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:

  • None.

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:

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

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:

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:

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:

Election notes:

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:

      1. Threat to democracy
      2. Imprison political opponents
      3. Eliminate reproductive rights
      4. Concentration camps and mass deportations for immigrants
      5. Create a theocracy
      6. Increase censorship and destroy the media
      7. A puppet for Putin
      8. 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:

    1. Trump is a repeat electoral loser. This time will be no different.
    2. Money matters, and Harris has it in droves.
    3. 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.)

  • 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:

Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:

Climate and environment:

Business, labor, and Economists:

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

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?

    1. Harris and Biden are already culpable for a year-long genocide.
    2. Like Trump, Harris vows to keep giving Israel unconditional support.
    3. Therefore, Trump can never match Harris's death toll.
    4. Rewarding Harris's war crimes with a vote emboldens Netanyahu and opens the floodgates for future tyrants.
    5. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.)

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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:

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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."

  4. 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.

  5. 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:

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):

  • Michael Arria:

  • 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:

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:

  • 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:

    1. Democrats remember 2016 and 2020
    2. Democrats fear Trump 2.0 more than Republicans fear Harris
    3. Only one party is threatening to challenge the election results
    4. 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:

      1. The New York Times picks an atypical worker to tell a story about a divided economy.
      2. It's hard for recent college grads to find jobs even when their unemployment rate is near a twenty-year low.
      3. The two-full time job measure of economic hardship
      4. The retirement crisis
      5. The collapsing saving rate
      6. 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

  • Ta-Nehisi Coates: The Message

  • Bob Woodward: War.

    • Fred Kaplan: [10-15] Bob Woodward's latest book tells the story of America's declining leverage in the world. Link title was "Bob Woodward's new book is about Biden, but the most urgent takeaways are about Trump." This is just more proof of the truly ridiculous extent to which Trump has dominated our minds since 2015. Nearly four years out of office, it still feels like he's the incumbent, to no small extent because most of our regrets and great fears of the moment are directly traceable back to him, but because of his amazing (and I'll use the word "ridiculous" again here) domination of the noosphere (apologies for using a word almost everyone will have to look up, so I can at least save you that trouble: per Merriam-Webster: "the sphere of human consciousness and mental activity especially in regard to its influence on the biosphere and in relation to evolution"). In short, he's in our heads, as intractable as an earworm, and several orders of magnitude more disturbing. I've been struggling with trying to narrow down "the top ten reasons for voting for Harris against Trump," but number one has to be: MAKE IT STOP!

      Returning to the book, Kaplan writes a bit about Biden:

      Woodward's style of storytelling is more episodic than structural. Chapters tend to run for just a few pages. His mantra tends to be "And then . . . and then . . . and then . . . " as opposed to "And so . . . and so . . . and so . . ." Still, the stories here hang together, more than they usually do, because of their underlying thread -- as the title suggests, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and how Biden and his team dealt with them.

      For the most part, Woodward is impressed, concluding that they engaged in "genuine good faith efforts" to "wield the levers of executive power responsibly and in the national interest," adding, "I believe President Biden and this team will be largely studied in history as an example of steady and purposeful leadership."

      Needless to say at this point, I disagree with nearly everything that Biden has done in the foreign policy arena, but Woodward's wording here -- "good faith efforts," "steady and purposeful leadership" -- betrays the subtext, where the baseline for praise is "at least he's not Trump." So I can get the point, without having to agree with the particulars. Kaplan continues:

      This is an uncharacteristically bold assertion for any author, much less Woodward, who, throughout his 50-year career, has been the less judgmental half of the Woodward and Bernstein team that broke the Watergate scandal and brought down Richard Nixon. In a Playboy interview back in 1989, he admitted that analysis wasn't his strong point; it still isn't. But heading into his ninth decade, with nearly two dozen books under his belt, it seems he feels entitled -- properly so -- to render some verdicts from journalism's high bench.

      He dangled his new assertiveness in 2020, on the eve of that year's election, when he wrote, as the last line in Rage, "Donald Trump is the wrong man for the job." The next year, after Trump's defeat, he ended Peril by musing, "What is your country? What has it become under Trump?"

      And even in War, where Trump plays a cameo role as he mulls making another run for the White House, Woodward declares, just before touting Biden's legacy, "Donald Trump is not only the wrong man for the presidency, he is unfit to lead the country."

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."

      1. It has exposed the enduring colonial nature of international law
      2. This is a U.S. genocide of Palestinians
      3. Universities are an extension of the state's coercive apparatus
      4. Zionism has no moral legs to stand on
      5. 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:

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:

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:

Business, labor, and economists:

Ukraine and Russia: No "Diplomacy Watch" this week?

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

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