|
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.
Top story threads:
Israel's year of infamy: Given the hasty
nature of last week's
Speaking of Which, it was inevitable that I'd need another
week (or more) for one-year anniversary pieces.
Spencer Ackerman: [10-03]
The year after October 7th was shaped by the 23 years after September
11th: "9/11 gave Israel and the US a template to follow -- one
that turned grief into rage into dehumanization into mass death.
What have we learned from the so-called 'war on terror'?" That it
feels better to make the same mistakes over and over again rather
than learn from them? Worth noting that the US response to 9/11
was modeled on Israel's by-then-long war against the Palestinians
(recently escalated in the Sharon's counter-intifada, effectively
a reconquista against Palestinian Authority, which saved Hamas
for future destruction).
Haidar Eid: 10-13]
A vision for freedom is more important than ever: "We must focus
on the present as conditions in Gaza worsen daily, but a clear strategy
and political vision are crucial to inspire people around the world
as to what is possible." Dave Reed: [10-13]
Weekly Briefing: Looking back at a year of Israeli genocide. Jeffrey St Clair: [10-18]
Israel unbound: October in Gaza, one year later.
A retaliatory military operation that many wizened pundits predicted
would last no more than a month or so has now thundered on in
ever-escalating episodes of violence and mass destruction for a year
with no sign of relenting. What began as a war of vengeance has become
a war of annihilation, not just of Hamas, but of Palestinian life and
culture in Gaza and beyond.
While few took them seriously at the time, Israeli leaders spelled
out in explicit terms the savage goals of their war and the
unrestrained means they were going to use to prosecute it. This was
going to be a campaign of collective punishment where every
conceivable target -- school, hospital, mosque -- would be fair game.
Here was Israel unbound. The old rules of war and international law
were not only going to be ignored; they would be ridiculed and mocked
by the Israeli leadership, which, in the days after the October 7
attacks, announced their intention to immiserate, starve, and displace
more than 2 million Palestinians and kill anyone who stood in their
way -- man, woman or child.
For the last 17 years, the people of Gaza have been living a
marginal existence, laboring under the cruel constrictions of a
crushing Israeli embargo, where the daily allotments of food allowed
into the Strip were measured out down to the calorie. Now, the
blockade was about to become total. On October 9, Israeli Defense
Minister Yoav Gallant warned: "I have ordered a complete siege on the
Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, food, or fuel; everything is
closed." He wasn't kidding.
This goes on for 14 more paragraphs, all deserving your attention,
before he descends into his usual plethora of bullet points -- dozens
of them, his attention never straying to the more pedestrian atrocities
he often (and compared to most others exceptionally) reports on. He
ends with this:
The war of revenge has become a war of dispossession, conquest and
annexation, where war crime feeds on war crime. Not even the lives
of the Israeli hostages will stand in the way; they will become
Israeli martyrs in the cause of cleansing Gaza of Palestinians. . . .
It's equally apparent that nothing Israel does, including killing
American grandmothers, college students, and aid workers, will trigger
the US government, whether it's under the control of Biden, Harris, or
Trump, to intervene to stop them or even pull the plug on the arms
shipments that make this genocidal war possible.
Followed by a list of sources:
Oren Yiftachel: [10-15]
Is this Israel's first apartheid war? "Far from lacking a political
strategy, Israel is fighting to reinforce the supremacist project it
has built for decades between the river and the sea." The author thinks
so, while acknowledging the long history of war that preceded this
year's war:
While its eight previous wars attempted to create new geographical
and political orders or were limited to specific regions, the current
one seeks to reinforce the supremacist political project Israel has
built throughout the entire land, and which the October 7 assault
fundamentally challenged. Accordingly, there is also a steadfast
refusal to explore any path to reconciliation or even a ceasefire
with the Palestinians.
Israel's supremacist order, which was once termed "creeping" and
more recently "deepening apartheid," has long historical roots. It
has been concealed in recent decades by the so-called
peace process, promises of a
"temporary
occupation," and claims that Israel has "no partner" to negotiate
with. But the reality of the
apartheid project has become increasingly conspicuous in recent
years, especially under Netanyahu's leadership.
Today, Israel makes no effort to hide its supremacist aims. The
Jewish Nation-State Law of 2018 declared that "the right to
exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is
unique to the Jewish people," and that "the state views the
development of Jewish settlement as a national value." Taking
this a step further, the current Israeli government's manifesto
(known as its
"guiding
principles") proudly stated in 2022 that "the Jewish people
have an exclusive and inalienable right to all areas of the Land
of Israel" -- which, in the Hebrew lexicon, includes Gaza and the
West Bank -- and promises to "promote and develop settlement in
all parts of the Land of Israel."
My reservation here is that the "apartheid program" goes way
back, at least to 1948 when Israelis declared independence and
set up a separate judicial system for Palestinians in areas they
controlled, retaining it even after Palestinians became nominal
citizens of Israel. In effect, Israeli apartheid goes back to
the "Hebrew labor" concept adopted by Ben-Gurion's Histadrut
in the 1930s. (By the way, South Africa's
Apartheid laws were only formalized in 1950, although, as
with Israel, the roots of racist discrimination ran much deeper.
The ideas behind South Africa's legal thinking drew heavily on
America's Jim Crow laws, which were also notable sources for
Nazi Germany's race laws.) So what's new since October 7 isn't
apartheid, but the nature of the war, which has crossed over the
line from harsh enforcement to genocide: the purpose of which is
not just to punish Hamas for the insolence of rebellion, but to
purge Israel of all Palestinians:
Under the fog of this onslaught on Gaza, the colonial takeover of
the West Bank
has also accelerated over the past year. Israel has introduced
new measures of administrative annexation;
settler violence has further intensified with the backing of the
army;
dozens of new outposts have been established, contributing to the
expulsion of Palestinian communities; Palestinian cities have been
subjected to suffocating economic closures; and the Israeli army's violent
repression of armed resistance has reached levels not seen since the
Second Intifada -- especially in the refugee camps of Jenin, Nablus, and
Tulkarem. The previously tenuous distinction between Areas A, B, and C
has been completely erased: the Israeli army operates freely throughout
the entire territory.
At the same time, Israel has deepened the oppression of Palestinians
inside the Green Line and their status as
second-class citizens. It has intensified its severe restrictions
on their political activity through
increased surveillance,
arrests,
dismissals,
suspensions, and
harassment. Arab leaders are labeled "terror supporters," and the
authorities are carrying out an unprecedented wave of house demolitions --
especially in the Negev/Naqab, where the number of demolitions in 2023
(which
reached a record of 3,283) was higher than the number for Jews
across the entire state. At the same time, the police
all but gave up on tackling the serious problem of organized
crime in Arab communities. Hence, we can see a common strategy
across all the territories Israel controls to repress Palestinians
and cement Jewish supremacy.
Near the end of the article, the author points to
A Land for All: Two States One Homeland as an alternative,
and cites various pieces on
confederation. I'm not wild about these approaches, but
I'd welcome any changes that would reduce the drive of people
on both sides to kill one another.
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
Dave DeCamp:
[10-16]
Netanyahu approves set of targets to hit inside Iran: "Israel
is expected to attack before the November 5 US presidential election."
[10-16]
Israeli soldiers say ethnic cleansing plan in North Gaza is
underway: "A reserve soldier told Haaretz that anyone who
remains in the north after a deadline 'will be considered an enemy
and will be killed.'" [10-17]
Israel says Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar has been killed.
More on Sinwar
David Dayen: [10-17]
In Israel, the war is also the goal: "Yahya Sinwar's death is
unlikely to change the situation in Gaza." This has long been
evident, but it's nice to see new people noticing:
That Netanyahu's personal and political goals vastly outweigh whatever
could resemble military goals in this war in Gaza by now has become a
cliché. Netanyahu wants to stay out of prison, and ending the war is
likely to place him there. So new missions and operations and objectives
sprout up for no reason.
Suddenly Bibi's party has mused about re-settling northern Gaza for
the first time in nearly 20 years, while transparently using
a policy of mass starvation as a way to implement it. . . .
The war has long passed any moment where Israel has any interest
in declaring victory, in the fight against terror or in the fight
for the security of its people. Even bringing up the fact of continued
Israeli hostages inside Gaza seems irrelevant at this point. The war
is actually the goal itself, a continuation of punishment to fulfill
the needs of the prime minister and his far-right political aims. The
annals of blowback indicate pretty clearly that incessant bombing of
hospitals and refugee camps will create many Yahya Sinwars, more than
who can be killed. That is not something that particularly burdens the
Israeli government. Another pretext would serve their continuing
interests.
Griffin Eckstein: [10-17]
Harris sees "opportunity to end" to Israel-Gaza war in Hamas leader
Sinwar's killing: Nice spin, especially after
Biden's me-too statement, but naive and/or disingenuous. Surely
she knows that the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't end with
regime change or the later deaths of Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar,
or Osama Bin Laden. Sure, those deaths seemed like good ideas at
the time, but by the time they happened many more people had been
killed, and more people rose from nowhere to fight back, and then
they too had to be killed, because once you -- by which I mean the
kind of people who lead countries and start wars -- start killing,
there's always more to do. Still, Harris deserves a nod for even
imagining that some other path is possible. Whether she deserves
it depends on whether she can follow through and act upon her
insight. Unfortunately, to do so would mean she has to develop
enough backbone to defy and put pressure on Netanyahu, which thus
far she hasn't risked. James Mackenzie/Nidal Al-Mughrabi/Samia Nakhoul: [10-17]
Hamas leader Sinwar killed by Israeli troops in Gaza, Netanyahu says
war will go on. Because the point never was Sinwar or Hamas or
the October 7 revolt. Qassam Muaddi: [10-17]
Israel says it killed Yahya Sinwar as he was fighting the Israeli
army: "The Israeli army said on Thursday that Hamas chief Yahya
Sinwar had been killed in combat during an armed confrontation with
an Israeli army patrol in Rafah." Abdaljawad Omar: [10-21]
It was only their machines: on Yahya Sinwar's last stand:
"Yahya Sinwar's last stand laid bare Israel's weakness, exposing the
truth about its post-heroic army that only survives from a distance
and remains shielded by armor, unwilling to face its enemies head-on."
Bernie Sanders: [10-18]
Sinwar is dead; we must end our complicity in this cruel and illegal
war. Note that this is not a syllogism: the conclusion was true
even when Sinwar was still alive. Steven Simon: [10-17]
The demise of Yahya Sinwar and his 'big project': "The Hamas
leader overestimated Israel's fractures and underestimated Netanyahu's
willingness to destroy Gaza." I'm not convinced that either of these
assertions are true. I tend to see his "big project" as an act of
desperation, aimed to expose Israel's brutality, as well as imposing
some measure of cost for an oppression that had become routinized
and uninteresting for most people not directly affected. It seems
highly unlikely that he underestimated Netanyahu's monstrosity,
although he might not unreasonably have expected that others, like
the US, would have sought to moderate Israel's response. But even
as events unfolded, Israel has done an immense amount of damage to
its international reputation, as has America. While it's fair to
say that Sinwar made a bad bet for the Palestinian people, the
final costs to Israel are still accumulating, and will continue
to do so as long as Netanyahu keeps killing. Ishaan Tharoor: [10-20]
What will Yahya Sinwar's death mean for Gaza? Not peace.
Which kind of begs a question too obvious for mainstream media,
which is why kill him if doing so doesn't bring you closer to
peace? Jamal Kanj: [10-18]
The Israeli General's Plan in Gaza: Genocide by starvation. Edo Konrad: [10-16]
The 'pact of silence' between Israelis and their media: "Israel's
long-subservient media has spent the past year imbuing the public
with a sense of righteousness over the Gaza war. Reversing this
indoctrination, says media observer Oren Persico, could take
decades." I've long been critical of US mainstream media sources
for their uncritical echoing of Israeli hasbara, but Israel --
where major media, 20-30 years ago, seemed to be far more open to
critically discussing the occupation than American outlets were --
has become far more cloistered. Consider this:
What Israeli journalists do not understand is that when the government
passes its
"Al Jazeera Law," it is ultimately about something much larger
than merely targeting the channel. The current law is about banning
news outlets that "endanger national security," but they also want
to give the Israeli communications minister the right to prevent any
foreign news network from operating in Israel that could "harm the
national morale." What the Israeli public doesn't understand is that
next in line is BBC Arabic, Sky News Arabic, and CNN. After that,
they're going to come for Haaretz, Channel 12, and Channel 13.
We are heading toward an autocratic, Orbán-esque regime and
everything that comes with that -- in the courts, in academia, and
in the media. Of course it is possible. It sounded unrealistic 10
years ago, then it sounded more realistic five years ago when
Netanyahu's media-related legal scandals blew up. Then it became
even more reasonable with the judicial overhaul, and even more so
today. We're not there yet, but we are certainly on the way.
Qassam Muaddi:
[10-15]
What is the 'Generals' Plan'? Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing of
northern Gaza, explained: "The ethnic cleansing of northern
Gaza as part of the so-called 'Generals' Plan' isn't new, but the
only thing standing in its way is the will of 200,000 Palestinians
to stay in the north and refuse displacement." [10-17]
Bombings, killer drones, and starvation: eyewitnesses describe Israel's
extermination campaign in northern Gaza: "Testimonies from the
brutal siege on the Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza describe
massive air and ground assaults, including killer quadcopter drones,
that are destroying infrastructure and causing catastrophic
humanitarian conditions." [10-21]
Israel commits largest massacre yet in northern Gaza: "The siege
of north Gaza and Jabalia refugee camp enters its third week as Israel
has cut off aid to some 200,000 people. On Saturday, Israeli forces
bombed Beit Lahia, killing at least 80 Palestinians, in one of the
largest massacres in months."
Lebanon:
Dave DeCamp: [10-20]
Israel starts bombing banks in Lebanon: "The Israeli military is
targeting branches of al-Quard al-Hassan, which Israel accuses of
financing Hezbollah." Qassam Muaddi: [10-21]
Israel presents its conditions for Lebanon ceasefire as Hezbollah
intensifies operations: "Israel's conditions for a ceasefire
in Lebanon include allowing Israel to operate inside Lebanese
territory against Hezbollah and freedom of movement for Israel's
air force in Lebanon's airspace." Adam Shatz: [10-11]
After Nasrallah. Long piece, lot of background on Nasrallah and
Hizbullah.
It's hard to see what strategy, if any, lies behind Israel's reckless
escalation of its war. But the line between tactics and strategy may
not mean much in the case of Israel, a state that has been at war
since its creation. The identity of the enemy changes -- the Arab
armies, Nasser, the PLO, Iraq, Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas -- but the war
never ends. Israel's leaders claim this war is existential, a matter
of Jewish survival, and there is a grain of truth in this claim,
because the state is incapable of imagining Israeli Jewish existence
except on the basis of domination over another people. Escalation,
therefore, may be precisely what Israel seeks, or is prepared to
risk, since it views war as its duty and destiny. Randolph Bourne
once said that 'war is the health of the state,' and Netanyahu and
Gallant would certainly agree.
Lylla Younes:
Israel escalates attacks on Lebanese first responders -- potentially
a war crime.
America's Israel (and Israel's America):
Aida Chávez:
After Israel killed Hamas leader, DC pushes to hand Palestine to
Saudi Arabia: "Bent on a 'mega-deal' security pact with Saudi
Arabia, Congress and the Biden administration see their chance."
Matt Duss: [10-17]
Yahya Sinwar's death can end this war: But it won't, because only
Netanyahu can end the war, and he doesn't want to, because there are
still Palestinians to dispossess and dispose of, and because Biden
isn't going to make it hard on him to continue. But sure, if one did
want to end the war, checking Sinwar off your "to do" list offers a
nice opportunity. On the other hand, negotiating a ceasefire with a
credible leader like Sinwar would have been even better. This piece
was cited by::
Ellen Ioanes: [10-19]
There's no ceasefire in sight for Israel's Gaza war. Why not?
Any author, like this one, that doesn't squarely answers "Israel"
has simply not been paying attention.
Anatol Lieven: [10-10]
Blinken's sad attempt to whitewash Biden's record: "By not
acting with political and moral courage, this administration has
actually failed abysmally on numerous counts."
Alan MacLeod: [10-17]
Revealed: The Israeli spies writing America's news.
Steve McMaster/Khody Akhavi: [10-15]
Netanyahu: Thank you America for your service: "One year after Gaza
invasion, US complicity is everywhere in the smoldering ruins."
Trita Parsi:
Mitchell Plitnick: [10-18]
No, the US is not 'putting pressure' in Israel to end its war:
"A letter from the Biden administration to Israel this week
threatening to possibly withhold weapons raised hopes among some,
but the delivery of a missile defense system and deployment of U.S.
soldiers sent the real message."
Aaron Sobczak: [10-14]
Biden sends US troops to Israel weeks ahead of election: "Recent
polling suggests there is no American support for this."
Alex de Waal: [10-20]
Israel, a behind-the-scenes powerbroker in Sudan: "Of the many
foreign powers influencing this bloody conflict, Tel Aviv could
help claw it back -- if it wanted to.
Sarah Leah Whitson: [09-27]
Shared zones of interest: "Harris and Trump's foreign-policy
aims in the Middle East proceed from the same incentive structures
and presuppositions about US supremacy." This is an important point,
which could be developed further.
There are two principal reasons for this. First, Harris and Trump's
worldviews are grounded in an article of faith that has undergirded
America's post-World War II foreign policy: maintaining U.S. hegemony
and supremacy. There is full agreement, as Kamala Harris recently
declared at the Democratic convention and reiterated in her debate
with former President Trump, that the U.S. must have the "most lethal"
military in the world, and that we must maintain our military bases
and personnel globally. While Trump may have a more openly mercenary
approach, demanding that the beneficiaries of U.S. protection in Europe
and Asia pay more for it, he is a unilateralist, not an isolationist.
At bottom, neither candidate is revisiting the presuppositions of U.S.
primacy.
Second, both Harris and Trump are subject to the overwhelming
incentive structure that rewards administrations for spending more
on the military and selling more weapons abroad than any other country
in the world. The sell-side defense industry has fully infiltrated the
U.S. government, with campaign donations and a revolving escalator to
keep Republicans and Democrats fully committed to promoting their
interests. The buy-side foreign regimes have gotten in on the pay-to-play,
ensuring handsome rewards to U.S. officials who ensure weapons sales
continue. And all sides play the reverse leverage card: If the U.S.
doesn't sell weapons, China and Russia (or even the U.K. and France)
will. There is no countervailing economic pressure, and little political
pressure, to force either Harris or Trump to consider the domestic and
global harms of this spending and selling.
In the Middle East, the incentive structure is at its most powerful,
combining the influence of the defense industry and the seemingly
bottomless disposable wealth of the Gulf States. And there are two
additional factors -- the unparalleled influence and control of the
pro-Israel lobby, which rewards government officials who comply with
its demands and eliminates those who don't; and Arab control over the
oil and gas spigots that determines the prices Americans pay for fuel.
As a result, continued flows of money, weapons, and petroleum will
ensue, regardless of who wins in November.
Whitson is executive director of Democracy for the Arab World
Now, after previously directing Human Rights Watch's Middle East
and North African Division from 2004 to 2020. Here are some older
articles:
Israel vs. world opinion: Although my
title is more generic, the keyword in my source file is "genocide,"
because that's what this is about, no matter how you try to style
or deny it.
Election notes:
Rachel M Cohen: [10-15]
Nebraska is the only state with two abortion measures on the ballot.
Confusion is the point. "The state's 12-week ban has already
upended care. Anti-abortion leaders want to go further."
Gabriel Debenedetti: Has a series of articles called
"The Inside Game":
[10-14]
David Plouffe on Harris vs. Trump: 'Too close for comfort':
"The veteran strategist on the state of play for his boss, Kamala
Harris, and what he thinks of the 'bed-wetters.'" He doesn't seem
to have much to say about anything, which may be what passes as
tradecraft in his world of high-stakes political consulting. It
does seem like an incredible amount of money is being spent on a
very thin slice of the electorate -- Plouffe is pretty explicit
on how he's only concerned with the narrow battleground states. [09-15]
The WhatsApp Campaign: "Kamala Harris's team is looking for
hard-to-find voters just about everywhere, including one platform
favored by Latinos." [10-02]
How Tim Walz saved himself: "At first, he looked overmatched by
JD Vance. Then came abortion, health care, and, above all, January 6." [09-21]
How Kamala Harris knocks out Trump: "Mark Robinson's Nazi-and-porn
scandal ignites an all-out push to win North Carolina." Errol Louis: [10-17]
Hey Democrats, don't panic -- here's why. John Morling: [10-21]
It is not too late for the Uncommitted Movement to hold Democrats
accountable for genocide: "The Uncommitted Movement voluntarily
gave up its leverage but it is not too late to hold Kamala Harris
accountable for supporting the Israeli genocide in Gaza." Yes, it
is too late. The presidential election is about many things, but
one thing it is not about is Israeli genocide. To insist that it
is overlooks both that Trump has if anything been more supportive
of genocide, and that while he was president, he did things that
directly connect to the Oct. 7 Hamas revolt, and to Netanyahu's
sense that he could use that revolt as a pretext for genocide.[*]
On the other hand, punishing Harris suggest that none of the real
differences between her and Trump matter to you. Most Democrats
will not only disagree, they will blame you for any losses.
[*] Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, abandoning a major
tenet of international law. Trump ended the Iran nuclear deal. And
Trump's invention of the Abraham Accords was widely considered as
a major factor in Hamas's desperate attack. Andrew Prokop: [10-21]
The big election shift that explains the 2024 election: "Progressives
felt they were gaining. Now they're on the defensive." A new installment
in a
Vox series the point of which seems to be to tell leftists to go
fuck themselves. As with the Levitz piece (also
hereabouts), this article is half false
and half bullshit. The false part starts with the "gaining" -- the
success of the Sanders campaigns had less to do with ideological
gains (although he made some, and continues to do so) than with his
presentation of a non-corrupt alternative to a very corrupt system),
and the adoption of some progressive thinking by Biden had more to
do with the proven failures of much neoliberal thinking under Obama
and Clinton -- and continues with the "defensive": Sanders' decision
not to challenge Biden and (later) Harris was largely a concession
to age, as well as a gesture of party unity against Trump and the
increasingly deranged Republicans, but also a sense that Harris
would be at least as willing to work toward progressive ends as
Biden had been. That Harris, having secured the nomination with no
real opposition from progressives or any other faction or interest
group, should deliberately tack toward political orthodoxy may be
disappointing to a few of us -- and in the especially urgent matters,
like Israel's wars and genocide, we still feel the need to speak
out[*] -- but the "assignment" (to use Chait's wretched phrase) is
to win the election, and that involves reaching and convincing a
majority of voters, way more than just self-conscious progressives,
in an environment and culture that are severely warped by moneyed
interests and mass media doublespeak. I'm inclined to trust that
what she's saying is based on sound research and shrewd analysis
with that one goal in mind. She's the politician, and I'm just a
critic. If she loses, I'll take what little joy I can in dissecting
her many failings, but if she wins, I can only be thankful for her
political skills, at least for a few days, until her statements
move from vote-grubbing to policy-making, in which case we critics
will have a lot of expertise to offer.
As for the left, I'm more bullish than ever. Capitalism creates
a lot of benefits, but it is also a prodigious generator of crises
and chronic maladies, and it fuels political ideologies that seek
to concentrate power but only compound and exacerbate them. Anyone
who wants to understand and solve (or at least ameliorate) thsee
systemic problems needs to look to the left, because that's where
the answers are. Granted, the left's first-generation solutions --
proletarian revolution and communism -- were a bit extreme, but over
many years, we've refined them into more modest reforms, which can
preserve capitalism's advances while making them safer, sustainable,
and ultimately much more satisfying. Post-Obama Democrats haven't
moved left but at least have opened up to the possibility that the
left has realistic proposals, and have adopted some after realizing
that politics isn't just about winning elections, it's also about
delivering tangible benefits to your voters. (Obama and Clinton no
doubt delivered tangible benefits to their donors, but neglect of
their base is a big part of the reason Trump was able to con his
way into his disastrous 2016 win.)
No problems are going to be solved on November 5. What will be
decided is who (which team) gets stuck with the problems we already
have. Republicans will not only not solve any of those problems,
they -- both judging from their track record and from their fantasy
documents like
Project 2025 (or Trump's somewhat more sanitized
Agenda47 -- they will make them much worse for most people,
and will try to lock down control so they can retain power even as
popular opinion turns against them. Democrats will be hard-pressed
to solve them too, especially if they revert to the failed neoliberal
ideologies of the Clinton-Obama years. But when decent folk do look
for meaningful change, the left will be there, with understanding
and care and clear thinking and practical proposals. Left isn't an
ideology. It's simply a direction, as we move away from hierarchy
and oppression toward liberation and equality. It only goes away
when we get there.
[*] It's not like Communists did themselves any favors when in 1939,
when after Stalin negotiated his "pact" with Hitler, they stuck to the
party line and dropped their guard against Nazi Germany. Ben-Gurion
did much better with his 1939 slogan: "We shall fight in the war
against Hitler as if there were no White Paper, but we shall fight
the White Paper as if there were no war." He ultimately succeeded
on both counts.
David Weigel: [10-15]
No matter who wins, the US is moving to the right: Prokop
cites this piece, which argues that the rightward shift of 1980-2005
had been countered by a leftward drift from 2005-20, but since 2000
the tide has shifted back to the right. His evidence is superficial,
mostly polling on language that correlates weakly with left/right.
Biden may have talked more left in 2020 because he literally stole
the nomination from Sanders, and desperately needed to shore up
left support (which he managed to do). Harris got the nomination
handed to her on a platter, with virtually no dissent from the
left, so she's been free to wheel and deal on the right, for
whatever short-term margin it might bring. But nobody on either
side thinks she's more conservative or orthodox than Biden. That's
why Republicans are in such a panic, so unmoored from reality.
Tony Romm/Eric Lau/Adriana Navarro/Kevin Schaul: [10-18]
Crypto cash is flooding the 2024 election. Here's who's benefiting.
Matt Sledge:
Endorsements:
Wikipedia:
Stephen Rohde: [10-07]
Why the Uncommitted and Undecided should vote for Kamala Harris:
"In sharp contrast to the lawless dictatorship Trump promises in his
second term, I urge Undecided voters to examine how Harris would
preserve democracy and continue to strengthen the United States."
He also explains that "since Uncommitted voters care about the
humanity and self-determination of the Palestinian people, Harris
is their best choice."
Trump:
Mariana Alfaro: [10-20]
Musk promises a daily $1 million lottery in questionable pro-Trump
effort: "Legal experts raised concerns about the legality of
the move because it ties a monetary reward to voter registration
status, which is prohibited under federal law." Zack Beauchamp:
[10-16]
Critiquing Trump's economics -- from the right: "What one of the
right's greatest thinkers would make of Trumponomics." On Friedrich
Hayek, who saw himself as a classical liberal, and who saw everyone
else even slightly to his left as marching on "the road to serfdom."
But nothing here convinces me he would have a problem with Trump --
he was, like most of his cohort, a big Pinochet fan -- let alone that
his opinion (having been wrong on nearly everything else) should matter
to me. p10-18]
The increasingly bizarre -- and ominous -- home stretch of Trump's
2024 campaign: "The past week of erratic behavior shows how he
manages to be silly and scary at the same time." Jamelle Bouie:
Philip Bump: [10-18]
Trump's age finally catches up with him: "The man who would (once
again) be the oldest president in history has reportedly scaled back
his campaign due to fatigue. So who would run his White House?" Chas Danner: [10-15]
Trump turned his town hall into a dance party after fans got sick.
This was much ridiculed by late night comics, so I've seen much of
Trump and Kristi Noem on stage, but very little of the crowd, which
is usually the definition of a "dance party." How did the crowd react
after his bumbling responses to five setup questions? It's hard to
imagine them thrilling to multiple versions of "Ava Maria," but it's
also hard to imagine them showing up for the information. I wonder
if Trump rallies aren't like "be-ins" in the 1960s, where crowds
assemble to associate with similar people and complain about the
others. Trump defines who shows up, but after that, does it really
matter what he says or does? This was a test case, but if you start
thinking everything Trump does or says is stupid, your confirmation
bias kicked in instantly, without raising the obvious next question,
why do crowds flock to such inanity? Or are they as stupid as Trump?
Chauncey DeVega:
[10-08]
Trump's violent fantasies: Experts warn of "a terror that blinds
us to what's coming next". "As much as Donald Trump crows about
the need for 'law and order,' he is very much the embodiment of
lawlessness and disorder." [10-17]
"Femiphobia" motivates MAGA males: Psychologist Stephen Ducat on
the gendererd tribalism of Trumpism. [10-18]
"Thirst for the spectacle of Trump's cruelty": Exploring MAGA's
unbreakable bond. Some time ago, I noted that there are two
basic types of Christians in America: those whose understanding
of their religion is to love their neighbors and seek to help them,
and those who hate their neighbors, and see religion as a way to
punish them for eternity -- it's no wonder that the latter group
have come to define Christian Republicans.
DaVega includes a long quote from Peter McLaren, then adds:
McLaren notes "Trump is speaking to an audience that since 2016
has come to share Trump's worldview, his political intuition, his
apprehension of the world, what the Germans call Weltanschauung
and has created a visceral, almost savage bond with the aspiring
dictator."
As the next step in Trump's dictator and authoritarian-fascist
plans, he is now embracing scientific racism and eugenics by telling
his followers that nonwhite migrants, refugees and "illegal aliens"
have bad genes, i.e. "a murder gene." Last Monday, Trump told
right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt that, "You know now, a murderer --
I believe this -- it's in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes
in our country right now." Take Trump's obsessions with good genes
and bad genes and couple them with his remarks about "purifying the
blood" of the nation by removing the human poison and other human
vermin. Historically, both in American society and other parts of
the world, people with the "bad genes" that Trump is so obsessed
with have been removed from normal society through imprisonment and
other means. Such targeted populations have also been subjected to
eliminationist violence and forced sterilization.
Sometimes I wonder if Trump's team doesn't just plant this obvious
Nazi shit to provoke recognition and reaction. They know that it
just sails past their own people, while it turns their opponents
into whiny hysterics droning on about stuff no one else understands.
Griffin Eckstein: [10-11]
"Fascist to the core": Former Trump official Milley warns against
"dangerous" second term: "Trump appointee Mark Milley called
the ex-prez the 'most dangerous person ever.'" Dan Froomkin: [10-20]
If Trump wins, blame the New York Times: "America's paper of
record refuses to sound the alarm about the threat Trump poses to
democracy." Sure, the Times endorsed Harris -- see [09-30]
The only patriotic choice for president -- but in such jingoistic
terms you have to wonder. Their opinion columnists are, as always,
artfully divided, but in day-to-day reporting, they do seem awfully
dedicated to keeping the race competitive (presumably the ticket to
selling more papers) and keeping their options open (as is so often
the way of such self-conscious, power-sucking elites). I've never
understood how many people actually take "the paper of record" all
that seriously. At least I've never been one. Hadas Gold/Liam Reilly: [10-16]
Fox News did not disclose its all-women town hall with Trump was
packed with his supporters. Annie Gowen: [10-20]
Trump repeats 'enemy from within' comment, targeting Pelosi and
Schiff: And there I was, thinking he meant me. Evan Halper/Josh Dawsey: [10-18]
Trump has vowed to guy climate rules. Oil lobbyists have a plan
ready. "As companies fall short on methane emission reductions,
a top grade group has crafted a road map for dismantling key Biden
administration rules." Margaret Hartmann:
Greg Jaffe: [10-20]
The CIA analyst who triggered Trump's first impeachment asks: Was it
worth it? Long piece, and at this point probably not worth your
time. Sarah Jones: [10-15]
Donald Trump is deteriorating: "And as he does, the extremists
around him move closer to power."
Though braggadocio is a familiar Trump quality, much like his reluctance
to stick to his prepared remarks, he is arguably getting weirder -- and
more disturbing -- over time. Trump's speeches are so outlandish, so
false, that they often pass without much comment, as the New York
Times
reported earlier this month in a story about his age. Yet a change
is noticeable. "He rambles, he repeats himself, he roams from thought
to thought -- some of them hard to understand, some of them unfinished,
some of them factually fantastical," the Times noted, adding
that his speeches have become much longer on average, and contain
more negative words and examples of profanity than they previously
did.
Hassan Ali Kanu: [10-16]
Conservatives use Trump assassination to target women in anti-diversity
war: "It's a move to enshrine values into law, but it's not beyond
the realm of possibility." What? "The claim is one of reverse discrimination:
that the historically and presently male-dominated Secret Service
discriminates against men." Say whaaat? Nicholas Liu:
Carlos Lozada: [10-13]
When Trump rants, this is what I hear: The author came to the
US when he was three, so technically he's an immigrant, a person
Trump makes rather gross generalizations about. Amanda Marcotte:
Harold Meyerson: [10-10]
Trump's Made-in-China Bibles: "The imperative of Trump's price-gouging
(selling $3 Bibles for $59.99) meets the Holy Word." Connor O'Keeffe: [10-16]
Beware of war hawks in "America First" clothing. Heather Digby Parton:
[10-11]
Donald Trump's campaign stops give away the game: "California and
New York are not battleground states so why is the campaign spending
time there in the final weeks?" I don't see an answer here, but I also
don't like the idea that one should only campaign in "battleground"
states. (Not that I mind that both sides take Kansas for granted: this
has been a remarkably quiet election here in Wichita, with only two
political signs out as I walk the dog around the block -- both, fwiw,
Harris/Walz.) [10-16]
The MAGA "weave": Donald Trump picks up steam as he dissembles on
stage: "Listen to the laughter when Trump insults the Wall St.
Journal at a meeting of an Economic Club in any major city. . . .
That's not about their wallets. Their wallets are fine. That's about
their ids." [10-18]
Donald Trump's town hall with Latino voters shows his campaign is
clueless: "The Trump campaign is simultaneously courting Latino
voters and pushing the Great Replacement theory." Russell Payne:
Sabrina Rodriguez/Isaac Arnsdorf: [10-01]
Trump mixes up words, swerves among subjects in off-topic speech:
"The Republican nominee appeared tired and complained about his
heightened campaign schedule." Marin Scotten:
Vance, and other Republicans:
Harris:
Ryan Cooper:
Black men deserve better pandering from the Harris campaign:
"Crypto and weed are not how to advertise her ideas for this group." Chas Danner: [10-17]
Who won Kamala Harris's Fox News interview with Bret Baier?
What does "winning" even mean here? The more salient question is
who survived with their reputation intact? This is really just a
catalog of reactions, the final of which was "both sides got what
they wanted." Which is to say, if you missed it, you didn't miss
much. David Dayen/Luke Goldstein:
Google's guardians donate to the Harris campaign: "Multiple
Harris donors at an upcoming fundraiser are representing Google
in its case against the Justice Department over monopolizing
digital advertising." I have to ask, is digital advertising
something we even want to exist? Competition makes most goods
more plentiful, more innovative, and more affordable, but if
the "good" in question is essentially bad, maybe that shouldn't
be the goal. I'm not saying we should protect Google's monopoly.
A better solution would be to deflate its profitability. For
instance, and this is just off the top of my head, you could
levy a substantial tax on digital advertising, collect most of
it from Google, and then redistribute much of the income to
support websites that won't have to depend on advertising. Elie Honig: [11-18]
Kamala Harris has finally embraced being a cop: "The label hurt
her in 2019. Today she wears it like a badge." Reminds me a bit of
when Kerry embraced being a Vietnam War soldier. He didn't get very
far with that. Robert Kuttner: [10-09]
Notes for Harris: "It's good that Kamala Harris is doing more
one-on-one interviews, because she's getting a lot better at it.
Still, she occasionally misses an opportunity." E.g., "Harris could
point out that the administration has made a difference by challenging
collusion and price-gouging, in everything from prescription drugs
to food wholesalers." Nicole Narea: [10-18]
How tough would a President Kamala Harris be on immigrants? Christian Paz: [10-16]
Kamala Harris and the problem with ceding the argument: "The
vice president had a chance to defend immigrants on Fox News. She
passed." Matthew Stevenson: [10-18]
Harris: Speed dating Howard Stern: I was surprised last week
to find the "shock jock and satellite-radio wit" endorsing Harris
last week, probably because I have zero interest or curiosity in
him, and may know even less.
Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:
Avishay Artsy/Sean Rameswaram: [10-21]
Why Wisconsin Democrats are campaigning in places where they can't
win: "To win statewide, the party wants to "lose by less" in
rural areas." That's good advice everywhere. Especially as Democrats
actually have a better proposition for rural voters than Republicans
have. Ed Kilgore: [10-19]
Four good reasons Democrats are terrified about the 2024 election:
I wasn't sure where to fire this, but the reasons turn out to mostly
reside in Democrats' heads. Nothing here suggests that Democrats are
more likely to lose. It's just that if they lose, the consequences
will be far worse than whatever setbacks Republicans might suffer in
another Trump loss:
- Democrats remember 2016 and 2020
- Democrats fear Trump 2.0 more than Republicans fear Harris
- Only one party is threatening to challenge the election results
- If Harris wins, she'll oversee a divided government; if Trump
wins, he'll have a shot at total power
Eric Levitz: [10-17]
The Democrats' pro-union strategy has been a bust: "Despite
Joe Biden's historically pro-union policies, the Democrats' share
of the union vote is falling." First question is: is this true?
(Actually, either "this": the falling vote share, or the "pro-union"
policies.) Second question is would be anti-union (like Republicans)
win or lose votes? Most of the people who are locked into Republican
positions (e.g., guns, abortion) are so distrustful of Democrats no
amount of pandering can move them, but giving up positions that are
popular among Democrats can lose face and faith, and that can hurt
you more than you can possibly gain, even if there is no meaningful
alternative. Third point is who cares? If standing up for unions is
the right thing to do, why equivocate with polling? We live in a
country where the rich have exorbitant power, where unions are one
of the few possible countervailing options. Extreme inequality is
corroding everything, from democracy to the fabric of everyday life.
More/stronger unions won't fix that, but they'll help, and that's
good in itself, as well as something that resonates with other
promising strategies. Fourth, if you're just polling union members,
you're missing out on workers who would like to join a union if
only they could. Are your "pro-union" policies losing them? Or
are they offering hope, and a practical path to a better life?
On some level, Democrats and Republicans are fated to be polarized
opposites, each defined by the other and stuck in its identity. A
couple more pieces on labor and politics this year:
Erik Loomis: [09-26]
Preserving public lands: "Deb Haaland has been a remarkable
secretary of the interior. But the future is about funding in
Congress."
Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:
Hassan Ali Kanu: [10-15]
America's judicial divisions: "Every major policy issue is now
also a courtroom battle, decided in increasingly partisan settings.
And there's no end in sight." This is a good overview of an effect
Millhiser has been writing about case-by-case for years: right-wing
plaintiffs and Red State attorneys general shopping for favorable
judges willing to impose horrific rulings on the rest of the nation.
Kacsmaryk's mifepristone ruling is just one glaring case example. Ian Millhiser:
Climate and environment:
Alex Abad-Santos: [10-11]
For some evacuation defiers, Hurricane Milton is a social media
goldmine: "They didn't listen to Hurricane Milton evacuation
orders. Then they posted through it." This reminds me of the hype
that "shock and awe" would win the war against Iraq, because all
it would take is one awesome demonstration of force to get Iraqis
to drop their arms and surrender. Problem was: the people who were
truly shocked were dead, and the rest survived not just the bombs
but the hype, making them think they were invincible. Matthew Cappucci/Kelsey Baker: [10-19]
Hurricane Oscar forms in Caribbean, surprising storm watchers:
"Oscar probably won't be around long. After making a run at Cuba,
it will begin turning north into Monday and weakening into Tuesday." Benji Jones: [10-17]
We need $700 billion to save nature: "Just a tiny fraction of the
global GDP could help stave off ecological collapse." Robert Kuttner: [10-15]
How hurricanes are a profit center for insurers: "To compensate
for exaggerated expectations of claims, they jack up rates and hollow
our coverage, giving themselves more profit than before." As long
as the market will bear it, and up to the point when they really do
go bankrupt. This is, of course, the kind of profiteering business
schools teach their students to be shameless about.
Business, labor, and Economists:
Dean Baker: Quite a bit to catch up with here, as
he always has good points to make. In trying to figure out how
far I needed to go back, I ran across this tweet I had noted:
"Part of the job of a progressive government is to shift the
public narrative towards the idea that the state can improve
people's lives." I'll add that the point here is not to convince
you that government is good or benign, but that it belongs to
you and everyone else, and can be used to serve your interests,
as far as they align with most other people (or, as the US
Constitution put it, to "promote the general welfare, and secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"). While
progressives initially do this by advancing reasoned argument,
they also need to put it into practice whenever possible, and
actually do things to "promote the general welfare and secure
the blessings of liberty." You hear much about "democracy" these
days, but knows this: democracy makes good government possible,
but only works if/when people realize they have the power to
direct it. Also, make sure to check out Baker's free book,
Rigged.
[09-16]
Now that we all agree that 10 percent tariffs on imports are bad,
how about 1000 percent tariffs on prescription drugs? [09-17]
The Washington Post is concerned about the budget deficit, again. [09-22]
Why is it silly to think it's the media's job to inform the public?
[09-23]
My six favorite untruths about the Biden-Harris economy.
These are the subheds:
- The New York Times picks an atypical worker to tell a story
about a divided economy.
- It's hard for recent college grads to find jobs even when
their unemployment rate is near a twenty-year low.
- The two-full time job measure of economic hardship
- The retirement crisis
- The collapsing saving rate
- Young people will never be able to afford a home
He adds:
Those are my six favorites, but I could come up with endless more
pieces, like the CNN story on the family that drank massive amounts
of milk who suffered horribly when milk prices rose, or the New York
Times piece on a guy who used an incredible amount of gas and was
being bankrupted by the record gas prices following the economy's
reopening.
There are also the stories that the media chose to ignore, like
the record pace of new business starts, the people getting big pay
increases in low-paying jobs, the record level of job satisfaction,
the enormous savings in commuting costs and travel time for the
additional 19 million people working from home (almost one eight
of the workforce).
The media decided that they wanted to tell a bad economy story,
and they were not going to let reality get in the way.
[09-26]
The economy after the GDP revisions: "Basically, they tell us
a story of an economy that has performed substantially better since
the pandemic than we had previously believed."
The highlights are:
- An economy that grew substantially more rapidly than previously
believed and far faster than other wealthy countries
- Substantially more rapid productivity growth, suggesting more
rapid gains in wages and living standards and a smaller burden of
the national debt;
- Higher income growth than previously reported, with both more
wages and more profits;
- A higher saving rate, meaning that the stories about people
having to spend down their savings were nonsense.
There were also a couple of not-so-good items:
- A higher profit share that is still near a post-pandemic peak;
- A lower implicit corporate tax rate, although still well above
the 2019 level.
[10-05]
Automation is called "productivity growth". As he points out,
productivity growth was long regarded as a universal good thing,
until the 1980s, when businesses found they could keep all of the
profits, instead of sharing with workers.
Anyhow, this is a big topic (see Rigged, it's free), but the
idea that productivity growth would ever be the enemy is a bizarre
one. Automation and other technologies with labor displacing potential
are hardly new and there is zero reason for workers as a group to fear
them, even though they may put specific jobs at risk.
The key issue is to structure the market to ensure that the benefits
are broadly shared. We never have to worry about running out of jobs.
We can always have people work shorter hours or just have the government
send out checks to increase demand. It is unfortunate that many have
sought to cultivate this phony fear.
[10-08]
Tariffs and government-granted patent monopolies: bad and "good"
forms of protectionism. Baker rarely misses an opportunity to
bash patent monopolies -- an important issue that few others pay
much attention to. [10-09]
Should Kamala Harris be celebrating the labor market? A sober
evaluation of a recent column by Peter Coy: [10-07]
Kamala Harris should think twice about touting this economy.
I will say that by any historical standard the labor market is doing
pretty damn good. It could be better, but a low unemployment rate and
rapidly rising real wages is a better story than any incumbent
administration could tell since -- 2000, oh well.
I would put more stress here on "it could be better" than on the
seemingly self-satisfied "pretty damn good." I'd also stress the
options: that Republicans and business lobbyists have obstructed
reforms that would help more (and in some cases virtually all) people,
and that the key to better results is electing more Democrats -- who
may still be too generous to the rich, but at least consider everyone
else. [10-14]
CNN tells Harris not to talk about the economy. CNN is not
the only "neutral news outlet" to have persistently trashed the
economic success of the Biden-Harris administration, but they
have been particularly egregious. It's almost as if they have
their own agenda.
The goal for Democrats in pushing their many economic successes
(rapid job creation, extraordinarily low unemployment, real wage
growth, especially at the lower end of the wage distribution, a
record boom in factory construction) is to convince a small
percentage of the electorate that this is a record to build on.
By contrast, Donald Trump seems to push out a new whacked out
proposal every day, with the only constants being a massive tax
on imports and deporting a large portion of the workforce in
agriculture and construction.
Given the track record of the Biden-Harris administration
compared with the craziness being pushed by Donald Trump, it is
understandable that backers of Donald Trump would not want Harris
to talk about the economy. But why would a neutral news outlet
hold that view?
Emma Curchin: [10-17]
34 million seniors in Medicare advantage plans face rude awakening:
"Insurers are dropping plans and slashing benefits" -- you know, like
all private insurance companies everywhere. Sarah Jones: [Fall 2024]
In the shadow of King Coal: "While the coal industry is in terminal
decline, it still shapes the culture of central Appalachia." Paul Krugman: [10-17]
How Trump's radical tariff plan could wreck our economy. Robert Kuttner: [10-18]
Redeeming the Nobel in economics: "This year's prize went to three
institutionalist critics of neoliberalism. The award is overdue."
Daren Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A Robinson. The latter two
were co-authors with Acemoglu of books like Why Nations Fail: The
Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (2012), and Power and
Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity
(2023). Johnson was also co-author, with James Kwak, of one of the
first notable books to come out of the 2008 financial meltdown: 13
Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown
(2010). Bethany McLean: [10-17]
Senate report: How private equity 'gutted' dozens of US hospitals:
Thanks to modern tricks of financial engineering, investors can prosper
even when the underlying business is failing."
Ukraine and Russia:
Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:
Philip Balboni: [10-14]
Why US foreign policy today is a form of 'isolationism': "Those
throwing around the epithet are the ones driving us to be more alone
in the world." Van Jackson: I just ran across him today, but he has
several books I should have noticed by now, and a Substack newsletter
that I'll cite below. He describes himself as "a one-time 'defense
intellectual' and a longtime creature of the national security state,"
but also "on the left," albeit only in a "vague cosmopolitanism and
an antiwar sensibility, yet reflexively in support of the going
concerns of the Democratic Partly, including (paradoxically) military
primacy."
Other stories:
Joshua Frank: [10-18]
Pissing everyone off for 30 damn years: A memoir of writing for
Counterpunch since 1998, tied on the publication's 30th anniversary
to their annual funding campaign. Whizy Kim: [10-16]
Is every car dealer trying to rip me off? "Why buying a car is
the worst kind of shopping." Cited here because after 18 years I'm
in the market for a new car, and because I've been for 2-3 years
without ever managing to put the time and effort into it. I've only
bought one used and four new cars in my life, and the new car I
spent the least time shopping for was by far the worst -- the
others were pretty good deals on pretty good cars. But I've seen
a lot of crap like this, and it pays to beware.
Obituaries
Books
Music (and other arts?)
Chatter
Meme quote from Michelle Wolf: "You know in High School if you
didn't believe in Science or History, it was just called failing."
I got this from a Facebook
thread, with several interesting comments, including this one from
Clifford Ocheltree:
I shall only point to an earlier remark, the failure of our educational
system to teach critical thinking. To be skeptical in the absence of
that learned skill is pure ignorance. I would add that perception plays
a critical role in how an uneducated populace becomes 'skeptical,'
'credulous' and 'easily duped.' We are, we have become, the product of
a failed educational system. One in which the vast majority of the
population cannot read directions on a bottle of aspirin or name the
three branches of the Federal Government. These failures allow both
parties to play fast and loose with history and science knowing full
well the audience isn't likely to 'get it.'
Ocheltree also addressed history: "History is the interpretation
of fact by 'experts' who bring their own bias." Someone else picked
this up, noting "I can't help laugh at the notion of your feigning
disdain for history" then asking "why do you lap up so many history
books?" Ocheltree replied:
Fact and history are not the same thing. Most 'experts' (historians)
have a bias and view 'facts' through that lens. Nearly 50 years ago
I read an excellent book by Frances Fitzgerald, "America Revised:
History Schoolbooks in the Twentieth Century" (1979). A discussion
and analysis of how history teaching and texts had changed over the
years. At times the result of new information coming to light and
at others the outgrowth of changing social standards or political
leanings. Some 20 years ago I discovered some 'facts' while researching.
Trial testimony with supporting documentation (original records) in
a Virginia court house basement. At a conference I had some time to
speak with the author of the leading text(s) being used on the topic
by any number of colleges. I shared my findings, privately, as they
disproved a good chunk of his work. His response in short? Nobody
will give a shit that I was wrong, my text is the accepted standard
and will always be paramount because it makes my point.
I would add, history and record reviews are much the same. The
author collects 'facts,' the critic listens. Each applies his/her
own bias. The idea that anyone would accept an authors' work(s) as
'unbiased' strikes me as a failure of our education system. Steven
Pinker's recent work has focused on the utter lack of training
students in the basics of critical thinking. I 'lap up' history
books with a jaundiced eye. I love the topic but learned many
years ago, just because a book has been issued isn't 'proof' that
it is accurate.
Hardin Smith, who started this thread, added:
Who said fact and history are the same thing? I sure didn't. But
that doesn't mean it's not worth studying and it doesn't mean that
it doesn't behoove people to have a working knowledge of it. And
certainly you'd agree that there are certain things that we can
all agree on, or at least on the general outlines. Here's a question:
if so much of what you read is biased, whose work are you using to
make that judgment? Is there a higher unbiased source you go to?
And, are there certain historical events that we can all agree to?
The Holocaust, the Moon Landing, Trump's loss in '20? Or is everything
in your world subjective opinion? Also, history is not like record
reviews, sorry. Record reviews are totally based on opinion, but
though there may be bias, history at least concerns itself with
actual facts. It's a subjective interpretation of actual facts.
There's never completely removing bias in anything produced by
humans, but I'd submit to you that some are more biased than others.
Some are relatively free of bias. None of it means that history
isn't worth knowing.
It's tempting to go all philosophical here, and argue that it's
all biased, all subjective, at best assertions that are subject to
independent verification -- same for record reviews, although the
odds of being rejected by other subjectives there are much elevated
compared to science, which has a longer history of refinement and
consensus building (not that similar processes don't apply to record
reviewing). Still, not much disagreement here. Smith seems to find
it important to maintain a conceptual division between opinion and
fact, between subjective and objective, which I find untenable and
not even necessary (although it's easy to fall into when arguing
with idiots -- which is why Wolf's joke is so cutting).
This leads us back to the importance of critical thinking,
which is ultimately a process of understanding one's own biases --
starting, of course, with exposing the biases of others. (Much
like crazy people developed psychoanalysis to understand, and
ultimately to master, their own neuroses.)
Local tags (these can be linked to directly):
music.
Current count:
212 links, 12063 words (15688 total)
Ask a question, or send a comment.
|
