The Washington Post Editorial Board headline today is actually rather sensible (and hopefully sobering): Putin's humiliation means new dangers for Russia -- and the world. Still, given the dangers, maybe "humiliation" isn't the word we should be using. While the odds that Putin would resort nuclear weapons were never very high, it should be understood that they do go up with every humiliation, with every time he gets pushed back into a corner. The only way out of this trap is a negotiated settlement based not on the balance of power but on generally recognized principles, notably self-determination. And to bring that about, we still need a stable Russia. Blowing it up and replacing Putin with even crazier leaders isn't the way.
The Washington Post Editorial Board also wrote another piece that should be sobering but probably isn't: [06-24] Is there enough money to rebuild Ukraine? In it, they fantasize about getting Russia to pay for the rebuilding, which may be "an unarguable moral case" but is also a total non-starter. (Remember when LBJ promised to pay for rebuilding Vietnam?) Meanwhile, the fact that Americans are asking these questions suggests that they don't intend to pay either.
One problem is probably that the Post editors are reading their own war propagandists, like David Ignatius: [06-24] Putin looked into the abyss Saturday -- and blinked. From what I can gather, it looked like Prigozhin was the one who took the easy way out. But then the former Iraq War apologist has been writing pieces like this all along: [06-06] D-Day dawns for Ukraine.
As usual, it's impossible to get to everything. I do hope this is the last time I ever devote a whole section to Hunter Biden. Even with this much, I doubt I really got adequately into the Republican reaction, or their continuing obsession with him. Sure, he could serve as an example of why nepotism and influence-peddling are wrong, but that's not a point Republicans are going to make. Tax cheating and gun buying are things they normally celebrate.
Trump:
Adam Goldman/Traci Angel: [06-21] Former FBI analyst goes to prison for taking classified documents: "Like former President Trump, the former analyst was accused of violating the Espionage Act, taking home hundreds of classified documents and being unhelpful." Kendra Kingsbury was sentenced to 46 months jail for fewer charges than Trump is facing. Republicans like to say that if they can come for Trump, they can come for anyone. Looks like they got the order backwards.
Margaret Hartmann:
[06-21] Trump pretends Jared and Ivanka didn't quit, he fired them.
[06-22] Kari Lake auditions to be Trump's next Pence and/or Melania: The latter is the more amusing prospect, but unlikely, given that Lake is actually older than Melania (by a few months; both are 53).
Fred Kaplan: [06-23] When Trump promises to end the Ukraine War, here's what he really means. I initially filed this under Ukraine, but Trump has no plan as such. Rather, all he has is tremendous faith in his genius as a dealmaker, which is supported by absolutely nothing from his previous term as president. Kaplan cites Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China as examples. One problem with those cases is that his closest advisers (e.g., Pompeo and Bolton) didn't want deals, so they sandbagged every prospect, leaving him with nothing. Not mentioned are a couple cases where Trump's people did negotiate deals, which Trump agreed to but really didn't have any direction over. The first is a minor revision of NAFTA, fulfilling a campaign promise. He got a new name, plus a couple of trivial concessions he could tout as a victory. The other was the deal with the Taliban for a ceasefire and withdrawal of US forces. The Taliban was still free to attack Afghan forces. More effectively, they recruited so the moment the US left, Afghanistan fell into their hands. By that point the US was helpless, having put all its faith into an army and government who by then worked for the other side. What would have been much better was to negotiate an orderly transition, with promises of future support in exchange for protections (including a right to exile) of Afghans who had worked for the US-backed regime). But no American, least of all "strongman" Trump, could admit to such a defeat, so they concocted this charade that the Afghans would be able to survive on their own.
Ed Kilgore: [06-20] Trump's Fox News interview exposed his real weakness: He "does not come across as a cunning predator avoiding the snares of his fearful liberal prey and plotting his revenge. He's more like a weak, confused old man worried about grubby law-enforcement personnel touching his golf clothes."
Eric Lipton: [06-20] Trump real estate deal in Oman underscores ethics concerns.
Ben Mathis-Lilley: [06-21] Donald Trump continues to twist what it means to be "conservative" into total incoherence: Good for him, too, because clear and lucid explications of "conservatism" are not just unappealing but repugnant to most people. However slipshod Trump might be on policy, he gets the appeal right: for him and his followers, conservativm is simply a matter of worshipping certain totems -- like God and country -- and hating people they deem unworthy. And while all conservatives agree with that much, no one else delivers hatred as unvarnished as Trump.
Greg Sargent: [06-21] Trump's confession on Fox News should prompt Democrats to step up. Contrasts this with Hunter Biden case.
Asawin Suebsaeng/Adam Rawnsley: [06-20] Team Trump suspects his former Chief of Staff is a 'rat': They're wondering what Mark Meadows is up to?
Li Zhou: [06-20] Trump's Fox News interview was a defense attorney's nightmare.
DeSantis, and other Republican lowlifes:
Ed Kilgore:
[06-21] House GOP forges ahead on wildly unpopular national abortion ban.
[06-22] Will Hurd bets GOP presidential voters want anti-Trump Texan: Former three-term Congressman, has proven appeal to center-Democrats, no chance with Republicans.
[06-23] Freedom Caucus mulls ejecting MTG for loyalty to Kevin McCarthy: I can imagine her hearing the news and breaking out in song: probably "Don't Cry for Me, Argentina."
Ben Mathis-Lilley: [06-22] House Republican strategy of elevating unstable clown people reveals itself to have downsides.
Catherine Rampell: [06-25] It's almost like the House GOP never cared about deficits after all: Almost?
Beth Reinhard/Josh Dawsey: [06-20] Gov. Ron DeSantis used secretive panel to flip state Supreme Court.
Maegan Vazquez/Marianna Sotomayor: [06-22] House votes to send articles of impeachment against Biden to committees: Introduced by Lauren Boebert, citing "dereliction of duty" and "abuse of power" over Biden's handling of the Mexico border, vote was 219-208, although some see this as a compromise among Republicans, where some are less gung-ho than Boebert to advance impeachment, and some just don't like her.
Li Zhou: [06-22] Why Republicans are censuring Adam Schiff: After a first draft of this censure resolution failed last week, a Facebook Friend echoed Trump's directive that the 20 Republicans who voted against should be fired (primaried and purged from the GOP). My reaction was: "Not my party, but fire away." But I also wondered whether they realized what a favor their censure is doing for Schiff, who is by far the most conservative Democrat running for California's Senate seat in 2024. Certainly, testimony that Republicans hate him will get him more votes than his 2003 vote for Bush's Iraq War. [PS: See Ed Kilgore: [06-22] House Republicans' 'sham' censure was a gift to Adam Schiff.]
Hunter Biden: The president's son agreed to plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and admitted to the facts of a rather dubious gun charge. The plea deal would give him three years of probation, plus a diversion on the gun charge, so it is expected that he will not go to jail. This should bring to a close one of the sillier outrages of the "lock her up" era, but Republicans have invested so much in it they can't bear the idea of letting go. Besides, what else to they have to run on? Certainly not policy ideas. On the other hand, it's hard to have much sympathy for him, even if you buy that he was railroaded. His influence-peddling schemes may not have been illegal, but probably should have been. (Had they been, that would wipe out a large swathe of Washington's upper crust, and good riddance to them.) And as a person, he seems to offer little to respect much less admire. But that, too, is hardly grounds for prosecution, and if it were, I can think of lots to put in line ahead of him.
Andrew Prokop: [06-20] Hunter Biden's plea deal, explained: "The president's son will plead guilty to two tax charges and admit unlawfully buying a gun. Naturally, the right is furious -- that he wasn't charged with more."
Norman Eisen: [06-22] Who wins in the Hunter Biden plea deal: Eisen sees it as a good deal for both sides. The prosecution gets a conviction that might have been hard to win in court, in what would certainly have been seen as a politically-driven vendetta. (Sure, Biden hasn't belabored that point as much as Trump has, but his case is at least as solid.) Biden gets a punishment he can live with, as well as some degree of closure (although the investigation of other possible crimes is still quite pointedly open).
Matt Ford: [06-20] Republicans are smearing the Bidens like they did Hillary Clinton: It's like the old joke about lawyers: if you have the law, pound the law; if you have the facts, pound the facts; if you have neither, pound the table. The question is what sticks, and the Clintons looked much shiftier than Bidens ever did. On the other hand, the only ones who deserve to be grouped as a "crime family" are the Trumps.
Ryan J Reilly: [06-20] Legal experts say the charges against Hunter Biden are rarely brought: "The federal statute making it unlawful for a drug addict to possess a gun faces court challenges. The misdemeanor tax charges also rarely result in jail time."
Matt Stieb:
[06-23] IRS whistleblower: Hunter Biden used dad's name in business deals: This is (a) disgusting, and (b) utterly unsurprising, given that it was pretty much his whole business plan. How this relates to the case isn't clear. Perhaps Henry Zhao can sue Hunter Biden for fraud?
Tatyana Tandanpolie: [06-21] Experts say Hunter Biden deal is actually "harsh" -- and question when Trump will face tax charges.
Law and the courts: The Alito scandal broke last week, under Li Zhou below. It's beginning to look like Leonard Leo not only grooms conservatives for the Supreme Court, he hooks them up with billionaire patrons to keep them on the straight and narrow. And, let's face it, no one in recent history has been more narrowly partisan than Alito.
Samuel G Freedman: [06-21] The DOJ barely scratched the surface of Minneapolis police thuggery. If the US had a sensible president at the time of the George Floyd murder, one easy step would have been to appoint a commission to provide an in-depth investigation of police prejudice and flouting of authority leading to such murders. Instead, Trump tried imposing martial law to suppress (and inflame) the demonstrations. (I've been thinking about this, while reading Karen J Greenberg's Subtle Tools: The Dismantling of American Democracy From the War on Terror to Donald Trump, which dedicates a chapter to this episode.) While a commission report would go nationwide, this case study is a big part of what needs to be understood, and corrected.
Kerry Howley: [06-21] Ginni and Clarence: A love story.
Dahlia Lithwick/Michael Podhorzer: [06-21] Our major American misunderstanding: "It's been a long time since most Americans shared a values system. Maybe it's time to accept that." I'd say there's never been such a time -- it's not like you can reconcile slavery and abolition, which predates the Constitution, and you certainly can't deny that they represent different value systems. Although I will grant that the liberal consensus in the 1950s did an effective job of marginalizing the left, until the Vietnam War brought us back, not that right-wingers were going to let that consensus stand anyway. Of course, the authors have something narrower in mind: whether the DOJ stands for law and justice, or simply works for the president to help crush his political enemies. The latter is Trump's view, while Democrats -- at times to their own discomfort -- still believe in the former. Of course, we on the left always knew DOJ was out to get us, and blamed liberals for helping them along.
Ian Millhiser:
[06-20] One of America's top abortion rights lawyers was just confirmed as a federal judge: "Julie Rikelman, the abortion rights movement's top Supreme Court litigator, will serve on the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit."
[06-21] The Fifth Circuit comes for the First Amendment right to protest: "A rogue federal court has spent years harassing a prominent civil rights advocate."
[06-22] The Supreme Court's latest opinion means innocent people must remain in prison.
[06-23] The Supreme Court may be running out of patience for Trump's worst judges: "The Court's decision in United States v. Texas stops rogue judges from seizing control of law enforcement."
Li Zhou: [06-21] The Supreme Court has an ethics problem. Justice Alito's fishing trip is the latest proof. For quite some time, conservatives have fretted over Republican appointees to the Court drifting leftward. One way to keep that from happening is to keep the Justices closely bound to their sponsors. So no big surprise that Alito has his own version of the Scalia and Thomas scandals. Back in May, Zhou wrote: [05-05] The many ethics scandals of Clarence and Ginni Thomas, briefly explained. The report and other links follow:
Dahlia Lithwick: [06-22] Justice Samuel Alito IS the salmon: "Calling this an ethics scandal misses the point."
Amanda Marcotte: [06-23] Samuel Alito scandal shows why conservative justices on the Supreme Court are so whiny.
Environment:
Rachel DuRose: [06-22] How America solved its first air pollution crisis -- and why solving the next one will be harder.
Evan Halper: [06-24] Heat is battering Texas's power grid. Are giant batteries the answer? "Texas is uniquely vulnerable to power failures because it cannot draw electricity from neighbors in a crisis. It is the only state in the contiguous United States disconnected from the national grid, a deliberate move to avoid federal regulation."
Ian Livingston/Jason Samenow: [06-23] Rare pair of June tropical storms churn across record-warm Atlantic: "Bret and Cindy are the first pair of named storms to develop east of the Caribbean on record during June."
Dan Stillman: [06-23] Texas heat wave is so bad, meteorologists are apologizing for it: "Dangerous heat expected to continue for at least another week, and possibly longer.
Daniel Wu: [06-22] Meteorologist resigns, citing PTSD from threats over climate change coverage. Tempted to file this under Republicans, since you know who the threats are coming from.
Ukraine War: High hopes for Ukraine's counteroffensive have precluded any interest in diplomacy, but so far: [06-23] Early stages of Ukrainian counteroffensive 'not meeting expectations,' Western officials tell CNN. On the other hand, the head Wagner Group, a mercenary outfit Russia has employed especially at Bakhmut, has "declared war" on Russia's military command, which may signal a rebellion or even a coup against Putin. I cited this piece last week, by Anatol Lieven and George Beebe, which now looks prophetic. This is very much a developing situation. I'm citing some articles as it develops, but (as with the "counteroffensive") note that nobody knows very much. One thing that does seem clear is that Prigozhin's beef with the Russian command (and Putin?) isn't over whether to continue the war, but how to fight it more effectively. Lieven and Beebe ended their piece with: "however bad things are in Russia, they can always get worse."
PS: As of Sunday afternoon, the key events are: Wagner occupied Rostov (Russia's "southern command" center), and started to march on Moscow; Putin condemned them harshly ("Those behind the mutiny will pay"), then Belarus president Lukashenko negotiated a stand down, which will allow Prigozhin and those who revolted with him to relocate to Belarus.
Connor Echols: [06-23] Diplomacy Watch: Brinksmanship on grain deal could frustrate Russia's friends.
Isaac Chotiner: [06-15] Ukraine's counter-offensive, and what comes after. Interview with Marina Miron, a "postdoctoral researcher at the war-studies department, in King's College London." Not much detail here, but I'm not sure that details are that important. They key thing to understand is that this year's war is different from last year's war. Last year Russia was on offense, and Ukraine defense. Russia's blitz against Kyiv and Kharkiv failed, foiling Putin's hopes for a quick coup, leading to a strategic retreat. On the other hand, Russia's offensive from Crimea was fairly successful, including the hard-fought battle for Mariupol, securing a land corridor to Crimea (which otherwise is being supplied over the Kerch Bridge). This year, all Russia has to do is to defend against the much hyped Ukrainian offensive, and in doing so they have a fairly wide buffer territory they can afford to lose before Ukrainian forces approach the ethnically Russian enclaves that broke off from Ukraine in 2014. Most Ukrainians have fled this buffer zone, so the remaining inhabitants should be more favorable to Russia, as are the Donbas and Crimean zones. And most importantly, as Ukraine showed last year, it is easier to defend and disrupt than it is to attack. The prolonged battle of Bakhmut, where Russia prevailed, offers little hope that Ukraine will make major gains elsewhere.
Zelensky has spent the winter promising NATO that if they give him enough weapons, Ukraine will win back all of the pre-2014 territory. That seems unlikely to happen, but few in the west were willing to sound a note of caution, least of all about the capabilities of their pricey weapons. The result is that the war will continue as long as the political orders on both sides remain entrenched, which could be a long time. Miron's main contribution here is to point out that even if Ukraine recovers territory, it will be nearly impossible to rebuild as long as hostilities ensue, and Russians would likely resort to some kind of guerrilla insurgency even if regular troops are withdrawn. Once again, the only solution is negotiation.
Chas Danner: [06-24] Wagner's Prigozhin backs off after marching on Moscow.
Valerie Hopkins: [06-25] One big winner of Kremlin-Wagner clash? The dictator next door. Don't bet on that. The last thing any dictator needs is an alien army with no one else to fight. (I imagine there are numerous examples, but the Vandals are the first to leap to mind.) Of course, it's also possible that Putin orchestrated the deal, and Lukashenko is just the patsy we always figured. Either way, he has little reason to sleep soundly, much less to gloat.
Ellen Ioanes: [06-25] Russia's wild last 24 hours and the Wagner group's march to Moscow, explained.
Jen Kirby:
[03-21] The Wagner Group, Russia's maybe-private army in Ukraine, explained: Background.
Anatol Lieven/George Beebe:
w/George Beebe: [05-31] Prigozhin erupts: Has a Russian succession struggle begun? "The Wagner chief's furious attack on elites and the war could portend turmoil with potential to extend well beyond Moscow." Last line: "As an old Russian joke about the difference between an optimist and a pessimist should remind us, however bad things are in Russia, they can always get worse." [Cited last week, even more prophetic this week.]
w/George Beebe: [06-21] Rampant Russophobia takes us down a dangerous path: "Demonizing Russian culture and people only makes peace in Ukraine harder to achieve and plays into Putin's propaganda."
[06-25] Putin: Disastrous but indispensable for the system he created? "The Wagner insurrection has raised serious questions about not only the durability of Putin's role, but also that of the regime that he has built."
David Remnick: [06-24] Putin's weakness unmasked: "How Yevgeny Prigozhin's rebellion exposed the Russian President." Well, not exactly. He draws on conversations with Mikhail Zygar, who wrote the 2016 book All the Kremlin's Men ("a best-seller in Russia and a well-sourced examination of Putin's rule and the inner dynamics of his ruling circle"), and has a forthcoming book, War and Punishment: Putin, Zelensky, and the Path to Russia's Invasion of Ukraine, which is fast becoming obsolete. It's worth remembering that the word "dictator" implies much more autonomy at the top than is often the case. (Biden's recent slur on Xi Jinping and the furor it aroused should be another reminder.)
Anton Troianovski: [06-25] Prigozhin revolt raises searing question: Did it harm Putin's staying power? Certainly the first question on the mind of American hawks dreaming of regime change, but way too early to answer. It looks to me like it does two things: one is that it immediately reduces Russian troops in Ukraine, at a time when Ukraine's "counteroffensive" is ramping up; the other is that it should shortly bring an end to the acrominiously divided Russian forces command. Any student of war will tell you that divided command is a recipe for disaster, so Russia may emerge in better shape -- though much still depends on whether Russian command is really as bad as Prigozhin alleged. My guess is that in the short term Putin can rally support, but the stakes of losing Ukraine are growing more severe.
Joshua Yaffa: [06-24] The Wagner Group is a crisis of Putin's own making.
Sunday morning, Max Blumenthal tweeted: "Everything we said about
Russia yesterday was an insane lie or completely wrong, now check us
out on the White House ex-propaganda minister's show today." He's
referring to "Inside with Jen Psaki," where the guests constitute
a war council: Michael McFaul (former Ambassador to Russia), James
Stavridis (Admiral), Anne Applebaum, Elissa Slotkin (Representative),
and Nancy Pelosi (House Speaker Emerata). So the "we" isn't meant to
include Blumenthal, but most likely it applies to him as well -- he
has spent the last year attacking Ukraine and military support from
US/NATO so exhaustively it's hard to draw a line between his stand
against the US-led empire and his willingness to repeat Russian
propaganda. But it's easy to imagine these five going gaga over
the prospect of a revolution against Putin, even from the right
[1] Blumenthal quotes Applebaum as saying: "Yet even the worst successor imaginable, even the bloodiest general or most rabid propagandist, will immediately be preferable to Putin, because he will be weaker than Putin." Weaker, but still armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.
Around the world: Indian president Narenda Modi visited Washington last week, which occasioned much agonizing over India's human rights record, and Biden's willingness to overlook it. That actually strikes me as respect due to leader of another nation -- respect that the US, with its compulsion to divided the world up between friends and foes -- rarely shows. Which doesn't mean that the parties weren't up to no good.
Ben Burgis: [06-22] Israelism is a powerful indictment of pro-apartheid indoctrination. Quotes a critic of the film complaining, "There is no mention, for instance, of the UN role in the creation of Israel, Arab aggression at the birth of the state," blah, blah, blah. True that the UN passed one resolution approving of the partition of the British protectorate of Palestine, but there is no reason to treat that as some sort of immaculate conception. While Israelis lobbied for the resolution, and cited it in their Declaration of Independence, they immediately discarded its borders, and moved to claim Jerusalem (an international zone per the resolution), as well as expelling Arabs from Jaffa (a Palestinian enclave surrounded by Israel). Then Israelis murdered the UN mediator. The UN never sanctioned the explusions that Palestinians know as the Nakba. The UN Security Council passed resolutions after the 1967 and 1973 wars that Israel gave lip-service to but never honored (although Egypt and Jordan eventually did, and Syria negotiated a peace deal that Israel ultimately rejected). The "peace offers" that Palestinians supposedly rejected were never made in good faith, but the Oslo Accords, which Arafat did accept, were wrecked by Israel. Still, I doubt the film dwells on all that history, when the case against Israel's denial of basic human and civic rights to Palestinians today is so clear cut, and really so shameless.
Melvin Goodman: [06-23] Netanyahu takes aim at US diplomacy again: Over the last several weeks, I've seen reports that Biden is close to an agreement with Iran to restore the JCPOA deal that Obama negotiated and Trump scuttled. I haven't bothered reporting them because they're meaningless until announced, and the likelihood of that happening is slim given that Israel remains opposed -- it beggars belief why, suggesting that Israel would much rather prop up Iran as a mortal enemy (something that has never been true, either under the Shah or the Ayatollahs) than see its stated concerns actually addressed -- and Israel exerts such influence over American politics that it's unlikely that Biden would dare. The thing is, while Israel can afford pricking at Iran, the US actually does have good reason for negotiating friendlier terms. Non-proliferation matters, but more immediately pressing is Iran's ability to block oil traffic through the Straits of Hormuz. There's also the matter of Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Iraq, which Israel periodically attacks, and could hit back at American troops there. Biden must also realize that pushing Iran into the embrace of Russia and China isn't helping. He also must realize that after the US military failed so badly in Iraq and Afghanistan, a military threat against Iran would be several steps beyond stupid. But to move forward Biden would have to reassert the importance of American interests over Israel's.
Jonathan Guyer: [06-23] Why the US is selling India so many weapons: "Prime Minister Modi visits the White House, and arms deals follow." It's almost like the sole determinant of US foreign policy is arms sales. India has most often bought arms from Russia, which is part of the reason India has refused to support US sanctions against Russia. But one can see the thinking as more than an immediate cash grab. But arms sales may be a lever both to divide India from Russia and to align India against China.
Ellen Ioanes: [06-25] Guatemala's elections can't undo years of government corruption: Not to mention coups, most directed or at least sanctioned by the US.
Achal Prabhala/Vitor Ido: [06-01] Next pandemic, let Cuba vaccinate the world. Uh, you think this pandemic is done yet? We're going to be taking boosters indefinitely. There's still plenty of world demand, especially if affordable. And Cuba's developments should remind us that we don't need billionaire patents to motivate people to develop life-saving pharmaceuticals. Even if the US companies shut down today, we could ride free on the rest of the world's research and development. Also the world could free ride on Cuba's investment. The embargo, which remains stupid and cruel, wouldn't stop others from manufacturing Cuban vaccines, assuming they got developed in the first place.
Dean Baker: [06-25] Why the RFK Jr., Rogan, Musk outrage machine doesn't bother Big Pharma. Also see Sarah Jones, below.
Tim Dickinson: [06-15] Is America already in a civil war? Interview with Bradley Onishi, author of Preparing for War: The Extremist History of White Christian Nationalism -- and What Comes Next. I have to admit that my eyes glaze over when I read these pieces about the Christian Right, given that my own faith is so lapsed that they seem to be from a completely different planet. The idea that anyone, much less than 30% of all Americans, believe in predispensationalism just boggles my mind -- even though I now realize that one of my more memorable conversations with my grandfather (1895-1965) was about exactly that. I never took him to be insane, but in that moment he was.
Andrea González-Ramirez: [06-23] One year without Roe: "All the ways abortion bans have affected pregnant people, providers, and clinics, by the numbers and in their own words." Also:
Megan Carpentier: [06-23] The deadly silence since Dobbs.
Grace Segers: [06-23] The end of Roe created two unequal Americas.
Tessa Stuart: [06-22] Republicans are torching democracy to deny women abortions.
Li Zhou: [06-23] The end of Roe, one year later: "The devastating impact of Dobbs, by the numbers."
Constance Grady: [06-22] When you can't separate art from artist: Interview with Claire Dederer, author of Monsters: A Fan's Dilemma, a meditation on how to feel about art produced by people who turned out to have committed other reprehensible acts. (Michael Jackson, Woody Allen, and Bill Cosby are among the first-named, along with Pablo Picasso, Ernest Hemingway, and Roman Polanski.) I'm only bringing this up because my wife read the book, so it came up in conversations I never really answered. But I do have two core reactions: one is that I believe that works of art stand on their own the moment they are released (you might argue that copyrights and residuals argue differently, but I've never cared much for boycotts either); the other is that people are complicated but only turn monstrous when they take or are given power over others. So this isn't a dilemma I often engage in. I won't deny that some works of art embody their creator's damaged psyches in ways that merit little or no respect (e.g., Ayn Rand's novels). But the problem there is the art, not the artist (not that Rand, herself, wasn't quite some piece of work).
Greg Grandin: [06-21] Cormac McCarthy's unforgiving parables of American empire.
Sarah Jones: [06-24] Anti-vaxxers don't want a debate; they want a spectacle. Image here, with a mask reduced to the space of a Hitler moustache grafted onto a picture of Anthony Fauci, and the caption: "Stop! Faucism," is one way of saying, I'm so dumb, no point arguing with me! One of the most disturbing things about the Republicans (and one of the most Republican things about RFK Jr) is how completely, based on nothing but symbolism and bile, anti-vaxxers have taken over the collective consciousness of the GOP.
Naomi Klein: [05-08] AI machines aren't 'hallucinating'. But their makers are. Too broad a subject to simply endorse her take, although the core idea that AI will serve the powers that control it, which means that in a system of rapacious capitalism, that's what it will mostly be used for. The details are messier. The word "theft" gets thrown around a lot, which needs to be squared with a stiff critique of so-called "intellectual property" rights.
Eric Levitz: [06-23] The recession that didn't happen: Well, didn't happen yet -- Jerome Powell is still promising further rate increases, his pause explained by worry over failing more banks (the health and wealth of banks, after all, being the Fed's true raison d'être).
Nicole Narea: [06-22] What happens now that the Titanic submersible search has ended in tragedy. Not that you need more, but:
Molly Osberg: [06-22] Who wants to die on vacation?
Alex Shephard: [06-20 The media cares more about the Titanic sub than drowned migrants. E.g., [06-19] Up to 600 people drown off Pylos, Greece; [04-28] More than 200 refugees die off Tunisia coast in 10 days; [06-21] Dozens of people drown after dinghy sinks near Canary Islands; [02-26] Dozens of migrants found drowned off Italian coast. The contrast is further explained by Francois Furstenberg: [06-23] A tale of two disasters.
Chas Danner: [06-23] What we've learned from the Titanic sub disaster.
Joseph O'Neill: [03-21] One man's foray into the heartland of the far right: Review of Jeff Sharlet's The Undertow: Scenes From a Slow Civil War.
Alex Park: [06-16] 'Freakonomics' was neoliberal bullshit: "A look back at the bestselling book franchise that taught people to 'think like economists,' by which it meant 'think cynically and amorally.'" The bestseller was written by Steven D Levitt and Stephen J Dubner, and published in 2005, and sold over four million copies, spawning a sequel and other exploitations. I never read it, but I've read several other think-like-an-economist books (the most disturbing being Steven Landsburg's Armchair Economist, which left me haunted by "the principle of indifference"). I don't know about neoliberal, but I've been reading John Quiggin's Economics in Two Lessons, and I have little doubt that Freakonomics qualifies as what Quiggin calls "Lesson One economics": if it looks "cynical and amoral," that's because the theory doesn't allow for anything else.
Heidi Przybyla/Shia Kapos: [06-23] No Labels declines to reveal just who is funding its third party bid. I don't think I've mentioned this "centrist" group, with its plot to offer the distraction of a presidential candidate not aligned with either major party. I've had plenty of opportunities from Democrats who have been whining about third-party candidates on the left since Nader in 2000. This year their pet peeve is Cornell West -- for some reason they assume that they should pocket the votes of everyone on the left, even if they offer nothing in return. But this year, they're even more worried about No Labels siphoning away center votes they do bend over backwards to woo. After all, Biden in 2024 is the only possible protection against Trump (or some equally vicious MAGA maniac), and everyone should be willing to put up with a lot of waffling and compromise to keep that from happening. The fact that the money behind the operation is secret just adds to the air of conspiracy. As does the flirtation with conservative Democrats like Manchin and Sinema, which makes it look like they are prioritizing capturing Democratic votes. I suspect that, like most third party efforts, it won't ultimately amount to much, and is likely to serve as a protest outlet for more disaffected Republicans than Democrats, so may even help Biden. But in any case, the answer isn't to whine. It's to come up with a better campaign, and win so big the third parties are irrelevant.
Dr. David A. Lustig @drdave1999:
Ron DeSantis continues to drop in the polls, as Americans reject the chance to "make America more like Florida."
DeSantis miscalculated badly in believing that voters were looking for an authoritarian strongman with the social skills of a rabid wolverine.