October 2023 Notebook | ||||||||||||||||||||
Index Latest 2024 Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2023 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2022 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2021 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2020 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2019 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2018 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2017 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2016 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2015 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2014 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2013 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2012 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2011 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2010 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2009 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2008 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2007 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2006 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2005 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2004 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2003 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2002 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2001 Dec Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb |
Tuesday, October 31, 2023Music WeekExpanded blog post, October archive (final). Tweet: Music Week: 31 albums, 7 A-list Music: Current count 41078 [41047] rated (+31), 32 [31] unrated (+1). I spent most of last week thinking about, shopping for, and finally cooking up this year's birthday dinner. I've made it to 73, which is +3 from my grandfather, and -4 from my father, so it's starting to weigh heavy on my mind. Dinner was served on Friday, as several guests had schedule conflicts for Wednesday. Menu was Spanish:
I also opened up a couple cans and jars: octopus, sardines, artichoke hearts. I had bought much more for possible tapas, but ran out of time to get them prepared, or in some cases simply organized. I mixed up a batch of sangria to drink, and had my traditional coconut cake for dessert, with vanilla ice cream. (I know, reminds you of the "white cake" in Tarrantino's Django Unchained. Sometimes we can't help being who we are.) I meant to write up notes, and will after this post. They should show up in a future notebook entry (which I've already stubbed out, so the link will work, and eventually get you the information). Facebook entry, including a plate pic, is here. A "memory" entry, with a recycled picture of last year's cake, is here. The actual cake was even uglier, and not just because it was less blindingly white. No complaints, except for the guy who was so phobic about seafood he didn't eat anything until the cake was served. Saturday, I woke up with my vision for how the so-called Israel-Hamas War ends, so I quickly wrote it up as the "First Introduction" to my Speaking of Which. I'm reluctant to call it a proposal, because it is not remotely close to people genuinely concerned with justice for all wanted or hoped for. (I know, for sure, that my wife hates it, and nearly all of my research into the conflict owes to her passionate interest.) And I suppose my plea for someone else to pick up these ideas and run with them is partly due to my reluctance to sign my name to it. I have, ever since my late teens, devoted myself to conjuring up utopian solutions to practical problems. Because, well, I've never pretended to be an activist. I'm just a thinker, so why constrain myself to things that other people consider possible? But I've also developed a good deal of pessimism, and that creeps in whenever I consider what's possible, as engineers must. Instantly, when I heard the news of Oct. 7, I understood that Israel's leaders would want to destroy everything and to kill everyone in Gaza, leaving at most an escape hatch through Egypt. I knew that America's leaders would back them to the hilt, as they've long given up any capacity for independent thought, and they're every bit as committed to force as the Israelis. And I expected Israelis to take advantage of this to step up their attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank and elsewhere. And all of that has happened, just as expected. Hence, my first reaction was to warn that this would be nothing less than genocide. That, too, has been born out, though the point of using the word was to make people conscious of the full danger (and I was far from the only one to raise this alarm). I also intuited how things would play out over time. I can't really explain this, but through all my reading, and a fair number of conversations, I've developed this really complex psychological model of most of the people involved. I intuited that a great many Palestinians would stick in Gaza, even daring Israel to kill them. I doubted that Egypt would have welcomed them anyway, or could have dealt with them (as Israel imagined they could). I also suspected that a great many Israelis, even ones who have clearly demonstrated their racism and militarism, would grow weary of the killing, and embarrassed by their own inhumanity. (One book I kept thinking back to was Richard Rhodes' Masters of Death, where he explained that the Nazis, who are our archetypal example of cold-blooded killers, designed their death camp processes out of concern that killing Jews in the field was traumatizing German soldiers. While Nazis made no secret of their hatred for Jews, the enormity of the Holocaust was only possible through stealth, under cover of war.) As the killing continued, as the rubble grew, some sense of need to limit the war would grow, and Israel's leaders, even as blinded as they are, will eventually need some escape from their own handiwork. What's become more and more clear is that Israel can't hide their slaughter in Gaza. The world can, and will, see it, and will not react kindly to the people responsible. And sure, Hamas will get some share of the blame -- they were uniquely responsible for one day, out of more than three weeks now -- but the fact that the slaughter continues, that it has turned into genocide, is solely the dictate of Netanyahu and his mob, not that you should spare those who have aided, abetted, propagandized, and even championed the massacre (which from where I stand mostly look like Americans). My "vision" is just a way to clean up a particularly sore part of a larger, deeper, and still potentially deadly mess. There are lots of things that should happen afterwards. But what makes it practical now is that the people who are immediately responsible don't have to change character. All they have to do is back off, and let others tend to the wounds. Is that really too much to ask? Apologies to those of you who just want the latest music dope, but you must know how to scroll past my rants by now. I had damn near nothing, other than the Clifford Ocheltree picks down in the Old Music section, before I started writing Speaking of Which on Saturday. But I worked through a steady stream of records once I started writing, so with the extra day came up with a semi-normal week. Among the high B+, National and Angelica Sanchez tempted me to replays, but they didn't quite manage to move the needle. This coming week, I will put up a website for the 18th Annual Francis Davis Critics Poll, and I will start communicating with a few possible voters, trying to gauge interest and identify others who should vote with us. The voters from last year are listed here. They will all be invited back, but please let me know if there are any others you read and find useful. I'd like to see more international critics, although those are particularly hard for me to judge. I'm also tempted to slip in a few more jazz-knowledgeable rock critics -- where I figure the minimal qualification is listen to 200+ jazz albums per year (used to be expensive, but easy enough with streaming) and write about at least 5-10 (or more if you, like me, write real short). I'd welcome suggestions from publicists and musicians, but probably not for yourself or each other. (Not an absolute rule, as we've had the odd exception from time to time.) I'm also toying with the idea of forming an advisory board, if you really want to get deep into the weeds. There's a fair chance I won't be doing this beyond this year, so this might be a chance to eventually step up. End of October, so I still need to do the indexing on the archive file. It's also time to reorganize my 2023 list into separate jazz and non-jazz lists. I've already started expanding my tracking file so I'll be ready to look up jazz albums when ballots start to flow in. And I will probably set up my usual EOY aggregate files, as they build on the tracking file, and have long been one of my favorite wastes of time. New records reviewed this week:
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
Old music:
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
Daily LogStarted to write up some belated notes on October 27's belated birthday dinner, but needing to get my Music Week post out first, I've punted them to November 1. Elias Vlanton posted this on Facebook, and Jane Silver added: "Let me say it out loud: these are war crimes!" I commented further:
Monday, October 30, 2023Speaking of WhichPostscript IntroductionNote: It got too late Sunday night before I completed my rounds, much less checked spelling and formatting and did the other bits of housekeeping I need to do before posting, so let this sit overnight. I changed the date to Monday, but didn't make another round. I did add the bits from Twitter, and one more link on the UAW strike, since that not only really matters but wraps up the trifecta. Music Week will be delayed until Tuesday. The extra day has so far been good for two more A- records (surprises at that). By the way, if anyone wants to try reformulating the introduction plan into an op-ed or a more serious proposal, please go ahead and do so (no citation required, but if you want to talk about it, feel free to reach out). I have no standing in mainstream media (or for that matter in solidly left-wing and/or antiwar media), and I have no appetite for throwing myself at their feet. And yes, I understand why the plan as sketched out will be hard for lots of well-meaning folks to swallow. I'm sorry that in politics people hardly ever pay for their crimes. I was 18 when Richard Nixon was elected president, and no one in my lifetime ever deserved to pay more. (Well, maybe Winston Churchill, but he died when I was 14, or Joseph Stalin, who died when I was 2.) But that almost never happens, and even when some measure of justice is meted out, it's never enough. Nixon was granted a pardon, and retired not even to obscurity, but at least out of harm's way. The proposed scheme simply splits off one part of the conflict and arranges it so the sides stop hurting each other. It's urgent to do so because it's turned into a self-destruction pact, as sore to Israel as it is fatal to Gaza. It leaves the rest of the conflict in place, in hopes that Israel will, in good time, recognize that they cannot forever deny Palestinians their dignity. I'm not very optimistic that they will come to their senses, but the odds are better than now, in the fevered heat of war. The key points here are these: you cannot force Israel to do anything they're unwilling to do; you have to give Israel an option that they can choose that doesn't require that they change their fundamental political beliefs; you cannot appeal to the conscience of Israel's leaders, because they don't have a functioning one; you don't have to solve any problem but the immediate one in Gaza; you don't have to deal with Palestine's leaders, because none of them are legitimate; you do have to provide a path where the people of Gaza can live normal lives, in peace and dignity, where they have no practical need to lash out at Israel or anyone else. It is in the interest of the whole world to end this conflict, so it is worthwhile to put some effort into making it work. But for now the only piece you have to solve is Gaza, because that's the one that's spun out of control. First IntroductionFrom early grade school, my favorite subject was "social studies," with geography and history key dimensions. But I also had aptitude for science, at least until an especially boorish teacher turned me off completely. I dropped out of high school, but not finding myself with any other competency, I tested my way into college, where my main studies were in sociology and philosophy. I turned my back on academic studies, but never stopped adding to my store of knowledge -- if anything, I redoubled my efforts after 2000. When microcomputers started appearing around 1979, I bought one, and taught myself to program. Then I discovered that my real skill was engineering -- the practical application of my mindset.Politics turned out to be mostly rhetoric: people were measure by how good they sounded, not by anything they actually did. Sure, social scientists measured things, but mostly their own prejudiced assumptions. But engineers didn't waste their time railing about the injustices of gravity and entropy. Engineers fixed things. And better than that, engineers designed and built things to not break -- or, at least, to serve a useful life before they wore out. So, when I encounter a political problem, I tend to think about it as an engineer would (or should), in terms of function and the forces working against it. I can't be value-neutral in this, nor can anyone, though I'm better at most at recognizing my own prejudices, and at suspending judgment on those of others. A big part of my kit is what Robert Wright calls "cognitive empathy": the ability to imagine someone else's view. This is a skill that is sorely needed, and way too often lacking, in diplomats. (You're most likely to find it in sales, where one is measured on deals made, rather than on political rhetoric that precludes agreement.) So when I encounter a political problem, my instinct is to come up with a solution: an approach that will reduce the conflict in a way that will lead to prolonged stability. It's always tempting to come up with a universal solution based on first principles, but history offers few examples of conflicted sides finding such common ground. That means for most acute conflicts we have to come up with short-range, partial fixes. Over the last twenty years, I've come up with a lot of partial and a few comprehensive solutions to the Israel/Palestine conflict. They've never been taken seriously, by either side, or even by potentially influential third parties. The basic reason is that politically powerful Israelis are unwilling to grant concessions to Palestinians, even a small territory they have no settlement interest in (Gaza), basic human rights, and/or any real measure of economic freedom. There are various reasons and/or excuses for this, but the most important one is that no outside nation nor any possible internal force (nonviolent or not) has anything close to enough power to persuade Israel to change course. So the first rule is you have to give Israel something they would prefer to the course they have charted, which is to lay waste to Gaza, making it uninhabitable to the people who manage to survive their assault. The first lesson Israeli leaders should draw from their war is that while it's easy to kill enough Palestinians to make you look monstrous, it's really hard to kill enough to make any real demographic difference. As long as Palestinians survive and hang onto what's left of their land, they remain to challenge and defy Israeli colonialism, sacrificing their bodies and appealing to international conscience. And while people of good will, many sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, were quick to condemn the violent outbreak, its main effect was to shock Israel into showing their true colors: that domination is based on overwhelming power, and the willingness to use it savagely when provoked. Hence, Israel's response to the uprising -- the deadliest single day in Israel's history -- was first to threaten the total demolition of Gaza and the deaths of everyone who lived there (offering a mass exodus through Egypt as the only path to safety), then a systematic military campaign, starting with massive bombardment and leading to a ground invasion. With over two million people in Gaza, that could amount to the largest genocide since WWII. Israel's one-sided war on Gaza has slogged on for three weeks, with some of the heaviest bombing in recent history, destroying infrastructure, driving more than a million people from their homes, and theatening starvation. The longer this continues, the more world opinion will shift against Israel's brutality, until what little good will remains dissipates in disgust. At some point, Israeli leaders are bound to realize three things: that continuing the killing hurts them more than it helps; that large numbers of Palestinians will stay in Gaza no matter what; and that as long as there are Palestinians in Gaza, the land is of no practical use to Israel. The only viable solution to this is for Israel to cut Gaza loose. The simplest way to do this is to return the mandate to the UN. This doesn't require any negotiations with Palestinians, so it doesn't resolve any issues with Palestinians within Israel, the occupied territories, or refugees elsewhere. Israel simply sets its conditions for the transfer. If the UN accepts, Israel withdraws its troops, and ceases all engagement with Gaza. Given the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding, the UN will have little choice, but everyone would be best served with some minimal understandings. I think the following would be reasonable:
Other items not specified are subject to negotiation, which I imagine will be easier once the break is made, peace is established, and some degree of normalcy returns. Two things I haven't stressed are the desire to disarm Gaza, and the question of inspecting imports to keep weapons from entering Gaza. These things should be implemented voluntarily by Gaza itself. More weapons invites retaliation, which is inevitably collective punishment. As long as Israel retains that right, weapons shouldn't matter to them. Another thing I didn't bother with is the hostage situation. I assume that the hostages will be released, even without negotiation, before amnesty kicks in. Of course, if Hamas is as bloodthirsty as Israel wants you to believe, they could also be executed before amnesty, in which case maybe some negotiation and exchange should take place first. I didn't want to make it more complicated than it had to be. As for the hostages Israel has taken prisoner, that call is up to Israel. Some sort of mass release, especially of prisoners who could be repatriated to Gaza, would be a welcome gesture, but need not be immediate: I hardly think Gaza really needs an influx of radicalized militants, which is the main produce of Israeli jails. Israel gets several major wins here: they gain viable long-term security from threats emanating from Gaza; they give up responsibility for the welfare of Gaza, which they've shown no serious interest in or aptitude for; they get an internationally-recognized clean slate, immediately after committing an especially egregious crime against humanity (they're still liable for future acts against Palestinians, but they get a chance to reset that relationship); they break the link between Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and they tilt the demographic balance in the area Israel controls back to a strong Jewish majority; they get a partial solution to the refugee; and they will have already shown the world how hard they strike back, without having to go complete "final solution." But the biggest concession to Israel is that they get to control the timing, simply because no one can let alone will move to stop them. They can bomb until they run out, which isn't very likely given that the US is already resupplying them. They can kill, maim, destroy, until they run out of targets or simply wear themselves out. Or until they develop a conscience and/or a sense of shame over how world opinion and history will view them. Or until their friends take pity and urge restraint. Or until they start losing more soldiers than they're willing to risk -- the least likely of all, given that nobody is rushing to resupply Gaza with the arms they desperately need to defend themselves (as the US and Europe did for Ukraine). The point -- probably but not certainly short of extermination -- is that eventually Israel will tire of the killing, but still need to dispose of the rubble and the corpses. That's when this framework comes into play. Sooner would be better for everyone, but later is the dominant mindset in Israel today, and one that is unfortunately reinforced by America. What Israel gives up is an endless series of wars and other depredations which make them look like arrogant warmongers, and make them seem malign to most of the people in most of the countries in the world. (Even in the US, even with virtually every politician of both parties in their pockets, their reputation is currently in free fall.) Few Palestinian politicians will welcome this proposal, especially as it isn't even up to them. It's hard to argue that they've served their people well over the years, even if one recognizes that they've been dealt an especially weak hand in face of Israeli ruthlessness. But for the people of Gaza, this offers survival, freedom, and a measure of dignity. And for the world, and especially for the UN, this offers a chance to actually fix something that got broke on the UN's watch 75 years ago and has been an open sore ever since. But sure, this leaves many more problems to be worked on. There are border issues with Lebanon and Syria. There is apartheid, loss of rights, harassment, even pogroms within Israel -- all of which offer reasons to continue BDS campaigns. At some point, Israel could decide to cut off more land to reduce its Palestinian population, but they could also reduce tensions by moving toward equal rights, secure in the expectation of a strong Jewish majority. That might spell the end of the extreme right-wing parties, at least the leverage they've recently held over Netanyahu, and for that matter the end of Netanyahu, who's done nothing but drive Israel over the brink. Meanwhile, all we can really do is to campaign for an immediate ceasefire, both to arrest the genocidal destruction of Gaza and to salvage Israelis from the ultimate shame of their political revenge. The time for both-sidesing this is past. There is little point in even mentioning Hamas any more. This isn't a war. This is a cold, calculate massacre. History will not be kind to the people who laid the foundations of this conflict, and will judge even more harshly those who are carrying it to its ultimate ends. I'll end this intro with something I wrote back on October 9, a mere two days into this "war" (which I initially described as a "prison break and crime spree," before moving on to a comparison to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1944 -- it's not exactly ironic how often Palestinian suffering echoes calamities in Jewish history):
Bold in the original, and still valid here. And three weeks later, you know who you are. Top story threads:Israel: See introduction above. Just scattered links below, one that caught my interest and/or pissed me off. For more newsy stuff, see the "live updates" from Vox; Guardian; Washington Post. There are also "daily reports" at Mondoweiss.
Also on X (Twitter):
Trump, and other Republicans: Big news this week, aside from Trumps trials and fulminations, was the election of Mike Johnson (R-LA) as Speaker of the House. So he's getting some press, raising the question of why anyone who thought Jim Jordan was too toxic could imagine that he'd be any more tolerable.
Biden and/or the Democrats:
Legal matters and other crimes:
Climate and environment:
Umair Irfan/Benji Jones: [10-26] How Hurricane Otis defied forecasts and exploded into a deadly storm overnight. The Pacific hurricane intensified extraordinarily fast to reach category 5, before hitting Acapulco. Christopher Ketcham: [10-29] When idiot savants do climate economics: "How an elite clique of math-addled economists hijacked climate policy." Starts with William Nordhaus. Elizabeth Kolbert: [10-26] Hurricane Otis and the world we live in now. Ian Livingston: [10-24] Earth's climate shatters heat records. These 5 charts show how. Kasha Patel: [09-25] Antarctica just hit a record low in sea ice -- by a lot. Matt Stieb: [10-26] Scenes of the destruction in Acapulco after Hurricane Otis. Ukraine War:
Around the world:
Other stories:Kelly Denton-Borhaug: [10-29] The dehumanization of war (please don't kill the children): Always two titles at this site, so I figured use both, for this "meditation for Veterans Day," which I could have filed under Israel or Ukraine or possibly elsewhere, but thought I'd let it stand alone. Starts in Hiroshima, 1945 with what Stalin would have called a "statistic," then focuses in on a 10-year-old girl, whose mother was reduced to "an unrecognizable block of ash," with only a single gold tooth to identify her. The author has a book about American soldiers but the theme is universal: And Then Your Soul Is Gone: Moral Injury and U.S. War-Culture. Lloyd Green: [10-29] Romney: A Reckoning review: must-read on Mitt and the rise of Trump: "McKay Coppins and his subject do not hold back in a biography with much to say about the collapse of Republican values." Also on the Romney book:
John Herrman: [10-27] What happens when ads generate themselves? I wish this was the most important article of the week. This is a subject I could really drill down hard on, not least because I think advertising is one of the most intrinsically evil artifacts of our world. And because "artificial intelligence" is a pretty sick oxymoron. Bruce E Levine: [10-27] Why failed psychiatry lives on: Seems like someone I would have gained much from reading fifty years ago (although R.D. Laing, Thomas Szasz, Paul Goodman, and Neil Postman worked for me). Sophie Lloyd: [10-28] Disney's 8 biggest mistakes in company's history: I wouldn't normally bother with a piece like this, but as mistakes go, these are pretty gross. I mean, after their treatment of slavery and Indians, and their mistreatment of lemmings, number eight was an omnibus "A long history of sexism." James C Nelson: [10-27] Just another day in NRA paradise: I suppose I have to note that another crazy person with an assault rifle killed 18 and injured 13 more in Lewiston, Maine, last week. This article is as good a marker as any. You know the drill. If you want an update: Kelly McClure: [10-27] Suspect in Maine mass shootings found dead. Will Oremus/Elizabeth Dwoskin/Sarah Ellison/Jeremy B Merrill: [10-27] A year later, Musk's X is tilting right. And sinking. Nathan J Robinson: I could have split these up all over today's post, but want to point out the common source of so much insight:
Jeffrey St Clair: [10-27] Roaming Charges: That oceanic feeling. Lead section on climate change (remember that?) and environment. I didn't realize that small planes still burn leaded gasoline. Then the dirt on Mike Johnson. Then a much longer list of criminal injustices. Plus other things, like a Nikki Haley quote ("I'm tired of talking about a Department of Defense. I want a Department of Offense.") Evaggelos Vallianatos: [10-27] Slauighter of the American buffalo: Article occasioned by the Ken Burns documentary, which may be an eye-opener if you don't know the story, and adds details if you do. It is a classic case of how insatiable world markets suck the life out of nature, and how the infinite appetites of financiers, who've reduced everything to the question of how much more money their money can make. Richard D Wolff: [10-27] Why capitalism cannot finally repress socialism. This assumes that some measure of sanity must prevail. And yes, I know that's a tautology, as socialism is the sanity that keeps capitalism from tearing itself apart and dissolving into chaos. Nothing from The New Republic this week, as they decided I'm "out of free articles," even though I'm pretty sure we have a valid subscription. Not much there that isn't elsewhere, although I clicked on close to ten articles that looked interesting, before giving up, including one called Kyrsten Sinema's Delusional Exit Interview. AlterNet has a similar article: Carl Gibson: [10-30] 'I don't care': Kyrsten Sinema plans to cash in on Senate infamy if she loses reelection in 2024. Saturday, October 28, 2023Daily LogAlbert Einstein quote found on Facebook: "Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding." Another Einstein quote: "Mankind invented the atomic bomb, but no mouse would ever construct a mousetrap." Onion headline: Biden Expresses Doubts That Enough Palestinians Have Died. Article quotes Biden as saying: "I have no confidence that the death toll provided by the Hamas-run Ministry of Health is as high as it should be." Less authentically, "Perhaps when the fog of war has cleared, we'll realize Israel has killed more Palestinians than necessary, but now is not the time to ease up." No one in the "fog of war" recognizes it as such. An earlier Onion headline: U.S. warns a Gaza cease fire would only benefit humanity. Tuesday, October 24, 2023Music WeekExpanded blog post, October archive (in progress). Tweet: Music Week: 44 albums, 1 A-list Music: Current count 41047 [41003] rated (+44), 31 [27] unrated (+4). I took an extra day this weekend. I decided to hold off starting Speaking of Which until late Saturday, and then write intro instead of searching for links. I struggled Sunday with what turned out to be a false start, then wrote yet another intro, taking a break midway to collect some links. It got late, and I decided I should hold off and write up the missing outline points Monday afternoon. Took most of the day before I posted. I then did the cutover for Music Week, but by then I didn't feel like writing any form of this intro, so I sat on it until Tuesday, fairly late. Tuesday afternoon got wiped out in grocery shopping, a first pass toward a birthday dinner later this week. Frankly, I'd rather think about that than this, but last week is in the bag, so I might as well wrap it up quick. Next week will be short. I seriously doubt I'll get any listening in until Saturday. I certainly won't be starting another Speaking of Which. And I wouldn't mind just punting for the year. The world has a long ways to go to catch up with what I've written already. What I do hope to write about next week is the 18th Annual Francis Davis Jazz Poll. I've set up the result directory locally, so I need to post that. The main thing I want to do in the next couple weeks is to expand the voter list. To that end, I'm trying to take a more systemmatic survey of who's writing what. I'd like to extend invites to another 30-50 critics -- probably half outside the US, which (I don't have a reliable count, so I'm only guessing) could double the number of non-US critics. I doubt this will skew the results much, but it should broaden the base. That would be a big plus for people like me who find the bottom two-thirds of the list more interesting than the winners. As for this week, I started off with a premature jazz ballot, where half of the records selected were unheard by me. The Miles Davis archival piece got me looking at recent Fresh Sound reissues, mostly albums from the 1990s when Jordi Pujols set up sessions with many of his cool jazz heroes, and I wanted to hear them all. (I already knew several, especially with Herb Geller and Bud Shank, and also some very good Charlie Mariano records.) Then I read that John Zorn's Tzadik records are returning to streaming platforms. (I followed them fairly close before they picked up their toys and headed home.) Tzadik is much more than Zorn's personal label, but he's so prolific all I managed this week was his own 2023 releases (plus a couple slightly older). Still reading Christopher Clark's Revolutionary Spring, now almost 600 pages in, as the revolutionary hopes get dashed by right-wingers. While I'm not a fan of violence coming or going, that coming from the right is always particularly bitter. New records reviewed this week:
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
Old music:
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
Monday, October 23, 2023Speaking of WhichAfter a grueling Speaking of Which last week (9497 words, 125 links), I resolved this week not start my article search until Sunday: partly because many of the week's stories are quickly evolving, but mostly because I said pretty much what I wanted to say last week (and much of it the week before). But the way this column comes together is a lot like surfing: you look around, notice an interesting wave, and try to ride it. The process is very reactive, each little bit giving you a glimpse of some still unparsed whole, further obscured by a sort which obliterates order. What I want to do this week is to start by making a few points that I think need to be highlighted, as plainly and clearly as possible.
The next section is my "thesis-oriented" original introduction. (I only got down to 13 before scratching it as the lead and writing the newer one above, but will try to knock out the rest before I post on Monday.) Finally, there is another note on foreign policy at the end of the post, which I jotted down back on Saturday. This week's links came out of a very quick scan of sources. Actually, when I started writing an introduction on Sunday, I intended a numbered list, with about a dozen items on it. What follows is as far as I got, before turning to the shorter statement above.
The October 6 attacks were immediately met with a deafening roar of condemnation, at least in America and probably in Europe, even by people who have long been very critical of Israel's brutal occupation and long history of duplicity and propaganda. That's fine on a personal level, but what Israeli leaders were looking for, and what they heard, was assent to respond with violence in even greater orders of magnitude. When one said "terrorism," they heard "kill them all." When one said "this is Israel's 9/11," they heard "it's time for all-out war." And when Israelis threatened genocidal revenge, and got little or no pushback from their old allies, the die was cast. They would bomb and kill until even they couldn't stand it anymore. And it would happen not because of what Hamas did, but because they had started down this road a century ago. (There's a book called Jerusalem 1913 which offers one credible landmark date.) Because no one ever took the threat seriously enough to stop them. Because they pulled the occasional punch and laughed it off. Because we fellow settler colonists secretly admired them. It's tempting to think that world opinion, not least the rich Americans who bestow so much generosity on Israel, could talk Israel down from this precipice of genocide. In that light, Biden's public embrace and endorsement seems not just foolish but cowardly. I won't argue that it's not. But I'm reminded of something that David Ben-Gurion liked to say: "it only matters what the Jews do." And here, unencumbered by public opinion and other people's morality, they will surely do what they've always wanted to do, and reveal themselves as they truly are. Or at least some of them will: the ones naively given so much deadly power. [PS: Ben-Gurion said a lot of ridiculous bullshit, so scouring Google for an exact quote is hard and painful. Closest I came to this one was "it does not matter what the goyim say, but what the Jews do." But my memory is more to my point.] Two more personal items for possible future reference:
Calling for a ceasefire should be one of the easiest and sanest things any politician can do. That politicians are reluctant to do so suggests that someone is snapping the whip hard behind them. For instance, I just saw this tweet: A senior adviser to [UK Labour Party leader Keir Starmer was asked how many Gazans have to die before Labour will call for a ceasefire. The reply came: "As many as it takes . . ." Top story threads:Israel:
Trump, and other Republicans:
Legal matters and other crimes:
Ukraine War:
Other stories:Brian Merchant: [10-20] On social media, the 'fog of war' is a feature, not a bug. "Even if that haze has occasionally been punctured for the greater good, as when it's been used for citizen journalism and dissident organizing against oppressive regimes, social media's incentive structure chiefly benefits the powerful and the unscrupulous; it rewards propagandists and opportunists, hucksters and clout-chasers." David Pogue: [10-19] My quest to downsize without throwing anything away: "A big old house full of belongings -- could I find them all a new life?" Vincent Schiraldi: [10-16] Probation and parole do not make us safer. It's time to rethink them. Some troubling examples and statistics. Author also has a new book: Mass Supervision: Probation, Parole, and the Illusion of Safety and Freedom. Jeffrey St Clair: [10-20] Born under punches: Counterpunch 30th anniversary. We went to the Global Learning Center's annual banquet on Saturday, where we were lectured by Bob Flax, past executive director of Citizens for Global Solutions, on the need for effective world government. I was pretty much aligned with their thinking 25 years ago, when I started thinking about some kind of major political book. I circulated a draft of about 50 pages to some friends, and every time I mentioned anything in that direction, I got savage comments from one reader. The gist of her comments was: no fucking way anything like that's going to fly. I had to admit she was right, which killed that book idea -- though after 2001 events suggested more urgent political book tasks. Clearly, the idea of a benign global authority which can lawfully arbitrate disputes between nations has considerable appeal. Flax started his presentation by pointing out how the superior government of the US Constitution resolved disputes and standardized practices, at least compared to the previous Articles of Confederation. On the other, every government presents an opportunity for hostile takeover by special interests -- or for that matter, for its own bureaucratic interests. There are, of course, reasonable designs that could limit such downsides, but they will be resisted, and it doesn't take much to kill a process that requires consensus. Consequently, I've found my thinking heading toward opposite lines. Instead of dreaming of an unattainable world order, why not embrace the fact that nations exist in a state of anarchy? It's been quite some time since I looked into the literature, but I recall that a fair amount of thought has been put into functioning of anarchist communities. The key point is that since no individual can exercise any real power over anyone else, the only way things get done -- at least beyond what one can do individually -- is through cooperative consensus-building. The smartest political book to appear in the last 20-30 years is Jonathan Schell's The Unconquerable World -- maybe smarter than Schell realized, as he doesn't spend nearly enough time on the insight of his title. Yet, at least since 2000, efforts to conquer and occupy other parts of the world have nearly all been doomed to failure: the US in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Somalia and Libya and Syria); Saudi Arabia in Yemen; Russia in Ukraine; Israel in Gaza. None of these were what you'd call underdogs, yet they ultimately couldn't overcome the resistance of the people they meant to subdue. (China may prove an exception in Sinkiang, where they have huge advantages, but probably not in Taiwan, where they don't.) Unable to conquer, the only recourse is to deal with the other nation as an equal, to show respect and to search out areas that may be mutually beneficial. American reliance on power projection and deterrence seems to be habitually baked in, which is strange, given that it has almost never worked. On the other hand, what has worked -- at least for US business elites (benefits for American workers are less plentiful) -- has been generous bilateral and multilateral engagement with "allies." Of course, I didn't bring this up in the long Q&A period that followed. A who guy spends all his life working on a nice dream shouldn't have it trampled on just because I'm a skeptic, but also I doubt I could have expressed such a profound difference of opinion in a forum that was predisposed to the speaker. But had I spoken up, most likely I would have held myself to a smaller, tangential question: is anyone in his circles seriously talking about a right to exile? Sure, they are big on the ICC, which they see as necessary to enforce international laws against war crimes and human rights abuses. The ICC rarely works, as it depends on being able to get their hands on suspects. (I think it would work better as a reference court, where it could validate facts and charges, in absentia if necessary, but not punish individuals.) A "right to exile" offers people convicted in one country the chance to go into exile elsewhere, if some other country decides the charges are political in nature or simply unjust. This is both a benefit to the individual freed and to the country, which no longer has to deal with a troublesome person. This is also likely to reduce the level of international hostility that is tied to the perception of people being treated unfairly. And it should reduce the incentive that countries have for prosecuting their own citizens. It could also reduce the need to determine whether immigrants need to be protected as refugees. I've never seen anyone argue for such a right, but it seems to me that it would make the world a slightly better place. (When I looked up "right to exile," most references concern whether a state has a right to exile (or banish) its citizens -- something that is widely frowned upon. I could see combining both meanings, provided there is a willing recipient country, and the person is agreeable to the transfer. I have a few dozen off-the-cuff ideas worth pitching, some simple and practical, others more utopian (for now, anyway). Paul Goodman wrote a book called Utopian Essays & Practical Proposals. That strikes me as a super subtitle, to say the least. His 1949 proposal for a car-free Manhattan still strikes me as a pretty good one. Monday, October 16, 2023Music WeekExpanded blog post, October archive (in progress). Tweet: Music Week: 20 albums, 3 A-list Music: Current count 41003 [40983] rated (+20), 27 [26] unrated (+1). I worked up a monster Speaking of Which this week (9497 words, 125 links). It was a maddening process, as I kept tripping into rabbit holes and digging in even further, before punting, and repeating. A big part of the problem is that years of repetition has locked people into language and conceptual ruts that were designed to perpetuate conflict, to dehumanize opponents, and to justify abuse of power. I found myself having to define "war" -- as opposed to other degrees and durations of directed violence. I found myself trying to write some kind of disquisition on morality. I got stuck in questions of sequence and causality. And I could always reach back into an encyclopedia of historic facts to illustrate any point I wanted to make. But all the articles I was collecting were just spinning around, some damn near nonsensically. Still, one point was instantly clear to me from the first reports: Israelis -- not all, but probably most, or at least most of the ones who have any actual political power -- want to empty the entire land of Israel/Palestine of Palestinians, and there are few if any limits to what they're willing to do to accomplish that goal. In other words, they are aiming for genocide, and they are looking for excuses to do it; perhaps I should say, for opportunities to get away with it? This isn't a new sentiment. It was baked into Zionism from the beginning, but only surfaced as something one could say in 1936, when the Peel Commission proposed partition and forced "transfer" -- the first of many such euphemisms. The plan was put into practice in 1948, as the Deir Yassin massacre was staged to terrorize Palestinians into fleeing -- as more than 700,000 did during Israel's War of Independence. But in the 1967 war, Israel's plans for further mass expulsions had to be toned down to keep from offending the US and its allies (only about 200,000, of a growing population, fled). But as Israel's government has lurched ever more to the right, and as the US has become ever more subservient to Israel's right, the talk and action, especially led by the settlers, has only picked up, reaching a crescendo in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attack. The only way to stop this genocide is to make Israel ashamed for even thinking such thoughts. Railing against Hamas won't help. If anything, it only emboldens Israel. While I was working on this, I found it very hard to prospect for new music, and even harder to write about it. I got off on an odd r&b sax tangent early in the week. I was lucky to come up with three good new saxophone albums (Nachoff fell just shy of the mark with an excess of strings). But what really made this week so difficult was the death of Donald Barnes (81), known to all of us as Tookie. He came into our lives when he married my dear cousin Jan in 1960. They grew up in Kinsley, KS, and married right out of high school. His father was a welder, and he learned that trade very young. They followed his father to a shop in Wyoming for a couple years, before coming back to Kansas. He got a job at Cessna, and they lived in Wichita for about a year when I was in 9th grade. Their love and friendship was about all that got me through that year. They adopted a daughter that year, Heidi, and I've never seen anyone as happy as he was when he signed the papers. Not long after that, they had a son, Patrick. But Jan hated the big city, so they left, first to Hugoton in western Kansas, where he built feedlots, and then to Idaho to work on a pipeline. They wound up settling in Soda Springs, where he worked at Monsanto's phosphate plant, becoming an electrician as well as a welder. There was nothing mechanical he couldn't master. Someone once complimented me as the "most competent person" she had ever met. For me, that person was Tookie. Jan refused to go to college, and wound up working low-paid jobs which she was totally overmatched for. But they loved the outdoors, camping, and hunting. Tookie was an artist, hunting elk with bow and arrow, tying his own flies, crafting antique guns (including a blunderbuss). But the moose head that dominates their living room was Jan's doing. He was quiet and fastidious, with a sly and mischievous sense of humor. She was a force of nature, energizing all around her. She was (well, is) one of the most formidable cooks in the family, continuing to make industrial quantities of bread and rolls for her local farmers market each week. They've always struck me as one of the world's most perfectly suited couples. I could dredge up dozens, maybe hundreds, of stories, missing only a stretch in the middle of our lives when distance kept us apart. First time Laura and I took a trip together, we went to Yellowstone, then to Soda Springs to see Jan and Tookie. Heidi had been to college, but was there and proclaimed us "perfect for each other," which pretty much sealed the deal. We won't talk about politics here, except to note that no matter we might have disagreed on those things, it never got in the way of our love for each other. New records reviewed this week:
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries: None. Old music:
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
|
Expanded blog post, October archive (in progress).
Tweet: Music Week: 22 albums, 1 A-list
Music: Current count 40983 [40961] rated (+22), 26 [31] unrated (-5).
I expected this week's report to be delayed, and even so short. My plan was to entertain company, and do some fairly serious cooking. My niece came for a visit, but I came down with something undiagnosed and was a terrible host (though I did finally manage to knock out a decent phat thai). But rather than wait another day or two, I found a few minutes to knock this out before bed Monday, and figured it would be best to put it behind me.
Speaking of Which posted Sunday afternoon. I haven't followed the news since then, but I do have one important thing to say:
Anyone who condemns Hamas for the violence without also condemning Israel for its violence, and indeed for the violence and injustice it has inflicted on Palestinians for many decades now, is not only an enemy of peace and social justice, but under the circumstances is promoting genocide.
Anyone who has been paying attention must recognize by now how the Israeli people have been primed to commit massive and indiscriminate slaughter. And they must also understand that Israel, unlike Hamas, has the military power to do so. When Americans swear they continue to stand wholeheartedly with Israel, and don't show any concern for the great likelihood that Israel will commit atrocities, they are assuring Israeli leaders that anything they do will be excused. By the way, the one thing sending American naval ships into the Eastern Mediterranean reminds me of is how they stood by idly while Sharon orchestrated the Sabra and Shatila massacre of Palestinian refugees in Beirut.
As someone who believes in peace, and who has always condemned violence and prejudice on all sides, I am bothered that Hamas has chosen to respond to this cruel occupation in such a manner. But I am also aware that nothing else any group of Palestinians have attempted to secure fundamental human rights that we take for granted in America has made any headway with Israel.
For now, I'll leave it at that, aside from reproducing a tweet I managed Sunday evening:
On 9/11 I remember Netanyahu & Peres on TV, all smiles, lecturing us on how now we know it feels like to be targets of terrorism, and offering us their sage advice on how to fight and control terrorists. Not so jovial today, as all they thought they knew has blown up.
Nothing much to add to the reviews below, except that the new ones that came closest (Armand Hammer, Sarah Mary Chadwick) got multiple plays without quite convincing me. And while I showed a slight preference for one of the Yazoo comps, I would have gone with the higher grade for a 2-CD package.
New records reviewed this week:
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
Old music:
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
Sick today, feeling bad enough there was nothing better to do than take a nap. Got up and tweeted this:
On 9/11 I remember Netanyahu & Peres on TV, all smiles, lecturing us on how now we know it feels like to be targets of terrorism, and offering us their sage advice on how to fight and control terrorists. Not so jovial today, as all they thought they knew has blown up.
I wrote the introduction below before Israel blew up. On Saturday, I moved my irregular section on Israel up to the top of the "top story threads" section, ahead of the breakout on the House Speaker -- lots of links there, but the story is pretty pat. The Israel introduction was written Saturday afternoon. I resolved to post this early Sunday, as I have other things I need to do in the evening, so my coverage of the rapidly unfolding Israel story is limited. Still, I think the lessons are obvious, even if no one is writing about them. When I see lines like "this is Israel's 9/11" I process that differently: for America, 9/11 was a sad, sobering day, one that should have led us to a profound reassessment of our national fetish of power; instead, America's leaders took it as an unpardonable insult, and plotted revenge in a foolish effort to make any further defiance unthinkably costly. It didn't work, and in short order America had done more damage to itself than Al Qaeda ever imagined.
The only nation in the world even more hung up on its ability to project power and impose terror is Israel -- so much so that America's neocons are frankly jealous that Israel feels so little inhibition about flaunting its power. Today's formal declaration of war was another kneejerk move. But until Israelis are willing to consider that they may be substantially at fault for their misfortunes, such kneejerk moves will continue, hurting Israel as much as its supposed enemies.
Good chance Music Week won't appear until Tuesday, if then.
I ran across this paragraph on conservatism in Christopher Clark's Revolutionary Spring (pp. 251-252), and thought that, despite its unfortunate source, it has something to say to us:
In a sympathetic reflection on Metternich's political thought, Henry Kissinger, an admirer, exposed what he called 'the conservative dilemma'. Conservatism is the fruit of instability, Kissinger observed, because in a society that was still cohesive 'it would occur to no one to be a conservative'. It thus falls to the conservative to defend, in times of change, what had once been taken for granted. And -- here is the rub -- 'the act of defense introduces rigidity'. The deeper the fissure becomes between the defenders of order and the partisans of change, the greater becomes the 'temptation to dogmatism' until, at some point, no further communication is possible between the contenders, because they no longer speak the same language. 'Stability and reform, liberty and authority, come to appear as antithetical, and political contests turn doctrinal instead of empirical.
I draw several conclusions from this:
Reactionaries always emerge too late to halt, let alone reverse, the change they object to. Change is rarely the result of deliberate policy, which makes it hard to anticipate and understand. And change creates winners as well as losers, and those winners have stakes to defend against reactionary attack.
What finally motivates reactionaries is rarely the change itself, but their delayed perception that the change poses a threat to their own power, and this concern dominates their focus to the exclusion of anything else. They become rigid, dogmatic, eventually turning their ire on the very idea of flexibility, of reform.
Having started from a position of power, their instinct is to use force, especially to repress anyone who threatens to undermine their power, including those pleading for reasonable reforms. Reason itself becomes their enemy.
While they may win political victories, their inability to understand the sources and benefits of change, their unwillingness to entertain reforms that benefit others, drives their agenda into the realm of fantasy. They fail, they throw tantrums, they fail even worse. Eventually, they're so discredited they disappear, at least until the next generation of endangered elites repeats the cycle.
Consider several major sources of change since 1750 or so:
Most profound has been the spread of ideas and reason, which has only accelerated and intensified over time. One was the discovery that we are all individuals, capable of reason and deliberate action, and deserving of respect. Another is that we belong to communities.
Most relentlessly powerful has been the pursuit of profit: the basic instinct that preceded but grew into capitalism.
The incremental development of science and technology, which has been accelerated (and sometimes perverted) by capitalism.
The growth of mass culture (through print, radio, television, internet), and its subsequent fragmentation.
The vast increase in human population, made possible by longer lives and by the near-total domination of land (and significant appropriation of water and air) on Earth, driven by the above.
Nobody anticipated these changes. Though reactionaries emerged at every stage, they failed, and were forgotten, as generations came to accept the changes behind them, often railing against changes to come. It tells you something that conservatives claim to revere history, but history just dismisses them as selfish, ignorant cranks.
Of course, there is no guarantee that today's reactionaries won't win their political struggles. There may be historical examples where conservatives won out, like the Dark Ages following the Roman Empire, or the closing of China in the 15th Century. But human existence is so precariously balanced on limits of available resources that the threat they pose is huge indeed. Maybe not existential, but not the past they imagine, nor the one they pray for.
Israel: Last week I folded this section into "World." Friday night I thought about doing that again, which a single link reviewing the Nathan Thrall book wouldn't preclude. Then, as they say, "all hell broke loose." When I got up around Noon Saturday, the Washington Post headline was: Netanyahu: 'We are at war' after Hamas attack. What he probably meant is "thank God we can now kill them all with impunity, all the while blaming our acts on them." The memory of occupiers is much shorter and shallower than the memory of the occupied. The first tweet I saw after this news was from a derecka, who does remember:
Palestinians can't march, can't pray, can't call for boycotts, can't leave, can't stay, can't publish reports, what's should people do? land acknowledgments?
Here's another tweet, from Tony Karon:
Is Netanyahu threatening genocide? "We will turn Gaza into a deserted island. To the citizens of Gaza, I say. You must leave now." Everyone knows the 2m Gazans can't leave because Israel has locked them in for decades. So how will he make it a "deserted island"
Netanyahu is Prime Minister, comanding one of the world's largest and most sophisticated war machines, so I don't think you can dismiss such threats as idle huffing. Looking backward, Doug Henwood tweeted:
Some perspective -- since September 2000:Palestinians killed by Israeli forces: 10,500
Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians: 881That's a 12/1 ratio.
I've written hundreds of thousands of words on Israel since 2001. (You can find most of them in my notebooks and also in the "Last Days" series of book drafts.) I've read a lot. I've tried to be reasonable. I've never described myself as "pro-Palestinian" (or pro- any nation or ethnic group, not even American). I suppose you could say I'm "anti-Israeli" in the sense that I object to many policies Israel practices, also "anti-Zionist" in the sense that I believe Zionism is a fundamentally flawed creed and ideology. Still, I always felt that Jews had a right to settle in what became Israel. I just objected to the terms they imposed on the people who lived there before them, and continue to live there.
One piece I can point to is one I wrote on November 17, 2012, which is as good a place as any to start. In 2000, Ariel Sharon took over as Prime Minister, demolished the Oslo Accords that promised some sort of "two-state" division of Israel and Palestine, and provoked the second Intifada (Palestinians called this the Al-Aqsa Intifada, although I've always thought of it as the Shaul Mofaz Intifada, for the Defense Minister whose heavy-handed repression of Palestinian demonstrations kicked the whole thing off). By 2005, the Intifada was defeated in what isn't but could be called the second Nakba (or third, if you want to count the end of the 1937-39 revolt). Sharon then pulled Israel's settlers from their hard-to-defend enclaves in Gaza, sealed the territory off, and terrorized the inhabitants with sonic boom overflights (which had to be stopped, as they also bothered Israelis living near Gaza).
Hamas shifted gears, and ran in elections for the Palestinian Authority. When they won, the old PA leadership, backed by Israel and the US, rejected the results, and tried to seize power -- successfully in the West Bank, but they lost local control of Gaza to Hamas. Ever since then, Israel has tried to managed Gaza as an open-air jail, walled in, blockaded, and periodically strafed and bombed. One such episode was the subject of my 2012 piece. There have been others, every year or two -- so routine, Israelis refer to them as "mowing the grass."
Once Sharon, Netanyahu, and the settlers made it impossible to partition the West Bank -- something, quite frankly, Israel's Labor leaders as far back as 1967 had never had any intention of allowing -- the most obvious solution in the world was for Israel to cut Gaza free, allow it to be a normal, self-governing state, its security guaranteed by Egypt and the West (not Israel), with its economy generously subsidized by Arab states and the West. This didn't happen because neither side wanted it: Palestinians still clung to the dream of living free in their homeland (perhaps in emulation of the Jews), so didn't want to admit defeat; and Israelis hated the idea of allowing any kind of Palestinian state, and thought they could continue to impose control indefinitely. Both sides were being short-sighted and stupid, but one should place most of the blame on Israel, as Israel had much more freedom to act sensibly. But by all means, save some blame for the US, which from 2000 on has increasingly surrendered its foreign policy to blindly support Israel, no matter how racist and belligerent its politicians became.
I'll add a few more links, but don't expect much. It looks like this will take weeks to play out, and while the lessons should be obvious to any thinking being, Israel and America have dark blinders to any suggestion that the world doesn't automatically bend to their will.
Updates, by Sunday afternoon: Israel formally declares war against Hamas as hundreds killed on both sides; U.S. to provide arms, shift naval group toward Mideast; death toll in Israel, Gaza passes 1,100.
Zack Beauchamp: [10-07] Why did Hamas invade Israel? "The assault on southern Israel exposed the reality of the Palestinian conflict."
Jonathan Cook: [10-08] The West's hypocrisy towards Gaza's breakout is stomach-turning.
Jonathan Guyer: [10-07] This Gaza war didn't come out of nowhere: "Everyone forgot about the Palestinians -- conditions have been set for two decades, and Biden's focus on Israel-Saudi talks may have lit the match."
Maha Hussaini: [10-08] Why Gaza's attack on Israel was no surprise.
Ellen Ioanes: [10-07] Hamas has launched an unprecedented strike on Israel. Here's what you need to know.
Lubna Masarwa: [10-07] Israel 'can no longer control its own fate' after stunning Palestinian attack: Interview with Meron Rapoport, arguing that "Israeli military and intelligence is at a new low."
Haggai Matar: [10-07] Gaza's shock attack has terrified Israelis. It should also unveil the context: "The dread Israelis are feeling after today's assault, myself included, has been the daily experience of millions of Palestinians for far too long."
James North: [10-03] Nathan Thrall has written a masterpiece about Israel's occupation: "A Day in the Life of Abed Salama tells the story of Israel's occupation of Palestine through one family's tragedy."
Paul Pillar: [10-07] Why Hamas attacked and what happens next.
Richard Silverstein: [10-08] Gaza invasion: Over 700 Israeli dead, 230 Palestinian dead as Israel prepares massive assault.
Philip Weiss/Michael Arria: [10-07] Democrats and liberal Zionists decry 'terrorists' and rally to 'stand with Israel': Of course they did, but it's one thing to decry the sudden outbreak of violence (the Bernie Sanders quote is an example; he didn't even resort to the coded language of "terrorism"), quite another to cheer Israel on in inflicting far greater violence on Palestinians (even if not explicit, a "I stand with Israel" amounts to the same thing). Morever, a little self-consciousness would help. I don't disagree that "the targeting and kidnapping of civilians is an inexcusable, outrageous war crime," but culpability isn't limited to one side (even momentarily). Israel has thousands of Palestinians in jail (with or without "due process," which in Israel is designed to be discriminatory).
I especially hate the "Israel has the right to self-defense" line people habitually parrot. Palestinians don't? As a pacifist, I might argue not, but not in a way that would exempt Israelis. When something like this happens, the first, and really the only, matter is to stop it, then to learn, adjust, and make it unthinkable in the future. I dare say that no one in the echelons of Israeli government is thinking along those lines. Probably no one in Hamas either, possibly because they've spent decades studying power in Israel.
The shutdown and the speaker: A week ago, after acting like a complete ass for months, Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy reversed course and offered a fairly clean continuing spending bill, which instantly passed, cleared the Senate, and was signed by Biden. A small number of Republicans (eight), led by Matt Gaetz (R-FL), felt so betrayed by not shutting down the government that they forced a vote to fire McCarthy, which succeeded.
Nicole Narea/Andrew Prokop: [10-04] 9 questions about Kevin McCarthy's downfall and House GOP chaos, answered.
Matthew Cooper: [10-03] The day after the McCarthy ouster: "After the shock wears off, remember that this cannibalism started in the 1990s and won't go away."
Hakeem Jeffries: [10-06] A bipartisan coalition is the way forward for the House: This won't happen, because the faction of Republicans who would even consider it is even smaller than the Gaetz faction that just wanted to trash the place. But unless something like this happens, the House will continue to be a public embarrassment, at least until the 2024 elections, at which point it will either get better or even worse.
Ben Jacobs: [10-03] Kevin McCarthy's historic humiliation.
Annie Karni: [10-04] From a Capitol Hill basement, Bannon stokes the Republican Party meltdown.
John Nichols: [10-05] The "Trump for Speaker" campaign shipwrecks on the shoals of stupidity: Turns out Republican actually had a rule against an indicted felon becoming Speaker. So Trump resorted to the next worse option, endorsing Jim Jordan. Nichols: [10-06] Trump's pick for Speaker is a nightmare waiting to happen.
Timothy Noah: [10-05] Who did in Kevin McCarthy? Maybe not Gaetz. Maybe not even Trump. "James Carville thought the bond vigilantes controlled the world. He just may have been right."
Nikki McCann Ramirez: [10-06] Trump keys on Jim Jordan's wrestling history in speaker endorsement: "omitting the scandal at the center of his coaching career."
Norman J Ornstein: [10-06] How Kevin McCarthy planted the seeds of Kevin McCarthy's demise: "Remember the 'young gun'? He doesn't want you to."
David Rothkopf: [10-06] A broken Congress is what MAGA always wanted.
Leo Sands: [10-04] Who voted Kevin McCarthy out? These 8 House Republicans.
Will Sommer: [10-06] Fox News tries to referee House GOP chaos but cancels speaker 'debate': Most likely Fox simply wanted to exploit the situation for profit, while reminding everyone that they're the Mecca every Republican prostrates and prays to (except, it would appear, Trump). On the other hand, even the House demagogues realize that appealing to the public would only further exacerbate their task of finding a leader no one hates enough to kill over.
Michael Tomasky: [10-06] Six reasons why liberals should salivate at a Speaker Jordan.
Trump:
Jim Geraghty: [10-04] Populist passions, not Trump, rule the GOP. To the extent that anyone can be said to rule the Republican Party, it's still the billionaires who fund the party, and pull strings behind the scenes. Aside from a few fixed ideas about taxes -- something other people should pay -- they aren't completely aligned, as they have varying business interests (some depend on government support, others loathe government interference) and personalities (many are assholes, a trait which great wealth promotes, but they are assholes in varied ways). Trump is, at least nominally, one of the billionaires, but he is a peculiar one: extremely, flagrantly outspoken, but not much of a leader. That's largely because his thoughts are received from elsewhere (mostly his Fox News gurus). For years, Republican thought leaders cynically issued their dog whistles. Not Trump: he's just a particularly loud dog.
I tend to resist any linkage between Trump and populism -- I still respect and admire the original 1890s People's Party -- but sure, he reflects his followers much more than they do him. The result is often incoherent, which doesn't seem to bother either, especially as they're defined much more by what they hate than what they want.
Tori Otten: [10-06] Trump Organization exec admits he considered fraud part of the job: "Jeff McConney is blowing the door wide open on exactly how the Trump Organization operated."
Nia Prater: [10-03] Trump hit with gag order after targeting judge's clerk.
Nikki McCann Ramirez: [10-05] Trump blabbed about US nuclear capabilities to Australian billionaire: who then "shared the potentially sensitive information with dozens of other people."
Tatyana Tandanpolie: [10-06] Trump abruptly drops Cohen lawsuit ahead of deposition: "Trump sued former fixer Michael Cohen for $500 million -- then backed out after repeatedly delaying deposition." Igor Derysh previously wrote about this suit: [04-14] Experts say Trump's lawsuit against Michael Cohen could badly backfire. As Cohen put it: "I can't believe how stupid he was to have actually filed it."
Emily Zemler: [10-05] Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson says Trump threw his food 'once or twice a week'.
DeSantis, and other Republicans:
Perry Bacon Jr: [10-04] Republicans are in disarray. But they are still winning a lot on policy. Way, way too much, considering that their policy choices are almost all deadass wrong.
Paul Krugman: [10-05] Will voters send in the clowns? A lot of things that show up in polls make little sense, but few show this much cognitive dissonance: "Yet Americans, by a wide margin, tell pollsters that Republicans would be better than Democrats at running the economy." Krugman spends a lot of time arguing that the economy isn't so bad, but regardless of the current state, how can anyone see Republicans as better?
Biden and/or the Democrats:
Kate Aronoff: [10-05] Biden scraps environmental laws to build Trump's border wall. Also:
Nicole Narea: [10-05] How Biden ended up building part of Trump's border wall.
Nicole Narea: [10-02] Who is Laphonza Butler, California's new senator? I did a double take on this line about the Democrats already campaigning for the Feinstein seat: "All three have sizable war chests for the campaign, with Schiff, Porter, and Lee having $29.8 million, $10.3 million, and $1.4 million on hand." Sure, they're all "sizable," but sizes are vastly different. They are currently polling at 20% (0.71 points per million dollars), 17% (1.65 ppmd), and 7% (5.0 ppmd).
Stephen Prager: [10-03] Voters have the right to be dissatisfied with 'Bidenomics': "The president's defenders think voters are ungrateful for a good economy. But people's economics experiences vary widely, and much of the country has little to appreciate Biden for." Well, compared to what? Not if you're comparing to Republicans. I'll grant that it can be hard to gauge, including shifts from Obama that I believe are very significant. But blaming Biden for canceling the Child Tax Credit misses the key point that Democrats didn't have enough votes to extend it. Same for the rest of the cutbacks from the Build Back Better bill that Bernie Sanders presented -- some of which (the parts that Joe Manchin accepted) was eventually passed. This piece cites another by Stephen Semler: [08-15] Bidenomics isn't working for working people. One thing that jumps out here is the chart "The U.S. is Shrinking Its Social Safety Net," where everything listed (and since phased out) was part of the remarkable pandemic lockdown relief act, which Trump got panicked into signing, but which was almost all written and passed by Pelosi and Schumer. To get it passed and signed, they had to sunset the provisions. Democrats need to campaign on bringing them back, and building on them.
Legal matters and other crimes:
Ian Millhiser:
[10-02] The Supreme Court's new term will be dominated by dangerous and incoherent lawsuits.
[10-02] Two right-wing judges seem to be trying to rig a US House race.
[10-03] The Supreme Court's uncharacteristic moment of sanity: "Justices considering a case against the CFPB seem unlikely to trigger a second Great Depression."
[10-04] The Supreme Court argues about how to make a terrible civil rights case go away.
[10-05] The high stakes in a new Supreme Court showdown over gerrymandering.
Sara Morrison: [10-04] The government's case to break up Amazon, explained. Author also wrote (with AW Ohlheiser): [10-04] 9 questions about the government's effort to break up Amazon.
Arn Pearson/David Armiak: [10-04] After 50 years, this right-wing law factory is crazier than ever: "The American Legislative Exchange Council is where corporations and far-right groups go to buy government policy."
Vishal Shankar: [10-02] Clarence Thomas has yet another huge conflict of interest: "The Revolving Door Project research reveals that right-wing elites in the Horatio Alger Association stand to benefit from a lawsuit attempting to destroy the CFPB. The group has close ties to Clarence Thomas."
Climate and environment:
Benji Jones: [10-08] It's clearer than ever that we're pushing the Amazon rainforest to its dreaded demise.
Rebecca Leber: [10-05] The propane industry's weird obsession with school buses, explained. We are pushing toward electric school buses, but they require a lot of power, are expensive up front, and have range limits that are sometimes too short. Hence the sales push for propane, which burns cleaner than diesel, but is still fossil fuel, exhausting carbon dioxide.
Economic matters:
Eric Levitz: [10-04] Are rising bond yields and deficits a national crisis?
Ukraine War:
Connor Echols: [10-06] Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine's arduous path to EU accession: "A hopeful summit obscured the difficulties facing Kyiv as it pushes to join the bloc."
George Beebe: [10-04] Will Ukraine's effort go bankrupt gradually . . . then suddenly?
Dave DeCamp: [10-08] Biden considering huge $100 billion Ukraine spending package: If at first you don't succeed, go crazy! Good chance he'll be adding military aid for Israel before this passes. After all, look how successful the last 50 years of aid was.
David Ignatius: [10-05] A hard choice lies ahead in Ukraine, but only Ukrainians can make it: First I've heard of a McCain Institute, but if someone wanted a pro-war counter to the Quincy Institute, that's a pretty obvious name. As for the opinion piece, it is half-obvious, and half-ridiculous. The obvious part is that Ukraine, as well as Russia, will have to freely agree to any armistice. The ridiculous part is the idea that the US shouldn't exert any effort to achieve peace. The "defer to Ukraine" mantra is a blank check policy, promoted by people who want to see the war go on indefinitely.
Jen Kirby: [10-03] The West's united pro-Ukraine front is showing cracks. The leading vote-getter in Slovakia has promised to end military aid to Ukraine. Still, he's a long ways from being able to form a government. Biden's latest request for Ukraine got dropped from the bill the House finally passed to avoid (or forestall) a government shutdown. On a straight vote, it would probably have passed, but straight votes are hard to come by.
Jim Lobe: [10-06] Iraq War boosters rally GOP hawks behind more Ukraine aid: "Elliott Abrams' 'Vandenberg Coalition' also assails the Biden administration for being soft on Russia." Wasn't Abrams the guy who back in 2005 was whispering in Sharon's ear about how a unilateral dismantling of Israeli settlements in Gaza with no PA handover could be spun as a peace move but would actually allow Israel to attack Gaza with impunity, any time they might choose to? (Like in the lead up to elections, or in the interim between Obama's election and when he took office, so he's have to pledge allegiance to Israel before he could do anything about it.)
Siobhán O'Grady/Anastacia Galouchka: [10-06] Russian missile attack at Ukraine funeral overwhelmingly killed civilians: Link caption was more to the point: "Overwhelming grief in Ukrainian village hit by strike: 'There is no point in living.'" But already you can see the effort to spin tragedy into a propaganda coup.
Robert Wright: [10-06] The real lesson of Ukraine for Taiwan: Attempting to control a conflict through increased deterrence can easily backfire, precipitating the event one supposedly meant to deter. When Russia started threatening to invade Ukraine, Biden didn't take a step back and say, whoa!, can't we talk about this? No, his administration cranked up their sanctions threats, and expedited their increasing armament of Ukraine. Putin looked at the lay of the land and the timelines, and convinced himself that his odds were better sooner than later. Nor is this the only case where sanctions have backfired: the context for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was America's embargo of steel and oil. World War I started largely because Germany decided that war with Russia was inevitable, and their chances of winning were better in 1914 than they would be later. All these examples are bonkers, but that's what happens when states put their faith in military power. China has long claimed Taiwan (going back to the day when Taiwan still claimed all of China), but Peking has been willing to play a long game, for 75 years now. But the more America wants to close the door on possible reunification, the more likely China is to panic and strike first.
Around the world:
Masha Gessen: [09-29] The violent end of Nagorno-Karabakh's fight for independence. I cited this article last week, without comment. I then started thinking about another article last week: Richard Silverstein: [09-29] Azerbaijan: Israeli arms sales, greased palms, ethnic conflict. And lo, I became suspicious whether Israel's siding with Azerbaijan was not just to make money, but to promote a mass exodus ("ethnic cleansing") of Armenians from newly occupied territory. Perhaps if they could show other examples, they could justify disposing of their Palestinian population the same way? If so, the uprising in Gaza is likely to accelerate their schedule.
Jonathan Guyer: [10-02] How MBS has won over Washington and the world: Five years after journalist Jamal Khashoggi was "murdered, dismembered, and disappeared" in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, the Saudis are back in Washington's good graces. Also on Saudi Arabia:
Trinidad Deiros Bronte: [10-03] Saudi Arabia punishes critical tweets with the death penalty or 45 years in prison.
Mitchell Plitnick: [10-06] Biden's increasing pressure for a Saudi-Israeli deal: "As with past Abraham Accord agreements, it is simply a way to sell a massive military upgrade as a 'peace deal.'"
Sarah Leah Whitson: [10-02] Five years after Khashoggi's murder, MBS is laughing.
Ahmed Ibrahim: [10-03] How Somalia never got back up after Black Hawk Down: "The Battle of Mogadishu in October 1993 unleashed decades of American intervention with very little to show for it."
Louisa Loveluck, et al: 10-05] How government neglect, misguided policies doomed Libya to deadly floods.
Kate Cohen: [10-03] America doesn't need more God. It needs more atheists. Essay adapted from the author's book: We of LIttle Faith: Why I Stopped Pretending to Believe (and Maybe You Should Too).
Kevin T Dugan: [10-03] The 3 most important things to know about Michael Lewis's SBF book: The book is Going Infinite, which started out as one of the writer's profiles of unorthodox finance guys, and has wound up as some kind of "letter to the jury" on the occasion of crypto conman Sam Bankman-Fried's fraud trial. Also on Lewis:
Gideon Lewis-Kraus: [10-04] Michael Lewis's big contrarian bet.
Karen J Greenberg: [10-05] The last prisoners? With its prisoner population reduced to 30, why can't America close Guantanamo?
Eric Levitz: [10-06] Don't celebrate when people you disagree with get murdered. "In view of many extremely online, spritually unswell conservatives, [Ryan] Carson's brutal death was a form of karmic justice. . . . Days earlier, the nihilist right greeted the murder of progressive Philadelphia journalist Josh Kruger with the same grotesque glee."
Blaise Malley: [10-05] The plan to avert a new Cold War: Review of Michael Doyle's book, Cold Peace: Avoiding the New Cold War. "If all sides continue to perceive actions by the other as hostile, then they will constantly be at the precipice of a military confrontation."
Charles P Pierce: [10-05] Guns are now the leading cause of accidental death among American kids.
JJ Porter: [10-05] Conservative postliberalism is a complete dead end: A review of Patrick Deneen's Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future, as if you needed (or wanted) one.
Emily Raboteau: [10-03] The good life: "What can we learn from the history of utopianism?" Review of Kristen R Ghodsee: Everyday Utopia: What 2,000 Years of Wild Experiments Can Teach Us About the Good Life. Also see the Current Affairs interview with Ghodsee: [10-04] Why we need utopias.
Corey Robin: [10-04] How do we survive the Constitution? Review of the new book, Tyranny of the Minority by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, the comparative political scientists who previously wrote up many examples of How Democracies Die. The authors are critical of various quirks in the US Constitution that have skewed recent elections toward Republicans, thus thwarting popular will and endangering democracy in America. I haven't spent much time with these books, or similar ones where the authors (like Yascha Mounk) seem to cherish democracy more for aesthetic than practical reasons. My own view is that the Constitution, even with its imperfections, is flexible enough to work for most people, if we could just get them to vote for popular interests. The main enemy of democracy is money, abetted by the media that chases it. The solution is to make people conscious, much less of how the Founding Fathers sold us short than of the graft and confusion that sells us oligarchy.
By the way, Robin mentions a 2022 book: Joseph Fishkin/William E Forbath: The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy. I haven't read this particular book, but I have read several others along the same lines (focused more on the authors and/or the text, whereas Fishkin & Forbath follow how later progressives referred back to the Constitution): Ganesh Sitaraman: The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens Our Republic (2017); Erwin Chemerinsky: We the People: A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century (2018); Danielle Allen: Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality (2015). I should also mention Eric Foner: The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution (2019).
Nathan J Robinson: [10-06] How to spot corporate bullshit: "A new book shows that the same talking points have been recycled for centuries, to oppose every form of progressive change." Review of Corporate Bullsh*t, by Nick Hanauer, Joan Walsh, and Donald Cohen, with plenty of examples.
Missy Ryan: [10-04] Over 80 percent of four-star retirees are employed in defense industry: "Twenty-six of 32 four-star admirals and generals who retired from June 2018 to July 2023." Based on the following report:
William Hartung: [10-04] March of the four-stars: The role of retired generals and admirals in the arms industry.
Washington Post Staff: [10-03] The Post spent the past year examining US life expectancy. Here's what we found:
- Chronic diseases are killing us
- Gaps between poor and wealthy communities are growing
- US life expectancy is falling behind global peers
- The seeds of this crisis are planted in childhood
- American politics are proving toxic
Related articles:
Joel Achenbach/Dan Keating/Laurie McGinley/Akilah Johnson/Jahi Chikwendiu: [10-03] An epidemic of chronic illness is killing us too soon. Toward the end, they have a section called "No simple answer," but the obvious one is a universal health care right. Most chronic diseases are manageable with care, provided that care is readily available.
Lauren Weber/Dan Diamond/Dan Keating: [10-03] How red-state politics are shaving years off American lives.
Expanded blog post, October archive (in progress).
Tweet: Music Week: 43 albums, 2 A-list
Music: Current count 40961 [40918] rated (+43), 31 [30] unrated (+1).
Pretty major Speaking of Which last night (8867 words, 114 links). My wife was more critical than I was of Fredrik deBoer, and recommended the Becca Rothfeld review that I had linked to, only to note that deBoer didn't like it. It now seems to me like she does a pretty fair job of summarizing deBoer's points and their limits. Final paragraph, which doesn't sound like an elite trying to usurp a mass movement and turn it into a vanity project:
It is hardly a shock that BLM and #MeToo attracted some unsavory allies. Mass movements are, by definition, massive, and every large group includes some lunatics on the margins. To point to the existence of a few fanatic hangers-on is hardly to indict a movement or its methods. Indeed, a motley coalition is -- for better or worse -- a necessary result of any truly democratic foray. Who, then, is DeBoer's intended audience? Movements are not agents amenable to persuasion. There is no secretary to whom DeBoer could hand a petition, demanding more stringent "message discipline." There is only the flash and the fury, the sudden surge of belief in a better life. If the wayward beast of a mass action cannot always be coaxed into behaving rationally, so much the better: That is the source of its chaos, but also the source of its force.
I've been focusing a lot on books lately because that's the forum -- not blogs and podcasts, and certainly not X -- where serious thinkers have the time and space to try to put their thoughts into coherent form. My latest Book Roundup has many of these, and this post adds several more: ones I missed like DeBoer's How Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement, Nelson Lichtenstein and Judith Stein's A Fabulous Failure, Steve Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt's Tyranny of the Minority, and Kevin Slack's ridiculous War on the American Republic; one I knew was coming soon: Heather Cox Richardson's Democracy Awakening, so held off on; and a couple future books I only just heard about: Zack Beauchamp's The Reactionary Spirit, and Hunter Walker and Luppe B. Luppen's The Truce. (There are also mentions of several other books I had previously written about.)
One thing I've been thinking about a lot is how changes happen, and why they move in some directions and not others. This isn't the place to attempt a disquisition on what I think, but I will note that my recent reading in Hobsbawm and Clark on 1789-1848 is giving me a lot of case studies (oddly enough, even drawing on Turchin's "elite overproduction" thesis).
One final note is that after I slogged through Hobsbawm's first volume over 5-6 weeks, my wife got an audible of his second volume, and finished it within 3-4 days. Makes me wonder what I could get done if I wasn't listening to music all the time.
I lost less time thrashing this week, trying to find something to play next, mostly thanks to Phil Overeem's latest list. Two records I didn't get around to because they're just too damn long are DJ Sabrina the Teenage DJ's Destiny (six LPs) and the big box (4-CD) of the Replacements' Tim. Given that Tim has long been my favorite of their albums, and that everyone is raving about the new mix, the latter seems like a lock. I did manage to make it through two more sets that ran too long, but were remarkable before I lost track: Kashmere Stage Band and Les Rallizes Dénudés. Phil also initiated the Money for Guns dive. I love that he comes up with records like these.
Still only had one A-list album when I cut off the week, but it took long enough to do the Streamnotes indexing today that I got to the Allison Russell album, and decided to move it up. I also knocked off three jazz CDs from the queue, but they can (and should) wait. Until lately, the queue was almost all scheduled well into the future, but release dates have started to come fast -- ten (of 31) albums are already out. I need to work on that.
I'm starting to think about the Jazz Critics Poll this year. It would be nice to get a jump on it for the first time ever, rather than getting blindsided a few days before the ballots need to be sent out. If you have suggestions, drop me a line.
New records reviewed this week:
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
Old music:
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
Front page, top headline in Wichita Eagle on Saturday: McCarthy's last-ditch plan to keep government open collapses. The headline came from an AP article, dropping the final "making a shutdown almost certain" clause. This headline, says more about the media mindset in America than it does about the politics it does such a poor job of reporting on. McCarthy is not trying to avert a shutdown (at least with this bill). Even if he somehow managed to pass it, there was no chance of it passing the Senate without major revisions, which his caucus would then reject. His core problem is that he insists on passing an extreme partisan bill, but no bill is extreme enough for the faction of Republicans dead set on shutting down the government, and nothing he can do will appease them.
If he was at all serious about avoiding shutdown, he'd offer a bill that would attract enough Democrat votes to make up for his inevitable losses on the extreme right. That's what McConnell did in the Senate, with a bill that passed 77-19. But House Republicans follow what they call the Hastert Rule, which states that leaders can only present bills approved by a majority of the caucus -- in effect, that means the right-wing can hold bills hostage, even mandatory spending bills, and looking for bipartisan support is pointless. McCarthy had to compromise even further to gain enough votes to be elected Speaker.
If the mainstream media refuses to provide even the barest of meaningful context, this kabuki propaganda will just continue, to the detriment of all.
[PS: On Saturday afternoon, after I wrote the above, McCarthy did just that, passing a bill 335-91, with 90 Republicans and 1 Democrat opposed. The bill continues spending for 45 days, adds disaster relief funds, extends federal flood insurance, and reauthorizes FAA, but does not include the new Ukraine aid Biden wanted.]
The shutdown: [PS: Congress finally passed a continuing spending resolution on Saturday, after McCarthy's "last-ditch" bill failed to pass the House. The intro below -- original title was "Drowning government in the bathtub" -- was written before this bill passed, as were the articles dated earlier. On the other hand, we're only 45 days away from the next big shutdown scare, which the same bunch of clowns and creeps are almost certain again to push to the brink.]
The Grover Nordquist quote (from 2001) is: "I just want to shrink [government] down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Later he managed to get every Republican in Congress to sign onto his "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," which would seem to commit them to the ultimate destruction of the federal government. None of this slowed, let alone reversed the growth of government -- it just ensured that the growth would be funded mostly by deficits, which conveniently give Republicans something else to whine about, even though they're mostly just tax giveaways to the very rich. So whenever an opportunity arises for Republicans to vent their hatred of the government and their disgust over the people that government serves, they rise up and break things. One of those opportunities is this week, when the previous year's spending bills expire, without the House having passed new ones for next year. Without new authorization, large parts of government are supposed to shut down, giving Republicans a brief opportunity to impress Grover Nordquist. Then, after a few days or a couple weeks, they'll quietly pass a resolution to allow their incompetence to escape notice for another year. You see, most of what government actually does supports the very same rich people who donate to Republican politicians. I could file all of these stories under Republicans, since they are solely responsible for this nonsense, but on this occasion, let's break them out.
Li Zhou:
Ryan Cooper: [09-27] There's an easy way to end government shutdowns forever: "No other rich democracy endures America's brand of budgetary chaos."
Hugh Hewitt: [09-28] The GOP's Knucklehead Caucus courts a shutdown for no good reason. Long-time conservative columnist, a party loyalist, worked for Nixon and Reagan, ran the Nixon library, has hosted right-wing radio and TV shows. Still takes time out to attack Menendez and Hunter Biden, and make excuses for Ken Buck, who evidently only looks and acts like a knuckelead.
Post-deal:
Corbin Bolies: [10-01] Rep. Matt Gaetz: I will force vote to can McCarthy 'this week'.
Sam Brodey: [10-01] It's bad news that so many in the GOP are pissed about averting a shutdown: On the other hand, every tantrum here should be recorded and thrown back in their faces in 2024. It's bad news because these idiots still have considerable power to wreak havoc. Vote them down to a small minority and it will merely be sad and pathetic, which is what they deserve.
David Rothkopf: [09-30] All that drama and the House GOP's only win was for the Kremlin: I'm sorry to have to say this, but Russiagate -- not the "collusion" but the jingoistic Cold War revival -- isn't over yet. One thing that the Republican right understands is that Russia's "expansionism" is fundamentally limited by their sense of nationhood, and as such is no real threat to their own "America First" nationalism. Democrats don't understand this. They view Russia through two lenses: one is as a rival to the US in a zero-sum game for world domination -- which was a myth in the Cold War era, and pure projection now; the other is that Putin has embraced a social conservatism and anti-democratic repression to a degree that Republicans plainly aspire to, so they are strongly disposed to treat both threats as linked. (Which, by the way, is not total whimsy: Steve Bannon seems to have taken as his life's work the formation of an International Brotherhood of Fascists.) The problem with this is that it turns Democrats into supporters of empire and war abroad, and those things not only breed enemies, they undermine true democracy at home. Still, I'm not unamused by Rothkopf taking a cheap shot in this particular moment. I just worry about the mentality that makes one think that's a real point.
Michael Scherer: [09-30] Shutdown deal avoids political pain for Republican moderates: For starters, this helps with definition: A "moderate" is a Republican who worries more about losing to a Democrat than one who worries more about being challenged by an even crazier Republican. Shutting down the government is a play that appeals to the crazies, but has little enthusiasm for most people, even ones who generally vote Republican.
The Republican also-rans second debate: Six of the first debate's eight made their way to the Reagan Library in California, again hosted by Fox. Bear in mind that any judgments about winners and losers are relative.
Intelligencer Staff: [09-27] Republican Debate: At least 33 things you missed. If you're up for the gory details, here are the live updates. Notable quotes: "It's kind of sexist, but mostly it's just gross, and it drives home one essential fact about the people on tonight's stage. They are unrelatable freaks. There is something deeply off-putting about each person on stage." Also: "Ramaswamy: Thank you for speaking while I'm interrupting."
Mariana Alfaro: [09-27] Republican presidential candidates blame UAW strike on Biden: What? For giving workers hope they might gain back some ground after forty years of Republican-backed union busting?
Zack Beauchamp: [09-27] The Republican debate is fake: "With Trump dominating the GOP primary, the debate is a cosplay of a competitive election -- and a distraction from an ugly truth."
Aaron Blake: [09-27] The winners and losers of the second Republican debate:
Jim Geraghty/Megan McArdle/Ramesh Ponnuru: [09-28] 'It sucks:' Conservatives discuss the GOP primary after the latest debate. I didn't listen to the audio -- I'm listening to music almost all the time; I can read at the same time, but I don't have free time for podcasts -- so I'm not sure where Geraghty is going with this, but the gist is that Trump sucks all the oxygen out of the party, and nobody else has the guts to say that he's suffocating the party just to stroke his own ego, because even if he somehow manages to win, he doesn't know how to actually do anything, other than keep sucking. (Pun? Sure.)
Eric Levitz: [09-28] Who won (and lost) the second Republican debate:
Harold Meyerson: [09-28] Debate number two: Phonies and cacophonies.
Alexandra Petri: [09-28] Here's what happened at the second Republican primary debate. Really. Really? My favorite line here is one attributed to DeSantis: "If you measure popularity in number of tears that a candidate has collected from crocodiles and others, I am by far the most popular candidate."
Andrew Prokop: [09-27] 1 winner and 3 losers from Fox's dud of a second GOP debate:
Let me conclude this section with a quote from Jeffrey St Clair (see his "Roaming Charges" below for link) summing up the debate:
The Republican "debate" at the Reagan Library seemed like an exercise in collective madness. And 24 hours and half a bottle of Jameson's later, I still don't know what's crazier, Nikki Haley saying that she'd solve the health care crisis by letting patients negotiate the price of treatment with hospitals and doctors, Tim Scott's assertion that LBJ's Great Society program was harder for black people to survive than slavery or Ron DeSantis' pledge to use the Civil Rights Act to target "left-wing" prosecutors: "I will use the Justice Department to bring civil rights cases against all of those left-wing Soros-funded prosecutors. We're not going to let them get away with it anymore. We want to reverse this country's decline. We need to choose law and order over rioting and disorder."
Trump: While it was unprecedented for a former president to be indicted (for even one felony, much less 91), I think we now have to admit that's merely a historical curiosity, like Dianne Feinstein having been the first woman elected mayor of San Francisco. What is truly unprecedented is that this guy, facing so many indictments under four separate judges (plus more judges in prominent civil cases), is still being allowed to campaign for president, to fly free around the country, to give speeches where he threatens the lives of people he thinks have crossed him, to appear on television shows where he can influence potential jurors, and do this with complete impunity. While everyone knows that defendants are to be considered innocent until a jury finds them guilty, has anyone else under indictment ever been given such lax treatment? Many of them spend long pre-trial periods stuck in jail. (According to this report, there are 427,000 people in local jails who haven't been convicted.) Those who, like Trump, could manage bail, are subject to other numerous other restrictions. Maybe one reason Trump seems to regard himself as above the law is that the courts have allowed him such privileges.
Mark Alfred/Justin Rohrlich: [09-29] First plea deal in Georgia RICO case is not good news for Trump: Scott Hall to plead guilty and testify about his crime, which is a big part of the foundation for the RICO case. The plea agreement calls for five years probation, $5,000 fine, 200 hours of community service, and other restrictions.
Lauren Aratani: [10-01] The art of the fraudulent deal? Trump Organization trial set to begin. This is the New York civil case against his business. I'm a little unclear on how this works, given that there is already a "pre-trial judgment ruling that Trump and his co-defendants, including sons Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, committed financial fraud through faulty financial statements." Aratani previously wrote [09-26] Five key takeaways from Donald Trump's financial fraud case ruling, which says that the "bench trial" will be shorter, because the facts of fraud have already been established, so the focus will be on the amount and nature of the punishment.
Victoria Bekiempis: [09-30] Trump calls for store robbers to be shot in speech to California Republicans.
Kyle Cheney: [09-29] Trump's attack on Milley fuels special counsel's push for a gag order.
Tim Dickinson: [09-29] This 'violence-ready' militia is hiding in plain sight: "White supremacist Active Clubs are growing exponentially -- 'they're who the Proud Boys wanted to be,' one researcher says."
Gabriella Ferrigine: [09-25] Donald Trump ramps up the GOP's attack on the military with call to execute top US general: Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley. This was followed up by Chauncey DeVega: [09-27] The real reason why Donald Trump wants Gen. Milley to be killed. Rep. Paul Gosar [R-AZ] also chimed in: Trudy Ring: [09-26] Republican Rep. Paul Gosar calls for death to 'sodomy-promoting traitor' Gen. Mark Milley.
Margaret Hartmann: [09-30] Master dealmaker Melania Trump keeps renegotiating her prenup.
Sarah Jones: [09-27] The media falls for Trump's labor lies.
Ed Kilgore: [09-28] With Trump's 2024 rivals out, who's left on his veep list? This is a stupid game, but I was tempted to look. For some reason, the actual names bruited here are all women: Kristi Noem, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kari Lake, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Joni Ernst, Marsha Blackburn, Elise Stefanik, Katie Britt. I wouldn't give any of them as much as a 2% chance, although if Trump were a somewhat more conventional politician, Ernst wouldn't be a silly choice -- she's won two terms in former-swing-state Iowa, and her sadistic "make 'em squeal" motto should appeal to Trump, or at least his fans. Beyond that, I have no idea. Maybe someone he can share locker room banter with, like Michael Flynn or Ronnie Jackson? In 2016 he picked Pence because he needed someone to reassure the Republican regulars, and none of the candidates groveled more. This time, he is the Republican base, and no one else matters, so the last thing he'll want is some sniveling upstart who wants to step into his shoes. And while he might be up for banging anyone on Kilgore's list, he's never going to trust any of them.
Heather Digby Parton: [09-27] Trump family fraud exposed -- but Ivanka dodges liability in N.Y. civil case. DJTJ and Eric, on the other hand . . .
Christian Paz: [09-28] Donald Trump isn't the union legend he's pretending to be.
Charles P Pierce: [09-27] You've got to read this judge's ruling in Trump's New York fraud case.
Nia Prater: [09-27] Trump might lose Trump Tower after scathing court ruling.
Alex N Press: [09-27] Trump is speaking tonight in Michigan at a nonunion auto shop, as a guest of its boss: This was the date of the "debate," after Biden appeared on a UAW picket line.
Matt Stieb:
[09-26] The 5 craziest revelations from Cassidy Hutchinson's book about the Trump White House.
[09-27] Trump tells autoworkers 'I don't care what you get' in bizarre non-union rally: In lieu of the Fox debate, Trump went to Detroit, to do something else, I guess. "Over an hour or so, Trump talked trash about Joe Biden and the UAW's leadership."
David Von Drehle: [09-27] A judge calls out Trump's business lies. Voters can be just as critical.
DeSantis, and other Republicans:
Jonathan Chait: [09-27] DeSantis forced to say why he enjoys denying health insurance to poor Floridians: Chait paraphrases: "Those people should work harder. Indeed, to give them subsidized access to medical care will sap their incentive. Poor people need motivation to work hard, and denying them the ability to see a doctor and get medicine is part of that necessary motivation." Conservatives believe that getting rich is a reward for virtue, but they also seem to believe that if there are no consequences for not getting rich, no one would bother putting the work in. (Even though most of the people who actually are rich got that way not from having worked hard, but from enjoying privileged access to capital.)
Ed Kilgore: [09-29] Scott, Haley, and the Radicalization of the 'moderate' Republican: It's ridiculous to call these people "moderate": they are the residue left from the evolution of the South Carolina Republican Party from Strom Thurmond through Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint. Their only saving grace, which each of their predecessors had to some degree, is that they aren't shamelessly stupid panderers. They have some sense of how they look to others, and try to sound respectable. But politically, there as far right as their predecessors (and Haley is about as psychotically hawkish as Graham). Perhaps you could give them some credit for moving beyond Thurmond on race, but perhaps they were just cast to look like it?
Jasmine Liu: [09-26] Everything you need to know about the right-wing war on books: "Here's your guide to the heroes and villains -- plus a list of the 50 most banned books." Censorship chiefs: Ron DeSantis, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Greg Abbott, Moms for Liberty. Those have definitely gotten more press than the Reading Rebels: Suzette Baker, Debbie Chavez, Summer Boismier, and "Anonymous Utah parent." The books are mostly off my radar, aside from two titles each for Toni Morrison and Ibram X. Kendi.
Greg Sargent: [09-28] New data on ultra-rich tax cheats wrecks the 'working-class GOP' ruse.
Biden and/or the Democrats:
Noah Berliatsky: [09-25] Biden is presiding over a labor renaissance: "His solidarity goes beyond symbolism."
Ben Jacobs: [09-28] Republicans held an impeachment hearing and it turned into a clown show.
Andrew Prokop: [09-28] Republicans' thin corruption case against Joe Biden, explained.
Michael Tomasky: [09-29] Impeachment hearing proves even dumb fascists can be dangerous. Cites CNN's Fact check of the hearing, concluding "these people are a joke," but limiting his laughter.
Laura Wagner: [09-28] The small pro-labor news site that has the Biden White House's ear: More Perfect Union. Looks like there is a lot of good material there (albeit mostly videos).
Legal and criminal matters:
Ian Millhiser:
[09-25] A Supreme Court case about hotel websites could blow up much of US civil rights law: "The Supreme Court hears a civil rights case straight out of a right-wing fever dream."
[09-26] The Supreme Court just told Alabama to shut up and listen.
Jenna Ruddock: [09-25] Prosecutors are going to war with climate protesters: "The far-reaching RICO indictment against Stop Cop City organizers in Atlanta is just the latest example of prosecutors' central role in chilling dissent."
Climate and environment:
Kate Aronoff:
[09-29] NYC is totally unprepared for climate disaster (but has a lot of cops): "If hordes of cops are going to keep polluting New York's increasingly flood-prone subways, the least they could do is grab a bucket and be helpful."
[09-29] The White House's two-faced climate rhetoric: "Why do US politicians insist on talking so much about a climate goal they're so far off track from?"
Matthew Cappucci: [09-28] Ophelia's leftovers to drench Northeast as Philippe and Rina roam tropics.
Scott Dance: [09-26] One of the most intense El Niños ever observed could be forming.
Scott Dance/Matthew Cappucci: [09-29] New York inundated with worst floods since 2021.
Carmen Aguilar Garcia: [09-22] Heat-related deaths in 2022 hit highest level on record in England: More than 4,500 people. It's hard to imagine anyone dying of heat in England, but maybe not being used to it makes them ultra-sensitive. I worked there for a 5-month stretch in the mid-1990s, and do recall one hot day: only about 90°F, but that was hot enough we had to detour off the M11 between London and Cambridge because "the road melted." The chart here shows a previous peak for heat-related deaths in 1995.
Hiroko Tabuchi/Blacki Migliozzi: [09-25] 'Monster fracks' are getting far bigger. And far thirstier. This is part of a series called Uncharted Waters, about "the causes and consequences of disappearing water."
Economic matters:
Dean Baker: [09-30] Team billionaire is winning: They have us cursing at markets.
Robert Kuttner: [09-29] Does Jay Powell want to elect Trump? "Most of the sources of inflation are either the result of the Fed's own policy, or have nothing to do with domestic demand, such as the rising price of oil." Powell is a Republican, initially nominated by Trump. He did a good job of hiding his future as an inflation hawk, getting Biden to nominate him to a second term before coming out. I've always said that Biden made a mistake in not nominating his own person. Same mistake, by the way, that Obama (with Bernanke) and Clinton (with Greenspan) let themselves get talked into, with pretty much the same results (Greenspan's bad enough that Clinton renominated him twice).
Eric Levitz:
Eve Ottenberg: [09-29] More at stake for auto workers than wages and benefits.
Alissa Wilkinson/Emily Stewart: [09-27] The Hollywood writers' strike is over -- and they won big.
Ukraine War:
Josh Holder: [09-28] Who's gaining ground in Ukraine? This year, no one. "Despite nine months of bloody fighting, less than 500 square miles of territory have changed hands since the start of the year." If you look down into the details, you'll find that Ukraine gained 143 square miles, and Russia gained 331 square miles, so the title is slightly misleading. Also: "Less territory changed hands in August than in any other month of the war."
Anatol Lieven: [09-26] Ukraine-Poland row exposes history, limits of devotion.
Patrick Wintour: [09-30] 'No turning back': How the Ukraine war has profoundly changed the EU: The Russian invasion has led to dramatic new militarism and efforts to shift away from Russia as a source for energy and materials. The US has basically led both efforts, but they could well continue even if the US cut back.
Around the world:
Masha Gessen: [09-29] The violent end of Nagorno-Karabakh's fight for independence.
Jonathan Guyer: [09-28] US-China tensions are every country's problem now.
Adi Saleem: [09-29] The trial of Subhas Nair: Race, class, and ideology in Singapore.
Richard Silverstein:
[09-29] Azerbaijan: Israeli arms sales, greased palms, ethnic conflict: "Israel sold tens of billions in weapons to the country's corrupt dictator, permitting him to conquer Nagorno-Karabakh."
[09-29] From meeting Musk to the UN, Netanyahu's US roadshow was paved with Israel normalisation.
Dianne Feinstein: The Senator (D-CA) died Thursday, at 90, after more than 30 years in the Senate. She had a mixed legacy, which had soured lately as her absences kept Democrats from confirming many Biden appointees.
Liza Featherstone: [09-30] Dianne Feinstein helped lead the Democratic Party's neoliberal turn.
Sarah Jones: [09-29] Dianne Feinstein blazed a trail to ruin.
Ed Kilgore: [09-29] Gavin Newsom made filling Dianne Feinstein's seat even harder: I think it's always a mistake to announce ahead of time that you're going to limit your future choices to people of a certain type. In theory, consider everyone, pick someone, claim that's the best possible choice.
Rebecca Traister: [09-29] The institutionalist: "Dianne Feinstein fought for gun control, civil rights, and abortion access for half a century. Where did it all go wrong: Profile originally published June 6, 2022, now updated.
Robert Menendez: Senator (D-NJ), was prosecuted for corruption several years ago, beat the charges, managed to get himself reëlected, and caught again.
Branko Marcetic: [09-27] Bob Menendez isn't merely corrupt. He carried water for a brutal dictator. Shouldn't that be plural? Menendez got caught taking money from Egypt, but he's been a dependable supporter of other nominal allies with troubled connections (Israel and Saudi Arabia get mentions here, but not Latin America, where his antipathy to anything leftist knows no bounds).
Timothy Noah: [09-29] Why is the GOP suddenly defending Bob Menendez? "From Trump on down, they're speaking out on behalf of a Democratic senator buffeted by accusations of corruption --he's just one more Biden deep state victim."
Henry Olsen: [09-27] Bob Menendez is right not to step down: One of the conservative hack pundits to rally behind Menendez, pleading "let the justice system play out as it's supposed to," urging him to hang in there even past conviction until all his appeals are exhausted, and assuring him that "there's little proof that a senator's indictment affects voters' decisions in other races." He offers the example of Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, who resisted pressure to resign after embarrassing photos from a yearbook came to light, but Northam wasn't indicted, and was barely distracted from doing his job. The charges against Menendez are very serious, and derive directly from his abuse of the power given him by his job. While the indictments may cramp his ability to collect further bribes, his job is one where even the appearance of corruption diminishes the office. It is this very sense of taint that has led many Democrats to call for his resignation. To see Republicans rally behind Menendez testifies to how they've evolved to celebrate his kind of corruption.
David Atkins: [09-27] America needs a true liberal media: "Our crisis of democracy is exacerbated by conservative misinformation. Time for a balanced media diet." Of course, he has a lot to complain about, but couldn't he put it better? I shouldn't have to parse the difference between "liberal" as an adjective and "liberal" (or "liberalism") as a noun, and explain why a "liberal media" isn't just a propaganda outlet for liberalism (as conservative media is for conservatism). If we had an honest media dedicated to rooting out misinformation from any source, it would easily find ten times as much emanating from right-wing interest groups (which it would clearly label as such). Atkins cites several examples of polls where scary large numbers of Americans believe things that are plainly false. That such numbers persist goes a long way toward indicting the media for failing to keep us informed.
On the other hand, another sense of "liberal" is that it provides equal credence to all views, regardless of truth, merit or ulterior motives. This was, for instance, the view Marcuse et al. put forth in A Critique of Pure Tolerance (1965). In light of this, one can be as critical as Atkins is of the present facts and draw the opposite conclusion, that the problem we have today is that the media, with its relentless balancing and its credulous repetition of blatant falsehoods, is simply too liberal.
Zack Beauchamp: [09-24] Is America uniquely vulnerable to tyranny? Review of a new book, Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point, by Steve Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, whose previous book, the comparative study How Democracies Die, was taken as a landmark among liberals who worry more about the formal political institutions than about government reflecting the interests of most people.
Nina Burleigh: [09-26] Are we in the last days of Fox News? "Michael Wolff's new book on the Murdochs is full of juicy details, but its predictions may be off." The book is called The Fall: The End of Fox News.
Joshua Green: [08-27] How social justice activists lost the plot: A review of Fredrik DeBoer's new book, How Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement, "an entreaty to white, college-educated progressives: Stop obsessing over identity and language and start fighting for working people." I took a brief look at this book when assembling my latest Book Roundup and couldn't decide what to make of it: he's reputed to be a leftist, but he spends most of his time attacking others on the left side of "social justice" issues, possibly for not being leftist enough (on economic issues? for leftists of some vintage what else is there?). I'm not engaged enough to recognize much less care about many of the complaints lodged against today's younger generation on the left, but back in my day (c. 1970) I ran into similar problems, where comfortably well-off young people got worked up over other people's problems without having the grounding of knowing their own problems. (I was a rare working class kid, and pathological introvert, in an elite university, so I never had that luxury.) I have no idea how well, or how badly, DeBoer navigates problems with his fellow leftists. Green, however, ends with one piece of reasonable advice: "If they'd focus on electing Democrats, they'd finally be in a position to deliver for those groups, rather than just bicker over whose turn it is to talk next." I would add that while I don't think leftists should adopt bad positions just to get around, the only policy improvements that are achievable are ones that pass through the Democratic Party, so that's where you need to do your practical work.
Anthony L Fisher: [09-30] Why the 2020 social justice revolutions failed: Interview with DeBoer on his book, steering the discussion toward the 2020 BLM protests and the coincident looting ("riots"). Maybe DeBoer has something specific to say about all that, but that wasn't obvious to me from what I previously read. I wouldn't say that the protests failed -- they moved several meters significantly, especially in that the cop who killed George Floyd and the cops who aided and abetted the murder have been convicted of serious crimes, which is never expected when police kill civilians -- and I also wouldn't say that where they failed, they did so due to the liberal elite syndrome I take DeBoer to be critical of. What was possible from those protests was limited by Trump, other right-wing political figures, including police and vigilantes, responded so negatively, often deliberately attempting to provoke riots (which, based on much experience, they assumed would be blamed on the protesters).
Becca Rothfeld: [09-01] Should progressives want the support of the ruling classes? A critical review of DeBoer's book, mentioned in the Fisher interview above, the author dismissed by DeBoer as "exactly the kind of person that is being indicted in the book." [PS: On closer examination, this strikes me as a pretty good review of the book.]
Freddie deBoer: [0-25] AOC is just a regular old Democrat now. I saw this at the time, and didn't think it was worth reporting on, but since we're talking about the author now, it shines as much light on him as on her. The theme is not something I'd lose any sleep over.
Tyler Austin Harper: [09-28] Ibram X. Kendi's fall is a cautionary tale -- so was his rise: Flagged for possible future reference, as I'm not close enough to this story to have an opinion. I will say that I fifty-plus years ago I read two important historical works on racism in the early 1970s: Winthrop Jordan's White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812 (1968), and David Brion Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (1966), which if memory serves argued that racism wasn't Stamped From the Beginning (the title of Kendi's big book) but was developed over time, primarily to justify chattel slavery in the Americas, and the profits derived therefrom. I read quite a bit more back then, covering later history as well as contemporary books like Soul on Ice and The Autobiography of Malcolm X.
But it had been quite a while when Kendi's book came out, so I thought it might be useful to get a more contemporary reading of Jordan's domain. But when I looked at the book, I decided I didn't need or particularly want it. I had, by then, read lots about Thomas Jefferson's racism (and for that matter, Lincoln's), but didn't see much point in dwelling on it. But the big turn off was the section on major aboltionist William Lloyd Garrison. Looking at the Amazon preview now, my reaction may have been hasty: surely the later chapters on W.E.B. DuBois and Angela Davis weren't meant to be simple exposés of racist ideas like chapters on Cotton Mather and Jefferson? But then, what were they? Kendi followed up with an explicitly political book, and evidently built a mini-empire on his reputation. That could have been good, bad, irrelevant, or some combination thereof.
Sean Illing: [09-26] Naomi Klein on her doppelganger (and yours): Another interview, promoting her new book, Doppelganger: A Trip Into the Mirror World.
Sarah Jones: [09-24] The dark side of courtship: "Shannon Harris's relationship was held up as a model for millions of Evangelicals. Now she's reclaiming her story."
David Masciotra: [09-26] What the Clinton haters on the left get wrong: "A new book epitomizes the risible belief that the 42nd president betrayed liberals and the 1990s were a right-wing hellscape." The book is A Fabulous Failure: The Clinton Presidency and the Transformation of American Capitalism, by Nelson Lichtenstein and Judith Stein. I note this in passing, and also that the first publication to take such offense against such a blight on Clinton's good name is the one where the term "neoliberalism" was first coined. Somehow I doubt a book where the authors juxtaposed "fabulous" and "failure" is simply "untruths they've written [to] bolster the cynicism that undermines the trust vital to the survival of the American experiment."
The first point anyone needs to understand is that Clinton pioneered a new political path by trying not to fight Reagan but to outflank him: to show leaders that Democrats in power would be even better for business than Republicans. That Clinton won gave his argument an air of gospel after a brutal decade, which only deepened the more hysterically Republicans attacked him. However, his two presidential wins were largely wiped out by losing Congress, and with it the ability to legislate anything beyond his pro-business and anti-crime initiatives.
On the other hand, his failures -- mistakes and, especially, missed opportunities -- only grew. Listing them would take a book (probably even longer than this one). Compounding Reagan's turn toward increasing inequality is probably the top of the list. Or failing to trim back America's imperial overreach to secure a truly international peace -- today's conflicts with Russia and China, as well as the long war against the Middle East, are easily traced back to his failures. Or maybe we should wonder why Al Gore wasn't allowed to work on climate change when it wasn't yet too late, but was tasked instead with "reinventing government," which mostly meant making it more profitable for lobbyists. Or maybe we should ask why he stripped the Democratic Party down to a personal cult-of-personality, allowing Republicans to repeatedly rebound from disaster every time they came close to the lever of power?
Dylan Matthews: [09-26] 40 years ago today, one man saved us from world-ending nuclear war: A Russian, Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov, who was monitoring Russia's ICBM detection system, which had determined "with high probability" that the US had launched five Minutemen missiles at the Soviet Union. It hadn't, but two years of constant saber-rattling under Reagan, on top of worsening US-Soviet relations under Jimmy Carter (or should I say Zbigniew Brzezinski?), along with internal turmoil that might suggest weakness, left top Soviet circles more in fear of an American attack than ever before. David Hoffman wrote a book about this: The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race & Its Dangerous Legacy (2009).
Sara Morrison:
[09-28] Net neutrality is back, but it's not what you think.
[09-26] The government's case to break up Amazon, explained: "The Federal Trade Commission, led by longtime Amazon critic Lina Khan, finally makes its move." This particular case focuses on Amazon Marketplace -- the most obvious place to start, I agree. I could probably write a lot on this, but some other time. There are a lot of things I like about Amazon, but the potential for abuse is huge, and doesn't loom purely in the future. I cited a David Dayen piece last week, and it deserves to be mentioned again in light of this suit:
David Dayen: [09-21] Amazon's $185 billion pay-to-play system: "A new report shows that Amazon now takes 45 percent of all third-party sales on its website, part of the company's goal to become a monopoly gatekeeper for economic transactions."
Will Oremus: [09-27] Lina Khan's Amazon lawsuit is nothing like her famous law article: "The FTC chair has traded some youthful idealism for pragmatism as she takes on the case of a lifetime."
Jonah Raskin: [09-29] "I am not now, nor have I ever been": Musings on communism and anti-communism. I've known a few American communists, or at least a few of their "red diaper baby" children. All good people, as far as I can tell.
Heather Cox Richardson: [09-26] The fight for our America: Excerpt, or maybe a précis, from her forthcoming book Democracy Awakening: Notes on the State of America. The setup: "There have always been two Americas. One based in religious zeal, mythology, and inequality; and one grounded in the rule of the people and the pursuit of equality. This next election may determine which one prevails." My first cavil here was over the word "prevails": recent elections (at least since 2000, and arguably since 1968 -- the landslides of 1972 and 1984 now look like flukes, as does the lesser margin of 2008) have turned out to be pretty indecisive. There is little reason to think that 2024 will turn out differently: a Trump-Biden rematch is unlikely to turn out much differently than in 2020, but Republicans have structural advantages in the Senate, the House, and the Electoral College that could flip the popular vote -- further reinforcing the current partisan divide over democracy itself.
Still, in searching for a better term than "prevails," I find myself considering the more extreme "survives." While electoral results have remained ambiguous, the stakes for (and fears of) losing have only grown more urgent. Republicans have already used their narrow margins to establish a Supreme Court supermajority, which has already resulted in the loss of fundamental rights and will continue to frustrate efforts of elected Democrats to address important policy issues. Give them more power, and they'll continue their efforts to fortify their power bases and impose their will on a disempowered people.
Democrats are right to fear such authoritarianism, and are right that the antidote is a renewed faith in democracy, but their defense of democracy has been frustratingly difficult, because Democrats rarely think of power in the broad sense that Republicans understand: the power of business and money, of media, of social institutions like churches, of culture (one area they have been least effective at controlling, and therefore one they're most paranoid about, hence their recent, seemingly desperate, stress on the "war against woke"). More often than not, Democrats have appealed to moneyed interests, even to the point of sacrificing traditional allies like unions, and this has tattered their reputation as champions of the people.
Richardson's "two Americas" may serve as generic shorthand for the two highly polarized parties, but while identities align with parties, the underlying philosophies are more or less present and at tension in most people. By far the most important is the split on equality: the right views the world as necessarily (or rightly) inequal and hierarchical, where each person has a station, and order is maintained by popular acceptance (and, often, by force); the left views all people as fundamentally equal, at least in rights, and ideally in opportunities. The left naturally leans toward democracy, where government is constituted to act in the popular interest. The right leans toward dictatorship (originally of monarchs, although any strongman able to impose order to save their hierarchy will do), and distrusts democracy, suspecting that if given the chance, the majority would end the privileges of those atop the hierarchy.
By the way, liberals are focused on the rights and ambitions of individuals. Whether they lean right or left depends mostly on the conservative hierarchy is in admitting talented upstarts -- for many would like to live like princes, but if they are locked out, they're happy to tear the hierarchy down, and willing to appeal to the masses for help in doing so. Liberals are disrupters, which is why conservatives loathe them, but as long as they are sufficiently corruptible, they can be co-opted. But until they get bought off, they are likely to inspire more widespread ambitions -- which is why we still admire Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt (and wanted to admire Obama).
It is important to remember that nearly everything we cherish about our past was the work of liberals aspiring to the greater (more universal) good. (Which is to say, of moves toward the left, though often of people not strongly committed to the left.) Also that every advance has been met with conservative reaction, which was generally flexible enough to admit a select few in order to cut short the hopes of the many. Richardson groups religious zeal and mythology with the side of inequality. They are actually tools of a hierarchy which, given America's founding as a liberal/mass revolt against aristocracy, cannot be defended on its own terms. Rather, the right, in order to maintain any plausibility at all, has to spin a mythic past rooted in old fashioned religion and pioneering entrepreneurial spirit -- the new hierarchy that rose to replace the aristocracy dispatched by the Revolution.
Jeffrey St Clair: [09-29] Roaming Charges: Our man in Jersey: Starts with Robert Menendez as a Le Carré character, "New Jersey's own apex con man, whose personal embellishments and political fictions have become so labryinthine that now that he's been caught with gold bars in his closet, he can't even get his own life story straight."
In other items, he notes that the US drug overdose rate, in the fifty years since the War on Drugs was launched in 1973, has ("what a smashing success it has been!") increased from 3.0 per 100,000 to 32.4.
Marcela Valdes: [10-01] Why can't we stop unauthorized immigration? Because it works. "Our broken immigration system is still the best option for many migrants -- and U.S. employers."
Jason Wilson: [10-01] 'Red Caesarism' is rightwing code -- and some Republicans are listening: This piece introduced me to a recent book by Kevin Slack: War on the American Republic: How Liberalism Became Despotism, which argues that America has been destroyed by three waves of liberals: "Teddy Roosevelt's Anglo-Protestant progressive social gospelers, who battled trusts and curbed immigration; Franklin Roosevelt's and Lyndon Johnson's secular liberals, who forged a government-business partnership and promoted a civil rights agenda; and the 1960s radicals, who protested corporate influence in the Great Society, liberal hypocrisy on race and gender, and the war in Vietnam," and who finally cemented their power with "the 'great awokening' that began under Barack Obama." The result: "an incompetent kleptocracy is draining the wealthiest and most powerful people in history, thus eroding the foundations of its own empire."
I don't know how I missed this tome in my list of paranoid rants tacked onto the end of my Book Roundup entry on Christopher Rufo, as it's basically Rufo's thesis backed up with more historical special pleading. I do wonder, though, how you could get from Grover Cleveland's America to world-topping empire and wealth except through the progressive machinations of the Roosevelts and their followers.
The Amazon page for Slack's book doesn't mention "Red Caesarism," which seems to be the idea that Trump should seize power next chance he gets, and dispense with all the other trappings of democracy. At this point, the article shifts to Michael Anton's The Stakes, about which I previously wrote:
Michael Anton: The Stakes: America at the Point of No Return (2020, Regnery): Publisher is all the signal you need, but here's some background: Anton wrote a famous essay calling 2016 "The Flight 93 Election," because he figured it was better to storm the cockpit and crash the plane than to let Hillary Clinton win. He explains "the stakes" here: "The Democratic Party has become the party of 'identity politics' -- and every one of those identities is defined against a unifying national heritage of patriotism, pride in America's past, and hope for a shared future. . . . Against them is a divided Republican Party. Gravely misunderstanding the opposition, old-style Republicans still seek bipartisanship and accommodation, wrongly assuming that Democrats care about playing by the tiresome old rules laid down in the Constitution and other fundamental charters of American liberty."
While I'm skeptical both of Trump's chances of winning in 2024, and even more so of his ability to seize total personal control of the government (as, sorry but there is no clearer example, Hitler did upon being appointed chancellor in 1933). Still, it is pretty clear that he would like to, and that he will go out of his way to hire people who have ideas about how to go about it (some of whom he'll have to spring from jail), but these will largely be the same sorts that talked him into thinking Jan. 6 was a bully idea.
Zack Beauchamp announced: "I'm really excited to announce that I have written my first book!" The title is: The Reactionary Spirit: How America's Most Insidious Political Tradition Swept the World. I'd be real tempted to order a copy, but right now I'm bummed that there sems to be another year until publication date (next year, maybe fall). I've always imagined that if I could get my book written in the next 3-4 months, say, it could still appear several months before the 2024 election.
Beauchamp has been writing more/less philosophical pieces in Vox for several years now. I've followed these with interest, as they dovetail nicely with my own thinking. He described his book in multiple tweets, collected and numbered here:
I also see that a book is coming out in January, 2024, by Hunter Walker and Luppe B. Luppen, titled The Truce: Progressives, Centrists, and the Future of the Democratic Party (from WW Norton). The key here isn't that the leftists became reasonable -- we've long been eager to work on real even if piecemeal solutions -- but that the centrists finally started to realize that their approaches, which most often tried to incorporate right-wing talking points while slightly toning them down, weren't working, either for winning elections or for making tangible improvements (which are always hard when you're not winning elections).
As I was trying to wrap this up, I ran across this Nate Silver tweet:
I am a statistician. I'm also a statistician with a good bullshit detector.
There is little variation in age by state. And to the extent there is, it doesn't argue in your favor. The four oldest states are West Virginia (very red), Florida (pretty red), Maine (pretty blue) and Vermont (very blue).
What are their COVID death rates (per 1M population) since Feb. 1, 2021 (i.e. post-vaccine?):
- West Virginia: 3454
- Florida: 2992
- Maine: 1881
- Vermont: 1210
These states all have the ~same elderly population, and yet there are huge variations in COVID death rates that line up 1:1 with partisan differences in vaccine uptake.
In another tweet, Silver noted:
Republicans have the same death rates as Democrats until the introduction of vaccines, then they start dying at much higher rates. That's a very useful first approximation.
Sep 2023 |