go
fuck yourself and your call to war, there's real work to be done and
we don't have time for your shit.
Author's ellipses in last paragraph (originally six dots, no
idea why). I considered dropping the second half of that paragraph,
but decided the author deserved to make the point, even if crudely.
Stanley B Greenberg: [10-09]
Trump is laser-focused on the final duel. Harris is not. "That
will put Trump and Vance in the White House." One problem with reporting
based on polls is that polls most often ask stupid questions of people
who are far short of well-informed, so they can chastise politicians
for failing to cater to their nonsensical results.
Chris Lehman: [09-25]
In 2024, the pundits are wronger than ever: "Most of the predictions,
advice, and scolding emanating from the glow of TV news this year have
proved flat-out wrong. Democrats should stop listening once and for
all." Well, yes and no. It helps to start from the assumption that
you're being lied to and being given faulty and often disingenuous
advice, then try to work out what you can learn from that. On the
other hand, there actually is a lot of pretty good, solid reporting
and analysis available, if only you can figure out which is which.
Rick Perlstein:
[09-25]
The polling imperilment: "Presidential polls are no more reliable
than they were a century ago. So why do they consume our political
lives?" Catching up with other Perlstein columns:
[10-02]
Who are the 'undecided'? "It may not be about issues, but whether
voters surrender to Trump's invitation to return to the womb." Here
he draws on an article Chris Hayes wrote on undecided voters in 2004,
and which hardly anyone seems to have understood or rediscovered in
the last two decades of intense 24/7 political "coverage": basically,
undecided voters are unable to think about political issues in terms
of political choices. That's my simplification. Here's Perlstein
quoting Hayes:
Chris noted that while there were a few people he talked to like that,
"such cases were exceedingly rare. More often than not, when I asked
undecided voters what issues they would pay attention to as they made
up their minds I was met with a blank stare, as if I'd just asked them
to name their favorite prime number . . . the very concept of the
'issue' seemed to be almost completely alien to most of the undecided
voters I spoke to." . . .
Hayes: "I tried other ways of asking the same question: 'Anything
of particular concern to you? Are you anxious or worried about anything?
Are you excited about what's been happening in the country in the last
four years?'"
But those questions harvested "bewilderment" too. "As far as I could
tell, the problem wasn't the word 'issue' . . . The undecideds I spoke
to didn't seem to have any intuitive grasp of what kinds of grievances
qualify as political grievances."
That's the part that stuck with me word for word, almost two decades
on. Some mentioned they were vexed by rising health care costs. "When
I would tell them that Kerry had a plan to lower health-care premiums,
they would respond in disbelief . . . as if you were telling them that
Kerry was promising to extend summer into December."
Of course, you don't have to be "undecided" to have no clue as to
the policy domain that politics determines. Many uninformed or less
than competently comprehending voters pick their allegiances on other
seemingly arbitrary and often nonsensical grounds. These factors are
rooted in psychology, and are expertly exploited, mostly by Republican
operatives, perhaps realizing that their actual policy preferences
have little rational appeal. Perlstein, after noting Trump's promise
to be "your protector," reflects back on fascism:
Millions of pages have been filled by scholars explaining the
psychological appeal of fascism, most converging on the blunt fact
that it offers the fantasy of reversion to an infantile state, where
nothing can come and harm you, because you will be protected by an
all-powerful figure who will always put you first, always put you
first. It is simply indisputable that this promise can seduce and
transform even intelligent, apparently mature, kind-hearted people
formerly committed to liberal politics. I've
written before in this column about the extraordinary film
The Brainwashing of My Dad, in which director Jen Senko
describes the transformation of her Kennedy-liberal dad under the
influence of right-wing talk radio and Fox News -- and also how,
after she explained the premise of her film for a Kickstarter
campaign, scores of people came out of the woodwork to share
similar stories about their own family members.
I've learned a lot about the psychological dynamics at work from
the
X feed of a psychologist named
Julie Hotard, who drills down on the techniques Fox uses to trigger
infantilization in viewers. The people at Fox who devise these
scripts, one imagines, are pretty sophisticated people. Trump's
gift is to be able to grunt out the same stuff just from his gut.
Trump's appeals have become noticeably more infantile in precisely
this way. When he
addresses women voters, for instance: "I am your protector.
I want to be your protector . . . You will no longer be abandoned,
lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger . . ."
Or when he grunts the other side of the infantilizing
promise: that he will be your vengeance. His promise to destroy
anything placing you in danger. Like when he recently pledged to
respond to "one really violent day" by meeting criminals with "one
rough hour -- and I mean real rough. The word will get out and it
will end immediately."
Or when he
posted the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel ("O Prince of the
heavenly hosts, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan, and all the
evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls")
illustrated by a 17th-century painting of said saint curb-stomping a
defeated devil, about to run a sword through his head.
Even on the liberal-left, many interpret the way Trump seems
even more to be going off the rails these last weeks as a
self-defeating lack of control, or as a symptom of cognitive
impairment. They almost seem to celebrate it. The New Republic's
email newsletter, which I cannot stand, is full of such therapeutic
clickbaity headlines canvassing the same examples I talk about here:
"Trump Proposes Stunningly Stupid Idea for Public Safety"; "Ex-Aide
Says Trump's 'Creepy' Message to Women Shows He's Out of Touch";
"Trump Appears to Have Lost a Total Grasp on Things."
I certainly don't disagree that Trump is becoming more cognitively
impaired and out of touch with reality. But might not these impairments
render him a better fascist seducer, as his invitations to infantile
regression become ever more primal, ever more basic, ever more pure?
[10-09]
Our cults, ourselves: "Is the best way to understand the MAGA movement
to binge-watch docuseries about charismatic leaders sending their acolytes
to ruin? Tune in and find out."
[02-14]
A cultural artifact that meets the moment: "Stephen King's Under
the Dome nails how Trumpism functions at the most elemental of
levels." This is the piece Perlstein cited in the "undecided" piece
above, but worth breaking out here. I remember watching, and enjoying,
the
miniseries (2013-15), but had forgotten whatever political import
it might have held, but I welcome the refresher course. The section on
The Brainwashing of My Dad is kind of a coda. I should look
into it further, although I can already think of several examples
from my own family. (I had a pair of cousins, who shared the same
cultural legacy -- small towns, church, hunting -- and could be
socioeconomic twins, but one got her news from the BBC, the other
from Fox.) This essay also refers to a "Part 1":
[01-31]
A hole in the culture: "Why is there so little art depicting
the moment we're in?" Starts with a letter, which includes this:
My husband and I are old and sitting right slap dab in the middle
of red Arkansas with MAGA friends and family all around. They try to
pull us into their discussions but we change the subject. I stopped
going to church because the churches no longer teach Christ's
message, but Trump's message.
The Nation: [09-23]
The Nation endorses Kamala Harris: "In her own right, and
because we oppose Donald Trump's reactionary agenda." I imagine
Joan Walsh is responsible for the first clause, although in the
fine print, they admit "on foreign policy, however, the positive
case is harder to make" -- in what Billmon liked to call a
"Hirohito moment" (which I recalled as severe understatement,
expressed as innocuously as possible; his
definition: "a political statement so painfully cautious and/or
ridiculously understated that it's hard not to laugh at it").
After Joe Biden was shuffled off stage on trumped-up charges of
senility, I started thinking seriously about the weaponization of
old age in our world. Who gets credit for old age and who gets the
boot?
At 86, I share that affliction, pervasive among the richest,
healthiest, and/or luckiest of us, who manage to hang around the
longest. Donald Trump is, of course, in this same group, although
much of America seems to be in selective denial about his diminishing
capabilities. He was crushed recently in The Great Debate yet is
generally given something of a mulligan for hubris, craziness, and
unwillingness to prepare. But face it, unlike Joe B, he was simply
too old to cut the mustard.
It's time to get real about old age as a condition that, yes,
desperately needs and deserves better resources and reverence, but
also careful monitoring and culling. Such thinking is not a bias
crime. It's not even an alert for ancient drivers on the roads. It's
an alarm for tolerating dangerous old politicians who spread lies
and send youngsters to war, while we continue to willfully waste
the useful experience and energy of all ages.
He also mentions Rupert Murdoch (93) and Warren Buffett (94):
Those old boys are anything but role models for me and my friends.
After all, they've been practicing all their lives how to be rich
old pigs, their philanthropy mirroring their interests, not the
needs of the rest of us. In my pay grade, we're expected to
concentrate on tips from AARP newsletters on how to avoid telephone
scams and falls, the bane of the geezer class. And that's important,
but it's also a way of keeping us anxious and impotent.
But he does mention some other ancients, like Casey Stengel and
Jules Feiffer, who he finds more inspiration in. And the
Gray Panthers, founded by Maggie Kuhn -- a personal blast from
the past, as I knew of them through
Sylvia Fink Kleinman (who excused her own fine tastes, explaining
"nothing's too good for the working class").
New York Times: [09-26]
The dangers of Donald Trump, from those who know him: A big chart
of sound bites from "administration insiders, the Trumps & Trump
Inc., Republican politicians, conservative leaders, world leaders" --
including some who remain as steadfast supporters, like Lindsey Graham
and Ted Cruz. Oddly enough, the wittiest is Kim Jong-un's "a frightened
dog barks louder."
There are lists of Donald Trump's lies and lists of his alleged
crimes. But the catalog of all the good things that have happened
to the former president is equally unnerving. Every dog has its
day, but Trump -- no fan of dogs, BTW -- has had far more good
luck than the average mutt.
Of course, the man was born lucky -- into a life of wealth and
privilege and with looks that some women apparently find attractive.
Like many indulged heirs, he quickly dispensed with those gifts,
wasting away his fortune like a 20th-century tristate re-creation
of "A Rake's Progress." It could have easily curdled into squalor
from there.
But one fateful day, along came "The Apprentice," visiting the
sulky developer in his moldering office. As my colleagues Russ
Buettner and Susanne Craig document in their new book, aptly titled
Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and
Created the Illusion of Success, it was this improbable TV
show that offered Trump a golden ticket out of bankruptcy and
irrelevance, transforming him into a successful billionaire by
pretending he actually was one.
Also:
Eight years ago Trump, who has been convicted of 34 felony charges
in Manhattan and has been indicted in three other cases, told a rally
full of acolytes, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and
shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters." It is fortunate for
him, then, that he was able to appoint three justices to the Supreme
Court who created the possibility for him to be granted immunity in
the three remaining cases against him.
It's impossible to attribute all of this to strategy or intelligence
or even mere cunning. In the same way the mask-averse Trump contracted
what we now know was a serious case of Covid, at age 74 and seriously
overweight, miraculously bounced back with the benefit of cutting-edge
treatment that did not include injecting disinfectant, these things
happened independent of Trump's own actions and inclinations.
Now here we are, with Trump crediting the outcome of two failed
assassination attempts to divine intervention.
James Risen: [10-03]
The reason Netanyahu and Putin both want a Trump victory: "so
they can prolong and intensify their brutal wars." Actually, there's
not much stopping them now, and any policy shift under Harris is
purely speculative -- it's sure not something she's campaigning
on. I don't doubt that Trump is preferred by both -- as a fellow
right-winger, Trump is unbothered by human rights abuses, and
he's notoriously open to bribery and flattery. Also, both have
history of poking their noses into American domestic politics,
although in that Putin is a piker compared to Netanyahu.
Tony Schwartz: [10-11]
I was Trump's ghostwriter. A new biopic gets the most important thing
right. The movie is
The Apprentice, directed by Ali Abbasi and written by Gabriel
Sherman, based on "Trump's career as a real estate businessman in New
York in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as his relationship with lawyer
Roy Cohn." (Sebastian Stan plays Trump, Jeremy Strong plays Cohn, and
Martin Donovan plays Fred Trump Sr.)
Watching The Apprentice crystallized two big lessons that I
learned from Mr. Trump 30 years ago and that I've seen play out in
his life ever since with more and more extreme consequences. The
first lesson is that a lack of conscience can be a huge advantage
when it comes to accruing power, attention and wealth in a society
where most other human beings abide by a social contract. The second
lesson is that nothing we get for ourselves from the outside world
can ever adequately substitute for what we're missing on the inside.
Lawrence Ware: [10-11]
Republicans are not evil . . . well, not all of them: When I
saw this, my first thought was that it might take off from a New
York Times opinion piece I had noticed but didn't mention at the
time. Author is based in Oklahoma, so no suprise that he regularly
encounters Republican voters who seem decent enough even when they
are wrong. As a writer, I am often tempted to use "evil," as few
words make a point so succinctly. But almost always, the real
target is some act or belief, not the person implicated in the
moment. Aiming at the person loses that distinction, and makes
it that much harder to ever recover.
Nicholas Kristof: [08-31]
Here's why we shouldn't demean Trump voters. It's not just
that some Trump voters have decent (even if misguided) motivations,
and that grouping them all together is a logical fallacy, but that
the habit and practice is bad for you too -- it makes you more like
the person you are demeaning. That said, in this particular case,
"misguided" is a really huge understatement.
Branden Adams: [10-13]
Jim Justice tied West Virginia coal to global financial capital:
"While running his coal company Bluestone, Governor Jim Justice
ushered the mines of West Virginia deep into the grasp of global
financial capital -- at the expense of West Virginians. Why should
Swiss bankers get paid before West Virginia teachers?"
Gaby Del Valle: [09-25]
How immigration became a lightning rod in American politics:
"Anti-immigrant think tanks and advocacy groups operated on the
margins until Trump became president. Now they have molded not
only the GOP but also Democrats in their image."
[10-08]
The race is close because Harris is running a brilliant campaign:
"Stop complaining; the centrism is working." Or so says Chait, who
only views every disappointed/disaffected leftist as a strategic
gain, even though he can't begin to count the votes. No doubt that
if Harris does manage to "pull a Hillary" and lose the election,
Chait will be the first to blame it on the left.
[10-10]
The election choice is divided government or unrestrained Trumpism:
"Harris won't be able to implement her plans. Trump will." As a devout
centrist, Chait may regard divided government as the best of all worlds,
with each party making sure the other doesn't accomplish anything, or
rock any boats. Indeed, no Democratic president has had a Democratic
Congress for a full terms since Carter, and even the initial two-year
stretches Clinton, Obama, and Biden inherited were hobbled by lobbyists
and the filibuster.
Ed Kilgore: [10-09]
Can Nikki Haley voters win it for Kamala Harris? I can believe
that most of the people who voted for Harris in Republican primaries
this year won't vote for Trump. But calling them "Nikki Haley voters"
seems gratuitous, especially given that Haley is on board for Trump,
so isn't one of them.
Branko Marcetic: [10-12]
Is Kamala 2024 Clinton 2016?: "Republican endorsements, running
to the right on foreign policy, an unambitious agenda of incremental
change less important than how bad the other guy is. Where have we
seen this before?"
Andrew Prokop:
The rise -- and fall? -- of the New Progressive Economics:
"Progressives conquered economic policy under Biden. Would they lose
it under Harris?" How should I know? And not just because the article
is a "member exclusive" I can't even get a glimpse of. (I did feel
kind of bad about never giving what used to be my favorite news site
any money, but less and less so every time I hit a paywall, especially
on an article that is obvious bullshit.) In the first place, the premise
that "NPE conquered Biden" is somewhere between greatly exaggerated and
plain false. Biden moved somewhat out of the Obama-Clinton neocon rut
because both the economics and the politics failed. Unlike Republicans,
Democrats are expected to address and at least ameliorate real problems,
and the old neoliberalism just wasn't working. Some new stuff got tried,
and mostly worked. Other ideas got stymied, for which there was lots
of obvious blame, as well as Biden's own lukewarm interest. But where
is the evidence that Harris is going to abandon policies and proposals
that are popular with Democrats just to help the rich get richer? The
only thing I'm aware of is that she's had to cozy up to a lot of rich
donors to raise her billion dollar campaign war chest, and they're
going to want something in return. But by then, she'll be president,
and in a better position to call her own shots.
Bill Scher: [10-10]
No "deplorables," "you ain't black," "cling to guns": Harris's
gaffe-free campaign: I suppose that's good news, but Scher is
the most unflappable of Democratic Party apologists, so one doubts
his ability to detect gaffes, let alone strategic missteps. The one
I'm most worried about is her continuing political calculation to
amp up vitriol against Russia and Iran. My guess is that as president
she will pivot to a more moderate stance, because I don't see her as
a neocon ideologue, but I do see her as politically cunning, so her
stance tells me that she thinks it's the smart play viz. voters and
the media. That's pretty depressing.
Robert Kuttner: [10-04]
Biden's amazing win settling the dock strike: "The terms are a
total victory for dockworkers and for smooth supply chain operation,
as the White House faced down exorbitant shipper profits. What would
Trump have done?"
Paul Starr: [09-20]
What should Democrats say to young men? "Young men appear to be
drifting right. Ignoring them means trouble." As an asymptomatic
observer, I have trouble caring about this -- much like the "stolen
pride" in the Arlie Russell Hochschild book (below): been there, got
over that. Still, I do, as a matter of principle, believe that every
voter counts, and that all pain (even the phantom variety) merits
some kind of treatment. Cites:
Astra Taylor: [09]
Divided and conquered: "In search of a democratic majority."
"You've reached your free article limit," so sayonara. "The essay
was partially adapted with permission from Solidarity: The Past,
Present, and Future of a World Changing Idea, which I did buy
a copy of, so I can probably reference it when I want a critique
of Kevin Phillips (The Emerging Republican Majority, which
is often counted as prescient, even if only with regret) and/or Ruy
Teixeira/John Judis (The Emerging Democratic Majority, which
isn't, so they recently rewrote it as Where Have All the Democrats
Gone?), not that I couldn't write those myself.
Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:
David Dayen: [09-30]
How Congress gets its groove back: "The Supreme Court's recent
rulings will change how Congress writes laws. It may even force the
legislative branch to take a hard look at its own dysfunctions."
This is about the Court's recent dismantling of what's called the
"Chevron defense," which while possibly disastrous for the normal
functioning of the federal government, can (at least in theory) be
rectified by Congress writing and passing more precise laws that
leave less discretionary power in the hands of an increasingly
politicized executive. But for that to happen, you first need a
Congress that is willing and able to do the necessary work to
deal with real problems. That obviously involves getting rid of
a lot of Republicans, and tools like the filibuster, but it also
suggests the need for much better Democrats. Otherwise, problems
just multiply, while the courts further hamstring any efforts at
remedy by executive order.
Sarah Jones: [10-10]
The misogyny plot: A new report on the Kavanaugh hearings reveals
a deeper conspiracy."
Ian Millhiser:
[10-05]
We should call the Republican justices "Republicans" and not
"conservatives": "Supreme Court journalist should tell the
truth about what's going on at the Court." While I agree that
"the arguments against treating the justices as partisan actors
are unpersuasive," I worry that reducing them to partisan hacks
will set expectations both for and against, reinforcing their
stereotypical behavior. It is still the case that on occasion
Republican justices can rule against their party's most craven
arguments -- indeed, the legitimacy of the Court depends on at
least some air of independence. Same for Democratic justices
(which as far as I've noticed happens more often).
Intelligencer: [10-10]
Florida assessing damage from Hurricane Milton: Live updates,
at least through 10-10. My impression is that it was not as bad
as predicted: it was down to category 3 when it made landfall,
which was significantly south of the feared direct Tampa Bay hit,
and it moved across Florida and out into the Atlantic rather
quickly. Still a lot of rain and wind in a fairly narrow band,
and a lot of local damage.
Dan Stillman: [10-04]
Helene has become one of the deadliest hurricanes of the modern era:
"the deadliest hurricane to make landfall on the US mainland since
Katrina" (1392 deaths in 2005; many more since 1954 are listed, as
is Maria's 2975 deaths in 2017, but evidently Puerto Rico doesn't
count).
[10-09]
Just how doomed is home insurance? "Hurricanes like Milton and
Helene are making it harder than ever to insure your home." Aside
from the big storms, he spends a lot of time on other factors that
are driving insurance into an unaffordable spiral. Then he asks
the big question: "is the future insurable?" He throws cold water
on the idea of government reinsurance ("would only entrench the
current flaws of the insurance market," which sounds to me like
a call for better design than a blanket rejection).
Maureen Tkacik/Luke Goldstein: [10-02]
A toxic explosion in private equity payouts: "Private equity
barons just pocketed as much as $850 million from the company
behind this week's massive chemical blast in Georgia."
Ukraine and Russia: No "Diplomacy Watch"
this week?
Ted Snider: [10-08]
How Blinken turned the diplomatic corps into a wing of the
military: "In 2021 the administration said it would pursue
'relentless diplomacy.' They call it something else today in
Ukraine." Starts with a Henry Kissinger saying (not a direct
quote) that is even dumber than I'd expect ("little can be won
at the negotiating table that isn't earned on the battlefield")
before he quotes Blinken saying the same thing ("all that we can
to strengthen Ukraine's position on the battlefield so it has
the strongest possible position at the negotiating table").
Also cites a paywalled FT article claiming "it is the diplomats
who have pushed for escalation, and the Pentagon and intelligence
community who have argued for caution."
Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:
Matt Breunig/Zephyr Teachout: [09-27]
Should the government break up big corporations or buy them?
"Matt Bruenig writes that governments should nationalize more
companies while Zephyr Teachout argues that freedom requires
decentralized power." Ça dépend. Each case should be
evaluated on its own merits. One could write a book on this.
Stephen F Eisenman: [10-11]
What does fascism look like? A brief introduction: Most of this
piece focuses on Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, with an eye toward
architecture and aesthetics, but that leads to a section "what does
fascism look like today?" that opens with a photo of the Pentagon.
Conclusion:
Huey Long, governor of Louisiana from 1928-32, himself often called
a fascist, said: "American Fascism would never emerge as Fascist,
but as a 100 percent American movement; it would not duplicate the
German method of coming to power but would only have to get the right
President and Cabinet." Fascism, as I said at the beginning of this
brief survey, is easy to see in retrospect, but not in prospect.
However, when it appears right in front of you, identification becomes
simple -- signs and symbols appear everywhere. As we approach the U.S.
election, we can clearly witness one political party's tight embrace
of fascism -- but seeing it doesn't mean we can easily stop it.
Those of us on the left, especially with any real sense of history,
are quick to brand certain right-wingers as fascists -- the dividing
line is where disagreement turns to hatred and a desire to kill us.
To us, at least, it's not just a derisive label, but a full paradigm,
which informs not just by analogy but by internal logic. However, the
label "fascist" doesn't appear to have much utility in communicating
with people who are not on our specific bandwidth. One thing I will
point out is that throughout history, fascists have not only done
bad things, they have repeatedly failed, often bringing to ruin the
nations and folk they claim to love. By the way, Eisenman has a
forthcoming book,
The Young Person's Illustrated Guide to American Fascism,
with illustrations by Sue Coe.
Obituaries
Donald L Bartlett
Glenn Rifkin: [10-09]
Donald L Bartlett, 88 dies: prizewinning reporter bared corruption:
"Over four decades, he and his colleague James B Steele gained renown
for resourceful, often explosive investigative journalism at The
Philadelphia Inquirer. I've read several of their books.
Robert Coover:
John Williams: [10-06]
Robert Coover, inventive novelist in iconoclastic era, dies at 92:
"Once called 'probably the funniest and most malicious' of the
postmodernists, his books reflected a career-long interest in
reimagining folk stories, fairy tales and political myths."
Branko Marcetic: [10-09]
Ta-Nehisi Coates is bucking the media's Palestine consensus:
"The problem with Ta-Nehisi Coates's recent grilling on Palestine
by CBS News's Tony Dokoupil isn't that it was rude. It's that
Dokoupil's questioning betrays a fundamental lack of concern for
Palestinians' basic humanity, shared across mainstream media."
Allen Lowe: [10-11]
The new Archeophone King Oliver: Just a Facebook note, but longer
and much deeper than most reviews. Remind me that I got some press
(but no CD) from Archeophone -- first I've heard from them in many
years.
Lara Friedman: [09-28]
Observations on the current the moment - a thread.
Israel used 10/7 to manufacture US consent/collaboration to undo
what Bibi & his Greater Israel/neocon fellow travelers (incl in
US) have long viewed as historic errors forced on Israel by weak
leaders & intl appeasers of terror.
These are: Gaza disengagement (viewed as capitulation to Hamas),
the Oslo Agreement (viewed as capitulation to the PLO), and withdrawal
from southern Lebanon (viewed as capitulation to Hezbollah).
Along the way the Biden Admin & Congress acquiesced to new
Israeli-authored rules of war that, among other things, define every
human being as a legitimate military target - a terrorist, a terrorist
supporter or sympathizer, or a "human shield" -
- & allowing the annihilation of huge numbers of civilians &
destruction of entire cities; allowing entire populations to be displaced,
terrorized, starved, & deprived of medical care; & normalizing
killing of journalists, medical workers, & UN staff - all
with impunity.
The costs of these new rules of war will be paid with the blood of
civilians worldwide for generations to come, and the US responsibility
for enabling, defending, & normalizing these new rules - and their
horrific, dehumanizing consequences will not be forgotten.
In the countdown to the US November elections, continued Israeli
impunity means that Netanyahu and his government have every incentive
to continue to pursue their revanchist and genocidal goals in Gaza,
the West Ban, and Lebanon.
Absent some new US & intl seriousness to impose concrete
consequences that change Israeli calculations, the only real question
now is whether Bibi & friends will seize this moment to pursue the
other long-held dream of neocons in both Israel and the US: regime
change in Iran.
If they do so - and following a year of genocide-with-impunity
capped by Nasrallah's assassination, the likelihood is today higher
than ever before - the decision will be in large part based on the
certainty that the Biden Admin, more than any Admin before it, will
back them.
This backing - which they have every reason to assume is assured -
includes money, military aid, & even US military action. & it is
assumed, regardless of whether the Biden Admin wants such a war &
regardless of Israel's tactics/the scope of the destruction and
casualties.
Likewise, such a decision will reflect an equal certainty that the
Harris & Trump campaigns not only will support Israel in waging
war on Iran, but will actively compete over who, as president, will
stand more firmly with Israel in its push to remake the entire
region.
And to be clear: Bibi & friends have - in actions & words -
been telling the world since 10/7 their intent. Anyone surprised
things have reached this point was either not paying attention, was in
denial, or was happily playing along.
For anyone who thinks my analysis re "next up, Iran" is wrong, see:
[followed by tweet from Jared Kushner, then video of Netanyahu]
Local tags (these can be linked to directly):
music.
Current count:
214 links, 15280 words (19367 total)
As I explained in my "PS"
last week, I didn't expect to blog much this week. I did catch
a break yesterday, and posted a fairly respectable
Speaking of Which (131 links, 7251 words), but that was the
first day I managed to listen to much new music, which is why
this Music Week has anything at all, but as you can see, not
much -- nothing A-listed, some solid high B+ (which next week
will include Terrence McManus: Music for Chamber Trio),
as I've been working through my rather stuffed promo queue in
release date order.
I left Speaking of Which so abruptly when I posted last night
that it would have been easy to add more stuff today. But I
decided the more sensible approach is to open a new
draft file right away, and start putting anything new and
notable there. I have a trick devised to suppress display of
unfinished draft posts, but for now I'll let this one go up
in normal blog order, its incomplete nature implicit in its date
(October 14) and the "(draft)" in the title. I usually only
update the website when I have new posts, but if I do, you
can observe whatever progress I've made.
Next week should be a bit better, for blogging that is, but
there are still lots of distractions, and a lot of other work
to do. The project of sorting out 75 years of accumulated life
from my childhood home isn't really finished, but we made a lot
of progress, and can take a break before going back to it. I
have several boxes of stuff here, and will probably pick up some
more later in the week. I did manage to find one day to rustle up
some dinner before my brother and his wife headed back to
Washington. My niece is still here for a couple more days.
My upstairs bedroom/closet project has languished, but I need
to return to it, making it top priority after I post this. (But
then I blew all afternoon, so I may get nothing done on it today.
I did go buy a tool belt -- something I've never felt the need
for before, but I need to be able to stand on a stool in a very
confined space with at least five tools handy, including power
drill and screwdriver.) Still mostly doing wall repair at this
point, with painting after that. At least we got the paneling
cut, which among other things means I don't have to get the walls
very good. Once I finally get going, I figure I have about three
days of work to go, plus whatever it takes to move back into the
room. So I should wrap that up within the week, but it will take
a lot of time away from here.
Seems like I've been plagued with a lot of minor tech problems
lately: nothing insurmountable, but every little thing chews up
a lot more time than seems right, and adds to my sense of ever
increasing decrepitude.
New records reviewed this week:
El Khat: Mute (2024, Glitterbeat): "Home-made
junkyard band" from Tel Aviv, a quartet led by multi-instrumentalist
Eyal El Wahab, whose roots are in Yemen. Third album. Arab groove
with extra angst.
B+(*) [sp]
Forq: Big Party (2024, GroundUP): Jazz fusion group,
led by Henry Hey (keyboards), one 1999 album and several since 2014,
a fairly long list of players here. Seems to have some intersection
with Snarky Puppy.
B+(*) [cd]
Satoko Fujii Quartet: Dog Days of Summer (2024,
Libra): Japanese pianist, has run many groups for many albums since
the mid-1990s, bills this particular one as her "jazz-rock fusion
quartet," a revival "after an 18-year pause" -- Bacchus was
recorded in 2006 and released in 2007, also with Hayakawa Takeharu
(bass), Tatsuya Yoshida (drums), and Natsuki Tamura (trumpet),
after four previous 2001-05 albums -- I've heard three, liked
Zephyros (2003) a lot, but I didn't care for Bacchus
at all.
b>B+(***) [cd]
Alden Hellmuth: Good Intentions (2023 [2024], Fresh
Sound New Talent): Alto saxophonist, based in New York, first album,
shifty postbop quintet plus guest trumpet/keyboards on several tracks.
B+(***) [cd]
Keefe Jackson/Raoul van der Weide/Frank Rosaly: Live at
de Tanker (2022 [2024], Kettle Hole): Tenor saxophone/bass
clarinet player, from Chicago, live set in Amsterdam with a local
bassist and another Chicagoan on drums.
B+(***) [cd]
Simon Moullier: Elements of Light (2023-24 [2024],
Candid): Vibraphonist, several albums since 2020, this mostly
quartet with piano-bass-drums, plus a guest spot each for Gerald
Clayton (piano) and Marquis Hill (trumpet).
B+(*) [cd]
Patrick Shiroishi: Glass House (2023-24 [2024],
Otherly Love): Alto saxophonist, from Los Angeles, prolific since
2014, no musician credits given here although there is a lot of
piano/synths in the mix.
B+(*) [sp]
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
Raphael Roginski: Plays John Coltrane and Langston Hughes
(2024, Unsound): Polish guitarist, albums since 2008, this reissue
first appeared in 2015. eight Coltrane tunes plus two originals,
solo guitar, adding voice (Natalia Przybysz) on two pieces built
around Hughes texts. Reissue adds four bonus tracks on a second
CD.
B+(**) [sp]
Old music:
None
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
Terry Gibbs Dream Band: Vol. 7: The Lost Tapes, 1959 (1959 [2024], Whaling City Sound) [10-11]
Jason Keiser: Kind of Kenny (OA2) [10-25]
Kevin Sun: Quartets (Endectomorph Music, 2CD) [10-18]
Western Jazz Collective: The Music of Andrew Rathbun (Origin) [10-25]
Andy Wheelock/Whee 3 Trio: In the Wheelhouse (OA2) [10-25]
Draft file opened 2024-10-02 12:17 PM. I expected to have very
little time to work on this, and that's proved accurate. Now trying
to wrap this up Monday afternoon, while I have a bit of a breather.
But I already got distracted, and spent the last hour posting a
dinner plate to
Facebook, and writing further notes in the notebook. Nero wasn't
the only one ever to fiddle while their country burns.
Wound up after 2AM, arbitrarily deciding I've done enough. Maybe
I'll add more while working on Music Week, but I should get back to
working on house. Good news, though, is that working on blog is less
painful than the house work has been.
When I got up this morning, I started reading the third chapter in
Ned Blackhawk's The Rediscovery of America, it occurred to me
that the following bit, while written about Champlain in the early
1600s, is most relevant today (pp. 81-82):
While violence was an essential institution of colonialism, it was
never enough to achieve permanent goals of empire. As political
theorists have long maintained, violence fails to create stability. It
destroys relationships -- between individuals, communities, and
nations -- and does so unpredictably. Once it is initiated, none can
predict its ultimate course. While threats upon a population do over
time result in compliance, more enduring stability requires shared
understandings of power and of the legitimate use of violence. . . .
Nor could violence ever be completely monopolized. As in New Spain,
Native peoples across North America quickly adopted the advantages
that Europeans brought. Raiders took weapons as spoils of war and
plundered Indians who were allied with Europeans or had traded with
them. They stole their metals, cloths and, if possible,
guns. Increasingly, they took captives to trade in colonial slave
markets.
Apologists and propagandists for Israel really hate it when you
describe Israel as a settler-colonial movement/nation. They resent
the implicit moral derision -- every such society has been founded
on racist violence, which we increasingly view as unjust -- but
they also must suspect that it implies eventual failure: the cases
where settler-colonialism was most successful are far in the past
(especially in America, where the Indian wars ended by 1890, and
full citizenship was accorded to Indians in 1924). But perhaps most
troubling of all is the recognition that many others have started
down this same road, and found that only a few approaches can work
(or at least have worked), and only in limited circumstances.
Top story threads:
Israel: One year ago today, some Palestinians
from Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- street gangs left free to operate in
Gaza because Israel and the US refused to allow any form of political
freedom and democratic self-governance in a narrow strip of desert with
more than 2 million people, isolated from all norms of human discourse --
staged a jail break, breaching Israel's walls, and, as brutalized
prisoners tend to do, celebrating their temporary freedom with a
heinous crime spree.[*]
Most of the people in Gaza were refugees from
Israel's "war of independence," known to Palestinians as "Nakba"
for the mass expulsions of Palestinians. From 1948-67, Egypt had
occupied Gaza. In 1967, Israel attacked Egypt, and occupied Gaza,
placing it under military rule. The situation there became even
more desperate after 2006, when Israel dismantled its settlements
in the territory, locked down the borders, left local control to
Hamas, and begun a series of increasingly devastating punitive
sieges they rationalized as "mowing the grass."
As the situation in Gaza grew more desperate, Israeli politics
drifted ever more intensely to the right, to the point where some
parties advanced genocidal responses to the Gaza revolt, while
even large segments of the nominal opposition concurred. Meanwhile,
especially under Trump, the US has become a mere rubber stamp for
whatever Israel wants. And what "Israel wants" is not just to
extirpate Hamas and punish Gaza but to take out their fury on
Palestinians in the West Bank, to complete the annexation of
Palestinian land, and to export war all the way to Iran.
[*] Per Wikipedia, the
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel lasted two days (October 7-8),
during which 1180 Israelis (379 security forces, 797 civilians)
were killed, and 251 Israelis were taken captive, while Israeli
forces killed 1609 "militants" and captured 200 more. At the end
of those two days, Israel had secured its border with Gaza, and
had gone on the offense against the people and infrastructure of
Gaza. Israel's subsequent slaughter and destruction has been so
indiscriminate, and so systematically destructive of resources
necessary for sustaining life, that it is fairly characterized
as genocide -- a judgment that is consistent with the clearly
stated intentions of many Israeli political leaders. Moreover,
the genocide in Gaza, has provided cover allowing Israelis --
including vigilante settler-mobs protected by IDF forces -- to
attack Palestinians in the West Bank, and Israeli aggression has
now has spilled over into Lebanon.
[10-07]
Day 367: Israel orders new evacuations in Gaza, expands bombing in
Lebanon: "The Israeli ground invasion of southern Lebanon
continues to face stiff resistance along the border one week on,
while the Israeli army has renewed its assault on northern Gaza,
laying siege to Jabalia refugee camp for the sixth time since
October 7."
The ongoing violence has created a cycle of anxiety and trauma in
the besieged Strip, leaving young people particularly devastated.
Tlaleng Mofokeng, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health,
spoke to Anadolu about the mental health crisis in Gaza.
The amount of anxiety and the exposure to trauma, as well as the
level of anticipation of violence, is very abnormal
Mofokeng said, emphasizing the persistent threat of violence
as a major contributor to the psychological distress.
She highlighted that 50 per cent of Gazans were already suffering
from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) before the relentless
violence they experienced since 7 October, 2023. "We have to talk
about it as a deliberate infliction of mental trauma," she added.
The psychological impacts, manifesting as anxiety, nightmares,
depression and memory loss, are compounded by the absence of
adequate mental health resources.
Yet, some scars remain invisible, Mofokeng pointed out, as many
suffer in silence, with distress escalating into PTSD, eventually
leading to complex mental health issues. These only intensify for
children who have lost their entire family. She further noted that
the lack of proper mourning and dignified funerals is "very
detrimental," robbing families and communities of the chance to
heal and opening wounds that may take a lifetime to mend.
The absence of healthcare and therapy has exacerbated the
situation. "The situation is much worse," she stressed.
Tareq S Hajjaj: [10-07]
After October 7, my home became a bag I carry with me: "I have
lived through my own Nakba and understand why thousands of Palestinians
fled their homes in 1948. I made the most difficult decision of my
life and left Gaza, not knowing that what I carried might be all I
will ever possess of my homeland."
[10-07]
Israel's year of war on the West Bank: "While Israel has been
carrying out a genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, its
military and settlers have been waging another campaign of ethnic
cleansing in the West Bank, moving ever closer towards Israel's
goals of annexation." This is an often neglected but increasingly
important part of the story. This makes it clear that the root
problem is not Hamas or Palestinian "national ambitions" but the
fundamental, all-pervasive injustice of the apartheid regime. I
was hoping in early days that the powers could separate Gaza and
the West Bank, deal with the former by cutting it loose, and save
the more entangled West Bank occupation to later, at which point
cooler heads might prevail. But hotter heads made sure peace was
never given a chance, because they saw the cover of war as useful
for promoting their real goals.
Abdaljawad Omar: [10-03]
Israel's forever war and what comes next: "In Gaza and Lebanon,
Israel is projecting its force while burrowing itself deeper into a
quagmire. While it may achieve brief operational successes, it fails
to extinguish the spirit of the resistance or coerce it into
submission."
America's Israel (and Israel's America):
Spencer Ackerman: [10-03]
The year after October 7th was shaped by the 23 years after
September 11th (director's cut): "9/11 gave Israel and the US
a template to follow -- one that turned grief into rage into
dehumanization into mass death. What have we learned from the
War on Terror?" Unfortunately, "this post is for paying subscribers
only," so I don't know how he relates the US reaction to 9/11 to
the previous year's demolition of the Oslo Accords and the breakout
of the Shaul Moffaz Intifada (more commonly called "Al-Aqsa," but
Moffaz was the instigator).
[10-03]
The Shift: US preemptively backs Israel after Iran attack:
"Joe Biden said he opposes Netanyahu hitting Iran's nuclear sites,
but why should anyone trust him? The administration backed Israel's
invasion of Lebanon while he was publicly calling for a ceasefire.
Will we see a similar contradiction on Iran?"
Matthew Duss: [10-07]
Joe Biden chose this catastrophic path every step of the way:
"What's happening in the Middle East was enabled by a president with
ideological priors, aides who failed to push back, and a cheerleading
media establishment."
There's a 23-year-old quote from Benjamin Netanyahu
in The New York Times that I've been thinking a lot about
lately. Reached on the evening of September 11, 2001, the then-former
prime minister was asked what the terrorist attacks that brought down
the Twin Towers and killed almost 3,000 people meant for relations
between the United States and Israel. "It's very good," he said. Then
he quickly edited himself: "Well, not very good, but it will generate
immediate sympathy."
He may have been rude and insensitive, but he was also being
uncharacteristically honest. Like any demagogue, Netanyahu knew
instinctively that enormous pain could be easily transformed into
permission.
In addition to providing Israel's then-Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon a freer hand in crushing the second intifada, Netanyahu
also saw America's trauma as an opportunity to achieve a wider
set of regional security goals. As Congress was considering the
Iraq invasion, he came to the United States to lend his support.
"If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that
it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region," he
assured a congressional committee in September 2002.
James Robins: [10-07]
Israel is trapped by its own war machine: link title, actual,
with sub: "The missed moral lesson of October 7: Hamas's attack
should have triggered not military retaliation but the immediate
resumption of negotiations for a just peace." Of course, it didn't,
because Israel has never considered justice a consideration in its
very rare and never serious efforts at negotiation -- they look
for leverage, and play for time. But I do recall making the same
point on 9/11: I thought it should be viewed as a wake-up call,
as a time when the first thing you ask yourself, have I failed?
Netanyahu (and Bush) couldn't ask that question, much less answer
it. But if you just give it a few minutes of thought, you'll
realize that every war is consequential to a series of mistakes.
The least you can do is to learn from such mistakes, but the
people who yearn to fight wars never take the effort to learn.
Yousef Munayyer: [10-07]
A year that has brought us to the breaking point: "Alongside
the mass graves and beneath the tons of rubble, there may lie
another victim: the very possibility of a jointly imagined
coexistence."
Trita Parsi: [10-01]
Iran bombs Israel, but buck stops with Biden: "If Israel's response
sucks us into war, it will be on the administration's hands. Here's
why." People really need to get a better idea of motivations, costs,
and imagined rewards.
Biden's strategy has been to put enormous effort into deterring Iran
and its partners from retaliating against Israel, while doing virtually
nothing to discourage Israel from escalating in the first place. This
lopsided approach has in fact been a recipe for escalation, repeatedly
proving to Netanyahu that Washington has no intention of bringing
pressure to bear on Israel, no matter its actions.
The situation is actually worse than this, because Israel sees
nothing but positives from provoking a war that pits Iran and the
US. For starters, it keeps the US preoccupied with external threats
when the real enemy of peace is Israel itself. And if Americans get
hurt in the fracas, Netanyahu understands that will only make the
Americans more determined to fight Iran, just as he knows that his
periodic attacks on Iran and its friends only make them more determined
to strike back, even if just ineffectively, at Israel.
Mitchell Plitnick: [10-05]
The United States and Israel set out to remake the Middle East,
again: "The mood in Washington today is similar to 2003 when the
neocons of the Bush administration sought to remake the Middle East.
This time, a joint vision shared by Israel and the Biden administration
seeks to remake the region in the West's vision."
The images coming out of Lebanon and Gaza are horrifying. As I write
this, well over a million Lebanese civilians are displaced as the
Israeli military carries out punishing bombing raids across nearly
the entire country, and over 2,000 have been killed. We've watched
them drop so-called "bunker buster" bombs on residential blocks in
Lebanon's capital, Beirut, in an attempt to kill the leadership of
Hezbollah, never mind the civilians who may be in the way. Like in
Gaza, Israel is targeting hospitals and schools, border crossings,
and infrastructure. That the international community is allowing
this to go on is nothing short of a calamity.
Responsible Statecraft: [10-03]
Symposium: Will US-Israel relations survive the last year? "We
asked if the post-Oct. 7 war has permanently altered Washington's
80-year commitment to the Jewish state." Collects statements from:
Geoff Aronson, Andrew Bacevich, Daniel Bessner, Dan DePetris, Robert
Hunter, Shireen Hunter, Daniel Levy, Rajan Menon, Paul Pillar, Annelle
Sheline, Steve Simon, Barbara Slavin, Hadar Suskind, Stephen Walt,
Sarah Leah Whitson, James Zogby. While several are critics, it is
pretty obvious that the "special relationship" has held fast, with
the Biden administration providing unstinting support despite
reservations that they are unable or unwilling to act on, with most
of Congress even more emphatically in thrall.
Jonathan Guyer: [10-04]
The price of power: "America's chief humanitarian official rose
to fame by speaking out against atrocities. Now she's trapped by
one." Welcome to hell, Samantha Power.
Jeffrey D Sachs: [09-30]
Israel's ideology of genocide must be confronted and stopped:
"Israel's violent extremists now in control of its government
believe that Israel has a Biblical license, indeed a religious
mandate, to destroy the Palestinian people."
VP Debate
Zack Beauchamp: [10-01]
The only moment from the VP debate that mattered: "Vance's
'damning non-answer' on the 2020 election exposed the true stakes
for democracy in 2024." I'm a bit chagrined that the one Vance lie
that Walz chose to push back hard on was the "fate of democracy."
It's not that I don't appreciate the threat, but to understand it,
you need some context. To borrow Grover Norquist's metaphor, the
program of the right since the 1970s -- cite Potter Stewart if you
like -- has been to shrink democracy "down to the size where we
can drown it in the bathtub." We've barely noticed the shrinkage,
but only started to panic now that we can identify Trump as the
one threatening to finish the job. So right, it matters, a lot
even, but it's a bit like waiting until a hurricane or flood or
fire to discover that something is screwy with the climate --
another comparable oops!
Gabriel Debenedetti: [10-02]
How Tim Walz saved himself: "At first, he looked overmatched by
JD Vance. Then came abortion, health care, and above all, January 6.
In a Times/Siena College poll last month, 55 percent of respondents
said Trump was respected by foreign leaders while 47 percent said
that of Harris.
The ad claims Harris is not tough enough to deal with China,
Russia, Iran or Hamas. It features actors playing Vladimir Putin,
Hamas fighters and a tea-sipping ayatollah watching videos of the
candidate who wants to be the first woman president. It ends with
four clips of Kamala dancing -- a lot better than Trump does --
and a clip of Trump walking on a tarmac with a military officer
and a Secret Service agent. The tag line is: "America doesn't need
another TikTok performer. We need the strength that will protect
us."
Even though Trump lives in a miasma of self-pity and his businesses
often ended up in bankruptcy, somehow his fans mistake his swagger and
sneers for machismo. What a joke. Trump is the one who caves, a foreign
policy weakling and stooge of Putin. . . .
In a Trumpworld that thrives on mendacity, demonizing and dividing,
sympathy is weakness.
Debate watchers said, 48% to 35%, that Walz is more in touch than Vance
with the needs and problems of people like them, and by a similar margin,
48% to 39%, that Walz, rather than Vance, more closely shares their
vision for America.
M Gessen: [10-03]
The real loser of the VP debate: "It's our politics." And: "In
this audio essay, Gessen argues that when we put Trump and his acolytes
on the same platform as regular politicians and treat them equally,
'that normalization degrades our political life and degrades our
understanding of politics.'"
Andrew Prokop/Dylan Scott/Abdullah Fayyad/Christian Paz: [10-02]
3 winners and 2 losers from the Walz-Vance debate:
W: JD Vance's code switching abilities;
L: The narrative that Tim Walz is a media phenomenon;
W: Obamacare;
L: The moderators;
W: A surprising amount of decency. The bottom line is that Vance lied
outrageously (but smoothly) in his attempt to make Trump out as a
reasoned, skillful public servant, while Walz somewhat awkwardly
dialed his own criticism back. From point two:
It was not exactly a masterful showing, though. Walz seemed uncomfortable
in the format compared to the smooth-talking Vance, he didn't really seem
to have one overarching message that he kept returning to, and he often
missed opportunities to call out Vance's lies and misrepresentations.
On the moderators:
From the start, Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan, the CBS news
moderators, made it clear they did not think it was their job to
keep the candidates grounded in reality. . . . The questions
themselves were either not probing enough or poorly framed.
Jeffrey St Clair: [10-04]
Notes from a phony campaign: the great un-debate: "This week's
vice-presidential debate, one of the most tedious and dull in US
history, was praised by the punditocracy for its civility. Is civility
in politics what we need when the current government is arming a
genocide and the rival campaign wants to arrest 15 million people
and deport them?" Also: "Why did Walz try to humanize a jerk who
claims Haitians are BBQing pets?"
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [10-01]
VP debate: preemptive strike on Iran now? "This was the only
foreign question of the night, which made it easier for everyone,
apparently." The question was horrible, even to suggest such a
thing. The obvious answer was: no, never, wars should be ended,
not started when there is any chance of avoiding one. The answers --
unlike John McCain's "bomb bomb bomb Iran" refrain -- at least were
evasive, but in failing to address the question, allowed it to hang
in the air, as if the idea is something a sane person might consider.
It wasn't, and should have been flagged as such.
Election notes:
Ed Kilgore: [10-07]
Harris and Trump are deploying party defectors very differently:
They may be calculating differently, but the dominant issue is the
same. Trump is using Gabbard and Kennedy as testimony that he's the
lesser world war threat, without him having to soften his tough guy
image. Harris, on the other hand, is attracting some Republicans
with extreme neocon credentials, like the Cheneys -- not primarily
to show that she's the hawk in the contest, but their support does
reassure the neocons that she's likely to stick with the conventional
wisdom on foreign policy (which is decidedly neocon, despite their
disastrous track record).
Kevin T Dugan: [10-04]
Trump Media has major new problems: "A whistleblower alleges that
CEO Devin Nunes is running the struggling Donald Trump-owned company
into the ground."
[10-05]
Vance says Trump shooting inevitable: "Speaking in the town where
Trump was nearly assassinated, Vance laid blame for the shooting on
Democrats."
David Daley: [10-04]
Two men have re-engineered the US electoral system in favor of
Republicans: "If the right strews constitutional chaos over
the certification of this presidential election, two people will
have cleared the path." Leonard Leo (who packed the Supreme Court)
and Chris Jankowski (who refined the art of gerrymandering).
I don't mean to pick on Margaret Sullivan. I think the fact that even
she can't find the words to explain what's so horrifying about this
suggests that maybe there aren't any words -- or to be more precise,
maybe there aren't words that can convey what's so horrifying about
this to people who've watched Trump for the past nine years and still
aren't horrified.
Calling a political opponent "mentally impaired" and "mentally
disabled" ought to be a very bad look for any candidate, and it should
be self-evidently bad for reasons Joe Scarborough noted this morning:
"If [Harris] were so quote stupid, if she were so quote mentally
impaired, if she were quote so mentally disabled, why did she destroy
him in a debate for 90 minutes, humiliate him, and beat him so badly
that he refuses to even debate her on Fox News?"
"That's question number one," he continued. "And if she's had this
mental condition from birth, then why did he give her thousands of
dollars in 2014 for her political campaign when she was running for
the United States Senate?"
But it's unsuitable language for any candidate to use -- except it
isn't anymore, because talk radio and Fox News coarsened the political
culture, in lockstep with Republican politicians from Newt Gingrich on,
and now there's a large percentage of the voting population for whom
there's nothing a Republican can say that will lead to a
withdrawal of support, except perhaps a kind word about a Democrat. . . .
Trump can't be discredited any more than he already has been. Our
only recourse is a large turnout by people who are neither impressed
by his rhetoric nor numbed by it.
If you're Vance, the only reason you agree to take Trump on as a client
is the hope that he will pay your seven-figure fees before you, yourself,
end up in jail.
Alas, as the history of broken dreams isn't one of the subjects
taught at Yale Law School, Vance seems to be missing the point that
most of his predecessors -- Michael Cohen, Sidney Powell, Kenneth
Cheseboro, Jenna Ellis, Rudy Giuliana, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark,
and Alina Habba (to list only a few Trump attorneys who are drifting
up the river) -- never got paid and will probably end up in jail long
before Trump himself is fitted with an oversized orange necktie.
Nicholas Wu/Madison Fernandez: [10-04]
House Democrats' new bogeyman: Project 2025: "The party is making
a concerted effort to go on the attack using the controversial set of
conservative policy proposals." It's about time. Similar plots have
been circulating for decades, but this year's edition exposes the
threats exceptionally tangible form. Moreover, it's never been easier
to imagine Republican apparatchiki blindly following whatever master
plan they're given. Project 2025 makes clear and comprehensible how
pervasive rotten ideas are throughout the Republican Party.
Jonathan Chait: [10-03]
Kamala Harris is right to get endorsements from bad Republicans:
Like Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales. Of course, Chait loves this
because it gives him another excuse to take digs at Sanders and AOC,
who also, like Chait, support Harris. Different people have different
reasons for who they vote for, and these particulars aren't totally
deluded in thinking a public announcement might help, and probably
won't hurt. What bothers me is the suggestion that they see Harris
as more in tune with their neocon warmongering legacy, and that
their endorsements can be taken as evidence that Harris is more
war-prone than Trump.
Michael Kruse: [10-04]
The woman who made Kamala Harris -- and modern America: "Shyamala
Gopalan's immigrant story explains the roots of a multiethnic society
that has defined the country in the 21st century -- and also become a
political flashpoint."
Elie Honig: [10-03]
Jack Smith's October Surprise: That's the title on the index
page. The title on the page itself is "Jack Smith's October cheap
shot." Honig's complaining that Smith's "proactive filing" was too
long, disclosing many more details of his case than was necessary,
and that filing it ahead of the election was "prejudicial." Honig
goes to great lengths here to parade his disapproval. In charging
Smith with playing politics to get at Trump, he never considers
the possibility that politics is what has kept this case from
going to trial, and that the only way to break that logjam might
be to do what Smith has done, and remind the public what evidence
says, and why it is all the more relevant before the election.
The way the court system is rigged, it's unlikely that Trump will
ever "face justice," at least on federal charges, but the people
deserve to know what he did, before they risk giving him the
chance to do it again.
Li Zhou: [09-26]
The Eric Adams indictment, explained: "Fancy plane tickets, donations,
and political favors: what to know about the charges." I hadn't noted
the New York City mayor, which seems like the sort of run-of-the-mill
corruption that occasionally traps unwary Democrats, yet Republicans --
despite being ideologically committed to furthering corruption -- are
rarely held accountable for. That plus it's a local issue, but in a
locale that generates a lot of political media, so we're getting
a cluster of stories.
Jeffery C Mays/Stefanos Chen: [10-05]
Big business saw an ally in Eric Adams, and overlooked his issues:
"New York's business community threw its support behind Adams, and
continued backing him even as his legal problems began to threaten
the governance of the city."
Intelligencer Staff: [10-07]
Hurricane Milton intensifies to category 5, Florida prepares: live
updates. The storm formed in a hot spot in the Gulf of Mexico,
heading northeast. Projection is that it will hit Tampa, with 175
mph winds and a 15-foot storm surge, on Wednesday, cross Florida,
and continue heading east into the Atlantic. More Milton:
Li Zhou: [10-03]
Get used to more absurdly hot Octobers: "This year's unrelenting
heat, explained." Last few days here in Wichita have been in the
mid-90s, which is what I expect for first two weeks of September,
but hard to remember anything this hot this late in the year.
Dylan Scott: [10-02]
Why is US health care like this? "America unintentionally built
a health care system that is hard to fix." Short article, but covers
the basics. It's not a system. It wasn't designed. It was created
as opportunities to profit were relentlessly exploited, resulting
in various gaps and inequities, which have been partly compensated
for with a patchwork of fixes designed mostly to preserve previous
profit centers. And each of those profit centers has its own lobby,
which is to say clout within the American political "system."
Mark Mazzetti/Adam Entous: [10-05]
Behind Trump's views on Ukraine: Putin's gambit and a political
grudge: "The roots of Donald Trump's animus toward Ukraine --
an issue with profound consequences should he be elected again --
can be found in a yearlong series of events spanning 2016 and
2017."
Constant Méheut: [10-05]
Ukraine's Donbas strategy: Retreat slowly and maximize Russia's
losses: "The idea is to use rope-a-dope tactics, letting Russian
forces pound away until they have exhausted themselves. It's far
from clear if the Ukrainian strategy will succeed." Maybe that's
because "rope-a-dope" is a strategy that favors the one with the
greater reserves of strength, which isn't Ukraine.
Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:
Richard Slotkin: [10-05]
To understand Trump vs. Harris, you must know these American myths:
The author has mapped out the entire history of American mythmaking
in his book
A Great Disorder: National Myth and the Struggle for America,
so applying his methodology to one more election is pretty easy.
I've read his book, and previously cited various reviews. I've
long placed great importance on the notion of myth -- paradigmatic
stories that are widely believed, transcending fact and fiction --
so I'm very used to this form of critique. Still, there is a risk
that his categories have become too pat, and forcing new facts to
fit them tends to lose your grip on anything new. For instance, it's
easy enough to see Trump playing off the "lost cause playbook," but
those of us who grew up in what was still the Jim Crow era should
be struck by how much weirder it seems this time around. On the
other hand, when Democrats (like Obama/Clinton) embrace "American
exceptionalism," they look naive and foolish, and easily loose
track of the reforms they understand we need.
Jennifer Szalai: [09-29]
Ta-Nehisi Coates returns to the political fray, calling out
injustice:
"The
Message marks his re-entry as a public intellectual determined
to wield his moral authority, especially regarding Israel and the
occupied territories." More on the book below, but first a good
introduction is a bit of
CBS Mornings interview with Coates. A quick sampling of reviews.
(I have a copy of the book, but haven't cracked it open yet.)
Jay Caspian Kang: [10-04]
Why Ta-Nehisi Coates writes: "In The Message, Coates urges
young writers to aspire to 'nothing less than doing their part to
save the world,' but his latest work reveals the limits of his own
advice."
Peter Beinart: [10-01]
this first question: would you support a preemptive strike on Iran
rather than how would you stop this regional war pretty much encapsulates
what is wrong with US media coverage of this conflict
Local tags (these can be linked to directly):
music.
Original count: 131 links, 7251 words (9735) total).
Too many distractions this past week to spend any serious time
listening to new music. I wouldn't be surprised if I come up with
even less next week, although things should settle down shortly
thereafter.
Again I took an extra day for
Speaking
of Which, mostly because that's how I set the file up. I expected
it to be similarly abbreviated, but I wound up with 171 links, 10275
words -- nowhere near record length, but pretty substantial, with
lots of interesting stuff.
Then I rushed this out on the same day, to keep it within September.
I may update this (and/or Speaking of Which) on Tuesday, but really
need to be working on something else.
PS [10-01]: I rushed this post out late last night, to
squeeze it into September, which mostly mattered because I didn't
want to take the extra time to dig out this week's paltry offering
and replant it in the now extant but empty
October Streamnotes
file. In the clear light of morning -- something I prefer to sleep
through, but once again failed today -- I can add a few more words.
It takes me a while to get going these days, so this is prime time
for collecting my thoughts.
When I do get moving, my main task today will be to work on the
small (12x12) second bedroom upstairs, and its adjacent L-shaped
closet. The house was built in 1920, which means the walls and
ceilings were plaster on lathe. When we bought the house, in 1999,
the room had ugly wallpaper and the ceiling was painted with a
glittery popcorn finish. The closet was also wallpapered, with a
pattern simulating wood. We hated all those things, but lived with
them. I built a bookcase that covered the entire west wall, except
for the closet door. I built another bookcase I situated on the
east wall, just north of the big window. The other side of the
window had a standalone bookcase, as did the north wall next to
the east corner. The rest of the north wall, underneath its own
big window, was occupied by a futon, usable as a spare bed, on a
crude platform I had built. Laura's desk was up against the south
wall.
A few years after we arrived, I noticed a crack in the ceiling,
near the southwest corner, extending from the entry door out about
three feet. I watched that crack grow over twenty-some years. A few
months ago, some of the plaster had detached and lowered an inch or
two, making its collapse inevitable. I started thinking about ways
to push it back up and/or patch it over, but did nothing before it
did collapse. I started looking for help to repair it, and finally
found some.
Finding more cracks in the same ceiling, we decided to recover
the whole ceiling with a new layer of 3/8-inch plaster board. We --
meaning our money and their labor, but I wasn't exctly a passive
bystander -- did that last week. To prep, we had to move everything
out of the room. For good measure, I also had them steam off the
wallpaper, so I could paint the walls, and I cleared out the closet.
Some years ago, I figured the walls weren't worth the trouble of
repairing, so could be covered up with paneling. I bought several
sheets, stored in the garage wood pile for an opportune time, such
as now.
Riverside Handyman did the ceiling, including a quick paint, and
took down the room wallpaper. I used his steamer to work on the
closet, where the walls proved to be as bad as anticipated. That
leaves me with the task of finishing the painting, fixing up the
closet, and moving everything back so we can reduce the upstairs
clutter to normal levels. Big push today (and probably tomorrow,
and possibly longer) will be to sand and prep the bedroom walls,
caulk the window frames, and mask them off for painting. But also
I need to finish prepping the walls and ceiling in the closet --
the latter has a big hole, which used to provide attic access, to
fill in and level. The walls mostly need a rough mud job, filling
in cracks, corners, and some large missing chunks, but it won't
need much sanding, as it will all be covered with paneling.
Aside from impatience, I have another deadline, which is that
my brother, his wife, and their daughter are coming for a visit,
arriving late Wednesday. They won't be needing the bedroom, and
chances are I can put them to work on various projects -- not just
this one, as I have more lined up -- but one point of the trip is
a separate project, which is to finally sort through the stuffed
attic of our ancestral family home on South Main Street.
My parents bought that small house in 1950, a few months before
I was born, and lived their until they died, in a three-month span
of 2000. They both grew up on farms -- my mother in the Arkansas
Ozarks, my father in the Kansas Dust Bowl -- and through the Great
Depression, moving to Wichita in the 1940s for war work. They were
resourceful and self-sufficient, which among much more meant that
they kept a lot of stuff. My father's "super-power" was his knack
for packing things to maximize use of space -- I'm pretty good at
that myself, but not nearly as good as he was at remembering what
he had and where it was.
After they died, we cleared out some obvious stuff, but left
most of it for my brother, who moved into the house, and added
his own stash. When his work took him to Washington, my sister --
who had inherited the deed -- moved in with her grown son (and
her own stash), who still lives there, after she died in 2018.
While the attic has been plundered several times over the years --
that "wall of books" in the bedroom I'm working on mostly date
from my purchases from before I left home in 1972 (or 1975) --
one harbors the suspicion that there are still precious memories
(probably just junk to others, as antique treasures aren't very
likely) buried in deep nooks and crannies.
So the plan is to gather some younger folk willing and able
to do the spelunking to drag everything out, so we can sort it
all out into the obvious categories (trash, recycle, desired by
one of us, or deferred/repacked). They're figuring two days,
which strikes me as optimistic, but not inconceivable. I think
part of the operation should be to catalog everything (except
the rankest trash) into a spreadsheet for future reference --
especially everything that gets deferred. I could use some sort
of database of my own stuff, especially as I feel increasing
need to unburden.
I'm not sure of the schedule for all of this. My niece is just
budgeting enough time for the housecleaning, but my brother may
be able to stay a bit longer. However long that is, I will mostly
be occupied with them, while letting my usual grind slide. Plenty
to do later, as we wrap up the year with another Francis Davis
Jazz Critics Poll. Obvious point from below is that the unheard
demo queue has grown considerably. And that doesn't count the
download offers waiting in a mail directory, if indeed I ever
get to them. (I did download the new Thumbscrew, but most just
get shunted aside.)
This week's King Sunny Adé albums were a side-effect of Brad
Luen's
Ten favorite African albums of 1974. I didn't manage to get to
the Adé albums on his list, because I started looking for gaps in my
own list,
especially as the 1974 albums Luen cites are late entries in
multi-volume series.
Breaking news today:
Iran launches about 180 ballistic missiles at Israel. Scroll
down and the previous headline reads: "Israel's recent airstrikes
destroyed half of Hezbollah's arsenal, U.S. and Israeli officials
say." As I've noted, Hezbollah's arsenal was always intended not
to attack Israel but to deter Israeli attack. Obviously, it was
never sufficient to do so, and even less so as Israel is amassing
tanks on the Lebanon border. I've never bought the argument -- so
often and readily repeated by American media -- that Hezbollah is
some kind of Iranian proxy, its strings pulled from Tehran, or that
Hezbollah has any aggressive intent against Israel beyond what it
sees as self-defense, or that Iran has any designs against Israel
beyond the self-defense of its co-religionists in the region. But
Israel's latest attacks on Lebanon are, as was undoubtedly their
intent, forcing Iran to fight back.
I am saddened by this, and do not approve, but it's time to
reiterate a point that I just made just
yesterday:
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.
I didn't write this up yesterday, but I did entertain the idea
of offering an extreme example: suppose Hezbollah has a nuclear
bomb, and could deliver it deep inside Israel, and explode it,
killing a hundred thousand or more Israelis (including quite a
few Palestinians), would that still be Netanyahu's fault. Yes,
it would. (It would also lead to a "why didn't you tell us?"
scene, like in Dr. Strangelove. And while it was a pretty
safe bet that Hezbollah had no nuclear capability, perhaps Israel
should have a think before "counterattacking" Iran in the same
way it went after Lebanon.)
One way you know that this is all Netanyahu's fault is because
he is the single person who could, even if just acting on a whim,
put an end to the entire war. He has that power. He should be held
responsible for it.
New records reviewed this week:
Manu Chao: Viva Tu (2024, Because Music):
French-born Spanish singer-songwriter, sings in both, English,
and several other languages; started group Mano Negra (1984-95),
six solo albums 1998-2008 (a couple personal favorites there),
returns after a 16 year break (although he's released several
singles). First couple songs had me wondering, before he found
his old groove, and delighted to the end.
A- [sp]
Colin James: Chasing the Sun (2024, Stony Plain):
Canadian blues-rocker, eponymous debut 1988, early albums had a
retro-swing aspect -- especially those with his Little Big Band.
B [sp]
Lizz Wright: Shadow (2024, Blues & Greens):
Jazz singer, from Atlanta, started in a gospel group, eighth
album since 2003. Impressive voice, but limited appeal.
B+(*) [sp]
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
None.
Old music:
Sunny Ade & His Green Spot Band: The Master
Guitarist Vol. 1 (1970 [1983], African Songs): Nigerian
singer-guitarist, has produced many albums from 1967 on, came
to world attention in 1982 when Mango released his Juju
Music, some of his earlier work later issued by Shanchie
(The Best of the Classic Years and Gems From the
Classic Years (1967-1974). I still recommend those (the
former I have at A+, as does Christgau), but streaming offers
other spots for toe-dipping, like this 6-or-10-song, 34:16
former LP (first "side" has five song titles mixed into one
track). Date info is spotty. I'm not sure I'll be able to make
fine distinctions among many similar albums, but this one is
superb.
A- [sp]
King Sunny Ade and His African Beats: The Message
(1981, Sunny Alade): Robert Christgau, in his dive into Adé's early
Nigerian albums (such as he could find), singled this one out as
the pick of the litter (while alluding to another one with orange
cover -- later identified as Eje Nlogba. Hard for me to be
sure, but this is certainly a contender.
A- [yt]
King Sunny Ade and His African Beats: Check 'E'
(1981, Sunny Alade): Another nice Nigerian album, feels a bit
slighter.
B+(***) [sp]
King Suny Ade & His African Beats: Juju Music of the
80's (1981, Sunny Alade): More seductive grooves.
B+(***) [sp]
King Suny Adé & His African Beats: Ajoo (1983,
Sunny Alade): Cover just shows the man with electric guitar, which
may be the focus, but the beats are complex, the groove sinuous,
and the vocals neatly woven in, whatever they mean. Not sure I've
heard it all -- first side for sure, and at least half of the
second, but I'm satisfied. [Reissued in US by Makossa.]
A- [yt]
King Sunny Ade & His African Beats: Bobby
(1983, Sunny Alade): With Juju Music released internationally
on Island, he continued releasing albums in Nigeria, with this one
of several (five?) before his second Island-released album, 1984's
Synchro System. This one is relatively subdued, although
seductively so.
B+(***) [sp]
King Sunny Ade: E Dide/Get Up (1992 [1995], Mesa):
Island dropped him after Aura (1984), as best I recall due
to the expense of touring with his big band. He kept up recording,
with this one of the few albums to get much notice outside Africa.
B+(***) [sp]
Batsumi: Batsumi (1974 [2011], Matsuli Music):
South African jazz-fusion group founded in Soweto, South Africa
in 1972. Some typical township jive riffs, attractive as ever,
with other things, including vocals, that don't have quite the
same appeal.
B+(*) [sp]
Moldy Goldies: Colonel Jubilation B. Johnston and His
Mystic Knights Band and Street Singers Attack the Hits
(1966, Columbia): One-shot album by Bob Johnston (1932-2015),
started c. 1956 as a songwriter (as were his grandmother and
mother), recorded a couple rockabilly singles, but made his mark
as a producer, scoring a hit for Timi Yuro in 1962, working for
Kapp and Dot, and moving on to Columbia in 1965, which assigned
him to produce Bob Dylan (through New Morning), Simon &
Garfunkel, Johnny Cash, Marty Robbins, Flatt & Scruggs, Burl
Ives, and Leonard Cohen, before going independent c. 1970 ("most
successfully with Lindisfarne on Fog on the Tyne" -- so not
so famous, but probably beat his Columbia salary). This, as I said,
was a one-shot project, artist name folded into the subtitle (and
compressed above), the credited musicians aliased (although most
appear to have been obscure studio musicians). The eleven songs
were all big hits from the previous year, things I still remember
well from AM radio at the time, although if you're even a few years
younger you may have missed more than a few. They were "goldies"
by RIAA calculation, rendered instantly moldy by mock-skiffle
arrangements and brass band, but 58 years later they've aged into
postmodern classics. Compares well to Peter Stampfel's 20th
Century in 100 Songs, except focused on a year that really
holds up to the treatment. Of course, some people won't get the
joke (although probably fewer now than then). Nadir is "Secret
Agent Man" followed by "(You're My) Soul and Inspiration." If
you're down with them, you'll love the rest.
A- [sp]
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]
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:
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.
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").
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."
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."
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.
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.
[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."
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.
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.
[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.
[09-27]
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."
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.
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.
[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.
[09-27]
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."
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.
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."
[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."
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).
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.
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."
Chas Danner: [09-23]
Mark Robinson's campaign is imploding: Republican lieutenant
governor, campaigning for governor, and much in the news of late.
Also:
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.
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:
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.
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."
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."
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.
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."
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").
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."
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
After an abbreviated
Speaking
of Which yesterday, this is an even shorter Music Week. For most
of last week, I've been prepping the house for arrival of a contractor,
to fix the collapsed ceiling in a small upstairs bedroom. Main thing
there was moving 25 years of accumulated living out to somewhere else.
Some things got thrown away, but most -- including three bookcases of
books -- just had to find temporary storage elsewhere. Contractor
arrived today, and should have another couple days of work, after
which I intend to refinish (mostly paint) everything, including a
closet that long been the most wretched corner of a 100-year-old
house.
So I haven't had much time to listen to music, or to write.
Expect no more (and probably less) for next week, and probably
the week after -- hopefully the bedroom will be done by then,
but I expect project repercussions to spread far and wide. I'm
looking forward to these weeks, figuring they'll produce more
tangible accomplishments than I've felt from writing all year.
Indeed, I'm rushing this out now, so I can go back to my closet
and get a couple more hours of work in. Downside is that it can
be physically wearing.
One minor accomplishment last week was when I fixed one of my
"inventory reduction" dinners on
Saturday: I turned shrimp and vegetables from the freezer,
the end of a bag of dried pasta, and some aging items in the
refrigerator into a small dinner of: shrimp with feta cheese,
penne puttanesca, pisto manchego, and a lemon-caper sauce with
green beans, artichoke hearts, and prosciutto; followed by a
chocolate cake with black walnut frosting (one of my mother's
standards).
I have nothing much to say about this week's music, other than
that the Ahmad Jamal records were suggested by a
question. I thought "why bother?"
at first, then "why not?"
New records reviewed this week:
Benjamin Boone: Confluence: The Ireland Sessions
(2023 [2024], Origin): Alto saxophonist, has some good records,
especially the pair backing poet Philip Levine. Trio with bass
and drums plus scattered guests, including singer JoYne on three
songs. They're nice enough, but the saxophone is better.
B+(***) [cd]
Michael Dease: Found in Space: The Music of Gregg Hill
(2022 [2024], Origin): Trombonist, also baritone sax, has more
than one album per year since 2010. Hill is a Michigan-based
composer with no records of his own, but several of his students
have released tributes to him recently, and this is Dease's
second. Large group, eleven pieces, and probably the best yet.
B+(***) [cd]
Delia Fischer: Beyond Bossa (2024, Origin):
Brazilian singer-songwriter, plays piano/keyboards, recorded two
albums 1988-90 as part of Duo Fęnix, solo albums after that. As
the title implies, the atmosphere here is familiarly Brazilian,
but there is much more going on, including interaction of many
dramatic voices, which suggest opera (or at least concept album).
Not something I feel up to figuring out, but seems exceptional.
B+(***) [cd]
Heems: Veena (2024, Veena Sounds): New York
rapper Himanshu Suri, formerly of Das Racist, named his album
(like his label) after his mother. His earlier 2024 album,
Lafandar, tops my non-jazz list. This one is iffier,
and not just because they redo the old phone message thing.
B+(***) [sp]
Jason Kao Hwang: Soliloquies: Unaccompanied Pizzicato
Violin Improvisations (2024, True Sound): Exactly what
the title promises, which sets an upper bound on how enjoyable
this can be, but he comes remarkably close to hitting the mark.
Hwang became our greatest living jazz violinist when Billy Bang
passed, and is a safe bet to maintain that claim until he, too,
is gone.
A- [cd]
Miranda Lambert: Postcards From Texas (2024, Republic
Nashville): Country singer-songwriter, debut 2005, probably the most
consistent one since, even if you count her Pistol Annies side project.
Another batch of good songs.
A- [sp]
Matt Panayides Trio: With Eyes Closed (2023
[2024], Pacific Coast Jazz): Guitarist, based in New York,
fourth album since 2010, a trio with Dave LaSpina (bass) and
Anthony Pinciotti (drums).
B+(**) [cd]
Anne Sajdera: It's Here (2024, Bijuri): Pianist,
some solo (two tracks), some trio (two more), some with various
horns (four).
B+(*) [cd]
Jason Stein: Anchors (2022 [2024], Tao Forms):
Bass clarinet player, based in Chicago, leads a trio with Joshua
Abrams (bass) and Gerald Cleaver (drums). Billed as his "most
personal album to date," impressive when he hits his stride, but
seems to back off a bit much.
B+(***) [cd]
Nilüfer Yanya: My Method Actor (2024, Ninja Tune):
British pop singer-songwriter, father is Turkish, third album.
Didn't grab me right away, like the first two, but snuck up.
B+(***) [sp]
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
None.
Old music:
Charles Bell and the Contemporary Jazz Quartet: Another
Dimension (1963, Atlantic): Pianist (1933-2012), only
released two albums, one called The Charles Bell Contemporary
Jazz Quartet in 1961, this this one a couple years later.
Four originals, covers of "Django," "Oleo," and "My Favorite
Things," with guitar (Bill Smith), bass (Ron Carter), and drums
(Allen Blairman).
B+(***) [sp]
Ahmad Jamal: Poinciana (1958 [1963], Argo):
Early compilation LP, took the title song from Live at the
Pershing, then tacked on seven songs from his September
sets at the Spotlite (released in 1959 as Portfolio of
Ahmad Jamal; Ahmad's Blues also comes from the
Spotlite stand, but only two songs there are dupes from
here). So this seems like a sampler for more definitive
editions.
B+(**) [r]
The Ahmad Jamal Trio: The Awakening (1970, Impulse!):
With Jamil Nasser (bass) and Frank Grant (drums).
B+(**) [r]
Ahmad Jamal: Live in Paris 1992 (1992 [1993],
Birdology): French label, founded 1992 and ran up to 2005,
associated with Disques Dreyfus. Mostly trio with James Cammack
(bass guitar) and David Bowler (drums), with alternates on one
track.
B+(*) [sp]
Ahmad Jamal: I Remember Duke, Hoagy & Strayhorn
(1994 [1995], Telarc): Covers as noted, plus a couple originals
along those lines. With Ephriam Wolfolk (bass) and Arti Dixson
(drums), but they don't add much.
B+(*) [sp]
Ahmad Jamal: The Essence, Part 1 (1994-95 [1995],
Birdology): The first of three volumes the label collected, this
from live sets in Paris -- six quartet tracks with piano, bass
(James Cammack), drums (Idris Muhammad), and percussion (Manolo
Badrena), plus two tracks from New York with a different bassist
(Jamil Nasser) and George Coleman (tenor sax). I wish we had more
of the latter -- his bits are really terrific -- but without him
I'm still reminded of how bright Jamal's piano is.
A- [sp]
Ahmad Jamal: Big Byrd: The Essence, Part 2 (1994-95
[1996], Birdology): More quartet tracks from the same dates in
Paris and New York, with guests Joe Kennedy Jr. (violin) on one
track, Donald Byrd (trumpet) on the other (the 15:13 title track).
B+(***) [sp]
Ahmad Jamal: Nature: The Essence, Part 3 (1997
[1998], Birdology): A later studio session from Paris, with the
same quartet -- James Cammack (bass), Idris Muhammad (drums),
Manolo Badrena (percussion) -- joined by Othello Molineaux on
steel drum. Stanley Turrentine (tenor sax) drops in for one
track, and is terrific.
B+(**) [sp]
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]
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.
I woke up early (way too early for me) Tuesday morning, and found
this in my mailbox from Mazin Qumsiyeh (I've replaced URLs with
linked article titles):
A regional war has just been officially declared and will likely
soon become a global war. This accelerated with Netanyahu's refusal
to do a prisoner swap and ceasefire deal for Gaza for 11 months
(even against the wishes of his military commanders) with no prospect
of that changing which meant continuation of the genocide and
conflict with Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq (yes supportive resistance
forces to Israeli imperial hegemony). The Israeli regime escalated
with a series of terrorist attacks on Lebanon including rigging
pagers and walkie-talkies to explode killing and injuring scores
of civilians. Then attacked Beirut apoartment buildings, then in
the past 24 hours attacked homes throughout Lebanon killing 500
Lebanese civilians (most women and children like in Gaza)
Israel escalates its military attacks in Lebanon, targeting
residential areas and civilians with intense raids.
And yes the resistance from Lebanon and Gaza continues to target
Israeli military forces. And attacks on the West Bank continue so
that they can depopulate us
Inside the brutal siege of Jenin.
An Interfaith Dispatch From the West Bank: Rabbis for Ceasefire
and Hindus for Human Rights make a peace pilgrimage (mentions us):
An interfaith dispatch from the West Bank.
[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."
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."
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.
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).
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.
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).
[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.
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.
[2023-11-12]
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.
[2023-07-03]
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:
Harris courting of the lobby and supporting genocide
undermines any remnant of illusion progressives,
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.
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."
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."
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."
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.
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, . . .
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."
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."
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."
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:
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.
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."
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?"
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?"
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.
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.
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)
Another week, another day delayed, as
Speaking of Which ran into overtime. When I finally called
time late last night, it had run to 290 links, 15664 words,
which is the most words and 2nd most links since I twiddled
with the software to automatically post counts at the end of
the files. I'll probably fix some typos and add a few minor
bits by the time I post this tonight, and they will be flagged
as usual, but I don't expect to put much more work into it.
What I am doing new this time is to go ahead and open a
draft file before I finish Music Week. The downside is
that the new one will appear ahead of Music Week in the
blog roll, but the headline will
be marked (draft) to indicates that I'm not done working
on it. I'll drop that marking when I decide the piece is to
be posted, and mark later additions and major edits with my
red change bars, as I've been doing.
I work in a local copy of the website, and update the public
copy when I have something to post. But sometimes I have reason
to update without having a new post. This new approach just
saves me the trouble of hiding posts that are still in draft
stage. I figure there's no harm in whatever glimpses readers
may find. Regularly updated files, like the music lists, will
also be more up-to-date, which means they will run ahead of
Music Week. (This has always been the case, but it's less
evident if I only update for blog posts.)
Big haul of A-list records this week. Several came from Robert
Christgau's latest
Consumer Guide, which had an unusually large number of
albums I hadn't heard and took kindly to -- and perhaps most
importantly, spurred me to finally check out the Kate Nash
record, which I wound up liking more than anyone else.
Note that the three songs he picked out are the the least
string-driven, including both of the ones that Thaae didn't
claim co-credit on. I loved the string stuff from the start,
then only latched onto this tryptich after several plays,
although they did help push it from A- to A.
I'll admit that it's possible that without the CG, I'd have
left Smither and Wade at B+(***). Several albums I previously
graded:
Louis Armstrong: Louis in London (Verve) [A-]
Louis Armstrong and His All-Stars: Ambassador Satch (Columbia/Legacy '09) [A-]
Zach Bryan: The Great American Bar Scene (Warner) [B+(**)]
Illuminati Hotties: Power (Hopeless) [B+(**)]
Romy: Mid Air (Young '23) [A-]
I haven't returned to any of them, but I did belatedly revisit
Zach Bryan and bumped its grade from B+(***) to A-. Others
I'll get to in due course. Amy Rigby was a previous Christgau B+,
but I say it's at least as good as Smither and Wade. Much pre-CG
speculation focused on Anderson, LL Cool J, MJ Lenderman, and
Sabrina Carpenter -- the latter I already had at B+(***).
Two more records overcame my anti-EP prejudices, basically by
blowing them to smithereens. Only A-listed jazz album this week
was a delightful surprise from the most down-home of the Marsalis
clan, although there are other fine records in the B+(***) niche.
I've been maintaining the
EOY Jazz file, so
I'm perhaps overly conscious of far above historic norms this
year's A-list is (73 albums, which is a typical year-end figure,
one that would extrapolate to a totally unprecedented 100+ number.
(By the way, I've been finding a lot of mistakes in my bookkeeping
lately, including three albums from last week that I failed to
add to the EOY Jazz file. If you see something amiss, please let
me know.)
I have a rather uneasy relationship to Substack. I have a couple
subscriptions I've been comped, and one more my wife pays for but
where I'm still treated as a freeloader. I know of a half-dozen
more ones by music writers that I regularly click on, but haven't
subscribed to, and there are probably several times that many
mostly political writers I'd enjoy reading when/if I could. But
the first new one I immediately subscribed to is one launched
by the terrific jazz critic Tim Niland. Here's his first batch of
Music Capsules. By the way, his 822-page book of
"selected blog posts 2003-2015" is still
available.
The next few weeks for me are going to be, well, complicated.
I doubt I'll be writing much, and may completely blow the usual
schedules. Nothing dire. Just lots of distractions and other
things to do.
New records reviewed this week:
Gino Amato: Latin Crsossroads (2024, Ovation):
Pianist, Discogs gives him one credit (arranger), leads many
musicians (including strings) and singers through a set of
Latin-tinged standards from "Blackbird" to "Green Flower Street"
via Monk and "Aranjuez."
B+(*) [cd]
Laurie Anderson: Amelia (2024, Nonesuch):
Spoken word artist, started with Big Science in 1982,
the first of several remarkable albums, back here with the
story of pioneering aviator Amelia Earhart on her ill-fated
attempt to fly around the world in 1937.
A- [sp]
Eric Bibb: Live at the Scala Theatre Stockholm
(2024, Repute): Easy-going blues singer-songwriter, originally
from New York, first album 1972, lives in Stockholm, evidently
for some time, so the choice of venue isn't so strange.
B+(**) [sp]
Peter Case: Doctor Moan (2023, Sunset Blvd.):
Singer-songwriter, from Buffalo, debut 1986, I thought his 1993
album Sings Like Hell was pretty good, but the dozen or
so since, until this one showed up on a blues list. Plays piano,
and sings, like hell, but not the same way.
B [sp]
Dawn Clement/Steve Kovalcheck/Jon Hamar: Trio
(2021 [2024], self-released): Piano-bass-guitar trio. I have
Clement listed as a singer, but she doesn't here.
B+(*) [cd]
Coco & Clair Clair: Girl (2024, Nice Girl World):
Atlanta duo of Taylor Nave and Claire Toothill, third album since
2017, synthpop with some rap, most sung, short (9 tracks, 24:03) but
nearly every song tantalizes, confirming the line "my girl and I just
made a hit."
A- [sp]
Buck Curran: One Evening and Other Folks Songs
(2021-22 [2024], Obsolete/ESP-Disk): Singer-songwriter, plays
guitar, several albums since 2016, first I've heard, based on
title I filed this under folk (hype sheet confirms: "freak folk")
but it doesn't really belong anywhere: a second vocalist,
sometimes the lead, Adele Pappalardo, complicates the "singer"
part, and keyboardist Jodi Pedrali spreads out the music, with
ambient instrumentals in the mix. The alternate "Black Is the
Color" has some prog appeal.
B+(*) [cd]
Zaccai Curtis: Cubop Lives! (2024, Truth
Revolution Recording Collective): Pianist, studied in Boston,
based in New York, brother Luques Curtis is a notable bass
player (present here, along with three percussionists).
B+(**) [bc]
The Vinny Golia Quintet 2024: Almasty (2024,
Nine Winds): Saxophonist, all weight plus many clarinets, very
prolific since his debut album 1977 -- most on his own poorly
promoted label, so my own exposure has been limited. Free jazz
quintet here with Kris Tiner (trumpet/flugelhorn), Catherine
Pineda (piano), Miller Wrenn (bass), and Clint Dodson (drums).
B+(**) [bc]
Hot Club of San Francisco: Original Gadjo
(2024, Hot Club): Gypsy jazz group, or a fair facsimile of
one, inspired by Django Reinhardt and Stéphane Grappelli's
Hot Club de Paris, on their 15th album since 1993.
B+(**) [cd]
Ill Considered: Infrared (2024, New Soil):
British jazz group, active since 2017, improvises freely over
deep world grooves. This seems a big darker than usual, though
not without some moments.
B+(**) [sp]
Ive: Ive Switch (2024, Starship Entertainment, EP):
Korean girl group, six women, two listed as rappers, first single
2021, has a 2023 album, second EP (if I'm parsing this correctly),
six songs, 18:13. They all sound like hits.
A- [sp]
Julie: My Anti-Aircraft Friend (2024, Atlantic):
Shoegaze band from Los Angeles, first album after an EP and several
singles. Fills a niche.
B+(*) [sp]
MJ Lenderman: Manning Fireworks (2024, Anti-):
Guitarist, singer-songwriter from Asheville, North Carolina, is
the great-grandson of saxophonist Charlie Ventura, has a couple
solo albums and a band gig in Wednesday, which had a much-admired
album in 2023. This one's also gotten a lot of hype. Seems lean
at first, but fleshes out midway, mostly because the guitar gets
denser, until eventually it's all that remains. (PS: When I added
this to my EOY file, I found it on the line next to Adrianne
Lenker's even more hyped Bright Future. Both are "good"
albums hold little that I find interesting and/or pleasurable.)
B+(***) [sp]
LL Cool J: The FORCE (2024, Def Jam): Rapper
James Smith, first album (1985) went platinum, second album
doubled that, third (Mama Said Knock You Out) probably
his peak, got into acting early, landing a long-running role
in NCIS in 2009, as the albums thinned out: just one
in 2013, now this one. Title an acronym for "Frequencies of
Real Creative Energy." Produced by Q-Tip, who really keeps
it moving.
A- [sp]
Delfeayo Marsalis Uptown Jazz Orchestra: Crescent City
Jewels (2023-24 [2024], Troubadour Jass): The famous
family's trombonist stays closest to home, especially in spirit,
with a big band (and then some). "Ooh Poo Pah Doo" (Kermit
Ruffins vocal) never needed this kind of firepower, but it's
wonderful to behold. Only "Lil Liza Jane" returns to that vein,
but the more generic standards are often delightful -- notably
what may be the best "'Round Midnight" (Tonya Boyd-Cannon vocal)
I've heard.
A- [cd]
Chad McCullough: In These Hills, Beyond (2023
[2024], Calligram): Trumpet player, started in Seattle,
recording for Origin from 2008, until he moved to Chicago,
started a new label, and seems to have fallen in with a
new group of musicians who are pushing him much further
out on the postbop spectrum: Bram Weijters (piano/keyboard),
Dave Miller (guitar), John Christensen (bass), Kobie Watkins
(drums).
B+(***) [cd]
Kate Nash: 9 Sad Symphonies (2024, Kill Rock
Stars): British pop singer-songwriter, fifth album since 2007,
all great, but I was slow getting to this, partly because I
was warned off, and partly because it's been a while. Turns
out there are ten songs (not 9), averaging a very unsymphonic
3:51 (total 38:30). I don't process sung words fast enough to
rule on their sadness, but there's nothing mopey here: her
phrasing is sharp and crisp, and most of the music is very
sprightly. True that it's dominated by strings with pizzicato
fillips, but only one violinist is credited. Nearly everything
else comes from producer Frederik Thaae, whose credit reads:
"keyboards, orchestra direction, percussion, programming (all
tracks); background vocals (track 4), guitar (5, 10)." The
effect is more Pet Shop Boys than Beethoven or Wagner. The
delirious swirl of synth strings parts for the two songs
that Thaae didn't co-write, but they too are remarkable.
I don't keep a singles list, but if I did, "Millions of
Heartbeats" would be near the top. Also "Vampyre" and "My
Bile," and possibly "Ray" and "Misery." And maybe more.
A [sp]
Amy Rigby: Hang in There With Me (2024, Tapete):
Singer-songwriter, started in the 1990s in a group called the Shams,
went solo, released a series of brilliant albums, including duos
with pub rock veteran Wreckless Eric (who produced here), although
they've been spread out since 2005's Little Fugitive. I'm
glad to have this one.
A- [sp]
Jeff Rupert: It Gets Better (2021 [2024], Rupe
Media): Tenor saxophonist, teaches at University of Central Florida,
recorded with Sam Rivers in the 1990s, has an album from 2009,
several more since, including a joust with George Garzone. He
sounds pretty mainstream here, but what else would you do with
a dream rhythm section of Kenny Barron (piano), Peter Washington
(bass), and Joe Farnsworth (drums)?
B+(***) [cd]
Otis Sandsjö: Y-Otis Tre (2021-23 [2024], We Jazz):
Swedish saxophonist (mostly tenor, but also baritone, clarinet,
flute, keyboards, drums), based in Berlin, two previous Y-Otis
albums since 2018, here with Petter Eldh (bass, electronics) and Dan
Nicholls (drums, keyboards).
B [sp]
Claudio Scolari Project: Intermission (2023 [2024],
Principal): Italian drummer, debut 2004, also plays (or programs)
synth here, leading a quartet with trumpet (Simone Scolari),
electric bass (Michele Cavalca), and a second drummer (Daniele
Cavalca, also into synths and keyboards).
B+(***) [cd]
Kenny Wayne Shepherd Band: Dirt on My Diamonds: Volume
1 (2023, Provogue): Blues-rock guitarist-singer, debut
album 1995, this is his 11th.
B [sp]
Nala Sinephro: Endlessness (2024, Warp): Born
in Belgium, father a saxophonist from Martinique/Guadeloupe,
plays pedal harp, modular synthesizer, keyboards, and piano,
second album seems viewed as jazz, whereas I filed her first
one under electronica, the shift reflecting new prominence of
saxophone (mostly Nubya Garcia, also James Mollison).
B+(***) [sp]
Chris Smither: All About the Bones (2024, Signature
Sounds): Folk singer-songwriter, released two albums 1970-71, one
in 1984, then every couple years from 1991 on. I've heard most of
them, and enjoyed many, but never got excited about him. Not about
this one either, but it's going down so easy and pleasantly that
I'm pretty satisfied.
A- [sp]
Superposition: II (2024, We Jazz): Finnish
jazz group, second album, names: Linda Fredriksson (alto/bari
sax), Adele Sauros (soprano/tenor sax), Mikael Saastamoinen
(bass), Olavi Louhivuori (drums), all with separate song
credits.
B+(**) [sp]
Verraco: Breathe . . . Godspeed (2024, Timedance,
EP): Colombian DJ/producer, has one album (2020) and a half-dozen
EPs, this one 4 tracks, 21:14. Nice one.
B+(***) [sp]
Morgan Wade: Obsessed (2024, Ladylike/RCA
Nashville): Country singer-songwriter, fourth album since 2018,
last couple albums have been most impressive. This one sounds
fine, but the preponderance of slow ones lulled me into apathy --
until I realized how many different songs caught my attention
on one spin or another.
A- [sp]
Gillian Welch/David Rawlings: Woodland (2024,
Acony): Folk singer-songwriters, Welch grew up in a show biz
family in New York before parting for Nashville in 1992, with
a striking debut album in 1996. Rawlings played guitar on that
album, and their partnership grew from there, with releasing
albums under his name from 2009, and under both names in 2020.
B+(***) [sp]
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
Alan Tomlinson Trio: Loft 1993 (1993 [2024],
Scatter Archive): British trombonist (1947-2023), had an album
in 1981, mostly played with Barry Guy (LJCO) and Peter Brötzmann,
trio here with Dave Tucker (guitar) and Roger Turner (drums).
B+(**) [bc]
Unholy Modal Rounders: Unholier Than Thou 7/7/77
(1977 [2024], Don Giovanni, 2CD): Village folkies Peter Stampfel
and Steve Weber started recording old folk songs as Holy Modal
Rounders in 1964, releasing two albums on Fantasy that are now
beloved classics. Weber played guitar and straight man, while
Stampfel's antic vocals were even scratcher than his fiddle,
and they just got weirder, even altering their name in 1976
when they joined with Michael Hurley and Jeffrey Fredericks
for one of the greatest albums ever, Have Moicy!. This
live date picks up some songs from there, plus a nice mix of
older tunes, some trad, plus covers given their unique spin --
"Goldfinger" I've heard before, but "I Must Be Dreaming" (the
Coasters or Robins, not Neil Sedaka) is even better.
A [sp]
Old music:
Ahmad Jamal: Ahmad's Blues (1958 [1994], Chess):
Pianist (1930-2023), born Frederick Russell Jones in Pittsburgh,
changed his name on his conversion to Islam in 1950, recordings
start with Okeh in 1951, his January 1958 trio At the Pershing:
But Not for Me was widely regarded as a breakthrough. Same
trio here -- Israel Crosby (bass) and Vernell Fournier (drums) --
at the Spotlite Club in DC, in September.
B+(***) [sp]
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
Benjamin Boone: Confluence: The Ireland Sessions (Origin) [09-20]
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.
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.
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.
[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."
[09-16]
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."
[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.
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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
[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:
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.
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:
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."
[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.
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."
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."
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.
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:
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.
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."
[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."
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."
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."
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.
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."
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.
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."
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.
[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."
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.
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").
[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."
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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:
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.
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."
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.
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."
[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."
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.
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."
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.")
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.
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."
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."
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."
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.
[09-09]
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.
[09-12]
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").
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.
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.
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."
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):
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."
[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).
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 (20775 total)
