Blog Entries [0 - 9]Tuesday, November 5, 2024
Music Week
November archive
(in progress).
Music: Current count 43118 [43099] rated (+19), 36 [41] unrated (-5).
We got to the polls later than I expected, so I had some time
early today to fiddle with, and I used it to add more links to
yesterday's
Speaking of Which (up to 159, from 135). Vox emailed me a
couple election anxiety/guide articles, so I figured it wouldn't
hurt to cite them. I sometimes imagine going back through the
blog for notes to write a journal-type book, so it's nice to
have a fairly competent record, even if much of it is of passing
interest. My latest concept for such a book would be subtitled
What I Learned During the 2024 Election. Most of what I've
learned is how irrational people can be in weighing matters of
politics. Main downside to developing that idea is that most of
my notes are from people who are well-informed and exceptionally
rational. Explaining the 40-60% of Americans who are supposed to
be voting for Trump today is going to take more research, and
it's not likely to be pretty.
I'm a bit surprise that the rated count this week is only 19,
but we're a couple days short of a week, and in a bit of a down
cycle. I am finally nearing the end of my bedroom/closet project.
I did some more caulking today, around the trim (which already
has one coat, but in various places needs another). I'll sand
and paint tomorrow. It'll probably take another day to touch up
spots where I colored outside the lines. I'm a pretty lousy
painter, so that happens more often than it should. That leaves
the problem with the ceiling (masking tape pulled down strips
and splotches of paint), but I'm going to kick that back to the
guy who plastered and painted the ceiling in the first place,
and it shouldn't take him long.
I got all the paneling up in the closet, including new boards for
the ceiling. I put the lights back up this afternoon. Next thing
there is to cut some trim boards and screw them in place. The boards
are prepped, and most of that should go pretty quickly. I don't have
a plan for finishing it yet, but we don't have to do that part before
moving back into the bedroom (actually, more of an office, but it
has a futon, which works for a spare bed). What we will still need
to do is cleaning, sorting, and reorganizing, but that's an ongoing
process everywhere.
My next big project should be the Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll.
I'll try to set up the website next week, and get invites out the
week after. Biggest uncertainty there is communications, as my email
list last year (and mid-year) proved pretty unreliable. That probably
means paying for a commercial list provider, as it's almost impossible
to avoid spam blacklisting on your own -- presumably, that is doable
if that's your business, otherwise you wouldn't have a business. We
also need to vet new critics. I'm thinking of setting up an advisory
board to help on things like that, as well as to sanity-check my own
thinking and coding. If you're interested in helping, or just know
of a critic we should be polling, please get in touch.
As for my own writing, the next two months should be a good time
to re-evaluate what, if anything, I still might try to work on.
I've resisted checking the news all evening, which should hold
out until I get this (and the Speaking of Which) updates up, around
11 PM CDT.
New records reviewed this week:
T.K. Blue: Planet Bluu (2022 [2024], Jaja):
Saxophonist, mostly alto, b. 1953 in New York as Eugene Rhynie,
parents Jamaican and Trinidadian, recorded several albums as
Talib Kibwe (1987-96), side credits including Randy Weston and
Sam Rivers, made his debut as T.K. Blue in 1999. Very spirited
mainstream group here.
B+(**) [cd]
John Cale: POPtical Illusion (2024, Domino):
Originally from Wales, made his mark in New York as a co-founder
of the Velvet Underground, playing electric violin on first two
albums. Now 82, with his 18th studio album, not counting various
collaborations (including notable ones with Terry Riley, Lou
Reed, and Brian Eno) and many soundtracks. This reminds me much
of his early 1970s albums, his baroque phase, not that he hasn't
picked up a few tricks since then.
B+(***) [sp]
Avishai Cohen: Ashes to Gold (2023 [2024], ECM):
Israeli trumpet player (not the bassist), albums since 2002.
Quartet with piano (Yonathan Avishai), bass (Barak Mori), and
drums (Ziv Ravitz). This is quite nice.
B+(**) [sp]
The Cure: Songs of a Lost World (2024, Fiction):
English art rock band, principally Robert Smith, debut 1979, one
of those 1980s bands other people seemed to like but I never
developed any attachment to. Hit their commercial peak with
Wish in 1992 (UK: 1, US: 2), dropped back to a record
every four years after that, until 2008, then a 16-year gap
until this one, which I was surprised to find well reviewed
(91/29 at AOTY). I recall very little of that, but there are
impressive patches here, and some not so.
B+(*) [sp]
The Dare: What's Wrong With New York? (2024,
Republic): New rave singer-songwriter Harrison Smith, from Los
Angeles, previously known as Turtlenecked, had a 2022 single
that got him noticed by Charli XCX, giving him a bit role on
Brat. First album (as The Dare, anyway), 10 songs,
27:24, makes an impression.
B+(*) [sp]
Joe Fahey: Andrea's Exile (2024, Rough Fish):
Folkie singer-songwriter, another nice album.
B+(**) [sp]
Nubya Garcia: Odyssey (2024, Concord Jazz):
British tenor saxophonist, parents from Guyana and Trinidad,
debut EP in 2017, various lineups here, including vocal
features for Esperanza Spalding and Georgia Anne Muldrow
plus her own spoken word. I'm not wild about that turn, but
I'm more bothered by the soundtrack texturing.
B [sp]
Rich Halley 4: Dusk and Dawn (2023 [2024],
Pine Eagle): Tenor saxophonist, from Portland, has run up a string
of superb albums ever since I first noticed him in 2005, about the
time when he retired from his day job (as I recall, but he's 77
now, and had a couple earlier albums I still haven't heard). His
last two albums were elevated by pianist Matthew Shipp. Here he's
back with his old quartet: Michael Vlatkovich (trombone), Clyde
Reed (bass), and Carson Halley (drums, his son). Little if any
drop here, the trombone a definite plus.
A- [cd]
Jazzmeia Horn: Messages (2024, Empress Legacy):
Jazz singer, from Dallas, fourth album since 2017, impressive
range, some scat, I'm unclear on credits.
B+(**) [sp]
Randy Ingram: Aries Dance (2024, Sounderscore):
Pianist, originally from Alaska, studied at USC and NEC, has
a half-dozen albums since 2009, this a nice mainstream trio
with Drew Gress (bass) and Billy Hart (drums), playing six
originals and three standards.
B+(**) [cd]
Ryan Keberle & Catharsis: Music Is Connection
(2023-24 [2024], Alternate Side): Trombone player, albums since
2006, adopted the group name in 2012, has increasingly used vocals,
sings some himself but mostly Camila Meza here (also on guitar).
With Jorge Roeder (bass) and Eric Doob (drums), plus a spot for
saxophonist Scott Robinson. I like the trombone more than the
vocals, but the latter grew on me.
B+(***) [cd]
Jason Keiser: Kind of Kenny (2024, OA2): Guitarist
(acoustic, steel string & nylon string), from San Francisco,
second album, also features John Stowell (electric guitar &
baritone fretless guitar), with a tribute to Kenny Wheeler, with
Erik Jekabson (trumpet/flugelhorn), Michael Zilber (tenor/soprano
sax), and Danielle Wertz (vocals).
B+(**) [cd]
Laura Marling: Patterns in Repeat (2024,
Chrysalis/Partisan): English singer-songwriter, seventh studio
album since 2008, a quiet affair of voice and acoustic guitar,
against a background of dubbed-in strings.
B+(**) [sp]
Thollem McDonas: Infinite-Sum Game (2023 [2024],
ESP-Disk): Pianist, originally from Bay Area, many albums since 2004,
often just goes as Thollem. Solo set, recorded in Dublin, pretty
engaging as these things go.
B+(***) [cd]
Nacka Forum: Peaceful Piano (2024, Moserobie):
Swedish quartet, founded 1999, not sure whether they qualify as
"all-stars," but all players you should know on their own: Goran
Kajfes (trumpet), Jonas Kullhammar (reeds), Johan Berthling (bass),
Kresten Osgood (drums), with a couple guest spots for Lars-Göran
Ulander (alto sax, "known from the legendary '60s recordings").
No piano. None needed.
A- [cd]
NLE Choppa: Slut Szn (2024, Warner, EP):
Memphis rapper Bryson Potts, first singles/mixtape 2018, two
albums, this is 8-song, 21:56 set is counted as his eighth
mixtape. Very jumpy, but runs down fast.
B+(*) [sp]
Pony Boy All-Star Big Band: This Is Now: Live at
Boxley's (2024, Pony Boy): Seattle-based big band, led
by drummer/arranger Greg Williamson, also exists as a 7-piece
"mini big band." Seems to be their first album, the group taking
its name from an independent jazz label that has several dozen
other albums, but few names I'm familiar with. My promo came
with a bonus CD (two tracks, 15:58, from an earlier date).
B+(**) [cd]
Brandon Seabrook: Object of Unknown Function
(2023 [2024], Pyroclastic): Plays banjo and guitar, solo here,
supplemented by electronics/tapes. I'm impressed, but without
much pleasure.
B+(*) [cd]
Luke Winslow-King: Flash-a-Magic (2024, Bloodshot):
Singer-songwriter, originally from Michigan, at least eight albums
since 2008.
B+(*) [sp]
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
Terry Gibbs Dream Band: Vol. 7: The Lost Tapes, 1959
(1959 [2024], Whaling City Sound): Vibraphonist, still ticking at
100 -- his first album was Good Vibes in 1951, his "last"
the quite good 92 Years Young from 2017, or perhaps 2022's
The Terry Gibbs Songbook, credited to Terry Gibbs Legacy
Band, which he played some on, and he's still listed as producer
here. He led a big band in 1959, with Mel Lewis on drums, Bill
Holman on tenor sax (and arranging), and other cool jazz notables,
with Marty Paich, Med Flory, Manny Albam, and Al Cohn among the
arrangers. They produced four albums through 1961, starting with
Launching a New Band, and since 1986's Dream Band
various of their concert tapes have been released, through 2006's
superb Vol. 6. This latecomer is one of the best, ferocious
swing and crackling power extended over 71 minutes.
A- [cd]
Old music:
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- Lemadi Trio: Canonical Discourse (A New Wave of Jazz Axis) [10-15]
- Tonus: Analog Deviation (A New Wave of Jazz Axis) [10-15]
- Transition Unit: Fade Value (A New Wave of Jazz Axis) [10-15]
- Martina Verhoeven Quintet: Indicator Light (Live at Paradox 2023) (A New Wave of Jazz Axis) [10-15]
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Monday, November 4, 2024
Speaking of Which
Draft file opened 2024-11-01 5:10 PM.
Trying to wrap this up Monday afternoon, but I keep sinking into
deep comments, like the
Müller entry below, to which I could easily
add another 3-5 paragraphs. Now I need to take a long break and do
some housework, so I'm not optimistic that I'll be able to add much
before posting late this evening. We're among the seeming minority
who failed to advance vote, so will trek to the polls tomorrow and
do our bit. As I've noted throughout (and even more emphatically in my
Top 10 Reasons to Vote for Harris vs. Trump), I'm voting for
Harris. While Kansas is considered a surefire Trump state -- the
silver lining here is that we're exposed to relatively little
campaigning -- around my neighborhood the Harris signs outnumber
the Trump signs about 10-0 (seriously, I haven't seen a single
one, although I've heard of Harris signs being stolen). Not much
down ballot activity either, although if I find any more Democrats,
I'll vote for them (minimally, our state legislators, who are
actually pretty good).
In the end, it got late and I gave up. Perhaps I'll add some more
tidbits tomorrow, but my more modest plans are to go vote, stop at
a restaurant we like after voting, and finish the bedroom trim paint.
Presumably there'll be a Music Week before the day's done, but not
really a lot to report there.
Soon as I got up Tuesday, I found myself adding a couple "chatter"
items, so I guess I'm doing updates on Election Day. In which case,
I might as well break my rule and include a sample of the extremely
topical items that will become obsolete as soon as they start counting
ballots. I'll keep them segregated here:
Top story threads:
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
Ramzy Baroud: [10-31]
Israel's extremists plan for the day after the genocide: "Gaza is ours,
forever."
Dave DeCamp: [11-05]
Netanyahu fires Defense Minister Gallant: His co-defendant on
genocide charges, they've evidently had a falling out with Gallant
"calling
for Israel to make 'painful concessions' to reach a hostage deal
with Hamas."
Jason Ditz: [11-04]
Israel imposed evacuation in much of East Lebanon, but many attacks
outside those zones.
Anis Germani: [11-04]
Is Israel using depleted uranium to bomb Lebanon? "Israel's use
of 80 bunker-buster bombs to assassinate Hasan Nasrallah has raised
concerns that it is using depleted uranium in its bombardment of
Lebanon. We need an impartial investigation given Israel's track
record of using prohibited weapons."
Tareq S Hajjaj:
Qassam Muaddi:
[11-01]
Israel is hitting a wall in Lebanon. What is its endgame?
"Israel's military campaign in souther Lebanon is failing. As
Israel runs out of options, the US is scrambling for a way out
of the Lebanese quagmire -- including by reviving hopes for a
Gaza ceasefire." I don't trust anyone's reporting on ground
operations in Lebanon, but "quagmire" implies that Israel is
stuck, which I doubt. My impression is that Israel's bombing
and ground operations in Lebanon are wanton and capricious --
things that they mostly do for the hell of it, perhaps to degrade
Hezbollah, or simply to show the Lebanese people the peril they
blame on Hezbollah, but nothing they can't retreat and regroup
from if the going gets a bit sticky. One report cited here:
Amos Harel: [Israel's defense chiefs say fighting
in Gaza and Lebanon has run its course. Does Netanyahu agree?
The implication here is that Israel's defense leaders are finding
it increasingly difficult to justify further operations on defense
grounds. That they are continuing is a purely political directive,
coming from Netanyahu, for purely political ends.
[11-04]
Fake document scandal reveals Israeli efforts to undermine ceasefire
talks: "A scandal over fabricated documents allegedly leaked
by an aid to Benjamin Netanyahu has revealed Israel's efforts to
sabotage Gaza ceasefire negotiations."
Jonathan Ofir: [11-02]
Israeli justice minister calls for 20-year prison sentence for
citizens promoting sanctions against the state: "Israeli
Justice Minister Yariv Levin is demanding a 20-year prison
sentence for citizens who call for sanctions against Israeli
leaders and military personnel."
Fayha Shalash/Mera Aladam: [11-04]
Armed Israeli settlers torch Palestinian homes, cars and olive
trees across West Bank.
America's Israel (and Israel's America):
Michael Arria:
Connor Echols: [10-29]
Nation building is back! "Israel is breaking the Middle East,
and the US is lining up to rebuild it." Well, talking about it,
with lots of strings, including Israel calling all the shots.
Echols used to be a staff writer for Responsible Statecraft,
but seems to have landed in Robert Wright's
Nnzero Substack.
Robert E Hunter: [10-31]
Israel using US election to take free hand against Gaza, Lebanon:
"But even as a lame duck, will Biden do the right thing? Likely
not."
Anatol Lieven/Ted Snider: [10-23]
Biden's 'leadership' is blowing the lid off two wars: "The
president promised to contain Gaza and Ukraine but both conflicts
have been a slow burn to something much bigger."
Justin Logan: [10-15]
No, Iran isn't America's 'greatest adversary': "VP Harris might
have been trying to score points, but her comments are absurd."
Paul R Pillar: [10-21]
41yrs ago: 220 Marines involved in Israel's war on Lebanon killed:
If the US hadn't got ensnared in Tel Aviv's affairs, the bombing
would never have happened."
Mitchell Plitnick: [11-02]
Israel's limited Iran attack reflects a dangerous regional agenda:
"Even though Israel's much-anticipated strike on Iran was smaller
than expected, the threat of a potential global war may actually
be growing."
Dave Reed:
Israel vs. world opinion:
Juan Cole: [11-02]
As UN warns entire population of Gaza is at risk of death, Bill
Clinton says he's not keeping score.
Here's a report on Clinton's campaign for Harris:
Nada Elia: [11-01]
On vote shaming, and lesser evils: "I will not be shamed into
voting for a candidate who supports the genocide of the Palestinian
people, and no one who supports progressive issues should be either."
Hers is a vote against Harris -- not sure in favor of who or what --
and I think we have to respect her conviction, even if one disagrees
with her conclusion. We need people opposed to genocide more than we
need voters for Harris, not that the two need be exclusive. Elections
never just test one red line, so they require us to look beyond simple
moral judgments and make a messy political one. Agreed that Harris
fails on this red line -- as does her principal (and only practical)
opponent, arguably even worse[*] -- but there are other issues at play,
some where Harris is significantly preferable to Trump, none where
the opposite is the case. I don't have any qualms or doubts about
voting for Harris vs. Trump. But I respect people who do.
[*] Harris, like Biden (with greater weight of responsibility),
is a de facto supporter of Israel committing genocide, but she
does not endorse the concept, and remains in denial as to what
is happening (unaccountably and, if you insist, inexcusably, as
there is little room for debating the facts). Trump, on the other
hand, appears to have explicitly endorsed genocide (e.g., in his
comments like "finish the job!"). Both the racism that separates
out groups for collective punishment -- of which genocide is an
extreme degree -- and the penchant for violent punishment are
usually right-wing traits, which makes them much more likely for
Trump than for Harris. And Trump's right-wing political orientation
is more likely to encourage and sustain genocide in the future, as
it derives from his character and core political beliefs.
Some other pieces on the genocide voting conundrum (probably
more scattered about, since I added this grouping rather late):
- >
Chris Hedges: [10-31]
Israel's war on journalism.
There are some 4,000 foreign reporters accredited in Israel to cover
the war. They stay in luxury hotels. They go on dog and pony shows
orchestrated by the Israeli military. They can, on rare occasions,
be escorted by Israeli soldiers on lightning visits to Gaza, where
they are shown alleged weapons caches or tunnels the military says
are used by Hamas.
They dutifully attend daily press conferences. They are given
off-the-record briefings by senior Israeli officials who feed them
information that often turns out to be untrue. They are Israel's
unwitting and sometimes witting propagandists, stenographers for
the architects of apartheid and genocide, hotel room warriors.
Bertolt Brecht acidly called them the spokesmen of the spokesmen.
And how many foreign reporters are there in Gaza? None.
The Palestinian reporters in Gaza who fill the void often pay
with their lives. They are targeted, along with their families,
for assassination.
At least 134 journalists and media workers in Gaza, the West
Bank and Lebanon, have been killed and 69 have been imprisoned,
according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, marking the
deadliest period for journalists since the organization began
collecting data in 1992.
Jonathan Ofir: [10-30]
New UN Special Rapporteur report warns Israel's genocide in Gaza
could be expanding to the West Bank: "A new report by Francesca
Albanese."
Wamona Wadi: [11-03]
CNN finally covered the Gaza genocide -- from the point of view of
Israeli troops with PTSD: Don't laugh. That's a real thing, a
form of casualty that's rarely calculated, or for that matter even
anticipated, by war planners. It should be counted as reason enough
not to start wars that can possibly be avoided, which is pretty much
all of them. Perhaps it pales in comparison to the other forms of
trauma unleashed by war, but it should be recognized and treated
the only way possible, with peace.
Videos: I have very little patience
for watching videos on computer, but the one with Suárez came
highly recommended, and the title shows us something we need to
be talking about now. When I got there, I found much more, so
I noted a few more promising titles (not all vetted, but most
likely to be very informative).
Election notes: First of all, I'm deliberately
not reporting on polling, which right or wrong will be obsolete in a
couple days, and saves me from looking at most of this week's new
reporting. Two more notes this week: this section has sprawled this
week, as I've wound up putting many pieces that cover both candidates,
or otherwise turn on the election results, here; also, I'm struck by
how little I'm finding about down-ballot races (even though a lot of
money is being spent there). I'm sure I could find some surveys, as
well as case stories, but Trump-Harris has so totally overshadowed
them that I'd have to dig. And even though for most of my life, I've
done just that, I feel little compulsion to do so right now.
Thomas B Edsall: [10-30]
Let me ask a question we never had to ask before: A survey of
"a wide range of scholars and political strategists," asking not
who will win, but who will blamed by the losers.
Saleema Gul: [10-31]
A community divided: With Gaza on their minds, Muslim and Arab Americans
weigh their options ahead of election day: Such as they are, which
isn't much.
John Herrman:
Democrats are massively outspending the GOP on social media:
"It's not even close -- $182 million to just $45 million, according
to one new estimate." As I recall, Republicans were way ahead on
social media in 2016 (with or without Russian contributions), and
that was seen as a big factor. (But also, as I recall, Facebook's
algorithms amplified Trump's hateful lies, while Democratic memes
were deemed too boring to bother with.)
Ben Kamisar: [11-03]
Nearly $1 billion has been spent on political ads over the last
week. Most of this money, staggering amounts, is being spent
on down-ballot races, including state referenda.
Howard Lisnoff: [11-01]
We're in some deep shit: Now that's a clickbait title, as you
have to click to get to anything specific, of which many subjects
are possibilities. Turns out it's mostly about Jill Stein: not what
you'd call an endorsement -- his own view is summed up in the Emma
Goldman quote, "if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal" --
but using anti-Stein hysteria as a prism for exposing the vacuousness
of the Democrats, as if Trump wasn't in the race at all (his name only
appears once, in a quote about 2016). Links herein:
Matt Flegenheimer: [10-23]
Jill Stein won't stop. No matter who asks. "People in Stein's
life have implored her to abandon her bid for president, lest she
throw the election to Donald Trump. She's on the ballot in almost
every critical state." This piece is, naturally, totally about
how she might siphon votes from Harris allowing Trump to win,
with nothing about her actual positions, or how they contrast
with those of Harris and Trump. Even Israel only gets a single
offhand mention:
Her bid can feel precision-engineered to damage Ms. Harris with
key subgroups: young voters appalled by the United States' support
for Israel; former supporters of Bernie Sanders's presidential
campaigns who feel abandoned by Democrats; Arab American and
Muslim voters, especially in Michigan, where fury at Ms. Harris
and President Biden has been conspicuous for months.
The Sanders comment seems like a totally gratuitous dig --
he is
on record as solidly for Harris even considering Israel, and
few of his supporters are likely to disagree. The other two points
are the same, and have been widely debated elsewhere (including
several links in this post), but the key thing there is that while
Stein may benefit from their disaffection, she is not the cause of
it. The cause is American support for genocide, which includes
Biden and Harris, but also Trump, Kennedy, and nearly everyone in
Congress.
Glenn Greenwald:
Kamala's worst answers yet? A 38:31 video with no transcript,
something I have zero interest in watching, although the comments
are suitably bizarre (most amusing: "Consequences of an arrogant
oligarchy and descending empire").
Dan Mangan: [11-02]
Shock poll shows Harris leading Trump in Iowa. An exception to
my "no polls stories" policy. My wife mentioned this poll to me, as
a possible reason to vote for Harris in Kansas where she had been
planning on a write-in.
Parker Molloy: [11-04]
We already know one big loser in this election: the mainstream
media: "When your most loyal supporters start questioning
your integrity, that's not just a red flag -- it's a siren blaring
in the newsroom."
Clara Ence Morse/Luis Melgar/Maeve Reston: [10-28]
Meet the megmadonors pumping over $2.5 billion into the election:
The breakdown of the top 50 is $1.6B Republican, $752M Democratic,
with $214M "supportive of both parties" (mostly crypto and realtor
groups). The top Democratic booster is Michael Bloomberg, but his
$47.4M this time is a drop in the bucket compared to the money he
spent in 2020 to derail Bernie Sanders.
Nicole Narea: [11-01]
2024 election violence is already happening: "How much worse
could it get if Trump loses?" I'm more worried about: how much
worse could it get if Trump wins? It's not just frustration that
drives violence. There's also the feeling that you can get away
with it -- one example of which is the idea that Trump will pardon
you, as he's already promised to the January 6 hoodlums. Nor should
we be too sanguine in thinking that frustration violence can only
come from the right. While rights are much more inclined to violence,
anyone can get frustrated and feel desperate, and the right has
offered us many examples of that turning violent.
Margaret Simons: [11-02]
Can democracy work without journalism? With the US election upon
us, we may be about to find out: "Most serious news organisations
are not serving the politically disengaged, yet it's these voters
who will decide the next president." Seems like a good question,
but much depends on what you mean by journalism. Although I have
many complaints about quality, quantity doesn't seem to be much
of a problem -- except, as compared to the quantity of PR, which
is over the top, and bleeding into everything else. As for "soon
find out," I doubt that. While honest journalism should have
decided this election several months ago, the commonplace that
we're now facing a "toss up" suggests that an awful lot of folks
have been very poorly informed. Either that, or they don't give
a fuck -- (not about their votes, but about what consequences they
may bring -- which is a proposition that is hard to dismiss. There
are many things that I wish reporters would research better, but
Donald Trump isn't one of them.
Jeffrey St Clair: [11-01]
Notes on a phony campaign: strange days.
Margaret Sullivan: [11-04]
The candidates' closing campaign messages could not be more different:
Well, aside from automatic support for America's global war machine,
extending even to genocide in Israel, and the unexamined conviction
that "the business of America is business," and that government's
job is to promote that business everywhere. But sure, there are
differences enough to decide a vote on: "There is hateful rhetoric
and threats of retribution from one side, and messages of inclusion
and good will from the other." But haven't we seen this "bad cop,
good cop" schtick before? Or "speak softly, but carry a big stick"?
These are the sort of differences that generate a lot of heat, but
very little light.
Zoe Williams: [10-31]
An excess of billionaires is destabilising politics -- just as academics
predicted: "Politicians have always courted the wealthy, but Elon
Musk and co represent a new kind of donor, and an unprecedented danger
to democracy."
Endorsements:
Trump:
The New Republic: [10-21]
The 100 worst things Trump has done since descending that escalator:
"Some were just embarrassing. Many were horrific. All of them should
disqualify him from another four years in the White House." I ran this
last week, but under the circumstances let's run it again. If I had
the time, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to write up 20+ more, many of
which would land in the top 20. For instance, Israel only merits 2
mentions, at 76 and 71, and the latter was more about him attacking
George Soros: no mention of moving the embassy to Jerusalem, or many
other favors that contributed to the Oct. 7 revolt and genocide.
Ditching the Iran deal came in at 8, but no mention of
assassinating Iranian general Qasem Soleimani (I hope I don't
need to explain why). There is only one
casual reference to Afghanistan (22. Escalates the drone war), none
that he protracted the war four years, knowing that Biden would be
blamed for his surrender deal to the Taliban. He gets chided for his
being "pen pals with Kim Jong Un," but not for failing to turn his
diplomacy into an actual deal. Not all of these items belong in a
Trivial Pursuit game, but most would be overshadowed by real policy
disasters if reporters could look beyond their Twitter feeds.
Zack Beauchamp: [11-02]
It's not alarmist: A second Trump term really is an extinction-level
threat to democracy: "Why a second Trump term is a mortal threat
to democracy -- though perhaps not the way you think." Having written
a recent book --
The Reactionary Spirit: How America's Most Insidious Political Tradition
Swept the World (I bought a copy, but haven't gotten into it
yet -- on this broad theme, he predictably offers us a rehash with a
minor update. It's nice to see him dialing back the alarmism, enough
to see the real longer-term erosion:
If the first Trump term was akin to the random destruction of a toddler,
a second would be more like the deliberate demolition of a saboteur.
With the benefit of four years of governing experience and four more
years of planning, Trump and his team have concluded that the problem
with their first game of Jenga was that they simply did not remove
enough of democracy's blocks.
I do not think that, over the course of four more years, Trump could
use these plans to successfully build a fascist state that would jail
critics and install himself in power indefinitely. This is in part
because of the size and complexity of the American state, and in part
because that's not really the kind of authoritarianism that works in
democracies nowadays.
But over the course of those years, he could yank out so many of
American democracy's basic building blocks that the system really
could be pushed to the brink of collapse. . . .
A second Trump term risks replacing Rawls's virtuous cycle with
a vicious one. As Trump degrades government, following the Orbánist
playbook with at least some success, much of the public would
justifiably lose their already-battered faith in the American
system of government. And whether it could long survive such a
disaster is anyone's guess.
While "toddler" is certainly apt, eight years later he hasn't
changed that aspect much, and in many ways he's even regressed.
His narcissistic petulance is ever more pronounced, which may be
why many people dismiss the threat of a second term as hysteria.
No matter how naughty he wants to be, even as president he can't
do all that much damage on his own. He looks like, and sounds
like, the same deranged blowhard he's always been, but one thing
is very different this time: he and his activist cult have found
each other. As president, he will empower them from day one, and
they'll not only do things he can only dream of, but they will
feed him new fantasies, carefully tailored to flatter him and
his noxious notions of greatness, because they know, as we all
should realize by now, that job one is stoking his ego.
No doubt much of what they try will blow up before it causes
real harm -- nobody thinks that, even with a Republican Senate,
Big Pharma is going to let RFK Jr. destroy their vaccination cash
cow -- and much of what does get promulgated and/or enacted will
surely blow back, driving his initially record-low approval rates
into the ground. But he knows better than to let GOP regulars
construct "guard rails" with responsible "adults in the room."
The loyalty of everyone he might hire now can be gauged by their
track record -- both what they've said in the past, and how low
they can bow and scrape now (Vance is an example of the latter,
of how to redeem yourself in Trump's eyes, although I'd surmise
that Trump's still pretty wary of him).
PS: Here's a video of Beauchamp talking about his book:
The realignment: The rise of reactionary politics.
Aaron Blake: [11-01]
Trump's latest violent fantasy: "Trump keeps painting pictures
of violence against his foes despite allegations of fascism. And
Republicans keep shrugging."
Sidney Blumenthal: [11-02]
Donald Trump's freakshow continues unabated: "Trump insists on
posing as the salient question of the election: are you crazier
today than you were four years ago?"
Kevin T Dugan: [11-01]
Wall Street's big bet on a Trump win: "Gold, bitcoin, prisons, and
oil are all thought to be the big moneymakers for the financial class
if Trump wins another term." More compelling reasons to sink Trump.
Michelle Goldberg: [11-01]
What I truly expect if an unconstrained Trump retakes power.
Steven Greenhouse: [10-30]
Trump wants you to believe that the US economy is doing terribly. It's
untrue: "Despite his claims to the contrary, unemployment is low,
inflation is way down, and job growth is remarkably strong." But unless
you're rich, can you really tell? And if you're rich, the choice comes
down to: if you merely want to get richer, you'd probably be better
off with the Democrats (who have consistently produced significantly
higher growth rates, ever since the Roaring '20s crashed and burned),
but if you really want to feel the power that comes with riches, you
can go with one of your own, and risk the embarrassment. And funny
thing is, once you've decided which side you're on, your view of the
economy will self-confirm. From any given vantage point, you can look
up or down. That's a big part of the reason why these stories, while
true enough, have virtually no impact (except among the neoliberal
shills that write them).
Arun Gupta: [11-01]
Triumph of the swill: A night at the Garden with Trump and MAGA.
About as good a blow-by-blow account as I've seen so far. Ends on
this note:
Eight years wiser and with four years to plan, Trump, Miller, and
the rest of MAGA are telling us they plan to occupy America. They
are itching to use the military to terrify, subjugate, and ethnically
cleanse. The only liberation will be for their violent desires and
that of their Herrenvolk who went wild at mentions of mass deportations.
They loved the idea.
Also by Gupta:
[10-29]
Night of the Fash: "At Madison Square Garden with Trump and his
lineup of third-rate grifters and bigots." An earlier, shorter
draft.
[11-04]
Kamala says she'll "end the war in Gaza": "For opponents of
Israel's genocide, sticking to principles gets results. But for
Harris, her flip-flop is a sign of desperation." I don't really
believe her -- it's going to take more than a sound bite to stand
up to the Israel lobby -- but I would welcome the sentiment, and
not just make fun of her. It may be desperate, but it's also a
tiny bit of timely hope, much more plausible than the magic Trump
imagines.
Margaret Hartmann: [11-01]
Trump's ties to Jeffrey Epstein: Everything we've learned: "Michael
Wolff claims he has Epstein tapes about Trump, and saw compromising
Trump photos."
Antonia Hitchens:
[11-03]
Trump's final days on the campaign trail: "Under assault from all
sides, in the last weeks of his campaign, the former President speaks
often of enemies from within, including those trying to take his life."
[10-19]
Inside the Republican National Committee's poll-watching army:
"The RNC says it has recruited tens of thousands of volunteers to
observe the voting process at precincts across the country. Their
accounts of alleged fraud could, as one Trump campaign official
put it, "establish the battlefield" for after November 5th."
Chris Hooks: [11-02]
The brainless ideas guiding Trump's foreign policy: "Conservatives
recently gathered in Washington to explain how they would rule the
world in a second Trump term. The result was incoherent, occasionally
frightening, and often very dumb." My first reaction was that one
could just as easily write "The brainless ideas guiding Democrats'
foreign policy," but then I saw that the author is referring to a
specific conference, the Richard Nixon Foundation's "Grand Strategy
Summit."
Marina Hyde: [11-01]
Trump may become president again -- but he's already a useful idiot
to the mega rich: "They make nice with him when it suits, ridicule
him when he's not listening. Their lives are money and gossip -- with
him they get both."
Ben Jacobs: [11-04]
The evolving phenomenon of the Trump rally: "Rarely boring,
always changing, and essential to his appeal."
Hannah Knowles/Marianne LeVine/Isaac Arnsdorf: [11-01]
Trump embraces violent rhetoric, suggests Liz Cheney should have
guns 'trained on her face': "The GOP nominee often describes
graphic and gruesome scenes of crimes and violence, real and
imagined."
Eric Levitz: [11-01]
Elon Musk assures voters that Trump's victory would deliver "temporary
hardship"; "And he's half right." Meaning the hardship, but not
necessarily "temporarily":
Now, as the race enters the homestretch, Musk is trying to clinch
Trump's victory with a bracing closing argument: If our side wins,
you will experience severe economic pain.
If elected, Trump has vowed to put Musk in charge of a "government
efficiency commission," which would identify supposedly wasteful
programs that should be eliminated or slashed. During a telephone
town hall last Friday, Musk said his commission's work would
"necessarily involve some temporary hardship."
Days later, Musk suggested that this budget cutting -- combined
with Trump's mass deportation plan -- would cause a market-crashing
economic "storm." . . .
This is one of the more truthful arguments that Musk has made
for Trump's election, which is to say, only half of it is false.
If Trump delivers on his stated plans, Americans will indeed suffer
material hardship. But such deprivation would neither be necessary
for -- nor conducive to -- achieving a healthier or more sustainable
economy.
After discussing tariffs and mass deportation, Levitz offer a
section on "gutting air safety, meat inspections, and food stamps
will not make the economy healthier." He then offers us a silver
lining:
Trump's supporters might reasonably argue that none of this should
trouble us, since he rarely fulfills his campaign promises and will
surely back away from his economically ruinous agenda once in office.
But "don't worry, our candidate is a huge liar" does not strike me
as a much better message than "prepare for temporary hardship."
Nicholas Liu: [10-31]
Trump nearly slips attempting to enter a garbage truck for a campaign
stunt.
Carlos Lozada: [10-31]
Donald and Melania Trump were made for each other: Basically
a review of her book, Melania. The title could just as
well read "deserve each other," but that suggests a measure of
equality that has never been remotely true.
Melania's relationship with Donald is among the book's haziest features.
She depicts her initial attraction to him in superficial terms: She was
"captivated by his charm," was "drawn to his magnetic energy" and
appreciated his "polished business look." He was not "flashy or dramatic,"
she writes, but "down-to-earth." And though we know how he speaks about
women in private, Melania writes that "in private, he revealed himself
as a gentleman, displaying tenderness and thoughtfulness." The one
example she offers of his thoughtfulness is a bit unnerving: "Donald
to this day calls my personal doctor to check on my health, to ensure
that I am OK and that they are taking perfect care of me."
Clarence Lusane: [10-31]
The black case against Donald Trump: "Hold Trump accountable for
a lifetime of anti-black racism."
Branko Marcetic: [10-31]
'Anti-war' Trump trying to outflank Harris at critical moment:
"It may be a cynical strategy, but he seems to have read the room
while she has chosen a more confused, if not hawkish, path." This
has long been my greatest worry in the election.
Amanda Marcotte:
Peter McLaren: [11-03]
Donald Trump versus a microphone: a head bobbing performance.
Jan-Werner Müller: [11-04]
What if Trump's campaign is cover for a slow-motion coup?
"Even if Trump can't really mobilize large numbers of people to
the streets, just prolonging a sense of chaos might be enough."
Why are people so pre-occupied with imagining present and future
threats that have already happened? I'm sorry to have to break
the news to you, especially given that you think the election
tomorrow is going to be so momentous, but the "slow motion coup"
has already happened. Trump, while easily the worst imaginable
outcome, is just the farce that follows tragedy. The polarization
isn't driven by issues, but by personality types. A lot of people
will vote for Trump not because they agree with him, but because
in a rigged system, he's the entertainment option. He will make
the other people suffer -- his very presence drives the rest of
us crazy -- and Trump voters get off on that. And a lot of people
will vote against him, because they don't want to suffer, or in
some rare cases, they simply don't like seeing other people suffer.
Harris, actually much more than Biden or Obama or either Clinton,
is a very appealing candidate for those people (I can say us here),
but is still can be trusted not to try to undo the coup, to restore
any measure of real democracy, let alone "power to the people."
Here's a way to look at it: skipping past 1776-1860, there have
been two eras in American history, each beginning in revolution,
but which fizzled in its limited success, allowing reaction to set
in, extending the power of the rich to a breaking point. The first
was the Civil War and Reconstruction, which gave way to rampant
corruption, the Gilded Age and Jim Crow, ultimately collapsing
in the Great Depression. The second was the New Deal, which came
up with the idea of countervailing powers and a mixed economy with
a large public sector, mitigating the injustices of laissez-faire
while channeling the energy of capitalism into building a widely
shared Affluent Society.
But, unlike the Marxist model of proletarian revolution, the
New Deal left the upper crust intact, and during WWII they learned
how to use government for their own means. The reaction started to
gain traction after Republicans won Congress in 1946, and teamed
with racist Democrats to pass Taft-Hartley and other measures,
which eventually undermined union power, giving businesses a freer
hand to run things. Then came the Red Scare and the Cold War, which
Democrats joined as readily as Republicans, not realizing it would
demolish their popular base. Dozens of similar milestones followed,
each designed to concentrate wealth and power, which both parties
increasingly catered to, seeing no alternative, and comforted with
the perks of joining the new plutocracy.
One key milestone was the end of the "fairness doctrine" in the
1980s, which surrendered the notion that there is a public interest
as opposed to various private interests, and incentivized moguls to
buy up media companies and turn them into propaganda networks (most
egregiously at Fox, but really everywhere). Another was the end of
limits on campaign finance, which has finally reduced electoral
politics to an intramural sport of billionaires. (Someone should
issue a set of billionaire trading cards, like baseball cards,
with stats and stories on the back. I googled, and didn't find
any evidence of someone doing this.) Aside from Bernie Sanders,
no one runs for president (or much else) without first lining up
a billionaire (or at least a near-wannabe). They have about as
much control over who gets taken seriously and can appear on a
ballot as the Ayatollah does in Iran.
The main thing that distinguishes this system from a coup is
that it's unclear who's ultimately in charge, or even if someone
is. Still, that could be a feature, especially as it allows for
an infinite series of scapegoats when things go wrong -- as, you
may have noticed, they inevitably do.
Nicholas Nehamas/Erica L Green: [10-31]
Trump says he'll protect women, 'like it or not,' evoking his
history of misogyny.
Jonathan O'Connell/Leigh Ann Caldwell/Lisa Rein: [11-02]
Conservative group's 'watch list' targets federal employees for
firing.
Andrew Prokop: [09-26]
The Architect: Stephen Miller's dark agenda for a second Trump
term: "Miller has spent years plotting mass deportation. If
Trump wins, he'll put his plans into action." I think the most
important thing to understand about Miller isn't how malevolent
he is, but that he's the archetype, the exemplar for all future
Trump staff. He clearly has his own deep-seated agenda, but
what he's really excelled at is binding it to Trump, mostly
through utterly shameless flattery.
Aaron Regunberg: [11-01]
Why is the Anti-Defamation League running cover for Trump?
"Yes, it's fair to compare Trump's Madison Square Guarden spectacle
to the Nazi rally of 1939."
Aja Romano/Anna North: [11-05]
The new Jeffrey Epstein tapes and his friendship with Trump,
explained.
Dylan Scott: [10-30]
The existential campaign issue no one is discussing: "What happens
if another pandemic strikes -- and Trump is the president." Mentions
bird flu (H5N1) as a real possibility, but given Trump's worldview
and personal quirks, one could rephrase this as: what happens if any
unexpected problem strikes? I'm not one inclined to look to presidents
for leadership or understanding, but the least we should expect is the
third option in "lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way." Trump
is almost singularly incapable of any of those three options. Moreover,
where most people manage to learn things from experience, Trump jumps
to the wrong conclusions. Case in point: when Trump got Covid-19 in
2016, he could have learned from the experience how severe the illness
is, and how devastating it could be for others; instead, he recovered,
through treatment that wasn't generally available, and came out of it
feeling invincible, holding superspreader events and ridiculing masks.
I've long believed that a big part of his polling bounce was due to
people foolishly mistaking his idiocy for bravura.
Marc Steiner: [10-30]
The failures of liberals and the left have helped Trump's rise:
"Feckless Democrats and a disorganized Left have fed fuel to the MAGA
movement's fire." Interview with Bill Fletcher Jr. and Rick Perlstein.
Kirk Swearingen: [11-02]
Donald Trump was never qualified to be president -- or anything
else: "After a lifetime of lying, failure and incompetence,
this conman stands at the gates of power once again."
Michael Tomasky: [11-04]
Donald Trump has lost his sh*t: "There is no 'context' for
performing fellatio on a microphone. He's gone batty. The only
remaining question is whether enough voters recognize it."
Vance, and other Republicans:
Robert F Kennedy Jr.:
John Ball: [11-03]
My strange year tracking JD Vance, MAGA's future.
Charles Bethea:
Dan Dinello: [11-01]
The super-rich have a long history of backing fascism and buying the
White House: it's happening again: Mostly on Elon Musk, this
time, although the history goes back to Henry Ford.
David Friedlander: [11-03]
Elon Musk's Pennsylvania playbook: "It's secretive and chaotic --
but Trump campaign officials are thrilled."
Sarah Jones: [11-04]
The real class war against normal people.
Andrew Marantz: [11-01]
The Tucker Carlson road show: "After his Fox show was cancelled,
Carlson spent a year in the wilderness, honing his vision of what
the future of Trumpism might look like. This fall, he took his act
on tour."
Rachel Monroe: [10-30]
The conservative strategy to ban abortion nationwide.
Timothy Noah:
How Republicans get away with fleecing their own voters: "Democrats
are highly responsive to voter sentiment. Republicans are not, yet they
win reelection anyway." This could have been an interesting article,
especially if someone figured out why Republicans seem to be so willing
to vote against their own interests, or even if it was just about their
eagerness to suck up Trump merch. But are the Democrats actually better,
at least in terms of attentiveness? They campaign on donor-approved,
poll-tested issues, but rarely entertain anything else, even if it
actually has a lot of popular support.
Harris:
Eric Levitz: [10-22]
If Harris loses, expect Democrats to move right: "Even though
Harris is running as a moderate, progressives are likely to get
blamed for her defeat." I haven't read this, as it's locked up as
a "special feature for Vox Members," but the headline is almost
certainly wrong, and the subhed is very disputable -- I've already
seen hundreds of pieces arguing that if Harris fails, it will be
because she moved too far to the right, and in doing so risked
discredit of principles that actually resonate more with voters.
(And if she wins, it will be because she didn't cut corners like
that on abortion, but stuck to a strong message.) No doubt, if
she loses, the Democrats and "centrist" who never miss a chance
to slam the left will do so again -- you can already see this in
the Edsall piece, op. cit. -- but how credible will they be this
time? (After, e.g., trying to blame first Sanders then Putin for
Hillary Clinton's embarrassing failure in 2016.)
If Harris loses, she will be pilloried for every fault from
every angle, which may be unfair, but is really just a sign of
the times, a rough measure of the stakes. But if Trump wins,
the debate about who to blame is going to become academic real
fast. Republicans are not going to see a divided nation they'd
like to heal with conciliatory gestures. They're going to plunge
the knife deeper, and twist it. And as they show us what the
right really means, they will drive lots of people to the left,
to the people who first grasp what was going wrong, and who
first organized to defend against the right. And the more Trump
and his goons fuck up (and they will fuck up, constantly and
cluelessly), the more people will see the left as prescient and
principled. The left has a coherent analysis of what's gone wrong,
and what can and should be done about it. They've been held back
by the centrists -- the faction that imagines they can win by
appealing to the better natures of the rich while mollifying the
masses with paltry reforms and panic over the right -- but loss
by Harris, following Clinton's loss, will leave them even more
discredited.
As long-term politics, one might even argue that a Trump win
would be the best possible outcome for the left. No one (at least,
no one I know of) on the left is actually arguing that, largely
because we are sensitive enough to acute pain we wish to avoid even
the early throes of fascist dictatorship, and possibly because we
don't relish natural selection winnowing our leadership down to
future Lenins and Stalins. But when you see Republicans as odious as
Bret Stephens and
George Will endorsing Harris, you have to suspect that they
suspect that what I'm saying is true.
Stephen Prager/Alex Skopic: [11-01]
Every Kamala Harris policy, rated. This is a seriously important
piece, the kind of things issues-oriented voters should be crying out
for. But the platforms exists mostly to show that Harris is a serious
issues-oriented candidate, and to give her things to point to when
she pitches various specific groups. Anything that she wants will be
further compromised when the donor/lobbyists and their hired help
(aka Congress, but also most likely her Cabinet and their minions)
get their hands on the actual proposals. Given that the practical
voting choice is just between Harris and Trump, that seems like a
lot of extra work -- especially the parts, like everything having
to do with foreign policy, that will only make you more upset.
Nathan J Robinson introduced this piece with an extended
tweet, making the obvious contrasts to Trump ("a nightmare on
another level"). I might as well
unroll his post here:
The differences between a Trump and Harris presidency: An unprecedented
deportation program with armed ICE agents breaking down doors and tearing
families from their homes in unfathomable numbers, total right-wing
capture of the court system, ending every environmental protection.
Workplace safety rules will be decimated (remember, the right doesn't
believe you should have water breaks in the heat), Israel will be given
a full green light to "resettle" Gaza, all federal efforts against
climate change will cease, international treaties will be ripped up . . .
There will be a war on what remains of abortion rights (if you believe
the right won't try to ban it federally you're the world's biggest sucker),
protests will be ruthlessly cracked down on (with the military probably,
as Tom Cotton advocated), journalists might be prosecuted . . .
Organized labor's progress will be massively set back, with Trump
letting policy be dictated by billionaire psychopaths like Elon Musk
who think workers are serfs. JD Vance endorsed a plan for a massive
war on teachers' unions. Public health will be overseen by RFK
antivaxxers . . .
If you think things cannot be worse, I would encourage you to expand
your imagination. Trump is surrounded by foaming-at-the-mouth
authoritarians who believe they are in a war for the soul of
civilization and want to annihilate the left. I am terrified and
you should be too.
Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:
Ana Marie Cox: [11-01]
Tim Walz has broken Tucker Carlson's brain: "The former Fox News
host is so flummoxed by Kamala Harris's running mate that he's
resorting to immature, homophobic schoolyard taunts."
Ralph Nader: [11-04]
The Democratic Party still can adopt winning agendas. Obviously,
the "there is still time" arguments are finally moot for 2024, not
that the principles are wrong. This makes me wonder what would have
happened had Nader run as a Democrat in 2000, instead of on a third
party. Sure, Gore would have won most of the primaries, but he could
have gotten a sizable chunk of votes, possibly nudged Gore left of
Lieberman and Clinton, and if Gore still lost, set himself up for
an open run in 2004.
Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:
Climate and environment:
Business, labor, and Economists:
Ukraine and Russia:
Aaron Sobczak: [10-31]
Diplomacy Watch: Russia makes substantial gains in Ukraine's east:
"Kyiv is faced with troop shortages, while North Korean soldiers
are sent to assist Moscow."
Constant Méheut/Josh Holder: [10-31]
Russia's swift march forward in U kraine's east: In maps
and charts. Not a huge amount of territory, but since May the
only significant gains have been by Russia.
Julian E Barnes/Eric Schmitt/Helene Cooper/Kim Barker: [11-01]
As Russia advances, US fears Ukraine has entered a grim phase:
"Weapons supplies are no longer Ukraine's main disadvantage, American
military officials say." Surprising pessimism, coming from the American
Pravda.
Eugene Doyle: [11-01]
The Ukraine War is lost. Three options remain.
Julie Hollar: [10-15]
Media consistently in favor of crossing Putin's red lines:
"Outlets refuse to take the Kremlin's warnings seriously."
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [10-30]
Nuland & Maddow back at the red string conspiracy board:
"The former State Department official tells MSNBC that Trump, Elon,
and Putin are "all on the same team." I really hate this argument.
I don't like Putin any more than you do, but the US needs to come
up with some way to live and work with Russia, and personal and
political vilification just gets in the way. Even if the intent
here is simply to slam Trump, which in itself if a worthy job,
what's implicit is a hardening of the conflict with Putin, and
that only makes already difficult matters worse.
Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:
Other stories:
Victoria Chamberlin: [11-02]
How Americans came to hate each other: "And how we can make it
stop." Interview between Noel King and Lilliana Mason, author of
Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity (2018), and
Radical American Partisanship (2022, with Nathan P Kalmoe).
She seems to have a fair amount of data, but not much depth. There
is very little hint here that the polarization is asymmetrical.
While both sides see the other as treats to their well-being, the
nature of those threats are wildly different, as are the remedies
(not that the promise of is in any way delivered).
Ezra Klein: [11-01]
Are we on the cusp of a new political order? Interview with
Gary Gerstle, author of
The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World
in the Free Market Era. I've noted him as a "big picture"
historian, but I've never read him. But he makes a fair amount of
sense in talking about neoliberalism here, even though I resist
rooting it my beloved New Left. But I can see his point that a
focus on individual freedom and a critique of the institutions of
the liberal power elite could have served the reactionaries, not
least by pushing some liberals (notably Charles Peters) to refashion
themselves, which proved useful for Democratic politicians from
Jimmy Carter on. This sort of dovetails with my argument that the
New Left was a massive socio-cultural success, winning major mind
share on all of its major fronts (against war and racism, for women
and the environment) without ever seizing power, which was deeply
distrusted. That failure, in part because working class solidarity
was discarded as Old Left thinking, allowed the reactionaries to
bounce back, aided by neoliberals, who helped them consolidate
economic power.
Gerstle offers this quote from Jimmy Carter's 1978 state of the
union address:
Government cannot solve our problems. It can't set our goals. It
cannot define our vision. Government cannot eliminate poverty or
provide a bountiful economy or reduce inflation or save our cities
or cure illiteracy or provide energy. And government cannot mandate
goodness.
One thing I'm struck by here is that four of these sentences
immediately strike us as plausible, given how little trust we still
have in government -- a trust which, one should stress, was broken
by the Vietnam War. However, the other sentence is plainly false,
and Carter seems to be trying to pull a fast one on us, disguising
a pretty radical curtailment of functions that government is the
only remedy for: eliminating poverty (spreading wealth and power),
providing a bountiful economy (organizing fair markets and making
sure workers are paid enough to be consumers), reducing inflation,
saving cities, curing illiteracy (schools), providing energy (TVA,
for example; more privatization here, not the best of solutions,
but kept in check by regulation -- until it wasn't, at which point
you got Enron, which blew up).
But once you realize you're being conned, go back and re-read
the paragraph again, and ask why? It's obvious that government can
solve problems, because it does so all the time. The question is
why doesn't it solve more problems? And the answer is often that
it's being hijacked by special interests, who pervert it for their
own greed (or maybe just pride). Setting goals, defining vision,
and mandating goodness are less tangible, which moves them out of
the normal functioning of government. But such sentences only make
sense if you assume that government is an independent entity, with
its own peculiar interests, and not simply an instrument of popular
will. If government works for you, why can't it promote your goals,
vision, and goodness? Maybe mandates (like the "war on drugs") are
a step too far, because democracies should not only reflect the will
of the majority but also must respect and tolerate the freedom of
others.
Elizabeth Kolbert: [2017-02-19]
Why facts don't change our minds: An old piece, seemingly
relevant again."
Obituaries
Books
Ta-Nehisi Coates:
The Message: I'm finally reading this book, so linking it
here was the easiest way to pick up the cover image. It took a
while to get good, but the major section on Israel/Palestine is
solid and forceful.
Music (and other arts?)
Chatter
Dean Baker: [11-03]
quick, we need a major national political reporter to tell us Donald
Trump is not suffering from dementia, otherwise people might get the
wrong idea. [on post quoting Trump ("we always have huge crowds and
never any empty seats") while panning camera on many empty seats.]
Jane Coaston: [11-04]
Every white nationalist is convinced that almost every other person
is also a white nationalist and that's a level of confidence in the
popularity of one's views I do not understand.
Rick Perlstein comments:
I have a riff about that in my next book. I call it "epistemological
narcissism": right-wingers can't imagine anyone could think differently
than themselves. They, of coruse, only being different in having the
courage to tell the truth . . .
Iris Demento: [11-05]
Happy crippling anxiety day [followed by bullet list from 1972:
- "Nixon Now" - Richard M. Nixon, 1972 (also, "Nixon Now, More
than Ever" and "President Nixon. Now more than ever")
- "Come home, America" - George McGovern, 1972
- "Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion for All" - 1972 anti-Democratic
Party slogan, from a statement made to reporter Bob Novak by Missouri
Senator Thomas F. Eagleton (as related in Novak's 2007 memoir, Prince
of Darkness)
- "Dick Nixon Before He Dicks You" - Popular anti-Nixon slogan,
1972
- "They can't lick our Dick" - Popular campaign slogan for Nixon
supporters
Remembering 1972, I contributed a comment:
1972 was the first time I voted. I hated Nixon much more than I hate
Trump today. (Not the word I would choose today; maybe I retired it
after Nixon?) I voted for McGovern, and for Bill Roy, who ran a
remarkable campaign against the hideous Bob Dole, and for Jim Juhnke
against our dull Republican Rep. Garner Shriver. Those three were
among the most decent and thoughtful people who ever ran for public
office in these parts. I voted for whatever Republican ran against the
horrible Vern Miller and his sidekick Johnny Darr. In a couple cases,
I couldn't stand either D or R, so wasted my vote with the
Prohibitionist (a minor party, but still extant in KS). Not a single
person I voted for won. I was so despondent, I didn't vote again until
1996, when I couldn't resist the opportunity to vote against Dole
again. (I was in MA at the time.) I've voted regularly since
then. After moving back to KS in 1999, I got another opportunity to
vote for whatever Republican ran against Vern Miller, and we beat him
this time (although for the most part, my winning pct. remains pretty
low).
- Paul Krugman: [no link, but cited in a post called
Trump could make contagion great again]
I expect terrible things if Trump wins. Until recently, however,
"explosive growth in infectious diseases" wasn't on my Bingo card
[link to article on RFK Jr. saying "Trump promised him 'control'
of HHS and USDA]
Local tags (these can be linked to directly):
music.
Current count:
160 links, 10339 words (13226 total)
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Thursday, October 31, 2024
Music Week
October archive
(final).
Music: Current count 43099 [43065] rated (+34), 41 [46] unrated (-5).
This post has been pushed back two or three days this week,
mostly for reasons explained in yesterday's
Speaking of Which (somewhat augmented today), which in
turn was delayed by my Tuesday posting of my
Top 10 Reasons to Vote for Harris vs. Trump (also posted at
Notes on Everyday Life, which is currently open for comments --
although beware that all but mine are held for moderation, and I
don't seem to be getting notification of pending comments, so I
have to think to look for them).
I sent early links out to a dozen old friends, off the top of
my head, to which I only got one reply (plus one comment, at the
site, both feeling that I was overly generous to Harris, one
insisting on voting for Stein, neither sowing any doubts in my
mind). Maybe it's all too blindingly obvious, or just too tired,
to elicit interest? At this point, what more do you need to know
than this Seth Meyers
A Closer Look?
As noted, I took a chunk of time out last week for my
birthday dinner. More details on it in the
notebook. I'll probably
do a second round next week: the leftovers are pretty much gone --
I reheated the rice tonight, to go with red cooked pork cubes, but
that's about all that's left. The dinner came out of the two Burmese
cookbooks in the "Recent Reading" log, but I've yet to really crack'
open Cradle of Flavor -- maybe next year (or maybe sooner)
I'll finally see what I can do with Indonesian/Malaysian.
I have nothing much to say about this week's music. I did want
to get to the NoBusiness batch, which got me looking for unheard
Arthur Blythe albums, which led to some more finds on YouTube.
I don't recall what got me looking at the Soul Jazz back catalog,
but the label was a favorite back when I was writing
Recycled Goods, so I'm inclined to check out anything I find.
I also got some good tips from the latest
Riotriot.
Plan now is to open a new Speaking of Which draft file tomorrow,
and post whatever I can before election day, so Monday, November 4,
with Music Week on Tuesday. That'll make for a short week, which
will be even more limited by a combination of burnout and feeling
helpless. I may just focus more on the bedroom/closet project. I
had a setback yesterday when I peeled my masking tape off the
ceiling and found it ripped off large patches of paint. I'm not
even sure how to fix that, but it's pretty much guaranteed to be
painful.
I opened up a draft file for November Streamnotes, but didn't
do the indexing for October. I may be farther behind than that.
I got my first 2025 release promos, so had to open up files for
them. Again, I cut a few corners. Unlikely I will play any 2025
releases until after New Year's Day. Still a lot of 2024 to catch
up on.
Also need to start focusing on Jazz Critics Poll. Voting for
that should start mid-November. Most pressing things are to get
the website prepped, and to line up a new mailing list vendor --
my own DIY efforts have proven to be inadequate, but I can see
several reasons to pay for something if it would work flexibly
enough.
New records reviewed this week:
Amyl and the Sniffers: Cartoon Darkness (2024,
B2B/Virgin): Australian pub/punk rock band, third album since 2019,
Amy Taylor the singer-songwriter. I'm not deciphering (or perhaps
I mean remembering?) many words, but after multiple plays this is
sounding great -- even the unnecessary change of pace.
A- [sp]
Jason Anick/Jason Yeager: Sanctuary (2023 [2024],
Sunnyside): Violin and piano, couple albums each since 2011, with
Yeager on Annick's 2013 album. Nice postbop group with two trumpets
(Jason Palmer and Billy Buss), tenor sax (Edmar Colón), cello, bass,
and drums.
B+(***) [cd]
The Attic & Eve Risser: La Grande Crue (2023
[2024], NoBusiness): Portuguese tenor saxophonist Rodrigo Amado's
trio (Gonçalo Almeida on bass and Onno Govaert on drums), with
several superb albums so far, joined here by the French pianist,
for another one.
A- [cd]
David Bailis: Tree of Life (2024, Create or Destroy):
Guitarist, side credits back to 2007 but this seems to be his first
album under his own name, a short one (27:34), four originals and
one cover, with Chris Speed (tenor sax), Eric Lane (piano/synth
bass), and Jason Nazary (drums), nicely done.
B+(**) [cd]
Dharma Down: Owl Dreams (2023 [2024], Dharma
Down): Quartet from Portland, ME, quartet of Duncan Hardy (alto
sax/qanun -- an Assyrian string instrument, for a bit of Middle
Eastern spice), Mike Effenberger (piano), Scott Kiefner (bass),
John Meltam (drums).
B+(*) [cd]
Etran De L'Aďr: 100% Saharan Guitar (2024, Sahel
Sounds): "The longest running wedding band in Agadez, capital of
Tuareg guitar," promises more of the same, and delivers, as usual,
on what I count to be their third album, but who knows how far
back they go?
B+(***) [sp]
Joel Futterman: Innervoice (2024, NoBusiness):
Free jazz pianist, born (1946) in Chicago, affiliated with AACM
before moving to Virginia in 1972, has many records since then.
This one is solo, more measured than most, but very engaging.
B+(***) [cd]
Hinds: Viva Hinds (2024, Lucky Number): Spanish
indie pop band, started as a duo of Carlotta Cosials and Ana
Garcia Perrotte as Deers, expanded to a quartet for their 2016-20
albums, back to a duo (with touring support) now. Includes a
couple songs in Spanish, which surprise me as high points.
A- [sp]
Shawneci Icecold/Vernon Reid/Matthew Garrison & Grant
Calvin Weston: Future Prime (2024, Underground45):
Pianist, synths here, has straddled hip-hop and avant-jazz since
2021, splits the difference here with a fusion (guitar/bass/drums)
quartet. Five songs (32:51), starting with "A Night in Tunisia"
and "Zawinul" before blasting off into space.
B+(***) [cd]
J.U.S X Squadda B: 3rd Shift (2024, Bruiser Brigade):
Detroit rapper, two previous albums since 2021, with an Oakland-based
producer, nothing else by him on Discogs.
B+(***) [sp]
Nick Lowe & Los Straitjackets: Indoor Safari
(2024, Yep Roc): Singer-songwriter, started way back in pub rock,
invented power pop, faded after 1979 but never went away, with
Party of One (1990) his only later album to hit A- in my
book. Faint echoes here, but I can hear some.
B+(*) [sp]
Michael McNeill: Barcode Poetry (2022 [2024],
Infrasonic Press): Pianist, from Buffalo, impressed me totally
out of the blue with his 2012 debut (Passageways), returns
here with a real chamber jazz quartet, with Susan Alcorn (pedal
steel guitar), Dave Ballou (trumpet), and Shelly Purdy (vibes,
percussion). Sounded a bit weepy at first, and I do have trouble
focusing when the going gets slow, but I found myself checking
and rechecking, and the music gradually won me over.
B+(***) [cd]
Yuka Mito: How Deep Is the Ocean (2024, Nana
Notes): Standards singer, originally from Japan, now based in
New York, has a previous album, backed here by piano, bass,
and drums, offers seven very obvious songs (29:46), including
two Jobims, two from Bacharach-David, a Porter, a Berlin, and
"How High the Moon." All nicely, if unremarkably, done.
B [cd]
Mavis Pan: Rising (2023 [2024], self-released):
Pianist, sings some (just one song here), born in Taiwan, moved
to New Jersey when she was 17, first album 2010, has a Master of
Music degree, but also a M.A. from Westminster Theological Seminary.
Original compositions, co-produced by Ted Nash, who plays tenor
sax, flute, and clarinet. Also with Greg Burke (alto/soprano sax,
alto flute, clarinet), bass, and drums.
B+(*) [cd]
William Parker/Hugo Costa/Philipp Ernsting: Pulsar
(2023 [2024], NoBusiness): Recorded in Amstmerdam, an all-improv
set of bass, alto sax, and drums, with Costa getting the lead in
the credits short, but Parker on the cover, presumably because
you've heard of him. Parker seems to pick up a couple records like
this every time he wanders off to Europe. My favorite is one called
And William Danced, with Anders Gahnold, but they're all
pretty good. Costa has several albums, including a duo and a group
called Albatre with Ernsting. This is pretty inspired avant-thrash.
A- [cd]
Pest Control: Year of the Pest (2024, Quality
Control HQ, EP): Dan Weiss pegged them as "my ideal metal band,"
which I took as both warning and challenge, but figured I could
handle 4 songs, 10:27, of anything. I wound up giving them a
second spin. Note that Bandcamp page doesn't tag this as metal:
their proferred terms include "uk thrash," "hardcore punk," and
(first on the list) "nwobhc" (whatever that stands for; at least
I can guess "ukhc").
B+(***) [sp]
Tyshawn Sorey Trio: The Suspectible Now (2024, Pi):
Drummer-led trio with Aaron Diehl (piano) and Harish Raghavan (bass),
"following on the heels of his masterful release Continuing,
which was voted #4 release of 2023 by the Francis Davis Poll of over
150 jazz critics." Most likely another top-five contender, although
I'd be hard-pressed to distinguish it from the Vijay Iyer trio that
won the mid-year poll, and remains the early favorite. Sorey's
arrangements of four long pieces written by others, not really
standards but interesting source material.
B+(***) [cd]
Ben Waltzer: The Point (2023 [2024], Calligram):
Pianist, debut was a trio from 1996, only a couple records since,
plus a few scattered side credits. Quartet here where Geof Bradfield
(tenor sax/bass clarinet) and Clark Sommers (bass) also contribute
originals, plus Dana Hall (drums), and a closing, rather delicate
cover of "A Flower Is a Lovesome Thing."
B+(**) [cd]
Immanuel Wilkins: Blues Blood (2024, Blue Note):
Alto saxophonist, third album since 2020, all on Blue Note, first
two overcame my initial caution, a couple side appearances also
blew me away. Sax is also impressive here, but toned down a bit,
making way for several guest vocals, which I could do without.
Wilkins has polled very well since winning our debut award, and
I expect this will also -- I've already seen one review touting
it as the record of the year, but I'll pass.
B+(**) [sp]
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
Arthur Blythe Quartet: Live From Studio Rivbea: July 6,
1976 (1976 [2024], NoBusiness): Alto saxophonist (1940-2017),
from Los Angeles, recorded two masterpieces for Columbia in 1978,
In the Tradition and Lenox Avenue Breakdown, after
after a couple minor label releases in 1977. This live set, the
second volume in the label's "Studio Rivbea" series, is just a
bit earlier, a quartet with Juni Booth (bass), Steve Reid (drums),
and Muhammad Abdullah (conga).
B+(***) [cd]
Electro Throwdown: Sci-Fi Inter-Planetary Electro Attack
on Planet Earth 1982-89 (1982-89 [2024], Soul Jazz): No
hits here, the only artist name I recall is Jonzun Crew, but the
echoes of "Planet Rock" and "Trans-Europe Express" (both mentioned
in the notes) are easy to pick up, and pretty satisfying in and
of themselves.
B+(**) [r]
In the Beginning There Was Rhythm (1978-84 [2024,
Soul Jazz): Reissue of the label's founding compilation from 2001,
this captures the evolutionary moment when British punks embraced
hard dance beats. Great idea for a compilation, and it starts off
promisingly, but runs a little thin, just about when yoy start to
wonder where New Order is.
B+(***) [sp]
Old music:
George Adams-Don Pullen Quartet: Jazzbühne Berlin '88
(1988 [1991], Repertoire): Leaders play tenor sax and piano, came
together under Charles Mingus circa Changes, and produced
some outstanding albums over the next decade, with Cameron Brown
(bass) in place of Mingus, and Lewis Nash (drums) replacing Dannie
Richmond here. Three long pieces, originals (with a nod to Monk).
Pullen is an absolutely unique pianist, who shines early on. Adams
is hardly the only real powerhouse saxophonist, but when he hits
his stride, he's undeniable.
A- [yt]
Ray Anderson: Harrisburg Half Life (1980 [1981],
Moers Music): Trombonist, early album recorded in Germany, with
Allan Jaffe (guitar), Mark Dresser (bass), and Gerry Hemingway
(drums). Good start toward the later (from 1989 on) BassDrumBone
trios, where Mark Helias replaced Dresser.
B+(***) [yt]
Black Arthur Blythe: Bush Baby (1977 [1978],
Adelphi): The alto saxophonist's first studio album -- two
earlier live sets appeared on India Navigation, one before
and the other after this release -- a trio with Bob Stewart
on tuba and Ahkmed Abdullah on congas.
B+(***) [yt]
Boombox 3: Early Independent Hip Hop, Electro and Disco
Rap 1979-83 (1979-83 [2018], Soul Jazz, 2CD): Third volume
in a series that started in 2016, the previous volumes rated A-
and B+(***) here, with a couple later releases breaking from the
naming convention. More obscure, but sounding very typical of
the early Sugarhill-dominated period.
B+(***) [r]
Deutsche Elektronische Musik: Experimental German Rock and
Electronic Musik 1972-83 (1972-83 [2010], Soul Jazz): Starts
with Can, and hits many major groups (but no Kraftwerk). Still, not
much really grabs me. Three more volumes were added later, including
3, which I previously graded B+(*).
B+(*) [r]
Deutsche Elektronische Musik 2: Experimental German Rock and
Electronic Musik 1971-83 (1971-83 [2013], Soul Jazz): Digital
has 14 tracks, which is more than the 2-LP's 12 but way less than the
2-CD's 27 (or the later 25-track 4-LP release).
B+(*) [r]
Lloyd McNeill: Elegia (1979 [2019], Soul Jazz):
Perhaps better known as a painter (1935-2021), played flute and
recorded several albums 1968-79, one more in 1997, this the
fifth reissued by the label.
B+(*) [r]
Punk 45: I'm a Mess! D-I-Y or Die! Art, Trash & Neon:
Punk 45s in the UK 1977-78 (1977-78 [2022], Soul Jazz):
Extending what was previously a six-CD series -- all good, the
Cleveland volume (Extermination Nights in the Sixth City an
A-), more obscurities: I don't recall ever hearing of these groups,
much less their singles (16 on the digital, other formats vary).
B+(**) [r]
Space Funk 2: Afro Futurist Electro Funk in Space 1976-84
(1976-84 [2023], Soul Jazz): More crate digging, following their
previous (2019) volume, leaning into early hip-hop (choice cut:
"Smurf Trek," by Chapter Three).
B+(**) [r]
Wiener Art Orchester: Tango From Obango (1979
[1980], Art): Group founded 1977 by Mathias Rüegg, aka Vienna Art
Ochestra, ran through 2010 wtih a couple vocal albums as Vienna Art
Choir. They were especially notable for their eclectic borrowings
from classical music, as well as from Americans like Gershwin,
Ellington, Mingus, and Dolphy. Cover notes: "This music is dedicated
to the people and the Sea of Obango," but I'm not finding any other
references to that location. But the opening tango is delightful,
and after that it's anyone's guess.
B+(***) [yt]
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- Big Bambi: Compositions for Bass Guitar & Bassoon, Vol. I (ESP-Disk) [09-27]
- Steve Coleman and Five Elements: PolyTropos/Of Many Turns (Pi) [10-25]
- Day Dream: Duke & Strays Live: Works by Duke Ellington & Billy Strayhorn (Corner Store Jazz, 2CD) [11-08]
- David Friesen: A Light Shining Through (Origin) [11-22]
- Al Jarreau: Wow! Live at the Childe Harold (1976, Resonance) [12-06]
- Thollem McDonas: Infinite-Sum Game (ESP-Disk) [10-18]
- Reut Regev's R*Time: It's Now: R*Time Plays Doug Hammond (ESP-Disk) [11-15]
- Steve Smith and Vital Information: New Perspective (Drum Legacy) [02-07]
- Dave Stryker: Stryker With Strings Goes to the Movies (Strikezone) [01-10]
- Friso van Wijck: Friso van Wijck's Candy Container (TryTone) [11-01]
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Wednesday, October 30, 2024
Speaking of Which
File opened 2024-10-24 01:36 AM.
I've been trying to collect my thoughts and write my up
Top 10 Reasons to Vote for Harris vs. Trump. I posted an early
draft -- just the top 10 list -- on Monday afternoon at
Notes on Everyday Life, then blanked out and didn't get to the
second part ("Top 5 Reasons Electing Harris Won't Solve Our Problems")
until Tuesday afternoon (and well into evening). I updated the NOEL
draft that evening, and finally posted the file in the blog. That
pushes this file out until Wednesday, and Music Week until Thursday
(which still fits in October).
As of Tuesday evening, this week's collection is very hit-and-miss
(100 links, 6023 words), typed up during odd breaks as I juggled my
life between working on my birthday dinner, writing the endorsement,
and struggling with my big remodeling project.
The endorsement could
do with some editing, although my initial distribution of the link
has thus far generated almost no comment (one long-time friend wrote
back to disagree, having decided -- "even in a battleground state" --
to vote for Jill Stein). A year ago I still imagined writing a book
that might have some small influence on the election. In some ways,
this piece is my way of penance for my failure, but the more I got
into it, the more I thought I had some worthwhile points to make.
But now it's feeling like a complete waste of time.
The
birthday dinner did feel like I accomplished something. The Burmese
curries were each spectacular in their own way, the coconut rice nice
enough, the ginger salad and vegetable sides also interesting, and the
cake (not Burmese, but spice-and-oats) was an old favorite. I should
follow it up with a second round of Burmese recipes before too long,
especially now that I've secured the tea leaf salad ingredients.
Slow but tangible progress on the bedroom/closet remodel. Walls are
painted now, leaving trim next. Paneling is up in closet, where I still
have the ceiling and quite a bit of trim. [Wednesday morning now:] I've
been meaning to go out back and polyurethane the trim boards, so I can
cut them as needed, first to shore up the ceiling. But it's raining,
so I'll give that pass for another day, and probably just work on this
straggling post. Laura's report of morning news is full of gaffes by
Biden and Hillary Clinton, who seem intent on redeeming the dead weight
of their own cluelessness by imposing it on Harris. With "friends"
like these, who needs . . . Dick Cheney?
Posting late Wednesday night, my usual rounds still incomplete.
I'll decide tomorrow whether I'll add anything here, or simply
move on to next week (which really has to post before election
results start coming in). For now, I'm exhausted, and finding
this whole process very frustrating.
Top story threads:
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
Ruwaida Kamal Amer/Ibtisam Mahdi: [10-24]
For Gaza's schoolchildren, another year of destruction, loss, and
uncertainty.
Tareq S Hajjaj: [10-25]
Survivors of north Gaza invasion report Israeli 'extermination'
campaign: "Survivors of the ongoing Israeli extermination campaign
in north Gaza describe how the Israeli army is separating mothers from
children before forcing them south, executing civilians in ditches,
and directly targeting hospitals and medical staff."
Shatha Hanaysha: [10-25]
'Our freedom is close': why these young Palestinian men choose armed
resistance: "I met resistance fighters from the Tulkarem Brigade
for an interview in the alleyways of Tulkarem refugee camp in the
occupied West Bank. They talked about why they fight against Israel,
and what their dreams are for the future." This is disturbing. I find
it impossible to feel solidarity or even sympathy with people who
would fight back against Israel, even if purely out of self-defense.
But it is understandable, and has long been predicted, every time
Israel has renewed its war on Gaza (going back at least to 1951):
virtually all people, when oppressed, will fight back. That they
should do so, why and why, is mostly a function of the people who
are driving them to such desperate measures. We'd see less of this
if only we were clear on who is responsible for setting the conditions
that make such rebellion seem like the only recourse, especially if
we made it clear that we'll hold those who control an area as the
sole ones responsible for the rebellions they provoke. Sure, I can
think of some cases where control was nebulous and/or revolts were
fueled by external forces, but that is not the case with Israel in
Gaza. Israel is solely responsible for this genocide. And if armed
resistance only accelerates it, that is solely because Israel wants
it that way.
Gideon Levy: [10-25]
Beatings, humiliation and torture: The IDF's night of terror at a
Palestinian refugee camp: "Israeli soldiers abused people during
a raid on a remote refugee camp in the territories. During their
violent rampage, the troops detained 30 inhabitants, of whom 27
were released the next day."
Mohammed R Mhawish/Ola Al Asi/Ibrahim Mohammad: [10-23]
Inside the siege of northern Gaza, where 'death waits around every
corner': "Limbs scattered on the streets, shelters set ablaze,
hundreds trapped inside hospitals: Palestinians detail the apocalyptic
scenes of Israel's latest campaign."
Qassam Muaddi:
Jonathan Ofir: [10-28]
Israeli journalists join the live-streamed genocide: "A mainstream
Israeli journalist recently blew up a house in Lebanon as part of a
news report while embedded with the military. The broadcast shows how
mainstream genocidal activity has become in Israeli society."
Meron Rapoport:
Christiaan Triebert/Riley Mellen/Alexander
Cardia: [10-30]
Israel Demolished Hundreds of Buildings in Southern Lebanon, Videos
and Satellite Images Show: "At least 1,085 buildings have been
destroyed or badly damaged since Israel's invasion targeting the
Hezbollah militia, including many in controlled demolitions, a New
York Times analysis shows." Same tactics, reflecting the same
threats and intentions Israel is using on Gaza, except that you
can't even pretend to be responding to an attack like Oct. 7.
Hezbollah is being targeted simply because it exists, and Lebanon
is being targeted because Israelis make no distinction between
the "militants" they "defend" against and any other person who
lives in their vicinity. The numbers in Lebanon may not amount
to genocide yet, but that's the model that Israel is following.
Oren Ziv: [10-22]
'Copy-paste the West Bank to Gaza': Hundreds join Gaza resettlement
event: "In a closed military zone near Gaza, Israeli settlers,
ministers, and MKs called to ethnically cleanse and annex the Strip --
an idea that is growing mainstream."
America's Israel (and Israel's America):
Yaniv Cogan/Jeremy Scahill: [10-21]
The Israeli-American businessman pitching a $200 million plan to deploy
mercenaries to Gaza: "Moti Kahana says he's talking to the Israeli
government about creating a pilot program for 'gated communities'
controlled by private US security forces." By the way, the authors
also (separately) wrote:
Yaniv Cogan: [10-06]
Blinken approved policy to bomb aid trucks, Israeli cabinet members
suggest.
Jeremy Scahill/Murtaza Hussain/Sharif Abdel Kouddous: [09-18]
Israel's new campaign of "terrorism warfare" across Lebanon.
Ryan Grim/Murtaza Hussain: [10-29]
Project 2025 creators have a plan to 'dismantle' pro-Palestine
movement: "If Donald Trump wins next week, the Heritage Foundation
has prepared a roadmap for him to crush dissent."
The plan, dubbed "Project Esther," casts pro-Palestinian activists
in the U.S. as members of a global conspiracy aligned with designated
terrorist organizations. As part of a so-called "Hamas Support Network,"
these protesters receive "indispensable support of a vast network of
activists and funders with a much more ambitious, insidious goal --
the destruction of capitalism and democracy," Project Esther's authors
allege.
This conspiratorial framing is part of a legal strategy to suppress
speech favorable to Palestinians or critical of the U.S.-Israel
relationship, by employing counterterrorism laws to suppress what
would otherwise be protected speech . . .
To achieve its goals, Project Esther proposes the use of
counterterrorism and hate speech laws, as well as immigration
measures, including the deportation of students and other
individuals in the United States on foreign visas for taking part
in pro-Palestinian activities. It also advocates deploying the
Foreign Agents Registration Act, a law placing disclosure obligations
on parties representing foreign interests, against organizations that
the report's authors imply are funded and directed from abroad.
In addition, the document also suggests using the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, to help construct
prosecutions against individuals and organizations in the movement.
The RICO act was originally created to fight organized crime in the
U.S., and particularly mafia groups.
It occurs to me that the same laws and tactics could be used to
counter Israeli political influence -- that that anyone would try
that -- and that the audit trail would be much more interesting.
Adrian Filut: [10-24]
From Iron Dome to F-15s: US provides 70% of Israel's war costs.
Tariq Kenney-Shawa: [10-29]
Why the Democrats were Israel's perfect partners in genocide:
"By masking support for Israel with hollow humanitarian gestures
and empathy for Palestinians have diluted pressure to end the war."
Akela Lacy: [10-24]
How does AIPAC shape Washington? We tracked every dollar. "The
Intercept followed AIPAC's money trail to reveal how its political
spending impacts the balance of power in Congress."
Mitchell Plitnick: [10-25]
US efforts to entice Israel into minimizing its attack on Iran are
only raising the chances for regional war: "The Biden administration
is showering Israel with military aid and support to persuade it not
to hit Iran's energy sector, but this will only increase Israeli
impunity and push the region closer to war."
Azadeh Shahshahahani/Sofía Verónica Montez: [02-26]
Complicity in genocide -- the case against the Biden administration:
"Israel's mass bombardment of civilians in Gaza is being facilitated,
aided and abetted by the United States government." Older article
I just noticed, but figured I'd note anyway. Reminds me that the
only proper response to the "genocide" charge is to stop doing it.
That at least enables the argument that you never meant the complete
annihilation of everyone, because you stopped and left some (most?)
target people still alive. Needless to say, the argument becomes less
persuasive over time, where you've repeatedly missed opportunities
to say this is enough, "we've made our point."
Richard Silverstein:
Ishaan Tharoor:
[10-25]
Is Israel carrying out de facto ethnic cleansing? "A pro-settlement
Israeli group and some Israeli lawmakers gathered a couple miles from
northern Gaza's blasted neighborhoods to rally around settling Gaza."
[10-28]
The world beyond the election: Middle East in turmoil: "Whoever
takes office in January will face a region being reshaped by an
emboldened Israel and the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia."
[10-30]
The world beyond the election: So much for democracy vs. autocracy.
The Biden framing was mostly horseshit, mostly because America has
never cared whether other countries practiced democracy, not least
because we don't do a good job of it ourselves, and are certainly
willing to throw it out the window if the polls look unfavorable.
But also I suppose it was a subtle dig at Trump, who's always been
Team Autocracy. That the ardor seems to have faded is less a change
of view than acknowledgment that it hasn't worked so well. Then
there is this line: "Biden once framed the successful defense of
Ukraine as a rejection of a world 'where might makes right.'" But
what is the US "defense" of Ukraine but an exercise in might making
right? And if that case isn't clear cut enough for you, what else
can you make of Israel?
Israel vs. world opinion:
Ahmed Alqarout: [10-29]
How Israel is trying to beat the 'axis of resistance' by dominating
the regional supply chain: "Israel has been able to insulate
itself from the effects of the economic blockade imposed by the
'Axis of Resistance' through supply chain warfare in the Middle East
and the broader region."
Michael Arria:
[10-29]
'Thousands of people will die': Gaza doctors describe impact of
Israel barring medical NGOs: "Israel has barred at least six
international medical NGOs that had been providing crucial support
to Gaza's decimated healthcare sector. Doctors in the banned groups
say the move could result in thousands of additional deaths."
[10-22]
The Shift: Poll shows Trump with slight edge among Arab American
voters: The poll was from
Arab News/YouGov. The split was 45% for Trump, 43% for Harris, and 4% for
Jill Stein. Of chose, 29% chose Gaza as their biggest issue. Both
candidates got 38% when asked "who would be better for the Middle
East," but respondents thought Trump was more likely "to successfully
resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict" (39% to 33%). A recent poll from
Arab American Institute produced similar results. For more on
recent Arab-American polling:
Many people are critics of Harris for not taking a strong stand
against Israel's genocide, but Arria relays a case where Israel's
supporters are attacking Harris for not being supportive enough:
It seems pretty clear that Harris was referring to the humanitarian
crisis in Gaza and not the student's reference to genocide, but this
didn't stop pro-Israel voices from attacking the Vice President.
"A very dangerous precedent,"
tweeted former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael
Oren. "I was disturbed to view the video in which Vice President
Kamala Harris appears to confirm the charge that Israel is committing
genocide in Gaza. This is the first time that the White House has been
linked to a libel which threatens Israel's legitimacy and security.
I call on the U.S. administration to issue an immediate and complete
denial."
Just goes to show that Israel's front-line hasbara warriors
realize that their arguments cannot withstand the admission of any
doubt or ambiguity.
[10-24]
The Shift: More campus crackdowns, DOJ lawyers call for Israel
investigation: "Since the fall semester began last month we
have seen schools implement a new round of repressive measures
to crack down on Palestine activism."
[10-29]
The Shift: Trump seeks to capitalize on voter frustration with
Harris over Gaza: "The Trump campaign is clearly taking steps
to capitalize on voters' frustration over Gaza. While Kamala Harris
was getting booed by protesters in Michigan, Trump was also in the
state making a play to Arab and Muslim voters."
[10-18]
Samidoun's coordinator speaks out on the US and Canada's targeting
of the group: Interview with Mohammed Khatib, European coordinator
for the "Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network" group, accused of
raising funds for the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine).
Ramzy Baroud: [10-25]
Israel's biblical wars of 'self defense': the myth of the 'seven
war fronts'.
Sam Biddle: [10-21]
Meta's Israel policy chief tried to suppress pro-Palestinian Instagram
posts: "Jordana Cutler, Meta's policy chief for Israel and the
Jewish Diaspora, repeatedly flagged for censorship posts by Students
for Justice in Palestine."
Shane Burley: [10-01]
US Jewish institutions are purging their staffs of anti-Zionists:
"A months-long investigation found even the smallest hints of dissent
are often met with unemployment."
Sharaiz Chaudhry: [10-26]
Generating consent for genocide: The BBC's complicity in Israel's
crimes in Palestine and Lebanon: "The BBC is deceiving the
British public and using its position to manufacture consent for
Israel's genocidal assault in Palestine and Lebanon."
Roy Eidelson: [10-23]
The American Psychological Association is abandoning its commitment
to human rights by refusing to speak out on Palestine: "The
American Psychological Association claims to 'prioritize human
rights advocacy,' but if its leaders want to truly honor that
commitment they must recognize and address the genocide of
Palestinians in Gaza today."
Melvin Goodman: [10-28]
The latest absurdities from the columnists of the New York Times:
On Thomas L Friedman and Bret Stephens.
Binoy Kampmark: [10-28]
Crippling UNRWA: The Knesset's collective punishment of Palestinians.
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." This was bound to happen, although it's
been slow to emerge, as most right-wing antisemites are actually
big fans of Israel, and they're not especially sensitive to human
rights abuses of any sort. [PS: On closer examination, I may have
jumped to the wrong conclusion: that right-wingers were feigning
horror at genocide to whip up antisemitic sentiments. Turns out
this is mostly about a group called NatCon, where antisemitism
claims the mantle of "Judeo-Christian nationalism" and supports
genocide to the hilt.]
Joseph Willits: [10-16]
How Starmer's Labour government has enabled Israel's genocide.
Election notes:
Charlotte Alter: [10-25]
Some Democrats believe this might be an abortion election after
all.
Aaron Blake: [10-28]
Can independent Dan Osborn win in Nebraska? And would it matter?
"A new poll adds evidence that we could see a historic result in the
Senate race, but it probably won't affect the chamber's majority."
Julia Conley: [10-29]
'This is just the traceable money': $2 billion pumped into 2024
election by billionaire families.
Bob Dreyfuss: [10-29]
Pennsylvania's undecideds: "The 2024 election will likely turn on
the Democrats' ground game."
John Feffer: [10-23]
Billionaires vs democracy: "The rich are trying to buy elections
all over the world and consign democracy to the trash bin of history."
Sarah Jones: [10-29]
How did this become a gender-gap election: "Trump vs. Harris brings
America's gendered political preferences into sharper focus."
Tony Karon: [10-23]
Voting in a time of genocide.
Celinda Lake/Amanda Iovino: [10-30]
A Democratic and a Republican pollster agree: This is the fault line
that decides the election: Teases you with the "gender gap," the
chart showing Trump +8 with men, Harris +9 with women (gap of 17
points), then offers you the 29-point gap by education, which shows
Trump +10 for non-college, Harris +19 for college. Of course, both
factors compound with a 43-point gap between non-college men (Trump +16)
and college women (Harris +27), but non-college women still prefer
Trump (+4) while college men go with Harris (+7).
Nicole Narea: [10-27]
What if Jill Stein or RFK Jr. decides the election? That you
could even ask such a question shows that you understand nothing
about third-party candidates, or at least their voters. Anyone
who thinks that there is meaningful difference between the two
major party candidates will vote for one or the other. Those who
don't may register that opinion by voting for someone else, or
they may just skip the whole process -- third-party voters are
preferable, because at least they're showing respect for the
process, just not for the two parties and their candidates.
Stein and Kennedy decided to throw their names into the hat,
but that's about it. Perhaps they made that decision hoping
to spoil the election -- that's certainly the only message
popular media has any interest in examining. But the voters'
decisions are purely negative. Neither party has the right to
claim third-party votes as rightfully theirs, because those
votes were clear rejections of both parties.
I've made what I felt was a
pretty strong case that the two-party split really matters
this year, and that one should vote for Harris vs. Trump. But
the first commenter I got back disagreed and reiterated his
decision to vote for Stein. I respect that.
John Quiggin: [10-28]
The end of US democracy: a flowchart: Go to the article for
the chart, but each node has an assigned probability, which of
course is just a wild guess, but this allows the possibility of
adding them up:
If the US were remotely normal, every entry on the left-hand edge
ought to be equal to 1. Harris should be a sure winner, Trump shouldn't
find any supporters for a coup, the MAGA Republicans in Congress should
be unelectable and the moderate program proposed by Harris should be
successful enough that Trumpism would be defeated forever.
But that's not the case. There are two end points in which US
democracy survives, with a total probability (excessively precise)
of 0.46, and one where it ends, with a probability of 0.54. By
replacing my probabilities at the decision nodes with your own,
you can come up with your own numbers. Or you may feel that I've
missed crucial pathways. . . .
Note: Any Thälmann-style comments (such as "After Trump, us"
or "Dems are social fascists anyway") will be blocked and deleted.
The key here is "remotely normal, so that's the part you still
have to puzzle out, and that's where the real problems and solutions
lie.
Catherine Rampell/Youyou Zhou: [10-22]
Voters prefer Harris's agenda to Trump's -- they just don't realize
it. Take our quiz." I hate these pieces, not least because they
deliberately try to screw you over with misleading questions, but
since I'm citing it, I figure I might as well score myself. The
verdict was: "you supported 1 of Trump's policies and 4 of Harris's
policies." The one "Trump proposal" I supported was: "Funding free
online classes with money taken from private university endowments
through taxes, fines, and lawsuits." I can see why Harris wouldn't
have proposed that. I'm not wild about the funding mechanism, but
private university endowments are a huge tax shelter that doesn't
offer much public interest value, so I could see taxing them down.
On the other hand, "free online classes" is a no-brainer. I think
that continuing adult education is drastically underserved in
America, and online classes would be a particularly cost-effective
way of helping out. (I also favor free in-person classes, and I
would fund it all from general funds, but I wasn't asked that.)
The only thing that distinguishes this as a "Trump proposal" is
that it's a bit harebrained. It's also a proposal that Trump will
never lift a finger to implement, nor could he pass through his
caucus.
Eugene Robinson:
The double standard for Harris and Trump has reached a breaking
point: "One candidate can rant about gibberish while the other
has to be perfect."
Shaghayegh Chris Rostampour: [10-14]
Why aren't Harris and Trump talking about nuclear weapons?
"The threat is real and at times the call is coming from inside
our own house." This doesn't really belong under "election,"
because, as noted, it's not something being contested, or even
given much thought.
David Sirota:
How the 2024 election is normalizing corruption.
David Wallace-Wells: [10-30]
The election looks li ke an intramural squabble between billionaires:
That, of course, is what you get when you reduce politics to a game
of raising unlimited money.
Endorsements:
Wajahat Ali: [10-29]
Yes, I think Democrats are complicit in genocide. But Trump would be
far worse: "There is simply no moral argument for allowing the
former president to win in the name of opposing genocide."
Donald Trump will be genocidal and a fascist. On Gaza, Trump
promised he would
let Israel "finish the job." That means fulfilling
his mega-donor Miriam Adelson's wish of annexing the West Bank
and standing pat as Israel
moves to occupy northern Gaza on the graveyard of Palestinians.
There's a reason why Israel's extremist national security minister,
Itamar Ben-Gvir, wants Trump to win and
says he will be better for Israel. . . .
With Harris and Democrats, there is an opening for Americans to
organize, push, and pressure her administration to halt Israel's
genocide and pursue progressive healthcare and economic policies.
Democratic allies include Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
labor organizations and communities of color who remain committed
to social justice, equity and peace. With the Republicans and Trump,
no such allies exist. There's simply a fascist and a white Christian
nationalist regime in waiting.
Matt Bai: [10-30]
George W Bush is running out of time: "He should take this
chance to get right with history, because history will certainly
be hard on him." I've long suspected that Bush had a streak of
plain human decency that he managed to suppress during his eight
years as president. He ended that streak in disgrace, which come
to think of it, is also how he started it, with many even worse
moments along the way. But at least he hasn't compounded that
disgrace, as most other ex-presidents have done. His withdrawal
and silence is really all the recognition we need (or can hope
for) that he is at least somewhat cognizant of his failures.
Doing anything else at this point would only compromise his
last shred of dignity.
By the way, it's easy enough to see Dick Cheney's endorsement
as nothing more than a favor to his daughter, who might still
hope to continue her political career -- not as a candidate but
in some other capacity -- by endearing herself to Harris. While
Cheney is the most certifiably evil character in recent American
politics, he's always had a soft spot for the women in his life.
Ben Burgis: [10-25]
There's no pride in a Dick Cheney endorsement.
Jackie Calmes: [10-20]
Top 10 reasons not to vote for Donald Trump: Plus: "Finally, the
bonus, a positive reason to vote Harris. She's not only among the
most experienced applicants for the job ever, but also: She's not
Trump."
The Guardian: [10-25]
The Guardian view on the US election and foreign policy: the world
can't afford Trump again.
William Lewis: [10-25]
On political endorsement: The Washington Post, presumably as
directed by billionaire owner Jeff Bezos, declined to endorse any
presidential candidate this year, breaking with a practice that
they've followed since 1976, even after it's been reported that
they had a Harris endorsement ready to go. The publisher tries to
explain this decision here. I'm not terribly bothered by this,
probably because I deeply distrust the big money media anyway,
especially their pretensions of independence. The Post, like the
New York Times, goes out of their way to "balance" their proper
news reporting -- never free from their own deep seated biases --
with right-wing "opinion" writers. However, many readers recognize
Trump as not just a political opportunist but as such a perversely
malign presence that they think he merits more rigorous scrutiny:
that every mention that does not put his statements in historical
context runs the risk of sanitizing and legitimizing ideas that
most people upon reflection should find truly appalling. So this
particular non-endorsement has elicited an interesting set of
reactions, starting with economic sanctions:
J Michael Luttig: [10-29]
My fellow Republicans, it's time to say enough with Trump.
Also cites his
previous endorsement from August.
Phil Mattingly: [10-23]
23 Nobel Prize-winning economists call Harris' economic plan 'vastly
superior' to Trump's.
The New Yorker:
Harris for President: "The Vice-President has displayed the basic
values and political skills that would enable her to help end, once
and for all, a poisonous era defined by Donald Trump."
Hamilton Nolan: [09-20]
The weird and stupid Teamsters non-endorsement fiasco: "Refusing
to endorse a presidential candidate will do nothing to stop Trump
and the GOP's war on workers."
The Observer: [10-26]
Americans who believe in democracy have no choice but to vote for
Harris
Edith Olmsted: [10-25]
"Extreme danger": Harris earns a stunning endorsement over Trump:
"Kamala Harris has earned an eleventh-hour show of support from
Palestinian,Arab, and Muslim community leaders." I cite their
statement down in the "chatter" section.
Rick Perlstein: [10-23]
Science is political: "For only the second time in its 179-year
history, Scientific American has endorsed a candidate for
president: Kamala Harris.
April Rubin:
Bernie Sanders: [10-30]
How can I vote for Kamala Harris if she supports Israel's war? Here's
my answer: "Trump says Netanyahu is doing a good job and Biden is
holding him back. Even on this issue, Trump is worse."
Catherine Shoard: [10-30]
Arnold Schwarzenegger endorses Kamala Harris: 'I will always be an
American before I am a Republican': "The former Republican governor
said that he was backing the Democrat because a Trump victory would
mean 'four more years of bullshit.'"
Bret Stephens: [10-29]
A conservative case against Trump: This one gives me no comfort.
He's in the running for worst right-wing pundit in America, and
much of his rationale centers on his understanding that Trump is
less reliable than Harris when it comes to supporting war and
genocide: among other things, he worries that "allow Putin to
succeed in Ukraine, and Israel's threats from Russia's allies
in Iran, Syria and Yemen will multiply."
Wikipedia: I ran this last week, but the lists keep
growing:
Trump:
Trump's Madison Square Garden spectacle:
Zack Beauchamp: [10-31]
Inside Trump's ominous plan to turn civil rights law against vulnerable
Americans. Late-breaking but important article.
Jasper Craven:
Trump's cronies threw the VA into chaos. Millions of veterans' lives
are on the line again.
David French: [10-27]
Four lessons from nine years of being 'Never Trump': His
section heads:
- Community is more powerful than ideology.
- We don't know our true values until they're tested.
- Hatred is the prime motivating force in our politics.
- Finally, trust is tribal.
Susan B Glasser: [10-18]
How Republican billionaires learned to love Trump again: "The
former President has been fighting to win back his wealthiest donors,
while actively courting new ones -- what do they expect to get in
return?"
Trump's effort to win back wealthy donors received its biggest boost
on the evening of May 30th, when he was convicted in Manhattan on
thirty-four criminal counts related to his efforts to conceal
hush-money payments to the former adult-film actress Stormy Daniels.
After the verdict, Trump walked out to the cameras in the courthouse
and denounced the case brought against him as "rigged" and a "disgrace."
Then he departed in a motorcade of black Suburbans. He was headed
uptown for an exclusive fund-raising dinner, at the Fifth Avenue
apartment of the Florida sugar magnate José (Pepe) Fanjul. . . .
Trump was seated at the head table, between Fanjul -- a major
Republican donor going back to the early nineties -- and Stephen
Schwarzman, the C.E.O. of Blackstone, the world's largest private-equity
fund, who had endorsed Trump the previous Friday. Securing the support
of Schwarzman was a coup for the Trump campaign. . . .
Trump was fund-raising off his conviction with small-dollar donors
as well; his campaign, which portrayed him as the victim of a
politicized justice system, brought in nearly $53 million in the
twenty-four hours after the verdict. Several megadonors who had
held back from endorsing Trump announced that they were now
supporting him, including Miriam Adelson, the widow of the late
casino mogul Sheldon Adelson; the Silicon Valley investor David
Sacks, who said that the case against Trump was a sign of America
turning into a "Banana Republic"; and the venture capitalist Shaun
Maguire, who, less than an hour after the verdict, posted on X that
he was donating $300,000 to Trump, calling the prosecution a
"radicalizing experience." A day later, Timothy Mellon, the
banking-family scion, wrote a $50-million check to the Make
America Great Again super PAC.
Many more names and dollar amounts follow.
Margaret Hartmann: [10-29]
Melania Trump plays normal political wife for one week only:
"From appearing at Donald Trump's racist MSG rally to insisting
he's 'not Hitler' on Fox News, Melania is now conspicuously
present."
Doug Henwood: [10-30]
Trumponomics: "What kind of economic policy could we expect
from a second Trump term?" A fairly obvious assignment for one of
our more available left-wing economists, but he comes up with
surprisingly little here, beyond income tax cuts and tariffs --
much-advertised themes that are unlikely to amount to very much.
I suspect this is mostly because, despite the obvious importance
of the economy, there isn't much of a partisan divide on how to
run it. Trump would be harder on workers (especially on unions),
and softer on polluters and all manner of frauds, but those are
just relative shifts of focus. He would also shift public spending
away from things that might be useful, like infrastructure, to
"defense," including his "beautiful wall."
Michael Isikoff: [10-28]
Trump campaign worker blows whistle on 'grift' and bugging plot:
"A bombshell email claims millions were funneled from campaign to
'overcharging' firms -- and some went to a top Kamala Harris donor."
Robert Kuttner: [10-30]
Why so much hate? "Trump has tapped into an undercurrent of crude
hatred and encouraged his supporters to express it. Where does all
this hate come from?"
Steven Levitsky/Daniel Ziblatt: []
There are four anti-Trump pathways we failed to take. There is a
fifth. Authors of two books that have many liberal fans --
How Democracies Die (2018), and Tyranny of the Minority:
Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point (2023) --
but never struck me as worth investigating, partly because their
interest in democracy seems more concerned with formal elegance
than with making government serve the people. The fifth path,
when various legal schemes fail, is "societal mobilization" --
isn't that what we used to call "revolution"? The authors have
written several "guest essays" over the years, including:
Nick Licata: [10-29]
Trump's playbook to win regardless of election night results.
Nicholas Liu: [10-30]
RFK Jr. claims Trump promised him "control" of CDC and federal health
care agencies.
Amanda Marcotte:
Nicole Narea: [10-29]
Would Trump's mass deportation plan actually work? "Here's what
history tells us." Related here:
The New Republic: [10-21]
The 100 worst things Trump has done since descending that escalator:
"Some were just embarrassing. Many were horrific. All of them should
disqualify him from another four years in the White House."
Timothy Noah:
Paige Oamek: [10-15]
Trump's campaign manager has raked in an insane amount of money:
"How in the world did Chris LaCivita make this much money from a
campaign?"
Rick Perlstein: [10-30]
What will you do? "Life-changing choices we may be forced to make
if Donald Trump wins."
Molly Redden/Andy Kroll/Nick Surgey: [10-29]
Inside a key MAGA leader's plans for a new Trump agenda: "Key
Trump adviser says a Trump administration will seek to make civil
servants miserable in their jobs." Spotlight here on Russell Vought,
"former acting director of the Office of Management and Budget."
Also on Vought:
James Risen:
[10-25]
Mainstream media was afraid to compare Trump to Hitler. Now the press
has no excuse. "Statements by John Kelly, Trump's former chief of
staff, have made it nearly impossible for the media to avoid Hitler
comparisons." Kelly's comments did pop up among the late show comics,
but I wouldn't expect much more.
[10-22]
Americans need a closing argument against Trump: "Too many Americans
seem to be ignoring the risks that another Trump presidency would pose
to the US. This is a warning to them." Included here because the author
casually mentions: "Trump is a fascist who wants to overthrow the United
States' democratic system of government." That's under the first section
here, which is just one of several:
- Threat to democracy
- Imprison political opponents
- Eliminate reproductive rights
- Concentration camps and mass deportations for immigrants
- Create a theocracy
- Increase censorship and destroy the media
- A puppet for Putin
- Dictator for life
Actually, I don't see many of these things happening, even if
Republicans take Congress, and the last two are total canards.
No one aspires to be a puppet, but aside from that, the rest are
at least things Trump might think of and wish for. What separates
Trump from the classic fascists has less to do with thought and
desire than with checks and balances that make it hard for any
president to get much of anything done. Still, a bad president
can do a lot of damage, and any would-be fascist is certain to
be a very bad president. As Trump has already proven, so we
really shouldn't have to relitigate this.
[10-03]
The reason Netanyahu and Putin both want a Trump victory:
"Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu both want Donald Trump to
win so they can prolong and intensify their brutal wars."
Asawin Suebsaeng/Tim Dickinson:
'American death squads': Inside Trump's push to make police more
violent.
Sean Wilentz:
Trump's plot against America: "A leading historian looks back
at Philip Roth's novel and how it perfectly predicts the rise of
Trump and his willing collaborators."
No More Mr. Nice Blog:
[10-28]
It's world-historical fascism, but it's also ordinary white-guy
bigotry.
Did yesterday's rally seem like the work of an organized, dangerous
fascist party? Yes -- but the rally's rhetoric also seemed like
ordinary casual conversation among bigoted white men when they
think no one can hear them. Remember the cops who beat Rodney King
in 1991 and sent messages to one another describing Black citizens
involved in a domestic dispute as being "right out of 'Gorillas in
the Mist'"? Remember the police official responsible for investigating
workplace harassment in New York City being fired in 2021 after it
was revealed that he'd written racist posts in a police discussion
group called the Rant? . . .
This is how bigoted men talk. Among cops, it reinforces a sense
of grievance that often leads to brutality. It'll do the same thing
among Trumpers if they win -- and, to a lesser extent, if they lose.
This is a rising fascist movement, but it's built on ordinary
hatreds that aren't new and that predate Trump's political career.
[10-24]
Fascism and other matters.
[20-21]
Donald Trump, relatable fuckup?
I think young men find Trump's campaign-trail lapses relatable.
It's not just that they might really believe Haitians in America are
eating people's pets, or might enjoy Trump's smutty anecdotes. I think
they also might notice that Trump is being accused of campaign
incompetence or dementia -- and that endears him more to
them.
After all, many of them were diagnosed with ADHD because they
couldn't sit still in school or stop disrupting class. They might
not like Trump's taste in music, but they can relate to someone who
shows up and just doesn't feel like doing the work.
They appreciate the way Trump suggests that he not only can solve
all the world's problems, but can do it quickly and easily -- he
conveys a sense that he can succeed at many things without doing
any hard work. That's what they want to do!Why are young men attending college at lower rates than young
women? Aren't they attending the same schools as their sisters?
Being good in school has always been seen as weird and unmanly by
most Americans, and I think that mindset is having a greater and
greater impact on young men's choices. Boys with good grades are
seen as weird losers and not very masculine -- they're like girls,
who are allowed to be good in school. It's much cooler to be an
amusing fuckup.
When we express horror at Trump's latest baffling act on the
campaign trail, I think we sound, to these young men, like annoyingly
responsible scolds. Obviously, they like Trump's offensive humor
because they like offending people, but they also relate to Trump's
refusal to restrain his speech because trying to avoid giving offense
to people is hard work. It's almost like schoolwork, and the
same people are good at it, for the same reasons -- because they're
grade-grubbing goody-goodies who seem to like spoiling everyone
else's fun.
[10-29]
No, Trump is still not "a spent and exhausted force": Disputes
the Jamelle Bouie piece I cited above.
[10-30]
A war at home is still a war, guys:
This is a reminder of one reason Donald Trump is winning over some
young men, apart from the bro-ishness and misogyny of his campaign:
Trump and his surrogates have young men convinced that a vote for
Harris is a vote for war. Trump regularly says that a Harris
presidency will lead to World War III, while he'll instantly,
magically, and single-handedly end all the major wars taking place
right now and prevent future wars by means of a slogan, "Peace
Through Strength." Harris, regrettably, has welcomed the support
not only of Liz Cheney (who has stood up for the rule of law in
recent years) but also of her father, whom nobody admires these
days and who was unquestionably a warmonger.
Seth Meyers: [10-31]
A Closer Look: Trump's embarrassing garbage stunt might be his
most surreal photo op ever.
Vance, and other Republicans:
Harris:
James Carville: [10-23]
Three reasons I'm certain Kamala Harris will win: Spoken like
the hack-consultant he's always been:
- Trump is a repeat electoral loser. This time will be no different.
- Money matters, and Harris has it in droves.
- It's just a feeling.
His feeling?
For the past decade, Trump has infected American life with a
malignant political sickness, one that would have wiped out many
other global democracies. On Jan. 6, 2021, our democracy itself
nearly succumbed to it. But Trump has stated clearly that this
will be the last time he runs for president. That is exactly why
we should be exhilarated by what comes next: Trump is a loser;
he is going to lose again. And it is highly likely that there
will be no other who can carry the MAGA mantle in his wake --
certainly not his running mate.
Lydie Lake: [10-30]
Harris's final push before election day: "Kamala Harris delivered
her closing argument in a charged pre-election rally near the White
House."
Colleen Long/Darlene Superville/Nadia Lathan: [10-25]
Beyoncé and Kamala Harris team up for Houston rally. One big
thing they talked about was abortion, including how in Texas "the
infant death rate has increased, more babies have died of birth
defects and maternal mortality has risen.
Chris Megerian/Colleen Long/Steve Karnowski: [10-17]
Following death of Hamas leader, Harris says it's 'time for the
day after to begin' in Gaza. If by "day after" you mean the
day after the killing ends, that's been overdue since Oct. 8,
2023 (and really many years before), but the statement would
seem to reject the idea that the war has to go on until there
are no Palestiniains left to kill, which seems to be Netanyahu's
agenda.
Christian Paz: [10-24]
How "Trump is a fascist" became Kamala's closing argument:
"Brat summer is over; 'Trump is a fascist' fall is in." I chased this
piece down after Nathan J Robinson
tweeted:
One of the main mistakes Hillary Clinton made was making her central
message "Trump is bad" without offering a positive case for why she
would be a good president. The error is being repeated.
A quick search reveals more complaints about this as a strategy,
along with much consternation that Harris is blowing the campaign,
possibly letting Trump win. I get that the "Trump is a fascist" jab
is suddenly fashionable thanks to the Kelly quote, although it's
been commonplace for years among people who know much about the
history of fascism, and are willing to define it broadly enough
that a 78-year-old American might qualify. I'd say that Trump is
a bit more complicated and peculiar than simply being a generic
fascist, although sure, if you formulated a generic F-scale, he
would pass as a fascist, and it wouldn't be a close call. But I
have two worries here: one is that most Americans don't know or
care much about fascism -- other than that it's a generic slur,
which judging from his use of the word (e.g., to slam "radical
leftists") seems to be his understanding; the other is that there
are lots of other adjectives and epithets that get more surely
and much quicker to the point of why Trump is bad: even fancy
words like sociopath, narcissist, oligarch, and misanthrope work
better; as well as more common ones like racist, sexist, elitist,
demagogue; you could point out that he's both a blowhard and a
buffoon; or you could settle for something a bit more colorful,
like "flaming asshole." Or rather than just using labels/names,
you could expand on how he talks and acts, about his scams and
delusions -- sorry if I haven't mentioned lies before, but they
come in so many flavors and variations you could do a whole
taxonomy, like the
list of fallacies (many of which he exemplifies -- at least
the ones that don't demand much logic).
As for Robinson's complaint, I think that's typical of left
intellectuals, who've spent all their lives trying to win people
over on issues. Politicians have to be more practical, especially
because they have to win majorities, while all activists can hope
for are incremental gains. Harris has a lot of planks in her
platform, and if you're seriously interested in policy, there's
a lot to talk about there (and not all good, even if, like most
leftists, you're willing to settle for small increments). But to
win an election, she needs to focus on the elements that can get
her majority support.
And the one key thing that should put her over the top is that
he's Donald Trump, and she isn't: that the only chance we voters
have of getting rid of Trump is to vote for her. To do this, she
needs to focus relentlessly on his negatives. She doesn't need to
toot her own horn much, as every negative she exposes him for is
an implicit contrast: to say "Trump is a fascist" implies that "I
am not." That may not be saying much, but it's something, and it
should be enough. And Robinson, at least, should know better. I
find it hard -- I mean, he's just co-authored
a book with Noam Chomsky -- seriously expects any Democrat to
offer "a positive case for why she would be a good president."
All any voter can do is pick one item from a limited, pre-arranged
menu. Sometimes you do get a chance to vote for someone you really
like or at least respect, but quite often the best you can do is
to vote against the candidate you most despise.
That choice seems awfully clear to me this year. Unfortunately,
it appears that many people are still confused and/or misguided.
At this point, I don't see any value in second-guessing the Harris
campaign. I have no reason to think they don't want to win this as
badly as I want them to win. They have lots of money, lots of
research, and lots of organization. They think they're doing the
right things, and I hope and pray they're right. It's endgame now,
so let them run their last plays. And if they do lose, that will
be the time to be merciless in your criticism. (That'll be about
the only fun you'll have in the next four years. By the way, if
you want a head start, check out
this book.)
[08-08]
"Trump is weird" will only get Kamala Harris so far: This is an
older article by Paz, kicking off the "voters want to hear from Harris
about Harris, not Trump or Biden" mantra.
Brian Bennett: [10-25]
Why Harris' closing argument is focused more on Trump than her.
Sidney Blumenthal: [10-28]
We are witnessing the making of a fascist president in real time.
Anand Giridharadas: [10-23]
Real men reject fascism: "A note on Harris's closing argument."
Susan B Glasser: [10-24]
Donald Trump and the F-word: "Kamala Harris embraces the 'fascist'
label for the ex-President, without any certainty that it will disquality
him."
Dylan Matthews: [10-23]
Is Trump a fascist? 8 experts weigh in. "Call him a kleptocrat,
an oligarch, a xenophobe, a racist, even an authoritarian. But he
doesn't quite fit the definition of a fascist." Had the head writer
read the article, they would have seen that it all depends on the
definition, and here 8 "experts" are all over the map, although they
all pretty much agree that Trump is an awful person and a dangerous
politician who is up to no good. Unless you're writing a comparative
historical analysis of right-wing political movements, that should
be understanding enough to vote against him.
Jan-Werner Müller: [10-29]
No, Trump is not a fascist. But that doesn't make him any less
dangerous.
Robert Reich: [10-21]
Trump's closing argument: full-throated fascism.
Alex Shephard: [10-25]
This is what's missing from the fascism argument against Trump:
"Yes, of course he's a threat to American democracy. But voters need
to know how it affects them."
Michael Tomasky: [10-25]
The best reason for calling Donald Trump a fascist? Easy: He is.
"The famous 'closing argument' should be multipronged. But the f-word
must be prominent in the mix."
Jonathan Weisman: [10-17]
Harris and Democrats lose their reluctance to call Trump a fascist:
"Since Gen. Mark Milley was quoted as saying Donald Trump is 'fascist
to the core,' a term avoided by top members of the Democratic Party is
suddenly everywhere." For me, the word "fascist" packs a lot of info in
a small package. For others, that info may be undecipherable, in which
case the charge rings hollow, or perhaps just scatalogical. But obviously
you don't get to be a general without studying a bit into WWII, which
is where Milley and Kelly are coming from.
Marc A Thiessen: [10-24]
Harris's closing argument is dishonest, desperate and hypocritical:
"Trump isn't a fascist, and he didn't say he would use the military
against his political opponents." But still not nearly as "dishonest,
desperate and hypocritical" as this (or pretty much any) Thiessen
column. Here's just one example:
Jennifer Rubin: [10-27]
To understand the US economic success is to love Harris's plan:
"Kamala Harris's economic proposals would build on the remarkable US
comeback since the pandemic."
Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:
Aaron Blake: [10-30]
Did Biden call Trump supporters 'garbage'? It comes down to an
apostrophe. "Republicans have long strained for a new Hillary
Clinton-"deplorables" moment, but Biden's defense is entirely
plausible." It mostly comes down to "who gives a fuck." I'm not
in favor of epithets applied to broad swathes of people, but
anyone offended by this is awfully thin-skinned.
Joseph Bullington: [08-19]
Republicans will weaponize rural suffering as long as Democrats
ignore it: "JD Vance is a poser, but he's telling a dangerously
compelling story about rural America that Democrats are doing
nothing to defuse."
Adam Johnson: [07-12]
The best counter to Project 2025 is a Progressive Project 2025:
"If President Biden -- or any Democratic replacement -- wants to get
back in the race, they need a positive moral vision to run on, not
just dire warnings." Obviously, the subhed is dated, and even if
true (which it probably isn't), it's too late to affect the 2024
election. I'm not opposed to articulating "a positive moral vision" --
after Gaza, I'd even welcome a negative one, like "not that" -- but
naming it "2025" implies you're seeking to power to implement big
changes almost immediately, and that is neither realistic nor a
very conducive vibe.
Nicholas Lemann: [10-28]
Bidenomics is starting to transform America. Why has no one
noticed?
Branko Marcetic: [10-23]
The US isn't moving right -- the Democrats are.
Li Zhou: [10-26]
Michelle Obama made the case for abortion rights in a way Joe Biden
never could: "In a searing speech, Obama laid out exactly what's
at stake."
Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:
Climate and environment:
Business, labor, and Economists:
Dean Baker:
Paul Krugman:
Ukraine and Russia:
Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:
Other stories:
Ross Rosenfeld: [10-30]
How America's craven plutocrats busted the myth of the business
hero: "The members of the billionaire executive class have billed
themselves as great men of history beyond scrutiny and reproach. his
is the year that shattered that illusion." Sorry to break this, but
that illusion has been pretty thoroughly debunked at least since Ida
B. Wells. And while I appreciate the occasional Harris supporter in
their ranks, she isn't really that much of a reach: arguably she'll
do better by them than their culturally simpatico golf cheat buddy.
Jeffrey St Clair: [10-25]
Roaming Charges: Antic dispositions: Some tidbits:
More than half of Trump's supporters don't believe he'll
actually do many of the things he claims he'll do (mass deportations,
siccing the military on domestic protesters and political rivals),
while more than half of Harris's supporters hope she'll implement
many of the policies (end the genocide/single-payer) she claims she
won't. And that pretty much sums up this election.
Barnett R. Rubin, former US diplomat: "Why do people keep saying
that US politics is polarized? Look at the big picture. Genocide
enjoys broad bipartisan support."
Fox News' Brian Kilmeade defended Trump's statement that
he wants the "kind of generals that Hitler had." Kilmeade: "I can
absolutely see him go, it'd be great to have German generals that
actually do what we ask them to do, maybe not fully being cognizant
of the third rail of German generals who were Nazis or whatever."
Kilmeade and Trump may not be "cognizant" of the fact that several
"German generals" (von Stauffenberg, Friedrich Olbricht, and Ludwig
Beck) tried to blow Hitler to bits and Germany's most famous General,
Rommel, was forced to kill himself after being implicated in the
plot.
Hours after the Washington Post announced its decision not
to endorse [Kamala Harris, directed by Post owner Jeff Bezos], the
Associated Press reported that Donald Trump met with executives
from Blue Origin, the space company owned by Bezos that has a $3.4
billion NASA contract to build a spacecraft to take astronauts to
the moon and back.
Eugene Debs: "I'd rather vote for something I want and don't
get it, than vote for something I don't want and get it."
Trump: "I worked a shift at McDonalds yesterday." A McDonalds
shift is eight hours, not 18 minutes . . . Dukakis in a tank looked
less ridiculous.
Sounds familiar . . . [followed by a tweet which reads: "In
1938, Benito Mussolini closed off a wheat field & did a photo
shoot showing him harvesting hay in order to portray himself as a
common working man. He was surrounded by workers who had been
vetted as loyal to the party." Includes a picture of the shirtless
Fascist with cap and aviator goggles.]
Since 2001, forest fires have shifted north and grown more
intense. According to a new study in Science, global CO2 emissions
from forest fires have increased by 60% in the last two decades.
Christian nationalist pastor
Joel Webbon called for the public execution of women who falsely
claim to have been sexually assaulted: "MeToo would end real fast . . .
All you have to do is publicly execute a few women who have lied."
Montana Senate candidate
Tim Sheehy, on why he wants to abolish the Dept. of Education:
"We formed that department so little Black girls could go to school
down South, and we could have integrated schooling. We don't need
that anymore."
Edward Luce, associate editor of the Financial Times: "Hard to
overstate what a sinister figure Elon Musk is. Never seen one oligarch
in a Western democracy intervene on anything like this scale with
unending Goebbels-grade lies." Musk is the most obnoxious kid in
middle school who is running the campaign of the school bully for
student council without even being asked because even the school
bully doesn't want to be around him . . .
Obituaries
Barbara Dane: She started as a folksinger,
and I heartily recommend her Anthology of American Folk Songs
(1959), better than her memorably titled 1973 album, I Hate the
Capitalist System, but she also recorded albums with Earl 'Fatha'
Hines, Lightnin' Hopkins, and the Chambers Brothers, and I liked
her 2016 jazz album Throw It Away enough for an A-.
Fethullah Gulen:
Phil Lesh:
Lewis Sorley:
Lewis Sorley, 90, who said the US won (but then lost) in Vietnam,
dies: [10-30] Military historian. I've always hated the very idea of his
book, A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of
America's Last Years in Vietnam, where he claimed that America
could have and should have won the war in Vietnam, but was sabotaged
by the peace movement, a fickle media, and weak-willed politicians.
In Sorley's worldview, the war should have gone on forever.
Also:
-
Claire Daly, master of the baritone saxophone, dies at 66.
-
Teri Garr, comic actress in offbeat roles, is dead at 79.
-
Gary Indiana, acerbic cultural critic and novelist, dies at 74.
-
Rudy May, a stingy master of the curveball, dies at 80.
-
Fernando Valenzuela, pitcher whose screwballs eluded batters, dies
at 63.
Books
Music (and other arts?)
Rick Lopez: [10-24]
Update.01 to The Sam Rivers Sessionography: A Work in Progress:
Fulfilling his subtitle, with a very substantial addition, on top of
a "magnificent" and "gorgeous" (to quote my own blurb) 764-page book
that already seemed definitive. By the way, those words were written
in advance of this "press release" quoted on page 3:
Michael Hull's Fifth Column Films has begun work on a feature-length
documentary about Sam Rivers through the lens of The Sam Rivers
Sessionography, a book by Rick Lopez. Rivers was a musical genius
who spent his life obsessed with creating intricate compositions that
pushed music to places no one else could conceive of. It's only fitting
that his biographer has invented an entirely new way to understand the
life of an artist through a minutely detailed portrait that could only
flower from the uniquely focused mind of Lopez. Rivers was a massive
talent who has been mostly forgotten by the American jazz scene and is
rarely included in the conversation about great masters of the art.
Lopez's book and this film aim to correct that oversight, and make the
case that Sam Rivers should take his place in the pantheon of the 20th
century.
Full disclosure: Michael Hull is my nephew. He started in Jason
Bailey's Wichita-based film crew (e.g.,
My Day in the
Barrel), produced a film
Smokers
no one has heard of, wrote a novel that hasn't been published and,
most relevant here, made the superb documentary
Betrayal at Attica. I've admired Lopez since I first
discovered him twenty-some years ago, so the idea of introducing
him and Mike was blindingly obvious. (I was also the person who
introduced Mike and Liz Fink, although the gestation period on
that project took much longer.) We have some money invested in
this project, which you can take as a caveat if you wish, but I
regard more as a vote of confidence. Still some ways to go, but
here's a preliminary
trailer and more information.
John McWhorter: [10-24]
It sounded like dancing, drinking and sex. It blew people's minds.
I only noticed this piece on "the long, syncopated journey from Scott
Joplin to Beyoncé" because Allen Lowe
complained about it: "his views of ragime are just bizarre and
beneath even the most minimal amount of knowledge, full of stereotypes
and really thirdhand historiography"; Phil Dyess-Nugent added: "Having
made his name writing about some things he seemed to understand, John
McWhorter has since demonstrated his cluelessness on a vast array of
subjects." That's my general impression of the few columns I've read,
especially since his ridiculous Woke Racism book. This I'm
less sure about, maybe because I don't know or chare that much about
ragtime (or, I might as well admit, Beyoncé), so I'm mostly just noting
a lot of name-dropping and connect-the-dots that favors obvious over
interesting.
Riotriot: [10-30]
Takes by the ocean: Zambian nightlife and spongian jawbox.
Chatter
Peter Daou [10-27]
QUESTION: Who is worse for Palestinians, Trump or Harris?
ANSWER: Harris is worse for Palestinians.
WHY?
- Harris and Biden are already culpable for a year-long genocide.
- Like Trump, Harris vows to keep giving Israel unconditional support.
- Therefore, Trump can never match Harris's death toll.
- Rewarding Harris's war crimes with a vote emboldens Netanyahu and
opens the floodgates for future tyrants.
- If Trump wins and Democrats suddenly decide massacring children
is wrong, Trump will face much greater resistance to letting Israel
commit atrocities.
Bottom line: Voting third party is the only moral choice, but if
liberals insist on comparing Trump to Harris, Harris is worse for
Palestinians.
I found this immediately after posting my
preliminary draft on who to vote for president and why, so I've
already explained why I disagree with Daou's conclusion so strongly.
But perhaps I should stress one very important point, which is that
voting is not a moral choice; it is a political choice. I'm not going
to write a disquisition on the difference, but will insist that it is
a category error to vote based on morality. As for Daou's five points:
- True, but the order is wrong, like saying "Speer and Hitler
are already culpable," where the clearest charge against Speer
(and Harris) is not breaking with their leader. By the way, Biden
is more like Speer than to Hitler -- in playing follow-the-leader,
but also given their critical position in the arms pipeline.
- Not false, but Harris (unlike Trump and Graham) has never said
"finish the job," and she's not unaware of the human toll Israel's
"self-defense" is taking, so I'd say that continued "unconditional
support" is slightly less likely from her. Admittedly, that's a
thin reed she has often taken pains to cover up.
- No way of predicting, but no reason to underestimate Trump's
capacity for getting people killed. His general contempt for most
of the world suggests quite the opposite.
- Clearly, massively false. Netanyahu's preference for Trump is
widely known, not only through his own words and acts but through
mutual donors like Myriam Adelson.
- Hard to know where to begin with this variation on "if the
fascists win, the revolution will hasten." Ever hear of "moral
hazard"? Sure, some Democrats may learn to blame the genocide on
Trump -- as some Democrats came to blame Nixon for Vietnam -- but
most will simply be shocked and search for scapegoats to blame,
especially "pro-Palestinians" like Daou.
Daou's conclusion that "Harris is worse for Palestinians" is
horribly wrong, even if "Harris is no good for Palestinians" may
well be true. But I wouldn't be much swayed if one could argue
that one candidate would be good or better, because I've never
looked at this conflict through that prism. I never quite bought
the argument that "Palestinians have dug their own graves," but
I did have sympathies for Israel at one point, which may be why
I still wish to emphasize that genocide is bad (and I mean really
bad) for Israel (and for America, which is implicated not just
due to recent arms support but via longstanding cultural and
political mores), and that in itself is reason enough to oppose
it. (And sure, it's even worse for the killed than the killers,
and that's another reason to oppose it, but it doesn't have to
be the only one.)
Some more comments on Daou's tweet:
Nathan J Robinson: Peter, this doesn't make sense. It
could absolutely get worse under Trump. Any pressure to provide
any aid whatsoever to Gaza will disappear. Greater pressure may
be brought on Egypt to let Israel fully ethnically cleanse Gaza.
Don't assume this is as bad as it can get.
Andrew Revkin: I sense @RudyGiuliani would disagree
with you, @peterdaou, on who's worse for Palestinians. Here's
how he explained the Trump plan at the #MSGRally tonight in
his own words.
Films For Action: When we think of Trump in power
again, we recall that even a genocide can get much worse. Trump
just said that Netanyahu must "go further" in Gaza while
criticizing Biden for "trying to hold him back." The full
statement is highly worth reading: [link to
Arizona Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and Progressive Democrats
Statement on Presidential Election].
Shadowblade: Who moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv
to Jerusalem?
Jonathan Blank Films: [Link to
'Trump would be the worst': Palestinians react to US presidential
race.]
Nathan J Robinson: [12-27] [comment attached to a clip of Tucker
Carlson's MSG rally rant]
The level of uncontrolled rage is terrifying, but I think if Trump
is elected you will see it get far worse. The amount of overt racism
will increase, the view of Democrats, leftists, migrants being scum
in need of elimination. JD Vance has made clear that Pinochet is the
model.
Mehdi Hasan: [10-30] Donald Trump is going around telling Michigan
Muslims he'll end the war, be the peace president, and how pro-Muslim
(!) he is.
Meanwhile, Dems sent Bill Clinton to lecture Michigan Muslims on
how it's all Hamas's fault that Israel is massacring kids and killing
civilians holding white flags.
Whether or not they end up losing Michigan, at this point the Dems
deserve to lose Michigan. Sheesh.
Aaron Rupar: [10-31] Trump on Liz Cheney: "Let's put her with
a rifle standing there with 9 barrels shooting at her. Let's see
how she feels about it. You know, when the cuns are trained on her
face."
Local tags (these can be linked to directly):
music.
Original count: 228 links, 11718 words (15894 total)
Current count:
253 links, 12905 words (17532 total)
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Tuesday, October 29, 2024
Speaking of Which: Top 10 Reasons to Vote for Harris vs. Trump
Note: This piece is also cross-posted at
Notes on Everyday Life. I originally posted it there first, in
hopes of generating some preliminary discussion. If keeping them in
sync proves difficult, this one should probably be authoritative.
Two questions need to be addressed before we get down to detailed
arguments. The first is why vote at all? I'd say first, because it
is your right as a citizen, but must be secured by your exercise of
it. People in America may have a very limited say in how the country
is organized and run, but you do have the vote, and using it shows
your willingness to engage in the responsibility for setting the
nation's direction.
The second question is whether you should limit your vote choice
to the two major political parties, or consider voting for a third
party should you prefer that candidate's platform? History shows us
that America gravitated into a two-party system almost immediately
after the Constitution was ratified, and quickly returned to a two
party system on the two instances where one major party disbanded
(replacing the Federalists with the Whigs, and replacing the Whigs
with the Republicans). No subsequent third party has been able to
sustain significant followings, with third-party votes often
dropping to under 5% in recent elections.
So from a practical standpoint, third parties are ineffective
and unpromising.One might nonetheless consider voting for a third
party candidate if: neither major party nominated a candidate you
can stand, and there is no significant difference between the two
candidates that can direct your choice. I can understand if you
feel that both Trump and Harris should be shunned for their rote
support of Israeli genocide, although I suspect that even there
the nature of their positions differs enough to favor a vote for
Harris.
One other possible consideration is whether one party offers a
better chance for future improvement, based on the composition of
the party, how open-minded its members are, and how democratic its
processes are. The current two-party system is quite possibly the
most polarized ever, which has led most people to select one party
or the other. Moreover, both major parties have primaries that are
open to all members, and as such are amenable to reform. If, like
me, you are primarily concerned with "left" issues of peace and
equal rights, you may have noticed that most of the people most
likely to agree with you are currently Democrats. If your goal is
to build a majority around your ideals, you need to establish a
bond of solidarity with the Democrats, which often means voting
for a candidate you don't totally agree with. You are, after all,
hoping that other Democrats, even ones that disagree with you,
will vote for your candidate should that person win a primary.
The last third party candidate I voted for was Ralph Nader in
2000. I don't feel bad about that vote, especially as I'm convinced
that the Gore-Lieberman ticket would have been as gung-ho starting
the "war on terror" after 9/11 as Bush-Cheney was. But I did learn
one lesson from that election, which is that even in Kansas, where
the Gore campaign was practically non-existent, 90% of the anti-Bush
votes cast went to the Democrat. Since then, I vowed to work within
the Democratic Party, such as it as, as best I could. (I did lapse
once since, to vote against a particular Democrat I've hated what
seems like all of my life, but there I went with the Republican, as
I really wanted that Democrat to lose.)
Having narrowed the choice down to Harris vs. Trump, arguments
that one candidate is better and/or one candidate is worse are
equally valid. This being American politics, "one candidate is
worse" arguments predominate. Lest you imagine there might be any
suspense here, Harris is the better option, while Trump is much
the worse.
And while the future is impossible to predict, the margins
overwhelm any imaginable uncertainty. Trump is especially known,
as we've actually experienced him as President. This doesn't
mean a second term will be just like his first: it could easily
be worse, for reasons we'll get into. Harris is harder to read.
Although she has much relevant experience, presidency offers
powers and temptations that she's never faced before, as well
as situations she's never had to deal with. This raises doubts,
which I will deal with in a separate list, following the "top
ten."
So, here are my top ten reasons to vote for Harris vs. Trump:
Donald Trump is a truly odious human being.
That's a personal, not a political judgment: sure, virtually all
of his political views stink, but most of the people who share
his political views have personal traits one can relate to,
respect, even appreciate. As far as I can tell -- and while
I only know what's been reported, I've been exposed to a lot
of that -- he has none. He seems totally miserable. If he's
ever laughed, it's been at someone else's expense. He lacks
even the slightest pretense of caring for anyone, even for
his wives or children (the prenups should have been a clue).
He's not unique in this regard, but most similar people are
easily ignored. The only way to free ourselves from Trump's
ever-present unpleasantness is to vote him off (like in the
"reality TV" shows he's a creature of).
Harris, on the other hand, can listen, and respond appropriately.
She has a generous and infectious laugh. And while I've never seen
her cry, she is at least cognizant of situations that call for a
show of concern and empathy. I don't particularly like the idea of
president as "handholder-in-chief," but it's better to have someone
who can feign that than someone who utterly cannot.
Such personal failings drive most people to
despair, which at least could be pitied, but Trump's inherited
wealth has provided him with an armor of callousness, which has
long elicited the warm glow of supplicants and sycophants. From
this, he has constructed his own mental universe where he is
adored and exalted. This has produced extraordinary hubris --
another of his distasteful traits -- but more importantly, his
narcissism has left him singularly unprepared to deal with reality
when it so rudely intrudes on his fantasy life (as happens all too
often when you're President).
I should note here that the collective embarrassment we so often
felt when witnessing Trump's failed attempts at addressing events
has dulled somewhat since he left office (need I remind you of
Hurricane Maria? -- just one of dozens of examples, ranging from
his staring into the eclipse to the pandemic). The only things that
have affected him that way since have been his indictments, but even
there he's been sheltered like no one else ever. There is no reason
to think that Harris wouldn't respond to events at least as well as
a normal politician, which is to say, by showing palpable concern
and deliberation. Trump's disconnect from reality is unprecedented.
(Good place to mention his election denialism.)
There is some debate as to whether Trump's wealth
is real, but even as it seems, that should be reason enough to disqualify
him. Only a few Presidents have come from the ranks of the rich, and
those who did -- like Washington, Kennedy, and the Roosevelts -- took
pains to distance themselves from their business interests. Back in
2016, Trump suggested he would give up his business ties, insisting
that his wealth made him more independent of corrupt influences, but
after he won, he backtracked completely, and ran an administration
that was outrageously corrupt -- especially at the top, where his
son-in-law's diplomacy netted him a billion-dollar private equity
fund, but his administration hired lobbyists to peddle influence
everywhere. One might argue that Trump's business was so large that
he couldn't possibly disentangle himself, but that's just part of
the reason why people like him shouldn't be allowed in politics.
Their inability to relate to ordinary Americans is another.
Aside from his abuse of executive power to staff
government with corporate agents, pack with courts with right-wing
cronies, and pardon numerous criminals in his circle, his record
for delivering on his 2016 campaign promises is remarkably thin: he
lost interest in things that might have been popular (like building
infrastructure, or "draining the swamp"). He also lucked out, when
a couple Republican defections saved the ACA, and then when Democrats
took Congress back in 2018. The only positive bill he signed was the
pandemic relief act, which he wanted desperately to save a flagging
stock market, but had to accept a mostly Democratic bill that helped
pretty much everyone.
Also, the full impact of many policies can take years before it
is felt. The repeal of Taft-Hartley in 1947 took decades before it
started to do serious damage to unions and workers (although it had
the immediate impact of ending a campaign to unionize in the South,
which would have been a big advance for civil rights). Deregulation
of savings & loans in the 1980s and larger banks in the 1990s
took most of a decade before triggering recessions. Much of what
Trump did during his term didn't blow up until after the 2020
election, including his killing of the Iran nuclear deal, his
agreement to give Afghanistan to the Taliban, and his Supreme
Court's overturn of Roe v. Wade.
Harris's ability to deliver on campaign promises will, as Biden's
has, depend much on the balance of power in Congress, but at least
Democrats have a track record of trying to pass laws to help most
Americans, and not just those favored by Republicans with their tax
and benefit cuts. Harris will be further hampered by the Republican
packing of the courts, but that's one reason why it matters not just
that Democrats win elections, but win big.
On the other hand, if Trump were more dedicated
in pursuit of the policy positions he espouses, or if he's just given
more power by a Republican Congress, he could (and probably would)
do much more harm in a second term, way beyond the still not fully
accounted for harm of his first. For starters, he has a much more
developed idea of what he wants to do -- not because he understands
policy any better, but because he has more specific goals in areas
that especially interest him -- and will hire more loyal operatives,
eager to carry out his wishes. This will be easier, because he's
already bent the party to his will, especially promoting its most
crazed cadres, while he himself has become further radicalized.
Moreover, he now has a long list of enemies to punish, while his
minions will be free to pursue their own grafts and obsessions.
We've already seen how he's turned the presidency into a cult of
personality. Give him more power -- not just in Congress but the
Supreme Court is ready to enshrine the "unitary executive theory" --
and he will only grow more monstrous.
Donald Trump is a shit stain on the face of America.
They say that wealth is power, and that power corrupts, absolute
power absolutely. America emerged from WWII with half of the world's
wealth, with troops spread to Europe and East Asia, and corporations
everywhere. America has been "breaking bad" ever since, starting in
the 1940s rigging elections in Italy, fighting communists in Greece
and Korea, overthrowing democratic governments in Guatemala and Iran,
replacing them with corporate-friendly autocrats. Still, even Reagan
expected good guys in white hats to win out, so he pretended to be
one, while the Bushes hid their conservatism behind fake compassion.
Trump is the first US president to give up all pretense. His fans
may mistake his contempt for candor, but the result is a much more
brutal world. He demands tribute from allies, lest they fall into
the ranks of enemies, who are expected to cower when faced with
overwhelming American might, and face escalating threats when they
refuse to fall in line. His is a recipe for neverending war, as
we've already seen with Russia and Iran, with Korea and China
waiting for the next break.
Nor are we only talking about foreign policy. The conservative
solution to domestic matters is also to rely on force, starting
with mass incarceration, eroding/stripping rights, smashing unions,
purging the civil service, quelling demonstrations, stifling free
speech, book bans, censoring the press, turning education into
indoctrination, rigging elections, even going so far as to incite
mobs and promise them immunity. While these impulses have long
been endemic to Republicans, Trump is unique in he wants you to
see and smell the feces, and that seems to be the basis for his
popularity among his hardcore constituency. This, with its embrace
of sheer power and rampant criminality, is what's so reminiscent
of the fascist movements of the 1930s.
Still, as bad as Trump is personally, the real
danger is that his election will bring a tidal wave of Republicans
into power all throughout the federal and local governments they
have pledged to debilitate and reduce, as Grover Norquist put it,
"to the size where I can drown it in the bathtub." (The less often
discussed ancillary idea is to hack off functions done by government
and give them away to the private sector. This almost never works.
When attempted, it almost always makes the functions more expensive
and/or less useful.) This is just one of
many deranged and dysfunctional ideas prevalent in the Republican
Party. Like most of their ideas, it's appealing as rhetoric, but
unworkable in practice. Republicans have repeatedly tried to reduce
government spending by cutting taxes on their donor class, but have
found little to actually cut -- even when they had the power to
write budgets -- so all they've produced is greater deficits, and
an inflated oligarchy.
They've had more luck at poisoning benefits, trying to make
government appear to be worthless. The idea is to convince voters
that voting is hopeless, because government will only take from
them, and never give back. The idea that the purpose of government
is to "provide for the general welfare" (that's in the Preamble to
the US Constitution) is inimical to them. The idea of "government
of, by, and for the people" (that's in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address)
is alien to those who hate most American people. Republicans created
a death spiral of democracy, which they hope will leave them in
permanent power, not to serve the public, but to prevent people
from using government for their own improvement.
Trump has added his own authoritarian quirks to the Republican
agenda, but the big risk to democracy has always come from money,
which Republicans have made sure selects candidates and drives
elections. Trump is less a cause of oligarchy than evidence of
how far it has progressed.
Two important concepts in economics are externality
(public costs that are not factored into product costs, such as
pollution) and opportunity costs (other things that we could spend
money on if we weren't preoccupied with given expenses). Republicans,
driven exclusively by their desire to help the rich get richer in the
here and now, and blind to the future, have no interest in these
concepts. Democrats are subject to the same donor pressures, but at
least recognize that such side effects are real and important. This
is because they try to recognize and balance everyone's welfare, and
not just that of their donors and voters.
Climate change is a good example of both: it is largely caused by
the waste products of fossil fuels, and can only be remedied by major
investment sooner rather than later. But people only see what gasoline
costs when they fill up, while the climate change they're contributing
to only manifests later, and mostly to other people. This gives them
little reason to spend now to avert future costs, so they don't.
Even as climate change has become a very tangible problem, Trump and
the Republicans have wrapped themselves ever deeper into a cocoon of
denial and ignorance, which ensures that as long as they're in power
we will never invest what we need to in sustainable infrastructure.
While a second Trump term could do a lot of immediate damage, its
long-term cost will largely be opportunity costs, as we belatedly
realize we didn't invest what we should have when it would have been
more effective.
It's impossible to overstate how completely Donald
Trump has taken over and perverted our culture, what philosophers
call our noosphere -- the mental universe, our ability to reason.
This may seem paradoxical given that few people on Earth are as
disengaged from and contemptuous of reason as Donald Trump, but
that may well be the source of his power. He has effectively given
his followers permission to disengage from other people, to eschew
reason and argument and indulge their own prejudices and fantasies,
because that's what he does, and he's so fabulously successful.
Moreover, it has the added benefit of driving crazy all those who
still worry about real problems (both their own and those of other
people), which they expect to deal with through science and reason.
(Such people often project their own mania back onto the Trumpers,
and reckon them to be saddled with problems, when they actually
seem to be quite blissfully serene in their obliviousness and/or
ignorance.)
Political scientists have a concept known as the Overton window,
which describes "the range of policies politically acceptable to
the mainstream population at a given time." Ideas outside the window
are dismissed as radical or even unthinkable, making it very hard to
get any sort of coverage, as the media limits itself to more widely
acceptable ideas. Events may push some ideas into the mainstream,
while discarding others. For instance, there was a time when eugenics
was all the rage, but no more. Climate change has become increasingly
mainstream, although there are still political interests out to kill
any such discussion. A big part of politics is fighting over what we
can and cannot talk about. What Trump has done has been to expand
the Overton window to the far right, legitimizing clusters of issues
that were previously regarded as baseless (like QAnon, antivax claims,
election denial). Perhaps the most disturbing of all has been Trump's
own criminal enterprises. These subjects, which at best distract from
real problems and often create more, would only grow under a second
Trump term.
I have no doubt that the bad policies advanced by Trump will blow
up and wind up discredited, but at a great waste of effort to stop
them, and a huge opportunity cost as we ignore constructive ideas
from the left. Even where Harris does not have good programs, which
certainly includes her continued fealty to Bush-Obama-Trump-Biden
(and Cheney?) foreign policy, her election would provide a much
healthier window for debate than what we'd be stuck with under
Trump.
It's time to turn the page on Trump and the era of
Fox Republicanism. Cloture on Trump is easy to imagine, as he's way
past his prime, increasingly doddering at 78, unlikely to ever run
again. Vote him out, and that's one problem America will never have
to deal with again. Not only would it give us a chance to heal, to
move on, to deal with our self-protracted problems, but it could be
the kindest result for Trump and even for his Party. Trump could cut
his plea deals and escape most of the legal jeopardy he's landed in.
The Party could finally recalculate, trying to find a way to compete
in the real world instead of trying to scam the rhetorical madness
that Fox created to profit from fear and rage. Moreover, by cutting
their losses, they'd escape much of the blame for the disasters their
preferred policies would inevitably lead to. Progress is inexorable,
so those who would resist it only have two choices: bend or break.
The Republicans' forty-year (1980-2020) era has done much damage to
the social and economic fabric of the nation. Some things have broken,
and many more are creaking. We might survive four more years of Trump,
but time is running out. And when things do break under Trump, beware
that no one will be more ill-prepared and incompetent at dealing with
them.
On the other hand, Harris, like most Democrats (even the nominally
left-wing of the party), doesn't represent visionary change, but she
is perceptive, analytical, and pragmatic, which suggests that she will
adapt to changing circumstances, and endeavor to make the best out of
them. She will be sorely tested by the influence of wealthy lobbyists,
by the superficial and sensationalist press, by the still powerful
remains of Republican power -- which while incapable of governing
competently let alone responsibly, is still a formidable machine for
amplifying grievances -- and by new challenges we haven't even been
able to think of yet (so mired are we in the ruins of bad Republican
politics, from Nixon and Reagan through the Bushes to their ultimate
self-parody in Trump, tempered ever so slightly by interim Democrats
who never got beyond patchwork repairs).
Of course, one can think of many more reasons, especially if you
tried to work from policies outward. I may do a separate document
where I read through Trump's "Agenda 47" and comment line-by-line.
Presumably there's a comparable Harris document somewhere, which
could also be scrutinized. From them, I might be able to come up
with a scorecard, but there's no chance of a different result. As
it is, I've concentrated less on issues and more on personalities
and political dynamics: Trump is at best muddled on issues, but
his shortcomings as noted are extremely clear.
Harris, as I noted, is harder to read, especially because for
tactical campaign purposes she has adopted a set of views that aim
to win over not just undecided/centrist voters but any Republicans
that Trump hasn't totally stripped of their decency yet. She's had
some success at that, although it remains to be seen how many actual
votes follow her celebrity endorsements. At this point, I don't see
any point in second-guessing her campaign strategy. Presumably she
has researched the electorate and knows much better than I do just
how to pitch them. If she loses, we'll have a field day dissecting
her mistakes -- which, for all the reasons mentioned above and many
more, may be the only fun we can have in the next four years.
But for now, let's assume she wins, and she runs her administration
along lines it is reasonable to expect. In that case, the left will
still have work to do and things to protest. So here are my:
Top 5 Reasons Electing Harris Won't Solve Our Problems
I ran across this synopsis recently: "There are converging
political, economic, and ecological crises, and yet our politics
is dominated by either business as usual or nostalgia for a
mythical past." Harris represents the party of "business as
usual," where "change" is acknowledged as inevitable, but is
guarded so as not to upset the status quo -- which may include
reforms to make it more tolerable, as not doing so would risk
more disruptive change.
While it didn't occur to me in listing the "top ten reasons"
above, one more strong reason is that Trump's "nostalgia for a
mythical past" -- the once-great America he aims to restore and
protect -- is not just incoherent but impossible, so much so that
his efforts to force the world back into his ideal alignment are
more likely to break it than to fix anything. Reducing America
to his chosen few would breed chaos and resentment, and collapse
the economy, destroying the wealth he meant to protect. Moreover,
his instinct to use force would only compound the damage.
It is ironic that while most of us on the left have grown wary
of revolution, many on the right, perhaps due to their embrace of
violence, have been seduced by the notion that might makes right.
If conservatism means wishing to keep things as they are, it is
the Democrats who are the true conservatives, while Republicans
have turned into flaming radicals, with Trump emerging as their
leader given his flamboyance and utter disregard for conventional
political thinking. As with the fascist movements of the 1930s,
many people are enthralled by this radicalism. Why such movements
have always failed, sometimes spectacularly, has yet to sink in --
although the connection does at long last seem to be entering the
mainstream media.
Democrats are still uncomfortable being the party of the status
quo. Many are nostalgic for the days when Republicans filled that
role, providing foils against which they could propose their modest
reforms -- which they've long needed to attract struggling voters.
The problem that Harris faces in 2024 is that the Trumpian romance
of reactionary revolution has become so attractive -- the backdrop
is the unprecedented extension of inequality over the last fifty
years, which has left most people feeling left behind -- and so
terrifying that she's fallen into the trap of defending the status
quo, making her seem insensitive to the real problems that we look
to candidates to help solve. Trump at least has answers to all the
problems -- wrong ones, but many people don't understand the details,
they're just attraction to his show of conviction, while they note
that Harris seems wary of pushing even the weak reforms popular in
her party.
She's banking on the status quo to save America from Trump and
the Republicans. If she wins her bet, she will win the election.
But then she'll have to face the more difficult task of governing,
where her limits could be her undoing. These five questions loom
large on the post-election agenda:
Perhaps most immediately, US foreign policy needs
a total rethink. US foreign policy took a radical turn shortly after
WWII, renouncing the "isolationist" past and assuming a militarily
as well as an economically interventionist stance. This was partly
a matter of filling the vacuum left by the war's global destruction,
and partly ambition. Beyond the battlefields, Europe's colonial
empires had become untenable, opening the door for businesses as
the hidden powers behind local rulers. As the alternatives were
communist-leaning national liberation movement, this soon turned
into the Cold War -- which was great news for the arms industry,
which along with oil and finance became a pillar of American
foreign policy. When the cold war receded, neocons came up with
more rationales for more conflicts, to keep their graft going.
Efforts at building international institutions (like the UN)
increasingly gave way to unilateral dictates: America First,
before Trump, who basically thinks of foreign policy as some
kind of protection racket, latched onto the term. There hadn't
been significant partisan differences in foreign policy since
the advent of the Cold War: all the Democrats who followed
Republican hawks (Reagan, the Bushes, even Trump in his own
peculiar way) did was to normalize their aggressiveness. Thus
Biden reaffirmed his support for Ukraine and Israel, as well as
his opposition to Russia, China, and the usual suspects in the
Middle East, which has (so far) blown up into two catastrophic
wars, while at the same time the US has made sure that world
organizations (like the UN) are powerless to intervene.
Harris seems to be fully on board with this: not only does
she support the current wars, she has gone out of her way to
ostracize so-called autocrats -- not the ones counted as allies
because they buy American arms but the others, the ones who make
their own (or buy from each other). This conventional thinking,
based on the notion that force projection (and sanctions) can
and will dictate terms for resolving conflicts, has a very poor
track record: it polarizes and militarizes conflicts, stokes
resentments, stimulates asymmetric responses (like terrorism),
while driving its targets into each others' clutches. Meanwhile,
the reputation the US once had for fairness is in tatters.
A new foreign policy needs first of all to prioritize peace,
cooperation, and equitable economic development. It should also,
where possible, favor social justice (albeit not through force,
which is more likely to make matters worse).
Restricting immigration is the one issue where
neo-fascist politicians seem to be gaining significant popular
support, in Europe as well as the US. Harris has chosen to lean
into the issue rather than oppose the Republicans, as had Biden
and Obama before her, not that any of their harsh enforcement
efforts have gotten any cooperation or compromise from Republicans,
who would rather milk this as a grievance issue than treat it as
a practical issue. Part of the problem here is that while many
voters will support Republicans just to vent rage, other voters
expect results from Democrats, and no matter what results they
hoped for, few are satisfied. The issue is complex and messy,
and Congress is unable or unwilling to pass any legislation to
help clear the mess. Which makes this an issue that will haunt
Harris indefinitely, no matter what she tries to do.
Personally, this is an issue I care little about either way.
What concerns me more is that the system be seen as fair and
just, that it is neither exploitative of immigrants nor that
it hurts the domestic labor market. I could see arguments for
limiting or for expanding immigration numbers. I do think that
the current backlog of non-documented immigrants needs to be
cleared up, which could involve clearing the path toward
naturalization and/or paying them to leave, but it needs to be
done in an orderly and humane manner, with clear rules and due
process. I've generally opposed "guest worker" programs (like
the one Bush tried to push through), but could see issuing green
cards as a stopgap measure. Harris will find it difficult to
navigate through this maze, but what would help is having some
clear principles about how citizenship should work -- as opposed
to just responding to Republican demagoguery.
I should also note that the biggest determinant of immigration
is foreign policy. Most people emigrate because they are dislodged
by war or ecological and/or economic distress, and those are things
that American foreign policy as presently practiced exacerbates.
Policies that resolve (or better still, prevent) conflicts, that
limit climate change, and/or that extend economic opportunities
would significantly reduce the pressures driving emigration.
Democrats under Biden made the first serious
legislative effort at addressing climate change ever, but the
structure of American politics makes it much easier to promote
the development of new technologies and products than it is to
do things like changing habits of fossil fuel use. Democrats
are so wedded to the idea of economic growth as the panacea
for all problems that they can't conceive of better lives lived
differently. How one can ever get to zero emissions isn't on
any agenda. Meanwhile, Republicans keep digging themselves ever
deeper into their tunnel of ignorance, so they have nothing to
offer but obstruction.
While prevention seems to be too much to ask of any Democratic
politician, they do still have a big advantage on disaster care.
Reagan's joke -- "The nine most terrifying words in the English
language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" --
is easily disproven every hurricane season, yet remains as sacred
dogma. Given that climate change has already happened, and is
playing out in cycles of increasingly uninsurable "natural"
disasters, it becomes imperative to elect a government that
cares about such problems, and regards it as its duty to help
people out. Harris will be tested on this, repeatedly.
Meanwhile, if you want to try out nine really terrifying
words, try these: "I'm a Republican, and Donald Trump is my
President."
There is one political issue that close to 90%
of all Americans could agree on, but it has no leadership and
little support in either major party, and that is the thoroughly
corrupt influence of money on politics. The situation has always
been bad, but got much worse in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled
in favor of unlimited corporate spending in Citizens United v. FEC.
Obama spoke out against the ruling, but did nothing to overturn it.
Rather, he easily outraised his opponents in 2008 and 2012, winning
twice. Biden and Harris have also raised much more money than Trump,
so while Republicans are the most steadfast supporters of campaign
graft, top Democrats also benefit from the system -- especially
against their real competition, which is other Democrats, who
might be tempted to campaign on issues that appeal to voters, as
opposed to having to spend all their time catering to the whims
of rich donors. The 2024 presidential election is by far the most
ridiculously expensive in history, which also makes it the most
tainted by special interests and their peculiar obsessions (like
Israel, which has kept both candidates from expressing any concern
about ongoing genocide). Breaking this mold is a golden opportunity
for some aspiring politician. Harris can't do it while she's still
campaigning, but it's not only wasteful, it diminishes trust in
everyone involved, and as such discredits the whole system.
The worst offenders, of course, are the billionaires,
many of whom -- starting with Elon Musk, the kind of immigrant that
even Trump can love -- has been especially conspicuous this year.
They are the beneficiaries of a wide range of laws and breaks that
allow a tiny number of individuals to accumulate obscene amounts
of wealth. And they use that wealth to steer government away from
any notion of public interest, to do their own bidding, and to
indulge their own fantasies. This extraordinary inequality -- far
beyond the historic highs of the Gilded Age and the Roaring '20s
(both, you may recall, ill-fated bubbles) -- is the single biggest
problem facing the world today. It may seem hypothetical, but it
lies beneath so many other problems, starting with the dysfunction
of government and politics, which is largely influenced by the
distortions of wealth. It extends worldwide, with inequality of
nations mirroring the inequality of individuals.
The problem with inequality isn't that some people have a bit
more than others. It's that such wide variations corrupt and
pervert justice. It's often hard to say just what justice is,
but it's much easier to identify injustice when you see it. In
highly stratified societies, such as ours, you see injustice
everywhere. It eats at our ability to trust institutions and
people. It diminishes our expectation of fair treatment and
opportunity. It raises questions about cooperation and even
generosity. It makes us paranoid. And once lost, trust and
security is all that much harder to restore.
There is no simple answer here. It needs to be dealt with
piecemeal, one step at a time, each and every day. It helps
to reduce gross inequality (which can be done by taxation).
It helps to reduce sources of inequality (which can be done
by regulation of business, by limiting rents, by promoting
countervailing powers, like unions). It also helps to reduce
the impact of inequality (which can be done by raising basic
support levels, by removing prices from services, by ending
means testing, by providing universal insurance, and when no
better solution is possible, by rationing). I don't expect
any politician, especially one who has proven successful in
the current system of extraordinary inequality, to go far
along these lines, but most people are at least aware of the
problem, and many proposals for small improvements are in
common discourse. Even if Harris doesn't rise to the occasion,
we should work to make sure her successors do.
While I think that Harris comes up short on all five of these
really important points, they in no way argue for Donald Trump,
even as a "lesser evil." He personifies modern inequality, Back
in 2016, he tried arguing that his wealth would allow him to run
a truly independent campaign, but that was just another lie. No
one in recent memory has been more obvious about selling favors
for financing. He is a climate change denier, and has shown
nothing but contempt for the victims of natural disasters. His
signature issue is his hatred of immigrants (excepting, presumably,
two wives and his sugar daddy, Elon Musk), where he puts even more
emphasis on performative cruelty than on effectiveness.
His take on foreign policy is slightly more . . . well, "nuanced"
isn't exactly right, more like "befuddled." It's hard to make a
credible case that he's anti-war when he puts such emphasis on what
a tough guy he is, on how no opponent would dare challenge him.
He has shown remarkably poor judgment in defense staffing, which
is only likely to get worse now that two of his former generals
have called him a fascist. He has no dealmaking skills, nor would
he hire someone who could negotiate (any such person would be
dismissed as a wuss). His "America First" schemes are designed
to strain alliances, and are more likely to break than not. He
delayed his deal to get out of Afghanistan so Biden would get
the blame. His handling of Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Iran-Saudi
Arabia directly contributed to the outbreak of war and genocide.
As I said, foreign policy needs a complete rethink. He's already
failed on several counts, starting with the need to think.
Current count:
1 links, 6232 words (6414 total)
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Tuesday, October 22, 2024
Music Week
October archive
(in progress).
Music: Current count 43065 [43039] rated (+26), 46 [41] unrated (+5).
Published another abbreviated
Speaking of Which yesterday. Came to 212 links, 12063 words,
but I added some more stuff this morning, and may add even more
before this is posted. My computer time (listening and writing)
was limited last week, mostly by a home repair project that drags
on and on, with little hope of winding up soon. Well, maybe a
little hope: the collapsed ceiling is repaired, old wallpaper
removed, walls patched up, the bedroom walls primed, half of the
closet paneling put up, and we just got back from buying finish
paint. If I can muster the time, the paint and paneling should
be doable in 2-3 days, but I haven't been able to get many good
working shifts in, and I've repeatedly been snagged by Murphy's
law.
Plus, I have another project this week, which is being pushed
ahead by a deadline, plus the thought that it might be a lot more
fun to do. That's my annual birthday dinner, scheduled for Friday,
with at present nothing more than a concept: my first ever stab
at making Burmese cuisine. I've often picked out exotic locales
for past birthday dinners, and in my peak years managed to make
twenty-some dishes.
But I've never picked one I had so little experience with and
knew so little about. My experience is one take-out meal in New
York at least 12 years ago. The reason I can date it is because
I bought a Burmese cookbook shortly after, but it didn't have the
dish that most delighted me from the restaurant, and nothing else
really caught my eye, so I've never cooked anything from it. The
concept came from seeing that cookbook on the shelf, and thinking
maybe I should finally do something with it.
I may have made a dish or two from broader area cookbooks --
Charmaine Solomon's The Complete Asian Cookbook introduced me
to all hot spots from India through Indonesia and China to Japan --
and I've gone deep on Indian (although not necessarily Bengali),
Thai, and Chinese, which border old Burma (now Myanmar), so I expect
to be working within those parameters. But as of Tuesday afternoon,
I still don't have a menu, much less any shopping or prep done. My
only move so far has been to buy a second Burmese cookbook, plus
one that's more generically southeast Asian. (I haven't generally
been listing cookbooks in my "recent reading" roll, but added my
old Burma: Rivers of Flavor last week, so I figured I might
as well spotlight the new books as well.) Generic southeast
Asian may well be what I wind up with -- especially given that the
local grocers are mostly Vietnamese, plus a couple Indian.
I'm torn between working on the room and on the menu next, but
either option seems more enticing that diddling further on this
post. Should be enough here for any decent week.
New records reviewed this week:
Nick Adema: Urban Chaos (2023 [2024], ZenneZ):
Trombonist from Canada, based in Amsterdam, has a previous 2022
album as Adema Manouikas Octet but effectively his debut, mostly
a quartet with piano/electric bass/drums, but includes a patch
of string quartet, some guest guitar and horns, most prominently
Noah Preminger (tenor sax) on 7 (of 12) tracks, and one vocal --
a surplus of ideas, held together with some fine trombone.
B+(***) [cd]
JD Allen: The Dark, the Light, the Grey and the Colorful
(2024, Savant): Tenor saxophonist, many impressive albums since 1998,
mostly trios with bass (here Gregg August and/or Ian Kenselaar) and
drums (Nic Cacioppo). Seems rather restrained.
B+(**) [sp]
Andy Baker: From Here, From There (2018 [2024],
Calligram): Trombonist, originally from London but based in Chicago,
has side credits going back to National Youth Jazz Orchestra in
1996 but this seems to be his first album as leader. With Russ
Johnson (trumpet), Clark Sommers (bass), and Dana Hall (drums).
B+(**) [cd]
Basic: This Is Basic (2024, No Quarter): Trio
of Chris Forsyth (guitar), Nick Millevoi (baritone guitar &
drum machine), and Mikel Patrick Avery (percussion &
electronics). Forsyth has albums going back to 1998, seems to
be more rooted in rock than in jazz (where I have a previous
album filed), cites Manzanera, Fripp, and Frith in his notes,
as well as Robert Quine, who's 1984 duo album with Fred Maher
is taken as the name of this group. No vocals, all jagged
rhythms too insistent to decay into drone.
B+(***) [sp]
Big Freedia With the Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra: Live
at the Orpheum Theater (2023 [2024], Queen Diva): New Orleans
rapper Freddie Ross Jr., influenced by drag queens, released a single
in 1999 and a mixtape in 2003, counts two studio albums, gets full
orchestra backing for this live party.
B+(***) [sp]
Anne Burnell & Mark Burnell: This Could Be the Start of
Something Big (2024, Spectrum Music): Both sing, Mark plays
piano, some originals mixed in with the standards, backed by bass
and drums, plus sax (Pat Mallinger) on six tracks, guitar (Fareed
Haque) on five (four others).
B [cd]
Chris Corsano/Joe Baiza/Mike Watt: Corsano Baiza Watt Trio
(2023 [2024], Yucca Alta): Drums, guitar, bass, only the group name
on the cover. Discogs credits the drummer with 81 albums since 2002,
mostly shared headlines, plus at least as many side-credits (going
back to 1996). The others came out of rock groups: Baiza from Saccharine
Trust, Watt (much more famously) from Minutemen.
B+(*) [bc]
Doug Ferony With His Swingin Big Band: Alright Okay You
Win (2024, Ferony Enterprizes Music): Singer, handful of
albums going back to 1994, leads a big band (as advertised) through
fourteen standards, all done better in the past, most by Frank
Sinatra.
B [cd]
Ingebrigt Hĺker Flaten/(Exit) Knarr: Breezy (2024,
Sonic Transmissions): Norwegian bassist, very active since 1994 --
Discogs credits him on 260 albums, second album with this group,
which includes trumpet, two saxophonists, piano, and drums, with
spots of guitar or synth.
B+(**) [sp]
Floating Points: Cascade (2024, Ninja Tune):
British electronica producer Sam Shepherd, fifth album since
2015, threw everyone a curve last time when he mixed in Pharoah
Sanders and the London Symphony Orchestra. I'd say this is a
return to form, but it's much better than that: a relentless
stream of dance beats that keeps you moving through thick and
thin.
A- [sp]
Darius Jones: Legend of e'Boi (The Hypervigilant Eye)
(2024, AUM Fidelity): Alto saxophonist, burst onto the scene with
a 2009 album called Man'ish Boy (A Raw & Beautiful Thing),
to which this is at least nominally a "Chapter VII" (of a planned
nine). This is a trio, with Chris Lightcap (bass) and Gerald Cleaver
(drums), bristling with energy, but paced with well-measured spots
of reflective calm.
A- [cd]
Doug MacDonald and the Coachella Valley Trio: Live at the
Rancho Mirage Library (2024, DMAC Music): Jazz guitarist,
many albums, finds a nice groove in a set backed by bass and drums,
with special guest Big Black on djembe.
B+(**) [cd]
Mark Masters Ensemble: Sui Generis (2023 [2024],
Capri): Big band arranger, has a regular stream of albums since
1984, dubs this "a jazz concerto for chamber orchestra," featuring
trumpet player Tim Hagans.
B+(**) [cd]
Gurf Morlix: In Love at Zero Degrees (2024,
Rootball): Alt-country singer-songwriter, originally from Buffalo,
moved to Texas in 1975, best known for his associations with Blaze
Foley and Lucinda Williams, and maybe as a producer, but has a
steady series of own albums since 2000. This one is toned down,
but steady and solid.
B+(**) [sp]
Eric Person: Rhythm Edge (2024, Distinction):
Saxophonist (soprano, alto, tenor, flute), ten or so albums
since 1993, notable side credits with Ronald Shannon Jackson,
Chico Hamilton and Dave Holland, and a fling with World Saxophone
Quartet. He's joined here by Ingrid Jensen (trumpet), Robin Eubanks
(trombone), and a fusion-oriented rhythm section that includes
organ, piano/keyboards, guitar, bass, and drums, and offers no
edge that I can discern, although when uncluttered he remains
a very respectable saxophonist.
B [cd]
Jason Robinson: Ancestral Numbers II (2023 [2024],
Playscape): Might as well recycle my review of the previous album,
released back in May: Saxophonist (tenor/soprano here, also alto
flute), albums since 1998, composed everything here, thinking about
his ancestors. Quintet with Michael Dessen (trombone), Joshua White
(piano), Drew Gress (bass), and Ches Smith (drums). Interesting
throughout, and this time connected even quicker.
A- [cd]
Snotty Nose Rez Kids: Red Future (2024, Savage Mob):
First Nations rappers from Canada, sixth album since 2017.
B+(***) [sp]
Moses Sumney: Sophcore (2024, Tuntum, EP): Born in
California, "grew up on a goat farm in Accra [Ghana]," moved to Los
Angeles after high school, has two albums, several EPs -- this one
six songs, 20:37.
B+(*) [sp]
Ohad Talmor/Chris Tordini/Eric McPherson: Back to the Land
(2023 [2024], Intakt, 2CD): French tenor saxophonist, mostly associated
with Lee Konitz, also plays bass clarinet and some electronics here,
second credit tier line plays bass and drums, but there are seven more
names in smaller print, most pretty notable ones at that, and then at
the bottom of the cover you see "Ornette Coleman" -- the new pieces
are mostly variations on old Coleman pieces, with some mention of
Dewey Redman.
B+(***) [sp]
Fred Thomas: Window in the Rhythm (2024, Polyvinyl):
Indie rock singer-songwriter from Michigan, started in 1994 math
rock band Chore, then joined His Name Is Alive, before his solo
debut in 2002, with a dozen more up to this one. Sometimes hits
an interesting vibe, but I can't quite peg it, or maybe just can't
be bothered.
B+(*) [sp]
Tropical Fuck Storm: Tropical Fuck Storm's Inflatable
Graveyard (2024, Three Lobed): Australian art-punk band,
formed by two members of the Drones (Gareth Liddiard and Fiona
Kitschin), two others, with three studio albums since 2018, back
here with a live double. Seems a bit much.
B+(*) [sp]
Jack Wood & Nichaud Fitzgibbon: Movie Magic: Great Songs
From the Movies (2024, Jazz Hang): Wood was billed as "a
classic crooner," based in southern California, released a "best of"
(with no recording dates) early in the year which proved surprisingly
engaging, and featured the Australian Fitzgibbon as a guest. She's
definitely his better half, which helps on this collection of classic
movie schmaltz, backed tastefully by a long list of musician credits,
from a half-dozen studios, also undated.
B+(**) [cd]
Jamie xx: In Waves (2024, Young): British electropop
producer James Smith, name from his group (The xx) with Oliver Sim
and Romy Madley (three albums 2009-17), second solo album after a
2015 side-project. Dance beats illuminate the world.
A- [sp]
Dann Zinn: Two Roads (2024, Ridgeway): Tenor
saxophonist, based in Bay Area, sixth album, postbop quintet with
Rachel Z (piano), Jeff Denson (bass), Omar Hakim (drums), and
Brian Rice (percussion).
B+(**) [cd]
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
William Basinski: September 23rd (1982 [2024],
Temporary Residence): Classically-trained electronic composer,
many albums since 2001 but reaches back into his early archives
for this 40:11 ambient-meets-drone piece.
B+(*) [bc]
Old music:
Adema Manoukas Octet: New Roots (2021 [2022],
self-released): Canadian group, met at University of Toronto,
led by composer/arrangers Nick Adema (trombone) and Alex
Manoukas (baritone sax), with trumpet, two more saxophones,
and unidentified rhythm.
B+(***) [bc]
Sister Rosetta Tharpe: The Swinging Gospel Queen 1939-1947
(1937-47 [1998], Blues Collection): Gospel singer (1915-73), at
least due to her subject matter, but she strums a mean guitar,
and with half the voice and no backup singers she could pass for
a folksinger, and a rocking one at that. I was surprised to find
no graded albums in my database (despite seven albums, including
a 4-CD Properbox, on the "shopping" list) -- "Up Above My Head I
Hear Music in the Air" is one of my most persistent earworms --
so when I noticed a new Acrobat collection (The Singles
Collection As & Bs 1939-1950), I was first tempted to buy
it, then considered the Christgau-recommended The Absolutely
Essential 3CD Collection, but came to my senses and checked
out what I could stream. This one may be out of print, but comes
from their generally reliable "Historic Recordings" series, with
twenty songs, including my earworm and many more contenders (like
"Everybody's Gonna Have a Wonderful Time Up Here"). Also named on
the cover: Lucky Millinder, Sammy Price, Marie Knight.
A- [sp]
Sister Rosetta Tharpe: Live in 1960 (1960 [1991],
ORG Music): A solo set, so just her voice and guitar with the voice
worked extra hard, a dozen songs, mostly standards but not necessarily
hers ("Precious Lord," "Down by the Riverside," "Peace in the Valley").
B+(**) [sp]
Sister Rosetta Tharpe: Sister on Tour (1961, Verve):
Another live set, from New York, with a hard-swinging band, identified
only as "arranged and conducted by Teacho Wiltshire."
B+(***) [sp]
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- The Attic & Eve Risser: La Grande Crue (NoBusiness) [10-04]
- Arthur Blythe Quartet: Live From Studio Rivbea: July 6, 1976 (NoBusiness) [10-04]
- Bill Evans: In Norway: The Kongsberg Concert (1970, Elemental Music, 2CD) [11-29]
- Joe Fonda Quartet: Eyes on the Horizon (Long Song) [11-15]
- Joel Futterman: Innervoice (NoBusiness) [10-04]
- Andrew Hill: A Beautiful Day Revisited (2002, Palmetto, 2CD) [11-01]
- B.B. King: In France: Live at the 1977 Nancy Jazz Pulsations Festival (Deep Digs/Elemental Music) [11-29]
- Michael McNeill: Barcode Poetry (Infrasonic Press) [10-01]
- William Parker/Hugo Costa/Philipp Emsting: Pulsar (NoBusiness) [10-04]
- Emily Remler: Cookin' at the Queens (1984-88, Resonance, 2CD) [11-29]
- Sara Serpa: Encounters & Collisions (Biophilia) [11-15]
- Spinifex: Undrilling the Hole (TryTone) [11-22]
- Sun Ra: Lights on a Satellite: Live at the Left Bank (1978, Resonance, 2CD) [11-29]
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Monday, October 21, 2024
Speaking of Which
File initially opened 2024-10-16 01:00 PM.
Late Monday night, I'm posting this, without any real sense of
where I'm at, how much I've looked at, and how much more I should
have considered. I have no introduction, and at this point can't
even be troubled to think up excuses. (Perhaps I'll write something
about that in tomorrow's Music Week -- assuming there is one: my
problem there isn't lack of records but no time, given other demands
and priorities.) One thing I am confident of is that there is a lot
of material below. Maybe I'll add more on Tuesday, but don't count
on it.
Got up Tuesday morning and before I could eat breakfast, let
alone open next week's file, I added several entries below, including
a Zachary Carter piece I had open in a tab but didn't get back to in
time.
Top story threads:
Israel's year of infamy: Given the hasty
nature of last week's
Speaking of Which, it was inevitable that I'd need another
week (or more) for one-year anniversary pieces.
Spencer Ackerman: [10-03]
The year after October 7th was shaped by the 23 years after September
11th: "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 so-called 'war on terror'?" That it
feels better to make the same mistakes over and over again rather
than learn from them? Worth noting that the US response to 9/11
was modeled on Israel's by-then-long war against the Palestinians
(recently escalated in the Sharon's counter-intifada, effectively
a reconquista against Palestinian Authority, which saved Hamas
for future destruction).
Haidar Eid: 10-13]
A vision for freedom is more important than ever: "We must focus
on the present as conditions in Gaza worsen daily, but a clear strategy
and political vision are crucial to inspire people around the world
as to what is possible."
Dave Reed: [10-13]
Weekly Briefing: Looking back at a year of Israeli genocide.
Jeffrey St Clair: [10-18]
Israel unbound: October in Gaza, one year later.
A retaliatory military operation that many wizened pundits predicted
would last no more than a month or so has now thundered on in
ever-escalating episodes of violence and mass destruction for a year
with no sign of relenting. What began as a war of vengeance has become
a war of annihilation, not just of Hamas, but of Palestinian life and
culture in Gaza and beyond.
While few took them seriously at the time, Israeli leaders spelled
out in explicit terms the savage goals of their war and the
unrestrained means they were going to use to prosecute it. This was
going to be a campaign of collective punishment where every
conceivable target -- school, hospital, mosque -- would be fair game.
Here was Israel unbound. The old rules of war and international law
were not only going to be ignored; they would be ridiculed and mocked
by the Israeli leadership, which, in the days after the October 7
attacks, announced their intention to immiserate, starve, and displace
more than 2 million Palestinians and kill anyone who stood in their
way -- man, woman or child.
For the last 17 years, the people of Gaza have been living a
marginal existence, laboring under the cruel constrictions of a
crushing Israeli embargo, where the daily allotments of food allowed
into the Strip were measured out down to the calorie. Now, the
blockade was about to become total. On October 9, Israeli Defense
Minister Yoav Gallant warned: "I have ordered a complete siege on the
Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, food, or fuel; everything is
closed." He wasn't kidding.
This goes on for 14 more paragraphs, all deserving your attention,
before he descends into his usual plethora of bullet points -- dozens
of them, his attention never straying to the more pedestrian atrocities
he often (and compared to most others exceptionally) reports on. He
ends with this:
The war of revenge has become a war of dispossession, conquest and
annexation, where war crime feeds on war crime. Not even the lives
of the Israeli hostages will stand in the way; they will become
Israeli martyrs in the cause of cleansing Gaza of Palestinians. . . .
It's equally apparent that nothing Israel does, including killing
American grandmothers, college students, and aid workers, will trigger
the US government, whether it's under the control of Biden, Harris, or
Trump, to intervene to stop them or even pull the plug on the arms
shipments that make this genocidal war possible.
Followed by a list of sources:
Oren Yiftachel: [10-15]
Is this Israel's first apartheid war? "Far from lacking a political
strategy, Israel is fighting to reinforce the supremacist project it
has built for decades between the river and the sea." The author thinks
so, while acknowledging the long history of war that preceded this
year's war:
While its eight previous wars attempted to create new geographical
and political orders or were limited to specific regions, the current
one seeks to reinforce the supremacist political project Israel has
built throughout the entire land, and which the October 7 assault
fundamentally challenged. Accordingly, there is also a steadfast
refusal to explore any path to reconciliation or even a ceasefire
with the Palestinians.
Israel's supremacist order, which was once termed "creeping" and
more recently "deepening apartheid," has long historical roots. It
has been concealed in recent decades by the so-called
peace process, promises of a
"temporary
occupation," and claims that Israel has "no partner" to negotiate
with. But the reality of the
apartheid project has become increasingly conspicuous in recent
years, especially under Netanyahu's leadership.
Today, Israel makes no effort to hide its supremacist aims. The
Jewish Nation-State Law of 2018 declared that "the right to
exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is
unique to the Jewish people," and that "the state views the
development of Jewish settlement as a national value." Taking
this a step further, the current Israeli government's manifesto
(known as its
"guiding
principles") proudly stated in 2022 that "the Jewish people
have an exclusive and inalienable right to all areas of the Land
of Israel" -- which, in the Hebrew lexicon, includes Gaza and the
West Bank -- and promises to "promote and develop settlement in
all parts of the Land of Israel."
My reservation here is that the "apartheid program" goes way
back, at least to 1948 when Israelis declared independence and
set up a separate judicial system for Palestinians in areas they
controlled, retaining it even after Palestinians became nominal
citizens of Israel. In effect, Israeli apartheid goes back to
the "Hebrew labor" concept adopted by Ben-Gurion's Histadrut
in the 1930s. (By the way, South Africa's
Apartheid laws were only formalized in 1950, although, as
with Israel, the roots of racist discrimination ran much deeper.
The ideas behind South Africa's legal thinking drew heavily on
America's Jim Crow laws, which were also notable sources for
Nazi Germany's race laws.) So what's new since October 7 isn't
apartheid, but the nature of the war, which has crossed over the
line from harsh enforcement to genocide: the purpose of which is
not just to punish Hamas for the insolence of rebellion, but to
purge Israel of all Palestinians:
Under the fog of this onslaught on Gaza, the colonial takeover of
the West Bank
has also accelerated over the past year. Israel has introduced
new measures of administrative annexation;
settler violence has further intensified with the backing of the
army;
dozens of new outposts have been established, contributing to the
expulsion of Palestinian communities; Palestinian cities have been
subjected to suffocating economic closures; and the Israeli army's violent
repression of armed resistance has reached levels not seen since the
Second Intifada -- especially in the refugee camps of Jenin, Nablus, and
Tulkarem. The previously tenuous distinction between Areas A, B, and C
has been completely erased: the Israeli army operates freely throughout
the entire territory.
At the same time, Israel has deepened the oppression of Palestinians
inside the Green Line and their status as
second-class citizens. It has intensified its severe restrictions
on their political activity through
increased surveillance,
arrests,
dismissals,
suspensions, and
harassment. Arab leaders are labeled "terror supporters," and the
authorities are carrying out an unprecedented wave of house demolitions --
especially in the Negev/Naqab, where the number of demolitions in 2023
(which
reached a record of 3,283) was higher than the number for Jews
across the entire state. At the same time, the police
all but gave up on tackling the serious problem of organized
crime in Arab communities. Hence, we can see a common strategy
across all the territories Israel controls to repress Palestinians
and cement Jewish supremacy.
Near the end of the article, the author points to
A Land for All: Two States One Homeland as an alternative,
and cites various pieces on
confederation. I'm not wild about these approaches, but
I'd welcome any changes that would reduce the drive of people
on both sides to kill one another.
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
Dave DeCamp:
[10-16]
Netanyahu approves set of targets to hit inside Iran: "Israel
is expected to attack before the November 5 US presidential election."
[10-16]
Israeli soldiers say ethnic cleansing plan in North Gaza is
underway: "A reserve soldier told Haaretz that anyone who
remains in the north after a deadline 'will be considered an enemy
and will be killed.'"
[10-17]
Israel says Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar has been killed.
More on Sinwar
David Dayen: [10-17]
In Israel, the war is also the goal: "Yahya Sinwar's death is
unlikely to change the situation in Gaza." This has long been
evident, but it's nice to see new people noticing:
That Netanyahu's personal and political goals vastly outweigh whatever
could resemble military goals in this war in Gaza by now has become a
cliché. Netanyahu wants to stay out of prison, and ending the war is
likely to place him there. So new missions and operations and objectives
sprout up for no reason.
Suddenly Bibi's party has mused about re-settling northern Gaza for
the first time in nearly 20 years, while transparently using
a policy of mass starvation as a way to implement it. . . .
The war has long passed any moment where Israel has any interest
in declaring victory, in the fight against terror or in the fight
for the security of its people. Even bringing up the fact of continued
Israeli hostages inside Gaza seems irrelevant at this point. The war
is actually the goal itself, a continuation of punishment to fulfill
the needs of the prime minister and his far-right political aims. The
annals of blowback indicate pretty clearly that incessant bombing of
hospitals and refugee camps will create many Yahya Sinwars, more than
who can be killed. That is not something that particularly burdens the
Israeli government. Another pretext would serve their continuing
interests.
Griffin Eckstein: [10-17]
Harris sees "opportunity to end" to Israel-Gaza war in Hamas leader
Sinwar's killing: Nice spin, especially after
Biden's me-too statement, but naive and/or disingenuous. Surely
she knows that the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't end with
regime change or the later deaths of Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar,
or Osama Bin Laden. Sure, those deaths seemed like good ideas at
the time, but by the time they happened many more people had been
killed, and more people rose from nowhere to fight back, and then
they too had to be killed, because once you -- by which I mean the
kind of people who lead countries and start wars -- start killing,
there's always more to do. Still, Harris deserves a nod for even
imagining that some other path is possible. Whether she deserves
it depends on whether she can follow through and act upon her
insight. Unfortunately, to do so would mean she has to develop
enough backbone to defy and put pressure on Netanyahu, which thus
far she hasn't risked.
James Mackenzie/Nidal Al-Mughrabi/Samia Nakhoul: [10-17]
Hamas leader Sinwar killed by Israeli troops in Gaza, Netanyahu says
war will go on. Because the point never was Sinwar or Hamas or
the October 7 revolt.
Qassam Muaddi: [10-17]
Israel says it killed Yahya Sinwar as he was fighting the Israeli
army: "The Israeli army said on Thursday that Hamas chief Yahya
Sinwar had been killed in combat during an armed confrontation with
an Israeli army patrol in Rafah."
Abdaljawad Omar: [10-21]
It was only their machines: on Yahya Sinwar's last stand:
"Yahya Sinwar's last stand laid bare Israel's weakness, exposing the
truth about its post-heroic army that only survives from a distance
and remains shielded by armor, unwilling to face its enemies head-on."
Bernie Sanders: [10-18]
Sinwar is dead; we must end our complicity in this cruel and illegal
war. Note that this is not a syllogism: the conclusion was true
even when Sinwar was still alive.
Steven Simon: [10-17]
The demise of Yahya Sinwar and his 'big project': "The Hamas
leader overestimated Israel's fractures and underestimated Netanyahu's
willingness to destroy Gaza." I'm not convinced that either of these
assertions are true. I tend to see his "big project" as an act of
desperation, aimed to expose Israel's brutality, as well as imposing
some measure of cost for an oppression that had become routinized
and uninteresting for most people not directly affected. It seems
highly unlikely that he underestimated Netanyahu's monstrosity,
although he might not unreasonably have expected that others, like
the US, would have sought to moderate Israel's response. But even
as events unfolded, Israel has done an immense amount of damage to
its international reputation, as has America. While it's fair to
say that Sinwar made a bad bet for the Palestinian people, the
final costs to Israel are still accumulating, and will continue
to do so as long as Netanyahu keeps killing.
Ishaan Tharoor: [10-20]
What will Yahya Sinwar's death mean for Gaza? Not peace.
Which kind of begs a question too obvious for mainstream media,
which is why kill him if doing so doesn't bring you closer to
peace?
Jamal Kanj: [10-18]
The Israeli General's Plan in Gaza: Genocide by starvation.
Edo Konrad: [10-16]
The 'pact of silence' between Israelis and their media: "Israel's
long-subservient media has spent the past year imbuing the public
with a sense of righteousness over the Gaza war. Reversing this
indoctrination, says media observer Oren Persico, could take
decades." I've long been critical of US mainstream media sources
for their uncritical echoing of Israeli hasbara, but Israel --
where major media, 20-30 years ago, seemed to be far more open to
critically discussing the occupation than American outlets were --
has become far more cloistered. Consider this:
What Israeli journalists do not understand is that when the government
passes its
"Al Jazeera Law," it is ultimately about something much larger
than merely targeting the channel. The current law is about banning
news outlets that "endanger national security," but they also want
to give the Israeli communications minister the right to prevent any
foreign news network from operating in Israel that could "harm the
national morale." What the Israeli public doesn't understand is that
next in line is BBC Arabic, Sky News Arabic, and CNN. After that,
they're going to come for Haaretz, Channel 12, and Channel 13.
We are heading toward an autocratic, Orbán-esque regime and
everything that comes with that -- in the courts, in academia, and
in the media. Of course it is possible. It sounded unrealistic 10
years ago, then it sounded more realistic five years ago when
Netanyahu's media-related legal scandals blew up. Then it became
even more reasonable with the judicial overhaul, and even more so
today. We're not there yet, but we are certainly on the way.
Qassam Muaddi:
[10-15]
What is the 'Generals' Plan'? Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing of
northern Gaza, explained: "The ethnic cleansing of northern
Gaza as part of the so-called 'Generals' Plan' isn't new, but the
only thing standing in its way is the will of 200,000 Palestinians
to stay in the north and refuse displacement."
[10-17]
Bombings, killer drones, and starvation: eyewitnesses describe Israel's
extermination campaign in northern Gaza: "Testimonies from the
brutal siege on the Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza describe
massive air and ground assaults, including killer quadcopter drones,
that are destroying infrastructure and causing catastrophic
humanitarian conditions."
[10-21]
Israel commits largest massacre yet in northern Gaza: "The siege
of north Gaza and Jabalia refugee camp enters its third week as Israel
has cut off aid to some 200,000 people. On Saturday, Israeli forces
bombed Beit Lahia, killing at least 80 Palestinians, in one of the
largest massacres in months."
Lebanon:
Dave DeCamp: [10-20]
Israel starts bombing banks in Lebanon: "The Israeli military is
targeting branches of al-Quard al-Hassan, which Israel accuses of
financing Hezbollah."
Qassam Muaddi: [10-21]
Israel presents its conditions for Lebanon ceasefire as Hezbollah
intensifies operations: "Israel's conditions for a ceasefire
in Lebanon include allowing Israel to operate inside Lebanese
territory against Hezbollah and freedom of movement for Israel's
air force in Lebanon's airspace."
Adam Shatz: [10-11]
After Nasrallah. Long piece, lot of background on Nasrallah and
Hizbullah.
It's hard to see what strategy, if any, lies behind Israel's reckless
escalation of its war. But the line between tactics and strategy may
not mean much in the case of Israel, a state that has been at war
since its creation. The identity of the enemy changes -- the Arab
armies, Nasser, the PLO, Iraq, Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas -- but the war
never ends. Israel's leaders claim this war is existential, a matter
of Jewish survival, and there is a grain of truth in this claim,
because the state is incapable of imagining Israeli Jewish existence
except on the basis of domination over another people. Escalation,
therefore, may be precisely what Israel seeks, or is prepared to
risk, since it views war as its duty and destiny. Randolph Bourne
once said that 'war is the health of the state,' and Netanyahu and
Gallant would certainly agree.
Lylla Younes:
Israel escalates attacks on Lebanese first responders -- potentially
a war crime.
America's Israel (and Israel's America):
Aida Chávez:
After Israel killed Hamas leader, DC pushes to hand Palestine to
Saudi Arabia: "Bent on a 'mega-deal' security pact with Saudi
Arabia, Congress and the Biden administration see their chance."
Matt Duss: [10-17]
Yahya Sinwar's death can end this war: But it won't, because only
Netanyahu can end the war, and he doesn't want to, because there are
still Palestinians to dispossess and dispose of, and because Biden
isn't going to make it hard on him to continue. But sure, if one did
want to end the war, checking Sinwar off your "to do" list offers a
nice opportunity. On the other hand, negotiating a ceasefire with a
credible leader like Sinwar would have been even better. This piece
was cited by::
Ellen Ioanes: [10-19]
There's no ceasefire in sight for Israel's Gaza war. Why not?
Any author, like this one, that doesn't squarely answers "Israel"
has simply not been paying attention.
Anatol Lieven: [10-10]
Blinken's sad attempt to whitewash Biden's record: "By not
acting with political and moral courage, this administration has
actually failed abysmally on numerous counts."
Alan MacLeod: [10-17]
Revealed: The Israeli spies writing America's news.
Steve McMaster/Khody Akhavi: [10-15]
Netanyahu: Thank you America for your service: "One year after Gaza
invasion, US complicity is everywhere in the smoldering ruins."
Trita Parsi:
Mitchell Plitnick: [10-18]
No, the US is not 'putting pressure' in Israel to end its war:
"A letter from the Biden administration to Israel this week
threatening to possibly withhold weapons raised hopes among some,
but the delivery of a missile defense system and deployment of U.S.
soldiers sent the real message."
Aaron Sobczak: [10-14]
Biden sends US troops to Israel weeks ahead of election: "Recent
polling suggests there is no American support for this."
Alex de Waal: [10-20]
Israel, a behind-the-scenes powerbroker in Sudan: "Of the many
foreign powers influencing this bloody conflict, Tel Aviv could
help claw it back -- if it wanted to.
Sarah Leah Whitson: [09-27]
Shared zones of interest: "Harris and Trump's foreign-policy
aims in the Middle East proceed from the same incentive structures
and presuppositions about US supremacy." This is an important point,
which could be developed further.
There are two principal reasons for this. First, Harris and Trump's
worldviews are grounded in an article of faith that has undergirded
America's post-World War II foreign policy: maintaining U.S. hegemony
and supremacy. There is full agreement, as Kamala Harris recently
declared at the Democratic convention and reiterated in her debate
with former President Trump, that the U.S. must have the "most lethal"
military in the world, and that we must maintain our military bases
and personnel globally. While Trump may have a more openly mercenary
approach, demanding that the beneficiaries of U.S. protection in Europe
and Asia pay more for it, he is a unilateralist, not an isolationist.
At bottom, neither candidate is revisiting the presuppositions of U.S.
primacy.
Second, both Harris and Trump are subject to the overwhelming
incentive structure that rewards administrations for spending more
on the military and selling more weapons abroad than any other country
in the world. The sell-side defense industry has fully infiltrated the
U.S. government, with campaign donations and a revolving escalator to
keep Republicans and Democrats fully committed to promoting their
interests. The buy-side foreign regimes have gotten in on the pay-to-play,
ensuring handsome rewards to U.S. officials who ensure weapons sales
continue. And all sides play the reverse leverage card: If the U.S.
doesn't sell weapons, China and Russia (or even the U.K. and France)
will. There is no countervailing economic pressure, and little political
pressure, to force either Harris or Trump to consider the domestic and
global harms of this spending and selling.
In the Middle East, the incentive structure is at its most powerful,
combining the influence of the defense industry and the seemingly
bottomless disposable wealth of the Gulf States. And there are two
additional factors -- the unparalleled influence and control of the
pro-Israel lobby, which rewards government officials who comply with
its demands and eliminates those who don't; and Arab control over the
oil and gas spigots that determines the prices Americans pay for fuel.
As a result, continued flows of money, weapons, and petroleum will
ensue, regardless of who wins in November.
Whitson is executive director of Democracy for the Arab World
Now, after previously directing Human Rights Watch's Middle East
and North African Division from 2004 to 2020. Here are some older
articles:
Israel vs. world opinion: Although my
title is more generic, the keyword in my source file is "genocide,"
because that's what this is about, no matter how you try to style
or deny it.
Election notes:
Rachel M Cohen: [10-15]
Nebraska is the only state with two abortion measures on the ballot.
Confusion is the point. "The state's 12-week ban has already
upended care. Anti-abortion leaders want to go further."
Gabriel Debenedetti: Has a series of articles called
"The Inside Game":
[10-14]
David Plouffe on Harris vs. Trump: 'Too close for comfort':
"The veteran strategist on the state of play for his boss, Kamala
Harris, and what he thinks of the 'bed-wetters.'" He doesn't seem
to have much to say about anything, which may be what passes as
tradecraft in his world of high-stakes political consulting. It
does seem like an incredible amount of money is being spent on a
very thin slice of the electorate -- Plouffe is pretty explicit
on how he's only concerned with the narrow battleground states.
[09-15]
The WhatsApp Campaign: "Kamala Harris's team is looking for
hard-to-find voters just about everywhere, including one platform
favored by Latinos."
[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."
[09-21]
How Kamala Harris knocks out Trump: "Mark Robinson's Nazi-and-porn
scandal ignites an all-out push to win North Carolina."
Errol Louis: [10-17]
Hey Democrats, don't panic -- here's why.
John Morling: [10-21]
It is not too late for the Uncommitted Movement to hold Democrats
accountable for genocide: "The Uncommitted Movement voluntarily
gave up its leverage but it is not too late to hold Kamala Harris
accountable for supporting the Israeli genocide in Gaza." Yes, it
is too late. The presidential election is about many things, but
one thing it is not about is Israeli genocide. To insist that it
is overlooks both that Trump has if anything been more supportive
of genocide, and that while he was president, he did things that
directly connect to the Oct. 7 Hamas revolt, and to Netanyahu's
sense that he could use that revolt as a pretext for genocide.[*]
On the other hand, punishing Harris suggest that none of the real
differences between her and Trump matter to you. Most Democrats
will not only disagree, they will blame you for any losses.
[*] Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, abandoning a major
tenet of international law. Trump ended the Iran nuclear deal. And
Trump's invention of the Abraham Accords was widely considered as
a major factor in Hamas's desperate attack.
Andrew Prokop: [10-21]
The big election shift that explains the 2024 election: "Progressives
felt they were gaining. Now they're on the defensive." A new installment
in a
Vox series the point of which seems to be to tell leftists to go
fuck themselves. As with the Levitz piece (also
hereabouts), this article is half false
and half bullshit. The false part starts with the "gaining" -- the
success of the Sanders campaigns had less to do with ideological
gains (although he made some, and continues to do so) than with his
presentation of a non-corrupt alternative to a very corrupt system),
and the adoption of some progressive thinking by Biden had more to
do with the proven failures of much neoliberal thinking under Obama
and Clinton -- and continues with the "defensive": Sanders' decision
not to challenge Biden and (later) Harris was largely a concession
to age, as well as a gesture of party unity against Trump and the
increasingly deranged Republicans, but also a sense that Harris
would be at least as willing to work toward progressive ends as
Biden had been. That Harris, having secured the nomination with no
real opposition from progressives or any other faction or interest
group, should deliberately tack toward political orthodoxy may be
disappointing to a few of us -- and in the especially urgent matters,
like Israel's wars and genocide, we still feel the need to speak
out[*] -- but the "assignment" (to use Chait's wretched phrase) is
to win the election, and that involves reaching and convincing a
majority of voters, way more than just self-conscious progressives,
in an environment and culture that are severely warped by moneyed
interests and mass media doublespeak. I'm inclined to trust that
what she's saying is based on sound research and shrewd analysis
with that one goal in mind. She's the politician, and I'm just a
critic. If she loses, I'll take what little joy I can in dissecting
her many failings, but if she wins, I can only be thankful for her
political skills, at least for a few days, until her statements
move from vote-grubbing to policy-making, in which case we critics
will have a lot of expertise to offer.
As for the left, I'm more bullish than ever. Capitalism creates
a lot of benefits, but it is also a prodigious generator of crises
and chronic maladies, and it fuels political ideologies that seek
to concentrate power but only compound and exacerbate them. Anyone
who wants to understand and solve (or at least ameliorate) thsee
systemic problems needs to look to the left, because that's where
the answers are. Granted, the left's first-generation solutions --
proletarian revolution and communism -- were a bit extreme, but over
many years, we've refined them into more modest reforms, which can
preserve capitalism's advances while making them safer, sustainable,
and ultimately much more satisfying. Post-Obama Democrats haven't
moved left but at least have opened up to the possibility that the
left has realistic proposals, and have adopted some after realizing
that politics isn't just about winning elections, it's also about
delivering tangible benefits to your voters. (Obama and Clinton no
doubt delivered tangible benefits to their donors, but neglect of
their base is a big part of the reason Trump was able to con his
way into his disastrous 2016 win.)
No problems are going to be solved on November 5. What will be
decided is who (which team) gets stuck with the problems we already
have. Republicans will not only not solve any of those problems,
they -- both judging from their track record and from their fantasy
documents like
Project 2025 (or Trump's somewhat more sanitized
Agenda47 -- they will make them much worse for most people,
and will try to lock down control so they can retain power even as
popular opinion turns against them. Democrats will be hard-pressed
to solve them too, especially if they revert to the failed neoliberal
ideologies of the Clinton-Obama years. But when decent folk do look
for meaningful change, the left will be there, with understanding
and care and clear thinking and practical proposals. Left isn't an
ideology. It's simply a direction, as we move away from hierarchy
and oppression toward liberation and equality. It only goes away
when we get there.
[*] It's not like Communists did themselves any favors when in 1939,
when after Stalin negotiated his "pact" with Hitler, they stuck to the
party line and dropped their guard against Nazi Germany. Ben-Gurion
did much better with his 1939 slogan: "We shall fight in the war
against Hitler as if there were no White Paper, but we shall fight
the White Paper as if there were no war." He ultimately succeeded
on both counts.
David Weigel: [10-15]
No matter who wins, the US is moving to the right: Prokop
cites this piece, which argues that the rightward shift of 1980-2005
had been countered by a leftward drift from 2005-20, but since 2000
the tide has shifted back to the right. His evidence is superficial,
mostly polling on language that correlates weakly with left/right.
Biden may have talked more left in 2020 because he literally stole
the nomination from Sanders, and desperately needed to shore up
left support (which he managed to do). Harris got the nomination
handed to her on a platter, with virtually no dissent from the
left, so she's been free to wheel and deal on the right, for
whatever short-term margin it might bring. But nobody on either
side thinks she's more conservative or orthodox than Biden. That's
why Republicans are in such a panic, so unmoored from reality.
Tony Romm/Eric Lau/Adriana Navarro/Kevin Schaul: [10-18]
Crypto cash is flooding the 2024 election. Here's who's benefiting.
Matt Sledge:
Endorsements:
Wikipedia:
Stephen Rohde: [10-07]
Why the Uncommitted and Undecided should vote for Kamala Harris:
"In sharp contrast to the lawless dictatorship Trump promises in his
second term, I urge Undecided voters to examine how Harris would
preserve democracy and continue to strengthen the United States."
He also explains that "since Uncommitted voters care about the
humanity and self-determination of the Palestinian people, Harris
is their best choice."
Trump:
Mariana Alfaro: [10-20]
Musk promises a daily $1 million lottery in questionable pro-Trump
effort: "Legal experts raised concerns about the legality of
the move because it ties a monetary reward to voter registration
status, which is prohibited under federal law."
Zack Beauchamp:
[10-16]
Critiquing Trump's economics -- from the right: "What one of the
right's greatest thinkers would make of Trumponomics." On Friedrich
Hayek, who saw himself as a classical liberal, and who saw everyone
else even slightly to his left as marching on "the road to serfdom."
But nothing here convinces me he would have a problem with Trump --
he was, like most of his cohort, a big Pinochet fan -- let alone that
his opinion (having been wrong on nearly everything else) should matter
to me.
p10-18]
The increasingly bizarre -- and ominous -- home stretch of Trump's
2024 campaign: "The past week of erratic behavior shows how he
manages to be silly and scary at the same time."
Jamelle Bouie:
Philip Bump: [10-18]
Trump's age finally catches up with him: "The man who would (once
again) be the oldest president in history has reportedly scaled back
his campaign due to fatigue. So who would run his White House?"
Zachary D Carter: [10-16]
The original angry populist: "Tom Watson was a heroic scion of the
Boston Tea Party -- and the fevered progenitor of Donald Trump's violent
fantasies." Link title was: "They say there's never been a man like
Donald Trump in American politics. But there was -- and we should
learn from him." If you're familiar with Watson, who started out as a
Populist firebrand and wound up as a racist demagogue, it's probably
thanks to C Vann Woodward, if not his 1938 biography,
Tom Watson: Agrarian Rebel, then (as in my case) his 1955 book,
The Strange Career of Jim Crow. But this, of course, is mostly
about Trump.
Something important happened at the end of Trump's presidency and the
beginning of Joe Biden's. Nobody wants to talk about it -- not even
conservatives bring up masks and school closures anymore, and much of
the discourse surrounding inflation studiously avoids reference to the
massive economic disruption of COVID-19. But one of the most important
cultural artifacts of the period is the sudden spread of vaccine
skepticism to the cultural mainstream. The anti-vaxxer delusion that
vaccines cause autism has lingered at the fringes of the autism
community in no small part because it provides narrative meaning to a
difficult and random experience. There is tremendous joy in the life
of a special needs parent, but there is also a great deal of fear and
pain. Fear, because you do not know how the world will respond to your
child, and pain, because you must watch your child struggle for no
fault of their own. For many, it is more comforting to believe that
their child's hardships are not a random act of fate but a product of
deliberate malfeasance. The idea that bad things happen for bad
reasons is more palatable than the belief that they happen for no
reason at all.
It is not only anti-vaxxers who seek such comfort. Americans on
both the left and the right avert their eyes from the story of Tom
Watson not only because the story is ugly and violent but because we
insist on being able to control our own destiny. From Huck Finn to
Indiana Jones, American mythology tends to write its heroes as
variations on the story of David and Goliath -- tales of underdogs who
secure unlikely triumphs against an overbearing order. Even when that
order is part of America itself, individual heroism soothes the
audience with the promise that the world's wrongs can be righted with
enough derring-do. Horatio Alger's novels of children born into
poverty could be read as an indictment of the Gilded Age social order,
but the romance of these stories always lies in a boy taking fate by
the horns. Watson disturbs us not only because he turns to evil but
because an extraordinary leader's earnest, Herculean attempt to right
the world's wrongs comes up short. To win, he assents to the dominion
of dark forces beyond his control.
Chas Danner: [10-15]
Trump turned his town hall into a dance party after fans got sick.
This was much ridiculed by late night comics, so I've seen much of
Trump and Kristi Noem on stage, but very little of the crowd, which
is usually the definition of a "dance party." How did the crowd react
after his bumbling responses to five setup questions? It's hard to
imagine them thrilling to multiple versions of "Ava Maria," but it's
also hard to imagine them showing up for the information. I wonder
if Trump rallies aren't like "be-ins" in the 1960s, where crowds
assemble to associate with similar people and complain about the
others. Trump defines who shows up, but after that, does it really
matter what he says or does? This was a test case, but if you start
thinking everything Trump does or says is stupid, your confirmation
bias kicked in instantly, without raising the obvious next question,
why do crowds flock to such inanity? Or are they as stupid as Trump?
Chauncey DeVega:
[10-08]
Trump's violent fantasies: Experts warn of "a terror that blinds
us to what's coming next". "As much as Donald Trump crows about
the need for 'law and order,' he is very much the embodiment of
lawlessness and disorder."
[10-17]
"Femiphobia" motivates MAGA males: Psychologist Stephen Ducat on
the gendererd tribalism of Trumpism.
[10-18]
"Thirst for the spectacle of Trump's cruelty": Exploring MAGA's
unbreakable bond. Some time ago, I noted that there are two
basic types of Christians in America: those whose understanding
of their religion is to love their neighbors and seek to help them,
and those who hate their neighbors, and see religion as a way to
punish them for eternity -- it's no wonder that the latter group
have come to define Christian Republicans.
DaVega includes a long quote from Peter McLaren, then adds:
McLaren notes "Trump is speaking to an audience that since 2016
has come to share Trump's worldview, his political intuition, his
apprehension of the world, what the Germans call Weltanschauung
and has created a visceral, almost savage bond with the aspiring
dictator."
As the next step in Trump's dictator and authoritarian-fascist
plans, he is now embracing scientific racism and eugenics by telling
his followers that nonwhite migrants, refugees and "illegal aliens"
have bad genes, i.e. "a murder gene." Last Monday, Trump told
right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt that, "You know now, a murderer --
I believe this -- it's in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes
in our country right now." Take Trump's obsessions with good genes
and bad genes and couple them with his remarks about "purifying the
blood" of the nation by removing the human poison and other human
vermin. Historically, both in American society and other parts of
the world, people with the "bad genes" that Trump is so obsessed
with have been removed from normal society through imprisonment and
other means. Such targeted populations have also been subjected to
eliminationist violence and forced sterilization.
Sometimes I wonder if Trump's team doesn't just plant this obvious
Nazi shit to provoke recognition and reaction. They know that it
just sails past their own people, while it turns their opponents
into whiny hysterics droning on about stuff no one else understands.
Griffin Eckstein: [10-11]
"Fascist to the core": Former Trump official Milley warns against
"dangerous" second term: "Trump appointee Mark Milley called
the ex-prez the 'most dangerous person ever.'"
Dan Froomkin: [10-20]
If Trump wins, blame the New York Times: "America's paper of
record refuses to sound the alarm about the threat Trump poses to
democracy." Sure, the Times endorsed Harris -- see [09-30]
The only patriotic choice for president -- but in such jingoistic
terms you have to wonder. Their opinion columnists are, as always,
artfully divided, but in day-to-day reporting, they do seem awfully
dedicated to keeping the race competitive (presumably the ticket to
selling more papers) and keeping their options open (as is so often
the way of such self-conscious, power-sucking elites). I've never
understood how many people actually take "the paper of record" all
that seriously. At least I've never been one.
Hadas Gold/Liam Reilly: [10-16]
Fox News did not disclose its all-women town hall with Trump was
packed with his supporters.
Annie Gowen: [10-20]
Trump repeats 'enemy from within' comment, targeting Pelosi and
Schiff: And there I was, thinking he meant me.
Evan Halper/Josh Dawsey: [10-18]
Trump has vowed to guy climate rules. Oil lobbyists have a plan
ready. "As companies fall short on methane emission reductions,
a top grade group has crafted a road map for dismantling key Biden
administration rules."
Margaret Hartmann:
Greg Jaffe: [10-20]
The CIA analyst who triggered Trump's first impeachment asks: Was it
worth it? Long piece, and at this point probably not worth your
time.
Sarah Jones: [10-15]
Donald Trump is deteriorating: "And as he does, the extremists
around him move closer to power."
Though braggadocio is a familiar Trump quality, much like his reluctance
to stick to his prepared remarks, he is arguably getting weirder -- and
more disturbing -- over time. Trump's speeches are so outlandish, so
false, that they often pass without much comment, as the New York
Times
reported earlier this month in a story about his age. Yet a change
is noticeable. "He rambles, he repeats himself, he roams from thought
to thought -- some of them hard to understand, some of them unfinished,
some of them factually fantastical," the Times noted, adding
that his speeches have become much longer on average, and contain
more negative words and examples of profanity than they previously
did.
Hassan Ali Kanu: [10-16]
Conservatives use Trump assassination to target women in anti-diversity
war: "It's a move to enshrine values into law, but it's not beyond
the realm of possibility." What? "The claim is one of reverse discrimination:
that the historically and presently male-dominated Secret Service
discriminates against men." Say whaaat?
Nicholas Liu:
Carlos Lozada: [10-13]
When Trump rants, this is what I hear: The author came to the
US when he was three, so technically he's an immigrant, a person
Trump makes rather gross generalizations about.
Amanda Marcotte:
Harold Meyerson: [10-10]
Trump's Made-in-China Bibles: "The imperative of Trump's price-gouging
(selling $3 Bibles for $59.99) meets the Holy Word."
Connor O'Keeffe: [10-16]
Beware of war hawks in "America First" clothing.
Heather Digby Parton:
[10-11]
Donald Trump's campaign stops give away the game: "California and
New York are not battleground states so why is the campaign spending
time there in the final weeks?" I don't see an answer here, but I also
don't like the idea that one should only campaign in "battleground"
states. (Not that I mind that both sides take Kansas for granted: this
has been a remarkably quiet election here in Wichita, with only two
political signs out as I walk the dog around the block -- both, fwiw,
Harris/Walz.)
[10-16]
The MAGA "weave": Donald Trump picks up steam as he dissembles on
stage: "Listen to the laughter when Trump insults the Wall St.
Journal at a meeting of an Economic Club in any major city. . . .
That's not about their wallets. Their wallets are fine. That's about
their ids."
[10-18]
Donald Trump's town hall with Latino voters shows his campaign is
clueless: "The Trump campaign is simultaneously courting Latino
voters and pushing the Great Replacement theory."
Russell Payne:
Sabrina Rodriguez/Isaac Arnsdorf: [10-01]
Trump mixes up words, swerves among subjects in off-topic speech:
"The Republican nominee appeared tired and complained about his
heightened campaign schedule."
Marin Scotten:
Vance, and other Republicans:
Harris:
Ryan Cooper:
Black men deserve better pandering from the Harris campaign:
"Crypto and weed are not how to advertise her ideas for this group."
Chas Danner: [10-17]
Who won Kamala Harris's Fox News interview with Bret Baier?
What does "winning" even mean here? The more salient question is
who survived with their reputation intact? This is really just a
catalog of reactions, the final of which was "both sides got what
they wanted." Which is to say, if you missed it, you didn't miss
much.
David Dayen/Luke Goldstein:
Google's guardians donate to the Harris campaign: "Multiple
Harris donors at an upcoming fundraiser are representing Google
in its case against the Justice Department over monopolizing
digital advertising." I have to ask, is digital advertising
something we even want to exist? Competition makes most goods
more plentiful, more innovative, and more affordable, but if
the "good" in question is essentially bad, maybe that shouldn't
be the goal. I'm not saying we should protect Google's monopoly.
A better solution would be to deflate its profitability. For
instance, and this is just off the top of my head, you could
levy a substantial tax on digital advertising, collect most of
it from Google, and then redistribute much of the income to
support websites that won't have to depend on advertising.
Elie Honig: [11-18]
Kamala Harris has finally embraced being a cop: "The label hurt
her in 2019. Today she wears it like a badge." Reminds me a bit of
when Kerry embraced being a Vietnam War soldier. He didn't get very
far with that.
Robert Kuttner: [10-09]
Notes for Harris: "It's good that Kamala Harris is doing more
one-on-one interviews, because she's getting a lot better at it.
Still, she occasionally misses an opportunity." E.g., "Harris could
point out that the administration has made a difference by challenging
collusion and price-gouging, in everything from prescription drugs
to food wholesalers."
Nicole Narea: [10-18]
How tough would a President Kamala Harris be on immigrants?
Christian Paz: [10-16]
Kamala Harris and the problem with ceding the argument: "The
vice president had a chance to defend immigrants on Fox News. She
passed."
Matthew Stevenson: [10-18]
Harris: Speed dating Howard Stern: I was surprised last week
to find the "shock jock and satellite-radio wit" endorsing Harris
last week, probably because I have zero interest or curiosity in
him, and may know even less.
Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:
Avishay Artsy/Sean Rameswaram: [10-21]
Why Wisconsin Democrats are campaigning in places where they can't
win: "To win statewide, the party wants to "lose by less" in
rural areas." That's good advice everywhere. Especially as Democrats
actually have a better proposition for rural voters than Republicans
have.
Ed Kilgore: [10-19]
Four good reasons Democrats are terrified about the 2024 election:
I wasn't sure where to fire this, but the reasons turn out to mostly
reside in Democrats' heads. Nothing here suggests that Democrats are
more likely to lose. It's just that if they lose, the consequences
will be far worse than whatever setbacks Republicans might suffer in
another Trump loss:
- Democrats remember 2016 and 2020
- Democrats fear Trump 2.0 more than Republicans fear Harris
- Only one party is threatening to challenge the election results
- If Harris wins, she'll oversee a divided government; if Trump
wins, he'll have a shot at total power
Eric Levitz: [10-17]
The Democrats' pro-union strategy has been a bust: "Despite
Joe Biden's historically pro-union policies, the Democrats' share
of the union vote is falling." First question is: is this true?
(Actually, either "this": the falling vote share, or the "pro-union"
policies.) Second question is would be anti-union (like Republicans)
win or lose votes? Most of the people who are locked into Republican
positions (e.g., guns, abortion) are so distrustful of Democrats no
amount of pandering can move them, but giving up positions that are
popular among Democrats can lose face and faith, and that can hurt
you more than you can possibly gain, even if there is no meaningful
alternative. Third point is who cares? If standing up for unions is
the right thing to do, why equivocate with polling? We live in a
country where the rich have exorbitant power, where unions are one
of the few possible countervailing options. Extreme inequality is
corroding everything, from democracy to the fabric of everyday life.
More/stronger unions won't fix that, but they'll help, and that's
good in itself, as well as something that resonates with other
promising strategies. Fourth, if you're just polling union members,
you're missing out on workers who would like to join a union if
only they could. Are your "pro-union" policies losing them? Or
are they offering hope, and a practical path to a better life?
On some level, Democrats and Republicans are fated to be polarized
opposites, each defined by the other and stuck in its identity. A
couple more pieces on labor and politics this year:
Erik Loomis: [09-26]
Preserving public lands: "Deb Haaland has been a remarkable
secretary of the interior. But the future is about funding in
Congress."
Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:
Climate and environment:
Alex Abad-Santos: [10-11]
For some evacuation defiers, Hurricane Milton is a social media
goldmine: "They didn't listen to Hurricane Milton evacuation
orders. Then they posted through it." This reminds me of the hype
that "shock and awe" would win the war against Iraq, because all
it would take is one awesome demonstration of force to get Iraqis
to drop their arms and surrender. Problem was: the people who were
truly shocked were dead, and the rest survived not just the bombs
but the hype, making them think they were invincible.
Matthew Cappucci/Kelsey Baker: [10-19]
Hurricane Oscar forms in Caribbean, surprising storm watchers:
"Oscar probably won't be around long. After making a run at Cuba,
it will begin turning north into Monday and weakening into Tuesday."
Benji Jones: [10-17]
We need $700 billion to save nature: "Just a tiny fraction of the
global GDP could help stave off ecological collapse."
Robert Kuttner: [10-15]
How hurricanes are a profit center for insurers: "To compensate
for exaggerated expectations of claims, they jack up rates and hollow
our coverage, giving themselves more profit than before." As long
as the market will bear it, and up to the point when they really do
go bankrupt. This is, of course, the kind of profiteering business
schools teach their students to be shameless about.
Business, labor, and Economists:
Dean Baker: Quite a bit to catch up with here, as
he always has good points to make. In trying to figure out how
far I needed to go back, I ran across this tweet I had noted:
"Part of the job of a progressive government is to shift the
public narrative towards the idea that the state can improve
people's lives." I'll add that the point here is not to convince
you that government is good or benign, but that it belongs to
you and everyone else, and can be used to serve your interests,
as far as they align with most other people (or, as the US
Constitution put it, to "promote the general welfare, and secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"). While
progressives initially do this by advancing reasoned argument,
they also need to put it into practice whenever possible, and
actually do things to "promote the general welfare and secure
the blessings of liberty." You hear much about "democracy" these
days, but knows this: democracy makes good government possible,
but only works if/when people realize they have the power to
direct it. Also, make sure to check out Baker's free book,
Rigged.
[09-16]
Now that we all agree that 10 percent tariffs on imports are bad,
how about 1000 percent tariffs on prescription drugs?
[09-17]
The Washington Post is concerned about the budget deficit, again.
[09-22]
Why is it silly to think it's the media's job to inform the public?
[09-23]
My six favorite untruths about the Biden-Harris economy.
These are the subheds:
- The New York Times picks an atypical worker to tell a story
about a divided economy.
- It's hard for recent college grads to find jobs even when
their unemployment rate is near a twenty-year low.
- The two-full time job measure of economic hardship
- The retirement crisis
- The collapsing saving rate
- Young people will never be able to afford a home
He adds:
Those are my six favorites, but I could come up with endless more
pieces, like the CNN story on the family that drank massive amounts
of milk who suffered horribly when milk prices rose, or the New York
Times piece on a guy who used an incredible amount of gas and was
being bankrupted by the record gas prices following the economy's
reopening.
There are also the stories that the media chose to ignore, like
the record pace of new business starts, the people getting big pay
increases in low-paying jobs, the record level of job satisfaction,
the enormous savings in commuting costs and travel time for the
additional 19 million people working from home (almost one eight
of the workforce).
The media decided that they wanted to tell a bad economy story,
and they were not going to let reality get in the way.
[09-26]
The economy after the GDP revisions: "Basically, they tell us
a story of an economy that has performed substantially better since
the pandemic than we had previously believed."
The highlights are:
- An economy that grew substantially more rapidly than previously
believed and far faster than other wealthy countries
- Substantially more rapid productivity growth, suggesting more
rapid gains in wages and living standards and a smaller burden of
the national debt;
- Higher income growth than previously reported, with both more
wages and more profits;
- A higher saving rate, meaning that the stories about people
having to spend down their savings were nonsense.
There were also a couple of not-so-good items:
- A higher profit share that is still near a post-pandemic peak;
- A lower implicit corporate tax rate, although still well above
the 2019 level.
[10-05]
Automation is called "productivity growth". As he points out,
productivity growth was long regarded as a universal good thing,
until the 1980s, when businesses found they could keep all of the
profits, instead of sharing with workers.
Anyhow, this is a big topic (see Rigged, it's free), but the
idea that productivity growth would ever be the enemy is a bizarre
one. Automation and other technologies with labor displacing potential
are hardly new and there is zero reason for workers as a group to fear
them, even though they may put specific jobs at risk.
The key issue is to structure the market to ensure that the benefits
are broadly shared. We never have to worry about running out of jobs.
We can always have people work shorter hours or just have the government
send out checks to increase demand. It is unfortunate that many have
sought to cultivate this phony fear.
[10-08]
Tariffs and government-granted patent monopolies: bad and "good"
forms of protectionism. Baker rarely misses an opportunity to
bash patent monopolies -- an important issue that few others pay
much attention to.
[10-09]
Should Kamala Harris be celebrating the labor market? A sober
evaluation of a recent column by Peter Coy: [10-07]
Kamala Harris should think twice about touting this economy.
I will say that by any historical standard the labor market is doing
pretty damn good. It could be better, but a low unemployment rate and
rapidly rising real wages is a better story than any incumbent
administration could tell since -- 2000, oh well.
I would put more stress here on "it could be better" than on the
seemingly self-satisfied "pretty damn good." I'd also stress the
options: that Republicans and business lobbyists have obstructed
reforms that would help more (and in some cases virtually all) people,
and that the key to better results is electing more Democrats -- who
may still be too generous to the rich, but at least consider everyone
else.
[10-14]
CNN tells Harris not to talk about the economy. CNN is not
the only "neutral news outlet" to have persistently trashed the
economic success of the Biden-Harris administration, but they
have been particularly egregious. It's almost as if they have
their own agenda.
The goal for Democrats in pushing their many economic successes
(rapid job creation, extraordinarily low unemployment, real wage
growth, especially at the lower end of the wage distribution, a
record boom in factory construction) is to convince a small
percentage of the electorate that this is a record to build on.
By contrast, Donald Trump seems to push out a new whacked out
proposal every day, with the only constants being a massive tax
on imports and deporting a large portion of the workforce in
agriculture and construction.
Given the track record of the Biden-Harris administration
compared with the craziness being pushed by Donald Trump, it is
understandable that backers of Donald Trump would not want Harris
to talk about the economy. But why would a neutral news outlet
hold that view?
Emma Curchin: [10-17]
34 million seniors in Medicare advantage plans face rude awakening:
"Insurers are dropping plans and slashing benefits" -- you know, like
all private insurance companies everywhere.
Sarah Jones: [Fall 2024]
In the shadow of King Coal: "While the coal industry is in terminal
decline, it still shapes the culture of central Appalachia."
Paul Krugman: [10-17]
How Trump's radical tariff plan could wreck our economy.
Robert Kuttner: [10-18]
Redeeming the Nobel in economics: "This year's prize went to three
institutionalist critics of neoliberalism. The award is overdue."
Daren Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A Robinson. The latter two
were co-authors with Acemoglu of books like Why Nations Fail: The
Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (2012), and Power and
Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity
(2023). Johnson was also co-author, with James Kwak, of one of the
first notable books to come out of the 2008 financial meltdown: 13
Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown
(2010).
Bethany McLean: [10-17]
Senate report: How private equity 'gutted' dozens of US hospitals:
Thanks to modern tricks of financial engineering, investors can prosper
even when the underlying business is failing."
Ukraine and Russia:
Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:
Philip Balboni: [10-14]
Why US foreign policy today is a form of 'isolationism': "Those
throwing around the epithet are the ones driving us to be more alone
in the world."
Van Jackson: I just ran across him today, but he has
several books I should have noticed by now, and a Substack newsletter
that I'll cite below. He describes himself as "a one-time 'defense
intellectual' and a longtime creature of the national security state,"
but also "on the left," albeit only in a "vague cosmopolitanism and
an antiwar sensibility, yet reflexively in support of the going
concerns of the Democratic Partly, including (paradoxically) military
primacy."
Other stories:
Joshua Frank: [10-18]
Pissing everyone off for 30 damn years: A memoir of writing for
Counterpunch since 1998, tied on the publication's 30th anniversary
to their annual funding campaign.
Whizy Kim: [10-16]
Is every car dealer trying to rip me off? "Why buying a car is
the worst kind of shopping." Cited here because after 18 years I'm
in the market for a new car, and because I've been for 2-3 years
without ever managing to put the time and effort into it. I've only
bought one used and four new cars in my life, and the new car I
spent the least time shopping for was by far the worst -- the
others were pretty good deals on pretty good cars. But I've seen
a lot of crap like this, and it pays to beware.
Obituaries
Books
Music (and other arts?)
Chatter
Meme quote from Michelle Wolf: "You know in High School if you
didn't believe in Science or History, it was just called failing."
I got this from a Facebook
thread, with several interesting comments, including this one from
Clifford Ocheltree:
I shall only point to an earlier remark, the failure of our educational
system to teach critical thinking. To be skeptical in the absence of
that learned skill is pure ignorance. I would add that perception plays
a critical role in how an uneducated populace becomes 'skeptical,'
'credulous' and 'easily duped.' We are, we have become, the product of
a failed educational system. One in which the vast majority of the
population cannot read directions on a bottle of aspirin or name the
three branches of the Federal Government. These failures allow both
parties to play fast and loose with history and science knowing full
well the audience isn't likely to 'get it.'
Ocheltree also addressed history: "History is the interpretation
of fact by 'experts' who bring their own bias." Someone else picked
this up, noting "I can't help laugh at the notion of your feigning
disdain for history" then asking "why do you lap up so many history
books?" Ocheltree replied:
Fact and history are not the same thing. Most 'experts' (historians)
have a bias and view 'facts' through that lens. Nearly 50 years ago
I read an excellent book by Frances Fitzgerald, "America Revised:
History Schoolbooks in the Twentieth Century" (1979). A discussion
and analysis of how history teaching and texts had changed over the
years. At times the result of new information coming to light and
at others the outgrowth of changing social standards or political
leanings. Some 20 years ago I discovered some 'facts' while researching.
Trial testimony with supporting documentation (original records) in
a Virginia court house basement. At a conference I had some time to
speak with the author of the leading text(s) being used on the topic
by any number of colleges. I shared my findings, privately, as they
disproved a good chunk of his work. His response in short? Nobody
will give a shit that I was wrong, my text is the accepted standard
and will always be paramount because it makes my point.
I would add, history and record reviews are much the same. The
author collects 'facts,' the critic listens. Each applies his/her
own bias. The idea that anyone would accept an authors' work(s) as
'unbiased' strikes me as a failure of our education system. Steven
Pinker's recent work has focused on the utter lack of training
students in the basics of critical thinking. I 'lap up' history
books with a jaundiced eye. I love the topic but learned many
years ago, just because a book has been issued isn't 'proof' that
it is accurate.
Hardin Smith, who started this thread, added:
Who said fact and history are the same thing? I sure didn't. But
that doesn't mean it's not worth studying and it doesn't mean that
it doesn't behoove people to have a working knowledge of it. And
certainly you'd agree that there are certain things that we can
all agree on, or at least on the general outlines. Here's a question:
if so much of what you read is biased, whose work are you using to
make that judgment? Is there a higher unbiased source you go to?
And, are there certain historical events that we can all agree to?
The Holocaust, the Moon Landing, Trump's loss in '20? Or is everything
in your world subjective opinion? Also, history is not like record
reviews, sorry. Record reviews are totally based on opinion, but
though there may be bias, history at least concerns itself with
actual facts. It's a subjective interpretation of actual facts.
There's never completely removing bias in anything produced by
humans, but I'd submit to you that some are more biased than others.
Some are relatively free of bias. None of it means that history
isn't worth knowing.
It's tempting to go all philosophical here, and argue that it's
all biased, all subjective, at best assertions that are subject to
independent verification -- same for record reviews, although the
odds of being rejected by other subjectives there are much elevated
compared to science, which has a longer history of refinement and
consensus building (not that similar processes don't apply to record
reviewing). Still, not much disagreement here. Smith seems to find
it important to maintain a conceptual division between opinion and
fact, between subjective and objective, which I find untenable and
not even necessary (although it's easy to fall into when arguing
with idiots -- which is why Wolf's joke is so cutting).
This leads us back to the importance of critical thinking,
which is ultimately a process of understanding one's own biases --
starting, of course, with exposing the biases of others. (Much
like crazy people developed psychoanalysis to understand, and
ultimately to master, their own neuroses.)
Ali Abunimah: [10-21]
In April, under pressure from "Israel," @amazon banned the sale of
The Thorn and the Carnation, the novel by Palestinian resistance
leader Yahya Sinwar.
You can still buy copies of Hitler's Mein Kampf from Amazon,
in multiple languages.
[Link to:
Amazon pulls book by Hamas leader Sinwar.
By the way, you can also still buy copies of Herzl's
The Jewish State, in many editions, as well as his utopian novel,
Altneuland (The Old New-Land) -- you know, the one about how
happy Arabs will be once Jews are running the state.]
Local tags (these can be linked to directly):
music.
Original count: 212 links, 12063 words (15688 total)
Current count:
224 links, 13319 words (17265 total)
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Music Week
October archive
(in progress).
Music: Current count 43039 [43015] rated (+24), 41 [42] unrated (-1).
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]
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Monday, October 14, 2024
Speaking of Which
File opened 2024-10-08 11:43 AM.
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.
The following is a bit from Gideon Levy's
The Killing of Gaza: Reports on a Catastrophe (pp. 9-11):
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.
Noura Erakat: [10-08]
Five things we've learned since October 7. From an August 30
speech as part of a panel titled "All Eyes on Palestine."
- 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."
Maen Hammad: [10-09]
Photo essay: An autobiography of uprising: "Documenting one year
of revolt from the occupied West Bank to the East Coast."
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.
Rawan Masri: [10-11]
October 7 created a new world, but there is so much left to be
done: "We live in an entirely new world than a year ago. The ugly,
racist, violent logic dominating our lives has been irrevocably exposed.
Will we allow that logic to prevail?"
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."
Ruwaida Kamal Amer: [10-05]
After a year of terror in Gaza, our souls feel suspended in time:
"I've cheated death, mourned friends, and lost my livelihood. Just
when I was on the cusp of leaving this torment, Israel shut our last
crossing to the world."
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.
Joel Beinin: [10-07]
Yahrzeit for October 7: Long note on Facebook, including:
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.
Nick Turse: [10-07]
Israel's year of killing, maiming, starving, and terrorizing the
people of Gaza: "Taking stock of the human toll of one year of
destruction in the densely packed Gaza Strip." Lots of statistics
follow, ending with:
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:
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?
Dave DeCamp: [10-13]
Israeli government done with ceasefire talks, seeks annexation of
Gaza.
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."
Mohammed R Mhawish: [10-09]
I'm still reporting on Gaza. But the blood on our streets is no
closer to drying: "Palestinian journalists write for a future
that doesn't involve counting the dead -- for the bombs to stop,
the tanks to roll back, and the drones to disappear."
Ibrahim Mohammad/Mahmoud Mushtaha: [10-10]
'Dead bodies everywhere' in Jabalia camp as Israel besieges
northern Gaza: "Gazans in the north are trapped in their
homes as Israel launches a new military operation, threatening
and shooting at fleeing residents."
Qassam Muaddi: [10-08]
'I can't feel anything anymore': women in a West Bank refugee camp
reflect on a year of Israeli military raids on their homes:
"After a year of near-constant Israeli military raids on their homes
and private spaces, women are some of the most affected among the
Palestinian residents of Nur Shams refugee camp in Tulkarem."
Suzi Weissman: [10-07]
Israeli politics is even more right-wing since October 7: Interview
with Yoav Peled.
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:
America's Israel (and Israel's America):
Michael Arria:
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:
Max Boot: [10-10]
There is no purely military solution to Israel's security woes:
And this from a guy who sees "military solutions" like a hammer
sees nails.
Yaniv Cogan: [10-06]
Blinken approved policy to bomb aid trucks, Israeli cabinet members
suggest.
Daniel L Davis: [09-16]
Israel's conduct in the war will consume us all: "Netanyahu used
a sledgehammer when a scalpel was the right tool -- now everyone is
paying the price."
Liza Featherstone: [10-06]
The chicken hawks want war with Iran.
Jeet Heer: [10-11]
The high cost of Biden's policy of unconditional support for Israel:
"Beyond hobbling Kamala Harris's campaign, Biden is leaving behind a
disaster that will last decades."
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.
Imran Khalid: [10-09]
Israel is the greatest threat to US strategy in the Middle East:
"Netanyahu's push for a military victory beyond Gaza threatens to
drag Washington into a broader regional war, challenging America's
long-term interests in the region."
Rashid Khalidi:
[10-13]
Israel is acting with full US approval: An interview with the
noted historian, author of many books, including
Brokers of Deceit: How the US Has Undermined Peace in the Middle
East (2013). I still find it a bit hard to buy into his
main point:
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.
[05-07]
Violent settler colonialism caused this war: Earlier interview,
happened to find it in an open tab.
Maureen Clare Murphy: [10-05]
US admits it doesn't want diplomatic solution.
Paul R Pillar: [10-07]
Biden is letting Israel trap the US into war with Iran: "One
year after Hamas' Oct 7 attacks, regional conflict is raging with
no end in sight."
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.
Nick Turse:
Jonah Valdez:
One year of empty rhetoric from the White House on Israel's wars.
Sharon Zhang:
[10-07]
US has sent record $18B in military aid to Israel in past year -- at
a minimum: "This staggering figure represents only part of the
total amount of military assistance sent to Israel for its genocide."
AP reports a similar figure of
at least $17.9 billion.
[10-08]
Biden officials say ceasefire talks are suspended as Harris names Iran
top enemy.
[10-07]
Israel has killed, wounded or rendered missing 10 percent of Gaza
population: "Israel has killed 42,000 Palestinians and injured
over 100,000 in a year -- according to the most conservative counts."
But there are other estimates, as she has previously reported:
[10-04]
US health workers back from Gaza estimate death toll is at least
119,000.
[09-06]
UN expert warns Israel on track to exterminate nearly entire Gaza
population.
"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.
[10-10]
Israel has created "extermination zone" in north Gaza, advocates
warn: "Israel is effectively trapping hundreds of thousands in
north Gaza and is systematically killin them all."
[10-08]
Netanyahu openly threatens Lebanese civilians with violence "like
Gaza.
Israel vs. world opinion:
Kyle Anzalone: [10-13]
Israel to seize UN agency's headquarters for new settlement housing:
That would be the UNRWA offices in East Jerusalem.
Marjorie Cohn: [10-08]
As Israel extends its genocide into the West Bank, it targets and
kills children.
Julia Conley: [10-11]
Hiroshima survivor and nuke abolitionist wins Nobel Peace Price,
spotlights Gaza: "Toshiyuki Mimaki said he thought 'the people
working so hard in Gaza' would be honored, referring to UNRWA aid
workers."
Jim Fitzgerald: [10-14]
Israel against itself and Israel against all.
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 here 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.
David Klion: [10-08]
The failure of liberal Zionism: "Israel has behaved exactly as
its harshest critics predicted."
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
told New 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.
Gideon Levy: [10-10]
Israel has lost its humanity as it celebrates its power to kill:
"A hundred innocents, a thousand, even ten thousand dead Palestinian
children - none of this changes the new Israeli mindset."
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.
Owen Jones: [10-03]
What atrocity would Israel have to commit for our leaders to break
their silence?
Jake Romm: [09-24]
There's another way to hold Netanyahu accountable for the Gaza
genocide: "A case for prosecuting the Israeli prime minister
for the crime of persecution." Good case, but in what court?
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:
Bret Stephens: [10-01]
We absolutely need to escalate in Iran. It's quite possible that
this was the inspiration for the
"preemptive strike on Iran now?" question that opened the VP
debate. The editorial came to my attention via:
Kathleen Wallace: [10-11]
We absolutely do not need to escalate anything New York Times.
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."
[09-18]
Everything you wanted to know about World War III but were afraid to
ask: "For generations, we thought fear of nuclear holocaust would
prevent world war. Is that faith obsolete?"
[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.
Harris endorsements:
Joe Klein: [10-11]
I've covered politics for 50 years. Here's why so much hinges on
electing Kamala Harris.
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").
Trump:
Peter Baker/Dylan Freedman: [10-06]
Trump's speeches, increasingly angry and rambling, reignite the
question of age: "With the passage of time, the 78-year-old
former president's speeches have grown darker, harsher, longer,
angrier, less focused, more profane and increasingly fixated on
the past, according to a review of his public appearances over
the years." This elicited letters: [10-09]
In Trump's speeches, signs of cognitive impairment.
Zach Beauchamp: [10-09]
What Trump really means when he says immigrants have "bad genes":
"The ominous implication of an outburst that ties two strains of
right-wing thought together."
Jonathan Chait: [10-10]
Trump delivers historically illiterate lecture on tariffs:
"Everything he says about this is wrong."
Margaret Hartmann: [10-10]
Highs and lows from Melania Trump's baffling book. Bullet points:
High: It's an actual memoir, not a picture book.
Low: It reads like a generic college-application essay.
High: The book is quite short.
Low: There's too much filler.
High: Melania shares some political views.
Low: Her political takes make no sense.
High: The insults are subtle and classy.
Low: Some insults may be too subtle.
High: The book is beautiful.
Low: It won't stay beautiful for long.
High: The book is endorsed by Donald J. Trump.
Low: Donald J. Trump probably didn't read it.
Richard Lardner/Dake Kang: [10-09]
It turns out Trump's 'God Bless the USA' Bibles were made in
China: This week's least surprising headline.
Robert Lipsyte: [10-06]
Growing old in the age (and that's the appropriate word!) of Trump:
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").
Nicholas Liu:
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."
Pamela Paul: [10-03]
Donald Trump, you lucky dog.
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.
Also on The Apprentice:
Tatyana Tandanpolie: [10-08]
Analysis shows Trump tax plan "taking money" from bottom 95% and "giving
it" to richest 5%: "This is an enormously redistributive tax plan
from low- and middle-income families to the wealthiest Americans."
Joan Walsh: [09-24]
Trump is spiraling, and getting creepier, about women voters.
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.
Brad Warthen: [10-11]
Kristof is right: don't demean Trump voters.
Li Zhou: [10-08]
Donald Trump's many, many lies about Hurricane Helene, debunked:
"Rampant disinformation is getting in the way of disaster response."
Vance, and other Republicans:
Harris:
Jonathan Chait:
[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.
David Dayen: [10-09]
Harris in-home care plan recognizes information gap on seniors:
"Trump has been blanketing Pennsylvania with dubious claims that
Harris would cut Social Security and Medicare."
Susan Faludi: [10-06]
Kamala Harris is turning a Trump tactic on its head.
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.
Matthew Stevenson: [10-11]
Why Harris and Walz lose.
Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:
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).
[10-08]
Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seem unsure whether to save
a man's life: "It's unclear how the Supreme Court will resolve
an unusually messy death penalty."
Stephen S Trott: [10-07]
Why the Supreme Court's immunity ruling is untenable in a democracy.
Climate and environment:
Hurricane Milton:
Hurricane Helene:
Michael Cappucci: [10-14]
What to know about the latest potential storm brewing in the Atlantic:
"The National Hurricane Center is monitoring a disturbance, and meteorologists
say it has a 50 percent chance of eventually being named Nadine."
Umair Irfan:
[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).
[10-08]
Is FEMA messing up? An expert weighs in. Interview with Claire
Connolly Knox.
Bill McKibben: [10-09]
Our dystopian climate isn't just about fires and floods. It's about
society fracturing: "Climate disasters risk pulling society apart.
To survive we need solidarity -- and only one ticket in the US election
offers that."
- p>Craig Pittman:
Florida lawmakers' climate denialism is pure, unadulterated lunacy:
"Climate change will only make future hurricane seasons worse. So why
are Florida legislators pretending like nothing's amiss?"
Jeffrey St Clair: [10-11]
Roaming Charges: The call of the wind: Starts off with Hurricane
Milton, then Helene, but eventually moves back to the election, and
other topics. The Gideon Levy book I quoted in the introduction was
in his "Booked Up" section, followed by Ta-Nehisi Coates: The
Message, and Rosemary Grant:
One Step Sideways, Three Steps Forwards: One Woman's Path to Becoming
a Biologist. I'll be checking out his "Sound Grammar," too.
Business, labor, and economists:
Ukraine and Russia: No "Diplomacy Watch"
this week?
Daniel R Depetris: [09-26]
The claim that Russia doesn't possess any solid red lines -- or won't
enforce them -- isn't supported by evidence: "Any policy debate
on war must reckon with escalatory dynamics."
Benjamin Hart: [10-08]
Why Russia is in more trouble than it looks: Interview with
Michael Kofman ("a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace" [sic]).
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:
Other stories:
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
Robert Coover:
More names I noticed:
Books
Music (and other arts?)
Chatter
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)
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Tuesday, October 8, 2024
Music Week
September archive
(in progress).
Music: Current count 43015 [43007] rated (+8), 42 [42] unrated (+0).
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]
Ask a question, or send a comment.
-- next
|