#^d 2024-01-28 #^h Speaking of Which
Front page headline in Wichita Eagle today: Domestic violence killings at all-time high in Wichita. Deeper in the paper, see Dion Lefler: [01-27] Guns are dangerous. The Kansas Legislature's even more so, where he points out that since the KS legislature passed its "constitutional carry" law in 2014, the number of Kansans who have been killed by guns increased 53% (from 329 in 2014 to 503 in 2021).
I've been reading Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War, a painstaking examination of the steps the major European powers took to kick off what they soon called the Great War. It's a long book, and at page 500 the shooting still hasn't started (but will soon, as mobilization has begun). There are some striking similarities to the present: notably the belief that affronts to power have to be answered with violence (whence Austria-Hungary's compulsion to rush to war against Serbia). Also the notion of land as a currency to acknowledge power, which has arguably declined since the days of Europe's imperial carve up of the world, but still persists, especially in Israel's obsession with retaining the land of a depopulated Gaza, and in Russia's grasp of southeastern Ukraine from Luhansk to Crimea. France's eagerness to fight Germany in 1914 stemmed from losing Alsace-Lorraine in 1871.
On the other hand, what we thankfully lack today is the sort of balanced alliances that allowed war to spread almost instantly from Serbia to Flanders. Even though the US imagines it has enemies all around -- and Israel is doing its best to provoke them -- the conflicts are all marginal, mostly with opponents who have little or no appetite for directly attacking the US. It is deeply disturbing to see a nation with so much appetite for destruction floundering about with so little sense of its own needs, and so little concern over its trespasses.
Israel: The genocidal war on Gaza continues, expanding on all fronts.
Mondoweiss:
[01-22] Day 108: Israel is systematically obliterating Gaza, section by section.
[01-24] Day 110: Israeli forces encircle Khan Younis as Gazans risk famine.
[01-25] Day 111: Hospitals under siege, UNRWA shelter bombed in southern Gaza.
[01-26] Day 112: In a historic moment, ICJ moves forward with genocide case against Israel.
[01-27] Day 113: A day after ICJ ruling, U.S. and allies withdraw funding to UNRWA.
[01-28] Day 114: UN chief urges Western countries to restore funding to UNRWA.
Maria Abi-Habib/Sheera Frenkel: [01-28] Where is Hamas getting its weapons? Increasingly, from Israel. I don't know whether this is true or not, but it doesn't seem like the sort of story Israel would like to plant in one of their most obedient media outlets. I expected Hamas to run out of arms long ago, so I'm surprised they're able to fight on. But their ability to fight on makes it easier for Israel to do the same, so maybe they're capturing weapons, maybe they're buying them on the black market, or maybe Israel's just letting them have some? All grist for future conspiracy mills.
Afaf Al Najjar: [01-26] How I get through just one day in Gaza.
Tareq S Hajjaj: [01-24] Gaza's economy has been erased. Famine and black markets are all that remain.
Sarmad Ishfaq: [01-27] Israel's heinous targeted killing programme.
Nicole Narea: [01-23] The war in Gaza isn't going well for Israel, but it's far from over for Netanyahu.
Jeremy Scahill: 21 Israeli troops killed while planting explosives for a controlled demolition in Gaza.
Philip Weiss:
Oren Ziv: [01-24] Israeli police repressing anti-war protests with 'iron fist,' say activists.
The genocide charge vs. Israel
Seth Ackerman: [01-26] Why Israel's war is genocide -- and why Biden is culpable.
Michael Arria:
[01-25] Palestinians are taking the Biden administration to court this week: "a federal court in Oakland will begin hearing arguments in a lawsuit accusing the Biden administration of failing to prevent a genocide in Gaza."
[01-25] The Shift: The Biden administration's pathetic public statements on Gaza.
[01-26] Biden cuts off life-saving aid to Palestinians based on Israeli allegations against UNRWA.
Chip Gibbons: [01-26] ICJ's genocide ruling is a rebuke to Israel and the US.
David Hearst: [01-26] How the ICJ ruling could finally break Israel's siege of Gaza.
Ellen Ioanes: [01-26] The ICJ orders in South Africa's genocide case against Israel, explained.
David Kattenburg: [01-26] ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza and punish calls for incitement.
Jack Mirkinson: [01-26] "This was a watershed moment": What the ICJ's Israel ruling really means: Interview with Omar Shakir, the Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch.
Alba Nabulsi: [01-23] ICJ case 'opens new era between the Global North and South,' says UN expert: Special rapporteur Francesca Albanese.
Hope O'Dell:
[01-26] ICJ rules Israel must take immediate measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza Strip.
Trita Parsi: [01-26] ICJ lands stunning blow on Israel over Gaza genocide charge: "A different Biden approach could have shaped war efforts and prevented this from happening in the first place."
Mitchell Plitnick: [01-26] Biden is following Netanyahu off a cliff.
Lydia Polgreen: [01-28] If we want to live in a world with rules, they have to apply to Israel, too.
Mazin Qumsiyeh: [01-28] Genocide, sex extortion, and people movement. I've been receiving Qumsiyeh's newsletter ever since he came to Wichita to speak in 2004, after which I read his generous and humane book, Sharing the Land of Canaan: Human Rights and the Israeli-Palestinian Struggle, but after a quick glimpse I usually just chuck them into the bit bucket. Lately, however, he's been a useful source for links, and a near-daily reminder of how outraged one should feel over what Israel is doing, and not just in Gaza. Among his many posts, a recent one that stands out is [01-25] Reality and reflection.
Mohannad Sabry: [01-26] After ICJ rule, will Egypt end its complicity with Israel starving Gaza?
Jeremy Scahill: ICJ ruling on Gaza genocide is a historic victory for the Palestinians that Israel vows to defy.
Alice Speri: In federal court, Palestinians accuse Biden of complicity in genocide.
Beyond Israel, wounded, frustrated empires spread war, leading only to more war, suffering, and disturbance:
Dave DeCamp: {01-28] Three American troops killed in drone attack in Jordan: Wait, the US has troops in Jordan? Iraq and Syria, we knew about. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, given that the U.S. has 750 bases in 80 countries -- see Hope O'Dell: [2023-12-18] The US is sending more troops to the Middle East. Where in the world are US military deployed? More US troops abroad (especially in the Middle East) mean more easily accessible targets for those who see the US as responsible for atrocities and repression -- a view that US support for Israel's genocide only adds to. That Americans view their targeting as pretext for reprisals is, once again, the sheer arrogance of power. Also:
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [01-28] 3 US troops killed by drone attack in Jordan.
Peter Baker: [01-28] Biden vows to retaliate after strike against American forces in Jordan. Of course, he did. That is the kneejerk reaction of all tyrants when their doubts are cast on their all-mightiness. He's incapable of original thought on such matters.
Kelly Garrity: [01-28] Republican hawks call for retaliation after 3 killed in Iranian-backed strike: Roger Wicker, Lindsey Graham in the subhed; John Cornyn got the pic for his "Target Tehran" tweet.
John Feffer:
[01-23] Trump allies plot to take over the European Union: "The far right, the war in Ukraine, and the future of the green deal."
[01-25] Are North Korea's latest threats rhetorical or real?
Maha Hilal: [01-25] Israel, the United States, and the rhetoric of the war on terror: "From September 11, 2001, to October 7, 2023 (and beyond)." Starts by quoting Susan Sontag on the former date: "Let's by all means grieve together. But let's not be stupid together."
Michael Horton: [01-24] Houthis now drawing support from former enemies in Yemen.
Daniel McAdams: Executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
[01-26] Neocon freak-out as Biden contemplates Iraq/Syria withdrawal.
[01-28] 'Black Hawk Down' for Biden in the Red Sea. This relates to [01-27] Oil tanker on fire after Houthi missile attack [Antiwar.com link title; article title is "Houthis attack British-linked tanker Marlin Luanda in Gulf of Aden"].
Trump, and other Republicans: Trump, as predicted, won the New Hampshire primary, 54.3% to 43.2% over Nikki Haley, with lapsed candidates Ron DeSantis (0.7%) and Chris Christie (0.5%) far behind.
Isaac Arnsdorf: [01-27] Trump brags about efforts to stymie border talks: 'Please blame it on me'.
Asli Aydintasbas: [01-28] Trump can't be dictator on 'day one' -- or in a second term. Here's why. Consider Erdogan in Turkey.
Zack Beauchamp: [01-21] Ron DeSantis got the Republican Party wrong.
Chas Danner: [01-26] Who is behind the fake Biden robocall in New Hampshire? Why don't we just ban robocalls? Nobody wants to get them. They're not free speech. They drive up the cost of political campaigns, which is both a public burden and conducive of misinformation and quite possibly fraud. It would eliminate at least one arena where AI can (and, if permitted, no doubt will) be misused. It wouldn't be hard to enforce laws against them, and doing so would make us all happier (or at least less unhappy).
David Dayen: [01-26] Party opposed to immigration changes opposes immigration changes: Huh? "Trump, the leak factories explain, wants to run on a lawless border in 2024, and has upended any hope of getting a border/Ukraine swap." This news confirms Dayen's previous piece: Republicans don't want to win an immigration policy fight. The GOP is a political rage machine, so does everything they can to crank up the rage level when Democrats can be blamed. While Republicans aspire to govern, they only do so to spite Democrats, thus keeping them from doing any public good (which divided government and/or control of the courts also achieves). And, sure, they also crave the spoils.
Tim Dickinson: [01-21] The pointless cruelty of Ron DeSantis.
Chris Lehmann:
[01-25] The new do-nothing Congress: "Representatives failed to make progress on most matters of consequence for the past year, but they sure had a lot to say." Both parties have their obstacles, but the Republican House, held largely in thrall by the far-right faction, has the stranglehold, and a philosophical preference for inaction (at least when they can't make matters even worse).
[01-26] Mitch McConnell caves in to Donald Trump yet again. This reminds me of an item to add to the Greene list (below): McConnell had the opportunity, and probably had the clout, to end Trump's political career after Trump vacated the White House in 2021. Trump had been impeached. Had McConnell lobbied a third of the Republicans to vote to convict, then passed a resolution declaring Trump ineligible to run under the 14th Amendment, Trump could not run again, and would have had no reason for sticking to the "big lie" that has ultimately rotted the Republican hive mind. Trump would probably have escaped further indictments -- many people would figure he had been punished already -- or could have pleaded them down to practically nothing, and we wouldn't be facing the potential turmoil and "constitutional crisis" we're currently facing. Republicans would probably have won back Congress in 2022, and be enjoying an open and competitive 2024 primary now, with some candidates vying for Trump's support, but few cowering in fear over his displeasure. But McConnell's always been a greedy opportunist with no long-range vision, so he let impeachment be turned into a petty partisan squabble, and counted what should have been a robust defense of American democracy into a petty win.
Andrea Mazzarino: [01-21] Trump 2.0: "Remaking (or is it breaking?) America in his image."
Kelly McClure: [01-26] Verdict: Donald Trump to pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in damages. More on the Carroll verdict:
Tatyana Tandanpolie: [01-26] Trump causes courtroom disturbance by stomping out of Carroll trial.
Heather Digby Parton: [01-22] Ron DeSantis ends the most humiliating presidential run in history with one final disgrace: "And he took Florida down on his way out." Sure, he was awful, and fully deserved the takedown, but not really the hyperbole. He never was the frontrunner (unlike Jeb Bush in 2016, or Rudy Giuliani in 2008). He never had Michael Bloomberg's $1B in 2020. He outlasted all but two candidates this year (from, it must be admitted, a pretty mangy field). [PS: I wrote from memory this before linking to the Greene list below. Only change I made was to increase Bloomberg's kitty from $500B.]
Charles P Pierce:
[01-23] Surely there are some Republicans who are terrified by this: "Trump swung by New Hampshire to share what I suppose technically qualify as 'thoughts.'"
[01-25] This Tennessee 'abortion trafficking' bill is one of the most messed up things we've seen in a while: "Too many people around here are nostalgic for the days of the Fugitive Slave Act."
Andrew Prokop: For some reason, he feels compelled to be the last journalist alive to take Nikki Haley seriously.
[01-23] How a Haley presidency would be better -- and worse -- than Trump.
[01-23] What would it take for Nikki Haley to win at this point? "Millions of GOP voters would need to rethink their loyalty to Trump and perhaps their life choices." Based on what? The "thinking" that led them to Trump in the first place? (You can't possibly credit the Waldman piece as serious, now can you?)
[01-25] Why Trump fears a Biden-GOP immigration deal: "He doesn't want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it."
Speaking of Haley:
Natalie Allison:
[01-24] 'They've all turned their backs on her': Haley hosts a homecoming in a hostile state.
[01-27] Koch-aligned group tells donors Haley faces steep climb. She'll be gone as soon as the money dries up. Primary campaigns only last as long as the donors want.
Zack Beauchamp: [01-22] Is Nikki Haley a moderate or a conservative? Yes.
Paul Waldman: Nikki Haley is going to lay into Trump, and it will be great to watch: No she isn't, and no it won't.
Nikki McCann Ramirez: [01-25] High-profile Republicans push Texas to defy Supreme Court border ruling.
Adam Rawnsley/Asawin Suebsaeng: [01-24] Trump: The political threats will stop . . . when you agree with my lies: "Democrats are already facing a wave of violent threats."
Sophia Tesfaye: [01-25] Judge sentences Trump adviser Peter Navarro to prison for defying subpoena.
Joan Walsh: [01-27] Another big win for E Jean Carroll. Another loss for Donald Trump.
Paul Street: [01-26] The Atlantic's special issue on "If Trump Wins": A radical critique: An overview that picks some of the weak links apart. The full table of contents and links to online articles are here (if you're a subscriber). I'm not, but probably should: they have some serious, even talented, writers, but also some very mediocre thinkers, especially on foreign policy, where they tend to be very hawkish. (Current articles include: Anne Applebaum: "Is the US really going to abandon Ukraine now?"; Graeme Wood: "Israel's bitter bind"; James Smith: "The genocide double standard"; "Were the Saudis right about the Houthis after all?"; the issue on Trump attacks him for being anti-NATO and for being soft on China.)
Still, there's little here that isn't already well known, and both Street and the Atlantic writers have similar limits: both overrate what Trump says he wants to do, and ignore what he doesn't say, but is deeply embedded in the agendas of the Republican nomenklatura he will inevitably install and empower. Nor do they consider the very real and immense opportunity costs that four more years of Republican misrule will entail. Nor do they have a good sense of what politics can and cannot do, or about forces driven from elsewhere they may at most ameliorate or worsen -- in Trump's case, almost always the latter.
David Freedlander: [01-22] Is Trump really, truly going to be a dictator? "His intellectual defenders make their case that the danger is overblown." This also refers to the Atlantic issue, but then sought out several thinkers who aren't rabid Trump fans but see little to get alarmed about: Roger Kimball, Martin Gurri, Adam L Fuller, Matthew Schmitz, and Matthew Continetti (the only name on this list I'd heard of). Half way through, Freedlander noted: "In an effort to be reassured that Trump was not a danger, I had been treated to a litany of whataboutism, conspiracism, moral relativism, and historical revisionism." The Matthews basically added that Trump's too old, lazy, and jaded to be an effective dictator, and that the system, even though parts aren't especially democratic, would be too hard for him to change (e.g., as an 82-year-old running for a constitutionally-prohibited third term).
Biden and/or the Democrats: The New Hampshire primary, denied recognition by the DNC, was held on Tuesday, with Biden getting 63.9% of the votes as a write-in, to 19.6% for Dean Phillips and 4.0% for Marianne Williamson (who actually has much to commend, especially on peace, especially compared to Biden's recent record).
David Firestone: [01-25] Biden needs to lose it with Netanyahu: "His aides say he is close to losing his patience, but that isn't enough. He needs to actually lose it."
Kayla Guo: [01-28] Pelosi wants FBI to investigate pro-Palestinian protesters: "The former House speaker suggested without offering evidence that some protesters calling for a cease-fire in Gaza had financial ties to Russia and Vladimir V Putin." This story pretty neatly sums up the mental and moral rot at the top of the Democratic Party.
Ed Kilgore: [01-28] 4 reasons Biden's 2024 odds may be better than you think: I'll give you one: in November, folks on the fence are going to have to decide whether not whether they're happy or not, but whether they want change so desperately they'll risk electing a maniacal moron who's vowed to upend everything, or stick with the same boring status quo they've grown accustomed to. Vote for Trump, and you're going to hear about him every day for the next four years, framed by the seething hate he generates among friend and foe alike. Vote for Biden and you'll hardly ever have to hear about him. You don't have to like him, or understand him. You don't have to pretend he's smart, or some kind of great leader. All Democrats need to do is to pass him off as the generic Democrat who, unlike the actual Biden, still wins every poll against Trump. He actually fits that bill pretty well.
Paul Krugman: [01-25] Bidencare is a really big deal. True that Biden has managed some minor improvements over the health insurance reform popularly known as Obamacare, but hard to see how it helps his political pitch. Most of the value provided by the ACA was in arresting some horrifying trends at the time -- like the spread of denials for pre-existing conditions, which was fast making insurance unaffordable and/or worthless -- and slowing down cost increases that were already the worst in the world, but those are fears easily forgotten, leaving little in the way of tangible benefits. Meanwhile, Democrats paid a severe price politically for their troubles, while kicking real reform much further down the road. It's interesting that Biden's campaign seems to be embracing slurs like Bidenomics, but it's far from certain that doing so will help. "Bidencare" just sounds like not much to brag about.
Dean Baker: In honor of Bidenomics (and Bidencare), we'll slot these pieces here, giving Biden the wee bit of credit he deserves:
Eric Levitz: [01-25] A booming economy might not save the Biden campaign.
PE Moskowitz: [01-18] Marianne's people: "To her detractors, presidential candidate Marianne Williamson is a political joke. But for her most fervent supporters, it is, as one of them put it, 'Marianne or death.'" That's dumb way of putting it, at least without naming the death alternative as Joe Biden. Her fringe basis is largely based on her pre-political career, which with all its holistic healing, "New Age self-help speak," and A Return to Love vibes, suggests warm heart but soft head. On the other hand, if you limit yourself to what she says about politics, she actually comes off as pretty sensible.
Legal matters and other crimes:
Liza Featherstone: [01-26] The death penalty is premeditated murder.
Matt Ford: The Supreme Court's silent rulings are increasingly troubling.
Ian Millhiser:
[01-22] The Supreme Court says no, Texas can't use razor wire to restrain federal agents: "By a bare 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court reaffirms that federal law still applies to Texas."
[01-22] Oklahoma is begging the Supreme Court not to make it kill a man.
[01-24] A new Supreme Court case threatens to take away your right to protest: "The Fifth Circuit has spent years harassing a civil rights activist, and they gutted much of the First Amendment in the process."
[01-27] The legal fight over whether Texas can seize control of the border, explained.
Li Zhou: [01-26] A controversial execution in Alabama renews the fight over capital punishment.
Climate and environment:
Jonquilyn Hill: [01-24] Surprise! There's a reason to be (cautiously) optimistic about the climate: "Don't let climate doom win." Interview with Hannah Ritchie, author of Not the End of the World: How We Can Be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet. Not very convincing.
Economic matters:
Timothy Noah: America's rent crisis is getting worse.
Ukraine War:
Connor Echols: [01-26] Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine nears a breaking point: "The window for peace talks is closing as Western support dries up." Most significant point here:
Russia President Vladimir Putin "may be willing to consider dropping an insistence on neutral status for Ukraine and even ultimately abandon opposition to eventual NATO membership" in exchange for keeping the Ukrainian territory Russia currently occupies, according to anonymous people close to the Kremlin who spoke with Bloomberg. The report says the proposal is part of Moscow's quiet signaling to Washington that it is open to talks to end the war, though U.S. officials deny any backchannel communications.
Details need to be worked out, but that sounds like a fairly decent deal to me. It's not worth further war to try to regain the lands that Russia has currently secured, especially as most ethnic Ukrainians have departed, leaving mostly ethnic Russians who seem to support Putin. I would like to see a deal which arranges for internationally supervised referenda in 3-5 years to determine permanent boundaries. Assuming Russia does a decent job of reconstruction, they should be able to win those votes, and if they don't, they should at least recognize they were given a fair chance. Future elections would incentivize good behavior on both sides, especially in reconstruction. While I don't see NATO membership as offering much to Ukraine, Russian submission on the point would signal that they have no further territorial ambitions in Ukraine, which should reduce the threat perception all along the Russian front. Ideally, that could lead to more general agreement on demilitarization.
Note that I haven't changed my mind that Russia was totally in the wrong when they invaded in March 2022. But I've always insisted that conflicts have to be brought swiftly to negotiated ends, and that the only real way to do that is to try to do the best you can for everyone involved. Consequently, the best possible solution has shifted over time, as the underlying reality has shifted and hardened.
Fred Kaplan: [01-26] The truth about Ukraine's decision to give up its nukes in the '90s.
Constant Méheut/Thomas Gibbons-Neff: [01-28] After two years of bloody fighting, Ukraine wrestles with conscription: "A proposed bill on mobilization has become the focus of a debate as more men dodge the draft and calls rise to demobilize exhausted soldiers." One of the few lessons the US did learn in Vietnam was that no army can fight modern war with conscripts.
Joe Gould/Connor O'Brien/Nahal Toosi: [01-26] Lawmakers greenlight F-16s for Turkey after Erdogan approved Sweden's NATO bid.
Around the world:
Zack Beauchamp: [01-27] Narenda Modi is celebrating his scary vision for India's future: "National festivities this week danced on Indian secularism's grave -- and pointed to an existential threat to Indian democracy."
Dylan Matthews:
Freddy Brewster: [01-24] Airlines filed 1,800 reports warning about Boeing's 747 Max: "Since 2020."
Sasha Frere-Jones: [01-23] The Blue Masc: "The brilliant discontents of Lou Reed." A review of Will Hermes' book, Lou Reed: The King of New York.
Amitav Ghosh: [01-23] The blue-blood families that made fortunes in the opium trade: "Long before the Sacklers appeared on the scene, families like the Astors, the Peabodys, and the Delanos cemented their upper-crust status through the global trade in opium." Original title: "Merchants of Addiction," which appeared as a Nation cover story. Covers the historical literature, especially of the Opium War, which the author knows well enough to have written a trilogy of novels on.
Andy Greene: [01-22] The 50 worst decisions in the past 50 years of American politics: "These are the historic blunders, scandals, machinations, and lies that have defined our times." Silly article you can nitpick and re-sort and add your favorites to. But what the hell, let's list them (and I'll spare you the reverse order suspense, although you'll still be expecting things that never materialize*):
*Top of my list here is Colin Powell's WMD speech at the UN (2003), or a dozen other signal blunders leading up to the Iraq war, ahead of the "mission accomplished" fiasco cited. Worse still, at least in my mind, was Bush's 2001 bullhorn speech at the World Trade Center, which kicked off the whole Global War on Terrorism. [PS: See the Jonathan Schell quote at the bottom of this post.]
Items 1-5 and 14 strike me as blown way out of proportion, and mostly contingent on other events that were impossible to predict at the time. Nixon's tapes only started to matter once he had been exposed for lots of other things. Had Ginsberg resigned in the last year of Obama's presidency, McConnell wouldn't have allowed a vote on a successor. Obama only had a Senate majority in his first two years, and Ginsberg outlived them by ten. And had Hillary Clinton won in 2016, as everyone expected, she (not Trump) would have chosen Ginsberg's replacement.
Many of the others testify to the trivia so much of the media prefers to dwell on. Still, I don't get picking on Obama's "guns or religion" gaffe at 32 while ignoring Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables."
Sarah Jones: [01-25] When a rapist's logic is the law. I should have filed this under Republicans, since they're the ones responsible for this sort of thinking (or at least for it becoming ensconced in law), but I felt this piece should stand out, rather than get buried in the rest of their muck.
Joshua Keating: [01-25] It's not your imagination. There has been more war lately. "Why the 'long peace' may be ending." What "long peace"? Looks like he's referring to arguments by Steven Pinker (The Better Angels of Our Nature) and Joshua Goldstein (Winning the War on War) that never had much empirical support, but -- and I'm generally sympathetic on this point -- reflect changing attitudes towards war, at least in wealthier nations where the potential costs are much greater than ever, and benefits are pretty much inconceivable. It's hard to say why this widespread public sentiment hasn't been reflected in policy. Partly it's because War has been hiding as Defense ever since the Department changed its name. Partly it's the corruption built up around the arms industries and other geopolitical interests (oil is a big one). Partly it has to do with the cult belief in power, despite its repeated failures.
The chart here of "estimated fatalities in conflicts involving at least one state military around the world" is farcical, as it seems to exclude wars states fight against their own people, but it also seems to be doing a lot of undercounting: how could you count 2001-11 as the least deadly stretch of time since WWII when the US was constantly fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as killing people with drones in another dozen countries?
Shawn McCreesh: [01-26] The media apocalypse: "Condé Nast and other publishers stare into the abyss." This looks to me like one of many areas where the private sector can no longer be counted on to provide public goods. When that happens, one needs to find other ways. Bailing them out -- hint: banks are another -- may suffice in the short term, but isn't a real solution. Unfortunately, this area is one that's so poisoned by partisanship that it's going to be especially hard to do anything sensible.
Doug Muir:
[01-22] The Kosovo War: 25 years later: An so to war: Fourth part of this series, where "earlier installments can be found here" (cited by me in previous posts). Also, note several long comments by Muir. I suspect there is much more to be covered here, especially as the conflict there seems to be recurring. I didn't think much about Kosovo at the time, although I was struck by the collateral damage (e.g., the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade), and alarmed by the notion that the US could intervene militarily at essentially no risk to American personnel. (The "no fly zone" in Iraq operated on the same principle.) I did pick up one or the other (or maybe both) of the following books, but never read much in them:
[01-24] Why you should watch American football: I haven't watched for decades, and fast forward through the relevant virtual newspaper pages (in their appalling plenitude), but followed it close enough in my youth to recognize the points (also the counterpoints in the comments), and still find it appealing on the rare moments I happen to catch a play. One thing that really helped me was learning to focus on the line play, something Alex Karras brought to the early days of Monday Night Football.
Rick Perlstein: [01-24] American Fascism: "Author and scholar John Ganz on how Europe's interwar period informs the present." Ganz has a new book coming out in June, When the Clock Broke: Con Men, Conspiracists, and How America Cracked Up in the Early 1990s.
Kim Phillips-Fein: [01-24] We have no princes: "Heather Cox Richardson and the battle over American history." A review of her book, Democracy Awakening, which is based on newsletter posts since 2019, contemporary politics viewed by someone with extensive knowledge of history and a general commitment to democratic principles. I've read enough of her work to make me initially want to jump right onto this, like I did with Jill Lepore's These Truths: A History of These United States -- at least until I found a post on Biden's foreign policy that was insanely misconceived. Phillips-Fein, who's written several good books about the rise of the new right, helps explain where and why Richardson turns clueless.
Stephen Prager: [01-24] Conservatives are finally admitting they hate MLK.
Nathan J Robinson:
[01-13] How to spot red flags: Picture is of John Fetterman, who has of late been a disappointment to left-leaning fans.
[01-23] Can Trump be stopped? He was thinking of Lewis Mumford's Myth of the Machine critique of "how society itself can become like a giant machine, integrated with its technologies and directed from above," and noticed:
The interesting typo is this: at one point in my edition, instead of "megamachine," it happens to say "magamachine." Which strikes me as an interesting description of the kind of giant, brainless, unstoppable engine that Donald Trump is trying to build. He plans to fire all the federal bureaucrats who disagree with him, to give himself complete immunity from the laws and to put the whole state in his service. Donald Trump likes having minions. He is building a giant personality cult that defers to him absolutely, and is incapable of self-criticism.
Robinson contrasts this with what he calls "the great exhaustion," combined with "Joe Biden's total incapacity to inspire anyone."
[01-25] Would it be better if we all turned color-blind? Review of the Coleman Hughes book, The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America.
[01-26] Why you should be a Luddite: Interview with Brian Merchant, whose book on the early 19th-century movement is Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech.
Raja Shehadeh: [01-25] In the midst of disaster: A review of "Isabella Hammad's novel of art and exile in Palestine," Enter Ghost.
Jeffrey St Clair: [01-26] Roaming Charges: The impotent empire.
The Nation did us a favor and linked to this old piece by Jonathan Schell: {2011-09-19] The New American Jujitsu. Consider this:
The United States, as if picking up Osama bin Laden's cue, keyed its response to the apocalyptic symbolism, not the genuine but limited reality of the threat from Al Qaeda. It accepted bin Laden's brilliantly stage-managed inflation of his own importance. Soon, the foreign policy as well as the domestic politics of the United States were revolving like a pinwheel around Al Qaeda and the global threat it allegedly posed. Al Qaeda was absurdly likened to the Soviet Union in the cold war and Hitler in World War II, and treated accordingly. "Threat inflation" has a long history in US policy, from the "missile gap" of the 1950s to the Vietnam War, but never has it been so extensively indulged.
Now real, immense forces were in play, for the power of the United States was real and immense, and what it did was truly global in reach and consequence. In his address to Congress nine days after the attack, George W. Bush expanded the "war on terror" to states, declaring, "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." The policy of "regime change" was born, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were launched in its name. There was more. In a speech a few months later, Bush announced, "America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace." In other words, he claimed nothing less than an American monopoly on the effective use of force in the world. The famous White House policy paper of September 2002, the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America," touted the American ideals of "freedom, democracy, and free enterprise" as the "single sustainable model for national success." Politicians and pundits explicitly embraced a global imperial vocation for the United States.
This strategy, and the whole posture it represented, was doomed from the start, for reasons elucidated in Schell's 2003 book: The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People. Yet the lessons remain unrecognized and unlearned in Washington, in Tel Aviv, in Moscow, wherever national leaders instinctively lash out at challenges to their precious power.