Recent Reading

Music Database

Artist Search:

Browse

Website Search

Google:

Speaking of * [10 - 19]

Monday, September 9, 2024

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

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

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

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

Then she asks for money.

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

Top story threads:

Israel:

• Mondoweiss:

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

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

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

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

• Anadolu Agency:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Jessica Buxbaum:

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

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

• Abdallah Fayyad: [09-04] How a disease the world (mostly) vanquished reared its head in Gaza: "Israel's attacks on Gaza created conditions for polio to spread. Now, a vaccination campaign is racing against time."

• Tareq S Hajjaj: [09-07] 'The world has gotten used to our blood': Israeli massacres in Gaza continue: "Despite the shift in the media's attention to regional developments and the Israeli invasion of the northern West Bank, the massacres in Gaza continue in silence. In the first three days of September, Israel committed nine massacres in the strip."

• Shatha Hanaysha: [09-06] 'Days filled with terror': Palestinians in Jenin recount harrowing 10-day Israeli army invasion: "Israeli occupation forces withdrew from the occupied West Bank city of Jenin, including the Jenin refugee camp, early on Friday."

• Gideon Levy:

  • [08-29] Israel holds a ceremony for a war that hasn't ended -- instead of ending it. Looks like Israel's "never forget" industry is back, working harder than ever:

    Why is it even important to hold a ceremony on October 7? Is there anyone who doesn't remember? And has anyone learned any lessons from it? . . .

    Since October 7, Israel has been wallowing nonstop in October 7. There has yet to be a news program that doesn't wallow again in that day -- the longest day in Israel's history, the day that still hasn't ended.

    Yet this, too, is meant to repress, deny and escape what really matters. We'll wallow in the past, and then we won't have to think about how to extricate ourselves from it. We'll play the victim to the hilt, and then we won't have to deal with the victims of our own horrific crimes.

    October 7 doesn't need a ceremony. It's still alive and well, dead and held hostage. It's present all the time.

  • [09-05] When six Israelis are mourned more than 40,000 Palestinians: The "six" were hostages recently found dead by Israel. The "40,000" is the minimal number of Palestinians in Gaza killed by Israeli military operations since October 7, 2023.

    While the world is shocked by the fate of Gaza, it has never paid similar respect to the Palestinian victims. The president of the United States does not call the relatives of fallen Palestinians, not even if they, like the Goldberg-Polins, had American citizenship. The United States has never called for the release of thousands of Palestinian abductees that Israel has detained without trial. A young Israeli woman who was killed at the Nova festival arouses more sympathy and compassion in the world than a female teenage refugee from Jabalya. The Israeli is more similar to "the world."

    Everything has already been said about the overlooking and concealment of Palestinian suffering in the Israeli public conversation, and not enough has yet been said. The Palestinian killed in Gaza who had a face, a name and a life story and whose killing shocked Israel has not yet been born.

• Yoav Litvin:

  • [09-05] From 'defense' to destruction: the evolution of Zionist aggression. A couple earlier pieces by Litvin:

  • [05-30] In Gaza, Israel trials new face of America's imperial laboratory: "Israel has shattered its precedent of sadism, paving the way for wider imperial corruption and the end of the West's neoliberal mirage."

  • [07-17] Why are North American synagogues selling West Bank real estate?

• Harold Meyerson: [09-03] Only Israelis can end their war on Gaza: "But even the massive demonstrations weren't enough to get Bibi to shut down the war to which his own job security is linked."

• Abdaljawad Omar: [09-04] Testing the boundaries for ethnic cleansing in the West Bank: "The current operation in the West Bank is meant to test the boundaries of what Israel will be allowed to get away with. It is setting the stage for the forced ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people." The author is basically right, but I have a couple nits to pick. There are no boundaries, in large part because there is no one monitoring what they are or are not "allowed to do." If their actions seem measured, it's because they have their own reasons for measuring them. They aren't seriously worried about the Americans turning on them, but they respect the threat enough to take some care in managing the issues. It seems to me that their game in the West Bank is to provoke an armed uprising, similar to Gaza, which they can then respond to with a major escalation of violence (as they did in Gaza). The the West Bank is a trickier proposition, so they're exercising a bit more care, but they've been pretty relentless about tightening down their control to maximize pressure.

• Paul R Pillar: [09-04] Why Isreal is attacking the West Bank: "Another chapter in the long, tragic story of Tel Aviv's leaders choosing to live forever by the sword."

• Meron Rapoport: [09-04] To sacrifice or free the hostages? Israeli protesters have chosen a side: "Fearing for the remaining captives, the mass rallies that erupted across Israel were essentially demanding an end to the war -- and Netanyahu knows it." There is an element of hopeful thinking here, as the author admits: "To be clear, such a statement was not uttered from the stage nor was it seen on many placards, save for among the small pockets of left-wing protesters that formed the anti-occupation bloc."

• Adnan Abdul Razzaq: [09-05] Israel's growing emigration rate has serious consequences:

  The number of migrants to Israel fell by more than half between 7 October and 29 November last year, according to statistics provided by the Israeli Immigration Authority. The Times of Israel reported that half-a-million people have left the occupation state and not returned, which confirms the erosion of trust and the decline of the population which frightens the regime in Tel Aviv. Prophecies about the "curse of the eighth decade" loom ever more menacingly over the apartheid state of Israel.

• Nathalie Rozanes: [09-05] The Gaza war is an environmental catastrophe: "Toxic waste, water-borne diseases, vast carbon emissions: Dr. Mariam Abd El Hay describes the myriad harms of Israel's assault to the region's ecosystems." I'd say all wars are environmental disasters, and have been so for quite some while now, but this one is exceptionally egregious, both in the extent of devastation and for its clearly deliberate intent, where rendering the environment uninhabitable is a critical strategy for genocide.

  In recent months, the phrase ecocide has been widely used to describe the environmental impact of the Israel-Hamas war (as Wikipedia put it). "Ecocide" is not a new coinage: the Wikipedia article cites several examples, starting with the US use of chemical defoliants in Vietnam, but doesn't mention similar antecedents like the fire-bombing of urban area in WWII, atomic bombs in Japan (although Chernobyl gets a mention), or the bombing of dams in North Korea, as well as older strategies aimed at mass starvation (another Israeli strategy).

  I've probably cited some of these already, but a quick search for "Gaza ecocide" produces a long list of articles, including:

  • The Century Foundation: [2023-12-19] War has poisoned Gaza's land and water. Peace will require environmental justice.

  • Rabia Ali: [03-19] Poisonous effects of Israeli 'ecocide' will plague Gaza for years.

  • Kaamil Ahmed/Damien Gaylle/Aseel Mousa: [03-29] 'Ecocide in Gaza': does scale of environmental destruction amount to a war crime? "Satellite analysis revealed . . . shows farms devastated and nearlyl half of the territory's trees razed. Alongside mounting air and water pollution, experts says Israel's onslaught on Gaza's ecosystems has made the area unlivable."

  • Forensic Architecture:

    • [03-29] 'No traces of life: Israel's ecocide in Gaza 2023-2024.

    • [2019-07-19] Herbicidal warfare in Gaza: Note this previous report, from well before October 7 operations.

  • Jake Johnson: [03-29] Ecocide a 'critical dimension of Israel's genocidal campaign' in Gaza: "Analysis by a research group found that roughly 40% of Gaza land that was previously used for food production has been destroyed by Israeli forces."

  • Saeed Bagheri: [04-03] The silent victim of Israel's war on Gaza. This follows up on the Forensic Architecture report.

  • Philippe Pernot: [05-09] Ecocide in Gaza: the environmental impact of Israel's war.

  • Raphael Tsavkko Garcia: [06-05] Don't ignore Israel's 'ecocide': "Just as we cannot turn away from the human rights crisis unfolding in Gaza, we must not overlook the intrinsic connection between environmental degradation and justice."

  • Helga Merkelbach: [06-20] Forgotten victims of the Gaza war: environment and climate.

  • Justin Salhani: [07-03] Genocide, urbicide, domicide -- how to talk about Israel's war on Gaza: Additional terms covered here: politicide, ecocide, educide and scholasticide, culturcide. Such is the focus on killing every aspect of humanity that disposing of the bodies is almost a side-effect, although it's also a means to those very ends.

  • Lula Fox: [07-07] Israeli ecocide in Gaza pollutes Palestinian futures.

  • Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network: Ecocide at its cruelest, among other relevant pages.

  • Ethan Brown: [03-20] The "ecocide" smear targerts Israel: "Wartime environmental damage is devastating, but creating a poorly defined crime just to stick the overworked ICC on Israel is simply one-sided propaganda." I only included this in case you want to stick your head back in the [now toxic] sand. Curiously enough, he doesn't deny what Israel is doing, but has lots of quibbles about law, including that Israel didn't sign it in the first place. By the way, the author "is the creator and host of The Sweaty Penguin, an award-winning comedy climate program."

  • Khalil Abu Yahia/Natasha Westheimer/Mor Gilboa: [2022-01-13] Gazas race against climate breakdown: "Amid a deepening climate crisis, Palestinians in Gaza are fighting to salvage their land and livelihoods. But repeated bombardments and an unrelenting blockade are devastating efforts to build climate resilience." Another report from a few years back

• Devi Sridhar: [09-05] Scientists are closing in on the true, horrifying scale of death and disease in Gaza.

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

• Branko Marcetic: [09-04] Netanyahu is blocking a hostage deal. You know that. You've known that all along. Netanyahu has always welcomed the opportunity of war. I still clearly remember him on TV on Sept. 11, 2001, grin on face, inviting the US to join Israel in the "war on terror." He said something to the effect of "now you know what it feels like."

• Mitchell Plitnick: [09-06] The genocide in Gaza is as American as it is Israeli. The US won't stop it. "The desire for a ceasefire in the United States, certainly among Democrat voters, is clear. Yet, as the slaughter in Gaza enters its twelfth month, why does the US continue to act the way it does?" I woke up this morning thinking I should write an introduction on just this subject, so this article gives me a chance to dodge the introduction -- which I really don't have time for -- and just hang a couple comments here. I think we need to sort this out several ways, which give us slightly different answers.

  1. Has Israel embarked on a deliberate program of genocide? Short answer is "yes." Most Israelis will quibble over the term, and there are various nuances and idiosyncrasies to their approach, but they don't qualify the point. I could write much more on how this resembles and/or differs from other genocides over history, but the key points are: they know what they want to do, they are working deliberately to realize their intentions, and they have no effective internal constraints against continuing.

  2. Do the Israeli people (by which one means the Jewish ones with full citizenship, which is a privileged subset of the total) support this program of genocide? Short answer is "pretty much so." Very few Israelis object to the dehumanization of Palestinians, which underlies the indiscriminate brutality Israelis practice on them. Israeli culture is designed to inculcate the fear and alienation that makes this dehumanization possible.

  3. Do Americans understand and support Israel's genocide? Some pretty clearly do: e.g., anyone (like Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton) who've uttered the words "finish it!" Especially prominent among these people are neoconservatives who envy and admire Israel's habit of using force to impose its will on its supposed enemies. Such people are still very prominent in US security circles in both political parties. But they are a small (but exceptionally influential) faction. A somewhat larger faction, including many otherwise liberal Democrats, is simply loyal to Israel, and they are mostly in denial about the genocide. (Their share is especially large among the politician class, as their world has long been shaped by donors and lobbyists.) Support for Israel has long been tied to cultural prejudices -- including America's experience as a settler colony, its racist divisions, religious focus, and fondness for world wars -- maintained with extraordinary propaganda. Nonetheless, it is likely that most Americans who are aware of what Israel is doing to Palestinians are deeply unsettled and want to see the war and genocide stop.

  4. The Biden administration reflects all of these American views (but especially the blind loyalty expected of politicians on the take), but rather than trying to reconcile contradictions, they have kept doing what they've long been doing -- supplying Israel with large quantities of money and arms, while providing Israel with diplomatic cover -- only touched with schizophrenia. (I can think of dozens of examples, but let's start with the air drops of relief supplies.) I think you have to ask five questions about Biden's handling of this affair:

     1. Did Biden conspire with, or intend for, Israel to commit genocide? I think (but don't know) the answer here is "no." But this does show considerable naïveté and/or carelessness on Biden's part, as the conditions for Israel escalating its long-established program of collective punishment into the range of genocide have been brewing for more than a decade, and the provocation of the Oct. 7 attack was exactly the sort of event that could trigger such an escalation. That Biden's first response was to offer Israel full-throated, open-ended support was seen by Netanyahu as an open invitation.

     2. Did American support materially contribute to Israel's ability to commit genocide? The answer there is "yes," which is to say that the US was materially complicit in the genocide. The obvious follow up here is: did Biden attempt to withdraw or limit American support to end this complicity? The answer there is "not really." Similar questions can be asked about political, financial, and/or moral support, to which the answers are the same.

     3. Is Israel able and willing to carry out its genocide without American (and allied) support? I think the answer here is "maybe, but not nearly as effectively, or for such a sustained period." The main material supply was ammunition. Perhaps more important is money. Israel has maintained a very high mobilization for an exceptionally long time, while Israel's economy has lagged, so American money has helped pick up the slack. While Israel could self-fund their war, the cost-benefit analysis -- which is to say the viability of the Netanyahu coalition -- would be much harder to justify without the incoming cash.

     4. Is there some reason beyond loyalty for the US to support Israel's program of genocide? Given America's efforts at global hegemony, it is easy to imagine that there must be some sort of master plan, but beyond promoting arms sales, global finance, and the oil industry, there is very little coherence in US foreign policy, and much arbitrary prejudice -- which Israel has been very effective at playing for its own peculiar interests. So I would answers this "no," and add that Biden is hurting the real interests[*] of the American people in aligning with Israel.

        [*] By which I mean peace, cooperation, and development of equitable and mutually advantageous relationships, but those "interests" have no effective lobby in Washington (unlike the arms and oil industries, and Israel).

     5. If Biden finally decides to dissuade Netanyahu from his present course, could he? The answer here is "probably," but it wouldn't be easy. First problem would be gathering enough political support in the US to keep the idea from being strangled in the crib. The Israel lobby is very focused on preventing any politician from even considering any shift away from complete support for anything Israel's leaders desire, and they have a lot of influence both in the media and behind closed doors.

        Then you have to calculate enough pressure to move Netanyahu, who has more experience in manipulating American politicians than anyone else alive, and therefore more arrogance at resisting them. I have some ideas about how to do this, but it's a tricky business, especially when you start out on your knees, with no sense of decency or morals.

        Finally, you need to anticipate which compromises will ultimately prove to be acceptable, achievable, and viable. This, too, is hard, not least because the people who you need to get to accept the compromises -- which is to say, the ones with enough power to ignore you (by which I mean Israel) -- want something else instead (or just to play the game forever), and are unwilling to see the benefit of settling for something less injurious to the other party than they think deserved. Relative power warps the field of options so severely that truly just solutions may be impossible, so the best you can do is choose among disappointments, trying to pick ones that will lessen problems, rather than exacerbate them.

  5. Both Israel and the US should consider the reputational damage their complicity in genocide will cause them. It's not just that other people are tempted to sanction and shun them, but it calls into question their motives and behavior everywhere.

  Also related here:

• Meron Rapoport: [09-02] 'This is also America's war': Why the US isn't stopping Israel's Gaza onslaught: "Israelis and Palestinians are making a terrible mistake by looking exclusively to Washington to solve their problems, says former negotiator Daniel Levy." When asked about Harris's DNC speech, Levy says:

  I think she achieved what she wanted: that both of those kinds of reporting could come out, and that both AIPAC and J Street could endorse it. But if we shift attention to the Palestinian rights movement or the Uncommitted Movement, there is nothing there for them. The way the DNC treated the issue tells you everything you need to know about the ways things aren't changing -- for instance, [the fact there was] no Palestinian speaker or perspective on the stage.

  Harris can talk about bad things that have happened to Palestinians, but from her words you wouldn't know who caused it -- a natural disaster? An earthquake? When Hamas does something bad, they are named and shamed; but when bad things happen to Palestinians, there is never any acknowledgement that they are caused by Israel.

  The nuances and differences between Biden and Harris do exist, and they matter, but we always have to go deeper. The expectation is totally misplaced that the United States will solve this.

• Mohamad Bazzi: [09-06] Kamala Harris should do what Joe Biden won't: commit to actually reining in Israel: But she won't, and I'm not sure she should -- what she should say is that the slaughter and destruction has to end, that it's really unacceptable for any country to treat any people like that under any circumstances, and amends need to be made to make sure nothing like that ever happens again. And it's ok here to use the passive voice, which she has a lot of practice at when describing things that Israel and/or the US have done to get to this point. What we need to know now is that she takes this seriously, and will work on it when and as she's able, but I expect that her work will almost all be done in the shadows. It is important that Israel be seen as calling their own shots. And it is important that the US not be seen that way -- we really need to break out of the really bad habit of thinking we can go out and tell other countries what to do and how to behave.

  I got some flak last week over something I wrote about how the Biden couldn't force Israel to end the genocide even if he wanted to. My wife was arguing that Biden does have the power, at least to force a ceasefire, given the enormous amount of aid the US provides Israel. I allowed that might work, but hasn't been tested (and won't) because Biden lacks the understanding and willpower to apply such leverage. My wife added that he lacks the morals, which is true, but I've grown weary of moralizing over foreign policy. But my point wasn't that such pressure couldn't work. It was that it's not guaranteed to work, because Netanyahu could hold firm, accepting the loss of support, and doubling down. We know from bitter experience that even maximal sanctions can be resisted (e.g., North Korea), and Israel has both the wherewithal and the psychology to do just that.

  Or so we should assume, and respect. As far as I'm concerned, the only escalation possible, direct war, is an option off the table. On the other hand, we don't know that Israel would take such extreme measures in resisting sanctions. They are, for the most part, rational people, who can be expected to carefully weigh their options, balancing costs against benefits, not least those of their own political careers. A big part of Netanyahu's political capital is the perception that he can wrap the Americans around his little finger, which could make him vulnerable to pushback -- sure, not from a pushover like Biden (or Trump), but perhaps from someone with a clear idea what they want. (Whether Harris is such a person remains to be seen. Obama never quite got ahead of Netanyahu.)

• Ishaan Tharoor: [09-04] Netanyahu still wants more war: "The Israeli leader's critics argue he would rather prolong the war to assuage his far-right allies (and keep hold of power) than clinch a deal that stops hostilities and frees the remaining hostages." His critics are right, of course, but his friends would probably tell you the same thing. Where one might quibble is in his motivation: his odds of staying in power don't change much one way or the other, but what he mostly wants to do is to see how much war he can get away with -- before Biden gets disgusted and pulls the plug, before his coalition cracks up and forces a new election. Worst case scenario, he goes back to the people, campaigning on his defiance of the lily-livered turncoats who tried to derail his path to absolute victory.

• Jonah Valdez: [09-06] Israel just killed another American in the West Bank. Will the US ever respond? "Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, a human rights activist, was protesting an illegal West Bank settlement when she was reportedly shot in the head by Israeli soldiers."

  • Michael Arria/Qassam Muaddi: [09-06] Israeli army kills American activist in occupied West Bank: "26-year-old Aysenur Eygi was shot and killed by Israeli forces while attending a West Bank protest on Friday."

Israel vs. world opinion:

• Michael Arria: [09-08] Former Jewish Voice for Peace leaders reflect on the lessons of anti-Zionist organizing: "Mondoweiss speaks with Rebecca Vilkomerson, co-author [with Alissa Wise] of the book Solidarity Is the Political Version of Love: Lessons from Jewish Anti-Zionist Organizing, about the evolution of Jewish Voice for Peace and the state of anti-Zionist organizing." I think JVP has done truly heroic work not just since last October but for at least 20 years prior. We attended their confab in 2003, which for me at least was very informative and ingratiating. After that, we bought a series of video tape lectures they had produced, and presented them with discussions to the Wichita Peace group. My own study largely grew out of that experience. The interview here notes that JVP didn't officially support BDS until 2015, but I recall it being a hot topic with considerable interest back in 2003. I dare say that had the BDS movement been more successful, the atrocities on (and after) October 7 would never have happened.

  I'm tempted to quote the entire section on "decoupling Zionism from Judaism," but just go read it.

• Allan C Brownfeld: [07-23] Palestinians: the final victims of the Holocaust. Old history, worth knowing and reflecting upon, although it's actually rather light on the ways Palestinians have reflected and recapitulated the legacy of the Nazi Judeocide, which at this point might be useful not just for pluralizing the Holocaust but for finding a way to break the cycle of genocide. Maybe "never again" isn't the answer, especially while "again" is actually happening?

• Nuvpreet Kalra: [09-04] Israel's allies are using anti-terror laws to lock up anti-genocide activists.

• Suhail Kewan: What options has the Israeli occupation left for the Palestinians? That's a very good question, one we should have been asking at every step along the way.

  What has happened in the Gaza Strip could easily happen in the West Bank, in terms of the destruction of its refugee camps and cities, collective punishments and huge numbers of Palestinians killed and wounded. All the signs are that the occupation state is ready and willing to do this. It will, to a large extent, be up to the Palestinians to decide if and how to challenge this.

  What is happening in the West Bank at the moment is that Israel is forcing people to defend themselves and is leaving them with only two options: complete and unconditional surrender to the extremist settlers; or defending themselves and their property. Both options are very costly, and the occupation state has not left a middle option.

  I'd argue that neither of those qualify as options, understood as realistic free choices. Fighting back might, if one had a reasonable chance of success. Surrender might, if one could expect mercy. Israel, however, does have options, and the one they've chosen is to deny Palestinians any choice at all.

• The New Arab:

  • [09-05] Amnesty International urges war crimes probe over Israel razing homes in east Gaza.

  • [09-05] Is Israel using Gaza's 'mowing the lawn' strategy in the West Bank?

• James North:

  • [09-03] From reading the NY Times you would think Gaza's polio outbreak was just a natural disaster: "Unfortuantely, the New York Times is easily the most important US media outlet covering Palestine. So it's time for another up-to-date dissection of ongoing Times bias."

  • [09-07] CNN's Jake Tapper slanders pro-Palestine protesters, but continues to ignore shocking systematic bias at his own network.

• Orly Noy: [09-02] Hersh is gone, sacrificed on the alter of Israel's 'total victory': "The parents of hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin pleaded for their son's release. But Netanyahu chose to cling to power and spill rivers of blood in Gaza instead."

• Norman Solomon: [09-06] Knowledge is power. Gaza war supporters don't want students to have both.

• David Spero: [09-05] Contrived charges of antisemitism are the new 'red scare': "How an evidence-free smear is being used to suppress those fighting for justice in Palestine."

• Tom Suarez: [09-08] Palestine defines us: "Palestine is the perfect illustration of the West's staggering hypocrisy. The Gaza genocide defines us because it is us."

• Jonah Valdez: Columbia welcomes students back to campus with arrests: "Two students, including one activist with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, were arrested in front of campus."

Election notes:

• Nicole Narea: [09-03] The state of the 2024 race, explained in 7 charts.

• Andrew Prokop: [09-03] What the polls show about Harris's chances against Trump.

• Tom Valovic: [09-06] Three important questions you won't hear asked in the presidential debates: Wouldn't be hard to come up with a dozen more, but this is what he came up with:

  1. The role of AI in the economy and the job market
  2. Privatizing the healthcare system
  3. Out-of-control corporate influence in US politics

Trump:

• Zack Beauchamp: [09-04] Trump's biggest fans aren't who you think: "A new book shows how people are getting the right's class appeal all wrong." The book is Stolen Pride: Loss, Shame, and the Rise of the Right, by Arlie Russell Hochschild (whose 2016 book, Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right, got a lot of attention after Trump's win as "a guide and balm for a country struggling to understand the election of Donald Trump" -- the other book from back then that was often cited alongside it was JD Vance's much discredited Hillbilly Elegy). As revelations go, this -- that Trump does best among "the elite of the left-behind" -- doesn't strike me as a very big one. The more common term for many in that demographic is "asshole," and sure, Trump's their guy. (To be clear, supporting Trump doesn't make you an asshole, but being an asshole makes you much more likely to rally for Trump.)

• Sidney Blumenthal: [09-04] Donald Trump is deeply threatened by Kamala Harris -- and desperately flailing.

• Kevin T Dugan: Trump bombs his big speech debuting Elon Musk's commission.

• Tom Engelhardt: [09-03] Trumptopia and beyond: "Is reality the biggest fiction of all today?"

• Margaret Hartmann: The highs and lows from Trump's lazy new coffee table book: "From the glaring errors to the debunked gossip about Castro and Trudeau, Save America is a dizzying semi-literary adventure."

• Sarah Jones:

  • The bro candidate.

  • Trump's 'make America healthy again' is a ruse.

• Jerelle Kraus: [09-06] Two and a half hours alone with Nixon, the anti-Trump.

• Nia Prater: Trump won't be sentenced before election day: "Juan Merchan, the presiding judge, ruled that Trump's sentencing hearing will be moved to November 26, weeks after the general election."

• Robert Wright: [09-26] Is Trump a peacenik? No, but if you're worried that Biden (now Harris) is a bit too fond of war, he says a vote for him will save you from WWIII. And given that American politicians of both parties have long and ignominious histories of lying about wanting peace while blundering into war, and given how little reliable information there is about either, there may be enough gullible but concerned people to tilt the election. Wright reviews some of the contradictions here, and there are much more that could be considered.

  I've been worried about just this prospect all along, and I remain worried. I don't have time to explain all the nuances, but very briefly, Biden has done a very bad job of managing US foreign affairs, failing to make any progress dealing with a number of very manageable hostilities (North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, many others) while letting two crises (Ukraine, Gaza) drag into prolonged wars that he seemingly has no interest in ever resolving (at least he doesn't seem to be putting in any effort). The only good thing you can say about his handling of Afghanistan is that he dodged the worst possible option, which was to stick around and keep losing. And while he's made money for the arms and oil industries, both have made the world a much more dangerous place. And then there's China -- do we really need to go there?

  One might reasonably think that anyone could have done a better job than Biden has done, but we actually know one person who had every same opportunity, and made them all worse: Donald Trump, the president before Biden. Is there any reason to think that Trump might do better with a second chance? The plus side is that he may be more wary this time of relying on the "deep state" advisers who steered him so badly. (Biden, too, was plagued by their advice, but he seemed to be more in tune with it -- the only changes Biden made in US foreign policy were to reverse Trump's occasional unorthodox lapses, especially what he viewed as softness on Russia.)

  On the other hand, Trump brings a unique set of disturbing personal characteristics to the job: he cares more about perception than reality; he wants to be seen as very tough, but he's really just a whiney bitch; he's majorly ignorant, and incoherent on top of that; he's impetuous (but he can usually be talked down, because he rarely has any reasons for what he wants to do); he's vain and narcissistic; he has no empathy with people he meets, so has no idea how to relate with them (e.g., to negotiate any kind of agreement); he has no sympathy for other people, so he has no cares for anything wrong that could happen; he has a weird fascination with using nuclear weapons, so that's one of the things he often has to be talked down from; I know I already said that he's ignorant and implied that he's clueless, but he's also pretty stupid about how most things in the modern world actually work. He does, however, have a keen interest in graft, and a passing admiration for other right-wing demagogues, if only because he admires their art and sees them as his peers. About the only thing I can see as a positive is that he doesn't seem to feel any personal need for war to prove his masculinity -- for that he's satisfied abusing women.

  • Daniel Larison: [09-03] Trump doesn't oppose endless wars: "If it were anyone other than Trump taking these positions, his own supporters would be denouncing him as a neocon."

• Steve M: [09-08] In addition to "sanewashing," can we talk about "reality-washing"? Various bits quoting Donald Trump, summed up in the end:

  I still say Trump isn't crazy or suffering significant dementia. He's just beginning to realize that he can tell any lie, no matter how divorced from reality it is, and no one will say that his lies are categorically different from ordinary political lies. To the media, there's no difference between Trump saying schools are forcibly performing gender reassignment surgery on children and Tim Walz saying that he and his wife conceived their children using in vitro fertilization when they really used intra-uterine insemination. A lie is a lie! Nothing to see here, folks!

  Maybe the press has a sense of futility about fact-checking Trump -- it's never stopped him from insisting that the 2020 election was rigged, so why bother? And fact checking clearly can't kill other Republican Big Lies -- that Democrats support abortion after birth, or that entire cities were burned to the ground during the George Floyd protests in 2020. (Many Republicans other than Trump tell these lies and get away with them.)

  If we continue to let Trump lie this brazenly without making the sheer magnitude of the lies a story, we run the risk that he'll become president and indict enemies or call out troops on disfavored groups based entirely on fictional scenarios. Once that happens, the press might finally tell us that he's the worst-ever purveyor of Big Lies, but it could be too late by then.

  Also see his earlier post, on a point I also recall making:

  • [09-06] My unpopular opinion about Trump's rhetoric: it's not gibberish, it's bullshit.

  • [09-04] Anti-Trump Republicans should be rooting for the right-wing media to lose, too. Another piece that shows why No More Mister Nice Blog is so valuable:

    Trump didn't make Mark Robinson a star. Institutions that pre-dated Trump made him a star: Fox and the rest of the right-wing media, along with the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby. And that's the GOP's real problem.

    Donald Trump isn't the sole reason that the Republican Party is extreme and unpalatable to many middle-of-the-road voters. The party began its modern era of intolerance in the days of Ronald Reagan, but the extremism metastasized under the influence of talk radio and then Fox News. Now add the podcasts, news and opinion websites, and social media accounts (as well as entire social media platforms), and you've got a well-oiled rage-inducing machine that urges GOP base voters to hate everyone who isn't a right-winger in good standing (whatever that means at the time).

    While we're at it, a couple more on the media's ineptitude at what's supposed to be their jobs:

  • [09-08] Both sides don't do it, but the media never notices.

  • [09-10] That Times story about Trump's incoherence: I question the timing.

Vance, And other Republicans:

• Neema Avashia: [07-16] I'm from Appalachia. JD Vance doesn't represent us -- he only represents himself.

• Jeet Heer: [09-06] The Powell Memo helped create Project 2025: "A new investigative podcast shows the toxic legacy of the founding father of modern American plutocracy."

• Jan-Werner Müller: [09-05] The US right keeps accusing Democrats of 'communism'. What does that even mean? "Conservatives think giving children free lunch at school is socialism, but vast, powerful private monopolies are freedom."

• Elie Mystal: [09-04] Meet the MAGA zealots who are gunning to become their state's top prosecutors: "The Republican Attorney Generals Association is working overtime to install authoritarian AGs across the country."

• Matt Stieb: Did JD Vance say school shootings are a 'fact of life'? "Yes, but he also said he didn't like it." To which point:

  • Meredith Lee Hill: [09-07] It's 'not a fact of life': Walz responds to Vance's school shooting comments.

Harris:

• Jack Hunter: [08-26] Harris' aversion to talks with dictators is more Bush than Obama: "Negotiating with adversaries is not 'cozying up to tyrants' as she suggested in her DNC speech."

• Joshua Keating: [09-06] The guessing game over Kamala Harris's foreign policy: "Nobody knows."

• Robert Kuttner: [09-09] Kamala's capital capitulation: "The money is not that huge, but the optics are terrible."

• Eric Levitz: [09-05] Harris is swimming in cash -- but Democrats may still have a fundraising problem: "Democratic donors are underinvesting in state legislative races, where money goes a lot further." This has been a persistent problem, especially when Clinton and Obama used the Democratic Party as a personal piggy bank, while letting Democratic majorities in Congress go under. This happens because Democratic donors have very different priorities than Democratic voters, and may even prefer to sandbag policies that Democratic majorities would pass if they had the numbers. Republicans, on the other hand, work much harder to get their candidates elected down ballot, because they need to pass laws to implement their regressive agenda.

• Nicole Narea/Sean Collins: [09-06] Will Harris's massive fundraising spree actually help her? The chart here shows that both candidates combined raised almost twice as much money in 2020 as in 2016 ($1774M vs. $896M). As Jeffrey St Clair pointed out (article below), 2020 was the first year in many when the winner got more votes than the number of eligible voters who didn't vote, so one correlation seems to be that more money means more voter participation (although the returns there are pretty slim). Chart also shows that Trump more than doubled his fundraising in 2020 over 2016. I was thinking that shows the value of incumbency, but Obama's raised almost exactly the same in 2012 and 2008.

• Adam Wren/Megan Messerly: [09-09] Why the 'one-two punch' of Liz and Dick Cheney backing Harris matters: Evidently they have their own PACs, so they can back up their votes with some money. Whether they have any credibility with anyone who wasn't already a "never Trumper" isn't very likely. Dick Cheney ended his VP term with the lowest approval numbers ever (9% is the number I remember). Liz Cheney has some fawning admirers among the DC press core (including Joan Walsh?). But it's quite possible that the net change will be negative. By far the biggest liability Biden (and now Harris) had was their involvement in senseless foreign wars -- which they seem completely powerless to do anything to stop -- and here they're picking up endorsements from bona fide super-hawks. That's a very bad look.

Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:

• Perry Bacon Jr.: [09-03] What a conference for the left just revealed about November: "The war in Gaza and the threat of another Trump presidency pulled democratic socialists in opposite directions at a post-convention meeting in Chicago." Look, life can be frustrating on the left. You've managed to figure out some basic truths about how the world works, and how for most people it could work better, but one major group of people keep telling you that your proposals, which you see as just plain common sense, are impossible dreams, that instead you have to not just limit yourself to corporate compromises but smile when you vote for the Democrats who broker those deals (or just let them wither and die) -- and be assured that if you don't vote for them, if you even criticize them at inopportune times, they will blame all their failures on you. Then there's that other major group of people who simply hate you for even suggesting that any conscious change is possible let alone desirable, even though those people have consistently pursued their own self-interests in ways that have drastically altered the world, with hardly any regard for the vast harm they have caused all around the world.

  These major groups dominate the political parties that limit our choices in what passes for democracy in America: the Democrats, who are leery and dismissive of the left, and the Republicans, whose fear and loathing is so unbounded we often recognize them as Fascists. (Fascism is sometimes dignified as an ideology, but for leftists, the telltale sign is sensing that someone wants to kill you.) November matters because that's the next big election, a rare opportunity for most people (even leftists) to vote for one of the two major parties' vetted candidates. Most of us feel the need to participate, on principle for democracy, but also because we usually have a pretty good idea which candidate is the worst -- it may be hard to vote for some ideal, but we shouldn't squander the opportunity to vote down someone truly malignant. But that's just one moment: too glaring to ignore, not least because so many people invest so much hope in its outcome. I can identify with one leftist quote here: "Presidential elections, the Democrats specifically, have a way of sucking all life out of any movement." In November, winners will celebrate, losers complain, but leftists (and lobbyists) can only go back to work.

Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:

• Maham Javaid/Anumita Kaur: [09-08] Five people shot on Kentucky highway, suspect still at large in woods.

• Aja Romano:

  • [09-05] The right-wing podcasters turned Russian propaganda dupes, explained

  • [09-06] The precedent-setting push to hold parents responsible for school shootings: "Frist Jennifer and James Crumbley were charged; now it's Colin Gray, father of the Apalachee school shooting suspect."

Climate and environment:

• Farrah Hassen: [09-06] Workers need protection from record-breaking heat.

• Umair Irfan: [09-05] Wait -- do Harris and Trump actually agree on fracking? "The case for and against fracking, politics aside."

• Diana Leonard: Southern California Line Fire explodes in size, as Nevada fire forces evacuations.

Economists and the economy:

Ukraine and Russia:

• Ben Armbruster: [09-06] Diplomacy Watch: Are Moscow and Kiyv on collision course to talk? "Both sides now appear to be signaling that the war cannot be won outright."

• Michael Corbin: [09-06] Turkey's BRICS gambit is just what Russia ordered: "Joining the geopolitical block would allow Ankara access to non-EU/Western institutions, which makes Moscow happy."

• John Feffer:

  • [09-04] Why Ukraine invaded Russia: "How many more mistakes will Putin make before Russians give up on him?"

  • [08-14] When do autocrats give up? "Protestors pushed out the leader of Bangladesh. They have yet to succeed in Venezuela. Why the difference?" No real answers here, but there is the contrast, and one could easily extend this essay with the Putin case.

• Anatol Lieven: [09-05] When will the war in Ukraine end? "One month later, Kyiv's invasion of Russia hasn't moved the needle, while Moscow has made gains on other fronts."

• Ray McGovern: [09-04] Conditioning Americans for war with Russia: "With new US action today against Moscow, Russiagate remains like a vampire, with no one able to drive a wooden stake into its heart and keep it there." This was in response to:

  • Julian E Barnes/Glenn Thrush/Steven Lee Myers: [09-04] US announces plan to counter Russian influence ahead of 2024 election: "American spy agencies have assessed that the Kremlin favors former President Donald J Trump, seeing him as skeptical of US support for Ukraine."

• Ian Proud: [09-04] Will Kursk be a sideshow that turns into tragedy for Ukraine? "The Russians are hardening their positions while Ukraine may not have a lot of maneuvering room left."

• Aja Romano: [09-05] The right-wing podcasters turned Russian propaganda dupes, explained: "The DOJ says Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson and others were unwitting Russian stooges." This is already being dubbed "Russiagate II: Kamala's Revenge" by right-wingers like Ben Shapiro

  • Chris Lehman: [09-06] The right-wing influencers cashing checks from Russia.

The World and/or America's empire:

• Thomas Brodey: [09-05] Disinformation dilemma: US hands are way dirty, too: "As Biden cracks down on Russian interference in our elections, a look at what the Pentagon has been doing overseas."

• Nicholas JS Davies: [09-06] Who wants to kill and die for the American empire? It's getting harder to recruit people to do the dirty work of empire maintenance.

• Greg Gonsalves: The mpox outbreak is a damning indictment of the global health system: "The inequalities and injustices in our medical infrastructure have made the outbreak so much worse than it could have been."

• Brian Saady: [09-03] Ex-Paraguay prez finds himself on wrong side of US power: "As a former leader, he is no longer useful to Washington, which can now act virtuous and punitive with sanctions."

• Denis Simon/Marcus Stanley: [08-28] Why can't we just let American & Chinese scientists get along? "The Science and Technology Agreement [STA] is a 45-year-old cornerstone of cooperation, but some in Washington want to kill it."

• Ishaan Tharoor: [09-06] Germany's firewall against the far right isn't working: "Recent elections in Germany show the limits of the nation's statist efforts to stamp out far-right extremism and ultranationalism."

• Nick Turse:

  • The US has been at war in Yemen for 20 years, but Houthis can still choke the Red Sea: "Despite US talk of peace and stability, and two decades of war, the people of Yemen are still suffering." Well, despite all that suffering, the real point is that they're still fighting back, and the modern world is stretched so thin and fragile that it a little resistance can do a lot of damage.

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

Other stories:

• Marty A Bullis: [08-12] MAGA to MAGNA: "True greatness -- magnanimity -- is rooted in giving our selves away, not attempting to make ourselves great again." Philosophy professor, launched this newsletter a month ago, evidently he's a friend of a friend, deep enough I decided not to bury it in the "laugh and cry" section under Donald Trump's name. I'm afraid I lost my interest in all things great long ago, so it's hard for me to take "make America great" as anything other than sardonic conceit. For starters, it always conjured up the Bill Moyers story of how he suggested calling Lyndon Johnson's social programs "the good society," but Johnson insisted on "great." A big chunk of the problem is that very little of what people claim as great is really much good. And Hillary Clinton's counterpoint, that "America has always been great," was really unhelpful (but, I supose, revelatory). What kind of person even aspires to greatness? Especially after models like these.

  Bullis does us a service in describing how the phrase works, and in breaking it down to five "core values" (which I might add are not tautological, but are empirically derived from observation of the people we've come to shorthand as "MAGA"):

  "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) is the central value-phrase Trump uses to activate our instinct for greatness. MAGA stimulates a simultaneous sense of loss for, and desire to work and fight to regain some part of our past -- whether real or imagined. The phrase is generic in a way that it can be all things to all people. Who hasn't experienced loss? And who would not want to get something valuable back? Trump for his part had the brilliant (and self-serving) idea to trademark and market this motivational phrase, and then turn it into a repetitive rallying cry to channel our fears and hopes for his benefit.

  I will be highlighting five core MAGA values that play on these fears and hopes, bringing harm in their path. The list is not meant to be exhaustive of the values driving negative actions in the MAGA-sphere, and I am not the first to discuss them. My goal is, however, to show how these values can be redirected in ways that will allow us to be authentically great. The five MAGA values are: 1) insular self-interest; 2) cultural homogenizing; 3) social wall building; 4) patriotic ranting; and 5) self-serving aggression. Like Trump, these values are attractive to many people.

  His emphasis. He then spoils the mood with his next sentence: "But I will argue that there are better and truly authentic value-paths to greatness." He really needs a better destination, and not just because "greatness" has been spoiled. (I don't have a counterproposal, but the first word that popped into mind was "satori.) Looks like he at least has his path plotted out, with a first section here and the promise of more to come:

  1. Unselfing America: Embracing service rather than self-interest
  2. Unhomogenizing America: Embracing diversity as our identity
  3. Unwalling America: Embracing our immigrant status rather than isolation
  4. Unranting America: Embracing gracious discourse rather than hateful speech
  5. Unaggressing America: Embracing nonviolence rather than picking a fight
  6. Stepping out in authentic greatness

  Mostly good themes, so good luck with that. Maybe something good can come out of "greatness" after all. But don't get me started on "authenticity," a concept I like even less than "greatness."

• Ted Chiang: [08-31] Why A.I. isn't going to make art: "To create a novel or a painting, an artist makes choices that are fundamentally alien to artificial intelligence." I was directed to this piece by a tweet, which quoted this nugget:

  The task that generative A.I. has been most successful at is lowering our expectations, both of the things we read and of ourselves when we write anything for others to read. It is a fundamentally dehumanizing technology because it treats us as less than what we are: creators and apprehenders of meaning. It reduces the amount of intention in the world.

• Gabor Maté: [09-06] We each have a Nazi in us. We need to understand the psychological roots of authoritarianism: I don't have any specific insight into this question, other than my experience that every argument ever made constructed along these lines has been complete and utter horseshit -- the most obvious examples being blatantly racist, or closely analogous.

  Neuroimaging studies have shown that the amygdala, the tiny almond-shaped brain structure that mediates fear, is larger in people with more rightwing views. It is more active in those favoring strong protective authority and harboring a suspicion of outsiders and of people who are different.

  I have a pretty low opinion of right-wingers, but I'm pretty sure the only ones "born that way" are explicable in terms of class acculturation, and even if tightly held are not locked in.

• Caitlin PenzeyMoog: [09-04] Organize your kitchen like a chef, not an influencer. Well, this is the sort of soft "lifetyle" feature I often bother to read, and I kept the link for future reference (partly because I didn't know what a "cambro" was, although I have some cheaper alternatives). I have the largest refrigerator I could find, and I keep it jammed, for better or worse, so managing it (as opposed to presenting it as a gallery) is something often on my mind.

• Jeffrey St Clair: [09-06] Roaming Charges: Ain't that America, something to see, baby? Starts off with the latest school shooting, then gives you some Xmas cards from our "family values" Republicans. After that, the usual smorgasbord.

• Jason Stanley: [09-05] Why fascists hate universities: "Authoritarians and would-be authoritarians are only too aware that universities are primary sites of critique and dissent." Mostly on Bangladesh and India, but of more general interest. Stanley has a recent book: Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future, following up on his previous books: How Propaganda Works (2015), and How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them (2018).

• Barry Yourgrau: [09-03] Lessons of a Weimar anti-fascist in Palestine: "After my father fled Nazi Germany in 1933, he witnessed a toxic new nationalism rising among Jews in Palestine -- and was silenced for trying to warn of its dangers."

Obituaries

• Adam Nossiter: [09-06] Michael Lerner, 81, is dead; founder of a combative Jewish magazine: "His publication, Tikkun, was a leading voice for left-wing American Jews. His ideas about 'the politics of meaning' were embraced by Hillary Clinton."

• Barry Singer: [09-07] Dan Morgenstern, chronicler and friend of jazz, dies at 94: "He wrote prolifically about the music and played an important role in documenting its history, especially in his many years with the Institute of Jazz Studies."

  • ArtsFuse: [09-10] The late Dan Morgenstern -- jazz writer, editor, and archivist: notes by Steve Provizer and Jon Garelick.

  • Jazz Lives: [09-07] Gone: Dan Morgenstern (1929-2024).

  • Ashley Kahn: [09-10] Jazz historian, journalist Dan Morgenstern dies at 94.

  • Harrison Smith: [09-10] Dan Morgenstern, who helped safeguard jazz history, dies at 94.

  • Tom Vitale: [09-08] Jazz historian and critic Dan Morgenstern dies at 94.

Books

• Nazzer Abu Srour: [07-28] The Intifada of the Stones: an excerpt from Nasser Abu Srour's The Tale of a Wall: "Nasser Abu Srour's The Tale of a Wall joins a long tradition of Palestinian prison literature but is far more than a prison memoir. Through his evocative prose, the author transforms the question of Palestine into a question of the human condition."

• Marcy Winograd: [09-06] Holding the press and White House accountable: [Norman] Solomon's afterword on the Gaza war: The book, available in a new paperback edition, is War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine.

  • Norman Solomon: [2023-06-05] The convenient myth of "humane" wars: This was excerpted from the book.

• Riotriot: [09-02] The 50 best rock bands right now (#50-26); and [09-03] The 50 best rock bands right now (#25-1). This is a genre I've gradually lost interest in, at least since the early 1990s, when I found Nirvana and Sleater-Kinney so underwhelming. But, as I still check out most such well-regarded bands, I've turned this into a personal checklist. From these 50 bands, I've identified 27 A- and 3 full A albums (although only 6 since 2020, 11 since 2015).

Chatter

• Zachary D Carter: [09-06] [Responding to Leah Greenberg, writing on Vance: I can't get over how disrespectful this is. It's the answer of someone who has never seriously considered any aspect of how care policy works, because he believes -- but knows better than to say out loud -- that women should be home taking care of the kids.]

  When you did get past the gender hang-ups there's nothing here except warmed over occupational licensing reform stuff from the 60s and 70s. These guys say they want to represent working families but they have no interest in how working families live.

  To the extent there is a policy argument here, Vance is saying we should lower daycare costs by paying lowering pay for childcare. If your solution to an economic problem is "lower wages," you aren't interested in supporting working families.

• Stephen Walt: [09-05] By now it is clear that there is nothing #Netanyahu could do or say that would lead @SecBlinken to withhold U.S. support. A more ineffectual approach to diplomacy is hard to imagine, and the failure to achieve any positive results is entirely predictable. [Comments follow:]

  • Blairja: [09-05] The entire Biden Administration simply does not know how to negotiate. The entirety of US current foreign policy is purely the result of this basic inability to negotiate. No negotiations = endless support for war. The ONLY way conflicts ever end is with negotiation.

  • Jean-Noël: [09-05] It is clear that the Biden administration and Blinken in particular are completely under the thumb of Netanyahu. They all follow Biden's example of unconditional support, whatever humiliation Netanyahu inflicts to them over and over again. We are the laughing stock of the world.

  [Given the company they're joining, it's a bit surprising that anyone bothers to offer intelligent commentary. I've understood all along that the longer this war continues, the more people who are appalled by it may turn to antisemitic tropes. Most of the people I read are careful not to fall into that trap, but there's quite a bit of it in the commentary here -- most personal about Blinken (e.g., "Blinken is effectual, he's just not playing for our team"), although there was also a "Jews run America." Still, by far the most offensive comment was "Hamas supporter," followed by a cartoon showing Netanyahu and someone labeled Hamas holding a child wrapped in a suicide vest and a paper that reads "Demands: Death to all Jews," with Blinken in the middle saying, "Could you at least meet him half way?"]

Local tags (these can be linked to directly): Plitnick ("the genocide in Gaza is as American as it is Israeli"), Trump, music.

Initial count: 154 links, 10515 words (13320 total)

Current count: 167 links, 11084 words (14075 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Sunday, September 1, 2024

I opened this file about noon, Wednesday, August 28. First thing I did was to revise the template. Most obvious thing was to move the VP candidates (plus Biden) into the "and other D/R" sections. Also some minor rephrasing. The three Israel sections overlap some, but reflect different focuses: the first focuses on what Israel does directly, but also includes items on Israel's domestic politics; the second focuses on Israel's relationship to the US, and what American political elites think and do about Israel; the third focuses on the part of Israel's propaganda war directed at others, and their responses to the atrocities (the word "genocide" comes up here). Further subdivisions are possible, as is overlap, and sometimes I just try to keep articles by single authors together. I tend to put pieces on Israel's provocations with Lebanon, Iran, and their so-called proxies into the second section, as my view is that Israel's cultivation of regional enemies is mostly geared toward keeping the Americans looking at Iran and away from Gaza and the West Bank.

Ukraine and Russia still seems to need their own section, but the broader context is the notion of America as imperial hegemon, even if in fact it's defined more as an arms market where loyal customers are counted as allies, and anyone who goes DIY and/or shops on the black market is regarded as an enemy. For now, I'm putting pieces on the arms cartel in the World section, along with whatever scraps of world news that don't slot directly under Israel or Ukraine/Russia. In theory, I should be covering news that has nothing to do with America's imperial ego, but few such stories reach my attention. So, for now this remains a grab bag.

Three topical sections -- law, climate/environment, economy -- cover most of what crops up domestically (sometimes overflowing). "Other stories" is a catch all, from which I've broken out certain recurrent themes, which may on occasion be empty.

Sunday, early afternoon, eager to get to a delayed breakfast. With 82 links, 7415 words, this is way less than last week's 290 link, 15528 word monstrosity. And already I'm dead tired, disgusted, and just want to get it over with, so today's plan is to just go through the motions, and fuck it. In essence, I feel like I already know everything I need to know, at least about the 2024 elections, where we will try to fend off the grave peril of wrong-headed Republicans with the vague hopes of naïve and uncertain Democrats. At this point, further research and reporting is only likely to show that the Republicans are even worse than imagined, and also that the Democrats aren't quite as good as we hoped. Even that can be readily intuited from what we already know -- not to totally dismiss the "devil in the details," which I'm pretty sure will be quite appalling.

At this point, I'd much rather return to the woefully incomplete "to do" list I started in my August 30 notebook entry. At least there are some tasks on that list that I can reasonably expect to accomplish -- some within days, more in months, some that will (like so much else) inevitably slip through the cracks. Today's little bit of self-realization is that I'm basically an engineer: I deal with things by making plans to change them by practical measures in desirable directions.

Finally posted this after midnight. Link count way down this week, but word count not so much. Uncertain at this point how much (little) I managed to cover, but enough for now. Anything extra added on Monday will be flagged.

Monday evening: did add a few bits here and there, but nothing major.

Top story threads:

Israel:

• Mondoweiss:

  • [08-26] Day 325: As ceasefire talks falter, Israeli army orders evacuation of al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital: "The only running hospital in central Gaza is threatened with closure after an Israeli evacuation order amidst ongoing military operations in the area. Meanwhile, ceasefire negotiations resume in the wake of Hezbollah's retaliatory attack."

  • [08-29] Day 328: Israeli Foreign Minister calls West Bank invasion 'a war in every sense': "The Israeli army's large-scale assault on the northern West Bank has entered its second day. During a battle in Nur Shams refugee camp, the Israeli army killed wanted resistance fighter Muhammad Jaber 'Abu Shuja,' leader of the Tulkarem Brigade."

• Hanna Alshaikh: [08-30] Demystifying how the Hamas leadership works: "Media sources have misunderstood how the leadership of Hamas operates, drawing simplistic binaries between the 'moderate' Ismail Haniyeh and the 'extremist' Yahya Sinwar. In reality, Hamas decision-making is far more institutionalized."

• Julian Borger/Sufian Taha: [08-31] 'There was no mercy, even on children': trauma in the West Bank after Israeli raids: "Israel accused of using a 10-year-old girl as a human shield as it carried out its devastating attack on the occupied Palestinian territory."

• Juan Cole: [08-31] Israeli PM Netanyahu says recovering hostages not a priority, occupies Philadelphi Corridor instead.

• Dave DeCamp: [08-28] Israeli forces launch major assault on the West Bank, killing at least 10 Palestinians: "Israel's foreign minister said the territory should be dealt with the same as Gaza and called for the evacuation of Palestinians."

• Georgia Gee: [08-30] What is Hashomer Yosh, the latest settler group his with US sanctions? "The government-backed organization, which brings volunteers to Israeli farming outposts, is a major driver of violent land theft in the West Bank."

• Tareq S Hajjaj: [08-28] 'We won't leave our people': the medical workers refusing to evacuate central Gaza's last functioning hospital: "Medical staff at al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital are refusing to abandon their patients after an Israeli evacuation order. 'If we leave our positions, we will fail ourselves and our society,' a doctor at the hospital told Mondoweiss."

• Ellen Ioanes: [08-30] Israel has launched a major operation in the West Bank. Here's what to know. The main thing to know, which never quite gets stated clearly here, is that this is all Israel's doing, with most of the violence initiated by settler-vigilantes, knowing that the IDF will back them up and amplify their violence.

  Since the October 7 Hamas raid on Israel, at least 660 Palestinians and 15 Israelis have been killed in the West Bank, according to the United Nations. It's a smaller number than the more than 40,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza over the past 10 months, but it is still a reminder of how intense ongoing violence in the West Bank is.

  You hear much about "Israel's right to self-defense," but nobody talks about Palestinians having such a right, nor does Israel agree that they have any rights at all. Nonetheless:

  Gaza, Jerusalem, and the West Bank are recognized as occupied territory under international law, and therefore Israel is obligated to protect the people living there. Israel denies that it is occupying Palestinian lands, but just last month, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel is occupying Palestinian lands and should end that occupation immediately.

  Israel's recent escalations in the West Bank, including aircraft bombing refugee camps, suggests their intent to extend genocide to the West Bank (as some Israelis, not quoted here, have urged).

• Lubna Masarwa: [08-30] West Bank attacks: To western leaders, there are no red lines for Israel's slaughter: "Emboldened by the US and other western powers, Israel feels it can get away with unleashing hell on all Palestinians."

• Dana Mills: [08-30] 'Israelis are frustrated, but do they want to stop the war? Not exactly': "Rallying around the flag, low trust in government, rebounding support for Netanyahu: Dahlia Scheindlin unpacks Israel's peculiar public opinion trends." Interview with the author of a 2023 book, The Crooked Timber of Democracy in Israel: Promise Unfulfilled. Also on her book:

  • Peter Eisenstadt: Book review.

• Qassam Muaddi: [08-30] The new status quo after Israel's assault on the northern West Bank: "Israel's old policy of containing armed resistance in the West Bank is over. Palestinians are now wondering whether the war on Gaza has expanded to the West Bank."

• Adam Rasgon/Gabby Sobelman/Vivek Shankar/Thomas Fuller: [09-01] Discovery of 6 dead hostages in Gaza spurs protest and division in Israel: "The Israeli military said Sunday that Hamas had killed the hostages before they were discovered by Israeli troops on Saturday."

• Bel Trew: Stripped and held at gunpoint, the Gaza schoolboys 'forced to be Israel's human shields': "Palestinians as young as 12 describe how they were forced to inspect houses and roads to look for tunnels and militants, sometimes dressed in military fatigues, in a practice an Israeli NGO warns is 'broadly used' and 'systemic'.

• Vivian Yee/Bilal Shbair: [08-22] The war in Gaza is making thousands of orphans: "Extended families, hospital staff and volunteers are stepping in to care for Gaza's many newly orphaned children, some of whom are injured, traumatized and haunted by memories of their parents." A point so obvious few bother to make it -- especially the ones who work so hard to deny that Palestinians are human.

• Oren Ziv: [08-29] 'If you try to defend yourself, you're dead': a West Bank village's night of terror: "Palestinians in Wadi Rahal were left to pick up the pieces after settler-soldiers from a nearby outpost stormed the village and killed one resident."

• Mairav Zonszein: [08-13] Israeli society is in a deepening state of contradiction: "Israelis blame Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for dragging them into endless war -- and are at a loss for how to carve a way out." I'd have to quote the entire article to give you a sense of how hopelessly circular the thinking of most Israelis is on their war, their political system, and their cloistered society. There are lots of people who hate Netanyahu for one thing or another, but few if any who are willing to rethink Israel's founding paradigm of Iron Wall security. They've never gotten to the point of thinking about what comes next, and have no idea how to proceed (although an expanded war against Hezbollah seems to be popular). If only Israel had a friend who could guide them to something more viable.

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

• Michael Arria: [08-29] 'I think we've reached a tipping point': James Zogby on Uncommitted and the DNC: "James Zogby speaks to Mondoweiss about the DNC's snub of the Uncommitted movement, and what it will take for Washington to shift on Palestine."

• Michael Crowley/Eric Schmitt/Edward Wong: [08-29] Inside the frantic US efforts to contain a Mideast disaster: "A bigger disaster may have been avoided, even as the region continues to teeter on the brink of wider war."

• Daniel DeCamp: [08-28] Biden was told Gaza pier would undermine efforts to get Israel to allow more aid into Gaza. Source here is:

  • Jamal Kanj: [08-29] How Blinken's disinformation perpetuates the suffering in Gaza.

  • Dan Lamothe: [08-27] Biden approved Gaza pier despite internal pushback: Primarily from USAID staff, who expressed concerns "that the Biden administration's focus on the pier undercut the agency's advocacy for opening more land crossings."

• Joe Gill: [08-23] Kamala Harris's speech killed any hope she would end the Gaza genocide. Only if you hoped that she would use the bully pulpit provided by her nomination to publicly oppose what Israel is doing. Regardless of her feelings, I don't see any political advantage in her breaking with Biden and/or Israel, while to do so could invite peril. She is, after all, running a popular front campaign against Donald Trump, who is clearly an even worse option if you style yourself as "pro-Palestinian," so her present course doesn't hurt her much there. On the other hand, she needs to hold onto "pro-Israel" donors, many with long ties to the Democratic Party but so singly focused on Israel that they could well defect to Trump.

  There is still some reason to hope that when she is free to make policy, and freed of the obligation to follow Biden, that she will do a better job of restraining Netanyahu than Biden has done. There is some evidence to support this hope -- she has been more disciplined than Biden in calling for ceasefire, and she has been more credible in recognizing the harm done to Palestinians -- as well as the reasoning revealed in the logic of her campaign. What's much harder to gauge is how much she could (and should) influence Israel policy as vice-president. I could only speculate on that, and I don't want to, other than to point out that only Israel (which right now, and for the foreseeable future, means Netanyahu) can stop the genocide, and really needs to change much more.

  Even as president, the only thing Harris could do would be to tip Netanyahu's cost-benefit analysis toward less egregious policies (which could still be pretty awful). Even if Harris were tempted to burn all of her good will with Israel and institute maximum-level sanctions, Israelis are at least as likely to respond by hunkering down like North Korea as by reforming like South Africa -- and with their arsenal and in confirmation of their paranoia, they could turn more militant than North Korea.

  I just got a refresher course on Bush's Iraq war propaganda from reading Lapham's Age of Folly, and could easily imagine recycling it to gin up a regime change operation in Israel, but nobody's going to do it: the architects of that folly were then-and-now staunch fans of Israel, while those who thought better (or who painfully learned their lesson) are likely to point out that a "splendid little war" against Israel can go wrong in many more ways than the Iraq one did -- for one thing, Israel actually has WMD; also, while that line about "Saddam gassing his own people" hit its target, hardly anyone thinks to think of Palestinians as Israel's "own people" -- the dehumanization is far too complete for that.

  Also on Harris and Israel (allowing me to compartmentalize and exclude these articles from her section):

  • Hala Alyan: [08-28] This is who Kamala Harris fails.

    It is maddening how people advocating the freedom of Palestinians are spoken about, as though their invocation of the genocide were the real problem, the downer, the Trump enabler. It implies that mentioning this administration's material support to massacre Palestinian civilians is what ruins the vibes, not the act of sending billions of dollars in unconditional military aid to Israel. It is an obnoxious magic trick that makes naming the crime the crime.

  • Michael Arria: [08-30] Harris says she won't stop Biden's policy of sending weapons to Israel: "In an interview with CNN, Harris said she supports a ceasefire deal but made it clear that she would not stop sending Israel weapons if elected."

  • Jamelle Bouie: [07-30] Kamala Harris can't escape Gaza any more than Joe Biden can.

  • M Gessen: [08-10] Kamala Harris is speaking. Is she listening?

  • Farah Stockman:

    • [08-12] Harris should take divisions over Gaza seriously.

    • [08-20] The Democratic Party has been avoiding this fight for too long.

  • Jonah Valdez: Harris will continue to ignore US law and arm Israel, if elected: "In her first major TV interview during her campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris signaled no change from Biden on Israel policy."

While I was writing the [PS] on Risen, I sketched out some "unsolicited advice" I would give the Harris campaign, if I could possibly see any way to get the message through. (Down there, I talk a bit about why I've never been able to do anything like that, then went off on another tangent where I could have just offered a parade of failing examples.) Anyhow, makes more sense to move that comment up here (although by the time I post this it will probably be redundant to other comments in this section.

Anyhow, my advice to the Harris campaign is this:

When asked about Gaza, don't start with your rote mantra about "Israel's right to defend itself." Anyone who cares has already heard that a million times already and will instantly turn you off and never credit another word you way. What you have to start with is acknowledgement of the immense suffering the war has caused, to both sides if you really must (and you don't really have to get into numbers here), and insist that the war has to stop, as soon as possible. You can mention the hostages at this point, if you really must, but understand that the hostages were taken to negotiate a ceasefire, not for prisoner swaps. End the war, and the hostages (what few are left; like Trump, Netanyahu only admires those who didn't allow themselves to be captured) will be freed (while there will still be thousands of Palestinians in Israel's concentration camps; even if they have to replenish them, they're a renewable resource). And then, after stressing the importance of peace, and human rights, and dignity and security for all (sure, both-sides this, but make sure you don't slight the Palestinians), then segue to how you're working around the clock with Israel to make peace happen, on terms, of course, that fully take into account Israel's security and well-being (including, if you really must, its much-abused "right to self-defense").

I'm not even asking her to say anything different from what she's already saying. Just put it in a different order, so it gets heard not just by pro-Israel donors but by genuinely concerned Americans (the donors are smart enough to wait to the end for their reassurance; they've been speaking in code for aeons now). Also, Harris has a bit of unique value-added here. I think most people realize that Israel is completely in charge of their war: they started it (long before Oct. 7, which was merely a hiccup they decided to magnify), and they alone can end it, which they will only when they decide they've had enough, that it serves no further purpose.

For nearly everyone else, all you can do is speak up, bear witness, demonstrate, maybe vote (but almost never directly), all of which is ultimately directed at making Israeli leaders think better, whether through conscience or through self-interested cost-benefit analysis (which is what BDS aims at). We've spent a lot of energy trying to get Biden, Harris, other prominent Democrats to do what we've been doing, which is to speak out, but they are actually very different from us: they don't have to speak out, because they're close enough to speak to, if not the right people, at least to people closer to the right people, to make their appeals personal.

Unfortunately, the few people in that position are severely compromised, but their loyalty should earned them the right to a hearing. And in some cases, they have some power to tip that cost-benefit analysis. Harris is already in that general orbit, which is part of the reason why she has to be discreet in public, in order to operate in private. We should respect that, but she should also give us some sign that we can trust her discretion. Reframing her answer does that, or at least helps. And electing her president will increase her leverage -- assuming she wants to use it.

I think she can and will, but when she does, she will be subtle and disciplined about it. Netanyahu is a bully, someone who has taken great delight in humiliating American presidents (going back to his Wye River sleight-of-hand with Clinton, and his pre-emptive attack on Gaza between Obama's election and inauguration, but he found Trump such an easy mark that when Biden came along he found he could finally get away with being sadistic), but I'd venture a guess that she has some experience in handling his type. Still, there is no way she can simply dictate terms. The best she can do is to look for tolerable compromises, which she's more likely to find and sell by being sympathetic to Israel than by becoming a clear-headed critic of Zionist settler-colonialism.

That won't necessarily, or even likely, lead to good solutions, but damn near anything would be better than blank-check support for genocide -- which is where we're at, and where we're stuck, until someone in a position to do something thinks better of it. (I've spent 20+ years racking my brain for solutions that would help a bit while still being acceptable to the racist-paranoid mindset of contemporary Zionism. My "pro-Palestinian" friends hate this line of thought, but I see no other as possible, at least within any reasonable time frame.)

Unfortunately, I fear that no one in such a position -- and we can comfortably include Kamala Harris in that sharply circumscribed circle -- is able to think better of it. They wouldn't be allowed the chance if they could. So we have every reason to be profoundly pessimistic about Israel, about America's relationship with Israel, and about the possibility that Harris might finally change course. Still, I give her slightly better odds than Trump, and with no other alternatives this cycle, I'm inclined to cut her considerable slack. But we can't stop talking about the problem, and we do need to remain aware that she is still very much a part of it.

• Daniel Levy: [08-27] The US diplomatic strategy on Israel and Gaza is not working: Well, it never has worked. It took Ben Gurion almost six months to realize Eisenhower was serious about Israel leaving Sinai in 1956, and that was pretty much the last time any American insisted on a point. Maybe Carter's opposition to Israel's first Lebanon war -- which Reagan allowed the rerun in 1982, much to everyone's eventual embarrassment. And sure, there was some mutual make-believe, like Israel accepting the UN "land for peace" resolutions, or the nods to a "two-state solution." But from Clinton on, no one took the charades seriously. Netanyahu not only stopped playing, he took advantage of American timidity to make himself look like he's the strong one. Meanwhile, the Americans look like weak fools with no principles or even interests, while being complicit in war crimes and crimes against human rights.

• Branko Marcetic: [08-29] Biden may be the president who kills the two-state solution: "Israel is only doing this because it has learned that there is nothing it can ever do that would make Biden cut off the weapons and military support it needs to carry on its spree of violence."

• Taha Ozhan: [08-27] Israel is rudderless, and Washington is going down with the ship.

• Jeremy Scahill:

  • [09-01] How the US enabled Netanyahu to sabotage a Gaza ceasefire.

  • [08-30] Israel's violent invasion of West Bank parallels the early stages of war on Gaza: UN rapporteur on Palestine. One thing to note here (and I have no idea how credible this reporting is) is:

    On Thursday, Abdel Hakim Hanini, a senior Hamas official, suggested that the group was preparing to engage in suicide bombings inside Israel, a tactic that became common during the Second Intifada, which spanned 2000-2005, but had ended almost entirely after 2006 when Hamas and other groups announced an end to the practice.

    "The resistance in the West Bank has begun changing its tactics and returning to martyrdom operations to strike at the occupation within the occupied interior," Hamas said in a statement outlining Hanini's announcement. "The resistance's change in tactics is a result of the settlers and the occupation government crossing red lines in their crimes against the Palestinian people." Hanini also called on the security forces of the Palestinian Authority to participate in a popular uprising against Israeli occupation forces and settlers.

    This is exactly what Netanyahu's right-wing allies have been hoping (or should I say agitating?) for: a panic and pretense to extend Israeli military operations and significantly increase their destructive force. One might as well call this genocide -- Israel is less concerned with counting scalps than with reducing the infrastructure that makes life viable, so that ultimately whatever Palestinians are still alive will realize that their only hope is to emigrate, emptying the land for more settlers. It would be a sad mistake for any Palestinians to invite such a savage response, but it would also be a sign of hopelessness -- a desperate resolve, once cornered, to make their menacers pay as dear a price as possible. And make no mistake, while there is no doubt that Palestinians would suffer far worse, a surge of Palestinian violence would take a toll that ordinary Israelis aren't used to. During the second intifada, Israeli casualties rose to such an extent that Israel's kill ratio sunk to around 4-to-1, as opposed to typical ratios between 10-to-1 and 100-to-1. (For comparison, the kill ratio since and including Oct. 7 is at least 30-to-1, and probably double that, yet Israel's leaders are showing no signs that their blood lust is abating.)

• Donald Shaw/David Moore: [08-27] AIPAC officially surpasses $100 million in spending on 2024 elections.

• Yoana Tchoukleva: [08-31] An arms embargo on Israel is not a radical idea -- it's the law: "Halting military aid to Israel is the bare minimum the U.S. can do to stop the Gaza genocide. An arms embargo is not only supported by 80% of Democratic Party voters, it is demanded by international and U.S. law."

Israel vs. world opinion:

• Bryce Greene/Lara-Nour Walton: [08-26] NYT uncritically reported Israel's version of Golan bombing.

• Alex N Press: [08-29] Universities are cracking down on free speech over Gaza: "The school year is kicking off, and American universities are starting the semester with scaling back students' First Amendment rights, with the goal of stopping criticisms of Israel's genocidal war on Gaza."

• Richard Silverstein: [09-01] AI social media campaign for Israeli genocide: "Pro-Israel apologists employ AI to generate social media disinformation."

Election notes:

• Ed Kilgore: [08-28] Five mistakes to avoid when looking at 2024 election polls. Or better yet, don't.

• Rick Perlstein: [08-28] The election story nobody wants to talk about: "A Q&A with David Neiwert, America's foremost writer and thinker on far-right extremism, on what might happen if Trump wins -- or loses."

• Theodore Schleifer: [09-01] Who are the biggest donors to Trump and Harris? "In presidential politics, campaigns are powered by billionaires. Here is a look at the most influential givers."

Trump:

• Alex Abad-Santos: [08-29] Your guide to the Brittany Mahomes-Donald Trump drama, such as it is: "Why everyone suddenly cares about Brittany Mahomes' politics." Everyone?

• Margaret Hartmann:

  • [08-29] What Trump said in his vulgar and unhinged Truth Social spree: You may be wondering, which one? Turns out there are several here, some with memes, at least one with video. One could do a whole book of things like this. The hard part is figuring out when to stop. At what point is the horse you're flogging well and truly dead?

  • [08-30] The history of Trump pretending to be Superman: "Lex Luthor is based on Trump, but that hasn't kept him from repeatedly posing as the Man of Steel."

• Sarah Jones:

  • [08-30] Misogyny is about power: A pretty generic title, but filed here because the first line is: "Donald Trump's supporters in search of apparel have no shortage of options." The generalization is also true, and one can go even wider and explore the intoxication of power and how seeking to solve problems through its application is not just bad philosophy but should more properly be regarded as a form of mental illness. But back to Trump:

    By attacking Harris's gender, Trump demonstrates his own masculinity and makes himself seem more and more like the strongman that he -- and his followers -- believes the U.S. needs. Trump was the vehicle for a vengeance fantasy in 2016, and that remains true in 2024. To followers, his pursuit of raw power is a means to bully liberals and the left into submission. . . . The sexual remarks that Trump reposted this month are a way for him and his followers to put the vice-president back in her place.

    As I've observed on many occasions, the essence of conservatism is the belief that each person has a proper place, and a passion to use force to keep people there.

  • [08-28] The 'pro-life' policies hurting women: These specific examples mostly come from Arkansas, but they are part of a much wider trend. Filed here to keep the author's articles together, but also because Trump is the single person most responsible for allowing things like this to happen. Remember that in November. And don't believe anything he says to the contrary . . . or to be safe, anything he says at all.

• Ed Kilgore:

  • [08-29] No, Trump wouldn't win California if Jesus counted the votes. Another example of the neverending quest to debunk the nonsense Trump spouts.

  • [08-30] Trump keeps flipping and flopping on abortion.

• Casey Michel: [09-01] Trump is making new, sketchy foreign business deals: "From Saudi Arabia to Serbia, despots are cozying up, likely in preparation for a second term." Every one of these deals is an advertisement for ending Trump's political career. If I was a TV exec, I'd hire Michael Moore to turn this story into a documentary. At this point it would be a rush job to beat the election, which would make it a public service as well as useful history. He could always redo it as a film later, especially with a happy ending: Trump loses, the business deals crash, he finally goes to jail. And if worse comes to worse, he could continue it as a series, because crooks like Trump don't just stop of their own accord. They have to be busted.

• Ben Lefebvre: [08-30] 'Political poison': How Trump's tariffs could raise gasoline prices.

• Chris Lehmann: [08-28] The Trump campaign is now running on pure contempt: "Both Trump and JD Vance are incapable of hiding their lack of basic humanity."

• Shawn McCreesh: [09-01] Meandering? Off-script? Trump insists his 'weave' is oratorical genius. "Former President Donald J Trump's speeches often wander from topic to topic. He insists there is an art to stitching them all together."

• Nicole Narea: [08-23] Does RFK Jr. dropping out of the presidential race help Trump? "The weirdest 2024 candidate endorsed Trump."

• Nia Prater:

  • [08-27] RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard are joining the Trump transition team: I noted this story last week, dismissing it with "sounds like something, but probably isn't." Here I should note that while it probably isn't, it could actually be something. Kennedy and Gabbard have a lot of traits that discredit them as presidential candidates, but the one thing they do have is pretty consistent antiwar track records, which they are not just committed to, but are eager to use against Biden and Harris, who are not exactly invulnerable to such charges. Moreover, they can say that they left the Democratic Party because they opposed how hawkish the Party had become -- so hawkish that even Trump would be a safer and more sensible foreign policy option. It remains to be seen how credible they'll be, because, well, on most other issues they're nuts, but on this one, they could be more credible than Trump himself to people with real concerns. I've said all along that if Biden doesn't get his wars under control, he will lose in November. The switch to Harris gives Democrats a partial reprieve, but the one thing she is most seriously vulnerable on is the suspicion that Democrats are going to continue saddling us with senseless and hopeless foreign wars. Kennedy and Gabbard could be effective at driving that point home -- sure, not to rank-and-file Democrats, who are generally much more dovish than their leaders, and who are even more wary of Republicans on that count, but to the "undecideds," who know little, even of what little they know.

  • [08-29] What does Jack Smith's new indictment against Trump mean?

  • [08-30] Trump throws another Hail Mary on the hush-money case.

• Andrew Prokop: [08-30] The Trump Arlington National Cemetery controversy, explained: "Shoving, insults, politicizing soldiers' gravesites." For more on this:

  • Jonathan Chait: [08-28] Trump honors 'suckers and losers' with illegal Arlington Cemetery photo op: "His goal in the Arlington visit was to smooth over his political liability by creating the false image that he actually cares about the honor of fallen soldiers. Instead, he confirmed once again that he doesn't."

  • Steve M: [08-30] Trump's Arlington stunt reveals how much Republican voters hate us.

• Nikki McCann Ramirez:

  • [08-27] Trump's campaign is running TV ads around Mar-a-Lago to make him happy: "Coddling the former president is quickly becoming a top priority for his campaign."

  • /Asawin Suebsaeng: [08-28] Trump goes full fascist in Truth Social posting spree: "One campaign official says staffers are relieved that the former president has largely isolated his social media presence to his own app."

• James Risen: Why the media won't report the truth about Trump: "The political press has doubled down on horse-race coverage of the election, overlooking the threat Trump poses to democracy." The mainstream press does a half-assed job of covering nearly everything and everyone, but they seem to be exceptionally inept when it comes to Donald Trump. I have a few theories about why, and I'd love to see an article that explored them, but this piece, with its historical review of election books from 1960 on, never gets to the point. One clue to the problem appears in the title: the idea that there is such a thing as "truth about Trump." Sure, it's a natural idea for the star writer for a publiciation that prides itself on muckracking. But is there any such thing?

  Sure, Trump has a history, so journalists can write about what he's said and done in the past, and how rarely one has anything to do with the other. Still, few journalists are up to the task of sorting fact from fraud from utter bullshit, which seems to exist in such profusion for no better reason than to camouflage underlying meaning -- if, indeed, there is any, for like Churchill's "armada of lies" you only have his word that there is some "precious truth" somewhere. The only sensible way to report on what Trump says would be to put the quotes into a table, each one followed by a note explaining the fallacy. (Feel free to apply the technique to other politicians.) The revelation about Trump is that there is nothing else leftover. Journalists stuck with following him around can file each day's article under the same headline: "Trump lies again." Or, if they want to mix it up a bit, "Trump is a pompous asshole (again)."

  Having disposed of the horse's orifices, journalists might consider doing some actual reporting. The first thing they need to work on is making the campaign more transparent: Who are the operatives? How does their polling direct messaging? What psychology does the messaging attempt to manipulate? Where is the money coming from? And what do donors expect for their money? Who's thinking about staffing? What are all those eager staff-in-waiting plotting to do? Again, it's fair to ask these same questions of Democrats, but you really need to start with Trump, because with him the real interests are buried so extra deep.

  One mistake many people make is to assume that presidents and administrations go hand-in-hand. While the president has to sign off on who does what, and can oversee an administration through cabinet meetings, directives, and the occasional staff shake up, harmony requires a degree of focus that Trump simply is incapable of. If Trump wins, he will quickly sign off on whatever slate of generic Republican functionaries and donors he's presented with, and they will go off and try to do whatever they've long wanted to do.[*] Sure, they may be a bit Trumpier this time than they were in 2016, but that's just fashion sense. All Republicans, including Trump, have been marching to the same ideological drumbeat for decades (as popularized by Fox News, and articulated by their "think tanks," in forms like "Project 2025").

  Trump is the Republicans' leader not because he leads (except in the fashion sense) but because he's the perfect diversion: he keeps the media focused on side-issues and trivia, all the while cultivating an air of deniability, as in how can you possibly believe he believes in anything? Given how many of his fans seem to be in on the joke, it's really quite amazing that so few journalists can figure it out. (Of course, they wouldn't last long if they did, nor would anyone who did and still had an ounce of self-respect stick around, so you might say that natural selection favors gullible journalists on the Trump beat.)

  The main reason for wanting Trump to lose is to avoid having to survive four more years of Republican administration, but Trump as president presents its own discomforts, chiefly in the form of embarrassment. As president, most of what he would do may be harmless -- he'll watch a lot of TV, tweet, golf, pose for pictures, talk nonsensically, waddle absent-mindedly, hold campaign rallies even after being term-limited, make occasional "perfect phone calls," and run his family grafts (or, like the government, allow them to be run in his name). Any president can stupefy, but no one else has ever come close to his level. If this were a purely aesthetic matter, I might not mind seeing the exalted office of the presidency reduced to buffoonery. But the office has too much power to entrust anyone like him, let alone to someone whose worst instincts are reinforced by the malevolence of his party.

  [*] Journalists would be well advised to dig up John Nichols' 2017 quickie, Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America. The book on Trump's initial cabinet picks was soon obsoleted as several subjects self-destructed almost instantly, but it's a useful empirical account of on how Trump picks "the best people" and why.

  [PS]: After writing the above, I got a spam pitch for donations from The Intercept, which I might as well quote at length:

  When Donald Trump announced his third campaign for the White House, leading voices in the journalism industry vowed that the press couldn't fail in its coverage of Trump again.

  This time, the media would aggressively investigate Trump while focusing coverage on the threat that he poses to democracy, we were told. The stakes for the nation in the election, not just the odds of who was likely to win the campaign, would be put front and center.

  But with 66 days until the election, it's clear that the major national news media hasn't changed a bit.

  Horse-race coverage is back in full force, with breathless reports on every trivial social media spat or tick in poll numbers running on an endless loop 24/7 -- while the threat Trump poses to democracy is now relegated to an afterthought.

  The Intercept rejects this failed approach to political journalism. Every day, we're reporting on what the candidates really stand for, how their policies will impact your life, and how billionaire campaign donors stand to benefit.

  Risen's article, which I had just found so wanting, was obviously their best idea on how to do this, so I thought, maybe, write them a letter? I did, following my quote with a few more thoughts:

  I realize that this, like most things, is easier to complain about than to fix. The subject is vast and deep, and perversely rooted in the minds of people who don't read and are immune to analysis. I could imagine this taking a whole book just to explain: perhaps a sequel to Manufacturing Consent as something like Manufacturing Faux Divisions in the Theater of the Absurd.

  Paradoxically, if one reported as I suggest on both Harris and Trump, it would probably be devastating for her while merely annoying to him, for much the same reason as focusing on corruption killed Hillary Clinton while letting Trump off the hook -- that we hold her to higher standards, because she presents as worthy of them, whereas he's just Trump.

  By the way, my theory there was that voters saw both candidates as really horrible choices, but also saw an opportunity to get rid of one of them, and seized on that opportunity to vote Hillary off the island. To some extent, that worked against Trump in 2020, but he had other things buoying him up, and he refused to take the hint. If I was a campaign strategist, I'd try to figure out how to raise consciousness of this election as the voters' opportunity to finally rid us of his oppressive presence.

  I doubt anything will come of this, because it never does. I've written a dozen or so unsolicited advice letters over the years, and never gotten any meaningful response. (Two letters I wrote early on did elicit responses that changed my life, but they were more in the form of dismissive harrangues: Eugene Genovese convinced me to give some serious study to Marxism, and Robert Christgau invited me to write for the Village Voice. Come to think of it, aggressive letters may work better for me. I once wrote a letter to Steve Ballmer, that got me a job interview at Microsoft in 1984. They ran me through an assembly-line gauntlet of middle managers from Xerox PARC who couldn't square the timid, uncredentialed programmer they saw with the prick who had written the letter, so they passed. Had they taken a chance, it would have changed my life, and possibly theirs. I quite possibly would have developed into a millionaire tech entrepreneur, instead of becoming a free software diehard who hates every fiber of their being.)

  Sorry for that diversion, but that was something I've long wanted to get off my chest. What I meant to write next was that I woke up this morning trying to figure out how to pass some unsolicited advice to the Harris campaign:

• Matthew Stevenson: [08-30] Trump IPOs his presidency:

  Why does anyone think Donald Trump is actually running for president? Granted, he's the Republican nominee and is on the ballot in all fifty states, but the only election day that interests Trump is the one around September 20. On that day (or perhaps a few days later) the lockout period on his Trump Media shares (for which he paid nothing) expires and he will be free to dump his gifted 57.6% stake (114,750,000 shares) on scheming billionaires (for example, the Saudis, Vladimir Putin, a Mexican drug cartel, etc.) who might have an interest in the first $2.4 billion IPO (initial public offering) of a prospective American presidency.

  Trump isn't so much a candidate these days as a walking conflict-of-interest whose bumper stickers might well read: "Trump-Vance 2024: On Sale September 20."

Vance, and other Republicans:

• Zack Beauchamp: [08-27] An inside look at how the far right is mainstreaming itself: "A radical troll got unmasked -- and then spilled the beans." On Jonathan Keeperman.

• Michael C Bender: [08-31] JD Vance's combative style confounds Democrats but pleases Trump: "Over dozens of events and more than 70 interviews, Mr. Vance's performances as Donald Trump's attack dog have endeared him to his boss, even if America is broadly less enthusiastic." I noticed this because the headline elicited considerable ridicule on X. In particular, Andrew:

  We weren't confounded @nytimes. We're disgusted. We're mortified for our country that this weird misogynistic sociopath abomination could be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. And that you keep writing headlines line this while our democracy burns to the ground.

  Some more comments:

  • JFC another misleading headline from the rag @nytimes. At this point, MSM are committing election interference with their overt biased reporting. What happened to journalistic integrity. We are NOT confounded, not in the least.
  • JD Vance's Combative style? The man is a twerp. Nobody thinks he's even the least bit impressive. He is -10 unfavorable and Trump is crapping his diaper over it.
  • Every single Democrat I know is delighted that Vance is on the ticket. He's one of the least effective politicians in recent memory.

  Of course, the comment roll degenerates quickly once the right-wing bots get into action: "That's a lot of propaganda but you are the Communist Party. I never voted Republican but I'm not voting for the candidate of no choice backed by the war party." If this "I never voted Republican" line seems to come gratuitously out of the blue, Steve M wrote an eye-opening post on this phenomenon: [09-02] A charitable explanation for the latest New York Times reporting failure (a different one, but quel coïncidence), following up on [09-01] A failed attempt at humanizing Trump? It worked on your paper's reporter.

  One helpful commenter did point us to this:

  • Ben Smith: [05-05] Joe Kahn: 'The newsroom is not a safe space': An interview with the New York Times Executive Editor, who says:

    It's our job to cover the full range of issues that people have. At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it's not the top one -- immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and inflation is the second. Should we stop covering those things because they're favorable to Trump and minimize them?

    The problem isn't that they're reporting on issues "favorable to Trump," but that they're accepting that slant as fact instead of exposing it as nonsense. They do that because they so readily accept Republican framings at face value, when most of them are not just partisan distortions but bald-faced lies. Of course, it's not just Republicans they favor. They'll carry water for any well-heeled lobby (Israel is a perennial favorite). Kahn goes on to brag that the Times offers "a much more favorable view of Biden's conduct over foreign policy at a difficult time than the polling shows the general public believes." Again, he's consciously catering to powerful interests, while slighting honest reporting that the public sorely needs.

• Kevin T Dugan: [08-29] The right-wing crusade against DEI isn't actually working.

• Gary Fineout/Kimberly Leonard: [08-30] Ron DeSantis is struggling to maintain power in Florida following presidential campaign flop.

• Margaret Hartmann: [08-28] JD Vance blames staff for disastrous doughnut-shop visit:

  Last week, J.D. Vance took a break from saying weird things about childless people to visit a doughnut shop in Valdosta, Georgia. Presumably, the Trump campaign wanted to show off how well the VP nominee connects with regular people. Instead, it got a viral video that has been compared unfavorably to an infamously cringeworthy episode of The Office.

  This story also provides context for a New Yorker cartoon.

• David Sirota: [08-29] Project 2025 started a half-century ago. A Trump win could solidify it forever. Minor point, but both sides are tempted to indulge in arguments of this form: that this election is some kind of tipping point wherre the wrong way will lead to permanent, irreversible horrors. While I can't categorically say that's impossible, it seems pretty unlikely. The biggest problem with Project 2025 is that it's mostly unworkable. Indeed, most conservative policies are bound to fail: some are just designed that way (presumably to make government look bad, or at least hapless), some attempt to do impossible things, and many create feedback loops (or blowback) that erode them from within. The last three Republican presidencies have ended with remarkably low approval ratings, and their rate of collapse has been accelerating (Reagan-Bush lasted 12 years, Bush-Cheney 8, Trump 4; by contast, Democratic presidencies have tended to end with a feeling of satisfaction, like a feeling that we've recovered enough we can afford to go out and do something stupid again).

  Of course, there is a difference between right and left here. Democrats' fear that incremental changes, while not so troubling to start with, could eventually turn catastrophic, as in the Republican packing of the Supreme Court. In another major example, it took 30+ years for the repeal of Taft-Hartley to be turned into a serious union-busting tool -- which radically undermined the Democratic Party's political base, leading politicians like Bill Clinton to turn for corporate support, and further alienate the party base. Project 2025 would like to do lots of things like that, but the one thing that looms largest there is the attack on the civil service system.

  On the other hand, right-wing paranoia is often just that. For example, Stephen Miller has a pinned tweet warning:

  If Democrats win they will:
  Eliminate the filibuster
  Pack SCOTUS
  Make DC a state
  Import a new electorate with full voting rights
  Declare dissent "hate speech," punishable with jail time
  Enforce a vast censorship & surveillance regime
  Make their power over you PERMANENT.

  The first three sound like pretty reasonable ideas, as they would expand democracy (well, restore is more like it, as they'd reverse currently undemocratic practices). The last four are not on any Democratic agenda, even as "blue sky" wish list items. (Ok, the one about "hate speech" is being done to criminalize dissent over Israel, but that's being driven by AIPAC, and mostly behind closed doors.) On the other hand, those four points do smell a lot like things Republicans would be keen on doing (they'd be deporting and stripping rights, but that's effectively the same).

  I had to go back and qualify my paranoia comment, because some of their fears are that Democratic programs might not just work but become so popular that they can't be repealed or rolled back: there are several big examples, like Social Security and Medicare, as well as numerous smaller ones.

• Ramon Antonio Vargas: [08-31] Ex-beauty contestant condemns JD Vance for use of embarrassing video: "Viral video of Caitlin Upton from 2007, which led to her considering suicide, used by Vance to mock Kamala Harris."

• Ryan Grim: [08-31] Project 2025 roots date back half a century: Interview with David Sirota on "how a memo from 1971 laid the groundwork for enshrining corporate corruption in American politics." I'll spare you the suspense and note that the "memo" was the famous Lewis Powell letter, which pretty much everyone who's tracked the history of right-wing think tanks, direct mail, and lobbying operations at least references and often starts with. Still fits the definition of "smoking gun." Interview also goes into Sirota's longer-term project, a series of podcasts called Master Plan: Legalizing Corruption.

Harris:

• The CNN interview:

  • John Cassidy: [08-30] Kamala Harris's political calculus takes shape in first major interview: "The Vice-President and her advisers clearly believe that being accused of flip-flopping is a lesser threat to her campaign than being cast as too radical."

  • Moira Donegan: [08-30] Was Kamala Harris's big interview a success? Sort of.

  • Branko Marcetic: [08-30] Kamala Harris's CNN interview didn't inspire confidence.

  • Erik Wemple/Perry Bacon Jr./David Von Drehle: [08-30] Was CNN's big Kamala Harris interview a dud? "Or have the Democrats become a party that runs against the mainstream news media?"

• Perry Bacon Jr.:

  • [08-18] Harris should talk to journalists more. Particularly the wonky ones. "Not talking to the media or taking questions from virtually anyone for weeks further erodes democracy."

  • [08-27] Is Harris pandering to the center too much? Or just the right amount? "Ambiguity is bad. We should know how our president would govern. But it is also good, in that it might allow Harris to win."

  • [08-29] Republican judges are blocking Biden's agenda. Harris's could be next. "The deep hostility that GOP-appointed judges have for Democratic use of executive power is a huge problem."

• Eric Levitz: [08-30] Kamala Harris's big housing plan has a big problem: "Affordable housing comes at a cost." I wouldn't be surprised to find one can poke holes in Harris's plan (which I haven't studied any further), but most of these points strike me as wrong-headed. I rented up to 1985, and have owned a series of houses since then. Still, I can't say much about them as investments -- my record has been pretty mixed. But what I can say is that owning made a big difference to me psychologically, because I really hated the power that landlords held over me as a tenant. On the other hand, owning gives me the freedom to build, to tailor, to make my home work for me. Levitz seems to be arguing that renting is more cost-effective, and in some ways it may be. And I'm sure there are other arguments at play here (e.g., renters are more mobile, which makes labor markets more efficient). But there's more to it.

  PS: Levitz tried to sum up his article in a pair of tweets:

  • Harris wants housing to be more affordable -- and a good vehicle for building wealth. Yet the cheaper housing becomes, the worse it will perform as an investment.

  • A frustratingly large number of people are reading this tweet and concluding, "He must be arguing that we should keep housing unaffordable to prop up home values; I should express outrage about that imaginary claim, instead of reading the piece" (which argues the exact opposite)

    On the merits, there is little question that liberals should prioritize making housing cheaper. There is nothing progressive about putting property owners' return-on-investment above less privileged Americans' access to shelter. Further, promoting homeownership as a wealth building strategy also fails many homeowners. Concentrating one's savings in a single asset is a perilous investment strategy, especially for America's least privileged groups.

  This dual nature is so locked into our thinking about housing it's hard to see anyone debunking it, least of all a politician. Still, why not start by treating this as two separate problems, which have been confounded in the interests of a special interest group (the real estate industry, which seeks to drive up prices, and finds it useful to disguise inflation as appreciation). I can think of a dozen programs that would help in one way or another, but they hinge on breaking the conceptual hold of this dual nature -- one so strong that even Levitz can't see his way out of. Of course, one could simply cut the Gordian knot and blame it all on capitalism, and you can certainly make that case, but that's too easy an answer, and too simple a solution.

• John McWhorter: [08-29] 'Joy' is a euphemism for a word no one wants to say out loud: I clicked on the title for the most basic of reasons, which is to find out who is saying such a thing, and why? (Third edit, as my first was filled with expletives.) This isn't the first time I've done that and found this bloke dangling from the hook. His mission in life is to help conservative white folk feel better about their racism -- a task he has expanded beyond his columns to include books like Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. And there he's said the "word no one wants to say," but evidently it's ok for him to say (guess why?). He starts by asking us to compare Harris joy with a list of white alternatives he finds no joy in (from Gretchen Whitmer to Beto O'Rourke, how hard do you think he looked? did he even have any idea what to look for? or does he just assume the euphemism is commutative?). I mean, this is a guy who thought Woke Racism was clever, so does he really know what joy means? And why can't he imagine that joy is just a personality attribute that any individual can exhibiti and/or find? Why does everything have to trace back to race? Oh yeah, that's his business model.

• Christian Paz: [08-28] How is Kamala Harris getting away with this? "The nominee is pivoting hard to the right on immigration, so why do progressives say they can live with it?" My answer is something along the lines of "a candidate's gotta do what she's gotta do." I'm in no position to second-guess, much less micromanage, her campaign. I wouldn't be allowed to anyway, and the noise I might create is just spurious. Sure, when she says or does something I really object to, I'll speak up (cf. the sections this and every week on Israel), but I don't see any point in getting hysterical about it. Candidates says lots of things during campaigns that never turn real.

  Besides, I really don't care about immigration per sé. It's not a left-right issue (unlike equality, freedom, justice, and peace). I have a problem with mistreating immigrants (which is something Republican do and want to do much more of). I have a problem with forcing people to emigrate (which is mostly done by war, by repression, by economic hardship, and increasingly by climate, which are all issues Republicans are on the wrong side of). I think that people should have a "right to exile," because everyone should have a right to live in a country that is safe and supportive -- as some countries demonstrably are not -- but that doesn't mean that other countries have an obligation to accept just anyone (I'm trusting that somewhere someone will be agreeable, without coercion). But I accept that there borders between countries, and that governments ("of, by and for the people" that live therein) should regulate them, subject to some fairly universal standards of decent conduct. I doubt that it's possible (never mind desirable) to make those borders totally impermeable, but I do believe that it's better to manage affairs legally than it is to drive them underground. (That the US has millions of "illegal immigrants" suggests that they didn't do a very good job of managing things legally.)

  I personally don't fear immigrants, and I don't have a lot of patience or understanding for people who do (who for the most part strike me as ignorant clods; although most that I know would make exceptions for the immigrants they actually know -- it's only the hypothetical others that provoke their kneejerk reactions). But I do fear the political issue, which dovetails so neatly with much more delirious and dangerous right-wing demagoguery, so I don't mind artful efforts to defuse the issue. I can't really tell whether Harris' pivot qualifies, not least because I'm not the audience she's pitching. I do know that it is very difficult to pass any new law on immigration, so her proposals are going to be kicked around many blocks before anything becomes real. As with everything else she proposes, we'll take it seriously when the time comes. Until then, the only thing that really matters is that she beats Trump.

  Since we're on immigration, here are some more pieces:

  • Nicole Narea:

    • [08-27] Biden's plan to shield undocumented spouses of Americans is on hold. Here's what to know.

    • [08-27] What immigration policies do Americans actually want? "Trump-style immigration restrictions have gone mainstream among 2024 voters." As I read this, the data doesn't really warrant the subhed, but Republicans have harped on the issue so relentlessly that they've raised the expectation (at least in the media) that something has to be done -- as in the song, "there's something happening here, what it is isn't exactly clear."

Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:

• Daniel Han: [08-30] From 'a nobody' to the Senate: George Helmy is ready to replace Bob Menendez.

• Umair Irfan: [08-26] Why Democrats aren't talking much about one of their biggest issues: "Climate change was a huge issue for Democrats in the the 2020 election. Voters care less now."

• Mitchell Plitnick: [08-31] Why Democrats refused to allow a Palestinian speaker at the DNC: "The Democrats did not allow a Palestinian speaker at the DNC because they did not want to encourage any possible sympathy for the Palestinian people who are facing a genocide fully supported by the Biden-Harris administration." Sympathy would have been cheap, hardly a step above "thoughts and prayers." And while Israel has worked tirelessly at dehumanizing Palestinians, few Democrats actually buy their arguments. They mostly ignore them, because if they didn't, they'd have to confront the savage facts of Israel's caste system, which is at odds with their cherished "only democracy in the Middle East." I think the decision was the logical result of three precepts: They see the DNC, as both parties have for at least 30 years now, as an infomercial, and want to squeeze every last drop of value out of it, so they add speakers who enhance their brand, and reject any who might hurt them. (The rejection of the Teamsters leader, simply for having spoken at the RNC, was arguably worse than not slotting a token Palestinian.) They believed that even admitting concern, much less culpability, for anything bad on their watch would hurt them, and Gaza was a major sore point -- and frankly one that many of them could (and should) feel embarrassed over. And as the party of the left (if only because Republicans left them with no other choice), they were terrified of losing critical donors -- wealthy pro-Israel donors are most likely to break to Trump, whereas there was little risk in losing the anti-genocide masses to Trump. Also a fourth one: this year at least, the defense of democracy doesn't seem to allow much room for the practice of democracy, so the notion that everyone in the party should get a say just got squashed (without much complaint from the rank and file).

• Lavanya Ramanathan/Christian Paz: [09-01] Democrats' vibes are excellent. Can they turn that into votes?

• Bernie Sanders: [08-29] The 'far-left agenda' is exactly what most Americans want.

Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:

• Marin Cogan: [08-30] Why a leading expert on gun violence is sounding alarms about the 2024 election: "A small but worrying segment of the US public believes in using political violence, says Dr. Garen Wintemute." Interview.

• Kevin T Dugan: [08-31] Why the Telegram prosecution may move the Overton window on free speech: "France's path-breaking arrest of Pavel Duov worries a Stanford professor." Interview with Daphne Keller.

  • Ellen Ioanes: Why Telegram's CEO was detained in France.

• Elie Honig: [08-30] Trump's fate will determine Merrick Garland's legacy. Seems like a funny way of putting it, as if the legacy means more than the fate.

• Ian Millhiser:

  • [08-26] The huge stakes in the Supreme Court's new abortion case: "Oklahoma v. HHS could potentially blow up much of Medicare and Medicaid if the justices decide to wild out."

  • [08-28] Georgia's MAGA elections board is laying the groundwork for an actual stolen election: "A new lawsuit hopes to stop them."

Climate and environment:

• Holly Buck: [08-31] A climate disinformation focus takes us the wrong way.

• Benji Jones: [08-29] What the heck is "corn sweat" and is it making the Midwest more dangerous? After reading the article, and noting that the illustration has nothing to do with anything in the article, I have to ask: compared to what?

Economists and the economy:

• David Dayen:

  • [08-14] Collapsing mortgage securities. Broken processes. No accountability. Sound familiar? "Faulty credit ratings were a cause of the 2008 crisis. One whistleblower complaint argues that the same dynamic is happening again."

  • [08-29] Three events that speak to the Harris economic agenda: "The Mars-Kellanova merger, the Kroger-Albertsons court case, and the monopolization lawsuit against RealPage all bolster her case against price-fixing."

Ukraine and Russia:

• Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [08-30] Diplomacy Watch: F-16 crashes, Zelensky says they need more: "Russia digging in, officials say no interest now in talking even as Kyiv seems keen."

• Jack Detsch/Amy Mackinnon: [08-21] Biden's Ukraine strategy is missing in action: "Lawmakers are frustrated at the lack of a coherent plan as Biden prepares to leave office." A plan suggests some expected series of steps, but US policy seems to be a fixed attitude, held fast in the belief that the longer they than can stretch the war out, the more they'll degrade Putin and Russia, but they don't see any risks in doing so, or potential benefits to reconciliation. That strikes me as naive and short-sighted, but it does help the US arms cartel, and props up oil and gas prices to the extent that they can reduce Russia's market share.

• Mark Episkopos: [08-27] Ukraine & the West are crossing red lines. Why isn't Russia reacting? "Putin's aces -- non-Western countries unaligned with the US -- are also preventing him from upping the ante."

• Luke Harding: [09-01] Ukrainian drone attacks hit power stations and refineries in Russia: "Russia plays down overnight strikes as its forces make incremental gains in Donbas and launch missiles at Kharkiv."

• Ellen Ioanes: [08-26] Zelenskyy's new plan to end the war, explained: "The plan is short on detail but aims to push Russia to negotiate." Nothing here suggests that he understands how negotiating works.

• Joshua Keating: [08-28] Did Ukraine just call Putin's nuclear bluff? "By invading Russia, Ukraine was also sending a message to America." Some questions -- like: "are Russia's threats still working?"; "are there any more 'red lines'?"; "does Putin have a breaking point?" -- should make one doubt the questioners more than their objects. If Putin can resist going berserk when one of his "red lines" is crossed, that should suggest he's someone one can reason with, while raising doubts about the "ally" who's brazenly attempting to provoke a wider and deadlier war.

• Anatol Lieven: [08-27] How the Russian establishment really sees the war ending: "An inside look at what Russia expects -- and doesn't -- in a cease-fire with Ukraine."

• Dylan Motin: [08-27] Why Macron went full hawk on Ukraine and then backed down: "The French president wants to go his own way, but as usual there are limits to what he can do."

• Stephen M Walt: The murky meaning of Ukraine's Kursk offensive: "A short-term success doesn't necessarily have any long-term effects."

The World and/or America's empire:

• Andrew Bacevich: [08-25] Whose century was that? Reprint from 2009.

• Gil Barndollar/Matthew C Mal: [09-01] America isn't ready for another war -- because it doesn't have the troops: "The US military's recruiting crisis, explained." Maybe they should consider fewer wars? The only "crisis" I see here is that anyone is foolish enough to think that not being able to find and recruit enough "suckers and losers" (as Trump calls them) is a real problem.

• William Hartung: [08-28] The last thing we need is a Palantir inspired foreign policy.

• Jonathan Hoffman/Benjamin Giltner: [08-30] The US military's anti-Houthi campaign still isn't working: "American forces play whack-a-mole in the Red Sea while the Biden administration ignores addressing the conflict's origins." This is just one of many problems that a Gaza ceasefire would fix.

• Sarang Shidore: [08-21] Dangerous China-Philippine clashes could be expanding: "Serious incidents in the South China Sea are spreading well beyond the Second Thomas Shoal, pulling the US in deeper."

• Hadley Spadaccini: [08-27] Managing low expectations: Jake Sullivan's big trip to China: "Don't expect a lot of tangible outcomes from the national security advisor's first official visit to Beijing."

• Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [08-31] US soldiers injured in raid during 'non-combat' mission in Iraq: "More evidence that America is at war without saying it's at war, in the Middle East."

• Adam Weinstein: [08-30] Shame: Afghanistan withdrawal politics miss the point of everything: "Fixating on final moments is preferable to facing the absolute failure of the war."

• Robert Wright/Andrew Day: [08-29] Has Biden's China chip war backfired? "Huawei, which was a target of the previous administration, too, appears to have roared back with success."

Other stories:

• Henry Farrell: I had these tabs saved off last week, but didn't find them in time.

  • [08-12] Seeing like a Matt: "The intellectual blind spots of anti-anti-neoliberalism." Matt is Yglesias, who has a series of articles defending neoliberalism against its enemies, cited here: [07-11] What was neoliberalism?; and [07-23] Neoliberalism and its enemies.

  • [08-21] Illiberalism is not the cure for neoliberalism: "Democrats should be reading Danielle Allen, not Deneen." In addition to the Yglesias pieces, this cites James Pogue: [08-19] The Senator warning Democrats of a crisis unfolding beneath their noses, where the Senator is Chris Murphy [D-CT], which in turn refers back to Chris Murphy: [2022-10-25] The wreckage of neoliberalism, as well as where Patrick J Deneen enters the picture -- his books are Why Liberalism Failed (2018) and Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future (2023).

    I don't have a good picture of what neoliberalism is: in economics it seems to be an attempt to dress up laissez-faire as something new (and therefore not yet discredited); in politics it wears two dresses, as sleight-of-hand magic for liberals and as unfettered plundering for conservatives; and in foreign policy (or "geopolitics"), it seems to be the good cop teamed with the neoconservative bad cop; and on the left/liberal side it is something self-evident to favor or oppose (the right/conservative side doesn't much care for the term, so the few people, like Yglesias, who advocate neoliberalism wind up trying to defend something significantly different from what most leftists attack as neoliberalism, a distinction blurred by how readily they lapse into cartoonish anti-leftism).

    Much of the piece is about Danielle Allen's book, Justice by Means of Democracy, which turns on points I don't quite grasp the subtlety of -- partly, no doubt, because I've never made much sense of Rawls, but also because I don't believe conservatives when they claim to discern some true "public interest" they've spend much of their lives destroying. On the other hand, I am inclined to lean into the notion that more democracy is the answer, especially if it results in better justice. I'm intrigued enough to order a copy. I also looked up the following:

    • Matthew Anzarouth/Jack Silvers: [05-07] Justice by means of democracy: a conversation with Danielle Allen.

    • Ezra Klein: [04-14] This philosopher wants liberals to take political power seriously: Interview with Allen (transcript).

    • Thad Williamson: [2023-12-07] Democracy in the real world: "Theories of justice map what a good society should look like, but they generally offer few details about how to get there." A review of Allen's book.

• Anna North: [08-29] Kids today: your guide to the confusing, exciting, and utterly new world of Gen Alpha.

• Igor Shoikhedbrod: [08-31] Why socialists shouldn't reject liberalism: An interview with Matt McManus, the author of the forthcoming book The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism.

• Jeffrey St Clair: [08-30] Roaming Charges: Genocide with a smile. Starts with Harris, but ranges widely, including:

  • "In CNN interview, Vice President Harris says she will appoint Republican to her cabinet": First I heard of this sounded less like a commitment than another cock-eyed suggestion by Bill Scher (Kamala Harris should pledge to appoint a Republican to her cabinet, followed by Which Republicans might serve in a Harris cabinet), but I figured that was just Scher being Scher. I think committing to a type is dumb, as well as self-crippling. (Remember how Clinton wanted a woman as Attorney General, then wound up with Janet Reno as his 3rd pick?) On the other hand, looks like there will be plenty of Republican applicants even without a commitment: see Alex Gangitano: More than 200 Bush, McCain, Romney aides endorse Harris.
  • Notes that among states ranked by life expectancy, Biden won all of the top 10, but Trump won 9 of the bottom 10.
  • "Democracy in the post-Citizens United era: A mere 50 'mega-donors' have pumped more than $1.5 billion into the election, so far."
  • "On Tuesday, southern Iran recorded a heat index of 82.2°C and a dew point of 36.1°C, provisionally the highest ever globally."
  • I'll register a strong dissent on St Clair's dis of Philip Larkin's jazz writing. I don't know much about Larkin's poetry (or whatever), but Larkin's All What Jazz: A Record Diary, 1961-1971 is a personal favorite.

Obituaries

Books

Music (and other arts?)

• Alex Abad-Santos: [08-23] All the nonsense you need to know about Sabrina Carpenter: "The singer's new album, Short n' Sweet, is full of the sexy clown wordplay she's known for." Perhaps unfortunately, I still believe that you don't have to read a dissertation to decide whether you like a pop album, so after a quick glance, I skipped over this and just played the album (four times, as it turned out; verdict in Music Week tomorrow).

• Carrie Battan: [08-21] Sabrina Carpenter's funny, feisty Short n' Sweet.

• Dean Baker: [09-01] [responding to josh ryan-collins: Part of the job of a progressive government is to shift the public narrative towards the idea that the state can improve people's lives. Pretending the govt budget is like a households', as in this economically illiterate video, reinforces the idea that it can't.]
  I would argue that it's even more important for a progressive government to explain to people that the government structures the market to determine winners and losers, with things like patent/copyright monopolies, rules of corporate governance, and trade deals.
  [Seems to me these points aren't exclusive, or even alternatives.]

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

Original count: 141 links, 10959 words (13527 total)

Current count: 156 links, 12153 words (14997 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Monday, August 26, 2024

File opened Wednesday, August 21, 10:10 pm, night three of the Democratic National Convention, which as usual I didn't watch a minute of (although I may have overheard bits my wife watched, but she didn't watch much, either). I did watch the replays on Steven Colbert Live, except for Monday, when the delays wiped out the DVR. As the section below shows, I collected a fair representation of writing, which for my purposes more than suffices.

I did overhear a bit of RFK Jr.'s end-of-campaign speech on Friday, but didn't stick around for the punch line, so I was a bit taken aback to read later that he had endorsed Trump. I had read rumors to that effect earlier, but what I heard of the speech didn't inexorably lead to that conclusion. Before the speech, I had collected two links to speculative Ed Kilgore pieces, which are retained below, along with various post-speech takes.

I speculated last week that the DNC would be a splendid time for Biden to deliver on his mini-ceasefire hostage deal, but Netanyahu -- ever the GOP partisan -- managed to scotch even a proposal that was so tantamount to surrender that Hamas could still be blamed. In the end, the DNC's herculean efforts at damage control sufficed: the street protests happened, but got scant notice; the "uncommitted" delegates pressed, but were brushed aside; several "progressives" trusted enough to speak (notably Bernie Sanders) showed that the party welcomes their concerns within its unity of good feelings; and the keynoters reminded us that Israel lobby still commands the Party's deepest loyalty, while reserving the right to tailor the propaganda line to a constituency increasingly uncomfortable with the news.

That there was little meaningful dissent was a tribute to two things: the extent to which the menace of Donald Trump has united all Democrats, and the new sense of excitement that Kamala Harris has brought in erasing the doldrums of the Biden candidacy, as the keywords moved from good vibes to outright joy. Even the inertia-bound polls have started to move. One thing the DNC was not was democratic, but we've been spoon-fed bitter gruel for decades now, compared to which this exercise in elitocracy felt positively nourishing. While the Party elites haven't actually ceded any power, for the first time in ages -- we can now admit Obama's "yes we can" as a cynical advertising campaign -- they have let up on their prime directive of "managing expectations," and have (at least briefly) allowed democrats to consider the possibility that their hopes and desires might finally matter.

I don't doubt that post-November they'll struggle to push the genie of democracy back into the bottle. The Harris cabinet will be recruited from the usual suspects -- although they will have to pass a gauntlet of lingering "we won't go back" sentiments. (It is worth noting that some of the worst lingering tastes of the Obama administration, like Larry Summers, didn't get invited back -- even Rahm Emmanuel had to settle for an ambassadorship.) Moreover, Harris is likely to know that Democrats can't survive on spoils and cronyism alone. Democrats are increasingly demanding tangible results. And while the influence of money makes that hard, and often steers change in peculiar directions, that understanding isn't going to go away easily.

I got to Sunday evening with about 180 links and 9200 words, with maybe 80% of my usual sources checked. I wrote the above introduction when I got up Monday, and should wrap this up not too late evening, assuming I can avoid backtracking and breaking news.

PS: Gave up working on this after midnight, and decided to go ahead and post. Good chance for some Tuesday updates, but not much (I hope). I need to move on to Music Week, and some other long-delayed work.

Top story threads:

Israel:

• Mondoweiss:

  • [08-19] Day 318: Gazans given new evacuation orders as Netanyahu insists on additional ceasefire conditions: "Antony Blinken arrives in the region to push for a ceasefire. Meanwhile, Israeli settlers commit a new pogrom east of Qalqilya as Israeli forces ramp up raids on Jenin and Nablus."

  • [08-22] Day 321: Ceasefire negotiations set to continue in Cairo despite low expectations: "Israel continues to bomb several school shelters across Gaza, killing dozens of displaced civilians. Meanwhile, Israel's internal security chief said settler violence 'threatens Israel's security.'"

  • [08-26] Day 325: As ceasefire talks falter, Israeli army orders evacuation of al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital: "The only running hospital in central Gaza is threatened with closure after an Israeli evacuation order amidst ongoing military operations in the area. Meanwhile, ceasefire negotiations resume in the wake of Hezbollah's retaliatory attack."

• Ramzy Baroud: [08-23] Prolonging genocide as a smokescreen: on Israel's other war in the West Bank.

• Dave DeCamp: [08-26] Ben Gvir says he wants to build a synagogue at al-Aqsa Mosque.

• Haaretz: Jewish terror has exploded, and nothing is standing in its way. It may bring Israel down.

• Tareq S Hajjaj: [08-22] Israeli army invades 'most crowded displacement camp in history,' bombs Palestinians in shelters: "Over the past week, the Israeli army has ordered a million civilians to evacuate central Gaza, and has bombed two schools sheltering displaced people in Gaza City mere minutes after issuing warnings."

• Ephrat Livni: [08-15] New Israeli settlement in West Bank would encroach on World Heritage Site: "An advocacy group, Peace Now, said that Israel was accelerating new claims over West Bank land in a bid to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state."

• Qassam Muaddi/Faris Giacaman: [08-23] Understanding Netanyahu's endgame in the war on Gaza: "The real reason Netanyahu refuses to end the genocidal war on Gaza is because his short-term political interests have perfectly lined up with Zionism's long-term goal -- the ethnic cleansing of Palestine."

  For decades, Netanyahu has believed that a major war could provide Israel with the cover to conduct the mass expulsion of Palestinians, not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank and within Israel's 1948 borders. He was quoted as explaining this precise idea in 1977 by the British historian Max Hastings. At the beginning of the current war, Netanyahu actively attempted to push Palestinians out of Gaza before being confronted by Egypt's refusal to play along. Meanwhile, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, along with the settlement movement, have been ramping up settlement expansion and supporting settler violence in the West Bank, ethnically cleansing at least 20 Bedouin communities under the cover of war. . . .

  Netanyahu hopes to accomplish this by dragging the U.S. into a war with Iran, ensuring Israel's position as the sole regional power in the Middle East. This is a scenario he has been advocating for decades, including before a congressional committee in 2002, where he also urged the U.S. to invade Iraq. . . .

  Netanyahu has been getting everything he needs from the U.S. at every step of the way, allowing him to pursue his dangerous endgame with barely any reproach. He is hoping that his gamble will pay off by providing a final solution to the "Gaza question," thus emerging as a Zionist national hero. But even as this presents the opportunity of snatching a historic achievement for the Zionist project, it also opens up the possibility that Israel will suffer a historic setback that could usher in a new era of resistance for the indigenous peoples of the region.

• Meron Rapoport: [08-23] Israeli society's dehumanization of Palestinians is now absolute: "In the past, Israel's moral debate about its military actions may have been narrow and hypocritical, but at least it existed. Not this time."

  The Israeli killing machine does not know how to stop, wrote +972 and Local Call's Orly Noy on Facebook after the bombing of Al-Taba'een school, because it operates by inertia and tautology. "It is acting out of inertia because stopping it will force Israel to internalize what it has caused, what atrocity on a historical scale is registered in its name . . . And that's where the tautological logic comes in: As long as we kill, it's obvious that they still deserve to die." Just like the commander of the 200th Squadron said a few days later.

  Nevertheless, within the Green Line there is still a civil society and a liberal camp that holds considerable power, as seen at the weekly demonstrations against the government. The question is what will happen if a ceasefire is reached and the Israeli "extermination machine" is forced to stop. Will parts of Israeli society realize that the unbridled violence Israel has unleashed since October 7, and the forces of dehumanization that drive it, threatens the very existence of the state?

  "Silence is wretched," wrote Ze'ev Jabotinsky in the poem that became the anthem of the Revisionist Zionist movement Beitar, the forefather of Likud. The fact that Netanyahu and his partners want the noise of constant war is clear. The question is why the liberal camp is keeping quiet.

• Tamer Nafar: [08-22] Israelis are fearing the storm. Palestinian citizens fear the calm that follows. "After the genocide ends, Palestinians in Israel will have to live beside those who spent the past year cheering and participating in Gaza's slaughter."

• Ramona Wadi: [08-17] Israel's creation and exploitation of Palestinian human shields.

• Brett Wilkins: [08-23] Slamming Israeli media lies, freed hostage says IDF strike -- not Hamas -- wounded her: Noa Argamni.

• Oren Ziv: [08-19] Israeli condemnations ring hollow after settler program in Jit: "Palestinians describe the latest in a surge of settler rampages in the West Bank, and demand justice for Rashid Sidda as his murderers roam free."

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

• Sunjeev Bery: The US-led ceasefire talks are just buying more time for Israel's genocide.

• Motasem A Dalloul:

  • [08-17] The US is not a credible ceasefire mediator, but a genocide partner: True enough, but you only need a credible mediator if you need to negotiate something between two sides. For a ceasefire, all you need is for Israel to cease firing. (Granted, it would be more effective if Israel also withdrew its troops from Gaza, thus securing them and making them less inviting targets.) The US may have no credibility with Palestinians, but could put some ceasefire pressure on Israel, which would help blunt the chare of "genocide partner" -- something not even Biden wants to be known for. But one way the US has fallen in to that trap is in describing the negotiations as being mostly about hostage release. The only sense in which Hamas continues to exist is in their control of hostages (or at least their ability to negotiate on behalf of whoever actually holds the hostages). Once the hostages are free, Hamas vanishes, and Israel loses their main rationale for continuing the genocide.

  • [08-21] The untold terms of the new American ceasefire proposal.

• Joan E Greve/Chris McGreal/Will Craft: [08-16] Five things we learned from our reporting on the US's pro-Israel lobby.

  1. Aipac is spending more as public opinion on Israel shifts
  2. Pro-Israel groups spent big to pick off vulnerable incumbents
  3. Pro-Israel groups stayed out of races they deemed unwinnable
  4. The pro-Israel lobby's messaging didn't focus on the war in Gaza
  5. Battle-tested progressives performed better

• Ellen Ioanes: [08-21] The US says an Israel-Hamas ceasefire is close. What's really happening? "A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas seems as far off as ever."

• Jake Johnson: [08-25] Israel launches massive attack on Lebanon, heightening fears of all-out war. This is all Israel's doing, but expansion of war into Lebanon and beyond is something Israel does mostly to keep Americans thinking they need to help "defending" Israel, when all they're doing is stoking further aggression.

• Branko Marcetic: [08-24] The war on war at the DNC, RNC confabs: "The delegates and attendees we spoke with often diverged with the party message on stage, and that means something."

• Qassam Muaddi: [08-21] Netanyanhu's latest strategy to avoid a ceasefire, explained: "Hamas isn't blocking a ceasefire in Gaza, Israel is. Netanyahu has systematically sabotaged negotiations at every turn, and his current demands for military control over Gaza ensure they will fail."

• Stephen Semler: [08-26] Gaza breakdown: 20 times Israel used US arms in likely war crimes: "The following cases represent a small fraction of potential human rights violations committed with American planes, shells, and bombs."

• Amir Tibon: [08-11] Netanyahu or the hostages? It's time for US Jews to choose: "Everyone who cares about Israel and the hostages will have to decide if they stand with the families of those held by Hamas, or with the failed politicians who, we should never forget, were in power when this atrocity took place."

Israel vs. world opinion:

• Michael Arria: [08-21] BDS win: AXA divests from Israeli banks and Elbit Systems: "In a resounding victory for the BDS movement, Palestine activists have forced French multinational insurance company AXA to divest from all major Israeli banks and the weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems."

• Edward Carver: [08-19] 'Complicit in war crimes': UK official resigns over arms sales to Israel: Mark Smith.

• Jessica Corbett: [08-23] ICC prosecutor urges swift ruling on warrants for Israeli, Hamas leaders.

• Henry Giroux: [08-23] Scholasticide: Erasing memory, silencing dissent, and waging war on education from Gaza to the West.

• Miles Howe: [08-23] Inside the Ne'eman Foundation, the Israeli military and settler funder that had its charity stripped in Canada: "The Ne'eman Foundation, which recently had its charitable status revoked in Canada, is deeply entwined with settler violence in the occupied Palestinian territory and represents the Judeo-fascist edge of the Canada-to-Israel charity pipeline."

• Natasha Lennard: : "New York University students who speak out against Zionism will now risk violating the school's nondiscrimination policies."

• Yvonne Ridley: [08-] Israel is bad news, so why don't we hear about it in the mainstream media?

Democratic National Convention:

The DNC was held in Chicago last week, Monday through Thursday, four tightly-scripted nights of prime-time infotainment. Given its prominence, this week we'll move the Democrats ahead of similar sections on Republicans, and push "Election notes" even further down. Also, some pieces specifically on Harris or Walz have been relegated to their sections.

• Intelligencer Staff:

  • [08-19] DNC Day 1: Biden's fiery finale sets stage for Kamala Harris.

  • [08-21] The vibe-shifted Democratic Convention in photos: "Scenes from the second day in Chicago." I haven't found a Day 2 Live Updates, so this seems to be it. But they did a bunch of short pieces on various Day 2 speakers:

    • Jonathan Chait: [08-21] Obama's DNC speech had a hidden message to Democrats: Chait once again finds what he wants to hear hidden in an oracle.

    • Gabriel Debenedetti: [08-20] The Obama-Kamala merger.

    • Ben Jacobs: [08-20] Josh Shapiro was snubbed, but he isn't showing it.

    • Nia Prater: [08-21] Michelle Obama did not hold back in her DNC speech.

  • [08-21] DNC Day 3 live updates: Walz's pep talk is a hit.

  • [08-24] Producing Chicago: "The DNC covered nearly impossible ground to raise up Kamala Harris as the new hero." Note: "By the second day, Biden was gone and his speech forgotten, which was just as well for the Harris campaign."

• Kate Aronoff: The Democrats are running scared from the most important fights: "At its convention this week, the party largely avoided two crises that are the cause of mass suffering: climate change and Israel's war in Gaza."

• Ben Burgis: [08-23] Shawn Fain has been a light in the darkness: "UAW president Shawn Fain's speech was the best part of the DNC. It featured a direct focus on workers otherwise absent from party rhetoric, and sidestepped the culture wars to identify the 'one true enemy' of corporate power."

• Jonathan Chait:

  • [08-22] Kamala Harris gave the best acceptance speech I've ever seen: "A perfectly targeted message." Evidently the target was Chait. How useful that was remains to be seen. But given how many things Chait misunderstands, it's possible to satisfy him and still make sense to other people. Just to pick out one bit:

    Harris labeled her economic goal "an opportunity economy where everyone has a chance to compete and a chance to succeed." The notion of opportunity, with its implication that people should control their own economic destiny, has long been a conservative one. Harris stole it.

    The magic word here isn't "opportunity" but "everyone." The only opportunity conservatives offer is to fail, which matters to them because their beloved hierarchy is built on the backs of failures -- usually because the system is so rigged in the first place. Offering opportunity to everyone is a classically liberal idea, but actually achieving it is only something the left would dare attempt. How far Harris will go not just to permit opportunity but to nurture and sustain it remains to be seen. But that she offered the word "everyone" suggests that she will not be satisfied with the conservative game of failing all but the master class.

  • [08-23] Kamala Harris understood the assignment: "The convention shows how to re-create the Obama formula." Given that "the Obama formula" lost Congress, weakening the Democratic Party so severely that they wound up surrendering the presidency to Trump, that doesn't seem like much of a goal, much less an accomplishment. But the "assignment" was always a figment of Chait's imagination, his commitment to hopeless mediocrity and inaction shared by virtually nobody else. Still, I suppose it's good that he was willing to settle for whatever she offered him. But I suppose it wasn't a surprise, given how little he wants or expects:

    There is little point in selling the public on new liberal programs that a Republican-led Senate would ignore. . . . Harris's choice was to focus relentlessly on targeting the voters she needs to win 270 electoral votes, at the expense of fan service for progressives. . . . Alienating the left is not the point of these moves. It is simply the inevitable by-product. If you are targeting your message to the beliefs of the median voter, you are necessarily going to leave voters at the 99th percentile of the right-to-left spectrum feeling cold. The bitter complaints from the right that she is a fraud, and from the left that she is a sellout, are indications that Harris has calibrated her campaign perfectly.

But why does that perfect balance between charges of fraud and sellout sound so familiar? Like Hillary Clinton in 2016?

• Jessica Corbett: [08-23] Working-class journalist's speech hailed as 'most radical' in DNC history: "John Russell urged Democrats to serve working Americans 'looking for a political home, after years of both parties putting profit above people.'"

• David Dayen:

  • [08-23] Kamala Harris's DNC promises depend on filibuster reform: More basically, they depend on Democrats retaining control of the Senate, where they have an exceptionally difficult break this year, and on winning the House. They will need to be able to pass laws, over and against formidable lobbies, including laws that fight back against adverse court rulings, which are nearly certain to follow. Given the situation in the courts, it is unlikely that much can be done simply by executive order.

  • [08-22] Will the Senate take off the handcuffs?: "The Harris-Walz ticket and every Democrat are promising big things. But the filibuster makes that agenda impossible. Will they finally remove that barrier?" Possibly the same article as the one I cited before I noticed this source.

  • [08-27] A convention that placed image over detail: "What happens when the images break down?"

• Liza Featherstone: [08-23] The 2024 Democratic Convention: More 1964 than 1968: "The media was obsessed with comparing this year's DNC to Chicago 1968. But given the party's rejection of the Uncommitted movement, Atlantic City 1964, when Democrats refused to seat Fannie Lou Hamer and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, is more apt."

• Luke Goldstein: [08-21] The convention nobody gets to see: "Many of the corporate-sponsored events, and even some that aren't, are locked down to the press."

• Stanley B Greenberg: [08-23] The success of messaging at the DNC: "Democrats are hitting all the notes that have eluded them."

• DD Guttenplan: [08-27] In "we're not going back!" Dems find an antidote to the politics of nostalgia: "Underneath the cliché that 'we're all in this together' lie harder truths that will need to be faced if Harris and Walz want to rally the nation for real change."

• Patrick Iber:

  • [08-26] The unity convention: "The DNC showed a party that has successfully metabolized movement energy and insurgent campaigns while distancing from demands deemed harmful to its electoral prospects." This convention report was preceded by:

  • [07-18] A popular front, if you can keep it: "Biden claims he is remaining in the race because the threat of Trump is too great. That's the exact reason he should consider retiring."

  • [07-24] Kamala can win: "Hope will be an essential resource for her campaign. At her first raly, she succeeded in providing it."

• Jake Johnson:

  • [08-20] 'Trump's a scab' chants ring out at DNC, as Shawn Fain rips Republican nominee: "The United Auto Workers president called Donald Trump and his running mate 'two lap dogs for the billionaire class who only serve themselves.'"

  • [08-21] In DNC speech, Sanders condemns 'oligarchs' buying elections and blocking change.

• Susan Meiselas: [08-23] Images from inside (and outside) the DNC.

• Heather Digby Parton: [08-23] The DNC did not unify Democrats. Donald Trump did that long before.

• Bill Scher:

  • [08-20] Night 1: Democrats in array: "Joe Biden was defiant and magnanimous, but it was AOC who ensured the convention floor was fully united."

  • [08-21] Night 2: Barack Obama is still showing us how we can depolarize America.

  • [08-22] Night 3: Coach Tim Walz has something to teach the Ivy Leaguers about speechmaking.

  • [08-23] Night 4: Kamala Harris redraws the political lines: "In her acceptance speech, the Democratic nominee sought to flip the script on patriotism, inflation, and immigration."

• Grace Segers: [08-22] The DNC was a party. Now for the morning after. "It was a week of raucous enthusiasm and ear-bursting decibels. But the convention wasn't perfect. And the hard work of winning the election lies in wait."

• Alex Shephard: [08-22] At the DNC, the Democrats are finally fighting: "With Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket, Democrats have rediscovered their partisan edge."

• Jeffrey St Clair: [08-23] As I lay coughing: Watching the DNC with Covid and Faulkner.

• Matthew Stevenson: [08-23] The Obamas sing songs of themselves.

• Vox: I made fun of their soft lifestyle features last week, but this week they turned their whole crew loose at the DNC, for a smorgasbord of articles collected here, including:

  • Zack Beauchamp:

    • [08-20] How the DNC solved its Joe Biden problem: "The donkeys ignored the elephant in the room. And it worked."

    • [08-21] What Barack Obama's DNC speech was actually about.

    • [08-22] One way that Kamala Harris needs to be more like Joe Biden.

  • Abdallah Fayyad: [08-20] The "prosecutor vs. felon" line isn't the slam dunk Team Harris thinks it is.

  • Umair Irfan: [08-21] Biden's historic climate record has one big problem: "Arcane permitting rules are holding back clean energy. Speeding it up could have some big drawbacks."

  • Eric Levitz:

    • [08-19] Can Kamala Harris overcome her campaign's biggest challenge? He seems to feel that she's still vulnerable to charges that she's "too liberal," even "communist." And in a lose-lose scenario, he worries that when she's "selling liberal policies in conservative packaging," she'll be viewed as a "flip-flopper," while also stimulating voters to look for even more conservative alternatives.

    • [08-22] Tim Walz's DNC speech sold liberalism in conservative packaging.

  • Anna North: [08-20] Husband, zaddy, first gentleman? The evolution of Doug Emhoff.

  • Christian Paz: [08-22] The major political transformation flying under the radar at the DNC.

  • Andrew Prokop:

    • [08-20] Michelle Obama articulated something Democrats have been afraid to say.

    • [08-21] Is it time for Kamala Harris to do interviews and press conferences?.

• Jada Yuan: [08-21] How DJ Cassidy turned the DNC roll call into a party for the ages.

• Amy Zimet: [08-23] Isn't it moronic: America is ready for a better story. The DNC in memes, the title referring to a piece of Trumpist fodder warning that a Harris future would be "like being in a jail full of black inmates."

• Israel, Gaza, and Genocide: Two stories here: the anti-genocide demonstrations organized around the convention, and the near-total blackout of any discussion of the issues inside the convention. I'm roping these stories off into their own sub-section: on the one hand, I believe that it is important to make people aware of the importance of the issue, and to impress on them the importance of changing US policy to weigh against the Israeli practice of war, genocide, and apartheid. On the other hand, I'm not terribly bothered that Democrats have chosen to compartmentalize this issue, to keep it from the rest of an agenda which offers much to be desired, above and beyond defense against far more ominous Republican prospects. And while I'm unhappy that their leaders have failed to act in any substantial way to restrain Israel, or even to dissociate themselves from support of genocide, I take some heart in the ambivalence and ambiguity they have sometimes shown, understanding as I do that peace is only possible when Israelis decide to become peaceful, and that behind-the-scenes diplomacy may be more effective in that regard than open-air protest. The latter, of course, is still critically necessary, to help nudge Israel's "friends" into such diplomacy, and should be supplemented with tangible pressure in the form of the BDS movement.

  • Michael Arria:

    • [08-21] Protesting the DNC: 'The same Democrats saying they want to cease fire are voting to send military aid to Israel'

    • [08-22] The Shift: Palestinians shut out of the DNC.

  • James Carden: [08-23] Kamala & Gaza: All words and no deeds make a divided party. This includes Harris's "full (brief) remarks on the issue," which I might as well also quote here:

    With respect to the war in Gaza, President Biden and I are working around the clock, because now is the time to get a hostage deal and a ceasefire deal done. And let me be clear: I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself, because the people of Israel must never again face the war that a terrorist organization called Hamas caused on October 7, including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival.

    At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating so many innocent lives lost, desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, over and over again, the scale of suffering is heartbreaking. President Biden and I are working to end this war, such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self determination.

    This is carefully written to show solidarity with Israel without explicitly endorsing Israel's amply demonstrated aims and tactics, while holding out a bare minimum of hope for peace and justice (but, like, no pressure on Israel). The first obvious point is the omission of any recognition of the context of the Oct. 7 outbreak. In terms Harris might relate to, Hamas "didn't just fall out of a coconut tree." Hamas was first founded as a charitable foundation in 1987, but it was preceded by 20 years of Israeli military occupation, 20 more years of Egyptian proxy rule as a refuge for Palestinians who were uprooted in Israel's 1947-49 "war for independence," and for 30 more years by the UK, whose Lord Balfour declared arbitrarily that Palestine should be a "homeland for the Jewish people." Over that entire period, basic political, economic, and human rights in Gaza (and all over Palestine) have been systematically denied, so the "suffering" finally admitted isn't something new after Oct. 7 but the result of longstanding Israeli policy.

    A second obvious thing is that the ritual endorsement of "Israel's right to defend itself" has become a sick joke. I'm not sure that anyone has, or should have, such a right, but in Israel's case it has been applied so frivolously, to justify so much excessive and unnecessary force applied so widely, that it should be discounted altogether. I've come to see "self-defense" not as a right but as a common human reaction which may be taken into consideration as a mitigating factor. Once Hamas started fighting outside of Gaza, on "Israeli soil," few people would object to Israeli forces fighting back, even indiscriminately, until Hamas forces were repulsed. That, quite plausibly, could have been called self-defense. I could imagine better ways to respond, but at least that's within the meaning of the term. However, Israel didn't stop at the walls of Gaza. They went on to inflict enormous damage on all of Gaza, killing at least 40,000 Palestinians, rendering well over a million homeless, destroying resources necessary for human sustenance, adding to the incalculable psychic harm that they have been cultivating for many decades. While one might argue that some of the damage might deter future attacks, it is at least as plausible that it will inspire future attacks. We shouldn't even entertain such arguments. What Israel has done in the name of "self-defense" is monstrous and shameful. Even observers with deep affection for Israel, like Harris and Biden, should be able to see that. If they don't, we should seriously question their cognitive skills, their empathy, and their ability to reason.

    A third obvious thing is her choice to put "a hostage deal" ahead of a cease fire. It shows first that Biden and her value Israeli lives much more than they do Palestinian lives, which is unbecoming (for democrats, who profess to believe in equal rights and respect for all) but hardly surprising (for Democrats). (By the way, note that Netanyahu seems to value Israeli lives -- that of the hostages, anyway -- less than he does Palestinians in prison or dead.) More importantly, Israel doesn't need to negotiate a ceasefire deal. They can simply declare one -- perhaps with some proviso about how much return fire they will unleash each time Palestinians fire back. For that matter, they could have accepted Hamas's offer of a truce ("hudna") long before, and prevented the Oct. 7 attacks altogether. That they didn't shows that their interest all along was the devastation of Palestinian society and economy, which has nothing to do with self-defense.

    Fourth point is "working around the clock" is belied, perhaps not by the clock but by the evidence that nothing they've tried has worked. The obvious reason is that as long as they're giving Israel "blank check" support, Netanyahu has no reason to back away from his maximal war program. While I don't think Washington should go around ordering other countries how to do their business, there are times when one must express disapproval and withdraw favor, and this is one.

  • Juan Cole: [08-23] What you didn't hear at DNC: Israeli expulsion decrees disrupt last Gaza aid hub, jeopardizing aid workers, thousands of civilians.

  • Julia Conley: [08-19] Thousands kick off DNC with protest in Chicago over Gaza.

  • Rob Eshman: [08-23] Kamala Harris did the impossible, and said exactly the right thing about Israel and Gaza: "The Democratic candidate finally spoke about her position on Israel's war against Hamas -- and revealed her pragmatism." I voiced my disagreements with her speech above, but here let me note that I'm a bit touched that someone bought it, hook, line and sinker. I thought I recognized the author, so I searched and found I had cited him once before (back on June 2, in similar -- and thus far in vain -- praise for Democratic sagacity):

    • Rob Eshman: [05-31] Biden's bold vision: A chance to turn a brutal war into a visionary future: "The proposal for a ceasefire and hostage release Biden laid out in a Friday speech won't please everyone -- but it's the best path forward."

  • David Freedlander: [08-22] The convention that wasn't torn apart over Gaza: "Democrats packed a pro-Israel party, while the Palestinian side didn't even get a speaking slot."

  • Emma Janssen: [08-23] Uncommitted delegates denied a DNC speaker: "A sit-in outside the convention in protest and support from numerous elected officials did not succeed."

  • Adam Johnson:

    • [08-17] 4 talking points used to smear DNC protesters -- and why they're bogus: I think the fourth point here is basically true: "Harris can't support the activists' demands even if she wanted to. She's the vice president and must maintain President Biden's policies." I'm not sure what precedents there are for vice presidents breaking radically with presidents -- at least since early days when the VP could be a president's worst enemy (e.g., John Calhoun, twice) but it's generally bad form for any candidate to undermine an active president's foreign policy options (although Nixon and Reagan did it surrepetitiously). But also, if Harris wants to do something, wouldn't she have a better chance of working her plans through the Biden administration, rather than breaking with it?

    • [08-23] Celebrating at the DNC in a time of genocide.

  • Akela Lacy/Ali Gharib: Kamala Harris mentioned Palestinian suffering -- in the passive voice.

  • Joshua Leifer: [08-20] 'The Uncommitted movement did a service to the Democratic Party': "As the Democrats' convention begins, political strategist Waleed Shahid discusses the possibilities for shifting the party on Israel-Palestine."

  • Natasha Lennard: [08-20] Democratic Party united under banner of silence on Gaza genocide: "Progressives and moderates came together to support Kamala Harris by largely ignoring the most pressing moral issue of our time."

  • Branko Marcetic: [08-22] Palestinians received both harassment and support at the DNC.

  • Mitchell Plitnick: [08-23] Message from the DNC: The Democrats do not care about Palestinians: "The Democratic National Convention did not go well for supporters of Palestinian rights where Democrats were largely successful in burying their deep complicity in the Gaza genocide."

  • Hafiz Rashid: The black mark on the Democrats' big party: "Palestinian-Americans and their allies were left alienated by a convention that went out of its way to give them a slap in the face."

  • April Rubin: [08-22] Democrats refused to give Palestinian Americans DNC speaking slot.

  • Norman Solomon: [08-20] What got lost in the DNC's love fest for a lame duck.

Harris:

• Frank Bruni: [08-22] Kamala Harris just showed she knows how to win.

• John Cassidy: [08-26] Kamala Harris and the new Democratic economic paradigm: "At their Convention in Chicago last week, the Democrats looked like a party that is unusually united in its goals."

• Jonathan Chait: [08-16] Kamala Harris's economic plan: good politics, meh policy: "It's hard to tell people they're wrong about inflation." Although Chait tries hard, mostly by bringing his own wrong-headed ideas about inflation.

• Maureen Dowd: [08-23] Kamala came to slay.

• Richard Fausset, et al.: [08-23] What voters outside the Democratic bubble thought of Harris's speech: Most interesting thing here is the lengths they (five authors here) have to go to find "out-of-bubble" voters, and how disconnected they are from anything resembling reality.

• Katie Glueck: [08-24] Why Harris's barrier-breaking bid feels nothing like Hillary Clinton's. Maybe having multiple checklist identity groups seems like too much bother, but more likely she just seems like a real person, not some kind of idealized pathbreaking icon -- not that Clinton was all that ideal.

• Fred Kaplan: [08-23] Trump should be very nervous about this part of Kamala Harris' DNC speech: "She's uniquely prepared to step up to the job of commander in chief." I don't know whether Trump is smart enough to grasp any of this, but it's making me nervous:

  Its emergence Thursday night was so striking that Wall Street Journal columnist (and former GOP speechwriter) Peggy Noonan [link below] complained that the Dems "stole traditional Republican themes (faith, patriotism) and claimed them as their own." Noonan misstates what's been happening in the era of Donald Trump. The fact is, the Republicans have abandoned those themes, and the Democrats -- who never rejected them -- are picking them up, with intensity, as part of a broad rescue mission. Democracy, freedom, equality, and community -- concepts so deeply embedded in American politics that their validity has long gone unquestioned -- are "on the ballot" in this election. The same is true of national security, and so the DNC's strategists elevated it too from a common cliché to a cherished value and vital interest under threat from the cult of personality surrounding Trump.

  Some quoted parts of the speech I find bone-chilling, like:

  • "As commander in chief, I will ensure America has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world."
  • "I will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists. I will not cozy up to tyrants and dictators like Kim Jong-un, who are rooting for Trump . . . They know Trump won't hold autocrats accountable because he wants to be an autocrat himself."
  • "I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself . . . At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating."
  • "I helped mobilize a global response -- over 50 countries -- to defend [Ukraine] against Putin's aggression."

  That gives her a score of about 85 on a scale of American cliché jingoism, but the admission on Gaza suggests that she can recognize facts and limits, so she might be willing to adjust to deal with them. I can't swear that she's free of the gratuitous hawkishness that Hillary Clinton overcompensated in. It may even be possible that she needs this armada of clichés to maintain her credibility when/if she does think better of some doomed trajectory that the rest of the blob is senselessly stuck on.

  As I must have made clear by now, I think that Biden's foreign policy has been a colossal mistake on nearly every front, and a disaster on many, with more potential disasters lined up as far as one can see. The whole paradigm needs a serious rethink, which is hard to see happening because everyone in a position to be consulted is there precisely because they've committed to the old, increasingly dysfunctional paradigm -- one that's been locked in by business and political interest groups (notably including Israel) that profit from the status quo, and profit even more when disaster strikes.

  I can see two ways to change. One is simply to back away from the strategies that have been failing and causing trouble -- let's call this (a). This approach will be ridiculed as "isolationism," but it could just as well be dressed up as Roosevelt's "good neighbor policy" -- just hold off the guns and judgment. The idea here is that if America gives up its global hegemon ambitions, other countries will follow suit, dramatically reducing the present tendencies for conflict. Conventional blob theorists hate this idea, and argue that any US retreat will result in a vacuum where "our enemies" will rush in to expand their hegemony.

  The (b) alternative to this is for the US to use its current dominant position as bargaining chips to negotiate military draw downs elsewhere and development of international organization to provide order and cooperation in place of power projection.

  Given a choice between politicians advocating (a) or (b), I'd go with (a), because it's simpler and clearer, both easier to state and to implement. The problem with (b) is that it involves misdirection and bluffing, and so is corrosive of trust. But (b) could be the better solution, if you have the patience and skill to see it through. Still, you don't have to do either/or. You can carve out sensible steps from column (a) and from column (b).

  I have little faith that someone as tightly integrated into the blobthink world as Harris seems to be will do either, but she might be just what's needed for (b). There is at least one historical example of a politician who was enough of an insider to gain power, but who then used that power to change direction radically. This was Mikhail Gorbachev. You can debate about how successful he was, and much more. And for sure, there's little reason to think Harris would (or could) pull a similar switch. But there is some similarity in the problems, and in the sclerotic thinking that made both cases seem so intractable.

  In any case, Harris is doing what she needs to do: she is reassuring the "deep state" powers that she can be trusted as one of them. Beyond that, all she has to do is show voters that she's smarter and more sensible than Trump. That's really not very hard to do. Hoping for more in the short period left before the election is rather foolish. She shouldn't risk stirring up potential opponents. Nor does she really need, say, a groundswell of pro-Palestinian support. All she has to do into November is stay better than Trump. Later on, of course, the situation will change. As president, she'll have to face and fix real problems, and not just the polling ones that have bedeviled others.

  • Peggy Noonan: [08-23] Kamala Harris gets off to a strong start: "Her DNC speech was fine, but the race remains a toss-up. It's all going to come down to policy." I originally had the Noonan link in situ above, but brought it down here to share the title and subhed, which are pretty funny.

  • Zack Beauchamp: [08-23] The moment when Kamala Harris's speech came alive: "The Democratic nominee got foreign policy -- and especially Israel-Palestine -- right." I found this after the Kaplan piece, which it largely recapitulates, so I dropped it in here. I've also talked about her Israel/Gaza take already (see James Carden).

• Errol Louis: [08-24] Kamala Harris and the new politics of joy.

• Carlos Lozada: [08-22] The shifting convictions of Kamala Harris. A former book review editor, goes back to her previous books: Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor's Plan to Make Us Safer (2009), and The Truths We Hold: An American Journey (2019), both written in times when her political horizons were expanding.

• Jim Newell: [08-23] Kamala Harris showcased a quality at the DNC that Donald Trump never has.

• Andrew Prokop: [08-23] Kamala Harris just revealed her formula for taking down Trump: "She cited three familiar issues -- but with new twists."

• Greg Sargent: [08-23] Kamala's harsh takedown of Trump points the way to a post-MAGA America: "In her speech, the vice president made real overtures to non-Democrats. But she also insisted that we must reject MAGA Republicanism whole cloth." I don't particularly like this way of framing her pitch. As with most political ideas -- "MAGA" is short for Trumpism, hinting at something that might survive the demise of its author -- it contains a large amount of aspiration. You can pick and choose which bits of aspiration you want to discredit and which can be co-opted. Harris's "many olive branches to right-leaning independents and Republican voters" shows that she understands this, not that she's demanding "whole cloth" conversion. But easier than fighting the ideas of MAGA is driving a wedge between them and the vehicle, Trump. The clever way to do this is to adopts some ideals, and turn them back on a very deficient Trump. Of course, that can be tricky, especially as many of us would be happier to see the whole edifice demolished.

  In a remarkable turn, Harris appears prepared to run precisely the aggressive, inspired campaign that combatting the rising forces of domestic authoritarianism requires. Her vision hints at a post-MAGA future that is fully faithful to liberal ideals -- freedom, autonomy, open societies, free and fair elections -- while also addressing dissatisfactions with American life, from economic precarity to feelings of physical insecurity, that are leading many into the temptations of illiberalism. Getting to that future, Harris and Walz appear to be saying, will require fully consigning MAGA to the dustheap of history where it belongs.

  But is this really what they're saying. While Harris/Walz may reflect liberal ideals -- and that seems to be why the idealist idiots (like Chait) are going gaga over the DNC -- they're pushing much more tangible programs, which aim to achieve levels of economic support and social cohesion that Republicans can't deliver, or even fake believing in. Also by Sargent (podcasts):

  • [08-22] Trump's angry new rants about the Obamas betray a deeper MAGA fear: "As Trump seethes over Barack and Michelle Obama and the Democratic convention, a polling analyst discusses new data showing the anti-MAGA coalition coming together -- the thing Trump fears most."

  • [08-23] How Kamala wins: inside the clever strategy causing Trump to unravel: "As Trump keeps losing it over Harris's surge in polls, the author of a new piece on the Democratic strategy explains how the party has finally hit on a way to shrivel him into a diminished figure."

• Peter Slevin: [08-23] Kamala Harris's "freedom" campaign: "Democrats' years-long efforts to reclaim the word are cresting in this year's Presidential race."

• Michael Tomasky: [08-23] The female Obama? No. Kamala Harris is more than that. "Harris's speech united her party -- an incredible task if you consider where we were a month ago."

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

• Vox: Vox's guide to Kamala Harris's 2024 policies.

  • Rachel M Cohen: Kamala Harris's recent embrace of rent control, explained: "Capping rent increases makes voters excited, but economists wary."

  • Abdallah Fayyad: [07-31] Ruthless "cop" or "soft on crime"? Kamala Harris's record as prosecutor, explained. "The vice president's days as a California prosecutor are difficult to define in clear ideological terms."

  • Nicole Narea: What Kamala Harris really thinks about Israel and Gaza: "Biden's approach to the war in Gaza has been divisive. Would Harris chart a new path?"

  • Christian Paz: Kamala Harris and the border: The myth and the facts: "No, Kamala Harris is not a 'border czar.' But that doesn't matter to Republicans."

  • Zoya Teirstein: [07-22] What Kamala Harris's track record on climate makes clear: "Biden was the best climate president ever. Will she build on that legacy?"

Walz:

• Robert Kuttner: [08-21] It took a village: the making of progressive Tim Walz.

• David Michaels/Jordan Barab: [08-21] How Tim Walz saved workers' lives and limbs.

Biden:

• Andrew Marantz: [08-23] Why was it so hard for the Democrats to replace Biden? "After the President's debate with Trump, Democratic politicians felt paralyzed. At the DNC, they felt giddy relief. How did they do it?"

• N+1 Editors: Hollow Man: Biden, the Democrats, and Gaza. Title explained here:

  In their recent book The Hollow Parties, Daniel Schlozman and Sam Rosenfeld describe the Republicans and Democrats as lacking in the internal organization that could, respectively, moderate extremist tendencies and mitigate elite capture. The two parties, they write, are "hard shells, marked with the scars of interparty electoral conflict, [which] cover disordered cores, devoid of concerted action and positive loyalties. . . . For all their array of activities, [they] demonstrate fundamental incapacities in organizing democracy." What we had in Biden was a hollow President, a figurehead with fundamental incapacity issues and little substance inside the shell. At best, Biden's hollowness contrasted powerfully with the great-man theory of the presidency embodied by Trump, and his reactivity made space for a resurgent electoral left. At worst, these qualities devolved into impotence, and Biden was revealed as a leader who simply couldn't lead.

  Although much of the article focuses on Biden's relationship with Israel ("the intensity of Biden's passion for Israel has been the great constant of his career -- perhaps the only one") the review of the administration's whole history is insightful and nuanced, with references to Franklin Foer's insider book, The Last Politician, that may make me reconsider shelving the book unread.

  • Kenneth S Baer: [06-27] Why are political parties so much weaker than they once were? "Two political scientists try to explain why and what can be done about it. But their nostalgia for normie days sometimes get the beter of them." A review of the book mentioned above: Daniel Scholzman & Sam Rosenfeld: The Hollow Parties: The Many Pasts and Disordered Present of American Party Politics.

  • Matthew Sitman/Sam Adler-Bell: [08-19] Know your enemy: What happened to America's political parties? An interview with Schlozman and Rosenfeld.

• Charles Lane: [08-22] Biden's embarrassed silence on Afghanistan: Complaint is about his DNC speech, which the author feels should have touted withdrawal as a positive accomplishment. Indeed, it's something three previous presidents failed monumentally at. He deserves credit for recognizing that the decades-long had failed and needed to end. However, he ended it badly, not that Trump left him with many options, in large part because he never moved beyond the magical thinking that trapped the US in Afghanistan in the first place. One result was the PR fiasco, which marked the point where his approval ratings dipped under 50%, something he never overcame. So it's easy to see why he skipped over it.

  However, his failures with Afghanistan haven't ended there. He's fallen into the familiar American "sore loser" pattern, adopted first by Eisenhower in 1953 when he signed an armistice with North Korea but refused to call it peace, leaving a legacy of distrust and petty hostilities that continue to this day (a grudge held and fed for 71 years), as US sanctions have largely hobbled North Korea's development. (South Korea GDP per capita in 2022 was $32422, which is 22 times that of North Korea's $1430.) The US harbors grudges everywhere it has faced rejection and has left disappointed: Vietnam, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Russia, and now Afghanistan. This usually takes the form of sanctions, which impose hardships on the people while more often than not solidifying the control of those countries' rulers. This proves two things: that regardless of wartime propaganda, the US never cared about the people, and that what it did care about was projecting its power (although with repeated failures, these days that might be more accurately defined as protecting its arms cartel -- the definition of "ally" these days is anyone who buys guns from the US, Israel and/or NATO, while "enemy" is anyone who shops elsewhere). Ironically, nothing signifies weakness like shunning countries that would gladly trade with us if we allowed them (e.g., Iran).

  The deal that turned Afghanistan over to the Taliban was negotiated by, or more accurately for, Trump, with zero concern for Afghans who had welcomed US occupation, let alone for any other Afghans, or really for anyone else. Trump's only concern was to postpone the retreat until after the 2024 election, and to minimize US casualties in the meantime. He made no effort to reconcile the Taliban with other parties, to protect civil rights of Afghans after the Taliban enters the government, to ensure that people who might want to emigrate would be free to do so, or to allow for postwar cooperation. In failing to even raise those issues, he signalled to the Afghans that they should come to their own accord with the Taliban, which they did in arranging their instant surrender.

  When Biden took over, he had little leverage left, but he also didn't use what he had, which was the promise of future cooperation to aid the Afghan people. Instead, he subscribed to the fantasy that the US-affiliated Afghans would fight on even without US aid, and delayed departure until the Taliban had completed their arrangements for assuming power, turning the actual departure into the chaos broadcast far and wide. Since then, all Biden has done has been to add Afghanistan to America's "shit list" of countries we sanction and shun.

  Once again, all we've shown to the world is our own hubris and pettiness. The Biden administration has made some serious effort to rethink domestic policy, moving it away from the high ideology of neoliberalism toward something where results matter, and have even come up with some results that do matter, but they've done the opposite in foreign policy, overcorrecting from the cynicism and corruption of "America First" (which was never more than "Trump First", as Trump's "America" seems to exclude everyone but his family and retainers) by reclaiming high moral ground, both to sanctify our own acts and opinions, and to castigate those who aren't sufficiently deferential to us. Unless you're an arms manufacturer or an oil company, the Biden foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster.

And other Democrats:

• Clare Malone: [08-22] How Ezra Klein helped set the stage for Kamala Harris's nomination: "The Times columnist was an early advocate for replacing Joe Biden at the top of the ticket; in recent weeks, his podcast has seemed like the smoke-filled back room of the Democratic Party."

Trump:

• Jared Abbott: [08-24] Why do so many workers love Trump? "Racism and xenophobia are a part of why so many ordinary workers were won over to Donald Trump, but that's far from the whole story. A careful study breaks down how Trump spoke to economic grievances and personal experiences." This piece deserves some careful review, although my first reaction is to ask for numbers ("so many"?), and my second is to wonder whether the elixir is still working: it was much easier to paint the Clintons and Obama as self-centered elitists than it is to apply the same slurs against Biden and Harris, especially as the latter actually have made some tangible gains for labor -- all of which have been opposed by Trump and the Republicans.

• Kevin Breuninger: [08-27] Trump taps RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard for presidential transition team: Sounds like something, but probably isn't.

• Maureed Dowd: [08-24] Daffy Don, turning pea green with envy.

• David A Graham:

  • [08-19] The fakest populism you ever saw: "The Trumpian GOP is in a battle over which wealthy faction will win, not a class war."

    But too much discussion of Vance's selection has accepted the supposed worker-friendly orientation of the Ohio senator and the Trump-era Republican Party, taking their bashing of elites at face value. What is actually happening within the GOP right now is a battle among different factions of the extremely wealthy over who will benefit most if Donald Trump returns to power. Workers are a distant afterthought.

  • [08-27] Jack Smith isn't backing down: "After a Supreme Court ruling challenged his case, the special counsel filed a fresh indictment of Donald Trump."

• Elie Honig: [08-26] How Donald Trump may dodge sentencing before the election -- or forever: "This is where politics collide with the criminal-justice process."

• Clarence Lusane: [08-22] Facing a smart, confident younger black woman Trump is running scared: "Donald Trump confronts Kamala in his usual fashion: Trump's never-ending malevolent war against black women."

• Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [08-21] Trump really doesn't want to talk about Israel: "In his billed national security speech, the former president stayed far away from Gaza and the Middle East tinder box." Here's what he had to say ("in full") about Israel:

  We made peace in the Middle East with the Abraham Accords. And more, more, more, we did things like nobody ever heard of and we brought our troops, mostly back home . . . My attitude kept us out of wars. I stopped wars with phone calls. Russia should have never happened. With Ukraine would have never happened if I were president it would have never happened. Nope, there was no talk of that, it would have never, ever happened. With Putin, would have never happened. And Israel October 7 would have never happened. Iran would have never done that. They had very little money at that point. Now they're rich as hell, but Biden allowed that to happen.

• Vox: Vox's guide to Donald Trump's 2024 policies: I've probably cited some of these before, but here they're wrapped up with a bow:

  • Zack Beauchamp:

    • [2023-11-14] When Trump tells you he's an authoritarian, believe him: "He's talking like a fascist. He's planing fascist policies. He's staffing up with fascists."

    • [06-27] Donald Trump is getting away with it: "The debate proved that Donald Trump is still a threat to democracy."

  • Eric Levitz:

    • [05-12] Trump just opened the door to Social Security cuts. Take him seriously.

    • [07-14] Yes, it's still fair to call Trump a threat to democracy.

  • Nicole Narea: [06-01] What Trump really thinks about the war in Gaza.

  • Christian Paz: [08-23] Kamala Harris's speech triggered a vintage Trump meltdown: "The Republican presidential candidate seemed perplexed last night. Has Harris figured ou how to stump Trump?"

  • Andrew Prokop: [05-20] If Trump wins, what would hold him back? "The guardrails of democracy reined him in last time. But they're weakening."

  • Dylan Scott: [08-14] Trump's campaign against public health is back on.

  • Li Zhou: [02-29] Trump's immigration policies are his old ones -- but worse: "They include harsh new proposals, and augmented versions of past ideas, too."

• Peter Wehner: Trump's evangelical supporters just lost their best excuse: "The pro-life justification for supporting the former president has now collapsed." The author's a well-known anti-Trump evangelical, so I get that he's trying to square some circle, but the notion that there's some reasoning behind evangelical support for Trump is hard to credit.

• Justin Zorn: [08-23] Bros beware: Trump has a plan to shrink your testicles: "The former president's crude appeals to masculinity culture clash with his lax approach toward PFAS and pesticides, which have been linked to lowered testosterone and sperm count."

• James D Zirin: [08-27] Trump sues the Justice Department for $100 million.

Vance:

• Arwa Mahdawi: [08-17] Keep talking, JD! Vance's creepy views on 'females' are repelling women voters.

And other Republicans:

• Stephanie Armour/McKenzie Beard: [08-22] Project 2025 would recast HHS as the federal Department of Life.

• Nina Burleigh: [08-20] The con at the core of the Republican Party: "The conservative movement's total abandonment of even the appearance of principles has been decades in the making." Review of Joe Conason's new book, The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers, and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism. Conason "devotes the first third of the book to some of the right-wing scammers 'corroded to the core' like [Roy] Cohn," only one degree of separation from Trump:

  A crucial representative of this attitude, according to Conason, was Roy Cohn, the red-baiting Joe McCarthy aide, New York power broker, and Mafia lawyer whose "philosophy of impunity" was so successful that it shaped right-wing politics for decades to come. His most apt pupil was Donald Trump, whom he represented in his later years. Cohn taught the younger Donald that "it was not only possible but admirable to lie, cheat, swindle, fabricate, then deny, deny, deny -- and get away with everything," Conason writes. As a lawyer, Cohn's motto was: Better to know the judge than to know the law. As a businessman, it was: Better to stiff creditors than pay bills; and always worthwhile to lie, bribe, steal, and swindle while never apologizing.

  The editors offered links to two older pieces relevant here:

  • Dan Kaufman: [2020-10-02] The real legacy of a demagugue: "A new biography of Joseph McCarthy does not reckon with the devastating effects of anti-communism." The book is Larry Tye: Demagogue: The Life and Long Shadow of Senator Joe McCarthy.

  • Walter Shapiro: [2019-05-08] The worst businessman in America: "The revelations about Trump's taxes prove he was a grifter and a fraud, a braggart and a blowhard. In other words, he was the same man he is today."

• Eli Clifton: [08-22] Ex-Rep. Gallagher [R-WS] psyched to 'leverage my network' for Palantir: "The China hawk will be cashing in on public service to work for a major defense contractor."

• Juleanna Glover: [08-26] Republican donors: do you know where your money goes? At some point, wouldn't you expect that even rich people, even those most flattered by solicitations catering to their prejudices, would tire of getting hounded and scammed by this corrupt system. This is worth quoting at some length:

  Anyone who has spent time reviewing Donald Trump's campaign spending reports would quickly conclude they're a governance nightmare. There is so little disclosure about what happened to the billions raised in 2020 and 2024 that donors (and maybe even the former president himself) can't possibly know how it was spent.

  Federal Election Commission campaign disclosure reports from 2020 show that much of the money donated to the Trump campaign went into a legal and financial black hole reportedly controlled by Trump family members and close associates. This year's campaign disclosures are shaping up to be the same. Donors big and small give their hard-earned dollars to candidates with the expectation they will be spent on direct efforts to win votes. They deserve better.

  During the 2020 election, almost $516 million of the over $780 million spent by the Trump campaign was directed to American Made Media Consultants, a Delaware-based private company created in 2018 that masked the identities of who ultimately received donor dollars, according to a complaint filed with the F.E.C. by the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. How A.M.M.C. spent the money was a mystery even to Mr. Trump's campaign team, according to news reports shortly after the election. . . .

  A.M.M.C.'s first president was reported to be Lara Trump, the wife of Mr. Trump's son Eric. The New York Times reported that A.M.M.C. had a treasurer who was also the chief financial officer of Mr. Trump's 2020 presidential campaign. Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump's son-in-law, signed off on the plan to set up A.M.M.C., and one of Eric Trump's deputies from the Trump Organization was involved in running it.

  Ms. Trump is now co-chair of the Republican National Committee, which, soon after her arrival, announced it would link up with the Trump campaign for joint fund-raising. The joint entity prioritizes a PAC that pays Mr. Trump's legal fees over the R.N.C., The Associated Press has reported, making assurances from Mr. Trump's campaign co-manager that R.N.C. funds wouldn't be used to pay Mr. Trump's legal bills seem more hollow.

  One thing I'm curious about is why someone supposedly as rich as Trump would get so invested in what are effectively petty cons -- I'm not denying that the money at stake in his media company, these campaigns, and his son-in-law's hedge fund doesn't add up to serious, but how are things like selling bibles and NFTs worth the trouble? Speaking of campaign finance, I clicked on this "related" article:

  • Richard W Painter: [2016-02-03] The conservative case for campaign-finance reform: Old article, clicked on because I can imagine there being such a case, one that would appeal to people who think they are conservatives, and who think conservatism is an honest and thoughtful philosophy that should appeal to enough people to win fair elections. I even think that the most likely way we could get serious campaign finance reform would be if some Republican takes this sort of argument and uses it to guilt-trip Democrats and a few more Republicans to support it.

    As you may recall, Obama's fervor for campaign finance reform faded after he saw how much more money he could raise in 2008 than McCain -- a feat he repeated in 2012 against the more moneyed Romney. However, even when Republicans started losing their cash advantage -- cultivated with such slavish devotion to business interests -- they cling to unlimited spending, because they love the graft, but also they've seen opportunities to paint Democrats as hypocrites and scoundrels for cutting into their share. But mostly, no matter how much they like to quote Burke (and in this case, Goldwater and McCain), their staunchest belief is in inequality, which these days is denominated in dollars.

• Patrick Healy: [08-26] Harris has the momentum. But Trump has the edge on what matters most. Author is Deputy Opinion Editor at the New York Times, the infamous "fake news" outlet that seems most desperate right now to bolster Trump's candidacy, or at least revitalizing the horse race. Still, not much here to actually define "what matters most. Consider:

  Defining the race: Harris wants to make the race about the future, freedom and unity; Trump wants to make the race about the past, his presidency and threats to the country.

  Does he really think that Harris would be troubled having to talk about "the past, [Trump's] presidency, and threats to the country" -- you know, like more of what Trump did during his presidency? Having so flailed himself, Healy turned to:

  • Rich Lowry: [08-26] Trump can win on character: I clicked on this because I like a good joke as much as anyone, but does Lowry (or Healy?) understand how funny the very idea is? He may be right that "presidential races are won and lost on character as much as the issues," though not that "often the issues are proxies for character" -- more often "character" is used as a mask for poor issues (and is most effective when it also masks poor character -- cf. Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, and Trump, all of whom were packaged to hide reality). Still:

    Mr. Trump's campaign has been shrewd to begin to hold smaller, thematic-focused events rather than just set him loose at rallies, where there is the most opportunity for self-sabotaging riffs.

    By what possible definition is this proof of his superior character?

  • Thomas B Edsall: [08-21] Trump isn't finished: The publisher's title fits this here, but the substance should stand nicely on its own. Edsall mostly quotes various eminences on the severe threat a second Trump term would present to Amermica and what we still think of as democracy:

    • Sean Wilentz: "Trump, who does not speak in metaphors, had made it plain: 'If I don't get elected, it's going to be a blood bath.'"
    • Laurence Tribe
    • Julie Wronski
    • Bruce Cain: "Trump is more erratic, impulsive, and self-interested than your average candidate and is much bolder than most in testing the boundaries of what he can get away with."
    • Timothy Snyder
    • Charles Stewart
    • Julian Zelizer
    • Jacob Hacker
    • Frances Lee
    • Eric Shickler
    • Robert Y Shapiro
    • Gary Jacobson: "[The biggest difference] will be the absence of officials in the administration with the stature, experience, and integrity to resist Trump's worst instincts in such matters."

  • Patrick Healy: [08-23] Joy is not a strategy.

• Nicholas Kristof: [08-24] Republicans are right: one party is 'anti-family and anti-kid'.

Election notes:

• Sasha Abramsky: [08-23] Arizona and Nevada have become ground zero for partisan polls: "Expect the GOP to flood the zone with polls that likely aren't worth the paper they're written on."

• Amy Littlefield: [08-26] The toughest fight to win back abortion rights is on in Florida: "A six-week abortion ban in the state has unleashed widespread suffering. Now voters in the state have a chance to restore Florida as a haven for abortion care in the South."

• MacKenzie Sigalos/Christina Wilkie: [08-23] Crypto industry accounts for almost half of corporate donations in 2024 election, report says.

• Robert F Kennedy Jr.: Kennedy suspended his campaign on Friday, and endorsed Trump, after various hints over the last couple weeks (including a pitch for a cabinet seat under Harris, which evidently didn't go so well).

  • Lois Beckett: [08-23] Trump accepts RFK Jr endorsement and vows to release JFK assassination files: "Ex-president takes stage with Kennedy in Arizona, hours after independent candidate suspends White House bid."

  • Jessica Corbett: [08-23] Critics say RFK Jr. just proved campaign was always a 'MAGA front designed to help Donald Trump win': If you wanted to research this, one way would be to look at where the campaign money came from.

  • Ellie Qinlan Houghtaling: Power-hungry RFK Jr. finally shows true colors on Trump.

  • Ed Kilgore: These pieces were collected earlier, but have probably been updated.

    • [08-20] RFK Jr. running mate muses about how to help Trump: "Nicole Shanahan says they are debating whether to stay in the race or drop out and join forces with Trump."

    • [08-21] How Robert F Kennedy Jr.'s exit would affect the election. Updated [08-22]

    • [08-23] RFK Jr., Trump form coalition of vengeful whiners.

  • Ben Mathis-Lilley: [08-23] RFK Jr. endorsement may not help Trump beat the "weird" allegations.

  • G Elliott Morris/Mary Radcliffe: [08-23] How much momentum will RFK Jr.'s endorsement give Trump? "Polls show Kennedy's supporters only slightly favor the former president."

  • Nicole Narea: [08-23] Does RFK Jr. dropping out of the presidential race help Trump?.

  • Santul Nerkar: [08-24] How media outlets on the right and left covered Kennedy's Trump endorsement. Counts Washington Examiner and Breitbart on the right, Slate and Meidas Touch (which I had never heard of) for the left. I'll probably find more of the latter, and may write one of my own. This is evidently part of a series called "Media Bubbles, in case you're searching for deep insights like Fauci's a hero or a villain, depending on what outlet you're reading.

  • Brandy Zadrozny: [08-23] RFK Jr. as Trump's health secretary? Here's what he wants to do? "He has advocated dismantling core functions of federal health agencies."

Legal matters and other crimes:

• Edward Carver: [08-21] Trump-appointed judge strikes down FTC ban on noncompete agreements: "Thirty million workers who were trapped by these agreements will now stay trapped thanks to this ruling."

  • Timothy Noah: [08-23] Killing noncompete clauses is all about freedom: "Why Harris and Walz should talk up an imperiled FTC regulation." This is an issue I feel very strongly about, both in principle and because I had my own extremely unpleasant (and probably quite damaging) experience with one. The FTC ruling is one of the best things Biden has done. It is very important to defend it, even to overturning the courts.

• Julia Conley: [08-23] DOJ files rent-fixing lawsuit against corporate landlords' go-to software firm: "Executives at the property management software company RealPage claimed they had the 'greater good' in mind when they offered corporate landlords a price-fixing algorithm service."

• Hila Keren: [08-26] The courts are already starting to implement Project 2025, without Trump.

• Ruth Marcus: [08-22] Justice Gorsuch's book of fish tales: "A n ew book by the Supreme Court conservative begs the question: does having all the facts matter?" The book, co-credited with ("former law clerk") Janie Nitze, is Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law. The premise, that "some law is essential to our lives and our freedoms," but also that "too much law can place those very same freedoms at risk and even undermine respect for law itself," seems inarguable. But where does he go from there? Of the cases cited here, I'm at least sympathetic to that of Aaron Swartz: it seems to me that a key part of theft is depriving the owner of access, which copying doesn't do. Rather, the legal creation of "intellectual property" is a prime example of the "too much law" that Gorsuch decries.

• Ian Millhiser:

  • [08-19] Did the Supreme Court just overrule one of its most important LGBTQ rights decisions: "The Court appeared to abandon Bostock v. Clayton County this weekend."

  • [08-22] The Supreme Court decides not to disenfranchise thousands of swing state voters: "The Court's decision in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota could have been much worse for democracy, even if it's not all good."

  • [08-23] A Trump judge ruled there's a Second Amendment right to own machine guns: "The Supreme Court's Bruen decision will keep on creating chaos until it is overruled."

Climate and environment:

• Richard Heinberg: [08-25] 7 steps to what a real renewable energy transition looks like: "Historically, an overhaul for humanity's energy system would take hundreds or many thousands of years. The rapid shift to cleaner, more sustainable sources of power generations will easily be the most ambitious enterprise our species has ever undertaken." Glad to see this, as I've read several of Heinberg's books, although none since 2009's Blackout: Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis, preceded by 2007's Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines. That was back in the Oil Drum era (see Wikipedia"), when Hubbert's peak seemed to be kicking in, before secondary extraction techniques like fracking became cost-effective enough to allow oil and gas production to increase from previously depleted or marginal fields. I read quite a bit on this and related subjects back then. I was especially taken by a chart from one of his books (float right; top: "world oil production from 1600 to 2200, history and projection"; bottom: "world population from 1600 to 2200, history and projection, assuming impacts from depletion"), although I could think of plenty of reasons why the post-peak decline would not be as sharp or perilous (including enhanced secondary recovery.

  I don't have time now, but could probably write quite a bit about this piece. For now, I'll note that I basically agree with his first two section heads: "Why this is (so far) not a real transition" and "The core of the transition is using less energy." His concrete proposals are more troubling, especially those that overreach politically (like rationing and "triage"). "Aim for population decline" seems both politically perilous and unnecessary, given that current projections are that world population will stabilize within 30-60 years. We have major challenges accommodating the population we have (or will have), but reducing the number of people doesn't make the task easier -- and given most ways population has been reduced in the past, may make matters much worse.

• Benji Jones: [08-22] This chart of ocean heat is terrifying: "The Gulf's looming hurricane problem, explained in a simple graph."

Economic matters:

• Dean Baker: Everything he publishes is worth reading. Catching up with recent examples:

  • [08-13] Is 'drill everywhere" good news for the oil industry? "If a large increase in US production does send oil prices sharply lower, the oil industry is not likely to be very happy."

  • [08-14] Why does a good inflation report require NPR to feature two people who are struggling?

  • [08-17] Vice-President Harris proposes to increase the deficit by 0.5 percent of GDP over the next decade: "In an effort to promote hysteria, the media the media have jumped on the proposals laid out by [Harris], telling their audience that they will increase the deficit by $1.7 trillion over the next decade." Or, as Baker explains:

    However, the key point here is that almost no one knows how much money $1.7 trillion is over the next decade. When the media present this figure, they are essentially telling their audience nothing.

    It would take all of ten seconds to write this number in a way that would be meaningful to most people. GDP is projected to be $352 trillion over the next decade, so this sum will be a bit less than 0.5 percent of projected GDP. The country is projected to spend $84.9 trillion over this period, so Harris' proposals would increase total spending by roughly 2.0 percent.

    If the point is to inform their audience, it is hard to understand why the media would not take the few seconds needed to put large budget numbers in context. On the other hand, if the point is to promote fears of exploding deficits, they are going a good route.

    By the way:

    Rebecca Picciotto: [08-27] Trump budget would spike deficits by nearly 5 times Harris proposal, says Penn Wharton.

  • [08-19] The WaPo's Republican columnists just make it up: "No one expects serious economic analysis from the Washington Post's conservative columnists and Mark Thiessen doesn't let us down."

  • [08-20] Prices are still high, and other absurd things pushed by the media: "Unfortunately, the media are dominated by unserious reporters who ask unserious questions which gives us an absurd national debate about bringing about the impossible."

  • [08-21] Mixed story: what the revision to the jobs data means.

  • [08-26] Yet another in the economy is bad under Biden series.

  • [08-26] E.J. Dionne, WaPo's liberal columnist, pushes right-wing propaganda: Baker starts by noting:

    It is totally understandable that the right wants people to believe that "markets alone" were responsible for the massive upward redistribution of income of the last half century. But it happens to be total crap.

    He then explains why it's "total crap," starting with monopoly rents from rigged markets (citing, as he often does, his free book, Rigged). He then concludes:

    The market is just a tool, like the wheel. It makes as much sense to rant against the free market as to complain about the wheel. Unfortunately, the right has managed to get the bulk of the left in this country screaming at the wheel. As long as that remains the case, it will be difficult to make much progress in reducing inequality.

• Gordon Katic: [08-20] The insidious elitist upshot of behavioral economics: "Behavioral economics dangerously denigrates the rationality of ordinary people."

• Paul Krugman: More political than economical, but always an economist.

  • [08-19] Kamalanomics, revealed: a solid center-left agenda: Why can't we just call it that?

  • [08-20] What happened to inflation?

  • [08-22] Trump's made-up 'Kamala crime wave'.

• Andrea Mazzarino: [08-20] Deep corporate America: "The corporate greed threatening out stability."

Ukraine War and Russia:

• Ben Armbruster: [08-23] Diplomacy Watch: Moscow bails on limited ceasefire talks: "No signs yet that Ukraine's Russia incursion is sparking a speedy end of the war."

• George Beebe: [08-20] The hazards of Ukraine's incursion into Russia: "While Kyiv has succeeded in capturing headlines, it's unclear at this point what the mission will actually achieve."

• Andrew E Kramer/Matthew Mpoke Bigg: [08-26] Russia pounds Ukraine with 'one of the largest strikes' of the war: "an assault of more than 200 missiles and drones that ranged from Kyiv to Odesa to Ukraine's west; energy infrastructure was again a target."

• New York Times: This week in both-sidesing:

  • Anastasia Edel: [08-13] Putin has victory in his grasp.

  • Serge Schmemann: [08-23] Putin is getting rattled.

• Quincy Institute: [02-16] More than two-thirds of Americans support urgent US diplomacy to end Ukraine War. This is six months old, but there's little reason to think anything much has changed.

America's empire and the world:

• Afyare A Elmi/Yusuf Hassan: [08-26] The coming war nobody is talking about: Ethiopia has been land-locked since Eritrea broke away as an independent country, and their prime minister, Abiy Ahmed, doesn't like it. Part of the problem here is that Somalia is effectively divided, with its northern (formerly British) wedge broken free of its nominal central government in Mogadishu.

• Joshua Keating: [08-19] Armed conflict is stressing the bones of the global economy: "From shipping lanes to airspace to undersea cables, globalization is under physical attack."

• Sarang Shidore: [08-21] Dangerous China-Philippine clashes could be expanding: "Serious incidents in the South China Sea are spreading well beyond the Second Thomas Shoal, pulling the US in deeper."

• Aaron Sobczak: [08-21] Fewer Americans willing to fight and die for other countries: Probably fewer for their own, too, as various forces -- capitalism is a pretty major one -- lead people to focus on individual interests, downplay their group affiliations, and suspect states of being subject to corrupt influences. As lives grow longer and richer, it's getting harder to justify sacrificing one for war, especially as the cost-benefit analysis of war only grows grimmer. Even if the democratic left manages to stem the trend toward hyper-individualism by restoring a sense of public interest, it won't make war more attractive.

  I've been thinking about this a bit while watching pre-modern war culture dramas, like Shōgun and House of the Dragon. The fealty warriors repeated express toward their "lords" is all but unthinkable today, when everyone thinks they're self-interested. But if the alternatives are primitive atomism (individuals, small packs, or clans) and organized bandits. The latter, through cooperation, can be so much more efficient that the rest have no alternative but to organize their own collective defenses. There's more to this, of course, like the argument that the Axial Age religions were efforts to moderate the period's massive increase in warfare.

• Military-Industrial Complex:

  • Heather Ashby: [06-20] How the 'war on terror' made the US Institute for Peace a sideshow: "Forty years ago, Congress thought it was a good idea to fund peacemaking, but it was no match for War Inc."

  • Eli Clifton: [06-18] World spending on nukes explodes to more than $90 billion. That's an increase of $10.8 billion from 2022 to 2023, with 80% of that coming from the US.

  • Dan Grazier/Lucas Ruiz: [08-21] F-35: $2T in 'generational wealth' the military had no right to spend: "The Joint Strike Fighter had a $200B price tag in 2001, now babies born that year are out of college and the plane is still not ready for prime time."

  • William Hartung: [08-22] Who gives 'three cheers for the military-industrial complex'? "Defense industry-funded think tanks like the Hudston Institute, apparently."

  • Stavroula Pabst: [08-20] How the Pentagon built Silicon Valley: "The increasingly close-knit relationship the tech industry enjoys with the Defense Department is not a sudden development."

Other stories:

• Current Affairs:

  • [07-14] Jeffrey Sachs on why US foreign policy is dangerously misguided: "How US presidents from Clinton to Trump to Biden squandered chances to establish a lasting peace in the post-Cold War era."

  • [08-14] Why you will never retire: "Economist Teresa Ghilarducci on why some 90-year-old Americans are pushing shopping carts in the heat trying to make ends meet." She has a book, Work, Retire, Repeat: The Uncertainty of Retirement in the New Economy. "She shows how the pension system disappeared, why Social Security isn't enough, and explains how even the concept of retirement is beginning to disappear, with many arguing that work is good for you, people should do it for longer." As always, much depends on what kind of work you do. I've been effectively retired for 20+ years now, but what that means is that I've been able to afford to do things I want to do, free of having to spend a big chunk of my life toiling for nothing better than making someone else money. I've been very fortunate in that regard. A more generous retirement system would help more people do socially worthwhile work like I do, even if it doesn't contribute to the great GDP fetish. It would also help people avoid doing useless and/or senseless work, of which there is way too much required these days, just because someone has figured out how to turn a profit from it.

  • [08-22] The extreme danger of dehumanizing rhetoric: "David Livingstone Smith, one of the world's leading scholars of dehumanization, explains what it is, why we're so prone of it, and how to resist it." Author of books like:

    • Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others (2011)
    • On Inhumanity: Dehumanization and How to Resist It (2020).
    • Making Monsters: The Uncanny Power of Dehumanization (2021).

  • Nathan J Robinson:

    • [08-05] How empires think: "The imperial mentality sanctions some of the worst imaginable crimes in the name of progress, enlightenment, and civilization."

    • [08-07] An encouraging sign: "Choosing Tim Walz as a vice presidential nominee shows Kamala Harris has good political instincts. But what matters is policy, and we should demand real commitments."

    • [08-12] Politics should not be parasocial: "These are not our dads or aunts. We are electing a head of state who will wield immense power and control a massive nuclear arsenal. 'Policy' is not peripheral or dispensable, it's the only thing that really matters." Critique of an Atlantic article on Kamala Harris -- Tom Nichols: [08-19] Policy isn't going to win this election: "The Harris campaign seems to have grasped an important reality" -- which may in turn have led to the Giridharadas kerfuffle below (I'm reaching them in opposite order, and the point doesn't seem worth fact checking). I lean toward Robinson here, but that's largely because I think writers who focus on political policy should take care to get the policy right, regardless of the politics. (If you get the policy right, you can conceivably steer the politics toward it; but if you take the politics as a given, you're very unlikely to get to the right policy.)

      Nichols says that it's a myth that Americans care about policy. But perhaps the opposite is true. I think the very reason that so many Americans are disillusioned with politics is that they don't see how it affects them. If you went around this country and you asked everyone you saw how much attention to politics they pay, and why they don't pay more attention, I guarantee you you'll get many variations on an answer roughly like: None of these politicians ever actually do anything for us, they just care about themselves, they don't care about us, look at my community, what have the politicians ever done for us?

      I've only read the first two paragraphs of the Nichols piece (paywalls, you know). He may well have a point -- it's a truism among political consultants that voters rarely go deep into policy details, and often respond to non-policy signals, voting with an emotional hunch over reasoned analysis. Still, no matter how much politicians and journalists try to dodge them, policy positions do matter, and in a broad sense are likely to be decisive.

    • [08-15] Panic about immigrants is based on feeling and emotion: "Christopher Rufo visited Britain and saw non-white people, leading him to conclude that civilization is being hollowed out."

    • [08-25] On the role of emotion in politics: "A response to MSNBC's Anand Giridharadas, who thinks I am not fun. . . . His reply was quite personal, and he even placed a picture of me next to a picture of Lil Jon to illustrate how much less fun I seem." Seems like an unnecessary response to a charge that has no reason for being, but as a writer who can only imagine how his readers misinterpret him, I concede a bit of interest in such things.

  • Alex Skopic:

    • [08-03] Keir Starmer is a disgrace to the British Labour Party.

    • --/Nathan J Robinson: [08-06] It's a bad idea for Harris to abandon progressive policies: "In recent days the Vice President has quickly ditched some of her boldest initiatives, needlessly making herself look unprincipled."

    • [08-22] Labor supports Democrats, but will Democrats support labor?

  • K Wilson: [04-01] Why the right constantly panics over societal 'decadence': "No, 'Western society' has not fallen from some mythic elevated past. But such right-wing views are appealing, and the left needs an answer to them if we want to avoid being pushed back into traditional hierarchies."

• Arwa Mahdawi: [08-22] Stop using the term 'centrist'. If doesn't mean what you think it does: "If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy, wrote Orwell. That applies today more than ever." My eyes glaze over when I see Orwell, so I can't tell you what that's about. And while there's plenty to say about the dysfunctionality of "centrism" -- it mostly seems to mean that you would like to see some nicer things happening, but aren't willing to do anything to make it happen that might offend the rich -- the actual examples given here are mostly from Israel. A couple are grimly (or sickeningly) amusing:

  This narrative is so entrenched that people don't believe their eyes when it comes to Palestinians. Last October, the actor Jamie Lee Curtis posted a photo on Instagram showing terrified-looking children peering up at the sky. She captioned the post "terror from the skies" with an Israel flag emoji. When it was pointed out that the kids were Palestinian, she deleted the post. Her eyes may have told her that those innocent children were terrified; the narrative, however, was more complicated.

  Around the same time, Justin Bieber posted a photo of bombed houses with the caption "praying for Israel." When it was pointed out the picture was of Gaza, he deleted it and apparently stopped praying.

• Timothy Noah: [2022-02-10] Washington is not a swamp: "Ignore the lazy conventional wisdom. The nation's capital is the most public-spirited city in the country. By far." Not sure why this piece popped up suddenly, but it remains relevant, especially with the pending Trump/Project 2025 plan to purge the civil service and replace them with political hacks. This reminds me that one of the best political books to appear during the Trump years was Michael Lewis: The Fifth Risk: Undoing Democracy, about "a government under attack by its leaders through willful ignorance and greed." Still, whenever I heard the phrase "drain the swamp," I automatically assumed that the subject was lobbying corruption, which is rife in Washington, even though Trump using it as such was certainly hypocritical -- I always assumed that, like Tom DeLay's K Street Project, his real aim was to take the racket over, to skim his vig. That he meant it as code for the civil service was unthinkable, yet that's clearly what he means.

• Maya Wei-Haas: [08-26] Dismantling the ship that drilled for the ocean's deepest secrets: "The JOIDES Resolution, which for decades was key to advancing the understanding of the Earth and its innards, concluded what could be its final scientific expedition."

Obituaries

• Common Dreams: [08-21] The best Bill Pascrell takedowns of 'lowlife' Trump and his 'soulless goons': "The feisty Democratic congressman from New Jersey died August 21."

  • Sam Roberts/Joseph P Fried: [08-21] Bill Pascrell Jr., 14-term House Democrat from NJ, dies at 87.

• Trip Gabriel: [08-14] Betty A Prashker, 99, who pushed boundaries in book publishing, dies: "A top editor and executive at two publishing houses, she was an advocate for women in publishing, and for equal pay in an industry that had long been male-dominated." Two of the books noted here are Kate Millett: Sexual Politgics: A Surprising Examination of Society's Most Arbitrary Folly (1970), and Susan Faludi: Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (1991).

• Anita Gates: [08-14] Gena Rowlands, actress who brought raw drama to her roles, dies at 94.

• Penelope Green: [08-25] Hettie Jones, poet and author who nurtured the beats, dies at 90: "She and her husband, LeRoi Jones, published works by their literary friends. After he left her and became Amiri Baraka, she found her own voice."

• Clay Risen: [08-25] Russell Malone, acclaimed jazz guitarist, dies at 60. Obit credits him with leading ten albums -- Triple Play (2010) is one I liked -- but he also has a lot of side-credits, some quite impressive.

• Jon Schwarz: [08-25] Phil Donahue, The New York Times, and the Iraq War: "More than 20 years later, the Times continues to diss anyone who got it right on the war after they got it so wrong." The quote from NYT's obituary doesn't strike me as all that inflammatory, but it obviously hit a still-sensitive nerve, and Donahue should be remembered for political insight and bravery in an industry that sadly deficient.

• Remy Tumin: [08-26] Alabama high school football player dies after sustaining head injury: Caden Tellier.

• Alex Williams/Alexandra E Petri: [08-15] Greg Kihn, 75, dies; scored hits with 'Jeopardy' and 'The Breakup Song'.

Books

• Nick Cleveland-Stout: [08-19] 'Poison' Ivy Lee, America's first foreign lobbying tycoon: "A new book reckons with the legacy of the man who helped burnish the reputations of Soviets, Nazis and other US adversaries." The book is Casey Michel: Foreign Agents: How American Lobbyists and Lawmakers Threaten Democracy Around the World.

• Aaron Gell: [08-19] The unsavory confessions of a PR guru: "A flack's new memoir touts his work for dictators and tycoons. But that's only part of today's misinformation industry." Review of Phil Elwood: All the Worst Humans: How I Made News for Dictators, Tycoons, and Politicians, and Renée DiResta: Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality.

• Benjamin Kunkel: [08-26] Your life and mine: "The intractable puzzle of growth." Review of Daniel Susskind: Growth: A History and a Reckoning, and Kohei Saitō: Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto, although other books are mentioned, including: Kenneth Pomeranz: The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy; Matthias Schmelzer: The Hegemony of Growth; Robert Collins: More: The Poliltics of Economic Growth in Postwar America; Herman Daly: Steady-State Economics; Kate Raworth: Doughnut Economics; as well as references to Braudel, Polanyi, Kuznets, Gorz, and Adorno. A quote from the latter is especially striking:

  Perhaps the true society will grow tired of development and, out of freedom, leave possibilities unused, instead of storming under a confused compulsion toward the conquest of strange stars. A mankind which no longer knows want will begin to have an inkling of the delusory, futile nature of all the arrangements hitherto made in order to escape want, which used wealth to reproduce want on a larger scale.

• Samuel Moyn: [08-27] Zig and zag: "The surprising origins and politics of equality." A review of three books: Paul Sagar: Basic Equality; Darrin McMahon: Equality: The History of an Elusive Idea; and David Lay Williams: The Greatest of All Plagues.

Music (and other arts?)

• Richard Brody: [08-26] The brief, brilliant career of a forgotten trailblazer of modern jazz: "Charles Bell recorded only three complete albums. Stop what you are doing and listen to them."

• Bijan Steven: Past, present, future: "Questlove's personal history of hip-hop." A review of Questlove: Hip-Hop Is History.

• Michael Tatum: A downloader's diary (54): "Brand new, you're retro."

Chatter

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

Original count: 224 links, 12870 words (16802 total)

Current count: 290 links, 15528 words (20514 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Monday, August 19, 2024

I started this in a timely manner, but had various distractions during the week, and skipped Saturday altogether as I decided to cook dinner for some guests. So I only made it about half way through my usual rounds on Sunday before I ran out. Picked it up Monday morning, and should get something out in the evening, hopefully not real late. That will push Music Week back another day, which will probably bring my slow week back over the 30 mark.

As I'm wrapping up, the Democratic National Convention has started. Nothing on it below. That's definitely one for next week. There is also a report of a ceasefire deal, which would be nice timing for the Convention, but may not yet be real: Netanyahu agrees to mediators' cease-fire proposal, Blinken says. More on that (if there is anything more) next week. I didn't quite get to everything I usually hit, but I figure I have quite enough for now. I may add some things on Tuesday while I work on Music Week. I've already held back two Jonathan Chait pieces, which may turn out to be especially irritating.

This is just an aside, but as long as I've been doing this, my first stop for news has been Vox. However, a few months ago, they redesigned their website to make it much harder to find new articles -- the chronological roll has been replaced by clusters of pieces that are dominated by what I suppose they consider "human interest" stories. Today's (rarely with author names, never with dates/times):

• People are falling in love with and getting addicted to -- AI voices
• The hidden reason why your power bill is so high
• I feel stuck in the middle class. Will a loan help me build generational wealth?
• How AI's booms and busts are a distraction
• The US government has to start paying for things again
• Why is everyone mad at Blake Lively?

Of those stories, I only clicked on the last, and that only because I had no idea who Blake Lively was. (Actor, It Ends With Us, "the second biggest movie in America," something else I had no inkling of. At the end of which was a pitch for money, informing me that I had read 80 articles in the last month.) Further down the page, more articles I skipped:

• How pit bulls got a bad reputation
• Why "pop-up" restaurants are everywhere now
• Why do we have grass lawns?
• How AI could help us talk to animals
• How Raygun earned her spot -- fair and square -- as an Olympics breaker
• What Kamala Harris and Beyoncé have in common -- this is the lead piece in both the "Politics" and "Culture" sections.
• The fight over Jordan Chiles's bronze medal is barely about gymnastics.
• Does being a gifted kid make for a burned-out adulthood?
• The surprising truth about loneliness in America
• Skip the airport. It's time to plan the perfect road trip.
• Inspired by the Olympics? You can become an athlete at any age.
• Is your kid addicted to their phone? Here's how to set smart boundaries.

I can't say that I have zero interest in these pieces, but they don't look very promising for my purposes. (To be fair, I often click on their culture and tech pieces, without writing anything about them.) The bottom of the home page still has a listing of "more news," which is chronological and labeled and I'm still finding quite a lot down there. So I may not be complaining about their irrelevance so much as I'm disturbed by their apparent belief that the other stuff is what really matters. In addition to the pieces I've actually cited below, the roll includes a bunch of articles that are interesting but don't immediately fit in what I'm doing below (this is a judgment call being made late Sunday, as I'm rushing to wrap up, so don't want to open up any more cans of worms than I have to). So I thought I might just mention them here:

• Jess Craig: [08-16] Antibiotics are failing. The US has a plan to launch a research renaissance
• Anna North: One complicated reason homeschooling is on the rise
• Nicole Narea: [08-15] Where Columbia's ousted president went wrong
• Celia Ford: More than 4 billion people don't have access to clean water at home
• Jess Craig: Mpox never stopped spreading in Africa. Now it's an international public health emergency. Again.
• Ellen Ioanes: Why does it feel like everyone is getting Covid?
• Joseph Lee: We're in a deadly cycle of mega fires. The way out is to burn more.
• Sam Delgado: [08-14] The youth mental health crisis is hitting LGBTQ+ teens hardest
• Umair Irfan: [08-12] Earthquakes are among our deadliest disasters. Scientists are racing to get ahead of them.
• Coleman Lowndes, et al.: Kamala Harris, explained in 7 moments -- video.
• Christian Paz: Everyone hates "Congress." But who are you really mad at.
• Sean Illing: [08-11] What George Orwell's 1984 can teach us about 2024
• Whizy Kim: [08-09] Advertisers aren't buying what X is selling. Is that a crime?
• Yessenia Funes: What happens when a so-called climate solution risks your community's safety?

Back in what we might call my "middle years" (roughly 30-50, or 1980-2000) I focused much less on politics, and more on general social, cultural, scientific, and business issues like these. They remain interesting subjects, but seem to be getting pushed aside in favor of more conventionally political matters.

Top story threads:

Israel:

• Mondoweiss:

  • [08-12] Day 311: International condemnations of Israel's massacre at Gaza school as pressure grows on Netanyahu to reach ceasefire deal: "Hamas demands a plan to implement the original ceasefire deal proposed by the U.S. last July ahead of a new round of negotiations set to start this week."

  • [08-15] Day 314: New ceasefire talks begin in Doha as official death toll surpasses 40,000: "Amid skepticism that Netanyahu intends to continue derailing a prisoner exchange deal for as long as possible, White House advisor John Kirby said the ceasefire talks that began on Thursday were 'promising.'"

• Ghada Ageel: [08-15] Gaza's other death toll: "Israel has caused countless preventable deaths which are yet to be reflected in the official Gaza death toll."

• Yousef Aljamal: The daily battles to survive the Gaza genocide: "Tents out of aid parachutes, waiting days for a tin of beans, re-digging graves to bury martyrs: here's what Palestinians have to overcome."

• Haaretz: Don't buy the lie that Israeli settler violence is the exception. It's the rule.

• Reem A Hamadaqa: [08-14] What it's like living in a tent in Gaza: "Gaza's landscape is dominated by tents that have become homes to the hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians. But building a tent and living in one with your entire family isn't easy."

• Tareq S Hajjaj:

  • [08-11] The Fajr massacre: Every 70 kg bag of human remains is considered a martyr: "The bodies of Palestinians killed in the latest Israeli massacre in Gaza were destroyed so far beyond recognition that doctors have only been able to give grieving families an anonymous bag of human remains to bury." I don't like the word "martyr," but one does need some term to honor those who died, not as willing sacrifices to a great cause, but as victims of victims of atrocities committed by people who have no honor and decency.

  • [08-15] Fighting the Israeli army in Gaza: Inside the battle for Shuja'iyya: "In a testimony obtained by Mondoweiss, a resident of Shuja'iyya recounts his motivations for wanting to join Hamas's al-Qassam Brigades to fight against the Israeli army."

• Samah Jabr: [08-15] Sadism as a tool of war in Gaza.

• Rifat Kassis: [08-18] Why the Israeli 'peace camp' disappeared: "It is primarily in the hands of Israelis to reject their settler colonial occupation, their apartheid laws, and their current government and nationalist parties. The alternative means the loss of their humanity."

• Joseph Massad: [08-12] Why raping Palestinians is legitimate Israeli military practice: "Sadism has long characterized Zionist colonists' treatment of Palestinians, rooted in orientalist views that Arab only 'understand force' -- including sexual violence." This led me to a couple older pieces:

  • Ramy Abdu: [2023-12-21] How Israel uses humiliation as a psychological weapon against Palestinians: "Failing to achieve their goals in Gaza, Israeli forces are punishing Palestinian civilians through systematic humiliation and subjecting them to degrading and sadistic treatment."

  • Lubna Masarwa/Peter Oborne: [08-09] Israel has created its own Abu Ghraib -- and the world is silent: "Western politicians must act on the mounting evidence of sexual abuse and torture of Palestinian prisoners."

• Qassam Muaddi:

  • [08-13] 'No place will be safe in all of Palestine': Palestinians brace for prospect of regional war: "Palestinians fear that if a regional war breaks out, Israel might try to use the opportunity to carry out a second Nakba." Another example of the tendency to project bad things that are already happening into the future where they could get even worse.

  • [08-15] What you need to know about the latest round of Gaza ceasefire negotiations: "Calls for renewing ceasefire talks come amid threats of a regional war in response to Israeli assassinations in Iran and Lebanon. Netanyahu has systematically worked to undermine talks and a prisoner exchange deal. Will this time be any different?"

• Jonathan Ofir: [08-12] Israeli media's coverage of the rape of Palestinian detainees shows support for sexual violence in service of genocide: "Israeli media coverage of the rape of Palestinian detainees demonstrates the widespread acceptance within Israeli society of sexual violence as a weapon of genocide."

• Noa Pinto: The taps have run dry in Jerusalem's largest Palestinian neighborhood: "Long neglected by the Jerusalem Municipality, Kufr 'Aqab residents now receive only a few hours of water a week."

Richard Silverstein: [08-14] As Israel wages genocide, its economy is buckling. US aid is vital to Israel not just to keep resupplying them with bombs but to keep the economy operating given how expensive their war is. (The same thing can also be said for Ukraine. In both cases, the US should have enough leverage to shut down the wars, if only the powers in Washington decide to do so.)

Four hundred thousand Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers have served extended tours of duty in Gaza, the West Bank, and northern Israel. They have left families and jobs and, in many cases, lost their businesses. In addition, almost 250,000 Israelis have become refugees due to fighting with Hezbollah. This has had a massive impact on the Israeli economy. Economic growth and GDP have plummeted.

Forty-six thousand businesses have failed since October 7. That number will increase to sixty thousand by the end of 2024. This has a ripple effect throughout the economy. Bankruptcies hit the bottom line of the lenders who extended credit to the failed businesses. Vendors and suppliers also take a hit, while the lives of many small business owners have been reduced to shambles. They have sunk into debt and often are forced to rely on handouts from friends, family, and charities:

Many of those [IDF] fighters are close to a breaking point. Exhausted and in some cases demoralized, they are struggling to balance family and work with military service, while the economic toll from their absences mounts.

The Israeli Population Authority reported that in the past year, 575,000 more Israelis left the country than returned to it. The immigration rate has halved since October 7.

Activity in the construction sector, reliant on over two hundred thousand Palestinian workers who are now barred from entering Israel, has declined by 25 percent. This has led to the collapse of building contractors and developers.

The Palestinian economy has been decimated and driven residents into penury. The desperation they face will lead inevitably to bitter resentment and future violence. Tourism, once a powerhouse of the economy, has dried up. The agriculture sector (20 percent decline) is based mainly in the north and the south, regions hard-hit by hostilities. Trade has plummeted drastically at Israel's southern port, Eilat, due to Houthi interruption of maritime traffic in the Red Sea. . . .

The Bank of Israel announced that the 2024 growth rate would be -2 percent, unprecedented in an Israeli economy used to sustained growth. Fitch has just downgraded the country's credit rating, describing the economic outlook as "negative." The Bank of Israel has raised the interest rate to 4.5 percent. . . .

Israel's buckling economy will increase social unrest. Massive increases in funding for the ultra-Orthodox and settlements will sow sectarian division between secular (40 percent of the population) and religious Israelis. Wars in Gaza and Lebanon will destabilize the region and increase the likelihood of future wars, which will require massive increases in military spending. The current economic strain will increase hostility, already at a fever pitch, toward Netanyahu and his government and lead to their likely downfall in 2026 elections.

• Aaron Sobczak: [08-14] Israelis using Gaza civilians as human shields: "IDF soldiers give gruesome first hand accounts to Haaretz newspaper."

• Jonah Valdez: Video of sexual abuse at Israeli prison is just latest evidence Sde Teiman is a torture site.

• Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [08-12] Nearly 2% of Gazans killed in last 10 months: "Harris laments bombing of shelters yet her administration just released $3.5B in more weapons to Israel."

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

• Jehad Abusalim: [08-17] How US policy in the Middle East is unravelling: "As we stand on the precipice of what could be a decisive turning point in the region's history, it is essential to ask how we got here."

• Peter Beinart: [08-18] Harris can change Biden's policy on Israel just by upholding the law. Beinart also posted:

  • [08-19] Joe Biden is not a hero: "Thoughts on the eve of the DNC."

• Dave DeCamp: [08-13] State Department approves over $20 billion arms package for Israel: "It's unclear how much of the massive weapons sale will be funded by US military aid."

• Belén Fernández: [08-14] 'Less flexible?' Just say it, NYT, Israel is sabotaging a ceasefire deal: "Israel has been sabotaging efforts for peace since long before the beginning of this latest round of slaughter in Gaza."

• Ishaan Tharoor:

  • [08-12] Israeli leaders keep saying the quiet part out loud: "Israel is frequently shielded from censure on the global stage by Western powers whose arguments defending Israel get undercut by Israeli officials themselves."

  • [08-16] The war in Gaza passes a bleak, bloody milestone: "Health authorities in Gaza say the death toll in the territory has surpassed 40,000 people. Meanwhile, Israel has stepped up its de facto capture of Palestinian land in the West Bank."

• Robert Wright: [08-16] America's out-of-control client states: Picture Zelensky and Netanyahu, which hardly exhausts the subject: lacking a coherent sense of its own interests, and unable to see the world as anything else, US foreign policy is easily steered by its supposed clients, whose interests are distinctly their own. One could illustrate this same dynamic using east Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, probably Indonesia and Australia). South Asia, lacking traditional alliances, is even more muddled. In Europe, NATO was supposed to function as a benign, painless occupation, but now Europeans are jockeying for position, and often calling the shots. And Africa? If you have any clue what's going on there, you clearly don't work in AFRICOM. Latin America is another mess, where the US has lost all of its allies, and now only clings to memory of its enemies. But Ukraine's incursion into Russia, and Israel taking pot shots as far afield as Iran and Yemen, are increasingly outlandish, and dangerous.

• Alexander Ward/Nancy A Youssef: [08-15] The missteps in Washington and Tehran that brought Middle East to the brink.

• Writers Against the War on Gaza: [08-16] 'Words like slaughter': a comparative study of The New York Times reporting in Ukraine and Gaza. "An in-depth comparison of The New York Times coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine vs. Israel's genocidal war on Gaza shows how the Times dutifully launders the news to fit the U.S. government's agenda."

Israel vs. world opinion:

• Abdullah Al-Arian: [08-14] Why Arab regimes' betrayal of Palestine may come back to haunt them. Maybe, but the phrase "learned helplessness" -- which I've seen in various contexts of late -- comes to mind. They tried declaring their solidarity with Palestinians, and even went to war against Israel -- most notably in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973, plus numerous skirmishes, with Iraq's Scud missile attacks in 1990 a "last hurrah" -- to no avail. They tried negotiating peace, which Israel only allowed on terms injurious to Palestinians. The Palestinians themselves passed through both phases, multiple times, getting screwed both ways. The "Abraham Accords" promised normalcy through commerce but just made Israel more arrogant, leaving Hamas so desperate they resorted to what was effectively a suicide bombing. No doubt most people in the Arab (and other Muslim) countries feel more solidarity than their leaders, which could make it a potent issue when and if the outs -- which is nearly everybody -- rise up against the ins, for whom this is but one of many discrediting issues.

  Israel doesn't care. What's the worst case scenario for them? Say, Saudi Arabia is overthrown by a novel Islamo-Fascist party -- the term has never been more than an idle slander before, but if you start from the Nazi notion of a Third Reich (this one would seek to revive the Abassid and Ottoman Empires, which can provide plenty of Islamic trappings to pave the way to war) -- which then moves on to form alliances with Egypt, Iran, and/or Turkey (each susceptible in their own ways to such thinking), Israel could simply respond by obliterating them all with nuclear weapons -- and could depend on the US as backup. Some Israelis may even relish the challenge, as cover for finishing off the Palestinians, and extending their settlements onto the East Bank.

  Needless to say, no actual Arab political leader is thinking even remotely along these lines. Even ISIS isn't ambitious enough to challenge Israel. The only way this situation can be resolved -- the only way Palestinians can finally catch a break -- is if/when Israel decides to change course. To paraphrase Golda Meir, "Peace will come when the Israelis will love their children more than they hate Palestinians." That's not happening soon, and there's not a damn thing Arabs, including Palestinians, can do about it. (Well, the BDS work is good; the UN, the ICJ; the protests in the US and Europe directed at curtailing support Israel still depends on for its warmaking. Threats and acts of violence against Israelis and/or their supporters abroad are more likely to do harm than good.) Related here:

  • Ussama Makdisi: [03-01] Why Arab states are failing the Palestinian people: "After decades of a successful US-Israeli drive to marginalise the Palestinian cause, regional leaders have fallen in line -- but Arab peoples have not."

  • David Hearst: [01-19] Arab despots' failure to stand up to Israel could fuel an explosion: "As the Palestinian death toll mounts, anger is boiling across the region. The rulers of Egypt and the Gulf states should beware."

  • Madawi al-Rasheed: [05-16] Saudi Arabia: Why Mohammed bin Salman failed Gaza: "The Saudi crown prince has drifted from the old quest to lead the Arab world because he is concerned about his own leadership at home."

• Alain Alameddine/Nira Iny: [08-17] Germany was never denazified. That's why it's siding with Israel today. "The Allies failed to denazify Europe by failing to dismantle the political foundations their own nations shared with the Nazi regime. Europeans need not repeat that mistake." I don't buy this argument on any level. There was an explicit denazification program in the late 1940s. It was narrow and shallow, and abandoned shortly, as it turned out that the most anti-communist Germans the West needed after partition had Nazi backgrounds, and by then simple disavowal seemed like a satisfactory compromise.

  The real change of heart occurred in the 1960s, when a new generation came of age, and was eager to break with the past. That's when acknowledgment of the Holocaust started to appear in German literature, e.g., the plays of Rolf Hochhuth and Peter Weiss. That also happened after Israel tried Eichmann, and started lobbying Germany for reparations -- not just money, but recognition that Israel alone represented the survivors of the Holocaust. That was a good deal for Israel. What Germans got out of it is less tangible, but they could afford some charity to feel and look better, and having no Jewish population of their own, they could easily equate Jews with Israelis.

  That Israel would eventually manifest symptoms of Nazism was unforeseen, and may still be bewildering. As far as I can tell, no western state that supports Israel does so because they're in favor of the genocide. Most go to great lengths to deny that Israel is doing any such thing, and to insist that Israel is only defending itself, as is assumed to be their right. Where Germany is exceptional is in how dogmatically they equate antisemitism, which they are well trained to eschew, with any criticism of Israel. But that has more to do with the fact that they were once ruled by Nazis than that they still feel the urges that once drove them to genocide.

• Omer Bartov: [08-14] As a former IDF soldier and historian of genocide, I was deeply disturbed by my recent visit to Israel: "This summer, one of my lectures was protested by far-right students. Their rhetoric brought to mind some of the darkest moments of 20th-century history -- and overlapped with mainstream Israeli views to a shocking degree." Following is a long quote, but virtually all of it is needed to get a sense of how ordinary Israelis are considering events. This is preceded by a long section on Bartov's own experiences in the IDF and in studying Nazi Germany and how soldiers are trained to commit war crimes. That has much bearing on how IDF soldiers are fighting this war, but their popular support (or at least forbearance) is something different. Although Israel prides itself on being a democracy -- at least for some of the people, some of the time -- there has long been a divide between the political/military class, who are trained to lead and fight, and the elect citizenry, who are terrorized and ingrained with propaganda, so they will follow and fight (as ordered).

  Today, across vast swaths of the Israeli public, including those who oppose the government, two sentiments reign supreme.

  The first is a combination of rage and fear, a desire to re-establish security at any cost and a complete distrust of political solutions, negotiations and reconciliation. The military theorist Carl von Clausewitz noted that war was the extension of politics by other means, and warned that without a defined political objective it would lead to limitless destruction. The sentiment that now prevails in Israel similarly threatens to make war into its own end. In this view, politics is an obstacle to achieving goals rather than a means to limit destruction. This is a view that can only ultimately lead to self-annihilation.

  The second reigning sentiment -- or rather lack of sentiment -- is the flipside of the first. It is the utter inability of Israeli society today to feel any empathy for the population of Gaza. The majority, it seems, do not even want to know what is happening in Gaza, and this desire is reflected in TV coverage. Israeli television news these days usually begins with reports on the funerals of soldiers, invariably described as heroes, fallen in the fighting in Gaza, followed by estimates of how many Hamas fighters were "liquidated." References to Palestinian civilian deaths are rare and normally presented as part of enemy propaganda or as a cause for unwelcome international pressure. In the face of so much death, this deafening silence now seems like its own form of vengefulness.

  Of course, the Israeli public long ago became inured to the brutal occupation that has characterised the country for 57 out of the 76 years of its existence. But the scale of what is being perpetrated in Gaza right now by the IDF is as unprecedented as the complete indifference of most Israelis to what is being done in their name. In 1982, hundreds of thousands of Israelis protested against the massacre of the Palestinian population in the refugee camps Sabra and Shatila in western Beirut by Maronite Christian militias, facilitated by the IDF. Today, this kind of response is inconceivable. The way people's eyes glaze over whenever one mentions the suffering of Palestinian civilians, and the deaths of thousands of children and women and elderly people, is deeply unsettling.

  In theory, the political/military class serves at the sufferance of the voters, but for all intents and purposes, the voters only exist to ratify their leaders, who have been carefully selected through decades of conflict and combat. As Americans, we should know what that feels like, although we feel it less intensely: our businesses are booming, our wars are more distant and less intrusive, our homeland more secure, our history unclouded by Holocaust paranoia. Still, our information is manipulated, our options are selected and limited, and our attention diverted, so how responsible are we for our leaders, let alone for what they do once elected?

  By the way, I also ran across this article Bartov wrote early on: [2023-11-10] What I believe as a historian of genocide. His article starts: "Israeli military operations have created an untenable humanitarian crisis, which will only worsen over time." He then asks whether those military operations constitute genocide, and tries his best to answer "not yet."

• Marco Carnelos: [08-19] European leaders are stoking the flames of a Middle East inferno: "Their wilful blindness to Israel's atrocities in Gaza, and their refusal to hold Netanyahu to account, could sharply escalate the conflict." The author has been following European leaders, to little avail:

  • [2023-10-31] Europe's shameful complicity in Israel's war on Gaza: "Governments have failed to condemn Israel's disproportionate retaliation and the collective punishment of Gaza's civilian population."

  • [02-21] Is Europe finally turning up the heat on Israel? Not really.

• Juan Cole: [08-16] Saudi Crown Prince fears assassination if he recognizes Israel without getting a Palestinian state. Draws on:

  • Nahal Toosi: [08-14] The Saudi Crown Prince is talking about an assassination. His own.

• Hamid Dabashi: [08-18] Thanks to Gaza, European philosophy has been exposed as ethically bankrupt: "From Heidegger's Nazism to Habermas's Zionism, the suffering of the 'Other' is of little consequence." Just noted, not something I'm interested in digging into at the moment, but I will note that back in the 1970s, my interest in the Frankfurt School hit a brick wall when I attempted to read one of his major works (probably Knowledge and Human Interests) and failed to retain anything useful from it (not even rejection). While I know a bit more, and care a bit less, about Heidegger, that's a pretty narrow slice of European philosophy to attempt to generalize from. As for Habermas's cheerleading for Israel against Hamas, I noted that his principle statement -- a joint letter -- was from relatively early in the genocide (Nov. 13), so I wondered if he had since thought better. A quick search didn't reveal anything, but I will note this:

  • [2023-11-22] The principle of human dignity must apply to all people: A response to the "statement issued by German academics" (including Habermas) by "Adam Tooze, Samuel Moyn, Amia Srinivasan and others."

  • Philip Oltermann: [2023-11-22] Israel-Hamas war opens up German debate over meaning of 'Never again': "Intellectuals clash over country's traditional commitment to defence of Israel amid bloodshed in Gaza."

• Chip Gibbons/Nathan Fuller: [08-16] More than 100 journalists come together with their fellow journalists in Palestine and against US complicity in their killing.

• Miles Howe: [08-17] Revocation of the JNF's charitable status indicates massive shift in how Canada views the Israeli occupation: "The revocation of the Jewish National Fund's and Ne'eman Foundation's charitable status suggests a massive shift is underway in how Canada views the illicit funding of West Bank settlements following the ICJ's opinion on the Israeli occupation."

• Sarah Jones: [08-19] Gaza is the defining moral issue of our time: Agreed that "what's happening in Gaza today is a moral outrage and an ongoing genocide, and our reaction to it will shape who we are as a nation." I'd add that that's been the case since around Oct. 10, around the time when Israel repulsed the last Hamas fighters and re-sealed the breached walls around Gaza. A unilateral Israeli ceasefire at that point would have ended the war, leaving Gaza badly damaged, but few would have faulted Israel for that. Continuing the bombing for a week or two more before a ceasefire would have made the point that Israelis are vindictive bastards, which should have been unnecessary, but given how much worse it could be, we would have sighed in relief. There's no excuse for what they've done ever since then, and even if they can't see that, there's no reason for the US, Europe, and everyone else to make excuses, let alone aid and abet, their genocide.

  On the other hand, one thing I had to come to grips with after Oct. 7 was that moral judgments are a luxury that presume a degree of free choice. I don't have time to go back through those issues -- you can check my old columns from Oct. 2023 on, which hold up pretty well (though may have been a bit too generous toward Israel). One thing I do want to emphasize here is that I think moral judgments are unnecessary and sometimes dangerous luxuries in politics. For most of us, moral judgments give us essential perspective on the world. But politicians have to operate in a different world, one where being "right" signifies very little, and what you can do is often quite constrained. I can comfortably say that Netanyahu is immoral for wanting to prosecute his war, and that Biden is immoral for not restraining him, but I understand that what Harris can actually do is very limited, and may not be helped by saying the right things (as Jones wants her to do -- that is the point of the article). I think that we should judge Biden harshly for what he has said, done, and not done, but I'm not yet prepared to say the same about Harris. Moreover, while I would like for her to take what I consider proper positions, I understand that as VP under Biden, and as the Democratic nominee for president, she is operating under constraints where saying the right things may not contribute to the right actions, and may even complicate them.

• Ahmed Khan: [08-16] I left Biden's campaign over Gaza. Here's how Harris can earn my trust again.

• Joseph Massad: [03-20] In the West, Israel never initiates violence, it only 'retaliates': "In the western narrative, it is the Palestinians who initiated violence by daring to resist racist and colonial Zionist violence, which is why their resistance can never be called 'retaliation.'" He notes that their choice of language is not new or peculiar to Israel: "The New York Times referred to the white Rhodesians' killing of 1,600 Africans in Zambian refugee camps in 1978 as 'retaliatory raids.'"

• Craig Mokhiber: [08-12] The ICJ finds that BDS is not merely a right, but an obligation: "The ICJ's authoritative ruling on the Israeli occupation makes clear that boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israeli occupation, colonization, and apartheid are not only a moral imperative but also a legal obligation."

• Jeff Wright: [08-11] In significant reversal, Church of England head says Israeli occupation must end following ICJ opinion: "'The [recent] Advisory Opinion by the International Court of Justice,' Archbishop Justin Welby writes, 'makes definitively clear that Israel's presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is unlawful and needs to end as rapidly as possible.'"

Election notes:

• Sasha Abramsky: [08-16] Arizona's abortion access measure is more bad news for Trump: "The GOP has been desperately trying -- and failing -- to shift the public's attention onto other issues."

• Jonathan Chait: [08-12] The media's double standard favors Donald Trump, not Kamala Harris: "Conservative complaints about bias miss the point." Some of it's just "working the refs," which has worked fairly well for them, especially on some metrics like unchecked lies and innuendos that get repeated as if they're straight news. But it also mocks the very notion of bias.

• Isaac Chotiner: [08-17] What the latest presidential polls say and what they might be missing: Interview with Nate Cohn. For his latest, see:

  • Nate Cohn: [08-16] The polls have shifted toward Harris. Is it real, or something else?

• Ed Kilgore:

  • [08-12] Harris vs. Trump polls: Kamala's gains are now a trend, not just a bounce: "According to the FiveThirtyEight national polling averages, Harris is leading Trump by 2.7 percent (46.0 to 43.3 percent), with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at 4.9 percent. When Biden dropped out, he was trailing in the same averages by 3.2 percent."

  • [08-12] Abortion is on the ballot in two big battleground states: Add Arizona and Nevada to the list.

• John Nichols: [08-15] Ilhan Omar's very big, very important win: "Running as an outspoken supporter of a ceasefire in Gaza, Omar dramatically increased her Democratic primary victory margin." Having survived previous attempts to primary her, AIPAC made her less of a priority than Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush. Still, she did face opposition:

  • Jacqueline Sweet: Inside the "Zionists for Don Samuels" WhatsApp group raising big money to oust Ilham Omar.

  • Aaron Sobczak: [08-12] AIPAC had some recent wins but it isn't invincible.

• Jennifer Rubin: [08-12] The debate is a critical opportunity for media to regain credibility: "Asking hard questions with follow ups shouldn't be that hard." But it is, partly because so many in the media have really warped notions of hard and soft, and partly because politicians are well schooled in the art of avoiding questions and pivoting to their sound bites.

Trump:

• Charles M Blow: [08-14] Another 'nasty' woman strikes fear in Trump: "But when Trump talks about women who in any way challenge his power, his rhetoric drips with sexism. In recent days, he has referred to Harris as 'incompetent,' 'nasty' and 'not smart.'"

• Jamelle Bouie:

  • [08-13] What the Republican Party might look like if Trump loses.

  • [08-16] Trump has opened the pathway to reform: Not really, unless he thinks Trump is going to lose so badly that Democrats will be able to implement his major reforms -- he starts with "end the electoral college and move to a national popular vote," removing all the vote suppression and gerrymanders that have allowed Republicans to claim elections, and ending the filibuster, which allows a minority party to frustrate change. Oh yes, also "reform of the entire federal judiciary." Only when denied such cheats will Republicans be forced to become good citizens, and compete for real majority rule -- in which case, would they still be conservatives? And in any case, why credit Trump with "opening the pathway to reform" when all he did was to reduce the old elitism and crony corruption ad absurdum?

    Bouie is usually a pretty smart guy, so I really don't get what he's driving at here. He writes, "The United States will always have a conservative party," but why? Do we really need a party that is dedicated to plutocracy? To keeping most people poor, in debt, and powerless? To promoting racism and violence? To a police state that protects fraud and rackets? There will always be a place for what's called "conservative" personal values, but why should such values be incompatible with conscientious and respectful government, fair business, law and order, a sense of public interest, a generous safety net, and broad-based equality? Republicans have to cheat, because what they want is fundamentally unacceptable to a majority of the people. Democrats don't have to cheat. They just have to get out and run to honestly represent the people in their districts.

    If half of the Republicans in the Senate were to lose next time out, the Senate would not be suddenly flooded with socialists like Bernie Sanders and liberals like Elizabeth Warren. They'd wind up with a lot more people like John Tester and Joe Manchin, who would be nearly as conservative on personal principles as the Republicans they replaced, but at least believe in honest, functional government, like Democrats do, and may be a bit more tolerant of diversity, because they'll see more people as allies and less as threats to their delicately perched minoritarian rule.

    And if Democrats did succeed in representing everyone (without or even with the 1%), which is clearly the goal, what the hell do we need Republicans for anyway? They can go the way of the Know Nothings and the Mugwumps, for all I care.

    Oh, one more thing: anyone who wants to talk about reforming democratic institutions without starting at money should be hooted out of the room. The number one threat to democracy is money. And we know this because we've already seen it at work. And even though the Democratic Party still gives lip service to democracy, they've been afflicted as badly as the Republicans. The only difference is that the Republicans brag about the power of money in their party, while Democrats just whisper about it -- a hypocrisy that paradoxically makes them look even more corrupt, and makes ordinary people all the more upset at them.

• Philip Bump:

  • [08-12] 'AI' crowds and unskewed polls: Trump prepares to reject another loss: "The former president's recent rejection of obvious realities indicates that he is not planning to treat a negative 2024 outcome as legitimate."

  • [08-15] New hidden camera video reinforces Trump's Project 2025 problem.

• Jonathan Chait:

  • [08-12] Losing makes Trump crazier, and being crazy makes him lose: "A candidate's mental-health death spiral."

  • [08-19] Trump proposes ban on criticizing pro-Trump judges: "He is not a big free-speech guy."

• Kevin T Dugan: [08-12] Traders are having a hard time staying bullish on Trump media.

• Tom Engelhardt: [08-15] Why voting for Donald Trump is a suicidal act. His main thing has always been the folly of empire, but lately he keeps circling back to climate change, with increasingly dire consequences.

• Michelle Goldberg: [08-16] Trump is no longer even pretending to champion the working class.

• Margaret Hartmann:

  • [08-12] Trump is very confused, or lying, about helicopter story.

  • [08-12] The chaotic history of Donald Trump & Elon Musk's alliance.

  • [08-16] Trump can't hide jealousy over Kamala Harris Time cover.

  • [08-16] Trump says medal he gave donor is 'much better' than the Medal of Honor: In 2018 he awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom to his megadonor Miriam Adelson.

  • [08-19] Trump eagerly accepts fake Taylor Swift endorsement: "He's so desperate for Swift's support that he fell for a news article clearly marked 'satire' and some AI-generated 'Swifties for Trump' images."

• Ellen Ioanes: [08-12] What we know about Trump's claim that Iran hacked his campaign.

• Jeet Heer: [08-16] Donald Trump is already planting the seeds of the next insurrection: "Insecure and contemplating defeat, the former president returns to a familiar script." This, of course, speaks to his character and nature. No doubt he will whine and lie, threaten and cajole. He may animate some of his usual surrogates, assuming they're not yet in jail. But he's not going to have anywhere near the credibility and resources he had as sitting president. He might organize a rally, but they're not getting anywhere close to the Capitol. He might try the fake elector slate again, but with indictments still hanging over their heads in Arizona and Georgia, it's less likely to happen. And the immunity the Supreme Court seems to have granted him in 2020 won't be applicable this time. At some point, even his hand-picked Justices are going to throw him under the bus. And the military is not going to rise up like some Praetorian Guard declaring him Caesar. Of course, if the election hangs by a thread, it's going to be loudly contested through the courts, where he plausibly has chances slightly above 50-50. But if he loses by a clear margin (like 3%, with 30+ electoral votes) there's nothing much he can do about it. The question then will be whether he wants to martyr himself, or settle and plea bargain. No matter his distasteful he considers the latter, I doubt he has the constitution for the former.

• Ed Kilgore: [08-15] Trump xenophobia reaches its apex in racist campaign post: "A post from Trump's campaign embraces the 'great replacement theory,' with Kamala Harris as the evil engineer of American carnage."

• Whizy Kim: [08-13] Why Musk and Trump are on the same side: "The richest man in the world and the former president's glitchy, cringeworthy interview, explained."

• Leon Krauze: [08-12] What deporting 15 million people would look like. Even here, Trump's mass deportation fantasy still looks like idle talk. When I hear things like this, I try to imagine what it would actually require. As near as I can figure, this is how it would have to work (in order to work, which is supposedly the goal, but not the most likely result):

  1. Due process would have to be short-circuited (to some extent it already is, but we're talking much more extremely). Normally, the courts would object, but Trump judges may not.
  2. You'd need a national identity system, so you can efficiently sort out people, to determine whether they stay or go. To enforce compliance, you may have to arrest massive numbers of people, just to get them into the system. Enforcement is likely to involve a lot of profiling.
  3. You'd need a massive expansion of enforcement and detention resources. How massive depends on effectively the first two points are implemented, but even if they're very efficient, you'll still need a lot.
  4. You'll need to greatly expand monitoring and surveillance, especially of businesses.
  5. You might consider expanding your network by offering bounties, which would provide incentives for all sorts of abuse, and probably produce some uncomfortable blowback.
  6. After all, the more you criminalize what many people accept as normal behavior, the less respect people have for law and justice, so you're likely to see a much broader increase in crime.
  7. One should also note that a government that is willing to do all these things to punish immigrants isn't likely to treat its own citizens much better. Immigrants aren't the only people Republicans despise and disrespect.

  While there are people who would applaud such a proposal, their numbers are small, and their influence is limited. Republicans talk a big game, but they're not very good at actually doing things -- nor, really, about thinking practically. The Iran nuclear deal is a fair example: the only way to insure compliance to negotiate a deal that would allow for inspections, but would also give Iran some incentive to comply, with little risk to their own security. No other way was possible, but Republicans (following Netanyahu's lead, as usual) preferred threats and projection of force. You know what happened after Trump ended the deal.

  Republicans would rather yell about something than deal with it. That's why Trump killed a border security bill that Republicans had threatened to shut down the government to demand, one that Biden was willing (and perhaps even eager) to accede to. He wants to run on the issue, and he wants to build monuments to his vanity like his border wall, and he has no qualms about inflicting cruelty on the immigrants, but he isn't serious about fixing the problem. His threats may be less transparently phony than Romney's solution of "self-deportion," but they're still just threats -- accented, true enough, with performative cruelty, because the Republican base eats that up. But does the base want identity cards and bounty hunters? And are the donors willing to sacrifice all that cheap labor? The notion that deposed union workers from the coal mines and factories are going to going to flock to Texas and California to pick lettuce and strawberries, or to west Kansas to slaughter beef, is fantasy. You're talking about deporting 5% of the people who live and work in the country. You think Washington's lobbyists are going to pay for that?

• Chris Lehmann:

  • [08-13] The true source of Trump's delusions: the gospel of positive thinking: "Trump's obsession with crowd sizes is part of his lifelong quest to prevent reality from blocking his fath to success." Sure, there's something to this, but the seed planted by Norman Vincent Peale was relatively benign for most people, but with Trump was planted in the soil of class privilege and monstrous ego. Also, note that Trump knew Peale personally (much as he knew Roy Cohn), which helped to make his revelation seem like personal destiny. (The Bushes had a similar relationship to Billy Graham, who most of us only knew via TV.)

  • [08-14] The press has the Trump campaign e-mails. Why haven't we seen them? "The media went berserk over Hillary Clinton's leaked e-mails in 2016. But when Trump campaign messages leaked this year, standards changed."

• Ruth Marcus: [08-14] Trump's no Nixon. He doesn't deserve a pardon. My first reaction was Nixon didn't deserve a pardon either, and then when I started weighing them against one another, I still believe that Nixon was much worse. Granted, his margin was largely on things (war crimes) he never would have been prosecuted for in the first place. The actual (or for Nixon potential) prosecutions are comparable in that they were not just crimes against democracy but against the Democratic Party, made even worse by the cover ups. And there, at least, Trump far exceeded Nixon, who at least had the decency to retreat into political irrelevancy -- and thereby proving that even the worst criminals can be rendered harmless by removing them from the conditions that made their crimes possible. That may be a useful guideline for dealing with Trump: take away his political ambitions, his soap boxes, nearly all of his money, and it may not matter whether he spends his remaining days in prison. On the other hand, if he doesn't, he will always be an example of the American justice system's favoritism. That he has gotten away with so much for so long means that those who fear for the integrity of the system have already lost.

• Meridith McGraw/Adam Wren/Natalie Allison/Adam Cancryn: [06-22] Trump keeps flip-flopping his policy positions after meeting with rich people.

• Edith Olmsted: [08-19] Trump's rare attempt to stay on message ends in disaster: "Donald Trump gave a low-energy speech that elicited few cheers from the audience."

• Charles P Pierce:

  • [08-20] The simple reason Trump can't run a campaign about policy: "Asking this guy to show 'self-discipline' at this point in his career is like yelling at Niagara Falls to dry up."

  • [08-13] Whoops, Trump and Elon Musk's Xwitter convo didn't go over well with the United Auto Workers: "The Internet may be laughing at them, but Shawn Fain is not."

• Jessica Piper: [08-20] GOP megadonor drops another $50M into pro-Trump super PAC: "Timothy Mellon has now given $115 million this cycle to the group." Mellon has also given $25 million to a super PAC for Robert F Kennedy Jr., who now seems likely to drop out.

• Nia Prater: [08-12] What we know about the Trump-campaign hack.

• Brian Schwartz: [08-16] GOP megadonor Miriam Adelson plans to do whatever it takes to help Trump win with $100 million PAC: "The Adelsons donated nearly $90 million to a pro-Trump PAC in 2020. Miriam Adelson could be Trump's biggest financial booster by Election Day."

• Dylan Scott: [08-14] Trump's campaign against public health is back on: "The former president says he'll block funding for US schools that require vaccines."

• Matt Stieb: [08-12] Trump-Musk meeting begins with X meltdown.

• Rodney Tiffen: [08-11] How Rupert Murdoch helped create a monster -- the era of Trumpism -- and then lost control of it.

• Michael Tomasky: [08-16] Donald Trump has no idea what has hit him, and it's a joy to watch: "He's had yet another horrible week. The old tricks aren't working. Kamala Harris does not fear him. And it's showing in the numbers."

• Li Zhou: [08-09] Trump's ever-shifting position on abortion, explained (as best as possible).

• No More Mr Nice Blog: [] The other W word:

  I am all in on the One Weird Trick Democrats have found -- calling Republicans "weird." It works because the GOP ticket is, let's face it, a couple of fucking weirdos, but it goes way beyond them to encompass the party as a whole: their weird conspiracy theories, their weird obsession with children's genitalia, their weird and creepy compulsion to control women.

  But I'm wondering if there might also be gold in another, more Trump-specific line of attack. Because the thing is, Trump is just really, really whiny.

  Trump complains a lot. Like, all the fucking time. He complains morning, noon, and into the wee hours of the night. He complains about being held accountable for his numerous crimes, and he complains about anyone mentioning his convictions. He complains about the polls. He complains about the fact that things change in a campaign, then he turns around and complains about his own campaign's inability to force him to adjust to change. He complains about the microphone, his teleprompters, sound system, and imaginary supporters being denied entry at his rallies. And yesterday he complained about "audio issues" on the X call that, he claims, were responsible for his lisp. There's a case to be made that Trump is the whiniest whiner in the whole whiny history of whinerdom.

Vance:

• Sam Adams: [07-30] The Hillbilly Elegy movie undercuts JD Vance's whole message: "His VP nomination made the biopic a Netflix hit. That may not help him."

• Zack Beauchamp: [08-13] The right's plan to fix America: Patriarchy 2.0: "JD Vance and like-minded conservatives are theorizing a kind of "neopatriarchy."

• Jeet Heer: [08-09] Why JD Vance is unpopular and Project 2025 has gone underground: "The Heritage Foundation's attempt to produce an intellectual and wonkish Trumpism turns off voters."

• David Kurtz: [08-15] With JD Vance, things just get weirder and weirder.

• Amanda Marcotte: [08-16] JD Vance isn't just out to get cat ladies -- his weird plans target dog people and grandmas, too.

• Charles P Pierce: He's into short blog entries on a wide range of subjects, but we have a cluster on Vance recently, to which I may add a couple extras:

  • [08-17] JD Vance responded to an immigration question by recommending the movie Gangs of New York: "Just checking in on who he alienated today."

  • 08-15] JD Vance apparently thinks Amazon funded the Black Lives Movement: "It's increasingly hard to believe they vetted this guy."

  • [08-14] Working conditions at that JD Vance-funded farming start-up sound wretched: "Did Trump not know this or did he just not care?"

  • [08-07] Tim Walz's crack about JD Vance's couch hits right where Republicans deserve it: "Cue the hand-wringing, which is a bit rich coming from this party."

  • [08-03] JD Vance is stunningly ignorant about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? You don't say. "Before Lloyd Austin killed KSM's plea deal, the VP candidate had some choice drivel to share on the subject."

  • [07-29] JD Vance may be the worst politician I've ever seen.

• Katha Pollitt: [08-15] Jack Posobiec calls leftists "unhuman." JD Vance seems to agree. "The alt-right grifter's new book echoes and endorses fascist rhetoric. And the Republican vice presidential candidate blurbed it."

• Nathan J Robinson: [07-31] The horrifying fascist manifesto endorsed by JD Vance: "A disturbing book plans a ruthless total war against the 'unhuman' left." Opening paragraph:

  The book Unhumans, by Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec, is a fascist manifesto. It argues that the "Great Men of History" should take their cues from homicidal dictators like Augusto Pinochet and Francisco Franco, reject reason and democracy, and ruthlessly annihilate the gangs of communist "unhumans" who are currently threatening to destroy the United States. It explicitly advocates "eye for an eye" justice, promising a new McCarthyism complete with blacklists, along with the immediate banning of all teachers' unions. It is perhaps the most paranoid, hateful, and terrifying book I have ever picked up. (I say this as someone who has read Mein Kampf.) And it comes with a warm and supportive blurb from Ohio senator J.D. Vance, who is currently the Republican party's vice presidential nominee.

• Matt Stieb: [08-16] Understanding JD Vance's exciting vision for women: "As the campaign slogs on, we're getting a better view into JD Vance's archaic thoughts about women."

• [07-22] Liberals are to blame for the rise of JD Vance: "The long embrace of 'responsible conservatives' has always been dangerous." This piece goes much farther back than 2016, when Vance's book enjoyed a brief vogue among liberals who were troubled by Trump's gains in Appalachia -- although even then locals were quick to spot him as a phony and charlatan. (I've recently cited whole books to that effect; e.g., Elizabeth Catte's What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia; you might also look at her 2017 article, The mythical whiteness of Trump country.) On the other hand, liberal naivete had much less to do with Vance's "rise" to the Senate and possibly Vice-President than Peter Thiel's billions.

• Ian Ward: [08-09] We mapped JD Vance's inner circle: "Silicon Valley donors, MAGA allies, and political operatives: The networks behind Trump's VP pick."

• Jessica Winter: [08-16] The story that Hillbilly Elegy doesn't tell: "Like many memoirs, JD Vance's book misses a few details, some of which complicate the story upon which he has based much of his politics."

And other Republicans:

• Project 2025:

  • Sarah Jones: [08-15] Project 2025 is still a threat: "Its architects know just how to gut the federal government."

  • Shawn Musgrave: Project 2025 co-author caught admitting the secret conservative plan to ban porn.

  • Liz Theoharis/Shailly Gupta Barnes: [08-08] Project 2025 is coming for your rights: "The wholesale capture of the state is the ultimate goal of its Christian nationalist architects."

  • Marina Villeneuve: [08-16] Experts warn "don't be fooled" by Trump's Project 2025 denials: His "fingerprints are all over it".

• Laura Flanders: [08-16] What is political violence? "A conversation about MAGA's militancy and the strategies to protect Democracy."

• James Goodwin: [07-01] Inside Project 2025: "Backed by the Heritage Foundation, the initiative seeks to undermine longstanding safeguards against abuses of executive power."

• Rick Perlstein: [08-14] The neighborliness option: On Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

• Charles P Pierce: [08-12] Get a load of Project 2025's horrifying series of "training" videos: "The vibe is like if a bunch of Scientologists took over a Model UN."

• Nia Prater: [08=-19] George Santos is facing years in prison: The former R-NY House Representative seems to have negotiated a plea deal.

Harris:

• Perry Bacon Jr.: [08-13] It's not just vibes. Harris is polling really well. "Her better-than-expected numbers are creating optimism, but Trump can still win."

• Robert L Borosage: [08-13] It's not about Harris "moving to the center": Responding to a spate of recent articles urging Harris to "move to the center" or reprimanding her for not doing so conspicuously enough. I wrote enough about Jonathan Chait last week, but Borosage adds this:

  New York magazine's Jonathan Chait, the relentless Javert on the hunt for any progressive stirring, argues that to make up for Walz, Harris needs to adopt positions "that will upset progressive activists" and "understand that the likelihood a given action or statement will create complaints on the left is a reason to do something, rather than a reason not to."

  Chait doesn't deign to reveal how Harris should rile her base. Instead, he invokes Trump as a model, arguing that the Donald's "softening" of the abortion plank at the Republican convention "was a smart move to reduce the party's exposure to unpopular positions" and didn't cause a fracturing of the party, despite grousing from anti-abortion zealots.

  Really? It takes a fervid imagination to believe that Trump's cynical repositioning on abortion makes a whit of difference to voters concerned about the reversal of Roe v. Wade. The only thing Trump gained was the admiration of pundits like Chait who consider such political posturing to be sophisticated.

  But when Trump waffles, his people know he's dissembling and don't care: they trust him to stay true, at least to their core emotional bonds. But who trusts a Democrat? They say one thing, do another, always looking for compromises to reconcile everyone and satisfy no one. The perception that HRC was crooked destroyed her. On the other hand, you could understanding that Trump was far more crooked, and take that as a badge of character. What Harris and Walz need to do is to show some character and commitment, and the worst way to do that is to reassure donors and pundits they're no threat.

  The real challenge for Harris is not how she insults the left but how she makes herself into a credible champion of the economic concerns of working people. . . . Harris can't and shouldn't compete with those moved by Christian nationalism or racial division, but she can and should seek to cut away at his support by making a more compelling argument on what produced the economic distress and growing despair among working people, the obscene inequality that eviscerated the middle class -- and what can be done about it. . . .

  Her stump speech highlights her commitment to "an economy that works for working people" with a practical agenda -- paid family and medical leave, affordable childcare, taking on Big Pharma to lower drug prices, making healthcare more affordable. Walz reinforces that message because he's actually passed such measures in Minnesota. And much of this agenda was passed by the Democratic House in Biden's first two years, only to be blocked in the Senate by Republican opposition. As to "moving to the center," these are all incredibly popular programs, supported by the vast majority of Americans. . . .

  For this to bite, Harris must become more populist, not less. She must be clear that she will raise taxes on the rich to pay for affordable childcare, that she will take on Big Pharma to lower drug prices, break up corporate monopolies to lower prices, take on Big Oil and invest in renewable energy, addressing the accelerating climate catastrophe and capturing what already are the growth industries of the next decades. Again, the contrast with Donald Trump's promising oil executives that he'll do their bidding if they'll ante up $1 billion for his campaign is telling.

  As best I recall, all Democrats move left as elections approach, then move back center after they win, as they face entrenched lobby powers. I have little doubt that Harris will follow this usual arc. But the answers to most pressing problems are to the left. If they want to be taken seriously, they need to look in that direction. Otherwise, if they follow centrist scolds like Chait, they're as much as admitting they're hopeless. Borosage also cites:

  • Nate Cohn: [08-06] With Walz, Harris passes on a chance to redefine herself.

  • Washington Post: What Walz brings to the Harris campaign -- and what it still needs to show.

• Gabriel Debenedetti: [08-16] Kamala is a (border) cop: "How the Harris campaign plans to deal with the most common Republican line of attack."

• EJ Dionne Jr.: [08-11] Harris is beating Trump by transcending him: "The vice president and her running mate are achieving a radical shift in messaging."

• Kevin T Duan: [08-17] Kamala Harris wants to build 3 million houses. Is that enough?

• Abdallah Fayyad: [08-13] Trump and Harris agree on "no tax on tips." They're both wrong. "The policy looks less like a pro-worker tax credit and more like a big business tax cut." I accept that this was "Trump's idea" -- sure, he got it from Republican policy wonks, as did Ted Cruz, who has introduced legislation to that effect (see links below) -- but it's more interesting that Harris "stole the idea," rather than making any attempt to refute it. On its own, it isn't a very good policy idea, but by the time it turns into legislation, it will be a small part of something much worse (if Trump does it) or maybe not so bad (if Harris does it). It does make it much more possible to happen, because now it's a "bipartisan" idea, and who can object to that? Democrats like to present themselves as open to bipartisan ideas, even if they wind up rejecting most of what Republicans offer as such. (Actually, the only things Republicans offer as "bipartisan" are wedge issues designed to alienate Democratic voters from their donor-oriented leaders. NAFTA was a good example.) It also shows that the Harris campaign is flexible and quick to change direction when they see an opportunity. That's, well, not something Democrats are renowned for.

  My own reservations are largely because I really hate tipping and the whole gratuity-driven sector of the economy (which is part of the reason I've been so reluctant to put my cup out, despite all the poorly-compensated work I do for public consumption). I worry that exempting tips from taxation will just encourage more companies not just to offload their labor costs but to monetize their tip-making opportunities. I worry that exempting tips from taxation will result in more "gig workers," poorly regulated and often unprotected. On the other hand, I know that tips have never been properly accounted for, and that more stringent enforcement is likely to be onerous and unlikely to be cost-effective. A more honest economy would have less, not more, tipping. Fayyad also makes points about the nature and quality of working for tips, which I can well imagine is even worse than stated.

  A big part of the subtext is that Trump and the Republicans don't just want rich people to have to pay lower tax rates, they want to make it easier for them to cheat and pay even less (or nothing at all).

  • David Dayen: [08-11] A policy gimmick amid the joy: "Kamala Harris borrows from Donald Trump with a perk to the Culinary Union at a raucous rally in Las Vegas: eliminating taxes on tips."

  • Brendan Duke: [07-17] Sen. Ted Cruz's No Tax on Tips Act does little for low- and moderate-wage workers but opens door to tax abuse by wealthy.

  • Howard Gleckman: [06-17] Uptipped: Why Trump's tax cut promise would hurt many service workers.

  • Catherine Rampell: [08-13] Hot tip: Both parties should stop bribing voters with tax cuts: "Exempting tips from taxes is a terrible idea, regardless of which party is proposing it."

  • Washington Post: [08-14] Not taxing tips is a dumb gimmick. Harris is wrong to follow Trump.

• Nick Hanauer: [08-16] A very good sign: Kamala Harris is going right at corporate greed: "Greedy CEOs have milked the average American household for $12,000 since the pandemic. As a businessman, I can explain how they're doing it."

• Ginny Hogan: [08-14] Can Harris and Walz meme their way to the White House? "The online jokes are not just about having fun. They represent a new found political energy within the Democratic Party."

• Paul Krugman:

  • [08-15] Is it morning in Kamala Harris's America? That was supposed to be Reagan's winning formula, back in 1980, in a contest between optimism and "malaise." Clinton in 1992 and Obama in 2008 promised change, but couldn't (or wouldn't) deliver. Harris at least has the look of change, especially in contrast to Biden and Trump.

  • [08-12] Trump calls Harris a 'communist.' That shows how worried he is. Or how dumb he is? Or how old he is, given that he learned the charge from Roy Cohn, who was Joe McCarthy's lawyer (and McCarthy was a has-been when he died in 1957, when Trump was 10).

• Josh Marshall: [08-12] Team Happy vs Team Mad: "Team Mad" hardly need any explanation: they're mad not just as hell but as hatters, but I haven't heard of any presidential-level politician described as "happy" since Al Smith. (Maybe Hubert Humphrey, but I was around in 1968 and I don't remember him as being very happy that year.) But evidently this was already a thing with Harris in 2020:

  • Ed Kilgore: [2020-08-20] Kamala Harris enters the arena as a happy warrior. And now we're seeing things like this:

  • Phillip van Niekerk: [08-19] As Kamala the Happy Warrior surges past Trump, things are about to get nasty.

  As Marshall notes: "Happy isn't the only or most important part of a political campaign. Especially when there's quite a lot not to be happy about." On the other hand, when you're suddenly reprieved from impending doom, it's natural to feel down right euphoric. That will wear off soon enough, but not quite so quickly with a candidate who can smile and laugh as with one that can only snarl and scowl (and whine).

• Farah Stockman: [08-12] Harris should take divisions over Gaza seriously.

• Hunter Walker: [08-15] Bernie Sanders makes the progressive case for Kamala Harris.

Walz:

• Rebecca Jennings: [08-09] Tim Walz is riding the wave of the vibes election.

• Ed Kilgore: [08-12] Walz is trouncing Vance in the battle of the veeps.

• Nicolas Sawaya: [08-15] 'Strong record of supporting the US-Israel relationship': a look at Tim Walz's votes on Palestine as a member of Congress: "A review of Tim Walz's time in Congress from 2007 to 2018 shows he supported multiple Israeli wars on Gaza, rejected the international consensus on the illegality of West Bank settlements, and opposed any unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state." As did virtually every other member of Congress.

Biden:

• Joshua A Cohen: [08-16] When will the Biden dead-enders admit they were wrong? "Hey, can we circle back to when many supposedly intelligent people were making one of the most obviously ridiculous political arguments of all time?" I don't doubt that there are past debates worth circling back to in order to see who was right and who was wrong -- the war resolutions in 2001 (Afghanistan) and 2002 (Iraq) are still instructive, and even the Lincoln-Douglas debates (1858) are worth remembering -- but this one was just a flash in the pan. But at this point, are there still any "dead-enders" left to extirpate? Why be sore winners? It's a nasty habit, like desecrating the corpses of the slain. But in this case it's also a silly one. The "dead-enders" weren't even that -- unlike, e.g., those few Hillary Clinton supporters who carried their grudges well into Obama's winning campaign. They were simply trying their stiff-upper-lip best to be loyal to the presumptive nominee, a guy the rest of us would very probably have voted for in November, no matter how ill-advised we thought his candidacy. If any of them have since failed to support Harris, I haven't noticed. The only laments I have noticed came from Trump himself.

• David Dayen: [08-16] The inflation reduction act at two: "Challenges remain, but there's been a lot of progress on restoring an industrial base, creating union jobs, and transforming our energy economy."

• Harold Meyerson: [08-12] There are some damned good reasons why Joe Biden moved to the left: "Biden's economic progressivism has been both historic and (had he only been able to explain it) good politics." One thing this reminds me of is that Franklin Roosevelt was really good at explaining things. His bank holiday "fireside chat" was possibly the most brilliant thing any American president ever did. My other key thought here is that Democrats are expected not just to complain but to solve problems, and for most problems, the answers are to the left. That's one reason Republicans are so bad at governing: they keep looking right, running away from answers. There is also a long section here on Jonathan Chait, but you know about him already.

• Nicole Narea: [08-13] Biden wants to free you from all those subscriptions you meant to cancel but didn't: "It's the latest way Biden is trying to combat pesky 'junk fees' driving up prices."

And other Democrats:

• Colbert I King: A rerun of Chicago '68? Only if Harris lets it happen. The violence of 1968 was almost exclusively due to Mayor Daley and his police, so that part is unlikely to repeat. The wars, or at least the president's culpability, are very different, and so is the impact of those wars on the protesters. While Humphrey was the probable nominee, he still had to secure his nomination from a relatively open and contested convention, whereas Harris has this one sewn up. And while Israel/Gaza is divisive among the Democratic rank-and-file, I don't know of a single left-leaning Democrat who isn't supporting Harris. She needs to walk a fine line, both here and all the way to November. If she's really lucky, the ceasefire and prisoner exchange will kick in the day before the convention. If not, that's one more grudge to bear against Netanyahu.

• Ezra Klein: [08-18] Trump turned the Democratic Party into a pitiless machine. This could be a bit more succinct, but it frames the 2024 election well enough: on one side, you have a party of pragmatists who want to get good things done and will compromise to make that happen, and on the other side you have a self-aggrandizing nihilist criminal and his personal cult of dysfunctional maniacs, plus hangers-on who think they can wheedle some quick bucks.

  There is a contradiction at the heart of the Republican Party that does not exist at the heart of the Democratic Party. Democrats are united in their belief that the government can, and should, act on behalf of the public. To be on the party's far left is to believe the government should do much more. To be among its moderates is to believe it should do somewhat more. But all of the people elected as Democrats, from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Senator Joe Manchin, are there for the same reason: to use the power of the government to pursue their vision of the good. The divides are real and often bitter. But there is always room for negotiation because there is a fundamental commonality of purpose.

  The modern Republican Party, by contrast, is built upon a loathing of the government. Some of its members want to see the government shrunk and hamstrung. . . . The Trumpist faction is more focused on purging government institutions of the disloyal. . . . Either way, to become part of the government as it exists now -- to be engaged in the day-to-day process of governing -- is to open yourself to suspicion and potentially mark yourself for a later purge. . . . For the Republicans, if government is trying to do something, they want to try and stop it. Just reflexively. It is something that's bred into the Republican Party that makes it hard to maintain an organization that is supposed to be functioning in government.

  Democrats have their own ideological tensions. But Trump's victory turned Democrats into a ruthlessly pragmatic party. It was that pragmatism that led them to ultimately nominate Joe Biden in 2020. It was that same pragmatism that led them to abandon him in 2024.

• Timothy Noah: [08-01] How the Democrats finally took on Big Pharma: "Millions of jobs? Rising wages? Those are great, but the unsung economic achievement has come in making health care much more affordable. The victories, starting with insulin prices, are remarkable.

Legal matters and other crimes:

• John Herrman: [08-19] How do you break up a company like Google?

• Elie Honig: [08-16] Jack Smith can still hurt Donald Trump: "It's time to start thinking about the potential uses of an evidentiary hearing."

• Ian Millhiser:

  • [08-12] The First Amendment is in grave danger if Trump wins: "Three Supreme Court justices want to drastically roll back the First amendment. Trump could make it five."

  • [08-15] What can be done about this Supreme Court's very worst decisions? "It is important to hang onto grudges against the Supreme Court." He mentions five cases in particular. Back when Barrett was being confirmed, there was a lot of talk about reforming the Supreme Court. I felt then that such talk was premature: you didn't have the power to actually do anything about it, and you wouldn't get the support until you could point to actual examples where the Supreme Court is subverting democracy through arbitrary rulings. These five cases are the sort examples that help build the case. Now, you still have to build a sufficient political power base to implement radical change. Roosevelt couldn't do it even after his 1936 landslide. On the other hand, he didn't have to. The phrase I recall from my brilliant 8th grade US history class was "the switch in time that saved nine." After 1936, the Supreme Court stopped blocking New Deal programs for the sheer hell of it. And Roosevelt lasted long enough that he eventually nominated most of the Court, and for the first (and it now seems, sadly, the last) time in history the Court became a progressive force in American law. It is still possible that the middle-third of the Court (Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett) could try to bend a bit with the winds to save their jobs. If not, they'll just keep adding weight to the already strong case for overriding them.

  • [08-19] Republicans ask the Supreme Court to disenfranchise thousands of swing state voters.

• Nicole Narea: [08-12] Violent crime is plummeting. Why? "Donald Trump says crime is out of control. The facts say otherwise."

• Jeffrey St Clair: [08-16] Scam science and the death penalty: the case of Robert Roberson.

Climate and environment:

• Umair Irfan: [08-14] Even landlocked states aren't safe from hurricanes.

• Ian Livingston: [08-13] Record-setting heat waves are baking the Arctic region: "Northern Canada, Alaska and northern Scandinavia have recently experienced record highs."

• Washington Post: [08-07] How life-threatening are heat waves going to be with global warming? Many problems here, like not answering the question it raises, and designing a Q&A poll to minimize the impact of warming and/or to make solutions seem impossible. (And yes, I'm pissed I only got 2/5 answers right -- also that I had to guess to find the answers. I'm usually very good at inferring multiple-choice answers, even where I have no knowledge about their subject, so I'm taking my poor score as proof of deviously skewed design -- something that in my sociology days I was acutely aware of.)

Economic matters:

• Nicole Narea: [08-14] The inflation crisis appears to be over. What happens next? "Is the Federal Reserve finally about to cut interest rates?"

Ukraine War and Russia:

• Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [08-16] Diplomacy Watch: Ukrainian officers tied to Nord Stream blasts: "The plot thickens as Germany issues its first arrest warrant in the case."

• Mike Fredenberg: [08-14] Why Russia is far outpacing US/NATO in weapons production.

• Bojan Pancevski: [04-14] A drunken evening, a rented yacht: the real story of the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage: "Private businessmen funded the shoestring operation, which was overseen by a top general; President Zelensky approved the plan, then tried unsuccessfully to call it off." Just stumbled across this piece, which is still relevant here, and also as an illustration for the Robert Wright piece cited above: as Wright noted, Ukraine blowing up Nord Stream (half German) could have been interpreted by NATO as an attack requiring an armed response.

• Washington Post: [08-15] How an emboldened Ukraine caught Russia flat-footed: "A swift incursion into Russia's Kursk region exposes the country's fragility under Putin." It will also lead to adjustments to defend better against such incursions, and may lead Russia to new and similarly unexpected aggression.

  • Ellen Ioanes: [08-15] Ukraine's shock Russia incursion, explained.

  • David French: [08-15] Ukraine is poking the Russian bear.

  • Responsible Statecraft: [08-15] Symposium: What does Ukraine's incursion into Russia really mean? "Ten experts gauge the short and long term effects of Kyiv's bold invasion on the war." Wide range of views, many seeing it as a morale booster for Ukraine, but John Mearsheimer calls it "a major strategic blunder, which will accelerate its defeat."

  • Ishaan Tharror: [08-14] Ukraine turns the tables on Russia: "A bold Ukrainian operation in Kursk has humiliated Russian President Vladimir Putin and upended some of the logic of the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine."

America's empire and the world:

• Dan M Ford: [08-16] Peace hopes dashed as Sudan's warring factions blow off talks: "Geneva negotiations will continue but outside guns and lack of food are making this a real tinderbox."

• Nevin Kallepalli: [08-15] To understand India, listen to the pandits of Kashmir: "They have been lionized, targeted, exploited, and oppressed for decades. And they have stories to tell."

• Amanda Lewellyn/Victoria Chamberlin: [08-08] How the UK's far right used a local tragedy to spur chaos: "Rumors and disinformation have fueled violence across the country." Interview with Robyn Vinter and Noel King.

• Rebecca Nathanson: [08-05] To see how the far right might run France, see how they run this city: "The National Rally has been governing Perpignan for years. They want much more."

• Nick Turse: The US fueled Saudi jets bombing Yemen. Now the Saudis won't pay their gas bill.

• Washington Post: [08-08] Venezuela shows democracies must rethink how to fight global autocracy: "Democracies need new ways to fight back." They need to rethink a lot of things, but let's start with why they think it's any of their business to fight to topple autocracies in other countries. Each country needs to be its own democracy, following the whims and interests of its own people. As Americans, our beliefs are irrelevant to what other people want -- except that, as Americans attempting to advance supposedly American interests, our beliefs may be far from noble. Venezuela is a case where Americans have an especially poor track record, so it is one we should be especially wary of. I'm not saying we cannot express feelings and dispense advice, but "fighting" is overstepping.

• Sarah Leah Whitson: [08-16] How Saudi Arabia went from pariah to patron: "Biden's announcement of resumed offensive weapons sales to the Kingdom says it all."

• David Whyte/Samira Homerang Saunders: [08-13] From Papua to Gaza, military occupation leads to climate catastrophe: "Environmental destruction is not an unintended side effect, but a primary objective in wars of occupation."

Other stories:

• Chico Harlan/Michael Kranish/Isaac Stanley-Becker: [08-17] Jared Kushner wants to turn a wild stretch of Albania into a luxury resort: In terms of graft, Trump was just a distraction. This is the guy who really reaped dividends from his time in the White House.

  The former senior White House adviser [and Trump son-in-law] has accepted billions from the sovereign investment funds of countries that he dealt with as a government official, and is now investing in countries his father-in-law would deal with if reelected. Kushner makes an estimated $40 million in management fees, regardless of what happens to the investment, and stands to make much more if the deals are profitable, according to a recent letter from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon.

• Daniel Judt: [08-13] To build working-class power, we need a workers' education movement: "A century ago, labor colleges transformed American unions. It's time to bring them back."

• Max Moran/Henry Burke: [08-13] What we talk about when we talk about the revolving door: "Bringing tech and finance executives into government because they are 'the country's smartest and hardest-working people' is faintly ridiculous." Response to a Matthew Yglesias piece (link below) I saw because it was hugely ridiculous and meant to write about but didn't get around to. Maybe some day.

  • Matthew Yglesias: [08-12] Bring back the revolving door!

• Gary Shteyngart: [04-04] Crying myself to sleep on the biggest cruise ship ever: "Seven agonizing night aboard the Icon of the Sea." Bottom banner says, "This article was a gift from an Atlantic subscriber." I thought I'd pass it along, leaving the full URL intact on the off chance that it might work for you. (I usually strip the extraneous "GET" attributes, a habit I initially got into to get rid of Facebook callbacks.) Long article, only lightly sampled, as I have zero interest in ever embarking on a cruise ship, no experiences to compare with, and a kneejerk reaction that people who do have too much money and are too self-indulgent -- even though I wouldn't oppose either trait on principle. Still, like indulging in arty porn, I have occasionally thought about reading David Foster Wallace's cruise ship voyage account in A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again. Looks like you can still find a PDF of the original article here: Shipping Out: On the (nearly lethal) comforts of a luxury cruise.

Obituaries

• Corey Robin: [08-15] Farewell to a working-class hero: "Pat Carta was part of a generation of workers and organizers whose immense knowledge about overcoming fear to build class consciousness and worker power will never be found in a book."

Books

• Doha S Abdelgawad: [08-19] Egypt under Sisi: Anatomy of a military regime: A review of Maged Mandour's book, Egypt Under el-Sisi: A Nation on the Edge, which "provides a rich account of the militarisation of Egypt's economic, political and legal systems since 2013." Of course, this didn't start with el-Sisi. Long ago, I read much about it in Anouar Abdel-Malek's superb 1968 book, Egypt: Military Society: The Army Regime, the Left, and Social Change Under Nasser. Evidently, I'm not the only person to recently recall Abdel-Malek:

  • Ameed Faleh: [07-18] An undying dream of sovereignty and liberation: Anour Abdel-Malek's Egypt: Military Society

• David Freedlander: [08-12] Nate Silver knows who will win: "It's actually okay to be polarizing." Headline sounds like this is on the election, and that he's got some secret formula (which he's never disclosed before -- from what I've seen, he just does a ton of simulations based on assumptions that could possibly be nonsense. He does allow here that his model gives Harris a 52.8% chance of victory, which if memory serves is about 20 points worse than the edge he gave Clinton in 2016. But the real reason this article exists is to flog his upcoming new book, On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything, which as far as I can tell is more about the gambling hustle than how to view the world through statistics. (I've sometimes wondered whether I should have read his previous book, The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail, but I can't say I like this more recent direction.)

• Michael Friedrich: [08-12] What is policing for? "Sociologist Michael Sierra-Arévalo's recent book explains how an obsession with violence has defined the police's purpose and worldview." The book is The Danger Imperative: Violence, Death, and the Soul of Policing. Examples here of how potential violence -- largely fueled by the proliferation of guns -- becomes realized.

  In quietly reaching for his firearm, the officer was indulging a now-routine impulse. It may be irrational, given how rarely police are attacked. But policing, as a profession, is obsessed with violence and officer safety, a worldview that Sierra-Arévalo calls "the danger imperative." Within its ambit, the officer's actions make perfect sense. . . .

  "The danger imperative is policing's governing institutional frame," Sierra-Arévalo writes. More simply, it is "the 'soul' of policing." The Danger Imperative studies several police departments around the country to catalog the often hidden mechanisms that animate police violence. Beyond that, Sierra-Arévalo reveals how danger has become a useful focus for a reactionary social project: A vigilant police force is a necessary ingredient in protecting the interests of both capital and the state. In an era when demands for racial and economic justice have reached a fever pitch, the book explains how a preoccupation with violence helps perpetuate a system of inequality.

• Joshua Leifer: [08-15] In my youth, Judaism and Zionism felt synonymous. Now the American Jewish consensus has collapsed. This is adapted from Leifer's book, Tablets Shattered: The End of an American Jewish Century and the Future of Jewish Life. Also:

  • Emily Bazelon: [08-18] Are progressive Jews more woke than their Christian counterparts? "Joshua Leifer's newest book Tablets Shattered explores American Jewish culture in all its complexity." An interview with the author.

• Andrew O'Hehir: [08-16] Unpacking the right's "50-year-plot" to wreck democracy -- and why it might work: Review of David Daley: Antidemocratic: Inside the Far Right's 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections. Author previously wrote an important book on Republican gerrymandering: Ratf**ked: Why You Vote Doesn't Count.

Chatter

• Tony Karon [08-19] [Responding to Bhaskar Sunkara: "I never want to hear the word 'vibes' again"] You're retiring from paying attention to US presidential politics? As Neal Postman warned all those years ago, a political system in which TV ads are the basic idiom is about nothing but "vibes"

Local tags (these can be linked to directly):

Original count: 219 links, 12161 words (15834 total)

Current count: 255 links, 14286 words (18776 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Sunday, August 11, 2024

Opened this file Tuesday afternoon, August 6, after posting Music Week. When I woke up early Tuesday, my wife informed me that Harris had picked Tim Walz as her running mate. I went back to sleep, and when I woke up again, the song in my head was "Happy Days Are Here Again." It's rare not to be disappointed by a Democrat politician. I still expect Harris to come up short, possibly often, but every time she doesn't is gratifying.

Opening the file so early added a "hot take" element, especially to the Walz coverage. It also meant that I had some opportunity to collect Chatter in real time, before it became impossibly lost in the daily avalanche. As of Friday, which is when I usually start, I had 107 links, 4538 words (not counting this paragraph).

Late Sunday it was up to 265, 12229. That's probably enough for now, as my eyes are glazing over, and my indifference is rising. I can always add the odd bit on Monday, while excusing another paltry Music Week -- but actually, I have some other work to get to on Monday, so I might not even do that.

I can point to a new batch of Questions and Answers -- the first I've done this year. All four are music-related, so I'll mention them again when Music Week comes out.

Top story threads:

Israel:

• Mondoweiss:

  • [08-08] Day 307: At least 56 Palestinians killed across Gaza as Israel bombs two more schools in latest massacres: "A reported 15 Palestinians were killed in Israeli strikes on the Abdel Fatah Hamoud and the al-Zahraa schools in Gaza City. With these latest massacres, the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli attacks on Thursday alone rose to at least 56."

• Khalid Albaih: [08-06] Palestine is a glimpse of the dystopic future that awaits us.

• B'Tselem: Welcome to Hell: The Israeli Prison System as a Network of Torture Camps: This is a major report on "the abuse and inhuman treatment of Palestinians held in Israeli custody since 7 October 2023."

  B'Tselem collected testimonies from 55 Palestinians held during that time and released, almost all with no charges. Their testimonies reveal the outcomes of the rushed transformation of more than a dozen Israeli prison facilities, military and civilian, into a network of camps dedicated to the abuse of inmates as a matter of policy. Facilities in which every inmate is deliberately subjected to harsh, relentless pain and suffering operate as de-facto torture camps.

  More stories follow up on this report, but the subject pervades everything Israel does, and so is reflected in many stories.

  • Juan Cole: [08-09] B'Tselem accuses Israeli authorities of systematically torturing thousands of Palestinian prisoners.

  • Alex N Press: [08-10] Israeli prisons are a giant torture machine.

  • Mohamed Solaimane: [08-06] How Israeli prisons became torture camps for Palestinians: "Since the war on Gaza began, Israel has conducted a systematic policy of torture and abuse against Palestinians illegally detained in its prisons."

• Juan Cole: [08-08] Israeli minister asserts that starving 2 million Palestinians is morally and legally permitted: That would be Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

• Simon Speakman Cordall: [08-09] 'Everything is legitimate': Israeli leaders defend soldiers accused of rape.

• Chris Habiby: [08-10] End Israel's system of economic apartheid in Palestine: "Often overlooked, Israel's intentional system of economically fragmenting and dispossessing Palestinians is an essential part of its plan to ethnically cleanse the land and deny Palestinian liberation."

• Amjad Iraqi: [08-06] We're already in a regional war. Only a Gaza ceasefire can end it.

• Tareq S Hajjaj:

  • [08-06] Survivors of the latest tent massacre in Gaza recount the horror: "On August 4, the Israeli army bombed a group of tents inside the compound of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, killing three people. The bombing caused a number of tents to catch on fire, resulting in the injury of dozens of displaced civilians."

  • [08-09] 'Shrapnel, stones and scattered human flesh': Testimonies from survivors of Gaza school bombings: "On Thursday, August 8, Israeli airstrikes targeted two schools in Gaza City, killing at least 17 people and the injury of dozens others. These are the testimonies of some of the survivors."

• Mohammed R Mhawish: [08-07] In memory of journalist Ismail Al-Ghoul, Gaza City's voice to the world.

• Qassam Muaddi: [08-05] Surviving until the next raid: Life in Nur Shams refugee camp under Israeli assault: "Since October 7 Israel's crackdown on the West Bank town of Tulkarem has intensified. Raids are almost daily, have been more destructive and lethal, and have transformed the lives of more than 8,000 Palestinians living in the city's refugee camps."

• Orly Noy: [08-02] Israeli leaders celebrate assassinations -- and make the living pay the price: "Has the genocide increased the security of a single person in Israel? Are we safer while we wait for Iran's response to Haniyeh's killing?"

• Jonathan Ofir: [08-06] Israeli rape of detainees is the result of a society that sees Palestinians as 'human animals': "Israel has claimed that it is fighting "human animals" in Gaza. But now, Israeli society's own monstrous sadism, deriving from a deep hate of Palestinians, is on display for the rest of the world to see."

• Jeffrey St Clair: [05-10] Medicide in Gaza: the killing of Dr. Adnan al-Bursh.

• Oren Ziv: [08-07] Three Israeli army refusers: 'We will not participate in genocide': "Conscientious objectors Yuval Moav, Itamar Greenberg, and Oryan Mueller explain why they are willing to go to jail in order to stand against the war."

• Hamas after Ismail Haniyeh: I published quite a bit on the assassination of Hamas's top diplomat last week. More fallout this week, plus speculations on Hamas after Haniyeh.

  • Sami Al-Arian: [08-10] Can new Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar achieve Palestinian unity? Supposedly, after Haniyeh's assassination, he's the new leader of Hamas, assuming he's still alive, but he's trapped underground in Gaza, so it's hard to see how he can be effective in any other aspect of the job. He was prominent enough in the Oct. 7 attack that he got named (along with Haniyeh, Netanyahu, and Gallant) in the war crimes indictments, so he seems like the obvious choice, assuming there was one. As Netanyahu has vowed to keep the war going until Hamas is destroyed, he needed a new leader much more than Hamas did -- and one who can't travel, like Haniyeh could, is even better.

  • Marco Carnelos: [08-04] Haniyeh killing: Why Netanyahu launched his three-pronged offensive now.

  • Khaled Hroub: [08-02] Haniyeh killing: What will Hamas look like after the political leader's death?

  • Richard Silverstein: [08-06] Ismail Haniyeh killing: Netanyahu wants a war without end. This could give it to him. "From undermining Iran's new reformist leader to killing off Gaza ceasefire talks, the Hamas leader's assassination strengthens Israel's hand."

  • Al Jazeera: [08-11] Hamas urges return to existing Gaza ceasefire proposal. "Israeli media outlets are interpreting the Hamas statement as a rejection of the ceasefire talks altogether."

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

• Michael Arria:

  • [08-05] International campaign targets tanker supplying Israeli war planes with Texas oil.

  • [08-06] The Shift: Harris picks Tim Walz.

  • [08-08] The Shift: Walz, Harris and Gaza: "Kamala Harris's choice of Tim Walz isn't a repudiation of Democratic Party support for Israel, but activists see it as an opportunity to push the new ticket on Gaza."

• Giorgio Cafiero: [05-02] The US and Israeli role in Sudan's path to war: "Israel and the US's desire to consolidate Khartoum's position in the Abraham Accords has emboldened militaristic authoritarianism in Sudan."

• Hamid Dabashi: [08-08] Just like her predecessors, Kamala Harris is fully on board with Israel's genocide: I don't have any inside info to dispute this, but I doubt that any US Democrat -- Republicans like Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham are another story, as is the somewhat less explicit Donald Trump -- articulates any desire for genocide no matter how reflexively their solidarity with Israel supports it. Their "two state" talk may just be blather, but the subtext is that they want some kind of accommodation for coexistence -- with few details and no pressure, of course. There is also good reason to expect that Democrats, given their domestic programs, will be more oriented toward negotiated peace -- although there are contraindications, like their fondness for military spending, and their relative hawkishness on Ukraine. But given the politics (by which I mean money) around Israel, someone in Harris's shoes would be best served by operating behind the scenes, preserving the public appearance of alignment until she can actually change things. I have no idea whether she's thinking she should change US direction on Israel, but until she can, I don't see much value in blaming her. But it's a fair question for the public, who have few other options, to pursue.

• Ahmed Moor: [08-05] In Washington's streets, a new popular consensus on Palestine: "While Congress cheered Netanyahu, grassroots mobilizations of the Democratic base marked a sharp break from the party's support for Israel."

• Mitchell Plitnick: [08-08] Promising signs that Palestine advocacy is building political power in Washington: "The Israel lobby built its strength on the fact that its opposition was politically weak. Kamala Harris's choice of Tim Walz over Josh Shapiro and the massive cost it took to defeat Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush show this is no longer the case."

• Aaron Sobczak: [08-06] Poll: Most Americans don't want to send troops to defend Israel: "The lowest level of support in recent years -- from both political parties."

Israel vs. world opinion:

• Yasmeen Abutaleb: [08-11] Pro-Palestinian protesters vow massive showing at Democratic convention.

• M Reza Benham: [08-09] Born and dwells in violence: Israel's mission in the Middle East. This piece deserves some kind of price for greatest understatement: "Palestinian leaders, too, have not escaped Israeli violence." Near 20 years ago, I ran across a website with names and short biographies of notable Palestinians, and was truly shocked by the large percentage of them who had been killed by Israelis. While some may have been promoted by martyrdom, a good many had notable lives before they were killed. I'm not able to find that particular website at the moment, but Wikipedia has a long List of Israeli assassinations, starting with two Egyptians who were killed with parcel bombs in 1956.

• Jonathan Cook: [08-07] Israel is in a death spiral. Who will it take down with it? "Israel's zealots are ignoring the pleas of the top brass. They want to widen the circle of war, whatever the consequences." The title seems premature, at least in political terms, but it's fair enough in terms of the moral dimension of Israeli forces, and provides a good summary of where the hawks stand and are going. Subheds: Sexual violence; Can of worms; Rape permitted; On a precipice; Stalling the ICC; International isolation; War machine cornered. Pull quote: "As the Israeli media has been warning for some time, sections of the army are effectively now turning into militias that follow their own rules." This piece linked to some older Cook articles, which are still relevant and worth noting:

  • [05-24] The message of Israel's torture chambers is directed at all of us, not just Palestinians.

  • [03-15] Torture, executions, babies left to die, sexual abuse . . . These are Israel's crimes.

  • [07-23] The World Court has just cleared the fog hiding western support for Israel's crimes.

• Eugene Doyle: [08-09] Team genocide walks out on Nagasaki commemorations. As noted, the mayor of Nagasaki had previously called for a ceasefire in Gaza, long before he disinvited Israel's representative from attending this year's reminder of what nuclear warfare means. I previously noted that Rahm Emmanuel, US ambassador to Japan, had responded by boycott, evidently figuring that solidarity with Israel (and its ongoing genocide in Gaza) was more important than showing Japan that the nation responsible for killing 74,000 Japanese people on August 9, 1945 at least acknowledged the event. (Apologies are evidently still out of the question.) What I hadn't realized was that Emmanuel was joined by "several Western countries" including Australia, Canada, France, Italy, and the UK. I'm all for diplomatic niceties, but Israel should be shunned for its current conduct. And the US should be remembered as the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in war, thus demonstrating so graphically their enormous peril.

  • Chaitanya Davé: [08-08] America's most criminal act: the atomic bombings of Japan. If you need a reminder of what Emmanuel is all too happy to forget, this is thorough and should be sobering. He does lean heavily on Gar Alperovitz's 1996 book, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (massively researched, with 864 pp -- long ago, I read his slim first book, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, from 1965). This is the first I've heard of Davé, an engineer from India who moved to the US in 1966 and has written several books, including Crimes Against Humanity: A Shocking History of US Crimes Since 1776 (2000) -- or for that matter, of the Global Research website. While I can imagine them going over the deep end -- one article refers not just to the criminality but the "satanic nature" of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- but I was intrigued enough to check out some more Davé articles, like:

    • [06-18] The American amnesia -- US war policy.

    • [05-03] Winston Churchill: hero for the western world, racist criminal for the rest of the world.

    • [2023-10-22] Israel: an apartheid nation.

    • [2022-06-29] NATO expansion is a blunder of epic proportions.

    • [2022-08-29] Genocide of millions of Indians during the British-Raj. 31 famines under British colonial rule.

  • Taylor C Noakes: [2023-08-09] The atomic bombings of Japan were based on lies.

  • Kathleen Kingsbury/WJ Hennigan/Spencer Cohen: [08-06] The last survivors speak. It's time to listen. This piece is part of a series on nuclear war, including the following articles by Hennigan:

    • At the brink: a series about the threat of nuclear weapons in an unstable world

    • Nuclear war is called unimaginable. In fact, it's not imagined enough.

    • How America made nuclear war the president's decision.

    • How China's nuclear ambitions have changed the world.

    • The victims of US nuclear testing deserve more than this.

• Daniel Finn: [08-09] Free Palestine from German racism dressed up as guilt.

• Joshua Frank: [05-31] You can't turn back the clock on genocide: "easily 200,000 deaths in Gaza." I may have cited this piece before, when it was published at TomDispatch, but it's popped up again, and reminds us that in such matters, numbers never go back down.

• Ana Malinow: [08-08] Finding the moral courage to recognize a genocide.

• Craig Mokhiber: [08-07] The World Court has ended the Oslo ruse: "The ICJ's ruling that international law protects the rights of Palestinians, and they need not negotiate with their oppressors for those rights, dealt a definitive blow to decades of Western efforts to situate Israel outside the reach of the law."

• Mary Ellen O'Connell: [08-07] Assassination is always unlawful -- regardless of who is killed and on whose orders.

• Mazin Qumsiyeh: [08-11] The path forward: I've been receiving the author's newsletter since I saw him give a very good talk here in Wichita -- see my 2004 notebook entry -- and I read his book from back then, Sharing the Land of Canaan. How useful the newsletter is varies, but I admire his dedication, persistence, and humanity in this very frustrating ordeal. Here he attempts to take stock:

  Over the past 45 years, I have been active on the streets and on the internet for our people struggle for return and self-determination in the face of a most brutal and merciless colonial regime. I read thousands of books and wrote a few myself. I read tens of thousands of research and analytical papers (and wrote hundreds myself). The problem of our country can actually be described very briefly. Its solution (remedies) can also be described briefly. Implementing the solution would be doable and is the only way to avoid a catastrophic world war.

  The only way I can see this developing into world war is if the US gets so inebriated with Israel's military arrogance it goes after bigger game, like Russia and China -- which I suppose could be his point. But the local war is catastrophic enough, not just for its obvious victims, but also for the increasingly brutalized victors. Qumsiyeh is right to frame Israel/Palestine as a colonial settler conflict, although simply villainizing the settlers isn't helpful, especially as it blurs distinctions that matter to them.

  We know now that such conflicts can only end (by which I mean stabilize) three ways: either the colonizers are repulsed (as with Algeria and Zimbabwe, both well after the founding of Israel, so recently enough that Palestinians could take hope from their examples), or the colonizers crush the natives (as in America and Australia), or the colonizers realize that they need to negotiate some sort of viable coexistence (as in South Africa), which entails ceding power while retaining generally recognized rights.

  Israel has eliminated the first option: Arafat conceded Israel's right to exist and govern in the 1980s, and Hamas came around to that position by 2005, leaving only the details of accommodation to be worked out. But a large and influential faction of Israelis still held out hope for total domination. They've risen in power on the crest of a series of increasingly nihilistic wars, testing the limits of what conscience -- both theirs and the world's -- will allow, especially since Oct. 7. I personally don't believe they can get away with it, but no one is going to force them to stop, leaving us with nothing more than appeals to decency, starting with those who have thus far supported and condoned their genocide. Qumsiyeh sees BDS as helpful, "international law" less so. But use what you got.

• Jennifer Rubin: [08-06] Netanyahu has managed to frustrate just about everyone: "It appears as though the Israeli prime minister wants to extend the war." I'd edit that a bit, replacing "appears" with "it's obvious," and I'd be tempted to make that "it's fucking obvious," because that's how obvious it is. But "frustrate" is an interesting word here, because it implies that you actually thought he was capable of something better. He isn't. He never was. He'll never be. But your naivete in thinking he might is kind of sweet.

• Michael Schwalbe: [08-06] Israeli racism shouldn't get a pass in America.

Election notes:

• Cori Bush: D-MO, elected in a big upset in 2020, displacing a 10-term incumbent as a would-be Squad member. She called for a ceasefire in Gaza, and has voted against military aid to Israel, which made her a target in AIPAC's purge of Democratic Party dissidents. She lost the primary last week.

  • Perry Bacon Jr.: [08-07] Cori Bush's defeat is a big, disappointing loss for progressives.

  • Medea Benjamin: [08-07] AIPAC hijacks Cori Bush race -- and our elections.

  • Ben Burgis: [08-08] AIPAC bought Cori Bush's seat.

  • Akela Lacy: AIPAC millions take down second Squad member Cori Bush.

  • Yousef Munayyer: [08-07] US support for Israel is collapsing. And AIPAC knows it: Argues their victory over Cori Bush was "a pyrrhic victory for a losing cause."

  • John Nichols: [08-07] Cori bush may have lost an election but she won the moral high ground: "The Missouri Democrat was among the first to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, and there can be no disputing that she stood on the right side of history."

  • Nicholas Wu: [08-06] Cori Bush becomes second Squad member ousted in a primary: After Jamaal Bowman (D-NY).

• Thomas B Edsall: [08-07] Two opposing developments that changed American politics: "A pair of major developments in recent years -- the ascendance of Donald Trump and the emergence of Black Lives Matter protests -- have decisively altered the nation's two political parties." Trump, as party leader, has become the sharp focal point for all sorts of crazy thinking on the right (including things he doesn't seem to understand, but supports anyway, because he knows he's their leader). The left doesn't have a comparable leader figure, not that Bernie Sanders couldn't have filled that role had he prevailed, but it's fitting that the left has been driven from below, through protests.

  But BLM, important as it was, was just one of several upheavals, of which Occupy Wall Street was especially important for re-introducing class struggle (framed as the 99% vs. the 1%; while you may think it was just a phase, it specifically brought the student debt issue to the fore). Also mention the Keystone Pipeline protests, which won out. Also a tremendous uptick in labor organizing. And now we have the anti-genocide protests. Plus another constellation of issues, like abortion.

  It further occurs to me that this ground-level shift to the left by Democrats follows a similar, earlier change on the right, which was largely driven by right-wing media (especially if you recognize that the Tea Party was essentially astroturfed). Trump's emergence as party leader didn't depend on any new ideas. He simply recycled what Fox fed him, adding the conceit of his own personality cult. The delay is easy to understand. The right was funded by rich folk who wanted to protect their business empires from the scourge of public interest (also unions, of course), so they plotted to take over government, largely by making politicians beg for their money. The pressure on ordinary people to move left came not from secret interest groups but from fear of what the right was getting away with.

  Edsall does have some reason for focusing on BLM. He cites a 2018 article by Matt Grossman: People are changing their views on race and gender issues to match their party. As Democrats increasingly recognized the perils of the right, they came to feel solidarity with their fellow victims, to the point where, as Grossman puts it, "liberal-leaning voters moved away from [Trump's] views faster than conservatives moved toward them."

• Michael Tesler: [08-08] Why immigration is a better issue for Trump than it was in 2020. As an issue, it's better because he's running against Biden's record, not on or against his own. And Republicans have had nearly four years to amplify it as a constant talking point. Also, to some extent, Democrats, including Biden, have run away from it, which neither makes them look smart nor strong.

• Daniel I Weiner/Owen Bacskai: [08-09] Unregulated money continues to corrode US politics. Reforms are needed.

• Sam Wolfson: [08-09] Brats, dads and bravado: this US election will be decided on vibes: "Personality is always central to elections. But this year, it's about who you think the candidates could be." I found this piece first, and thought it generic enough to slot here (under elections), but later found much more talking about "vibes" (our buzz word of the week), steering strongly toward Harris-Walz:

  • Fareed Zakaria: [08-10] Harris is winning the all-important battle -- of vibes.

  • Charles M Blow: [08-07] Harris, Walz and Democrats' joyful campaign: Democrats may have little to complain about the Biden administration, but the big promise to protect us from the depredations of Trump and the Republicans hasn't worked out so great. He mentions a bunch of examples, which seemed to be snowballing as Trump dominated the airwaves and inched up in the polls, while Biden appeared increasingly hapless.

    I underestimated how much soul damage Democratic voters had suffered over the past three and a half years -- not in the main because of the Biden administration, but because of the seemingly endless culture wars -- and how that damage had jelled into a form of electoral depression.

    Harris changed that almost instantly: "She isn't articulating policy positions that differ substantially from President Biden's. She is, however, allowing herself to be the vessel for pent-up liberal energy." I also like this bit:

    Last year, when Biden was gearing up to announce his re-election bid, Terrance Woodbury, a founding partner at the consultancy HIT Strategies, whose research includes surveying Black voter sentiment, told me something that has stuck with me: Young Black voters -- young Black men in particular -- are less responsive to political messages of fear and loss and more responsive to messages of gain and empowerment. . . .

    Republicans have slammed Harris as a D.E.I. candidate, tossing around the acronym for diversity, equity and inclusion to insinuate that she didn't earn her place. But overwhelmingly, one of the reasons Democrats are excited about her is that she's highly qualified and also happens to be a woman of color. They recognize that she represents all that is good about D.E.I., that it isn't about the granting of privilege but the dismantling of it.

    Personally, I'm totally bored with all those checklist firsts. I'm not inclined to think of her in those terms at all. On the other hand, D.E.I. is an insult we can embrace as a principle, and run with.

  • Jennifer Rubin: [08-08] Walz brings the vibes, but that's not all: "On education and agriculture, this vice-presidential pick's experience runs deep."

  • David Sirota: [08-10] Harris-Walz's good vibes aren't enough: Sure, but why not enjoy them while you can? It's not like we've had enough good vibes in our lives to get used to them, let alone to overdose on them. Savor the feeling. Isn't this what democracy is supposed to feel like? Sure, after they win in November, we'll still have challenges and problems, to which they won't always have answers or be helpful, but work from that. At least you won't have to start out from Trump again. And if they lose, the only reason to think about that now is for motivation to keep it from happening. Afterwards, there will be plenty of time for lessons learned. But after the dread of Biden losing his place on the teleprompter or trying to negotiate a flight of stairs, we need good some vibes. Enjoy.

Trump:

• Brooke Anderson: {08-01] How Trump hijacked the Republican Party.

• Isaac Arnsdorf/Josh Dawsey/Hannah Knowles: [08-07] Trump took a private flight with Project 2025 leader in 2022: "Trump took the flight to speak at a Heritage Foundation conference, where he said, 'They're going to lay the ground work and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do.'" Now Trump is trying to disclaim their plan.

• Jamelle Bouie: [08-09] The real reason Trump and Vance hate being called 'weird'. Republicans are losing their grip on the Nixonian bequest of "the silent majority." They haven't been either for a long time now, but Democrats were too timid to point it out, until one did, and instantly it was obvious to all.

• Frank Bruni: [08-08] Donald Trump, prince of self-pity.

• Abbie Cheeseman: [08-11] Trump campaign hack could indicate wider election disruptions, experts warn.

• David French: [08-11] To save conservatism from itself, I am voting for Harris: Filed here instead of under Harris, because this is really about Trump, not Harris. I agree with virtually nothing French writes here. I don't even fully buy this:

  The only real hope for restoring a conservatism that values integrity, demonstrates real compassion and defends our foundational constitutional principles isn't to try to make the best of Trump, a man who values only himself. If he wins again, it will validate his cruelty and his ideological transformation of the Republican Party.

  I believe that conservatism is so utterly corrupt and rotten, so selfish and cruel, it deserves Trump, and those are the reasons he's attracted to it -- although his vanity is probably a bigger one. I do suspect that many people who identify as conservative, possibly including French, are decent and honorable, at least in their personal lives, but they falter when they try to tell other people how to live, because they simply don't understand how the world works beyond their own perception and projection. If they could, they'd be welcomed by Democrats, who by and large are tolerant and respectful of all sorts. They might even help make us better people. But while French's vote is welcome, his reasoning is still selfishly parochial. He needs to work on that.

• Maureen Dowd: [08-10] Trump, by the numbers: Anyone who can recall engaging with Trump 20+ years ago is bound to come up with unsettling images:

  From the first time I went on an exploratory political trip with Trump in 1999, he has measured his worth in numbers. His is not an examined life but a quantified life.

  When I asked him why he thought he could run for president, he cited his ratings on "Larry King Live." He was at his most animated reeling off his ratings, like Faye Dunaway in "Network," orgasmically reciting how well her shows were doing.

  He pronounced himself better than other candidates because of numbers: the number of men who desired his then-girlfriend, Melania Knauss; the number of zoning changes he had maneuvered to get; the number of stories he stacked on his building near the U.N.; the number of times he was mentioned in a Palm Beach newspaper.

  But the flash forward to today:

  He is clearly befuddled by someone with brown skin who has come not to hurt Americans, but to save them from Donald Trump; someone who is not scary, as he is, but joyful, not threatening but thrilling.

  And, in Trump's worst nightmare, this dark-skinned someone is attracting huge adoring, dancing, laughing crowds.

• Michael Grasso: [08-09] Donald Trump and the '80s aesthetic: "The pro-Trump Zoomer sees the 2020s as a degenerate age and the '80s as a time when men were men. It's why their homemade videos are filled with VHS scan lines, old Gillette commercials, and Van Halen's 'Jump.'"

• Malcolm Harris: Tech billionaires love Trump now -- because he's one of them.

• Brian Karem: [08-08] Trump left spinning by Kamala Harris' surprise strength: "Trump's implosion is nearly complete."

• Glenn Kessler: [08-06] Trump's fusillade of falsehoods on debt and taxes: Fact-checks a Trump interview by Maria Bartiromo.

• Ed Kilgore: [08-08] Trump's 2024 election-denial playbook: "Trump and his allies are laying the groundwork to overturn a possible 2024 loss -- and they don't intend to repeat the mistakes they made last time." They're going to make new mistakes? Could one be conceding they have no faith they can win honestly?

• Susan Milligan: [08-06] Trump's campaign is drowning in rage: "Faced with a surprisingly united Democratic Party, the Republican nominee is trotting out the same old strategy."

• Danielle Paquette: [08-10] A pastor said his pro-Trump prophecies came from God. His brother called him a fake. "Jeremiah Johnson became a sensation when he embraced politics. His brother Josiah, also a preacher, couldn't shake his concerns."

• Matthew Stevenson: [08-08] Trump's wolves on Wall Street: Inside the Truth Social numbers. This has a lot more detail on the business/financial side than I cared to follow, but here's one sample that caught my eye:

  Nor does the SEC seem particularly concerned that inside traders in Digital World shares might well have gotten their tips from a Russian banker who bailed out Trump's Truth Social in 2021 with a loan from his Caribbean porn bank.

• James D Zirin: [08-07] Trump's slur of Harris -- 'Is she Indian or is she Black?' -- echoes a creepy episode from his past. As does nearly every Trump story, but the devil's in the details.

Vance:

• Aaron Blake: [08-07] It's getting worse for JD Vance: "A half-dozen polls in recent weeks have shown his already-underwhelming image deteriorating. And they suggest his past comments about childless women aren't helping."

• Ben Burgis: [08-08] JD Vance got his faux populism from internet weirdos.

• Michelle Goldberg: [08-05] JD Vance just blurbed a book arguing that progressives are subhuman: The book is by Jack Posobiec ("far-right provocateur") and Joshua Lisec ("professional ghostwriter"):

  The word "fascist" gets thrown around a lot in politics, but it's hard to find a more apt one for Inhumans, which came out last month. . . .

  As they tell it, modern progressivism is just the latest incarnation of an ancient evil dating back to the late Roman Republic and continuing through the French Revolution and Communism to today. Often, they write, "great men of means" are required to crush this scourge. The contempt for democracy in Unhumans is not subtle. "Our study of history has brought us to this conclusion: Democracy has never worked to protect innocents from the unhumans," write Posobiec and Lisec.

• Andy Kroll/Nick Surgey: [07-16] In private speech, JD Vance said the "Devil is real" and praised Alex Jones as a truth-teller: "Vance gave the speech to the secretive Teneo network."

• Clay Risen: [08-10] What's so new about the 'new right'? "JD Vance and his allies represent a mind-set that dates back to the McCarthy era and the dawn of the Cold War."

• Bill Scher: [08-08] When Vance told Appalachians to leave Appalachia: "A decade ago, Vance wrote that the Appalachian poor should abandon their 'destructive' communities and stop blaming others for their misery. Now, all he does is blame." Also:

  • [08-08] "Hillbilly Elegy" elegy: "Also, Trump's disparagement of Native Americans, and RFK Jr.'s bear incident." He also links to:

  • Jeet Heer: [2021-07-28] JD Vance's misogynist dog whistle: "The Hillbilly Elegy author turned Ohio Senate candidate is speaking a private language to pander to Trump voters he once scorned."

  • Ezra Klein: [2017-02-02] A conversation with JD Vance, the reluctant interpreter of Trumpism: "The author of Hillbilly Elegy on why Trump won, how elites helped, and what we miss about social mobility."

• Alex Shephard: [08-06] Donald Trump has no heir: "Yes, Trump is just popular enough to win again this year. But no one has emerged yet to take the MAGA crown whenever he relinquishes it." So this is really about how far Vance has slipped in two weeks, from back when practically everyone was writing about him as heir-apparent.

• Farah Stockman: [07-28] Decoding JD Vance's brand of nationalism.

And other Republicans:

• Project 2025:

  • Griffin Eckstein: [08-07] Project 2025 architect pushes book with JD Vance foreword until after election.

  • Jake Johnson: [08-08] Watchdog of far-right GOP issues 'The Definitive Guide to Project 2025': Media Matters for America issued a 67 page report.

  • Alec MacGillis: [08-06] The man behind Project 2025's most radical plans: A long profile on Paul Dans.

  • Andrew Perez/Asawin Suebsaeng: Project 2025 is an unmitigated polling disaster for Trump and Republicans: "Democrats are planning to 'smother' Donald Trump, JD Vance, and the GOP with Project 2025 until November. New polls show why." They also wrote:

    • Trump flipped out that 'lunatic' Project 2025 could tank his campaign.

  • Rick Perlstein: [08-07] Crow Jim: Project 2025's obsession with reverse racism: "Blueprints for conservative rule can't get enough of the smear that fighting racism against Black people amounts to racism against white people."

  • Tia Yang/Nathaniel Rakich/Mary Radcliffe/Cooper Burton: [08-09] Americans don't like Project 2025: "Plus, polls on vaccines, the child tax credit and which party is more 'weird.'"

• David Daley: [08-05] GOP plans to win this election -- in court, if not at the ballot box: "Republicans learned from their 2020 mistakes -- and have good reason to believe the Supreme Court is on their side." Not the only article on this:

  • Dennis Aftergut/Norman J Ornstein: [08-07] January 6 was a beta test for 2025.

• Jake Johnson: [08-07] GOP budget plans spotlight party's top priority: handouts for the rich.

• Dominik A Leusder: [08-10] How Republicans fell in love with crypto.

• Amanda Marcotte: [06-13] Rudy Giuliani's mug shot and Steve Bannon's prison sentence: Why MAGA loves to be seen as villains.

• Ishmael Reed: [08-09] MAGA and the fear of being eaten:

  To be a Trump Republican is to live in a horror film. Fears abound. The fear of immigrants, the fear of Woke (a euphemism for Black culture), a fear of books, a fear of cat ladies, a fear of being replaced, a fear of George Soros, and now Anthropophagophobia, the fear of being eaten. In two books that are required reading for far-righters -- The Turner Diaries by William Luther Pierce, a physicist who used the pen name Andrew Macdonald, and Unhumans by Jack Posobiec -- Blacks commit cannibalism.

  By invoking Hannibal Lecter, Trump is warning his Red Caps that Black cannibals aren't their only threat. According to him, millions are arriving in the United States to find some MAGA meat to munch on. When confronted by live cannibals, their victims will miss the old days when the cannibals were "The Walking Dead," who moved so slowly that one could escape.

• Faiz Siddiqui/Jeremy B Merrill: [08-11] Elon Musk's X feed becomes megaphone for his far-right politics.

• Katherine Stewart: [08-10] The Claremont Institute: The anti-democracy think tank: "It was once (mostly) traditionally conservative and (sort of) intellectually rigorous. Now it platforms white nationalists and promotes authoritarianism." This is a long and thorough dig through the history of one of the right wing's premier think tanks, so it also qualifies as a cautionary tale of the rot of the conservative brain. The days when anyone could plausibly claim that conservatives were doing real thinking are long gone.

  The kind of authoritarianism that Claremont is peddling did not happen to the conservative movement by accident. It is the predictable result of the massive investment that conservative money made over the past 50-plus years in polluting American political discourse with its massive complex of ideological factories. When you spend enough to spread unreasonable ideas, you will get an unreasonable society. You might even become a bit of a crank yourself. It goes back to a problem at least as old as Plato. If your power depends on lying to the people, that doesn't make you noble. It just leaves you with a choice: Accept that you are a fraud, or embrace the lie.

Harris:

• David Badash: [08-09] Fox host furious Kamala Harris loves to cook: This is causing some cognitive dissonance for me: she loves to cook; her husband is a serious jazz fan. Politics aside, these are people I could actually imagine enjoying socializing with. As hobbies and interests go, these are things that show a zest for life, and a willingness to engage it intellectually as well physically.

• Jonathan Chait:

  • [08-06] Kamala Harris and Tim Walz need to pivot the center right now: "Does Harris really understand the assignment?" That's a rather peculiar term to use here: Just who's doing the assigning here? Barring some hidden power, that may just be Chait. After all, his definition -- "the assignment, to be clear, is to win over voters who don't like Donald Trump but worry Harris is too liberal" -- sounds exactly like Chait, who represents an electoral bloc of himself and hardly anyone else. I mean, how many people who don't like Trump still make such fine-grained distinctions among shades of Democrats that they'll hold their votes in sway? I doubt even Chait is that fickle. So what's he doing here? Well, he seems to feel it's his job to stamp out any hope that the Democratic Party might be able to accomplish anything by getting elected. He does this by steering Democrats to the corrupt, do-nothing "center."

    I'm old enough to remember when Democrats ran scared of being called "red," but does running away from your principles and beliefs really win elections? And even when you do manage to win one, how much loyal support do you gain by never implementing any serious reforms? The track record for Chait-approved centrists really isn't all that impressive. On the other hand, Republicans have built up an enthusiastic base by fighting for the wrongs they believe in. Maybe Democrats should consider fighting for some rights. Sure, they may lose, but if they can't take a stand for something, they're lost anyway. And even when Republicans win and make our lives more miserable, they will at least have sown some seeds, like the idea that winning next time might make a difference.

    After all, what do we have to lose (but Jonathan Chait)? I doubt we're even going to lose him, as it's easier to stoke his conceited liberal virtue-signaling by taking pot shots at easy Republican targets. For example, he paired his left-bashing post with this:

    • [06-08] Desperate Trump pines for Biden to return as Democratic opponent: "Make the mean lady go away!"

    PS: Luke Savage tweet on Chait's article: "Jonathan Chait brings us his only idea for the 700th time."

  • [08-09] Yes, She Can: "Bidenism brought Kamala Harris and the Democrats to the brink of catastrophe. Obamaism can save them." What the fuck? Chait tried to sum this up in a tweet:

    There was a campaign to persuade Democrats that Obama failed. The campaign succeeded. But it was wrong. It is now up to Harris to recover. I think she can do it.

    Uh, Obama did just fine for himself: he got a second term, he got rich, he got into movies, and he's building a gargantuan monument to himself next to Lake Michigan. But he didn't do so well for his Party. He entered in 2009 with strong majorities in both wings of Congress, accomplished very little with all that potential power, lost Congress, lost the State Houses and the Courts, and after eight years surrendered the presidency to Donald Trump. He did some decent things, and avoided doing some of the far worse things Republicans wanted, but even in foreign policy, where he had a lot of autonomy, his record is checkered at best. He got out of Iraq, then got back in again. He dug in deeper in Afghanistan, then got stuck. He faced crises in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Gaza, and Ukraine, and bungled them all. He did make some progress with Iran and Cuba, but it was so tentative Trump easily wiped him out. He made toothless gestures on climate change. He was still pursuing trade deals to the end that even Hilary Clinton wouldn't touch. So I can see how Democrast could think he failed. I'm surprised that so many Democrats still revere him. I suspect that's just sentimental attachment to the hope they once associated with him. But that's just my reaction.

    Let's instead consider Zachary D Carter, who tweeted:

    Odd piece. Chait seems to be going after Biden's economic record, but then doesn't. Credits Biden for a strong labor market, real wage gains, pins only "small" responsibility for inflation on Biden. Defends Obama by saying he wanted to do the same things.

    The worst thing he has to say about the IRA and Biden's domestic manufacturing program is that Trump might unwind it because a lot of it still hasn't been spent.

    I think Chait is too charitable with Obama's economic legacy and overstates how progressive movement-oriented Biden has been on the economy. Brian Deese was great at the NEC, but he came from BlackRock. Hather Boushey has been great at CEA, was a 2016 Clinton campaign economist.

    Biden's big post-ARA spending -- an infrastructure deal, domestic microchip manufacturing and green energy/tech manufacturing -- were all done through negotiations with Joe Manchin and Republicans, not Bernie and AOC.

    I do think Biden represents a significant change from the Obama era, but it's one in which party moderates and some conservatives embraced new ideas, not one in which radicals infiltrated the administration and bent it to their will.

    Biden treated progressives like they were part of the coalition, he didn't let them run the show.

    This is a long piece, and it touches on a lot of things, viewed through his own peculiarly neoliberal prism. It's never quite clear whether he hates the left on principle, or he is simply convinced that Americans are so indelibly reactionary that leftist politics is unworkable and has to be banished. The most telling line here is: "It is not clear if Harris or her allies recognize the full scale of the political devastation she actually inherits." His evidence comes from Biden's dismal approval ratings (as low as 32%). While that sounds grim, it doesn't necessarily follow that his administration, let alone his still-unimplemented policy preferences, are so unpopular. It's quite plausible that his low polls were personal: that many people who wanted to support him had simply lost faith in his ability to lead and communicate effectively. The ease with which his vice president, with little or no political standing of her own, was able to take over the campaign and revive it suggests that Chait's "devastation" wasn't real.

    As Carter tries to point out, fear of a left takeover isn't real either. The idea that the American left are some kind of bolsheviks scheming to seize power so they can arbitrarily dictate wokeness and undermine public morals is way beyond ridiculous -- although, following the red scare playbook, it's not just a staple of the right but a projection of their own antidemocratic dreams and fears. The left still attracts idealists, but most are wary of power, and are willing to compromise for modest reforms. They do, however, insist on tangible results, whereas the Democrats Chait admires are all talk but action only when their corporate sponsors see an angle.

• Rachel M Cohen: [08-06] Kamala Harris's recent embrace of rent control, explained.

• David Dayen:

  [08-09] Why Tony West matters: "It's more than his moves from government to corporate America. It's what he did while in government." West is Harris's brother-in-law and is now a campaign adviser. He held a high post in the Obama DOJ, then left to become chief legal officer at Uber.

  • [08-07] The irrelevant permitting bill: "A bipartisan measure to accelerate clean energy and fossil fuel projects has no constituency in Congress right now."

• EJ Dionne Jr.: [08-11] Harris is beating Trump by transcending him: "The vice president and her running mate are achieving a radical shift in messaging."

• Moira Donegan: [08-06] Kamala Harris's VP pick may signal a shift away from pivoting to the center.

• Benjamin Hart: [08-05] Can Kamala Harris win just enough of the working class? The author talks to Ruy Teixeira, "once known as a Democratic oracle, but these days he's more of an apostate," as his 2002 book The Emerging Democratic Majority fizzled, while his new 2023 book (both with John Judis) Where Have All the Democrats Gone? never ignited. (I have an unread copy of the latter, figuring it relevant for my political study, but I'm finding less and less reason to crack it open.) What I hate about this title, and the thinking that goes into it, is the notion that winning by a nose is all that is necessary -- winning by a landslide, even though the Republicans are essentially conceding the interests of an overwhelming majority of Americans, is too much work or something. This kind of thinking caters to donors, who like a divided government where nothing gets changed and everyone is preoccupied looking for bribes.

  By the way, it's the Republicans who like to think in "just enough" terms, because for their purposes any majority (or plurality, or in the right circumstances slight shortfall) works just fine. Where they draw the line is offering any concession beyond empty words.

• Elie Honig: [08-09] Kamala Harris and those 'lock him up' chants:

  "The vice-president -- and former prosecutor -- has it exactly right so far."

  It's become a recurring scene at the political rallies of Vice-President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Harris refers to the ongoing criminal cases against her electoral opponent, Donald Trump. The crowd begins to chant, "Lock! Him! Up!" And Harris calmly but firmly shuts it down. "Well, hold on," the VP said earlier this week to her own crowd, "You Know what, the courts are going to handle that part of it. What we're gonna do is beat him in November."

• Ben Jacobs: [08-06] Republican operatives are 'thrilled' Harris picked Walz: At least that's their inevitable spin, not that any other Democrat in play wouldn't have ticked off their same "too liberal" boxes. Would Shapiro have escaped their slander for a moment? But now that he's off the ticket, they're equally delighted to accuse the Palestinian-loving Democrats of antisemitism:

  • Ed Kilgore: [08-06] The GOP's dumbest attack on Walz pick: Democrats are antisemites: Or as Sen. Tom Cotton puts it, "the antisemitic, pro-Hamas wing of the Democratic Party."

  • Marc A Thiessen: [08-07] Walz is Harris's first unforced error -- and an opportunity for Trump: "By picking a fellow leftist, Harris has a running mate who appeals to her base but not swing voters." You knew he, like the other hack operatives Jacobs cites, was going to swing against Walz, and you probably suspected it would be the old "too liberal" ploy, since for them every Democrat is way too liberal. The question is why they think we're so skittish to care. One thing that I like about Walz is that he not only knows good things to say, he has a record of getting good things done. The "too liberal" charge works best when exposing the words as hollow, insincere gestures. Sure, that's not what they think they're saying, but it's what voters react to: the idea that liberals are phonies, while Republicans are authentic, if for no reason other than that they're seriously committed to the awful things they want to do.

• Ezra Klein: [08-11] Biden made Trump bigger. Harris makes him smaller. I would've been happy spending the rest of the campaign focusing on how evil Trump and Vance are, but hey, how petty and how ridiculous they are could work, too. And creepy -- that's the nuance that "weird" was aiming for.

• Nicole Narea: [08-07] Why Kamala Harris's fundraising spree might prove more valuable than Trump's.

• Robert J Shapiro: [07-29] Data don't lie: Harris has the facts to refute Trump's lies about the economy: "Trump's claims that the economy was better under his presidency than the Biden-Harris administration don't add up." Nice to know, but I'm not sure how persuasive that will be. This risks being an argument defending the status quo, instead of making the more important argument that you'll be better off with Harris than with Trump. It's probably true that a second Trump term will be worse, given that his first term was so much worse than either Obama's before or Biden's after, but it's the future that matters. Republicans have been increasing inequality and precarity since 1980, and those results have accumulated, bringing us ever closer to a breaking point. We've seen the data on that, and it's very conclusive. But how many people understand it? And how many can explain it?

• Benjamin Wallace-Wells: [08-08] How Kamala Harris became bigger than Donald Trump.

Walz:

• Perry Bacon Jr: [08-06] Tim Walz is a bold, smart choice for Harris's running mate: "The Minnesota governor rightly argues that many progressive ideas are good and practical." Aside from Walz's own value, there's this:

  Kelly and Shapiro were the favorites of centrist Democrats -- the same people who were strongly defending Biden's political skills even as he became very unpopular. Harris needs to replace not just Biden but also the outdated political strategies of the president and much of the Democratic Party establishment. Hopefully, the Walz choice is the first of many decisions Harris will make that take the Democratic Party in a much-needed new direction.

• Kate Aronoff: [08-07] Tim Walz is not a left-wing hero: "Kamala Harris's VP pick matters more as a political signal than a policymaker."

• David Atkins: [08-06] Why the "weird" charge from Governor Tim Walz against Republicans works: "The vice presidential pick and Minnesota governor gets at the crisis in masculinity that the GOP has exploited expertly -- until now."

• Ross Barkan: [08-06] Why Tim Walz will be a potent weapon for Kamala Harris.

• Zack Beauchamp: [08-06] The left loves Tim Walz. Can we unite the Democrats? "As a non-leftist beloved by the left, Walz is ideally suited to expand Harris's appeal across the ideological spectrum." This kind of talk makes me a bit queasy. I've known leftists who would never admit to having loved a politician in their life. I'm more inclined to take what you can get, but I wouldn't call it love, even for the few people who are pretty reliable. It is true that Shapiro and Kelly got dinged up a bit for some of their positions. Walz survived (or escaped?) that level of scrutiny, and seems like a decent enough bloke, who's done some good things, and it's not like we're really demanding more than that. He got a couple of endorsements from labor, and that probably helped. He seems to have more appeal there than the alternatives, which strikes me as something the ticket and the party needed. So with no major negatives and some real positives, most of us are pretty happy. As for the question, the answer may be in another question: can he hit the Republicans hard, and score points that win votes? If he can, he will unite us? At least through November. After that, the voters fade into memory, and the money powers come back to the fore.

• Aaron Blake: [08-06] 5 takeaways from Harris's pick of Tim Walz as her VP nominee.

  1. Harris went for broad appeal over swing-state appeal
  2. A 'weird' and viral audition
  3. A blend of folksiness with a recent left-leaning record
  4. Walz's electoral record tops Vance's
  5. Notable tidbits about Walz's selection

• Nandika Chatterjee: [08-06] Joe Manchin and other moderates praise Harris' selection of Tim Walz: Manchin said Walz "would 'bring balance' to the Democratic Party."

• David Dayen: [08-06] Tim Walz: From small-town Minnesota to the campaign trail.

• Pat Garofalo: [08-07] The secret to Tim Walz's progressive success: "It turns out that challenging corporate power is a winning approach."

• Steve Kettmann: [08-09] The ballad of coach Tim Walz: "The Minnesota governor's football coaching helps the Democratic ticket because, unlike Trump's shtick, the relatable, down-to-earth terminology of sports is a patois that never dies." But for some of us, it does get fucking tiresome, and worse when it implies that we should draw life lessons from zero-sum games. But still, if the public insists on playing that game, it might be nice to have someone playing it from our side.

• Ed Kilgore:

  • [08-06] In Tim Walz, Kamala Harris has her super-normie running mate: Interesting that Kilgore, who's every bit the "moderate" Chait claims to be, came up with a completely different take on Walz, probably because he opened his ears, rather than just weighing everyone out on a conventional right-left ideology axis.

  • [08-08] Why the swiftboating of Tim Walz won't workl: "The attacks on Walz's military service are weak tea. And they're being vigorously contested, not ignored like the attacks on John Kerry in 2004."

    • Li Zhou: [08-08] How to think about the attacks on Tim Walz's military record. Something I have no interest in thinking about.

• Robert Kuttner: [08-09] Teflon Tim: "The right's pathetic effort to find some smear that will damage Gov. Walz."

• Daniel Larison: [08-06] Harris picks Walz, a midwesterner with antiwar credentials.

• Eric Levitz: [08-06] Will Kamala Harris regret picking Tim Walz over Josh Shapiro. Rehearses the same anti-left arguments Chait harped on, but with slightly more nuance. Nothing here suggests to me that Harris will regret not choosing Shapiro. The first three points in Walz's favor seem pretty solid:

  1. Walz balances the ticket demographically
  2. Walz has excelled on television
  3. Walz is implicated in fewer potential scandals

  I'll add that the balance is not just demographic. He comes from a very different background, yet has reached similar political views, so that provides not just balance but constructive contrast. Also that scandals are much deadlier for Democrats than for Republicans, who are just as likely to be celebrated as scoundrels.

  PS: Levitz's tweet elicited some commentary, including this interchange:

  • JDTrader64: "Harris's greatest political liability may be the widespread perception that she is very left-wing." Uh . . . Eric . . . it's not perception . . . it's truth . . .

  • Tom Hull: Uh, it's the perception that her being "very left-wing" is a bad thing, which would be amplified if she ran away from it, like "centrist" Democrats have been trained to do for ages, only to find themselves echoing R talking points. She needs to defend what she stands for.

    PS: [Later reply from JDTrader64]: Being "very left wing" is a bad thing - the Prez is supposed to represent "we the people" not the fringes - right or left. Her voting record is too far left, she is now no different than any other politician - trying to change her past with a pile of lies and deceit.

    [TH: One never knows how to respond to things like this. On the one hand, from my vantage point, Harris is not very far left at all, and never has been, so I don't see her lying to cover up her past. On the other, you have to be pretty far left to be interested in representing all the people -- simply dismissing those you don't like as "fringes" and denying them representation is pretty anti-democratic.]

• Dan Mangan: [08-07] Harris running mate Gov. Tim Walz owns no stocks, bonds or real estate, disclosure shows: So what the hell is this man doing in politics?

• Branko Marcetic: [08-06] The Tim Walz VP pick shows America's politics are changing.

• Timothy Noah: [08-07] Tim Walz is a dream pick for the labor movement.

• Michele L Norris: [08-07] 6 reasons Tim Walz was the right choice.

• Christian Paz: [08-07] How Tim Walz actually handled the George Floyd protests in Minnesota: I'm not getting much out of this piece. Republicans seem to think they can lay blame on him. Totally blameless, of course, is Donald Trump, with his "good people on both sides" and "then the shooting starts" quips.

• Nia Prater: [08-07] What we know about why Harris picked Tim Walz: As best I can tell, it mostly came down to chemistry: Walz seemed like a guy Harris could be comfortable with, could work with, and could be trusted not to run his own deals on the side. Shapiro wasn't -- as my wife put it, he was "kind of a drip." I doubt his piety angle played well, either. The main news in the article is that the one-on-one interviews came out much better with Walz than with Shapiro. And once Harris picked Walz, a lot of little things fell neatly into place. Ideology wasn't a consideration, but give Harris some credit for not running scared of the left-baiting.

• Andrew Prokop: [08-09] Is Tim Walz a progressive or a centrist -- or both?

• Molly Roberts: [08-08] Tim Walz won the veepstakes because first he won the internet.

• Peter Slevin: [08-06] What Tim Walz brings to Kamal Harris's campaign to beat Donald Trump.

• Sarah Smarsh: [08-07] Democrats have needed someone like Tim Walz for decades.

• Patrick Svitek/Taylor Lorenz: [08-07] 'Bringing back the joy': Walz's first day keeps Democrats' buzz going.

• Michael Tomasky: [08-06] The Tim Walz nod: Caving to the left? No. Reaching into the heartland. "Kamala Harris's new running mate has one hell of a résumé."

• Rebecca Traister: [08-10] Tim Walz, Doug Emhoff, and the nice men of the left: "An election defined by two very different kinds of guys."

• Karen Tumulty: [08-06] Tim Walz made 'weird' happen. What he offers the ticket is much more. "Walz has a genuine feel for the concerns of people in conservative corners of the country."

• Robert Wright: [08-09] Walzing into a saner foreign policy?

• John Zogby: [08-07] In choosing Tim Walz, Kamala Harris went for policies not electoral votes.

Biden:

• Ryan Lizza: [08-09] Why Biden was really forced out of the race, according to Anita Dunn: Interview where "the longtime presidential adviser blames the press and her party."

• Phillip Longman: [07-26] Biden and Harris broke the suffocating "Washington census" on economics: "They put a stake through neoliberalism. Now, the vice president has to convince voters that her antitrust, trade, and public investment policies, unlike Trump's, will improve their lives."

And other Democrats:

• Branko Marcetic: [08-07] Gina Raimondo would be a terrible choice for Treasury Secretary: "The commerce secretary is rumored to be the front-runner to head the Treasury Department in a Harris administration. Her coziness with corporations makes her a disastrous pick." As I recall, she was rumored to be in the VP pack as well. I wonder if she has a press agent?

• Bernie Sanders: [08-05] Democrats should run on a progressive economic agenda. Americans are ready. Similar advice:

  • Dustin Guastella/Bhaskar Sunkara: [08-01] Kamala Harris needs to mobilise voters around class -- not race.

• Nicholas Slayton: [08-02] Gavin Newsom's fraudulent homelessness agenda: "The governor of California proposes to solve the problem by harassing people in circles."

Legal matters and other crimes:

• Ryan Cooper: [08-08] Elon Musk thinks advertisers not paying him money should be illegal: "Americans right-wing judicial tyrants face their most preposterous lawsuit yet."

• Eva Dou/Gerrit De Vynck: [08-05] Google is an illegal monopoly, federal court rules: "Judgment delivers a victory to the Justice Department as it takes on a string of federal antitrust lawsuit against Big Tech." A quarter-century ago I followed the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit very closely, but I have paid little attention to the recent batch of suits and other regulatory rulings, so I'm caught off guard by this ruling. I do know a fair amount about how Google and other high tech companies work, so I understand the angles and temptations for abuse pretty well -- at least well enough to imagine what's going on here. But my own thinking has evolved in a different direction: while I agree that more competition would be better than monopolies, much better still would be to knock the financial legs out from under them and replace their services with non-profit open-source utilities. But sure, this story is big enough to track:

  • Luke Goldstein: [08-09] Will Google's monopoly be vanquished? "The path includes appeals challenges, a judicially ordered remedy phase, and a change in the presidency."

  • Nicole Narea: [08-06] A historic ruling against Google could change the internet as we know it.

  • Shira Ovide: [08-06] 6 ways the Google antitrust ruling could change the internet.

• Marin Scotten: [08-05] Clarence Thomas failed to disclose another trip on a GOP megadonor's private jet."

• Kate Aronoff: Hurricane Debby is fading but Florida's hellish insurance crisis isn't.

• Ruby Mellen/Scott Dance: [08-06] In Charleston, floods are a 'constant existential fear. This is, of course, still connected to Hurricane Debby as it hits city after city along the East Coast

• Joshua Partlow: [08-07] A melting Alaska glacier keeps inundating Juneau. Floods are getting worse. Tuesday's flood was almost exactly one year after "another glacial outburst flood scoured away homes and undercut riverfront condonminiums as then-record amounts of water eroded vast swaths of the bank along the Mendenhall River."

Economic matters:

• Dean Baker:

  • [08-04] Manufacturing jobs: unions made them good, not the factories.

  • [08-07] The economy grew 2.8 percent last quartet, CNN is trying to decide who gets blamed for the slump:

    CNN's coverage of the economy under President Biden has been unrelentingly negative, even as we have seen the longest stretch of below 4.0 percent unemployment in more than 70 years, the fastest pace of real wage growth for low-paid workers in decades, the highest measure of job satisfaction ever, and a huge surge in new business openings. Today it pontificated on who should get blamed for an economic slump that has not happened.

  • [08-07] The New York Times thinks it's a bad thing that corporations can't sustain pandemic bloated profit margins. "This should be treated as yet another entry in the 'bad economy' series where major media outlets are determined to push stories of a bad economy even when they are not grounded in reality."

• Ryan Cooper: [08-06] Will panic on Wall Street convince Jerome Powell to do his job? "The Federal Reserve should have cut rates months ago. Now it might be too late."

• Kevin T Dugan: [08-06] Why did the stock market crash? And what's next?

• Paul Krugman:

  • [08-05] The economy is looking pre-recessionary.

  • [08-06] Market crashes happen. They don't necessarily mean much.

  • [08-08] Tim Walz and the weird politics of free school lunches.

• Trisha Thadani: [08-05] Elon Musk moves X out of San Francisco. City leaders shrug. "The city's chief economist says that after Musk's deep staff cuts, X didn't offer much to San Francisco anyway."

Ukraine War and Russia:

• Ben Armbruster: [08-09] Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine takes the war inside Russia.

• Mark Episkopos: [08-07] What the Ukraine war has in common with Vietnam: "The establishment keeps coming up with convenient answers, but always to the wrong question."

• Anatol Lieven: [08-06] What a platypus can teach Europe about Ukraine: "Doubling down on 'victory' over Russia will be bad for the war and for relations with the next US administration."

America's empire and the world:

• Rachel Chason: [08-05] How the US military cultivated -- and then lost -- a key African ally: "A timeline of key events in the lead-up to the US troop withdrawal on Monday from the West African country of Niger."

• Tanya Goudsouzian/Zekria Barakzai: [08-07] Water wars: What the US can offer the Taliban, for a price.

• William Hartung: [08-05] There they go again: Heritage pushes new nuclear arms race: "The report asserts that its proposals are meant to preven rather than spark a conflict."

• Ellen Ioanes: [08-05] Bangladesh's prime minister just fled the country in a helicopter. Why?

  • Arafat Kabir: [08-07] Sheikh Hasina's downfall and exile are of her own making: "The Bangladeshi leader's delusional belief in her own invincibility precipitated her downfall amid a Gen Z revolution."

  • Ishaan Tharoor:

    • [08-06] Bangladesh's Hasina faces the revenge of history.

    • [08-07] Thailand takes another backward step by banning main opposition party: Meanwhile, another slippery slope.

• Georgios Samaras: [08-08] Britain's riots are designed to terrorize Muslims: "For years, the far right has benefited from a growing rot in British politics, as politicians and the media promote Islamophobia."

  • Reuters: [08-07] Explainer: Why are there riots in the UK and who is behind them? This was followed by:

    • [08-08] Anti-racism protests sweep Britain after far-right riots.

  • Vikram Dodd: [08-04] Extreme-right activists are terrorising UK's Muslims.

  • David Hearst: [08-09] How an unholy alliance between fascists and far-right Zionists fuelled UK riots.

  • Peter Oborne: [08-05] Far-right riots: UK media and politicians are almost wholly to blame.

  • The New Arab: [08-06] Nearly 400 arrested in UK anti-Muslim far-right riots: A police spokesman added that "others would be 'brought to justice.'"

  • Jonathan Freedland: [08-09] You know who else should be on trial for the UK's far-right riots? Elon Musk: "Direct guilt sits with those who brought violence to our streets, but their hatred was inflamed by lies spread on X."

  • Ishaan Tharoor: [08-09] Britain's riots put spotlight on far-right misinformation: "Social media posts -- including a few by X owner Elon Musk -- have played a crucial role in accelerating rage and misinformation."

• Nick Turse: The US has dozens of secret bases across the Middle East. They keep getting attacked. "An Intercept investigation found 63 US bases, garrisons, and shared facilities in teh region. US troops are "sitting ducks," according to one expert."

  • Ellen Ioanes: [08-06] The attack on US troops in Iraq, explained: "What the attack on US troops in Iraq says about a wider Middle East war." Maybe that the wider war has already happened, like when the US sent troops half way around the world to set up bases in Iraq from which they could strike "targets" in the region? Maybe they should write an explainer of why the bases are there in the first place? But as long as they're there, they're easy targets, should the US ever do something to piss off the local population. Wonder what that could have been?

  • Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [08-06] US personnel wounded in 'dangerous escalation' at Iraq base.

Other stories:

• Jeffrey St Clair: [08-09] Conscience of the blues: how Howlin' Wolf got caged in Oregon.

• Vox: How factory farming ends: a set of articles "on the past and future of the movement against factory farming; its struggle to change our culture, politics, and palates; and how it might yet make real progress." I don't have any political interest in these issues -- in particular, I don't see them as a left-right thing -- but I do have curiosity about how the world works, and what risks may appear that could stop it from working satisfactorily. And the latter, at least, does have political ramifications. Possibly philosophical ones, too. More articles are listed here, but not yet linked.

  • Marina Bolotnikova: [08-07] Humanity is failing one of its greatest moral tests: "The long, maddening, glorious, vital fight against factory faming."

  • Jonathan Safran Foer/Aaron Gross: [08-07] Ditching factory farming can help prevent another pandemic: "The neglected environmental and health benfits of fighting Big Meat -- for humans."

  • Astra Taylor/Sunaura Taylor: [08-07] If the left is serious about saving democracy, there is one more cause to add to the list: "Animal rights must become a core issue for progressives."

  • Kenny Torrella: [08-07] How the most powerful environmental groups help greenwash Big Meat's climate impact: "Organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund are laundering the meat industry's propaganda."

Obituaries

Books

• David Masciotra: [08-05] Joe Conason on how grifters, swindlers, and frauds hijacked conservatism: An interview with the veteran journalist, author of the 2003 book Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth, and most recently The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers, and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism, who explains:

  Deception is central to the contemporary right for two reasons. One is that they've discovered, over a long period, that it is highly profitable to mobilize people's fears and resentments around mythical issues. You can pull in vast sums of money from the right-wing base. The second reason is that facts don't work for them. It is very hard, at this point, to make arguments on behalf of their positions that are fact-based. They push lies, conspiracy theories, fantastical inventions that support their ideological positions. To take one example, there is an idea that the minimum wage costs jobs. Not true. It's been debunked. No respectable economist believes it. Or if you cut taxes, you'll generate economic growth. Not true. It's been disproven over again. So, they rely on falsehoods.

  Also: "It would be good if Democrats paid attention to what I expose in The Longest Con. This is an argument that works because no one likes being ripped off."

• Katha Pollitt: [08-06] What's left after wokeness? An interview with philosopher Susan Neiman, author of the 2023 book Left Is Not Woke, recently reprinted in paperback (with some changes, including note of Oct. 7). I've noted the book before, and am generally sympathetic to its argument, as I've long insisted that the criterion defining left and right is equality vs. hierarchy, and anything else is just a correlation or coincidence. Woke is probably a correlation, because it opposes one particular form of hierarchy -- how effectively I cannot say, but Neiman may have some views on that. I don't see much point in criticizing people who advocate for wokeness, because they're usually facing off against people who need to be opposed. (The opposite of "woke" seems to be "asshole.") But I do think it's worth defending the real left against anyone who would try to reduce us to simple anti-wokeism.

  This led me to an earlier interview and other bits (for more of which, see Neiman's website):

  • Robert Kuttner: [2023-05-02] A conversation with Susan Neiman about left and woke.

  • Guy Lancaster: Susan Neiman: Left Is Not Woke.

PS: In looking at her new introduction, I see that she defines left differently than I do: as belief in a bundle of social rights. I see equality as more fundamental, but for sure, social rights are an expression (aspirational, at least) of equality.

Music (and other arts?)

• Corey Kilgannon: [08-11] A jazz DJ's lifetime of knowledge leaves Queens for a new Nashville home: "Phil Schaap's childhood home held what may be the largest collection of recorded jazz interviews, an archive that will now be housed at Vanderbilt University."

• Tom Sietsema: Dining chat: Are restaurants as fraught as depicted in 'The Bear'? Spoiler alert, but answer is "dunno," followed by other questions he does know something about. I think we're 3-4 episodes into The Bear, and finding it pretty stressful and not very satisfying, but interesting enough we'll keep plugging away at it (unlike the similarly hyped Beef).

• Jeffrey St Clair: [08-07] Sound Grammar: The best jazz records of the year so far: The author has made a regular practice of jotting down three records he's listening to each week, and I noticed that about a third of them were more than a little jazz. I had thought about inviting him last year, but I didn't get it done. I wasn't really looking for new critics to invite for the mid-year poll, but as I was reading one of his pieces, I decided to give him a shot. As you can see, he submitted a very credible list.

Chatter

• Dean Baker: [08-05] [replying to: "Trump has now made 6 posts this morning gleefully celebrating the stock market being down today"] Come on, what else is Trump going to talk about, his plans for a nationwide abortion ban, huge tax increase on imports to offset the cost of tax cuts for the rich, sending food prices through the roof by deporting the farm labor workforce?

  I guess Trump could also [talk] about his plans for promoting the spread of measles and polio and make more threats against "crappy Jews."

• geekysteven: [08-06] Harris choosing Tim Walz as her running mate sets a dangerous precedent that Democrats might do cool shit that voters love

• Prem Thakker: [08-06] "You don't win elections to bank political capital -- you win elections to burn political capital and improve lives." - Minnesota Governor Tim Walz

• Richard Yeselson: [08-06] [replying to "The Walz selection shows just how deep the Dems' antisemitism problem runs."] Dude: the senate majority leader is Jewish; the Secretary of State is Jewish; the Attorney General is Jewish; the leader of the leftist faction is Jewish; the "husband of the nominee" is Jewish. I'm Jewish/you're Jewish so I ask you because Jews disagree: wtf are u talking about?

• Kate Willett: [08-07] Hot take but I don't think it's actually bad for socialists if Republicans spend months saying this is socialism. [followed by picture of Tim Walz being hugged by school kids]

• Mehdi Hasan: [08-07] Whether you're pro Cori Bush or anti Cori Bush, pro Israel or anti Israel, how can any American who c ares about democracy be okay with a lobby group - in this case, AIPAC - spending $15m to defeat one member of Congress (Bowman) & now $8m to defeat another (Bush)?

• Teddy Wilson: [08-08] I've reported on the conservative movement and right-wing politics for more than a decade, and I've never seen anything like the collective temper tantrum and epic meltdown that has occurred the past few weeks. There is a palpable amount of fear, loathing and desperation.

• Thoton Akimoto: [08-08] BREAKING: U.S. ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel boycotts Nagasaki peace ceremony after mayor disinvites Israel.

• Zachary D Carter: [08-12] Nobody wants to talk about Brian Deese in this little spat that Yglesias and Chait are picking because he came from BlackRock and did a great job by doing stuff that Chait and Yglesias don't like.

  The idea that Biden was some kind of left wing radical is preposterous on its face. There's no political or economic principle being raised here, just one subset of democrats expressing disdain for another.

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

Original count: 270 links, 12539 words (17034 total)

Current count: 272 links, 12620 words (17145 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Monday, August 5, 2024

I started working on this back on Thursday, the day after I posted Music Week and minor updates to last week's massive Speaking of Which (final: 263 links, 11360 words). For a while, it looked like I might actually wrap this up on Sunday evening, but didn't make it. Probably just as well, although the imminent Harris VP pick may upset some apple carts. Even if it happens (Tuesday morning, I now hear), consider it unknown to this post.

PS: Harris picks Tim Walz as VP ahead of multistate tour. For now, the best link is Perry Bacon Jr.: [08-06] Tim Walz is a bold, smart choice for Harris's running mate.

Last week I stayed clear of Israel's latest round of "targeted assassinations," most significantly that of Hamas diplomat Ismail Haniyeh (conveniently in Tehran; I imagine Mossad is already shopping movie rights to that story). Last week's lead story title ended "as US officials say a ceasefire deal is close." No one's saying that this week, as Haniyeh was Hamas's lead negotiator in those talks, which Netanyahu had managed to sideline for weeks, and now simply blew up. Rather, I devoted a large chunk of last week's post to Netanyahu's speech to Congress. Some key article cited there:

• Nathan J Robinson: One of the most shameful moments in American history
• Fred Kaplan: Netanyahu's shameful speech was nothing but theater
• Richard Silverstein: Netanyahu's Congress speech shows America who's the real boss
• Jonathan Cook: Only a failing US empire would be so blind as to cheer Netanyahu and his genocide

While we're at it, let's also reiterate:

• Brett Wilkins: Ben-Gvir endorses Trump, says he's more likely to back war on Iran

This reminds me of Andrew Gillum on DeSantis: "I'm not calling Mr. DeSantis a racist, I'm simply saying the racists believe he's a racist." (Gillum also noted: "he's got neo-Nazis helping him run the state.") I have at least one article below on how Trump is deciding that some Jews are "good" (love Israel, support Trump) and "bad" (oppose Trump, hate Israel), and can easily find more, e.g.:

• Washington Post: [2022-10-16] Trump attacks American Jews, posting they must 'get their act together' on Israel.
• NBC News: [04-09] Trump says Jews who vote for Biden do 'not love Israel' and 'should be spoken to'.
• New York Times: [04-10] Trump again insults Jews who support Biden: any Jew who "votes for Biden should have their head examined."
• Axios: [07-30] Trump again takes aim at Jewish Democrats.
• PBS News: [07-30] Trump claims Harris, who's married to a Jewish man, 'doesn't like Jewish people'.

For deeper background, see:

• Aaron Blake: [2022-10-17] Trump's long history of trafficking in antisemitic tropes
• David Remnick: [2021-12-21] Is Donald Trump an anti-semite?

I also did a Google search on trump on war with iran, but it mostly revealed past deeds, not current words. E.g.:

• Al Jazeera: [2020-06-29] Iran and US President Donald Trump: A timeline of key events.
• New York Times: [2020-01-11] Seven days in January: How Trump pushed US and Iran to the brink of war.
• New Yorker: [2021-07-15] "You're gonna have a fucking war": Mark Milley's fight to stop Trump from striking Iran.
• David A Anderson: [2020-11-19] Trump wanted to bomb Iran -- and still could -- leaving Biden to pick up the pieces
• The Times of Israel: [2021-07-16] Netanyahu urged Trump to attack Iran after he lost the presidency
• Branko Marcetic: [2023-06-13] The biggest scandal in Trump's indictment: US war plans for Iran.
• Aaron Blake: [2024-04-15] Trump's rhetoric on thwarting Iran vs. his record.

McGeorge Bundy once explained that the difference between presidents Kennedy and Johnson was that Kennedy wanted to be seen as smart, but Johnson wanted to be seen as tough. You can use the relative importance of smart and tough as a scale for weighing most presidents. We like to think of Obama as being on the smart side, but he picked many moments to prove he could be tough (like his first order to kill Somali pirates, his numerous drone strikes, his raid on Osama Bin Laden; on the other hand, he caved in every time he ran afoul of Netanyahu, which wasn't so smart, and betrayed a deficit worse than toughness: of courage). But Trump's idea of smart doesn't extend much beyond cheating on his taxes and paying off a porn star. And while he brags about being "a very stable genius," the quality he most wants to project to the world is how very tough he is (e.g., his boasts that were he still president, Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, and Hamas wouldn't have attacked Israel).

We will, of course, continue to hold Biden and Harris responsible for own their contributions to Israel's genocide and warmongering, but we should always be clear that Trump's malice, which pervades every pore of his campaign, is much more dangerous than Biden's indifferent cowardice, despicable as it is. As for Harris, all I can hope for is that she keeps her head down until she's in a position to do something about it. Then, by all means, she must, and failure there will be catastrophic, but until she has that power, mere speculation is unlikely to be helpful. There will always be more to do later.

Top story threads:

Israel:

Israel's long-standing policy of assassinating political opponents was brought to the fore last week with the murder of Ismail Haniyeh (head of the Hamas political bureau, and chief negotiator in the "ceasefire" talks Biden has promoted and Netanyahu has sabotaged at every turn). This immediately followed Israel's major escalation of bombing in Lebanon, which included the killing of a prominent Hezbollah commander. The calculation here is pretty obvious, even though it is rarely commented on. Israel is not merely killing for the hell of it, they want to provoke reprisals, which they can use to justify further killing. They are gambling that their targets cannot hurt them, or if they do land a lucky punch -- as Hamas did on October 7 -- they can escalate to previously unimaginable levels of mass destruction.

But Israel has one weakness: it depends on American support, both to replenish its supply of munitions and to prop up an economy that has never (well, not since 1950) been so extensively mobilized for war for so long. Netanyahu knows that he cannot sustain his genocidal war without American support, so he and his allies are pulling out all the stops to keep unthinking, uncritical support flowing. You see this in the flood of propaganda, including Netanyahu's obscene speech before Congress. You see this in the astounding money that's going into purging independent thought in American politics. But the real linchpin would be if he could maneuver the US into joining the war. He achieved a partial success in getting the Houthis to fire on Red Sea shipping, with the result that the US and UK have joined Saudi Arabia in bombing Yemen. But the real prize would be getting the US to go to war against Iran. Or at least Lebanon.

It helps here to understand that Israel doesn't actually care about Iran. The essential background here was explained by Trita Parsi in his 2007 book, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States. The key point here is that while the US soured on Iran with the 1980 hostage crisis, Israel remained close to Iran throughout the 1980s -- you might vaguely recall that Israel was the intermediary in the Iran-Contra scandal -- but only turned against Iran in the 1990s, after Saddam Hussein ceased to be a viable foreign threat. Israel switched to Iran because the Americans already hated Iran, which made them easy to play with a ridiculously inflated story of Iran's "nuclear program." Obama's negotiations with Iran were intended to allay Israel's fears, but Netanyahu rejected them because Israel never feared Iran: they only faked it to cater to American prejudices. When Trump killed the deal, he capitulated to Israel, allowing Netanyahu to dictate America's understanding of allies, enemies, and interests.

While Trump did this for the most craven of reasons, Biden followed blindly because his long experience with the Israel lobby had taught him that no alternative course was imaginable. Still, providing "arms, money, and [freely ignored] advice" was the easy part. Committing US troops to conventional war against an unconquerable nation like Iran would be a much more daunting order. Of course, Israel isn't insisting that the US actually invade Iran, like their fiascos in Afghanistan and Iraq. They would be perfectly happy to see the US conduct an Israel-style assault, where massive bombing denies any responsibility for cleaning up the mess. Going back to WWII, the US is used to seeking definitive solutions that lead to peace, but Israel has always understood that each victory is just a prelude to the next war, which they must eternally prepare for. Peace for them is nothing but false hope and mass delusion, which is why their warrior caste breaks it at every opportunity.

Of course, America hasn't quite become a pawn in Israel's game. Biden has little appetite for war against Iran, or even against Lebanon -- although he also has little will to resist bombing Yemen and Syria, or to move aircraft carrier groups supposedly to deter attacks against Israel. Biden, in contrast to Trump, retains at least some sense of human decency, so he can't really endorse Israel's genocide, but he tries hard to not see it, either, so he readily parrots Israel's lies and clichés -- which so far is all that Netanyahu has needed.

But it would help to see the game he and his far-right allies are playing: they don't care about Iran, and they don't worry about foreign attack; they only care about the US and Europe as a meal ticket, and even there they don't care how unpopular they become, as long as those in power toe their line; what they do care about is grinding the Palestinians down to dust, to utter insignificance, not just in Gaza but everywhere they control; unlike some genociders, they are not obsessed with killing every last Palestinian, as they know that's not the only way to render them inconsequent, but they also have no qualms about killing indiscriminately, and see that as instrumental to their cause.

On some level, most Israelis must realize that they cannot keep killing and destroying indefinitely. True, no other army has the means and will power to stop them. And there's little chance that Israelis, who have grown up under a regime that has systematically inculcated the belief that Jews are eternal victims but in Israel have become invincible warriors, will develop a conscience and decide they've gone far enough (let alone too far). On the other hand, world opinion, even in the so-called western democracies that currently sustain Israel's military and economy, is turning against Israel's war, not just because most people find this killing and destruction abhorrent when done by anyone, but because we increasingly see it as rooted in inequality and hatred, in the fundamentally unjust belief that might makes right.

We see this most clearly in America, where our most reactionary political elements, including the neocons (who led us into the Israel-inspired Global War on Terror) and the Christian Zionists (with their dreams of Armageddon) are by far the most enthusiastic backers of Israeli genocide. Granted, there is still a significant rump faction of Democrats who are loyal to Israel, but their loyalty depends on misinformation and myths, not on a belief in violence. They do want to see a ceasefire and humanitarian relief, and generally accept that diversity, democracy, and equality are not just desirable but necessary. They just have trouble holding Israel to their otherwise general beliefs. But unlike the right-wingers, it should till be possible to reason with pro-Israel Democrats. One can make a strong case that Israel is harming itself by pursuing such extreme policies.

Note: The assassination of Hamas eminence Ismail Haniyeh has become a big enough story to warrant its own section, between this one (which is mostly limited to Israel's domestic politics and military operations) and the next one (which deals with US politics and support for Israel). As usual, there is another section following on Israeli propaganda and world opinion, especially around the genocide charge. The subdivisions are useful because there's so much material to cover, and it's nice to keep similar pieces together, but it's also difficult, in that many pieces lap over from one area to another. For instance, articles specifically on the US reaction to the Haniyeh assassination may be included in the US section. The assassinations and escalation in Lebanon hasn't yet mandated its own section, so pieces on that are mostly in the US section, as my view is that Israel's attacks on Lebanon (and Iran) are mostly attempts to lead US policy.

• Mondoweiss:

  • [08-01] Day 300: Nasrallah declares 'new phase' of war, vows 'inevitable' response to Israeli attack on Beirut: "In a strident speech on Wednesday evening, Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah said that the fighting with Israel has 'entered a new phase' that goes 'beyond supporting Gaza,' vowing an 'inevitable' response to Israel's Beirut bombing." So has Israel finally managed to goad Hezbollah into attempting to inflict some serious damage on Israel? Thus far, they've just been playing tit-for-tat exercises, supposedly to maintain their delusions of deterrence.

  • [08-05] Day 304: Israel kills Palestinians across Gaza and the West Bank as it braces for response to assassinations: "As Israel awaits Iran's and Hezbollah's responses to assassinations carried out last week, Israeli forces bombed three shelters in Gaza, killing 47 Palestinians, and escalated attacks in the northern West Bank, killing 12."

• Middle East Monitor: [08-01] Israel confirms 'eliminating' Hamas military wing chief Al-Deif.

• Helena Cobban: [08-03] Israeli society, institutions continue to implode.

• Juan Cole:

  • [08-03] Israeli total war infects 40,000 with Hepatitis A, threatens Polio epidemic, recalling past experiments on human subjects: I haven't seen any reports of Israel conducting biological warfare in Gaza, but the conditions -- no electricity, little if any sewage management, the hospitals destroyed, most housing destroyed, accounting of all sorts disrupted (do you really believe that the death toll is stuck at 39,000?) -- are ripe for biological agents to take a terrible toll.

  • [08-04] Iran condemns "medieval barbarity" of Israel's Sde Teiman Camp, insists on right to deter further aggression. I don't recognize any such right (for Israel as well as for Iran), and insist that "deterrence" is a fool's game. I have a couple more points. One is that it isn't a level playing field. Obviously, it favors the side with the most weapons, so the other side is pressured to keep up, while the stronger side struggles to keep ahead, so it causes an arms race. Risk goes up too, as the more weapons you have, the more likely you are to use them. (Every side has their Madeleine Albrights, although it is fitting that the archetype is American, as the US has long recognized that deeper pockets make it possible to bankrupt your opponent, as the US did with Russia, especially with the "Star Wars" expansion.) "Deterrence" works pretty well against countries that had no intention of attacking you in the first place. However, real threats see it as a challenge, which is why a small power like Hezbollah can't deter a militant aggressor like Israel. Iran, on its own, might command more respect, but as long as Israel has the US in its hip pocket (not to mention its own sizable nuclear arsenal), there isn't much Iran can do either. The net effect is that these tit-for-tat exchanges always work to Israel's advantage.

  • [08-05] Using US tech giants' "cloud" and AI, Israel bombed schools, killing 24 children, to hit 2 "saboteurs".

• Dave DeCamp: [08-04] Netanyahu appoints new spokesman who wants ethnic cleansing of Gaza: "Omer Dostri has called for settlements to be established in areas of Gaza that are under Israel's control."

• Jason Ditz: [08-04] Israeli drone strike kills senior Hezbollah member in Southern Lebanon: Ali Nazih Abed Ali.

• Yoav Haifawi: [08-04] Palestinian demonstrators are back in Haifa -- and facing police oppression: "Since Israel's genocidal attack began in October, a terror campaign has also been carried out against Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, including quashing any signs of solidarity with Gaza. Despite this repression, protests are starting again."

• Tareq S Hajjaj:

  • [08-01] A Palestinian journalist visited Ismail Haniyeh's home in Gaza to report on his death. Israel assassinated him too.

  • [08-02] 'An entirely preventable disaster': Health officials warn of catastrophic polio epidemic in Gaza.

• Oper Neiman: [08-01] In supporting Israeli army rapists, right-wing protesters signal the coming Israeli civil war: "A recent speech in support of Israeli soldiers detained for torturing and raping Palestinian detainees shows the Israeli right not only wants to escalate the ongoing genocide against Palestinians but also threatens bloodshed between Israeli Jews."

  • Zack Beauchamp: [08-02] Israel's January 6 moment: "A far-right riot at a military base exposed the contradiction tearing Israel apart."

  • Adam Gaffney: [08-02] Israel's crimes against humanity at Sde Teiman -- and the complicity of its doctors: "The conditions at the Israeli detention camp, abetted by its medical staff, violated both international law and medical ethics."

  • Bill Van Esveld: [08-04] Israeli lawmakers try to block torture prosecutions.

  • Oren Ziv: A riot for impunity shows Israel's proud embrace of its crimes: "Far-right protesters, soldiers, and MKs rallied for guards suspected of raping a Palestinian detainee. Once fringe, they're now the public face of the state."

• David Remnick: [08-03] Notes from underground: "The lift of Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza." I'm skeptical about how much an outsider like Remnick can actually know and understand about someone so hidden from access, with such different experiences and opportunities, but this is a substantial piece. And it should make us more aware of how fragile the "victories" of Israel's dominance are.

• Ali Rizk: [07-29] Golan Heights attack is match that could set Israel-Hezbollah ablaze: "US is working to stave off what could be a major cross-border war and regional conflagration."

• Staron Zhang: [08-02] Israel has damaged or destroyed 85 percent of schools in Gaza.

The Haniyeh assassination:

• Fatima AbdulKarim/Mohammed R Mhawish: From Gaza to Ramallah, Haniyeh remembered as advocate of unity.

• Nasim Ahmed: [08-01] Ismail Haniyeh: assassinated in Israel's war on peace and quest for endless occupation. Notes that "Western sources consistently portrayed Haniyeh as a moderate figure within Hamas."

  The political murder of Haniyeh fits a troubling pattern of Israeli behaviour. Political observers have long noted Israel's fear of what is often referred to as a Palestinian "peace offensive." Throughout its history as an occupation state, Israel has been accused of targeting moderate Palestinian leaders who show the potential for engaging in meaningful peace negotiations. This strategy, critics argue, is aimed at closing the door to peace and maintaining a state of perpetual conflict that serves Israel's long-term goal of establishing its illegal sovereignty over all of historic Palestine.

• Ramzy Baroud: [07-31] It's both criminal and desperate; that's why Israel assassinated Ismail Haniyeh. He also notes: "Israel chose the time and place for Haniyeh's murder carefully." Israel has persistently attempted to link Hamas with Iran, which has never made a lot of sense, but the opportunity to kill him in Iran will leave an indelible impression, as well as serving as a major embarrassment to and provocation of Iran.

• Juan Cole: [08-02] Turkey's Erdogan denounces killing of Haniyeh, blocks Israel at NATO, boycotts it, and threatens intervention.

• David Hearst: Ismail Haniyeh killing: Netanyahu's only goal is to set the region on fire.

• Fred Kaplan: [07-31] What Israel's killing of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders could mean for war in the region.

• Qassam Muaddi: [07-31] Israel assassinates head of Hamas political bureau amid regional escalation: "Israel assassinated Hamas politburo head Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran after a series of mounting regional tensions that included unprecedented Israeli attacks on the 'Axis of Resistance,' including airstrikes on Beirut and Yemen."

• Ashraf Nubani: [08-05] Killing Hamas leader: an act of Israeli desperation. I understand the impulse to write something defiant like this, but I don't sense the desperation. Israel saw an opportunity and, consistent with their principles, acted on it, with little regard for future consequences, because they really aren't worried about things like that.

• Abdaljawad Omar: [07-31] The real reason Israel is assassinating Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, and why it won't stop the resistance: "Israel's assassination of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders doesn't aim to weaken the resistance. Its real motive is to restore the image of military and intelligence superiority in the eyes of the Israeli public." I think the author is overthinking this. Once Israel's leaders decided they could get away with killing everyone even remotely associated with Hamas, with no worries about killing other Palestinians, any opportunity to hit someone on their list was automatically greenlighted. The author desperately wants to think that the resistance is a factor Israel must reckon with, but Israelis don't care. If their attacks push more people to resist, they'll just kill more. Once the telos is genocide, resistance is just positive feedback.

• Paul R Pillar: [08-01] Trigger happy Israel and its thirst for revenge: "The cross-border assassinations reflect a national rage playing out in Gaza's carnage -- and Netanyahu's desire to keep the war going forever."

• Reuters: [07-31] Haniyeh was the pragmatic leader of Hamas.

• Muhammad Sahimi: [07-31] Assassination of Hamas leader in Iran puts new president in a trap: "Depending on how Pezeshkian responds, it may force the US to get directly involved in defense of Israel." No mention that the trap was solely the work of Netanyahu until six paragraphs in:

  Dialogue between Iran and the United States is, however, the last thing that Israel, and particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, wants at this stage. If anything, Netanyahu would expand the war to Lebanon in hopes that Iran will react strongly and enter the war directly. Neither Hezbollah nor Iran wants a war with Israel at this stage, but no one should be under the illusion that if Israel begins a full-scale war with Lebanon and Hezbollah, Iran will sit it out.

• Erika Solomon: [08-04] Hamas may emerge battered, but not beaten, from Israel's latest blows: "The assassination of two Hamas leaders may be a short-term setback, analysts say, not enough to prevent the group from emerging intact -- and possibly more radicalized." I have very little faith in articles like this, where reporters have very little access to primary sources, and everyone they do have access to has their own interests to promote. The line here, hardly surprising given where it's being published, is basically what Israel wants you to believe: that yes, we're inflicting serious short-term losses on Hamas, but no matter what we do, Palestinians will rebound to attack again, so Israel just has to keep fighting forever, beating them down (you know, "mowing the lawn"). Still, this argument depends on sleight of hand, confusing the idea of Hamas with its organization (which was never as monolithic as supposed), but also assuming that the dynamic remains extremely polarized (that Israel and Hamas can do nothing but fight until one or the other dies).

  I am reasonably certain that as long as Israel acts like Goliath, many Palestinians will want to resist, and will search for leverage they can use to assert their dignity and fight back. Hamas was one of many organizations that attempted to channel Palestinian desires for justice into effective political action. I think it's fair to say that it failed, repeatedly, but most definitively on or shortly after October 7, when in an act of desperation, the organization exploded like a suicide bomber. I suppose it's possible that there is still some sort of residual organization in Gaza, more likely as isolated cells than under any sort of unified command. Emigres like Haniyeh could continue to represent themselves as Hamas for diplomacy, but that just made them targets for Israel. No doubt there are others formerly associated with Hamas, some with their militia and many more mere civil employees of the Hamas-run de facto governance (now destroyed), and those people would continue to look for opportunities to resist, but they no longer constitute an effective force. Within a week or two, Israel could simply have declared victory over Hamas, and no one would have disputed them. That they didn't is because Hamas is their idea as much as it ever was a Palestinian idea. Hamas is Israel's ticket to genocide, so as long as they want to keep killing Palestinians -- and clearly they are nowhere near satiated yet -- they have to keep the idea of Hamas alive. Which is what they've done. And will continue to do, as long as you keep buying their hasbara.

• Syeda Fizzah Shuja: [08-01] Haniyeh's assassination unleashes a new era of political violence.

• Robert Wright: [08-02] The Haniyeh assassination will haunt Israel. Cites David Ignatius (below), quoting: "The Israelis are still stuck in a zero-sum game. But Israelis should ask themselves how well the hard-nosed, forever-war approach has worked in practice." They'd probably answer that they're still fighting, and killing more than they are losing, so it's working out just fine.

  • David Ignatius: [07-31] The mediators struggle to keep a lid on a blood feud: "The assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh is another blow to the delicate work of US negotiators trying to end the Israel-Gaza war." And note who struck the blow, and why.

• Middle East Monitor: [08-04] Massive rally in Istanbul to mourn Hamas leader Haniyeh, support Palestinians in Gaza.

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

• Yuval Abraham: 'Order from Amazon': How tech giants are storing mass data for Israel's war: Also "procuring further AI tools from Google and Microsoft for military purposes."

• Michael Arria:

  • [07-31] US officials react to Israeli assassinations of Hezbollah and Hamas leaders: "White House officials denied involvement in the Israeli assassinations of Hezbollah commander Fouad Shukr and Hamas politburo chief Ismail Haniyeh while also pledging an 'unwavering commitment' to Israel if it faces retaliatory strikes."

  • [08-01] The Shift: Netanyahu protests lead to more bills targeting protesters: "The protests targeting Netanyahu's recent visit to DC have led to a new round of anti-protest bills."

• Phyllis Bennis:

  • [08-01] US complicity in genocide may have just become direct involvement: "US complicity in genocide by providing the weapons Israel is using in Gaza, could expand to direct U S involvement in what could escalate into a major regional war."

  • [08-02] Middle East a tinderbox after assassinations.

• Marjorie Cohn: [07-25] Active violation of ICJ ruling -- US and Israel refuse to comply: "The US is actively violat[ing] the ICJ's ruling. The Biden administration has shown no sign to follow the ICJ's command to stop supporting Israel's illegal occupation."

• Mohamad Elmasry: [08-05] The US is no longer the senior partner in the US-Israel relationship: "When challenged by the Israeli government, Washington has chosen acquiescence."

• Joshua Keating: [07-31] A very dangerous 24 hours in the Middle East: "After strikes in Beirut and Tehran, the region has never been closer to all-out war."

• Sonali Kolhatkar: [08-03] What arming Israel costs us: "To end U.S. support for Israel's genocide in Gaza, cold, hard calculations about war spending versus domestic programs could have greater resonance in an election year." Main problem here is that the bean-counters stick to things that are easily counted, so don't factor what even economists recognize as externalities and opportunity costs, let alone intangibles, such as the tendency of injustice and wars to lead to more wars and more injustice.

• James North: [08-03] Mainstream media coverage of Israel's assassination campaign misleads the US public.

• Trita Parsi: [08-01] The Middle East is inching toward another war.

  Indeed, Netanyahu has for two decades sought to get the U.S. to go to war with Iran. The last four American Presidents have all at various times faced pressure from Israel to attack Iran. Though much focus has been on Iran's nuclear program, the desire for a direct U.S. attack goes deeper than uranium enrichment. Israel sees Iran as threatening a regional arrangement that otherwise provides Israel with maximum maneuverability, including the ability to strike Syria and Lebanon with almost complete impunity. A nuclear deal that prevents Iran from building a bomb would not shift the regional balance away from Iran, the Israelis believe. In fact, through the sanctions relief that Iran was promised under Obama's nuclear deal, Iran's conventional capabilities would probably grow. Obama's rapprochement with Iran edged the regional balance of power away from the Persian Gulf states and Israel. That balance of power cannot be sustained by Israel's military capacity alone. It requires severe economic sanctions and American military action.

• Mitchell Plitnick: [08-04] The fallout from Israel's assassination of Ismail Haniyeh demonstrates the Biden administration's failures: "The Biden administration wants a ceasefire deal but is not prepared to put pressure on Israel to make it happen. Netanyahu knows this and is pushing forward with the genocide of the Palestinians, and regional war with the Axis of Resistance." This is a nit, but why even dignify a phrase like "Axis of Resistance" with a reference? (I wondered about etymology. (Wikipedia attributes first use to a Libyan newspaper in 2002, where it was obviously a play on Bush's axis of evil speech -- a source where its Nazi/WWII associations would not have been grasped as readily as Bush intended. But has any "member" actually identified as such? It seems much more likely to appear in Israeli propaganda, to imply central coordination of armed potential opponents of Israel, where "resistance" is given the intonation of the phrase "resistance is futile." The article does note that Iran's Supreme Leader has "repeatedly defined the Islamic Republic government as a 'resistance government,'" but the implication there is defensive, that one resists against external aggression, not that one becomes aggressive in turn -- a distinction admittedly lost on Israelis.)

• Norman Solomon: [08-02] The smearing of Cori Bush for being truthful about the Gaza War. Also:

  • Devin Thomas O'Shea: [07-30] Cori Bush's opponent is swimming in right-wing AIPAC cash.

• Jeffrey St Clair: [08-03] The scourging of Gaza: Diary of a genocidal war: Ceasefire assassinated.

• Nick Turse: US poured billions of military aid into Lebanon. Now Israel threatens to invade.

• Ramona Wadi: [08-01] The US penchant for aiding Israel's violence.

• Adam Weinstein/Annelle Sheline: [08-01] Will Israel drag the US into a new forever war?

• Philip Weiss: [08-02] Americans are 'uber-soft,' unforged by war, and childless -- says Israeli advocate Bennett: "Former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett has been all over US media calling for an attack on Iran and assassinating Hamas leaders. But his views are fascistic. He praises war and how it transforms society." It should be sobering to realize that someone whose views are as extreme as Bennett's -- and one could say the same thing about Avigdor Lieberman -- is in the opposition to the Netanyahu/Smotrich government. So while one can easily imagine Israel's next elections voting Netanyahu out, any sort of fundamental change of heart is very unlikely.

• Ann Wright: [08-01] Millions spent on Netanyahu's trip to Washington, DC: "Security for war criminal Netanyahu was more extensive than what was provided for 32 heads of state for the recent NATO anniversary in DC."

• Stephen Zunes: [08-02] Don't believe the rampant disinformation over Israel's escalation in Lebanon: "The US is misrepresenting the strike on Majdal Shams and even the geography and political status of where it took place."

Israel vs. world opinion:

• Yousef Aljamal: [08-02] Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. Where is the outrage? That's not the question I would ask. People who know about this are plenty outraged -- probably more than is good for their own health. The bigger problem is who doesn't know? And who doesn't care? The question of starvation was raised almost instantly, with the blockade of food imports and a bombing campaign directed at agricultural resources (especially greenhouses). Since then, we've seen some deaths reported, but it's not clear how they're being counted -- or if they're being counted. The broader issues of malnutriton are hard to quantify, let alone report.

• Kribsoo Diallo: [08-03] African attitudes to, and solidarity with, Palestine: From the 1940s to Israel's genocide in Gaza: "Kribsoo Diallo reviews African perspectives on Israel's genocidal war on Gaza, the rise and fall of Zionist influence in Africa, and the state of African grassroots solidarity with Palestine."

• Faris Giacaman: [07-30] Netanyahu's willing executioners: how ordinary Israelis became mass murderers: "After ten months of relentless genocidal war, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that both the Israeli state and society are partners in the genocide. The picture that emerges is a genocide from above and below." Obvious reference here to Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's 1996 book, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, which argued that the Nazi Judeocide was a reflection of widespread vitriolic anti-semitism among ordinary Germans, as opposed to the view that it was an aberration driven by fanatical Nazis, often operating in secret. I haven't read that book, but I've always been suspicious of its thesis, which just doesn't strike me as the way things work. Still, this seems like a fair question to ask of Israelis right now. I can't really tell: there is a lot of personal dislike of Netanyahu in Israel, but there doesn't seem to be much serious opposition to his war policy (which some would argue is a personal stay-out-of-jail strategy). While I recognize his war as flagrantly genocidal, Israeli propaganda takes great pains to deny and deflect, and therefore to shelter supporters from having to acknowledge the consequences of Israel's actions. If they knew better, would they care?

  But I will note that there are several reasons to think that Israelis are more popularly aligned with their government's genocidal policies than Germans were in the early 1940s: Israel is a much more open democracy, so those (except Palestinians) who oppose government policy can (generally) speak out and assemble to protest without fear of jail and torture; while the press in Israel has been fairly tightly controlled, there is still much more information available about the atrocities than was publically available in Germany; the Holocaust took place under cover of total war, toward the end of a long era of European imperialism, where racism was casually accepted and rarely challenged, whereas today most of us know better; in particular, we know much about the Nazi example, and about many other examples of systematically racist behavior, some also amounting to genocide. For an Israeli (and even more so if you're simply an ally of Israel) today, it's much harder to pretend you don't know what's going on, and/or that there's nothing you can do about it.

  By the way, some old pieces on Goldhagen's book:

  • Norman Finkelstein: [1997] Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's 'crazy' thesis: a critique of Hitler's Willing Executioners: Paywalled, but the essay was later turned into half of a book, reviewed here:

  • Max Frankel: [1998-06-28] Willing executioners? Review of Norman G Finkelstein and Ruth Bettina Birn: A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth.

  • Richard John Neuhaus: [1996-08] Daniel Goldhagen's Holocaust.

  • David North: [1997-04-11] The myth of "ordinary Germans": a review of Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Excutioners.

  • Jonathan Ofir: [2023-12-08] I used to think the term 'Judeo-Nazis' was excessive. I don't any longer. A "related article" link worth mentioning again here.

• Robert Kuttner: [08-02] Bibi's death wish:

  Is Netanyahu deliberately provoking a regional war that will be disastrous for Israel? Unless he is certifiably insane, his motive has to be to drag in the U.S., not as mediator but as more explicit military protector. And the strategy is working. . . .

  But Israel is certainly guilty of the most barbarous sort of ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. And Israel's reckless killing of civilians in Gaza violates international law as well as human decency, whether or not it meets some legal test of genocide.

  If you need a primer on the daily humiliations inflicted on the Palestinian population, you owe it to yourself to read Nathan Thrall's book, A Day in the Life of Abed Salama. Israel's actions in the occupied West Bank meet any test of apartheid, and Israel is behaving precisely like a colonial power.

  In some respects, the South African apartheid regime was more benign. They didn't kill Nelson Mandela, and in the end they released him in full recognition that he would be the country's next president. If only F.W. de Klerk, the last president under apartheid, who recognized the inevitability of Mandela and the end of white rule, were a role model for Netanyahu.

  This example is a reminder that if you want peace, you need strong and credible leadership on the other side, to sell the deal to people who have little if any reason to trust you. Israel could have done that with Arafat in 1993, but instead they undercut and marginalized him, even bolstering Hamas to weaken Fatah. They could have done that with Hamas when it won elections in 2007, but they rejected the results. Israelis like to complain that they've never had a "partner for peace," but the more serious problem is that Palestinians have never been allowed to choose their own leaders. It was the British who selected Hajj Amin Ali Husseini and his successors. Israel arranged for Jordan to rule the West Bank from 1948 until they were ready to take it over in 1967, and even later made sure it was Jordan and not the Palestinians running the Waqf. Israel brought in Arafat rather than deal with the Intifada leaders.

• Craig Murray: [08-02] The Israeli nihilist state: "The apartheid state appears to have no objective other than violence and an urge for desolation."

• Joseph Massad: [07-29] Why the West created a new dictionary for Israel and Palestine: "Seeking ideological uniformity on the issue, western officials and their media accomplices have long recognised the centrality of language to their political indoctrination project."

• Nylah Iqbal Muhammad: [08-03] Understanding the connections between the Congo and Palestine genocides: "Friends of the Congo Executive Director Maurice Carney and Professor Eman Abdelhadi discuss the intersections between the genocides in the Congo and Palestine."

• Zainab Nasser: [08-04] Living remotely: a Palestinian expatriate's struggle from Gaza to Beirut: "The sun rises over Beirut and the city stirs to life. For many, it's a new day filled with promise and potential, maybe hope or pain. But for me, a Gaza-born expatriate who spent 25 years in Gaza, each dawn brings a blend of hope and dread."

• Corey Robin: [08-03] Two paths for Jewish politics: "In America, Jews pioneered a way of life that didn't rely on the whims of the powerful. Now it's under threat." Starts with a personal story:

  Having never thought that it wasn't, I flashed a puzzled smile and recalled an observation of the German writer Ludwig Börne: "Some reproach me with being a Jew, others pardon me, still others praise me for it. But all are thinking about it."

  Thirty-one years later, everyone's thinking about the Jews. Poll after poll asks them if they feel safe. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris lob insults about who's the greater antisemite. Congressional Republicans, who have all of two Jews in their caucus, deliver lectures on Jewish history to university leaders. . . . But as I learned that summer in Tennessee, and as we're seeing today, concern can be as revealing as contempt. Often the two go hand in hand.

  Consider the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which the House of Representatives recently passed by a vote of 320-91. The act purports to be a response to rising antisemitism in the United States. Yet the murder of Jews, synagogue shootings, and cries of "Jews will not replace us" are clearly not what the bill is designed to address. Nearly half of Republicans believe in the "great replacement theory," after all, and their leader draws from the same well.

  The bill will instead outfit the federal government with a new definition of antisemitism that would shield Israel from criticism and turn campus activism on behalf of Palestinians into acts of illegal discrimination. (Seven of the definition's eleven examples of antisemitism involve opposition to the State of Israel.) Right-wingers who vocally oppose the bill -- Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Tucker Carlson, and Charlie Kirk -- have little problem with its Zionist agenda. They just worry that it will implicate those who believe the Jews are Christ killers.

• Ilan Pappé: [08-01] To stop the century-long genocide in Palestine, uproot the source of all violence: Zionism. This led me to another historical piece worth perusing:

  • Amir Fleischmann: [04-22] How European nationalism and Zionism crushed the Arab-Jewish alliance.

• Rick Staggenborg: [07-31] Why do good people support genocide? "I met with a Zionist to discuss whether it was a 'plausible' case that Israel's tactics constituted genocide."

  At her request, I supplied links to the sources of my claims, including Israeli newspapers and mainstream press articles citing Israeli sources. She said little about the information I shared. Instead, she raised new arguments each time we met for why Israel had "no choice" but to continue its wholesale slaughter of the population of Gaza.

  I eventually realized that she was able to support the destruction of an entire people because she didn't want to confront the facts. I think she suspected that knowing the whole truth might undermine her deeply held beliefs about Israel and perhaps Zionism itself.

• Kathleen Wallace: [08-02] How will our great grandchildren look back on this chapter? "What is going on in Palestine is, as they say, simply a laboratory for the rest of the world. To not take a stance on such horror is to sign your own death warrant." Not too far back, the author also wrote:

  • [06-07] Does America have narcissistic personality disorder? "As a way of feeling powerful, the worst narcissistic traits are often emulated, and I think this is what we are seeing in the MAGA movement." The author notes "nine basic criteria to diagnose the personality disorder," and finds the US "currently meets all of them."

    1. A grandiose sense of importance.
    2. A preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success and power.
    3. A belief that they are special in such a way that only other high-status peoples or institutions can understand them.
    4. A need for excessive admiration.
    5. A sense of entitlement.
    6. Interpersonally exploitative behavior.
    7. A lack of empathy.
    8. An envy of others or a belief that others are envious of him or her."
    9. Arrogant and haughty behaviors or attitudes.

  • 05-03] More than just protests for Palestine: existential hope for the world: "Americans have been told that Israel is their only true ally in that region of the world. But nobody wants to know how that situation came to be."

• Robert Zaretsky: [08-05] Israel's use of torture is a travesty -- just like it was for the French in Algeria 70 years ago.

Election notes:

• Karen Greenberg: [08-04] Will election 2024 traumatize us? Drawing on her experience with the Guantanamo prison program, the author asks the question, is our political system designed to resign us to a state of "learned helplessness," where we give up all hope?

  The goal was simple: to reduce that prisoner to a profound state of complete paralysis and disempowerment in which, having no hope of relief or escape, he would do whatever his captors wanted. Detainees would see that there was no way out but to answer their captors' questions, which, it turned out, often led them, in desperation and a state of learned helplessness, to confess to things they hadn't done, to confess to whatever their captors wanted to hear.

  Having studied and written about the nightmare of those prisoners and Guantánamo for so many years now, it's been supremely jarring to see the term "learned helplessness" re-emerge in connection to the current unnerving state of American politics and the 2024 presidential election. Yet, in many ways, it seems a strangely appropriate lens through which to view the world of Donald Trump and the rest of us. It was true, as many commented, that a sense of learned helplessness indisputably crept into the mindset of so many of us in this country -- at least prior to Joe Biden's decision not to pursue a second term as president.

  But with Biden's exit, the election feels far less gloomy right now. No matter how improbable election of Kamala Harris may have seemed before Biden dropped out, it now feels like we finally have a fighting chance, and with that comes a sense of euophria that has been sadly lacking from our lives since, well, practically forever.

• Rebecca Jennings: [08-02] An influencer is running for Senate. Is she just the first of many? "Caroline Gleich's Utah Senate campaign is a sign of the blurring lines between digital creators and politicians." This doesn't strike me as so weird. She sounds like a good candidate.

• Ed Kilgore: [07-31] What ever happened to RFK Jr.?

  • Chas Danner: [08-05] RFK Jr. admits planting dead bear in Central Park. Getting desperate here, don't you think? How loud can a person scream, "Hey! I'm weird too!"

  • Clare Malone: [08-05] What does Robert F Kennedy, Jr. actually want? "The third-party presidential candidate has a troubled past, a shambolic campaign, and some surprisingly good poll numbers." Last time I checked, his poll numbers had dropped by half, so I have to wonder what the lead time on this piece was.

Trump:

• Moustafa Bayoumi: [07-31] Donald Trump sure makes a lot of 'jokes' about ruling as a dictator, doesn't he? "Trump's messaging draws from the strategies of the far right -- and Democrats usually end up playing into his hands." There's something here I don't understand. Aren't jokes supposed to be funny? Have you ever actually laughed at anything Trump has said? I can't think of any examples. Rather, his "jokes" are usually tagged after the fact, mostly to excuse taunts, boasts, and/or lies that missed their mark. With most people, a sense of humor, a shared joke, provides a human connection. But with Trump? I'm not saying you can't laugh at him, but laughing with him is very hard.

• Catherine Bennett: [08-04] We know Trump is weird -- it's time for the Democrats to get creative with the insults.

• Nandika Chatterjee: [08-02] Federal investigators suspected that Egypt may have bribed Trump with $10 million in cash. Draws on:

  • Aaron C Davis/Carol D Leonnig: [08-02] $10M cash withdrawal drove secret probe into whether Trump took money from Egypt: "Political appointees rejected efforts to search for additional evidence investigators believed might provide answers, then closed the case."

• Chauncey DeVega: [07-31] "The savior of Israel": Antisemitism expert on what Trump's "good Jew and bad Jew sorting signals: With Sharon Nazarian.

• Griffin Eckstein: [07-31] Trump doubles down on "rude and nasty" label for Black journalists, after tense NABJ interview.

• Jim Geraghty: [08-05] Does Trump even want to win? "In a state Trump needs, he attacked a popular Republican governor and trotted out the usual grievances." The state is Georgia, where, well, you know.

• Susan B Glasser: [08-01] Trump's racist attack on Kamala Harris was no accident.

• Shane Goldmacher: [08-01] Trump escalates race attacks on Harris, worrying some Republicans. It takes a lot to embarrass Republicans on race.

• Benjamin Hart: [08-01] Trump keeps questioning Harris's blackness after train-wreck interview.

• Margaret Hartmann: [08-01] The real origin of Trump's Hannibal Lecter obsession: "The deeper you go, the less sense it makes."

• Colbert I King: [08-02] Trump is much worse than 'weird'. This is one trope you can play hundreds of ways. For instance:

  • Jennifer Rubin: [08-01] 'Weird does not begin to describe the Trump threat.

• Rachel Leingang: [04-06] Trump's bizarre, vindictive incoherence has to be heard in full to be believed: "Excerpts from his speeches do not do justice to Trump's smorgasbord of vendettas, non sequiturs and comparisons to famous people."

• Eric Levitz: [08-01] The Trump-Vance campaign would be great if not for Trump and Vance: "The Trump team's newfound professionalism can't conceal their candidate's longstanding flaws." Subheds: "Trump's attacks on Harris's ethnicity are dishonest (and probably counterproductive)"; "JD Vance is the most disliked vice presidential candidate on record." My question here is how many people realized how much they disliked Vance before Trump picked him? I didn't, and I figure I knew more about him than most people. Granted, much of what I knew took on greater import with Trump's "kiss of death," but still I'm impressed by how much more came out after his selection.

• Amanda Marcotte: [08-01] The dark truth behind Donald Trump's hatred of Kamala Harris' laugh: "It's not just Kamala Harris: When E. Jean Carroll laughed, Donald Trump sexually assaulted her."

• Paige Oamek: [08-05] Trump's new insane Mar-a-Lago fee fuels his election grift: "Here's even more proof that Donald Trump is planning to use the presidency just to enrich himself."

• Christian Paz: [07-31] Speaking to Black journalists, Trump reminded everyone how racist he can be: "Give Trump a platform and he'll remind people how unlikable he is."

• Rebecca Picciotto: [08-05] Trump blames Harris, Biden for stock market meltdown after taking credit for past upswing.

• Ishmael Reed: [08-02] Trump Sista Souljahs the NABJ.

• Stephen Reicher: [07-26] Donald Trump is a misogynistic, billionaire felon. Here's why Americans can't stop voting for him: "Outsiders can't fathom his success. But Trump's supporters believe his gaffes and misdemeanours prove he's 'one of them.'" I'm rather skeptical of this argument. I tend more towards "he hates the people I hate," but even that depends on a pretty cynical view of politics: that nothing positive is really possible, so let's settle for naked negativity. Very little that Trump says is credible, but the one thing he does convey is menace. Even his ineptness is menacing.

• Greg Sargent: [08-02] Trump's angry new attack on "dumb" Kamala gets wrecked by leaked data: "As Trump keeps blasting 'Border Czar Harris,' new data on plummeting border crossings badly undermines his lies and demagoguery -- in more ways than you might think."

• Hadas Thier: [08-01] Bitcoin goes all in with Trump: "With 10 senators and Trump in attendance at the national Bitcoin conference, the crypto currency moves from the fringes to the center of political life." I certainly didn't expect to have a whole section on crypto, but here it is. As Krugman explains below, the only practical use of crypto is crime. I've worried sometimes that Democats might be attracted to crypto, basically because they're desperate for donors, the crypto scammers are desperate for political influence, and (not unlike hedge funds) it seems kind of harmless -- I can even think of some examples, like Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. But the recent break of crypto operators toward Republicans makes most sense, as Republicans have really cornered the market for fools with too much money and too few scruples. (Note that hedge fund and vulture capital operators are also leaning Republican these days.)

  • John Cassidy: [08-05] Trump's dangerous embrace of Bitcoin and the crypto bros: "Having suffered a series of legal and regulatory setbacks in recent years, the cryptocurrency industry is pouring millions of dollars into the upcoming election. To what end?"

  • Paul Krugman: [08-01] How 2024 became a crypto election.

  • Liliana Segura: Bitcoin bros and the MAGA faithful converge in Nashville -- and embrace an alternate reality.

  • Tyler Walicek: [08-03] Why are more tech leaders pivoting to Trump? Follow the crypto.

  • Luke Goldstein: [07-31] Crypto cash affecting both sides of the democratic divide: Looks like some crypto money is going to Democrats too, especially primary opponents of Democratic crypto critics.

  • Freddy Brewster: [07-31] The crypto industry's 2024 election spending spree.

  • Washington Post: [08-03] Republicans suddenly love crypto. Americans should beware. "The cryptocurrency lobby is lining up behind Donald Trump. Voters should see nothing good in this."

• Adam Wren/Natalie Allison/Olivia Beavers/Lisa Kashinsky: As Trump fumes, Republicans wince at 'public nervous breakdown'.

• Maya Yang: [08-04] Trump calls union leader who endorsed Kamala Harris 'a stupid person': "Ex-president says members of United Auto Workers, which endorsed Harris, will vote for him despite Shawn Fain."

Vance:

• Tim Balk: [08-05] Usha Vance defends JD Vance's 'childless cat ladies' claim as a 'quip': Evidently Trump isn't the only Republican who thinks it's really funny when they say things that most people recognize as plainly stupid and cruel.

• Nandika Chatterjee: [07-30] JD Vance said people without children are "more sociopathic" in newly unearthed interview.

• Rachel M Cohen: [07-30] The movement desperately trying to get people to have more babies: "It's not only JD Vance fixating on childlessness. The pronatalists, explained."

• Griffin Eckstein: [08-01] "Testament to Donald Trump's strength": JD Vance credits Trump in Biden's hostage deal: "Vance, in a stretch of imagination, explains how Trump was responsible for Biden's deal to free Russian hostages."

• Melissa Gira Grant: [07-31] JD Vance has a conspiracy theory about childless people: "The vice presidential candidate has said a 'childless cabal' wants to 'take out kids.'"

• Arwa Mahdawi: [07-30] .

• Amanda Marcotte: [07-31] Kamala Harris is wise to target JD "Cat Lady" Vance -- the GOP's "incel platform" repels voters: "Donald Trump's running mate once claimed people without children are 'more sociopathic.'"

• Jan-Werner Müller: [08-01] JD Vance is the baby of big tech and big oil. He's no 'working-class populist: "Trump's running mate is not a break from ruthless Republican capitalism -- just a shameless repackaging of it."

• Nathan J Robinson: [07-31] The horrifying fascist manifesto endorsed by JD Vance: "A disturbing book 0plans a ruthless total war against the 'unhuman' left." The book is by Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec, and it is called Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them), with a foreword by "Stephen K Bannon," who also wrote introductions to: Rudy Giuliani, The Biden Crime Family: The Blueprint for Their Prosecution, Joel B Pollak: The Agenda: What Trump Should Do in His First 100 Days, and Naomi Wolf, ed: The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer's Crimes Against Humanity; as opposed to "Steve Bannon," who is credited with the foreword to Dan Fleuette: Rebels, Rogues, and Outlaws: A Pictorial History of WarRoom.

• Katherine Stewart: [08-01] The weird intellectual roots of JD Vance's hatred for "cat ladies": "In his worldview, there can only be one supreme power in America -- and it's between trad-male authoritarians like him or woke women of the left."

• Matt Stieb: [08-01] JD Vance is swallowing any pride he might have had.

• Margaret Talbot: [08-05] JD Vance and the right's call to have more babies: "Pronatalism has much in common with some of Vance's views: it typically combines concerns about falling birth rates with anti-immigration and anti-feminist ideas."

• David Austin Walsh: [07-29] JD Vance is summoning the John Birch Society.

And other Republicans:

• Anne Kim: [07-25] Project 2025 is even worse than you think: "The policy blueprint takes aim at the poor by imposing strict limits on Medicaid and housing assistance." Well, much more than that, as we've been pointing out for months now. But since journalists started to come back and question Trump on it, he's been backpedaling.

  • Nicholas Liu: [07-31] Project 2025 director quits as part of "ridiculous" effort to distance the far-right plan from Trump.

  • Shawn Musgrave:

    • Project 2025's mastermind personally thanked JD Vance in his new book.

    • Project 2025 contributors are abandoning ship as Trump turns against them: Maybe they're sheltering from the brand name, but their ideas are ubiquitous in Republican policy circles, and their careers in partisan hackdom are bullet-proof.

  • Heather Digby Parton: [07-31] Trump's attempted rebrand of Project 2025 is failing: "Don't be fooled by staffing shifts, Trump has every intention of implementing the Heritage Foundation's vision."

• Shefali Luthra: [08-03] 3 months into Florida's 6-week abortion ban, its impacts are already showing.

• ProPublica: [08-03] Inside Ziklag, the secret organization of wealthy Christians trying to sway the election and change the country.

• Prem Thakker: GOP platform doesn't mention the word "climate" once -- even after the hottest year on record.

Harris:

• Nandika Chatterjee: Let's start with the obvious big stories:

  • [08-02] "United as one party": Harris locks up Democratic nomination, securing a majority of DNC delegates: Well, so far, she's made it look easy.

  • [08-02] Kamala Harris raised $310 million in July, more than twice Trump's fundraising haul. And she did it without extraordinary promotional stunts like getting convicted for felonies.

• Paul Armentano: [08-01] Kamala is the first major presidential candidate to support marijuana legalization.

• Abdallah Fayyad: [07-31] Ruthless "cop" or "soft on crime"? Kamala Harris's record as prosecutor, explained.

• Constance Grady: [08-01] Legendary activist Kimberlé Crenshaw on why those white people Zooms give her hope: "The scholar who coined 'intersectionality' explains why those fundraisers from white Harris supporters really do matter."

• Timothy Noah: [08-02] Where to go from "weird": "Kamala Harris's campaign has stumbled onto something with its Trump dismissal."

• Christian Paz: [07-30] Gen Z loves making Kamala Harris memes. Will they vote?

• Michael Tomasky: [08-05] The crucial week is here. Can Kamala keep this crazy enthusiasm going?

• Li Zhou: [07-29] The ugly calculus behind MAGA's racist and sexist attacks on Harris.

• Vice-President: Not a serious concern for me, but some pieces (mostly anti-Shapiro) popped up:

  • Michael Crowley: [08-02] Senior US diplomat will lead Kamala Harris's running mate's team: "Elizabeth M Allen, who heads the State Department's public diplomacy office, served as a top aide to Ms. Harris in 2020 and in the Obama White House." No running mate yet, but clear indication that whoever it is will be kept on a tight leash. And while it's safe to assume that Allen will be as pro-Israel as she needs to be, she can't be unaware of the pitfalls the candidate will face.

  • Chris Lehman: [08-02] Josh Shapiro is a bad VP pick any way you look at it: "From Gaza to education to corporate welfare, the Pennsylvania governor would drag Kamala Harris in the wrong direction."

  • Eric Levitz: [07-31] Would picking Josh Shapiro actually help Harris in Pennsylvania? "Vice presidential candidates don't necessarily enjoy a home-state advantage." He's arguing against picking Shapiro, without putting much emphasis on what many of us regard as his worst liability, which is his Israel boosterism.

  • Mark Penn: [08-03] Why Josh Shapiro would make such a difference for Kamala Harris. You may remember Penn as Hillary Clinton's favorite pollster and campaign strategist (at least once Dick Morris moved on). No one in America has his finger more firmly on the pulse of stupid.

  • Rafael Shimunov: [08-02] Josh Shapiro's alarmist response to campus protests should disqualify him from being Harris' running mate: "Democrats need to unite a left divided over Israel. Shapiro's actions this spring will hurt that enterprise."

Biden:

• Phillip Longman: [07-26] Biden and Harris broke the suffocating "Washington consensus" on economics.

And other Democrats:

• Jessica Corbett: [08-03] Sanders unveils "moonshot" bill to fund research into long COVID: The bill would offer $1 billion per year top support studies, treatments and expansion of care for US patients."

• Timothy Noah: [08-01] How the Democrats finally took on Big Pharma: "Millions of jobs? Rising wages? Those are great, but the unsung economic achievement has come in making health care much more affordable. The victories, starting with insulin prices, are remarkable."

Legal matters and other crimes:

• Liz Anderson: [07-02] Supreme Court rules Hitler immune from prosecution for burning down Reichstag, seizing absolute power. Apologies for reaching back a whole month, but I just found this. Even so, you probably instantly understood that this is not something the Supreme Court literally did, but is an analogy, perhaps ad absurdum, but not as absurd as the actual ruling.

• Adam Gopnik: [07-22] Should we abolish prisons? "Our carceral system is characterized by frequent brutality and ingrained indifference. Finding a better way requires that we freely imagine alternatives."

• Sean Illing: [08-03] Is the United States in self-destruct mode? "The crisis is in the Constitution." Interview with Erwin Chemerinsky, who wrote No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Thretens the United States, and is a frequent writer on constitutional law. Sounds like the current Supreme Court has soured him, at least relative to his 2018 book (which I've read), We the People: A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century. Danielle Allen offers similar insights in Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality. I've long been partial to books that argued that the foundations of the American political system leaned left, like Staughton Lynd's Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (1968), and Gordon S Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1992); a more recent one I like is Ganesh Sitaraman: The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens Our Republic (2017); also, one I own but haven't gotten to yet, is Joseph Fishkin/William E Forbath: The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (2022).

  On the other hand, while I could think of many ways to improve the Constitution -- a good start would be by consulting John Paul Stevens: Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution -- I tend to accept it as unamendable and therefore think we should build political coalitions that are large enough to overcome the system's inherent biases. While it is possible that the current Supreme Court could go completely off the rails with its arbitrary rulings, a strong Democratic majority in Congress could easily replace laws that the Court strikes down, especially when they do so on flimsy excuses (as we've seen a lot of lately).

• Ellen Ioanes: [08-01] Why the 9/11 plea agreements are such a big deal: "It's the end of a drawn-out legal process, haunted by the failure of the war on terror." But . . .

  • Abené Clayton: [08-02] Plea deal for accused 9/11 plotters revoked by Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin.

  • John Kiriakou: [08-02] The CIA & the 9/11 plea deals: "If you don't like the outcome of this odyssey through uncharted legal territory before Lloyd Austin reversed it, blame the CIA, Mitch McConnell and almost every other member of Congress who served in 2009 and 2015."

• Ian Millhiser: [08-01] Chuck Schumer's ambitious plan to take the Supreme Court down a peg: "Schumer wants to engage in jurisdiction stripping, a rarely used tactic that can shrink the Supreme Court's authority."

• Jeffrey St Clair: [08-02] "I'll fucking shoot you in the face": the police murder of Sonya Massey.

Climate and environment:

• Washington Post: [08-05] Debby's most intense rainfall still ahead: The Category 1 hurricane made landfall in Florida's Big Bend, on a path that will dump heavy rain across Georgia and South Carolina. Live updates, including "Debby is the latest sign of an especially active hurricane season."

• Ayurella Horn-Muller: [08-03] 1 in 11 people went hungry in 2023. The climate crisis is partially to blame.

• Blaise Malley: [08-02] Diplomacy Watch: Ukrainian public opinion more divided than ever: "Also, reporter Evan Gershkovich and former US marine Paul Whelan released in biggest prisoner swap to date."

• Eli Clifton: [07-29] WSJ omits major Pompeo conflict of interest in 'Trump peace plan': "Surprise! The former Secretary of State and his co-writer could financially gain from this pro-Ukraine proposal."

• Fred Kaplan: [08-01] It sure seems as if Vladimir Putin is recalculating the US elections:

• Anatol Lieven:

  • [08-02] Biden team blows off deadline for Ukraine war strategy: "Perhaps the administration can't admit it doesn't have one."

  • [07-31] Stop treating Georgia as a creature of the US and the West: "The narrative of 'Russification' risks a real electoral crisis in October, one which Washington and Brussels seem to be encouraging, at everyone's peril."

• Li Zhou: [08-01] The US-Russia prisoner swap that freed Evan Gershkovich, explained: "It's the largest exchange since the Cold War."

  • Chas Danner: [08-01] Who was exchanged in the big Russian prisoner swap?

  • Joshua Yaffa: [08-01] Evan Gershkovich is finally coming home: "In a multinational prisoner exchange, the Wall Street Journal reporter was freed, after being detained for more than a year in Russian jail."

America's empire and the world:

• Christian G Appy: [08-02] Blank checks for war: Congressional abdication from Tonkin to Gaza.

• Rachel Chason: [08-05] US troops withdraw from strategic African base as extremist threat grows: From Agadez, in Niger.

• Nick Cleveland-Stout: [07-30] Apparently, Azerbaijan's got plenty of agents in Washington: "Rodney Dixon produced and peddled a report for Baku absolving it of accusations of Armenian genocide in Nagorno-Karabakh."

• Ellen Ioanes: [07-29] Venezuela's Maduro just tightened his grip on power. What comes next?

  • Aida Chávez: US sanctions have devastated Venezuela. How does that help democracy? "In the chaotic aftermath of Maduro's contested reelection, the case that US policy worked in Venezuela is on shaky ground."

  • Gloria Guillo: [08-02] Maduro wins Venezuelan election despite US-organized coup attempt: "It was clear going into the vote, from Maduro's massively attended political rallies, that he remained their favorite."

  • James North: [07-30] The Maduro government is probably stealing the election in Venezuela: "But maintaining economic warfare by the US -- including sanctions -- only hurts the Venezuelan people." But wasn't the intention of the sanctions simply to hurt the Venezuelan people? And what right does the US have to complain about Maduro rigging the election after all the interference the US had committed?

    The Trump policy was not only cruel but also arguably cynical. The Washington Post just reported that Trump officials knew that imposing total sanctions would force a big jump in the number of Venezuelan refugees. But "chaos at the border" helps the MAGA movement politically, as we've just seen with Trump's sabotage of a bipartisan compromise in Congress that would have made asylum requests at the border more difficult. . . .

    The Venezuelan election took place amid an ongoing economic catastrophe, a disaster whose scale is not fully grasped outside the country. The Trump sanctions blocked most of the country's oil exports, and cut it off from international finance. The United States supposedly made exceptions for the import of food and medicines, but global companies steered clear, afraid to run afoul of the American boycott. Mark Weisbrot has the details; he told me that after Trump's 2017 decree, Venezuela's economy collapsed by nearly 38 percent, a worse drop than the 29 percent contraction that the US experienced in 1929-33, the first years of the Great Depression. Venezuelan imports dropped by 91 percent, and food imports by 78 percent. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization reported that undernourishment rose to 27 percent; it had been under 3 percent a decade earlier. Infant mortality jumped to 21 per 1,000 live births, the second highest in Latin America. Some 82 percent of the population ended up in poverty.

  • David Smilde: [07-31] Maduro's legitimacy plunges into crisis following election.

  • Julie Turkewitz: [08-01] US recognizes Maduro's rival as winner of Venezuelan election: "Secretary of State Anthony J Blinken said there was 'overwhelming evidence' that Edmundo González had won, despite President Nicolás Maduro's claim of victory."

• Joshua Keating: [07-31] Are we really in a "new Cold War" with China? Interview with US Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns.

• Mackenzie Knight: [08-01] Firing nuclear missiles from the pork barrel: "Money and political influence play an outsized role in US military force posture, like the $141 billion Sentinel.

• Dan Leaf: [07-31] Sue Mi Terry: Sometimes you get whacked by the revolving door: "Former CIA and White House Korea analyst -- and wife of columnist Max Boot -- was indicted for playing the influence game a bit too hard." Draws three "lessons":

  1. US policy on North Korea has failed. Time for a new vector.
  2. Think tanks and affiliated experts are vulnerable to financial pressure from foreign entities.
  3. Foreign intellience services, even friendlies, can present a threat to US interests.

• William M Leogrande/Peter Kornbluh: [08-02] Senator Robert Menendez and the corruption of Cuba policy.

• Azad Majumber/Rebecca Tan/Karishma Kehrotra/Anant Gupta: [08-05] Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigns and flees country.

• Ishaan Tharoor: [08-05] Thailand may soon take another step backward.

• Adam Weinstein: [07-29] Attacks on US troops in Middle East resume: "Is anyone paying attention to this tinderbox, with our servicemen and women right in the middle?"

Other stories:

• Daniel Immerwahr: [07-15] Were pirates foes of the modern order -- or its secret sharers? "We've long viewed them as liberty-loving rebels. But it's time to take off the eye patch."

• Michael Luo: [07-28] How Christian fundamentalism was born again: "Nearly a century ago, a single trial seemed to shatter the movement's place in America. It's returned in a new form -- but for old reasons." Remembering the Scopes trial.

• Tom Valovic: [08-02] The great global computer outage is a warning we ignore at our peril: "Inherent fragility is always present."

• Richard Wolff: [08-03] Capitalism and democracy are opposites: "When you cross the threshold into a workplace, you leave whatever democracy might exist outside. You enter a workplace from which democracy is excluded." Author of several books along these lines, most recently Understanding Capitalism. I haven't read them, but similar arguments abound in left political tracts, at least as far back as Marx. No doubt most capitalists would like to take as role models feudal lords and despots, but it's clearly possible for workers to retain human and civil rights while working for private firms, and even substantial economic rights, while still retaining such key characteristics of capitalism as private ownership of capital. We do that all the time, and sure, we need to do more and better. The driving force there will no doubt be democracy. It sure won't be capitalism.

• The Olympics:

  • Will Leitch: [08-05] The best of the Paris Olympics: underdogs, an upset, and the spectacular Simone Biles: "Savoring the Games as they enter their final week."

  • Izzie Ramirez/Meredith Haggerty/Alex Abad-Santos: [08-02] 3 unexpected winners -- and 1 predictable loser -- from the Paris Olympics so far.

  • Li Zhou: [08-02] The misleading controversy over an Olympia women's boxing match, briefly explained: "Conservatives are capitalizing on the abandoned Khelif-Carini fight to levy anti-trans attacks."

Obituaries

• William Calley:

  • Seymour Hersh: [08-01] Tracking down Lieutenant Calley: "How I learned the story of the My Lai Massacre."

  • Nick Turse: [07-30] Lt. Calley, the only officer convicted for My Lai massacre, dead at 80: "His role in the 1968 slaughter of over 100 Vietnamese was a feature, not a bug, in the ill-fated US war in Southeast Asia." While Calley is the one we remember, Turse points out that the order that Turse took as the title of his book actually came from Calley's superior officer, Capt. Ernest Medina: Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam.

Books

• Usman Butt: [2023-07-09] Avi Shlaim's memoir Three Worlds: Mossad, Mizrahim, and the loss of Iraqi Jewry: "Avi Shlaim's memoir is an elucidating account of split worlds under duress. Deeply researched, Shlaim reveals the factors behind his leaving Iraq for Israel, and how the Israeli secret services stoked tensions to facilitate this exodus."

• Louis Menand: [07-22] When yuppies ruled: "Defining a social type is a way of defining an era. What can the time of the young urban professionjal tell us about our own?" Refers to Tom McGrath: Triumph of the Yuppies: American the Eighties, and the Creation of an Unequal Nation.

• Jordan Michael Smith: [08-02] The foreign policy mistake the US keeps repeating in the Middle East: "In 2024, the US faces some of the same challenges in the region that it did in 1954." Review of Fawaz A Gerges: What Really Went Wrong: The West and the Failure of Democracy in the Middle East, a title which alludes to Bernard Lewis's 2002 book, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. I read the latter back when I was desperate to read anything on the Middle East, but it mostly just showed me how idiotic western orientalists can be. I haven't read any of Gerges's many books -- most appear to be primers on jihadism for his UK readers -- but he's been working long enough for the imperialist ardor to wear thin. So expect some insights, but also some aggravation. For instance, consider this pull quote:

  The real lesson of America's Cold War policies is that interfering in other countries should only be done when our most vital interests are at stake, we have competent leaders, and we can do more good than ill.

  On the surface, that seems sensible, but every clause melts into goop the moment you reflect on it. Rather than dissect it, let me suggest instead:

  1. Never interfere in other countries. If they are friendly, be friendly. If they are hostile, be wary. If they stink, take your business elsewhere. But don't think that you can or should change them. Ever.
  2. Only domestic interests are vital. Governments are responsible for taking care of their own people, within their own territory, and nothing more. Anyone who thinks "we" have an interest outside the country is wrong, and up to no good.
  3. It's ok to conduct international relations, as long as it's done in a fair and open manner, with mutual respect, not clouded by the projection of power or avarice.
  4. Competent leaders are good. I wish we had some. But no one can judge the competency or fitness of other people's leaders. So don't.
  5. It's impossible to calculate the balance of good and ill: the terms are poorly defined, hard to quantify, and especially hard to anticipate well into the future. The best one can do is to avoid ill at every opportunity. That should leave room for good.

  From WWII on, US interaction with the Middle East has produced one blunder after another, each couched in the notion that we have material interests in the region that need to be advanced or at least defended through alliances with groups that had their own independent and sometimes conflicting interests, and deveoped through ideologies that have only served to further muddy the picture, and to totally befuddle the minds in Washington who think they are in charge. It wasn't always like that. Pre-WWII US interaction was relatively benign: American missionaries established great universities in Beirut and Cairo, tactfully enough that they didn't get tagged as Crusaders; the US refused to join the Great War against the Ottoman Empire, and refused a mandate over post-war Turkey.

  Things started to change in the 1930s when American oil companies came to Saudi Arabia, but even there they made much more equitable arrangements with Aramco than the British did with their Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The Eisenhower policies Gerges is so critical of were still rooted in past good will, even as it was rapidly being squandered to backstop British imperialism and the global oil monopoly, and ultimately to gratify Israel's every whim. One can imagine ways to unwind some of the worst effects, but there's little chance of that happening until you first realize that the entire project was rotten from the start.

• Alexander Sorondo: [07-31] The short shelf-life of the White House tell-all: "Fly-on-the-wall West Wing books age like milk. Why do journalists and publishers bother?" Maybe they like milk? So few books stand the tes to time, it's almost silly to think that they should. One may question the value of "insider" stories, as compared to broader-based studies and deeper histories, but there's no reason they can't contribute something.

  Franklin Foer's book on Biden, The Last Politician, gets a mention, especially because something very significant (October 7) happened just a month after it came out. I'll admit I bought a copy, then didn't read it in a timely fashion, and at this point probably never will. But when I bought it, I thought there was a deficit of information on how Biden was operating around lots of issues -- especially on the Afghanistan retreat, which I thought he got a bum rap for, but with Biden it's hard to tell what's art and what's just klutziness.

  While it's always possible to publish too soon, books do take long enough to write that authors can get beyond first impressions and instincts. I rather doubt that Thomas Ricks meant to call his Iraq War book Fiasco, but by the time he finished, the title was obvious. Similarly, I thought Rajiv Chandrasekaran's reporting from Iraq was really shallow, but by the time he turned it into a book (Imperial Life in the Emerald City) he had a real story. The author here seems to prefer memoirs over journalism, but his examples (Bill Barr, James Comey, Anthony Scaramucci) aren't very persuasive.

Music (and other arts?)

• Hanif Abdurraqib: [07-21] Mdou Moctar's guitar-bending cry for justice: "How the Tuareg band merges political anguish and musician transcendence."

• Kyle Chayka: [07-31] Why I finally quit Spotify: "The platform interface has gradually made it harder to find the music I want to listen to. With the latest app updates, I'd had enough." Tell me about it. Author has a recent book: Filterworld: How Algorithms Flattened Culture, as well as the earlier (2020) The Longing for Less: Living With Minimalism.

• Anna Russell: [07-29] Make way for postpartum punk rock: "The London band Pushy Pushy Pushy refuges the notion that artists can't be mothers."

Chatter

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

Original count: 254 links, 12958 words (17123 total)

Current count: 256 links, 12995 words (17190 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Tuesday, July 30, 2024

Opened this file on Friday, July 26, early evening. Thought I might wrap this up Monday evening, but I had a very stressful day, got bummed out, and accomplished little. Hence, this week's piece has lapsed into Tuesday, but coverage of [07-30] will be spotty, at best.

One thing I did accomplish on Monday was to write a bit of code that I'm using here, and should save me a lot of trouble in the future. As I've been writing these posts, I've often wondered how much I had written. It then occurred to me that I could measure the post using two Linux shell commands:

fgrep 'href' FILENAME | wc -l
wc -w FILENAME

The former counts links (assuming there is no more than one link per line). The latter counts words. I usually omitted the wc options, since it's easy to visually pick out the number I wanted: the default counts lines, words, and characters. My first thought was to wrap those two commands into a shell script, then run it and append the answer to the web page. Then it occurred to me that I'm already reading the file to find a few directive lines (mostly used for the title and date), so I could count links and words as I go, then add a directive to print them out at (or near) the end. (Which gives me a bit of flexible control, as opposed to just automatically appending the stats to every page -- something I still may decide to do.)

At present, the link counts match the program output, but the word counts vary somewhat. Obviously, word counts depend on how you delimit words (e.g., is a "hyphenated-word" 1 or 2 words?). I used wc just because it was easy and close enough for my purposes. The new code also takes the easy route, using the PHP str_word_count() function, which at least initially produced larger word counts (e.g., 11616 vs. 8674, so in this case +25.6%). But rather than try to tune the PHP code to better match the wc results, I thought maybe I should aim for more useful results. I knew that a lot of the text in these particular files appeared in HTML tags and comments, which never appears as words on the web page, so I tried removing them -- using a regular expression replace:

preg_replace('/<[^>]*>/', ' ', LINE)

I then called the word count function both on the edited line and on the original one -- I was curious what the effect was, and wound up printing out both totals. I also eliminated the directive lines from the word count, since like markup they do not appear in the page, and I was already separating those lines out. For the page cited above, the word counts wound up at 7996 (tags stripped) and 11616 (total). I can imagine refining this further. The most obvious thing is I'm not checking for HTML entities right now, which are few (so have little practical effect), and are rather complicated (so would require much more complex code).

I don't doubt that my programming skills have atrophied over the score-plus years since my last full-time job, but it's always a good feeling to see that I still have some.

One more new formatting tic this week. I thought I'd like to have some way to draw extra attention to articles that seem especially important. What seemed like the simplest, most intuitive way was to change the • bullet to something that would stand out more, like this -- a bright red star.

I've applied this in a few places, and probably should in a few more. (This was a very late addition to the file.) I figured I could do this with CSS, but ran across the problem that once an element was selected for the star, any child elements also inherited the star. (There's a Sarah Jones example below, which is actually pretty unusual.) I haven't found a way in CSS to prevent or stop such inheritance, so resorted to another hack to undo it.

Top story threads:

Israel:

• Mondoweiss:

  • [07-25] Day 293: Palestinians slam Netanyahu speech to Congress as US officials say a ceasefire deal is close: "Palestinian political leaders slammed U.S. politicians' response to Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress as Israel continued its Khan Younis offensive for the fifth day, killing dozens of civilians there and across Gaza."

  • [07-29] Day 297: Israel and Lebanon brace for new escalation after 12 Syrian residents of the Golan Heights were killed by a strike: "Israeli officials say that Netanyahu is behind Israel's hardened position preventing a ceasefire deal as a new round of talks in Rome concludes without a breakthrough."

• Yasmin Abusayma: [07-24] What it's like for Palestinian women living through the Gaza genocide: "Palestinian women have been forced to demonstrate remarkable resilience while navigating the harsh realities of Israel's genocidal war for themselves and their families."

• Eman Alhaj Ali: [07-27] Living in a nightmare: "In Gaza, night is not peaceful. Going to sleep means not knowing if you'll wake up in the morning."

• Jan Altaner: [07-26] An investigation shows how the IDF killed Hind Rajab: A six-year-old Palestinian girl, one of the few names and faces recognized as such among the thousands Israelis have killed.

• M Reza Behnam: [07-25] The politics of water under occupation: Israel in Palestine.

• Shatha Hanaysha: [07-24] Israel kills 11 Palestinians in 24 hours in the West Bank: "Israeli forces carried out a drone strike on a crowded refugee camp, killing five people including a paramedic and her daughter. Eyewitnesses said Israeli forces desecrated the bodies with a bulldozer before taking four bodies into custody."

• Heidi Levine, et al.: [07-28] Israel strikes deep in Lebanon after rocket attack, stoking fear of wider war: "Israel had promised revenge for a rocket strike from Lebanon that killed 12 in the Golan Heights town of Majdal Shams. Hezbollah denied responsibility."

• Gideon Levy: [07-24] In Gaza, Israel lost what remained of its humanity.

• Ibtisam Mahdi: [07-26] The decimation of Gaza's academia is 'impossible to quantify': "With thousands of faculty and students likely killed and campuses destroyed, Palestinian universities in the Strip are barely surviving Israel's scholasticide."

• Qassam Muaddi: [07-26] Palestinian factions strike a reconciliation deal -- will this time be any different? That all depends on Israel, because it's always Israel, and only Israel, that determines what is allowed. If Israel has a deal that is broadly acceptable, unified Palestinian leadership can help sell it. Otherwise, it's just a phase in the never-ending cycle of powerless people trying to find a strategy when none is allowed.

• Abed Abou Shhadeh: [07-25] Israel's crackdown on Palestinian citizens could lead to return of military rule.

• Djaouida Siaci: [07-28] How Israel is stripping Palestinian women of their dignity.

• Eric Sype: [07-24] Big tech terror: for Palestinians, AI apocalypse is already here.

• Sharon Zhang:

  • [07-30] Israeli militants riot over investigation into torture of Palestinian prisoner: "The group of protesters, which included Israeli lawmakers, demanded release of soldiers suspected of rape."

  • [07-30] Israel bombs Beirut in escalation of attacks.

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

Netanyahu wangled an invitation to speak to a joint session of Congress, first lining up his right-wing allies to float the invite, then giving the Democratic leadership little choice but to join in. He may be massively unpopular in Israel, but when he appears in Washington, he can preen like he owns the place, as he essentially does. And his exhibition of power over Washington helps maintain his perch in Israel, where regardless of his many faults, he is widely seen as the one guy who can force presidents to kowtow. The whole spectacle was deeply embarrassing for all concerned. So while he got the ovations he expected, his message just underscores how deeply out of touch Israel is with world opinion. Mustafa Barghouti was absolutely right: "a disgusting speech in a session of shame to the U.S. Congress."

• Nathan J Robinson: [07-26] One of the most shameful moments in American history: "Applauding Benjamin Netanyahu exposes the dark moral depravity of America's political class." I promoted this piece to the head of this section because what it says is exactly right.

• Michael Arria: [07-24] Wanted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu addresses Congress: "Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint meeting of Congress to bolster support for Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza. About half of the Democrats in Congress skipped the speech where he vowed to continue the attack until 'total victory' is met."

• Seraj Assi: [07-25] Netanyahu's speech is a gift to future genocide historians.

• Jonathan Cook: [07-26] Only a failing US empire would be so blind as to cheer Netanyahu and his genocide.

• Abigail Houslohner/Louisa Loveluck: [07-27] Netanyahu's US visit revealed 'no workable plan' for peace, critics say. Not just critics. Netanyahu couldn't have been clearer that he will do everything in his power to his wars going.

• Fred Kaplan:

  • [07-23] Netanyahu's visit to Washington is already a debacle.

  • [07-24] Netanyahu's shameful speech was nothing but theater.

• Danaka Katovich: [07-26] A standing ovation for genocide.

• Joshua Keating: [07-24] Has Netanyahu finally lost America? "After his address to Congress, the Israeli prime minister has never looked more isolated."

• Blaise Malley: [07-24] Netanyahu lectures Americans, makes case for 'total victory'.

• Souzan Naser: [07-23] Netanyahu's speech to Congress is a desperate ploy to rally support for genocide.

• Mitchell Plitnick: [07-28] Congress applauded the genocide in Gaza, but Netanyahu's speech showed the political consensus on Israel is over: "Benjamin Netanyahu's call for continued support for the Gaza genocide may have received rapturous applause from Congress, but the speech revealed uncertain political terrain for Israel among both Democrats and Republicans.

• Nia Prater: [07-24] Rashida Tlaib holds 'war criminal' sign during Netanyahu speech.

• Richard Rubenstein: [07-26] Netanyahu in Congress: the crime boss fulminates, while his accomplices cheer.

• Annelle Sheline/Adam Weinstein: [07-23] Bibi's bullying visits to Congress never end well: "Washington will give Israel's Netanyahu whatever he wants, whether it's in America's interest or not. Who will say no?"

• Richard Silverstein: [02-27] Netanyahu's tissue of lies: "Congressional speech falls flat." While we're at it, catch up with his articles, plus an interview:

  • [07-25] Netanyahu's Congress speeech shows America who's the real boss: "Netanyahu's speech to Congress was met with a hysterical display of bootlicking."

  • [06-30] Gaza and Lebanon: Bibi's once and future wars.

  • [07-09] Bibi wants war without end, the IDF says no . . . or does it? "IDF contradicts Netanyahu, calls for ceasefire, acknowledges Hamas cannot be defeated."

  • [07-12] UK medical study finds 186,000 Gaza dead: "Netanyahu sabotages ceasefire deal, Haaretz confirms IDF invoked Hannibal Directive on 10/7."

  • Robert Scheer: [07-26] Netanyahu's speech betrays historic Jewish values: Interview with Richard Silverstein. Also, note this ("Unacceptable, -- Mr. Fish):

    Benjamin Netanyahu working out the argument he hopes will shame and silence those critical of his relentless slaughter of Palestinians since October 7th by saying that the percentage of Israelis killed on that day by Hamas would be the equivalent of 20 September 11ths in America when measured proportionally against the US population, while hoping nobody does similar math regarding the percentage of Palestinians he's killed since October 7th because that would translate to be just over six million in the US and there's something about that particular number some people might find unacceptable."

• Emily Tamkin: [07-25] The very people Netanyahu claims to represent rejected him: "Neither Americans nor Israelis are buying the prime minister's version of events."

• Ishaan Tharoor: [07-24] At Netanyahu addresses Congress, agony in Gaza endures.

• Jonah Valdez: Netanyahu insulted and smeared the pro-Palestine protest movement. Congress clapped.

Other stories in this nexus:

• Michael Arria: [07-25] The Shift: Biden's legacy is genocide. Biden's withdrawal elicited "sentimental tributes," but not from those who focused on his defense and support of genocide by Israel.

  • Ammiel Alcalay: [07-22] Even the US propaganda machine can't whitewash Biden's sordid record.

• Dexter Filkins: [07-22] Will Hezbollah and Israel go to war? That's really up to Netanyahu, who is fully able to push Hezbollah's buttons to get whatever level of back-and-forth he wants -- thus far, enough to provide cover for the real wars against Palestinians both in Gaza and the West Bank, and to keep the Americans in line with their depiction of Iran the puppet master on many fronts. As last week showed, escalating the bombing of Lebanon is easy within those parameters. Launching a real ground war isn't so easy, with little to gain and a fair amount to lose.

• Nicole Narea: [07-25] What Kamala Harris really thinks about Israel and Gaza: "Biden's approach to the war in Gaza has been divisive. Would Haris chart a new path?" I have a whole section for Harris, where I'll slot pieces on every other aspect of her campaign and politics, but for now I'd rather compartmentalize and keep her Israel stuff here, as a subset of the Washington-based group-think that lets American politicians and their cronies avoid having to think or care about the issue. I don't think anyone really knows what she thinks here, because the position she's in doesn't allow thinking, or doing for that matter.

  Maybe when she is president, she will be in a position to do, and therefore will need to think. But right now, all she really has to do is to avoid the pitfalls being laid out for her. (Having to meet with Netanyahu is just one such pitfall.) I'm not unsympathetic to people who regard Israel (or at least Gaza) as the biggest political issue of the moment, but through the election, I think they/we should give her a pass. I'm pretty sure that she's no worse than Biden, and undoubtedly a lot better than Trump. You don't have to endorse her (at least for this). You can even rag on Genocide Joe if you want. But this is just speculation, and probably not helpful at all. Of course, once she's elected, the gloves can come off. My hope, and that's really all it is, is that she'll listen better than Biden, and act more decisively. The time to talk specifically to her is when she's ready to listen and act.

  • Michael Arria: [07-22] Looking at Kamala Harris's record on Israel.

  • Michael F Brown: [07-22] Kamala Harris won't stand up to Netanyahu in Washington.

  • Nandika Chatterjee: [07-26] Israeli official criticizes Kamala Harris for speaking out about "dead children" in Gaza.

  • Liza Featherstone: [07-27] The right is hoping to defeat Cori Bush next.

  • Daniel Larison: [07-23] If there is a Harris foreign policy do we call it Biden-lite? "The VP is largely stuck with the president's agenda but there are a few glimmers of hope." He mentions Philip Gordon, as does:

  • Robert Wright: [06-26] Kamala's very good foreign policy guy: Philip Gordon.

• Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: {07-24] Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel': "Video surfaces showing the Palantir tech giant strugglig to answer questions about client's use of AI-generated kill lists."

• Brett Wilkins: [07-24] Ben-Gvir endorses Trump, says he's more likely to back war on Iran: "The Israeli security minister, who leads the far-right Jewish Power party, accused the Biden administration of thwarting Israel's victory against Hamas."

Israel vs. world opinion:

• Ramzy Baroud: [07-26] 'Terrorist organization'? What's behind the Israeli war on UNRWA.

• Magdalena Berger: [07-23] How Israeli media helps the war effort: Interview with Haggai Matar, executive director of +972 Magazine (which I've often cited in these posts).

• Avik Jain Chatlani: [07-17] A brief history of 'human animals': From the ruins of Peru to the Gaza genocide.

• Jessica Corbett: [07-24] Groups demand probe of Israeli influence operations targeting Americans.

• Yves Engler: [07-26] Canada set to revoke Jewish National Fund's charitable status: "Score a significant victory against apartheid, genocide and Palestinian dispossession. The powerful Jewish National Fund of Canada has reportedly had its charitable status revoked."

• Dan Owen: [07-24] How Israel plans to whitewash its war crimes in Gaza: "The Israeli army uses the veneer of internal accountability to fend off external criticism. But its record reveals how few perpetrators are punished."

  The scale of horror that Israel has inflicted upon Gaza over the last nine months is almost impossible to comprehend. The Israeli army's decision from the start of the war to significantly expand its authorization for bombing non-military targets and causing harm to civilians has resulted in the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians, and has left the Gaza Strip unrecognizable. The surviving population faces mass hunger and displacement as a result of intentional Israeli policies, which are in violation of international laws of war.

  Every day, more and more horrifying evidence emerges, revealing what many Israelis seek to repress. . . . As these accusations pile up, Israel is beginning to launch another large-scale operation alongside its ongoing military campaign: the biggest crime cover-up in the country's history.

• Philip Weiss:

  • [07-23] Biden staffers who resigned over Gaza say US has destroyed international law and endangered Americans: "The Biden administration is suppressing dissent over its Gaza policy within its ranks, enforcing a 'culture of silence,' say some who resigned."

  • [07-28] Weekly Briefing: The difference between Biden and Harris on Israel? "Zippo, zilch, zero!"

Election notes:

• Current Affairs: [07-27] Kat Abughazaleh on how right-wing propaganda works: "An expert in Fox News' brainwashing techniques explains how the right-wing propaganda apparatus convinces viewers to believe lies and nonsense." She was an analyst for Media Matters, has moved on to produce videos, including her weekly Fox roundups.

• Frank Giustra: [07-24] Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten: "It's not 'conspiratorial' to wonder about corporate control and the lack of options."

• Ed Kilgore: [07-27] Harris vs. Trump polls: It's a new race.

Trump:

• Zack Beauchamp: [07-29] Trump proposed bombing Mexico and it somehow wasn't a big story: "Trump's extremist policy agenda is flying under the radar -- and that's a problem."

• Jamelle Bouie:

  • [07-02] Mr. President, your get-out-of-jail-free card is ready: "The Nixonian theory of presidential power is now enshrined as constitutional law."

  • [07-09] Trump's lust for expulsion, explained: "It is no accident that he is talking about immigrants 'poison in the blood of our country.'"

• Charles R Davis: [07-29] "Old and quite weird": Democrats finally discover new effective attack -- and Republicans hate it: "After nearly a decade of being forced to take Trump seriously, Democrats increasingly call BS on the whole charade."

• Dan Froomkin:

  • [07-22] Trump was winning. Now maybe he's not That's the news.

  • [07-24] Don't treat Trump like he has no agency. Calls out a New York Times article for its passive construction -- Trump's new rival may bring out his harshest instincts -- as if he can't help himself.

  • [07-26] How to investigate Kamala Harris without repeating the mistakes of 2016.

• Margaret Hartmann:

  • [07-27] The real origin of Trump's Hannibal Lecter obsession: "The deeper you go, the less sense it makes."

  • [07-25] Melania Trump book may be more money grab than memoir: "For the past two years, Melania has barely said anything about her husband's reelection effort; . . . but during this time, she regularly churned out overpriced merch, from NFTs to Christmas ornaments to an ugly Mother's Day necklace."

• Ed Kilgore: [07-29] Would Trump really dump J.D. Vance? Well, it would be a real loser move.

• Dylan Matthews: [07-24] The billionaire tax proposal that's driving Silicon Valley to support Trump: "No, it isn't a devious Democratic plan to destroy startups." The actual Biden proposal is a minimum tax, which is a fairly weak attempt to reduce the incentives rich people have for tax evasion through various dodgy scams. But as the article points out, the Silicon Valley billionaires don't need Trump to keep laws like that from passing: they and their lobbyists have lots of clout in both parties, as they've already shown, on this and many other issues. What bothers these rich folk isn't really the threat to their bottom line, which they have contained, but how their feelings are hurt by the suggestion they should be paying more in taxes. Related here:

  • David Dayen: [07-26] The corporate wishcasting attack on Lina Khan: "Billionaires are hopeful that Kamala Harris will break from the FTC chair."

  • Jake Johnson: [07-25] Billionaire megadonor draws backlash for urging Kamala Harris to fire Lina Khan.

• Liz Theoharis/Shaily Gupta Barnes: [07-28] The Christian nationalist vision for America: "Project 2025: A new Pax Romana."

Vance:

Trump's running mate, a Republican Senator from Ohio, one thing you can say for him is that he's gotten more press attention than any VP candidate since Sarah Palin, and probably more, since he's not just a turbocharged gaffe machine but has a more philosophical side that is also easy to chew over. I'm pretty sure that had Trump picked Doug Burgum or Elise Stefanik, this phase would be done by now.

• Karyn Amira: [07-29] JD Vance's selection as Trump's running mate marks the end of Republican conservatism. Problem here is the author's definition of conservatism: "a philosophy that supports smaller and less-centralized government because consolidated power could be used to silence political competition and deny citizens their liberties." That's almost exactly wrong: conservatives believe in order defined by their preferred hierarchy, which is necessarily enforced by power in a state that they seek to control. That's precisely what Trump and Vance believe in.

  On the other hand, Amira's definition actually describes an obsolete version of liberalism, which has been cynically used by conservatives to oppose the modern democratic state. From the progressives in the early 1900s through the New Deal and Great Society, liberals came to realize that laissez-faire capitalism had ceased to expand "liberty and justice for all," and if left unchecked would revert to a new version of feudal aristocracy. So they came up with a very successful alternative, where the state, embodying the will of the popular majority, would organize and regulate countervailing institutions, their powers limited and regulated in the public interest.

  Needless to say, the would-be lords of neofeudal capitalism hated this, and fought to preserve and extend their superiority with every trick they could muster -- including adopting the time-tested rhetoric of classical liberalism, but redirected against the democratic state -- which they characterized not just as a revival of pharoahs and czars but as something more impersonal and nefarious, as totalitarianism -- and really against the people it represented.

  But while "small government" may have been useful rhetoric when the government was held by people conservatives reviled, have you ever seen conservatives once they control the state reduce its size and power? You might point to deregulation, but that's effectively a transfer of power from public to private hands. Similarly, tax cuts and credits are transfers of money from public to private hands. By debilitating public interest functions, conservatives seek to discredit the state as a means by which the people can help themselves. Conservatives may see the state, in the wrong hands, as a repressive force, but given power, they eagerly use that force for their own ends, especially against the people they see as enemies, which is most of us.

  Trump and Vance aren't the end of Republican conservatism. They're more like its apotheosis, grown powerful and arrogant enough they can quit pretending they're doing anyone any favors but themselves. Maybe they mark some kind of denouement for conservative naïveté, but few real world conservatives were ever so deluded.

• Maureen Dowd: [07-27] JD Vance, purr-fectly dreadful.

• Elizabeth Dwoskin/Cat Zakrzewski/Nitasha Tiku/Josh Dawsey: [07-28] Inside the powerful Peter Thiel network that anointed JD Vance: "A small influential network of right-wing techies orchestrated Vance's rise in Silicon Valley -- and then the GOP. Now the industry stands to gain if he wins the White House." There hasn't been a VP pick this explicitly tied to donor choice since the Koch Network (uh, Mitt Romney) picked Paul Ryan in 2012. And while Republicans are more likely to brag about their corruption, what are the odds that Harris's VP pick will be traceable to another megadonor? (I mean, beyond the default conspiracist pick: George Soros?)

• Paul Elie: [07-24] J.D. Vance's radical religion.

• Rebecca Jennings: [07-25] J.D. Vance didn't have sex with a couch. But he's still extremely weird. "The rumors were easy to believe, especially when the potential VP has such terrible ideas about sex."

• Sarah Jones: [07-26] Dear J.D. Vance, childless cat ladies are people too. Emphasis added:

  "Normal people" see this bleak prospect for what it is, and they have rejected it repeatedly in the voting booth. That probably won't change. Vance's comments are weird, cruel, and, yes, creepy. They don't reflect the way most people think or live, even if they do have biological children. By attacking childlessness, the right cheapens parenthood, too. The act of having children is no longer about joy but conquest. I can't imagine anything sadder, though I am but a childless cat lady. Vance's worldview is poisonous to parents and children, too: Babies should be loved and wanted for their own sake, not because they're future nationalists or tradwives. The right offers a small and selfish vision that is authoritarian to its core. Their America belongs only to the righteous few, but my America belongs to everyone. I may never give birth, but I too have a stake in this country. We're all responsible for creating a future worth living in. It will belong to somebody's children, if not to ours.

  By the way, Jones also wrote:

  • [07-23] A woman can win, which probably belongs with the Harris articles, but is more about how Hillary Clinton's didn't win, and the precedent that doesn't really set.

  • [07-30] American freak show. I've thought of myself as weird much of my life, so I've learned to flip the insult and see weirdness as a more interesting attribute. And that's just one of many pejoratives that I've been prodded into reconsidering based on my experiences with the people they are and are not applied to. For instance, people who call themselves "patriots" because they support wars and who call people who don't support those wars "traitors" not only have a very shabby vocabulary, they're also, in my mind at least, making "patriots" appear to be horrible people, and "traitors" to be fundamentally decent ones. So I was initially reluctant to jump on the bandwagon that labels Trump, Vance, et al. as "weird." (I see Tim Walz getting credit here, but Seth Myers has been leaning in to this line of attack for several years now.) It just feels to me like we need some qualification, like in the song: "well I hear he's bad/ hmm, he's good-bad, but he's not evil." Surely, lots of people are simply "good-weird," but Trump and Vance are venturing into real "weird-evil" territory.

    Any formerly weird child can attest to how difficult it is to shrug off this label. What are you going to do, put your fingers in your ears and chant "I'm not weird, you're weird" until somebody eventually believes you? I was a little awkward in my day, and I know that's not how things work. You can refute the attack only by not being weird -- an idea that seems to elude many conservatives. They've left themselves few options. To address the attack, the bizarre right would have to reconstitute an entire movement, and that will take time and political will. Both are in short supply. Go on, then, and call the right weird, as long as it's part of a bigger argument. Progress ought to be normal, and it's worth fighting for, too.

    But I'm starting to appreciate the advantages of flipping scripts like this. And when you think about it, there's a lot of not just weird but very bizarre thought going on with the far-right these days. I mean, I'm 73, and my thinking has evolved a lot over the years, but I can still remember things that I learned as norms and rules when I was a child, like the 10 Commandments, the 7 Deadly Sins, the Boy Scouts' 12 laws, the Golden Rule, the maxim that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," and strategic bits of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and much more that I never really rejected even though I eventually disposed of most of the dross and cant they were wrapped up in. And because I can remember, and still largely respect, those norms and rules, it's really easy to see just how far many right-wingers have strayed from principles they claim as exclusively their own, and how ridiculous they look when they do. In some ways, calling them "weird" is the kindest way you can point that out. Their weirdness may even be their one saving grace. It certainly won't be in their Project 2025.

• Ezra Klein: [07-17] The economic theory behind J.D. Vance's populism: Interview with Oren Cass, who was Mitt Romney's domestic policy director in 2012, who since "evolved" and founded American Compass, a think tank catering to "populist" Republicans.

• Paul Krugman:

  • [07-25] JD Vance's 'cat ladies' riff has serious 'Handmaid's Tale' vibes.

  • [07-22] Trump's cynical attempt to pit recent immigrants against black Americans.

• Bradley Onishi: [07-27] J.D. Vance will be a more extremist Christian VP than Mike Pence: "The vice presidential pick's Catholicism hasn't received a lot of attention, but it's the key to the populist radicalism he wants to impose on America."

• Andrew Prokop: [07-25] J.D. Vance has made it impossible for Trump to run away from Project 2025: "He wrote the forward for a new book by Project 2025's architect -- and has backed some of its most extreme ideas." The book is Kevin D Roberts: Dawn's Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America, coming out on Sept. 24.

  • Alex Shephard: [07-30] Read J.D. Vance's violent foreword to Project 2025 leader's new book: "Trump's running mate writes that 'it's time to circle the wagons and load the muskets.'" Also relevant here:

  • Hafiz Rashid: [07-30] Project 2025 head resigns after backlash from Trump: "Paul Dans of the Heritage Foundation has announced he is resigning from his role."

• Corey Robin: [07-26] Like a diary, only far more masculine: Reading J.D. Vance's, from his blog days.

• Robert Schlesinger: [07-29] J.D. Vance proves it: Trump hires the very worst people: Trump's new running mate will haunt him just like all of the fools and weasels from his first administration."

• Alex Shephard: [07-26] Is J.D. Vance the worst vice presidential pick ever? Fair question, unless you know much about American history, in which case it's way too early to tell. It also depends on what you mean by "worst." John Tyler and Andrew Johnson probably helped their tickets win, but were really terrible presidents. Some others that didn't become president were also pretty notoriously bad, like Aaron Burr and John Calhoun (two terms, under two presidents who were polar opposites in every aspect except for their loathing of Calhoun). Then there was Spiro Agnew, the only VP ever forced to resign. And what about Dick Cheney? If memory serves, the only VP ever to finish his term with a single-digit approval index. Then there are the ones who never won anything. They tend to be easily forgotten, but tag reads "Palin Lite," in case you want a hint. So with competition like that, Vance hardly has a chance. But it's early days, and at least he's in the running.

• Ed Simon: [07-17] J.D. Vance keeps selling his soul. He's got plenty of buyers.

  Mr. Vance is more a product of the Upper West Side and New Haven, Capitol Hill and Cambridge, than of the Appalachian hollers. "Hillbilly Elegy" owed much of its critical and commercial success to how it flattered its audience about their own meritocratic superiority over the people whom Mr. Vance was supposedly championing, and reaffirming some of the most pernicious stereotypes about the residents of Appalachia. "What separates the successful from the unsuccessful are the expectations that they had for their own lives," Mr. Vance wrote. In his telling, those who fell into poverty, unemployment or substance abuse hadn't dreamed big enough.

  He points to whole books written about Vance's book, like:

  • Elizabeth Catte: What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia.

  • Anthony Harkins and Meredith McCarroll, eds: Appalachian Reckoning: A Region Responds to "Hillbilly Elegy". Also see this essay:

  • Meredith McCarroll: Hillbillies need no elegy.

• Matt Stieb: [07-27] J.D. Vance can't stop saying the dumbest things imaginable.

And other Republicans:

• Emily Bazelon: [07-27] The right-wing dream of 'self-deportation': "Some conservatives have a grim proposal to make undocumented immigrants leave: exclude their children from schools." I hadn't heard of "self-deportation" until Mitt Romney adopted it as his anti-immigration platform in 2012. It is quite the euphemism. It basically means systematically treating immigrants (and, to be sure, anyone who looks or sounds like an immigrant) so cruelly they resign themselves to leaving on their own. Or it could just as well drive them to turn to crime, which expedites the regular deportation process.

• Jenny Brown: [07-27] Project 2025's anti-union game plan.

  From there, the plan is to bulldoze the protections US workers have built up over one hundred years of determination, sacrifice, and unity.

  It's ugly: abolish overtime pay laws, outlaw public sector unions entirely, get rid of health and safety protections, eliminate the federal minimum wage, make it harder to receive unemployment, and put children back to work like in the 1920s.

  Hitting building trades workers, they would get rid of requirements for prevailing wage pay and project labor agreements in federal projects.

  There's more. They want to get rid of the Department of Education. Ban teaching women's history and African American history in schools -- lest we get ideas about how to change things! Ban abortion nationwide. (The AFL-CIO details the whole alarming list here.)

• Patrick T Brown: [07-19] Pro-lifers helped bring Trump to power. Why has he abandoned us? Because you're losers? You don't think he ever actually cared about you, did you?

• Thomas B Edsall: [07-24] What the Trump-Vance alliance means for the Republican Party. One thing that occurs to me here is that the more Republicans like Vance talk about supporting American workers, the more ground that opens up for Democrats to appeal to same, only with more realistic programs and greater credibility. It encourages them to lean left, rather than crawl scared toward the right (like so many have been doing since Reagan).

• Jack Herrera: [07-28] Trump says he wants to deport millions. He'll have a hard time removing more people than Biden has. "Even as Trump slams the president for open borders, the Biden-Harris administration has kicked out far more immigrants than Trump ever managed."

• Hassan Alu Kanu: [07-29] DEI and the GOP: "Hey Republicans, your racism is showing."

• Julius Krein: [07-23] Republican populists are responding to something real. One could argue that -- although Krein isn't very clear here -- but not that they're offering realistic responses to real problems.

• Robert Kuttner: [07-30] The left's fragile foundations: "Could a weaponized Trump IRS wreck the progressive infrastructure by attacking the entire nonprofit ecosystem?" This is a big and important article. "Defund the left" has long been a major Republican goal. One small bit:

  These vulnerabilities remain in place today. It has long galled the right that Planned Parenthood is a major recipient of government funds; of its budget of over $2 billion, about $700 million comes from government health service reimbursements and grants. While the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortion, 17 states allow Medicaid funding of abortion through their state contributions to the mixed federal-state program. In addition, Planned Parenthood is a major recipient of federal Title X family-planning support of its clinics. As right-wing groups keep complaining, money is fungible and federal family-planning funds free other money to pay for abortions. Under Trump, the government did bar Planned Parenthood from the Title X program in 2019, but this was restored by Biden in 2021.

  The battle to defund the left would be far more sophisticated under a second Trump administration. The Heritage Foundation's detailed blueprint, Project 2025, systematically targets the entire range of agencies, and one of its tactics is to undermine agencies that help progressive organizations such as the NLRB and numerous others. With a second Trump presidency, the right's war against Planned Parenthood will only intensify.

• Michael Lind: [07-20] Trump's transformation of the Republican Party is complete.

• Calder McHugh: [07-27] Republicans keep trying to copy Trump's humor -- and voters keep cringing. Perhaps the material never was funny in the first place -- just the buffoon delivering it?

• Pamela Paul: [07-25] The Republican Party's elite conundrum: Let me condense this a bit (all her words, but with less wandering):

  Donald Trump loves to show off how smart he is. [But] Trump is shrewd enough to know that Americans don't like a guy who acts smart. So if his fumbles are strategic, it's not entirely dumb. In MAGA world, glorified ignorance actually serves as a qualification for higher office, empowering more effective rage against 'the liberal elite' and 'the ruling class.' This puts those Republican politicians saddled with inconvenient Ivy League degrees in an awkward position, like the guy who shows up in a tux for a rodeo wedding. In order to say in office and on message, they must reject the very thing that propelled their own careers. After all, the Republican Party has turned ignorance into a point of pride.

  Of course, this is ultimately about Ron DeSantis (Yale, Harvard Law), Ted Cruz (Princeton, Harvard Law), Josh Hawley (Stanford, Yale Law), Tom Cotton (Harvard, Harvard), and now J.D. Vance (Ohio State, but finally Yale Law).

• Charles P Pierce:

  • [07-23] The most unnerving thing about the RNC was all that talk of miracles: "I am not ready for a quasi-religious cult springing up around the most thoroughgoing heathen ever to sit in the White House."

  • [07-23] J.D. Vance is already stepping in it, just one week out of the gate: "You have to admit, after the RNC, it's fun watching the Republicans fumble like this."

  • [07-24] Get to know the Oversight Project, the Heritage Foundation's legal ratf*cking operation: "They seem to be plowing a whole lot of money into questionable investigations."

  • [07-29] J.D. Vance may be the worst politician I've ever seen: "This is before even taking the couch into consideration."

• Tessa Stuart: [07-25] Trump allies sure are talking a lot about civil war: "The former president's supporters keep raising the idea there's violent conflict in America's future." When lies don't suffice, Republicans will try extortion: vote for us, or we'll [insert threat here, ranging from shut down the government to killing you].

Harris:

• Maggie Astor: [07-28] Harris campaign says it raised $200 million since Biden dropped out: "The one-week total is more than President Biden's haul in the first quarter of the year. About two-thirds came from first-time donors, according to the vice president's campaign."

• Brian Beutler: [07-26] The perils of backseat driving Kamala Harris: When I saw this title, I was hoping for a lesson on said perils, and not just that when she veers off in some other direction you're bound to look useless and/or stupid, but instead we get this: "She can try to bring the anti-Trump coalition back together, or she can chase the unicorns of 2008. It's still not clear which approach will make the most sense."

• Jonathan Blitzer: [07-28] The real story of Kamala Harris's record on immigration: "Republicans have attacked the Vice-President as the Biden Administration's "border czar," but her remit was always to address the root causes farther south."

• John Cassidy: [07-29] Kamala Harris and the legacy of Bidenomics.

• David Dayen: [07-29] The only member of Congress who has worked for Kamala Harris: "'What I saw is someone who is not for sale,' Katie Porter told the Prospect."

• Moira Donegan: [07-25] Unlike Joe Biden, Kamala Harris will be a genuine champion for abortion rights.

• Ellen Ioanes: [07-24] Could a short campaign be exactly what Kamala Harris needs? "Dozens of other democracies have short election cycles. Can the Democrats learn something from them?" As far as I'm concerned, the long campaigns of the recent era have been insanely wasteful, a weird prism that has reduced everything else to refraction. No evidence that we've learned any lessons here, as this one seems to have just been dumb luck, but we should figure out how to do better. (Hint: the one thing that could help would be to curtail the big money influence.)

• George Hammond/James Fontanelle-Khan/James Politti: Kamala Harris campaign seeks 'reset' with crypto companies: Well, this is bad news, plain money-grubbing with one of the worst "industries" on the planet. As Dean Baker noted: "Crypto is the lowest of the low, there is no reason to do anything with these clowns but tax them."

• Ed Kilgore: [07-25] How Kamala Harris can fight the 'too liberal' label: But does she have to? Should she even want to? As Kilgore points out, Kerry may have hurt himself more by running away from his liberal record than had he stood firm, and explained why he was right to do so. Most "moderate" Americans are actually closet liberals, not least because liberalism is deeply imbued in American political lore. Moreover, Republican charges against "liberals" are so widely flung about that hardly anyone knows what they're talking about. Why not just take them to task? Stand firm in your beliefs, and show some leadership in fighting back. Nothing hurts Democrats more than cowardice. Even people with very little understanding of the issues can sense fear. If undecided, they tend to turn to the more forceful, more resolute candidate. (That is, after all, how Republicans win while taking positions few people actually support.)

• Lydia Polgreen: [07-27] I was a Kamala Harris skeptic. Here's how I got coconut-pilled.

• Greg Sargent: [07-26] Trump's repulsive new "laughing Kamala" smear reveals a MAGA weakness: "As Trump and his allies ramp up the vile attacks on Kamala Harris's personality, a progressive strategist explains why Harris's joyful disposition might be perfectly suited to taking on MAGA."

• Michael Scherer/Tyler Pager: [07-28] How Kamala Harris took control of the Democratic Party: "Party officials and campaign aides raced to flip an entire brand from facing hope to salute emojis."

• Alex Shephard: [07-26] Kamala Harris has plenty of time to win the election: "Three months isn't as short as it sounds. In Europe, campaigns are often even shorter."

• Matt Stieb: [07-29] White dudes for Harris was a 'rainbow of beige' that raised $4 million.

• Zoya Teirstein: [07-22] What Kamala Harris's track record on climate change makes clear.

• Michael Tomasky: [07-21] Kamala Harris has two superpowers, and that's all she needs: "She may have run a bad presidential race before, and had a rocky vice presidency. But she's not 81, and she's not Donald Trump." This was written just 9 days ago. You think maybe Tomasky would have found some positives since then?

• Matthew Yglesias: Make the VP selection on the merits! "The political impact of the Veep is overrated; the substantive stakes are underrated." Problem is nobody seems to know what the merits needed will be, let alone which candidates have them. The office has been a disaster as far back as John Adams, even with ones who were reasonably competent to become president, and it's been a little more than a gamble for all concerned.

  • Li Zhou: [07-24] Who could be Kamala Harris's VP? The potential list, briefly explained. The only thing we can really be sure of is that the decision will be made for us, without any input or airing, and rubber-stamped because Democrats don't really trust themselves with democracy any more. And whoever they pick, it will probably be ok. It is, as one says, "above my pay grade." [PS: I wrote this bit before I moved it under Yglesias, and added the rest. My intention was not to talk about any individuals. Adding the item on Sanders didn't really violate that, but eventually it made sense to add a couple more pieces. I have no endorsements here. My wife is anti-Shapiro, so that article is a nod to her.]

  • Ben Burgis: [07-24] Bernie Sanders should be Kamala Harris's vice president: This isn't going to happen, for lots of reasons, some of which actually make sense. Even if he could help Harris win -- doubtful, given that he scares donors otherwise sympathetic to Harris, and would seem to validate Republican charges that Harris is the most leftist Democratic candidate ever -- he'd give up his seniority in Congress, and his independence, which we'll need to guard against Harris triangulating right.

  • Ryan Cooper: [07-25] Tim Walz would make a great running mate.

  • David Klion: [07-24] The only vice presidential pick who could ruin Democratic unity: "Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is a leading candidate to be Kamala Harris's running mate. Selecting him would fracture the party." This is mostly over Israel. Harris needs to figure out some way to finesse the issue. Shapiro's dedication to Israel is complete, with no hint of ambiguity or conflict, allowing for no independent initiative by America.

  • Robert Kuttner: [07-29] Kamala Harris's Eric Holder problem: "Her choice to vet candidates for vice-president needed more vetting himself."

• Li Zhou: [07-21] Kamala Harris's strengths -- and vulnerabilities -- explained.

• Jason Zinoman: [07-28] Kamala Harris's laugh is a campaign issue. Our comedy critic weighs in.

Biden:

• Dean Baker:

  • [07-22] A tribute to President Biden.

  • [07-18] Adjusting the Washington Post's Biden-Trump scorecard.

  • [07-26] Bloomberg says things are almost as bad as 2019, when Trump was in the White House: "Seriously, they probably don't want readers to walk away with that impression, but that is the implication of the piece they did complaining about people working multiple jobs."

  • [07-29] The biggest success story the country doesn't know about: "Yes, inflation has been punishing. But there is a mountain of good news that media have barely reported. Here's the real record the Democrats can run on."

    Under Biden, the United States made a remarkable recovery from the pandemic recession. We have seen the longest run of below 4.0 percent unemployment in more than 70 years, even surpassing the long stretch during the 1960s boom. This period of low unemployment has led to rapid real wage growth at the lower end of the wage distribution, reversing much of the rise in wage inequality we have seen in the last four decades. It has been especially beneficial to the most disadvantaged groups in the labor market.

    The burst of inflation that accompanied this growth was mostly an outcome of the pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine. All other wealthy countries saw comparable rises in inflation. As of summer 2024, the rate of inflation in the United States has fallen back almost to the Fed's 2.0 percent target. Meanwhile, our growth has far surpassed that of our peers.

    Furthermore, the Biden administration really does deserve credit for this extraordinary boom. Much of what happens under a president's watch is beyond their control. However, the economic turnaround following the pandemic can be directly traced to Biden's recovery package, along with his infrastructure bill, the CHIPS Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, all of which have sustained growth even as the impact of the initial recovery package faded. While the CARES Act, pushed through when Trump was in office, provided essential support during the shutdown period, it was not sufficient to push through the recovery.

    One should also use every opportunity to stress that the CARES Act, at least everything that was good in it, was the result of leverage Democrats in Congress had. With the economy in free fall, Trump wanted something to save the stock market. That the act also helped unemployed workers, collapsing small businesses, and helped many stave off debt collection, was because Trump had to deal with Pelosi and Schumer. Without their help, Trump's own dismal record would have been that much worse.

• Zachary D Carter: [07-24] You have no idea what Joe Biden for employment.

• Elie Honig: [07-26] Let's knock off the 25th amendment talk.

• Kerry Howley: [07-27] Exit ghost: "Watching Joe Biden say good-bye."

• Umair Irfan: [07-23] Joe Biden's enormous, contradictory, and fragile climate legacy: "If elected, Trump could slow down Biden's progress, but the shift to clean energy is unstoppable."

• Branko Marcetic:

  • [07-22] Joe Biden wanted this. This is a left view, but seems fair:

    There is a tendency, even among the Left, to overstate the extent of Biden's populism. This is, after all, a president who nickel-and-dimed Georgia voters on the $2,000 checks he had pledged, quickly abandoned his promise of a $15 minimum-wage increase that might have helped voters weather inflation, and refused to fight to keep transformative pandemic-era policies like Medicaid expansion and expanded unemployment insurance. However ambitious his Build Back Better legislation was, we sometimes talk about it as if it had actually become law, when the reality is it died -- and did so in large part because Biden considered getting a handshake with Republicans a higher priority.

    That his presidency became the unlikely vehicle for progressive economic populism tells us less about Biden himself than the state of the Left: a Left that, however disorganized and defeated, succeeded in dragging someone like Biden into adopting even a watered-down version of its political program. It did so not just through political pressure, but by changing the political landscape to such an extent that a man who had spent his life tacking right in the chase for political power came to realize there was a popular constituency for a left-populist agenda, and that it was worth his while politically, crucial to his legacy even, to give pursuing such a thing an honest-to-God shot.

  • [07-25] How Joe Biden became a steadfast Israel defender.

• Nicole Narea: [07-24] So what does Joe Biden do now? "In an Oval Office speech, Biden said his farewells. But his job isn't done yet."

• Noah Rawlings: [07-29] Build no small things: "A sampling of innovative projects made possible by the Biden legislative wins."

And other Democrats:

• Lee Drutman: [07-28] The Democratic Party is (still) broken: "The sudden ascendance of Kamala Harris doesn't change the fact that the party suffers from deep, possibly fatal problems." I'm not sure how useful this analysis is. I don't doubt that the Democratic Party has structural problems, tied mostly to the need to raise huge amounts of money from interest groups that want favors not solutions, and the double standards that blame Democrats for all problems while excusing Republicans. But the Democrats do have one big advantage: in a two-party system, they're the only ones who are sane and conscientious and actually care about people, which should give them some advantages, wouldn't you think? However, the author seems to be wedded to a fantasy idea, explained in his book Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America.

• Lulu Garcia-Navarro: [07-27] The Interview: Pete Buttigieg thinks the Trump fever could break.

• Michael Podhorzer: [07-24] Democrats are poised to win. But only if they make the election about Trump. As I've been saying, all along.

• Michael Tomasky: [07-25] The race the Democrats need to run now: "How the party can reshape this election so it isn't about Donald Trump's martyrdom." I dunno. I mean, there's something to be said for martyring Donald Trump. It's not that I don't think this has a place:

  That's all the more reason for Harris to make the race a contest between not only two people but two ideas of America, two extremely different visions of what the federal government can and will do to protect the rights of all Americans, especially vulnerable ones. That means talking about Trump's plans. But just as importantly, it means trying to make voters understand that the presidency is much larger than one person. It's an army of people with a set of beliefs who either will or will not protect abortion rights, defend workers' interests, insist upon the basic human dignity of migrants, fight for the human and civil rights of LGBTQ people, continue the fight against the effects of climate change, uphold civil liberties, and respect the principles of democracy.

  But anything that gets people to turn on Trump is fine with me.

Legal matters and other crimes:

• Shirin Ali: Three ways that Jack Smith could resurrect the classified documents case.

• Jamelle Bouie: [07-12] John Roberts makes his bid for infamy: "The chief justice and his allies have rewritten the Constitution to make it say what they want it to say."

• Ian Millhiser:

  • [07-24] Republicans ask the Supreme Court to gut student loan relief a second time: "The Court's first decision blocking student loan forgiveness was a lawless mess."

  • [07-26] A new Supreme Court case threatens to gut the Court's one good trans rights decision: "Republican Justice Neil Gorsuch surprised most Court watchers by supporting trans rights in Bostock v. Clayton County. We're about to find out if he actually meant it."

  • [07-29] Biden's new Supreme Court reform proposals are mostly useless: "The president is finally going after the high court, but his ideas are pretty weak."

• Shawn Musgrave: How Clarence Thomas cleared Trump's path in classified docs case.

• Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff: [07-27] Texas sues Biden administration over teenage access to birth control.

• Sara Ruberg: [07-28] 3 men with white supremacist ties sentenced in plan to attack power station: "Two of the men met through a neo-Nazi online forum and recruited other people to join their scheme.

• Paul Starr: [07-17] The Supreme Court's license for presidential vengeance: "The Court's ruling on presidential immunity makes us all vulnerable."

• Li Zhou: [07-26] What we know about the police killing of Sonya Massey: "It adds to a long and disturbing pattern of police violence toward Black Americans."

  • Farrah Anderson/Sam Stecklow:

    • Deputy accused of killing Sonya Massey was discharged from Army for serious misconduct.

    • Past employers questioned integrity and conduct of deputy who killed Sonya Massey.

  • Tahir Duckett: [07-27] The police killing of Sonya Masssey argues for alternatives to reform.

  • Tatyana Tandanpolie: [07-27] Sonya Massey killing underscores disproportionate police violence against Black and disabled people.

Climate and environment:

In some ways, just another mid-summer week, but one with four days topping all-time heat records, and 104 (at least that's one count) active wildfires in the US.

• Kelsey Ables/Brianna Sacks/Nick Parker/Marisa Iati: [07-27] Park Fire's rapid growth puts it among larges in California history: More on this and other fires:

  • Matthew Cappucci: [07-26] California's Park Fire probably spawned freak fire tornadoes. Here's how.

  • Scott Dance: [07-25] A map of Oregon's Durkee Fire, the largest in the US.

  • Diana Leonard/Brianna Sacks: [07-28] Why the Park Fire exploded so quickly.

  • Joshua Partlow: [07-28] When all of the West is on fire at once, this is who deals with it.

  • Charles P Pierce: [07-24] Spare a thought for Canada, which is on fire (again): "Thousands of people have been evacuated from around Jasper, Alberta."

• Kate Aronoff: [07-19] What does military readiness mean in a warming world? "NATO seems worried about climate change. But stopping climate change probably means cutting defense spending."

• Dino Grandoni: [07-26] Extreme heat is wilting and burning forests, making it harder to curb climate change: "High temperatures, droughts and wildfire last year caused some forests to wilt and burn enough to degrade the ability of the land to lock away carbon dioxide."

• Sarah Kaplan: [07-27] 4 hottest days ever observed raise fears of a planet nearing 'tipping points'.

• Amy Westervelt: [07-29] Oil companies sold the public on a fake climate solution -- and swindled taxpayers out of billions: "The fossil fuel industry's carbon capture bamboozle, explained."

Economic matters:

• Jake Johnson: [07-25] Global 1% captured $42 trillion in new wealth over past decade.

• Jean Yi: [07-24] The great telemarketing scam behind pro-police PACs. Before we got a phone system that announces caller IDs, we were plagued with 2-5 phone calls per week trying to shake us down for donations to help out our poor police. We probably still are, but simply don't answer any calls we don't recognize and welcome. We always figured these calls as scams, but this article makes it all much more clear. If any politicians wanted to do something that would immediately better the lives of most Americans, they would come up with a legal framework to destroy the entire telemarketing industry (and hopefully take junk texts and emails with it -- for now at least, I'm ok with advertisers buying stamps, which at least helps fund the post office, even though most of our mail goes straight to recycle).

Ukraine War and Russia:

• Blaise Malley: [07-26] Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine turns to China as potential mediator: "This, days after Beijing brokers agreement on the Palestinian front."

• Jessica Corbett: [07-26] Amnesty urges war crimes probe of landmines in Russian-occupied Ukraine.

• William Hartung: [07-26] DoD finds another $2B accounting 'error' to boost Ukraine aid.

• Anatol Lieven: [07-19] What I saw and heard about the Ukraine war in Moscow: "Russian elites appear resigned to accepting that the conflict will carry on indefinitely."

• Eldar Mamedov: [07-22] Europe doubles down on protracted war in Ukraine: "The European Parliament re-elected Ursula von der Leyen as president of the Commission, cementing the EU's maximalist aims."

America's empire and the world:

• Ben Armbuster: [07-26] What it means when someone calls you an 'isolationist': "When war-boosters like Max Boot don't have a comeback, they turn to smears."

• Dan Grazier: [07-25] Time to retire the phrase 'military industrial complex': "Sorry Ike: it's a bit too dated and no longer the right moniker to describe what we're up against."

• Samantha Schmidt/Ana Vanessa Herrero/Maria Luisa Paúl: [07-28] Venezuelans vote in election that could oust an autocrat: Or a democratically-elected leftist, depending on your perspective. I don't have much insight into or opinion on the Maduro government, but that they're allowing an election that could go either way, and that they've run elections in the past that have gone against their druthers, suggests that the "autocrat" charge is overblown.

  At this point, it might be best for the embattled left to give way to the American-backed right-wingers. Presumably that would satisfy American efforts to strangle the revolution, ending the isolation US sanctions have imposed. The right will then be free to resume the crony capitalism they profit from, fixing none of the problems that have plagued Venezuela from the early Standard Oil days, but giving the left a clear and present local enemy to organize against (as well as the spectre of American imperialism). Reagan and his Contras bullied Nicaraguans into voting against the Sandinistas, but eventually the voters returned them to power. More on Venezuela:

  • Samantha Schmidt/Ana Vanessa Herrero: [07-27] If Maduro loses, will he cede power? Venezuela's election, explained.

  • Ishaan Tharoor: [07-26] Is this the beginning of the end for the Maduro regime in Venezuela?

  • Anatoly Kurmanaev/Frances Robles/Julie Turkewitz: [07-28] Venezuela awaits result in pivotal election that could oust autocrat: After the previous stories, I only mention this to show that the New York Times is also stuck on the "autocrat" bandwagon.

  • Associated Press: [07-29] Entrenched incumbent Maduro declared winner of Venezuela's disputed presidential election: And then this happened. Maduro's opponents are whining and whinging like Trump. More on this next week.

• Nick Turse:

  • [07-25] Osama Bin Laden's enduring triumph: Alt-title: "Suicide Squad: US troops are losing a war with their deadliest enemy." He means suicides among soldiers and ex-soldiers.

  • US has never apologized to Somali drone strike victims -- even when it admitted to killing civilians.

  • Cheap and lethal: The Pentagon's plan for the next drone war.

• Joby Warrick/Souad Mekhennet: [07-25] Sanctions crushed Syria's elite. So they built a zombie economy fueled by drugs. For more on US sanctions, see:

  • Jeff Stein/Federica Cocco: [07-25] How four U.S. presidents unleashed economic warfare across the globe. More than four of them: even if you skip over the Cold War blockades and restrictions and start with Clinton, Biden makes five, and while each president has done more than the previous one, Biden's sanctions are really off the charts.

  • Jeff Stein/Ellen Nakashima/Samantha Schmidt: [07-26] Trump White House was warned sanctions on Venezuela could fuel migration: "The internal debate over the policy underscores how U.S. financial measures can sometimes lead to unintended consequences."

Other stories:

• Alex Abad-Santos/Bryan Walsh: [07-26] The good, the bad, and weird of the 2024 Olympics opening ceremony: I don't anticipate having any interest in the Olympics, but if anything catches my fancy, here I have a slot to file it.

  • Peter Coy: [07-22] Which country will win the Paris Olympics? Don't just count medals. This one's for statistics nerds, something I find far more interesting than the javelin toss.

  • Kelly McClure: [07-27] Speaker Mike Johnson and Elon Musk blast Olympics for being offensive to Christians.

  • Dave Zirin/Jujles Boykoff: [07-29] Israel's olympic presence helps legitimize war crimes: The IOC is sanctioning Russia, so clearly they have some political principles. Why they don't realize that Israel is as bad (or worse) isn't clear, but sure does look hypocritical.

• Adam Clark Estes: [07-24] The worst internet outage still hasn't happened yet: "How a bit of bad code could bring down the whole world."

• Kelsey Piper: [07-26] Warren Buffett's breakup with the Gates Foundation will hurt the world: "Buffett's decision to put his money into a foundation controlled by his kids is a mistake."

• Jeffrey St Clair: [07-26] The spirit of Jezebel: Photo of Harris, but more on Biden, before making the usual rounds.

Obituaries

• Trip Gabriel: [07-28] James C Scott, iconoclastic social scientist, dies at 87: "In influential books, he questioned top-down government programs and extolled the power of the powerless, embracing a form of anarchism." I've noted a couple of his books in my Roundups -- Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (1999), and Two Cheers for Anarchism: Six Easy Pieces on Autonomy, Dignity, and Meaningful Work and Play (2012) -- but have never read him. I'm certainly sympathetic to the notion that power isn't all it's cracked up to be, even for those who seem to possess it. I also know enough about anarchism to be able to see it as a model for acting in situations where no effective power is possible, like international relations.

  • Corey Robin: [07-25] James Scott, 1936-2024.

• Martin Landler: [07-25] Martin S Indyk, diplomat who sought Middle East peace, dies at 73: "As ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration and as a special envoy under Barack Obama, he was skeptical of Israeli settlements." Instead of skeptical, he should have been flat-out opposed, as the settlements he allowed to propagate destroyed the "two-state solution" he was an apostle of. Like many US diplomats, he was so in thrall to Israel that he could never be an honest broker, even when he realized that Israel had no intention or desire for peace, which he did reckon more often than most.

• Nicholas Levis: [07-26] A non-conformist of the power elite: Lewis Lapham, 1935-2014.

  • Kelly Burdick: [07-26] Lewis Lapham salvaged from history what was useful, beautiful, and true.

  • Chris Lorentzen: [07-26] Lewis Lapham knew that a great editor was an artful thief: "Lapham, who died this week at 89, was an eloquent skeptic of power and a great nurterer of talent."

• New York Times: Obituaries: I scrolled through ten pages and, aside from the above, recognized a few names I hadn't noted, but wanted to at least mention:

  • William L Calley Jr (war criminal)
  • Orlando Cepeda (baseball player)
  • Michael Cuscuna (jazz archivist, founded Mosaic Records)
  • Yael Dayan (daughter of Israeli war director Moshe Dayan; a distinguish writer and something of a peace activist)
  • Lou Dobbs (CNN/Fox hack and bigot)
  • Maurice El Medioni (Sephardic-Algerian pianist)
  • Duke Fakir (Four Tops)
  • Kinky Friedman (satirist and singer)
  • Bill Holman (jazz arranger)
  • James M Inhofe (R-OK Senator, major climate change denier)
  • Parnelli Jones (Indy 500 driver)
  • Bob Newhart (comedian)
  • Bernice Johnson Reagan (Sweet Honey in the Rock)

Books

• Rachel Connolly: [07-25] Porn shows what people still won't say about sex: "A book of intimate interviews reveals how reluctant people are to speak about their true desires." Long review of Polly Barton: Porn: An Oral History.

• Richard J Evans: [07-01] Can the museum survive? "From looted artifacts to rogue employees, a series of crises have beset some of the world's most visited collections." Review of Adam Kuper: The Museum of Other People: From Colonial Acquisitions to Cosmopolitan Exhibitions.

• David Klion: [07-29] After histgory ended: "How the chaos and excesses of the 1990s led to the politics of today." Review of John Ganz: When the Clock Broke: Con Men, Conspiracists, and How America Cracked Up in the Early 1990s.

• Carlos Lozada: [07-02] Is America a City on a Hill or a Nation on the Precipice? "Ours is a nation obsessed with depicting and interpreting itself, usually with the boldest of brushstrokes." Sounds, well, to use a word I first encountered in 8th grade, when it suddenly became everyone's favorite put-down for virtually everyone else, "conceited." Reminds me that "nationalism" is the word for projecting narcissism on a, well, national scale. Lozada reads a lot of books, which gives him lots of examples for essays like this one. But for every example, you can just as easily find an exception. Which makes me wonder, why bother?

• Samuel McIlhagga: [07-26] Anne Applebaum's dystopia of rules: A review of the Ukraine hawk's new book, Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World. I always assumed that her 2018 book, Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine, was a credible if somewhat jaundiced historical account of Stalin's tragic efforts to collectivize agriculture in Ukraine in the 1930s, much like Timothy Snyder's 2010 book, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. But both authors have moved beyond their research into political polemics, where they pose as defenders of democracy but act as advocates of conflict and aggression, including war, against Russia. At least Snyder seems to have had some left leanings -- he started out as a student and protégé of Tony Judt -- before the 1989-90 revolts in Eastern Europe turned him against Russia, but her earlier books suggest that Applebaum was an ardent cold warrior from the start. She honed her political agenda in her 2020 book, Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism (the paperback changed the subtitle to: The Failure of Politics and the Parting of Friends). Here she broadens her attack to encompass the entire neocon shit list, from its Russia-China-Iran axis to peripheral irritants like Venezuela and North Korea.

• Manuel Roig-Franzia: [07-24] Donald Trump's nephew asks questions about racism in new memoir: "Fred C. Trump III cast aside decades of silence to delve into the roots of the Trump family's dysfunction at a critical moment in American political history." The book is All in the Family: The Trumps and How We Got This Way.

• Michael Tatum: Books read (and not read): July 2024.

• Also, just happened to notice this:

  • Jason Stanley: Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future [09-10]: author of How Propaganda Works (2015); and How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them (2018).

Music (and other arts?)

• Ethan Iverson: [07-26] In search of the backbeat: The Rolling Stones are on the road again, with a new drummer (Steve Jordan).

• Ryan Maffei: [07-28] My vanished friend: Remembering Martin Phillipps of the Chills.

• Phil Overeem: [07-31] The best newish releases I lived to listen to this month.

Chatter

• Dean Baker: [07-30] [in response to: X has SUSPENDED the White Dudes for Harris account (@dudes4harris) after it raised more than $4M for Kamala Harris.] Musk is using his control of X to make in-kind contributions to Trump in lieu of his pledge to contribute $45 million a month to a Trump super Pac

• Ramesh Ponnuru: [07-31] Trump policing who's really black and who's a good Jew in the same week.

Local tags (these can be linked to directly): Netanyahu's speech, music.

Original count: 259 links, 11258 words (15482 total)

Current count: 264 links, 11362 words (15656 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Wednesday, July 24, 2024

Big breaking news this week was the end of Joe Biden's campaign for a second term as president. This became public on Sunday, July 20. I started collecting bits for this post back on Thursday, July 18, and in the intervening days I collected a fair number of pieces on the arguments for Biden to withdraw. I've kept those pieces below (and may even add to them), while splitting the section on Biden, and adding one on Kamala Harris, who as Vice-President and as Biden's running mate is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination.

Biden won all of the primaries, so an overwhelming majority of DNC voters were selected and pledged to Biden (and implicitly to Harris). Biden has endorsed Harris. And most of the people who put pressure on Biden to withdraw did so realizing that Harris would be his most obvious replacement. Opposition to Biden was almost never rooted in rejection of his policies or legacy. (Critics of Biden's deaf, blind and dumb support for Netanyahu's genocide may beg to differ, but they had little if any clout within the party powers who turned on Biden. Nor do Israel's supporters have any real reason to fear that Harris will turn on them.)

I originally meant to start this post with a bit from a letter I wrote back on Thursday [07-18], which summed up my views on Biden's candidacy at the time:

For what little it's worth, here's my nutshell take on Biden:

1. If he can't get control of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza by early October, he's going to lose, no matter what else happens. For people who don't understand them, they're bad vibes, so why not blame the guy who was in position to do something about them. That may be unfair, but that's what uninformed voters do. And if you do understand them (which I think I do), Biden doesn't look so good either. He sees Ukraine as a test of resolve, and Israel as a test of loyalty, and those views are not just wrong, they kick in his most primitive instincts.

2. Otherwise, the election will go to whichever side is most effective at making the election into a referendum on the other side. That should be easy when the other side is Trump, but it gets real hard when most media cycles focus on your age and/or decrepitude. That story is locked in, and isn't going away. When your "good news" is "Biden reads from teleprompter and doesn't fumble," you've lost.

3. Even if Trump's negatives are so overwhelming that even Biden, incapacitated as he is, beats him (and surely it wouldn't be by enough to shut Trump up), do we really want four more years of this?

As of early Tuesday evening, I'm still preoccupied with trying to wrap up my jazz critics poll. I expect to mail that I will get that mailed in tonight, and hope that I may wrap this up as well, with the by-now-usual proviso that I may add more the next day, but certainly will have lots to return to next week.

As of late Wednesday evening, I figure I should call it a week. I still haven't gotten to everything, but I've deliberately skipped anything on the Netanyahu speech to Congress, and various other pieces of late-breaking news (including recent campaign rallies by Trump, which I overheard some of, and by Harris, which I gather was much more fun. If I do grab something more while working on Music Week, I'll flag it as usual. Otherwise, there's always next week.

One half-baked thought I will go ahead and throw out there is this: maybe this was the plan all along? I know it's hard to credit the Democratic Party insiders with devising much less executing such a clever plan. But if you wanted to get to where we are now, it's not that hard to imagine. If Biden hadn't run, Harris would have been his probable successor, but not without a bruising and potentially divisive primary fight. Biden's reelection campaign kept that from happening -- and to make extra sure, scotching the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary eliminated the two best opportunities potential opponents might gamble on. Biden wound up with an overwhelming majority of delegates locked in, and predisposed to Harris as his successor.

Biden's presumptive nomination also gave cover to Trump, who never had to face the age questions that dogged the slightly older Biden. Then Biden tanks the debate, which gives Trump a huge psychological boost, but drags out his withdrawal until after Trump's nomination becomes official. By the time he does announce, all the ducks are lined up for Harris, cemented by the record-breaking cash haul. No one will run against her, and all Democrats will unite behind her. It's not a very good example of democracy in action, but it's clean and final, and she enters the campaign against Trump with few wounds and very little baggage.

On the other hand, Trump, despite all the optimism he brought into the RNC just last week, has tons of debilitating baggage -- to which he's already added his "best people" VP pick, J.D. Vance. I've said all along that the winner will be the one who does the best job of making the election into an opportunity for the people to rid themselves of the other candidate. The odds of Trump being the one we most want to dispose of just went way up.

Make no mistake, there is something profoundly wrong with our democracy, and it goes way beyond gerrymanders and registration scheming. It mostly has to do with the obscene influence of money not just on who can run in elections and what they can campaign on, but also on what whoever manages to get elected can or cannot do with their post. This influence goes way back, and runs very deep, but it's pretty clear that it's gotten significantly worse over the last several decades, as income and wealth have become much more unequally distributed.

We are, of course, fortunate that not everyone with great sums of money wishes to harm most of us. It's mostly just Republicans who want to drive us to ruin, and who surely will if we allow them the power to do so. (The Supreme Court is one place where they already have that power, and it is already providing us with a steady stream of examples of how "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.") Rich Democrats may be every bit as self-interested and egocentric as rich Republicans, but at least they can see that government needs to work reasonably well for everyone, and not just for the rich at everyone else's expense. They understand things that Republicans have turned against: that life is not a zero-sum game (so you don't have to inflict losses in order to gain); that security is only possible if people sense that justice prevails; and that no matter how much wealth and power you gain, you still depend on other people who need to be able to trust you.

Perhaps you can and should trust rich Democrats in times of severe crisis, such as in this election. Today's Republican Party, with or without Trump, is threat enough. But know that those same rich Democrats don't trust you to make decisions they can support, which is why they hijacked the 2020 primaries to stop Sanders with Biden, and why they've micromanaged the 2024 process to give your nomination to Harris. And actually, I'm strangely OK with that.

Top story threads:

Israel:

• Mondoweiss:

  • [07-18] Day 286: Netanyahu accused of obstructing prisoner talks while Israel and PA negotiate future of Rafah crossing: "UNRWA reports Israel has bombed eight schools in 10 days. The Red Cross warns of 'total collapse' of health care in Gaza."

  • [07-22] Day 290: Israel launches a new offensive on Khan Younis forcing thousands to again flee: "At least 40 Palestinians have been killed by air strikes on Khan Younis as Israel launched a surprise offensive on the city. Meanwhile, West Bank settlers renewed attacks on Palestinians following the ICJ ruling that the occupation is illegal."

• Seraj Assi: [07-21] Israeli soldiers flaunt war crimes on social media. Why aren't they held accountable? "In video after video, soldiers document their atrocities, marking a new era of impunity."

• Julia Conley: [07-22] UNICEF reports Israel is killing kids at shocking rates amid West Bank assault: "Since Israel began its bombardment nearly 10 months ago, 143 Palestinian children have been killed in the West Bank."

• Awdah Hathaleen: [07-22] In Umm al-Khair, the occupation is damning us to multigenerational trauma: "I saw the first bulldozers arrive in my village 17 years ago. Now, after the most brutal weeks in our history, my son will carry similarly painful memories."

• Shir Hver: [07-19] The end of Israel's economy: "As Israel's genocidal war against Gaza continues unabated, the Israeli economy is facing a catastrophe. The physical destruction in Israel from the war has been minimal, but one thing has been destroyed: its future."

• Edo Konrad: [07-20] Israeli settlers believe their moment has come. "Never have settlers had this kind of influence over Israeli politics, and Netanyahu is afraid of them bringing down the government, which gives them enormous influence and power to keep the war going."

• Ibtisam Mahdi: [07-18] Searching for Gaza's missing children: "Buried under rubble, lost in the chaos, decomposed beyond recognition: the desperate struggle to find thousands amid Israel's ongoing war."

• Maziar Motamedi: [07-21] Everything to know about Israeli and Houthi attacks amid war on Gaza: "The Yemeni group remains undeterred in its support for Palestine despite the massive Israeli attack on a key port."

  • Vivian Nereim/Shuaib Almosawa: [07-21] Israeli strike on Yemeni port will harm civilians, not Houthis, experts say: "Israel's counterattack on the Houthis, which set a vital Yemeni port ablaze, will do little to deter the militia, Yemeni and international experts said."

• Qassam Muaddi: [07-16] Israel's legalization of settlements in the northern West Bank, explained: "Israel is launching a political and military assault on the West Bank. Its legalization of settlements in the north is a crucial part of the story."

• Mouin Rabbani: [07-21] Polio and the destruction of Gaza's health infrastructure: "Polio had been eradicated in the Gaza Strip but was detected this past week. While it is unclear how it has suddenly reappeared it is beyond doubt how it's spreading: Israel's systematic destruction of Gaza's health infrastructure."

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

• Michael Arria:

  • [07-18] The Shift: The most surreal election of your lifetime.

  • [07-19] GOP takes aim at Palestine at Republican National Convention: "Donald Trump's closing speech to the Republican National Convention threatening Gaza ended a week of speeches featuring full-throated support for Israel, false allegations of campus antisemitism, and condemnations of pro-Palestine protests."

• Daniel Denvir: [07-20] Why is the US still backing Israeli genocide?: An interview with Waleed Shahid and Dylan Saba.

• Lev Grinberg: [07-16] Deceive, defy, and defer: Netanyahu's time-tested strategy to outmaneuver Biden: "For 15 years, the Israeli prime minister has proven his ability to scuttle political agreements -- while never losing the United States' backing."

• David Hearst: [07-22] Israelis should abandon Netanyahu's sinking ship. He's lost.

• Sophie Hurwitz: [7-16] The Gaza pier is a $320 million symbol of the Biden administration's "ineffectiveness": "On July 11, US officials announced that the pier would be shut down. It never delivered enough aid to make a difference."

• Mitchell Plitnick: [07-20] Netanyahu's speech to Congress will seek to maintain support for genocide: "Benjamin Netanyahu will use his upcoming speech to a joint session of Congress to consolidate political support for the genocide in Gaza from both Republicans and Democrats. The leadership of both parties appear happy to oblige."

• Philip Weiss: [07-21] Weekly Briefing: The exquisite choreography of hosting a war criminal at the White House: "Netanyahu ought to be persona non grata in Washington, for his war crimes and nullification of U.S. policy, but the Biden administration is welcoming him with open arms."

Israel vs. world opinion:

• Arash Azizi: The left's self-defeating Israel obsession: "Taking an extreme position, then demanding total orthodoxy, does no favors for democratic socialism in America." I'm out of "free articles" at The Atlantic, so I can only imagine what this person is complaining about and/or purports to believe in and/or thinks the alternatives are.

• Ghousoon Bisharat: [07-23] 'Israel always sold the occupation as legal. The ICJ now terrifies them': "Palestinian lawyer Diana Buttu unpacks the ICJ opinion on Israel's military regime, and the lessons of turning international law into action."

• Mark Braverman: [07-21] Palestinian Christians challenge the World Council of Churches on Gaza: "Palestinian Christians are criticizing a World Council of Churches statement for ignoring the context of the October 7 attacks and refusing to call out the unfolding Gaza genocide."

• Jonathan Cook:

  • [07-19] Israeli soldiers tell story of savage cruelty in Gaza -- one given blessing by the West.

  • [07-23] The World Court has just cleared the fog hiding western support for Israel's crimes.

• Emilio Dabed: [07-16] By failing to stop the Gaza genocide, the ICJ is working exactly as intended: "The international legal order was built to administer colonial violence, not to end wars -- and that poses serious questions for the Palestinian struggle."

• Richard Falk: [07-24] Why the world must stand behind ICJ decision on Israeli occupation: "While this was only an 'advisory opinion,' it carries significant weight through the level of judicial consensus on such a politically polarising topic."

• Masha Gessen: [07-20] What we know about the weaponization of sexual violence on October 7th: "Rape is a shocking and sadly predictable feature of war. But the nature of the crime makes it difficult to document and, consequently, to prosecute."

• Hanno Hauenstein: Gideon Lelvy: Getting rid of Netanyahu is not enough: An interview with "one of the most articulate critics of Israeli war and apartheid." Asked whether there was any discussion in Israel about a recent massacre in Gaza:

  I can guarantee you, if it wouldn't have been two hundred killed in Nuseirat but two thousand, it would still be justified by most of Israel. To them, Israel has the right to do whatever it wants after October 7. And it's not up to the world to put up limits for us. That's the mindset. Obviously, there are those who see things differently, but they are a minority and quite scared to raise their voices. Most Israelis would justify any aggression against Palestinians right now, on any scale.

• Jake Johnson: [07-15] World 'cannot remain silent in the face of this endless massacre,' says Lula: "The Israeli government continues to sabotage the peace process and the cease-fire in the Middle East," said the Brazilian president after a deadly weekend of bombings."

• David Kattenburg: [07-19] In a historic ruling, ICJ declares Israeli occupation unlawful, calls for settlements to be evacuated, and for Palestinian reparations: "The International Court of Justice declared Israel's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is unlawful, the settlements must be evacuated, and Palestinians must be compensated and allowed to return to their lands."

• Yoav Litvin: [07-19] Israel: where genocide meets real estate.

• Harold Meyerson: [07-22] A modest suggestion for an American Jewish response to Bibi: excommunicate him. "At the Republicans' behest, Netanyahu will speak to Congress on Wednesday. What better time to figuratively cast him out?"

• Ralph Nader: [07-15] The Gaza genocide deepens: the reckoning begins for the perpetrators.

• Dan Owen: [07-24] How Israel plans to whitewash its war crimes in Gaza: "The Israeli army uses the veneer of internal accountability to fend off external criticism. But its record reveals how few perpetrators are punished."

• Richard E Rubenstein: [07-19] Zionism: the end of an illusion.

• Raja Shehadeh: [07-23] The world's highest court has confirmed what we Palestinians always knew: Israel's settlements are illegal.

Election notes:

• Jeffrey St Clair: [07-19] Politics on the verge of nervous breakdown. This starts with the most detailed and credible account of the Trump rally shooting I've bothered to read, ranges wide enough to include a picture of Mussolini with a nose bandage after a 1926 assassination attempt, then moves on to Biden (pre-withdrawal), compares his tenure to that of Stalin and Brezhnev, doubles back to J.D. Vance, and winds up with a potpourri of scattered points, like:

  • As if to emphasize their indifference to the victims of the shooting, they're having an AR-15 giveaway at the GOP convention . . .

  • Days after a 20-year-old tried to nail Trump with an AR-15, a federal appeals court ruled that Minnesota's law requiring people to be at least 21 to carry a handgun in public is unconstitutional.

  • While the Democrats -- for some reason comprehensible only to Democrats -- have "paused" fundraising after the failed assassination attempt, a Trump-owned company is selling sneakers for $299 a pair with an image of his bloodied face after the rally shooting . . .

Republican National Convention:

Focus on the Convention here. Articles that focus on Trump and Vance, even at the convention, follow in their own sections.

• Intelligencer Staff:

  • [07-15] RNC day 1: A VP, Trump's big bandage, and a lot of Biden bashing.

  • [07-19] Trump's record-length speech, Hulk Hogan's tearaway, and there's Melania: RNC recap.

  • [07-19] The triumphalist Republican convention in photos.

• Jonathan Alter: [07-19] Good news for Democrats: Trump's bad speech wrecked the Republican convention.

• Zack Beauchamp: [07-15] How the Republican convention and Project 2025 work together.

• Ben Burgis: [07-19] So much for a newly reborn Republican Party.

• David Freedlander:

  • [07-15] Trump and the Republicans have found their ideal reality.

  • [07-17] Republicans try to explain why they were wrong about Trump.

  • [07-18] Republicans have bed-wetters, too: At the RNC, some Trump-campaign officials and allies think their good luck will run out."

• Mel Gurtov: [07-22] Gathering of the clan: The Trump criminal enterprise at the RNC.

• Antonia Hitchens:

  • [07-16] Trump, unity, and MAGA miracles at the R.N.C. "The former President's campaign has always been inflected with a bit of martyrdom. When he walked onto the convention floor on Monday night, his right ear bandaged, it was the most profound and unexpected culmination of all the messianic talk."

  • [07-19] The spectacle of Donald Trump's R.N.C.: "An inside look at the Republican Party's weeklong celebration of the former President."

• Ben Jacobs: [07-17] It was losers night at the RNC: "One by one, Trump's former rivals kissed the ring." Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, etc.

• Fred Kaplan:

  • [07-18] One of the most disturbing moments at the RNC so far.

  • [07-19] Trump's view of the world is a delusional fantasy.

• Branko Marcetic:

  • [07-16] Donald Trump's near death has reenergized his movement.

  • [07-17] Republicans' message of unity didn't last long.

  • [07-19] The GOP presented a racially diverse party at the RNC.

• Amanda Marcotte: [07-17] MAGA energy takes over the RNC: Republicans are riled up over Donald Trump's shooting: "Republicans at the convention aren't upset over Donald Trump's shooting -- they're giddy."

• Harold Meyerson: American Prospect writer attending the RNC:

  • [07-15] This week's Republican challenge: "How can their convention, and nominee, call for both calming de-escalation and furious retribution?"

  • [07-16] Republican make-believe: playing nice and loving workers: "That was the implausible message of their convention's opening night." Republican elites are so used to the gullibility of their base, they assume they can just say anything, and no one will bat an eye.

  • [07-17] The RNC, night two: the party as cult.

  • [07-18] Would J.D. Vance join a UAW picket line outside a Tesla factory? Quotes Vance: "We're done catering to Wall Street. We'll commit to the working man!" Laughs.

  • [07-19] A party of precarious manhood, led by a blithering idiot: "Trump's acceptance speech was a mishmash of self-love, protestations of toughness, and prefabricated lies." Opening line: "The problem with Joe Biden, sometimes, is that you can't hear him. The problem with Donald Trump is that you can." Trump's speech reminded Meyerson of an article he wrote back in June:

  • [06-10] How the Republicans became the party of precarious manhood: "On Donald Trump's genius at exploiting working-class male displacement and anxiety."

• Rick Perlstein: [07-24] Seeds of a conservative crack-up: "My conversation with them [a group of progressive anti-abortion activists protesting the RNC with signs like 'GOP murders babies'] was the only interesting thing I absorbed at the Republican convention last week."

• Chris Walker: [07-16] Hundreds march against GOP in Milwaukee during first day of RNC.

• Benjamin Wallace-Wells: [07-18] The rise of the new right at the Republican National Convention: "In Milwaukee, Donald Trump's choice of J.D. Vance as Vice-President was seen as a breakthrough for the young conservative movement, which blames elite institutions for the destruction of the American working class." Not that they care one whit about the working class, but they claim whatever they can, knowing that it gets under the skin of Democrats, who at least feel guilty for their own betrayals.