Two questions need to be addressed before we get down to detailed
arguments. The first is why vote at all? I'd say first, because it
is your right as a citizen, but must be secured by your exercise of
it. People in America may have a very limited say in how the country
is organized and run, but you do have the vote, and using it shows
your willingness to engage in the responsibility for setting the
nation's direction.
The second question is whether you should limit your vote choice
to the two major political parties, or consider voting for a third
party should you prefer that candidate's platform? History shows us
that America gravitated into a two-party system almost immediately
after the Constitution was ratified, and quickly returned to a two
party system on the two instances where one major party disbanded
(replacing the Federalists with the Whigs, and replacing the Whigs
with the Republicans). No subsequent third party has been able to
sustain significant followings, with third-party votes often
dropping to under 5% in recent elections.
So from a practical standpoint, third parties are ineffective
and unpromising.One might nonetheless consider voting for a third
party candidate if: neither major party nominated a candidate you
can stand, and there is no significant difference between the two
candidates that can direct your choice. I can understand if you
feel that both Trump and Harris should be shunned for their rote
support of Israeli genocide, although I suspect that even there
the nature of their positions differs enough to favor a vote for
Harris.
One other possible consideration is whether one party offers a
better chance for future improvement, based on the composition of
the party, how open-minded its members are, and how democratic its
processes are. The current two-party system is quite possibly the
most polarized ever, which has led most people to select one party
or the other. Moreover, both major parties have primaries that are
open to all members, and as such are amenable to reform. If, like
me, you are primarily concerned with "left" issues of peace and
equal rights, you may have noticed that most of the people most
likely to agree with you are currently Democrats. If your goal is
to build a majority around your ideals, you need to establish a
bond of solidarity with the Democrats, which often means voting
for a candidate you don't totally agree with. You are, after all,
hoping that other Democrats, even ones that disagree with you,
will vote for your candidate should that person win a primary.
The last third party candidate I voted for was Ralph Nader in
2000. I don't feel bad about that vote, especially as I'm convinced
that the Gore-Lieberman ticket would have been as gung-ho starting
the "war on terror" after 9/11 as Bush-Cheney was. But I did learn
one lesson from that election, which is that even in Kansas, where
the Gore campaign was practically non-existent, 90% of the anti-Bush
votes cast went to the Democrat. Since then, I vowed to work within
the Democratic Party, such as it as, as best I could. (I did lapse
once since, to vote against a particular Democrat I've hated what
seems like all of my life, but there I went with the Republican, as
I really wanted that Democrat to lose.)
Having narrowed the choice down to Harris vs. Trump, arguments
that one candidate is better and/or one candidate is worse are
equally valid. This being American politics, "one candidate is
worse" arguments predominate. Lest you imagine there might be any
suspense here, Harris is the better option, while Trump is much
the worse.
And while the future is impossible to predict, the margins
overwhelm any imaginable uncertainty. Trump is especially known,
as we've actually experienced him as President. This doesn't
mean a second term will be just like his first: it could easily
be worse, for reasons we'll get into. Harris is harder to read.
Although she has much relevant experience, presidency offers
powers and temptations that she's never faced before, as well
as situations she's never had to deal with. This raises doubts,
which I will deal with in a separate list, following the "top
ten."
So, here are my top ten reasons to vote for Harris vs. Trump:
Donald Trump is a truly odious human being.
That's a personal, not a political judgment: sure, virtually all
of his political views stink, but most of the people who share
his political views have personal traits one can relate to,
respect, even appreciate. As far as I can tell -- and while
I only know what's been reported, I've been exposed to a lot
of that -- he has none. He seems totally miserable. If he's
ever laughed, it's been at someone else's expense. He lacks
even the slightest pretense of caring for anyone, even for
his wives or children (the prenups should have been a clue).
He's not unique in this regard, but most similar people are
easily ignored. The only way to free ourselves from Trump's
ever-present unpleasantness is to vote him off (like in the
"reality TV" shows he's a creature of).
Harris, on the other hand, can listen, and respond appropriately.
She has a generous and infectious laugh. And while I've never seen
her cry, she is at least cognizant of situations that call for a
show of concern and empathy. I don't particularly like the idea of
president as "handholder-in-chief," but it's better to have someone
who can feign that than someone who utterly cannot.
Such personal failings drive most people to
despair, which at least could be pitied, but Trump's inherited
wealth has provided him with an armor of callousness, which has
long elicited the warm glow of supplicants and sycophants. From
this, he has constructed his own mental universe where he is
adored and exalted. This has produced extraordinary hubris --
another of his distasteful traits -- but more importantly, his
narcissism has left him singularly unprepared to deal with reality
when it so rudely intrudes on his fantasy life (as happens all too
often when you're President).
I should note here that the collective embarrassment we so often
felt when witnessing Trump's failed attempts at addressing events
has dulled somewhat since he left office (need I remind you of
Hurricane Maria? -- just one of dozens of examples, ranging from
his staring into the eclipse to the pandemic). The only things that
have affected him that way since have been his indictments, but even
there he's been sheltered like no one else ever. There is no reason
to think that Harris wouldn't respond to events at least as well as
a normal politician, which is to say, by showing palpable concern
and deliberation. Trump's disconnect from reality is unprecedented.
(Good place to mention his election denialism.)
There is some debate as to whether Trump's wealth
is real, but even as it seems, that should be reason enough to disqualify
him. Only a few Presidents have come from the ranks of the rich, and
those who did -- like Washington, Kennedy, and the Roosevelts -- took
pains to distance themselves from their business interests. Back in
2016, Trump suggested he would give up his business ties, insisting
that his wealth made him more independent of corrupt influences, but
after he won, he backtracked completely, and ran an administration
that was outrageously corrupt -- especially at the top, where his
son-in-law's diplomacy netted him a billion-dollar private equity
fund, but his administration hired lobbyists to peddle influence
everywhere. One might argue that Trump's business was so large that
he couldn't possibly disentangle himself, but that's just part of
the reason why people like him shouldn't be allowed in politics.
Their inability to relate to ordinary Americans is another.
Aside from his abuse of executive power to staff
government with corporate agents, pack with courts with right-wing
cronies, and pardon numerous criminals in his circle, his record
for delivering on his 2016 campaign promises is remarkably thin: he
lost interest in things that might have been popular (like building
infrastructure, or "draining the swamp"). He also lucked out, when
a couple Republican defections saved the ACA, and then when Democrats
took Congress back in 2018. The only positive bill he signed was the
pandemic relief act, which he wanted desperately to save a flagging
stock market, but had to accept a mostly Democratic bill that helped
pretty much everyone.
Also, the full impact of many policies can take years before it
is felt. The repeal of Taft-Hartley in 1947 took decades before it
started to do serious damage to unions and workers (although it had
the immediate impact of ending a campaign to unionize in the South,
which would have been a big advance for civil rights). Deregulation
of savings & loans in the 1980s and larger banks in the 1990s
took most of a decade before triggering recessions. Much of what
Trump did during his term didn't blow up until after the 2020
election, including his killing of the Iran nuclear deal, his
agreement to give Afghanistan to the Taliban, and his Supreme
Court's overturn of Roe v. Wade.
Harris's ability to deliver on campaign promises will, as Biden's
has, depend much on the balance of power in Congress, but at least
Democrats have a track record of trying to pass laws to help most
Americans, and not just those favored by Republicans with their tax
and benefit cuts. Harris will be further hampered by the Republican
packing of the courts, but that's one reason why it matters not just
that Democrats win elections, but win big.
On the other hand, if Trump were more dedicated
in pursuit of the policy positions he espouses, or if he's just given
more power by a Republican Congress, he could (and probably would)
do much more harm in a second term, way beyond the still not fully
accounted for harm of his first. For starters, he has a much more
developed idea of what he wants to do -- not because he understands
policy any better, but because he has more specific goals in areas
that especially interest him -- and will hire more loyal operatives,
eager to carry out his wishes. This will be easier, because he's
already bent the party to his will, especially promoting its most
crazed cadres, while he himself has become further radicalized.
Moreover, he now has a long list of enemies to punish, while his
minions will be free to pursue their own grafts and obsessions.
We've already seen how he's turned the presidency into a cult of
personality. Give him more power -- not just in Congress but the
Supreme Court is ready to enshrine the "unitary executive theory" --
and he will only grow more monstrous.
Donald Trump is a shit stain on the face of America.
They say that wealth is power, and that power corrupts, absolute
power absolutely. America emerged from WWII with half of the world's
wealth, with troops spread to Europe and East Asia, and corporations
everywhere. America has been "breaking bad" ever since, starting in
the 1940s rigging elections in Italy, fighting communists in Greece
and Korea, overthrowing democratic governments in Guatemala and Iran,
replacing them with corporate-friendly autocrats. Still, even Reagan
expected good guys in white hats to win out, so he pretended to be
one, while the Bushes hid their conservatism behind fake compassion.
Trump is the first US president to give up all pretense. His fans
may mistake his contempt for candor, but the result is a much more
brutal world. He demands tribute from allies, lest they fall into
the ranks of enemies, who are expected to cower when faced with
overwhelming American might, and face escalating threats when they
refuse to fall in line. His is a recipe for neverending war, as
we've already seen with Russia and Iran, with Korea and China
waiting for the next break.
Nor are we only talking about foreign policy. The conservative
solution to domestic matters is also to rely on force, starting
with mass incarceration, eroding/stripping rights, smashing unions,
purging the civil service, quelling demonstrations, stifling free
speech, book bans, censoring the press, turning education into
indoctrination, rigging elections, even going so far as to incite
mobs and promise them immunity. While these impulses have long
been endemic to Republicans, Trump is unique in he wants you to
see and smell the feces, and that seems to be the basis for his
popularity among his hardcore constituency. This, with its embrace
of sheer power and rampant criminality, is what's so reminiscent
of the fascist movements of the 1930s.
Still, as bad as Trump is personally, the real
danger is that his election will bring a tidal wave of Republicans
into power all throughout the federal and local governments they
have pledged to debilitate and reduce, as Grover Norquist put it,
"to the size where I can drown it in the bathtub." (The less often
discussed ancillary idea is to hack off functions done by government
and give them away to the private sector. This almost never works.
When attempted, it almost always makes the functions more expensive
and/or less useful.) This is just one of
many deranged and dysfunctional ideas prevalent in the Republican
Party. Like most of their ideas, it's appealing as rhetoric, but
unworkable in practice. Republicans have repeatedly tried to reduce
government spending by cutting taxes on their donor class, but have
found little to actually cut -- even when they had the power to
write budgets -- so all they've produced is greater deficits, and
an inflated oligarchy.
They've had more luck at poisoning benefits, trying to make
government appear to be worthless. The idea is to convince voters
that voting is hopeless, because government will only take from
them, and never give back. The idea that the purpose of government
is to "provide for the general welfare" (that's in the Preamble to
the US Constitution) is inimical to them. The idea of "government
of, by, and for the people" (that's in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address)
is alien to those who hate most American people. Republicans created
a death spiral of democracy, which they hope will leave them in
permanent power, not to serve the public, but to prevent people
from using government for their own improvement.
Trump has added his own authoritarian quirks to the Republican
agenda, but the big risk to democracy has always come from money,
which Republicans have made sure selects candidates and drives
elections. Trump is less a cause of oligarchy than evidence of
how far it has progressed.
Two important concepts in economics are externality
(public costs that are not factored into product costs, such as
pollution) and opportunity costs (other things that we could spend
money on if we weren't preoccupied with given expenses). Republicans,
driven exclusively by their desire to help the rich get richer in the
here and now, and blind to the future, have no interest in these
concepts. Democrats are subject to the same donor pressures, but at
least recognize that such side effects are real and important. This
is because they try to recognize and balance everyone's welfare, and
not just that of their donors and voters.
Climate change is a good example of both: it is largely caused by
the waste products of fossil fuels, and can only be remedied by major
investment sooner rather than later. But people only see what gasoline
costs when they fill up, while the climate change they're contributing
to only manifests later, and mostly to other people. This gives them
little reason to spend now to avert future costs, so they don't.
Even as climate change has become a very tangible problem, Trump and
the Republicans have wrapped themselves ever deeper into a cocoon of
denial and ignorance, which ensures that as long as they're in power
we will never invest what we need to in sustainable infrastructure.
While a second Trump term could do a lot of immediate damage, its
long-term cost will largely be opportunity costs, as we belatedly
realize we didn't invest what we should have when it would have been
more effective.
It's impossible to overstate how completely Donald
Trump has taken over and perverted our culture, what philosophers
call our noosphere -- the mental universe, our ability to reason.
This may seem paradoxical given that few people on Earth are as
disengaged from and contemptuous of reason as Donald Trump, but
that may well be the source of his power. He has effectively given
his followers permission to disengage from other people, to eschew
reason and argument and indulge their own prejudices and fantasies,
because that's what he does, and he's so fabulously successful.
Moreover, it has the added benefit of driving crazy all those who
still worry about real problems (both their own and those of other
people), which they expect to deal with through science and reason.
(Such people often project their own mania back onto the Trumpers,
and reckon them to be saddled with problems, when they actually
seem to be quite blissfully serene in their obliviousness and/or
ignorance.)
Political scientists have a concept known as the Overton window,
which describes "the range of policies politically acceptable to
the mainstream population at a given time." Ideas outside the window
are dismissed as radical or even unthinkable, making it very hard to
get any sort of coverage, as the media limits itself to more widely
acceptable ideas. Events may push some ideas into the mainstream,
while discarding others. For instance, there was a time when eugenics
was all the rage, but no more. Climate change has become increasingly
mainstream, although there are still political interests out to kill
any such discussion. A big part of politics is fighting over what we
can and cannot talk about. What Trump has done has been to expand
the Overton window to the far right, legitimizing clusters of issues
that were previously regarded as baseless (like QAnon, antivax claims,
election denial). Perhaps the most disturbing of all has been Trump's
own criminal enterprises. These subjects, which at best distract from
real problems and often create more, would only grow under a second
Trump term.
I have no doubt that the bad policies advanced by Trump will blow
up and wind up discredited, but at a great waste of effort to stop
them, and a huge opportunity cost as we ignore constructive ideas
from the left. Even where Harris does not have good programs, which
certainly includes her continued fealty to Bush-Obama-Trump-Biden
(and Cheney?) foreign policy, her election would provide a much
healthier window for debate than what we'd be stuck with under
Trump.
It's time to turn the page on Trump and the era of
Fox Republicanism. Cloture on Trump is easy to imagine, as he's way
past his prime, increasingly doddering at 78, unlikely to ever run
again. Vote him out, and that's one problem America will never have
to deal with again. Not only would it give us a chance to heal, to
move on, to deal with our self-protracted problems, but it could be
the kindest result for Trump and even for his Party. Trump could cut
his plea deals and escape most of the legal jeopardy he's landed in.
The Party could finally recalculate, trying to find a way to compete
in the real world instead of trying to scam the rhetorical madness
that Fox created to profit from fear and rage. Moreover, by cutting
their losses, they'd escape much of the blame for the disasters their
preferred policies would inevitably lead to. Progress is inexorable,
so those who would resist it only have two choices: bend or break.
The Republicans' forty-year (1980-2020) era has done much damage to
the social and economic fabric of the nation. Some things have broken,
and many more are creaking. We might survive four more years of Trump,
but time is running out. And when things do break under Trump, beware
that no one will be more ill-prepared and incompetent at dealing with
them.
On the other hand, Harris, like most Democrats (even the nominally
left-wing of the party), doesn't represent visionary change, but she
is perceptive, analytical, and pragmatic, which suggests that she will
adapt to changing circumstances, and endeavor to make the best out of
them. She will be sorely tested by the influence of wealthy lobbyists,
by the superficial and sensationalist press, by the still powerful
remains of Republican power -- which while incapable of governing
competently let alone responsibly, is still a formidable machine for
amplifying grievances -- and by new challenges we haven't even been
able to think of yet (so mired are we in the ruins of bad Republican
politics, from Nixon and Reagan through the Bushes to their ultimate
self-parody in Trump, tempered ever so slightly by interim Democrats
who never got beyond patchwork repairs).
Of course, one can think of many more reasons, especially if you
tried to work from policies outward. I may do a separate document
where I read through Trump's "Agenda 47" and comment line-by-line.
Presumably there's a comparable Harris document somewhere, which
could also be scrutinized. From them, I might be able to come up
with a scorecard, but there's no chance of a different result. As
it is, I've concentrated less on issues and more on personalities
and political dynamics: Trump is at best muddled on issues, but
his shortcomings as noted are extremely clear.
Harris, as I noted, is harder to read, especially because for
tactical campaign purposes she has adopted a set of views that aim
to win over not just undecided/centrist voters but any Republicans
that Trump hasn't totally stripped of their decency yet. She's had
some success at that, although it remains to be seen how many actual
votes follow her celebrity endorsements. At this point, I don't see
any point in second-guessing her campaign strategy. Presumably she
has researched the electorate and knows much better than I do just
how to pitch them. If she loses, we'll have a field day dissecting
her mistakes -- which, for all the reasons mentioned above and many
more, may be the only fun we can have in the next four years.
But for now, let's assume she wins, and she runs her administration
along lines it is reasonable to expect. In that case, the left will
still have work to do and things to protest. So here are my:
Top 5 Reasons Electing Harris Won't Solve Our Problems
I ran across this synopsis recently: "There are converging
political, economic, and ecological crises, and yet our politics
is dominated by either business as usual or nostalgia for a
mythical past." Harris represents the party of "business as
usual," where "change" is acknowledged as inevitable, but is
guarded so as not to upset the status quo -- which may include
reforms to make it more tolerable, as not doing so would risk
more disruptive change.
While it didn't occur to me in listing the "top ten reasons"
above, one more strong reason is that Trump's "nostalgia for a
mythical past" -- the once-great America he aims to restore and
protect -- is not just incoherent but impossible, so much so that
his efforts to force the world back into his ideal alignment are
more likely to break it than to fix anything. Reducing America
to his chosen few would breed chaos and resentment, and collapse
the economy, destroying the wealth he meant to protect. Moreover,
his instinct to use force would only compound the damage.
It is ironic that while most of us on the left have grown wary
of revolution, many on the right, perhaps due to their embrace of
violence, have been seduced by the notion that might makes right.
If conservatism means wishing to keep things as they are, it is
the Democrats who are the true conservatives, while Republicans
have turned into flaming radicals, with Trump emerging as their
leader given his flamboyance and utter disregard for conventional
political thinking. As with the fascist movements of the 1930s,
many people are enthralled by this radicalism. Why such movements
have always failed, sometimes spectacularly, has yet to sink in --
although the connection does at long last seem to be entering the
mainstream media.
Democrats are still uncomfortable being the party of the status
quo. Many are nostalgic for the days when Republicans filled that
role, providing foils against which they could propose their modest
reforms -- which they've long needed to attract struggling voters.
The problem that Harris faces in 2024 is that the Trumpian romance
of reactionary revolution has become so attractive -- the backdrop
is the unprecedented extension of inequality over the last fifty
years, which has left most people feeling left behind -- and so
terrifying that she's fallen into the trap of defending the status
quo, making her seem insensitive to the real problems that we look
to candidates to help solve. Trump at least has answers to all the
problems -- wrong ones, but many people don't understand the details,
they're just attraction to his show of conviction, while they note
that Harris seems wary of pushing even the weak reforms popular in
her party.
She's banking on the status quo to save America from Trump and
the Republicans. If she wins her bet, she will win the election.
But then she'll have to face the more difficult task of governing,
where her limits could be her undoing. These five questions loom
large on the post-election agenda:
Perhaps most immediately, US foreign policy needs
a total rethink. US foreign policy took a radical turn shortly after
WWII, renouncing the "isolationist" past and assuming a militarily
as well as an economically interventionist stance. This was partly
a matter of filling the vacuum left by the war's global destruction,
and partly ambition. Beyond the battlefields, Europe's colonial
empires had become untenable, opening the door for businesses as
the hidden powers behind local rulers. As the alternatives were
communist-leaning national liberation movement, this soon turned
into the Cold War -- which was great news for the arms industry,
which along with oil and finance became a pillar of American
foreign policy. When the cold war receded, neocons came up with
more rationales for more conflicts, to keep their graft going.
Efforts at building international institutions (like the UN)
increasingly gave way to unilateral dictates: America First,
before Trump, who basically thinks of foreign policy as some
kind of protection racket, latched onto the term. There hadn't
been significant partisan differences in foreign policy since
the advent of the Cold War: all the Democrats who followed
Republican hawks (Reagan, the Bushes, even Trump in his own
peculiar way) did was to normalize their aggressiveness. Thus
Biden reaffirmed his support for Ukraine and Israel, as well as
his opposition to Russia, China, and the usual suspects in the
Middle East, which has (so far) blown up into two catastrophic
wars, while at the same time the US has made sure that world
organizations (like the UN) are powerless to intervene.
Harris seems to be fully on board with this: not only does
she support the current wars, she has gone out of her way to
ostracize so-called autocrats -- not the ones counted as allies
because they buy American arms but the others, the ones who make
their own (or buy from each other). This conventional thinking,
based on the notion that force projection (and sanctions) can
and will dictate terms for resolving conflicts, has a very poor
track record: it polarizes and militarizes conflicts, stokes
resentments, stimulates asymmetric responses (like terrorism),
while driving its targets into each others' clutches. Meanwhile,
the reputation the US once had for fairness is in tatters.
A new foreign policy needs first of all to prioritize peace,
cooperation, and equitable economic development. It should also,
where possible, favor social justice (albeit not through force,
which is more likely to make matters worse).
Restricting immigration is the one issue where
neo-fascist politicians seem to be gaining significant popular
support, in Europe as well as the US. Harris has chosen to lean
into the issue rather than oppose the Republicans, as had Biden
and Obama before her, not that any of their harsh enforcement
efforts have gotten any cooperation or compromise from Republicans,
who would rather milk this as a grievance issue than treat it as
a practical issue. Part of the problem here is that while many
voters will support Republicans just to vent rage, other voters
expect results from Democrats, and no matter what results they
hoped for, few are satisfied. The issue is complex and messy,
and Congress is unable or unwilling to pass any legislation to
help clear the mess. Which makes this an issue that will haunt
Harris indefinitely, no matter what she tries to do.
Personally, this is an issue I care little about either way.
What concerns me more is that the system be seen as fair and
just, that it is neither exploitative of immigrants nor that
it hurts the domestic labor market. I could see arguments for
limiting or for expanding immigration numbers. I do think that
the current backlog of non-documented immigrants needs to be
cleared up, which could involve clearing the path toward
naturalization and/or paying them to leave, but it needs to be
done in an orderly and humane manner, with clear rules and due
process. I've generally opposed "guest worker" programs (like
the one Bush tried to push through), but could see issuing green
cards as a stopgap measure. Harris will find it difficult to
navigate through this maze, but what would help is having some
clear principles about how citizenship should work -- as opposed
to just responding to Republican demagoguery.
I should also note that the biggest determinant of immigration
is foreign policy. Most people emigrate because they are dislodged
by war or ecological and/or economic distress, and those are things
that American foreign policy as presently practiced exacerbates.
Policies that resolve (or better still, prevent) conflicts, that
limit climate change, and/or that extend economic opportunities
would significantly reduce the pressures driving emigration.
Democrats under Biden made the first serious
legislative effort at addressing climate change ever, but the
structure of American politics makes it much easier to promote
the development of new technologies and products than it is to
do things like changing habits of fossil fuel use. Democrats
are so wedded to the idea of economic growth as the panacea
for all problems that they can't conceive of better lives lived
differently. How one can ever get to zero emissions isn't on
any agenda. Meanwhile, Republicans keep digging themselves ever
deeper into their tunnel of ignorance, so they have nothing to
offer but obstruction.
While prevention seems to be too much to ask of any Democratic
politician, they do still have a big advantage on disaster care.
Reagan's joke -- "The nine most terrifying words in the English
language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" --
is easily disproven every hurricane season, yet remains as sacred
dogma. Given that climate change has already happened, and is
playing out in cycles of increasingly uninsurable "natural"
disasters, it becomes imperative to elect a government that
cares about such problems, and regards it as its duty to help
people out. Harris will be tested on this, repeatedly.
Meanwhile, if you want to try out nine really terrifying
words, try these: "I'm a Republican, and Donald Trump is my
President."
There is one political issue that close to 90%
of all Americans could agree on, but it has no leadership and
little support in either major party, and that is the thoroughly
corrupt influence of money on politics. The situation has always
been bad, but got much worse in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled
in favor of unlimited corporate spending in Citizens United v. FEC.
Obama spoke out against the ruling, but did nothing to overturn it.
Rather, he easily outraised his opponents in 2008 and 2012, winning
twice. Biden and Harris have also raised much more money than Trump,
so while Republicans are the most steadfast supporters of campaign
graft, top Democrats also benefit from the system -- especially
against their real competition, which is other Democrats, who
might be tempted to campaign on issues that appeal to voters, as
opposed to having to spend all their time catering to the whims
of rich donors. The 2024 presidential election is by far the most
ridiculously expensive in history, which also makes it the most
tainted by special interests and their peculiar obsessions (like
Israel, which has kept both candidates from expressing any concern
about ongoing genocide). Breaking this mold is a golden opportunity
for some aspiring politician. Harris can't do it while she's still
campaigning, but it's not only wasteful, it diminishes trust in
everyone involved, and as such discredits the whole system.
The worst offenders, of course, are the billionaires,
many of whom -- starting with Elon Musk, the kind of immigrant that
even Trump can love -- has been especially conspicuous this year.
They are the beneficiaries of a wide range of laws and breaks that
allow a tiny number of individuals to accumulate obscene amounts
of wealth. And they use that wealth to steer government away from
any notion of public interest, to do their own bidding, and to
indulge their own fantasies. This extraordinary inequality -- far
beyond the historic highs of the Gilded Age and the Roaring '20s
(both, you may recall, ill-fated bubbles) -- is the single biggest
problem facing the world today. It may seem hypothetical, but it
lies beneath so many other problems, starting with the dysfunction
of government and politics, which is largely influenced by the
distortions of wealth. It extends worldwide, with inequality of
nations mirroring the inequality of individuals.
The problem with inequality isn't that some people have a bit
more than others. It's that such wide variations corrupt and
pervert justice. It's often hard to say just what justice is,
but it's much easier to identify injustice when you see it. In
highly stratified societies, such as ours, you see injustice
everywhere. It eats at our ability to trust institutions and
people. It diminishes our expectation of fair treatment and
opportunity. It raises questions about cooperation and even
generosity. It makes us paranoid. And once lost, trust and
security is all that much harder to restore.
There is no simple answer here. It needs to be dealt with
piecemeal, one step at a time, each and every day. It helps
to reduce gross inequality (which can be done by taxation).
It helps to reduce sources of inequality (which can be done
by regulation of business, by limiting rents, by promoting
countervailing powers, like unions). It also helps to reduce
the impact of inequality (which can be done by raising basic
support levels, by removing prices from services, by ending
means testing, by providing universal insurance, and when no
better solution is possible, by rationing). I don't expect
any politician, especially one who has proven successful in
the current system of extraordinary inequality, to go far
along these lines, but most people are at least aware of the
problem, and many proposals for small improvements are in
common discourse. Even if Harris doesn't rise to the occasion,
we should work to make sure her successors do.
While I think that Harris comes up short on all five of these
really important points, they in no way argue for Donald Trump,
even as a "lesser evil." He personifies modern inequality, Back
in 2016, he tried arguing that his wealth would allow him to run
a truly independent campaign, but that was just another lie. No
one in recent memory has been more obvious about selling favors
for financing. He is a climate change denier, and has shown
nothing but contempt for the victims of natural disasters. His
signature issue is his hatred of immigrants (excepting, presumably,
two wives and his sugar daddy, Elon Musk), where he puts even more
emphasis on performative cruelty than on effectiveness.
His take on foreign policy is slightly more . . . well, "nuanced"
isn't exactly right, more like "befuddled." It's hard to make a
credible case that he's anti-war when he puts such emphasis on what
a tough guy he is, on how no opponent would dare challenge him.
He has shown remarkably poor judgment in defense staffing, which
is only likely to get worse now that two of his former generals
have called him a fascist. He has no dealmaking skills, nor would
he hire someone who could negotiate (any such person would be
dismissed as a wuss). His "America First" schemes are designed
to strain alliances, and are more likely to break than not. He
delayed his deal to get out of Afghanistan so Biden would get
the blame. His handling of Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Iran-Saudi
Arabia directly contributed to the outbreak of war and genocide.
As I said, foreign policy needs a complete rethink. He's already
failed on several counts, starting with the need to think.
Late Monday night, I'm posting this, without any real sense of
where I'm at, how much I've looked at, and how much more I should
have considered. I have no introduction, and at this point can't
even be troubled to think up excuses. (Perhaps I'll write something
about that in tomorrow's Music Week -- assuming there is one: my
problem there isn't lack of records but no time, given other demands
and priorities.) One thing I am confident of is that there is a lot
of material below. Maybe I'll add more on Tuesday, but don't count
on it.
Got up Tuesday morning and before I could eat breakfast, let
alone open next week's file, I added several entries below, including
a Zachary Carter piece I had open in a tab but didn't get back to in
time.
Top story threads:
Israel's year of infamy: Given the hasty
nature of last week's
Speaking of Which, it was inevitable that I'd need another
week (or more) for one-year anniversary pieces.
Spencer Ackerman: [10-03]
The year after October 7th was shaped by the 23 years after September
11th: "9/11 gave Israel and the US a template to follow -- one
that turned grief into rage into dehumanization into mass death.
What have we learned from the so-called 'war on terror'?" That it
feels better to make the same mistakes over and over again rather
than learn from them? Worth noting that the US response to 9/11
was modeled on Israel's by-then-long war against the Palestinians
(recently escalated in the Sharon's counter-intifada, effectively
a reconquista against Palestinian Authority, which saved Hamas
for future destruction).
Haidar Eid: 10-13]
A vision for freedom is more important than ever: "We must focus
on the present as conditions in Gaza worsen daily, but a clear strategy
and political vision are crucial to inspire people around the world
as to what is possible."
A retaliatory military operation that many wizened pundits predicted
would last no more than a month or so has now thundered on in
ever-escalating episodes of violence and mass destruction for a year
with no sign of relenting. What began as a war of vengeance has become
a war of annihilation, not just of Hamas, but of Palestinian life and
culture in Gaza and beyond.
While few took them seriously at the time, Israeli leaders spelled
out in explicit terms the savage goals of their war and the
unrestrained means they were going to use to prosecute it. This was
going to be a campaign of collective punishment where every
conceivable target -- school, hospital, mosque -- would be fair game.
Here was Israel unbound. The old rules of war and international law
were not only going to be ignored; they would be ridiculed and mocked
by the Israeli leadership, which, in the days after the October 7
attacks, announced their intention to immiserate, starve, and displace
more than 2 million Palestinians and kill anyone who stood in their
way -- man, woman or child.
For the last 17 years, the people of Gaza have been living a
marginal existence, laboring under the cruel constrictions of a
crushing Israeli embargo, where the daily allotments of food allowed
into the Strip were measured out down to the calorie. Now, the
blockade was about to become total. On October 9, Israeli Defense
Minister Yoav Gallant warned: "I have ordered a complete siege on the
Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, food, or fuel; everything is
closed." He wasn't kidding.
This goes on for 14 more paragraphs, all deserving your attention,
before he descends into his usual plethora of bullet points -- dozens
of them, his attention never straying to the more pedestrian atrocities
he often (and compared to most others exceptionally) reports on. He
ends with this:
The war of revenge has become a war of dispossession, conquest and
annexation, where war crime feeds on war crime. Not even the lives
of the Israeli hostages will stand in the way; they will become
Israeli martyrs in the cause of cleansing Gaza of Palestinians. . . .
It's equally apparent that nothing Israel does, including killing
American grandmothers, college students, and aid workers, will trigger
the US government, whether it's under the control of Biden, Harris, or
Trump, to intervene to stop them or even pull the plug on the arms
shipments that make this genocidal war possible.
Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor: [04-24]
200 days of military attacks on Gaza: "A horrific death toll amid
intl. failure to stop Israel's genocide of Palestinians."
Oren Yiftachel: [10-15]
Is this Israel's first apartheid war? "Far from lacking a political
strategy, Israel is fighting to reinforce the supremacist project it
has built for decades between the river and the sea." The author thinks
so, while acknowledging the long history of war that preceded this
year's war:
While its eight previous wars attempted to create new geographical
and political orders or were limited to specific regions, the current
one seeks to reinforce the supremacist political project Israel has
built throughout the entire land, and which the October 7 assault
fundamentally challenged. Accordingly, there is also a steadfast
refusal to explore any path to reconciliation or even a ceasefire
with the Palestinians.
Israel's supremacist order, which was once termed "creeping" and
more recently "deepening apartheid," has long historical roots. It
has been concealed in recent decades by the so-called
peace process, promises of a
"temporary
occupation," and claims that Israel has "no partner" to negotiate
with. But the reality of the
apartheid project has become increasingly conspicuous in recent
years, especially under Netanyahu's leadership.
Today, Israel makes no effort to hide its supremacist aims. The
Jewish Nation-State Law of 2018 declared that "the right to
exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is
unique to the Jewish people," and that "the state views the
development of Jewish settlement as a national value." Taking
this a step further, the current Israeli government's manifesto
(known as its
"guiding
principles") proudly stated in 2022 that "the Jewish people
have an exclusive and inalienable right to all areas of the Land
of Israel" -- which, in the Hebrew lexicon, includes Gaza and the
West Bank -- and promises to "promote and develop settlement in
all parts of the Land of Israel."
My reservation here is that the "apartheid program" goes way
back, at least to 1948 when Israelis declared independence and
set up a separate judicial system for Palestinians in areas they
controlled, retaining it even after Palestinians became nominal
citizens of Israel. In effect, Israeli apartheid goes back to
the "Hebrew labor" concept adopted by Ben-Gurion's Histadrut
in the 1930s. (By the way, South Africa's
Apartheid laws were only formalized in 1950, although, as
with Israel, the roots of racist discrimination ran much deeper.
The ideas behind South Africa's legal thinking drew heavily on
America's Jim Crow laws, which were also notable sources for
Nazi Germany's race laws.) So what's new since October 7 isn't
apartheid, but the nature of the war, which has crossed over the
line from harsh enforcement to genocide: the purpose of which is
not just to punish Hamas for the insolence of rebellion, but to
purge Israel of all Palestinians:
Under the fog of this onslaught on Gaza, the colonial takeover of
the West Bank
has also accelerated over the past year. Israel has introduced
new measures of administrative annexation;
settler violence has further intensified with the backing of the
army;
dozens of new outposts have been established, contributing to the
expulsion of Palestinian communities; Palestinian cities have been
subjected to suffocating economic closures; and the Israeli army's violent
repression of armed resistance has reached levels not seen since the
Second Intifada -- especially in the refugee camps of Jenin, Nablus, and
Tulkarem. The previously tenuous distinction between Areas A, B, and C
has been completely erased: the Israeli army operates freely throughout
the entire territory.
At the same time, Israel has deepened the oppression of Palestinians
inside the Green Line and their status as
second-class citizens. It has intensified its severe restrictions
on their political activity through
increased surveillance,
arrests,
dismissals,
suspensions, and
harassment. Arab leaders are labeled "terror supporters," and the
authorities are carrying out an unprecedented wave of house demolitions --
especially in the Negev/Naqab, where the number of demolitions in 2023
(which
reached a record of 3,283) was higher than the number for Jews
across the entire state. At the same time, the police
all but gave up on tackling the serious problem of organized
crime in Arab communities. Hence, we can see a common strategy
across all the territories Israel controls to repress Palestinians
and cement Jewish supremacy.
Near the end of the article, the author points to
A Land for All: Two States One Homeland as an alternative,
and cites various pieces on
confederation. I'm not wild about these approaches, but
I'd welcome any changes that would reduce the drive of people
on both sides to kill one another.
[10-14]
Day 374: Israeli airstrike on Gaza hospital burns patients alive<:
"Israel bombed displacement shelters across Gaza and aid distribution
points in Jabalia, while Hezbollah intensified its fire on Haifa and
Tel Aviv amid Israel's continued bombardment of southern Lebanese
towns."
[10-21]
Day 381: Israel pummels northern Gaza amid intensifying extermination
campaign: "Israel's conditions for a ceasefire with Lebanon
include allowing the Israeli army to continue operating in Lebanese
territory. Meanwhile, Israel steps up its extermination campaign in
northern Gaza, targeting its last remaining hospitals."
David Dayen: [10-17]
In Israel, the war is also the goal: "Yahya Sinwar's death is
unlikely to change the situation in Gaza." This has long been
evident, but it's nice to see new people noticing:
That Netanyahu's personal and political goals vastly outweigh whatever
could resemble military goals in this war in Gaza by now has become a
cliché. Netanyahu wants to stay out of prison, and ending the war is
likely to place him there. So new missions and operations and objectives
sprout up for no reason.
Suddenly Bibi's party has mused about re-settling northern Gaza for
the first time in nearly 20 years, while transparently using
a policy of mass starvation as a way to implement it. . . .
The war has long passed any moment where Israel has any interest
in declaring victory, in the fight against terror or in the fight
for the security of its people. Even bringing up the fact of continued
Israeli hostages inside Gaza seems irrelevant at this point. The war
is actually the goal itself, a continuation of punishment to fulfill
the needs of the prime minister and his far-right political aims. The
annals of blowback indicate pretty clearly that incessant bombing of
hospitals and refugee camps will create many Yahya Sinwars, more than
who can be killed. That is not something that particularly burdens the
Israeli government. Another pretext would serve their continuing
interests.
Griffin Eckstein: [10-17]
Harris sees "opportunity to end" to Israel-Gaza war in Hamas leader
Sinwar's killing: Nice spin, especially after
Biden's me-too statement, but naive and/or disingenuous. Surely
she knows that the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't end with
regime change or the later deaths of Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar,
or Osama Bin Laden. Sure, those deaths seemed like good ideas at
the time, but by the time they happened many more people had been
killed, and more people rose from nowhere to fight back, and then
they too had to be killed, because once you -- by which I mean the
kind of people who lead countries and start wars -- start killing,
there's always more to do. Still, Harris deserves a nod for even
imagining that some other path is possible. Whether she deserves
it depends on whether she can follow through and act upon her
insight. Unfortunately, to do so would mean she has to develop
enough backbone to defy and put pressure on Netanyahu, which thus
far she hasn't risked.
Abdaljawad Omar: [10-21]
It was only their machines: on Yahya Sinwar's last stand:
"Yahya Sinwar's last stand laid bare Israel's weakness, exposing the
truth about its post-heroic army that only survives from a distance
and remains shielded by armor, unwilling to face its enemies head-on."
Steven Simon: [10-17]
The demise of Yahya Sinwar and his 'big project': "The Hamas
leader overestimated Israel's fractures and underestimated Netanyahu's
willingness to destroy Gaza." I'm not convinced that either of these
assertions are true. I tend to see his "big project" as an act of
desperation, aimed to expose Israel's brutality, as well as imposing
some measure of cost for an oppression that had become routinized
and uninteresting for most people not directly affected. It seems
highly unlikely that he underestimated Netanyahu's monstrosity,
although he might not unreasonably have expected that others, like
the US, would have sought to moderate Israel's response. But even
as events unfolded, Israel has done an immense amount of damage to
its international reputation, as has America. While it's fair to
say that Sinwar made a bad bet for the Palestinian people, the
final costs to Israel are still accumulating, and will continue
to do so as long as Netanyahu keeps killing.
Edo Konrad: [10-16]
The 'pact of silence' between Israelis and their media: "Israel's
long-subservient media has spent the past year imbuing the public
with a sense of righteousness over the Gaza war. Reversing this
indoctrination, says media observer Oren Persico, could take
decades." I've long been critical of US mainstream media sources
for their uncritical echoing of Israeli hasbara, but Israel --
where major media, 20-30 years ago, seemed to be far more open to
critically discussing the occupation than American outlets were --
has become far more cloistered. Consider this:
What Israeli journalists do not understand is that when the government
passes its
"Al Jazeera Law," it is ultimately about something much larger
than merely targeting the channel. The current law is about banning
news outlets that "endanger national security," but they also want
to give the Israeli communications minister the right to prevent any
foreign news network from operating in Israel that could "harm the
national morale." What the Israeli public doesn't understand is that
next in line is BBC Arabic, Sky News Arabic, and CNN. After that,
they're going to come for Haaretz, Channel 12, and Channel 13.
We are heading toward an autocratic, Orbán-esque regime and
everything that comes with that -- in the courts, in academia, and
in the media. Of course it is possible. It sounded unrealistic 10
years ago, then it sounded more realistic five years ago when
Netanyahu's media-related legal scandals blew up. Then it became
even more reasonable with the judicial overhaul, and even more so
today. We're not there yet, but we are certainly on the way.
[10-21]
Israel commits largest massacre yet in northern Gaza: "The siege
of north Gaza and Jabalia refugee camp enters its third week as Israel
has cut off aid to some 200,000 people. On Saturday, Israeli forces
bombed Beit Lahia, killing at least 80 Palestinians, in one of the
largest massacres in months."
Lebanon:
Dave DeCamp: [10-20]
Israel starts bombing banks in Lebanon: "The Israeli military is
targeting branches of al-Quard al-Hassan, which Israel accuses of
financing Hezbollah."
Adam Shatz: [10-11]
After Nasrallah. Long piece, lot of background on Nasrallah and
Hizbullah.
It's hard to see what strategy, if any, lies behind Israel's reckless
escalation of its war. But the line between tactics and strategy may
not mean much in the case of Israel, a state that has been at war
since its creation. The identity of the enemy changes -- the Arab
armies, Nasser, the PLO, Iraq, Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas -- but the war
never ends. Israel's leaders claim this war is existential, a matter
of Jewish survival, and there is a grain of truth in this claim,
because the state is incapable of imagining Israeli Jewish existence
except on the basis of domination over another people. Escalation,
therefore, may be precisely what Israel seeks, or is prepared to
risk, since it views war as its duty and destiny. Randolph Bourne
once said that 'war is the health of the state,' and Netanyahu and
Gallant would certainly agree.
[10-21]
Leaked documents show Israel's alleged plans for Iran attack:
"On October 18, two U.S. intelligence documents on a potential Israeli
attack on Iran were leaked, one describing shifting missile deployments,
and the other detailing possible Israeli rehearsals for a strike on
Iran."
Matt Duss: [10-17]
Yahya Sinwar's death can end this war: But it won't, because only
Netanyahu can end the war, and he doesn't want to, because there are
still Palestinians to dispossess and dispose of, and because Biden
isn't going to make it hard on him to continue. But sure, if one did
want to end the war, checking Sinwar off your "to do" list offers a
nice opportunity. On the other hand, negotiating a ceasefire with a
credible leader like Sinwar would have been even better. This piece
was cited by::
Mitchell Plitnick: [10-18]
No, the US is not 'putting pressure' in Israel to end its war:
"A letter from the Biden administration to Israel this week
threatening to possibly withhold weapons raised hopes among some,
but the delivery of a missile defense system and deployment of U.S.
soldiers sent the real message."
Sarah Leah Whitson: [09-27]
Shared zones of interest: "Harris and Trump's foreign-policy
aims in the Middle East proceed from the same incentive structures
and presuppositions about US supremacy." This is an important point,
which could be developed further.
There are two principal reasons for this. First, Harris and Trump's
worldviews are grounded in an article of faith that has undergirded
America's post-World War II foreign policy: maintaining U.S. hegemony
and supremacy. There is full agreement, as Kamala Harris recently
declared at the Democratic convention and reiterated in her debate
with former President Trump, that the U.S. must have the "most lethal"
military in the world, and that we must maintain our military bases
and personnel globally. While Trump may have a more openly mercenary
approach, demanding that the beneficiaries of U.S. protection in Europe
and Asia pay more for it, he is a unilateralist, not an isolationist.
At bottom, neither candidate is revisiting the presuppositions of U.S.
primacy.
Second, both Harris and Trump are subject to the overwhelming
incentive structure that rewards administrations for spending more
on the military and selling more weapons abroad than any other country
in the world. The sell-side defense industry has fully infiltrated the
U.S. government, with campaign donations and a revolving escalator to
keep Republicans and Democrats fully committed to promoting their
interests. The buy-side foreign regimes have gotten in on the pay-to-play,
ensuring handsome rewards to U.S. officials who ensure weapons sales
continue. And all sides play the reverse leverage card: If the U.S.
doesn't sell weapons, China and Russia (or even the U.K. and France)
will. There is no countervailing economic pressure, and little political
pressure, to force either Harris or Trump to consider the domestic and
global harms of this spending and selling.
In the Middle East, the incentive structure is at its most powerful,
combining the influence of the defense industry and the seemingly
bottomless disposable wealth of the Gulf States. And there are two
additional factors -- the unparalleled influence and control of the
pro-Israel lobby, which rewards government officials who comply with
its demands and eliminates those who don't; and Arab control over the
oil and gas spigots that determines the prices Americans pay for fuel.
As a result, continued flows of money, weapons, and petroleum will
ensue, regardless of who wins in November.
Whitson is executive director of Democracy for the Arab World
Now, after previously directing Human Rights Watch's Middle East
and North African Division from 2004 to 2020. Here are some older
articles:
Israel vs. world opinion: Although my
title is more generic, the keyword in my source file is "genocide,"
because that's what this is about, no matter how you try to style
or deny it.
Gabriel Debenedetti: Has a series of articles called
"The Inside Game":
[10-14]
David Plouffe on Harris vs. Trump: 'Too close for comfort':
"The veteran strategist on the state of play for his boss, Kamala
Harris, and what he thinks of the 'bed-wetters.'" He doesn't seem
to have much to say about anything, which may be what passes as
tradecraft in his world of high-stakes political consulting. It
does seem like an incredible amount of money is being spent on a
very thin slice of the electorate -- Plouffe is pretty explicit
on how he's only concerned with the narrow battleground states.
[09-15]
The WhatsApp Campaign: "Kamala Harris's team is looking for
hard-to-find voters just about everywhere, including one platform
favored by Latinos."
[10-02]
How Tim Walz saved himself: "At first, he looked overmatched by
JD Vance. Then came abortion, health care, and, above all, January 6."
John Morling: [10-21]
It is not too late for the Uncommitted Movement to hold Democrats
accountable for genocide: "The Uncommitted Movement voluntarily
gave up its leverage but it is not too late to hold Kamala Harris
accountable for supporting the Israeli genocide in Gaza." Yes, it
is too late. The presidential election is about many things, but
one thing it is not about is Israeli genocide. To insist that it
is overlooks both that Trump has if anything been more supportive
of genocide, and that while he was president, he did things that
directly connect to the Oct. 7 Hamas revolt, and to Netanyahu's
sense that he could use that revolt as a pretext for genocide.[*]
On the other hand, punishing Harris suggest that none of the real
differences between her and Trump matter to you. Most Democrats
will not only disagree, they will blame you for any losses.
[*] Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, abandoning a major
tenet of international law. Trump ended the Iran nuclear deal. And
Trump's invention of the Abraham Accords was widely considered as
a major factor in Hamas's desperate attack.
Andrew Prokop: [10-21]
The big election shift that explains the 2024 election: "Progressives
felt they were gaining. Now they're on the defensive." A new installment
in a
Vox series the point of which seems to be to tell leftists to go
fuck themselves. As with the Levitz piece (also
hereabouts), this article is half false
and half bullshit. The false part starts with the "gaining" -- the
success of the Sanders campaigns had less to do with ideological
gains (although he made some, and continues to do so) than with his
presentation of a non-corrupt alternative to a very corrupt system),
and the adoption of some progressive thinking by Biden had more to
do with the proven failures of much neoliberal thinking under Obama
and Clinton -- and continues with the "defensive": Sanders' decision
not to challenge Biden and (later) Harris was largely a concession
to age, as well as a gesture of party unity against Trump and the
increasingly deranged Republicans, but also a sense that Harris
would be at least as willing to work toward progressive ends as
Biden had been. That Harris, having secured the nomination with no
real opposition from progressives or any other faction or interest
group, should deliberately tack toward political orthodoxy may be
disappointing to a few of us -- and in the especially urgent matters,
like Israel's wars and genocide, we still feel the need to speak
out[*] -- but the "assignment" (to use Chait's wretched phrase) is
to win the election, and that involves reaching and convincing a
majority of voters, way more than just self-conscious progressives,
in an environment and culture that are severely warped by moneyed
interests and mass media doublespeak. I'm inclined to trust that
what she's saying is based on sound research and shrewd analysis
with that one goal in mind. She's the politician, and I'm just a
critic. If she loses, I'll take what little joy I can in dissecting
her many failings, but if she wins, I can only be thankful for her
political skills, at least for a few days, until her statements
move from vote-grubbing to policy-making, in which case we critics
will have a lot of expertise to offer.
As for the left, I'm more bullish than ever. Capitalism creates
a lot of benefits, but it is also a prodigious generator of crises
and chronic maladies, and it fuels political ideologies that seek
to concentrate power but only compound and exacerbate them. Anyone
who wants to understand and solve (or at least ameliorate) thsee
systemic problems needs to look to the left, because that's where
the answers are. Granted, the left's first-generation solutions --
proletarian revolution and communism -- were a bit extreme, but over
many years, we've refined them into more modest reforms, which can
preserve capitalism's advances while making them safer, sustainable,
and ultimately much more satisfying. Post-Obama Democrats haven't
moved left but at least have opened up to the possibility that the
left has realistic proposals, and have adopted some after realizing
that politics isn't just about winning elections, it's also about
delivering tangible benefits to your voters. (Obama and Clinton no
doubt delivered tangible benefits to their donors, but neglect of
their base is a big part of the reason Trump was able to con his
way into his disastrous 2016 win.)
No problems are going to be solved on November 5. What will be
decided is who (which team) gets stuck with the problems we already
have. Republicans will not only not solve any of those problems,
they -- both judging from their track record and from their fantasy
documents like
Project 2025 (or Trump's somewhat more sanitized
Agenda47 -- they will make them much worse for most people,
and will try to lock down control so they can retain power even as
popular opinion turns against them. Democrats will be hard-pressed
to solve them too, especially if they revert to the failed neoliberal
ideologies of the Clinton-Obama years. But when decent folk do look
for meaningful change, the left will be there, with understanding
and care and clear thinking and practical proposals. Left isn't an
ideology. It's simply a direction, as we move away from hierarchy
and oppression toward liberation and equality. It only goes away
when we get there.
[*] It's not like Communists did themselves any favors when in 1939,
when after Stalin negotiated his "pact" with Hitler, they stuck to the
party line and dropped their guard against Nazi Germany. Ben-Gurion
did much better with his 1939 slogan: "We shall fight in the war
against Hitler as if there were no White Paper, but we shall fight
the White Paper as if there were no war." He ultimately succeeded
on both counts.
David Weigel: [10-15]
No matter who wins, the US is moving to the right: Prokop
cites this piece, which argues that the rightward shift of 1980-2005
had been countered by a leftward drift from 2005-20, but since 2000
the tide has shifted back to the right. His evidence is superficial,
mostly polling on language that correlates weakly with left/right.
Biden may have talked more left in 2020 because he literally stole
the nomination from Sanders, and desperately needed to shore up
left support (which he managed to do). Harris got the nomination
handed to her on a platter, with virtually no dissent from the
left, so she's been free to wheel and deal on the right, for
whatever short-term margin it might bring. But nobody on either
side thinks she's more conservative or orthodox than Biden. That's
why Republicans are in such a panic, so unmoored from reality.
Stephen Rohde: [10-07]
Why the Uncommitted and Undecided should vote for Kamala Harris:
"In sharp contrast to the lawless dictatorship Trump promises in his
second term, I urge Undecided voters to examine how Harris would
preserve democracy and continue to strengthen the United States."
He also explains that "since Uncommitted voters care about the
humanity and self-determination of the Palestinian people, Harris
is their best choice."
[10-16]
Critiquing Trump's economics -- from the right: "What one of the
right's greatest thinkers would make of Trumponomics." On Friedrich
Hayek, who saw himself as a classical liberal, and who saw everyone
else even slightly to his left as marching on "the road to serfdom."
But nothing here convinces me he would have a problem with Trump --
he was, like most of his cohort, a big Pinochet fan -- let alone that
his opinion (having been wrong on nearly everything else) should matter
to me.
Philip Bump: [10-18]
Trump's age finally catches up with him: "The man who would (once
again) be the oldest president in history has reportedly scaled back
his campaign due to fatigue. So who would run his White House?"
Zachary D Carter: [10-16]
The original angry populist: "Tom Watson was a heroic scion of the
Boston Tea Party -- and the fevered progenitor of Donald Trump's violent
fantasies." Link title was: "They say there's never been a man like
Donald Trump in American politics. But there was -- and we should
learn from him." If you're familiar with Watson, who started out as a
Populist firebrand and wound up as a racist demagogue, it's probably
thanks to C Vann Woodward, if not his 1938 biography,
Tom Watson: Agrarian Rebel, then (as in my case) his 1955 book,
The Strange Career of Jim Crow. But this, of course, is mostly
about Trump.
Something important happened at the end of Trump's presidency and the
beginning of Joe Biden's. Nobody wants to talk about it -- not even
conservatives bring up masks and school closures anymore, and much of
the discourse surrounding inflation studiously avoids reference to the
massive economic disruption of COVID-19. But one of the most important
cultural artifacts of the period is the sudden spread of vaccine
skepticism to the cultural mainstream. The anti-vaxxer delusion that
vaccines cause autism has lingered at the fringes of the autism
community in no small part because it provides narrative meaning to a
difficult and random experience. There is tremendous joy in the life
of a special needs parent, but there is also a great deal of fear and
pain. Fear, because you do not know how the world will respond to your
child, and pain, because you must watch your child struggle for no
fault of their own. For many, it is more comforting to believe that
their child's hardships are not a random act of fate but a product of
deliberate malfeasance. The idea that bad things happen for bad
reasons is more palatable than the belief that they happen for no
reason at all.
It is not only anti-vaxxers who seek such comfort. Americans on
both the left and the right avert their eyes from the story of Tom
Watson not only because the story is ugly and violent but because we
insist on being able to control our own destiny. From Huck Finn to
Indiana Jones, American mythology tends to write its heroes as
variations on the story of David and Goliath -- tales of underdogs who
secure unlikely triumphs against an overbearing order. Even when that
order is part of America itself, individual heroism soothes the
audience with the promise that the world's wrongs can be righted with
enough derring-do. Horatio Alger's novels of children born into
poverty could be read as an indictment of the Gilded Age social order,
but the romance of these stories always lies in a boy taking fate by
the horns. Watson disturbs us not only because he turns to evil but
because an extraordinary leader's earnest, Herculean attempt to right
the world's wrongs comes up short. To win, he assents to the dominion
of dark forces beyond his control.
Chas Danner: [10-15]
Trump turned his town hall into a dance party after fans got sick.
This was much ridiculed by late night comics, so I've seen much of
Trump and Kristi Noem on stage, but very little of the crowd, which
is usually the definition of a "dance party." How did the crowd react
after his bumbling responses to five setup questions? It's hard to
imagine them thrilling to multiple versions of "Ava Maria," but it's
also hard to imagine them showing up for the information. I wonder
if Trump rallies aren't like "be-ins" in the 1960s, where crowds
assemble to associate with similar people and complain about the
others. Trump defines who shows up, but after that, does it really
matter what he says or does? This was a test case, but if you start
thinking everything Trump does or says is stupid, your confirmation
bias kicked in instantly, without raising the obvious next question,
why do crowds flock to such inanity? Or are they as stupid as Trump?
[10-18]
"Thirst for the spectacle of Trump's cruelty": Exploring MAGA's
unbreakable bond. Some time ago, I noted that there are two
basic types of Christians in America: those whose understanding
of their religion is to love their neighbors and seek to help them,
and those who hate their neighbors, and see religion as a way to
punish them for eternity -- it's no wonder that the latter group
have come to define Christian Republicans.
DaVega includes a long quote from Peter McLaren, then adds:
McLaren notes "Trump is speaking to an audience that since 2016
has come to share Trump's worldview, his political intuition, his
apprehension of the world, what the Germans call Weltanschauung
and has created a visceral, almost savage bond with the aspiring
dictator."
As the next step in Trump's dictator and authoritarian-fascist
plans, he is now embracing scientific racism and eugenics by telling
his followers that nonwhite migrants, refugees and "illegal aliens"
have bad genes, i.e. "a murder gene." Last Monday, Trump told
right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt that, "You know now, a murderer --
I believe this -- it's in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes
in our country right now." Take Trump's obsessions with good genes
and bad genes and couple them with his remarks about "purifying the
blood" of the nation by removing the human poison and other human
vermin. Historically, both in American society and other parts of
the world, people with the "bad genes" that Trump is so obsessed
with have been removed from normal society through imprisonment and
other means. Such targeted populations have also been subjected to
eliminationist violence and forced sterilization.
Sometimes I wonder if Trump's team doesn't just plant this obvious
Nazi shit to provoke recognition and reaction. They know that it
just sails past their own people, while it turns their opponents
into whiny hysterics droning on about stuff no one else understands.
Dan Froomkin: [10-20]
If Trump wins, blame the New York Times: "America's paper of
record refuses to sound the alarm about the threat Trump poses to
democracy." Sure, the Times endorsed Harris -- see [09-30]
The only patriotic choice for president -- but in such jingoistic
terms you have to wonder. Their opinion columnists are, as always,
artfully divided, but in day-to-day reporting, they do seem awfully
dedicated to keeping the race competitive (presumably the ticket to
selling more papers) and keeping their options open (as is so often
the way of such self-conscious, power-sucking elites). I've never
understood how many people actually take "the paper of record" all
that seriously. At least I've never been one.
Though braggadocio is a familiar Trump quality, much like his reluctance
to stick to his prepared remarks, he is arguably getting weirder -- and
more disturbing -- over time. Trump's speeches are so outlandish, so
false, that they often pass without much comment, as the New York
Times
reported earlier this month in a story about his age. Yet a change
is noticeable. "He rambles, he repeats himself, he roams from thought
to thought -- some of them hard to understand, some of them unfinished,
some of them factually fantastical," the Times noted, adding
that his speeches have become much longer on average, and contain
more negative words and examples of profanity than they previously
did.
Hassan Ali Kanu: [10-16]
Conservatives use Trump assassination to target women in anti-diversity
war: "It's a move to enshrine values into law, but it's not beyond
the realm of possibility." What? "The claim is one of reverse discrimination:
that the historically and presently male-dominated Secret Service
discriminates against men." Say whaaat?
[10-18]
Campaign official admits Trump "refusing interviews because he's
'exhausted'": "Trump has cancelled at least 11 campaign events
since August even as he accuses Kamala Harris of dodging media."
On the other hand, as best I recall, Trump surged in the polls in
2016 after his staff took away his Twitter handle, reducing
his exposure. So it's not clear to me that Trump gains much (other
than merch sales) from his appearances. Still, "exhausted" may not
be the message they want to convey.
Carlos Lozada: [10-13]
When Trump rants, this is what I hear: The author came to the
US when he was three, so technically he's an immigrant, a person
Trump makes rather gross generalizations about.
[10-11]
Donald Trump's campaign stops give away the game: "California and
New York are not battleground states so why is the campaign spending
time there in the final weeks?" I don't see an answer here, but I also
don't like the idea that one should only campaign in "battleground"
states. (Not that I mind that both sides take Kansas for granted: this
has been a remarkably quiet election here in Wichita, with only two
political signs out as I walk the dog around the block -- both, fwiw,
Harris/Walz.)
Chas Danner: [10-17]
Who won Kamala Harris's Fox News interview with Bret Baier?
What does "winning" even mean here? The more salient question is
who survived with their reputation intact? This is really just a
catalog of reactions, the final of which was "both sides got what
they wanted." Which is to say, if you missed it, you didn't miss
much.
David Dayen/Luke Goldstein:
Google's guardians donate to the Harris campaign: "Multiple
Harris donors at an upcoming fundraiser are representing Google
in its case against the Justice Department over monopolizing
digital advertising." I have to ask, is digital advertising
something we even want to exist? Competition makes most goods
more plentiful, more innovative, and more affordable, but if
the "good" in question is essentially bad, maybe that shouldn't
be the goal. I'm not saying we should protect Google's monopoly.
A better solution would be to deflate its profitability. For
instance, and this is just off the top of my head, you could
levy a substantial tax on digital advertising, collect most of
it from Google, and then redistribute much of the income to
support websites that won't have to depend on advertising.
Elie Honig: [11-18]
Kamala Harris has finally embraced being a cop: "The label hurt
her in 2019. Today she wears it like a badge." Reminds me a bit of
when Kerry embraced being a Vietnam War soldier. He didn't get very
far with that.
Robert Kuttner: [10-09]
Notes for Harris: "It's good that Kamala Harris is doing more
one-on-one interviews, because she's getting a lot better at it.
Still, she occasionally misses an opportunity." E.g., "Harris could
point out that the administration has made a difference by challenging
collusion and price-gouging, in everything from prescription drugs
to food wholesalers."
Matthew Stevenson: [10-18]
Harris: Speed dating Howard Stern: I was surprised last week
to find the "shock jock and satellite-radio wit" endorsing Harris
last week, probably because I have zero interest or curiosity in
him, and may know even less.
Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:
Avishay Artsy/Sean Rameswaram: [10-21]
Why Wisconsin Democrats are campaigning in places where they can't
win: "To win statewide, the party wants to "lose by less" in
rural areas." That's good advice everywhere. Especially as Democrats
actually have a better proposition for rural voters than Republicans
have.
Ed Kilgore: [10-19]
Four good reasons Democrats are terrified about the 2024 election:
I wasn't sure where to fire this, but the reasons turn out to mostly
reside in Democrats' heads. Nothing here suggests that Democrats are
more likely to lose. It's just that if they lose, the consequences
will be far worse than whatever setbacks Republicans might suffer in
another Trump loss:
Democrats remember 2016 and 2020
Democrats fear Trump 2.0 more than Republicans fear Harris
Only one party is threatening to challenge the election results
If Harris wins, she'll oversee a divided government; if Trump
wins, he'll have a shot at total power
Eric Levitz: [10-17]
The Democrats' pro-union strategy has been a bust: "Despite
Joe Biden's historically pro-union policies, the Democrats' share
of the union vote is falling." First question is: is this true?
(Actually, either "this": the falling vote share, or the "pro-union"
policies.) Second question is would be anti-union (like Republicans)
win or lose votes? Most of the people who are locked into Republican
positions (e.g., guns, abortion) are so distrustful of Democrats no
amount of pandering can move them, but giving up positions that are
popular among Democrats can lose face and faith, and that can hurt
you more than you can possibly gain, even if there is no meaningful
alternative. Third point is who cares? If standing up for unions is
the right thing to do, why equivocate with polling? We live in a
country where the rich have exorbitant power, where unions are one
of the few possible countervailing options. Extreme inequality is
corroding everything, from democracy to the fabric of everyday life.
More/stronger unions won't fix that, but they'll help, and that's
good in itself, as well as something that resonates with other
promising strategies. Fourth, if you're just polling union members,
you're missing out on workers who would like to join a union if
only they could. Are your "pro-union" policies losing them? Or
are they offering hope, and a practical path to a better life?
On some level, Democrats and Republicans are fated to be polarized
opposites, each defined by the other and stuck in its identity. A
couple more pieces on labor and politics this year:
Sharon Block/Benjamin Sachs: [10-16]
The truth about the parties and labor: "You need only look at
the state level to understand who supports workers and who doesn't."
Steven Greenhouse: [10-15]
Sean O'Brien's tantrum against the Democrats: "He appears to be
hoping for a Trump victory, which would be a disaster for the
Teamsters, but just maybe good for him."
Erik Loomis: [09-26]
Preserving public lands: "Deb Haaland has been a remarkable
secretary of the interior. But the future is about funding in
Congress."
Hassan Ali Kanu: [10-15]
America's judicial divisions: "Every major policy issue is now
also a courtroom battle, decided in increasingly partisan settings.
And there's no end in sight." This is a good overview of an effect
Millhiser has been writing about case-by-case for years: right-wing
plaintiffs and Red State attorneys general shopping for favorable
judges willing to impose horrific rulings on the rest of the nation.
Kacsmaryk's mifepristone ruling is just one glaring case example.
Ian Millhiser:
[10-16]
The nightmare facing Democrats, even if Harris wins: "If Harris wins,
the Republican Party will almost certainly be able to veto anything she
does, thanks to our broken Constitution." She'll also have to contend
with thousands of lobbyists, including many with hooks deep into her
own party -- and given her billion dollar campaign warchest, most likely
into her as well -- as the Constitution isn't the only thing broken in
American politics.
Alex Abad-Santos: [10-11]
For some evacuation defiers, Hurricane Milton is a social media
goldmine: "They didn't listen to Hurricane Milton evacuation
orders. Then they posted through it." This reminds me of the hype
that "shock and awe" would win the war against Iraq, because all
it would take is one awesome demonstration of force to get Iraqis
to drop their arms and surrender. Problem was: the people who were
truly shocked were dead, and the rest survived not just the bombs
but the hype, making them think they were invincible.
Robert Kuttner: [10-15]
How hurricanes are a profit center for insurers: "To compensate
for exaggerated expectations of claims, they jack up rates and hollow
our coverage, giving themselves more profit than before." As long
as the market will bear it, and up to the point when they really do
go bankrupt. This is, of course, the kind of profiteering business
schools teach their students to be shameless about.
Business, labor, and Economists:
Dean Baker: Quite a bit to catch up with here, as
he always has good points to make. In trying to figure out how
far I needed to go back, I ran across this tweet I had noted:
"Part of the job of a progressive government is to shift the
public narrative towards the idea that the state can improve
people's lives." I'll add that the point here is not to convince
you that government is good or benign, but that it belongs to
you and everyone else, and can be used to serve your interests,
as far as they align with most other people (or, as the US
Constitution put it, to "promote the general welfare, and secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"). While
progressives initially do this by advancing reasoned argument,
they also need to put it into practice whenever possible, and
actually do things to "promote the general welfare and secure
the blessings of liberty." You hear much about "democracy" these
days, but knows this: democracy makes good government possible,
but only works if/when people realize they have the power to
direct it. Also, make sure to check out Baker's free book,
Rigged.
The New York Times picks an atypical worker to tell a story
about a divided economy.
It's hard for recent college grads to find jobs even when
their unemployment rate is near a twenty-year low.
The two-full time job measure of economic hardship
The retirement crisis
The collapsing saving rate
Young people will never be able to afford a home
He adds:
Those are my six favorites, but I could come up with endless more
pieces, like the CNN story on the family that drank massive amounts
of milk who suffered horribly when milk prices rose, or the New York
Times piece on a guy who used an incredible amount of gas and was
being bankrupted by the record gas prices following the economy's
reopening.
There are also the stories that the media chose to ignore, like
the record pace of new business starts, the people getting big pay
increases in low-paying jobs, the record level of job satisfaction,
the enormous savings in commuting costs and travel time for the
additional 19 million people working from home (almost one eight
of the workforce).
The media decided that they wanted to tell a bad economy story,
and they were not going to let reality get in the way.
[09-26]
The economy after the GDP revisions: "Basically, they tell us
a story of an economy that has performed substantially better since
the pandemic than we had previously believed."
The highlights are:
An economy that grew substantially more rapidly than previously
believed and far faster than other wealthy countries
Substantially more rapid productivity growth, suggesting more
rapid gains in wages and living standards and a smaller burden of
the national debt;
Higher income growth than previously reported, with both more
wages and more profits;
A higher saving rate, meaning that the stories about people
having to spend down their savings were nonsense.
There were also a couple of not-so-good items:
A higher profit share that is still near a post-pandemic peak;
A lower implicit corporate tax rate, although still well above
the 2019 level.
[10-05]
Automation is called "productivity growth". As he points out,
productivity growth was long regarded as a universal good thing,
until the 1980s, when businesses found they could keep all of the
profits, instead of sharing with workers.
Anyhow, this is a big topic (see Rigged, it's free), but the
idea that productivity growth would ever be the enemy is a bizarre
one. Automation and other technologies with labor displacing potential
are hardly new and there is zero reason for workers as a group to fear
them, even though they may put specific jobs at risk.
The key issue is to structure the market to ensure that the benefits
are broadly shared. We never have to worry about running out of jobs.
We can always have people work shorter hours or just have the government
send out checks to increase demand. It is unfortunate that many have
sought to cultivate this phony fear.
I will say that by any historical standard the labor market is doing
pretty damn good. It could be better, but a low unemployment rate and
rapidly rising real wages is a better story than any incumbent
administration could tell since -- 2000, oh well.
I would put more stress here on "it could be better" than on the
seemingly self-satisfied "pretty damn good." I'd also stress the
options: that Republicans and business lobbyists have obstructed
reforms that would help more (and in some cases virtually all) people,
and that the key to better results is electing more Democrats -- who
may still be too generous to the rich, but at least consider everyone
else.
[10-14]
CNN tells Harris not to talk about the economy. CNN is not
the only "neutral news outlet" to have persistently trashed the
economic success of the Biden-Harris administration, but they
have been particularly egregious. It's almost as if they have
their own agenda.
The goal for Democrats in pushing their many economic successes
(rapid job creation, extraordinarily low unemployment, real wage
growth, especially at the lower end of the wage distribution, a
record boom in factory construction) is to convince a small
percentage of the electorate that this is a record to build on.
By contrast, Donald Trump seems to push out a new whacked out
proposal every day, with the only constants being a massive tax
on imports and deporting a large portion of the workforce in
agriculture and construction.
Given the track record of the Biden-Harris administration
compared with the craziness being pushed by Donald Trump, it is
understandable that backers of Donald Trump would not want Harris
to talk about the economy. But why would a neutral news outlet
hold that view?
Sarah Jones: [Fall 2024]
In the shadow of King Coal: "While the coal industry is in terminal
decline, it still shapes the culture of central Appalachia."
Robert Kuttner: [10-18]
Redeeming the Nobel in economics: "This year's prize went to three
institutionalist critics of neoliberalism. The award is overdue."
Daren Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A Robinson. The latter two
were co-authors with Acemoglu of books like Why Nations Fail: The
Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (2012), and Power and
Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity
(2023). Johnson was also co-author, with James Kwak, of one of the
first notable books to come out of the 2008 financial meltdown: 13
Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown
(2010).
Van Jackson: I just ran across him today, but he has
several books I should have noticed by now, and a Substack newsletter
that I'll cite below. He describes himself as "a one-time 'defense
intellectual' and a longtime creature of the national security state,"
but also "on the left," albeit only in a "vague cosmopolitanism and
an antiwar sensibility, yet reflexively in support of the going
concerns of the Democratic Partly, including (paradoxically) military
primacy."
Whizy Kim: [10-16]
Is every car dealer trying to rip me off? "Why buying a car is
the worst kind of shopping." Cited here because after 18 years I'm
in the market for a new car, and because I've been for 2-3 years
without ever managing to put the time and effort into it. I've only
bought one used and four new cars in my life, and the new car I
spent the least time shopping for was by far the worst -- the
others were pretty good deals on pretty good cars. But I've seen
a lot of crap like this, and it pays to beware.
Fred Kaplan: [10-15]
Bob Woodward's latest book tells the story of America's declining
leverage in the world. Link title was "Bob Woodward's new book
is about Biden, but the most urgent takeaways are about Trump."
This is just more proof of the truly ridiculous extent to which
Trump has dominated our minds since 2015. Nearly four years out
of office, it still feels like he's the incumbent, to no small
extent because most of our regrets and great fears of the moment
are directly traceable back to him, but because of his amazing
(and I'll use the word "ridiculous" again here) domination of
the noosphere (apologies for using a word almost everyone will
have to look up, so I can at least save you that trouble: per
Merriam-Webster: "the sphere of human consciousness and mental
activity especially in regard to its influence on the biosphere
and in relation to evolution"). In short, he's in our heads, as
intractable as an earworm, and several orders of magnitude more
disturbing. I've been struggling with trying to narrow down "the
top ten reasons for voting for Harris against Trump," but number
one has to be: MAKE IT STOP!
Returning to the book, Kaplan writes a bit about Biden:
Woodward's style of storytelling is more episodic than structural.
Chapters tend to run for just a few pages. His mantra tends to be
"And then . . . and then . . . and then . . . " as opposed to "And
so . . . and so . . . and so . . ." Still, the stories here hang
together, more than they usually do, because of their underlying
thread -- as the title suggests, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and
how Biden and his team dealt with them.
For the most part, Woodward is impressed, concluding that they
engaged in "genuine good faith efforts" to "wield the levers of
executive power responsibly and in the national interest," adding,
"I believe President Biden and this team will be largely studied in
history as an example of steady and purposeful leadership."
Needless to say at this point, I disagree with nearly everything
that Biden has done in the foreign policy arena, but Woodward's
wording here -- "good faith efforts," "steady and purposeful
leadership" -- betrays the subtext, where the baseline for praise
is "at least he's not Trump." So I can get the point, without
having to agree with the particulars. Kaplan continues:
This is an uncharacteristically bold assertion for any author, much
less Woodward, who, throughout his 50-year career, has been the less
judgmental half of the Woodward and Bernstein team that broke the
Watergate scandal and brought down Richard Nixon. In a
Playboy interview back in 1989, he admitted that analysis wasn't
his strong point; it still isn't. But heading into his ninth decade,
with nearly two dozen books under his belt, it seems he feels entitled --
properly so -- to render some verdicts from journalism's high bench.
He dangled his new assertiveness in 2020, on the eve of that year's
election, when he wrote, as the last line in Rage, "Donald Trump is the
wrong man for the job." The next year, after Trump's defeat, he ended
Peril by musing, "What is your country? What has it become under
Trump?"
And even in War, where Trump plays a cameo role as he mulls
making another run for the White House, Woodward declares, just before
touting Biden's legacy, "Donald Trump is not only the wrong man for the
presidency, he is unfit to lead the country."
Meme quote from Michelle Wolf: "You know in High School if you
didn't believe in Science or History, it was just called failing."
I got this from a Facebook
thread, with several interesting comments, including this one from
Clifford Ocheltree:
I shall only point to an earlier remark, the failure of our educational
system to teach critical thinking. To be skeptical in the absence of
that learned skill is pure ignorance. I would add that perception plays
a critical role in how an uneducated populace becomes 'skeptical,'
'credulous' and 'easily duped.' We are, we have become, the product of
a failed educational system. One in which the vast majority of the
population cannot read directions on a bottle of aspirin or name the
three branches of the Federal Government. These failures allow both
parties to play fast and loose with history and science knowing full
well the audience isn't likely to 'get it.'
Ocheltree also addressed history: "History is the interpretation
of fact by 'experts' who bring their own bias." Someone else picked
this up, noting "I can't help laugh at the notion of your feigning
disdain for history" then asking "why do you lap up so many history
books?" Ocheltree replied:
Fact and history are not the same thing. Most 'experts' (historians)
have a bias and view 'facts' through that lens. Nearly 50 years ago
I read an excellent book by Frances Fitzgerald, "America Revised:
History Schoolbooks in the Twentieth Century" (1979). A discussion
and analysis of how history teaching and texts had changed over the
years. At times the result of new information coming to light and
at others the outgrowth of changing social standards or political
leanings. Some 20 years ago I discovered some 'facts' while researching.
Trial testimony with supporting documentation (original records) in
a Virginia court house basement. At a conference I had some time to
speak with the author of the leading text(s) being used on the topic
by any number of colleges. I shared my findings, privately, as they
disproved a good chunk of his work. His response in short? Nobody
will give a shit that I was wrong, my text is the accepted standard
and will always be paramount because it makes my point.
I would add, history and record reviews are much the same. The
author collects 'facts,' the critic listens. Each applies his/her
own bias. The idea that anyone would accept an authors' work(s) as
'unbiased' strikes me as a failure of our education system. Steven
Pinker's recent work has focused on the utter lack of training
students in the basics of critical thinking. I 'lap up' history
books with a jaundiced eye. I love the topic but learned many
years ago, just because a book has been issued isn't 'proof' that
it is accurate.
Hardin Smith, who started this thread, added:
Who said fact and history are the same thing? I sure didn't. But
that doesn't mean it's not worth studying and it doesn't mean that
it doesn't behoove people to have a working knowledge of it. And
certainly you'd agree that there are certain things that we can
all agree on, or at least on the general outlines. Here's a question:
if so much of what you read is biased, whose work are you using to
make that judgment? Is there a higher unbiased source you go to?
And, are there certain historical events that we can all agree to?
The Holocaust, the Moon Landing, Trump's loss in '20? Or is everything
in your world subjective opinion? Also, history is not like record
reviews, sorry. Record reviews are totally based on opinion, but
though there may be bias, history at least concerns itself with
actual facts. It's a subjective interpretation of actual facts.
There's never completely removing bias in anything produced by
humans, but I'd submit to you that some are more biased than others.
Some are relatively free of bias. None of it means that history
isn't worth knowing.
It's tempting to go all philosophical here, and argue that it's
all biased, all subjective, at best assertions that are subject to
independent verification -- same for record reviews, although the
odds of being rejected by other subjectives there are much elevated
compared to science, which has a longer history of refinement and
consensus building (not that similar processes don't apply to record
reviewing). Still, not much disagreement here. Smith seems to find
it important to maintain a conceptual division between opinion and
fact, between subjective and objective, which I find untenable and
not even necessary (although it's easy to fall into when arguing
with idiots -- which is why Wolf's joke is so cutting).
This leads us back to the importance of critical thinking,
which is ultimately a process of understanding one's own biases --
starting, of course, with exposing the biases of others. (Much
like crazy people developed psychoanalysis to understand, and
ultimately to master, their own neuroses.)
Ali Abunimah: [10-21]
In April, under pressure from "Israel," @amazon banned the sale of
The Thorn and the Carnation, the novel by Palestinian resistance
leader Yahya Sinwar.
You can still buy copies of Hitler's Mein Kampf from Amazon,
in multiple languages.
I had the thought of writing up a "top ten reasons for voting for
Kamala Harris and the Democrats this year," but haven't gotten much
further than considering the possibility of adding a second list of
"top five reasons why voting for Kamala Harris and the Democrats
won't be enough." The former is obviously dominated by how bad the
Republican offerings are, although you still have to establish that
at least in some significant respects, Democrats are preferable. If
you can't show that, you can't reject the "third party" option. The
second list might even help there, in that most of my reservations
are about programs that don't go far enough. The exceptions there
are Israel/Palestine and Russia/Ukraine, where Harris doesn't go
anywhere at all.
So while I have zero doubt that I will vote for Harris/Walz, and
most likely for every other Democrat who bothers to run here in Kansas,
I've spent most of my time here dealing with the pressing issues of
war, which the election will have little obvious impact on. The best
hope I can offer is a mere hunch that Harris has locked herself into
a Netanyahu dittohead position out of the calculated fear that any
sign of wavering might precipitate a sudden pro-Israel shift toward
Trump, and scuttle her campaign, but that once she wins, she'll have
more room to maneuver behind the scenes, and ease back toward the
more viable ground of decency. In any case, decency isn't even an
incidental prospect with Trump.
Monday night, I ended this arbitrarily, with little sense of how
much more I didn't get to.
Israel's media have acted this way for years. They conceal the
occupation and whitewash its crimes. No one orders them to do this; it
is done willingly, out of the understanding that this is what their
consumers want to hear. For the commercial media, that is the top and
foremost consideration. In this way Israel's media have become the
most important agent for dehumanization of the Palestinians, without
the need for censorship or a government directing it to do so. The
media take on this role in the knowledge that this is what their
customers want and expect of it. They don't want to know anything
about what their state and army are carrying out, because the best way
to be at peace with the reality of occupation, apartheid and war is
with denial, suppression and dehumanization.
There is no more effective and tried means to keep alive an
occupation so brutal and cruel as dehumanization via the
media. Colonialist powers have always known this. Without the
systematic concealment, over dozens of years, and the dehumanization,
it may well be that public opinion would have reflected greater
opposition to the situation among Israelis. But, if you don't say
anything, don't show anything, don't know anything and have no desire
to know anything, either, if the Palestinians are not truly human --
not like us, the Israelis -- then the crime being committed against
them goes down easier, can be tolerated.
The October 7 war brought all of this to new heights. Israel's media
showed almost nothing of what was happening in Gaza, and Israelis saw
only their own suffering, over and over, as if it was the only
suffering taking place. When Gazans counted 25,000 fatalities in less
than four months, most of them innocent noncombatants, in Israel there
was no shock. In fact, shock was not permitted, because it was seen as
a type of disloyalty. While in Gaza 10,000 children were killed,
Israelis continued to occupy themselves exclusively with their
captives and their own dead. Israelis told themselves that all Gazans
were Hamas, children included, even the infants, and that after
October 7, everyone was getting just what they deserved, and there was
no need to report on it. Israelis sank into their own disaster, just
theirs.
The absence of reporting on what was happening in Gaza constituted
the Israeli media's first sin. The second was only slightly less
egregious: the tendency to bring only one voice into the TV studios
and the pages of the printed press. This was a voice that supported,
justified and refused to question the war. Any identification with the
suffering in Gaza, or worse, any call to end the war because of its
accumulating crimes, was not viewed as legitimate in the press, and
certainly not by public opinion. This passed quietly, even calmly, in
Israel.
In Israel, people were fine with not having to see Gaza. The Jewish
left only declined in size, great numbers of people said they had the
scales removed from their eyes -- that is, October 7 led to their
awakening from the illusion, the lies, the preconceptions they had
previously held. It was sufficient for a single cruel attack for many
on the left to have their entire value system overturned. A single
cruel attack was sufficient to unite Israelis around a desire for
revenge and a hatred not only of those who had carried out that
attack, but of everyone around them. No one considered what might be
taking place in the hearts and minds of the millions of Palestinians
who have been living with the occupation's horrors for all these
dozens of years.
What kind of hatred must exist there, if here in Israel such hatred
and mistrust could sprout up after a single attack, horrific as it may
have been. This "waking up" among the left has to raise serious
questions about its seriousness and resilience. This wasn't the first
time that the left crumbled in the face of the first challenge it
encountered.
I've long been struck by the fickleness of the "peace camp" in
Israel: in particular, by how quickly people who should know better
rally behind Israeli arms at the slightest provocation. Amos Oz
and David Grossman are notorious repeat-offenders here, but the
effect is so common that it can only be explained by some kind of
mass psychology so deep-seated that it can be triggered any time
some faction sees an opportunity for war.
Top story threads:
Israel's year of infamy:
Mondoweiss: A
website founded by Philip Weiss which has moved beyond its origins
as a vehicle for progressive Jews to express their misgivings about
Israel by providing an outlet for a wide range of Palestinian voices,
this has long been my first stop for news about Israel/Palestine, and
has been extraordinarily invaluable over the past year. Here's their:
Palestinians reflect: One year of genocide:
Michael Arria: [10-10]
A year of genocide, a year of protest: "Despite the horror we
are watching unfold in Palestine, the movement challenging Israel
has seen unprecedented growth and accomplishments in the past
year." A reminder that every action produces a reaction -- perhaps
not "opposite and equal," but things have a way of settling out
over time.
It has exposed the enduring colonial nature of international law
This is a U.S. genocide of Palestinians
Universities are an extension of the state's coercive apparatus
Zionism has no moral legs to stand on
Racism and power -- the invisibility and power of Palestinians
Tareq S Hajjaj: [10-07]
After October 7, my home became a bag I carry with me: "I have
lived through my own Nakba and understand why thousands of Palestinians
fled their homes in 1948. I made the most difficult decision of my life
and left Gaza, not knowing that what I carried might be all I will ever
possess of my homeland."
Reem A Hamadaqa: [10-07]
My martyrs live on: "Out from under the rubble, I see my martyrs
waving for me. They all stand again. They smile. They live. They go
back home."
Hebh Jamal: [10-10]
The Gaza I knew is gone with our martyrs: "We do not fight for
Palestine for our family. I am no longer clinging to the hope of
reunification and survival. We fight for Palestine because the
liberation of its people means the liberation of us all."
Ghada Karmi: [10-08]
The true lesson of October 7 is that Israel cannot be reformed:
"The year since October 7 has shown us that Israel can neither
be accommodated nor reformed. It must be dismantled, and Zionism
must be brought to an end. Only this will finally alleviate the
Palestinians' terrible ordeal over the past 76 years." This is
an argument that I instinctively dislike and recoil from, but I
do take the point that it is incumbent on Israelis to show that
they are open to reform, the first step to which would be the
recognition that they have done wrong, and the resolve to stop
doing so, and to start making amends. Whether they can salvage
some sense of Zionist legacy is an open question. The strands of
thought and culture that drove Israel to genocide are woven deep
in their history, and won't be easy to dispose of, but I wouldn't
exclude all hope that Israel might recover.
Qassam Muaddi: [10-09]
After a year of extermination, Palestine is still alive:
"Palestinians have endured 76 years of the Nakba and now the 2024
genocide. Despite Israel and the West's desire to erase our existence,
we continue to declare, 'We won't leave.'"
Salman Abu Sitta: [10-07]
From ethnic cleansing to genocide: "I am a survivor of the 1948
Nakba who lived to witness the 2024 genocide. I may not live to see
justice be made, but I am certain our long struggle will be rewarded.
Our grandchildren will live at home once again."
Alice Austin: [10-07]
A year after the Nova massacre, survivors are still paralyzed with
grief: "The Nova festival was the site of October 7's largest
massacre. Now, survivors and the families of those murdered are
suing the state for negligence." One section head here is in quotes:
"It's impossible to heal, because it's never-ending." But the
massacre itself ended almost as quickly as it started. What has
never ended has been the political use and psychological abuse
of that massacre as a pretext for genocide. End that, and everyone
can start healing.
Ramzy Baroud: [10-11]
A year of genocide. "No one had expected that one year would be
enough to recenter the Palestinian cause as the world's most pressing
issue, and that millions of people across the globe, would, once
again, rally for Palestinian freedom." In some limited sense that
may be true, but I don't see how it works out. Not for lack of
trying, but those "millions of people" haven't been very effective,
nor is their fortune likely to change.
Since October 7, organizations of the American Jewish establishment,
like the Jewish Federations and the Anti-Defamation League, have
weaponized our grief, decontextualized it, promoted falsehoods about
what happened that day, and deployed Israeli propaganda talking
points to justify a genocidal onslaught against the Gaza Strip.
Within days of October 7, Israeli political and military leaders
publicly declared their intention to exact vengeance by destroying
Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip. Leading with a campaign of
mass bombing in densely populated areas that could only result in
massive civilian deaths, they have done so. Israel's conduct of the
war does not conform to any reasonable definition of self-defense.
The second half of the piece is devoted to relatively old history,
especially an event in 1971, which leads into the final paragraph:
The January 2, 1971 attack on the Aroyo family and Israel's brutal
response to it prefigure, albeit on a much smaller scale, the events
of October 7, 2023 and their aftermath. Shlomo Gazit was correct.
Israeli security cannot be achieved by committing war crimes and
ethnic cleansing. Palestinian liberation cannot be achieved by
murdering civilians.
Helen Benedict: [10-03]
Ending the cycle of revenge: "Bereaved Israelis and Palestinians
use their grief to advocate for reconciliation and peace together."
Robert Grenier: [10-05]
How Israel's brutal war strategy has remade the Middle East:
"Israel set out to reestablish military superiority. It succeeded --
at catastrophic human cost." Article misses the obvious question,
which is why "military superiority" matters to anyone other than
the military budget makers, as well as why the Hamas attack on
October 7 made them think they had something to prove. As for
"remaking the Middle East," it really looks much like it did just
over a year ago, except for the humanitarian crisis which Israel
itself is solely responsible for. (Sure, blame America for aiding,
but had Israel not wanted to launch its multi-front war, Americans
would have bowed and scraped just the same.)
Anis Shivani: [10-11]
Israel won: I considered pairing this piece with Baroud (above)
as a sobering counterpoint, but it has its own problems. While
Palestinians have lost much, it's hard to say what (if anything)
Israel has won. Also, he seems to be stuck on the notion that
the US is the architect of Israel's foreign policy, whereas the
opposite seems much closer to the truth.
Last year,
images and
video of the survivor of the October 7, 2023, strike in Abasan
Al-Kabira, 11-year-old Tala Abu Daqqa, circulated online. In a short
video, the young girl -- her face peppered with tiny cuts -- appears
glassy-eyed, broken, shattered. That day, the first of the war, she
became one of the now 2.1 million Palestinians in Gaza who have
witnessed or directly experienced conflict trauma and one of the
1 million children in need of mental health and psychosocial support.
Since the attack, at least 138,000 fellow Gazans have been killed or
wounded.
Numbers can't tell the full story of the suffering of children
and adults living under a year of Israeli bombardment. No matter
how accurate, figures can't capture the scope of their sorrow or
the depth of their distress. An estimate of how many million tons
of rubble Israeli attacks have produced can offer a sense of the
scale of destruction, but not the impact of each strike on the
lives of those who survived, and the effect on the future of Gaza
given how many didn't.
Numbers are wholly insufficient to explain Tala Abu Daqqa's
anguish. Statistics can't tell us much about how living through
such a catastrophe affects an 11-year-old child. Heartache defies
calculation. Psychological distress can't be reduced to the score
on a trauma questionnaire. There is no meaningful way to quantify
her loss except, perhaps, by offering up two basic, final numbers
that will stay with her forever: two parents and three sisters
killed.
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
[10-07]
Day 367: Israel orders new evacuations in Gaza, expands bombing in
Lebanon: "The Israeli ground invasion of southern Lebanon
continues to face stiff resistance along the border one week on,
while the Israeli army has renewed its assault on northern Gaza,
laying siege to Jabalia refugee camp for the sixth time since
October 7."
Jonathan Adler:
Israel's paradoxical crusade against UNRWA: "Israeli officials
are relying on UNRWA to prevent a polio epidemic -- while the
Knesset advances laws to expel the agency." Paradox?
Israeli defense officials
told Haaretz on Sunday that the Israeli government is not
seeking to revive ceasefire talks with Hamas and is now pushing for
the gradual annexation of large portions of the Gaza Strip. . . .
The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth has
reported that Israeli forces in Jabalia are carrying out a
"scaled-down" version of the "general's plan," an outline for the
complete ethnic cleansing of northern Gaza and the killing of any
Palestinians who choose to stay, whether by military action or
starvation. The UN's World Food Program said Saturday that no
food aid has entered northern Gaza since October 1. . . .
If Israel is successful in cleansing northern Gaza of its Palestinian
population, it would pave the way for the establishment of Jewish-only
settlements in the area, an idea openly supported by many Israeli
ministers and Knesset members. The general's plan calls for the
tactics to be used in other parts of the Strip once the north is
cleansed.
Tareq S Hajjaj: [10-09]
Inside Israel's ongoing invasion of Jabalia in northern Gaza:
"Israel laid siege to Jabalia in northern Gaza on the anniversary
of October 7. Residents tell Mondoweiss that the Israeli army is
forcibly conscripting civilians as human shields and shooting
residents who attempt to evacuate."
Mairav Zonszein: [10-07]
On Israeli apathy. I resisted the word "apathy" here. It's a
commonplace that many (most?) Israelis have lost the ability to
recognize Palestinians as human beings -- a loss of empathy that
makes them indifferent to horrendous violence. But it's easier to
understand that as hatred than as apathy. And no doubt much Israeli
propaganda is devoted to stoking hate, but that goes hand-in-hand
with efforts to desensitize Israelis to the effects of violence
directed at others, and ultimately to keep Israelis from realizing
that their own violence is doing to themselves.
The lawlessness and state violence directed at Palestinians for so
long have started to seep into Jewish Israeli society. Mr. Netanyahu's
refusal to assume responsibility for the security failures of Oct. 7,
his grip on power despite corruption trials, his emboldening of some
of the most radical and messianic elements in Israel are a testament
to that. The nearly carte blanche support Israel has received from
the Biden administration throughout much of this war has further
empowered the most hard-line elements of the nation's politics. And
yet many Israelis are still not making the connection between their
inability to get the government to prioritize Israeli life and how
expendable that government treats Palestinian life.
Without this realization, it is hard to see how Israelis can pave
a different path forward that does not rely on the same dehumanization
and lawlessness. This, for me, has made what is already a dire,
desperate reality seemingly irredeemable. For Israelis to start
carving a way out of this mess, they will have to feel outraged
not only by what is being done to them, but also what is being done
to others in their name, and demand that it stop. Without that, I'm
not sure that I, like other Israelis with the privilege to consider
it, see a future here.
Any state that allows such abuse will ultimately turn its anger
and callousness on its own people.
Lebanon:
Elia Ayoub: [10-04]
Killing Hezbollah leaders failed 30 years ago. It won't work now:
"Instead of debilitating Hezbollah, Israel's assassination of Hassan
Nasrallah may prove to be a major PR boost for the embattled
organization." Useful mostly for background, especially Israel's
1992 assassination of Hezbollah co-founder Abbas al-Musawi, which
only intensified the struggle against Israel's occupation of south
Lebanon, as new leaders like Nasrallah took over.
[10-09]
Israel invaded Lebanon because the United States let it: "The
leveling of Lebanese border towns is the continuation of Israel's
Gaza policy: total destruction and ill-defined objectives." I also
found an earlier article I had meant to mention:
Sunjeev Bery: [10-10]
US foreign policy has created a genocidal Israel: "Without
massive, unconditional US military subsidies, Israel would have
had to practice diplomacy with their neighbors years ago." One
could just as easily argue that Israel has steered the US toward
increasing embrace, if not (yet) of full-blown genocide, then at
least to the leading policies of "extraordinary rendition," "black
sites," and "targeted assassination," as Israel became first the
model, then the laboratory for the "war on terror" -- really just
a cult that believes that sheer force can overcome all obstacles.
Or one can argue that genocide is encoded in the DNA of our shared
settler-colonial origins, a latent tendency which flowers whenever
and wherever conditions allow.
There can be no doubt that the American "blank check" has
contributed significantly to those conditions. And on the surface,
it would seem that the rare occasions when American presidents
attempted to restrain Israel were successful: in 1956, Eisenhower
forced Israel to retreat from Egypt; in 1967 and 1973 the US and
Russia brokered UN ceasefire resolutions; in 1978, Carter halted
Israel's intervention in Lebanon, and in 1979 Carter brokered a
peace agreement with Egypt; in 1990-91, Bush restrained Israel
from retaliating against Iraq, and pressed for peace talks, which
ultimately led to Israelis replacing the recalcitrant Shamir with
Rabin, leading to the ill-fated Oslo Accords. But in fact, every
apparent accommodation Israeli leaders made to US pressure was
systematically subverted, with most of the offenses repeated as
soon as allowed: the war against Egypt that Eisenhower ended was
relaunched with Johnson; the invasion of Lebanon that Carter held
back returned with Reagan; the sham "peace process" under Clinton
was demolished -- well, actually repackaged in caricature -- with
GW Bush. But under Trump and Biden, American subservience -- which
is part pure corruption, but also imbued in war-on-terror culture --
has become so complete that Netanyahu no longer bothers to pretend.
Actually, Israel's die was set in two previous events where a
realistically alternative path was possible and rejected -- in both
cases, by David Ben-Gurion. The first was in 1936, when British
authorities realized what a mess of their mandate in Palestine,
and proposed, through the Peel Commission, to solve their problem
with a program of partition and mandatory transfer: divide the
land into two pieces, and force all the Jews to one side, and all
the Arabs to the other. The division, of course, was unfair, not
just in the ratio of people to land but especially in that nearly
all of people forcibly uprooted and "transferred" would be Arabs.
But Ben-Gurion, whose power base at the time was the Hebrew-only
union Histadrut, saw in the proposal the prospect of an ethnically
pure Jewish state, which could with independence and time build up
a military that could seize any additional lands they thought they
needed.
The British proposal was not only rejected by the Palestinians,
but precipitated a revolt which took the British (and the Israeli
militias they encouraged) three years to suppress, and then only
when the British to the main Palestinian demand, which was to
severely limit Jewish immigration. But Ben-Gurion kept the drive
for partition alive, eventually persuading the UN to approve it
in diluted form -- the "transfer" was sotto voce, but when the
British withdrew in 1948, Israel's militias merged into the IDF,
significantly expanded beyond the resolution's borders, and drove
more than 700,000 Palestinians from their homes into exile. The
resulting Israel wasn't as large or as pure as Ben-Gurion had
hoped, but it soon became as powerful, as became clear in its
wars against Egypt in 1956 and 1967 (and its defense in 1973).
One can argue that Ben-Gurion did what needed to be done in
order to found and secure Israel. But once Israel was free and
secure, it had options, one of which was to treat its new minority
fairly, earn its respect and loyalty, and disarm its neighbors by
normalizing relations. Ben-Gurion didn't do that, but he did give
way to his lieutenant, Moshe Sharrett, who was much more inclined
to moderation. Ben-Gurion's second fateful decision was to return
to politics, deposing Sharrett, and returning Israel to the path
of militarism, ethnocracy and empire building. This led straight
to the 1956 war, and its 1967 reprisal. Ben-Gurion had retired
again before the latter, but he had left successors who would
carry on his maximalist objectives (notably, Moshe Dayan, Golda
Meir, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, and Ariel Sharon; meanwhile,
he had rehabilitated his old enemies from the Jabotinsky wing,
from Menachem Begin to Benjamin Netanyahu, and integrated into
the political system the followers of the ultra-orthodox and
ultra-nationalist Kook rabbis -- pretty much the entire spectrum
of current Israeli politics).
I like to think of Ben-Gurion's return to power as similar to
Mao's Cultural Revolution: the last desperate attempt of an aging
revolutionary to recreate his glory days rather than simply resting
on his laurels. It is interesting that Ben-Gurion advised against
the 1967 war, arguing that Palestinians wouldn't flee from Israel's
advancing armies like they did in 1948, so any land gained would
reduce the Jewish demographic majority he had fought for, and be
burdened with a heavy-handed occupation. But once the war ended so
decisively, he was delighted, and his followers were confident they
could handle the occupation -- the bigger threat was that Egypt and
Syria would fight to get their land back, as they did in 1973.
While Ben-Gurion has had extraordinary influence on Israel's
entire history, he has at least in one respect been eclipsed of
late: he always understood that occupation was a burden, one that
can and should be lightened by some manner of decency, and he also
understood that Israel needs friends and alliances in the world,
which again demands that Israel show some decency and respect.
Shlomo Avineri ends his The Making of Modern Zionism with
chapters on Ben-Gurion, Jabotinsky, and Kook. Ben-Gurion at least
understood the rudiments of social solidarity, and saw practical
value in it, even if his socialism was radically circumscribed by
his nationalism. Most Israelis today no longer feel the need:
like Jabotinsky, they believe that power conquers all, and that
the powerful should be accountable to none; while some, like
Kook, see their power as divinely ordained, as is their mission
to redeem greater Eretz Yisrael, and purge it of its intruders.
To them, America is just a tool they can use for their own ends.
Indeed, it's hard to explain why Biden and his predecessors have
indulged Israel so readily. Which, I suppose, is why Bery's
thesis, that American power has always been rotten, cannot be
easily dismissed. His conclusion is not wrong, except inasmuch
as he implies conscious intent:
The simple reality is that U.S. foreign policy remains just as
bloody and horrific as it has always been. In earlier decades,
"acceptable" losses included the 1 to 2 million civilians killed
in Vietnam, another million dead in Indonesia, the carnage of
U.S.-backed dictators across Latin America, and the hundreds of
thousands killed during the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Today's U.S. military and diplomatic interventions in the Middle
East are no different.
To end Israel's horrific actions in the Middle East, we must
change the politics of America itself. This is no easy task, given
the robust power and influence of pro-Israel -- and pro-war --
networks, donors, and lobbying groups inside the U.S. But it is
the task at hand, and it should be the focus of every person of
conscience, both within and outside the borders of the United
States. As has been true in other regions of the world, U.S.
foreign policy is the fundamental obstacle to justice, democracy,
and peace in the Middle East.
Page also included a link to a year-old article which adds
background depth here:
Khader Jabbar: [10-06]
Israel and Iran: Unpacking Western media bias with Assal Rad:
"Assal Rad joins The Mondoweiss Podcast to discuss media coverage
of recent events in Palestine and Lebanon and the persistent
pro-Israel bias in Western media."
Jake Johnson: [10-13]
Alarm as Pentagon confirms deployment of US troops to Israel:
"Netanyahu is as close as he has ever been to his ultimate wish:
making the US fight Iran on Israel's behalf." The deployment is
pretty limited -- "an advanced antimissile system and around 100
US troops" -- but it encourages Israel to provoke further armed
responses from Iran, while making American troops handy targets
for all sorts of terrorist mischief. Washington, conditioned to
see Iran as a potential aggressor, probably sees this as purely
defensive, urgent given Iran's threats (and occasional but mostly
symbolic practice) of retaliation, and practical in that trained
troops can get the system operative much faster than just handing
the weapons over to Israel. Netanyahu, on the other hand, will see
this as confirmation that the Americans are on the hook for war
with Iran. They also understand that if/when Iran wants to hit
back in ways that actually hurt, the US has many easier targets
to hit than the patch of Israel this weapon system is meant to
protect.
The first thing we have to do is to disabuse ourselves of the notion
that the United States has any reservations about what Israel is doing.
Israel is doing what it is doing in careful and close coordination with
Washington, and with its full approval. The United States does not just
arm and diplomatically protect what Israel does; it shares Israel's
goals and approves of Israel's methods.
The tut-tutting, the pooh-poohing, and the crocodile tears about
humanitarian issues and civilian casualties are pure hypocrisy. The
United States has signed on to Israel's approach to Lebanon -- it
wants Israel to destroy Hezbollah and Hamas. It does not have any
reservations about the basic approach of Israel, which is to attack
the civilian population in order to force change in Lebanon and
obviously in Gaza. . . .
The United States helps Israel in targeting Hezbollah and Hamas
leaders -- that is a fact. Anybody who ignores that and pretends
that there's any daylight between what Israel does and what the
United States wants it to do is lying to themselves or is lying to us.
I don't have any evidence to contradict this, but this doesn't
fit the model I have of American interests and motivations. The
most likely part of this story is the low-level sharing of signals
intelligence and targeting information, because that doesn't have
to go through diplomatic levels where questions might be asked
about what it's being used for. That sort of thing is pre-approved,
not because Israel is doing America's dirty work but because US
officials have, as a matter of political convenience, given up
any pretense of independent thought where Israel is concerned.
Ben Samuels: [10-02]
In US election, Israel might be the ultimate October surprise:
"For the first time, there's a real chance that Israel may help sway
the race. Election Day is 34 days away. Undoubtedly, many more surprises
are in store, and none of them are likely to be pleasant."
Dahlia Scheindlin: [10-01]
Hamas and Hezbollah trapped Israel on October 7. Now Israel is trapping
Iran and America: "Tehran and Washington are facing tremendous
dilemmas, trapped between two highly fraught options. Their choices
will determine the fate of the Middle East for both the short term
and for years to come." But the only real choice here is Israel's,
as they can keep doing this until they get their desired result,
which is America and Iran at war.
Ishaan Tharoor: [10-09]
How Netanyhahu shattered Biden's Middle East hopes: "The Israeli
prime minister tested and bested President Joe Biden's diplomatic
strategy around the growing conflict in the Middle East." The logical
fallacy here is in thinking that Biden ever had his own plans for
anything involving Israel.
"Reading the health experts, I am starting to think with horror that
if it's not stopped, Israel's assault could end up exterminating almost
the entire population in Gaza over the next couple of years," Francesca
Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine,
wrote on Friday on social media.
Albanese cited
a recent report from University of Edinburgh global public health
chair Devi Sridhar finding that the true death toll from Israel's
genocide could be estimated at 335,500 as of September.
Sridhar based this rough calculation
off of an estimate by public health researchers published in
The Lancet in July regarding typical indirect death counts
from previous conflicts, citing research hailed as the gold standard
in the field. At that time, the researchers estimated that the true
death toll could be roughly 186,000, stemming from direct killings
like bombings as well as Israel's destruction of the health, food
and sanitation systems in Gaza.
The death toll, then, could be between 15 and 20 percent of the
population by the end of this year, Albanese said, in just over a
year of Israel's genocide. And, as Sridhar writes in her Guardian
report, the calculation that she borrows from The Lancet
editorial is highly conservative -- meaning the death toll could be
even higher than her 335,500 estimate.
There is a good bit of evidence that suggests Israel is unraveling
from within. It now appears that Zionism, like communism, is a
self-defeating project. In June of this year, renown Jewish historian,
Ilan Pappé, suggested [link follows] that the collapse of Zionism
may be imminent. According to Pappé, "We are witnessing a historical
process -- or, more accurately, the beginnings of one -- that is
likely to culminate in the downfall of Zionism."
In a manner eerily reminiscent of ancient Israel, modern Israel is
quickly dividing into two separate states: the State of Israel and the
State of Judea. The former identifies as a secular liberal democracy
while the latter consists of far right religious zealots who want to
establish a theocracy, and believe that God has promised them all the
land between the Nile and the Euphrates.
Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich is a leading figure of
this latter group. In a new documentary produced by Arte, Smotrich
claimed that "the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus."
Not surprisingly, Smotrich's vision for the State of Judea includes
annexing territories presently belonging to Egypt, Jordan, Syria,
Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. The members of this group, including,
Itamar Ben-Gvir, Minister of National Security, believe that the events
which transpired on October 7 provide the perfect pretext for them to
realize their vision of Greater Israel.
It should be noted here that Smotrich's party only holds seven seats
(out of 120) in the Knesset, although they seem able to use their
limited leverage to dominate the coalition government agenda.
Adam Johnson/Othman Ali: [10-14]
A study reveals CNN and MSNBC's glaring Gaza double standard:
"Palestinians received far less sympathetic and humanizing coverage
than either Israelis or Ukrainians, a Nation analysis has
found." Nice to have the charts and all the rigor, but the
conclusion has been obvious for many years. It's been engineered
by "hasbara" architects, and reinforced by the whispers of money
in editors' ears.
By scapegoating Netanyahu, who has dominated the Israeli political
system for most of the past fifteen years, liberal Zionists have
been able to preserve in their imaginations the idealized Israel
many of them fell in love with decades ago -- the Israel that was
founded by secular socialists from Eastern Europe and that branded
itself as a paragon of enlightened governance, even as it engaged
from the beginning in colonization, land theft, murder, and expulsion
on a scale that Netanyahu's coalition can only envy. By denying the
essential nature of the Zionist project and its incompatibility with
progressive values, liberal Zionists have also been in denial at
every stage about the war to which they have pledged at least
conditional support. They have insisted that the situation is
"complicated," which is the framing Ta-Nehisi Coates absorbed
during his tenure at the predominantly liberal Zionist Atlantic,
and which he denounced as "horseshit" following a trip to the occupied
West Bank in the summer of 2023. "It's complicated," Coates
toldNew York magazine last month, deriding that common
talking point, "when you want to take something from somebody."
A year after October 7, no one seriously believes there will be
peace between Israel and the Palestinians in our lifetime. The bombed
and starved children of Gaza will never forget what they've been
subjected to, nor the world's general indifference; while it's not
on the same scale, their counterparts in Israel will never forget
the national trauma of the attacks. The "two-state solution" that
liberal Zionists have verbally supported for years as the only
possible just outcome is an obvious fantasy. Other, far more
disturbing outcomes seem likelier; at present, it is hard to see
what consequences Israel will face from continuing to kill and
displace Palestinians on all fronts while seizing and occupying
more and more of their land. If there is one lesson to be taken
from the past dismal year, it's this: the liberal Zionist
interpretation of the conflict has no predictive value, no analytical
weight, and no moral rigor. It is a failed dream of the previous
century, and it is unlikely to survive this one.
The loss of humanity in public discourse is a contagious and sometimes
fatal disease. Recovery is very difficult. Israel has lost all interest
in what it is doing to the Palestinian people, arguing that they "deserve
it" - everyone, including women, children, the elderly, the sick, the
hungry and the dead.
The Israeli media, which has been more disgraceful over the past
year than ever before, voluntarily carries the flag of incitement,
inflaming passions and the loss of humanity, just to gratify its
consumers.
The domestic media has shown Israelis almost nothing of the
suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, while whitewashing manifestations
of hatred, racism, ultra-nationalism, and sometimes barbarism,
directed at the enclave and its population.
Said Zeedani: [10-08]
Gaza's governance must remain in Palestinian hands: "Amid plans
for external interventions, it is vital to build a consensus around
an interim body to manage Gaza's urgent needs and pave the way for
unity." I have no idea who's saying what about "external interventions,"
but nothing serious can happen until Israel implements a ceasefire
(with or without any Hamas consent -- even if the hostages are not
repatriated immediately, they will be much safer with a ceasefire),
agrees to withdraw its forces, and renounces any claim to the land
of Gaza and/or its people. If we've learned anything from the last
year, it's that Israel is not fit to occupy land without citizens.
That shouldn't be a hard sell to Israel, as they have no settlers
in Gaza to contest claims, and they've more than made their point
about what they will do to people who attack them.
Once Israel is out of the picture, other people can get involved,
immediately to rescue the people -- for the most part de-housed,
with many diseased and/or starving -- and eventually to repair and
rebuild. Gazans have great needs and no resources or leverage, so
reconstruction will depend on the generosity of donors -- which may
quite reasonably come with strings attached (especially to respect
Israel's security, to avoid future repeats of its brutality). The
one point which must be respected is that in due course Gaza must be
self-governing, its sovereignty vested in the people who live there
and are free to choose their own leaders. Any "interim authority"
must lead without prejudice to such a democracy. Among other things,
this means that it should not ensconce previous political parties
(like Fatah or Hamas), nor should it exclude former members. Gaza
should rebuild on a clean slate.
B'Tselem:
The pogroms are working - the transfer is already happening:
I've cited this report
before, but it popped up again in Mazin Qumsiyeh's newsletter,
and is worth repeating, as it helps put the post-Oct. 7 genocide
into its much deeper historical context, as a continuation of a
process which Israelis were diligently working on before they could
accelerate it under the "fog of war." (You may recall that the Nazi
extermination program only began after they invaded Russia, although
the Nazis were rabidly antisemitic from the start, and committed
many heinous crimes against Jews well before they crossed the line
we now know as genocide.)
This is mostly a report on events in the West Bank prior to the
Oct. 7 Gaza revolt, after which settler violence in the West Bank --
"in the past two yeras, at least six West Bank communities have
been displaced" -- only increased.
For decades, Israel has employed a slew of measures designed to
make life in dozens of Palestinian communities throughout the West
Bank miserable. This is part of an attempt to force residents of
these communities to uproot themselves, seemingly of their own
accord. Once that is achieved, the state can realize its goal of
taking over the land. To advance this objective, Israel forbids
members of these communities from building homes, agricultural
structures or public buildings. It does not allow them to connect
to the water and power grids or build roads, and when they do, as
they have no other choice, Israel threatens demolition, often
delivering on these threats.
Settler violence is another tool Israel employs to further
torment Palestinians living in these communities. Such attacks
have grown significantly worse under the current government,
turning life in some places into an unending nightmare and
denying residents any possibility of living with even minimal
dignity. The violence has robbed Palestinian residents of their
ability to continue earning a living. It has terrorized them to
the point of fearing for their lives and made them internalize
the understanding that there is no one to protect them.
This reality has left these communities with no other choice,
and several of them have uprooted themselves, leaving hearth and
home for safer places. Dozens of communities scattered throughout
the West Bank live in similar conditions. If Israel continues this
policy, their residents may also be displaced, freeing Israel to
achieve its goal and take over their land.
Election notes:
Gail Collins/Bret Stephens: [10-07]
How could the election be this close? Good question, to which the
article only offers the oblique of answer of demonstrating how clueless
two New York Times opinion columnists can be. Stephens, at least, wears
his ignorance on his sleeve, going out of his way to quote arbitrary
Blacks and Hispanics who think Harris is "too liberal," "overall
untrustworthy," and "unsure how prepared she is to be president."
(And see those traits as worrisome compared to Trump?) Stephens also
wants Harris to "name some widely respected policy heavyweights as
members of her brain trust -- people like Robert Rubin and David
Petraeus. And announce that Liz Cheney will be her secretary of
state." Collins keeps her cluelessness hidden better. She has a
reputation for humor, but here it's mostly just egging Stephens on
to say stupid things.
PS: Speaking of stupid Stephens things, this piece came to my
attention:
Despite what those afflicted with sociopathy at the top want us to
believe, we are hardwired to help each other. We've heard how the
military has to work so hard to train killers, to erase that
hesitation to kill, and how so many shots taken in war are purposely
missed ones. When we see such wanton glee at killing we can bet that
an immeasurable number of hours have been spent in the indoctrination
of hatred, to erase the inclination for community and mutual aid. . . .
But we all know how kids often turn out after living in violent
and hate-filled homes and that's basically what all of us have been
toiling under our whole lives. We all know we've been propagandized,
it's a constant task that we need to be aware of this fact and we
need to recognize things like "passive voice" so popular in newspapers
like the New York Times. All these people dying, not being killed!
Children being called adult terms to take away our natural gut reaction
to their deaths . . . I think many have been able to break out of the
arrogant decrees that are brought down by religious institutions but
still are enamored with the liberal intelligentsia media. If they say
it, it must be true and there is no slant to the way it's delivered.
Well, it will take some time and critical thinking for those "esteemed"
edifices to be brought down. But for now, New York Times, you can go
fuck yourself and your call to war, there's real work to be done and
we don't have time for your shit.
Author's ellipses in last paragraph (originally six dots, no
idea why). I considered dropping the second half of that paragraph,
but decided the author deserved to make the point, even if crudely.
Stanley B Greenberg: [10-09]
Trump is laser-focused on the final duel. Harris is not. "That
will put Trump and Vance in the White House." One problem with reporting
based on polls is that polls most often ask stupid questions of people
who are far short of well-informed, so they can chastise politicians
for failing to cater to their nonsensical results.
Chris Lehman: [09-25]
In 2024, the pundits are wronger than ever: "Most of the predictions,
advice, and scolding emanating from the glow of TV news this year have
proved flat-out wrong. Democrats should stop listening once and for
all." Well, yes and no. It helps to start from the assumption that
you're being lied to and being given faulty and often disingenuous
advice, then try to work out what you can learn from that. On the
other hand, there actually is a lot of pretty good, solid reporting
and analysis available, if only you can figure out which is which.
Rick Perlstein:
[09-25]
The polling imperilment: "Presidential polls are no more reliable
than they were a century ago. So why do they consume our political
lives?" Catching up with other Perlstein columns:
[10-02]
Who are the 'undecided'? "It may not be about issues, but whether
voters surrender to Trump's invitation to return to the womb." Here
he draws on an article Chris Hayes wrote on undecided voters in 2004,
and which hardly anyone seems to have understood or rediscovered in
the last two decades of intense 24/7 political "coverage": basically,
undecided voters are unable to think about political issues in terms
of political choices. That's my simplification. Here's Perlstein
quoting Hayes:
Chris noted that while there were a few people he talked to like that,
"such cases were exceedingly rare. More often than not, when I asked
undecided voters what issues they would pay attention to as they made
up their minds I was met with a blank stare, as if I'd just asked them
to name their favorite prime number . . . the very concept of the
'issue' seemed to be almost completely alien to most of the undecided
voters I spoke to." . . .
Hayes: "I tried other ways of asking the same question: 'Anything
of particular concern to you? Are you anxious or worried about anything?
Are you excited about what's been happening in the country in the last
four years?'"
But those questions harvested "bewilderment" too. "As far as I could
tell, the problem wasn't the word 'issue' . . . The undecideds I spoke
to didn't seem to have any intuitive grasp of what kinds of grievances
qualify as political grievances."
That's the part that stuck with me word for word, almost two decades
on. Some mentioned they were vexed by rising health care costs. "When
I would tell them that Kerry had a plan to lower health-care premiums,
they would respond in disbelief . . . as if you were telling them that
Kerry was promising to extend summer into December."
Of course, you don't have to be "undecided" to have no clue as to
the policy domain that politics determines. Many uninformed or less
than competently comprehending voters pick their allegiances on other
seemingly arbitrary and often nonsensical grounds. These factors are
rooted in psychology, and are expertly exploited, mostly by Republican
operatives, perhaps realizing that their actual policy preferences
have little rational appeal. Perlstein, after noting Trump's promise
to be "your protector," reflects back on fascism:
Millions of pages have been filled by scholars explaining the
psychological appeal of fascism, most converging on the blunt fact
that it offers the fantasy of reversion to an infantile state, where
nothing can come and harm you, because you will be protected by an
all-powerful figure who will always put you first, always put you
first. It is simply indisputable that this promise can seduce and
transform even intelligent, apparently mature, kind-hearted people
formerly committed to liberal politics. I've
written before in this column about the extraordinary film
The Brainwashing of My Dad, in which director Jen Senko
describes the transformation of her Kennedy-liberal dad under the
influence of right-wing talk radio and Fox News -- and also how,
after she explained the premise of her film for a Kickstarter
campaign, scores of people came out of the woodwork to share
similar stories about their own family members.
I've learned a lot about the psychological dynamics at work from
the
X feed of a psychologist named
Julie Hotard, who drills down on the techniques Fox uses to trigger
infantilization in viewers. The people at Fox who devise these
scripts, one imagines, are pretty sophisticated people. Trump's
gift is to be able to grunt out the same stuff just from his gut.
Trump's appeals have become noticeably more infantile in precisely
this way. When he
addresses women voters, for instance: "I am your protector.
I want to be your protector . . . You will no longer be abandoned,
lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger . . ."
Or when he grunts the other side of the infantilizing
promise: that he will be your vengeance. His promise to destroy
anything placing you in danger. Like when he recently pledged to
respond to "one really violent day" by meeting criminals with "one
rough hour -- and I mean real rough. The word will get out and it
will end immediately."
Or when he
posted the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel ("O Prince of the
heavenly hosts, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan, and all the
evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls")
illustrated by a 17th-century painting of said saint curb-stomping a
defeated devil, about to run a sword through his head.
Even on the liberal-left, many interpret the way Trump seems
even more to be going off the rails these last weeks as a
self-defeating lack of control, or as a symptom of cognitive
impairment. They almost seem to celebrate it. The New Republic's
email newsletter, which I cannot stand, is full of such therapeutic
clickbaity headlines canvassing the same examples I talk about here:
"Trump Proposes Stunningly Stupid Idea for Public Safety"; "Ex-Aide
Says Trump's 'Creepy' Message to Women Shows He's Out of Touch";
"Trump Appears to Have Lost a Total Grasp on Things."
I certainly don't disagree that Trump is becoming more cognitively
impaired and out of touch with reality. But might not these impairments
render him a better fascist seducer, as his invitations to infantile
regression become ever more primal, ever more basic, ever more pure?
[10-09]
Our cults, ourselves: "Is the best way to understand the MAGA movement
to binge-watch docuseries about charismatic leaders sending their acolytes
to ruin? Tune in and find out."
[02-14]
A cultural artifact that meets the moment: "Stephen King's Under
the Dome nails how Trumpism functions at the most elemental of
levels." This is the piece Perlstein cited in the "undecided" piece
above, but worth breaking out here. I remember watching, and enjoying,
the
miniseries (2013-15), but had forgotten whatever political import
it might have held, but I welcome the refresher course. The section on
The Brainwashing of My Dad is kind of a coda. I should look
into it further, although I can already think of several examples
from my own family. (I had a pair of cousins, who shared the same
cultural legacy -- small towns, church, hunting -- and could be
socioeconomic twins, but one got her news from the BBC, the other
from Fox.) This essay also refers to a "Part 1":
[01-31]
A hole in the culture: "Why is there so little art depicting
the moment we're in?" Starts with a letter, which includes this:
My husband and I are old and sitting right slap dab in the middle
of red Arkansas with MAGA friends and family all around. They try to
pull us into their discussions but we change the subject. I stopped
going to church because the churches no longer teach Christ's
message, but Trump's message.
The Nation: [09-23]
The Nation endorses Kamala Harris: "In her own right, and
because we oppose Donald Trump's reactionary agenda." I imagine
Joan Walsh is responsible for the first clause, although in the
fine print, they admit "on foreign policy, however, the positive
case is harder to make" -- in what Billmon liked to call a
"Hirohito moment" (which I recalled as severe understatement,
expressed as innocuously as possible; his
definition: "a political statement so painfully cautious and/or
ridiculously understated that it's hard not to laugh at it").
After Joe Biden was shuffled off stage on trumped-up charges of
senility, I started thinking seriously about the weaponization of
old age in our world. Who gets credit for old age and who gets the
boot?
At 86, I share that affliction, pervasive among the richest,
healthiest, and/or luckiest of us, who manage to hang around the
longest. Donald Trump is, of course, in this same group, although
much of America seems to be in selective denial about his diminishing
capabilities. He was crushed recently in The Great Debate yet is
generally given something of a mulligan for hubris, craziness, and
unwillingness to prepare. But face it, unlike Joe B, he was simply
too old to cut the mustard.
It's time to get real about old age as a condition that, yes,
desperately needs and deserves better resources and reverence, but
also careful monitoring and culling. Such thinking is not a bias
crime. It's not even an alert for ancient drivers on the roads. It's
an alarm for tolerating dangerous old politicians who spread lies
and send youngsters to war, while we continue to willfully waste
the useful experience and energy of all ages.
He also mentions Rupert Murdoch (93) and Warren Buffett (94):
Those old boys are anything but role models for me and my friends.
After all, they've been practicing all their lives how to be rich
old pigs, their philanthropy mirroring their interests, not the
needs of the rest of us. In my pay grade, we're expected to
concentrate on tips from AARP newsletters on how to avoid telephone
scams and falls, the bane of the geezer class. And that's important,
but it's also a way of keeping us anxious and impotent.
But he does mention some other ancients, like Casey Stengel and
Jules Feiffer, who he finds more inspiration in. And the
Gray Panthers, founded by Maggie Kuhn -- a personal blast from
the past, as I knew of them through
Sylvia Fink Kleinman (who excused her own fine tastes, explaining
"nothing's too good for the working class").
New York Times: [09-26]
The dangers of Donald Trump, from those who know him: A big chart
of sound bites from "administration insiders, the Trumps & Trump
Inc., Republican politicians, conservative leaders, world leaders" --
including some who remain as steadfast supporters, like Lindsey Graham
and Ted Cruz. Oddly enough, the wittiest is Kim Jong-un's "a frightened
dog barks louder."
There are lists of Donald Trump's lies and lists of his alleged
crimes. But the catalog of all the good things that have happened
to the former president is equally unnerving. Every dog has its
day, but Trump -- no fan of dogs, BTW -- has had far more good
luck than the average mutt.
Of course, the man was born lucky -- into a life of wealth and
privilege and with looks that some women apparently find attractive.
Like many indulged heirs, he quickly dispensed with those gifts,
wasting away his fortune like a 20th-century tristate re-creation
of "A Rake's Progress." It could have easily curdled into squalor
from there.
But one fateful day, along came "The Apprentice," visiting the
sulky developer in his moldering office. As my colleagues Russ
Buettner and Susanne Craig document in their new book, aptly titled
Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and
Created the Illusion of Success, it was this improbable TV
show that offered Trump a golden ticket out of bankruptcy and
irrelevance, transforming him into a successful billionaire by
pretending he actually was one.
Also:
Eight years ago Trump, who has been convicted of 34 felony charges
in Manhattan and has been indicted in three other cases, told a rally
full of acolytes, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and
shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters." It is fortunate for
him, then, that he was able to appoint three justices to the Supreme
Court who created the possibility for him to be granted immunity in
the three remaining cases against him.
It's impossible to attribute all of this to strategy or intelligence
or even mere cunning. In the same way the mask-averse Trump contracted
what we now know was a serious case of Covid, at age 74 and seriously
overweight, miraculously bounced back with the benefit of cutting-edge
treatment that did not include injecting disinfectant, these things
happened independent of Trump's own actions and inclinations.
Now here we are, with Trump crediting the outcome of two failed
assassination attempts to divine intervention.
James Risen: [10-03]
The reason Netanyahu and Putin both want a Trump victory: "so
they can prolong and intensify their brutal wars." Actually, there's
not much stopping them now, and any policy shift under Harris is
purely speculative -- it's sure not something she's campaigning
on. I don't doubt that Trump is preferred by both -- as a fellow
right-winger, Trump is unbothered by human rights abuses, and
he's notoriously open to bribery and flattery. Also, both have
history of poking their noses into American domestic politics,
although in that Putin is a piker compared to Netanyahu.
Tony Schwartz: [10-11]
I was Trump's ghostwriter. A new biopic gets the most important thing
right. The movie is
The Apprentice, directed by Ali Abbasi and written by Gabriel
Sherman, based on "Trump's career as a real estate businessman in New
York in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as his relationship with lawyer
Roy Cohn." (Sebastian Stan plays Trump, Jeremy Strong plays Cohn, and
Martin Donovan plays Fred Trump Sr.)
Watching The Apprentice crystallized two big lessons that I
learned from Mr. Trump 30 years ago and that I've seen play out in
his life ever since with more and more extreme consequences. The
first lesson is that a lack of conscience can be a huge advantage
when it comes to accruing power, attention and wealth in a society
where most other human beings abide by a social contract. The second
lesson is that nothing we get for ourselves from the outside world
can ever adequately substitute for what we're missing on the inside.
Lawrence Ware: [10-11]
Republicans are not evil . . . well, not all of them: When I
saw this, my first thought was that it might take off from a New
York Times opinion piece I had noticed but didn't mention at the
time. Author is based in Oklahoma, so no suprise that he regularly
encounters Republican voters who seem decent enough even when they
are wrong. As a writer, I am often tempted to use "evil," as few
words make a point so succinctly. But almost always, the real
target is some act or belief, not the person implicated in the
moment. Aiming at the person loses that distinction, and makes
it that much harder to ever recover.
Nicholas Kristof: [08-31]
Here's why we shouldn't demean Trump voters. It's not just
that some Trump voters have decent (even if misguided) motivations,
and that grouping them all together is a logical fallacy, but that
the habit and practice is bad for you too -- it makes you more like
the person you are demeaning. That said, in this particular case,
"misguided" is a really huge understatement.
Branden Adams: [10-13]
Jim Justice tied West Virginia coal to global financial capital:
"While running his coal company Bluestone, Governor Jim Justice
ushered the mines of West Virginia deep into the grasp of global
financial capital -- at the expense of West Virginians. Why should
Swiss bankers get paid before West Virginia teachers?"
Gaby Del Valle: [09-25]
How immigration became a lightning rod in American politics:
"Anti-immigrant think tanks and advocacy groups operated on the
margins until Trump became president. Now they have molded not
only the GOP but also Democrats in their image."
[10-08]
The race is close because Harris is running a brilliant campaign:
"Stop complaining; the centrism is working." Or so says Chait, who
only views every disappointed/disaffected leftist as a strategic
gain, even though he can't begin to count the votes. No doubt that
if Harris does manage to "pull a Hillary" and lose the election,
Chait will be the first to blame it on the left.
[10-10]
The election choice is divided government or unrestrained Trumpism:
"Harris won't be able to implement her plans. Trump will." As a devout
centrist, Chait may regard divided government as the best of all worlds,
with each party making sure the other doesn't accomplish anything, or
rock any boats. Indeed, no Democratic president has had a Democratic
Congress for a full terms since Carter, and even the initial two-year
stretches Clinton, Obama, and Biden inherited were hobbled by lobbyists
and the filibuster.
Ed Kilgore: [10-09]
Can Nikki Haley voters win it for Kamala Harris? I can believe
that most of the people who voted for Harris in Republican primaries
this year won't vote for Trump. But calling them "Nikki Haley voters"
seems gratuitous, especially given that Haley is on board for Trump,
so isn't one of them.
Branko Marcetic: [10-12]
Is Kamala 2024 Clinton 2016?: "Republican endorsements, running
to the right on foreign policy, an unambitious agenda of incremental
change less important than how bad the other guy is. Where have we
seen this before?"
Andrew Prokop:
The rise -- and fall? -- of the New Progressive Economics:
"Progressives conquered economic policy under Biden. Would they lose
it under Harris?" How should I know? And not just because the article
is a "member exclusive" I can't even get a glimpse of. (I did feel
kind of bad about never giving what used to be my favorite news site
any money, but less and less so every time I hit a paywall, especially
on an article that is obvious bullshit.) In the first place, the premise
that "NPE conquered Biden" is somewhere between greatly exaggerated and
plain false. Biden moved somewhat out of the Obama-Clinton neocon rut
because both the economics and the politics failed. Unlike Republicans,
Democrats are expected to address and at least ameliorate real problems,
and the old neoliberalism just wasn't working. Some new stuff got tried,
and mostly worked. Other ideas got stymied, for which there was lots
of obvious blame, as well as Biden's own lukewarm interest. But where
is the evidence that Harris is going to abandon policies and proposals
that are popular with Democrats just to help the rich get richer? The
only thing I'm aware of is that she's had to cozy up to a lot of rich
donors to raise her billion dollar campaign war chest, and they're
going to want something in return. But by then, she'll be president,
and in a better position to call her own shots.
Bill Scher: [10-10]
No "deplorables," "you ain't black," "cling to guns": Harris's
gaffe-free campaign: I suppose that's good news, but Scher is
the most unflappable of Democratic Party apologists, so one doubts
his ability to detect gaffes, let alone strategic missteps. The one
I'm most worried about is her continuing political calculation to
amp up vitriol against Russia and Iran. My guess is that as president
she will pivot to a more moderate stance, because I don't see her as
a neocon ideologue, but I do see her as politically cunning, so her
stance tells me that she thinks it's the smart play viz. voters and
the media. That's pretty depressing.
Robert Kuttner: [10-04]
Biden's amazing win settling the dock strike: "The terms are a
total victory for dockworkers and for smooth supply chain operation,
as the White House faced down exorbitant shipper profits. What would
Trump have done?"
Paul Starr: [09-20]
What should Democrats say to young men? "Young men appear to be
drifting right. Ignoring them means trouble." As an asymptomatic
observer, I have trouble caring about this -- much like the "stolen
pride" in the Arlie Russell Hochschild book (below): been there, got
over that. Still, I do, as a matter of principle, believe that every
voter counts, and that all pain (even the phantom variety) merits
some kind of treatment. Cites:
Astra Taylor: [09]
Divided and conquered: "In search of a democratic majority."
"You've reached your free article limit," so sayonara. "The essay
was partially adapted with permission from Solidarity: The Past,
Present, and Future of a World Changing Idea, which I did buy
a copy of, so I can probably reference it when I want a critique
of Kevin Phillips (The Emerging Republican Majority, which
is often counted as prescient, even if only with regret) and/or Ruy
Teixeira/John Judis (The Emerging Democratic Majority, which
isn't, so they recently rewrote it as Where Have All the Democrats
Gone?), not that I couldn't write those myself.
Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:
David Dayen: [09-30]
How Congress gets its groove back: "The Supreme Court's recent
rulings will change how Congress writes laws. It may even force the
legislative branch to take a hard look at its own dysfunctions."
This is about the Court's recent dismantling of what's called the
"Chevron defense," which while possibly disastrous for the normal
functioning of the federal government, can (at least in theory) be
rectified by Congress writing and passing more precise laws that
leave less discretionary power in the hands of an increasingly
politicized executive. But for that to happen, you first need a
Congress that is willing and able to do the necessary work to
deal with real problems. That obviously involves getting rid of
a lot of Republicans, and tools like the filibuster, but it also
suggests the need for much better Democrats. Otherwise, problems
just multiply, while the courts further hamstring any efforts at
remedy by executive order.
Sarah Jones: [10-10]
The misogyny plot: A new report on the Kavanaugh hearings reveals
a deeper conspiracy."
Ian Millhiser:
[10-05]
We should call the Republican justices "Republicans" and not
"conservatives": "Supreme Court journalist should tell the
truth about what's going on at the Court." While I agree that
"the arguments against treating the justices as partisan actors
are unpersuasive," I worry that reducing them to partisan hacks
will set expectations both for and against, reinforcing their
stereotypical behavior. It is still the case that on occasion
Republican justices can rule against their party's most craven
arguments -- indeed, the legitimacy of the Court depends on at
least some air of independence. Same for Democratic justices
(which as far as I've noticed happens more often).
Intelligencer: [10-10]
Florida assessing damage from Hurricane Milton: Live updates,
at least through 10-10. My impression is that it was not as bad
as predicted: it was down to category 3 when it made landfall,
which was significantly south of the feared direct Tampa Bay hit,
and it moved across Florida and out into the Atlantic rather
quickly. Still a lot of rain and wind in a fairly narrow band,
and a lot of local damage.
Dan Stillman: [10-04]
Helene has become one of the deadliest hurricanes of the modern era:
"the deadliest hurricane to make landfall on the US mainland since
Katrina" (1392 deaths in 2005; many more since 1954 are listed, as
is Maria's 2975 deaths in 2017, but evidently Puerto Rico doesn't
count).
[10-09]
Just how doomed is home insurance? "Hurricanes like Milton and
Helene are making it harder than ever to insure your home." Aside
from the big storms, he spends a lot of time on other factors that
are driving insurance into an unaffordable spiral. Then he asks
the big question: "is the future insurable?" He throws cold water
on the idea of government reinsurance ("would only entrench the
current flaws of the insurance market," which sounds to me like
a call for better design than a blanket rejection).
Maureen Tkacik/Luke Goldstein: [10-02]
A toxic explosion in private equity payouts: "Private equity
barons just pocketed as much as $850 million from the company
behind this week's massive chemical blast in Georgia."
Ukraine and Russia: No "Diplomacy Watch"
this week?
Ted Snider: [10-08]
How Blinken turned the diplomatic corps into a wing of the
military: "In 2021 the administration said it would pursue
'relentless diplomacy.' They call it something else today in
Ukraine." Starts with a Henry Kissinger saying (not a direct
quote) that is even dumber than I'd expect ("little can be won
at the negotiating table that isn't earned on the battlefield")
before he quotes Blinken saying the same thing ("all that we can
to strengthen Ukraine's position on the battlefield so it has
the strongest possible position at the negotiating table").
Also cites a paywalled FT article claiming "it is the diplomats
who have pushed for escalation, and the Pentagon and intelligence
community who have argued for caution."
Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:
Matt Breunig/Zephyr Teachout: [09-27]
Should the government break up big corporations or buy them?
"Matt Bruenig writes that governments should nationalize more
companies while Zephyr Teachout argues that freedom requires
decentralized power." Ça dépend. Each case should be
evaluated on its own merits. One could write a book on this.
Stephen F Eisenman: [10-11]
What does fascism look like? A brief introduction: Most of this
piece focuses on Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, with an eye toward
architecture and aesthetics, but that leads to a section "what does
fascism look like today?" that opens with a photo of the Pentagon.
Conclusion:
Huey Long, governor of Louisiana from 1928-32, himself often called
a fascist, said: "American Fascism would never emerge as Fascist,
but as a 100 percent American movement; it would not duplicate the
German method of coming to power but would only have to get the right
President and Cabinet." Fascism, as I said at the beginning of this
brief survey, is easy to see in retrospect, but not in prospect.
However, when it appears right in front of you, identification becomes
simple -- signs and symbols appear everywhere. As we approach the U.S.
election, we can clearly witness one political party's tight embrace
of fascism -- but seeing it doesn't mean we can easily stop it.
Those of us on the left, especially with any real sense of history,
are quick to brand certain right-wingers as fascists -- the dividing
line is where disagreement turns to hatred and a desire to kill us.
To us, at least, it's not just a derisive label, but a full paradigm,
which informs not just by analogy but by internal logic. However, the
label "fascist" doesn't appear to have much utility in communicating
with people who are not on our specific bandwidth. One thing I will
point out is that throughout history, fascists have not only done
bad things, they have repeatedly failed, often bringing to ruin the
nations and folk they claim to love. By the way, Eisenman has a
forthcoming book,
The Young Person's Illustrated Guide to American Fascism,
with illustrations by Sue Coe.
Obituaries
Donald L Bartlett
Glenn Rifkin: [10-09]
Donald L Bartlett, 88 dies: prizewinning reporter bared corruption:
"Over four decades, he and his colleague James B Steele gained renown
for resourceful, often explosive investigative journalism at The
Philadelphia Inquirer. I've read several of their books.
Robert Coover:
John Williams: [10-06]
Robert Coover, inventive novelist in iconoclastic era, dies at 92:
"Once called 'probably the funniest and most malicious' of the
postmodernists, his books reflected a career-long interest in
reimagining folk stories, fairy tales and political myths."
Branko Marcetic: [10-09]
Ta-Nehisi Coates is bucking the media's Palestine consensus:
"The problem with Ta-Nehisi Coates's recent grilling on Palestine
by CBS News's Tony Dokoupil isn't that it was rude. It's that
Dokoupil's questioning betrays a fundamental lack of concern for
Palestinians' basic humanity, shared across mainstream media."
Allen Lowe: [10-11]
The new Archeophone King Oliver: Just a Facebook note, but longer
and much deeper than most reviews. Remind me that I got some press
(but no CD) from Archeophone -- first I've heard from them in many
years.
Lara Friedman: [09-28]
Observations on the current the moment - a thread.
Israel used 10/7 to manufacture US consent/collaboration to undo
what Bibi & his Greater Israel/neocon fellow travelers (incl in
US) have long viewed as historic errors forced on Israel by weak
leaders & intl appeasers of terror.
These are: Gaza disengagement (viewed as capitulation to Hamas),
the Oslo Agreement (viewed as capitulation to the PLO), and withdrawal
from southern Lebanon (viewed as capitulation to Hezbollah).
Along the way the Biden Admin & Congress acquiesced to new
Israeli-authored rules of war that, among other things, define every
human being as a legitimate military target - a terrorist, a terrorist
supporter or sympathizer, or a "human shield" -
- & allowing the annihilation of huge numbers of civilians &
destruction of entire cities; allowing entire populations to be displaced,
terrorized, starved, & deprived of medical care; & normalizing
killing of journalists, medical workers, & UN staff - all
with impunity.
The costs of these new rules of war will be paid with the blood of
civilians worldwide for generations to come, and the US responsibility
for enabling, defending, & normalizing these new rules - and their
horrific, dehumanizing consequences will not be forgotten.
In the countdown to the US November elections, continued Israeli
impunity means that Netanyahu and his government have every incentive
to continue to pursue their revanchist and genocidal goals in Gaza,
the West Ban, and Lebanon.
Absent some new US & intl seriousness to impose concrete
consequences that change Israeli calculations, the only real question
now is whether Bibi & friends will seize this moment to pursue the
other long-held dream of neocons in both Israel and the US: regime
change in Iran.
If they do so - and following a year of genocide-with-impunity
capped by Nasrallah's assassination, the likelihood is today higher
than ever before - the decision will be in large part based on the
certainty that the Biden Admin, more than any Admin before it, will
back them.
This backing - which they have every reason to assume is assured -
includes money, military aid, & even US military action. & it is
assumed, regardless of whether the Biden Admin wants such a war &
regardless of Israel's tactics/the scope of the destruction and
casualties.
Likewise, such a decision will reflect an equal certainty that the
Harris & Trump campaigns not only will support Israel in waging
war on Iran, but will actively compete over who, as president, will
stand more firmly with Israel in its push to remake the entire
region.
And to be clear: Bibi & friends have - in actions & words -
been telling the world since 10/7 their intent. Anyone surprised
things have reached this point was either not paying attention, was in
denial, or was happily playing along.
For anyone who thinks my analysis re "next up, Iran" is wrong, see:
[followed by tweet from Jared Kushner, then video of Netanyahu]
Local tags (these can be linked to directly):
music.
Current count:
214 links, 15280 words (19367 total)
Draft file opened 2024-10-02 12:17 PM. I expected to have very
little time to work on this, and that's proved accurate. Now trying
to wrap this up Monday afternoon, while I have a bit of a breather.
But I already got distracted, and spent the last hour posting a
dinner plate to
Facebook, and writing further notes in the notebook. Nero wasn't
the only one ever to fiddle while their country burns.
Wound up after 2AM, arbitrarily deciding I've done enough. Maybe
I'll add more while working on Music Week, but I should get back to
working on house. Good news, though, is that working on blog is less
painful than the house work has been.
When I got up this morning, I started reading the third chapter in
Ned Blackhawk's The Rediscovery of America, it occurred to me
that the following bit, while written about Champlain in the early
1600s, is most relevant today (pp. 81-82):
While violence was an essential institution of colonialism, it was
never enough to achieve permanent goals of empire. As political
theorists have long maintained, violence fails to create stability. It
destroys relationships -- between individuals, communities, and
nations -- and does so unpredictably. Once it is initiated, none can
predict its ultimate course. While threats upon a population do over
time result in compliance, more enduring stability requires shared
understandings of power and of the legitimate use of violence. . . .
Nor could violence ever be completely monopolized. As in New Spain,
Native peoples across North America quickly adopted the advantages
that Europeans brought. Raiders took weapons as spoils of war and
plundered Indians who were allied with Europeans or had traded with
them. They stole their metals, cloths and, if possible,
guns. Increasingly, they took captives to trade in colonial slave
markets.
Apologists and propagandists for Israel really hate it when you
describe Israel as a settler-colonial movement/nation. They resent
the implicit moral derision -- every such society has been founded
on racist violence, which we increasingly view as unjust -- but
they also must suspect that it implies eventual failure: the cases
where settler-colonialism was most successful are far in the past
(especially in America, where the Indian wars ended by 1890, and
full citizenship was accorded to Indians in 1924). But perhaps most
troubling of all is the recognition that many others have started
down this same road, and found that only a few approaches can work
(or at least have worked), and only in limited circumstances.
Top story threads:
Israel: One year ago today, some Palestinians
from Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- street gangs left free to operate in
Gaza because Israel and the US refused to allow any form of political
freedom and democratic self-governance in a narrow strip of desert with
more than 2 million people, isolated from all norms of human discourse --
staged a jail break, breaching Israel's walls, and, as brutalized
prisoners tend to do, celebrating their temporary freedom with a
heinous crime spree.[*]
Most of the people in Gaza were refugees from
Israel's "war of independence," known to Palestinians as "Nakba"
for the mass expulsions of Palestinians. From 1948-67, Egypt had
occupied Gaza. In 1967, Israel attacked Egypt, and occupied Gaza,
placing it under military rule. The situation there became even
more desperate after 2006, when Israel dismantled its settlements
in the territory, locked down the borders, left local control to
Hamas, and begun a series of increasingly devastating punitive
sieges they rationalized as "mowing the grass."
As the situation in Gaza grew more desperate, Israeli politics
drifted ever more intensely to the right, to the point where some
parties advanced genocidal responses to the Gaza revolt, while
even large segments of the nominal opposition concurred. Meanwhile,
especially under Trump, the US has become a mere rubber stamp for
whatever Israel wants. And what "Israel wants" is not just to
extirpate Hamas and punish Gaza but to take out their fury on
Palestinians in the West Bank, to complete the annexation of
Palestinian land, and to export war all the way to Iran.
[*] Per Wikipedia, the
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel lasted two days (October 7-8),
during which 1180 Israelis (379 security forces, 797 civilians)
were killed, and 251 Israelis were taken captive, while Israeli
forces killed 1609 "militants" and captured 200 more. At the end
of those two days, Israel had secured its border with Gaza, and
had gone on the offense against the people and infrastructure of
Gaza. Israel's subsequent slaughter and destruction has been so
indiscriminate, and so systematically destructive of resources
necessary for sustaining life, that it is fairly characterized
as genocide -- a judgment that is consistent with the clearly
stated intentions of many Israeli political leaders. Moreover,
the genocide in Gaza, has provided cover allowing Israelis --
including vigilante settler-mobs protected by IDF forces -- to
attack Palestinians in the West Bank, and Israeli aggression has
now has spilled over into Lebanon.
[10-07]
Day 367: Israel orders new evacuations in Gaza, expands bombing in
Lebanon: "The Israeli ground invasion of southern Lebanon
continues to face stiff resistance along the border one week on,
while the Israeli army has renewed its assault on northern Gaza,
laying siege to Jabalia refugee camp for the sixth time since
October 7."
The ongoing violence has created a cycle of anxiety and trauma in
the besieged Strip, leaving young people particularly devastated.
Tlaleng Mofokeng, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health,
spoke to Anadolu about the mental health crisis in Gaza.
The amount of anxiety and the exposure to trauma, as well as the
level of anticipation of violence, is very abnormal
Mofokeng said, emphasizing the persistent threat of violence
as a major contributor to the psychological distress.
She highlighted that 50 per cent of Gazans were already suffering
from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) before the relentless
violence they experienced since 7 October, 2023. "We have to talk
about it as a deliberate infliction of mental trauma," she added.
The psychological impacts, manifesting as anxiety, nightmares,
depression and memory loss, are compounded by the absence of
adequate mental health resources.
Yet, some scars remain invisible, Mofokeng pointed out, as many
suffer in silence, with distress escalating into PTSD, eventually
leading to complex mental health issues. These only intensify for
children who have lost their entire family. She further noted that
the lack of proper mourning and dignified funerals is "very
detrimental," robbing families and communities of the chance to
heal and opening wounds that may take a lifetime to mend.
The absence of healthcare and therapy has exacerbated the
situation. "The situation is much worse," she stressed.
Tareq S Hajjaj: [10-07]
After October 7, my home became a bag I carry with me: "I have
lived through my own Nakba and understand why thousands of Palestinians
fled their homes in 1948. I made the most difficult decision of my
life and left Gaza, not knowing that what I carried might be all I
will ever possess of my homeland."
[10-07]
Israel's year of war on the West Bank: "While Israel has been
carrying out a genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, its
military and settlers have been waging another campaign of ethnic
cleansing in the West Bank, moving ever closer towards Israel's
goals of annexation." This is an often neglected but increasingly
important part of the story. This makes it clear that the root
problem is not Hamas or Palestinian "national ambitions" but the
fundamental, all-pervasive injustice of the apartheid regime. I
was hoping in early days that the powers could separate Gaza and
the West Bank, deal with the former by cutting it loose, and save
the more entangled West Bank occupation to later, at which point
cooler heads might prevail. But hotter heads made sure peace was
never given a chance, because they saw the cover of war as useful
for promoting their real goals.
Abdaljawad Omar: [10-03]
Israel's forever war and what comes next: "In Gaza and Lebanon,
Israel is projecting its force while burrowing itself deeper into a
quagmire. While it may achieve brief operational successes, it fails
to extinguish the spirit of the resistance or coerce it into
submission."
America's Israel (and Israel's America):
Spencer Ackerman: [10-03]
The year after October 7th was shaped by the 23 years after
September 11th (director's cut): "9/11 gave Israel and the US
a template to follow -- one that turned grief into rage into
dehumanization into mass death. What have we learned from the
War on Terror?" Unfortunately, "this post is for paying subscribers
only," so I don't know how he relates the US reaction to 9/11 to
the previous year's demolition of the Oslo Accords and the breakout
of the Shaul Moffaz Intifada (more commonly called "Al-Aqsa," but
Moffaz was the instigator).
[10-03]
The Shift: US preemptively backs Israel after Iran attack:
"Joe Biden said he opposes Netanyahu hitting Iran's nuclear sites,
but why should anyone trust him? The administration backed Israel's
invasion of Lebanon while he was publicly calling for a ceasefire.
Will we see a similar contradiction on Iran?"
Matthew Duss: [10-07]
Joe Biden chose this catastrophic path every step of the way:
"What's happening in the Middle East was enabled by a president with
ideological priors, aides who failed to push back, and a cheerleading
media establishment."
There's a 23-year-old quote from Benjamin Netanyahu
in The New York Times that I've been thinking a lot about
lately. Reached on the evening of September 11, 2001, the then-former
prime minister was asked what the terrorist attacks that brought down
the Twin Towers and killed almost 3,000 people meant for relations
between the United States and Israel. "It's very good," he said. Then
he quickly edited himself: "Well, not very good, but it will generate
immediate sympathy."
He may have been rude and insensitive, but he was also being
uncharacteristically honest. Like any demagogue, Netanyahu knew
instinctively that enormous pain could be easily transformed into
permission.
In addition to providing Israel's then-Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon a freer hand in crushing the second intifada, Netanyahu
also saw America's trauma as an opportunity to achieve a wider
set of regional security goals. As Congress was considering the
Iraq invasion, he came to the United States to lend his support.
"If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that
it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region," he
assured a congressional committee in September 2002.
James Robins: [10-07]
Israel is trapped by its own war machine: link title, actual,
with sub: "The missed moral lesson of October 7: Hamas's attack
should have triggered not military retaliation but the immediate
resumption of negotiations for a just peace." Of course, it didn't,
because Israel has never considered justice a consideration in its
very rare and never serious efforts at negotiation -- they look
for leverage, and play for time. But I do recall making the same
point on 9/11: I thought it should be viewed as a wake-up call,
as a time when the first thing you ask yourself, have I failed?
Netanyahu (and Bush) couldn't ask that question, much less answer
it. But if you just give it a few minutes of thought, you'll
realize that every war is consequential to a series of mistakes.
The least you can do is to learn from such mistakes, but the
people who yearn to fight wars never take the effort to learn.
Yousef Munayyer: [10-07]
A year that has brought us to the breaking point: "Alongside
the mass graves and beneath the tons of rubble, there may lie
another victim: the very possibility of a jointly imagined
coexistence."
Trita Parsi: [10-01]
Iran bombs Israel, but buck stops with Biden: "If Israel's response
sucks us into war, it will be on the administration's hands. Here's
why." People really need to get a better idea of motivations, costs,
and imagined rewards.
Biden's strategy has been to put enormous effort into deterring Iran
and its partners from retaliating against Israel, while doing virtually
nothing to discourage Israel from escalating in the first place. This
lopsided approach has in fact been a recipe for escalation, repeatedly
proving to Netanyahu that Washington has no intention of bringing
pressure to bear on Israel, no matter its actions.
The situation is actually worse than this, because Israel sees
nothing but positives from provoking a war that pits Iran and the
US. For starters, it keeps the US preoccupied with external threats
when the real enemy of peace is Israel itself. And if Americans get
hurt in the fracas, Netanyahu understands that will only make the
Americans more determined to fight Iran, just as he knows that his
periodic attacks on Iran and its friends only make them more determined
to strike back, even if just ineffectively, at Israel.
Mitchell Plitnick: [10-05]
The United States and Israel set out to remake the Middle East,
again: "The mood in Washington today is similar to 2003 when the
neocons of the Bush administration sought to remake the Middle East.
This time, a joint vision shared by Israel and the Biden administration
seeks to remake the region in the West's vision."
The images coming out of Lebanon and Gaza are horrifying. As I write
this, well over a million Lebanese civilians are displaced as the
Israeli military carries out punishing bombing raids across nearly
the entire country, and over 2,000 have been killed. We've watched
them drop so-called "bunker buster" bombs on residential blocks in
Lebanon's capital, Beirut, in an attempt to kill the leadership of
Hezbollah, never mind the civilians who may be in the way. Like in
Gaza, Israel is targeting hospitals and schools, border crossings,
and infrastructure. That the international community is allowing
this to go on is nothing short of a calamity.
Responsible Statecraft: [10-03]
Symposium: Will US-Israel relations survive the last year? "We
asked if the post-Oct. 7 war has permanently altered Washington's
80-year commitment to the Jewish state." Collects statements from:
Geoff Aronson, Andrew Bacevich, Daniel Bessner, Dan DePetris, Robert
Hunter, Shireen Hunter, Daniel Levy, Rajan Menon, Paul Pillar, Annelle
Sheline, Steve Simon, Barbara Slavin, Hadar Suskind, Stephen Walt,
Sarah Leah Whitson, James Zogby. While several are critics, it is
pretty obvious that the "special relationship" has held fast, with
the Biden administration providing unstinting support despite
reservations that they are unable or unwilling to act on, with most
of Congress even more emphatically in thrall.
Jonathan Guyer: [10-04]
The price of power: "America's chief humanitarian official rose
to fame by speaking out against atrocities. Now she's trapped by
one." Welcome to hell, Samantha Power.
Jeffrey D Sachs: [09-30]
Israel's ideology of genocide must be confronted and stopped:
"Israel's violent extremists now in control of its government
believe that Israel has a Biblical license, indeed a religious
mandate, to destroy the Palestinian people."
VP Debate
Zack Beauchamp: [10-01]
The only moment from the VP debate that mattered: "Vance's
'damning non-answer' on the 2020 election exposed the true stakes
for democracy in 2024." I'm a bit chagrined that the one Vance lie
that Walz chose to push back hard on was the "fate of democracy."
It's not that I don't appreciate the threat, but to understand it,
you need some context. To borrow Grover Norquist's metaphor, the
program of the right since the 1970s -- cite Potter Stewart if you
like -- has been to shrink democracy "down to the size where we
can drown it in the bathtub." We've barely noticed the shrinkage,
but only started to panic now that we can identify Trump as the
one threatening to finish the job. So right, it matters, a lot
even, but it's a bit like waiting until a hurricane or flood or
fire to discover that something is screwy with the climate --
another comparable oops!
Gabriel Debenedetti: [10-02]
How Tim Walz saved himself: "At first, he looked overmatched by
JD Vance. Then came abortion, health care, and above all, January 6.
In a Times/Siena College poll last month, 55 percent of respondents
said Trump was respected by foreign leaders while 47 percent said
that of Harris.
The ad claims Harris is not tough enough to deal with China,
Russia, Iran or Hamas. It features actors playing Vladimir Putin,
Hamas fighters and a tea-sipping ayatollah watching videos of the
candidate who wants to be the first woman president. It ends with
four clips of Kamala dancing -- a lot better than Trump does --
and a clip of Trump walking on a tarmac with a military officer
and a Secret Service agent. The tag line is: "America doesn't need
another TikTok performer. We need the strength that will protect
us."
Even though Trump lives in a miasma of self-pity and his businesses
often ended up in bankruptcy, somehow his fans mistake his swagger and
sneers for machismo. What a joke. Trump is the one who caves, a foreign
policy weakling and stooge of Putin. . . .
In a Trumpworld that thrives on mendacity, demonizing and dividing,
sympathy is weakness.
Debate watchers said, 48% to 35%, that Walz is more in touch than Vance
with the needs and problems of people like them, and by a similar margin,
48% to 39%, that Walz, rather than Vance, more closely shares their
vision for America.
M Gessen: [10-03]
The real loser of the VP debate: "It's our politics." And: "In
this audio essay, Gessen argues that when we put Trump and his acolytes
on the same platform as regular politicians and treat them equally,
'that normalization degrades our political life and degrades our
understanding of politics.'"
Andrew Prokop/Dylan Scott/Abdullah Fayyad/Christian Paz: [10-02]
3 winners and 2 losers from the Walz-Vance debate:
W: JD Vance's code switching abilities;
L: The narrative that Tim Walz is a media phenomenon;
W: Obamacare;
L: The moderators;
W: A surprising amount of decency. The bottom line is that Vance lied
outrageously (but smoothly) in his attempt to make Trump out as a
reasoned, skillful public servant, while Walz somewhat awkwardly
dialed his own criticism back. From point two:
It was not exactly a masterful showing, though. Walz seemed uncomfortable
in the format compared to the smooth-talking Vance, he didn't really seem
to have one overarching message that he kept returning to, and he often
missed opportunities to call out Vance's lies and misrepresentations.
On the moderators:
From the start, Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan, the CBS news
moderators, made it clear they did not think it was their job to
keep the candidates grounded in reality. . . . The questions
themselves were either not probing enough or poorly framed.
Jeffrey St Clair: [10-04]
Notes from a phony campaign: the great un-debate: "This week's
vice-presidential debate, one of the most tedious and dull in US
history, was praised by the punditocracy for its civility. Is civility
in politics what we need when the current government is arming a
genocide and the rival campaign wants to arrest 15 million people
and deport them?" Also: "Why did Walz try to humanize a jerk who
claims Haitians are BBQing pets?"
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [10-01]
VP debate: preemptive strike on Iran now? "This was the only
foreign question of the night, which made it easier for everyone,
apparently." The question was horrible, even to suggest such a
thing. The obvious answer was: no, never, wars should be ended,
not started when there is any chance of avoiding one. The answers --
unlike John McCain's "bomb bomb bomb Iran" refrain -- at least were
evasive, but in failing to address the question, allowed it to hang
in the air, as if the idea is something a sane person might consider.
It wasn't, and should have been flagged as such.
Election notes:
Ed Kilgore: [10-07]
Harris and Trump are deploying party defectors very differently:
They may be calculating differently, but the dominant issue is the
same. Trump is using Gabbard and Kennedy as testimony that he's the
lesser world war threat, without him having to soften his tough guy
image. Harris, on the other hand, is attracting some Republicans
with extreme neocon credentials, like the Cheneys -- not primarily
to show that she's the hawk in the contest, but their support does
reassure the neocons that she's likely to stick with the conventional
wisdom on foreign policy (which is decidedly neocon, despite their
disastrous track record).
Kevin T Dugan: [10-04]
Trump Media has major new problems: "A whistleblower alleges that
CEO Devin Nunes is running the struggling Donald Trump-owned company
into the ground."
[10-05]
Vance says Trump shooting inevitable: "Speaking in the town where
Trump was nearly assassinated, Vance laid blame for the shooting on
Democrats."
David Daley: [10-04]
Two men have re-engineered the US electoral system in favor of
Republicans: "If the right strews constitutional chaos over
the certification of this presidential election, two people will
have cleared the path." Leonard Leo (who packed the Supreme Court)
and Chris Jankowski (who refined the art of gerrymandering).
I don't mean to pick on Margaret Sullivan. I think the fact that even
she can't find the words to explain what's so horrifying about this
suggests that maybe there aren't any words -- or to be more precise,
maybe there aren't words that can convey what's so horrifying about
this to people who've watched Trump for the past nine years and still
aren't horrified.
Calling a political opponent "mentally impaired" and "mentally
disabled" ought to be a very bad look for any candidate, and it should
be self-evidently bad for reasons Joe Scarborough noted this morning:
"If [Harris] were so quote stupid, if she were so quote mentally
impaired, if she were quote so mentally disabled, why did she destroy
him in a debate for 90 minutes, humiliate him, and beat him so badly
that he refuses to even debate her on Fox News?"
"That's question number one," he continued. "And if she's had this
mental condition from birth, then why did he give her thousands of
dollars in 2014 for her political campaign when she was running for
the United States Senate?"
But it's unsuitable language for any candidate to use -- except it
isn't anymore, because talk radio and Fox News coarsened the political
culture, in lockstep with Republican politicians from Newt Gingrich on,
and now there's a large percentage of the voting population for whom
there's nothing a Republican can say that will lead to a
withdrawal of support, except perhaps a kind word about a Democrat. . . .
Trump can't be discredited any more than he already has been. Our
only recourse is a large turnout by people who are neither impressed
by his rhetoric nor numbed by it.
If you're Vance, the only reason you agree to take Trump on as a client
is the hope that he will pay your seven-figure fees before you, yourself,
end up in jail.
Alas, as the history of broken dreams isn't one of the subjects
taught at Yale Law School, Vance seems to be missing the point that
most of his predecessors -- Michael Cohen, Sidney Powell, Kenneth
Cheseboro, Jenna Ellis, Rudy Giuliana, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark,
and Alina Habba (to list only a few Trump attorneys who are drifting
up the river) -- never got paid and will probably end up in jail long
before Trump himself is fitted with an oversized orange necktie.
Nicholas Wu/Madison Fernandez: [10-04]
House Democrats' new bogeyman: Project 2025: "The party is making
a concerted effort to go on the attack using the controversial set of
conservative policy proposals." It's about time. Similar plots have
been circulating for decades, but this year's edition exposes the
threats exceptionally tangible form. Moreover, it's never been easier
to imagine Republican apparatchiki blindly following whatever master
plan they're given. Project 2025 makes clear and comprehensible how
pervasive rotten ideas are throughout the Republican Party.
Jonathan Chait: [10-03]
Kamala Harris is right to get endorsements from bad Republicans:
Like Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales. Of course, Chait loves this
because it gives him another excuse to take digs at Sanders and AOC,
who also, like Chait, support Harris. Different people have different
reasons for who they vote for, and these particulars aren't totally
deluded in thinking a public announcement might help, and probably
won't hurt. What bothers me is the suggestion that they see Harris
as more in tune with their neocon warmongering legacy, and that
their endorsements can be taken as evidence that Harris is more
war-prone than Trump.
Michael Kruse: [10-04]
The woman who made Kamala Harris -- and modern America: "Shyamala
Gopalan's immigrant story explains the roots of a multiethnic society
that has defined the country in the 21st century -- and also become a
political flashpoint."
Elie Honig: [10-03]
Jack Smith's October Surprise: That's the title on the index
page. The title on the page itself is "Jack Smith's October cheap
shot." Honig's complaining that Smith's "proactive filing" was too
long, disclosing many more details of his case than was necessary,
and that filing it ahead of the election was "prejudicial." Honig
goes to great lengths here to parade his disapproval. In charging
Smith with playing politics to get at Trump, he never considers
the possibility that politics is what has kept this case from
going to trial, and that the only way to break that logjam might
be to do what Smith has done, and remind the public what evidence
says, and why it is all the more relevant before the election.
The way the court system is rigged, it's unlikely that Trump will
ever "face justice," at least on federal charges, but the people
deserve to know what he did, before they risk giving him the
chance to do it again.
Li Zhou: [09-26]
The Eric Adams indictment, explained: "Fancy plane tickets, donations,
and political favors: what to know about the charges." I hadn't noted
the New York City mayor, which seems like the sort of run-of-the-mill
corruption that occasionally traps unwary Democrats, yet Republicans --
despite being ideologically committed to furthering corruption -- are
rarely held accountable for. That plus it's a local issue, but in a
locale that generates a lot of political media, so we're getting
a cluster of stories.
Jeffery C Mays/Stefanos Chen: [10-05]
Big business saw an ally in Eric Adams, and overlooked his issues:
"New York's business community threw its support behind Adams, and
continued backing him even as his legal problems began to threaten
the governance of the city."
Intelligencer Staff: [10-07]
Hurricane Milton intensifies to category 5, Florida prepares: live
updates. The storm formed in a hot spot in the Gulf of Mexico,
heading northeast. Projection is that it will hit Tampa, with 175
mph winds and a 15-foot storm surge, on Wednesday, cross Florida,
and continue heading east into the Atlantic. More Milton:
Li Zhou: [10-03]
Get used to more absurdly hot Octobers: "This year's unrelenting
heat, explained." Last few days here in Wichita have been in the
mid-90s, which is what I expect for first two weeks of September,
but hard to remember anything this hot this late in the year.
Dylan Scott: [10-02]
Why is US health care like this? "America unintentionally built
a health care system that is hard to fix." Short article, but covers
the basics. It's not a system. It wasn't designed. It was created
as opportunities to profit were relentlessly exploited, resulting
in various gaps and inequities, which have been partly compensated
for with a patchwork of fixes designed mostly to preserve previous
profit centers. And each of those profit centers has its own lobby,
which is to say clout within the American political "system."
Mark Mazzetti/Adam Entous: [10-05]
Behind Trump's views on Ukraine: Putin's gambit and a political
grudge: "The roots of Donald Trump's animus toward Ukraine --
an issue with profound consequences should he be elected again --
can be found in a yearlong series of events spanning 2016 and
2017."
Constant Méheut: [10-05]
Ukraine's Donbas strategy: Retreat slowly and maximize Russia's
losses: "The idea is to use rope-a-dope tactics, letting Russian
forces pound away until they have exhausted themselves. It's far
from clear if the Ukrainian strategy will succeed." Maybe that's
because "rope-a-dope" is a strategy that favors the one with the
greater reserves of strength, which isn't Ukraine.
Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:
Richard Slotkin: [10-05]
To understand Trump vs. Harris, you must know these American myths:
The author has mapped out the entire history of American mythmaking
in his book
A Great Disorder: National Myth and the Struggle for America,
so applying his methodology to one more election is pretty easy.
I've read his book, and previously cited various reviews. I've
long placed great importance on the notion of myth -- paradigmatic
stories that are widely believed, transcending fact and fiction --
so I'm very used to this form of critique. Still, there is a risk
that his categories have become too pat, and forcing new facts to
fit them tends to lose your grip on anything new. For instance, it's
easy enough to see Trump playing off the "lost cause playbook," but
those of us who grew up in what was still the Jim Crow era should
be struck by how much weirder it seems this time around. On the
other hand, when Democrats (like Obama/Clinton) embrace "American
exceptionalism," they look naive and foolish, and easily loose
track of the reforms they understand we need.
Jennifer Szalai: [09-29]
Ta-Nehisi Coates returns to the political fray, calling out
injustice:
"The
Message marks his re-entry as a public intellectual determined
to wield his moral authority, especially regarding Israel and the
occupied territories." More on the book below, but first a good
introduction is a bit of
CBS Mornings interview with Coates. A quick sampling of reviews.
(I have a copy of the book, but haven't cracked it open yet.)
Jay Caspian Kang: [10-04]
Why Ta-Nehisi Coates writes: "In The Message, Coates urges
young writers to aspire to 'nothing less than doing their part to
save the world,' but his latest work reveals the limits of his own
advice."
Peter Beinart: [10-01]
this first question: would you support a preemptive strike on Iran
rather than how would you stop this regional war pretty much encapsulates
what is wrong with US media coverage of this conflict
Local tags (these can be linked to directly):
music.
Original count: 131 links, 7251 words (9735) total).
As expected, I've had very little time to work on this all week.
The idea of starting each week's post with an evolving executive
summary will have to wait until next week, at the earliest.
Trying to wrap this up Monday afternoon, but I soon have to take
a break to buy some lumber and tools, and I should spend most of
the day working on the upstairs room (having wasted my weekend on
what should have been a simple wiring job, and, well, much of the
bulk below. I probably won't post this until late, so I'll likely
find more, but in lieu of trying to summarize my main points, let
me just emphasize two:
I've tried very hard for very long to be as understanding as
possible to Israelis, even though I never embraced the nationalist
movement that founded and led the "Jewish State" (never mind the
crypto-religious settler cult that currently holds sway over it).
Nor have I been reluctant to criticize when I've sensed similar
(correlative?) movements among Palestinians, even when I saw in
them reflections of the dominant Israeli trends. I believe that
people of all sides deserve human rights, and I'm sympathetic to
those who are denied them, regardless of whose fault that might
be (even when the fault is one's own). However, at this point
Israel alone -- by which I mean the current governing coalition
and all those who support them (not all Israelis, but most; not
most Americans, but some) -- bear exclusive responsibility for
all pain and suffering in the region, even their own. One thing
that follows from this is that every violence from any side is
properly viewed as a consequence of Netanyahu's incitement and
perpetuation of this genocidal war. Just for the record, I don't
approve of Hamas or Hezbollah violence any more than I approve
of Israeli violence, but I understand that when Israel acts as
it has been doing, human nature will respond in kind. Israel
alone has the power to end this conflict. That they refuse to
pay even the minimal rights of according Palestinians a right
to live in peace and dignity puts this all on them.
I have very little new to say about the US elections.
Trump, Vance, and virtually every other Republican have proven
to be even more boorish and benighted than previously imagined.
Honest and decent American voters have to stop them, which means
electing Democrats, regardless of their flaws. I will continue
to note some of these flaws, but none of them can possibly alter
the prime directive, which is to stop the Republicans. To that
end, I will continue to note pieces that expose their failures
and that heap derision on them, but I don't see that doing so
here makes much difference. I, and probably you, know enough
already. Aside from voting, which is the least one can and
should do, I wouldn't mind tuning out until November, when we
can wake up and assess the damages.
I could write much more about each of these two points, but
not now.
Top story threads:
Israel: Israel dramatically expanded its
genocidal war into Lebanon this week, which warrants yet another
section, below
Mondoweiss:
[09-23]
Day 353: Israel launches bombing campaign on Lebanon as Hezbollah
retaliates: "Israel's intensifying bombardment of Lebanon has
killed at least 274 people so far, while Hezbollah retaliates with
rockets across Israel. The Israeli army also raided and forcibly
shut down the Ramallah office of Al Jazeera."
[09-26]
Israel's Genocide Day 356: Netanyahu denies accepting US-French
ceasefire proposal with Lebanon: "As Israel expands bombing
in Lebanon, Hezbollah rockets have reached reached Akka, Haifa,
Tiberias, and the lower Galilee. Meanwhile, in Gaza, Israel
returned a truckload of decomposing bodies without identification
that it had abducted from Gaza." First thing to note here is that
they've changed the headline here: all previous entry titles
started with 'Operation al-Aqsa Flood' (their quotes)
before "Day." I've always dropped that part, as I found it both
unnecessary and unhelpful: "Operation al-Aqsa Flood" lasted at
most four days; everything since then, as well as most of those
first four days, has been Israel's doing -- and I wasn't about
to impose Israel's own declaration ("Operation Swords of Iron,"
which in itself says much about Israeli mentality). I'm not going
to repeat the new title either (beyond this one instance), but
I do consider it truthful, and have since about one week into
the operation, by which time it was clear what Netanyahu had in
mind (look back for quotes about Amalek; e.g.: Noah Lanard:
[2023-11-03]
The dangerous history behind Netanyahu's Amalek rhetoric: "His
recent biblical reference has long been used by the Israeli far right
to justify killing Palestinians").
Ahmed Abu Abdu: [09-25]
Waste is piling up in Gaza. The public health implications are
disastrous. "I am in charge of waste management in Gaza City.
The Israeli occupation has launched a war on our sanitation
facilities and waste management systems, creating an environmental
and health crisis that will take years to recover from."
B'Tselem:
The pogroms are working - the transfer is already happening:
This is mostly a report on events in the West Bank prior to the
Oct. 7 Gaza revolt, after which settler violence in the West Bank --
"in the past two yeras, at least six West Bank communities have
been displaced" -- only increased.
For decades, Israel has employed a slew of measures designed to
make life in dozens of Palestinian communities throughout the West
Bank miserable. This is part of an attempt to force residents of
these communities to uproot themselves, seemingly of their own
accord. Once that is achieved, the state can realize its goal of
taking over the land. To advance this objective, Israel forbids
members of these communities from building homes, agricultural
structures or public buildings. It does not allow them to connect
to the water and power grids or build roads, and when they do, as
they have no other choice, Israel threatens demolition, often
delivering on these threats.
Settler violence is another tool Israel employs to further
torment Palestinians living in these communities. Such attacks
have grown significantly worse under the current government,
turning life in some places into an unending nightmare and
denying residents any possibility of living with even minimal
dignity. The violence has robbed Palestinian residents of their
ability to continue earning a living. It has terrorized them to
the point of fearing for their lives and made them internalize
the understanding that there is no one to protect them.
This reality has left these communities with no other choice,
and several of them have uprooted themselves, leaving hearth and
home for safer places. Dozens of communities scattered throughout
the West Bank live in similar conditions. If Israel continues this
policy, their residents may also be displaced, freeing Israel to
achieve its goal and take over their land.
Tareq S Hajjaj: [09-26]
In Gaza, all eyes are on Lebanon: "People in Gaza hoped that
an expansion of the Lebanese front would ease pressure on Gaza.
Instead, Israel has escalated its massacres while global attention
is elsewhere. They still hope the resistance in Lebanon will make
Israel pay."
Erika Solomon/Lauren Leatherby/Aric Toler: [09-25]
Israeli bulldozers flatten mile after mile in the West Bank:
"Videos from Tulkarm and Jenin show bulldozers destroying
infrastructure and businesses, as well as soldiers impeding
local emergency responders."
Israel targets Lebanon:
Following last
week's stochastic terrorist exercise -- detonating thousands of
booby-trapped pages and walkie-talkies -- Israel escalated its
bombing of Lebanon, Israel targeting and killed senior Hezbollah
leadership, including long-time leader Hasan Nasrallah. In many
quarters, this will be touted as a huge success for Netanyahu in
his campaign to exterminate all of Israel's enemies, but right
now the longer-term consequences of fallout and blowback are
incalculable and probably even unimaginable. We should be clear
that Hezbollah did not provoke these attacks, even in response
to Israel's genocide in Gaza.
(In 2006, Hezbollah, which had
been formed in opposition to Israel's 1982-2000 occupation of
southern Lebanon, did act against Israel, as a diversion after
Israel launched its first punitive siege of Gaza. Israel shifted
attention to Lebanon, and conducted a horrific bombing campaign,
as well as an unsuccessful ground incursion.)
Rather, Israel has
repeatedly provoked Hezbollah -- which has tried to deter further
attacks by demonstrating their ability to fire rockets deep into
Israel, a strategy I regard as foolish ("deterrence" only deters
people who weren't going to attack you in the first place; it
works for Israel against its hapless neighbors, but when others
try it, it just provokes greater arrogance and aggression by
Israel). As I've stressed all along, Israel's expansion of the
war into Lebanon serves two purposes: to provide "fog of war"
cover for continuing the genocide in Gaza, and expanding it into
the West Bank; and to lock reflexive US support in place, which
is tied to the supposedly greater regional threat of Iran. The US
could short-circuit this war by denouncing Israel's aggression, by
demanding an immediate cease-fire, and by negotiating a separate
peace and normalization with Iran (which Iran has long signalled
a desire for). Instead, the Biden administration continues to let
Netanyahu pull its strings.
Note that I haven't tried to subdivide these links, but events
unfolded quickly, so dates may be significant.
I may be exaggerating at some level, but those are the contours
of how Israel viewed October 7. Not because it was really an
existential risk. We already saw that in only two or four days,
Israel was able to regain the Gaza envelope and the settlements
surrounding Gaza. But on the level of the psyche, that's how it
felt for most Israelis. So they want to regain the initiative.
They saw October 7 as an opportunity to exact a price from
everybody in the region who supports resistance. They want to
destroy societies that are challenging them, whether in Gaza,
Lebanon, or other places.
The real desire is for an ultimate form of victory, this kind
of awe-inspiring victory that will give them an answer to their
existential questions.
I think that on some level, the Israelis won the war, they won
the victory. They want to create these awe-inspiring moments, like
we saw with the pager and walkie-talkie attacks, which they have
severely missed in contrast to how they were caught with their
pants down on October 7.
October 7 was a moment that not only stuck in the Israeli psyche,
but the Palestinian psyche as well. Israel's genocide in Gaza inspired
shock and horror, but didn't inspire a lot of awe. It didn't give
Israelis the taste of power that Israeli identity was built on. But
with Hezbollah, we've seen this awe factor come back, like the
penetration of the communication devices and blowing them all up at
once. This includes some of the operations that Israel has conducted
in Gaza, like the extraction of some Israeli prisoners held by the
Palestinian resistance.
That's on a level of, if you want, psychological and aesthetic
analysis. But on a political level, Israel finds this as an opportunity.
It's already way deep into a war for 11 months, a war that is costing it
a lot economically, socially, politically, and diplomatically. It sees
that only more war will bring about better results in those domains.
It will be able to establish what it calls deterrence. It will be
able to put a line in the sand and say, if you ever challenge us again,
this is what will happen to you. It will burn into the consciousness of
the people of the region that Israel shouldn't be played with. All of
these motivations coexist all at once in Israel's conduct -- and of
course, for the settlers specifically.
The only ones who have a real solution for this whole Palestinian
question, instead of managing the conflict or shrinking the conflict
or destroying the possibilities for two states or one state, are
the settlers who say that we should change the paradigm with the
Palestinians. They say, we should destroy Palestinian existence in
the land of Palestine.
So for the settlers, the "ultimate victory" is to get rid of as
many Palestinians as possible from the river to the sea, including
Palestinian citizens of Israel, and establish the kind of pure
religious Jewish state that they have always dreamed of. For them,
war is desirable. It maintains the possibility for ethnic cleansing,
it maintains the possibility for genocide. It means it still keeps
the possibility of total victory open. Of course, even in their
wildest dreams, even if they clear out all of the Palestinians
from Palestine, I think the Palestinian question will not go away.
I don't have time to ruminate on this right now, but there is
a lot to unpack here.
Ken Klippenstein: [09-23]
Beep, beep! "Israel's pager caper is a Wile E. Coyote vs. Road
Runner exercise in futility."
This is the less cinematic but no less depressing reality of the
pager attack: it is just another version of the latest weapon in
the never changing battlefield, one typified by these kinds of
tit-for-tat attacks that never bring about a decisive ending or
a new beginning.
Before long, other countries and terrorist groups will buy or
develop their own Acme Exploding Pagers, as Panetta hinted. The
media's uncritically declaring Israel's latest caper a success
creates an incentive for countries to do just that. Absent an
honest assessment, hands will again be wrung, chins scratched,
ominous warnings issued, and beep, beep! -- perpetual war will
zip right on by.
And of course when Hezbollah or some other group attacks our
devices, the national security state will happily label it terrorism.
[09-28]
Hezbollah confirms the death of Hasan Nasrallah in Israeli
carpet-bombing: "Considered an icon of resistance against Israel
and one of the most influential political figures in the Arab world,
Hasan Nasrallah was killed by a massive Israeli airstrike that
leveled an entire residential block in Beirut's Dahiya district."
Liz Sly: [09-29]
Nasrallah's assassination shreds illusion of Hezbollah's military
might. What military might? In 2006, Hezbollah was effective at
repelling an Israeli ground incursion, which wasn't all that serious
in the first place. But Hezbollah has no air force, no effective
anti-aircraft defense, no tanks, few if any drones, a few small
missiles that while more sophisticated than anything Hamas had in
Gaza have never been able to inflict any serious damage. Sure, they
talk a foolish game of deterrence, but no one in Israel takes their
threat seriously.
David E Sanger: [09-23]
Biden works against the clock as violence escalates in the Middle
East: "President Biden is beginning to acknowledge that he is
simply running out of time to help forge a cease-fire and hostage
deal with Hamas, his aides say. And the risk of a wider war has
never looked greater." It's hard to make things happen when you
don't have the will to exercise your power. Still, it's pretty
pathetic to think that a sitting US president needs more than four
months to demand something as simple and straightforward as a
cease-fire. (The hostage exchange is an unnecessary complication.)
While I'm sure there are limits to presidential power, the problem
here appears to be that Biden and his administration don't have
the faintest understanding of what needs to be done. Nor do they
seem to care.
[Netanyahu] has a vested interest in prolonging the war for his
political survival and in making it an election issue that could
potentially harm Vice President Kamala Harris. It seems that the
US finally and very belatedly realized it last week, which is why,
however unfortunate, there is little the US will do until the
election, unless it's forced to act in the case of a major escalation.
[09-27]
Netanyahu defends Gaza and Lebanon attacks in UN speech:
"Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations on Friday, vowing
to continue waging war on Gaza and Lebanon. Israeli media reports
the Israeli Prime Minister ordered massive strikes on Beirut just
before giving the speech."
Tara Copp: [09-23]
US sends more troops to Middle East as violence rises between Israel
and Hezbollah: I've been saying all along that Israel's attacks
on Lebanon (aka Hezbollah) are designed to trap the US into a role
of shielding Israel from Iran. The thinking is that if the US and
Iran go to war, the US will become more dependent on Israel, and
more indulgent in their main focus, which is making Gaza and the
West Bank uninhabitable for Palestinians. US troop movement prove
that the strategy is working, even though it's pretty obviously
cynical and deranged.
Fawaz A Gerges: [09-30]
The rising risk of a new forever war: Title from jump page: "The
United States has not been a true friend of Israel." This is the
relevant paragraph:
Nevertheless, it is the only way forward. Israel's hubris in its
attacks on Lebanon has been enabled by America's "ironclad" military
support and diplomatic cover for its ally. In this regard, the United
States has not been a true friend to Israel. Israel will not know
lasting peace until it recognizes that its long-term security depends
on reconciliation with the millions of Palestinians in Gaza, the West
Bank and East Jerusalem. Its leaders must find a political compromise
that will finally allow Israel to be fully integrated into the region.
Top-down normalization with Arab autocrats is not enough.
[09-20]
A broader Israel-Lebanon war now seems inevitable: "This week's
pager explosions in Lebanon represent a tactical victory for Israel.
They also appear to lock the region into an escalatory spiral." I
thought that tactics were meant to facilitate strategy, but it's
hard to discern either in such massive, indiscriminate mayhem.
Unless the strategy is to convince the world that Israelis are
insane as well as evil, in which case, sure, they're making their
point.
[09-23]
World leaders gather at a UN desperate to save itself: "Ongoing
crises in Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine have underscores the inefficacy
of the world's foremost decision-making body. Great power competition
may be to blame." You think? The UN has no power to enforce judgments,
so the only way it can function is as a forum for negotiation, and
that only works if all parties are amenable. There is nothing the UN
can do about a nation like Israel that is flagrantly in contempt of
international law. In many ways, the US is even more of a rogue force
on the international scene. America's disregard for other nations has
pushed other countries into defensive stances, further disabling the
UN. Now it's just a big gripe session, as the speeches by Netanyahu
and Biden made abundantly clear.
[09-27]
At the UN, overwhelming anger at Israel: "At the United Nations,
world leaders cast Israel's heavy-handed campaigns in Gaza and the
inability of the UN system to rein it as a danger to the institution
itself."
Kyle Anzalone: [09-27]
Israel is fighting a war on seven fronts: "The Israeli leader
called the UN General Assembly a 'swamp of antisemitic bile'.
The UN published a
statement summary of Netanyahu's speech. Two fairly obvious
points here: (1) most leaders would seek to divide and diminish
their enemies, but Netanyahu conflates and aggrandizes them, to
make them look more ominous to Israel's patrons in America, to
keep them in line; (2) relentlessly conflating any criticism of
Israel's apartheid and genocide with anti-semitism is a sure-fire
way to promote generic Judeophobia.
Craig Mokhiber: [09-28]
How Israel attempts to justify indiscriminate attacks on civilians
(and why it's failing): "Israel's mass terror attack in Lebanon that
led to the death and maiming of hundreds of civilians also served as
a playbook for how Israel seeks to justify its war crimes. But as
the attack's aftermath showed, these tricks are beginning to fail."
This is a big and important subject, including "collateral damage
defense," "magic-word defense," all sorts of canards, many of which
inadvertently expose underlying prejudices.
But calling someone a "terrorist" or saying that they are affiliated
with a group that you dislike or consider to be terrorist, is not a
legal argument. At the very heart of international humanitarian law
is the distinction between combatants and non-combatants.
Superimposing another label on top of a civilian population that
you do not like does not make them legitimate targets.
Indeed, even attempting to re-label combatants in this way does
not relieve Israel of its obligations under international humanitarian
and human rights law. Unlawful weapons and tactics remain unlawful,
regardless of the labels the attackers apply to their targets.
James North: [09-25]
CNN's dishonest duo, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, strike again:
"The latest dishonesty from CNN's Biased Duo, Jake Tapper and Dana
Bash, about Rashida Tlaib prompted an intense critical reaction.
The solution? CNN should ban them from reporting on Palestine."
[09-27]
Biden would rather defend Israeli impunity than stop a regional
war: "As Israel intensified its deadly attacks on Lebanon, the
US moved more troops to the Middle East. The move shows Joe Biden's
priority is not to avoid escalation but to ensure that Israel has
full impunity."
Derek Seidman: [09-29]
Using research to uncover campus complicity in genocide: "Across
the US, students organizing against Israel's assault on Gaza have made
essential use of power research, uncovering financial ties between the
Pentagon and campus labs and mapping out connections between university
trustees and the war machine."
Saad Shahriar: [09-28]
The German Left's complicity in the Palestinian genocide:
"While the German left passionately supports many international
causes but remains conspicuously silent on the ongoing genocide
of Palestinians, conveniently overlooking its own complicity in
Germany's military-industrial ties to Israel."
Kate Wagner: [07-09]
The awful plan to turn Gaza into the next Dubai: "The Netanyahu
administration seems to have learned from neighboring petrostates
that spectacle can distract from ethnic cleansing." I missed this
when it came out -- not long, just a few months ago -- but it's all
smoke and mirrors, so hardly matters. Reminds me, though, that it
wasn't all that long ago with Hamas (although I'm hard pressed to
find a suitable link).
On Truth Social, Donald Trump recently posted a special message to
American women. "WOMEN WILL BE HAPPY, HEALTHY, CONFIDENT AND FREE!"
he announced. "YOU WILL NO LONGER BE THINKING ABOUT ABORTION, BECAUSE
IT IS NOW WHERE IT ALWAYS HAD TO BE, WITH THE STATES." The first
sentence sounds like an Always commercial; the second is a bit more
pernicious. It is difficult to be "happy, healthy, confident and
free" as women
die from abortion bans in states such as Georgia. Nevertheless,
Trump is fond of his new pitch. At a
campaign event in Pennsylvania on Monday, he called himself a
"protector" of women, adding that ladies will no longer be "abandoned,
lonely, or scared." How wonderful. . . .
The rhetoric is characteristically authoritarian in the sense
that Trump admires strongmen and wishes to become one. He will thus
deliver further subjugation, not liberation. Not even his female
supporters will be safe from the anti-feminist backlash heralded
by his party. If it's dangerous to be pregnant in America, then
it's dangerous for anyone who can conceive; a doctor won't check
a patient's political views when he refuses to perform a D&C
under the threat of prosecution. That is the world that Trump's
supporters have signed up for; it is a world that social
conservatives have labored to create. . . .
We can review the facts, and
polling suggests that most of us are inclined to reject Trump
as our improbable protector. Trump is not capable of protecting
anyone, let alone women, from himself or from anyone else. He is
the wolf in the pasture, the threat in the dark. We can run, or
we can fight.
Not that long ago, endorsements like these would have been rebuffed]
by Democrats as valentines from warmongers.
I can't recall any such time, certainly not since Clinton picked
Gore as his VP in 1992 because both were Gulf War hawks, then Gore
picked the even more hawkish Lieberman as his VP in 2000. Obama kept
much of Bush's war cabinet on board after 2008, especially Gates, who
he later replaced with another Republican before finding an even worse
Democrat in Ash Carter. Hillary Clinton didn't shy away from Kagan
endorsements -- see Ben Norton: [2016-06-10]
Another neocon endorses Clinton, calling her "2016's real conservative"
and "the candidate of the status quo". Before Nixon and Reagan,
the party with the reputation for fighting wars was the Democrats
(Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson).
Brett Wilkins: [09-25]
Trump condemned for 'genocidal' threat to destroy Iran: "Trump's
threat to blow Iran's largest cities and the country itself 'to
smithereens' is an outrageous threat that should be widely condemned,"
said the National Iranian American Council."
Chas Danner: [09-23]
Mark Robinson's campaign is imploding: Republican lieutenant
governor, campaigning for governor, and much in the news of late.
Also:
Political advocacy and charitable groups controlled by Leo now have
far more assets than the combined total cash on hand of the Republican
and Democratic National, Congressional and Senatorial committees:
$440.9 million.
Leo is a 58-year-old graduate of Cornell Law School, a Catholic
with ties to Opus Dei -- the most conservative "personal prelature"
in the church hierarchy -- chief strategist of the Federalist Society
for more than a quarter century and a crucial force behind the
confirmations of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett
Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. He has emerged over the past five
years as the dominant fund-raiser on the right.
As Leo has risen to this pinnacle of influence, he has become
rich, profiting from the organizations he has created and from the
consulting fees paid by the conservative advocacy and lobbying
groups he funds.
James Carden: [09-25]
When odious foreign policy elites rally around Harris: "We
should take seriously those responsible for some of the bloodiest,
stupidest national security decisions in recent memory." Cheneys,
of course, and a few more mentioned, as well as reference to this:
Adam Jentleson: [09-28]
Kamala Harris said she owns a gun for a very strategic reason:
"She has been doing an effective job of vice signaling from the
left." First I've heard of "vice signaling," and this definition
doesn't help: "Vice signaling means courting healthy controversy
with the enforcers of orthodoxy -- the members of interest groups
who on many critical issues have let themselves off the hook for
accurately representing the views and interests of those they claim
to speak for." I have run across "virtue signaling" before, which
is a term used to deride views from the left as mere ploys to make
one seem more virtuous -- an implicit put-down of anyone who doesn't
agree. "Vice signaling" has the same intent, but opposes virtue by
embracing its opposite vice. Why these terms should exclusively be
directed against the left is counterintuitive -- throughout history,
"enforcers of orthodoxy" have nearly always come from the right,
where "holier than thou" is a common attitude, and snobbery not
just accepted but cultivated.
The actual examples given, like embracing fracking and threatening
to shoot a home invader, may help Harris break away from cartoon left
caricatures, and that cognitive dissonance may help her get a fresh
hearing. That may be part of her craft as a politician -- as a non-
or even anti-politician, I'm in no position to tell her how to do her
job. Nor do I particularly care about these specific cases. But I am
irritated when leftists who've merely thought problems through enough
to arrive at sound answers are dismissed as "enforcers of orthodoxy."
Padma Lakshmi: [09-21]
As a cook, here's what I see in Kamala Harris. There's a lot in
this piece I can relate to, put my own spin on, and imagine her spin
as not being all that different.
Talking about food is a way to relate to more Americans, even those
uninterested in her politics. We've all been eating since we were
babies, and we're experts on our own tastes. Talking about food paves
the way to harder conversations. Food removes barriers and unites us.
Ms. Harris evinces clear delight in cooking and in talking about
almost any type of food -- a passion that is core to who she is, like
basketball for Barack Obama or golf for Donald Trump.
She is omnivorous and a versatile cook.
That Obama and Trump would go for sports is in itself telling
(as is that Trump went for the solo sport, vs. a team sport for
Obama, one that requires awareness of other people and the ability
to make changes on the fly). I've only watched one of the videos
(so far, making dosa masala with Mindy Kaling, which was chatty
with less technique than I would have preferred -- I understand
the decision to use the premix batter, after at least one stab
at making it from scratch).
John Nichols: [09-20]
Kamala Harris is winning the Teamsters endorsements that really
matter: "The national leadership may have snubbed her -- but
Teamsters in the swing states that will decide the election are
backing her all the way." They all matter. Not clear whether the
non-endorsement was reaction to the DNC snub, which I never quite
understood. Still, the choice for labor is so overwhelming this
time the national leadership appears pretty out of touch.
Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:
Ethan Eblaghie: [09-26]
The Uncommitted Movement failed because it refused to punish
Democrats: "The Uncommitted movement failed to move the
Biden-Harris administration policy on Gaza because unaccountable
movement leaders were unwilling to punish Democrats for supporting
genocide." They failed, if that's the word you want to use, because
they didn't get the votes. I doubt this was due to lack of sympathy
for their issue: most rank-and-file Democrats (as opposed to party
politicians, who of necessity are preoccupied with fundraising)
support a cease-fire, and many are willing to back that up with
limits on military aid[*]; but they also see party unity as essential
to defeating Trump and the Republicans, and they see that as more
critical/urgent than mobilizing public opinion against genocide.
I can see both sides of this, but at this point the ticket and the
contest are set, so all you can do is to pick one. While I have
little positive to say about Harris on Israel, it's completely
clear to me that Trump would be even worse, and I can't think of
any respect in which he would be preferable to Harris. As for
punishing the Democrats -- even with third-party and not-voting
options -- don't be surprised if they never forgive you. So ask
yourself, do you really want to burn the bridge to the people
you're most likely to appeal to?
[*] Michael Arria, in a piece cited
above, has some polling:
Recent polls show vast support for an arms embargo on Israel among
Democratic voters.
A March 2024 Center for Economic and Policy Research
survey found that 52% of Americans wanted the U.S. to stop
weapons shipments. That included 62% of Democratic voters.
A June
survey then from CBS News/YouGov found that more than 60% of
voters should not send weapons or supplies to Israel. Almost 80%
of Democrats said the the U.S. shouldn't send weapons.
Jeffrey St Clair: [09-27]
The judicial murder of Marcellus Williams: "The State of Missouri
executed Marcellus 'Khalifah' Williams on Tuesday night despite knowing
he was
most likely innocent of the crime he was condemned for." Also:
"The State of Missouri plans to execute another innocent man,
Robert Roberson, on October 17."
Nia Prater: [09-30]
Videos show Helene's catastrophic toll in Southeast: "Multiple
states are contending with widespread damage and significant loss
of life following the landfall of Hurricane Helene, a Category 4
storm."
Sam Bull: [09-24]
Poll: Americans want Ukraine talks, conditions on aid to Israel:
"Yet they are split along party lines on a host of issues ahead of
the elections." Still, the numbers are very scattered, and it's
especially hard to credit the party trust figures.
Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:
Other stories:
Obituaries:
Benny Golson:
Richard Williams: [09-25]
Benny Golson obituary: "Tenor saxophonist whose compositions
were valued for their harmonic challenge and melodic grace."
Fredric Jameson: A critic and philosopher,
I remember him fondly from my early Marxist period, which certainly
meant his books Marxism and Form: Twentieth Century Dialectical
Theories of Literature (1971), and possibly The Prison-House
of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism
(1972), but I haven't followed him since. Turns out he's written much
more than I was aware of, especially many titles published by
Verso Books.
Terry Eagleton:
Fredric Jameson, 1934-2024: "reflects here on Jameson's humility,
generosity, and unrivalled erudition."
Jameson's work was both utopian and depressive, expansive in the
field of its analysis and trained almost entirely on culture rather
than politics. And he was rare among Marxist intellectuals in the
neoliberal era to have managed to speak firmly to the present day.
That is why his work affected so many. An entire strand of mainstream
political thought is unimaginable without the influence of Jameson's
fusion of hard cultural criticism, immense knowledge, refusal of
low/high cultural boundaries, and his endlessly ruminative, open-minded
dialectical curiosity, put in the service of a refusal ever to forgive
or downplay the horrors that capitalism has inflicted upon the world.
Jameson's Marxism was particularly tailored for our fallen era, a low
ebb of class struggle, an apparent triumph of a new and ever more
ruthless capitalism: "late", as he optimistically put it, borrowing
a phrase from the Belgian Trotskyist Ernest Mandel.
Also:
"The dialectic," wrote Jameson, "is not moral." In the sprawling
Valences of the Dialectic (2009), Jameson proposed "a new
institutional candidate for the function of Utopian allegory, and
that is the phenomenon called Wal-Mart". While conceding that the
actually existing Wal-Mart was "dystopian in the extreme", Jameson
was fascinated by its unsentimental destruction of small businesses,
its monopolistic mockery of the concept of a "free market", and its
immense, largely automated and computerised network of distribution
of cheap, abundant goods. Perhaps it was a step too far to extrapolate
from this -- as did Leigh Phillips and Michael Rozworski in their
2019 The People's Republic of Wal-Mart -- and portray the
megacorp as a prefiguring of communist distribution networks. But
what Jameson was up to, following Gramsci's and Lenin's fascination
with Fordism and Taylorism, was an attempt to uncover what the new
horrors of capitalism made possible. In the case of Wal-Mart, he
argued, the answer was: a computerised planned economy. Jameson was
a strict, 20th-century Marxist in remaining a firmly modernist thinker,
refusing to find any solace in imagined communal or pre-capitalist
pasts. But his unsentimental modernism did not preclude an outrage
at the ravages inflicted by colonialism and imperialism in the name
of "progress", an often overlooked thread in his work.
[PS: From this, my first and evidently only free article, I clicked
on Richard Seymour: [07-22]
The rise of disaster nationalism: "The modern far-right is not
a return to fascism, but a new and original threat." I could see
this as a reasonable argument, as evidence of the "thought-provoking
journalism" the publication touts, but I was stopped cold at the
paywall ("as little as $12.00 a month").
Kate Wagner: [09-26]
The gifts of Fredric Jameson (1934-2024): "The intellectual titan
bestowed on us so many things, chief among them a reminder to Always
Be Historicizing."
Verso Books: [09-23]
Jameson at 90: A Verso Blog series: "Our series honoring Fredric
Jameson's oeuvre in celebration of his 90th birthday."
Patrick Iber: [09-24]
Eric Hobsbawm's lament for the twentieth century: "Where some
celebrated the triumph of liberal capitalism in the 1990s, Hobsbawn
saw a failed dream." Re-reviewing the British historian's 1994 book,
The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991,
which I started at the time, and have long meant to return to --
although after re-reading the first of what turned into his
tetraology, The Age of Revolution (1789-1948), I found
myself wanting to work through the intermediate volumes --
The Age of Capital (1848-1875) and The Age of Empire
(1875-1914) first. Iber teases us with his conclusion:
But if a classic is a work that remains worth reading both for
what it is and for what it tells us about the time it was created,
Hobsbawm's text deserves that status. It rewards the reader not
because a historian would write the same book today but precisely
because they would not.
Hobsbawm's previous books are dazzling for the breadth of his
knowledge, and his skill at weaving so many seemingly disparate
strands into a sensible whole. This one, however, is coterminous
with his life (into his 70s; his dates were 1917-2012), which
gives him the advantages (and limits) of having experienced as
well as researched the history, and having had a personal stake
in how it unfolded.
Ryu Spaeth: [09-23]
The return of Ta-Nehisi Coates: "A decade after The Case for
Reparations, he is ready to take on Israel, Palestine, and the
American media." Coates has a new book,
The Message, coming out Oct. 1. I expect we'll be hearing
much more about this in coming weeks. To underscore the esteem
with which Coates is held, this pointed to a 2015 article:
Here's are several fairly long quotes from Spaeth's article:
In Coates's eyes, the ghost of Jim Crow is everywhere in the
territories. In the soldiers who "stand there and steal our time,
the sun glinting off their shades like Georgia sheriffs." In the
water sequestered for Israeli use -- evidence that the state had
"advanced beyond the Jim Crow South and segregated not just the
pools and fountains but the water itself." In monuments on sites
of displacement and informal shrines to mass murder, such as the
tomb of Baruch Goldstein, who gunned down 29 Muslims in a mosque
in 1994, which recall "monuments to the enslavers" in South Carolina.
And in the baleful glare of the omnipresent authority. "The point
is to make Palestinians feel the hand of occupation constantly," he
writes. And later: "The message was: 'You'd really be better off
somewhere else.'" . . .
His affinity for conquered peoples very much extends to the Jews,
and he begins the book's essay on Palestine at Yad Vashem, Israel's
memorial to the victims of the Holocaust. "In a place like this," he
writes, "your mind expands as the dark end of your imagination blooms,
and you wonder if human depravity has any bottom at all, and if it
does not, what hope is there for any of us?" But what Coates is
concerned with foremost is what happened when Jewish people went
from being the conquered to the conquerors, when "the Jewish people
had taken its place among The Strong," and he believes Yad Vashem
itself has been used as a tool for justifying the occupation. "We
have a hard time wrapping our heads around people who are obvious
historical victims being part and parcel of another crime," he told
me. In the book, he writes of the pain he observed in two of his
Israeli companions: "They were raised under the story that the
Jewish people were the ultimate victims of history. But they had
been confronted with an incredible truth -- that there was no
ultimate victim, that victims and victimizers were ever
flowing." . . .
The book is strongest when its aperture is narrow. There is no
mention of the fact that Israel is bombarded by terrorist groups set
on the state's annihilation. There is no discussion of the intifadas
and the failed negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders
going back decades. There is even no mention of Gaza because Coates
was unable to visit the region after the October 7 attack and he did
not want to report on a place he hadn't seen for himself. ("People
were like, 'Gaza is so much worse,'" he told me. "'So much worse.'")
What there is, instead, is a picture of the intolerable cruelty and
utter desperation that could lead to an October 7.
"If this was the 1830s and I was enslaved and Nat Turner's rebellion
had happened," Coates told me that day in Gramercy, "I would've been
one of those people that would've been like, 'I'm not cool with this.'
But Nat Turner happens in a context. So the other part of me is like,
What would I do if I had grown up in Gaza, under the blockade and in
an open-air prison, and I had a little sister who had leukemia and
needed treatment but couldn't get it because my dad or my mom couldn't
get the right pass out? You know what I mean? What would I do if my
brother had been shot for getting too close to the barrier? What would
I do if my uncle had been shot because he's a fisherman and he went
too far out? And if that wall went down and I came through that wall,
who would I be? Can I say I'd be the person that says, 'Hey, guys,
hold up. We shouldn't be doing this'? Would that have been me?"
Ta-Nehisi Coates: [08-21]
A Palestinian American's place under the Democrats' big tent?:
"Though the Uncommitted movement is lobbying to get a Palestinian
American on the main stage, the Harris campaign has not yet approved
one. Will there be a change before Thursday -- and does the Democratic
Party want that?" In the end, the DNC didn't allow a Palestinian
speaker, calling into question their "big tent" commitment, and
exposing how invisible and unfelt Palestinians have become even
among people who profess to believe in democracy, equal rights,
human rights, peace and social justice.
Zack Beauchamp: [09-24]
The Israel-Palestine conflict is in fact complicated and difficult to
resolve fairly.
Invariably, posts like these attract the absolute stupidest people
who prove why it needs saying in the first place.
PS: I replied: Reminds me of a joke: how many psychiatrists does
it take to change a light bulb? One, but the light bulb really has
to want to change. Palestinians have tried everything; nothing worked,
so it looks difficult. But Israel has offered nothing. If they did,
it would be easy.
Many comments, preëmptively dismissed by Beauchamp, make similar
points, some harshly, others more diplomatically. One took the
opposite tack, blaming it all on Palestinian rejection of Israel's
good intentions -- basically a variation on the argument that when
one is being raped, one should relax and enjoy it. The key thing
is that Israelis have always viewed the situation as a contest of
will and power, where both sides seek to dominate the other, which
is never acceptable to the other. When dominance proves impossible,
the sane alternative is to find some sort of accommodation, which
allows both sides most of the freedoms they desire. That hasn't
happened with Israel, because they've always felt they were if
not quite on the verge of winning, at least in such a dominant
position they could continue the conflict indefinitely. Given
that presumption, everything else is rationalization.
One comment cites Ta-Nehisi Coates:
For Coates, the parallels with the Jim Crow South were obvious and
immediate: Here, he writes, was a "world where separate and unequal
was alive and well, where rule by the ballot for some and the bullet
for others was policy." And this world was made possible by his own
country: "The pushing of Palestinians out of their homes had the
specific imprimatur of the United States of America. Which means
it had my imprimatur."
That it was complicated, he now understood, was "horseshit."
"Complicated" was how people had described slavery and then segregation.
"It's complicated," he said, "when you want to take something from
somebody."
Zachary D Carter: [09-25]
Biden's Middle East policy straightforwardly violates domestic and
international law.
In just about every other respect Biden's foreign policy operation
has been admirable, but the damage he has done to international
conceptions of the U.S. with his Middle East program is on par
with George W. Bush.
PS: I replied: Funny, I can't think of any aspect of Biden
foreign policy as admirable, even in intent, much less in effect.
Same hubris, hollow principles, huge discounts for shameless
favorites (arms, oil, $$). Even climate is seen as just rents.
Israel is the worst, but the whole is rotten.]
I saw this in a Facebook image, and felt like jotting it down
(at some point I should find the source):
Banksy on Advertising
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your
life, ttakle a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you
from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant
comments from buses that imply you're not sexy enough and that all the
fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend
feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated
technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They
are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual
property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they
like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no chance
whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and
re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is
like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially
don't owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the
world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your
permission, don't . . .
Quite some time ago, I started writing a series of little notes
on terms of interest -- an idea, perhaps inspired by Raymond Williams'
book
Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, that I've
kept on a cool back burner ever since. One of the first entries
was on advertising, and as I recall -- I have no idea where this
writing exists, if indeed it does -- it started with: "Advertising
is not free speech. It is very expensive . . ." Williams would
usually start with the history of the word, including etymology,
then expand on its current usage. I was more focused on the latter,
especially how words combine complex and often nuanced meanings,
and how I've come to think through those words. Advertising for
me is not just a subject I have a lot of personal experience in --
both as consumer or object and on the concept and production side --
but is a prism which reveals much about our ethics and politics.
In particular, it testifies to our willingness to deceive and to
manipulate one another, and our tolerance at seeing that done,
both to others and to oneself.
In looking this up, I found a few more useful links on
Raymond Williams (1981-88) and Keywords:
The Raymond Williams Society:
Contemporary Keywords. "Every year our journal Key Words
includes a new "keyword," usually linked to the general 'theme' of
the issue, in the tradition of Williams's historical analysis."
These were written by Tony Crowley: class, commitment, crisis,
post-truth, privilege, scouse, the Raymond Williams Society also
publishes a
journal and a
blog.
File opened: 2024-09-17 2:05 PM. Wrapping it up, rather arbitrarily,
on Monday afternoon. I feared I would have little time to work on my
weekly posts this week (and next, and the week after, when we expect
visitors), so I limited my hopes to picking up a few links for future
reference, collected in my spare time. This has grown larger than I
expected, especially as I opened up and wrote several lengthy comments.
Such informal writing comes easy, and feels substantive, where my more
ambitious concepts so often flounder. So I count this as therapeutic,
regardless of whether it's of value to anyone else.
My one ambitious concept this week was to write up an outline of
an introduction, which would provide some kind of "executive summary"
of current events. As events change little from week to week -- for
some time now I've been starting each week with a skeletal template,
which I refine and reuse -- it occurred to me that I could come up
with a boilerplate introduction, which I could then copy and edit
from week to week, but would cover the main points I keep returning
to in scattered comments.
I came up with that idea back on Thursday, but here it is Monday
and I still haven't started on it. So maybe next week? I'll start
with a blanket endorsement of Harris and all Democrats, not because
I especially like them but because they're the only practical defense
against Republicans, who are set on a program to do you great harm,
and in some cases get you killed. Then we'll talk about inequality
and war, which top my list of the world's problems -- not that we
can ignore the latter, but fixing them is really hard without ending
war and reducing inequality. And when it comes to war and inequality,
no example is more horrific than Israel, which as you'll read below,
took a sudden, bizarre turn for the worse last week. Back in October,
I explained my plan for ending the Gaza war. My thinking has evolved
a bit since then, and it would be good to update it and keep it
current.
I woke up early (way too early for me) Tuesday morning, and found
this in my mailbox from Mazin Qumsiyeh (I've replaced URLs with
linked article titles):
A regional war has just been officially declared and will likely
soon become a global war. This accelerated with Netanyahu's refusal
to do a prisoner swap and ceasefire deal for Gaza for 11 months
(even against the wishes of his military commanders) with no prospect
of that changing which meant continuation of the genocide and
conflict with Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq (yes supportive resistance
forces to Israeli imperial hegemony). The Israeli regime escalated
with a series of terrorist attacks on Lebanon including rigging
pagers and walkie-talkies to explode killing and injuring scores
of civilians. Then attacked Beirut apoartment buildings, then in
the past 24 hours attacked homes throughout Lebanon killing 500
Lebanese civilians (most women and children like in Gaza)
Israel escalates its military attacks in Lebanon, targeting
residential areas and civilians with intense raids.
And yes the resistance from Lebanon and Gaza continues to target
Israeli military forces. And attacks on the West Bank continue so
that they can depopulate us
Inside the brutal siege of Jenin.
An Interfaith Dispatch From the West Bank: Rabbis for Ceasefire
and Hindus for Human Rights make a peace pilgrimage (mentions us):
An interfaith dispatch from the West Bank.
[09-16]
Day 345: Israel threatens Lebanon again: "Israeli settler
violence continues to terrorize Palestinians in the Jordan Valley
as the U.S. envoy arrives in the region to deescalate tensions
along Lebanon's southern border."
[10-19]
Day 349: Nasrallah says 'we wish' Israel invades Lebanon: "Following
the Lebanon pager explosion attacks, Nasrallah said an Israeli invasion
would be a 'historic opportunity' to target Israeli forces. Earlier in
the week, Israel razed an entire residential block in central Gaza,
killing at least 40 people."
[09-23]
Day 353: Israel launches bombing campaign on Lebanon as Hezbollah
retaliates: "Israel's intensifying bombardment of Lebanon has
killed at least 274 people so far, while Hezbollah retaliates with
rockets across Israel. The Israeli army also raided and forcibly
shut down the Ramallah office of Al Jazeera."
Prior to the current war, Gaza had 150 small-scale desalination
plants to produce potable water. By mid-October 2023, Israeli
missile attacks destroyed the drinking water desalination plants;
and its almost total blockade cut off fuel to run the other water
treatment plants, as well as metal parts to repair them. Gaza's
drinking water production capacity dropped to just
5 percent of typical levels.
With no power to run Gaza's five wastewater treatment plants,
sewage has flowed freely through the streets, causing a record
increase in cases of diarrheal illnesses. By December 2023, cases
of diarrhea among children under 5 in Gaza jumped 2000%, because
of which children under five are over
20 times more likely to die than from Israeli military violence.
Ibrahim Mohammad: [09-18]
The Gazan infants who never saw their first birthday: "For
thousands of Palestinian parents, the joy of giving birth rapidly
turned to grief when their newborn babies were killed by Israel's
bombardment."
The increase in settler violence against Palestinians in the West
Bank over the past year has been unprecedented. Since Hamas' Oct. 7,
2023, attack and the start of the war, there have been more than
1,000 attacks, according to
a new report from the International Crisis Group.
The spike, which has
raised international alarm, is often blamed on the permissive
policies of Israel's right-wing government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu.
According to a
U.N. investigation, nearly half of all settler attacks documented
in October 2023 were conducted in collaboration with, or in the
presence of, Israeli military forces.
Tala Ramadan: [09-11]
Gaza faces a massive reconstruction challenge. Here are key facts
and figures: "Billions of dollars will be needed to rebuild
Gaza when the war between Israel and the Palestinian militant
group Hamas ends, according to assessments from the United Nations.
Here is a breakdown of the destruction in Gaza."
Meron Rapoport: [09-17]
A plan to liquidate northern Gaza is gaining steam: "As Israeli
ministers, generals, and academics bay for a decisive new phase in
the war, this is what Operation Starvation and Extermination would
look like."
America's Israel (and Israel's America):
Michael Arria:
[09-19]
Jill Stein leads Kamala Harris among Muslim voters in swing states
as Palestine supporters weigh choices amid Gaza genocide: "A
recent poll shows Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein
beating Kamala Harris among Muslim voters in multiple swing states
as pro-Palestinian voters weigh the upcoming U.S. presidential race."
I'm skeptical of any such polling, and not just because third-party
support tends to evaporate in the closing days of the season. The
article doesn't go into much detail about either the poll details
or the question of how many voters are we really talking about here.
CAIR estimates that there are over 2.5 million Muslim voters in
the US (75% born in the US, 20-25% African-American), so about 1.5%
of all registered voters. Contrary to the headline, the
CAIR poll shows Harris slightly ahead of Stein, 29.4%% to 29.1%,
trailed by Trump (11.2%), Cornel West (4.2%), and Chase Oliver (the
Libertarian, 0.8%), with 16.5% undecided and 8.8% not voting.
[09-19]
The Shift: Uncommitted Movement says it won't back Harris in election.
If you read the fine print, you'll see that while they refuse to endorse
Harris, they "oppose" Trump, and are "not recommending a third-party
vote in the Presidential election, especially as third party votes in
key states could help inadvertently deliver a Trump presidency given
our country's broken electoral college system." They don't talk about
not voting, but if you're leaning that way, please read the parts
about Trump again.
Akela Lacy:
Kamala Harris refused to meet with Uncommitted about Gaza -- and
Uncommitted refused to endorse her: "The movement counts among
its ranks many disillusioned Arab and Muslim voters in the key
swing state of Michigan." A pretty clear indication that Harris
calculated that an endorsement would expose her to more risk than
not. On the other hand, Harris has embraced (and presumably sought)
the endorsements of neocon hawks like the Cheneys, so factor that
into your risk assessment.
[09-17]
The Shift: Nearly 60% of Israelis say they'd vote for Trump:
"Former President and GOP nominee Donald Trump remains a popular
figure in Israel. A recent poll found that 58% of Israelis would
vote for Trump, while just 25% would vote for Harris."
This week Trump will give two speeches to pro-Israel audiences.
First, he'll speak to a group of Jewish supporters in DC about
countering antisemitism.
Jewish Insider's Matt Kassel reports that Orthodox
businessman Yehuda Kaploun and his business partner Ed Russo
will host the event.
A source told Kassel that the event will allow Trump to speak
with Jewish leaders "about his plans to combat the wave of antisemitism
and antisemitic behavior and enforce the laws for religious liberty
to all."
Miriam Adelson is expected to attend. The GOP megadonor is
reportedly set to spend more than $100 million to elect Trump
in November.
In DC Trump will also address the Israeli American Council's
(IAC) national convention. The IAC is led by lan Carr, who served
as the envoy to combat antisemitism under Trump. Its largest donor
is Adelson.
I understand why people are disturbed the level of reflexive
support for Israel that Harris has consistently shown, and how
tempting it is to punish her at the ballot box, but the candidate
who is most under Israel's thumb is clearly Trump. Harris at least
has the presence of mind and decency to decry and bemoan the war,
and offer that it must stop. Trump's allegiance is not just for
sale here. It's done been sold.
Nicole Narea: [09-18]
What we know about the pager and walkie-talkie explosions in Lebanon
and Syria: Unfortunately, Vox doesn't seem to know very much about
this wave of exploding tech devices -- hundreds of pagers on Tuesday,
followed by thousands of walkie-talkies on Wednesday, each packed with
remotely-detonated explosives, and allegedly distributed by Hezbollah
in Lebanon and Syria -- and more importantly, isn't able or willing to
set the context and draw meaningful conclusions. Their subhed: "It's a
dangerous escalation in the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel as
the war in Gaza rages on."
The first thing that needs to be noted is that the "conflict" is
extremely asymmetrical. The background is that Israel invaded Lebanon
in 1982, intervening in a civil war to bolster a Phalangist (fascist)
party thought to be favorable to Israel, which backed out of Beirut
but continued to occupy southern Lebanon, up to its withdrawal in
2000 (except for a small sliver of territory[*], which remains as
a sore point, which seems to be the point). Hezbollah developed as
the most effective resistance organization to Israeli occupation.
Once Israel withdrew (except for that sliver, see what I mean?),
Hezbollah's mission was complete, but since Israel never signed
any peace treaty with Lebanon, they continued to organize as a
deterrent against another Israeli attack (as happened in 2006).
Since then, except for that sliver, the only times Hezbollah
has fired (mostly missiles) at Israel has been in response to
Israel's periodic attacks on Lebanon. I'm convinced that Israel
does this simply to provoke responses that they can spin into
their cover story on Iran: Americans still bear a grudge against
Iran over 1979, a feud they've relentlessly stoked since the
1990s, as it gives Israel a threat which is beyond its means,
thus binding an American alliance that provides cover for their
real agenda, which is to erase the Palestinian presence in all
of Israel.
The US could end this farce immediately by making a separate
peace with Iran (and for good measure, with its alleged proxies
in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen). Obama took one step in that direction
with the JCPOA "nuclear deal," which was the only realistic
solution to "the Iranian nuclear threat" -- which Israelis had
played up since the early 1990s[**]. But Netanyahu denounced the
deal, and used the full power of the Israel lobby to undermine it,
leading to Trump's withdrawal, and Biden's failure to reinstate.
Had Israel been serious about the "nuclear threat," they would
have celebrated JCPOA. Had the US understood Israel's objectives,
they would have extended their "deal" with Iran to resolve other
disputes and normalize relations.
I had several other points in mind when I started writing this,
but they're more obvious from the reporting, which I'll continue
to collect below. Chief among them is that this is a patently
Israeli operation, combining as it does a fascination with high
tech and completely oblivious disregard for its impact on others,
or even for the damage it will do to the future reputation of
all Israelis. This is indiscriminate terrorism, on a huge scale.
Exactly who in Israel is immediately responsible for this isn't
yet clear, but whoever it is should be held responsible, first
and foremost by the Israeli people, but until that happens, it
is not unreasonable to sanction the state. Any nation, like the
US, which claims to be opposed to terrorism would be remiss in
not doing so.
The most similar event I can recall was the
Chicago Tylenol murders of 1982, which was probably the work
of a single rogue individual (although it was followed by several
copycat crimes, and was never definitively solved). The maker of
Tylenol (Johnson & Johnson) took extraordinary measures to
restore consumer trust (see
How the Tylenol murders of 1982 changed the way we consume
medication). While similar in terms of sowing mistrust, this
case is orders of magnitude larger, and is likely to prove much
more difficult for Israel to manage. No one ever thought for a
moment that Johnson & Johnson wanted to poison customers,
but Netanyahu's hands are not just tainted but dripping blood.
Even if he is not personally responsible for this, the war and
genocide are clearly his work, in conception and commission,
and in his consistent refusal to end or even limit it. Moreover,
there is no reason to trust Israel to investigate itself -- as
it has claimed many times in the past to do, covering up and/or
excusing many serious crimes along the way.
[*] This sliver is called Shebaa Farms. When Israel withdrew from
Lebanon, they continued to occupy this bit of land, arguing that it
was originally part of the Syrian Heights, which Israel has occupied
since 1967 (and later annexed, contrary to international law; it is
now better known as Golan Heights). See
Why is there a disputed border between Lebanon and Israel?.
[**] What changed for Israel in 1990 was that after Saddam Hussein
was defeated in Kuwait and bottled up and disarmed, they needed a new
"existential threat" to replace Iraq and maintain American support.
While the Ayatollahs weren't as chummy with Israel as the Shah had
been, they maintained cordial relations all through the 1980s -- by
far the most anti-American period of Iran's revolution. Israel helped
arm Iran as a counterweight to Iraq's ambitions (including their role
in Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal, which gave them insight into America's
schizoid reaction to overthrowing the CIA-installed Shah). Trita Parsi
explains all of this in Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings
of Israel, Iran, and the United States (2007).
Mitchell Plitnick: [09-18] I scraped this off Facebook.
A friend asked me how I come to say that Israel targeted civilians
with their attack on pagers purchased by Hezbollah.
Here is my response:
So let's start with this: being a Hezbollah "operative" does not
make one a legitimate target nor does it mean you're not a civilian.
Hezbollah operatives include clerks, messengers, secretaries, even
medical workers. Bear in mind, Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese
government. Its activities cover a lot more than military actions.
Therefore, targeting Lebanese people for their connection to Hezbollah
is no different from targeting the janitor in the IDF's Tel Aviv
headquarters. It's targeting civilians.
Second, I am told by people I know and have seen it confirmed by
at least two Lebanese journalists that many recipients of these pagers
are not military. Israel certainly knows that.
Third, Israel detonated these pagers en masse. They certainly knew
they were sure to be in populated areas, with women and children nearby,
but they certainly did NOT know who actually had each pager. That's not
collateral damage. That's intentionally targeting civilians.
Any ambiguity in any of this is negated by the fact that this is a
blatant violation of international law, specifically the
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons which explicitly bars
booby-trapping ordinary items. Israel is a High Contracting Party to
Article II, where this prohibition is seen:
4. "Booby-trap" means any device or material which
is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure, and which
functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an
apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.
3. It is prohibited in all circumstances to use any mine,
booby-trap or other device which is designed or of a nature to
cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.
4. Weapons to which this Article applies shall strictly comply
with the standards and limitations specified in the Technical Annex
with respect to each particular category.
5. It is prohibited to use mines, booby-traps or other devices
which employ a mechanism or device specifically designed to detonate
the munition by the presence of commonly available mine detectors as
a result of their magnetic or other non-contact influence during
normal use in detection operations.
I'm very comfortable calling this the deliberate targeting of
civilians.
Mohammed Mourtaja: [09-20]
The Israeli war on Lebanon's hidden goal: Gaza's full erasure:
"While the world's attention shifts to Lebanon, Israel may pursue
another darker goal -- completing its ethnic cleansing of Gaza."
I don't see where this "may" comes from. There's little chance that
Israel is going to lose its focus on Palestinians by kicking off a
war with Lebanon -- unless they've underestimated the consequences
(as happened in 2006). For Israel, Hezbollah is a diversion, one
meant to keep the Americans engaged as allies (because, you know,
we all fear and hate Iran). Israelis know better than anyone that
the easiest way to get away with genocide is to bury it in a bigger
war (like, you may recall, Hitler did).
[09-18]
Israel's true objectives in Gaza and why it will fail: "Never in
its history of war and military occupation has Israel been so incapable
of developing a coherent plan for its future and the future of its
victims." But when have they ever had a coherent post-war plan? On
various occasions, they've made concessions to American opinion, but
they've never been held to anything more than a temporary compromise.
And the Biden administration is so confused and spineless they hardly
have to go through the motions anymore. But the core problem, which
is one that Americans find impossible to relate to, is how Israelis
expect to always be at war with people who can never stop wanting
to kill them. If your wars are forever, you don't need any sort of
postwar vision.
Mazin Qumsiyeh: Links from his latest newsletters,
one new, most old, but his writings rarely lose their relevance,
as new events more often than not just confirm his insights.
[01-01]
2024: Year-end report, personal achievements (research papers,
etc.), plans for the coming year.
[2023-11-12]
Are we being duped to focus only on Gaza suffering? This is an
even bigger question today, as coverage of Gaza has settled into a
mind-numbing tedium while Israelis have escalated attacks on the
West Bank, and working hard to provoke a war with Hezbollah which
will only further cloud their operations against Palestinians. The
first two paragraphs here (my bold) are so accurate one has to
wonder about all the pundits back then who were (and in many cases
still are) clueless.
Israel's genocide of Gaza is intentional, planned and ongoing with
no sign of slowing down. The contrary, with no water, food and
medicine it is accelerating. Israel leaders boast openly that they
do not care about what the UN, ICC, or ICJ say. Israeli fascist
leaders say they do not care what statements are issued by governments.
Nor do they care if public pressure causes some western leaders to
moderate their "language" stating there is a "humanitarian catastrophe"
unfolding in Gaza (without naming the perpetrator and continuing to
support physically the genocide). Israel actually can use the
humanitarian catastrophe (as if it is an act of God not their agency)
as bargaining chips. The focus on "ceasefire negotiations" is actually
a very clever strategy to continue the genocidal occupation and for
impunity from facing tribunals for war crimes and crimes against
humanity.
Israeli leaders are crystal clear about their crimes and they get
their way by genocide and total state terrorism against populations.
If you have any doubt, listen to them (see below). They even say
openly that if Hizbollah continues its resistance in South Lebanon,
then all of Lebanon will pay a devastating price and Beirut will be
like Gaza (i.e. totally devastated). Israeli military spokesmen
gave the same threats to cities in the West Bank like Jenin and
Tulkarem and even Ramallah. These are not idle threats. Many were
complicit with Israeli apartheid regime by suppressing the truth
and giving weapons to commit genocide. According to Israeli leaders
global public opinion and "diplomatic" pressure will not end its
carnage done to promote colonialism and greed. Many human rights
advocates are at a loss as to how to end the carnage. While people
focus on the carnage, few address its underlying cause. It is like
focusing on suffering in concentration camps without identifying
the source of that suffering (or even worse blaming the victims).
Next line is a bit inflammatory ("Extreme nationalism leads to
genocide: Nazis and Zionists"), but the error there is assuming
causality from consequences. Extreme nationalism may be a necessary
precondition, but something more is also required: the hubris of
unchecked, unaccountable power. Plenty of kneejerk nationalists
all around the world, but in Israel they've achieved a sense of
invincibility unmatched since Hitler's Germany. That one exemplar
claims to be for Jews and the other against just how unimportant
the category is.
[2023-07-03]
Hope: present and future: Starts with an Israeli atrocity which,
needless to say, predates the Oct. 7 Hamas revolt, and the even
greater Israeli atrocities since then.
[2023-06-29]
Changing ourselves: "As a zoologist and geneticist I am always
puzzled about human (optimistically named Homo sapiens) behavior."
[09-22]
End of empire? His grasp of US politics is less assured here.
While his critique of Trump is sound enough, his points against
the Democrats are harsh where I would be more generous. To pick
out two of five:
Harris courting of the lobby and supporting genocide
undermines any remnant of illusion progressives,
the Democrat party is corrupt and worked hand in
glove with republicans against allowing other parties.
The American political system is such that it is impossible for
anyone to win without picking up a whiff of corruption. While some
Democrats play that game as adeptly as Republicans, and when they
can, shower their donors with favors as readily, most also see and
feel some obligation to serve their constituents, or more generally
"all the people." One thing nearly all Democrats have in common is
their loathing for Trump and his shock troops, and this is almost
always due to how repulsive they find the effect of his programs
on ordinary people. The Israel lobby has done a masterful job of
disappearing Palestinian humanity, but most Democrats can still
see through that veil -- and, unlike most Republicans, once they
see they will care and act. It's not unreasonable to hope that
eventually their leaders, including Harris, will follow their
rank and file [there's a good Gandhi quote I could look up and
insert here]. This may seem like faint hope, but Qumsiyah has
written eloquently about his hopes. I'm not going to deny that
Harris, following Biden, has been complicit in and supportive
of genocide and other hideous crimes against human rights, but
I still believe that their support is squishy and conflicted,
far from the hardened determination of Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, and
now Netanyahu, who would rather join Hitler in the bunker than
give up their life's work.
Mona Shtaya: [09-16]
Israel is joining the first global AI convention, here's why that's
dangerous: "Over the last year Israel has weaponized AI in its
genocide in Gaza, deploying AI-driven surveillance and automated
targeting systems which has killed tens of thousands. Israel's
participation in the first global AI treaty raises serious
questions."
Andrew Prokop: [09-17]
What happened to Nate Silver: I'm not sure he was ever all that
"beloved by progressives." In his 538 days, his focus was on getting
it right, which meant anticipating contests Republicans would win,
and calling them emphatically enough to claim the win. He started
out as a useful corrective to a lot of polling bullshit, but after
he blew the 2016 election, he overcompensated and turned into just
another annoying pundit.
Trump:
Sasha Abramsky:
[09-20]
There's no low Trump won't go: "The Republican presidential
nominee is peddling lies about Haitian migrants and blaming the
Democrats after a thwarted assassination attempt."
Zack Beauchamp: [09-18]
Why Trump's lies about Haitians are different: "Trump says nasty
things about immigrants all the time. But these ones have disturbingly
specific Nazi parallels."
Eric Levitz: [09-18]
Trump's healthcare plan exposes the truth about his "populism":
Following up on Trump's "concepts of a plan," we find they support
"populism of the privileged," using the magic of deregulation to
make more affordable for the healthy and more expensive (and prone
to fraud) for everyone else. Really just a special case of Trump's
concepts about tax policy and business.
Zak Cheney-Rice: [09-20]
Mark Robinson has been hiding in plain sight. He's the current
Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina, and the Republican candidate
for Governor this year. He's, well, . . .
Eduardo Medina: [09-22]
Top aides resign from embattled North Carolina candidate's campaign:
"Most of the senior staff members on Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson's campaign
for North Carolina governor resigned on Sunday after reports that he
had made a series of disturbing online comments."
Chris Lehmann: [09-04]
The never-ending grift of DC influence peddling: "Right-wing
fraudsters Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman got caught lying about their
lobbying firm, but K Street has long been a breeding ground for
bottom-feeding grifters." This is a truly bipartisan problem, and
some Democrats pursue grift as avidly as many Republicans -- Bob
Menendez and Krysten Sinema leap to mind -- but Republicans have
raised it to a cultural ideal. Links here to a couple of old "more
on grifter politics" articles (and underscore the Republican link):
Mike Konczal: [2017-11-02]
Trump is creating a grifter economy: "The White House economic
plans help the scheming and powerful swindle ordinary Americans."
Elie Mystal: [2022-09-16]
Trump's "big lie" was also a big grift: "The January 6 committee's
revelations that the Trump campaign raised money for a bogus 'Official
Election Defense Fund' point to criminal fraud."
Doug Henwood: [09-16]
Kamala's capitalist class: "Both parties have little trouble
attracting support from the superrich. But a closer look reveals
fissures within the ruling class."
Rebecca Picciotto: [09-21]
Harris raised 4 times more than Trump in donations for final election
sprint: Harris raised $189 million in August, compared to $44
million for Trump. Harris ended the month with $404 million in cash
on hand, "dwarfing Trump's $295 million war chest." Converting that
advantage in money into votes isn't straightforward, but Democrats
have a lot to work with here. The article doesn't break this down,
but I figure the fundraising advantage must come from two sources:
from the usual rich donors, who in substantial numbers are sick and
disgusted with Trump, and want to see him gone; and from small donors,
whose enthusiasm is unprecedented. People who put their money on the
line will also press their friends and acquaintances into voting,
and that's likely to determine how the election breaks. And while
most of the money will be spent on advertising, one thing I've
been noticing is how much more "ground game" focus there is among
Democrats this year -- living in Kansas, the norm is zero, so what
I'm seeing is not just unprecedented, but orders of magnitude.
And the good news in bad polls is that no one's counting chickens
before they're hatched. The race is on.
Sara Swann: [09-11]
Why Harris' debate remarks about US military in combat zones is
misleading: I noted her comment in passing, and linked to an
article on it (Joshua Keating:
Biden and Harris say America's no longer at war. Is that true?),
but didn't attempt to discern whether there was any technical
plausibility behind the gross misrepresentation. This popped up
again when Heather Cox Richardson tweeted:
Harris is shifting the
Afghanistan question to point out that the US has no troops in
combat zones in the world right now.
To which Greg Grandin replied:
Because it is as much a lie as Haitians eating cats.
So I did a bit of digging here. This turns on the term "combat
zone," which has some effect on soldiers' pay and benefits, but
not everyone's clear on this. PolitiFact says the assertion is
"mostly false." Here are a couple more references:
Rick Perlstein: [08-26]
Say it to my face: "How Democrats learned to tell the plain
truth and like it." Perlstein's columns have been terrific ever
since he started writing for American Prospect, but somehow I
missed this one, which came out of the DNC without being explicit
about it (well, until the end). He gives examples from Clinton,
Gore, Kerry ("the worst of them all"), and Obama. I don't think
Harris is totally past running from her own shadow, but she's
much better at at defending what's right, and attacking what's
wrong.
Elie Mystal: [09-17]
How John Roberts went full MAGA: "A revealing article in The
New York Times details how the chief justice put his thumb on
the scale for Trump to keep him on the ballot and out of jail."
The article:
Jodi Kantor/Adam Liptak: [09-15]
How Roberts shaped Trump's Supreme Court winning streak: "Behind
the scenes, the chief justice molded three momentous Jan. 6 and
election cases that helped determine the former president's fate."
John Cassidy: [09-18]
How inflation fooled almost everybody: "With the Fed poised to
cut rates for the first time in years, what have we learned about
the economic disruptions of the pandemic era?"
Ryan Cooper: [08-05]
The case for pragmatic socialism: "The times are right for a
socialist agenda that America can accept. We even have examples of
it in practice." I held this piece back for later perusal, but I
rather doubt I'm ever going to finish reading it, much less argue
with it. In my philosophy days, I was fairly simpatico both with
Marxism and with Pragmatism, and never saw much of a problem there.
(I certainly knew a lot more of Marxism, but I read a fair amount
of Charles Peirce, and also of Kant and various neo-Kantians like
Robert Paul Wolff -- although I gather he spent more time critiquing
pragmatists than swimming with them.) At least the focus on praxis
was shared, along with the suspicion of metaphysics. The thing is,
I have very little interest in salvaging "socialism" as a slogan,
even though I admire both the theory and the legacy, and I'm willing
to do my bit in defense of both. I just think that at this point a
fresh start might work better. There's something pragmatist in that,
isn't there?
Jeffrey St Clair: [09-20]
Roaming Charges: Cat scratch political fever: Starts with
"Miss Sassy started the biggest political fire since Mrs. O'Leary's
cow kicked over a lamp and burned down Chicago." So, with Trump
and Vance. Then includes a picture captioned "When sleazy immigrants
[Don Jr. and Eric Trump] sneak into your country and kill your cats."
Obituaries
Books
Wendy Brown: [09-09]
The enduring influence of Marx's masterpiece: "No book has done
more than Capital to explain the way the world works." Essay
"adapted from the foreword to the first English translation of
Capital: Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1 in 50 years."
Somehow, I don't recall this "famous turn of phrase" that Brown cites:
"Capital is dead labor that acts like a vampire: It comes to life when
it drinks more living labor, and the more living labor it drinks, the
more it comes to life." Brown continues:
Capital's requirements of increased labor exploitation over time --
exploiting more workers and exploiting them more intensively -- and
in space -- ever expanding markets for its commodities -- constitute
the life and death drives of capitalism, drives that are as insatiable
as they are unsustainable. They reduce the masses to impoverishment,
concentrate wealth among the few, and pile up crises that spell the
system's eventual collapse, overthrow, or, as we have later learned,
reinventions through the social state, the debt state, neoliberalism,
financialization, and the asset-enhancing and de-risking state. Since
growth is essential for what Marx called the "realization of surplus-value"
or profit, capitalist development becomes an almighty shredder of all
life forms and practices, including its own recent ones. From small
shops, family farms, and cities to gigantic industries, rain forests,
and even states, everything capital makes or needs it will eventually
also destroy. In Marx's summary, "Capitalist production thus advances . . .
only by damaging the very founts of all wealth: the earth and the
worker."
I'm reminded here of how easy it is to explain all of the world's
ills with one word: "capitalism." That's the lesson drawn by every
person who ever fell under Marx's spell, but reading this now I'm
most struck by the insatiability of the process, which dialectically
impels us to limit and regulate growth. Even now, when we've seen
much of the harm capitalism can do, and as we've clearly benefited
from many efforts to limit its rapacity, that's still a tough sell
to many otherwise well-meaning people (e.g., "progressives," who
still hope to grow our way out of all earthly hardships).
James Miller: [09-19]
Karl Marx, weirder than ever: "What good is one of the communist
thinker's most important texts to 21st-century readers?"
The Bible, as every Sunday-school student learns, has a Hollywood
ending. Not a happy ending, certainly, but one where all the dramatic
plot points left open earlier, to the whispered uncertainty of the
audience ("I don't get it -- when did he say he was coming back?"),
are resolved in a rush, and a final, climactic confrontation between
the stern-lipped action hero and the really bad guys takes place.
That ending -- the Book of Revelation -- has every element that
Michael Bay could want: dragons, seven-headed sea beasts, double-horned
land beasts, huge C.G.I.-style battles involving hundreds of thousands
of angels and demons, and even, in Jezebel the temptress, a part for
Megan Fox. ("And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and'
she repented not.")
I have this mental image of a certain type of 19th century Midwest
farmer-intellectual who thinks that all of the world's knowledge --
past, present, and future -- is locked in the pages of the Bible,
waiting to be explored and conquered by obsessive scholars like
themselves. I even have a specific name in mind: Abraham Lincoln
Hull, my great-grandfather, born on an arid west Kansas homestead
in 1870, shortly after his father (plain Abraham Hull) moved out
from Pennsylvania, after the Civil War. He was a sheep rancher,
but I've heard him described as "the laziest human being ever." I
suspect he was just lost in his thoughts, which fed into sideline
jobs of teaching and preaching. I never knew him, but I did know,
until I approached 15 and he died at 70, thereby confirming his
own biblically-derived prophecy. He also farmed, taught school,
dressed up for church, and pondered Revelations. One of the few
times when he asked me a question was when he was trying to figure
out whether the founding of Israel was proof that the second coming
was imminent. I lacked the presence of mind to figure out whether
he was a premillennial or postmillennial dispensationalist, but I
was struck by the crackpot nature of the question, and I've recalled
the moment every time I've seen or heard of Christian Zionists wax
on the subject -- going back at least as far as David Lloyd George
in approving the Balfour Declaration.
As it turned out, my father had his own very different take on
Revelation, but I never made the slightest effort to understand
his, just noting that it was opposed to my grandfather's, and
suspecting that, as with most of his theories of everything, it
erred on the side of the whimsical. Eventually, I realized that
I too was fated to have a theory of Revelation, even without
having read more than the occasional isolated verse (which is
the only way I ever approached the Bible -- the idea that one
could just read it as literature, like The Gilgamesh or
Moby Dick, only occurred to me when I saw it listed in
the Great Books curriculum). My theory is that the book was
tacked onto the end of the Bible as a reveal, one of those joke
endings that exposes everything that had come before it as an
elaborate hoax. That suggests more intention than I can imagine
early Christian clerics as being capable of. Still, some of the
most dedicated scholars have easily wandered into reductio
ad absurdum, especially when the subject is religion.
While my "theory" was never more than a joke, it was pretty
clearly derived from insights I gleaned while reading a book
about Judaism:
Douglas Rushkoff: Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism.
Rushkoff's thesis is that the internal logic of Judaism functions
as an aid in helping you get through and past and over religion.
The book isn't fresh enough in my mind to do justice to here (not
that I have the time, anyway), but I will note that I had spent a
lot of time on the history and evolution of puritanism, and found
a similar dynamic at play there (e.g., the unitarians are direct
descendants yet perhaps the most secular and tolerant sect in all
of Christendom; but far more significant is the liberation puritan
theology allowed to turn into "the protestant ethic and the spirit
of capitalism").
Ed Park:
Nuance and nuisance: on the Village Voice: Review of
Tricia Romano's oral history, The Freaks Came Out to Write: The
Definitive History of the Village Voice, the Radical Paper That
Changed American Culture.
My overarching argument is continuous with the one I developed in
Family Values [2017, subtitle: Between Neoliberalism and
the New Social Conservatism]. I question the idea that the neoliberal
counterrevolution of the early 1980s was a backlash against Keynesianism
as such. Instead, I see it as a backlash against the leftist social
movements of the late 1960s and '70s, which were already engaged in a
kind of immanent critique of actually existing Keynesianism. . . .
My basic argument is that neoliberals of different stripes managed
to create a regime of extreme public spending austerity for those
primarily dependent on wage income, while at the same time ushering
in a regime of radical spending and monetary extravagance for financial
asset owners. We tend to see only the austerity side of the equation --
hence the illusion that this is all about the retreat of the state.
But it's hard to explain the extreme wealth concentration that has
occurred in recent decades if we don't also understand the multiple
ways in which financial wealth is actively subsidized by the state.
There's quite a bit here on how capital gains taxation (or lack
thereof) subsidizes asset inflation -- my term, not a very popular
one as it suggests assets aren't really worth as much as they seem,
and also that inflation, like money, is "good for the rich but bad
for the poor" (as Lewis Lapham liked to put it). Also more details
on how the "Virginia school neoliberals" (like James Buchanan)
"dovetailed" with the "supply siders" - despite different concepts,
both sought to make the rich richer, at the expense of everyone
else. Then back to politics:
Having said this, I don't think economic liberalism as such ever
works alone; it always works in alliance with some species of
conservatism. This may be the communitarian/neoliberal alliance
of a Third Way Democrat like Bill Clinton, or the neoconservative
neoliberalism of George W. Bush.
In today's Republican Party, we have something that looks like
a neoliberal/paleoconservative alliance, and this brings complexities
of its own. Paleoconservatism has clear connections to the white
supremacist and theocratic far right; as a movement, it defines
itself in opposition to neoconservatism, which it sees as too
secular, too liberal, too internationalist, and too Jewish.
However, the kinds of economic alliances made by paleoconservatives
have been quite diverse. [Mentions Koch-favorite Murray Rothbard,
drawing on Ludwig von Mises; "Ayn Rand devotee" Alan Greenspan;
Pat Buchanan.] . . .
I would say the contemporary Republican Party draws on all of
these influences, Trump more haphazardly than others. In his first
election campaign, Trump seemed to embody the kind of paleoconservative
national protectionist policies espoused by Pat Buchanan or Steve
Bannon -- and certainly on the issue of trade with China, he followed
through on this.
JD Vance sounds like he espouses an anti-neoliberal national
protectionist position too, but then again he is one of several
Republican right operators who are funded by the ultra-libertarian
Peter Thiel. What unites these people is their affiliation to
far-right paleoconservatism and their immersion in the world of
private investment. This underwrites a deeply patrimonial,
autarchic, and atavistic outlook that is sometimes dressed up
in the garb of a more progressive anti-corporate agenda.
Means testing is divisive, wasteful and punitive: [09-19]
Israel has shown itself as a metastasizing threat to the whole
world. Are you going to be comfortable getting on a plane with
people carrying Israeli-made products?
Jeff Sharlet: [09-23]
49% of the class of '23 at Dartmouth, where I [t]each, went into
finance or consulting. Even were [I] the most ardent capitalist --
I am really not that -- this would be a crushing statistic. So
much energy, education, & intellect hoovered up by one sector.
[I might have added: which produces nothing of value, being mostly
parasitic, and often just predatory.]
Tony Karon: [09-24]
Israel -- a Jewish supremacist state created by violently displacing
the indigenous Palestinian majority -- was built on racist contempt
for Arab life, limb and property. It is maintained today by the same
people -- for Israel and its US backers, Arab lives don't matter.
[image of headline: Israeli air strikes kill 492 people in
Lebanon]
Local tags (these can be linked to directly):
music.
Original count: 135 links, 8611 words (11055 total).
Current count:
144 links, 9060 words (11622 total)
Opened this file on September 11, 1:27 PM, with the big debate
looming that evening. As I'm writing this Sunday evening, that
start seems like ages ago. Little chance I'll make my rounds
before nodding off tonight. I could see posting or of not, where
the main reason for posting is to move earlier into doing endlessly
delayed non-blog work.
Indeed, late Sunday night I decided to pack it in without posting.
I don't expect I'll need to add much on Monday. And in general,
I won't be circling back to publications I checked on Sunday, or
reporting news that only broke on Monday.
Finally posted this late Monday night. I ran into a lot of pieces
on Monday that added a lot of extra writing, in many cases including
regrets that I didn't have time to write even more. Even with the
extra day, I didn't make all the usual rounds. I also found myself
needing to search for further articles on specific topics, which
may wind up being a better way to go about doing this. I also hit
a bunch of paywalls. That's a horrible way to run a democracy, but
that's a rant for another day.
For what it's worth, this week, on initial post, has the most
words (15635) and the third most links (288, behind
317 and
290) of
any week since I embedded the counting software.
Rome's first emperor, Caesar Augustus, was seventy-two years old and
near the end of his rule when the legions suffered their catastrophic
defeat on the edge of the Great Bog. Germania's population was rural,
made up of farmer-warriors and their families living in small
settlements at the time of the battle. There were no real towns, and
private ownership of land had been unknown among the eastern
barbarians fifty years earlier when Caesar conquered Gaul. In general,
where colonial- and imperial-minded aggressors make their moves into
new territories and encounter indigenous people, often very numerous
and "complex, multi-lingual, culturally diverse," as the two groups
gradually mix and confront each other, tribal identities begin to take
shape and individual "tribal leaders" are named. For the aggressor,
this bundling is the opening process of controlling the indigenous
people who, up to that time, may not have seen themselves as
distinct tribes. Suddenly, they are corralled by identity to a
specific area.
The Roman system of conquest was to grant conquered people Roman
citizenship and involve them in Roman customs and culture. What Rome
got from its aggressive takeovers encircling the Mediterranean Sea
was an increase of manpower to serve in the army, slaves and money
from taxation of its new colonies.
The Roman legions were augmented by auxiliaries of men from
conquered lands. Yet many of the vanquished hated the Romans, their
martial ways, their enslavements, their self-proclaimed superiority,
their heavy taxes and their strutting presence as overseers and
governors in seized territories. At the same time the conquered
population wanted to be joined to the powerful, to visit glittering
Rome whence all roads led.
The next couple pages go into specifics about the battle, where
over 13,000 Roman troops were slaughtered at a loss of 500 Germans.
I had long been under the impression that the Roman Empire expanded
steadily up to its maximum under Hadrian (117-138 CE;
Wikipedia has maps from 117 and 125), but I've since learned
that history is messier. I first heard about the German bog debacle
after the Bush invasion of Iraq, when I
noted:
Of course, this will take a while to play out, but the logic of
self-destruction is clear. A while back Martin van Creveld compared
the Bush invasion of Iraq to the disastrous Roman invasion of Germany
in 9 BCE when Augustus marched his legions into a swamp, losing them
all.
By the time I wrote that, I had already
noted a comparable Roman military disaster, when in 53 BCE
Crassus led "across the Euphrates" into Iraq, where the desert
proved as debilitating as the German bog -- although in both cases
the real culprit was the Roman ego. Back then I was thinking more
about the hubris of the invaders, but one could just well focus on
the inevitability and resilience of resistance.
What Curtis knew of Indians was informed, in large part, by depictions
of dead natives he had seen in a book as a child. More than a thousand
Eastern Sioux had been rounded up following an 1862 raid on settlers
in Minnesota. The carnage was widespread in villages and farms in the
southwest part of the state; by one estimate, eight hundred whites
were killed in what became known as the Sioux Uprising. The Sioux had
been roused to violence by repeated violations of their treaty, and by
the mendacity of corrupt government agents who refused to make the
required payments from the pact. In defeat, after the uprising, the
Indians were sentenced to death. At the same time, many in Congress
demanded that all Indians be wiped from the map, echoing the view of
their constituents after the Sioux had caused so many casualties.
President Lincoln commuted the sentences of most of the insurgents.
But the death penalty remained for more than three dozen of them. On
December 16, 1862, they were all hanged, the largest mass execution
in American history. Curtis had studied an engraving of the lifeless
Sioux in Mankato, Minnesota. Necks snapped, faces cold -- it haunted
him. "All through life I have carried a vivid picture of that great
scaffold with thirty-nine Indians hanging at the end of a rope," he
wrote.
[09-09]
Day 339: Israel winds down West Bank operation, continues
blockade: "Palestinians in Nablus held a funeral procession
for a Turkish-American activist killed by Israeli forces in Beita.
Meanwhile, Israel continued to close its borders with Jordan for
the second day in a row following a shooting at Allenby bridge."
[09-16]
Day 345: Israel threatens Lebanon again: "Israeli settler
violence continues to terrorize Palestinians in the Jordan Valley
as the U.S. envoy arrives in the region to deescalate tensions
along Lebanon's southern border."
[09-12]
The Shift: Debate shows both candidates are in full agreement when
it comes to Palestine: "Kamala Harris and Donald Trump's first,
and possibly only, presidential debate showed there is no distance
between the two when it comes to Palestine." The author isn't looking
very closely, and he isn't considering what to him are side issues,
but which reveal major differences, so profound they should have
bearing on how each candidate will deal with events. But the debate
does provide a view of what each candidate thinks they can safely
say, and of whom they feel the need to confirm and appease. The
movement to oppose Israel's genocide has made many people aware
and uneasy, but that has yet to move the Democrats who depend on
donors for their livelihood.
Rachel Chason/Jennifer Hassan/Alon Rom/Niha Masih/Kareen
Fahim: [09-15]
Houthis fire missile from Yemen into central Israel, warn of more
strikes: "Israeli forces said the missile Sunday did not cause
any direct injuries, but Netanyahu threatens, 'we exact a heavy
price for any attempt to harm us.'"
Fred Kaplan: [09-11]
The key reason why we're not close to a cease-fire: That's an
easy one -- "Netanyahu refuses" -- but one should note that Biden
doesn't dare make his refusal the least bit awkward, even though
that simply reinforces the ideas that he is helpless as a leader
and/or he actually endorses as well as facilitates genocide.
Previous American presidents have generally been able to prevail
on Israeli leaders to make some gestures toward accommodating
American needs, even if they really didn't want to (withdrawing
from Sinai in 1957) and/or doublecrossed the Americans later
(basically, every time since). Also, what the hell is this?
Both sides' positions are reasonable, given their interests. Hamas
fears that without a permanent cease-fire and total withdrawal,
Israel will inflict utter devastation on all of its positions (and
suspected positions) after the last hostage is released. And Israel
fears that Hamas will attempt another Oct. 7 if the group isn't
first destroyed as a political and military power.
I mean, the Hamas position sounds reasonable, because that's
exactly what Israel is doing, and without a permanent ceasefire
has vowed to continue doing until the last Hamas fighter is dead,
even if they have to kill every other Palestinian to get to him.
But Israel has no grounds for any such "reasonable fear." Another
"Oct. 7," if indeed any such thing is possible, will only happen
if Israel recreates the same (or worse) conditions. There are
many ways to prevent further eruptions from Hamas. Killing every
Palestinian is the worst possible option.
Josephine Riesman/SI Rosenbaum: [09-10]
Kamala is sending a subtle message on Israel. Is anyone listening?
What she said in the debate was almost literally what she said in
her DNC acceptance speech. "Subtle" is one word for it, if you assume
that she's being completely honest, and has every intention of filling
out every little detail. Or, less generously, you could say she's being
cynical and deceptive. As I pointed out a while back, her "subtle"
message would be more effective if she reversed the order of terms,
and first bemoaned the massive destruction and loss of life before
touting her deep commitment to a secure Israel. At this point, when
most people hear "Israel's right to defend itself" they automatically
translate it to a license to commit mass murder, because that is
exactly what Israel has done every time they've uttered those magic
words.
The authors make their case at great length. I'm not completely
dismissive, but I'm far from convinced. I do have some feeling for
the pressure she is under, and of the stakes should she fail. I'm
personally willing to let this play out through November, after
which she will either have much more leverage, or will be totally
irrelevant. Partly for that reason, I've moved this discussion
away from the sections on Debate and Harris. But another part of
that reason is that I feel her critics for failing to come out
more clearly in favor of ceasefire and conflict resolution have
every cause to speak their piece. And even to vote against her
if they feel the need, although I think that would be a mistake,
especially as an attempt to move your fellow Americans to be
more critical and independent of Israel.
Here's part of the piece:
If you're trying to determine Harris' position on Israel from the
mainstream news media coverage of it, you're likely confused.
But taken together, Harris' statements and movements around Israeli
policy -- throughout her career but especially in recent months, after
the candidacy was bestowed on her -- do add up to something.
Norman Solomon: [09-11]
Undebatable: what Harris and Trump could not say about Israel and
Gaza: Starts with "Kamala Harris won the debate. People being
bombed in Gaza did not." Ends with: "Silence is a blanket that
smothers genuine democratic discourse and the outcries of moral
voices. Making those voices inaudible is a key goal for the
functioning of the warfare state."
Ben Lorber: [09-05]
The right is increasingly exploiting the horror of genocide:
"Right-wing operatives are channeling the genocide in Gaza into
mainstream antisemitism." A report from the fifth annual National
Conservatism (NatCon) conference ("the cutting edge of the Trumpian
Right"). I'm not making a lot of sense out of this. Traditional
right-wing antisemites, including some NatCon grandees, have more
often been staunch supporters of Israel: Zionism both flatters
their prejudices and offers them hope for their own societies
becoming Judenrein. However, we're not dealing with especially
clear-headed thinkers here, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise
when they start confusing their complaints. Anyone who sees the
atrocities Israel is committing and conflates them with all Jews
(or even all Israeli Jews) is a fool -- and note that the most
flagrant offenders here are the propagandists who try to equate
any criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It's inevitable that
people who don't know any better will take this hint and run
with it, which seems to be Lorber's subject here.
[2023-11-21]
The ADL is making it less safe to be a progressive Jew: "In
our topsy-turvy reality, the organization most associated with
fighting antisemitism, the Anti-Defamation League, has cast its
lot with antisemites." I found a couple more pieces from 2016,
which may still be useful as background, but also found this,
where the old date just adds to its current value:
Craig Mokhiber: [09-10]
No, Israel does not have a right to defend itself in Gaza. But
the Palestinians do. "Basic morality and simple logic dictate
that the right of self-defense belongs to the Palestinian people,
not to their oppressor. And international law agrees." True that
international law does recognize some right to self-defense, but
it is not a moral principle, and I am suspicious of whatever logic
you might think supports it. Although law often reinforces what we
take to be moral, it has to deal not just with what people should
do, but with real people in complex situations who do things that
do not always conform with morality. One thing that people often
do, whether by nature or culture, regardless of law, is attempt to
defend themselves. Self-defense is used to describe a wide range
of acts, from shielding your face from blows to throwing punches
of your own. Modern weapons magnify and accelerate both threats
and damage. Some are so powerful that they can harm bystanders,
who never were threats, so never needed to be defended against.
What law has to do is to decide whether self-defense
is understandable and/or excusable, or should be condemned and
possibly punished. To say self-defense is a right is to assert
that acts which otherwise would be considered criminal should
be not just tolerated but taken as exemplary, as precedents to
encourage others to even greater violence.
But in this specific case, to the extent that one allows such
a right, why shouldn't Palestinians enjoy it same as Israelis?
If you only allow Israel a right to self-defense, and allow it
so broadly, you're really just saying that you think Palestinians
are sub-human, that they don't count or matter, and might as well
be slaughtered indiscriminately. As the last year has proven,
that's no hypothetical. That's what Israel is doing, and anyone
who thinks they have a "right" to do so is simply aiding and
abetting genocide.
James Ray: [09-13]
Electoral politics are not the way forward for the Palestine
movement: "The question of how Palestine activists should
engage in electoral politics has split the movement, but the
2024 election season should clarify why they are not an effective
strategy for building power." I'll endorse the title, but the
article itself leans way to heavy on "the Palestine movement,"
which I have some sympathy for but little faith or interest in.
Electoral politics are set for the year, with nothing but the
voting left to do. While there are important issues and major
differences in candidates yet to be decided, lots of issues
aren't on the ballot, including America's support for Israel's
genocide against Palestinians -- which is how I prefer framing
the issue, as it seems much broader (of interest to many more
people) and deeper (of greater importance) than the question
of where and when one can fly Palestinian flags.
The movement, of course, can and must continue, using any
tactics that seem likely to move public and/or elite opinion --
anything that would put pressure on those in power to act to
halt these atrocities and start the long process of healing.
I can argue that those of you who are intensely concerned with
this issue should spend your vote on Harris and the rest of
the Democrats -- it's not much, but it's yours, and if you
don't vote, even out of righteous spite, you're wasting your
right to participate in even our bare minimum of democracy.
Also, by spoiling your vote, you're not just being negligent
but showing contempt for people who need your help on issues
that really matter to them -- the same people you need most
urgently for your issue.
I could also argue that Harris is more cognizant of and
amenable to further pressure on this issue. I'm not going to
plead this case here: it's just a feeling, not supported by
clear statements on her part, or by a track record which shows
any great will on her part to withstand the enormous pressures
the entire political systems puts on politicians like her to
pledge allegiance to Israel. My own inclination is to not just
vote for her but to give her a free pass through November, as
I don't see any constructive value in further embarrassing her
on this issue (or in encouraging her to embarrass herself by
reiterating her blanket support for Israel). But I'm not saying
that anyone active on this issue should stop talking about it,
and I'm not going to be holding any grudges against others who
can't help but include her among the many American political
figures who are complicit in this genocide. For pretty much
the same reason, I may think that people who self-identify as
"pro-Palestinian" have a dubious grasp of political tactics, I
bear them no ill-feeling, because they at least are committed
to opposing Israel's hideous and shameful reign of terror.
Until the atrocities are stopped, whatever thoughts they may
have about Palestinian statehood are mere curiosities.
By the way, don't give Trump the same free pass until the
election. Feel free to point out how his presidency contributed
to the conditions that elected Israel's ultra-right government,
that cornered and prodded Hamas into their desperate Oct. 7
revolt, and that revealed so many Republicans as genocide's
biggest cheerleaders. This is not just a matter of setting the
historical record straight, but it directly counters the ridiculous
notion that Trump is some kind of antiwar candidate.
Stephen Semler: [09-12]
Is Israel intentionally attacking aid workers? "We've compiled
14 incidents where humanitarians were attacked despite giving the
IDF their coordinates and being clearly identified as civilians."
The Harris-Trump debate:
Vox [Andrew Prokop/Nicole Narea/Christian Paz]: [09-10]
3 winners and 2 losers from the Harris-Trump debate: The winners
were: Kamala Harris, ABC News's debate moderators (David Muri and
Linsey Davis), and Swifties for Kamala; the losers: Donald Trump,
and Immigration. Once again, the Vox writer were out in force:
Joshua Keating: [09-11]
Biden and Harris say America's no longer at war. Is that true?
"Harris says US troops aren't fighting in any 'war zones.' What
about Iraq, Syria, and the Red Sea?" Within the context of the
debate, Harris had a point, which was useful in countering Trump's
lie:
Beyond the legal hair-splitting, Harris made the comment in the
context of a defense of the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan,
and it is true that under Biden, the US military posture overseas
has significantly shrunk from what it was under the Bush, Obama,
and Trump administrations.
(Trump has falsely claimed in the past that his presidency was
the first in 72 years that "didn't have any wars," despite the fact
that he oversaw four years of combat in Afghanistan as well as major
military escalations in Iraq, Syria, and Somalia. At least 65 US
troops died in hostile action under Trump's presidency.)
That number under Trump was significantly less than under Obama,
which in turn was less than under Bush. A comparable Biden number
is probably less than Trump's, but not much less.
Eric Levitz: [09-11]
Donald Trump lost the debate because he's too online: "The GOP
nominee spoke to swing voters as though they were his Truth Social
followers." Also note the section head: "For swing voters, many of
Trump's ravings sounded like a summary of the sixth season of a
show they'd never watched."
[09-12]
Is the entire world conspiring to make it look like Trump lost the
debate? "An intriguing theory by Matt Taibbi." Taibbi's piece
is here --
DNC talking points become instant post-debate headlines -- not
that you can read it without a paid subscription, which the excerpt
and report doesn't inspire. By the way, I still remember Taibbi's
Spanking the Donkey: Dispatches From the Dumb Season (2005)
as one of the best campaign journals ever. He was especially good
at showing how working journalists played into conventional tropes
fed them by campaign flacks, willingly due to the vacuousness of
their own jobs. It's likely that something like that is still in
the cards here, but if your blind spot is big enough to exclude
critical scrutiny of Trump, you're not going to be able to see
very much.
Ed Kilgore: [09-10]
Debate shows Trump losing his war with reality: "But he reached
new vistas of delusion during his debate with Kamala Harris, to the
point where it was unclear whether he was debating the vice-president
or debating reality."
Margaret Carlson: [09-11]
Harris shows how to dismantle a would-be dictator: "Humor,
ridicule, gut punches, and that look of puzzlement and contempt
were just some of the tools the vice president used to take down
Trump."
John Ganz: [09-11]
Cats and dogs: "I can't believe I watched the whole thing!"
Trump still has considerable powers of self-expression, which are
often underrated by liberals, but they should not be overrated
either. He has a very limited vocabulary and it constrains the
extent to which he can articulate responses on any issue. So, he
falls back into hyperbole -- everything is the worst, the best,
the greatest. This can be effective, but often last night it
sounded repetitive and, yes, kind of dull. If the American simply
people tire of his antics, it will really be over for him. Harris's
message of "let's turn the page" is a good one because it presents
Trump as tiresome as much as fearsome.
Shane Goldmacher/Katie Rogers: [09-11]
Harris dominates as Trump gets defensive: 6 takeaways from the
debate: "Layout out bait that Donald Trump eagerly snatched,
the vice president owned much of the night, keeping him on the
back foot and avoiding sustained attention on her own
vulnerabilities." As
Rick Perlstein tweeted: "In a strictly intellectual sense, I'm
very excited to see how the New York Times solves the linguistic
puzzle of making that sound like a tie. It will require a Fermat's
Last Theorum-level of ingenuity." Perlstein later linked to a NYT
app article headline ("Fierce Exchanges Over Country's Future
Dominate Debate") that satisfied his expectations, but when I
searched for that headline, I found this article instead. Perhaps
sensing that such precise (albeit vague) balance wouldn't stand
up to scrutiny, they conceded the debate to Harris, while playing
up whatever they could for Trump. The six takeaways:
Thom Hartmann: [09-13]
Inside Trump's 'peace candidate' debate scam. This is an important
subject -- one I wish he did a better job of handling. Trump should
have zero credibility as a "peace candidate," well below Biden/Harris,
even though they've set the bar pretty low. They at least have a
modicum of empathy for the costs of war. As such, they can see some
reason to stay clear of war, or to clean up the wars they've been
given (e.g., Afghanistan). What Hartmann is pretty good at is pointing
out "our media failures":
Thus, Trump and the entire GOP are now furiously trying to rewrite
their party's history of using unnecessary wars to get re-elected.
And, according to opinion polls, it's working because America's
corporate media pretty much refuses to point out Republican perfidy
in any regard.
Consider these indictments of our media failures. Polls show:
52% trust Trump more compared to 37% for Harris on inflation
(even though America has the lowest inflation rate in the developed
world because of Biden's policies)
51% trust Trump vs. 43% for Harris on handling the economy (even
though Biden's economy beats Trump's by every metric, even pre-Covid)
54% trust Trump more on border security compared to 36% for Harris
(even though border crossings are at historically low levels now,
lower than any time during Trump's non-Covid presidency)
53% trust Trump vs. 40% for Harris on immigration (even though
Trump wants to build concentration camps, go door-to-door arresting
Hispanics, and again tear children from their mother's arms)
51% trust Trump vs. 41% for Harris to stand up to China, even
though Trump got millions in bribes from them for his daughter
And on crime and public safety, 48% trust Trump versus 42% for
Harris, even though crime levels today are lower than any time during
Trump's presidency
None of these numbers would be where they are if our news
organizations had accurately reported the facts.
Fred Kaplan: [09-11]
Harris exposed how easy Trump is to manipulate. Dictators have known
this for a long time. Easy to manipulate, for sure, but when it
comes to manipulation, you need proximity, which only his staff really
has, and they've generally been able to cancel out any idea foreign
dictators may have planted. While Trump threatens to break the mold
on US foreign policy, in his first term, he was hamstrung by orthodox
blob operatives, leaving him with nothing but a few ridiculous photo
ops. A second term could be better or worse, but given how consistent
(and wrong-headed) US foreign policy has been across both partisan
administrations, he'll probably just make the same mistakes over and
over again. It's not like he actually knows any better.
Ezra Klein: [09-11]
Harris had a theory of Trump, and it was right: "The vice president
successfully baited Trump's angry, conspiratorial, free-associating
side. But what wasn't said was just as telling."
Robert Kuttner: [09-11]
Notes for next time: "Kamala Harris did well in the debate but
missed some opportunities to remind voters of Trump's sheer
craziness."
[09-10]
God, these people have no shame: That's the title in the index.
After the jump, the page title is: "Yes, they're really claiming
immigrants eat cats and geese now. You can guess why: A racist
GOP scare tactic has taken over the internet."
Bill Scher: [09-11]
Kamala Harris is good at this: "The vice president laid out her
plans for the future while Donald Trump was caught in a tangle of
grievances about the past."
Adam Serwer: [09-14]
The real 'DEI' candidates: Kamala Harris's evisceration of Donald
Trump at the debate revealed who in this race is actually unqualified
for power."
Charles Sykes: [09-11]
Trump blames everybody but himself: Talk about infinitely
recyclable headlines! "He can't face the truth about his performance
at the debate."
Steve M: [09-11]
How the right-wing mediasphere -- and Trump's fragile ego -- set him
up for failure last night. This elaborates on a theme that I've
been noticing for years, which is that Trump is merely a receptacle
for right-wing propaganda. Right-wingers have cynically formulated
their propaganda to trigger incoherent emotions in their listeners --
a technique often dubbed "dog-whistling." To carry the analogy a bit
farther, Trump isn't a whistler; Trump's just one of the dogs. What
makes him the MAGA leader is his money, his ego, his ability to
capture the media's attention. But as a thinker, as a speaker, as
an organizer, he's strictly derivative, a second-rate hack picking
up and repeating whatever he's been told. M explains:
Trump has always been cultural conservative -- a racist, a fan
of "law and order," an admirer of strongmen and authoritarians --
but years of binge-watching Fox News have made his opinions and
prejudices worse. Now he has a set of opinions -- on renewable
energy vs. fossil fuels, on immigration, and so on -- that are
made up of talking points from the right-wing informationsphere.
When he says that windmill noise causes cancer, he's repeating
an idea spread by pseudo-scientists funded by the fossil fuel
industry.
But that's how his mind works -- his ego is so fragile that he can't
bear to be wrong, so he clings desperately to any assertion that
reinforces his notion that he's right. Windmills kill birds! Solar
energy is useless when it's cloudy! Of course, the right-wing
infosphere is a machine designed to reassure all of its consumers
that their prejudices and resentments are right. . . .
But in recent years, as Fox News has begun losing its primacy
on the right while the Internet has increasingly been the main
source for what rank-and-file right-wingers believe, fringe ideas
have become more mainstream: Barack Obama birtherism, the allegedly
stolen election in 2020, QAnon's notion of a vast elitist pedophile
ring that somehow excludes all Republicans.
And now we have the cats.
When even J.D. Vance was spreading scurrilous stories about
Haitian immigrants eating cats in Springfield, Ohio, I was surprised --
not because right-wingers are spreading hateful and dangerous blood
libels about immigrants (that happens all the time), but because
Republicans weren't confining the spread of this preposterous and
easily disproved story to the fringier parts of their infosphere.
They were going mainstream with this.
But of course they were. In 2024, it's hard to restrict a story
like this to the fringe. Naturally, Elon Musk promoted it, as did
many online influencers and Trumpist members of Congress.
Trump hates immigrants, so of course he seized on this story
and talked about in the debate. Trump's confirmation bias is tied
to his delicate ego, which always needs to say, See? I was right.
A few years ago, he might not have even noticed this story. But
the tiers in the right-wing mediasphere have collapsed, so the
confirming messages Trump is exposed to are stupider. And he
believes them. . . .
Trump simply can't take in information that challenges his
beliefs. His ego can't handle it. The right-wing infosphere
flatters Trump the way dictators flatter Trump: by telling him
what he wants to hear. That's the person Kamala Harris showed
us last night, and that's why we can't allow him to win the
presidency again.
Taylor Swift endorses Harris:
I wouldn't be surprised to find that her lawyers drafted the
statement (released on Instagram) weeks ago, but its timing
does two useful things: it shows due diligence, as she waited
for a moment when it would appear she considered both options
fair and square, and it provided a singuarly conspicuous
verdict on the debate, thereby underscoring its importance.
Alex Galbraith: [09-15]
"I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT": Trump goes on Truth Social tirade against
Harris supporters: "In a series of Sunday morning posts to
Truth Social, Donald Trump rallied [sic] against Kamala Harris'
rich supporters." Apologies for the Latin, but I think whoever
titled this meant "railed." Trump's identity as a billionaire
is so narcissistic that he takes any billionaire who doesn't
bow to his class leadership an act of treason. This sense of
entitlement is most common among those who inherited fortunes
(like Trump, and certain Kochs and Mellons come quick to mind),
as opposed to billionaires who can remember or imagine what
life is like for the non-rich.
Donald Trump told his supporters how he really feels about Kamala
Harris' most-famous booster in a Sunday morning flurry of angry
posts to his Truth Social platform.
"I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT," the former president wrote, as one part
of a tirade against rich supporters of Harris' candidacy.
"All rich, job creating people, that support Comrade Kamala
Harris, you are STUPID," he wrote. "She is seeking an UNREALIZED
TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS. If this tax actually gets enacted, it
guarantees that we will have a 1929 style Depression. Perhaps
even the thought of it would lead to calamity - But at least
appraisers and accountants would do well!"
Trump also said: "She's a very liberal person. She seems to
always endorse a Democrat. And she'll probably pay a price for
it in the marketplace."
David Atkins: [09-12]
Trump doesn't understand tariffs, but he knows enough to be menacing.
Trump's fascination with tariffs seems to be based on the notion
that he can impose them arbitrarily and with impunity, so they
function as a massive ego stroke. On the other hand, his opponents
are nearly as simple-minded and dogmatic as he is. As I've said
before, tariffs only make sense as part of a strategy to build up
domestic industries (i.e., if you are doing economic planning,
which is something most American politicians have long denounced).
It now occurs to me that there may be better ways to do that than
tariffs.
Facts cannot penetrate Trump's narrow, incurious, egotistical
worldview. He believes that as the leader of the world's dominant
economy, he can bully the rest of the world into submission. And
like Hoover -- not coincidentally, the only other president to
preside over a net loss of jobs in the United States -- he will
make an easily avoidable mistake that costs everyone.
John Cassidy: [09-09]
Donald Trump's new "voodoo economics": "The former president's
tax plan would cost the government trillions of dollars. Tariffs
and Elon Musk will pay for everything, he says."
Eugene R Fidell/Dennis Aftergut: [09-13]
Trump's plan to undermine foreign policy: The authors argue
that Trump promised to violate the Logan Act, a law which "makes
it a felony for private citizens, including presidents-elect, to
interfere in foreign policy." I doubt that anyone, least of all
Trump himself, is going to take his statements that literally,
but the sloppy thinking is typical. The innuendo, that he's just
a Putin stooge, is more barbed, but its plausibility is also
based on his sloppy thinking.
[09-13]
Trump's new big lie: "The goal is not to earnestly correct the
record on crime but to spread an atmosphere of fear and paranoia."
[09-13]
The cases against Trump: a guide: "Thirty-four felony convictions.
Charges of fraud, election subversion, and obstruction. One place to
keep track of the presidential candidate's legal troubles."
Elie Honig: [09-13]
Jack Smith's reckless gamble: "The special counsel seems ready
to bet the entire January 6 case against Trump on an improbable
outcome."
David R Lurie: [08-19]
Trump's carny act isn't working anymore: "His Folgers Coffee
Conference showed a candidate in decline." Compares his Aug. 15
"press conference," with tables of grocery items, props for his
wild claims about inflation, with a similar branding event from
his 2016 campaign, describing the latter:
It was all pretty darn weird; but the press lapped it up and, for
the remainder of the campaign, gave Trump all the airtime and
attention he wanted for similar performances.
The Trump Steaks Conference was to become the template for
Trump's political strategy during the ensuing decade, a mélange
of elaborate (and often patently false) self-promotion blended
with equally false and correspondingly vicious attacks on whoever
happens to be Trump's opponent du jour.
Here, as an example, is a Politico news alert that summarizes a
recent Trump speech: "Trump laid out a sweeping vision of lower
taxes, higher tariffs and light-touch regulation in a speech to top
Wall Streets execs today." As writer Thor Benson
quipped on Twitter: "I hope the press is this nice to me if
I ever do a speech where no one can tell if I just had a stroke
or not."
Trump has become more incoherent as he has aged, but you wouldn't
know it from most of the press coverage, which treats his utterances
as essentially logical policy statements -- a "sweeping vision,"
even.
After the intense media focus on Joe Biden's age and mental acuity,
you would think Trump's apparent decline would be a preoccupation. He
is 78, after all, and often incoherent. But with rare exceptions, that
hasn't happened. . . .
But why does the media sanewash Trump? It's all a part of the
false-equivalence
I've been writing about here in which candidates are equalized
as an ongoing gesture of performative fairness.
And it's also, I believe, because of the restrained language of
traditional objective journalism. That's often a good thing; it's
part of being careful and cautious. But when it fails to present a
truthful picture, that practice distorts reality.
I was pointed here by a Paul Krugman reference. I figured it
was worth noting separately, and for good measure, I searched for
"sanewashing Trump" and found it's suddenly been adopted widely
of late. Links follow -- I skipped "Trump has not been 'sane-washed',"
because it's at Atlantic, and I didn't want to blow one of my few
"free article" credits on something as transparently worthless.
(Parker Molloy critiques the Paul Farhi piece below, so you can
find the link there.)
But let me make a couple preliminary points. The term has never
been used pre-Trump, because no previous candidate has ever given
us such copious evidence of dubious sanity. It's not that we've
never seen neuroses or delusions before, but they've never seemed
so disconnected from reality. Trump has three personal problems
that are relevant here, and while none of these are unprecedented,
his combination is pretty extreme. (1) He lies a lot, and not just
about things we're used to other politicians lying about. (2) He
has very little grasp of policy ideas, but even his conventional
policy ideas -- the ones common to most Republicans, most of which
he thoughtlessly picked up from Fox News -- are ill-considered and
unworkable, so detached from reality even before he embroiders and
imbues them with his personal twists. (3) He is old and mentally
clumsy, as well as extremely vain and conceited, states that we
perhaps too readily associate with dementia.
While "sane-washing" is new and especially Trump-specific --
unless the term ever appeared in the Republican campaign to
impugn "Biden's dementia" -- the media angle is much older, this
a mere inflection on the more common term "white-washing," which
occurs when reporters suppress, sanitize, and/or rationalize
their reporting. This has been going on for ages, but few if
any candidates have benefited more from an indulgent press than
Trump, not least because few candidates have ever needed so much
indulgence. Worse still, the process has been self-normalizing,
so rather than gently nudging Trump back into normal discourse
(as white-washed Trump), he figures he can push his boundaries
even further, confident the media will excuse further excesses
(or that he can denounce them as 'fake news").
[09-04]
How the media sanitizes Trump's insanity: "The political press's
efforts to rationalize Trump's incoherent statements are eroding our
shared realilty and threatening informed democracy."
Stephen Robinson: [09-10]
Sanewashing and the damage done: "The press is helping Trump hide
in plain sight." This is a pretty good piece, but inadvertently points
out a major problem with reporting on Trump:
A common defense of the media's Trump coverage is that it's almost
impossible to detail every awful thing he says and does. But there's
a consistent narrative through line with Trump: He's a criminal who'd
use the power of the presidency to seek revenge on his enemies. That's
not complicated, and his every action supports this thesis. The
mainstream media simply chooses to ignore the obvious.
But in reducing everything to a single defamatory statement, you
lose the truth that it's really not that simple. Just calling him
a criminal doesn't tell you much (and not just because the standard
for him isn't "innocent until proven guilty" but "innocent until
even his hand-picked Supreme Court can't take it any more"). And
while, sure, he'd like "to use the power of the presidency
to seek revenge on his enemies," the problem here is not what he
would actually do but his attitude, that he's the sort of person
who'd relish doing things like that. He's simply so far outside
our normal perception frameworks that hardly anyone can talk about
him precisely and accurately. We're always self-correcting, simply
because we're incapable of processing that he's really as hideous
as he quite obviously is. Journalists are the worst here, because
their job is to report credible stories, and every day they have
to sift through all of his bullshit and try to make him credible.
Blame them if you must, but it's a fucking hopeless job.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [09-09]
Rustbelt poll: Majority say Trump more likely to avoid war:
"Survey finds strong support for Gaza ceasefire; most believe
today's foreign policy doesn't put America first." The poll was
designed and run by Cato Institute.
Plans translate values into action. They test the quality of the
ideas and the seriousness of the people advancing them. Plans reveal
for whom candidates will fight and how effective they are likely to
be. And in a presidential race, if either party's nominee is asked
about his or her plans for something as fundamental as health care,
voters should get a straight answer.
The problem is not that Mr. Trump can't think up a way to put his
values into action. The problem is that when he and other Republican
leaders produce plans with actual details, they horrify the American
people.
Mr. Trump's health care values have been on full display for years.
In 2017, Republicans controlled Congress, and their first major
legislative undertaking was a bill to repeal the Affordable Care
Act. Every time they drafted something, independent experts would
point out that their plan would toss tens of millions of people off
their health insurance, jack up premium costs and slash benefits for
those with ongoing health problems. . . .
But at the debate, Mr. Trump displayed a new strategy. He seems
to realize that his health-care plans are deeply unpopular, so he
simply doesn't talk about them. Thus, after nine years of railing
against the A.C.A. and trying mightily to repeal it, he has moved
to "concepts of a plan," without a single detail that anyone can
pin him down on.
The new strategy might have worked -- except Mr. Trump's right-wing
buddies have already laid out the plans. No need for concepts. Project
2025 has 920 pages translating Republican values into detailed action
plans, including on health care: Repeal the A.C.A. Cut Medicare benefits.
End $35 insulin. Stop Medicare drug price negotiations. Cut health-care
access for poor families. Restrict contraceptive care. Jeopardize access
to I.V.F. Ban medication abortion.
As Project 2025's favorability plummets, Mr. Trump is once again
scrambling. "I have nothing to do with Project 2025," he claimed at
the debate. "I'm not going to read it." But it was written by many
members of Mr. Trump's former administration and over 250 of the
policies in the plan match his past or current policy proposals.
Meet Laura Loomer, the latest fringe figure to set up in the
presidential candidate's inner circle, and who has managed to
shock even Trump's most extreme allies as he seeks to reclaim
the White House.
Loomer, a 31-year-old social media influencer and provocateur,
has managed to squeeze into Trump's entourage as he is struggling
to win over the independents and moderates needed to prevail in
November's election against Kamala Harris, a race that is coming
down to the wire. . . .
Asked Friday about her incendiary posts and conspiracy theories,
Trump -- a voracious consumer of social media who has previously
amplified Loomer's posts on his own account -- shrugged them off,
telling reporters in California: "I don't know that much about it."
Trump declined to criticize Loomer, instead hailing her as a
"free spirit" supporter with "strong opinions."
Madeline Halpert/Laurence Peter: [09-15]
Trump rushed to safety and suspect held after man spotted with
rifle: Evidently someone was seen with a gun on a golf course
where Trump was playing. Secret Service shot at a man, who dropped
the gun and fled, and was later apprehended. Many articles call
this "a shooting" and/or "an assassination attempt," which is
something to look into, but not established fact. Presumably
we'll know more soon, but I don't recall ever learning much
about the previous "assassination attempt." While it would be
bizarre to fake events like this -- the previous one seemed to
spike his polls -- it's hard to rule anything out with Trump,
or to assume that normal rules apply. It's also hard to care,
possibly because he seems so keen on assassinating other folks
that you can't discount the karma, and possibly because when I
think of similar cases the one I always land on first is
George Lincoln Rockwell.
Adam Goldman/Thomas Gibbons-Neff/Glenn Thrush/Najim
Rahim: [09-15]
Suspected gunman said he was willing to fight and die in Ukraine:
"Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, told The New York Times in 2023 that he had
traveled to Ukraine and wanted to recruit Afghan soldiers to fight
there." Still not much information here.
Vance's psyop about immigrants eating
pets:: Vance
had been pushing a story about Haitian immigrants in Springfield,
Ohio abducting and eating dogs and cats. Trump made a big deal
out of this during the debate, so it's already been mentioned
above, but this is a place to file additional stories as they
pop up:
Getting the media to focus on any given issue or storyline over
others is not easy. Yet precisely because Vance's attack on Haitian
immigrants in Springfield is so incendiary, it has generated great
quantities of media coverage.
What's more, because Trump and Vance's behavior is so repugnant
to liberal values, it has provoked Democratic politicians and
commentators into advertising their sympathy for immigrants and
concern for their welfare.
The calculation here is that it could nudge a swing voter
rightward, even if they find Vance's conduct off-putting. That
voter can disapprove of Vance's cat memes and still glean from
the conversation around them that Republicans are the party that's
harsher on immigration.
The Republican ticket, if this reading is correct, is betting
that voters are looking for someone who can get an ugly job done.
The health of our republic, and the safety of its most vulnerable
residents, depends on this being a mistake.
Freddy Brewster: [09-13]
JD Vance is trying to push Citizens United further:
"JD Vance and other Republicans are spearheading a lawsuit that
aims to get the Supreme Court to move beyond its Citizens United
decision and tear up some of the last remaining rules designed to
limit the influence of money in politics."
That only scratch the surface, and I'm not even sure the "wealthy"
come out much ahead, as the world they think they run increasingly
turns against them. Even in terms of cash accounting, lower taxes
hardly compensate for converting public goods to more exclusive and
expensive private goods erodes much of your imagined gains. The
super-rich may escape the trap longer, but they'll still be stuck
looking over their shoulders.
Chris Lehmann: [09-16]
How the liberal media gave us JD Vance: "The months-long romance
between Vance and an easily duped press in 2016 led directly to his
sordid political rise."
[09-11]
Republicans' racist, cat-eating conspiracy theory, briefly explained:
After Trump adopted this theme in the debate, I could have filed it
up there, but it evidently started elsewhere -- the first meme here
was posted by Ted Cruz, and the second by "House Judiciary GOP," so
let's credit the whole Party. Trump's contribution is his usual one:
he just sucks up all the malevolence in the Party, and oozes it out
in concentrated form.
Rick Perlstein: [09-11]
The zeal of the convert: "Matthew Sheffield, a former rising star
in the conservative movement, turned away from what he finally realized
was an extremist, anti-truth agenda."
Jedediah Britton-Purdy: [09-12]
Harris can win on the economy, but she needs a stronger message.
Dean Baker
reacted to this piece -- "the gist of the piece is that
most people are hurting now, but Harris can turn things around by
adopting a more populist agenda" -- adding that "it would be great
to see Harris push a more populist agenda," but mostly attributing
the problem to misinformation ("the media have lied to the public"),
but also by asserting that "most people are not hurting how, or at
least not more than they did in the past." One problem is that the
whole system is rigged to maintain a level of economic pain, so
most people feel precarious even when conditions are within normal
bounds. Also not clear to me what Britton-Purdy's "clear economic
program" actually is. Certainly there are lots of opportunities,
but making them clear and tangible to voters is much easier said
than done.
Heather Digby Parton: [09-13]
Kamala Harris' big tent strategy -- and its success -- has thrown
Trump for a loop. I personally find the Cheney endorsements
damning, but when she mentioned them, I thought she got the "even"
inflection just right. I suppose what that shows is that she's the
politician, and I'm not. I'm skeptical of how many disaffected
Republicans she can win over, but as long as she can pick up some
without turning on (or off) her natural base, that not only helps
her chances of winning, it opens up the possibility of winning
big -- and that would be a good thing, even if it muddies the
message a bit.
I could go farther here and argue that for most Republicans,
a big Harris win, even one that gave her a comfortable margin in
Congress, would be a blessing. Trump and his movement are a dead
end, desperately clinging to demographics that are slipping away,
that can only be shored up by disabling democracy, while their
policy prejudices only make problems worse, and their reflexive
resort to force behind propaganda only makes their victims and
opponents more desperate.
In the 1970s, Republicans argued -- wrongly, I think, but not
without reason -- that America has swung too far to the left, so
they set about "rebalancing" government. Since then, they never
let up, pushing inequality to levels that never existed before:
the "gilded age" of the 1880s and the "roaring '20s" were past
peaks, both ending in massive depressions, which were corrected
with shifts back to the left -- never far, as the rich fared
handsomely in the Progressive and New Deal/Great Society eras.
Pace the Trump paranoia, they have little to fear from Harris
and the Democrats -- even from the farthest left reaches of the
party, whose actual programs proposed are modestly reformist,
and easily compromised by lobbying.
Capitalism doesn't help anyone develop a sense of enough, but
common sense does, and Republicans need some of that. Especially,
they need a break from the Trumpists, who are paranoid and delusional,
prepared to burn it all down for the sake of idiot theories, just
to exercise their malice against much of the world. It's good to
respect the new Republicans who, like recovering alcoholics, are
willing to break. The the Cheneys still have a lot of recovering
to go.
Charles P Pierce: [09-16]
Kamala Harris understands that an overly serious campaign is a
losing campaign: "Our history is not all crises weathered
and problems solved. It is also brass bands, and torchlight
parades, and barrels of hard cider at rural polling stations."
Point noted, but then: "Sorry. This article is for subscribers
only."
Rebecca Traister: [09-09]
The people for Kamala Harris: "How a women-led movement,born
in the devastation of 2016, put Democrats on the brink of making
history." Magazine cover story article, takes the time needed to
sketch out the big picture. This article was paired with:
Olivia Nuzzi: [09-09]
The afterlife of Donald Trump: "At home at Mar-a-Lago, the
presidential hopeful contemplates miracles, his campaign, and
his formidable new opponent." Note, however, that the magazine
cover used a different, more intriguing title: "Peering into
Donald Trump's ear, and soul." (Actually, the Traister article
also has a different cover title: "The joyous plot to elect
Kamala Harris.")
Melvin Goodman: [09-13]
Biden's legacy: the decline of arms control and disarmament:
"President Biden's neglect of arms control and disarmament means
that the next president will inherit a nuclear landscape that is
more threatening and volatile than any other since the Cuban
missile crisis more than 60 years ago." This is a big part of the
reason why you don't want a foreign policy dedicated to making
Russia (and China and North Korea and Iran) feel more vulnerable
and desperate.
Griffin Eckstein: [09-13]
Pope Francis says US voters must choose between "evils": Harris and
Trump: He did say "you have to vote" for the "lesser of two
evils," noting that "each of their platforms stand 'against life.'"
Republican will read this as about abortion, while Democrats can
read this as being about everything else. The Pope himself was more
specific on their anti-immigrant rhetoric, but somehow couldn't
weigh out "the lesser evil." The article doesn't mention war and
genocide. File this under "more reasons clerics shouldn't engage
in politics."
Christian Paz: [09-10]
Can we trust the polls this year? "After polling misses in 2016
and 2020, how should we feel about 2024? The case for and against
this year's polls."
Jodi Kantor/Adam Liptak: [09-15]
How Roberts shaped Trump's Supreme Court winning streak: "Behind
the scenes, the chief justice molded three momentous Jan. 6 and
election cases that helped determine the former president's fate."
I wish the Democrats had spent more time combatting the misinformation
about the economy that major media outlets spewed endlessly for the
last three and a half years, but it's kind of late now. Harris can
put worthwhile proposals on the table, which she already has, and
hope that they reach the public. But her best hope is that a majority
of voters will be unwilling to put a lying, corrupt, incompetent,
buffoon back in the White House.
[09-09]
Donald Trump on the dollar, in his own words. "This is the
first in an occasional series about Donald Trump's statements
and language and what's at stake in the election." This also
pointed me to the
sane-washing discussion.
[09-12]
Here's why Trump was forced to say he has only 'concepts of a plan':
Trump has been promising a replacement "much better" than Obamacare
at least since 2016, and has never released a plan that anyone could
analyze. It's pretty easy to show that it's impossible to improve on
Obamacare in any significant way (either in cost or coverage) unless
you take a big cut out of private insurance (as "Medicare for All"
would do), but that would be a non-starter for Republicans, so all
they can do is promise vaporware.
Kelsey Piper: [09-12]
Shrinking the economy won't save the planet: "561 research papers
in, the case for degrowth is still weak." The author wrote a previous
piece arguing against the idea of "degrowth" as a panacea for dealing
with world environmental problems (especially climate change) --
[2021-08-03]
Can we save the planet by shrinking the economy? -- where the
author turned "degrowth" into a strawman, arguing that it is not
necessary (is the only way to solve the problem) or sufficient (is
able to solve the problem on its own), and with that throws the
whole cluster of ideas out. But at least that piece took the ideas
seriously. All this piece does is say we've looked at a bunch of
research papers purportedly about "degrowth" and found them wanting
(e.g., "paper after paper with meaninglessly tiny sample sizes,"
"studies are opinions rather than analysis," "studied offer ad hoc
and subjective policy advice").
George Beebe: [09-13]
Not enough long range missiles to make a difference for Ukraine:
"But letting Kyiv strike deep into Russia could lead us right into
war." The only real question is what is the negotiation strategy?
Without one, the missiles are just another escalation, inviting a
response in kind by Russia, or worse. On the other hand, if you had
a negotiation strategy, why do you need further provocations? The
war will be ended not by marginal differences in power, but by
finding solutions that are acceptable to both sides.
Ian Proud: [09-13]
Russian asset seizure scheme will prolong war: "Western officials
want to 'speed up' the use of interest on Moscow's frozen funds in
order to loan Ukraine more money."
Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:
Zack Beauchamp: [09-13]
It happened there: how democracy died in Hungary: "A new kind
of authoritarianism is taking root in Europe -- and there are
warning signs for America." In case you didn't quite grasp Trump's
reference to Viktor Orban in the debate, here's a refresher.
Parker Yesko: [09-10]
The war crimes that the military buried: "The largest known
database of possible American war crimes committed in Iraq and
Afghanistan shows that the military-justice system rarely
punishes perpetrators."
WD Ehrhart: [09-13]
Why I don't watch political speeches: A position I sympathize
with, although I've never been tempted to throw things at the TV,
other than the occasional snide comment. So I'd have to explain my
aversion differently.
Nathan J Robinson/Current Affairs:
[09-13]
The worst magazine in America: The Atlantic poses as a magazine
of ideas, but its writers get away with terrible arguments. Its
ascendance is a sign of the dire state of American intellectual
life." Long article, seems like he spends a lot of time on effort
on such obvious atrocities as Robert D Kaplan's "In Defense of
Henry Kissinger." More interesting is Simon Sebag Montefiore's
"The Decolonization Narrative Is Dangerous and False," which is
about how we shouldn't describe Israel as a "settler colony"
because the settlement took place over several generations, the
"settlers" are no different from immigrants elsewhere, but their
designation as "settler-colonists" marks them as "ripe for murder
and mutilation." Robinson spends a lot of time on this piece, but
that last bit is too insane for him to bother with further. What
he does instead is spend considerable time discrediting the sort
of mythmaking Montefiore's "caricature" attempts. Whole books
have been written to that effect. Robinson makes good points
here, but misses most of the angles I would have focused on --
like why does the "settler-colonial" analysis help or hinder you
from understanding the history? and what's with this "murder and
mutilation"? -- as well as the deeper question of why Atlantic's
editors like to publish overblown articles by ill-tempered
nincompoops?
One reason could be that some articles, even if you know they're
not just wrong but horribly so, should be published somewhere, if
only for smarter people to knock them down. I don't know from
Montefiore, but I can imagine someone deciding they want a piece
on Kissinger, and wondering if Kaplan might have an interesting
take. (I've read a lot of Kaplan, and while he's often wrong --
any time he opens a paragraph with "that got me thinking," you
know some really insane shit is coming around the bend -- I've
learned a lot along the way. Same for George Packer, source of
another Robinson case study.) You're never going to convince me
that Atlantic editorial choices are above political prejudices,
or even that they are seriously dedicated to providing some sort
of open forum, but you need more than just a few examples. You
could really use some statistical analysis. But I suppose you
could point out examples that are both countersensical and have
no "prestige" reason to be published, like the
sanewashing article I mentioned
above. Robinson does get into this a bit later on, but mostly
as asides to a big bang of extra example outrages.
I sometimes wonder whether I should break down and subscribe
to Atlantic. I frequently see links to articles that look like
they may be interesting (some by writers I respect, like Adam
Serwer and David Graham), and some that just look like arguments
I want to knock down, but in the end, I'm just too cheap (and/or
committed to free speech), so I almost never click on them. (My
wife does pay for digital subscriptions, so sometimes I'm able
to piggyback on her accounts, but she really loathes much of
what appears in Atlantic, so it's not on her list.) Still, I
regularly look at their
table of contents to get the lay of the land. From Monday's
list, here are some articles I might have considered (a few
more I slipped into relevant slots above, especially on Trump
and the debate):
Ellen Cushing:
A $700 kitchen tool that's meant to be seed, not used:
Picture of a mixer. I've bought, hated, and returned or given away two
expensive mixers so far. I keep looking for a good one, so I actually
clicked on this article, but turns out it's just another KitchenAid.
David Frum:
Trump's guns: "For nearly a decade, a dangerous political environment
has been uniquely inflamed by Donald Trump."
[09-13]
What doesn't get said: "Commentary around the first Harris-Trump
debate focused on Harris's impressive performance. But both candidates
accepted dangerous right-wing premises on climate, immigration,
economics, and foreign policy." Well, as the joke goes: two campers
are surprised by a bear in the woods. One says, "you can't outrun
that bear." The other says, "I don't have to; I just have to outrun
you." I hate Chait's concept of
"the
assignment"
, but I accept that Harris has one, which is
make sure she beats Trump in November, preferably by a lot. To do
that, she needs to run fast and not trip and fall. (Trump tripping
and falling would help, but isn't something you can count on.) I
see three risks for her: one is that the war situation gets worse,
with Biden and her getting by a public that isn't very sharp on
such issues; the second is that she loses support from the money
people, most likely by appearing too far to the left; the third
is that in steering away from the left, she loses the enthusiasm
she needs to get out the popular vote. She's done a pretty solid
job of avoiding two and three so far, while Trump and Vance are
proving to be even worse than expected, so I'm not inclined to
nitpick. War I'm more worried about, but at this point turning
on Israel may be the more dangerous option: I was thinking about
what Netanyahu's
latest threats against Yemen might mean, and wound up wondering
what would stop him from exacting his "heavy price" with "a mushroom
cloud." How would Biden and Harris react to that kind of "October
surprise"? (Trump would probably cheer, and seize it as a wedge
issue, which would only encourage Netanyahu.)
Still, I don't have any beef with Robinson writing articles like
this. He, and his readers, quite properly focus on issues. No need
for them to stop during what Matt Taibbi used to call "the stupid
season." That will pass, while the issues keep coming back, at least
until someone finally takes them seriously.
[09-11]
You've got to read books: "Not everyone has the available time
or energy to do deep reading. But if you're going to make confident
public pronouncements on matters that require a lot of research,
books will help you avoid dangerous foolishness." Needless to say,
I endorse this view. Following something
Billmon did on
his blog (defunct since 2006), I've kept a "current reading" roll and
list going for 20+ years now,
so I can check how much (and how little) I've read, and just what --
at least in book form. Curiously, I haven't read any of the four books
Robinson cites on the 2000 Camp David negotiations, although I've
read 3-6 (or maybe 12, depends on how you slice them) other books
that cover the same ground -- we're in general agreement on the
facts, but I wouldn't go around citing Quandt's "it's really
complicated" explanation.
This is a big subject, one that I can imagine writing quite a
lot about. It's true that bad books can be worse than no books at
all. (Robinson mentions Robert Fisk's Pity the Nation on
Lebanon, which is monumental, but I've actually run into people
who got everything they know about Lebanon from Thomas Friedman,
and they're painful to deal with.) It's also true that one can
learn to read bad books and get value out of them (like the
aforementioned Robert D Kaplan library). But even journalists
doing "first draft" history often get much better by the time
their work comes out in book form (cf. practically everyone who
started embedded and wound up with a book on Iraq -- hell, even
George Packer got better with a bit of perspective; I wouldn't
be surprised if Thomas Ricks' Fiasco had Gung Ho!
as its working title).
Recent events have forced Boot to ask if Reagan was part of the
rot that has eaten away at Republicanism. Boot now sees him as
complicit in the "hard-right turn" the Party took after Dwight D.
Eisenhower which "helped set the G.O.P. -- and the country -- on
the path" to Trump.
And yet Boot sees a redeeming quality as well: Reagan could
relax his ideology. He was an anti-tax crusader who oversaw large
tax hikes, an opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment who appointed
the first female Supreme Court Justice, and a diehard anti-Communist
who made peace with Moscow. "I've always felt the nine most terrifying
words in the English language are: I'm from the government, and I'm
here to help," Reagan famously quipped. But he delivered that line
while announcing "record amounts" of federal aid. He viewed the world
in black-and-white, yet he governed in gray.
I rather doubt that Reagan wanted to "govern in gray." That
was a concession to the Democrats who controlled Congress, to
the still-existing liberal Republicans, to the liberal courts,
and to the popularity of New Deal and Great Society programs.
Reagan was realistic about what he could accomplish, but he
did move the needle on all fronts. How anyone could see his
program, or his personal charisma, as heroic escapes me.
Here's another review:
Jennifer Burns: [09-09]
Did Ronald Reagan pave the way for Donald Trump? "In his new
biography, Max Boot reckons with the president who was once his
hero and another who led him away from the Republican Party."
Michael Ledger-Lomas:
All roads lead to ruin: "Sunil Amrith's The Burning Earth
takes us on a gloomy and bleak tour of how, in the name of progress,
Western empires made a mess of everything."
Rohan Silva: [2022-09-19]
Fen, Bog & Swamp by Annie Proulx review -- where have all out
wetlands gone? I just read this book, and quoted a bit of it
in the introduction, which is why I found this review. While there
is much of interest in the book, it's connection to climate change
never gets developed, beyond the occasional occasional notes that
peatlands sequester a lot of carbon, so their loss has increased
atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Annie Levin: [09-16]
Why you should host a hootenanny: "Outside of a church or karaoke
room, singing is mostly left to the professionals. But anyone can --
and should -- partake in the joys of collective singing." I can
imagine, but I gave up singing in public in 5th grade, when Lannie
Goldston insisted that I lip-synch, and kicked me in the shins
every time I slipped up and uttered a sound.
Chatter
It took me the better part of two days to finally insert all of
the entries in my April 25, 2024
Book Roundup into my
Book Notes file, which
at this point is probably too long to be a useful web page
(6944 paragraphs, 369868 words), but which I need to figure
out whether I've mentioned a book before. I couldn't really
start on a new post until that bit of housekeeping got done.
One thing I noticed there was this blurb on a 2017 book
(presumably written then) that seems completely relevant to
this week's news:
Nathan Thrall: The Only Language They Understand: Forcing
Compromise in Israel and Palestine (2017, Metropolitan Books):
Hard to think about the conflict without considering how to end it,
especially if you're an American, since we've long assumed that our
mission on Earth is to oversee some sort of agreement. Thrall has
been following the conflict closely for some time now, and writes
up what he's figured out: that the only way it ends is if some
greater power wills it. The title has a certain irony in that the
Israelis, following the British before them, have often said that
violence is the only language the Palestinians understand. But as
students of the conflict should know by now, the only times Israel
has compromised or backed down have been when they been confronted
with substantial force: as when Eisenhower prodded them to leave
Sinai in 1956, when Carter brokered their 1979 peace with Egypt,
when Rabin ended the Intifada by recognizing the PLO, or when Barak
withdrew Israeli forces from Lebanon in 2000. Since then no progress
towards resolution has been made because no one with the power to
influence Israel has had the will to do so -- although Israel's
frantic reactions against BDS campaigns shows their fear of such
pressure. On the other hand, one should note that force itself
has its limits: Palestinians have compromised on many things,
but some Israeli demands -- ones that violate norms for equal
human rights -- are always bound to generate resistance. What
makes the conflict so intractable now is that Israel has so
much relative power that they're making impossible demands. So
while Thrall would like to be even-handed and apply external
force to both sides, it's Israel that needs to move its stance
to something mutually tolerable. The other big questions are
who would or could apply this force, and why. Up to 2000, the
US occasionally acted, realizing that its regional and world
interests transcended its affection for Israel, but those days
have passed, replaced by token, toothless gestures, if any at
all. It's hard to see that changing -- not just because Israel
has so much practice manipulating US politics but because
America has largely adopted Israeli norms of inequality and
faith in brute power.
Curiously, I noted but wrote nothing about Thrall's later
book:
Nathan Thrall: A Day in the Life of Abed Salama: Anatomy
of a Jerusalem Tragedy (2023, Metropolitan Books).
Local tags (these can be linked to directly):
music.
Original count: 290 links, 15664 words (20559 total).
Current count:
290 links, 15873 words (20775 total)
I opened this file early enough (2024-09-03 01:16AM), but did
little on it, and spent much of Wednesday/Thursday working up a
fairly large dinner menu. So I didn't really get into this
until Saturday, and then got waylaid on the long
Plitnick comment (conceived in lieu of
an introduction). I still hoped to wrap this up Sunday evening,
but after a TV break was too exhausted to continue. Then Monday
morning (for me, anyway) I quickly found myself writing more long
comments (look for the star bullets below). Still hoping to post
Monday evening, but once again time is running out.
After several weeks dominated by campaign news, this week
Israel/Gaza came roaring back with a vengeance -- which reflects
poorly on Biden/Harris, not that they are alone in that regard.
Tuesday's Trump-Harris debate will probably be a big deal next
week, although I'm skeptical that anything good will come out
of it. I just got an unsolicited text from "Harris":
Tomorrow night may be my first debate with Donald Trump, but I
am no stranger to taking on perpetrators of all kinds: predators
who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, cheaters
who broke the rules for their own gain.
Believe me when I say I know Trump's type. And on tomorrow's
debate stage, I will do my best to put my record against his.
Then she asks for money.
Approaching 10PM, I'm giving up for the day, and calling this a
week. I've just spent the last several hours on even more Israel
comments. My guess is that there's a decent essay buried herein,
awaiting an editor I don't have to dig up the bits, restructure
them a bit, and demand some finishing touches. Having barely touched
on the election stories, I'm just now seeing lots of disturbing
stories I have no energy for right now. (Last add was Kuttner's
story on Harris' "capitulation," after which I saw a similar story
in New Republic, and I have little doubt there are more. And now
I'm seeing new Intelligencer pieces I suddenly find I can't read
by Jonathan Chait:
Kamala Harris should cut Joe Biden loose -- hasn't he been
reading about those "capitulations to capital"? -- and Ed Kilgore:
Believe it or not, many voters think Trump is a moderate, let
alone Margaret Hartmann:
Melania slams effort to 'silence' Trump on social-media site he
owns.)
Top story threads:
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
[09-02]
Day 332: West Bank resistance attacks carried out in Hebron:
"As the Israeli assault on the northern West Bank enters its sixth
day, Palestinians launched two attacks on Israelis in Hebron to the
south. Meanwhile, the death of six Israeli captives in Gaza caused
widespread anti-Netanyahu protests in Tel Aviv."
[09-09]
Day 339: Israel winds down West Bank operation, continues
blockade: "Palestinians in Nablus held a funeral procession
for a Turkish-American activist killed by Israeli forces in Beita.
Meanwhile, Israel continued to close its borders with Jordan for
the second day in a row following a shooting at Allenby bridge."
[08-22]
Is the US a suitable actor for a mediation role in Gaza?
I think at this point, we can all agree that the US cannot act
as an impartial arbiter in the dispute. That ship sailed long
ago, assuming it ever floated in the first place. But mediation
is a slightly different art: for that, you need to be able to
find a solution acceptable to both sides, and you need to be
willing and able to apply leverage to both sides to close the
deal. This conflict should be slightly simpler than most, as
Israel has all of the power, so mediation only has to work to
rein in one side. That makes America the only possible mediator
for the conflict, because only America has any serious leverage
to bring Israel to a deal -- partly because American support
has been so essential to Israel for so long. (Proviso here is
that while Palestinians
have no power to set terms, they can reject and resist imposed
terms they find demeaning and debilitating. Similarly, Israel
can also reject terms, regardless of the mediator's leverage.)
You can go through Israel's history and see various examples
of American mediation working (e.g., Sadat-Begin in 1979, the
recent Abraham Accords, as far as they got) and not working
(Barak-Assad and Barak-Arafat in 2000). The latter failed because
Barak's demands, due to internal political pressure, became
unreasonable, and/or Clinton didn't have the willpower to put
sufficient pressure on Barak. The situation is even worse with
Biden, because he seems to have no independent willpower over
anything having to do with Israel: he can't even imagine any
alternative solutions, nor dare he challenge Israel's leaders.
On the other hand, can you even conceive of any other mediator?
You may recall the Quartet, but that was never more than a US
front -- and given how subservient the US has become, Israelis
were free to treat them as a mirage.
So we're stuck: Israel has no need to change course unless
the US challenges it with an acceptable alternative, which the
US won't dare do as long as it is under Israel's thumb. With
nothing to stop them, or even to induce second thoughts --
Israel is not quite the monolithic autocracy it has presented
since last October -- Israel's genocide will continue, until
its logical conclusion (which could take years or decades, to
the whole world's detriment). All anyone else can do is to look
for weak links that could be moved with the limited pressure we
can muster. That's already happened enough to make the powers
involved here nervous, and the movement to end this war and the
injustices that caused and sustain it will only grow. But make
no mistake: this only ends when Israel is willing to change,
and that means America must also be willing to change.
Mariam Barghouti: [09-04]
Inside the brutal siege of Jenin: "The Israeli army is destroying
civilian infrastructure, blocking medical access, and conducting
mass arrests in the largest West Bank operation in years."
Zack Beauchamp: [09-04]
The real reason Netanyahu won't end the Gaza war: "The Israeli
public has turned against Netanyahu's war, but they can't stop it."
I'm not sure how true this is. Israelis have run hot-and-cold on
Netanyahu all year, but the only practical dissent on the war has
come from the hostage families, who would make some concessions to
release the hostages, whereas Netanyahu and his allies would be
happier if the hostages would die already (see
Hannibal Directive). But the war, fought so brutally that many
outsiders have called it genocide, seems to have few dissenters
within Israel (at least among the Israelis that count). Netanyahu
still has a fairly slim coalition majority (64 of 120), so it
wouldn't take many defections to bring it down. If Likud really
was the "center-right" party as claimed, it shouldn't be hard to
fracture, but it appears that they're not merely loyal to Netanyahu,
and that Netanyahu is not merely maneuvering to keep out of jail,
but that the policies Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have been demanding
are things they've long wanted to do.
The answer is brute power politics. The 2022 election gave right-wing
parties a clear majority in the Knesset (Israel's parliament), allowing
Netanyahu to build the most far-right government in Israeli history.
Though this coalition has since become extremely unpopular, there's
no way for voters to kick it out on their own.
The government could only collapse if it faces defections from
inside the governing coalition. But at present, the greatest threat
to Netanyahu's coalition comes from his extreme right flank, which
wants him to continue the war at all costs. And for that reason, he
seems intent on doing so. . . .
"For [the government to fall], Israeli political leaders would
need common sense, political courage, and a moral backbone. Too
clearly, the overwhelming majority have none,"
Dahlia Scheindlin, a leading Israel pollster, writes in the
Haaretz newspaper.
Tareq S Hajjaj: [09-07]
'The world has gotten used to our blood': Israeli massacres in
Gaza continue: "Despite the shift in the media's attention to
regional developments and the Israeli invasion of the northern West
Bank, the massacres in Gaza continue in silence. In the first three
days of September, Israel committed nine massacres in the strip."
Why is it even important to hold a ceremony on October 7? Is there
anyone who doesn't remember? And has anyone learned any lessons from
it? . . .
Since October 7, Israel has been wallowing nonstop in October 7.
There has yet to be a news program that doesn't wallow again in that
day -- the longest day in Israel's history, the day that still hasn't
ended.
Yet this, too, is meant to repress, deny and escape what really
matters. We'll wallow in the past, and then we won't have to think
about how to extricate ourselves from it. We'll play the victim to
the hilt, and then we won't have to deal with the victims of our
own horrific crimes.
October 7 doesn't need a ceremony. It's still alive and well,
dead and held hostage. It's present all the time.
[09-05]
When six Israelis are mourned more than 40,000 Palestinians:
The "six" were hostages recently found dead by Israel. The
"40,000" is the minimal number of Palestinians in Gaza killed
by Israeli military operations since October 7, 2023.
While the world is shocked by the fate of Gaza, it has never paid
similar respect to the Palestinian victims. The president of the
United States does not call the relatives of fallen Palestinians,
not even if they, like the Goldberg-Polins, had American citizenship.
The United States has never called for the release of thousands of
Palestinian abductees that Israel has detained without trial. A
young Israeli woman who was killed at the Nova festival arouses
more sympathy and compassion in the world than a female teenage
refugee from Jabalya. The Israeli is more similar to "the world."
Everything has already been said about the overlooking and
concealment of Palestinian suffering in the Israeli public
conversation, and not enough has yet been said. The Palestinian
killed in Gaza who had a face, a name and a life story and whose
killing shocked Israel has not yet been born.
Harold Meyerson: [09-03]
Only Israelis can end their war on Gaza: "But even the massive
demonstrations weren't enough to get Bibi to shut down the war to
which his own job security is linked."
Abdaljawad Omar: [09-04]
Testing the boundaries for ethnic cleansing in the West Bank:
"The current operation in the West Bank is meant to test the
boundaries of what Israel will be allowed to get away with. It
is setting the stage for the forced ethnic cleansing of the
Palestinian people." The author is basically right, but I have
a couple nits to pick. There are no boundaries, in large part
because there is no one monitoring what they are or are not
"allowed to do." If their actions seem measured, it's because
they have their own reasons for measuring them. They aren't
seriously worried about the Americans turning on them, but
they respect the threat enough to take some care in managing
the issues. It seems to me that their game in the West Bank
is to provoke an armed uprising, similar to Gaza, which they
can then respond to with a major escalation of violence (as
they did in Gaza). The the West Bank is a trickier proposition,
so they're exercising a bit more care, but they've been pretty
relentless about tightening down their control to maximize
pressure.
Paul R Pillar: [09-04]
Why Isreal is attacking the West Bank: "Another chapter in
the long, tragic story of Tel Aviv's leaders choosing to live
forever by the sword."
Meron Rapoport: [09-04]
To sacrifice or free the hostages? Israeli protesters have chosen
a side: "Fearing for the remaining captives, the mass rallies
that erupted across Israel were essentially demanding an end to
the war -- and Netanyahu knows it." There is an element of hopeful
thinking here, as the author admits: "To be clear, such a statement
was not uttered from the stage nor was it seen on many placards,
save for among the small pockets of left-wing protesters that
formed
the anti-occupation bloc."
The number of migrants to Israel fell by more than half between
7 October and 29 November last year, according to statistics
provided by the Israeli Immigration Authority. The Times of
Israel reported that half-a-million people have left the
occupation state and not returned, which confirms the erosion
of trust and the decline of the population which frightens the
regime in Tel Aviv. Prophecies about the "curse of the eighth
decade" loom ever more menacingly over the apartheid state of Israel.
Nathalie Rozanes: [09-05]
The Gaza war is an environmental catastrophe: "Toxic waste,
water-borne diseases, vast carbon emissions: Dr. Mariam Abd El Hay
describes the myriad harms of Israel's assault to the region's
ecosystems." I'd say all wars are environmental disasters, and have
been so for quite some while now, but this one is exceptionally
egregious, both in the extent of devastation and for its clearly
deliberate intent, where rendering the environment uninhabitable
is a critical strategy for genocide.
In recent months, the phrase
ecocide has been widely used to describe the
environmental impact of the Israel-Hamas war (as Wikipedia
put it). "Ecocide" is not a new coinage: the Wikipedia article
cites several examples, starting with the US use of chemical
defoliants in Vietnam, but doesn't mention similar antecedents
like the fire-bombing of urban area in WWII, atomic bombs in
Japan (although Chernobyl gets a mention), or the bombing of
dams in North Korea, as well as older strategies aimed at mass
starvation (another Israeli strategy).
I've probably cited some of these already, but a quick search
for "Gaza ecocide" produces a long list of articles, including:
Kaamil Ahmed/Damien Gaylle/Aseel Mousa: [03-29]
'Ecocide in Gaza': does scale of environmental destruction amount
to a war crime? "Satellite analysis revealed . . . shows farms
devastated and nearlyl half of the territory's trees razed. Alongside
mounting air and water pollution, experts says Israel's onslaught on
Gaza's ecosystems has made the area unlivable."
Raphael Tsavkko Garcia: [06-05]
Don't ignore Israel's 'ecocide': "Just as we cannot turn away
from the human rights crisis unfolding in Gaza, we must not overlook
the intrinsic connection between environmental degradation and
justice."
Justin Salhani: [07-03]
Genocide, urbicide, domicide -- how to talk about Israel's war on
Gaza: Additional terms covered here: politicide, ecocide,
educide and scholasticide, culturcide. Such is the focus on
killing every aspect of humanity that disposing of the bodies
is almost a side-effect, although it's also a means to those
very ends.
Ethan Brown: [03-20]
The "ecocide" smear targerts Israel: "Wartime environmental
damage is devastating, but creating a poorly defined crime just
to stick the overworked ICC on Israel is simply one-sided
propaganda." I only included this in case you want to stick your
head back in the [now toxic] sand. Curiously enough, he doesn't
deny what Israel is doing, but has lots of quibbles about law,
including that Israel didn't sign it in the first place. By the
way, the author "is the creator and host of The Sweaty Penguin,
an award-winning comedy climate program."
Khalil Abu Yahia/Natasha Westheimer/Mor Gilboa:
[2022-01-13]
Gazas race against climate breakdown: "Amid a deepening
climate crisis, Palestinians in Gaza are fighting to salvage
their land and livelihoods. But repeated bombardments and an
unrelenting blockade are devastating efforts to build climate
resilience." Another report from a few years back
Branko Marcetic: [09-04]
Netanyahu is blocking a hostage deal. You know that. You've
known that all along. Netanyahu has always welcomed the opportunity
of war. I still clearly remember him on TV on Sept. 11, 2001, grin
on face, inviting the US to join Israel in the "war on terror." He
said something to the effect of "now you know what it feels like."
Mitchell Plitnick: [09-06]
The genocide in Gaza is as American as it is Israeli. The US won't
stop it. "The desire for a ceasefire in the United States,
certainly among Democrat voters, is clear. Yet, as the slaughter
in Gaza enters its twelfth month, why does the US continue to
act the way it does?" I woke up this morning thinking I should
write an introduction on just this subject, so this article
gives me a chance to dodge the introduction -- which I really
don't have time for -- and just hang a couple comments here.
I think we need to sort this out several ways, which give us
slightly different answers.
Has Israel embarked on a deliberate program of genocide?
Short answer is "yes." Most Israelis will quibble over the term,
and there are various nuances and idiosyncrasies to their approach,
but they don't qualify the point. I could write much more on how
this resembles and/or differs from other genocides over history,
but the key points are: they know what they want to do, they are
working deliberately to realize their intentions, and they have
no effective internal constraints against continuing.
Do the Israeli people (by which one means the Jewish ones
with full citizenship, which is a privileged subset of the total)
support this program of genocide? Short answer is "pretty much so."
Very few Israelis object to the dehumanization of Palestinians,
which underlies the indiscriminate brutality Israelis practice
on them. Israeli culture is designed to inculcate the fear and
alienation that makes this dehumanization possible.
Do Americans understand and support Israel's genocide?
Some pretty clearly do: e.g., anyone (like Lindsey Graham and
Tom Cotton) who've uttered the words "finish it!" Especially
prominent among these people are neoconservatives who envy and
admire Israel's habit of using force to impose its will on its
supposed enemies. Such people are still very prominent in US
security circles in both political parties. But they are a small
(but exceptionally influential) faction. A somewhat larger faction,
including many otherwise liberal Democrats, is simply loyal to
Israel, and they are mostly in denial about the genocide. (Their
share is especially large among the politician class, as their
world has long been shaped by donors and lobbyists.) Support for
Israel has long been tied to cultural prejudices -- including
America's experience as a settler colony, its racist divisions,
religious focus, and fondness for world wars -- maintained with
extraordinary propaganda. Nonetheless, it is likely that most
Americans who are aware of what Israel is doing to Palestinians
are deeply unsettled and want to see the war and genocide stop.
The Biden administration reflects all of these American
views (but especially the blind loyalty expected of politicians
on the take), but rather than trying to reconcile contradictions,
they have kept doing what they've long been doing -- supplying
Israel with large quantities of money and arms, while providing
Israel with diplomatic cover -- only touched with schizophrenia.
(I can think of dozens of examples, but let's start with the
air drops of relief supplies.) I think you have to ask five
questions about Biden's handling of this affair:
Did Biden conspire with, or intend for, Israel to commit
genocide? I think (but don't know) the answer here is "no." But
this does show considerable naïveté and/or carelessness on Biden's
part, as the conditions for Israel escalating its long-established
program of collective punishment into the range of genocide have
been brewing for more than a decade, and the provocation of the
Oct. 7 attack was exactly the sort of event that could trigger
such an escalation. That Biden's first response was to offer
Israel full-throated, open-ended support was seen by Netanyahu
as an open invitation.
Did American support materially contribute to Israel's
ability to commit genocide? The answer there is "yes," which
is to say that the US was materially complicit in the genocide.
The obvious follow up here is: did Biden attempt to withdraw or
limit American support to end this complicity? The answer there
is "not really." Similar questions can be asked about political,
financial, and/or moral support, to which the answers are the
same.
Is Israel able and willing to carry out its genocide without
American (and allied) support? I think the answer here is "maybe,
but not nearly as effectively, or for such a sustained period."
The main material supply was ammunition. Perhaps more important
is money. Israel has maintained a very high mobilization for an
exceptionally long time, while Israel's economy has lagged, so
American money has helped pick up the slack. While Israel could
self-fund their war, the cost-benefit analysis -- which is to
say the viability of the Netanyahu coalition -- would be much
harder to justify without the incoming cash.
Is there some reason beyond loyalty for the US to support
Israel's program of genocide? Given America's efforts at global
hegemony, it is easy to imagine that there must be some sort of
master plan, but beyond promoting arms sales, global finance, and
the oil industry, there is very little coherence in US foreign
policy, and much arbitrary prejudice -- which Israel has been
very effective at playing for its own peculiar interests. So I
would answers this "no," and add that Biden is hurting the real
interests[*] of the American people in aligning with Israel.
[*] By which I mean peace, cooperation, and development of
equitable and mutually advantageous relationships, but those
"interests" have no effective lobby in Washington (unlike the
arms and oil industries, and Israel).
If Biden finally decides to dissuade Netanyahu from his present
course, could he? The answer here is "probably," but it wouldn't
be easy. First problem would be gathering enough political support
in the US to keep the idea from being strangled in the crib. The
Israel lobby is very focused on preventing any politician from
even considering any shift away from complete support for anything
Israel's leaders desire, and they have a lot of influence both in
the media and behind closed doors.
Then you have to calculate
enough pressure to move Netanyahu, who has more experience in
manipulating American politicians than anyone else alive, and
therefore more arrogance at resisting them. I have some ideas
about how to do this, but it's a tricky business, especially
when you start out on your knees, with no sense of decency or
morals.
Finally, you need to anticipate which compromises will
ultimately prove to be acceptable, achievable, and viable. This,
too, is hard, not least because the people who you need to get
to accept the compromises -- which is to say, the ones with
enough power to ignore you (by which I mean Israel) -- want
something else instead (or just to play the game forever), and
are unwilling to see the benefit of settling for something less
injurious to the other party than they think deserved. Relative
power warps the field of options so severely that truly just
solutions may be impossible, so the best you can do is choose
among disappointments, trying to pick ones that will lessen
problems, rather than exacerbate them.
Both Israel and the US should consider the reputational
damage their complicity in genocide will cause them. It's not
just that other people are tempted to sanction and shun them,
but it calls into question their motives and behavior everywhere.
I think she achieved what she wanted: that both of those kinds of
reporting could come out, and that both AIPAC and J Street could
endorse it. But if we shift attention to the Palestinian rights
movement or the Uncommitted Movement, there is nothing there for
them. The way the DNC treated the issue tells you everything you
need to know about the ways things aren't changing -- for instance,
[the fact there was] no Palestinian speaker or perspective on the
stage.
Harris can talk about bad things that have happened to Palestinians,
but from her words you wouldn't know who caused it -- a natural
disaster? An earthquake? When Hamas does something bad, they are
named and shamed; but when bad things happen to Palestinians, there
is never any acknowledgement that they are caused by Israel.
The nuances and differences between Biden and Harris do exist,
and they matter, but we always have to go deeper. The expectation
is totally misplaced that the United States will solve this.
Mohamad Bazzi: [09-06]
Kamala Harris should do what Joe Biden won't: commit to actually
reining in Israel: But she won't, and I'm not sure she should --
what she should say is that the slaughter and destruction has to
end, that it's really unacceptable for any country to treat any
people like that under any circumstances, and amends need to be
made to make sure nothing like that ever happens again. And it's
ok here to use the passive voice, which she has a lot of practice
at when describing things that Israel and/or the US have done to
get to this point. What we need to know now is that she takes
this seriously, and will work on it when and as she's able, but
I expect that her work will almost all be done in the shadows.
It is important that Israel be seen as calling their own shots.
And it is important that the US not be seen that way -- we really
need to break out of the really bad habit of thinking we can go
out and tell other countries what to do and how to behave.
I got some flak last week over something I wrote about how
the Biden couldn't force Israel to end the genocide even if he
wanted to. My wife was arguing that Biden does have the power,
at least to force a ceasefire, given the enormous amount of aid
the US provides Israel. I allowed that might work, but hasn't
been tested (and won't) because Biden lacks the understanding
and willpower to apply such leverage. My wife added that he lacks
the morals, which is true, but I've grown weary of moralizing
over foreign policy. But my point wasn't that such pressure
couldn't work. It was that it's not guaranteed to work, because
Netanyahu could hold firm, accepting the loss of support, and
doubling down. We know from bitter experience that even maximal
sanctions can be resisted (e.g., North Korea), and Israel has
both the wherewithal and the psychology to do just that.
Or so we should assume, and respect. As far as I'm concerned,
the only escalation possible, direct war, is an option off the
table. On the other hand, we don't know that Israel would take such
extreme measures in resisting sanctions. They are, for the most
part, rational people, who can be expected to carefully weigh
their options, balancing costs against benefits, not least those
of their own political careers. A big part of Netanyahu's political
capital is the perception that he can wrap the Americans around his
little finger, which could make him vulnerable to pushback -- sure,
not from a pushover like Biden (or Trump), but perhaps from someone
with a clear idea what they want. (Whether Harris is such a person
remains to be seen. Obama never quite got ahead of Netanyahu.)
Ishaan Tharoor: [09-04]
Netanyahu still wants more war: "The Israeli leader's critics
argue he would rather prolong the war to assuage his far-right allies
(and keep hold of power) than clinch a deal that stops hostilities
and frees the remaining hostages." His critics are right, of course,
but his friends would probably tell you the same thing. Where one
might quibble is in his motivation: his odds of staying in power
don't change much one way or the other, but what he mostly wants
to do is to see how much war he can get away with -- before Biden
gets disgusted and pulls the plug, before his coalition cracks up
and forces a new election. Worst case scenario, he goes back to the
people, campaigning on his defiance of the lily-livered turncoats
who tried to derail his path to absolute victory.
Michael Arria: [09-08]
Former Jewish Voice for Peace leaders reflect on the lessons of
anti-Zionist organizing: "Mondoweiss speaks with Rebecca
Vilkomerson, co-author [with Alissa Wise] of the book
Solidarity Is the Political Version of Love: Lessons from Jewish
Anti-Zionist Organizing,
about the evolution of Jewish Voice for Peace and the state of
anti-Zionist organizing." I think JVP has done truly heroic work
not just since last October but for at least 20 years prior. We
attended their confab in 2003, which for me at least was very
informative and ingratiating. After that, we bought a series of
video tape lectures they had produced, and presented them with
discussions to the Wichita Peace group. My own study largely
grew out of that experience. The interview here notes that JVP
didn't officially support BDS until 2015, but I recall it being
a hot topic with considerable interest back in 2003. I dare say
that had the BDS movement been more successful, the atrocities
on (and after) October 7 would never have happened.
I'm tempted to quote the entire section on "decoupling Zionism
from Judaism," but just go read it.
Allan C Brownfeld: [07-23]
Palestinians: the final victims of the Holocaust. Old history,
worth knowing and reflecting upon, although it's actually rather
light on the ways Palestinians have reflected and recapitulated
the legacy of the Nazi Judeocide, which at this point might be
useful not just for pluralizing the Holocaust but for finding a
way to break the cycle of genocide. Maybe "never again" isn't
the answer, especially while "again" is actually happening?
What has happened in the Gaza Strip could easily happen in the West
Bank, in terms of the destruction of its refugee camps and cities,
collective punishments and huge numbers of Palestinians killed and
wounded. All the signs are that the occupation state is ready and
willing to do this. It will, to a large extent, be up to the
Palestinians to decide if and how to challenge this.
What is happening in the West Bank at the moment is that Israel
is forcing people to defend themselves and is leaving them with only
two options: complete and unconditional surrender to the extremist
settlers; or defending themselves and their property. Both options
are very costly, and the occupation state has not left a middle option.
I'd argue that neither of those qualify as options, understood as
realistic free choices. Fighting back might, if one had a reasonable
chance of success. Surrender might, if one could expect mercy. Israel,
however, does have options, and the one they've chosen is to deny
Palestinians any choice at all.
Tom Suarez: [09-08]
Palestine defines us: "Palestine is the perfect illustration of
the West's staggering hypocrisy. The Gaza genocide defines us because
it is us."
Zack Beauchamp: [09-04]
Trump's biggest fans aren't who you think: "A new book shows
how people are getting the right's class appeal all wrong." The
book is
Stolen Pride: Loss, Shame, and the Rise of the Right,
by Arlie Russell Hochschild (whose 2016 book,
Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American
Right, got a lot of attention after Trump's win as "a
guide and balm for a country struggling to understand the election
of Donald Trump" -- the other book from back then that was often
cited alongside it was JD Vance's
muchdiscredited
Hillbilly Elegy). As revelations go, this -- that Trump does
best among "the elite of the left-behind" -- doesn't strike me as a
very big one. The more common term for many in that demographic is
"asshole," and sure, Trump's their guy. (To be clear, supporting
Trump doesn't make you an asshole, but being an asshole makes you
much more likely to rally for Trump.)
Nia Prater:
Trump won't be sentenced before election day: "Juan Merchan, the
presiding judge, ruled that Trump's sentencing hearing will be moved
to November 26, weeks after the general election."
Robert Wright: [09-26]
Is Trump a peacenik? No, but if you're worried that Biden
(now Harris) is a bit too fond of war, he says a vote for him
will save you from WWIII. And given that American politicians
of both parties have long and ignominious histories of lying
about wanting peace while blundering into war, and given how
little reliable information there is about either, there may
be enough gullible but concerned people to tilt the election.
Wright reviews some of the contradictions here, and there are
much more that could be considered.
I've been worried about just this prospect all along, and
I remain worried. I don't have time to explain all the nuances,
but very briefly, Biden has done a very bad job of managing US
foreign affairs, failing to make any progress dealing with a
number of very manageable hostilities (North Korea, Venezuela,
Iran, many others) while letting two crises (Ukraine, Gaza)
drag into prolonged wars that he seemingly has no interest in
ever resolving (at least he doesn't seem to be putting in any
effort). The only good thing you can say about his handling of
Afghanistan is that he dodged the worst possible option, which
was to stick around and keep losing. And while he's made money
for the arms and oil industries, both have made the world a
much more dangerous place. And then there's China -- do we
really need to go there?
One might reasonably think that anyone could have done a
better job than Biden has done, but we actually know one person
who had every same opportunity, and made them all worse: Donald
Trump, the president before Biden. Is there any reason to think
that Trump might do better with a second chance? The plus side
is that he may be more wary this time of relying on the "deep
state" advisers who steered him so badly. (Biden, too, was
plagued by their advice, but he seemed to be more in tune with
it -- the only changes Biden made in US foreign policy were to
reverse Trump's occasional unorthodox lapses, especially what he
viewed as softness on Russia.)
On the other hand, Trump brings
a unique set of disturbing personal characteristics to the job:
he cares more about perception than reality; he wants to be seen
as very tough, but he's really just a whiney bitch; he's majorly
ignorant, and incoherent on top of that; he's impetuous (but he
can usually be talked down, because he rarely has any reasons
for what he wants to do); he's vain and narcissistic; he has
no empathy with people he meets, so has no idea how to relate
with them (e.g., to negotiate any kind of agreement); he has
no sympathy for other people, so he has no cares for anything
wrong that could happen; he has a weird fascination with using
nuclear weapons, so that's one of the things he often has to
be talked down from; I know I already said that he's ignorant
and implied that he's clueless, but he's also pretty stupid
about how most things in the modern world actually work. He
does, however, have a keen interest in graft, and a passing
admiration for other right-wing demagogues, if only because
he admires their art and sees them as his peers. About the
only thing I can see as a positive is that he doesn't seem
to feel any personal need for war to prove his masculinity --
for that he's satisfied abusing women.
Daniel Larison: [09-03]
Trump doesn't oppose endless wars: "If it were anyone other than
Trump taking these positions, his own supporters would be denouncing
him as a neocon."
I still say Trump isn't crazy or suffering significant dementia. He's
just beginning to realize that he can tell any lie, no matter how
divorced from reality it is, and no one will say that his lies are
categorically different from ordinary political lies. To the media,
there's no difference between Trump saying schools are forcibly
performing gender reassignment surgery on children and Tim Walz
saying that he and his wife conceived their children using in vitro
fertilization when they really used intra-uterine insemination.
A lie is a lie! Nothing to see here, folks!
Maybe the press has a sense of futility about fact-checking Trump --
it's never stopped him from insisting that the 2020 election was rigged,
so why bother? And fact checking clearly can't kill other Republican
Big Lies -- that Democrats support abortion after birth, or that entire
cities were burned to the ground during the George Floyd protests in
2020. (Many Republicans other than Trump tell these lies and get away
with them.)
If we continue to let Trump lie this brazenly without making the
sheer magnitude of the lies a story, we run the risk that he'll become
president and indict enemies or call out troops on disfavored groups
based entirely on fictional scenarios. Once that happens, the press
might finally tell us that he's the worst-ever purveyor of Big Lies,
but it could be too late by then.
Also see his earlier post, on a point I also recall making:
Trump didn't make Mark Robinson a star. Institutions that pre-dated
Trump made him a star: Fox and the rest of the right-wing media,
along with the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby. And that's the
GOP's real problem.
Donald Trump isn't the sole reason that the Republican Party is
extreme and unpalatable to many middle-of-the-road voters. The party
began its modern era of intolerance in the days of Ronald Reagan,
but the extremism metastasized under the influence of talk radio
and then Fox News. Now add the podcasts, news and opinion websites,
and social media accounts (as well as entire social media platforms),
and you've got a well-oiled rage-inducing machine that urges GOP base
voters to hate everyone who isn't a right-winger in good standing
(whatever that means at the time).
While we're at it, a couple more on the media's ineptitude at
what's supposed to be their jobs:
Jack Hunter: [08-26]
Harris' aversion to talks with dictators is more Bush than Obama:
"Negotiating with adversaries is not 'cozying up to tyrants' as she
suggested in her DNC speech."
Eric Levitz: [09-05]
Harris is swimming in cash -- but Democrats may still have a fundraising
problem: "Democratic donors are underinvesting in state legislative
races, where money goes a lot further." This has been a persistent
problem, especially when Clinton and Obama used the Democratic Party
as a personal piggy bank, while letting Democratic majorities in
Congress go under. This happens because Democratic donors have very
different priorities than Democratic voters, and may even prefer to
sandbag policies that Democratic majorities would pass if they had
the numbers. Republicans, on the other hand, work much harder to get
their candidates elected down ballot, because they need to pass laws
to implement their regressive agenda.
Nicole Narea/Sean Collins: [09-06]
Will Harris's massive fundraising spree actually help her?
The chart here shows that both candidates combined raised almost
twice as much money in 2020 as in 2016 ($1774M vs. $896M). As
Jeffrey St Clair pointed out (article below), 2020 was the first
year in many when the winner got more votes than the number of
eligible voters who didn't vote, so one correlation seems to be
that more money means more voter participation (although the
returns there are pretty slim). Chart also shows that Trump more
than doubled his fundraising in 2020 over 2016. I was thinking
that shows the value of incumbency, but Obama's raised almost
exactly the same in 2012 and 2008.
Adam Wren/Megan Messerly: [09-09]
Why the 'one-two punch' of Liz and Dick Cheney backing Harris
matters: Evidently they have their own PACs, so they can
back up their votes with some money. Whether they have any
credibility with anyone who wasn't already a "never Trumper"
isn't very likely. Dick Cheney ended his VP term with the lowest
approval numbers ever (9% is the number I remember). Liz Cheney
has some fawning admirers among the DC press core (including
Joan Walsh?). But it's quite possible that the net change will
be negative. By far the biggest liability Biden (and now Harris)
had was their involvement in senseless foreign wars -- which they
seem completely powerless to do anything to stop -- and here they're
picking up endorsements from bona fide super-hawks. That's a very
bad look.
Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:
Perry Bacon Jr.: [09-03]
What a conference for the left just revealed about November:
"The war in Gaza and the threat of another Trump presidency pulled
democratic socialists in opposite directions at a post-convention
meeting in Chicago." Look, life can be frustrating on the left.
You've managed to figure out some basic truths about how the
world works, and how for most people it could work better, but
one major group of people keep telling you that your proposals,
which you see as just plain common sense, are impossible dreams,
that instead you have to not just limit yourself to corporate
compromises but smile when you vote for the Democrats who broker
those deals (or just let them wither and die) -- and be assured
that if you don't vote for them, if you even criticize them at
inopportune times, they will blame all their failures on you.
Then there's that other major group of people who simply hate
you for even suggesting that any conscious change is possible
let alone desirable, even though those people have consistently
pursued their own self-interests in ways that have drastically
altered the world, with hardly any regard for the vast harm
they have caused all around the world.
These major groups dominate the political parties that limit
our choices in what passes for democracy in America: the Democrats,
who are leery and dismissive of the left, and the Republicans,
whose fear and loathing is so unbounded we often recognize them
as Fascists. (Fascism is sometimes dignified as an ideology, but
for leftists, the telltale sign is sensing that someone wants to
kill you.) November matters because that's the next big election,
a rare opportunity for most people (even leftists) to vote for
one of the two major parties' vetted candidates. Most of us feel
the need to participate, on principle for democracy, but also
because we usually have a pretty good idea which candidate is the
worst -- it may be hard to vote for some ideal, but we shouldn't
squander the opportunity to vote down someone truly malignant.
But that's just one moment: too glaring to ignore, not least
because so many people invest so much hope in its outcome. I can
identify with one leftist quote here: "Presidential elections, the
Democrats specifically, have a way of sucking all life out of any
movement." In November, winners will celebrate, losers complain,
but leftists (and lobbyists) can only go back to work.
[09-04]
Why Ukraine invaded Russia: "How many more mistakes will Putin
make before Russians give up on him?"
[08-14]
When do autocrats give up? "Protestors pushed out the leader
of Bangladesh. They have yet to succeed in Venezuela. Why the
difference?" No real answers here, but there is the contrast,
and one could easily extend this essay with the Putin case.
Anatol Lieven: [09-05]
When will the war in Ukraine end? "One month later, Kyiv's
invasion of Russia hasn't moved the needle, while Moscow has made
gains on other fronts."
Ray McGovern: [09-04]
Conditioning Americans for war with Russia: "With new US action
today against Moscow, Russiagate remains like a vampire, with no
one able to drive a wooden stake into its heart and keep it there."
This was in response to:
The US has been at war in Yemen for 20 years, but Houthis can still
choke the Red Sea: "Despite US talk of peace and stability, and
two decades of war, the people of Yemen are still suffering." Well,
despite all that suffering, the real point is that they're still
fighting back, and the modern world is stretched so thin and fragile
that it a little resistance can do a lot of damage.
Marty A Bullis: [08-12]
MAGA to MAGNA: "True greatness -- magnanimity -- is rooted in
giving our selves away, not attempting to make ourselves great
again." Philosophy professor, launched this newsletter a month
ago, evidently he's a friend of
a friend, deep enough I decided not to bury it in the "laugh
and cry" section under
Donald Trump's name. I'm afraid I lost
my interest in all things great long ago, so it's hard for me to
take "make America great" as anything other than sardonic conceit.
For starters, it always conjured up the Bill Moyers story of how
he suggested calling Lyndon Johnson's social programs "the good
society," but Johnson insisted on "great." A big chunk of the
problem is that very little of what people claim as great is
really much good. And Hillary Clinton's counterpoint, that
"America has always been great," was really unhelpful (but,
I supose, revelatory). What kind of person even aspires to
greatness? Especially after models like these.
Bullis does us a service in describing how the phrase works,
and in breaking it down to five "core values" (which I might
add are not tautological, but are empirically derived from
observation of the people we've come to shorthand as "MAGA"):
"Make America Great Again" (MAGA) is the central value-phrase Trump
uses to activate our instinct for greatness. MAGA stimulates a
simultaneous sense of loss for, and desire to work and fight to
regain some part of our past -- whether real or imagined. The
phrase is generic in a way that it can be all things to all people.
Who hasn't experienced loss? And who would not want to get something
valuable back? Trump for his part had the brilliant (and self-serving)
idea to trademark and market this motivational phrase, and then turn
it into a repetitive rallying cry to channel our fears and hopes for
his benefit.
I will be highlighting five core MAGA values that play on these
fears and hopes, bringing harm in their path. The list is not meant
to be exhaustive of the values driving negative actions in the
MAGA-sphere, and I am not the first to discuss them. My goal is,
however, to show how these values can be redirected in ways that
will allow us to be authentically great. The five MAGA values are:
1) insular self-interest; 2) cultural homogenizing;
3) social wall building; 4) patriotic ranting; and
5) self-serving aggression. Like Trump, these values are
attractive to many people.
His emphasis. He then spoils the mood with his next sentence:
"But I will argue that there are better and truly authentic
value-paths to greatness." He really needs a better destination,
and not just because "greatness" has been spoiled. (I don't
have a counterproposal, but the first word that popped into
mind was "satori.) Looks like he at least has his path plotted
out, with a first section here and the promise of more to come:
Unselfing America: Embracing service rather than self-interest
Unhomogenizing America: Embracing diversity as our identity
Unwalling America: Embracing our immigrant status rather than isolation
Unranting America: Embracing gracious discourse rather than hateful speech
Unaggressing America: Embracing nonviolence rather than picking a fight
Stepping out in authentic greatness
Mostly good themes, so good luck with that. Maybe something good
can come out of "greatness" after all. But don't get me started on
"authenticity," a concept I like even less than "greatness."
Ted Chiang: [08-31]
Why A.I. isn't going to make art: "To create a novel or a painting,
an artist makes choices that are fundamentally alien to artificial
intelligence." I was directed to this piece by a
tweet, which quoted this nugget:
The task that generative A.I. has been most successful at is lowering
our expectations, both of the things we read and of ourselves when we
write anything for others to read. It is a fundamentally dehumanizing
technology because it treats us as less than what we are: creators
and apprehenders of meaning. It reduces the amount of intention in
the world.
Neuroimaging studies have shown that the amygdala, the tiny
almond-shaped brain structure that mediates fear, is larger in
people with more rightwing views. It is more active in those
favoring strong protective authority and harboring a suspicion
of outsiders and of people who are different.
I have a pretty low opinion of right-wingers, but I'm pretty
sure the only ones "born that way" are explicable in terms of
class acculturation, and even if tightly held are not locked
in.
Caitlin PenzeyMoog: [09-04]
Organize your kitchen like a chef, not an influencer. Well,
this is the sort of soft "lifetyle" feature I often bother to
read, and I kept the link for future reference (partly because
I didn't know what a "cambro" was, although I have some cheaper
alternatives). I have the largest refrigerator I could find,
and I keep it jammed, for better or worse, so managing it (as
opposed to presenting it as a gallery) is something often on
my mind.
Barry Yourgrau: [09-03]
Lessons of a Weimar anti-fascist in Palestine: "After my father
fled Nazi Germany in 1933, he witnessed a toxic new nationalism
rising among Jews in Palestine -- and was silenced for trying to
warn of its dangers."
Barry Singer: [09-07]
Dan Morgenstern, chronicler and friend of jazz, dies at 94:
"He wrote prolifically about the music and played an important
role in documenting its history, especially in his many years
with the Institute of Jazz Studies."
Nazzer Abu Srour: [07-28]
The Intifada of the Stones: an excerpt from Nasser Abu Srour's
The Tale of a Wall: "Nasser Abu Srour's The Tale of
a Wall joins a long tradition of Palestinian prison literature
but is far more than a prison memoir. Through his evocative prose,
the author transforms the question of Palestine into a question of
the human condition."
Riotriot: [09-02]
The 50 best rock bands right now (#50-26); and [09-03]
The 50 best rock bands right now (#25-1). This is a genre I've
gradually lost interest in, at least since the early 1990s, when I
found Nirvana and Sleater-Kinney so underwhelming. But, as I still
check out most such well-regarded bands, I've turned this into a
personal
checklist. From these 50 bands, I've identified 27 A- and 3
full A albums (although only 6 since 2020, 11 since 2015).
Chatter
Zachary D Carter: [09-06] [Responding to Leah Greenberg, writing
on Vance: I can't get over how disrespectful this is. It's the answer
of someone who has never seriously considered any aspect of how care
policy works, because he believes -- but knows better than to say out
loud -- that women should be home taking care of the kids.]
When you did get past the gender hang-ups there's nothing here
except warmed over occupational licensing reform stuff from the 60s
and 70s. These guys say they want to represent working families but
they have no interest in how working families live.
To the extent there is a policy argument here, Vance is saying
we should lower daycare costs by paying lowering pay for childcare.
If your solution to an economic problem is "lower wages," you aren't
interested in supporting working families.
Stephen Walt: [09-05]
By now it is clear that there is nothing #Netanyahu could do or
say that would lead @SecBlinken to withhold U.S. support. A more
ineffectual approach to diplomacy is hard to imagine, and the
failure to achieve any positive results is entirely predictable.
[Comments follow:]
Blairja: [09-05]
The entire Biden Administration simply does not know how to negotiate.
The entirety of US current foreign policy is purely the result of this
basic inability to negotiate. No negotiations = endless support for war.
The ONLY way conflicts ever end is with negotiation.
Jean-Noël: [09-05]
It is clear that the Biden administration and Blinken in particular
are completely under the thumb of Netanyahu. They all follow Biden's
example of unconditional support, whatever humiliation Netanyahu
inflicts to them over and over again. We are the laughing stock of
the world.
[Given the company they're joining, it's a bit surprising that
anyone bothers to offer intelligent commentary. I've understood
all along that the longer this war continues, the more people who
are appalled by it may turn to antisemitic tropes. Most of the
people I read are careful not to fall into that trap, but there's
quite a bit of it in the commentary here -- most personal about
Blinken (e.g., "Blinken is effectual, he's just not playing for
our team"), although there was also a "Jews run America." Still,
by far the most offensive comment was "Hamas supporter," followed
by a cartoon showing Netanyahu and someone labeled Hamas holding
a child wrapped in a suicide vest and a paper that reads "Demands:
Death to all Jews," with Blinken in the middle saying, "Could you
at least meet him half way?"]
Local tags (these can be linked to directly):
Plitnick ("the genocide in Gaza is as
American as it is Israeli"),
Trump,
music.
Initial count: 154 links, 10515 words (13320 total)
Current count:
167 links, 11084 words (14075 total)
I opened this file about noon, Wednesday, August 28. First thing
I did was to revise the template. Most obvious thing was to move the
VP candidates (plus Biden) into the "and other D/R" sections. Also
some minor rephrasing. The three Israel sections overlap some, but
reflect different focuses: the first focuses on what Israel does
directly, but also includes items on Israel's domestic politics;
the second focuses on Israel's relationship to the US, and what
American political elites think and do about Israel; the third
focuses on the part of Israel's propaganda war directed at others,
and their responses to the atrocities (the word "genocide" comes
up here). Further subdivisions are possible, as is overlap, and
sometimes I just try to keep articles by single authors together.
I tend to put pieces on Israel's provocations with Lebanon, Iran,
and their so-called proxies into the second section, as my view
is that Israel's cultivation of regional enemies is mostly geared
toward keeping the Americans looking at Iran and away from Gaza
and the West Bank.
Ukraine and Russia still seems to need their own section, but
the broader context is the notion of America as imperial hegemon,
even if in fact it's defined more as an arms market where loyal
customers are counted as allies, and anyone who goes DIY and/or
shops on the black market is regarded as an enemy. For now, I'm
putting pieces on the arms cartel in the World section, along
with whatever scraps of world news that don't slot directly under
Israel or Ukraine/Russia. In theory, I should be covering news
that has nothing to do with America's imperial ego, but few such
stories reach my attention. So, for now this remains a grab bag.
Three topical sections -- law, climate/environment, economy --
cover most of what crops up domestically (sometimes overflowing).
"Other stories" is a catch all, from which I've broken out certain
recurrent themes, which may on occasion be empty.
Sunday, early afternoon, eager to get to a delayed breakfast.
With 82 links, 7415 words, this is way less than
last week's 290 link, 15528 word monstrosity. And already
I'm dead tired, disgusted, and just want to get it over with,
so today's plan is to just go through the motions, and fuck it.
In essence, I feel like I already know everything I need to
know, at least about the 2024 elections, where we will try to
fend off the grave peril of wrong-headed Republicans with the
vague hopes of naïve and uncertain Democrats. At this point,
further research and reporting is only likely to show that
the Republicans are even worse than imagined, and also that
the Democrats aren't quite as good as we hoped. Even that
can be readily intuited from what we already know -- not to
totally dismiss the "devil in the details," which I'm pretty
sure will be quite appalling.
At this point, I'd much rather return to the woefully incomplete
"to do" list I started in my August 30 notebook entry. At least
there are some tasks on that list that I can reasonably expect
to accomplish -- some within days, more in months, some that will
(like so much else) inevitably slip through the cracks. Today's
little bit of self-realization is that I'm basically an engineer:
I deal with things by making plans to change them by practical
measures in desirable directions.
Finally posted this after midnight. Link count way down this week,
but word count not so much. Uncertain at this point how much (little)
I managed to cover, but enough for now. Anything extra added on Monday
will be flagged.
Monday evening: did add a few bits here and there, but nothing
major.
[08-29]
Day 328: Israeli Foreign Minister calls West Bank invasion 'a war
in every sense': "The Israeli army's large-scale assault on
the northern West Bank has entered its second day. During a battle
in Nur Shams refugee camp, the Israeli army killed wanted resistance
fighter Muhammad Jaber 'Abu Shuja,' leader of the Tulkarem Brigade."
Hanna Alshaikh: [08-30]
Demystifying how the Hamas leadership works: "Media sources
have misunderstood how the leadership of Hamas operates, drawing
simplistic binaries between the 'moderate' Ismail Haniyeh and the
'extremist' Yahya Sinwar. In reality, Hamas decision-making is
far more institutionalized."
Ellen Ioanes: [08-30]
Israel has launched a major operation in the West Bank. Here's what
to know. The main thing to know, which never quite gets stated
clearly here, is that this is all Israel's doing, with most of the
violence initiated by settler-vigilantes, knowing that the IDF will
back them up and amplify their violence.
Since the October 7 Hamas raid on Israel, at least 660 Palestinians
and 15 Israelis have been killed in the West Bank, according to the
United Nations. It's a smaller number than the more than 40,000
Palestinians killed in Gaza over the past 10 months, but it is
still a reminder of how intense ongoing violence in the West Bank is.
You hear much about "Israel's right to self-defense," but nobody
talks about Palestinians having such a right, nor does Israel agree
that they have any rights at all. Nonetheless:
Gaza, Jerusalem, and the West Bank are recognized as occupied
territory under international law, and therefore Israel is obligated
to protect the people living there. Israel denies that it is
occupying Palestinian lands, but just last month, the International
Court of Justice ruled that Israel is occupying Palestinian lands
and should end that occupation immediately.
Israel's recent escalations in the West Bank, including aircraft
bombing refugee camps, suggests their intent to extend genocide to
the West Bank (as some Israelis, not quoted here, have urged).
Vivian Yee/Bilal Shbair: [08-22]
The war in Gaza is making thousands of orphans: "Extended
families, hospital staff and volunteers are stepping in to care
for Gaza's many newly orphaned children, some of whom are injured,
traumatized and haunted by memories of their parents." A point so
obvious few bother to make it -- especially the ones who work so
hard to deny that Palestinians are human.
Mairav Zonszein: [08-13]
Israeli society is in a deepening state of contradiction:
"Israelis blame Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for dragging
them into endless war -- and are at a loss for how to carve a
way out." I'd have to quote the entire article to give you a
sense of how hopelessly circular the thinking of most Israelis
is on their war, their political system, and their cloistered
society. There are lots of people who hate Netanyahu for one
thing or another, but few if any who are willing to rethink
Israel's founding paradigm of Iron Wall security. They've
never gotten to the point of thinking about what comes next,
and have no idea how to proceed (although an expanded war
against Hezbollah seems to be popular). If only Israel had
a friend who could guide them to something more viable.
Dan Lamothe: [08-27]
Biden approved Gaza pier despite internal pushback: Primarily
from USAID staff, who expressed concerns "that the Biden administration's
focus on the pier undercut the agency's advocacy for opening more land
crossings."
Joe Gill: [08-23]
Kamala Harris's speech killed any hope she would end the Gaza
genocide. Only if you hoped that she would use the bully
pulpit provided by her nomination to publicly oppose what Israel
is doing. Regardless of her feelings, I don't see any political
advantage in her breaking with Biden and/or Israel, while to do
so could invite peril. She is, after all, running a popular
front campaign against Donald Trump, who is clearly an even
worse option if you style yourself as "pro-Palestinian," so
her present course doesn't hurt her much there. On the other
hand, she needs to hold onto "pro-Israel" donors, many with
long ties to the Democratic Party but so singly focused on
Israel that they could well defect to Trump.
There is still some reason to hope that when she is free to
make policy, and freed of the obligation to follow Biden, that
she will do a better job of restraining Netanyahu than Biden
has done. There is some evidence to support this hope -- she
has been more disciplined than Biden in calling for ceasefire,
and she has been more credible in recognizing the harm done to
Palestinians -- as well as the reasoning revealed in the logic
of her campaign. What's much harder to gauge is how much she
could (and should) influence Israel policy as vice-president.
I could only speculate on that, and I don't want to, other than
to point out that only Israel (which right now, and for the
foreseeable future, means Netanyahu) can stop the genocide, and
really needs to change much more.
Even as president, the only
thing Harris could do would be to tip Netanyahu's cost-benefit
analysis toward less egregious policies (which could still be
pretty awful). Even if Harris were tempted to burn all of her
good will with Israel and institute maximum-level sanctions,
Israelis are at least as likely to respond by hunkering down
like North Korea as by reforming like South Africa -- and with
their arsenal and in confirmation of their paranoia, they could
turn more militant than North Korea.
I just got a refresher course on Bush's Iraq war propaganda
from reading Lapham's Age of Folly, and could easily
imagine recycling it to gin up a regime change operation in
Israel, but nobody's going to do it: the architects of that
folly were then-and-now staunch fans of Israel, while those
who thought better (or who painfully learned their lesson)
are likely to point out that a "splendid little war" against
Israel can go wrong in many more ways than the Iraq one did --
for one thing, Israel actually has WMD; also, while that line
about "Saddam gassing his own people" hit its target, hardly
anyone thinks to think of Palestinians as Israel's "own
people" -- the dehumanization is far too complete for that.
Also on Harris and Israel (allowing me to compartmentalize
and exclude these articles from her section):
It is maddening how people advocating the freedom of Palestinians
are spoken about, as though their invocation of the genocide were
the real problem, the downer, the Trump enabler. It implies that
mentioning this administration's material support to massacre
Palestinian civilians is what ruins the vibes, not the act of
sending billions of dollars in unconditional military aid to
Israel. It is an obnoxious magic trick that makes naming the
crime the crime.
While I was writing the [PS] on
Risen, I sketched out some "unsolicited
advice" I would give the Harris campaign, if I could possibly see
any way to get the message through. (Down there, I talk a bit about
why I've never been able to do anything like that, then went off on
another tangent where I could have just offered a parade of failing
examples.) Anyhow, makes more sense to move that comment up here
(although by the time I post this it will probably be redundant to
other comments in this section.
Anyhow, my advice to the Harris campaign is this:
When asked about Gaza, don't start with your
rote mantra about "Israel's right to defend itself." Anyone who cares
has already heard that a million times already and will instantly
turn you off and never credit another word you way. What you have
to start with is acknowledgement of the immense suffering the war
has caused, to both sides if you really must (and you don't really
have to get into numbers here), and insist that the war has to stop,
as soon as possible. You can mention the hostages at this point, if
you really must, but understand that the hostages were taken to
negotiate a ceasefire, not for prisoner swaps. End the war, and
the hostages (what few are left; like Trump, Netanyahu only admires
those who didn't allow themselves to be captured) will be freed
(while there will still be thousands of Palestinians in Israel's
concentration camps; even if they have to replenish them, they're
a renewable resource). And then, after stressing the importance
of peace, and human rights, and dignity and security for all (sure,
both-sides this, but make sure you don't slight the Palestinians),
then segue to how you're working around the clock with Israel to
make peace happen, on terms, of course, that fully take into account
Israel's security and well-being (including, if you really must, its
much-abused "right to self-defense").
I'm not even asking her to say anything different from what she's
already saying. Just put it in a different order, so it gets heard
not just by pro-Israel donors but by genuinely concerned Americans
(the donors are smart enough to wait to the end for their reassurance;
they've been speaking in code for aeons now). Also, Harris has a bit
of unique value-added here. I think most people realize that Israel
is completely in charge of their war: they started it (long before
Oct. 7, which was merely a hiccup they decided to magnify), and they
alone can end it, which they will only when they decide they've had
enough, that it serves no further purpose.
For nearly everyone else,
all you can do is speak up, bear witness, demonstrate, maybe vote
(but almost never directly), all of which is ultimately directed at
making Israeli leaders think better, whether through conscience or
through self-interested cost-benefit analysis (which is what BDS
aims at). We've spent a lot of energy trying to get Biden, Harris,
other prominent Democrats to do what we've been doing, which is to
speak out, but they are actually very different from us: they don't
have to speak out, because they're close enough to speak to, if not
the right people, at least to people closer to the right people,
to make their appeals personal.
Unfortunately, the few people in
that position are severely compromised, but their loyalty should
earned them the right to a hearing. And in some cases, they have
some power to tip that cost-benefit analysis. Harris is already
in that general orbit, which is part of the reason why she has to
be discreet in public, in order to operate in private. We should
respect that, but she should also give us some sign that we can
trust her discretion. Reframing her answer does that, or at least
helps. And electing her president will increase her leverage --
assuming she wants to use it.
I think she can and will, but when she does, she will be subtle
and disciplined about it. Netanyahu is a bully, someone who has
taken great delight in humiliating American presidents (going back
to his Wye River sleight-of-hand with Clinton, and his pre-emptive
attack on Gaza between Obama's election and inauguration, but he
found Trump such an easy mark that when Biden came along he found
he could finally get away with being sadistic), but I'd venture
a guess that she has some experience in handling his type. Still,
there is no way she can simply dictate terms. The best she can
do is to look for tolerable compromises, which she's more likely
to find and sell by being sympathetic to Israel than by becoming
a clear-headed critic of Zionist settler-colonialism.
That won't necessarily, or even likely, lead to good solutions,
but damn near anything would be better than blank-check support
for genocide -- which is where we're at, and where we're stuck,
until someone in a position to do something thinks better of it.
(I've spent 20+ years racking my brain for solutions that would
help a bit while still being acceptable to the racist-paranoid
mindset of contemporary Zionism. My "pro-Palestinian" friends
hate this line of thought, but I see no other as possible, at
least within any reasonable time frame.)
Unfortunately, I fear that no one in such a position -- and we
can comfortably include Kamala Harris in that sharply circumscribed
circle -- is able to think better of it. They wouldn't be allowed
the chance if they could. So we have every reason to be profoundly
pessimistic about Israel, about America's relationship with Israel,
and about the possibility that Harris might finally change course.
Still, I give her slightly better odds than Trump, and with no other
alternatives this cycle, I'm inclined to cut her considerable slack.
But we can't stop talking about the problem, and we do need to
remain aware that she is still very much a part of it.
Daniel Levy: [08-27]
The US diplomatic strategy on Israel and Gaza is not working:
Well, it never has worked. It took Ben Gurion almost six months to
realize Eisenhower was serious about Israel leaving Sinai in 1956,
and that was pretty much the last time any American insisted on a
point. Maybe Carter's opposition to Israel's first Lebanon war --
which Reagan allowed the rerun in 1982, much to everyone's eventual
embarrassment. And sure, there was some mutual make-believe, like
Israel accepting the UN "land for peace" resolutions, or the nods
to a "two-state solution." But from Clinton on, no one took the
charades seriously. Netanyahu not only stopped playing, he took
advantage of American timidity to make himself look like he's the
strong one. Meanwhile, the Americans look like weak fools with no
principles or even interests, while being complicit in war crimes
and crimes against human rights.
Branko Marcetic: [08-29]
Biden may be the president who kills the two-state solution:
"Israel is only doing this because it has learned that there is
nothing it can ever do that would make Biden cut off the weapons
and military support it needs to carry on its spree of violence."
On Thursday, Abdel Hakim Hanini, a senior Hamas official, suggested
that the group was preparing to engage in suicide bombings inside
Israel, a tactic that became common during the Second Intifada,
which spanned 2000-2005, but had ended almost entirely after 2006
when Hamas and other groups announced an end to the practice.
"The resistance in the West Bank has begun changing its tactics
and returning to martyrdom operations to strike at the occupation
within the occupied interior," Hamas said in a statement outlining
Hanini's announcement. "The resistance's change in tactics is a
result of the settlers and the occupation government crossing red
lines in their crimes against the Palestinian people." Hanini also
called on the security forces of the Palestinian Authority to
participate in a popular uprising against Israeli occupation
forces and settlers.
This is exactly what Netanyahu's right-wing allies have been
hoping (or should I say agitating?) for: a panic and pretense to
extend Israeli military operations and significantly increase
their destructive force. One might as well call this genocide --
Israel is less concerned with counting scalps than with reducing
the infrastructure that makes life viable, so that ultimately
whatever Palestinians are still alive will realize that their
only hope is to emigrate, emptying the land for more settlers.
It would be a sad mistake for any Palestinians to invite such a
savage response, but it would also be a sign of hopelessness --
a desperate resolve, once cornered, to make their menacers pay
as dear a price as possible. And make no mistake, while there is
no doubt that Palestinians would suffer far worse, a surge of
Palestinian violence would take a toll that ordinary Israelis
aren't used to. During the second intifada, Israeli casualties
rose to such an extent that Israel's kill ratio sunk to around
4-to-1, as opposed to typical ratios between 10-to-1 and 100-to-1.
(For comparison, the kill ratio since and including Oct. 7 is at
least 30-to-1, and probably double that, yet Israel's leaders
are showing no signs that their blood lust is abating.)
Yoana Tchoukleva: [08-31]
An arms embargo on Israel is not a radical idea -- it's the law:
"Halting military aid to Israel is the bare minimum the U.S. can do
to stop the Gaza genocide. An arms embargo is not only supported by
80% of Democratic Party voters, it is demanded by international and
U.S. law."
Alex N Press: [08-29]
Universities are cracking down on free speech over Gaza: "The
school year is kicking off, and American universities are starting
the semester with scaling back students' First Amendment rights,
with the goal of stopping criticisms of Israel's genocidal war on
Gaza."
Rick Perlstein: [08-28]
The election story nobody wants to talk about: "A Q&A with
David Neiwert, America's foremost writer and thinker on far-right
extremism, on what might happen if Trump wins -- or loses."
[08-29]
What Trump said in his vulgar and unhinged Truth Social spree:
You may be wondering, which one? Turns out there are several here,
some with memes, at least one with video. One could do a whole book
of things like this. The hard part is figuring out when to stop.
At what point is the horse you're flogging well and truly dead?
[08-30]
Misogyny is about power: A pretty generic title, but filed here
because the first line is:
"Donald
Trump's supporters in search of apparel have no shortage of
options." The generalization is also true, and one can go even
wider and explore the intoxication of power and how seeking to
solve problems through its application is not just bad philosophy
but should more properly be regarded as a form of mental illness.
But back to Trump:
By attacking Harris's gender, Trump demonstrates his own masculinity
and makes himself seem more and more like the strongman that he --
and his followers -- believes the U.S. needs. Trump was the vehicle
for a vengeance fantasy in 2016, and that remains true in 2024. To
followers, his pursuit of raw power is a means to bully liberals
and the left into submission. . . . The sexual remarks that Trump
reposted this month are a way for him and his followers to put the
vice-president back in her place.
As I've observed on many occasions, the essence of conservatism
is the belief that each person has a proper place, and a passion
to use force to keep people there.
[08-28]
The 'pro-life' policies hurting women: These specific examples
mostly come from Arkansas, but they are part of a much wider trend.
Filed here to keep the author's articles together, but also because
Trump is the single person most responsible for allowing things
like this to happen. Remember that in November. And don't believe
anything he says to the contrary . . . or to be safe, anything he
says at all.
Casey Michel: [09-01]
Trump is making new, sketchy foreign business deals: "From
Saudi Arabia to Serbia, despots are cozying up, likely in preparation
for a second term." Every one of these deals is an advertisement
for ending Trump's political career. If I was a TV exec, I'd hire
Michael Moore to turn this story into a documentary. At this point
it would be a rush job to beat the election, which would make it
a public service as well as useful history. He could always redo
it as a film later, especially with a happy ending: Trump loses,
the business deals crash, he finally goes to jail. And if worse
comes to worse, he could continue it as a series, because crooks
like Trump don't just stop of their own accord. They have to be
busted.
[08-27]
RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard are joining the Trump transition team:
I noted this story last week, dismissing it with "sounds like something,
but probably isn't." Here I should note that while it probably isn't,
it could actually be something. Kennedy and Gabbard have a lot of traits
that discredit them as presidential candidates, but the one thing they
do have is pretty consistent antiwar track records, which they are not
just committed to, but are eager to use against Biden and Harris, who
are not exactly invulnerable to such charges. Moreover, they can say
that they left the Democratic Party because they opposed how hawkish
the Party had become -- so hawkish that even Trump would be a safer
and more sensible foreign policy option. It remains to be seen how
credible they'll be, because, well, on most other issues they're nuts,
but on this one, they could be more credible than Trump himself to
people with real concerns. I've said all along that if Biden doesn't
get his wars under control, he will lose in November. The switch to
Harris gives Democrats a partial reprieve, but the one thing she is
most seriously vulnerable on is the suspicion that Democrats are
going to continue saddling us with senseless and hopeless foreign
wars. Kennedy and Gabbard could be effective at driving that point
home -- sure, not to rank-and-file Democrats, who are generally
much more dovish than their leaders, and who are even more wary of
Republicans on that count, but to the "undecideds," who know little,
even of what little they know.
Jonathan Chait: [08-28]
Trump honors 'suckers and losers' with illegal Arlington Cemetery
photo op: "His goal in the Arlington visit was to smooth over
his political liability by creating the false image that he actually
cares about the honor of fallen soldiers. Instead, he confirmed once
again that he doesn't."
/Asawin Suebsaeng: [08-28]
Trump goes full fascist in Truth Social posting spree: "One
campaign official says staffers are relieved that the former
president has largely isolated his social media presence to his
own app."
James Risen:
Why the media won't report the truth about Trump: "The political
press has doubled down on horse-race coverage of the election,
overlooking the threat Trump poses to democracy." The mainstream
press does a half-assed job of covering nearly everything and
everyone, but they seem to be exceptionally inept when it comes
to Donald Trump. I have a few theories about why, and I'd love
to see an article that explored them, but this piece, with its
historical review of election books from 1960 on, never gets to
the point. One clue to the problem appears in the title: the
idea that there is such a thing as "truth about Trump." Sure,
it's a natural idea for the star writer for a publiciation that
prides itself on muckracking. But is there any such thing?
Sure, Trump has a history, so journalists can write about
what he's said and done in the past, and how rarely one has
anything to do with the other. Still, few journalists are up
to the task of sorting fact from fraud from utter bullshit,
which seems to exist in such profusion for no better reason
than to camouflage underlying meaning -- if, indeed, there
is any, for like Churchill's "armada of lies" you only have
his word that there is some "precious truth" somewhere. The
only sensible way to report on what Trump says would be to
put the quotes into a table, each one followed by a note
explaining the fallacy. (Feel free to apply the technique
to other politicians.) The revelation about Trump is that
there is nothing else leftover. Journalists stuck with
following him around can file each day's article under the
same headline: "Trump lies again." Or, if they want to mix
it up a bit, "Trump is a pompous asshole (again)."
Having disposed of the horse's orifices, journalists might
consider doing some actual reporting. The first thing they
need to work on is making the campaign more transparent: Who
are the operatives? How does their polling direct messaging?
What psychology does the messaging attempt to manipulate?
Where is the money coming from? And what do donors expect for
their money? Who's thinking about staffing? What are all those
eager staff-in-waiting plotting to do? Again, it's fair to ask
these same questions of Democrats, but you really need to start
with Trump, because with him the real interests are buried so
extra deep.
One mistake many people make is to assume that presidents
and administrations go hand-in-hand. While the president has
to sign off on who does what, and can oversee an administration
through cabinet meetings, directives, and the occasional staff
shake up, harmony requires a degree of focus that Trump simply
is incapable of. If Trump wins, he will quickly sign off on
whatever slate of generic Republican functionaries and donors
he's presented with, and they will go off and try to do whatever
they've long wanted to do.[*] Sure, they may be a bit Trumpier this
time than they were in 2016, but that's just fashion sense. All
Republicans, including Trump, have been marching to the same
ideological drumbeat for decades (as popularized by Fox News,
and articulated by their "think tanks," in forms like "Project
2025").
Trump is the Republicans' leader not because he leads (except
in the fashion sense) but because he's the perfect diversion: he
keeps the media focused on side-issues and trivia, all the while
cultivating an air of deniability, as in how can you possibly
believe he believes in anything? Given how many of his fans
seem to be in on the joke, it's really quite amazing that so
few journalists can figure it out. (Of course, they wouldn't
last long if they did, nor would anyone who did and still had
an ounce of self-respect stick around, so you might say that
natural selection favors gullible journalists on the Trump
beat.)
The main reason for wanting Trump to lose is to avoid having
to survive four more years of Republican administration, but
Trump as president presents its own discomforts, chiefly in the
form of embarrassment. As president, most of what he would do
may be harmless -- he'll watch a lot of TV, tweet, golf, pose
for pictures, talk nonsensically, waddle absent-mindedly, hold
campaign rallies even after being term-limited, make occasional
"perfect phone calls," and run his family grafts (or, like the
government, allow them to be run in his name). Any president
can stupefy, but no one else has ever come close to his level.
If this were a purely aesthetic matter, I might not mind seeing
the exalted office of the presidency reduced to buffoonery. But
the office has too much power to entrust anyone like him, let
alone to someone whose worst instincts are reinforced by the
malevolence of his party.
[*] Journalists would be well advised to dig up John Nichols'
2017 quickie, Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to
the Most Dangerous People in America. The book on Trump's
initial cabinet picks was soon obsoleted as several subjects
self-destructed almost instantly, but it's a useful empirical
account of on how Trump picks "the best people" and why.
[PS]: After writing the above, I got a spam pitch for
donations from The Intercept, which I might as well quote at
length:
When Donald Trump announced his third campaign for the White House,
leading voices in the journalism industry vowed that the press
couldn't fail in its coverage of Trump again.
This time, the media would aggressively investigate Trump while
focusing coverage on the threat that he poses to democracy, we were
told. The stakes for the nation in the election, not just the odds
of who was likely to win the campaign, would be put front and center.
But with 66 days until the election, it's clear that the major
national news media hasn't changed a bit.
Horse-race coverage is back in full force, with breathless reports
on every trivial social media spat or tick in poll numbers running on
an endless loop 24/7 -- while the threat Trump poses to democracy is
now relegated to an afterthought.
The Intercept rejects this failed approach to political journalism.
Every day, we're reporting on what the candidates really stand for,
how their policies will impact your life, and how billionaire campaign
donors stand to benefit.
Risen's article, which I had just found so wanting, was obviously
their best idea on how to do this, so I thought, maybe, write them
a letter? I did, following my quote with a few more thoughts:
I realize that this, like most things, is easier to complain about
than to fix. The subject is vast and deep, and perversely rooted
in the minds of people who don't read and are immune to analysis.
I could imagine this taking a whole book just to explain: perhaps
a sequel to Manufacturing Consent as something like
Manufacturing Faux Divisions in the Theater of the Absurd.
Paradoxically, if one reported as I suggest on both Harris and
Trump, it would probably be devastating for her while merely annoying
to him, for much the same reason as focusing on corruption killed
Hillary Clinton while letting Trump off the hook -- that we hold her
to higher standards, because she presents as worthy of them, whereas
he's just Trump.
By the way, my theory there was that voters saw both candidates
as really horrible choices, but also saw an opportunity to get rid
of one of them, and seized on that opportunity to vote Hillary off
the island. To some extent, that worked against Trump in 2020, but
he had other things buoying him up, and he refused to take the hint.
If I was a campaign strategist, I'd try to figure out how to raise
consciousness of this election as the voters' opportunity to finally
rid us of his oppressive presence.
I doubt anything will come of this, because it never does. I've
written a dozen or so unsolicited advice letters over the years, and
never gotten any meaningful response. (Two letters I wrote early on
did elicit responses that changed my life, but they were more in the
form of dismissive harrangues: Eugene Genovese convinced me to give
some serious study to Marxism, and Robert Christgau invited me to
write for the Village Voice. Come to think of it, aggressive letters
may work better for me. I once wrote a letter to Steve Ballmer, that
got me a job interview at Microsoft in 1984. They ran me through an
assembly-line gauntlet of middle managers from Xerox PARC who couldn't
square the timid, uncredentialed programmer they saw with the prick
who had written the letter, so they passed. Had they taken a chance,
it would have changed my life, and possibly theirs. I quite possibly
would have developed into a millionaire tech entrepreneur, instead
of becoming a free software diehard who hates every fiber of their
being.)
Sorry for that diversion, but that was something I've long wanted
to get off my chest. What I meant to write next was that I woke up
this morning trying to figure out how to pass some unsolicited advice
to the Harris campaign:
Why does anyone think Donald Trump is actually running for president?
Granted, he's the Republican nominee and is on the ballot in all fifty
states, but the only election day that interests Trump is the one
around September 20. On that day (or perhaps a few days later) the
lockout period on his Trump Media shares (for which he paid nothing)
expires and he will be free to dump his gifted 57.6% stake (114,750,000
shares) on scheming billionaires (for example, the Saudis, Vladimir
Putin, a Mexican drug cartel, etc.) who might have an interest in the
first $2.4 billion IPO (initial public offering) of a prospective
American presidency.
Trump isn't so much a candidate these days as a walking
conflict-of-interest whose bumper stickers might well read:
"Trump-Vance 2024: On Sale September 20."
Michael C Bender: [08-31]
JD Vance's combative style confounds Democrats but pleases Trump:
"Over dozens of events and more than 70 interviews, Mr. Vance's
performances as Donald Trump's attack dog have endeared him to
his boss, even if America is broadly less enthusiastic." I
noticed this because the headline elicited considerable ridicule
on X. In particular,
Andrew:
We weren't confounded @nytimes. We're disgusted. We're mortified
for our country that this weird misogynistic sociopath abomination
could be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. And that you keep
writing headlines line this while our democracy burns to the ground.
Some more comments:
JFC another misleading headline from the rag @nytimes. At this
point, MSM are committing election interference with their overt
biased reporting. What happened to journalistic integrity. We are
NOT confounded, not in the least.
JD Vance's Combative style? The man is a twerp. Nobody thinks
he's even the least bit impressive. He is -10 unfavorable and
Trump is crapping his diaper over it.
Every single Democrat I know is delighted that Vance is on
the ticket. He's one of the least effective politicians in recent
memory.
Of course, the comment roll degenerates quickly once the
right-wing bots get into action: "That's a lot of propaganda
but you are the Communist Party. I never voted Republican but
I'm not voting for the candidate of no choice backed by the
war party." If this "I never voted Republican" line seems to
come gratuitously out of the blue, Steve M wrote an
eye-opening post on this phenomenon: [09-02]
A charitable explanation for the latest New York Times
reporting failure (a different one, but quel coïncidence),
following up on [09-01]
A failed attempt at humanizing Trump? It worked on your paper's
reporter.
It's our job to cover the full range of issues that people have.
At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it's not the top one --
immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and
inflation is the second. Should we stop covering those things
because they're favorable to Trump and minimize them?
The problem isn't that they're reporting on issues "favorable
to Trump," but that they're accepting that slant as fact instead
of exposing it as nonsense. They do that because they so readily
accept Republican framings at face value, when most of them are
not just partisan distortions but bald-faced lies. Of course,
it's not just Republicans they favor. They'll carry water for
any well-heeled lobby (Israel is a perennial favorite). Kahn
goes on to brag that the Times offers "a much more favorable
view of Biden's conduct over foreign policy at a difficult
time than the polling shows the general public believes."
Again, he's consciously catering to powerful interests, while
slighting honest reporting that the public sorely needs.
Last week,
J.D. Vance took a break from saying weird things about
childless people to visit a doughnut shop in Valdosta, Georgia.
Presumably, the Trump campaign wanted to show off how well the VP
nominee connects with regular people. Instead, it got a viral video
that has been
compared unfavorably to an
infamously cringeworthy episode of The Office.
David Sirota: [08-29]
Project 2025 started a half-century ago. A Trump win could solidify
it forever. Minor point, but both sides are tempted to indulge
in arguments of this form: that this election is some kind of tipping
point wherre the wrong way will lead to permanent, irreversible
horrors. While I can't categorically say that's impossible, it
seems pretty unlikely. The biggest problem with Project 2025 is
that it's mostly unworkable. Indeed, most conservative policies
are bound to fail: some are just designed that way (presumably to
make government look bad, or at least hapless), some attempt to do
impossible things, and many create feedback loops (or blowback)
that erode them from within. The last three Republican presidencies
have ended with remarkably low approval ratings, and their rate
of collapse has been accelerating (Reagan-Bush lasted 12 years,
Bush-Cheney 8, Trump 4; by contast, Democratic presidencies have
tended to end with a feeling of satisfaction, like a feeling that
we've recovered enough we can afford to go out and do something
stupid again).
Of course, there is a difference between right and left here.
Democrats' fear that incremental changes, while not so troubling
to start with, could eventually turn catastrophic, as in the
Republican packing of the Supreme Court. In another major example,
it took 30+ years for the repeal of Taft-Hartley to be turned into
a serious union-busting tool -- which radically undermined the
Democratic Party's political base, leading politicians like Bill
Clinton to turn for corporate support, and further alienate the
party base. Project 2025 would like to do lots of things like
that, but the one thing that looms largest there is the attack
on the civil service system.
On the other hand, right-wing paranoia is often just that.
For example, Stephen Miller has a pinned
tweet warning:
If Democrats win they will:
Eliminate the filibuster
Pack SCOTUS
Make DC a state
Import a new electorate with full voting rights
Declare dissent "hate speech," punishable with jail time
Enforce a vast censorship & surveillance regime
Make their power over you PERMANENT.
The first three sound like pretty reasonable ideas, as they would
expand democracy (well, restore is more like it, as they'd reverse
currently undemocratic practices). The last four are not on any
Democratic agenda, even as "blue sky" wish list items. (Ok, the
one about "hate speech" is being done to criminalize dissent over
Israel, but that's being driven by AIPAC, and mostly behind closed
doors.) On the other hand, those four points do smell a lot like
things Republicans would be keen on doing (they'd be deporting
and stripping rights, but that's effectively the same).
I had to go back and qualify my paranoia comment, because some
of their fears are that Democratic programs might not just work
but become so popular that they can't be repealed or rolled back:
there are several big examples, like Social Security and Medicare,
as well as numerous smaller ones.
Ryan Grim: [08-31]
Project 2025 roots date back half a century: Interview with
David Sirota on "how a memo from 1971 laid the groundwork for
enshrining corporate corruption in American politics." I'll spare
you the suspense and note that the "memo" was the famous Lewis
Powell letter, which pretty much everyone who's tracked the history
of right-wing think tanks, direct mail, and lobbying operations at
least references and often starts with. Still fits the definition
of "smoking gun." Interview also goes into Sirota's longer-term
project, a series of podcasts called
Master Plan: Legalizing Corruption.
Erik Wemple/Perry Bacon Jr./David Von Drehle: [08-30]
Was CNN's big Kamala Harris interview a dud? "Or have the
Democrats become a party that runs against the mainstream news
media?"
Eric Levitz: [08-30]
Kamala Harris's big housing plan has a big problem: "Affordable
housing comes at a cost." I wouldn't be surprised to find one can
poke holes in Harris's plan (which I haven't studied any further),
but most of these points strike me as wrong-headed. I rented up to
1985, and have owned a series of houses since then. Still, I can't
say much about them as investments -- my record has been pretty
mixed. But what I can say is that owning made a big difference to
me psychologically, because I really hated the power that landlords
held over me as a tenant. On the other hand, owning gives me the
freedom to build, to tailor, to make my home work for me. Levitz
seems to be arguing that renting is more cost-effective, and in
some ways it may be. And I'm sure there are other arguments at
play here (e.g., renters are more mobile, which makes labor
markets more efficient). But there's more to it.
PS: Levitz tried to sum up his article in a pair of
tweets:
Harris wants housing to be more affordable -- and a good
vehicle for building wealth. Yet the cheaper housing becomes,
the worse it will perform as an investment.
A frustratingly large number of people are reading this
tweet and concluding, "He must be arguing that we should keep
housing unaffordable to prop up home values; I should express
outrage about that imaginary claim, instead of reading the piece"
(which argues the exact opposite)
On the merits, there is little question that liberals should
prioritize making housing cheaper. There is nothing progressive
about putting property owners' return-on-investment above less
privileged Americans' access to shelter. Further, promoting
homeownership as a wealth building strategy also fails many
homeowners. Concentrating one's savings in a single asset is
a perilous investment strategy, especially for America's least
privileged groups.
This dual nature is so locked into our thinking about housing
it's hard to see anyone debunking it, least of all a politician.
Still, why not start by treating this as two separate problems,
which have been confounded in the interests of a special interest
group (the real estate industry, which seeks to drive up prices,
and finds it useful to disguise inflation as appreciation).
I can think of a dozen programs that would help in one way or
another, but they hinge on breaking the conceptual hold of this
dual nature -- one so strong that even Levitz can't see his way
out of. Of course, one could simply cut the Gordian knot and
blame it all on capitalism, and you can certainly make that
case, but that's too easy an answer, and too simple a solution.
John McWhorter: [08-29]
'Joy' is a euphemism for a word no one wants to say out loud:
I clicked on the title for the most basic of reasons, which is to
find out who is saying such a thing, and why? (Third edit, as my
first was filled with expletives.) This isn't the first time I've
done that and found this bloke dangling from the hook. His mission
in life is to help conservative white folk feel better about their
racism -- a task he has expanded beyond his columns to include
books like Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black
America. And there he's said the "word no one wants to say,"
but evidently it's ok for him to say (guess why?). He starts by
asking us to compare Harris joy with a list of white alternatives
he finds no joy in (from Gretchen Whitmer to Beto O'Rourke, how
hard do you think he looked? did he even have any idea what to
look for? or does he just assume the euphemism is commutative?).
I mean, this is a guy who thought Woke Racism was clever,
so does he really know what joy means? And why can't he imagine
that joy is just a personality attribute that any individual can
exhibiti and/or find? Why does everything have to trace back to
race? Oh yeah, that's his business model.
Christian Paz: [08-28]
How is Kamala Harris getting away with this? "The nominee is
pivoting hard to the right on immigration, so why do progressives
say they can live with it?" My answer is something along the lines
of "a candidate's gotta do what she's gotta do." I'm in no position
to second-guess, much less micromanage, her campaign. I wouldn't be
allowed to anyway, and the noise I might create is just spurious.
Sure, when she says or does something I really object to, I'll
speak up (cf. the sections this and every week on Israel), but
I don't see any point in getting hysterical about it. Candidates
says lots of things during campaigns that never turn real.
Besides, I really don't care about immigration per sé. It's
not a left-right issue (unlike equality, freedom, justice, and
peace). I have a problem with mistreating immigrants (which is
something Republican do and want to do much more of). I have a
problem with forcing people to emigrate (which is mostly done
by war, by repression, by economic hardship, and increasingly
by climate, which are all issues Republicans are on the wrong
side of). I think that people should have a "right to exile,"
because everyone should have a right to live in a country that
is safe and supportive -- as some countries demonstrably are
not -- but that doesn't mean that other countries have an
obligation to accept just anyone (I'm trusting that somewhere
someone will be agreeable, without coercion). But I accept that
there borders between countries, and that governments ("of, by
and for the people" that live therein) should regulate them,
subject to some fairly universal standards of decent conduct.
I doubt that it's possible (never mind desirable) to make those
borders totally impermeable, but I do believe that it's better
to manage affairs legally than it is to drive them underground.
(That the US has millions of "illegal immigrants" suggests that
they didn't do a very good job of managing things legally.)
I personally don't fear immigrants, and I don't have a lot of
patience or understanding for people who do (who for the most
part strike me as ignorant clods; although most that I know
would make exceptions for the immigrants they actually know --
it's only the hypothetical others that provoke their kneejerk
reactions). But I do fear the political issue, which dovetails
so neatly with much more delirious and dangerous right-wing
demagoguery, so I don't mind artful efforts to defuse the issue.
I can't really tell whether Harris' pivot qualifies, not least
because I'm not the audience she's pitching. I do know that it
is very difficult to pass any new law on immigration, so her
proposals are going to be kicked around many blocks before
anything becomes real. As with everything else she proposes,
we'll take it seriously when the time comes. Until then, the
only thing that really matters is that she beats Trump.
Since we're on immigration, here are some more pieces:
[08-27]
What immigration policies do Americans actually want? "Trump-style
immigration restrictions have gone mainstream among 2024 voters."
As I read this, the data doesn't really warrant the subhed, but
Republicans have harped on the issue so relentlessly that they've
raised the expectation (at least in the media) that something has
to be done -- as in the song, "there's something happening here,
what it is isn't exactly clear."
Mitchell Plitnick: [08-31]
Why Democrats refused to allow a Palestinian speaker at the DNC:
"The Democrats did not allow a Palestinian speaker at the DNC
because they did not want to encourage any possible sympathy for
the Palestinian people who are facing a genocide fully supported
by the Biden-Harris administration." Sympathy would have been
cheap, hardly a step above "thoughts and prayers." And while
Israel has worked tirelessly at dehumanizing Palestinians, few
Democrats actually buy their arguments. They mostly ignore them,
because if they didn't, they'd have to confront the savage facts
of Israel's caste system, which is at odds with their cherished
"only democracy in the Middle East." I think the decision was
the logical result of three precepts: They see the DNC, as both
parties have for at least 30 years now, as an infomercial, and
want to squeeze every last drop of value out of it, so they add
speakers who enhance their brand, and reject any who might hurt
them. (The rejection of the Teamsters leader, simply for having
spoken at the RNC, was arguably worse than not slotting a token
Palestinian.) They believed that even admitting concern, much
less culpability, for anything bad on their watch would hurt
them, and Gaza was a major sore point -- and frankly one that
many of them could (and should) feel embarrassed over. And as
the party of the left (if only because Republicans left them
with no other choice), they were terrified of losing critical
donors -- wealthy pro-Israel donors are most likely to break to
Trump, whereas there was little risk in losing the anti-genocide
masses to Trump. Also a fourth one: this year at least, the
defense of democracy doesn't seem to allow much room for the
practice of democracy, so the notion that everyone in the party
should get a say just got squashed (without much complaint from
the rank and file).
[08-29]
Three events that speak to the Harris economic agenda: "The
Mars-Kellanova merger, the Kroger-Albertsons court case, and the
monopolization lawsuit against RealPage all bolster her case
against price-fixing."
Jack Detsch/Amy Mackinnon: [08-21]
Biden's Ukraine strategy is missing in action: "Lawmakers are
frustrated at the lack of a coherent plan as Biden prepares to
leave office." A plan suggests some expected series of steps,
but US policy seems to be a fixed attitude, held fast in the
belief that the longer they than can stretch the war out, the
more they'll degrade Putin and Russia, but they don't see any
risks in doing so, or potential benefits to reconciliation.
That strikes me as naive and short-sighted, but it does help
the US arms cartel, and props up oil and gas prices to the
extent that they can reduce Russia's market share.
Ellen Ioanes: [08-26]
Zelenskyy's new plan to end the war, explained: "The plan is short
on detail but aims to push Russia to negotiate." Nothing here suggests
that he understands how negotiating works.
Joshua Keating: [08-28]
Did Ukraine just call Putin's nuclear bluff? "By invading Russia,
Ukraine was also sending a message to America." Some questions --
like: "are Russia's threats still working?"; "are there any more
'red lines'?"; "does Putin have a breaking point?" -- should make
one doubt the questioners more than their objects. If Putin can
resist going berserk when one of his "red lines" is crossed, that
should suggest he's someone one can reason with, while raising
doubts about the "ally" who's brazenly attempting to provoke a
wider and deadlier war.
Gil Barndollar/Matthew C Mal: [09-01]
America isn't ready for another war -- because it doesn't have the
troops: "The US military's recruiting crisis, explained." Maybe
they should consider fewer wars? The only "crisis" I see here is
that anyone is foolish enough to think that not being able to find
and recruit enough "suckers and losers" (as Trump calls them) is a
real problem.
Jonathan Hoffman/Benjamin Giltner: [08-30]
The US military's anti-Houthi campaign still isn't working:
"American forces play whack-a-mole in the Red Sea while the Biden
administration ignores addressing the conflict's origins." This
is just one of many problems that a Gaza ceasefire would fix.
Robert Wright/Andrew Day: [08-29]
Has Biden's China chip war backfired? "Huawei, which was a target
of the previous administration, too, appears to have roared back with
success."
Other stories:
Henry Farrell: I had these tabs saved off last week,
but didn't find them in time.
I don't have a good picture of what neoliberalism is: in economics
it seems to be an attempt to dress up laissez-faire as something new
(and therefore not yet discredited); in politics it wears two dresses,
as sleight-of-hand magic for liberals and as unfettered plundering
for conservatives; and in foreign policy (or "geopolitics"), it seems
to be the good cop teamed with the neoconservative bad cop; and on
the left/liberal side it is something self-evident to favor or oppose
(the right/conservative side doesn't much care for the term, so the
few people, like Yglesias, who advocate neoliberalism wind up trying
to defend something significantly different from what most leftists
attack as neoliberalism, a distinction blurred by how readily they
lapse into cartoonish anti-leftism).
Much of the piece is about Danielle Allen's book,
Justice by Means of Democracy, which turns on points I don't
quite grasp the subtlety of -- partly, no doubt, because I've never
made much sense of Rawls, but also because I don't believe conservatives
when they claim to discern some true "public interest" they've spend
much of their lives destroying. On the other hand, I am inclined to
lean into the notion that more democracy is the answer, especially
if it results in better justice. I'm intrigued enough to order a
copy. I also looked up the following:
Thad Williamson: [2023-12-07]
Democracy in the real world: "Theories of justice map what a good
society should look like, but they generally offer few details about
how to get there." A review of Allen's book.
"In CNN interview, Vice President Harris says she will appoint
Republican to her cabinet": First I heard of this sounded less like
a commitment than another cock-eyed suggestion by Bill Scher
(Kamala
Harris should pledge to appoint a Republican to her cabinet,
followed by
Which Republicans might serve in a Harris cabinet), but I figured
that was just Scher being Scher. I think committing to a type is dumb,
as well as self-crippling. (Remember how Clinton wanted a woman as
Attorney General, then wound up with Janet Reno as his 3rd pick?)
On the other hand, looks like there will be plenty of Republican
applicants even without a commitment: see Alex Gangitano:
More than 200 Bush, McCain, Romney aides endorse Harris.
Notes that among states ranked by life expectancy, Biden won all
of the top 10, but Trump won 9 of the bottom 10.
"Democracy in the post-Citizens United era: A mere 50 'mega-donors'
have pumped more than $1.5 billion into the election, so far."
"On Tuesday, southern Iran recorded a heat index of 82.2°C and a
dew point of 36.1°C, provisionally the highest ever globally."
I'll register a strong dissent on St Clair's dis of Philip
Larkin's jazz writing. I don't know much about Larkin's poetry
(or whatever), but Larkin's All What Jazz: A Record Diary,
1961-1971 is a personal favorite.
Obituaries
Books
Music (and other arts?)
Alex Abad-Santos: [08-23]
All the nonsense you need to know about Sabrina Carpenter: "The
singer's new album, Short n' Sweet, is full of the sexy clown
wordplay she's known for." Perhaps unfortunately, I still believe
that you don't have to read a dissertation to decide whether you
like a pop album, so after a quick glance, I skipped over this and
just played the album (four times, as it turned out; verdict in
Music Week tomorrow).
Dean Baker: [09-01] [responding to josh ryan-collins:
Part of the job of a progressive government is to shift the public
narrative towards the idea that the state can improve people's
lives. Pretending the govt budget is like a households', as in
this economically illiterate video, reinforces the idea that it
can't.]
I would argue that it's even more important for a progressive
government to explain to people that the government structures
the market to determine winners and losers, with things like
patent/copyright monopolies, rules of corporate governance,
and trade deals.
[Seems to me these points aren't exclusive, or even alternatives.]
Local tags (these can be linked to directly):
music.
Original count: 141 links, 10959 words (13527 total)
Current count:
156 links, 12153 words (14997 total)
