Weekend Roundup [80 - 89]Sunday, June 16, 2019
Weekend Roundup
Quite a bit below. After a very depressing/blasé week, I got an early
start on Friday, and started feeling better -- not for the nation or the
world, but pleased to be occupied with some straightforward, tangible work.
One thing I can enjoy some optimism about is the Democratic presidential
campaign. I expected it to be swallowed whole with the sort of vacant,
pious clichés that Obama and the Clintons have been campaigning on for
decades now, but what we're actually seeing is a lot of serious concern
for policy. The clear leader in that regard is Elizabeth Warren, and of
course Bernie Sanders has a complete matching set with if anything a
little more courage and conviction, but I've run across distinct and
refreshing ideas from another half-dozen candidates. I haven't noticed
Biden rising to that challenge yet. He remains the main beneficiary of
as fairly widespread faction that would be quite satisfied with their
lives if only the Republican threat would subside in favor of the quiet
competency Obama brought to government. Personally, I wouldn't mind
that either, but I recognize that has a lot to do with my age. Young
people inhabit a very different world, one with less opportunity and
much graver risks, so platitudes from America's liberal past don't do
them much good, or offer much hope. They face real and growing problems,
and not just from Republicans (although those are perhaps the hoariest).
Talking about policy actually offers them some prospect that faith
alone can never fill. And sooner or later, even Biden's going to have
to talk about policy, because that's where the campaign is heading.
This could hardly offer a starker contrast to the 2016 Republican
presidential primary, where there was virtually no difference regarding
policy -- just minor tweaks to each candidate's plan to steer more of
the nation's wealth to the already rich, along with a slight range of
hues on how hawkish one can be on the forever wars and how racist one
can be when dealing with immigrants and the underclass. The real price
of entry wasn't ideas or commitment. It was just the necessity to line
up one or more billionaire sponsors -- turf that credibly favored Trump
as his billionaire/candidate were one. The fact that Cruz and Kasich
folded when they still had primaries they could plausibly have won is
all the proof you need that the financiers pulled the strings, and as
soon as they understood that Trump would win the nomination, they
understood that he was as good for their purposes as anyone else, so
they got on board.
Democrats may have a harder time finding unity in 2020, because
their candidates are actually divided on issues that matter. On the
other hand, they are learning to discuss those issues rationally,
especially the candidates who are pushing the Overton Window left.
Even if they wind up nominating some kind of centrist, that person
is going to be more open to solutions from the left, and that's a
good thing because that's where the real solutions are. Franklin
Roosevelt wasn't any kind of leftist when he was elected in 1932,
and his famous 100 days were all over the map, but he was open to
trying things, and quickly found out that left solutions worked
better than conservative ones. We're not quite as mired in crisis
as America was in 1932, but it's pretty clear that catastrophe is
coming if Trump and the Republicans stay in power. The option for
2020 is whether to face our problems calmly and rationally with
deliberate policy choices or to continue to thrash reflexively
and chaotically. There's no need to imagine how bad the latter
may be, because Trump's illustrating it perfectly day by day.
Some scattered links this week:
Muhammad Idrees Ahmad:
Bellingcat and how open source journalism reinvented investigative
journalism. Eileen Appelbaum:
Private equity pillage: grocery stores and workers at risk. I first
noticed this as a
twitter thread, but the article goes into a lot more detail (while
including all the cartoons). The article focuses on food retailers, but
if you want a quick rule-of-thumb, whenever you read about a familiar
company filing for bankruptcy, you can be pretty sure there's a private
equity fund behind it that has already sucked the firm dry of assets
and piled up unsupportable debt. Private equity firms -- you may recall
that's how Mitt Romney got so rich, not that having a rich and famous
father didn't give him a leg up -- are a plague, especially on American
workers. Some policy wonks should come up with a program to put them out
of business. One idea here would be to allow bankrupted companies to be
reorganized as employee-owned, writing down their PE debt, with public
loans to recapitalize the company. Peter Baker/Maggie Haberman:
Trump campaign to purge pollsters after leak of dismal results. Ross Barkan:
Don't bother replacing Sarah Sanders -- there is no point.
I figured I should offer something to mark the passing of Trump's second
press secretary, but found very little that captures the true banality
she brought to such a thankless and hopeless job. Failing that, this will
have to do. Although I did also find: Luke O'Neil:
Tweets, lies and the Mueller report: Sarah Sanders' lowest moments.
On the other hand, Trump seems to think she has a future:
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Governor of Arkansas? It's possible. John Cassidy:
The Stephanopoulos interview is another fine mess for Trump. Jonathan Chait:
Trump: witness to my crime can't testify, but trust me he's lying:
That would be former White House counsel Don McGahn, who Robert Mueller
interviewed at length. Sarah Churchwell:
'The Lehman Trilogy' and Wall Street's debt to slavery: How to get
rich in the 1840s, and how to get richer after that stopped working. Iyad el-Baghdadi:
The princes who want to destroy any hope for Arab democracy: Trump's
best buds in "Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are backing
military leaders who kill demonstrators.". Tom Engelhardt:
If Donald Trump is the symptom . . . then what's the disease?
Reflects on how Trump was elected based on a widespread fear of decline,
economic as well as military, only to accelerate that decline, taking
much of the planet with him. Some other recent TomDispatch posts:
Dennis Etler:
Getting Chian wrong, yet again: Reviews a Council of Foreign Relations
report entitled "Trump's Foreign Policies are Better Than They Seem," so
yeah, they have lots of examples. Also see: Michael Klare:
Bolton wants to fight Iran, but the Pentagon has its eye on China.
Pentagon strategists have long liked to promote conflicts with Russia
and China, as they help fund their dreams of high-tech weapons systems
that never get tested, because wars with nuclear powers like China and
Russia are still unthinkable. Interesting that Klare's next book also
looks at highly speculative Pentagon funding: All Hell Breaking
Loose: Why the Pentagon Sees Climate Change as a Threat to American
National Security. Without such threats, and the misunderstandings
and myths they are based on, one might realize that such arms spending
is unnecessary and, even worse, dangerous. Tara Golshan:
Congress's high-stakes budget fight to avert an economic crisis, explained.
Jeff Goodell:
The world's most insane energy project moves ahead: the Carmichael
coal mine, in Australia, controlled by Adani Group (of India). Lloyd Green:
The Best People review: how Trump flooded the swamp: On Alexander
Nazaryan's new book, The Best People: Trump's Cabinet and the Siege
on Washington (out June 18), about "the scandals, the incompetence,
the assault on the federal government, the bungled attempts to impose
order on an administration lost in a chaos of its own making." Green
also reviewed Michael Wolff's recent dirt-dishing Siege: Trump
Under Fire:
Siege review: Michael Wolff's Trump tale is Fire and Fury II -- fire
harder. Related: Robert Reich:
Welcome to Trump's corrupt state -- the Star Wars cantina of world
politics. Nick Hanauer:
Better schools won't fix America: "Like many rich Americans, I used
to think educational investment could heal the country's ills -- but I
was wrong. Fighting inequality must come first." Mehdi Hasan:
Saudi Arabia may execute teenager for his protests -- including when he
was 10. David Hearst:
Why I'm optimistic about the 'deal of the century': Not because he
thinks Jared Kushner's "peace plan" is viable let alone workable, but it
marks the definitive end of the "two state" albatross that Israel has so
easily slagged off. Rather: "The deal presents the biggest opportunity
to those who have the most to lose from it." I don't get this optimism
yet, although to the limited extent I understand the idea -- despite
the advance publicity, it hasn't been fully presented yet -- but I can
imagine some tuning that might be tolerable going forward. Hearst also
wrote [February 2019]:
Lords of the land: Why Israel's victory won't last. Meanwhile,
some other relevant links:
Umair Irfan:
The UK has now committed to the most aggressive climate target in the
world. Thomas Kaplan/Jim Tankersley:
Elizabeth Warren has lots of plans. Together, they would remake the
economy. Related: Paul Krugman:
Liberal wonks, or at least Elizabeth Warren, have a plan for that; also
Sheelah Kolhatkar:
Can Elizabeth Warren win it all?; also: Ed Kilgore:
Elizabeth Warren's one-two punch for conquering Washington; also:
Alex Isenstadt:
Trump campaign zeroes in on a new threat: Elizabeth Warren. Best
laugh line from the latter piece: "Warren's populist economic agenda,
[Tucker] Carlson said, 'sounds like Donald Trump at his best.'" Ed Kilgore:
Trump can't stop lying about his unpopularity:
Donald J. Trump did not invent the art of political spinning. But he
has perhaps raised it to an infernally high standard of sheer mendacity
in his determination to attack any information suggesting he is anything
other than the most wildly successful and popular politician since Pericles.
That means, among other troubling things, that he is engaged in a perpetual
war against the scientific measurement of public opinion.
Catherine Kim:
Jen Kirby:
Is it actually illegal to accept "campaign dirt" from foreigners?
If it's "something of value" doing so would violate campaign finance
laws. On the other hand, I doubt the law could prevent foreigners from
simply publishing and promoting "dirt" -- which is presumably what a
campaign would do with such information. In fact, most campaigns would
probably prefer that it come from an independent source.
The race to be the next British prime minister, briefly explained:
Seven candidates survived the first round of voting, the most famous
(and possibly the farthest apart politically) Boris Johnson (leader
with 114 votes) and Rory Stewart (last at 19 -- he's written a couple
of books on Afghanistan and Iraq which show some understanding of and
sympathy for the people there). Later rounds will reduce the field to
two, to be decided by registered Conservative Party members -- no one
in power there is eager to risk a new election. No mention of this here,
but since the Tories are a minority in Parliament, it seems to me that
their current coalition partners could scuttle the pick. [PS: See
Michael Savage/Toby Helm:
Boris Johnson's no-deal Brexit plan 'will trigger early election'.]
Sharon LaFraniere/Charlie Savage/Katie Benner:
People are trying to figure out William Barr. He's busy stockpiling
power. Eric Levitz:
The Fed just released a damning indictment of capitalism: Title
after the jump: "The one percent have gotten $21 trillion richer since
1989. The bottom 50% have gotten poorer." Dara Lind/Libby Nelson:
The fight over the 2020 census citizenship question, explained. Josh Marshall:
Trump tells Polish president: US media is corrupt: Actual quote:
"Much of the media unfortunately in this country is corrupt. I have to
tell you that, Mr. President." Trump could have turned this into a much
smarter quote by dropping "unfortunately" and adding: "that's why we
don't have to censor them." Of course, he wouldn't say that, because he
wants to censor them anyway. He feels so entitled he cannot recognize
that the media has been helped him out enormously. And he's such a
thin-skinned whiner he complains about them endlessly. Anything to
avoid a moment of reflection that might acknowledge that he's ever
done anything regrettable, let alone embarrassing.
The American right gets tired of democracy. I'd say the American right
has never liked democracy, and can point as far back as the early 1800s
when proposals to extend the vote to white male non-property holders were
met by worries that such people might use the vote to further their own
personal interests (to the detriment of their richer "betters"). But the
right is certainly getting more brazenly contemptuous of voting rights
and other aspects of democracy. This connects to a cluster of other links,
which purport to grapple with the question of what principles conservatism
has left after the right has pledged itself to politicians like Trump:
Sohrab Ahmari:
Against David French-ism. Isaac Chotiner:
Ross Douthat on the crisis of the conservative coalition: Interview
with Douthat. Ed Kilgore:
Josh Hawley could be the face of the post-Trump right. Adam Serwer:
The illiberal right throws a tantrum: sample quote:
I don't want to overstate the significance of this dispute between French
and Ahmari. They are yelling at each other in a walled garden; conservative
pundits in ideological magazines have little influence over a base whose
opinions are guided by the commercial incentives of Fox News and right-wing
talk radio, and the partisan imperatives of the Republican Party. If they
possessed such influence, Trump would not be president.
The question of whether the Republican Party would abandon liberal
democracy for sectarian ethno-nationalism was decided in the 2016 primary,
and all French and Ahmari are doing is arguing about it after the fact.
The commercial and social incentives for conservative writers to succumb
to Trumpism are vast. Some, like French, have had the integrity to stick
to their stated principles. Others, like Ahmari, have already fallen.
Today's skirmishes among conservatives resemble the irregulars in 1865
shooting at one another because they had not yet heard of Robert E. Lee's
surrender at Appomattox. And the support Ahmari has drawn suggests that
the conservative intelligentsia will offer less resistance to
authoritarianism than it did in 2015 and 2016.
Dylan Matthews:
Ella Nilsen:
House Democrats want to make accepting dirt on campaign opponents
from foreign governments a crime: "Democrats are rolling out a
new package of election security bills after Trump said he's open
to taking dirt on his 2020 opponents." That, or even the lesser
requirement to report foreign offers to the FBI, strikes me as a
bad idea: it practically begs foreign agents to set up and expose
test cases. Anna North:
Alabama's law forcing sex offenders to get chemically castrated,
explained. Kelsey Piper:
Will climate change kill everyone -- or just lots and lots of people?
Oddly enough, I can think of adverse scenarios that are worse than the
ones discussed here -- war over diminishing habitat and resources is the
most obvious one -- but I can't imagine that no one would survive even
that, and I'm dead certain that the survivors will prove adaptable enough
to recover from any climate-induced dystopia. As for civilization ending,
the bigger threat is politically-directed stupidity (which seems to have
already claimed most of the Republican Party). As this explainer points
out, much of the dispute here really turns on the question of how much
threat we have to feel to act politically. Those who feel unheeded are
eager to turn out the hyperbole, but my impression is that so far that
has only had the perverse of undermining their credibility. Andrew Prokop:
Trump's legally problematic claim that he'd accept "oppo research" from
foreign governments, explained. Michael Sainato:
Bosses pocket Trump tax windfall as workers see job promises vanish.
Jason Samenow:
David E Sanger/Nicole Perlroth:
US escalates online attacks on Russia's power grid. Part of the
rationale here is to deter Russia from interfering in US elections,
but this reads more like a provocation along the lines of Nixon's
famous "madman theory" of threatening nuclear war. The assumption
seems to be that Russia will react rationally to such insanity, but
if they believe that, why not just sit down and negotiate some kind
of deal that would lessen the threat of cyberwarfare and present a
unified front against hacking by private parties and other countries.
Probably the same reason the US works to preserve its unique "first
strike" capability: to cower the rest of the world into submission
at the first demonstration of "shock and awe." Richard Silverstein:
Is Pompeo angling to interfere in British politics? "In leaked
comments from a recent meeting with Jewish leaders, the US secretary
of state cites the need to 'push back' against a potential Corbyn
victory." Found a couple of useful links there:
Andrew Sullivan:
Donald Trump and the art of the lie. He draws some examples from
Michael Wolff's Siege, others from the George Stephanopoulos
interview, but he could write the same article with fresh examples
any week of the year.
For Trump, lying is central to his disturbed psyche, and to his success.
The brazenness of it unbalances and stupefies sane and adjusted people,
thereby constantly giving him an edge and a little breathing space while
we try to absorb it, during which he proceeds to the next lie. And on it
goes. It's like swimming in choppy water. Just when you get to the surface
to breathe, another wave crashes into you. . . .
A tyrant's path to power is not a straight line, it's dynamic. Each
concession is instantly banked, past vices are turned into virtues, and
then the ante is upped once again. The threat rises exponentially with
time. If we can't see this in front of our own eyes, and impeach this
man now, even if he will not be convicted, we are flirting with the very
stability of our political system.
Sullivan also writes about Boris Johnson in the next section down
the page: "My Old Chum Boris." Sullivan knew Johnson from their school
days at Oxford together:
Boris was so posh it was funny. . . . He belonged, for example, to the
Bullingdon Club, an exclusive upper-class fraternity that specialized
in hosting expensive restaurant dinners for themselves, in white tie
and tails no less, with members eating and drinking till they were
stuffed and thoroughly shit-faced and then proceeded to puke on the
floors and vandalize the joint, smashing tables and chairs and china,
breaking windows and the like. Daddy would always pick up the price
for repairs. . . . Legend has it Johnson kept reinventing himself
politically and playing down his Toryism and poshness -- with the
help of then-student Frank Luntz, believe it or not -- and eventually
it worked and he won. I have to say I found him hugely entertaining,
and great company, but could never really take him seriously. He has
a first-class wit but a second-class mind and got a second-class
degree. If you want to measure the quality of his scholarship, check
out his deeply awful biography of Churchill, a thinly veiled attempt
to redescribe his own career as a Second Coming of Winston. . . .
But there is some sweet cosmic justice in Boris having to take
responsibility for the Brexit he backed. It may be a catastrophe,
but it will be his, and, for him at least, it sure will be fun.
Jon Swaine:
Company part-owned by Jared Kushner got $90m from unknown offshore
investors since 2017. Also, Vicky Ward:
Jared Kushner may have an ethics problem -- to the tune of $90m. Matt Taibbi:
Peter Wade:
Ivanka Trump cashed $4 million from her father's DC hotel in 2018:
"She and her husband, Jared Kushner, reported earning between $28.8 million
and $135.1 million in 2018. Alex Ward:
Joanna Weiss:
How Trump turned liberal comedians conservative: Nice idea for a
piece, but doesn't deliver on its premise, nor approximate its title.
Weiss laments the eclipse of "wry satire," complaining that today "it's
all outrage and punching up -- and it's not always clear where the joke
is." I don't doubt that there has been a coarsening of humor since Trump
became president. Is any other reaction possible? I worry that many of
the jokes offer lazy simplifications (e.g., ragging on Trump for his
spelling and vocabulary lapses, like "covfefe"). I've also noted that
no one seems to be able to tell funny jokes about Democrats (exception
Hillary, but mostly in contrast to Trump). For instance, I can't recall
Seth Myers ever cracking a funny joke about Bernie Sanders. Also, I've
found myself with a pre-emptive groan every time Colbert does his "Doin'
It Donkey Style" routine. On the other hand, the real thing I've found
myself looking for from these comedians is solidarity. I rarely need
their help in understanding the news, but it's gratifying to know that
someone else shares my outrage. Jennifer Williams:
UK signs order for WikiLeaks' Julian Assange to be extradicted to the US.
Paul Woodward:
Why Trump remains open to receiving foreign aid during election
campaigns: Mostly links to other articles, but his summary is
worth underlining:
As much as the media might be inclined to cast Trump's views on this
issue as an aberration, they are, on the contrary, completely in line
with what has become the GOP's overarching strategy for retaining power
as its capacity to win votes declines: through gerrymandering, stacking
courts, gutting campaign finance regulations, and now welcoming help
from foreign governments.
The Republicans' power-hunger corresponds directly with their
dwindling democratic opportunities.
A party that has realized it can't succeed by conforming with the
operating rules for a functioning democracy has concluded its self-ascribed
"right to govern" depends upon the systematic subversion of the principles
upon which this country was founded.
Robin Wright:
A tanker war in the Middle East -- again? Two oil tankers were
struck in the Straits of Hormuz between Iran and Oman. The Trump
administration and Trump's "allies" in Saudi Arabia and the UAE were
quick to blame Iran (with no proof but lots of innuendo), and Iran
immediately denied responsibility. One line in passing here sticks
with me: "Within hours, oil prices rose four per cent." A reminder
here of the "tanker war" in the late 1980s, although no mention of
the Iranian civilian airliner the US shot down then. More on Iran:
Meanwhile, no skepticism at the New York Times, where Bret Stephens
is already clamoring for war:
If Iran won't change its behavior, we should sink its navy. Matthew Yglesias:
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Friday, June 7, 2019
Weekend Roundup
No introduction. Cut my finger while cooking, and can't type worth
a damn. Getting late, too.
Some scattered links this week:
Riley Beggin:
Peter Beinart:
13 Democrats recorded messages about Israel. Only one spoke with
courage. Bernie Sanders. Ronald Brownstein:
Democrats learned the wrong lesson from Clinton's impeachment: "It
didn't actually cost the GOP all that much." Alexia Fernández Campbell:
The May jobs report is a big disappointment for workers and bad news for
Trump. Juliet Eilperin/Josh Dawsey/Brady Dennis:
White House blocked intelligence agency's written testimony calling
climate change 'possibly catastrophic'. Masha Gessen:
The persistent ghost of Ayn Rand, the forebear of zombie neoliberalism.
Review of Lisa Duggan's Mean Girl: Ayn Rand and the Culture of Greed.
After mentioning various political figures, like Paul Ryan and Mike Pompeo,
infatuated with Rand, Gessen finishes:
Their version of Randism is stripped of all the elements that might
account for my inability to throw out those books: the pretense of
intellectualism, the militant atheism, and the explicit advocacy of
sexual freedom. From all that Rand offered, these men have taken only
the worst: the cruelty. They are not even optimistic. They are just
plain mean.
What HBO's "Chernobyl" got right, and what it got terribly wrong:
We watched all five episodes this week, and I thought they did a
remarkable job of explaining the causes and consequences of one of
the devastating man-made disasters of our time. Gessen compliments
the series whenever it sheds a harsh light on the Soviet bureaucracy,
then attacks it for not being harsh enough. Her critique is most
effective regarding Ulyana Khomyuk (Emily Watson), a single character
invented to represent the hundreds of scientists assigned to figure
out what went wrong, what more could go wrong, and how best to deal
with all that. Gessen faults Khomyuk as a stock Hollywood hero, but
what bothers me more is the reduction of a large group effort, with
all the complex interaction of major scientific endeavors, to small
acts of individual heroism. I've made the same complaint about the
series Manhattan, which reduced nearly all of the high-level
technical decision to just two characters -- both American, losing
any recognition that most of the major scientists working on the
project were Europeans (who, aside from some Brits and a celebrity
visit by Niels Bohr, were totally written out of the story). The
other conspicuous omission/error I found was when the lead scientist
attributed the critical "design flaw" and the lack of a containment
chamber to the Soviets' tendency to do things on the cheap. As I
understand it, the main consideration for the RBMK reactor design
was its use for producing bomb fuel as well as electricity, which
required frequent access to extract plutonium from the core. Still,
I think the writer here, Craig Mazin, makes a good case for telling
the story this way. See: Emily Todd VanDerWerff:
HBO's Chernobyl is a terrific miniseries. Its writer hopes you don't
think it's the whole truth. I haven't yet followed the link to
Mazin's
podcasts, which reportedly go into more detail about what's true
and what's been fictionalized in the series. VanDerWerff also wrote:
Chernobyl's stellar finale makes a case for the show as science
fiction. Also: Peter Maass:
What the horror of "Chernobyl" reveals about the deceit of the Trump
era. John Hudson/Loveday Morris:
Pompeo delivers unfiltered view of Trump's Middle East peace plan in
off-the-record meeting: What he told "a closed-door meeting with
Jewish leaders." Murtaza Hussain:
An Iranian activist wrote dozens of articles for right-wing outlets.
But is he a real person? "Heshamat Alavi is a persona run by a
team of people from the political wing of the MEK. This is not and
has never been a real person." Sean Illing:
Why conservatives are winning the internet: Interview with Jen
Schradie, author of The Revolution That Wasn't: How Digital Activism
Favors Conservatives. "Ultimately, it's not about the tool; it's
about the inequalities in our society that give certain people advantages
over others." Quinta Jurecic:
4 disturbing details you may have missed in the Mueller report: "and
none of them are favorable to the president." Fred Kaplan:
How Trump could restart the nuclear arms race. And how this dovetails
with Putin's interests in the same: Reese Erlich:
Nuclear disarmament: the view from Moscow. Rashid Khalidi:
Manifest destinies: "The tangled history of American and Israeli
exceptionalism." Review of Amy Kaplan's book, Our American Israel:
The Story of an Entangled Alliance. Jen Kirby:
Trump tightens Cuba travel rules: "The US bans cruises and restricts
certain travel in a move meant to pressure Cuba. . . . All of these
policy moves reflect the administration's Cold War-esque approach to
Latin America that has emerged since Bolton arrived as National Security
Advisor." Paul Krugman:
Farhad Manjoo:
I want to live in Elizabeth Warren's America: "The Massachusetts
senator is proposing something radical: a country in which adults
discuss serious ideas seriously."
I'm impressed instead by something more simple and elemental: Warren
actually has ideas. She has grand, detailed and daring ideas, and
through these ideas she is single-handedly elevating the already
endless slog of the 2020 presidential campaign into something
weightier and more interesting than what it might otherwise have
been: a frivolous contest about who hates Donald Trump most.
Michael E Mann:
Trump is giving Americans dirty water, dirty air, and a very dirty
climate: Alternate title by Paul Woodward -- Newsweek's is "Trump
lied to Prince Charles's face -- and to the world."
To say that Donald Trump's jaw-dropping display of environmental ignorance
while in the United Kingdom is an embarrassment to all Americans would be
an understatement. But the worst part of his ramblings about how we have
"among the cleanest climates there are based on all statistics" isn't that
it sounds like the ramblings of a Fox News addict. It's that his
administration is doing everything it can to work towards the opposite:
dirty water, dirty air, and, well, a very dirty climate.
Found a link there to another article which people who regard Trump
as Putin's stooge might pick up and run with: Hannah Osborne:
Climate change could make Russia's frozen Siberia far more habitable
by the 2080s. Dylan Matthews/Byrd Pinkerton:
The incredible influence of the Federalist Society, explained. Rani Molla:
Samuel Moyn:
The nudgeocrat: "Navigating freedom with Cass Sunstein." Review of
Sunstein's recent short book, On Freedom, although he's been
rehashing those same ideas for a long time now, most notoriously in
Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness
(co-authored by Richard H. Thaler). He pushes "libertarian paternalism,"
where technocratic elites rig default choices to help guide the minions
to better choices without making them feel like they're being run. Ella Nilsen:
Anna North:
Joe Biden's evolution on abortion, explained. John Quiggin:
America needs to reexamine its wartime relationships: "The lessons
of the 1920s have been painfully relearned." Evidently not the author's
title, as the main thrust of the article is that Keynes was right about
the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, and is still right today. Quiggin also
pointed me to this report:
Advertising as a major source of human dissatisfaction: Cross-national
evidence on one million Europeans. Nathan J Robinson:
The best they've got: "Examining the National Review's 'Against
Socialism' issue" -- an article-by-article answer, which mostly suggests
that the writers are blithering idiots, with most authors understanding
nothing more than that socialism is bad, bad, bad. Aaron Rupar:
Sigal Samuel:
Forget GDP -- New Zealand is prioritizing gross national well-being.
Dylan Scott:
Why Joe Biden is holding on to such a strong lead in the 2020 primary
polls: "Biden has one big advantage in the 2020 Democratic primary
polls: older voters." Some numbers: with voters over age 45, Biden leads
sanders 45-10%; under 45, Sanders leads Biden 26-19%. Older dividing
lines increase the break for Biden. I'd guess that the world looks very
different as you move away from the 45 dividing line: older voters have
their lives relatively set and secure, as long as moderate Democrats can
protect Social Security/Medicare against further Republican depredation;
on the other hand, younger voters have bleaker job prospects, lots of
debt (their children's prospects looking even worse), and longer range
fears over the environment and war. They see Biden as representative of
the generation of mainstream Democrats whose accommodation to business
and the Republicans have let their prospects decline.
Trump is really unpopular in the most important 2020 battleground states:
"Trump is deep underwater in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Michigan, and other
key 2020 states. Tim Starks/Laurens Cerulus/Mark Scott:
Russia's manipulation of Twitter was far vaster than believed. Of
course, not just Russia funds trolls. See: Jason Rezaian:
The State Department has been funding trolls. I'm one of their targets.
Joseph Stiglitz:
The climate crisis is our third world war. It needs a bold response.
I get his point, but when he brings up this particular analogy he wanders
into all sorts of conceptual minefields. War and climate change both
cause vast devastation, but the agencies are different, and so are most
of the effects. Even more specious is the notion that we need a war to
work up the courage and will to tackle difficult problems -- as phony
wars on poverty and drugs and so forth have repeatedly shown. Moreover,
you can never measure the true cost of wars in dollars -- as Stiglitz
tried to do in The Three Trillion Dollar War: The Truth Cost of the
Iraq Conflict (2008, so by now probably a couple trillion short).
When the US was attacked during the second world war no one asked, "Can
we afford to fight the war?" It was an existential matter. We could not
afford not to fight it. The same goes for the climate crisis. Here, we
are already experiencing the direct costs of ignoring the issue -- in
recent years the country has lost almost 2% of GDP in weather-related
disasters, which include floods, hurricanes, and forest fires. The cost
to our health from climate-related diseases is just being tabulated, but
it, too, will run into the tens of billions of dollars -- not to mention
the as-yet-uncounted number of lives lost. We will pay for climate breakdown
one way or another, so it makes sense to spend money now to reduce emissions
rather than wait until later to pay a lot more for the consequences -- not
just from weather but also from rising sea levels. It's a cliche, but it's
true: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The war on the climate emergency, if correctly waged, would actually
be good for the economy -- just as the second world war set the stage for
America's golden economic era, with the fastest rate of growth in its
history amidst shared prosperity. The Green New Deal would stimulate
demand, ensuring that all available resources were used; and the
transition to the green economy would likely usher in a new boom.
Lots of other analogies bother me here. I can't imagine that any
amount of climate change will end human habitation or civilization,
and even if it did the earth will carry on, oblivious to evolution
of its surface chemistry. The great risk from climate change is that
it will cause destabilization and disruption, and that those things
will impose pain and loss and, most likely, greater strife. It may
be hard to convince people that such threats matter, but reasonable
people recognize that they do. Matt Taibbi:
Michael Wolff's 'Siege' is like his last book -- but worse. Nick Utzig:
Bowe Bergdahl's story lays bare the tragedy of our forever wars:
review of American Cipher: Bowe Bergdahl and the U.S. Tragedy in
Afghanistan, a book by Matt Farwell and Michael Ames. Alex Ward:
Trump's D-Day speech was great. He was the wrong man to give it.
If all I knew was the title, I'd guess that someone wrote him a fairly
decent speech, but it felt off because Trump is incapable of delivering
the emotions the speech intended to convey. Aside from his peculiar form
of malicious humor, which he manages to deliver with unthinking grace,
he may be the worst speaker I've ever seen among major political figures.
Even when he's reading lines, he's so obviously out of character it's
disconcerting to try to follow him. But Ward doesn't say any of that.
He genuinely praises the speech, quoting sections which reveal nothing
more than the sanctimonious pablum of high school orators. Then he
denies that Trump is entitled to be valedictorian, because he dodged
the draft to avoid Vietnam, and because he's said various impolitic
things about NATO, America's anointed allies, and Robert Mueller --
reminding us that Mueller is a veteran as well as a patriot. Final
line: "If Trump really wants to honor D-Day's heroes, he should live
and work by their values from here on out." Sometimes it's hard to
sort out who confuses Ward the most, but given their demographics
(male, 93+ years old) those surviving "D-day heroes" probably voted
overwhelmingly for Trump. They were no more than typical Americans
at the time, and 75 years of cynical, self-serving militarism later
their view of the world is unlikely to be less warped than that of
anyone else today.
Oh, by the way, isn't the celebration of D-Day anniversaries a
bit chauvinistic (for America, of course, but also for France, which
bequeathed us the term)? The turning point of WWII in Europe was the
Battle of Stalingrad, where the Soviet Union, at enormous cost, halted
and started to reverse the German advance. Even after D-Day the war was
overwhelmingly fought in the East, where the suffering was immense. Not
that D-Day was a picnic. For something realistic, see: David Chrisinger:
The man who told America the truth about D-Day, a profile of famed
journalist Ernie Pyle.
Trump escalates feud with London mayor by calling him a "stone cold
loser": "Trump's spat with Sadiq Khan has lasted years." Emily Wax-Thibodeaux:
In Alabama -- where lawmakers banned abortion for rape victims --
rapists' parental rights are protected. Lauren Wolfe:
Human rights in the US are worse than you think: "From police shootings
to voter suppression to arrests of asylum seekers, a new report finds US
human rights are abysmal." Paul Woodward:
Trump's obfuscation on the climate crisis. Matthew Yglesias:
Public support for left-wing policymaking has reached a 60-year high:
"Just slightly higher than the previous high point of 1961." The study
specifically looks at public attitudes to "big government," although
that's a right-wing scare term. The more basic question is how many
people think government should take a more active role in addressing
general problems, and consequently look to progressive politicians for
help. One thing I find interesting about this is that this shift in
opinion hasn't been led by Democratic politicians advocating a larger
role for government. Rather, it seems to be a groundswell, as more and
more people realize that the Republican "small government" obsession
has lost credibility. I'd also add that popular belief in liberal and
progressive ideals, so dominant in the New Deal/Great Society era,
never changed. Rather, people lost faith in the Democrats' ability
to defend and extend those ideals, which gave Reagan and his ilk a
chance to argue that their conservative ideas might do a better job
of securing the American Dream. They succeeded to a remarkable degree,
but only used their power to increase inequality and injustice. As
their effects have become more manifest, their rationalizations have
become more threadbare and disingenuous, to the point where fewer
and fewer people believe anything they say. The last to realize
this seem to be the mainstream media and centrist Democrats, but
even they are losing their blinders. Eric Levitz also writes
about this study:
America's political mood is now the 'most liberal ever recorded'.
Why Trump's Mexico tariffs are producing a revolt when China tariffs
didn't. Trump's China trade war is (mostly) pro-business, while
Trump's Mexico trade war is about immigration. Opposing immigration
may still be good politics for Trump, but restricting trade makes it
bad for business, and that's the one thing Republicans are willing to
break with Trump on.
What makes this standoff interesting is that Trump is asking, in a
small way, for a sacrifice the business wing of the GOP is never asked
to make. . . . The way the deal is supposed to work is that cultural
conservatives provide the votes, and they get their way on issues the
business community doesn't care about (until cultural conservatives'
views become an unpopular embarrassment the way opposition to same-sex
marriages and military service is), but business isn't supposed to
actually sacrifice its interests for the sake of cultural conservative
causes. With the tariff gambit on Mexico, Trump is overturning that
logic in a way that his other trade shenanigans haven't. And that's
why congressional Republicans are resisting in an unusual way.
The Joe Biden climate plan plagiarism "scandal," explained: "A
reminder of some bad history, but far and away the least important
part of his climate plan." Reviews the "bad history" of plagiarism
charges against Biden in 1987 for cribbing from a speech by a British
politician, which led to his withdrawal from the 1988 presidential
race. Neither case bothers me as plagiarism -- admittedly, not much
does -- but the charges reinforce the notion that Biden isn't a very
original thinker. But so does his climate plan. Indeed, his embrace
of received opinion is the foundation of his campaign.
Judy Shelton's potential nomination to a Federal Reserve Board seat,
explained.
Elizabeth Warren's latest big idea is "economic patriotism": "The
plan is to marry industrial policy to environmentalism and transform
the economy." Robert Reich applauds:
Elizabeth Warren's economic nationalism vision shows there's a better
way.
Jared Kushner's telling indifference on refugees.
Banning former members of Congress from lobbying won't fix the revolving
door: "Congress needs more staff money and public financing, not
tighter rules." Yglesias previously argued
members of Congress themselves should be paid more, so he's extending
that logic to staff members: maybe if they're paid more as public servants
better people would seek these jobs, and be less likely to sell out to
lobbyists later. I rather doubt this. On the other hand, while a lifetime
ban strikes me as excessive, I can imagine some regulations helping. One
could, for instance, limit pay by lobbying firms, which would have put a
severe cramp into Billy Tauzin's move from the House to head up PHARMA
just after Tauzin managed the passage of the Medicare D bill (which kept
insurers from negotiating prices with pharmaceutical companies). Still,
it's hard to think of things that couldn't be worked around. The core
problem is that we live in a very inequal society, which rewards (and
therefore drives) everyone to maximize income, and rarely (if ever)
enforces taboos (let alone laws) against graft. That may seem like too
tall an order, but some little steps would help: much higher tax rates
for high incomes, making lobbying expenses taxable, and most important
of all, cutting off the main flow of corruption by public funding of
campaigns. Gary Younge:
How bad can Brexit get? "Theresa May is out, but the crisis that made
her premiership both possible and untenable has intensified."
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, June 2, 2019
Weekend Roundup
No time for an intro, but let's credit Bernie Sanders for this tweet:
Soon we will send soldiers to Afghanistan who weren't even born yet
on September 11, 2001.
We've spent $5 trillion dollars on wars since 9/11.
And now some of the same people that got us into Iraq are trying
to start a war with Iran.
We must end our endless wars.
Some scattered links this week:
Alexia Fernández Campbell:
Mexican president to Trump: tariffs and coercion won't work. John Cassidy:
Jonathan Chait:
Lee Fang:
A major coal company went bust. Its bankruptcy filing shows that it was
funding climate change denialism. Conor Friedersdorf:
Saudi Arabia first: "The president is helping a repressive monarchy
wage war in open defiance of Congress. That's grounds for
impeachment." Anand Giridharadas:
What to do when you're a country in crisis: Review of Jared Diamond's
new book, Upheaval: Turning Points for Nations in Crisis. Critiques
Diamond for imposing his "framework" on his historical cases, and goes
deep on fact checking -- some for sure, others pissier (like complaints
about using "unanimous" where unanimity is statistically impossible). I
recently wrote a Book Roundup blurb on Diamond's book, positing a similar
critique but not having read the book, not distracted by trivia.
Giridharadas ends by offering Jill Lepore's These Truths as a
contrast, but I did read that book, and noted a handful of egregious
factual errors there, as well. Dahr Jamail/Barbara Cecil:
What would it mean to deeply accept that we're in planetary crisis?
David D Kirkpatrick:
The most powerful Arab ruler isn't M.B.S. It's M.B.Z.: Mohammed bin
Zayed, crown prince of United Arab Emirates. Related: David Hearst:
Abu Dhabi is trapped in a nightmare of its own making. Masha Gessen:
How Nancy Pelosi's tactics affirm the Trumpian style of politics.
"Trump will be gone someday, but the possibilities that Trumpism has
created will remain." This strikes me as wrong. To have any degree of
effectiveness, Pelosi has had to figure out how to stand her ground
against Trump's bullying. Adjusting to Trump's reality doesn't imply
accepting it as the new norm. Tara Golshan:
Republicans' successful campaign to protect Trump from Mueller's report
in one quote. Edward Helmore:
Bannon described Trump Organization as 'criminal enterprise,' Michael Wolff
book claims. Umair Irfan:
More than 200 tornadoes devastated the Midwest over 13 days. Why?
One subtitle isn't very convincing: "Storm damages are getting worse,
but climate change isn't too much of a factor." Below it confirms my
suspicion that "Tornado Alley . . . is shifting east" in what appears
to be a long-term shift.
Ed Kilgore:
Jen Kirby:
Josh Marshall:
Bill Barr's Trump-toadying lickspittle ways, explained. Dylan Matthews:
Bernie Sanders's most socialist idea yet, explained: "He wants to
mandate employee ownership of big companies." Also: Eric Levitz:
In appeal to moderates, Sanders calls for worker-ownership of means of
production. I've long felt that employee ownership of companies is
much preferable, both for workers and the public, to labor unions. I've
seen firsthand how giving employees an ownership stake makes their work
more productive and satisfying. Anything else generates class conflict,
often degenerating into a zero-sum contest. Of course, I support labor
unions, as they provide countervailing power against the arrogance and
abuse of unfettered management: strong unions help their workers, of
course, but they also strengthen the economy and reinforce/revitalize
democracy. Anna North:
Kevin Poulsen:
We found the guy behind the viral 'drunk Pelosi' video. Andrew Prokop:
Gabriela Resto-Montero:
David Roberts:
Emily S Rueb:
'Freedom Gas,' the next American export. Aaron Rupar:
Trump thinks the courts might save him from impeachment. It doesn't work
like that. Danny Sursen:
Troika fever: Key American allies in the Middle East are the real
tyrants. Andrew Sullivan:
This is what a real conservative looks like in 2019: In self-serving
praise of Robert Mueller and Justin Amash. Defines conservatism as "a
philosophy of limited, constitutional government, individual rights, trust
in tradition, love of country, prudence in foreign policy and restraint
at home." That's actually closer to classic liberalism: just town down the
reflexive jingoism, and allow for the possibility of progress -- e.g.,
extending individual rights to more (potentially all) people. The more
consistent core creed of self-annointed conservatives is their belief in
a natural social/political/economic hierarchy which places some people
above others. As democratic principles spread, conservatives have had
to hide their true agenda behind faux populism -- appeals to tradition,
to pride, and to prejudice -- which have often led them to embrace some
pretty unsavory politicians. Trump won them over by offering them the
only thing that matters to them: the spoils of winning. Matt Taibbi:
Julian Assange must never be extradited. Karen Tumulty:
Trump could save his presidency the way Bill Clinton did: Clever
idea:
Getting things done may be Trump's best hope of survival -- as the last
president who found himself in the impeachment crosshairs demonstrated.
In 1998, as Bill Clinton's presidency became engulfed in scandal
surrounding his affair with a White House intern, his mastery of what
was then called "compartmentalization" was tested. Day in and day out,
Clinton made sure Americans saw a functioning presidency. . . .
He could not prevent the investigation from going forward, or Congress
from trying to remove him from office. In December 1998, the House voted
two articles of impeachment against him, for perjury and for obstruction
of justice.
But that very week, Clinton's job approval in the Gallup poll reached
73 percent -- not only the highest of his presidency, but among the best
recorded by any chief executive since the mid-1960s. By then, it had
become clear that the charges against him would not stick in the Senate,
which just under eight weeks later acquitted him.
By doing his job, Clinton saved his presidency.
Even in this polarized environment, there are still opportunities for
Trump to do the same.
Still, partisan asymmetry matters more than competency or popularity.
There was never any chance that Clinton would lose enough Democrats in
the Senate to be convicted there, and Trump is if anything in a stronger
position in the Senate now. His real problem is that his approval numbers
have never topped 43% since the election (compare to Clinton's 73%).
Maybe if Clinton was that low, he'd have something to worry about, but
Republicans are used to being unpopular, and most of what Trump is
unpopular for these days is being a hardcore Republican. Alex Ward:
In Japan, Trump broke a cardinal rule of being America's president.
Matthew Yglesias:
The 9 least popular Democrats running for president, briefly explained:
"The Laggard Nine," aka "the Sub-2 Percent Club"): Jay Inslee, Steve Bullock,
John Delaney, Eric Swalwell, Bill de Blasio, Tim Ryan, Michael Bennet, Seth
Moulton, Marianne Williamson.
Trump's new plan to tax Mexican imports, explained.
Robert Mueller should testify before Congress.
Joe Biden's low-key campaigning schedule, explained.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, May 26, 2019
Weekend Roundup
Here in Wichita it's rained every day for a week with more coming
tonight, tomorrow, the day after. We're up to
11.96 inches this month (2nd wettest May ever; annual average is
34 inches). Many rivers in southeastern Kansas have flooded -- my
recent trip to Oklahoma was detoured when the Kansas State Turnpike
went under water. Wichita used to flood regularly, and my home would
surely be under water but for "the big ditch" -- a flood control
project built in 1950-59. (See Beccy Tanner:
'Big Ditch Mitch' saved Wichita many times; also, David Guilliams:
The Big Ditch: The Wichita-Valley Center Flood Control Project [PDF].)
I've been reading up on this, not least because I haven't seen the rivers
this high since 1966, when the Ditch spared Wichita (barely) an epochal
flood that wiped out the Arkansas River dam in Lamar, CO, and flooded
every other town on the river's path into Oklahoma and Arkansas. Reading
Guilliams' history reminds me that we had politicians in the 1940s who
were as short-sighted as the ones we have today, but I'll always be
thankful they got outvoted. That Ditch was the best investment Wichita
ever made. Without it I wouldn't be able to get around to this week's
other stories.
Some scattered links this week:
Nancy Altman:
Donald Trump's sneak attack on social security. Phyllis Bennis:
Foreign aid that costs an arm and a leg -- literally: "The US-funded
Israeli military is shooting so many unarmed Palestinians that the UN is
warning of an amputation crisis in Gaza." Alexia Fernández Campbell:
How Trump's new immigration plan could hurt the economy. John Cassidy:
Jonathan Chait:
Dave DeCamp:
Gaby Del Valle:
The Harriet Tubman $20 bill was supposed to be unveiled in 2020. Now it
might be delayed by almost a decade. Tom Engelhardt:
Russia's election meddling is despicable, but don't forget our own.
Dexter Filkins:
John Bolton on the Warpath: One of America's more gullible war reporters,
which lets him take Bolton more seriously than I would, offering a useful,
respectful profile which nonetheless makes him even more disgusting than
you imagined. Of particular interest are the details of how Bolton has made
millions of dollars recently trying to stir up multiple wars. Lisa Friedman:
EPA plans to get thousands of pollution deaths off the books by changing
its math. David Frum:
Trump's cover-up accelerates: "President Trump can only escalate. He
cannot help it." Tara Golshan:
Ryan Goodman:
Trump's position on the Mueller Report is legally ridiculous -- and
dangerous. David A Graham:
Maggie Haberman/Annie Karni:
A would-be Trump aide's demands: a jet on call, a future cabinet post and
more: Give him lots of perks and Kris Kobach would be willing to serve
Trump as "immigration czar" (for a while). Umair Irfan:
One of the largest environmental protests ever is underway. It's led by
children. Most famously, Greta Thunberg, but she's not alone. I've
seen sub-teens on Jimmy Kimmel explain the science better than most
Democratic politicians, let alone Republicans (who don't try to explain
anything). In an effort to reassert his relevance, Bill McKibben
responded:
It's not entirely up to the school students to save the world. Kalpana Jain:
Indian PM Narendra Modi and his party just swept India's elections.
Some more pieces on India's election:
Quinta Jurecic:
Impeachment is a refusal to accept the unacceptable. Ed Kilgore:
Does Trump want to be impeached? That very thought has occurred to me.
Bill Clinton actually got a bump in the polls out of being impeached. I
don't recall anything similar with John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, or Richard
Nixon, which is the company Trump will be joining. He may even think that
in the Us-vs-Them world he imagines himself thriving in, that not getting
impeached could be taken as not trying hard enough. Equally important, in
taunting the Democratic House leadership, he may hope to show them up as
weak and ineffective to their voter base. He's been campaigning hard since
inauguration day. It seems to be the only thing he really cares about, so
why not bet the farm? Maybe he even thinks there's a further endgame after
the election. After all, I've also been wondering whether Erdogan wanted
the failed coup that allowed him to purge his enemies in the military and
the courts and consolidate his grip on power. It would be harder to pull
that off in the US, but Trump's already broken numerous so-called "norms"
as he's mocked and degraded our past notions of democracy.
Trump continues drive to protect religious-based discrimination. Jen Kirby:
Eric Kleefeld:
Lindsey Graham proposes invading Venezuela to oust Maduro. He's
citing Reagan's 1983 invasion of Grenada as a precedent, now (as then)
citing Cuban influence as a cassus belli. On the other hand, whereas
Grenada "had a population of less than 100,000 . . . Venezuela, on
the other hand, has a population of a little over 28 million people,
is lager than Texas, and has roughly 160,000 troops in its military."
Graham also wants to send more troops to the Middle East, where he's
up in arms against Iran. Warmongers like Graham and Bolton readily
group Iran and Venezuela without ever mentioning the one thing they
obviously have in common: before US sanctions crippled them, both
were major oil exporters. The effect of taking their oil off the
world market is to push prices (and oil company profits) up, or at
least to keep those profits from falling as global demand shifts to
renewables. Paul Krugman:
Claire Lampen:
Trump v Pelosi: anatomy of a feud. Jill Lepore:
Confessions of a presidential candidate: "How the political memoir
evolved." Eric Levitz:
Moderate Democrats' delusions of 'prudence' will kill us all. This is
in response to an op-ed by "moderate Democrat" Greg Weiner:
It's not always the end of the world ("political prudence isn't in
vogue, but it should be"). I can see both sides of this debate, but
that's mostly because both are illuminated by the raging wildfires
deliberately set by the Republican far-right. Right now, I think the
balance of evidence favors Levitz, on two counts: the sheer amount of
destruction caused by Republicans in power, and the lack of positive
results from recent efforts by prudent Democrats (e.g., Obama). Dylan Matthews:
The Fed's bad predictions are hurting us. Ella Nilsen:
Anna North:
Robert O'Harrow Jr/Shawn Boburg:
A conservative activist's behind-the-scenes campaign to remake the nation's
courts: "Leonard Leo helped conservative nonprofits raise $250 million
from mostly undisclosed donors in recent years to promote conservative
judges and causes." Nicole Perlroth/Scott Shane:
In Baltimore and beyond, a stolen NSA tool wreaks havoc. With David
E Sanger, the authors also reported:
How Chinese spies got the NSA's hacking tools, and used them for attacks;
also:
Security breach and spilled secrets have shaken the NSA to its core:
gives them more credit for conscience than they deserve. America's
cyberwarriors aren't the first to fail to appreciate what happens
when other "warriors" learn to do what they do. Katha Pollitt:
How the right to legal abortion changed the arc of all women's lives.
John Quiggin:
Australia isn't doing its part for the global climate. Sooner or later we'll
have to pay our share. Last week's elections kicked this can further
down the road. Quiggin has a new book out, Economics in Two Lessons,
explaining where markets work, and where they don't. Robert Reich:
Trump's wrecking ball assaults American government. Luckily, it is strongly
built. I think a big part of Reagan's popularity came from the fact
that he couldn't do much short-term damage, even though that was plainly
the intent of his program. Democrats controlled Congress most of the time,
and liberals dominated the courts. Reagan indulged many people's prejudices,
saying things that flattered his base and riled them up against supposed
enemies, yet the real consequences of his presidency -- the destruction
of the labor movement, the major shift toward ever-greater inequality,
undermining civil rights while ramping up mass incarceration, the embrace
of militarism and the withdrawal from international cooperation, the end
of equal time and the takeover of politics by big money -- only gradually
became evident (not that they explicit about their goals, but because most
people didn't take the threat seriously). Of course, it became harder to
overlook the cumulative effect of Reagan and later waves of conservative
activism under the Bushes and Trump. Reich is probably right that the US
political system still moderates the extremism of Republican presidents --
although it's been much more effective at neutering reformist impulses by
Democrats -- yet clearly we are losing ground. Brian Resnick:
Trump's hasty plan to get Americans back on the moon by 2020, explained.
Worth noting that there is more at stake than just Trumpian ego. See Rivka
Galchen:
The race to develop the moon. Aaron Rupar:
Michael S Schmidt/Julian E Barnes:
Trump's targeting of intelligence agencies gains a harder edge.
Trump directed Attorney General William Barr to investigate anyone
who thought that the Trump campaign may have colluded with Russia
in 2016, starting with the FBI and potentially going deeper into
the CIA and the broader "intelligence community," and he's given
Barr authority to declassify any secret documents he finds along
the way (see:
Trump gives Barr power to declassify US secrets in review of Russia
probe). This extraordinary politicization of the Justice Department
is obviously disturbing, but thus far most of the pushback has come
from the intelligence agencies, who prefer to operate in secret,
with little or no oversight -- e.g., Chuck Ross:
Ex-CIA officials fume about declassification order, ignoring previous
leaks of secret sources and methods. Also see: Natasha Bertrand:
Trump puts DOJ on crash course with intelligence agencies. Dylan Scott:
Congress wants to stop surprise medical bills. But they have one big
problem left to solve. Mark Joseph Stern:
The Trump administration releases its plan to let health care providers
refuse to treat transgender people: This is getting real petty. Nor
is this all. See: Camille Baker:
The Trump administration wants to make it harder for transgender people to
access homeless shelters. Matt Taibbi:
Alex Ward:
Robin Wright:
Does trump have an off-ramp on Iran? i doubt he even wants one,
nor is he likely to show any interest on wright's history lesson.
it looks to me like the conflict with iran is nothing more than a
favor to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE -- all of which know
how to push his buttons and stroke him with gifts. Moreover, he is
incapable of seeing potential downsides, or even risk. Challenging
him, or calling his bluff, would be unthinkable. He might even say
suicidal. Matthew Yglesias:
The controversy over WeWork's $47 billion valuation and impending IPO,
explained.
Holding Trump accountable is a pocketbook issue: After reviewing
Trump's own history of cheating his contractors, note this:
Trump, as president, is acting in line with his own predilection for
alleged corporate criminals.
- While Obama's Environmental Protection Agency sought a $4.8 million
fine from Syngenta Seeds for poisoning workers with pesticides, Trump's
EPA settled for $150,000.
- Trump's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fined a man $1 for
allegedly swindling veterans out of their pensions -- also extracting
from him a promise not to do it again.
- In February 2018, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission settled
with three major banks that had engaged in illegal market manipulation --
charging them a financial penalty but requiring no admission of wrongdoing
and waiving "bad actor" penalties that would have impaired their ability
to do business in the future.
The specific dynamics of each agency and each industry are, of course,
unique.
But the basic pattern is the same -- under lax enforcement, crime
basically pays. You might not get caught, and even if you do get caught,
the monetary penalties will not create a meaningful deterrent to future
misconduct. . . . The overall problem, in other words, is much larger
in scope than Trump. But Trump is part of the problem. Not only is he
emblematic, as a business leader, of the cost of inadequate enforcement,
but he's also someone who clearly favors inadequate enforcement as a
matter of principle and appoints regulators who make the problem worse.
What we know so far about Trump's tax returns, explained.
Men and women have similar views on abortion.
Yglesias also has a piece called
Daenerys was right: King's Landing had to burn, which goes to great
lengths to try to rationalize the indiscriminate fire-bombing of the
capitol of Westeros. I understand the impulse to try to take a contrary
view, especially counter to those who casually impose their contemporary
political prejudices on such a fantasy landscape, but Yglesias overlooks
some pretty obvious clues (like the Daenerys speech to her troops where
she vows to conquer/liberate all of Westeros and Essos -- a speech that
the actress claims she studied Hitler for, but which sounded more to me
like Napoleon), as well as a couple of much more fundamental problems.
What always turned me off in Game of Thrones was its unquestioned
bedrock belief in hereditary aristocracy, and its correlative commitment
to war. Without having read the books, I gather that Martin is completely
opposed to both, but rather than constructing cardboard characters for
us to root for (in the vain hope that good will ultimately triumph over
evil), he exposes the foundations by showing how every character is
corrupted and disgraced by inequality and violence. That Yglesias winds
up rooting for a strong and fearsome ruler shows how much he's willing
to compromise. Gary Younge:
Shocked by the rise of the right? Then you weren't paying attention.
Young blames "endemic racism and unfairness" -- I take the latter to
mean inequality and the business practices that increase it. Li Zhou:
Poll: Most Americans disapprove of the Alabama abortion ban.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Monday, May 20, 2019
Weekend Roundup
Ran a day late on this one, partly because I went long on the intro,
but also because I found so many links in my early trawl through the
usual sources I wasn't able to finish my rounds, then found even more
when I tried to wrap up. I'm sure it's always the case that an extra
day or two to let the words settle and go back and restructure would
be useful, but I've rarely felt that more than this week.
Abortion became a much hotter political issue last week, with the
passage and signing of a law in Alabama which criminalizes abortion in
all cases except when it is necessary to save the life of the woman,
with doctors risking prison terms of up to 99 years if their call on
life-saving is disputed. Much focus on this particular law centers on
the lack of any exclusion for rape and incest, which most people agree
would be reasonable grounds for abortion. (As
Phil Freeman tweeted: "Your first mistake was assuming old white
men in Alabama were against rape and incest.") But the Alabama law is
just one of many state laws Republicans have been pushing lately, all
aimed at relitigating Roe v. Wade in the Trump-packed Supreme
Court. (E.g.,
The "heartbeat" bills that could ban almost all abortions, passed
in four states including Ohio and Georgia, and coming soon in Missouri;
still more draconian bills are in the works, such as
A Texas bill would allow the death penalty for patients who get
abortions.)
I'll start this off by quoting from a Facebook post by a relative
of mine in Arkansas, Marianne Cowan Pyeatt, offering an unvarnished
glimpse of what anti-abortion Republicans are telling themselves:
All of a sudden we are supposed to believe that millions and millions
of aborted babies are the result of rape and not just a lack of
responsibility to use birth control or face the consequences if you
can't even be adult enough to take precautions. We all know that the
reason they can't make exceptions for rape is because every women
would lie and claim to be raped to get an abortion. There are morning
after pills for real rape victims or they can give the child away. No
one says they have to keep them. And the fact that this is even being
debated is because all the people who did very little for decades when
they could forget what was going on in those clinics are suddenly
facing a world where full-term babies can be murdered at birth. YOU
stupid liberals have taken it SO FAR that no decent person can ignore
it any longer. And we aren't so stupid as to believe that only
abortion of a baby could "save the mother's life" in medical
emergencies . . . we know delivery is many, many times faster. At that
point, if it dies, at least you tried and the mother is "saved" from
her life-threatening condition with no murder involved. I find it
hilarious that in insisting on that last frontier of killing babies
right up to birth has finally given people the resolve to take a stand
and right a wrong.
One thing this shows is that the fight over abortion rights is
being fought at the margins, with both sides seeking maximalist
positions, although there is nothing symmetrical about the conflict.
There is only one fanatical side to this issue: those who, like
Marianne here, want to ban all abortions. No one on the opposite
side -- and I am about as opposite as anyone gets -- wants to
terminate all pregnancies. Rather, we understand that pregnancy
is a complicated issue that affects women in many different ways,
and that there are some circumstances where some women feel they
would be better off with an abortion. We believe that this should
be a free and responsible choice, and to make this a real choice
for all women requires that we isolate it from the encumbrances
of government regulation and economic pressure.
I've long thought that conservatives and libertarians should be
strong supporters of abortion rights. Libertarians cherish freedom,
and freedom is the ability to make free choices -- among which one
of the most important is whether to bear and raise children. Not
everyone who wants children is able to have them, but safe abortion
at least makes it possible to choose not to have children. As for
conservatives, they always stress the responsibilities parenthood
infers. It would be perverse if they did not allow those who felt
themselves unable to assume the responsibility of raising children
the option of not having them. Indeed, in the past have sometimes
wanted to impose limits on the fertility of those they deemed unfit
to raise children (e.g., the forced sterilization of the eugenics
movement). Consequently, the hard turn of Republicans against free
access to abortion and birth control has always struck me as bad
faith: a political ploy, initially to capture votes of Catholics
and Southern Baptists, who had traditionally voted Democratic. I
first noticed this in Bob Dole's 1972 Senate campaign, and I never
forgave him for politicizing the issue. (He was being challenged
by William Roy, a ob/gyn who had occasionally performed abortions,
which were legal in Kansas well before Roe v. Wade. Until
that time Kansas Democrats were more likely to be anti-abortion
than Republicans. Using abortion as a partisan tactic may have
started with Nixon's 1972 "silent majority"/"southern strategy."
It was especially successful in Missouri. See
How abortion became a partisan issue in America.)
Abortion rights are desirable if there are any circumstances where
abortion is a reasonable choice. Most people recognize rape and incest
as valid reasons, as well as the health of the woman and/or the fetus.
Beyond that there arise lots of possible economic and psychological
concerns, which can only really be answered by the woman (with the
advice of anyone she chooses to consult). We generally, if not always
consistently, recognize that our freedom is rooted in a right to
privacy. Since a decision to terminate has no broader repercussions,
there is no good reason for the government to get involved. (One might
argue that a decision not to terminate might concern the state, in
that it would wind up paying for the child's education and health
care, but no one who supports abortion rights is seeking that sort
of oversight. China's "one child" policy is an example, but no one
here is arguing for the state to enforce such a thing.)
Regardless of how cynical Republican leaders were when they jumped
on the anti-abortion bandwagon, they learned to love it because it
dovetailed with the prejudices and fears they exploited (Jason Stanley
has a handy list, in his recent book, How Fascism Works), while
doing little to detract from their main objective: making the rich
richer, and building a political machine to keep the riches coming.
(Thomas Frank, in his 2004 book What's the Matter With Kansas?,
tried to expose their two-faced cynicism, but he wound up only agitating
the anti-abortion mobsters into demanding more results for their votes.)
Marianne's post is full of such prejudices, even while she tries to
paper over others. But while the first line refers to the Alabama
law, she'd rather turn the tables by accusing "stupid liberals" of
wanting to kill babies the instant before birth. That would be a
symmetrically opposite point of view, but even if legal it's not a
real something anyone would do.
Some links on the Alabama law and the assault on abortion rights:
Zeeshan Aleem:
Trump and top Republicans distance themselves from Alabama's controversial
abortion law. I take this as evidence it's polling very badly. Trump
has never put much thought into abortion, and probably doesn't care, as
strange as that seems given how much impact he has had on the issue. Back
in 2016, he was asked whether women who sought abortions should be
prosecuted, and he guessed they should. That was one of the very few
instances where he took back a statement -- something he never did
when criticized for sympathizing with Nazis and other racists, or
spouting his own racist slurs on immigrants and "shithole countries."
Those are things he has deep convictions about. Anti-abortion is just
something he has to play along with because the base expects it. Jane Coaston:
Why some anti-abortion conservatives think Alabama's abortion law goes
too far. Elizabeth Dias/Sabrina Tavernise/Alan Blinder:
'This is a wave': inside the network of anti-abortion activists winning
across the country. Ruth Graham:
Why the anti-abortion movement stopped making allowances for rape and
incest. Sarah Jones:
Abortion is morally good:
Were I still Evangelical, and still longed to end abortion, I'd have many
reasons to celebrate. When your enemies pick up your arguments and tolerate
your allies in their midst, you can be relatively confident that you've
achieved the social and political dominance that you've worked toward for
years. Milano and the DCCC have walked directly into a trap that abortion
opponents set for them, and they don't even seem to realize what they've
done. Anything less but the prioritization of women over the pregnancies
they carry cedes ground the left cannot afford to lose.
Katherine Kelaidis:
I'm an anti-abortion Christian. But Alabama's ban will do more harm than
good. Lili Loofbourow:
The GOP has its final anti-abortion victory in sight: "Stripping voter
rights. Rigging the Supreme Court. Dull procedural tricks. It's all paying
off at once." Anna North, who also wrote the three articles linked above:
Renee Bracey Sherman:
Recent abortion bans will impact poor people and people of color most.
Rickie Solinger:
Alabama's near-total abortion ban is the ultimate elevation of the "unborn"
over women. Jeffrey Toobin:
The abortion fight and the pretense of precedent. Rachel Withers:
Most Alabama voters don't support their state's exemption-free abortion
ban.
Some scattered links this week:
Alexia Fernández Campbell:
Farmers are losing patience with Trump's trade war. John Cassidy:
Patrick Cockburn:
Trump is making the same US mistake in the Middle East yet again. Helene Cooper/Edward Wong:
Skeptical US allies resist Trump's new claims of threats from Iran.
Meanwhile, the lame-brains in the Trump administration get carried away:
see Eric Schmitt/Julian E Barnes:
White House reviews military plans against Iran, in echoes of Iraq War.
They're talking about deploying 120,000 troops, which seems like a lot but
is actually the same number they used in 2003 to do such a bang-up job in
Iraq -- a country about one-third the size of Iran (both in area and in
population). For more details, see Fred Kaplan:
War with Iran wouldn't be like Iraq: "It would be worse." Chas Danner:
David Dayen:
The secret vote that could wipe away consumer rights. Isabel Debre/Raphael Satter:
Facebook busts Israel-based campaign to disrupt elections. Sydney Ember:
'I did my best to stop American foreign policy': Bernie Sanders on
the 1980s. Nicholas Fandos/Maggie Haberman:
House panel investigates obstruction claims against Trump lawyers. David A Farenthold/Jonathan O'Connell:
Trump's prized Doral resort is in steep decline, according to company
documents, showing his business problems are mounting. John Feffer:
Bolton in Wonderland: "The only upside to Bolton's dangerous aggression
toward Iran is that it may put him too far out in front of Trump." Elaine Frantz:
America's long, rich history of pretending systemic racism doesn't
exist. Conor Friedersdorf:
America needs a permanent anti-war movement: "Public apathy toward
relatively small-scale military actions makes war with Iran more likely."
Actually, most cities have anti-war organizations, but they don't get
enough support, especially as we're swamped with domestic crises and
more attention is paid to conventional politics (because Republicans
are so bad more people in their desperation support Democrats). Tara Golshan:
Elizabeth Warren's new policy rollout targets Pentagon corruption. Umair Irfan:
Fossil fuels are underpriced by a whopping $5.2 trillion: "We can't
take on climate change without properly pricing coal, oil, and natural
gas. But it's a huge political challenge." Matthew Karnitschnig:
Austrian government collapses over Russia scandal. Ezra Klein:
Countervailing powers: the forgotten economic idea Democrats need to
rediscover. Klein is right that hardly anyone uses the term these
days, but I grew up with it, and still refer to it often. I'm not sure
where I got the idea, but Klein starts with John Kenneth Galbraith's
1952 book, American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing
Power. The idea is to build up multiple sources of power to work
against the abuses that follow from concentrations of wealth and power.
(The maxim I learned alongside this was "power corrupts, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely.") Klein also cites a recent book, Tim Wu's
The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age. Andy Kroll:
Springtime for autocrats: "How Trump just legitimized one of Europe's
most anti-democratic leaders." Hungary's Viktor Orbán visits the White
House. Anatoly Kurmanev:
Venezuela's collapse is the worst outside of war in decades, economists
say. Mark Landler/Maggie Haberman/Eric Schmitt:
Trump tells Pentagon chief he does not want war with Iran. This
was the story which led Steven Colbert to exclaim, "I hope this doesn't
get taken out of context, but thank God Donald Trump is president."
Before I give Trump any credit on this score, I want to see him fire
John Bolton, and tweet about how Bolton's been subverting his efforts
to get along peacefully with the world. Even then, the fact that he
hired Bolton never boded well. Eric Levitz:
German Lopez:
The House just passed a sweeping LGBTQ rights bill. Madeline Marshall:
Why prescription drugs cost more in America: Video. Also a link to
Sarah Kliff:
The true story of America's sky-high prescription drug prices. Barbara McQuade:
William Barr delivers chilling message to FBI for Trump. "If you
come at the king, you best not miss"? David Miliband:
On refugees, the Trump administration is competent and malevolent. Rani Molla:
President Trump's new immigration proposal would be terrible for
tech. Casey Newton:
Trump's social media bias reporting project is a data collection tool
in disguise: "Instead of cracking down on violent extremism, the
government is collecting email addresses." James Petras:
United States and Venezuela: a historical background. Thomas Powers:
The fog of ambition: Review of George Packer: Our Man: Richard
Holbrooke and the End of the American Century. Robert Reich:
The Trump economy is hurting most Americans. Statistics won't fool voters.
Joe Romm:
Bezos offers absurd and hypocritical reason for his massive space plan:
He thinks we have to sustain economic growth indefinitely, even beyond the
carrying capacity of Earth, which can only be done by escaping into space.
Which I suppose means he can't imagine post-capitalism, even though there
are dozens of books on the subject, and dozens more on sustainable economies.
Maybe he should drop in on a local book store? His scheme would be deemed
so crackpot he could never get funding from government let alone banks, but
seeing as he's on track to become Earth's first trillionaire, we're tempted
to take him seriously. That is an irony of capitalism: sometimes a blessing,
sometimes a farce. Brian M Rosenthal:
'They were conned': how reckless loans devastated a generation of taxi
drivers. Or what happens when you allow a secondary market for a
limited number of licenses. Aaron Rupar:
Trump gives up the game he's playing with Congress during Fox News
interview: "Trump admits he's relying on the courts -- not Congress --
to change policy."
Trump's reckless "treason" accusation against the FBI, explained.
Trump pardons billionaire fraudster who wrote glowing book about
him: Conrad Black, "a former media mogul and business partner,"
convicted for fraud and obstruction of justice, author of a 2016 piece
"Trump is the good guy," the pardon citing his "tremendous contributions
to business, as well as to political and historical thought." Also
pardoned at the same time, Patrick Nolan. (See Aaron Blake:
The very political pattern of Trump's pardons.) The latter article
has a number of examples, notably
Dinesh D'Souza, convicted for campaign finance fraud, author of a
number of awful books and films, inventor of the "angry Kenyan" Obama
theory. Richard Silverstein:
Matt Taibbi:
The liberal embrace of war: "American interventionists learned a lesson
from Iraq: pre-empt the debate. Now everyone is for regime change." He
seems to have jumped the gun here, for while the liberal media heads he
cites (e.g., Rachel Maddow) readily echoed the Bolton line on Venezuela
and Iran, actual Democratic politicians have been less eager to topple
foreign regimes. Jonathan Chait points this out:
Taibbi's 'liberal embrace of war' screed cites zero liberals embracing
war. I'd score that one for Chait, although I don't fault Taibbi's
worries about Democrats enabling Republican warmongering. As for the
"liberal" media, also see: James North:
US mainstream media is contributing to rising risk of war with Iran.
Nor is Chait above concocting his own shady, twisted titles:
Bernie Sanders wants to destroy the best schools poor urban kids have.
He means charter schools, which only succeed (relatively) in places where
public schools have been grossly neglected (partly by politicians moving
funds to charter schools). For more on Sanders' plan, see Dylan Scott:
Bernie Sanders rolls out education plan that cracks down on charter
schools; also Nikhil Goyal:
Bernie's plan to save public schools. Alex Ward:
Matthew Yglesias:
An expert's 7 principles for solving America's housing crisis.
The raging controversy over Ronald Sullivan, Harvey Weinstein, and Harvard,
explained.
Bernie Sanders and AOC's plan to crack down on high-interest loans,
explained: They call it the Stop Loan Sharks Act, by capping
interest on things like credit cards at 15% (still sounds high to
me).
Trump's puzzling trade war with China, sort of explained: Useful
survey of Trump's side of the tariff war, credits Trump with more
smarts than the evidence suggests: "Precisely because the trade war
is an inherently lose-lose situation, any possible resolution of it
is a win." But that assumes that the trade war will end some day,
and that everyone will have forgotten about the costs of starting
it.
Joe Biden's surprisingly controversial claim that Trump is an aberration,
explained. Cites some critiques:
There's an interesting chart here showing that
only a quarter of Clinton's ads primarily centered on policy,
"a much lower number than any previous 21st-century campaign."
That slack was made up by attacking Trump personally, trying to
isolate him from the Republican Party, which not only didn't do
Clinton much good, it also didn't help Democrats down ticket.
Compare that to 2018, when Democrats focused on policy issues
(like health care).
Li Zhou:
Kamala Harris wants public defenders to get paid as much as
prosecutors.
The disaster aid fight shows just how unprepared Congress is to deal with
the effects of climate change. As an engineer, one of my core beliefs
is that it's much cheaper and much more effective to prevent faults than
to repair and compensate for disasters. But despite the title, that isn't
the core problem here. (Even if it were, some natural disasters are way
beyond our power to prevent. And while there is no doubt that climate
change increases the number and severity of disasters, there is no quick
and easy solution to that, either.) The immediate problem is that at the
same time we're being hit with more and more disasters, Republicans have
decided they don't want to pay for disaster relief, largely because it
runs counter to their belief that government shouldn't involve itself in
helping people (at least not Puerto Ricans).
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, May 12, 2019
Weekend Roundup
I spent much of the week in Oklahoma, visiting my 92-year-old cousin,
his two daughters, and various other family. I packed my Chromebook, then
forgot it, so went a few days without my usual news sources -- not that
anything much changed while I was away. Trying to catch up here, including
a few links that seem possibly useful for future reference.
Looks pretty obvious from my "recent reading" sidebar that I'm in
a gloomy mood about the viability of democracy in this nation. The
odd book out is subtitled "On the Writing Process" -- thought that
might inspire me to write about it, and it has made me a bit more
self-conscious in my writing. The one I recommend most is Jason
Stanley's How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them.
I lumped it into a list in my recent
Book Reports, but it's well thought out and clear, with a fair
smattering of historical examples but more focused on here and now:
things you will recognize. I rather wish there was a more generic
word than "fascism": one with less specific historical baggage,
one that can be used in general discourse without tripping off
unnecessary alarms. On the other hand, as a leftist, I've always
had a keen nose for generic fascism, so the word suits my purposes
just fine. I have, in fact, been using it since the 1970s, which
is one reason the modern American conservative movement always
seems to coherent and predictable.
Some scattered links this week:
Christine Ahn:
More US pressure on North Korea is not the path to denuclearization.
Matt Apuzzo/Adam Satariano:
Russia is targeting Europe's elections. So are far-right copycats.
I don't doubt Russia's capacity for spreading cyber-havoc, but isn't
it more likely that Russia is the copycat, echoing and amplifying the
far-right? Andrew J Bacevich:
Why did we fight the Iraq War? Review of Michael J Mazarr's book,
Leap of Faith: Hubris, Negligence, and America's Greatest Foreign
Policy Tragedy. Lily Batchelder:
Trump is a bad businessman. Is he a tax cheat, too? John Cassidy:
Joel Clement:
Once again, the US embarrasses itself on climate change. Juan Cole:
It will be very hot and very wet -- we've exceeded 415ppm of carbon
dioxide for the first time since the pliocene. Matthew Cole:
The Complete Mercenary: "How Erik Prince used the rise of Trump to
make an improbable comeback." Tim Dickinson:
US fossil fuel subsidies exceed Pentagon spending: "according to
a new report from the International Monetary Fund." Timothy Egan:
Revenge of the coastal elites: "How California, Oregon and Washington
are winning the fight against Trump's hateful policies." Neil Eggleston/Joshua A Geitzer:
The court handling Trump's lawsuit must move at breakneck speed: "The
president deserves his day in court. But the American people deserve that
day to come quickly." John Feffer:
A farewell to arms control? "With Trump and Bolton at the helm, the
international arms control regime is effectively dead."
What's behind Bolton's attacks on the 'troika of tyranny'? "Bolton's
broadsides against Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela hint at ambitions for
much more dangerous geopolitical conflict -- and nothing short of a new
Cold War." You might think this impossible with the Soviet Union gone,
and Russia more focused on promoting right-wing extremism, but the real
enemy the US faced in the Cold War was always the workers and peasants
oppressed by capitalists and their oligarchic allies, and that's an
"enemy" that still exists. Niall Ferguson/Eyck Freymann:
The coming generation war: "The Democrats are rapidly becoming the
party of the young -- and the consequences could be profound." There
are few scholars I hold in lower regard than Ferguson, but there are
enough charts and numbers here to let you think. I still think that
class matters more than age, probably other demographic factors as
well, but I wouldn't be surprised that age skews as advertised in all
categories. Maybe you could object that class rises with age -- as
successful people accumulate wealth, the poor die off younger -- but
the rich are such a slim slice of the population even a big skew is
unlikely to amount to much. Ben Fountain:
O billionaires!: Review of Michael R Bloomberg: Bloomberg by
Bloomberg and Howard Schultz/Joanne Gordon: From the Ground Up:
A Journey to Reimagine the Promise of America. One thing about
these political wannabes: they'll never be accused of being traitors
to their class. Masha Gessen:
Putin and Trump's ominous nostalgia for the Second World War. Todd Gitlin:
The roots of Trumpian agitprop. Tara Golshan:
Bernie Sanders's political revolution on foreign policy, explained.
Related: Zack Beauchamp:
What should a left foreign policy look like? An Elizabeth Warren adviser
offers his vision. An interview with Ganesh Sitaraman, whose
piece is:
The emergence of progressive foreign policy. I still find parts of
this disturbing, like the insistence on maintaining military alliances
like NATO, as opposed to negotiating demilitarization and de-escalating
conflicts through more even-handed institutions like the United Nations.
Also, the shift in focus needs to be clearer: for a long time US foreign
policy has mostly been dictated by the needs of multinational corporations,
with little if any concern for economic justice, either for the majority
of Americans or for people around the world. Ryan Grim:
The Democratic counterrevolution has a self-appointed leader: Josh
Gottheimer. James Hamblin:
Has Trump actually done anything about drug prices? William Hartung/Mandy Smithberger:
A dollar-by-dollar tour of the national security state: How a "base
budget" of $554.1 billion adds up to $1.2542 trillion. Chris Hedges:
Creeping toward tyranny: I haven't read Hedges for a few years
now, so it hadn't quite sunk in how his principled hypersensitivity
has decayed into an all-consuming pessimism (of the intellect, but
also of the will):
Capitalists, throughout history, have backed fascism to thwart even
the most tepid forms of socialism. All the pieces are in place. The
hollowing out of our democratic institutions, which cannot be blamed
on Trump, makes tyranny inevitable.
Bad timing to exempt Trump from any blame right now, as his defiance
of Congressional subpoenas, his rejection (veto) of resolutions ending
his border "state of emergency" and Yemen War support, and his unilateral
sabre rattling over Venezuela and Iran are unprecedented. Still, he's
right that the signs anticipated and enabled Trump. Indeed, we're likely
to look back on his Bush-era books and accord him the honor of being our
first major "premature anti-fascist" (as Americans who fought against the
Fascists in Spain were labelled after the US declared war on Germany and
Italy). The only real problem with his 2007 American Fascists: The
Christian Right and the War on America was in focusing on gullible
Christians rather than their secular manipulators. The last book I read
by him was The Death of the Liberal Class (2010), which anticipated
Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal (2016), his broadside on mainstream
Democrats. But when I checked out Hedges' latest book, America: The
Farewell Tour, I couldn't get into it. I'm past needing to learn how
bad it can get. Murtaza Hussain:
Right-wing Israeli author writes "The Virtue of Nationalism" -- and
accidentally exposes its pitfalls: On Yoram Hazony. Pull quote:
"Alongside Israel, there are two other countries Hazony claims have
been similarly victimized by the shaming campaigns of liberals and
globalists: apartheid South Africa and Serbia under the dictatorship
of Slobodan Milosevic." Sean Illing:
Jake Johnson:
Juan Guaidó makes open plea for US military coordination in Venezuela.
Fred Kaplan:
Greg Kaufmann:
Trump has a new solution for poverty: pretend poor people don't exist:
"A proposal to redefine 'poverty' would throw potentially millions of
low-income people out of government-assistance programs." E Tammy Kim:
Do corporations like Amazon and Foxconn need public assistance? Jen Kirby:
US-China trade talks end with no deal -- and more tariffs. Ezra Klein:
Sarah Kliff:
Trump to Congress: pass legislation to end surprise medical bills:
"The president has a good idea on health care -- and one that could actually
pass." Elizabeth Kolbert:
Climate change and the new age of extinction: Until now, or maybe
I just mean recently, this hasn't had much to do with climate.
To keep nearly eight billion people fed, not to mention housed, clothed,
and hooked on YouTube, humans have transformed most of the earth's surface.
Seventy-five per cent of the land is "significantly altered," the I.P.B.E.S.
noted in a summary of its report, which was released last week in Paris.
In addition, "66 per cent of the ocean area is experiencing increasing
cumulative impacts, and over 85 per cent of wetlands (area) has been lost."
Approximately half the world's coral cover is gone. In the past ten years
alone, at least seventy-five million acres of "primary or recovering forest"
have been destroyed.
Habitat destruction and overfishing are, for now, the main causes of
biodiversity declines, according to the I.P.B.E.S., but climate change is
emerging as a "direct driver" and is "increasingly exacerbating the impact
of other drivers." Its effects, the report notes, "are accelerating."
Watson wrote last week, in the Guardian, that "we cannot solve
the threats of human-induced climate change and loss of biodiversity in
isolation. We either solve both or we solve neither."
Related: Brad Plumer:
Humans are speeding extinction and altering the natural world at an
'unprecedented' pace. Also: Robert Watson:
Loss of biodiversity is just as catastrophic as climate change;
Jonathan Watts:
Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth's natural life;
Damian Carrington:
What is biodiversity and why does it matter to us?. Mike Konczal:
Want to expand Medicare? Then answer the $5 trillion questions.
"If you think the fight with insurance companies is tough, just wait
until single-payer advocates have to go head-to-head with doctors."
Admits that switching to "Medicare for All" could save overall health
care costs ($2.1 trillion is the number given), but that assumes cost
cuts, only 20% of which come from eliminating the insurance companies,
with 70% expected to come from paying doctors and hospitals less. I
don't see much of a problem here, although as usual the devil is in
the details. Big chunks of that 70% can be recovered without hitting
the wages of doctors, nurses, and other essential personnel. I also
see reason to cap top earners, but that's something that should be
done not just with doctors and administrators -- inequality is a
problem everywhere. On the other hand, why not just focus on easy
wins like cutting the private insurance companies out? Paul Krugman:
Michael Kruse:
Beto's long history of failing upward: I've tended to resist citing
links on candidates, but this one is fairly deep. O'Rourke is one I don't
have much enthusiasm for, but while this is sharply critical, it doesn't
really lower my estimation of him. Talia Lavin:
A reporter's long, strange trip into the darkest parts of the American
mind: Review of Anna Merlan's new book, Republic of Lies: American
Conspiracy Theorists and Their Surprising Rise to Power. With a
picture of Alex Jones. Charles Leerhsen:
Trump, the billion-dollar loser -- I was his ghostwriter and saw it
happen. Ariel Levy:
Who owns South Africa?: "A fiercely debated program of land reform could
address racial injustice -- or cause chaos." Dahlia Lithwick:
Are we in a constitutional crisis? "This is how democracy ends: not with
a bang, but with a long and technical debate over whether we're using the
right words." PR Lockhart:
65 years after Brown v Board of Education, school segregation is getting
worse. German Lopez:
North Dakota quietly decriminalized marijuana. Ella Nilsen:
David Owen:
Is noise pollution the next big public-health crisis? Owen has a
book coming out this fall: Volume Control: Hearing in a Deafening
World. Gareth Porter:
Bolton is spinning Israeli 'intelligence' to push for war against Iran.
Related: Sharmini Peries:
The Trump Administration is manufacturing an Iran crisis. Gabriela Resto-Montero:
- Alex Ward:
Over 4 months after Mattis quit, Trump picks Patrick Shanahan as defense
secretary.
James Reston Jr.:
Trump's other impeachable offense: "As Nixon learned, Congress will not
abide a president who defies its subpoenas." Jason Rezaian:
Are we watching John Bolton's last stand? "Is John Bolton about to
get the Iran war he's always wanted, or is he on the verge of losing his
job?" I don't credit Trump with much insight or diligence on foreign
policy, but even so he must suspect that Bolton was a remarkably poor
pick as National Security Adviser. In particular, Bolton has his own
agenda, and has no scruples about contravening and undermining Trump's
own stated objectives. So it would make a lot of sense for Trump to
fire Bolton (and Pompeo, who is an only slightly less egregious hawk,
as well). Indeed, if I thought I'd get into the president's ear, I'd
write an op-ed taunting Trump to do just that, justifying it as key
to his 2020 re-election prospects. I'm still convinced that a major
reason Trump beat Clinton in 2016 was her "commander-in-chief test,"
where she came off as the more dangerous hawk. Hiring Bolton undoes
much of Trump's edge there, even if he doesn't trick Trump into much
bigger wars. Corey Robin:
Eric Hobsbawm, the communist who explained history: Review of Richard
Evans' biography, Eric Hobsbawm: A Life in History, referring back
to Hobsbawm's own memoir, Interesting Times, and various of his
books like The Age of Extremes (on the 20th century). Joe Romm:
A new brain study shows a better way to engage voters on climate change:
Call it "climate crisis." Aaron Rupar:
Trump turns shooting migrants into a punchline at Florida rally. Rebecca Solnit:
Unconscious bias is running for president: "On Elizabeth Warren and the
false problem of "likeability." Recommended by a Facebook friend, this is
a bit more than half right, but suffers from an as-yet-unnamed form of
specious argument related to the "mansplaining" that Solnit has written
extensively about. I don't doubt that the prejudices she decries are real,
but the "privileges" she seeks to overthrow have never struck me as worth
much. On the other hand, note that Warren's response to these prejudices
hasn't been to whine about them. She's talking to the so-called privileged,
and seems to be winning them over: Alex Thompson:
Trump backers applaud Warren in heart of MAGA country. Emily Stewart:
Trump lost $1 billion over 10 years, New York Times report shows:
"So much for Trump's brand as a savvy, self-made business leader." Matt Taibbi:
On the trail with Bernie Sanders 2.0. Astra Taylor:
Time's up for capitalism. But what comes next? "Every day, we help
decide how the future will unfold. But how do we cast ballots for a
democracy that doesn't yet exist?" Adapted from her forthcoming book,
Democracy May Not Exist but We'll Miss It When It's Gone. I've
long meant to read her previous book, The People's Platform: Taking
Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age (2014), recommended by
a friend. Laura Tillem:
Let's hit the pause button on more space for prosecutors: op-ed on
prison overcrowding here in Wichita. Jeffrey Toobin:
The constitutional system is not build to resist Trump's defiance of
Congress. Anton Troianovski:
Alex Ward:
Trump's Iran policy is making war more likely. Matthew Yglesias:
Matt Zapotosky:
Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president,
hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert.
I don't have much to say about Game of Thrones, but I was struck
by this ratiocination by
Zack Beauchamp:
"But it's one thing for Daenerys to act like Bush, and another for her
to act like Hitler." He's talking about the indiscriminate fire-bombing
of cities full of innocent civilians, but while Bush criminally started
wars, lied about his reasoning, rounded up and tortured supposed enemies,
disrupted the lives of millions doing irreparable harm, just to show the
world that it's more important to fear his "shock and awe" than to respect
his self-proclaimed beneficence, and while Hitler did those same things
on an even more epic scale, the most comparable historical example of a
leader laying waste to entire cities was Harry Truman -- who we generally
recall as an exceptionally decent and modest president.
You can say that war does that, even to otherwise decent people. You
can say that Hitler and Bush were worse than Truman because they started
wars whereas Truman was simply trying to end one he had inherited. (This
is not the place to get into how he escalated the Cold War and the Korean
War, which in many ways I find more troubling than his "final solution"
to WWII.) You can say that Hitler was worse than Bush because his desire
for war was more deeply rooted in the uncritical imperialism and racism
of the era, which made him even more vindictive and bloodthirsty. But
I'd also note that Truman was not above the prejudices of Hitler's era,
and that Bush (while less racist than Truman let alone Hitler) was, like
all conservatives ever, fully committed to traditional hierarchies of
wealth and power, which made it easy for him to run roughshod over all
the others.
I have no idea where Daenerys fits among this trio, as she is a
fictional character in an imaginary world. Even if she reflects the
world of her creators, she does so haphazardly and inconsistently.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, May 5, 2019
Weekend Roundup
No time to work on this, as I spent Sunday trying to break in a new
Mexican cookbook. Much of Saturday too, and more of Friday -- not that
I had even started then. The one story that dominated the interest of
the liberal media was Attorney General William Barr's Senate testimony
and his failure to appear before the House. I was tempted to tweet when
I looked at
Talking Points Memo and
they had devoted their entire front page to Barr (aside from one bit
on the implosion of Stephen Moore's Fed nomination).
Actually, this should have been a banner week for the media to pick
apart Trump's increasingly manic and deranged foreign policy. The US
hasn't been taken such a nakedly imperial stance toward Latin America
since FDR traded in his cousin's penchant for Gunboat Diplomacy for
the sunny promise of a Good Neighbor Policy. I didn't link to anything
below on Trump's phone call to Putin, mostly because no one seems to
know enough about it to write intelligently. But there were also fairly
major stories that could have been reported about Korea, China, Iran,
Egypt, Turkey, Yemen, and Israel/Palestine (where Netanyahu celebrated
his election victory by launching the heaviest assault on Gaza since
2014).
Some scattered links this week:
Alexia Fernández Campbell:
Jason Del Ray:
The making of Amazon Prime, the internet's most successful and devastating
membership program. Jason Ditz:
Venezuela's Guaido 'consering asking US to invade. That'll really
convince the Venezuelan people he has their best interests at heart. David Enrich:
Trump wants to block Deutsche Bank from sharing his financial records.
Matt Gertz/Rob Savillo:
Major media outlets' Twitter accounts amplify false Trump claims on average
19 times a day. Masha Gessen:
Under Trump, the language we use to create political reality is
crumbling:
One of the most frightening things I've witnessed in recent months was
a very polite conversation in a well-lit room in the Ronald Reagan
Building, in Washington, D.C., on Monday. The director of policy
planning at the State Department, Kiron Skinner, was interviewed
onstage by a woman who used to hold her job: Anne-Marie Slaughter,
who is now the head of the New America Foundation (where I am a
fellow this year). . . .
I have heard talk like this before, in Russia. A government official
once told me that he "carried out emanations": not policies, laws, or
even orders but signals akin to what Skinner called "hunches and
instincts." It's what officials do in countries that are led by a
combination of ignorance and corruption.
Kathy Gilsinan:
David A Graham:
Why Stephen Moore's Fed bid failed. Sean Illing:
Bill McKibben has been sounding the climate alarm for decades. Here's his
best advice. Interview with McKibben, whose new book is Falter:
Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?. Quinta Jurecic:
All of the impeachable offenses: "Focusing on the Mueller report
alone risks leaving out the obvious. Jen Kirby:
Trump has nominated Kelly Craft to be the next UN ambassador. Here's who
she is. Sonali Kolhatkar:
Trump's abortion lies are going to get somebody killed. PR Lockhart:
Tennessee passed a law that could make it harder to register voters.
James North:
Once again, 'NYT' distorts the news, dishonestly making Gazans the
aggressor and Israel the victim. Molly Olmstead:
John Kelly joines board of company that detains migrant children. Joshua Partlow/David A Fahrenthold:
At Trump golf course, undocumented employees said they were sometimes told
to work extra hours without pay. Susan E Rice:
The real Trump foreign policy: stoking the GOP base: "Why else would
he pursue so many policies in Latin America that do not serve the national
interest?" What about the economic interests of his donors? Or their more
general hatred of popular rule (aka democracy)? Charlie Savage/Eric Schmitt/Maggie Haberman:
Trump pushes to designate Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group. Paul
Woodward, in linking to this, also linked to a background piece from Jan.
27, 2017: William McCants/Benjamin Wittes:
Should the Muslim Brotherhood be designated a terrorist organization?
Adam Serwer:
The dangerous ideas of Bill Barr: "The attorney general's theory of
executive power places presidents above the law." Danny Sjursen:
The left needs to stop crushing on the generals. I'd respond that the
left I know doesn't, but when you write for American Conservative
your perspective might be distorted enough to include some "leftists" I
wouldn't. Alex Ward:
Benjamin Wittes:
Matthew Yglesias:
For the record, tonight's Cinco de Mayo menu, nearly all from The
Best Mexican Recipes (America's Test Kitchen):
- Chicken adobo
- Braised short ribs with peppers and onion
- Cheese enchiladas
- Classic Mexican rice
- Skillet street corn
- Restaurant-style black beans
- Shrimp and lime ceviche
- Mango, jicama, and orange salad
- Cherry tomato and avocado salad
- Key lime pie
- Duce de leche cheesecake
I generally cut the hot peppers back by 50%. I made the beef and the
desserts the night before. Started around noon, aiming at 6pm dinner,
but it wound up closer to 7pm, putting a couple guests to work. Used a
gluten-free shell for the key lime pie, but made cheesecake crust from
scratch, using a box of caramel and sea salt cookies plus some graham
crackers. Used store-bought yellow corn tortillas, which were the weak
link in the enchiladas (otherwise pretty great). Ten people, so the
table was pretty crowded. Kitchen was a colossal mess, but got it
straightened out by bedtime.
I've never been a big fan of Mexican food, but figured I should give
it a try, especially given access to specialty grocers here. But when
I bought my first Mexican cookbook, I found it impenetrable. This one
is intentionally simplified, which helped get me started. This cookbook
didn't have any desserts, so I scrounged around the web, not finding
much that interested me. (I've made flan and rice pudding many times
before, but didn't want to do them here. And while I'm partial to cake,
tres leches isn't a favorite.) On the other hand, lime figures large
in the meal, and I had the pie shell on the shelf. The cheesecake was
a second thought, and turned out to be a nice complement.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, April 28, 2019
Weekend Roundup
Started early and still running late. Having recently read Benjamin
Carter Hett's The Death of Democracy: Hitler's Rise to Power and
the Downfall of the Weimar Republic, I woke up this morning with
the idea of writing something about Trump, Republicans, and Fascism
for today's introduction. Never got close to that. Hett's book is
pretty straight history, but you can find a page here or there where
you could easily gloss in Trump's name for Hitler's. Then you move
onto other pages where Trump fails any comparison, usually by being
too dumb or too lazy. There are also big differences between the
Nazis and the Republicans, although differences on race, foreigners,
unions, and military muscle are insignificant. The biggest one is
that the Nazis actually had their own goon squad that could go out
and physically attack their suspected enemies, whereas Republicans
only wish they could do that. Still, the key point about Germany in
1932 was supposedly sober conservatives were so desperate to squash
the left -- indeed, any trace of popular government, of democracy --
that they were willing to hand power over to a psycho like Hitler
and his vicious gang of followers. Republicans seem happy to do the
same thing here in America, for the same reasons, and with the same
obliviousness to consequences.
I should note somewhere that former Senator
Richard Lugar (R-IN)
died last week. Back in the 1980s he was the model of how a Republican
politician could straddle moderate urban politics (he was mayor of
Indianapolis) and the Reagan reaction, which for a time helped make
the latter seem more innocuous and palatable. He was finally devoured
by the right, purged in a primary by an opponent so extreme that the
Democrats were able to (temporarily) pick up the seat. I never felt
any particular fondness for Lugar, but I could understand why people
respected him. Even his breed of Republican is now a thing of the
past.
Also noted that historian
David Brion Davis has died. His 1967 book The Problem of Slavery
in Western Culture greatly affected the way pretty much everyone
understood the history of slavery in the Americas. I've often thought
I should check out his later books, especially the ones that extended
his study into the 19th century. I learned of his death from a cranky
Corey Robin note, which I decided not to bother with below. Here's
a more useful (and generous)
obituary.
Anyhow, this is what the week has to show for itself:
Greg Asner:
To solve climate change and biodiversity loss, we need a Global Deal for
Nature. Nicholson Baker:
My brain on cable news: "Tuning into TV's battle to the death."
What's actually on cable these days is a bizarre legalistic death battle.
Cohen, Manafort, Flynn, Butina, Mueller, Giuliani, et al. We aren't
debating whether Trump has been responsible for the deaths of innocents,
because everyone knows that he is -- presidents and collateral damage go
hand in hand. If Trump goes to prison, it will not be for child murder,
but for distributing hush money to silence former mistresses and for
taking bribes and for engaging in back channel machinations with Russia.
Whatever it takes, I suppose, but I have to agree with my cable guy:
there's something unseemly about the means employed.
Fox News is addictive and awful: choirboys gone to seed and women's
dresses with weird portholes at the shoulders or at the cleavage. The
anchors jeer smilingly at ideas that any sensible person of generous
mind can see make sense. Quick clips of closed-circuit footage of humans
with darker skin doing bad things are injected into the river of commentary --
mug shots included -- to create little mental firecracker pops of righteous
wrath among the pickup-truck crowd, along with "funny" attacks on progressive
causes by rightist comedians who love steak and country music. Fox &
Friends is a hot mess of clean living and white-right American
self-deception, and I can't watch it for very long without feeling
queasy. But it's an easy mark.
Jane Coaston:
Trump's new defense of his Charlottesville comments is incredibly
false. Related: Allegra Kirkland:
Whitewash: Trump takes new approach to sanitizing Charlottesville
protests. Helena Cobban:
The UAE's seedy influence operations are a footnote to the Mueller
report. Bryce Covert:
Hedge-fund ownership cost Sears workers their jobs. Now they're fighting
back. Seems like lots (damn near all of ) the companies you read about
in bankruptcy first passed through a phase where private equity operators
first bought the company with its own debt than stripped assets and paid
themselves "management fees." Maybe if they were lucky they'd be able to
sell the carcass off, but current bankruptcy law favors creditors over
employees and customers, finishing the liquidation while leaving the
public worse off. Our think tanks need to think about this situation,
and come up with new bankruptcy laws that allow companies to survive
such malign ownership, preferably under employee ownership, with debt
loads reduced to levels which allow the companies to carry on. Other
regulations could help, but just changing bankruptcy law would shift
the incentives dramatically.
Alex Emmons:
Coalition airstrikes in Raqqa killed at least 1,600 civilians, more than
10 times US tally, report finds. Tom Engelhardt: Publisher and introduction writer at
TomDispatch:
Todd Gitlin:
The roots of Trumpian agitprop: Hint: article namechecks Leni
Riefenstahl, as well as Susan Sontag writing about Riefenstahl. Patrick Greenfield:
Spain election: socialist party PSOE declared winner: live update
blog; PSOE is expected to be able to form a coalition with the further
leftist party Podemos; the far-right party Vox surged, but only wound
up with 24 MPs (6.8%), at the expense of more mainstream conservatives
(PP is down from 137 to 66). Sue Halpern:
The terrifying potential of the 5G network: "The future of wireless
technology holds the promise of total connectivity. But it will also be
especially susceptible to cyberattacks and surveillance." Guess who else
is selling snooping gear? Richard Silverstein:
Israel and the selling of the surveillance state. Murtaza Hussain:
Our enemies are the same people: San Diego synagogue shooter inspired
by New Zealand anti-Muslim massacre. Sean Illing:
White identity politics is about more than racism: Interview with
Ashley Jardina, author of White Identity Politics.. Christopher Ingraham:
Rich guys are most likely to have no idea what they're talking about,
study suggests. Greg Jaffe:
Capitalism in crisis: US billionaires worry about the survival of the
system that made them rich. Sam Knight:
The uncanny power of Greta Thunberg's climate-change rhetoric.
The climate-change movement feels powerful today because it is
politicians -- not the people gluing themselves to trucks -- who seem
deluded about reality. Thunberg says that all she wants is for adults
to behave like adults, and to act on the terrifying information that
is all around us.
Related: Stewart Lee:
Why Greta Thunberg is now my go-to girl. Paul Krugman:
Armpits, white ghettos and contempt: "Who really despises the American
heartland?" Opens with a sidebar on Stephen Moore (Trump's Fed pick),
noting:
Moore is an indefensible choice on many grounds. Even if he hadn't
shown himself to be extraordinarily misogynistic and have an ugly
personal history, his track record on economics -- always wrong,
never admitting error or learning from it -- is utterly disqualifying.
Survival of the wrongest: "Evidence has a well-known liberal bias."
Much more on Stephen Moore.
The great Republican abdication: "A party that no longer believes
in American values." Wait! Aren't greed, hubris, and desperate schemes
to rig every contest the ultimate American values? Those are clearly
the hallmarks of the recent Republican Party, and those are traits
one can question and denounce. But calling them un-American misses a
big part of their appeal. Bill McKibben:
To stop global catastrophe, we must believe in humans again: "We have
the technology to prevent climate crisis. But now we need to unleash mass
resistance too -- because collective action does work." Edited extract
from his new book, Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself
Out?. He also pleaded for mass resistance recently in
Glaciers and Arctic ice are vanishing. Time to get radical before it's
too late. Paul Mozur/Jonah M Kessel/Melissa Chan:
Made in China, exported to the world: the surveillance state. Anna North:
Trump's Fed pick wrote that women should be banned from March Madness:
Well, actually he's written and said a lot of stupid things, not least
on matters more germane to his appointment -- not that whether he's an
asshole is irrelevant. As for Trump's other pick of a political hack for
a Fed seat, see: Li Zhou:
It's official: Herman Cain is not going to be on the Fed. Zhou also
wrote:
Young voters want more action on climate change -- even if it hurts the
economy. Gabby Orr/Andrew Restuccia:
How Stephen Miller made immigration personal. Andrew Prokop:
Ben Protess/William K Rashbaum/Maggie Haberman:
How Michael Cohen turned against President Trump. Eric Rauchway:
Obama's original sin: "A new insider account reveals how the Obamas
administration's botched bailout deal not only reinforced neoliberal
Clintonism, but also foreshadowed an ongoing failure to fulfill campaign
promises." Review of Reed Hundt: A Crisis Wasted: Barack Obama's
Defining Decisions. Reminds me that perhaps the first of those
decisions was letting Clinton factotum John Podesta run the transition
team, which initially penciled in such pivotal figures as Tim Geithner
and Lawrence Summers. Gabriela Resto-Montero:
Most Americans believe Trump lied to them, but think impeachment is a
bad idea. Related: Ella Nilsen:
Democrats' impeachment dilemma, explained. James Risen:
Unanswered questions in the Mueller report point to a sprawling Russian
spy game. David Roberts:
Aaron Rupar:
Darren Samuelsohn/Andrew Desiderio/Kyle Cheney:
'This is risky': Trump's thirst for Mueller revenge could land him in
trouble. Related: Andrew Restuccia:
Mueller report exposes diminishing power of Trump denials: "The
report has reignited a media debate about how seriously to take the
White House's statements of fact." Eric Schmitt/David E Sanger/Maggie Haberman:
In push for 2020 election security, top official was warned: don't tell
Trump. Ben Schwartz:
The trigger presidency: "How shock jock comedy gave way to Donald
Trump's Republican Party. Dylan Scott:
Trump's high-stakes subpoena battle with House Democrats,
explained. Matt Shuham:
Trump lets loose stunning falsehood that doctors, mothers 'execute'
babies. Ben Taub:
How the War on Terror is being written: Starts on Guantánamo, ends
with a long list of links to source documents. Midway, Taub notes:
The year after [James] Mitchell published his memoir [Enhanced
Interrogation], it was cited in a lengthy
report by Physicians for Human Rights, which argues that the
interrogation program represented "one of the gravest breaches of
medical ethics" since the Nazi medical experiments during the
Second World War.
These documents -- along with contemporaneous reports and books
by investigative journalists, academics, lawyers, and human-rights
advocates -- make up an evolving draft of post-9/11 history. With
each passing year, more details surface in memoirs, lawsuits, and
military commissions, and the historical record comes into sharper
focus. Millions of pages have come to light, and millions more remain
classified. But, seventeen years into the war on terror, a core,
uncomfortable fact remains: people on the receiving end of classified
security programs -- from drone strikes to renditions and interrogations --
become aware of the outlines of secret U.S. national-security laws and
practices long before American citizens have any clarity or say about
what is being done in their name.
Guantánamo's darkest secret. Murray Waas:
Mueller prosecutors: Trump did obstruct justice. Alex Ward:
Democrats want to challenge Trump's foreign policy in 2020. They're still
working out how. Surprisingly little here, or maybe not given how
readily Democrats have lined up behind the common consensus policies in
place since shortly after WWII. Consider "the four main pillars of a
progressive foreign policy (so far)":
- Confront climate change
- Democracy promotion and anti-corruption
- Strengthening alliances
- Rebuilding America
I would have started off with negotiated demilitarization: securing
treaties all around the world that resolve conflicts and reduce the
military posture of all nations (especially the US). My second point
would be to expand "democracy promotion and anti-corruption" to lean
left, to support more power for workers and for women, while accepting
that capital rights need to be limited and regulated. On trade, I'd
work to limit (or in many cases eliminate) rents based on intellectual
property. This in turn should lead to greater sharing of best practices
in science and technology, which would help with problems like climate
change, loss of biodiversity, etc. I'd also like to see some sort of
international framework for dealing with migration. Democrats have done
a miserable job of formulating foreign policy due to the old colonial
mentality where they've never seen the rest of the world's peoples as
our equals, and never recognized that our welfare is co-dependent on
the world's. Another piece on trying to change Democratic strategy:
David Klion:
When will Washington end the Forever War?.
Sri Lanka suffered from decades of violence before the Easter Sunday
bombings. Related: Samanth Subramanian:
After the Easter bombings, Sri Lanka grapples with its history of
violence. Robin Wright:
Matthew Yglesias:
We're not hearing enough from 2020 candidates about things they could do
as president.
Joe Biden is the Hillary Clinton of 2020: "Americans want outsiders,
reformers, and fresh faces, not politicians with decades of baggage."
Pretty much all you need to know about Biden in 2020, but not the only
thing written this week. E.g.:
Moira Donegan:
Anita Hill deserves a real apology. Why couldn't Joe Biden offer
one? Jill Filipovic:
Joe Biden's policies are as troubling as his inappropriate
touching. German Lopez:
Joe Biden's long record supporting the war on drugs and mass incarceration,
explained. Arwa Mahdawi:
Joe Biden is the Hillary Clinton of 2020 -- and it won't end well this
time either. Jane Mayer:
What Joe Biden hasn't owned up to about Anita Hill. Jim Newell:
The 2020 candidates smell blood: "The reason so many Democrats are
running is they think Biden won't survive."
The field in 2016 was so small not because politicians with national
aspirations didn't exist, but because they thought Clinton -- with her
name recognition, financial resources, party relationships, high early
polling numbers, and general next-in-line aura -- was inevitable. She
cleared the field of most competition because other mainstream candidates
knew she would win (and non-mainstream Bernie figured she would too).
Biden is something more like a 2016 Jeb Bush: a weak establishment
favorite whose time might be past and -- should voters deprioritize his
top perceived strength, electability -- who could soon face the wolves.
Newell also wrote:
Biden has successfullyl goaded Trump, which is exactly what he needs to
do. One thing many Democrats will be looking for in primary season
is the candidate who most effectively articulates their rage over Trump,
and one of the best ways to do that is to get under his thin skin. Nate Silver:
How Joe Biden could win the 2020 Democratic Primary: Put a lot of
weight on his initial poll lead, and hope nothing goes wrong. Matt Taibbi:
Is Joe Biden 'electable' or not? Thank God, nobody seems to know.
The Democratic establishment should chill out about Bernie Sanders.
As Sanders continues to rate highly in national polls, many longtime party
stalwarts are palpably agitated over a blend of personal grievances and
overblown political and policy concerns. . . .
As a personal matter, the establishment's response is understandable.
Sanders, an independent Vermont senator, tends to portray the institutional
Democratic Party as corrupt and relentlessly sows suspicion about the
motives and integrity of everyone who disagrees with him. He treats the
catastrophe of the 2016 election as a deserved rebuke to party leaders.
And he brushes aside mountains of practical realities that others have
spent years dealing with.
But blowing up over this makes no sense. The whole point of a party
establishment is to be cynical, detached, practical-minded, and realistic.
If they assess Sanders's actual track record -- rather than his personally
insulting rhetoric -- they'd discover a fairly unremarkable blue-state
liberal who's good at winning elections and has extensive experience with
the disappointing realities of the legislative process.
Relevant here: Peter Daou:
I was Bernie's biggest critic in 2016 -- I've changed my mind: "It
would be an epic act of self-destruction for Democrats to try to hobble
his campaign." Let's see if I can explain this in simple terms. During
the Reagan-to-Trump era, Democrats have been preoccupied with raising
money (cultivating donor support). Some, like Obama and the Clintons,
have even done a good job of this, largely by promising that they'd do
an even better job for business than the Republicans would -- something
the stats clearly support. Meanwhile, the Democrats have let their base
go to hell, and found their support eroding, even as Republicans have
even less to offer. What Sanders is doing is rebuilding the Democratic
Party base, by appealing to the people Democrats have been screwing for
decades now. Attacking Sanders risks driving this base away, if not to
the Republicans then to a third party or nothing. Sanders is doing the
party a huge favor by not running as an independent. The party needs to
reciprocate by welcoming him and his voters. They might even find, like
Daou, that they'll learn something. Gary Younge:
Brexit is not just a tragedy for Britain.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Weekend Roundup
Let's start off with a range of reactions to the release (with
extensive redactions) of the final report of Special Prosecutor Robert
Mueller:
Alex Ward:
The Mueller report, explained in 500 words: Fair to start with this
executive summary of the report itself, but this falls far short of its
intent ("everything you wanted to know . . . but detailed as briefly as
possible"), mostly by not examining the context or process. One thing
I've long wondered about was to what extent low-level operatives in
Trump's (and his PAC allies') cyber operations were aware of let alone
had contacts with the Russian operatives who worked on Trump's behalf.
Even if they didn't explicitly coordinate, they very likely built on
and reinforced each other's work. Mueller seems to have taken a top-down
approach, looking at a few suspicious meetings, but it's not clear that
he did any investigation of the campaign staff most competent to actually
collude (not just with the Russians but with other foreign or nominally
independent organizations). Mueller may have had narrow legal reasons
for limiting his focus, but it would have been helpful to spell them
out. One big problem with the American political system is that a lot
of what campaigns -- both raising money and spending it -- do may not
technically be illegal but stikes me (and probably most people) as
profoundly corrupt. Scott R Anderson, et al. (long list of contributors at
Lawfare):
What Mueller found on Russia and on obstruction: a first analysis.
Also at
Lawfare:
Anne Applebaum:
Why was Trump so afraid of the Mueller investigation? We may never know.
Indeed. Maybe, as the author implies, he had things to hide that Mueller
didn't uncover. Maybe he just couldn't stand the pressure of being picked
apart by investigators whose ambitions and/or biases could result in him
being framed? Trump knows as well as anyone how the system can be rigged.
The only thing you can be sure of is that Trump's word on what happened is
worthless. Bill Blum:
Five critical takeaways from the Mueller report. Zack Beauchamp:
Ryan Bort:
Trump will be attacking the 'Crazy Mueller Report' for the rest of his
life. Alvin Chang/Javier Zarracina:
The Mueller report redactions, explaind in 4 charts: Total redacted
content: 7.25%. Most heavily redacted were Russian "Active Measures"
Social Media Campaign (46%), Russian Hacking (23%), and Prosecution and
Declination Decisions (31%). Isaac Chotiner:
Neal Katyal on whether the Mueller report went far enough: Interview
with a law professor who helped "draft the special-counsel regulations"
after Ken Starr's protracted effort to crucify Bill Clinton. Katyal says:
I would say three people's colors have been revealed by this report. We
have learned Mueller's reputation is real. We have learned Trump's
disregard for the truth and the rule of law is real. And we have learned
Barr has become a total Trumpian Attorney General.
Jane Coaston:
The Seth Rich conspiracy theory needs to end now: "The Mueller report
confirms that the late DNC staffer had absolutely nothing to do with leaked
emails later shared by WikiLeaks." George T Conway III:
Trump is a cancer on the presidency. Congress should remove him. EJ Dionne Jr:
Mueller's report is the beginning, not the end. Masha Gessen:
The hustlers and swindlers of the Mueller report. Susan B Glasser:
The Mueller report won't end Trump's presidency, but it sure makes him
look bad. Glenn Greenwald:
Robert Mueller did not merely reject the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories.
He obliterated them. Katie Halper:
9 ways the media blew it in its 'Russiagate' coverage.
Sean Illing:
Does the Mueller report exonerate Trump? I asked 12 legal experts. Jen Kirby:
Confused about who's who in the Mueller report? Start here. Ezra Klein:
The best defense of Trump is still a damning indictment: "The Mueller
report's defense of Trump: exculpatory incompetence, misplaced rage."
The problem with impeachment. Despite the nesting, let's put the
impeachment eggs in this one basket:
I skipped over the stories of various politicians calling for
impeachment (or not). I basically agree with Rubin (and Pelosi): as long
as impeachment is a partisan divide, there's no way to do it, and
trying detracts from other efforts to expose Trump. Still, it doesn't
hurt to rattle that sword now and then, especially as its futility
is really an indictment of the Republicans protecting Trump. In the
long run, people need to think about better ways of limiting abuse
of presidential power. I think it should be possible for Congress
to overturn arbitrary Trump orders like his border emergency and
Yemen War support, to pick two recent examples, without having to
muster enough support to also override his veto -- especially given
that we have an electoral system which lets someone win a 4-year
term with as little support as Trump had in 2016. Dara Lind:
7 times the Mueller report caught Sean Spicer and Sarah Sanders lying
to press. Renato Mariotti:
The obstruction case against Trump that Barr tried to hide. Jane Mayer:
In the Mueller report, Erik Prince funds a covert effort to obtain
Clinton's e-mails from a foreign state. Ella Nilsen:
It's official: House Democrats subpoena the full, unredacted Mueller
report. Andrew Prokop:
The Mueller report's biggest mystery: "What did Mueller find out about
Trump associates and email leaks?" James Risen/Robert Mackey/Trevor Aaronson:
Annotating special counsel Robert Mueller's redacted report. Jennifer Rubin:
Five questions that still need to be answered in the Mueller report.
Aaron Rupar:
Charlie Savage:
How Barr's excerpts compare to the Mueller report's findings. Khushbu Shah:
Mitt Romney is "sickened" by the Trump administration's "dishonesty" after
reading Mueller report. Danny Sjursen:
Liberals sold their souls to the war machine on Russia. Jennifer Taub:
Don McGahn not listening to Donald Trump doesn't absolve the President
of a crime. Peter Van Buren:
Mueller's investigation is missing one thing: a crime:
Almost everything Mueller has, the perjury and lying cases, are crimes
he created through the process of investigating. He's Schrodinger's Box:
the infractions only exist when he tries to look at them.
On the other hand, a lot of things that aren't really prosecutable
crimes look and smell bad. Politicians lie about them because they
know this, and are trying to avoid exposing their faults.
I originally figured I'd try to write up my take on this, but at
this point I'm too exhausted (not to mention disgusted).
Some scattered links this week:
Peter Beinart:
Nobody knows anything about 'electability': Article runs with Biden's
picture up top, since pundits would much rather talk about his "electability"
than his policy views or track record, but touches on others, noting that
"they're making lots of dubious assumptions."
All this glib talk about electability has a cost. It leads commentators,
often implicitly, to give "electable" candidates a pass when their policy
views are fuzzy or flat-out wrong. So what should journalists do? It's
simple: Spend less time discussing which candidates can win the presidency
and more time discussing what they'd do if they actually won.
Jonathan Blitzer:
The unlawful ambitions of Donald Trump's immigration policy. Lee Camp:
Nearly 100,000 Pentagon whistleblower complaints have been silenced.
Jane Coaston:
Andrew Yang's plan to take on opioids: decriminalize heroin and fentanyl.
Marjorie Cohn:
America's coup efforts in Venezuela enter a frightening new phase. Coral Davenport:
Interior Dept. opens ethics investigation of its new chief, David
Bernhardt. That didn't take long, although few things could be
less surprising. Karen DeYoung:
Trump administration announces new measures against Cuba. Especially
clever is the line about Cuba expanding "its malign influence and
ideological imperialism across the region." Another example of the
recent fashion of attacking the left by using the same language the
left has traditionally used about the right. Also: Gregory Weeks:
The US is thinking of invading Venezuela. That's unlikely to lead to
democracy. And: Francisco Toro:
Pompeo reaches the dead end of Trump's Venezuela policy, and
With US military action, Venezuela could become the Libya of the
Caribbean.
Related: Alex Horton:
Trump soured relations in Latin America. China and Russia have welcomed
the chaos. Rob Evans:
Half of England is owned by less than 1% of the population. Next up:
Peter Hetherington:
So 1% of the people own half of England. Inheritance tax reform could fix
that. Masha Gessen:
The dangerous bullying of Ilhan Omar. Related:
Ilhan Omar's deeply American message. Tara Golshan:
Jen Kirby:
An art historian explains the tough decisions in rebuilding Notre
Dame. David D Kirkpatrick:
Trump endorses an aspiring Libyan strongman, reversing policy. Maybe
when he saw the memo he just misread the name (Khalifa Hifter)? Sarah Kliff:
CBO: over 1 million Americans have become uninsured since 2016. Paul Krugman:
Dara Lind:
Bernie Sanders's Fox News town hall wasn't a debate. Bernie won anyway.
German Lopez:
Marijuana legalization is very popular. Andrew Prokop:
7 winners from the first big presidential fundraising reports:
After sections on Sanders, Harris, and Buttagieg: "Donald Trump is
set to raise tons of cash while Democrats battle each other." No
self-funding this time around. He's back to cash in. Sigal Samuel:
The false choice between helping Notre Dame and helping poor people. Khushbu Shah:
Republican strategist Karl Rove says Bernie Sanders could beat Trump
in 2020: Much of this is based on Sanders' performance in facing
a Fox-hosted town hall, warning his fellow right-wing activists that
"beating Sanders by attacking his democratic socialist views 'won't
be as easy as Republicans may think.'" Still, he's trying:
However, the Republican strategist wasn't completely glowing in his
analysis of the Democrat, arguing in his Wall Street Journal piece,
"Such platitudes go only so far in masking what drives Mr. Sanders'
philosophy: resentment, grievance, and a desire to take from those
who have and redistribute the wealth, all to expand government. He
may describe socialism in benign terms, but he regularly drops his
guard, opening himself up to devastating counterpunches."
I started to compile a list of recent right-wing books, noticing
a trend of trying to paint Democrats as resentful, embittered, and
vindictive -- traits that sure sound to me like the hate mongering
that has bent the right-wing base so far out of shape and elected
demagogues like Trump. Some examples, to give you a flavor of how
desperate right-wing propagandists have become: Noah Rothman's
Unjust: Social Justice and the Unmaking of America; Derek
Hunter's Outrage, Inc.: How the Liberal Mob Ruined Science,
Journalism, and Hollywood, and Arthur C Brooks' Love Your
Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America From the Culture of
Contempt. Those titles (with minor tweaks) could easily have
been used for books critiquing the right. That right-wingers have
adopted them shows that they recognize that their credibility has
worn out. Danny Sjursen:
Who are the real terrorists in the Mideast?
American history for Truthdiggers: Vietnam, a US tragedy: Number 29
in the author's series recapping American history, starting in 1607 with
Original sin. I've always found this history interesting, both
for what it tells us about where we came from, and why we keep making
the same mistakes over and over again, but I've never felt like beating
myself up over the sins of my ancestors. On the other hand, having
grown up and lived through Vietnam, I feel no sympathy whatsoever for
anyone who refuses to acknowledge that the American War in Vietnam
was anything less than a colossal mistake. Still:
It is the war that never dies. Vietnam, the very word shrouded with
extraordinary meaning in the American lexicon. For some it represents
failure; for others guilt; for still more, anger that the war could
have and should have been won. Americans are still arguing about this
war, once the nation's longest. For those who lived through it -- the
last war the U.S. fought partly with draftees -- it was almost
impossible not to take sides; to be pro-war or anti-war became a
social and political identity unto itself. This tribal split even
reached into the ranks of military veterans, as some joined antiwar
movements and others remained vociferously sure that the war needed
to be fought through to victory. Indeed, today, even the active-duty
U.S. military officer corps is rent over assessment of the Vietnam
legacy.
I've been reading recently about how the reaction against Germany's
defeat (most notoriously the "stab-in-the-back" myth) in 1918 fueled
the rise of Nazism in Germany. The same thing has happened with the US
right and Vietnam, leading conservatives (dedicated as ever to keeping
a social order which raises the rich up and beats the poor down) more
often than not to wrap themselves up in militarist myths of past and
future martial glory. Nor is Vietnam the only war that those invested
in "America's war machine" refuse to learn from. See: William J Astore:
America's generals haven't learned anything from Iraq.
We are all complicit in America's war machine.
Who will be the last to die for a lie? The Afghan War drags on.
With friends like these: abusive frenemies and American Mideast policy.
Mike Spies:
Secrecy, self-dealing, and greed at the NRA. Joseph E Stiglitz:
Progressive capitalism is not an oxymoron: This is real basic:
Standards of living began to improve in the late 18th century for two
reasons: the development of science (we learned how to learn about
nature and used that knowledge to increase productivity and longevity)
and developments in social organization (as a society, we learned how
to work together, through institutions like the rule of law, and
democracies with checks and balances).
Key to both were systems of assessing and verifying the truth. The
real and long-lasting danger of the Trump presidency is the risk it
poses to these pillars of our economy and society, its attack on the
very idea of knowledge and expertise, and its hostility to institutions
that help us discover and assess the truth.
There is a broader social compact that allows a society to work and
prosper together, and that, too, has been fraying. America created the
first truly middle-class society; now, a middle-class life is increasingly
out of reach for its citizens.
America arrived at this sorry state of affairs because we forgot that
the true source of the wealth of a nation is the creativity and innovation
of its people. One can get rich either by adding to the nation's economic
pie or by grabbing a larger share of the pie by exploiting others --
abusing, for instance, market power or informational advantages. We
confused the hard work of wealth creation with wealth-grabbing (or, as
economists call it, rent-seeking), and too many of our talented young
people followed the siren call of getting rich quickly.
Also see Andrew Ross Sorkin's interview with Stiglitz:
Socialist! Capitalist! Economic systems as weapons in a war of words.
Stiglitz has a new book: People, Power, and Profits: Progressive
Capitalism for an Age of Discontent (WW Norton). Simon Tisdall:
Trump's veto over Yemen is a scandalous abuse of presidential power.
Alexia Underwood:
The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is dead. An expert explains why.
Interview with Khaled Elgindy, author of Blind Spot: America and the
Palestinians From Balfour to Trump. Some more links on Israel and
last week's election:
Alex Ward:
Iran labels all US troops in the Middle East "terrorists": It's
a response to America's similar designation of Iranian troops the
day before." Actually, both designations raise into question the
self-conception (and conceits) of the designator. On the other hand,
US troops have killed a lot more people over the last two decades,
so there's something to the charges. See Danny Sjursen, above, for
more details.
This is how Bernie Sanders thinks about foreign policy: "The
senator wants to create a global democratic movement to end oligarchy
and authoritarianism." That would be a major change from US policy
under both parties ever since the start of the cold war, which was
to support and extend capitalist property rights everywhere, while
to undermine labor and anti-colonial political movements, and very
often to support local oligarchs and authoritarians against their
people. Matthew Yglesias:
What Pete Buttigieg learned from Donald Trump: "In a crowded field,
it pays off to say 'yes' to everything and get attention."
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Weekend Roundup
I don't feel up to writing much about
Julian Assange, but following his arrest in London, I anticipate
that I'll find a bunch of links this week and should collect them
together. Assange is an Australian, a computer programmer who came
up with Wikileaks, a system to collect and publish anonymously
submitted documents. That's always seemed like a noble endeavor,
an aid in exposing how the rich and powerful conspire in private
to manipulate and profit, and for a while he seemed to be doing
just that. He quickly ran afoul of those powers, most notably the
US government, which set out to charge him with various crimes,
and quite possibly orchestrated a broader smear campaign against
him. Assange, in turn, sought asylum from criminal charges, and
since 2012 has been sheltered by the Ecuadorean embassy in London.
I don't know how much Assange has had to do with Wikileaks since
2012 (or how much freedom he has had to do anything), but his
brand name wound up playing a role in Trump's 2016 campaign when
it framed the release of hacked emails from the Clinton campaign.
One effect of the DNC dump was to expand the Democratic side of
bipartisan outrage against Assange, especially as Clinton's drones
tried to paint him as a Putin accomplice.
I don't have strong opinions about Assange one way or the other,
but I did welcome his release of leaked documents on the Iraq War
and the US State Department. (See my September 2, 2010 entry,
Troops,
on the "Collateral Murder" video, anti-war vet Ethan McCord, and
a related speech by Barak Obama -- what I said then is still pretty
relevant today.) Releasing the DNC emails didn't particularly bother
me either, although the timing was suspicious (immediately after the
release of
Trump's Access Hollywood tape, allowing the media to spin
scandal on top of scandal), as was the lack of any RNC/Trump campaign
emails to balance the picture.
Anyhow, the Assange links:
Let's also break out multiple links on Israel's elections:
Scattered links on other topics this week:
Matthew Yglesias:
Julian Castro really wants to talk about immigration, but it's most
impressive talking about his work.
Trump's sister quietly retired in February, and it's actually a big deal:
Something here I didn't know: that Trump has a sister,
Maryanne Trump Barry, who is a US Court of Appeals judge (appointed,
by the way, by Bill Clinton in 1999, although Ronald Reagan appointed
her to US District Court in 1983). She retired to escape an investigation
into the possibly fraudulent scheme whereby Fred Trump transferred
property to his children to evade taxes.
Elizabeth Warren's new plan to make sure Amazon (and other big companies)
pays corporate tax, explained: "No more claiming big profits to
investors while paying nothing to the IRS."
Progressives should worry more about the odds that Joe Biden will win:
"Liberals are assuming the former vice president will fade on his own, a
trap Republicans fell for with Trump." They may both be front-runners,
but not many similarities beyond that. Trump campaigned as an outsider,
whereas Biden is the most complete insider even considering a run. The
most comparable 2016 Republican is Jeb Bush, although I'd give Biden
better odds than I gave Bush -- he may not have much of a program or
a real following, but at least he's not a laughingstock.
Immigration makes America great. This is a good general "explainer"
on most of issues related to immigration. I'm more of a moderate (or
maybe skeptic?) when it comes to promoting immigration: I'm concerned
about the downward pressure on labor markets immigrants pose; I worry
that immigration feeds our right-wing tendencies to ignore the needs
of impoverished natives; I've noted that many immigrants lean to the
political right (in many cases becoming jingoistic -- the Cubans are
an obvious case, since US immigration law favors anti-communists).
I've noted, for instance, that no less than five (of 16) Republican
presidential candidates in 2016 has at least one foreign-born parent
(including Trump, who also has a foreign-born wife). Still, I don't
doubt the general economic advantages of immigration at present (or
slightly elevated) levels. And the problems I've noted would go away
if we had a better political atmosphere.
Trump's flailing shake-up of the Department of Homeland Security,
explained: Key subhed here: "Trump's been in tantrum mode for
weeks."
But Trump is an all-stick, no-carrot kind of guy. His idea of doing a
deal with Democrats was to cancel DACA protection for young undocumented
immigrants and then offer to reinstate it in exchange for sweeping
concessions. And he wants to get Mexico to do favors for him by
threatening to hurt both countries' economies unless they do what he
wants. This incredibly punitive, wildly ineffective approach to
dealmaking has been a hallmark of Trump's approach to the presidency
from Day 1, and it appears to be derived from his success as a business
executive at using his greater wealth to stiff contractors and
shareholders.
But in the presidency, this kind of bullying doesn't work at all,
as you can see from his lack of success in getting border wall money
appropriated. A reasonable response to policy failure would be to try
to go in a new direction, but Trump seems entirely uninterested in
that. So rather than rethink his approach, he's now inclined to burn
through administration personnel, even though shuffling the names on
an org chart around isn't going to alter any of the fundamentals of
the situation.
Howard Schultz only has one idea about politics, and it's bad:
"Making him president won't fix the problems of partisanship."
Trump's possibly illegal designation of a new acting homeland security
secretary, explained. Zack Beauchamp:
Republicans are taking Ilhan Omar's comments on 9/11 out of context to
smear her. Well, when did they ever let context complicate a good
smear? David Dayen:
Betsy DeVos quietly making it easier for dying for-profit schools to rip
off a few more students on the way out. Sean Illing:
Why conspiracy theories are getting more absurd and harder to refute:
Interview with Nancy L Rosenblum, co-author (with Russell Muirhead) of
A Lot of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on
Democracy. Umair Irfan:
A brief guide to David Bernhardt, Ryan Zinke's replacement at the
Interior Department: "Three things to know about the former oil
lobbyist who's just been confirmed as the new Secretary of the
Interior." Kalpana Jain:
4 key things to know about India's elections Thursday. Jen Kirby:
The new Brexit deadline is October 31. Dara Lind:
The post-purge agenda: what the White House wants next on immigration:
"Donald Trump and Stephen Miller are pushing for a multi-pronged asylum
crackdown." German Lopez:
Ella Nilsen:
Why the Senate is blocking a new net neutrality bill, a year after trying
to save it. The House passed a bill. McConnell refuses to allow the
Senate to consider it. Trump says if passed he will veto it. Anna North:
A Texas bill would allow the death penalty for patients who get abortions:
"The bill is unlikely to pass, but it's part of a larger trend." Trita Parsi:
Trump's Iran terrorist designation is designed to lock in endless enmity.
Related:
Daniel DePetris/Richard Sokolsky:
Bolton and Pompeo are steering Trump toward war with Iran;
Robert Mackey:
On the eve of Israel's elections, Netanyahu thanks Trump for sanctioning
Iran at his request. Andrew Prokop:
Gabriela Resto-Montero:
Josie Duffy Rice:
Jussie Smollett and the impulse to punish. Chicago's outgoing
mayor Rahm Emmanuel, cementing his reputation as a grandstanding
dickhead, ordered the city to sue Jussie Smollett for the costs of
investigating him before dropping charges, some $130,000.
Given the failures of law enforcement in Chicago, [F.O.P. president
Kevin] Graham is not in a strong position to castigate [Cook County
states attorney] Foxx. In the first half of 2018, Chicago police made
an arrest or identified a suspect in just fifteen per cent of murder
cases. Similarly, Emanuel's concern about the costs of the Smollett
investigation is misguided at best; in 2018 alone, the city paid a
total of a hundred and thirteen million dollars in police-misconduct
settlements and related legal fees. . . .
As Matthew Saniie, the chief data officer for Foxx's office, recently
wrote, in Cook County, cases in which the defendant, like Smollett,
pleads not guilty to a fourth-degree felony end in a deferred prosecution
seventy-five per cent of the time. Foxx runs the second-largest prosecutor's
office in the country, responsible for prosecuting crimes in Chicago and
a hundred and thirty-four municipalities. Her staff sees almost half a
million cases every year. Prosecutorial discretion is one of the pillars
of our justice system, and it is her job to discern what deserves her
staff's attention, as opposed to what has grabbed the most public attention.
Aaron Rupar:
Trump promised his sons would keep business out of politics. He's admitting
that was a lie. This links to: Elaina Plott:
Inside Ivanka's dreamworld: "The 'first daughter' spent years rigorously
cultivating her image. But she wasn't prepared for scrutiny." Kirk Semple:
Central American farmers head to the US, fleeing climate change. Peter Stone:
Trump hotels exempted from ban on foreign payments under new stance.
Benjamin Wallace-Wells:
Bernie Sanders imagines a progressive new approach to foreign policy:
While the rest of the field plays catch up with his 2016 platform, he
breaks new ground. But his main break with the bipartisan orthodoxy is
thus far limited to sensibility. He's more likely to promote peace and
respect than the others because he values them, but he's yet to get
down to the specifics it will take to deal with Israel/Palestine, to
pick the one case other politicians most fear. Alex Ward:
Ask a question, or send a comment.
prev -- next
|
