|
Sunday, August 5, 2018
Weekend Roundup
I'm thinking this will be the last Weekend Roundup, at least in its
current form. I've been going through my old notebooks, collecting my
scattered political rants and writing into LibreOffice files which I
hope to mine for a book (or three or five). I started the notebook in
2001, and kept it going as a backup when I refocused my writing into
blog form. My first Weekend Roundup appeared on September 1, 2007, so
I've been doing this pretty much weekly for more than ten years. The
concept dates back even further, as I did irregular posts that were
basically collections of links plus comments. (For a while, I called
them Weekly Links.)
In 2014, I ran into server performance problems with the blog, and
started a backup/sidecar mechanism I called "the faux blog" -- a set
of flat files that a new script could organize into a LIFO (last in,
first out) blog format. After that server company went out of business,
I fell back to using the "faux blog" exclusively. This made it more of
a conscious job to make new posts -- I basically had to update the
whole website -- so I found myself falling back into a rut: Weekend
Roundup on Sunday, Music Week on Monday, pretty much nothing else
(except for the now-monthly Streamnotes). Anyhow, going back through
the notebooks, I noticed two things after I started Weekend Roundup:
the frequency and atomicity (focus on a single discrete topic) of my
posts diminished; on the other hand, the overall amount of material
I posted exploded (nearly doubled) -- partly, maybe even mostly,
because I was quoting more.
In some sense, the latter meant that I was using the notebook as
originally attended, as a repository for notes. However, now that I
am finally trying to mold 15-20 years of writing into a more coherent,
longer-lasting body of work, it occurs to me that I might be better
off returning to a proper blog platform, where I can do short posts,
on discrete points of interest, and post them immediately without
having to carry the overhead of website maintenance. Fortunately,
I already have a usable blog set up,
Notes on Everyday
Life. The name recycles a tabloid some friends published in
1972-74 in St. Louis, a mix of counterculture and new left theory.
Ten or more years back I realized that my writing had two distinct
audiences -- one into music, the other politics -- so I speculated
that placing them in separate domains might make them more accessible.
I registered the domains -- the music would go into
Terminal Zone, also named for
a 1970s
publication -- and did some work
building the websites, but neither survived my first great server
crash. I've long harbored vague ideas of reviving both, even pipe
dreams of hosting a community of kindred spirits, but at the moment,
this seems like a sensible step. I've been finding myself caught in
a bind where I'd come up with something more to say than I could
squeeze into a
tweet but not enough
to add a whole blog post to the current website.
Needless to say, that still leaves room for posting Weekend Roundup
here: basically as a weekly digest of smaller blog posts. And until I
get my head into the new scheme, here's one more gathering of the links:
Miriam Berger: Israel's hugely controversial "nation-state" law,
explained: Well before Israel declared its independence from
Britain in 1948, the Zionist Settlement in Palestine (the "Yishuv")
had established itself as a separate, self-contained, and exclusive
society. The Israeli state established its dominance in the war that
followed, Arabs under Israel's thumb have been treated as second class
citizens (or worse), subject not just to inequal treatment but to
separate laws. The new law doesn't change any of that, although it
does promise some symbolic hardening of the lines. But more important,
it sends a message to the world -- at least that part of the world
that believes in civil rights, in human rights, in equal treatment,
irrespective of race, religion, or creed -- that the socio-political
order in Israel is fixed, unchangeable, eternal. It's not just a
feature of Israel, it's its very essence. One wonders why take such
an extreme stand now, especially as support for Israel is waning in
Europe and the United States. I think a big part of that has to do
with Trump, who supports Netanyahu unconditionally without demanding
even the most token recognition of international law and norms. I'm
reminded of an incident in 1937, when Britain's Peel Commission first
recommended partitioning of Palestine, and went the extra mile by
proposing transfer of Arabs out of the Jewish enclaves, Ben-Gurion
hadn't asked for that, but given the opportunity couldn't help but
endorse it. It was, after all, implicit in the Zionist program at
least since 1913. With Trump proving so pliant, this must have
seemed like the ideal moment for the Israeli right to show its
true colors.
Tara Isabella Burton: Pope Francis officially updated Catholic teaching,
calling the death penalty "inadmissible": When I read this, I
flashed on how it might tilt our overwhelmingly Catholic Supreme Court,
but then I recall how selective Republicans can be when it comes to
the teachings of major religions. Actually, the case that capital
punishment, at least as practiced in the US over the last 30-50 years,
violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Constitution.
You'd also think that anyone with a libertarian bent would come down
against letting the government execute people.
Stephen F Cohen: Trump as New Cold War Heretic: I don't doubt that
many Americans exploit Cold War tropes and clichés when they agitate
against Russia, simply because they're lazy and appealing to prejudice
is often the easiest path. We've seen the same trick applied elsewhere,
as when hawks played up old antipathies to Assad and Gaddafi to push
for US military intervention in Syria and Libya, or the ease Israel
and Saudi Arabia enjoy in turning us against Iran. Still, this only
works if we can see continuity between when the prejudices were set
(the Cold War) and now. That, of course, is why Russophobes make such
a big deal about Putin having worked for in the KGB. We can speculate
on why Clinton, Bush, and Obama made so little effort to deconflict
the US-Russia relationship. One certainly suspects that sectors of
the US military/security complex wanted to preserve Cold War tools
like NATO, and that was easier done with Russia cast as a rival or
foe. After all, had the US and Russia proceeded to effective nuclear
disarmament there wouldn't be any market for a lucrative anti-missile
system. It also helps that Russians have a bit of attitude -- a sense
of national self that dates back to the Tsars, so they take offense
when the US expects them to roll over while we depose friendly regimes
in Yugoslavia and Syria, and more pointedly in Georgia and Ukraine,
while moving armed forces to Russia's border. Putin's popularity is
based on his ability to restore a sense of dignity and independence
that had suffered badly under Yeltsin. Within Russia's spectrum, he's
nowhere near the real demagogues on this point, but he gives the neo
cold warriors enough rope. It shouldn't surprise us that Trump is
relatively immune from such scheming -- even before the Clinton crowd
jumped on the bandwagon. Trump knows that Russia changed dramatically
following the collapse of the Soviet Union, mostly because he could
do business with the new Russia. The old Soviet Union never achieved
a state of equality, but after the fall it became even more inequal
than the US, with gangsters and former officials grabbing vast swathes
of state-owned property. They have, in short, created a world run by
and for billionaires, a world of Trumps. Complain as you will about
Putin's repression, his control of the press, his use of spies and
hacks, his contempt for democracy, but there's nothing there Trump
doesn't admire and crave. Conversely, Putin must have seen Trump as
a Godsend: finally, an American political leader he can deal with,
the old-fashioned way, with cash. On the other hand, none of this
qualifies Trump as "a cold war heretic." That implies that Trump
has a conscious command of historical context, when the opposite is
the case. Where Cohen is most useful is in unpacking the complaints
of the renascent cold warriors -- e.g., their frenzied reactions to
the Trump-Putin summit. I'd go further and say that it's extremely
important not to rekindle anything like the Cold War that scuttled
the New Deal and the prospect of solving world conflicts through the
UN. To do that we need to be clear on all sides. It's actually a good
thing that Trump and Putin think they can do business together. One
might wish for better leaders on both sides, but one can only change
oneself. Beyond that all you can do is to respect common principles
and look for opportunities that benefit all -- something that the
US has never done since embarking on its post-WWII great power ego
trip.
Jason Ditz: Congress Passes $716 Billion Military Spending Bill:
"This was the single largest increase in military spending year-over-year
in 15 years, and is the latest in the annual push between President Trump
and Congress to see who can outdo the other in spending increases." Some
more details:
$716 Billion Military Spending Bill Won't Create Space Force, Limits
Involvement in Yemen War.
Briahna Gray: Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Went to War
With Partisanship in Kansas, and about 4,000 people showed up to meet
them here in Wichita.
Naomi Klein: Capitalism Killed Our Climate Momentum, Not "Human Nature"
A response to the long New York Times article,
Nathaniel Rich: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate
Change.
Nomi Prins: The Disrupter-in-Chief: I'm not going to argue against
critics who think that Trump's major economic moves -- deregulation
of just about everything but especially banking, tax cuts to increase
inequality, tariffs to provide politically useful short-term profits,
the trade war risk of said tariffs, increased bets on the arms trade
(with its risk of further wars and blowback) -- aren't setting us up
for another crash. I especially won't argue with Prins, who covers
all these points and has an impressive track record of sniffing out
looming disasters. However, before we get to Prins' bang, I figure
we'll suffer through a few whimpers. The first problem is that the
economic indicators Trump most likes to brag about are very weakly
linked to the economic perceptions of the overwhelming majority of
Americans. In a normal economy, such low unemployment rates should
result in wage growth, yet we see very little of that. Similarly,
virtually nothing from Trump's tax cuts has gone to higher wages
(or even bonuses). Meanwhile, cost of living continues to go up --
gas prices are an obvious factor there, and housing is tight enough
we're beginning to see a bubble. The statisticians may think this
is a great economy, but ordinary people aren't feeling it. Second,
virtually none of the bills that will eventually be suffered for
increased risk due to deregulation have come due yet. That will
happen, piecemeal, chaotically, over years and sometimes longer,
and those costs are likely to really hurt. Same is true for other
unfunded externalities, like climate change. This year's fires and
storms are what you get for ignoring decades of scientific warnings,
and the only direction we can see from here is worse. Inequality is
another factor that hurts now and will only get worse over time.
I should also say that I suspect that today's nominal growth rates
are overstated and unsustainable. The Trump administration is actually
doing a lot of things that slow the economy down. Trump's attack on
immigration seeks to shrink the economy. His tariffs also constrict
the economy. The only way tariffs make sense is if they're matched to
a program of investment to build up protected industries that can
eventually stand on their own. I'm not opposed to efforts to improve
the balance of trade, but to do that you need to increase exports
as well as reduce imports. I recall William Grieder proposing an
across-the-board imports tax -- indeed, that's the only form of
tariff the WTC allows. On the other hand, going industry-by-industry,
country-by-country only increases the opportunity for (and costs of)
graft. That at least is a racket Trump understands.
Note that John Cassidy has similar reservations about the economy:
The Hidden Danger for Donald Trump in the Economy's Growth Spurt.
Matt Taibbi also wrote
Why Killing Dodd-Frank Could Lead to the Next Crash.
Somini Sengupta/Tiffany May/Zia ur-Rehman: How Record Heat Wreaked
Havoc on Four Continents: Stories from Algeria (124F on July 5),
Hong Kong (over 91F for 16 straight days in May), Pakistan (122F on
April 30), Oslo (over 86F for 16 consecutive days), Los Angeles (108F
on July 6); also wildfires in Sweden and "one Swedish village just
above the Arctic Circle, hit an all time record high, peaking above
90 degrees Fahrenheir." On California's fires, see
Alissa Greenberg/Jason Wilson: As California burns, many fear the
future of extreme fire has arrived. On the media, see:
Emily Atkin: The Media's Failure to Connect the Dots on Climate
Change; also:
Joe Romm: Fossil fuel industry spent nearly $2 billion to kill US
climate action, new study finds.
John Sides: What data on 20 million traffic stops can tell us about
'driving while black': Pretty much what you could have guessed.
Matthew Yglesias: Donald Trump is making Medicare-for-all inevitable:
ACA was conceived as a political compromise that everyone could get behind,
even if hardly anyone actually liked the idea. It promised that everyone
could get comprehensive health insurance at a tolerable cost, without
upsetting any existing business interests. And it promised to slow down
rising costs without undermining quality care. Most Democrats realized
that it wasn't nearly as efficient a solution as single-payer, but we
were assured that it was good enough for now, and wouldn't run into the
sort of political obstacles -- industry opposition and fear propaganda --
that a single-payer system would have to surmount. Of course, it didn't
turn out that way: even after all the industry lobbyists cut their deals
and signed off, the Republicans revolted, partly incoherent ideology
(anti-government, pro-market, anti-equality, pro-business, even when
the rip-offs are pure fraud), partly sheer obstructionism. And indeed,
the Republicans came close to scuttling the law, partly by exploiting
real flaws in its design. Even after it passed, they sued, and fought
a state-by-state battle against the Medicaid expansion piece. Still,
by 2016, the program was a modest success, and could have been tacitly
accepted, but Trump and the Republicans decided to make its destruction
a test of their power. Sure, they failed to outright repeal the law,
but they've repeatedly attacked aspects of the law that threaten to
throw it out of whack. Their first effort here was to limit insurance
company compensation for losses due to adverse selection risk -- the
effect here was to push up premium costs. Then they decided to allow
junk insurance policies -- where insurance companies can refuse to
pay for services that ACA had deemed to be necessary for everyone.
Such policies can be sold cheaper, but only by shifting the costs to
higher risk (or more responsible) people. The net effect is higher
costs for less coverage, on top of all the other ways the industry
has adjusted to further game the ACA system. Private insurance has
never worked very well, and has gotten progressively worse as the
whole industry became more intensely profit-seeking. The clearest
measure of this is how health care as a share of GDP has steadily
grown from 5% to 10% to 15% to 20%: if left uncontrolled, expect it
to gradually devour the entire economy. ACA was as much an attempt
to save an untenable system as to reform it. If Trump turns ACA into
a failure, the only viable option left is socializing the system:
single-payer, and a lot more regulation of the private sector.
However, that assumes something we have no real reason to expect:
a happy ending, where we wind up doing something that works. At
least it's definitively proven that socialized medicine works:
every other wealthy nation has (with minor variations) such a
system, and every one of them delivers better health care results
at significantly less cost. Still, American politicians have time
and again refused to implement reasonable reforms, just as they've
insisted on making the same mistakes over and over again. And if
the election of Trump proves anything, it's that we're not getting
any smarter about our problems or how to solve them. (One indication
that single-payer is getting closer:
Dylan Scott: The case for single-payer, explained in 3 charts.)
Yglesias also wrote:
Netroots Nation, explained. As Yglesias points out, Obama was a
big hit at the precursor Yearly Kos conference in 2007, but lost all
interest when he became president, leaving network-based activism in
a lurch, at least in terms of influence in and for the Democratic
Party. One result was that under Obama the Democratic Party largely
folded up as a grassroots political organization, at the same time
as Republican donors like the Kochs were plowing millions into their
fake tea party noisemakers. On the other hand, having been beaten
down so bad, at this year's confab they're finally looking up. Even
the old Democratic Party warlords are starting to get hungry. However,
do read Yglesias' major post this week:
Centrist Democrats are out of ideas. Of course, that's what always
happens when you spend eight years making excuses to your voters for
why you can't get anything progressive implemented, while at the same
time bragging to your donors about how you're keeping the riff raff
in check. At this point, even what passed for ideas eight years ago --
e.g., ACA, "cap-and-trade" -- don't pass the smell test.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
|
