Loose Tabs [0 - 9]

Wednesday, April 15, 2026

Loose Tabs

I'm posting this on April 15, after initially hoping for April 10. The delay has in turn pushed Music Week out, not that I have much to report there anyway. It's been a difficult week or two, but aren't they all these days? I'll probably add more when I do publish Music Week, in a day or two. Hoping to get to some long-procrastinated house work this weekend, with decent weather forecast. Then, I hardly know what. Maybe I'll write about cooking or housework, or the book on manufacturing I've been reading, or the other books I got out from the library on tech business, or maybe another book on the advent of the Third Reich — not that the good deal I already know about that subject has adequately prepared me for the rise of Trump.

I should also point out that I've written several standalone pieces on the Iran war:

The last of these was written after Trump's April Fools' Day speech, but before his ultimatum threatening the "end of civilization" if Iran didn't surrender, or the "ceasefire" that allowed him to back down a bit (temporarily). My next piece will probably be on what I think a good peace agreement might look like, given a serious effort to find a solution based on "doing the right thing," and not just on which side is the more powerful and/or the most insane.

More on this below, in the still unfolding Iran War section.

This is an occasional collection of newsworthy links and comments, much less systematic than what I attempted in my late Speaking of Which posts. The new name comes from my extensive use of browser tabs. When I get around to cleaning up, I often find tabs opened to old articles I might want to comment on and/or refer back to. So these posts are mostly housecleaning, but may also serve as a very limited but persistent record of what 20+ years ago I started calling "the end of the American empire" and nowadays feels more like "the end of civilization." I collect these bits in a draft file, and flush them out when periodically (12 times from April-December 2025). My previous one appeared 24 days ago, on March 22.

I have a little-used option of selecting bits of text highlighted with a background color, for emphasis a bit more subtle than bold or ALL CAPS. (I saw this on Medium. I started with their greenish color [#bbdbba] and lightened it a bit [#dbfbda].) I'll try to use it sparingly.

Table of Contents:

New Stories

Sometimes stuff happens, and it dominates the news/opinion cycle for a few days or possibly several weeks. We might as well lead with it, because it's where attention is most concentrated. But eventually these stories will fold into the broader, more persistent themes of the following section.

Cuba: As I was filing my previous Loose Tabs on March 22, my feed was lighting up with tweets on Cuba, where Trump was tightening the blockade, and people of good will were raising the alarm about its probable human toll. Much like the heady early days of Bush's Iraq War, when you heard quips about how "real men go to Tehran," Trump was already talking up "Cuba next."

"No Kings": Another round of "No Kings" protests against Trump were scheduled for March 28, expected to draw biggest — and most diverse — anti-Trump crowds ever.

  • Michael Arria [03-26]: 'No Kings' protest refusal to address the war on Iran reflects the failure of the US antiwar movement: "The upcoming No Kings protest could be the biggest anti-Trump event ever, but opposing the war on Iran doesn't seem to be on the agenda." Sheesh! The organizers don't have to bullet point it (they may momentarily have balked, worrying about splitting their coalition, or maybe some kind of "rally around the flag" effect, but that didn't happen: people who were already anti-Trump saw through this war instantly, and others are discovering the war as a moment when he showed his true colors). Trump put the war on the agenda. The antiwar signs will come out. The war is already more unpopular than Vietnam was well into Nixon's "silent majority." As for the "antiwar movement," the job is going to be to get the Democratic politicians up to following their constituents and opposing the war in practice.

  • Bette Lee [04-03]: 30,000 "pissed off" Americans: A photo essay of the No Kings Protests in Portland.

Viktor Orbán: He founded the right-wing Fidesz party in Hungary, entered Parliament in 1994, and became prime minister from 1998-2002, and again in 2010, this time with enough of a majority he was able to change the constitution to lock in Fidesz power, and he has remained in power until losing this week's election. During his long reign in power, Orbán has become a hero for much of the American right (Tucker Carlson has broadcast from Hungary; Orbán has been opening speaker at CPAC; Steve Bannon referred to him as "Trump before Trump"; Trump and he have endorsed each other multiple times; JD Vance went to Hungary to campaign for Orbán [reminding us that Vance visited Pope Francis just before he died].) Although Orbán lost in a landslide this year, it remains to be seen whether the new government will be able to change the constitution to free the government from Fidesz control. [Later reports show winner Peter Magyar's Tisza party winning 137 of 199 seats in parliament, which would give them the two-thirds majority needed to change the constitution.]

  • Zack Beauchamp [04-13]: How MAGA's favorite strongman finally lost: "Hungarians ousted Viktor Orbán in an election rigged to favor him. It wasn't easy."

  • Molly O'Neal [04-13]: What Viktor Orban's crushing defeat in Hungary really means: "Ascendent leader Peter Magyar is no liberal, and is certainly not pro-Ukraine but tapped into bread and butter issues pressing on the people."

  • Harold Meyerson [04-14]: A really bad week for the global right: "And what is it about Christian nationalism that looks to produce kleptocratic regimes?"

  • Scott Lemieux [04-15]: But it's *competitive* authoritarianism! Notes that one measure of how Orbán rigged Hungary's election process is that opposition leader Peter Magyar hadn't been able to appear on state media for 18 months until he won. Does anyone think that Trump, had he been banned from news media for 18 months before the 2024 election, would still have won? But now right-wingers, who have shown nothing but contempt for democracy, want to spin this loss as a vindication of their faith in the voters.

    This kind of apologism, though, does provide a useful illustration of how Republican elites — including less Trump-aligned ones — have become comfortable with their own anti-democratic measures. Democrats could have broken the Wisconsin 2010 gerrymander by getting 70% of the statewide vote, so what's the big deal? Vote suppression measures don't make it impossible for Democrats to win, so why should we be worried about the Supreme Court effectively repealing the Voting Rights Act with a series of decisions that barely even pretend to have a legal basis? This is what John Roberts has believed since he was a DOJ functionary under Reagan, and it's a way in which Trump is more symptom than cause.

  • Tibor Dessewffy [04-15]: How was Orbán defeated? With energetic campaigning and cunning exploitation of his weaknesses.

Fascism: This could be a regular feature section, but for everyday purposes we already have sections on Trump and Republicans (and Israel) that catch most of the news. Before the 2024 election, there was considerable debate over whether Trump is really a fascist (or is just play-acting). He settled that question very quickly upon taking office. Before the election, I felt that the similarities were pretty obvious, but that the political charge was largely pointless: those who understood the history of fascism were already opposed to Trump (aside from a tiny faction of proud fascists), while the word was nothing more than a vague expletive for almost everyone else (as was obvious from their efforts to call leftists "fascist"). But now that Trump is on the warpath, both domestically and abroad, there are few (if any) historical analogies other than fascism that come close to helping us understand what he is doing. I have no idea how many articles I will find explaining this, but let's start with a quote from Robert Paxton, author of Anatomy of Fascism, with this definition (from 2004):

Fascism may be defind as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, of victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

I read Paxton's book long ago, and have long felt that his definition was excessively tailored to separate Hitler and Mussolini from virtually every right-wing killer (e.g., Franco). I tend to agree with the 1930s "premature anti-fascists" who intuitively understood that the fascists are the people who wanted to kill us, regardless of how they rationalized their murderous intentions. But with his Iran War, Trump has managed to tick off literally every box on Paxton's inventory.

Eric Swalwell: Democratic congressman from California, ran for president in 2020, not coming remotely close but at least got a bit of name recognition, which this year he's tried to build on by running for governor. He was leading in the polls, but now has suspended his candidacy, and facing an expulsion vote in the House has announced his plans to resign. The charges have to do with sexual misconduct.

  • Benjy Sarlin [04-13]: Eric Swalwell's downfall, explained: "The accusations that forced out the frontrunner in California's governor race — and could push him from Congress next."

Major Threads

War on Iran: While the US has arguably waged war against Iran's Islamic Republic starting with the "Carter Doctrine" in 1979, and Israel has spurred America on at least since the 1990s, the belligerence accelerated after Trump became president in 2017 and terminated the Obama-negotiated JCPOA agreement, daring Iran to build a nuclear deterrent against US and Israeli attacks. This came to a head with the socalled Twelve-Day War of June 13-24, 2025, when Israel and the US bombed sites in Iran believed to be involved in developing materials that could be used to build nuclear warheads. Iran responded by launching missiles at Israel and US bases, hoping to establish a deterrence against further attacks, but measuring their response (as they had done following previous "targeted assassinations" to avoid provoking a broader war. Trump, at Netanyahu's urging, took this response as a sign of weakness, and started plotting another round of attacks, aimed at Iran's missiles, navy, air force, and political leadership. Trump used the period to build up offensive forces in the Persian Gulf, and on Feb. 28 unleashed a massive wave of airstrikes against Iran, starting with the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and much of the upper echelon of Iran's security state. Within a day, Trump declared himself the winner, and promised to wrap it up in a couple days or weeks. Iran, once again, responded by firing missiles and drones against Israel and US bases, but also by blocking passage through the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off major exports of oil, gas, and petrochemicals (most critically fertilizer) from the region. While Iranian arms development has never deterred Israel and America — it has actually played large in the reasons given for US & Israeli aggression — control over the Strait has finally proven to be real leverage. Of course, sensible leaders would have understood that before testing the hypothesis, and decent leader wouldn't have thought of this war in the first place. Trump is neither. Netanyahu may be more complicated, but that hardly matters.

The following pieces are roughly chronological by date, but events have moved quickly. In particular, there is one section on Trump's April 1 "speech to the nation," where he suggested a willingness to not contest control over the Strait of Hormuz. Then on April 5 (Easter Sunday), Trump issued an ultimatum to open the Strait, otherwise he would order the destruction of Iran's civilian infrastructure:

Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be livingin Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP

On April 7, Trump reiterated his ultimatum, in even more apocalyptic terms:

A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran.

Then, just before his April 7 deadline, Trump called the attack off and accepted a ceasefire based on Iran's 10-point proposal. I've seen conflicting information about what's in that plan (including some points I can't imagine Iran prevailing on, and others that will be extremely difficult for Trump to swallow — Netanyahu is a different case, because his interests are even more personal-political than Trump's, and even more divorced from Israel's actual needs — but the suggestion that the ceasefire should include Lebanon is clearly not being heeded by Israel. These points, and much more, are reiterated in the stories below.

  • Mitchell Plitnick:

    • [03-20]: Anger in the GCC spreads as Iran retaliates over US-Israeli strikes: "These are signs of the growing impatience of Iran's Arab neighbors with Iran's tactic of striking at them in response to Israeli or American attacks. But the anger of the Gulf states isn't only reserved for Iran." I expect this will become an increasingly large and decisive part of the story. Iran wants the US to leave the region, but can't insist on that as long as the GCC states look to Washington for defense. On the other hand, the US isn't a very reliable defense for them, and given Israel quite possibly puts them at greater risk than having no US bases and negotiating separate peace deals with Iran. If/when the GCC states split with Washington, the bases will have to go, and Iran will feel much more secure.

    • [03-26]: The US and Israel's diverging interests will prolong the war, but Iran will determine its outcome: "A month into the Iran war, it is clear that Israel aims to disrupt any possible off-ramp the Trump administration and Iran may be looking for to end the fighting, and that Iran, not the US, is the key actor that will determine how the war ends."

      • Julian E Barnes/Tyler Pager/Eric Schmitt [03-24]: Saudi leader is said to push Trump to continue Iran war in recent calls: "Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman sees a 'historic opportunity' to remake the region, according to people briefed by US officials on the conversations." This doesn't seem to be very reliably sourced, so one suspects that it is meant to plant the idea that it isn't just Israel that is pushing the US to war. (This sort of thing has been a regular occurrence, as we've been regularly assured that the Saudis and other Persian Gulf states are every bit as alarmed by Iran as Israel is. That in turn has been the rationale for US arms sales to the region, which Israel would veto if they didn't buy the argument about Iran.) On the other hand, this makes MBS look like a blathering idiot. I've long felt that he is a deranged megalomaniac, but nowhere near this stupid. The most likely outcomes of the war are a failed state that sows chaos in the region and a retrenched, hardened central regime which will continue to threaten its neighbors (as it, not without reason, feels threatened by them). Given this scenario, what the Saudis and the Gulf states should be doing is attempting to mediate, not to escalate the conflict. If they don't find a peaceful way out, and are viewed as mere tools of Israel and America, they risk not just Iran taking pot shots at their infrastructure but revolt from within their own ranks.

      • Matzav [03-16]: Saudi Arabia denies report claiming Crown Prince urged US to continue war with Iran.

    • [04-03]: Trump has no good options to resolve the disaster he created in Iran: "Trump faces a disaster of his own making in Iran. He had no plan to address Iran's predictable retaliation, including closing the Strait of Hormuz, but even if he did, he faces another problem: Israel, his disastrous choice for a partner in crime."

    • [04-09]: The Iran war will end only when the US finally decides to rein in Israel: "As the shaky ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran holds, only Israel has an incentive to continue fighting, as Netanyahu is widely seen as having lost the war. If there is to be a durable end to this war, the U.S. will be forced to rein in Israel." I think he's right, but that this will be very difficult for Trump, who can't stand the idea that he has to back down on anything, especially with Netanyahu doing everything he can to keep the war going. The only real hope is that someone will get in Trump's ear and convince him that Netanyahu has steered him wrong. If he chooses to use it, I believe that he does have the power to rein in Netanyahu, or simply knock the legs out from under him. (Other Israeli politicians are already lining up to follow Trump into a peace agreement, but that's going to take a signal from Trump.)

  • Ali Abunimah [03-21]: The war on Iran is making it stronger. I'm skeptical, not just because I don't know how you measure such things, or whether "stronger" is even a good thing, but the war has allowed Iran to flex muscles that had long been kept dormant, and that's caught some people by surprise who expected them to cower under America's "shock and awe" attack and fold like a house of cards.

  • Harrison Mann [03-25]: 3 things Trump needs to do to end the Iran war: While admitting that "Trump couldn't end his war tomorrow, even if he wanted to," Mann's suggests are pretty basic:

    1. Unilateral de-escalation: "stop openly trying to destroy and take over Iran."
    2. Acknowledge Iran's demands: Put them on the agenda, and negotiate over them seriously.
    3. Rein in Netanyahu: If the US cannot control Israel, the US cannot be trusted to negotiate an end to the war (as Israel can, and probably will, open it up again).

    The problem is, it's going to be very hard for Trump to back out of this war without admitting that it was a mistake, especially if he can't blame the mistake on Netanyahu. Similarly, it's going to be hard for Netanyahu to back down without admitting his own colossal error. Moreover, even if he did so, he'd still have to deal with a Palestinian problem he's only made worse, and he doesn't have the political capital within Israel to get beyond that. Mann also wrote:

    • [03-10]: I was a US intelligence analyst. Here's what a ground invasion of Iran could look like: Actually, he only considers three scenarios, none of which have any chance of forcing an Iranian surrender, or even of triggering a regime change:

      1. Commando raid on nuclear sites to secure Iran's uranium: That may seem like a doable limited objective, but the sites are deep within Iran and are likely to be well defended, some known sites are deeply buried which will slow down the operation, and some materials have probably been moved to unknown sites.
      2. Seize Kharg Island to hold Iran's oil exports hostage: This isn't worth much unless you can ship the captured oil out of the Gulf, which right now you can't. You could blow it up to keep Iranian oil off the market longer, but so much of Trump's political flak concerns oil prices that he's letting Iran sell its oil at a premium now, rather than further reducing supply.
      3. Occupy Iran's coast to reopen oil shipping lanes: For this to work, you'd have to occupy all of a very rugged coastline, which Iranian troops can access by land. Moreover, Iran doesn't have to be on the coast to launch missiles and drones into the Strait, or to mine it.

      This doesn't discuss scenarios like Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US had proxy armies they could easily supply, and neighboring countries they could mount a land invasion from. No nation adjacent to Iran would allow the US to stage an invasion force. In any case, Iran is 3-4 times larger than Iraq or Afghanistan, making it much more formidable.

  • Joshua Keating

    • [03-26]: Trump says the Iran war is over. So why won't he end it? "It may not be possible to TACO out of this one."

    • [04-01]: Is this the beginning of the end of the war in Iran? "Trump signaled that he's ready to wrap up the conflict, but that may not be up to him." Well, it could be up to him, if he were willing to accept the consequences of his mistakes: he needs to cut Iran a deal which assures them that this war will never break out again; and he needs to restrain Israel. If he doesn't do the latter, he can't make a deal, because Israel can break anything he comes up with. And since he launched the attacks, the price of assurance has only gone up, to a level of concession he's bound to find uncomfortable (perhaps even humiliating).

    • [04-07]: "A whole civilization will die tonight": How Trump is threatening war crimes: "Bombing all of Iran's bridges and power plants would be illegal." Oh, by the way, bombing anything else is also illegal, and immoral, and even if you don't care about those things, just plain stupid politics.

    • [04-07]: From threatening a civilization to ceasefire: What we learned from a wild day in the Iran war: "Trump just pulled a Russian-style policy move — and it's not clear it will deliver what he promised." Russian-style? Keating thinks he's referring to the "escalate to de-escalate" tactic, which Russia has never actually used, and denies even considering. (Unlike, say, Nixon scrambling SAC bombers in a mock attack on the Soviet Union. Nixon called his tactic the Madman Theory. Trump's threat fits that model, even if he didn't plan on "ending civilization" with nukes (a detail he remained ambiguous on, but given the size of Iran and the limits of America's conventional weapons, the only credible threat would have been to use nukes).

    • [04-09]: We have no idea if Iran can still build a bomb: "The central goal of the war is nowhere near a resolution." Interview with Jeffrey Lewis ("a professor at the Middlebury Institute's James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies"). This doesn't go into a lot of detail, probably because, as the title says, no one knows. The questions of "why would they build a bomb?" and "why should we care?" aren't raised at all. They should be, because nuclear bombs are useless except as deterrence against attack. Given how stupid the US-Israeli attack has proven to be, we would have been better off if Iran had bombs (assuming that would have deterred us; it turns out that their command of the Strait of Hormuz should have been deterrence enough, although even that shouldn't have been necessary).

  • Tom Carson [03-26]: Strange Khargo: Donald Trump's Toy Story War: "This is obviously a cool way to behave that only Presidents get to cosplay in what John Le Carre called the theater of the real." And:

    It's said that feeling nostalgia for Trump's first term is a mug's game, and maybe so. But he did show a marked aversion to getting us entangled in mindless foreign wars. For all its sins, the MAGA base shares this antipathy, and that's why they're so puzzled — if not worse — about what's become of their Donald. But maybe he's just never found a war stupid enough to entrance him until now.

  • Jack Hunter

    • [03-27]: Putting boots on the ground could kill Trump's presidency: "Every single poll of Americans, including Republicans, shows a hard line against a land war involving US troops in Iran." Polling is fickle, and it's not unusual for support for a war to increase due to a "rally around the flag" effect as the question is transformed to "do you support our troops?" On the other hand, sustaining that level of support is difficult when you're losing and don't have anything to show for it. And Trump is uniquely polarizing, so much so that many Democrats who might have rallied behind Israel didn't give Trump a moment's credibility.

      1. Iran is too big, and too distant, and too estranged, for the US to mount a successful ground invasion, at least one aimed at occupying the whole country and installing a puppet regime.
      2. Trump will make no effort at nation buiding, so the purpose of a ground invasion will be simply to obliterate and kill more precisely than is possible from the air (cf. Israel in Gaza).
      3. The political (and for that matter economic) costs of a prolonged ground war will be unbearable for Trump personally and for America as a whole.

      Ergo, it's not going to happen. Still doesn't hurt to explain what a bad idea it is, especially given that the dead ender war mongers are sure to bring it up (if only to blame peaceniks for their own failures). I might also add that if Trump's presidency is already doomed, he's unstable enough that he might take that as reason for desperate measures.

    • [04-11]: Mark Levin seems upset we haven't nuked Iran: "The neoconservative talk host tried to normalize the use of nuclear weapons and now appears irate that the president hasn't taken his advice." The right-wing idiot chorus dropping hints for Trump.

  • Oliver Holmes, et al. [03-31]: 'Get your own oil': Trump launches tirade against Europe for not joining Iran war.

  • Kelley Beaucar Vlahos [04-01]: Trump's April Fools' address to the nation: "Expectations reached a fever pitch Wednesday, but he neither called for an end of the war nor announced a ground invasion. Bottom line: We're not finished." In anticipation of the speech, oil prices dropped and the stock market rose. The speech itself was so full of nothing that financial manipulation may have been its sole purpose. In 19 minutes, Trump laid out the case for going to war, or not going to war; declared victory, while vowing to fight on; gave up on opening the Strait of Hormuz, or expected it to happen magically. For more on the speech:

    Also by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos:

  • Timothy Snyder

    • [04-01]: Wars fought for fun cannot be won: "The attack on Iran is wrong in countless ways: morally, legally, politically. But set all of that aside momentarily and stay within the logic of war planning. The war cannot be won because it was the result of a whim, not a plan." Leaving aside whether any war can be won, and his six-point rationalization of the process (do "national interests" even exist, or are they just class interests?), the point about "whim" is well taken, as is his assertion that Trump just enjoys blowing things up (the "two-minute sizzle reels" he is shown daily proves that point). But the "capabilities" goes a bit deeper: the US is doing what it is capable of doing — mostly blowing things up, but also kidnapping Maduro, bribing allies, threatening everyone else, spreading lies — but is anyone asking whether what they can do actually helps to achieve any sensible goals? Not Trump, nor his cronies, nor the rational but narrow-minded specialists tasked with devising weapons and tactics for using them, nor the Clausewitz fanboys who decided that if politics was just war by other means, we could dispose of diplomacy and put all our eggs in the military's basket. But turning this into "fun" takes something else: a lack of concern for other people, and a shallowness of character that amounts to sociopathy.

      This is the pleasure principle. If war feels good, do it. Trump and Hegseth take satisfaction in killing or dominating other people.

      That, however, has nothing to do with a national interest.

      There is no evidence of anything beyond the pleasure principle. With good intentions and bad, commentators seek to force some policy around the whimsy. But it is whimsy all the way down. And a war for fun cannot be won.

      And now that we have started with the pleasure principle, Trump is trapped, at least for a while, like an amateur gambler, in the behaviorist logic of intermittent pleasure and pain. It felt good at first. But then it didn't feel good when Iran didn't surrender, when Iran destroyed US systems, when Iran blocked the Straits of Hormuz. So now we must "double down" (consider how often that gambling jargon appears!) so that Trump can get another hit of pleasure. Each one will be more elusive than the last.

      And he who follows the pleasure principle into war cannot understand the other side. He cannot understand any action that is based upon other grounds than his own. If the other side is not having "fun" (again, Trump's own term) it should surrender. If it does not, this is, according to Trump, "unfair."

    • [04-07]: The president speaks genocide. Deciphering Trump's "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again," while maligning various known "bad guys" who never themselves issued such sweeping and nihilistic threats, and not just because unlike Trump they never had to power to make such threats credible.

  • Zak Cheney-Rice [04-02]: How to ignore a war: "Trump is hoping confusing timelines and mixed messages of victory will make the conflict fade away."

  • David Dayen [04-02]: The opening of Trump's box: "Iran has put a tollgate across the Strait of Hormuz. This fundamentally changes the global economy."

  • Stephen Semler [04-02]: The war on Iran is more expensive than you think: "In the first two weeks of its war on Iran, the US spent an estimated $2.1 billion a day. It's no wonder Donald Trump is saying that the cost of war means the federal government can't afford to spend money to help Americans meet their basic needs." It's more expensive than Semler thinks, too.

  • Brahma Chellaney [04-03]: Why Iran is beating America: "The 'asymmetric cost' model — a war the US starts will ultimately cost the other side far more — has proven vital to sustain the illusion of American invincibility and to limit domestic political resistance to US military adventurism. Now, Iran has broken it." Explanation follows the paywall. I got a summary from google, and found the full article here, as How Iran is able to beat the US in its war. "Beat" has two meanings: to win, or just to hurt. The former is nonsensical in this context, as (despite common beliefs) both sides stand to lose much and/or gain little. The latter cuts both ways, but the question there isn't which side gets beat the worse, but how much each side can afford to be beaten. There is little doubt that the US can hurt Iran much worse than Iran can hurt the US, but can the US (and its "allies") take it? That may turn out to be the greater asymmetry.

  • Jonathan Swan/Maggie Haberman [04-07]: How Trump took the US to war with Iran: "In a series of Situation Room meetings, President Trump weighed his instincts against the deep concerns of his vice president and a pessimistic intelligence assessment. Here's the insure story of how he made the fateful decision." Pretty much as I expected, although the reporters' inside sources are already making sure to register their reservations, which Trump didn't hear or didn't give any credence to (e.g., on Hormuz, uprisings in Iran).

  • Andrew Prokop [04-08]: Does Trump really always chicken out? "Iran offers a fresh window into when Trump chickens out — and why his threats matter anyway." The problem with "chicken" is that it's a schoolyard taunt, meant to shame someone who backs away from a fight, or better still to provoke them into fighting. For a guy who fancies himself as tough, and who as president has almost arbitrary access to weapons of mass destruction, that's a dangerous accusation. The phrase caught on when Trump backed away from extreme tariff threats, which will foolish fell well short of acts of war. Iran, however, is an act of war, and there are many reasons to back away from that other than being chicken. The thing to understand is that Trump's wildest threats are nothing short of insane. When he realizes this, in some rare (for him) moment of sanity, we should welcome his backing off, and not taunt him for not doing something awful. Still, that's hard to do, largely because he so relishes making the insane threats in the first place, especially as doing so offers maximum publicity. But it also exposes him as thoughtless and dangerous, and utterly untrustworthy. It's rarely clear whether he does it just for effect, planning on "chickening out," or he just flies off the handle, and someone saner has to chill him down. Either way, it's not only not effective, like the "boy who cried wolf" it's likely to produce diminishing returns, and possibly end by doing him in. With Iran, I'm not sure that hasn't already happened.

  • James K Galbraith [04-08]: The ceasefire just showed the world that US military power is obsolete: "With the illusion shattered, now is the chance for the US to liberate itself from a broken imperial model." I see this more as a tactical retreat, perhaps based on the military finally acknowledging that they don't have the firepower to deliver on Trump's apocalyptic promises, nor do they have the defensive armor to protect against the inevitable reprisals. You could characterize that as weakness, or as pointlessness. But the ceasefire didn't shatter any illusions. It protected them from further distress. Still, why not hope for more?

    In my dreams, this defeat could liberate the US from a broken imperial model. The US could demilitarize, mothball its nuclear weapons, decommission its aircraft carriers, and close bases, even beyond those now abandoned in the Middle East. It could shrink its financial sector and devote its real resources to domestic physical, social and industrial renewal. It could revive, retrain and reenergize its worn-down population, with useful jobs doing worthwhile tasks. It could join the concert of great powers on equal terms, accepting the fact that none of the other powers — not China, not Russia, and not Iran — has any interest in taking over the world. And that therefore,for effective management of the world commonwealth, cooperative solutions must be found.

    Won't happen, but it is true that most Americans would be happier if we didn't have to carry the dead weight of empire. And that's really all it is.

  • Ishaan Tharoor [04-08]: A US-Iran ceasefire is here, but Trump's stone age mentality endures: "A temporary truce can't erase the chaos of a war that the White House started and never fully understood."

  • L Ali Khan [04-08]: The fragility of Gulf States: Some useful information here on the significance of migrant workers and foreign capital in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE. The population of migrant workers in Qatar and the UAE is around 88%; 67-70% in Kuwait; 52% in Bahrain. While migrant workers are kept powerless, those are huge numbers. While the economies are based on oil and gas, they've accumulated a lot of foreign investment, and run huge sovereign wealth funds. In Abu Dhabi, foreigners own 78% of total property value. This is all based on the appearance of stability, but could easily prove fragile.

  • Robert Pape [04-09]: "The war is turning Iran into a major world power": Interview with Pape, who's long been a skeptic of the use of air power only in war. He has a Substack called Escalation Trap, but mostly just briefing points there. As I understand "escalation trap," it's that when you commit escalation, you make it harder to try any other approach. Trump, for instance, had a range of negotiation options back in February, but in choosing to escalate by killing Khamenei, he discarded many of his options, committing to a path that pointed only toward more escalation. Pape explains it this way: "The Escalation Trap equips you with the frameworks to recognize when conflicts are shifting phases, anticipate the pressures driving escalation, and make clearer decisions before volatility hardens into irreversible commitments."

    Pape also wrote a NYT op-ed on this theme:

    • [04-06]: The war is turning Iran into a major world power. I don't much like this formulation, possibly because it seems like an unnecessary escalation: Iran clearly has some ability to frustrate and limit the US, but I'd beware of making a false equivalence. The ability to break something does not make one a craftsman, although it may negate the value of anyone else being a craftsman.

  • Ariana Aspuru/Sean Rameswaram [04-09]: Pete Hegseth preaches "maximum lethality." What has that meant in Iran? Interview with Benjamin Wallace-Wells. I'll note that all this talk about "warrior ethos" goes back to Robert D Kaplan, who in the 2000s wrote a couple books using that terminology. Actually, he concept goes back even further, as researchers discovered that draftees rarely fired their guns at enemy soldiers. A major push in the Vietnam War was to increase their firing efficiency, which was partly accomplished by dehumanizing their opponents. The next advance was getting rid of draftees, allowing better selection of "warriors," although the effect there was blunted by officers becoming less wasteful of their soldiers' lives. Still, it's hard to say that US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't lethal enough. McChrystall's counterinsurgency program failed in Afghanistan because US soldiers were unwilling to build better relationships with Afghans if that meant restraint (and more risk). What's new with Trump and Hegseth is that you're never going to hear the phrase "hearts and minds" again. Given how hypocritical that's always been (at least since Vietnam), that may be for the better, but is a "pure warrior" military something that we want? Or can even use? Granted, sociopathic sadists like Hegseth and Trump get off on the idea, but are we going to look back on Trump's use of the military and find anything worth carrying forward? I doubt it.

  • James R Webb [04-09]: For peace with Iran to work a reckoning with Israel is in order: "Trump must get back to basics, and his promises to the American people. In order to do that he must put this relationship in its proper place." This is true, and more people should say so, but it is also a big ask for Trump, as his alignment with Israel is based not just on mutual donors and graft but on a deeply held faith in power and violence. Webb notes that "killing leadership makes it more difficult to negotiate." But Trump and Netanyahu have convinced themselves that negotiating is for losers, and in the process consider the elimination of potential negotiators as good policy. Good luck convincing them otherwise.

  • Matthew Cunningham-Cook [04-10]: Marcus Foundation bankrolls pro-Iran War group: "A foundation associated with Home Depot has been the biggest funder of one of the loudest voices for war against Iran." The group is Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), which Bernie Marcus has donated $19 million to.

  • Cameron Peters [04-13]: The new Hormuz blockade, briefly explained: Not really. I wonder where this subhed came from: "Trump tries Iran's playbook." It's not really the same tactic at all, although as a short-term negotiation ploy it may make some sense.

  • TRTWorld [04-13]: Iran offers 5 years enrichment freeze as US pushes for 20 in Islamabad talks: I find these time frameworks very revealing. Twenty years is long enough that current leaders can conveniently forget about the problem, continuing to treat Iran with callous contempt, figuring that the consequences will be someone else's problem. Five years is soon enough one should start planning straight away. Enrichment itself is only a hypothetical problem. While the US and Israel prefers prohibiting any HEU, the other way of neutralizing the "threat" is to normalize relations and forge bonds of trade and aid that would lead Iranians to viewing the US and Israel not as foes but as friends. Five years should be enough time to make substantial progress, if that's something the US is willing to consider. (And we're mostly talking the US here, which harbors the sharpest grudges from 1979. Israel and Saudi Arabia have found that an easy way to cozy up to the US, and to neutralize their own antagonism, is to posit Iran as a joint enemy threat. That no longer works if the US makes peace with Iran.) Another report:

  • Rajan Menon [04-16]: Behind the bluster, Donald Trump desperately needs a peace deal with Iran. Here's a solution. I'm not especially impressed with these proposals, but anything mutually agreeable would have my blessing. The key to a solution is not just that both sides must compromise, but that both sides need to recognize the other's legitimate fears, and seek to alleviate them in ways that are minimally disruptive and demeaning. This would, of course, be much easier if Israel would negotiate a modus vivendi with the Palestinians, but they are miles away from even considering such a thing.

Israel: Shortly after Israel and the US killed the Ayatollah, kicking off major war with Iran, Hezbollah lobbed a few rockets at northern Israel from Lebanon, so Israel responded as they always do, by escalating. Then when Trump canceled the apocalypse and agreed to a two-week ceasefire with Iran, most people expected Lebanon to chill out, but Israel escalated once again, suggesting they were even madder about the ceasefire than about Hezbollah's initial attacks (or "self-defense" or whatever). Evidently, while Israel can drag Trump into their wars, Trump can't (or won't) attempt to control Israel, so whatever ceasefire promises he makes have no credibility.

  • Dave Reed

  • Jonathan Ofir [03-22]: 'Forever live by the sword': Understanding Israelis' massive support for Iran war: "A recent poll registered Israeli support for the war on Iran at a whopping 93%. Between the genocide, the ethnic cleansing, and the annexations, Israelis think this is how it's meant to be. Constant war to sustain our constant expansion." The prevalence of right-wingers in Israel seems to be the result of so many years of psychodrama — the existential fear that has been drummed into every Israeli, combined with the seeming reprieve of incredible military victories — although this is aided by the insulation of having nearly all of the violence take place outside their own communities. (For similar reasons, Americans fell in love with WWII, and generally tolerated later wars until their utter pointlessness became too obvious to ignore.) What troubles me more is how the nominal left has fallen for the same mythology. Here's an earlier piece that makes the same point:

    • Orly Noy [03-01]: We are at war, therefore we are: "Months after proclaiming a 'historic victory,' Israel embarks on another offensive against Iran — and the ritual erasure of political dissent begins anew."

      For these three men — Lapid, Golan, and Bennett — no task is supposedly more urgent than replacing Netanyahu's blood-soaked, Kahanist government, which has led the country to unprecedented depths. They understand how dangerous he is. They know the devastation another term would bring.

      Yet the moment the smell of war fills the air, all these insights evaporate, replaced by automatic reverence to the Israeli war machine. It is as if the very idea that a war can be opposed simply does not exist within their cognitive framework.

      No one understands this mechanism better than Netanyahu. However precarious his political position may be, he knows that uniting even his fiercest rivals across the Zionist spectrum is only a click away. If "in wartime there is no coalition or opposition," then perpetual war becomes his most reliable political strategy — and he has learned to deploy it with increasing frequency.

      Netanyahu is a cynical and dangerous war criminal. But one thing cannot be denied: No Israeli leader has so deeply understood the collective psyche of Jewish Israeli society. A society that seems capable of feeling its own pulse only in war and destruction; that, if it is not attacking, destroying, and killing, is not entirely certain that it exists. In that sense, Netanyahu fits it like a glove.

  • Esther Sperber [03-26]: Settler violence is the symptom, not the disease: "As rabbis and generals rush to denounce West Bank attacks, we must ask: what kind of political system makes such brutality not just possible, but predictable?"

  • Qassam Muaddi:

    • [03-25]: What it's like to be a family caught in the crosshairs of Israel's 'de-Palestinization' of Jerusalem: "The Hamdia family spent all of their life savings on building a home, but Israeli bulldozers destroyed it in a single day. They are one example of Israel's surging policy of home demolitions in the West Bank."

    • [03-31]: Israeli policies pose an existential threat to Palestinians in the West Bank. Why isn't there more resistance? "Israeli settler pogroms, annexation, and economic strangulation are eroding Palestinian life in the West Bank." The answer seems so obvious that it's almost irresponsible to even raise the question: resistance, either through legal channels or as a violent uprising, is hopeless, with the latter exactly what the Israelis are hoping for, an excuse to do to what's left of the Palestinian West Bank what they've done to Gaza. All that really leaves is making some kind of moral appeal to the world to chastise Israel, and good luck with that. For an example:

      • Salman Abu Sitta [04-01]: Israel may dominate through violence, but Palestinians hold a force more powerful: "Israel has overwhelming military power, but moral power rooted in peace and justice is completely absent from Zionism. This is the power that has inspired millions to shout 'Free Palestine' in cities around the world like never before." Easy to say for some kind of organizer based in London. I'm choking on "powerful" in the title. That's really not the right word — "compelling," maybe? or "inspiring"? — and what about "shouting"? Isn't that what you do when no one is listening?

      Still, I wouldn't discount resistance just because it isn't working to the satisfaction of activists (especially outsiders). People resist in their own ways, given their own situations, and the limits of hope and action. Slavery existed in America from 1619 to 1865, punctuated by a few inconsequential revolts, but I wouldn't say there were long periods of no resistance.

    • [03-31]: Global condemnation as Israeli ministers celebrate death penalty law targeting Palestinian prisoners: "Human rights groups condemned a new Israeli law targeting Palestinian prisoners with the death penalty as a possible war crime and 'deeply discriminatory.' Meanwhile, Israeli ministers celebrated the law's passage with champagne on the Knesset floor."

    • [04-04]: Israel is implementing its Gaza strategy in Lebanon: turning 'buffer zones' into permanent borders: "Israel has stated it does not plan to leave Lebanon even if the current 'war' ends. If the Gaza model is any guide, Israel appears to be moving toward expanding its border into Lebanon." Israel has long (as far back as Ben-Gurion) wanted to annex southern Lebanon up to the Litani River. The problem, as in Palestine, has always been disposing of the people who live there. But while there is renewed talk of annexation, their immediate plans are only slightly less ambitious:

      Now, as Israel escalates its war on Lebanon, Israel's Defense Minister Israel Katz has made Israel's plans clear: implement the Gaza model of total destruction and ethnic cleansing. He said on Tuesday that "the model of Rafah and Beit Hanoun" will be implemented in Lebanon.

      This means that Netanyahu's orders to the Israeli army to create a buffer zone 10 kilometers deep into Lebanon is more than a military strategy. It is a statement of reshaping an area of approximately 10,000 square kilometers, making it uninhabitable for its Lebanese residents, and putting it under Israeli military control. In Syria, Israel hasn't conducted the same kind of destruction, but it has announced that it will remain in the new territories it occupied after the fall of the al-Assad regime in December 2024. Together, in Lebanon and Syria, Israel seeks to maintain permanent control of some 14,000 square kilometers, all to create a so-called "buffer zone."

    • [04-08]: As US and Iran agree to a temporary ceasefire, Israel launches 'massacre' in Lebanon, threatening entire deal: "Hours after Iran and the US reached a two-week ceasefire agreement, Israel launched a massive bombing campaign across Lebanon, killing hundreds of people and threatening to derail the US-Iranian ceasefire before it even begins."

  • Jamal Abdi [04-09]: The forever spoiler: Netanyahu has been blowing up diplomacy with Iran for decades.

  • Jonathan Ofir [04-10]: Israelis are finally revolting against Netanyahu — for agreeing to the US ceasefire with Iran: "The entire Israeli political spectrum is united in blasting Netanyahu for not continuing to attack Iran, and Israeli society agrees. The reason, to put it simply, is that Israelis are war junkies." That's easy to say, not just because "Israelis are war junkies," but because the war rhetoric is so seductive to people who are sheltered from the costs and risks.

Israel-American-World Relations: I used to try to separate out Israel-related pieces into several bins. The Iran war has its own section, with most of the Lebanon front included under Israel above, as well as operations in the West Bank and Gaza, and internal Israeli politics. But here we will break out stories relating to Israeli propaganda, and the growing opposition to Israeli apartheid, war, and genocide in America and around the world.

  • Peter Beinart

    • [02-16]: The closing of the establishment Jewish mind: "What a letter claiming that accusations of genocide against Israel constitute a 'blood libel' says about pro-Israel discourse." I don't recall whether I cited this before, but the tab was still open. You can skip over the housekeeping up top and go straight to the "video transcript, where he makes his point. I'll add that "blood libel" seems to have become some kind of shorthand for any baseless accusation against Jews. Even in that very generic interpretation, it's impossible to argue that the charge of genocide is baseless. There is considerable evidence on both critical fronts: intent, and effect. You may try to argue that either or both don't quite reach the level of the legal term, but you can't pretend there's no evidence to be weighed.

  • Theia Chatelle [03-10]: With world's eyes on Iran, Israel locks down the West Bank: "The Israeli military has closed checkpoints around the West Bank, restricting Palestinians' movement as settler violence ramps up."

  • Michael Arria

    • [03-12]: Lindsey Graham helped push Trump to war: "As the war on Iran unfolds, it's clear that most Americans, including many on the right, don't support it. Nevertheless, warmonger Republican Senator Lindsey Graham continues to boast about his role in helping Israel push the US into war." There's also a section here on "Samantha Power and genocide," which includes a transcript of her response to a question of why she didn't quit her USAID post so she could speak out about the genocide unfolding in Gaza. Her rationalization isn't very compelling, making me wonder if the real problem wasn't just that she didn't take the problem seriously enough, probably because the political currents within the Biden administration were hostile to any such circumspection.

    • [03-26]: Newsom flip-flops on Israeli apartheid comments: The lobby strikes back, and by backing down, Newsom further discredits himself. One might quibble about the term "apartheid," but that's mostly because Israel's system of discrimination and separation is more extreme than South Africa's. Democrats need to find a way to talk about Israel without falling into hasbara clichés which ultimately justify war and other abuses of human rights. You don't have to say "apartheid" or "genocide" (although anyone who does is well justified). You could just say that you believe that everyone should have full and equal civil and political rights wherever they live, under whatever government is operating there. Then, when asked to clarify whether that includes Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, all you have to say is "yes." When asked about "Israel's right to self-defense," you can say, "sure, but not at the expense of anyone's rights to equal civil and political rights." Back during the 2024 campaign, Kamala Harris answered every question by first asserting Israel's "right to self-defense," after which nobody listened to anything else she had to say. Any time you write Israel a blank check like that, expect to be morally bankrupted.

    • [04-09]: Military aid to Israel emerges as the latest political litmus test for Democrats: "Last week, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she would vote against any military aid to Israel, even weapons deemed 'defensive.' As support for Israel craters across the US, the issue of military aid has become the latest litmus test for Democrats." This is still a long ways from becoming a majority view, let alone a litmus test. The more realistic test is whether to oppose Trump's war against Iran, and blame Netanyahu for putting the idea into his tiny brain, and then using the leverage of the purse to rein both of them in and negotiate some kind of peace. Still, that's going to be hard for Democrats to do, especially the pro-Israel ones who would rather attack Trump for failing to win an unimaginable victory than to admit that their loyalty to Israel was (and always has been) misguided. Mainstream Democrats must finally realize that the only way they can function — the only way they can build any degree of voter trust — in the modern world is to become the party of peace. Failing that, they have no alternative when Trump flies off the handle and plunges America into a hopeless war.

  • James North [03-26]: The US media is ignoring Israel's efforts to torpedo Trump's talks with Iran: "Why won't the mainstream US media report on Israel's efforts to sabotage Trump's efforts to end the war with Iran?"

  • Yonathan Touval [03-29]: Is it 1914 in America? Filed here because the author is an Israeli "foreign-policy analyst," complains about leaders who "remain strikingly obtuse about human beings — their pride, shame, convictions and historical memory"; about his dangerous it is to place war "in the hands of people untrained in irony, contingency and the darker constants of human nature." Corey Robin complained about this piece, and he's probably right, but it seems to me pretty orthogonal to whatever it is that drives the core question, which is whether to go to war or not. A simpler first approximation is "not."

  • Nathan Thompson [04-03]: Democratic leader shift away from Israel: "Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's announcement that she will not vote for any Israeli military aid is part of an emerging trend." I'd be more impressed if Hakeem Jeffries said that.

  • Rawan Abhari [04-04]: Stop asking if Israel has a right to exist: "The question . . . isn't a real inquiry about the rights of nations. It's a manipulation of discourse, a litmus test that forces Palestinians to offer theoretical assurances before their real political grievances can even be heard."

  • James Zogby [04-14]: A major taboo was broken at the DNC last weekend: "An AIPAC-specific resolution didn't make it through the party's meeting. But I've never seen such an open debate about the role of pro-Israel money before."

  • Bernie Sanders [04-15]: No more US military aid to Israel: "The time is long overdue for members of Congress to listen to the American people and end US military aid to the extremist Netanyahu government."

Around the World: The Ukraine War is still with us, and beyond that states around the world try to navigate around the neuroses and pathologies of Trump and Netanyahu. It is worth noting that people who are routinely slandered as mad tyrants in America often appear as much saner than those two.

  • Anatol Lieven [03-31]: Is the Iran War breaking NATO forever? "Trump is lashing out at allies as European partners increasingly turn away from his war — all signs that this is more than just a situational divide."

  • Karthik Sankaran/Sarang Shidore [03-24]: Iran war could cripple the 'Yuxi Circle' or 55% of world population: "This includes the Indian subcontinent, China, Japan, the Koreas, and all the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN."

  • Wenjing Wang [03-26]: On energy, China can sit this crisis out. Here's why. "'Green energy' here isn't a slogan or abstract aspiration. It's economic and geopolitical survival."

  • James Park [04-10]: Kim Jong Un waiting for Trump, but there's a path right in front of him: Relations between North and South Korea have thawed a bit since Lee Jae-myung followed Yoon Suk-yeol's "imprudent hawkishness," although Kim remains more focused on the US, even as Trump continues playing hard-to-get:

    From Pyongyang's perspective, engagement with Seoul has little strategic value. One takeaway Kim may have drawn from his failed 2018-19 negotiations with U.S. President Donald Trump — mediated by South Korea — is that Seoul lacks either the diplomatic leverage to move U.S. policy or the agency to advance inter-Korean relations without U.S. consent. In practice, Washington exerts decisive influence over key issues of concern to Pyongyang, including potential nuclear talks, U.S.-South Korea joint military drills, sanctions, and a permanent end to the Korean War.

    Another lesson, this from the Iran War but already learned from Libya, is that giving up nuclear weapons would be stupid and perhaps suicidal. It occurs to me that Trump could make partial amends for his blunder in Iran by negotiating a normalization deal with North Korea. I doubt he has the skills or imagination to do so, and I doubt North Korea will give him the win on nuclear disarmament he mostly wants (not least to pair it with whatever he gets out of Iran; neither will be complete, but perhaps within spin distance). But it's doable if he can overcome the internal resistance that has kept the US at odds with North Korea since 1953.

Trump's World War III: I initially set this section up to deal with Trump's threats of war. We're obviously beyond that now, as Iran has its own section now. I've also opened a temporary news slot for Cuba. That leaves other fronts here, as well as broader issues of American militarism, including the logic that has led to the Iran War.

  • Leah Schroeder [02-04]: Hegseth to take control of Stars & Stripes for 'warfighter' makeover: "Critics, including veterans and First Amendment advocates, say the proposed overhaul would usurp the storied military newspaper's independence."

  • Joseph Bouchard [03-03]: How Maduro overthrow was key node in US-Israeli war on Iran: "It is important not to see them as separate operations: Venezuela was very much a precursor to regime change in Tehran." Several quotes here as how "the Israeli government has long viewed Venezuela as a strategic satellite of the Islamic Republic of Iran" make you wonder whether Israel had lobbied for the Venezuela coup. What is certain is that it served as a confidence-builder for Trump to go up against Iran — a point that Netanyahu and other skillfully exploited.

  • Daniel Immerwahr [03-16]: What' behind Trump's new world disorder? "A foreign policy freed of liberal pretenses and imperial ambitions could lead to restraint — or, as the Iran attack shows, simply license hit-and-run belligerence."

  • Alex Thurston [03-23]: Trump's Sahel reset banks on 'sovereignty,' guns + minerals deals. The art of dealing with Trump is the kickback.

  • Nick Turse: Selected articles (more here).

  • Robert Kagan [03-30]: America is now a rogue superpower: "Washington's conduct in the Iran war is accelerating global chaos and deepening America's dangerous isolation." Sounds like the author's dream come true. So why isn't he happy now?

  • Garrett Graff:

    • [04-02]: The mythology of Pete Hegseth: "The Iran War cheerleader-in-chief embraces a dangerous alternate history of the 21st century."

    • [04-06]: Is Trump about to nuke Iran? "The fact we can't say 'no' for sure should terrify us."

    • [2025-08-25]: America tips into fascism: "Today is different than before." Old, but still on the top of the author's "featured posts." Still, it wasn't immediately clear what had happened on that August 25, 2025, so I asked Google to look it up, and got this: "deadly Israeli airstrikes on Nasser Hospital in Gaza killing five journalists, the approach of powerful Typhoon Kajiki in Vietnam triggering evacuations, and US political developments involving National Guard deployments and administration cabinet changes." The latter was what the reference was to, but his subject was the whole anomalous drive of the then-eight-month-old Trump administration.

  • Francesca Fiorentini [04-03]: Finally, an anti-woke war: "America refuses a prolonged DEI quagmire." This is a bit too tongue-in-cheek, taking Hegseth at his word that the Bush wars failed because the military was too woke, but as he's fixing that, Trump should have any problems.

  • Simon Tisdall [04-04]: As Team Trump wage unceasing war on Iran, evangelical nationalists are destroying any moral world order we once had. Illustrated with pictures of Hegseth's Crusader tattoos, as if the text itself wasn't disturbing enough:

    Exploitation of Christian belief for political and military ends is a long-established, shabby US practice. . . . For most practising Christians, the misappropriation, distortion and weaponisation of faith to justify death and destruction, sow divisions, excuse war crimes and bomb Iran "back to the stone ages" is deeply saddening. Christians — who celebrate Easter on Sunday — believe Jesus was crucified for the sake of all mankind, for the forgiveness of sins, not for vindictive vengeance, pride and domination.

  • Charles Homans [04-04]: America is used to hiding its wars. Trump is doing the opposite. This seems to be largely based on the assumption that Americans have no risk in war any more: they can blow things up, kill people, make life difficult or impossible, and nothing can touch them, least of all conscience. Trump was quick to grasp this, perhaps because he has no conscience.

  • Abdaljawad Omar [04-06]: How the neoconservative influence over US war-making paved the way for Trump's war crimes in Iran: "Donald Trump's naked threats to target Iran's civilian infrastructure are the culmination of a strand of neoconservative thought that has defined U.S. war-making over three decades, from the Iraq war to Obama's drone campaigns to the Gaza genocide."

  • Bill Scher [04-08]: Trump believes in "madman theory." But he's actually a madman: "After six weeks of insane behavior, the ceasefire should not lead us to believe Trump has regained his facilities." The Madman Theory was one of Nixon's dumber ideas: in order to work, you not only have to convince the other side you're insane, but you are depending on their sanity to save you from yourself. But if the other side is sane, why don't you just try to reason with them. Sure, you have different interests, and you may have to compromise to get the best possible mix of gains and losses, but isn't that what sane people do? And I suspect that it's usually possible to reason your way to some kind of net positive — especially compared to the massive net-negative of war. The only reason for engaging in this sort of game is because you have goals that cannot be supported by reason, where one's only hope is to impose by power (e.g., Nixon on Vietnam).

    I don't know whether Trump is insane, or just plays at insanity on TV, but he's pretty convincing at it, at least in terms of his narcissism and sociopathy. What I do know is that he is reckless and insincere: he compulsively says crazy things he may or may not mean, but you can never trust to know the difference (he probably doesn't himself). I also believe that he only cares about himself, and can only engage the world in terms of what's in it for him. Thus people who want something from him have to go the circuitous route of flattery and apparent obeissance, which is to say they have to humiliate themselves to gain favors from someone they neither respect nor can trust. That's more opportunity than problem for weasels like Netanyahu and Lindsey Graham, but is a huge challenge for anyone who wants to reason toward sensible goals. When confronted with someone who is probably insane, the normal reaction is to look away and disengage. Unfortunately, if that person is also president, that's hard to do, and fraught with its own risks. (That's probably why the media work so hard to respect and rationalize Trump, because they don't feel like they can afford disengaging from the subject they're supposed to cover. Of course, the humiliation builds up, and sometimes even they snap.)

    It's also worth noting that the Madman Theory has never worked, even with leaders who are genuinely mad. At some point, pretty much everyone decides they've had enough, and have to fight back, even if the odds aren't good. Otherwise, you're just acquiescing to arrogance. By the way, Trump himself has embraced the Madman Theory:

  • Christian Paz:

    • [04-10]: Did the Trump administration threaten the pope? "Avignon-gate, the scandal blowing up MAGA-Catholic relations, explained." I'm tempted to quote James Baker about "not having a dog in that fight," but the piece is rather fascinating even if you understand that it's just about other people. I've found it interesting when right-winger protestants convert to Catholicism, presumably because they want a more ornate, more hierarchical religion (I've also heard of Catholics concerting to Eastern Orthodoxy for the same reason), only to find a mix of things they like (anti-abortion) and dislike (opposition to real killing, like capital punishment, and especially war).

    • [02-10]: Is MAGA pushing the Catholic Church to the left? "Progressive Catholics are ready to fight back." Interview with Christopher Hale, who publishes a newsletter called Letters from Leon, where he asserts that "the pontiff's effort to moderate the church and act as a bulwark against creeping authoritarianism in the Trump 2.0 era."

    • [04-13]: Donald Trump's pivot to blasphemy: "Attacking the pope and posing as Jesus — even religious conservatives are mad this time." I got over Christianity by the time I turned 20, but in my teens I was pretty well schooled in the intricacies of Christian sectarianism, at a time when the distinctions between the dozens of Protestant sects still meant something. In those days, a fraudulent poseur like Trump would have been called out from all quarters. These days, I'm not sure that most nominal Christians believe anything drawn from religious traditions. Rather, they believe in secular philosophies (liberalism, conservatism, fascism, some even socialism) and use selective readings of scripture and other authorities to buttress those beliefs. If I still cared, I would find this aspect of Trump very upsetting. Now, I'll just note that I doubt the sincerity of any professed Christian who isn't upset and disgusted by Trump's religious posturing.

  • Harold Meyerson [04-13]: Re-enacting the Crusades: "Pete Hegseth's Christianity — tribal, with plenty of enemies who deserve the sword — is central to the MAGA worldview."

  • Martin Di Caro [04-14]: Lacing up LBJ's shoes, Trump is walking willingly into a trap: "Choosing War author Fredrik Logevall on how the Democratic president went from bombing in 1964 to sending 500,000 ground troops into Vietnam in 1967." Interview. One thing I'm struck by here was the 1965 prediction by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that to win would take 500,000 troops and give years. That prediction was tested, and proved overly optimistic. Also by the Humphrey prediction that such a war would destroy the political unity Johnson built up in his 1964 landslide election.

  • Blaise Malley [04-14]: US strikes on alleged drug boats have killed more than 160 people: "With eyes on Middle East, military continues campaigns of deadly strikes at sea."

  • Jim Lobe [04-14]: Think the Iran war is a disaster? Blame these DC thin tanks first. "We asked AI to find the conflict's biggest boosters in Washington. Surprise: many are connected to Israel and pushed for the invasion of Iraq too." Don't let "AI" distract you here. Any systematic survey would have identified these same "usual suspects."

Trump vs. Law: This section has moved beyond the stormtroopers of ICE, and might as well include the whole US Courts system, as well as the increasingly oxymoronic Department of Justice. The firing of Attorney General Pam Bondi is one story here, but doesn't merit its own section.

Trump's Administration: Trump can't remake America in his own image (i.e., destroy the country, culture, and civilization) just by himself. He needs help, and having largely purged the government of civil servants and replaced them with his own minions, this is what they are doing (whether he's paying attention or not):

Trump Himself:

  • Margaret Hartmann:

  • Liz Crampton [03-28]: 'He's lied about everything': Iran war puts Trump on shaky ground with young MAGA men: "Their frustrations and anger with the conflict were on full display at CPAC this week."

  • CK Smith [04-05]: Paula White likens Trump's troubles to Jesus Christ at Easter lunch: White is "Trump's chief spiritual adviser," which evidently means that it's her job to assure Trump that whatever he does is God's will. I'm not sure whether any previous president ever employed such an adviser, but Trump is exceptionally needy of reassurance, and given his baser instincts, such reassurance is especially treacherous.

  • Tom Carson:

    • [04-07]: Terminatic: After running on about Adlai Stevenson as only a novelist would, then offering a back-handed compliment to JFK:

      Sixty-plus years later, is the performance of Mar-A-Khargo's throne-sitter in chief in the same league? In every way but one, no way. It must gall Trump to his bone spurs that the Kennedys outdo him even as narcissists, and he can't stand Serious Pretending anyhow. Besides being profoundly unserious, he's actually lousy at pretending: just watch him whenever he's got to act solemnly concerned about anyone's welfare but his own, something Kennedy could pull off even right after someone shot him in the head. As anyone who's ever been in a bar fight can tell you, what Trump's good at isn't pretending but bullshitting, not the same thing at all. Too bad a ton of bullshit can kill people every bit as dead as a bazooka.

    • [04-14]: No King of Kings: "Trump does Jesus the way Debbie did Dallas."

      Trump still has no idea why his Ramadan message didn't go over well in the ungrateful Muslim world. He thought "God bless Allah" had a benign, even generous ring to it. Only the fake news persists in the slander that he doesn't have a gooey side he can trot out like bubble gum scraped off his heel.

      I mean, Jesus, am I wrong? It's not as if he represented himself as Allah, something he's been told is a sacrilege in their religion. He thinks that's a stupid rule, but guesses it takes all kinds to make a world. Not counting everyone he wants to obliterate, but that goes without saying. Or would if he ever stopped saying it.

      One difficulty of writing about Trump 2.0 is you can never be sure whether you're making crazy shit up or just guessing right a few hours ahead of the news cycle. Unless the real clickbait here is the scoop that everybody's just fucking fed up with him, I wouldn't have bet on the President of All the Peepholes sharing an utterly endearing AI image of himself dressed up an ever-succoring Messiah to raise this hue and cry. In happier days when the redcap horde was feeling more MAGAminous, it wouldn't have.

  • Zack Beauchamp [04-13]: New data suggests Trump's assault on democracy may be stalling out: "Three new reports give some surprising reasons for optimism."

Republicans:

  • Shawn McCreesh [03-31]: In South Dakota, neighbors feel sorry for Kristi Noem's husband.

  • Zack Beauchamp [04-13]: JD Vance had a vision for the world. Trump is wrecking it. "The vice president's disastrous week reveals that he's in a trap of his own making." First he went to Hungary to campaign for Orbán. (As I've been asking everyone this week: how is that supposed to work for anyone?) Then he went to Pakistan to head the negotiations with Iran, and walked out with nothing after 21 hours. "In effect, the most promising avatar of postliberal politics in America has been saddled with a record that betrays some of his movement's core principles. And it's not clear how he'll ever escape the baggage." Actually, it looks like it's very hard for a sitting vice president to get elected: aside from Adams and Jefferson, which was under a very different system (the VP was the runner-up, not just a ticket mate), the only ones I can think of was GHW Bush, following Reagan, who had won his second term in a landslide, and Martin Van Buren, after Jackson (again, very popular, and like Bush a loser running for a second term). On the other hand, Harris, Gore, Humphrey, and Nixon all lost (Nixon and Biden did win after an interval). Harris and Humphrey were really hurt by their inability to break with the wars of unpopular presidents. Of course, Vance's prospects would look up if Trump dies (resigns, is impeached, etc.). After a shaky start (John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur) promoted VPs have won their own terms (Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson).

  • Raquel Coronell Uribe [04-14]: Vance warns the pope should 'be careful' when talking about theology: "Vance, who [says he] is Catholic, said the pope was wrong in saying Jesus wasn't on the side of those who wield the sword, pointing to the US helping defeat the Nazis in World War II."

Democrats:

  • David W Chen [03-31]: A Democratic electrician nabs a state senate seat in Republican Florida: "With Brian Nathan's victory certified, Democrats won two of three state legislative races in this month's special elections, all in Republican-leaning districts." Democrats have flipped 30 seats since the 2024 election.

  • Astead Herndon [04-04]: How one Democratic senator is tackling Trump's corruption: "Sen. Chris Murphy explains how blatant corruption is undermining faith in democracy."

  • Ed Kilgore [04-15]: Finally, Democrats are a unitd antiwar party: "Conflicts with Vietnam and Iraq deeply divided the party. But now nearly all Democrats oppose Trump's dangerous and unjust Iran war." Aside from Fetterman, who voted against limiting Trump's assumed warmaking powers, I still think many others in the Democratic caucus come up short of being antiwar. If they were, they would vote against funding for Israel, which is the driving force (and supposed beneficiary, but that may just be Netanyahu) behind Trump's war. Still, it's a movement that has to happen if Democrats are ever able to regain and maintain a hold on the presidency.

The Economy (and Economists):

  • John Cassidy:

  • Jonquilyn Hill [04-05]: The high price of everything, explained: "What the cost of gas, coffee, and milk tells us about why everything feels more expensive right now." Actually, the author just explains three cases, with three different explanations: gas prices are directly attributable to Trump's war on Iran, which has disrupted supplies; coffee production has also been disrupted, but by climate change; milk is less obvious, but a combined effect of rising costs elsewhere (including oil, which affects all of agriculture). But the author doesn't get to "everything," or even try. That's partly because the answers aren't simple — other than inflating the money supply, which may have seeded the wave of price rises that started around 2021 but doesn't explain much of what's happening recently. My own theory is that most of the initial price rises were caused by supply disruptions, then escalated by companies that found they had enough market power to raise prices, after which "inflation" snowballed into a psychology, where most businesses wanted to get in on the action, or at least not be left out. Trump is making this worse with his wars and tariffs (a consumption tax disguised as ordinary price gouging), and possibly by his deficit spending (limited as the tax cuts mostly went to the rich). On the other hand, he's dragging the economy down, not unlike the Volcker recession that broke the inflationary mindset of the 1970s.

  • Ryan Cooper [04-07]: A retrospective on Bidenomics: "Joe Biden listened to the left on full employment. But the lasting effects were wanting, and the politics were brutal." I don't have time to unpack this pretty good summary of how Biden's policies affected the economy, mostly for the better, not that he got much credit for that, not just from his enemies but from his own incoherence. I should also stress once again that what killed Harris wasn't the economy but the wars. (True that Harris wasn't much more articulate about the economy than Biden was, and especially that she failed to identify the villains — largely because she spent more time sucking up to donors than campaigning for votes.)

  • Eric Levitz

  • Robert Kuttner [04-14]: The faltering war economy: "Trump's war craters the economy in multiple ways, even if it somehow ends soon."

Technology (Including AI):

  • Eric Levitz [03-26]: 4 reasons why AI (probably) won't take your job: "What the AI jobs panic is missing."

  • Ergosphere [03-30]: The machines are fine. I'm worried about us. An astrophysics story, or parable perhaps.

  • Janet Abou-Elias/William D Hartung [04-07]: The Pentagon is going "AI first": "The US military is placing the technology at the center of its mission,and the human costs promise to be staggering." "Human costs" are nothing new at the Pentagon, where the best remedy would be slowing down and down-sizing, both of which could support much-needed overview. AI's promise of a faster, sloppier control system does just the opposite. But we should also be concerned about the literal costs. One deal cited here is a 10-year, $5.6 billion contract to the start up Salesforce. Only the Pentagon could blow that kind of money on a nebulous fantasy sketch.

  • David Futrelle [04-13]: How a New York Times puff piece missed the toxic creed of the tech oligarchy: "A profile of an AI healthcare start-up overlooked the creaky business model behind it, as well as the tech sector's worship of 'high agency.'" About Michael Gallagher, of Medvi.

    According to Gallagher, the company is on track to do $1.8 billion in sales this year, with a staff of only two (Gallagher and his younger brother).

    Too good to be true? Well, yes. Almost immediately, critics online filled in what the Times had left out: a warning letter the FDA sent to Medvi over alleged deceptive marketing practices; a RICO lawsuit against Medvi's fulfillment partner over a weight-loss compound that hasn't been proven to work; a slew of AI-generated fake doctors shilling for Medvi in thousands of spammy ads.

    After the online outcry over the article, the Times added a few paragraphs describing some of the ways that "Medvi's aggressive advertising has led to legal and regulatory issues" — which is putting it a little gingerly. But the story remains largely unchanged on the Times website. I say let it stand. Because every age gets the heroes it deserves, and Gallagher is in many ways a perfect representative of our current Gilded Age 2.0.

  • Dani Rodrik [04-13]: To work for us, AI must not think for us. Alternate (slightly better) title, at Mint: "Artificial intelligence was meant to assist human work, not replace our thinking."

Regular Columnists

Sometimes an interesting columnist writes often enough that it makes sense to collect their work in one place, rather than scatter it about.

Paul Krugman:

  • [04-07]: MAGA is winning its war against US science: "When a political movement believes that ignorance is strength."

  • [04-13]: The Axis of Autocracy loses a wheel: "Hungarians stand up for democracy."

  • [04-14]: Chinese electrotech is the big winner in the Iran War: "An energy-hungry world is being pushed away by America and into China's arms."

  • [04-15]: Autocracy = corruption: "What the US resistance can learn from Hungary." It's worth recalling here that Trump's presidential wins came when he was (improbably but relentlessly) able to paint his opponent as the corrupt one. He never acknowledged, much less normalize, his own corruption.

    The good news from Hungary is that blatant corruption doesn't have to be normalized. In fact, public perceptions of runaway corruption can become a weapon in defense of democracy. The public understands corruption, hates it, and can be mobilized to vote en masse against it.

Nathan J Robinson and Current Affairs:

Jeffrey St Clair:

Robert Wright:

  • [04-11]: The future arrived this week. "And boy are we not ready for it!" Author has a new book coming out in June, with the very unfortunate title of The God Test: Artificial Intelligence and Our Coming Cosmic Reckoning. I recently read his 1999 book Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, which was pretty good but would have been better had he excised all his references to "God" and "destiny." I suspect the new book will also have much real value, but once again way too much about "God" and "Cosmic Reckoning." He does write here:

    One of the book's central points is that if we're going to successfully navigate the AI revolution — avoid traumas and catastrophes that range from social chaos to planet-wide authoritarian rule to nuclear war to complete annihilation — we'll have to cross the threshold to true global community. The world's nations have to confront this challenge collectively — build new international rules and norms — or else watch in dismay and intermittent terror as a technology that accelerates without constraint or guidance strips us of agency.

    Given that "true global community" is a pretty extreme pipe dream, I wonder if something more practicable might work. To some extent, this depends on what the real threat of AI is, and how it interacts with other problems (or perhaps I should say comorbidities?). If you want to take nuclear war off the table, maybe the best way to tackle that problem isn't through AI but through nuclear weapons. I'm all for some "new international rules and norms," but caution that they have to be mutually agreed upon, without the coercion of power. It isn't beyond imagination that the ten or so states that possess nuclear weapons could agree to safeguards that would effectively end their threat, and that every other nation could agree, as nearly all have already done in signing the NPT, not to build their own. With no nuclear weapons, there can be no nuclear war, regardless of how funky AI gets.

    "Social chaos" and "authoritarian rule," tough less clearly defined, can also be dealt with without reference to AI. As for AI itself, I think most people understand that it promises some benefits but also poses some challenges, possibly including a few that may prove insurmountable. If we take nation-states as atoms, each free and autonomous — i.e., living in anarchy, with no overarching "world order," just a set of "international rules and norms" that are freely agreed upon, I doubt that any will want to not enjoy the benefits of AI, although they may have legitimate concerns about how others might abuse it, so they may seek to formulate some rules and norms to regulate its use, maybe even its development. Wright isn't arguing against me here, but he's imagining some kind of enforcement mechanism that I reject at an invitation to abuse. All I want to do here is question why we need to go to such (unworkable) extremes?

    Which gets us back to "what God has to do with it"? On the one hand, I find the concept bewildering (what could it possibly mean?), and on the other I find it ominous (who wants to be God? and why?). I don't know much about AI, but I suspect that the notion that whoever controls AI is going to be able to run the world is just megalomaniacal nonsense. Admittedly, if you look at the capitalization of AI companies, it's profitable nonsense, as it seems to be the basis of such ridiculous valuations. But aside from trying to set up a system of tribute-rents, which is ultimately equivalent to a tax on breathing (or life), where is the natural profit? Conversely, take away the patents and rents, and where is the problem?

    The piece goes on to offer valuable insights about Trump and Iran, before cycling back to his book, wherein he writes:

    These kinds of dangers — AI-abetted biological virus, AI-abetted computer virus, AI-infused cyberweapon, rampantly destructive AI agent — and various others make it harder for any nation to feel safe unless it has some confidence that things are under control in other nations. And it's hard to get that kind of confidence without international agreements that qualify, in at least some sense, for the term "international governance."

    To which he quotes Tom Friedman, saying virtually the same thing, but couched in more conventional realpolitik:

    The solution — this may shock people — must begin with the two AI superpowers, the US and China. It is now urgent that they learn to collaborate to prevent bad actors from gaining access to this next level of cyber capability. Such a powerful tool would threaten them both, leaving them exposed to criminal actors inside their countries and terrorist groups and other adversaries outside. It could easily become a greater threat to each country than the two countries are to each other.

    I suppose I find it hopeful that such great powers might fear the future more than each other and/or their own people, but I'm sure a sampling of AI executives would love nothing more than to see an arms race develop to control AI, as that would make themselves the most important (and potentially most powerful) people in the world. As it is, they're playing up the potential use of AI in weapons systems, because they know that's where the sweet spot between fear and money is. Take that money away, and the mighty motivation of greed will melt away. That won't cause AI not to be developed, but will slow it down, and straighten it out, with the much better motivation of altruism.

Miscellaneous Pieces

The following articles are more/less in order published, although some authors have collected pieces, and some entries have related articles underneath.

Gabrielle Gurley [03-30]: Ending sports owner blackmail: "A new bill would prohibit the money grabs that billionaire team owners unleash to pit states and cities against each other in bidding wars over potential moves." The bill is the Home Team Act, sponsored by Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). They cite the Green Bay Packers as an exception to the billionaire-owner rule, as the team is owned by fans, none of whom can exceed a 4% ownership share.

Caitlin Dewey [04-01]: America is going back to the moon: "Artemis II and the new space race, explained."

John Semley [04-14]: The fanfare around the band Geese actually was a psyop: "The Brooklyn band Geese was labeled an 'industry plant' by those who questioned its sudden ubiquity. Maybe it was." Paywalled ("You've read your last free article"; when did I ever read my first?), so I'm short on details, but as a non-fan this caught my eye. Zachary Carter tweeted: "Give me a break. They had a digital marketing team for their fourth record, and it worked. Music has always been promoted via inorganic methods." The Geese album, Getting Killed, wound up in first place in my 2025 EOY Aggregate, by a slim margin over Rosalía's Lux (247-230; AOTY put Lux ahead, 413-404, an order I might have wound up with had I surveyed my usual large number of lists, but I fell far short). I'm not a fan of either album, but had five A- albums in AOTY's top ten: Wednesday, CMAT, Lily Allen, Clipse, and Billy Woods. That's if anything above average for me, so I'm used to albums I don't much care for ranking well. Publicity has something to do with this, but more to do with ranked vs. unranked. Records that are noticed by enough people to get reviewed usually scatter not by degrees of PR but by more basic taste considerations. That said, I have even less idea why other people like Geese than I do with other ranked albums I don't care for (FKA Twigs and Turnstile from both our lists; I had Bad Bunny at ***, which qualifies as an album I like; Oklou and Hayley Williams, both ** for me, made the AOTY list, displacing Allen and Woods — sure, my list is skewed slightly in my direction).

Astrid Barltrop [04-16]: How will attitudes change if students like me aren't taught the truth about British colonial history? Misunderstandings about colonial history is not just a British problem. Most former empires, including Russia and the US (and even long-gone ones like Iran and Turkey), have exaggerated senses of their own self-importance, with little recognition of the harm they caused to others, let alone the self-harm of trying to dominate other peoples.

Books:

  • Tom Carson [03-28]: Charlie is my darling: "The Little Drummer Girl, 43 years later."

  • Robert Kuttner [04-03]: Capital ideas: "Two books on the history of capitalism provide lessons for how to tame it." Reviews of Sven Beckert: Capitalism: A Global History, and John Cassidy: Capitalism and Its Critics: A History: From the Industrial Revolution to AI.

  • Ishan Desai-Geller [04-10]: The enduring lessons of the Jewish bund: "A conversation with Molly Crabapple about Here Where We Live Is Our Country, her capacious history of Bundism and what we can learn from their socialist and anti-Zionist example."

Some Notable Deaths: I've been using the New York Times, but it's giving me aggravation these days, so I'll switch over to Wikipedia (April, also March), which is probably better anyway. Roughly speaking, since my last report on March 22:

  • Dan Wall, 72 [04-14]: jazz organ player, notably worked with John Abercrombie and Jerry Bergonzi.

  • Asha Bhosle, 92 [04-12]: Indian singer.

  • Phil Garner, 76 [04-11], baseball player and manager.

  • Mike Westbrook, 90 [04-11]: English pianist, composer, band leader; a Penguin Guide favorite.

  • Afrika Bambaataa, 68 [04-09]: DJ and rapper, "Looking for the Perfect Beat" was one of the founding classics of hip-hop.

  • Davey Lopes, 80 [04-08], baseball player and manager.

  • Tracy Kidder, 80 [03-24], journalist. I read his books: The Soul of a New Machine (1982, which won a Pulitzer), and House (1985).

  • Chip Taylor, 86 [03-23], singer-songwriter ("Wild Thing").

  • Keith Ingham, 88 [03-12], English pianist.

Tweets: I've usually used this section for highlighting clever responses and/or interesting ideas.

  • Kevin M Kruse [04-02]:

    I think the reason AI propagandists are so flustered by the fact that no real writer wants to use their idiotic tools is that they themselves don't enjoy writing. They see it as a boring arduous chore to be avoided, while real writers actually enjoy writing and actually care about the quality of it.

    It's like approaching a chef who really loves making new dishes, watching other people enjoy them, enjoying the taste himself and saying, look, this cooking thing takes a lot of time and energy, wouldn't you rather just get your nutritional needs from this brand new Gruel Bar we're selling?

  • Tom Carson [04-02]:

    It fascinates me how totally indequate the NYT is -- its methods, its strictures, its preconceptions, its reason for being -- the dealing with Trump's insanity. This brand of delirium is outside their wheelhouse and that's why they're pretending it doesn't exist. I say this with some sympathy, like your grandma losing the ability to proper her wheelchair in any direction at all.

    A comment: "Compared to all the other national and international reporting outfits that are doing such a bang-up job?" Carson responded citing "the mystique of invaluability and authoritativeness the NYT has projected all my life." At least he admits that the reputation may not be deserved.

  • Jon Lovett [04-03]: "In a surprise twist, the Epstein files released the attorney general."

  • Emily DiVito [04-15]:

    Annual Tax Day reminder that Trump killed Direct File and now taxpayers have no choice but to shell out millions a year to TurboTax.

  • Dean Baker [04-15]: "Trump means that when Netanyahu gave him the orders, he was prepared to ignore the consequences." After quoting Aaron Rupar:

    Trump on high oil prices: "They're not up -- I thought, I mean, honestly -- I thought they're be much -- and I was willing to do that, to stop a nuclear weapon to be used against this country or the Middle East, to stop that it was certainly worthwhile being much higher than it is.

    Uh, but there was no nuclear weapon, nor even a program to develop a nuclear weapon, a lie Netanyahu has been pushing since the 1990s, when his estimates of achievement had already been discredited. Even if Iran had nuclear weapons, there is no reason to think that Iran would use it against Israel, much less against the US. Since the end of WWII, no nation with nuclear weapons has used them against another nation. Nor have any used them for "nuclear blackmail" (unless you read Trump's ultimatum to Iran that way). They've all posed them as deterrence against foreign attack, only to be used in response to such an attack. So why should Trump, or Netanyahu, worry about Iran developing nukes, other than that they hoped to attack Iran before it had any sort of nuclear deterrent? For what it's worth, I don't think that Netanyahu is in a position to give Trump orders. But he's a conniving sort, and persuaded Trump to launch the war by exploiting Trump's ignorance and playing on his vanity. How long Trump will allow himself to be so manipulated is an open question, as is what he will do about it. While I don't see Trump as someone easily ordered about, he is one of those rich guys who depends on other people to do anything, and he's surrounded himself with a mix of sycophantic morons and Israel agents that won't give him many options.

Current count: 268 links, 18344 words (22582 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Sunday, March 22, 2026

Loose Tabs

After I posted my initial take on Trump's Iran war in my Days of Infamy Substack piece, and followed that with a Music Week, I figured I should go ahead and publish whatever I had in Loose Tabs before the next Music Week comes around. So I set the date for Sunday, March 22, and, well, this is it: very incomplete, with several usual sections completely missing, but pretty long nonetheless. I could work the rest of the night on it, then tomorrow, then the rest of next week. I probably will make some adds when I do get around to Music Week. I'm also thinking I should do a synopsis on Substack, possibly before I do my planned follow-up piece where I try to cut through all the noise and explain the Iran war by answering four basic questions:

  1. Why did Netanyahu want to attack Iran?
  2. Why did Trump go along with the attack?
  3. Why didn't Iran surrender once it was attacked?
  4. And how and when and under what conditions is this war likely to end?

You can probably find answers to these questions in the previous piece, and scattered here and there below, but I think it will help to organize them thusly. Of course, the first three answers are pretty simple, at least if I don't go into much historical detail. I don't know the precise answer to the fourth, but the basic point is simple enough: when Trump (or one of his successors) decides he's had enough, and is willing to negotiate a deal. This will depend on variables, including how much Iran is willing to concede, how little Trump is willing to settle for, and how long Israel will be able to muck up any possible deal. Those factors will vary over time, so the best we can do is to lay out a model. That will take some thought, but the factors aren't too complicated.

Meanwhile, there is nothing below on Cuba, which is heating up, and dominating my X feed tonight. Trump has said that Cuba's next, and it's not like he has the patience to do things in considered order. Most leaders dread two-front (never mind multi-front) wars, but for Trump each one distracts from the other. The conditions in Cuba are different, as are the motives — other than the absolute supremacy of American power, which seems to have become an obsession with Trump.

PS: I added a few more links on [03-25]. I'm not really trying to keep up with the news, although some creeps in. Most are actually tabs I had open but hadn't picked up. I use Firefox as a browser, running under Xbuntu with six workspaces to split out my work, with Firefox typically running 6-8 windows with well over 100 tabs, so it's easy to overlook something I meant to circle back to.

This is an occasional collection of newsworthy links and comments, much less systematic than what I attempted in my late Speaking of Which posts. The new name comes from my extensive use of browser tabs. When I get around to cleaning up, I often find tabs opened to old articles I might want to comment on and/or refer back to. So these posts are mostly housecleaning, but may also serve as a very limited but persistent record of what 20+ years ago I started calling "the end of the American empire" and nowadays feels more like "the end of civilization." I collect these bits in a draft file, and flush them out when periodically (12 times from April-December 2025). My previous one appeared 23 days ago, on February 27.

I have a little-used option of selecting bits of text highlighted with a background color, for emphasis a bit more subtle than bold or ALL CAPS. (I saw this on Medium. I started with their greenish color [#bbdbba] and lightened it a bit [#dbfbda].) I'll try to use it sparingly.

Table of Contents:

Topical Stories

Sometimes stuff happens, and it dominates the news/opinion cycle for a few days or possibly several weeks. We might as well lead with it, because it's where attention is most concentrated. But eventually these stories will fold into the broader, more persistent themes of the following section.

Last time: Epsteinmania, Melania, Washington Post, Super Bowl LX, DHS shutdown, Tariffs at the Supreme Court.

Trump Bombs Iran: On Feb. 28, Trump and Netanyahu launched a massive wave of airstrikes against Iran, opening what Wikipedia is calling 2026 Iran war. The bombing appears to have been originally designed to kill Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and thus to decapitate the Islamic Republic of Iran, but it was expanded to attack the whole nation's security structure. The bombing has continued. Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks aimed at Israel, US bases in the region, and other infrastructure related to the US and its allies. Israel has ramped up its war in Lebanon, nominally targeting Hezbollah. The following are various pieces collected on the fly, including several that I added to my previous Loose Tabs, which starts on February 19 with a link to a piece by Joshua Keating: It really looks like we're about to bomb Iran again.

PS: On Monday morning (March 23), Trump announced a short pause in the war (or more specifically, a delay in bombing power plants), citing "very strong talks" with unidentified Iranian officials. Iran issued a denial of any such talks. Trump's announcement triggered a drop in oil futures prices and a rally in the stock market, although both were muted. It's worth noting that Israel has often agreed to ceasefires (including two notable times in their 1948-49 War of Independence) which turned out to be nothing more than stalls while they rebuilt their weapons stockpiles. Israel and the US have been burning through their anti-missile defense rockets at a furious pace, so that is probably a big part of the story. I'm skeptical that either side is anywhere near willing to make the necessary concessions, especially with Israel acting as a very wild card, but a Korea-style armistice, with allowance for Iran to collect tolls through the Strait of Hormuz, could hold for long enough to allow Iran to broaden its diplomacy, organize its defenses, and develop a more effective deterrent against further attacks (possibly, like North Korea, including its own nukes — again, as with North Korea, a development which can only be prevented diplomatically).

  • Iran War Cost Tracker: "Based on the Pantagon's preliminary estimate of $1 billion per day." Also note: "Independent analyses suggest the true cost may be significantly higher."

  • Al Jazeera [2025-06-18]: The history of Netanyahu's rhetoric on Iran's nuclear ambitions: He "has warned of an imminent threat from a Iranian nuclear bomb for more than 30 years."

  • Richard Silverstein

  • Andrew O'Hehir:

    • [02-28]: Trump's war on Iran: America's shame, and the world's failure: "Trump's attack on Iran is an act of vanity and desperation, fueled by America's collective moral blindness."

    • [03-08]: Behind Trump's war fever lies profound weakness: "US wages fast-escalating war, with no clear motivation and no realistic plan. It isn't fooling anyone." I'm not sure "weakness" is the right word, but it's the sort of taunt that flies in the faces of people who value power above all else. The US always seemed more powerful when it advanced policies that were best for all, and much weaker when it tried to strong arm others into doing its self-centered will. While it is likely that the US has lost power steadily since peaking at the end of WWII, no US president has tried to flex its power to anywhere near the same degree as Trump. That he comes up short seems inevitable. That he finds this mystifying is no surprise, either.

  • Craig Mokhiber [03-01]: Understanding the US and Israel's illegal war on Iran: "The illegal US-Israeli war on Iran continues a rampage that has devastated countries and international institutions to eliminate all obstacles to US hegemony. The US-Israeli Axis has not succeeded yet, and it is up to the world to stop them." The world, on the other hand, is hoping this war just collapses under the dead weight of its instigators' stupidity, as no one else is in a position to do anything significant about it.

  • Trita Parsi: Has a long track record of writing about Iran and how Israel and the US have attempted to deal with it, most notably in his books: Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States (2007); A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran (2012); Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy (2017). The first book I regard as essential, as it makes clear that Israel's alliance with Iran survived the fever days of the 1979 Revolution, when Khomeini solidified control of a much broader-based revolt, to no small extent by building on pent-up resentment against the United States (the hostage crisis was a reflection of this) and by challenging Saudi Arabia's leadership of the Islamic World (given control of Mecca and Medina, and the annual Hajj). The US and Saudi Arabia never got over those affronts, but Israel had no problem with Iran until the 1990s, when Iraq ceased to be a credible existential threat to Israel, and Hezbollah developed in opposition to Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon. From that point, it was fairly easy to manipulate American resentment into designating Iran as part of "the axis of evil." Parsi has a critical but nuanced view of Iran that is much more credible than most of the rote (or simply regurgitated) propaganda elsewhere. I haven't read his later books (on Obama and the JCPOA negotiations), which should help update the story. Nor have I read Vali Nasr's 2025 book, Iran's Grand Strategy: A Political History, but he seems to have a similar understanding of Iran's political leadership and military strategy.

    • [03-01]: Some observations and comments on Trump and Israel's war on Iran: I scraped this off Facebook, so might best just quote it here:

      1. Tehran is not looking for a ceasefire and has rejected outreach from Trump. The reason is that they believe they committed a mistake by agreeing to the ceasefire in June - it only enabled the US and Israel to restock and remobilize to launch war again. If they agree to a ceasefire now, they will only be attacked again in a few months.

      2. For a ceasefire to be acceptable, it appears difficult for Tehran to agree to it until the cost to the US has become much higher than it currently is. Otherwise, the US will restart the war at a later point, the calculation reads.

      3. Accordingly, Iran has shifted its strategy. It is striking Israel, but very differently from the June war. There is a constant level of attack throughout the day rather than a salvo of 50 missiles at once. Damage will be less, but that isn't a problem because Tehran has concluded that Israel's pain tolerance is very high - as long as the US stays in the war. So the focus shifts to the US.

      4. From the outset, and perhaps surprisingly, Iran has been targeting US bases in the region, including against friendly states. Tehran calculates that the war can only end durably if the cost for the US rises dramatically, including American casualties. After the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran says it has no red lines left and will go all out in seeking the destruction of these bases and high American casualties.

      5. Iran understands that many in the American security establishment had been convinced that Iran's past restraint reflected weakness and an inability or unwillingness to face the US in a direct war. Tehran is now doing everything it can to demonstrate the opposite - despite the massive cost it itself will pay. Ironically, the assassination of Khamenei facilitated this shift.

      6. One aspect of this is that Iran has now also struck bases in Cyprus, which have been used for attacks against Iran. Iran is well aware that this is an attack on a EU state. But that seems to be the point. Tehran appears intent on not only expanding the war into Persian Gulf states but also into Europe. Note the attack on the French base in the UAE. For the war to be able to end, Europe too has to pay a cost, the reasoning appears to be.

      7. There appears to be only limited concern about the internal situation. The announcement of Khamenei's death opened a window for people to pour onto the streets and seek to overthrow the regime. Though expressions of joy were widespread, no real mobilization was seen. That window is now closing, as the theocratic system closes ranks and establishes new formal leadership.

    • [02-20]: No, even a 'small attack' on Iran will lead to war: "The deal Trump wants is a no-go for Tehran, which is resigned to retaliating if bombed again, limited or otherwise." This was written a week before Trump's "decapitation" strike, so nothing here should have caught Trump or his advisers by surprise. The key thing is that after last year's "12 day war" Iran's internal strategic arguments shifted from calculated appeasement to the realization that they would have to fight back to establish any kind of deterrence:

      Third, since the U.S. strategy, according to the WSJ, is to escalate until Tehran caves, and since capitulation is a non-option for Iran, the Iranians are incentivized to strike back right away at the U.S. The only exit Tehran sees is to fight back, inflict as much pain as possible on the U.S., and hope that this causes Trump to back off or accept a more equitable deal.

      In this calculation, Iran would not need to win the war (militarily, it can't); it would only have to get close to destroying Trump's presidency before it loses the war by: 1) closing the Strait of Hormuz and strike oil installations in the region in the hope of driving oil prices to record levels and by that inflation in the U.S.; and 2) strike at U.S. bases, ships, or other regional assets and make Trump choose between compromise or a forever war in the region, rather than the quick glorious victory he is looking for.

      This is an extremely risky option for Iran, but one that Tehran sees as less risky than the capitulation "deal" Trump is seeking to force on Iran.

      By not giving Iran's leaders a choice they can live with, Trump backed them into a corner, from which they had no choice but to fight back. Now the question becomes how painful that war is to Trump, and what sort of resolution can he live with? Trump may hate the idea of backing down in any respect, but Iran isn't threatening America (or even Israel) like the US is threatening Iran. The US will suffer some losses, but nothing remotely existential. Iran is not demanding that the US give up its own ability to defend itself. Iran is not even remotely a threat to the US homeland. So how much is it worth for Americans to "stay the course" just to shore up Trump's battered ego? If anyone other than Trump could make this decision, it wouldn't take a minute's thought. But this egomaniacal moron was made president, and the presidency was vested with the power to wage war without any checks and balances, so we're stuck in this situation which no one (except for Netanyahu and a few diehard hawks like Lindsey Graham) really wanted.

    • [02-28]: How does this war with Iran end? Or does it? "Trump certainly doesn't want this to turn into a civil war, though Israel has different designs." I think anything that attributes forethought and/or concern to Trump is cutting him too much slack, but Israel is another matter (and by Israel I mean Netanyahu, his coalition partners, and upper security echelons).

    • [03-09]: Trump press conference reveals a man who wants out of war: "He may be preparing the ground for a face saving declaration of victory, but I don't think Iran is going to concede that easily without something in return." A change of leader might have been enough of a cosmetic change in Venezuela to save face and avoid further polarizing warfare, the long and cruel build up to war against Iran has foreclosed those options. Trump's ambitions are higher here, Israel has veto power, and at this point the regime in Iran would be jeopardized more by surrender than by fighting back.

    • [03-13]: Trita Parsi on the hidden influences behind the pointless war in Iran: Interview by Nathan J Robinson.

    • [03-17]: Larijani's killing will destroy Iran war off-ramps for Trump: That, of course, is Israel's point: kill off anyone with the temperament and authority to make and sell a deal. Parsi offers three possible explanations, including "opportunity," which was probably decisive, but the idea of making negotiations impossible is so deeply ingrained in Israeli politico-military culture that it was always assumed. If Israel wanted to make a deal with the Palestinians that would allow for peaceful coexistence and shared prosperity, they could have done it 50-60 years ago. The only thing they really needed was credible Palestinian leadership, but they've systematically killed off everyone, all the while whining about having "no partner for peace."

    • [03-17]: Trump's window for face-saving exit may be closing now: "Escalation is only putting him in a lose-lose situation, so negotiating is the only option. However, Iran's growing leverage could prevent an easy off-ramp." Sure, the leverage is reason for searching out an off-ramp. But finding one is going to be hard for Trump to swallow. First he needs to throw Netanyahu under the bus: this was was all his idea, based on faulty intelligence and bad analysis, and to make this credible he needs to radically cut back military aid to Israel, including anything that could give Israel range to attack Iran. And he needs an intermediary to cut a deal with Iran, which the US could then agree to. I initially thought about neutrals like Turkey and India, but better still would be a separate peace with Saudi Arabia and the Perisan Gulf states which ultimately calls for demilitarization of the Persian Gulf (i.e., removal of US bases, in exchange for which Iran will limit rearmament fully normalize relations, and end all sanctions).

    • [03-19]: Facebook post: I won't quote this one in whole, but it starts:

      The developments of the past 24h may prove a turning point in this war: Israel and the US's escalation by striking the Qatari-Iranian Pars field, the strikes against Asaluyeh, Iran's massive retaliation against oil and gas installations in Saudi, Qatar and beyond, which shot up oil prices, the near downing of a F35 by Iran and Secretary Bessent's revelations that the US may unsanction Iranian oil on the waters to bring down oil prices.

      Some grasping at straws here, as it feels more to me like all sides are digging in.

  • Joshua Keating: Vox's foreign policy "expert," I've rarely been impressed by him, but I cited his pre-war piece in the introduction, and early on wrote up a comment on his [03-09] piece. I wound up deciding his whole series of articles is worth citing, partly to show evolving thinking from someone who drinks too much of the Kool-Aid but doesn't always swallow it, and because they raise interesting tangents.

    • [02-28]: Why did the US strike Iran? "And five other questions about the latest conflict in the Middle East, answered." Some useful background, but not many answers. One section starts "In fairness to Trump," then notes that he's done stupid things before and gotten away with them, so he may be feeling excessively confident, but then he both sides Iran, concluding "The confidence on both sides may end up getting a lot of people killed." What he fails to note is that over-confidence explains action, which Trump initiated, and not reaction, which is something the aggressor forces you into. Iran may have overestimated their ability to resist and strike back, but once Trump broke off negotiations and ordered the strike, what other option did they have?

    • [03-01]: How Khamenei transformed Iran: "And what could come next." Interview with Alex Vatanka ("a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and author of the book The Battle of the Ayatollahs in Iran, which examines how the Islamic Republic's backroom rivalries and leadership struggles have shaped its approach to the world"). MEI is mostly funded by the US and Arab governments. Vatanka offers little here, although this seems peculiar:

      I don't know what to make of Khamenei meeting senior folks in his office. That almost seems like he was asking for death. He had been talking a lot about martyrdom in recent speeches.

    • [03-02]: World leaders are almost never killed in war. Why did it happen to Iran's supreme leader? "The killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could usher in a new age of assassination." He ventures that "The nearest precedent for the killing of a head of state may be the KGB assassination of Afghan Communist leader Hafizullah Amin in 1979," although that was more like the US coup that killed their Vietnamese puppet Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963, shortly after the killing of Patrice Lumumba in 1961. More relevant here, Israel has a long history of assassination, going back to the killing of UN mediator Count Folke Bernadotte in 1948, and extending through scores of prominent Palestinians and various others. Also Trump's killing of Qasem Soleimani, not even mentioned here. So his headline is already dated, if ever true. The bigger problem is that the only way to end wars is through negotiation, and for that to work, both sides have to have credible leaders. It would be much easier for Khamenei to sell an unpalatable deal than it will be for some unproven substitute. Even though the US had insisted on Japan's unconditional surrender, MacArthur saw the utility of leaving Hirohito in office.

    • [03-04]: Iran had a plan to fight Israel and the US. It all collapsed after October 7. "The rise and fall of the 'axis of resistance.'" One thing that's always bothered me: if "axis of resistance" really was Iran's masterplan for fighting Israel, why did they give it such a stupid (and inflammatory) name? The whole notion seems like an Israeli psych op. Perhaps Iran should have worked harder to dispel the allegations, but Israel's aggression and intimidation campaign was pushing all of them into common cause and sympathy. And given that Iran was already largely sanctioned by the West, they may have gotten an ego boost by appearing to be the ringleader. But Keating's notion that Iran's own defense was weakened by Israel's wars against Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis is imaginary — albeit of the kind that gave Israel and Trump more confidence to attack.

    • [03-09]: The dangerous lesson countries may take from the Iran war: "Having a nuclear weapon has never looked more appealing." The main reason Iran never developed nuclear weapons, despite having all the building blocks, was the conscience and/or shrewd political judgment of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Trump may have "set back" Iran's nuclear capabilities, but he definitely removed the one real roadblock. The result is that anyone in the regime who advised to go ahead ("just in case") is looking prescient these days, which makes them more likely to accede to power and redouble their efforts. Of course, it may be hard for Iran to progress under the current barrage, but unless the US and Israel relent and can be viewed by Iranians as benign — hard to imagine right now — sooner or later Iranians will regroup and vow to never let this happen again. (Just imagine what we would do under the same circumstances.) But the same lesson, that you actually have to have nuclear weapons ready to fire in order to deter foreign attacks, will also be learned by others, with more leeway to act. (This is, of course, the lesson North Korea drew after the US convinced Iraq and Libya to give up their nuclear programs, then toppled up their regimes.) The surprise here is that the first nation to feel the need to step up its nuclear efforts is France. But others are mentioned here, including Poland, South Korea, and Taiwan. None of those nations are likely to use their weapons against the US, but having them could give them considerable more autonomy, especially the more Trump is viewed as unreliable and unstable.

    • [03-09]: Trump might want "boots on the ground" in Iran. Just not American ones. "An Iranian Kurdish leader says his people are ready to rise up, but need more US support." Easy enough to find some Kurds willing to take American money as mercenaries, but their prospects of success are very slim. Moreover, other countries with Kurdish minorities are likely to take a very dim view of this — especially Turkey, which has intervened against American-armed Kurds in Iraq and Syria. On the other hand, Iran is the one country in the region which has never had a serious Kurdish independence movement (at least as far as I know). Perhaps because Kurdish is more closely related to Persian. Or, more likely, because Iran is a holdover from the era of multi-ethnic empires, and has never had a strong nationalist movement (unlike Turkey and Iraq).

    • [03-11]: The world doesn't have enough ammo for the Iran war: "How long can Iran keep shooting missiles? How long can everyone else keep shooting them down?" That's a good question, but Iran doesn't need a lot of weapons to tie up the Strait and frustrate Trump, nor is the US and Israel likely to compel surrender (if indeed any side has any real idea what that might entail). So this could be a long and pointless war.

    • [03-17]: How Trump's war with Iran is helping Putin: "The spiraling conflict is a lifeline for Russia's leader." I don't think Putin needed a lifeline, but this war gives him a lot of options.

    • [03-20]: Here's how Iran could become a "forever war": "'Mowing the grass,' explained." That's the term Israel has used for its periodic sieges on Gaza, which brutal as they were failed to prevent the uprising of Oct. 7, 2023, but it establishes two salient points: one is that the war never ends; the other is that the approach is fundamentally dehumanizing and sadistic. One should note that this affects both sides: the victims obviously, but also the tormentors, who must continue to live in fear that their crimes will catch up with them. The power of this fear is what ultimately turned Israelis from fear to genocide. As noted here, "the limiting factor of this strategy is the White House's tolerance for war." That's been increasing ever since Bush launched his GWOT (or maybe since WWII), but still is far from Israeli levels. I'm reminded of a story of Ben Gurion talking to DeGaulle, and offering him help with Algeria. DeGaulle replied with something like, "you mean you want us to turn into you?" DeGaulle thought better, and gave up Algeria. Israelis may feel like they're on top of the world right now, but they're up there alone, not just hated by their victims, but increasingly viewed with shame by everyone else. That's not a good way to live.

    • [03-20]: Why the US wants to protect Iran's oil and gas: "The Mideast energy truce is breaking down." Trump has some very deranged ideas about energy, which includes vastly overrating the importance of oil and underrating the fragility of an economic system which he wants to make even more dependent on oil. One weird thing is that his sanction wars (with Russia, Venezuela, and Iran until he blew it up) mostly had the effect of inflating gas prices, which also benefited his Saudi and American donors, without unduly disturbing American voters, who had no idea how cheap gas would be if all the spigots were flowing. Yet having worked so hard to prop up prices, now he's panicking that they're suddenly too high. Plus, he's a greedy bastard, so his ideal solution to Venezuela and Iran is to steal all the oil he thinks is so valuable. Yet, here both his allies and his enemies are busy blowing up the resources he wants to corner — resources that his advisers, no doubt, promised he could capture when they signed him up for the war. This is the only part of the war that's actually funny, not least because it's going to drive everyone else to renewables, while the US turns into a technological backwater.

  • Al Jazeera [03-02]: Rubio suggests US strikes on Iran were influenced by Israeli plans: This makes it pretty clear that Israel is directing US foreign policy:

    US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suggested that a planned Israeli attack on Iran determined the timing of Washington's assault on the government in Tehran.

    The top diplomat told reporters on Monday that Washington was aware Israel was going to attack Iran, and that Tehran would retaliate against US interests in the region, so US forces struck pre-emptively.

    "We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action," Rubio said after a briefing with congressional leaders.

    "We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn't pre-emptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties."

  • Michael Hudson [03-02]: The US/Israeli attack was to prevent peace, not advance it.

  • Jonathan Larsen [03-02]: US troops were told Iran War is for "Armageddon," return of Jesus: "Advocacy group reports commanders giving similar messages at more than 30 installations in every branch of the military." This story is also reported by:

  • Vijay Prashad [03-03]: A war that cannot be won: Israel and the United States bomb Iran: Of course, I agree with this conclusion, but that's largely because I subscribe to the broader assertion, that no war can ever be won. The best you can do is to lose a bit less than the other guys, but that does little to redeem your losses. I think this is true even when you downgrade your ambitions: instead of regime destruction and regeneration, which happened in Germany and Japan after WWII, or the occupation and propping up of quisling governments that the US attempted in Afghanistan and Iraq, Trump seems to have adopted Israel's Gaza model which is that of periodically "mowing the grass," hitting Iran repeatedly in a forever war that ultimately points toward genocide.

  • Michael Arria:

  • Philip Weiss [03-03]: Rubio confirms the heresy: the US went to war in Iran because of Israel: "The heresy of Walt and Mearsheimer's Israel lobby theory was the claim that Israel and its supporters pushed the US into war. Marco Rubio has not confirmed this analysis when he admitted that Trump went to war with Iran because of Israel."

  • Zach Beauchamp

    • [03-03]: How does the Iran war end? "Regime change isn't likely. Here's what is." Early speculation, which inevitably leans toward optimism (hence "will end"), although the author eventually mentions "tail risk," which is a subtle way of saying "who fucking knows?"

    • [03-13]: The Iran war is not a video game: "Based memes, real blood." This starts with examples (see the article for links):

      On Wednesday, the New York Times published the preliminary findings of a US investigation into the recent airstrike on Shajarah Tayyebeh, an elementary school for girls in the Iranian city of Minab. The investigation confirmed what all public evidence had pointed to: that an American Tomahawk missile destroyed the school, killing roughly 175 people per Iranian estimates — most of whom were children. . . .

      The day after this damning news report, the White House released a video depicting the Iran war as a Nintendo game.

      The video, set to jaunty childlike music, depicts the United States as a player in various Wii Sports games — tennis, golf, bowling, etc. When the player character hits a hole in one, or bowls a strike, it cuts to real-life footage of a US bomb hitting an Iranian target. "Hole in one!" the Nintendo announcer declares, as we watch human lives being erased. . . .

      Various official X accounts have posted videos intercutting real bombings in Iran with clips from more violent video games, war films like Braveheart, sports highlights, and speeches from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth set to movie-trailer-style epic music.

      War is not hell, for this White House — it is fun.

      Beauchamp goes on to unpack this at some length, even citing Baudrillard, and concluding:

      The wartime sizzle reels are another manifestation of this ethos. Built not to persuade a neutral audience, but rather to appeal to those already-bought in, their primary service is thought-deadening: replacing any serious consideration of consequences with collective reveling in memes. "When you didn't want the US involved with Iran but the submarine kill videos are sick," one popular right-wing X account tweeted, with a GIF of an ambivalent Larry David posted below the text.

      It thus is not just collective self-deception at work for the administration and its very online supporters: It is collective exculpation. The crimes at Minab, and anywhere else, pale in comparison to sick kills.

    • [03-17]: A top Trump aide resigned over Iran. Liberals should stay away from him. "Antiwar antisemitism is still antisemitism." Well sure, don't pretend that he's a great guy — I mean, he was working for Trump, and got that job out of some kind of ideological loyalty to Trump — but why not except his gift for what it is: even Joe Kent says that Trump had no grounds for going to war, and lied when he said he did. How hard is that?

  • Mitchell Plitnick:

    • [03-04]: Debunking the lies of the Iran War. Lies include: "Iran nuclear weapons program"; "imminent threat"; "underground missiles"; Pahlavi ("a marker for the general lack of any vision of what happens as a result of this criminal attack").

    • [03-06]: The war on Iran is forcing Gulf states to reconsider regional strategy as the US and Israel lead the region into uncertainty: "Iran's retaliatory attacks on its neighbors, and the US failure to plan for them, are forcing the Gulf Cooperation Council states to reconsider their regional strategies and their relationship with Washington." The Gulf states are by far the most vulnerable targets for Iranian retaliation, which can be justified by their allowance of US bases and other military and economic ties. They have to start wondering whether their alliance is worth the costs — especially given that they have no control or influence over what the US and Israel do.

    • [03-14]: How aligned are the US and Israel's goals in Iran? That's a good question, and I suspect the answer is not very close. Israel realizes that Iran has never been a serious threat, although the token support they've provided for Hizbullah and Hamas has been good for propaganda, especially with the Americans. They'd like nothing more than for the US to fight Iran, while they focus on Lebanon and the Palestinians (especially in the West Bank). The US, on the other hand, does have interests, especially around the Persian Gulf, that are threatened, and which will make it hard to sustain a long war, or even tolerate a short one. The US also has interests in Europe and Asia, perhaps elsewhere, that will be stressed by this war. And Trump, even more than Netanyahu, is starting off with little popular support, even for war. Trump never expected a long, debilitating war. He was told this would be quick and clean, that Iran would topple, and that he'd be seen as a great liberator. He was conned by people with ulterior motives, and those aren't Trump's motives (which mostly are to make money, which means keeping his Arab allies happy, and inflating his tortured ego). It remains to be seen whether he can figure out a way to act on his doubts, but he did corner Netanyahu into a ceasefire in Gaza.

  • Robert Malley/Stephen Wertheim [03-05]: Of course Trump bombed Iran. They rightly accuse Trump, then let him off the hook:

    President Trump's attack on Iran is astonishing in its audacity, aggression and lawlessness. Mr. Trump ordered strikes in the midst of negotiations with a nation that posed no remotely imminent threat to the United States. He did nothing to prepare his country for war. Now he's offering a dizzying array of rationales and objectives, caught in a maelstrom of his own making.

    Beyond breaking with precedent, Mr. Trump also broke with himself. In three straight presidential campaigns, he criticized American military adventures in the Middle East, relying on this stance to distinguish his "America First" mantra from rival Republicans and Democrats alike. "I'm not going to start wars," he vowed on election night in 2024. "I'm going to stop wars."

    Yet for all its Trumpian characteristics, this war is the logical conclusion of how the United States has long dealt with Iran. For decades, presidents have depicted the Islamic Republic not just as a pernicious presence in the Middle East but also as an intolerable danger to the United States that no diplomatic deal could redress. When politicians inflate a threat and stigmatize peaceful means of handling it, an enterprising leader will one day reach for a radical solution.

    Trump could simply have said no, and no one would have criticized him. Attacking Iran was always bad policy, for many reasons. But while his predecessors didn't make that same mistake, they did so little to prevent it from happening that Trump figured he not only had a green light, but attacking Iran would just prove that he's the one president who has the guts to do the deed. Biden could at the very least have revived the JCPOA deal, ending Netanyahu's hysteria about Iranian nukes. Obama could have negotiated a better deal, one that Trump would have found harder to break. Bush and Clinton and/or Bush could simply have buried the hatchet — especially if they had delivered on reasonable peace proposals at the time. Carter and Reagan could have acknowledged that US support for the Shah had harmed most Iranians, and made some amends to keep the situation from deteriorating. War is always the end result of diplomatic failures, and everyone share blame for that aspect of the war on Iran. But only Trump was wacko enough to pull the trigger.

  • James North [03-05]: Lies, distortions, and propaganda: how the US mainstream media coverage on Iran hides the truth: "Even those familiar with the biased US mainstream covers of the Middle East are shocked at how bad the reporting on the US-Israel war on Iran has been."

  • Peter Beinart [03-06]: Iran is not an existential threat: "Iran poses no significant danger to Israel, let alone [to the] the US." I think that's what he meant in the subhed. The question of whether the US could undermine Israel is a different one, and even more hypothetical. One might as well ask whether Israel could destroy the US. (If so, Trump seems to be their Trojan Horse.)

  • Brian Karem:

    • [03-06]: With Iran, confusion is the point: "The Trump administration's jumbled reasoning for war with Iran is part of the strategy."

    • [03-20]: Who still stop Trump on Iran? "As the war escalates and the president digs in, the White House says 'Nobody tells him what to do.'" Much of what I think is based on models of how I have observed people functioning. One thing I've noticed with presidents is that they usually start out cautious and tentative: the job is overwhelming, there is so much they don't understand about it, and they're worried about screwing up, so they look for consensus among their aides, and avoid moves that seem risky. On the other hand, as they settle in, they figure out what they can and cannot get away with, and everyone around them is so flattering they build up ever increasing confidence. Trump fits this model, to a rather extreme degree. Consequently, he has no aides who can question let alone challenge him, and he has many who are full or shit ideas, often ones that he is partial to. So it's hard to imagine anyone in a position to stop him, or even to nudge him into any slightly less self-destructive orbit. It's even becoming hard to see how our damaged democracy stop him. On the other hand, wars tend to impact regardless of how you try to spin them.

  • Faris Giacaman [03-06]: Israel is using the 'Gaza doctrine' in Lebanon and Iran: The "old doctrine" was simply an extension of the British version of collective punishment for any transgressions against Israeli power: each and every offense would be met by an overwhelming reprisal, not necessarily directed against whoever was responsible. (During the 2nd Intifade, Israel made a habit of demolishing parts of Arafat's headquarters every time Hamas unleashed a suicide bomber. Needless to say, that wasn't much of a deterrent to Hamas.)

    October 7 changed this equation. "Mowing the lawn" was no longer enough, and neither was keeping the population blockaded in an open-air prison. The new stage of the Dahiya doctrine became the Gaza genocide. After two years of catastrophic civilian punishment, sustained by American financial and military largesse, Israel is now seeking to apply elements of its conduct in Gaza outside of Palestine's borders. We now see this new doctrine, characterized by protracted wholesale annihilation, playing out in Lebanon and Iran.

    Whether this will be recognized as genocide remains to be seen, but the intent is largely the same. While applying the same level of destruction to Iran is probably impossible (at least without resorting to nuclear weapons), Israel sees Iran as a job for the Americans, and for now is focusing on Lebanon.

  • Layla Yammine [03-06]: Millions at risk of displacement as Israel bombards Lebanon: "After 15 months of a fragile ceasefire, Lebanon woke up on March 2 to the familiar sounds of Israeli bombs. As the violence escalates and tens of thousands are displaced, Lebanon's social divisions threaten to worsen an already dire situation."

  • Umair Irfan [03-06]: The false promise of energy independence: "The Iran war shows yet again that US oil is still vulnerable to foreign shocks."

  • Daniel Bush/Olivia Ireland [03-06]: Trump demands 'unconditional surrender' from Iran: The phrase had rarely been used before FDR adopted it as a policy goal in 1943. It was at the time widely noted that conditions were almost always terms of surrender, and were frequently necessary to gain any sort of agreement. In 1945, Japan was allowed the substantial condition of sparing and keeping its emperor. So when Trump says this, he is not only mocking American history, he is exalting himself to a level of power no Iranian leader is likely to recognize:

    Writing on his Truth Social platform, Trump said: "There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!

    "After that, and the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s), we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before.

    "IRAN WILL HAVE A GREAT FUTURE. MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN (MIGA!)."

    Trump is saying, "don't even think of trying to negotiate with me." The point was probably unnecessary, not just because he lacked the power to impose his will, but because he had proved that he couldn't be trusted to follow through on anything he agreed to. [PS: The article also reports on a phone call from Putin to Iran's president Pezeshkian, but not much on details.]

  • Benjamin Hart [03-06]: A political-risk guru's biggest worry about Iran: Interview with Ian Bremmer ("founder of the Eurasia Group," a consultancy group that "has been helping the corporate and financial worlds understand and integrate political risk into their decision making"). He doesn't strike me as all that bright, or clear — at least I have no idea what he thinks that "biggest risk" is. But he does offer this:

    I think the fundamental challenge here is that Trump really believed that this could be Venezuela redux, and Venezuela went exceptionally well on a bunch of vectors. First of all, they got the guy they were trying to get. They brought him to justice, and they didn't kill him. Now he's going to face a trial. There were no American servicemembers killed. There were Venezuelan civilians killed, but the numbers were comparatively pretty small, especially compared to the numbers the Venezuelans have killed themselves. And it was popular, not just in the U.S. but across the region. Trump has now gotten a whole bunch of support from the Mexicans, more support on going after their narco-terrorists. And the same thing with Ecuador, which we saw in the last 48 hours. The Americans now have a better regime to work with in Venezuela, with the potential for private-sector investment and support from the IMF, and an economy that might actually work for the Venezuelan people. Literally on every front, this went about as well as you could expect. So Trump was like, Great, let's do that again. And this is not going to work that way on any front.

    I think he's way too quick to count Trump wins here. Is it really true that any time Mexico or Ecuador make a move against a drug kingpin, they're doing it at Trump's behest? Or because they were so impressed by Trump's snatching of Maduro? And just because they captured or killed someone, that's a success that will stand the test of time? I don't doubt that Trump's arrogance was boosted by the Maduro escapade — just like I don't doubt that Hitler's resolve to invade Poland got a boost from Chamberlain's cave-in at Munich. But that doesn't mean that Trump, any more than Hitler, drew the right lesson.

  • Ted Snider [03-09]: US and Iran were close to a deal before Trump chose war: This story has been fairly widely reported, and makes some sense, but with war plans clearly in the works, one doubts that Trump would have made any concessions to allow Iran to save face, and perhaps also that Israel was so much in control that any agreement would have been rendered impossible. What is certainly true is that an agreement to end Iran's uranium enrichment, which was the essential component for a nuclear weapons, could have been achieved, had the US and Israel shown the slightest interest in a peaceful resolution. But they had other points to make, and frankly weren't worried about uranium in the first place.

  • Max Boot [03-09]: There are two winners in Iran. Neither one is America. "Oil disruption benefits Russia, as does less US aid for Ukraine. And Iran distracts from China." The point about Russia and oil prices is pretty obvious. The one about China is mostly neocon fever dream. It is unlikely that China will take advantage of American distraction in Iran to attempt to seize Taiwan, because they probably realize that the real problem there isn't US deterrence but the unreadiness of the people to rejoin the mainland. Perhaps they could force the issue, but as long as reunification remains a future possibility, they have little reason to be impatient. The only thing likely to force their hand is if the US gets overly aggressive in securing independence for Taiwan — which seems to be the goal of the anti-China hawks, spoiling for a fantastical display of American omnipotence, oblivious to the risks of actual war. But note that there is nothing here about Israel as a winner. While the war certainly adds to Netanyahu's reputation as someone who can wrap Trump around his finger, it doesn't objectively help Israel at all. It just plunges them deeper into a wider war, which beyond providing cover for further "ethnic cleansing" creates more risk than reward.

  • Douglas J Feith [03-09]: Trump is trying something new in Iran. Hold on tight. "Critics demanding a 'day after' plan are confusing this presidency with that of George W Bush." Cited here in case you want to hear the latest thoughts from the guy Iraq War Gen. Tommy Franks called the "stupidest fucking guy on the planet," and who was later lampooned by Philip Weiss in [2008-07-30]: How did Doug Feith become a ridiculous figure?. Feith actually does a fairly good job of highlighting how Trump is different from Bush, and what the design is of his lose-lose-lost logic. He fails to note what the two have in common, which is a belief that they can kill their way to peace, and that God always smiles on America, so wars just always work out for the best. And he chides Democrats:

    Ironically, critics from the Democratic Party and elsewhere who are demanding to know the "day after" plan are implying that Trump should adopt Bush's outlook.

    That remark might have been clever, but he forgets that Bush didn't have a "day after" plan either. All he had was the "stupidest fucking guy on the planet" assigned to the job.

  • Kate McMahon [03-09]: Israel's goal in Iran is not just regime change, but complete collapse: "For Israel, a failed Iranian state fractured by civil war is preferable to any other outcome." That's largely because they can't imagine any better outcome. That's because they don't want peace. They just want an enemy they can strike with impunity.

  • Ron Paul [03-10]: Will the dollar be a casualty of the Iran war? I'm always curious about unseen risks of war, and don't doubt that this one will have hitherto unimagined impacts on world finance and trade. I'd be more worried if I thought Paul had the slightest idea how these things work, but he still hasn't gotten past the idea that you need enough gold to match the value of everything else.

  • Jonathan Cook [03-10]: Israel planned war on Iran for 40 years. Everything else is a smoke screen: I don't doubt that there are documents supporting this, as well as Netanyahu's testimony of dreaming of war with Iran for over 40 years, but I've long thought that Iran was the smokescreen, and that Israel's real interests scarcely extended beyond the occupied territories, specifically their eternal quest to create "a land without [Palestinian] people" for a people who wants it all."

  • Michael T Klare [03-10]: America's Gaza: "The bombing of Tehran." The population of the Tehran metropolitan area is 16.8 million, about 18% of Iran's total population of 93 million.

  • Benjamin Hart [03-11]: Israel doesn't want to beat Iran. It wants to break it. Interview with Danny Citrinowicz ("senior researcher in the Iran and Shi'ite Axis Program at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies"), who previously summed up Israel's position as:

    If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people in the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future . . . [or] the stability of Iran.

    He also adds, "In Israel, there is no opposition on the Iranian issue. . . . But people think Iran is the country that wants to destroy us, and you can always justify war with Iran regardless of the price we're going to pay." And Netanyahu is loving this:

    He's considering pushing the election a little bit earlier because he thinks he can build on this. You don't hear the opposition leaders talking about the war. Politically, it's a win-win situation from all sides: He's working with the U.S., so there are amazing operational opportunities. Nobody's challenging him, nobody can counter him, and he's not going to trial because there's a war. And none of this will hurt him in a very close and tight election.

    So look, as long as President Trump will continue this war, whether Trump is there a week, a month, a year — it doesn't matter. We will be there.

  • Eli Clifton/Ian S Lustick [03-12]: How the Israeli tail wags the American dog: "The US attack on Iran may be less about American security than about the priorities of Israel's government." Objectively that's certainly true. The only real security is in having others have no reason to attack you, which is the opposite of what one would expect after you attack them. Note also that we're not talking about security for Israel here, just interests. Israel's (or Netanyahu's) is to keep American military and financial aid flowing so Israel can keep operating their war machine, and using the threats they generate as cover for dispossessing Palestinians in their occupied lands.

  • Sasan Fayazmanesh [03-13]: It's Israel, stupid!:

    As I have written in my academic works, and in CounterPunch, Netanyahu, Israel's chief devil incarnate and the butcher of Gaza, did not take no for an answer and kept pushing every US administration to attack Iran. He had no success, until a deranged man, surrounded by conduits for Israel, including his son-in-law and a real estate friend, took control of the US government.

    A man who to this day, cannot even pronounce the name of the Iranian general he ordered to be assassinated in 2020, or the name of the "supreme leader" of Iran whom he helped to be murdered in 2026, finally did what Netanyahu wanted to be done: attack Iran on behalf of Israel. The first attack, as I wrote in my July 2025 essay for this journal, did not accomplish Netanyahu's goal of a "regime change" and restoration of monarchy in Iran. So, Netanyahu kept up the pressure. He visited the White House multiple times since July 2025 to plan death and destruction in Iran.

  • Mike Lofgren [03-14]: Why the Iran was was inevitable: "There were many reasons behind Trump's decision to attack — but none of them were about US national security."

  • Deepa Parent [03-14]: 'You are all worse than each other': anti-regime Iranians turn on Trump: "Mood among some in Iran shifts from hope of being rescued to dismay at destruction of infrastructure, culture and lives." I doubt if anyone in Iran ever looked to outsiders for "hope of being rescued. The best thing outsiders can do for the beleaguered people under a regime they despise is to leave them alone, or short of that limit their efforts to peripheral issues, like limiting trade and foreign investments, while reporting on human rights abuses. That is roughly what happened in the ending of the regimes in the Soviet Union and its East European satellites. On the other hand, vigorous sanctions against Cuba and North Korea, and Iraq before the invasion, only strengthened harsh regimes. This piece quotes someone foolish enough to think that Trump's strikes might help topple the regime, but that person's already disillusioned. It shouldn't have taken actual strikes to realize that Trump and Israel have their own reasons for war, and the welfare of the people of Iran has nothing to do with them.

  • Alfred W McCoy [03-15]: How the past whispers to the present in Iran: Good historical review of US mishandling of Iran, comparing this new war to the 1956 Suez Crisis, what he calls an instance of "micro-militarism," which is really just a vote for violence without thinking through how much you are risking.

  • Bassam Haddad [03-15]: How might the US-Israeli war on Iran fail?: "Every week the US-Israeli war grinds on without a decisive conclusion becomes a lesson in the limits of US power. A campaign initially meant to reinforce US and Israeli supremacy may instead signal its decline." This doesn't go beyond the obvious, other than to stress that the attacks have only consolidated the regime's power in Iran.

  • Richard Florida [03-16]: Could this be the end of Dubai?

  • Lauren Aratani [03-18]: Trump waives US shipping law for oil and gas in bid to lower prices: "Trump issued a 60-day waiver of the Jones Act, a law passed in 1920 as a way to protect the US shipping industry. The law prevents foreign-flagged ships that carry commodities like oil and gas from traveling through US waterways."

  • Michelle Goldberg

    • [03-18]: Joe Kent's resignation letter is dangerous because it's half true: Kent was Trump's director of the National Counterterrorism Center. He resigned, admitting that there was no imminent threat from Iran, and blaming Israel for spreading misinformation that led to Trump's decision to attack. Kent is a former Green Beret, who moved into counterterrorism (and politics) after his wife was killed by an ISIS suicide bomber. He could be called a right-wing nut case, but he's also "half-right," which Goldberg admits while worrying that "it taps into old antisemitic tropes about occult Jewish control," and "the more [the war] drags on, the more I worry about a full-blown American 'dolchstoßlegende,' a modern version of the stab-in-the-back myth that German nationalists used to blame Jews for their humiliation in World War I." I'd note that those tropes only persist on the right, where they are outnumbered by neocons and Christian Zionists who envy and/or worship Israeli power. Still, dispelling them will be difficult given how Netanyahu brags about his manipulation of Trump, the obvious dissembling of Israel lobbyists (Jonathan Greenblatt, head of ADL, is quoted here), and their insistence that opposition to Israel's caste system and genocide equates to antisemitism (let's call this the power of suggestion to otherwise naive people). Also that no matter how bad the Iran war goes for the US, it won't result in the degree of defeat Germany suffered in 1918 (or France in 1871, where a similar myth led to the Dreyfuss Affair).

    • [03-16]: Trump is trying to bully America into supporting his war. It won't work.

  • Eldar Mamedov [03-18]: Israel's assassination game: Take all the pragmatists off the board: "The killing of Ali Larijani paves the way for more hardliners to fill the void, and conveniently for some, less chance to end the war peacefully."

  • Naman Karl-Thomas Habtom [03-18]: Iran war shows perils of America's Mideast bases: "US outposts are sitting targets for Iranian strikes." I imagine they are fairly well protected, but they open their host countries up for attacks against softer targets. Iran is going to be looking for some kind of assurance that they won't be attacked again. The most reassuring proof I can think of would be the the US to remove its bases. This would have to be initiated by the host countries, who should be having second thoughts about allowing aggressive militarists to camp on their lawns. This could be combined with normalized relations and armament limits that would build trust and benefit all. And if this happened, Trump could hardly refuse to leave.

  • Kelley Beaucar Vlahos [03-18]: Vast number of Trump voters want him to declare victory and get out: "A new poll showing cracks in MAGA support and no interest in boots on the ground."

  • Arron Reza Merat [03-18]: Israel has nuclear weapons. It may use them. Worse, Netanyahu may trick Trump into using them. The prospect I can imagine is that Iran can resist conventional bombing indefinitely, while keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed, inflicting sporadic damage on Gulf targets, while Trump (not Israel) grows frustrated and impatient. Iran tries to hide its arms factories, moving most of them deep underground. This includes its stockpiles of uranium, any centrifuges that have survived, and parts for repairing or making more ones. The US supply of conventional "bunker buster" bombs proves inadequate, but they've developed nuclear warheads specifically as "bunker busters." They may feel that aiming them at remote targets can be justified, and go ahead. Global opinion condemns them, but doesn't stop them from launching another, and another, by which point someone proposes that they threaten a small city if Iran doesn't surrender. (My first thought was the holy city of Qom, but I was surprised to find it has amassed 1.2 million people, so they might want to pick somewhere a bit smaller for a demonstration.) Of course, if/when Iran develops their own nuke, the shoe will be on the other foot, at which point US and/or Israeli panic could very well ensue (and this is where Israeli panic could race ahead of American).

  • Robert Kuttner [03-18]: Israel's manipulation of Trump on Iran: "The worse the Iran war goes, the more blame is likely to be directed at Israel, and by association the Jews."

  • Blaise Malley [03-19]: Tulsi Gabbard distances US war goals further from Israel's: "In the congressional hot seat Thursday, the DNI and CIA director John Ratcliffe insisted Tel Aviv was focused on regime change but Washington was not."

  • Jason Wilson [03-19]: West Point analysis warns that strait of Hormuz blockade will strangle US defense industry: "Report shows how minerals critical to defense readiness have seen 'near total' disruption in seaborne trade." Take sulphur, for instance, which is used to extract copper and cobalt from low-grade ores. "The current sulfur shock is becoming a copper problem, and that copper problem risks quickly becoming a readiness and resilience problem." They call this a "prelogistical crisis," which is to say a crisis which will be ignored until it's too late.

  • Alex Shephard [03-19]: This is how forever wars begin: "First, with lies and bombs. Then, with a request for hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars. Will Congress cave to the White House yet again?"

  • Ryan Cooper [03-20]: Ol' Donny Trump has really stepped in it this time: "In Iran, he finally created a jam for himself it will not be easy to wriggle out of." There's a reference here to an interesting piece from 2024 called Revisiting the tanker war, which Cooper sums up here:

    The Pentagon has filing cabinets stuffed with war plans dealing with this possibility. The U.S. might take out most of Iran's formal military, but even back in the 1980s during the Tanker War, when Iran was much less developed than it is today, the Navy found it very difficult to stop irregular forces from laying mines at night, or planting limpet bombs, conducting missile attacks from speedboats, and so on. Operation Earnest Will, an escort mission to keep the strait open, required more than two dozen ships operating simultaneously (including support from both the British and the French), went on for more than a year, and saw significant casualties.

    Today, not only do we have drone technology making these types of attacks much more dangerous and effective, but also the U.S. Navy is much smaller than it was at the end of the Cold War. In particular, it has almost none of the frigates and minesweepers that were core to the Tanker War's escort mission.

    Cooper also gets into the "how will this end" question, suggesting that "the easiest and least painful way to end Trump's war is likely just to give up and let Iran seize the strait" — assuming they would be content to collect tolls to allow ships to pass, but he doubts that would satisfy them (and obviously it wouldn't satisfy Trump or Netanyahu).

    Making everything worse is Trump's alliance with Israel, whose government is evidently bent on turning Iran into a stygian nightmare of death and suffering. As noted above, the destruction of Ras Laffan was touched off by an Israeli strike — and it happened after Trump asked Israel not to. Iran struggles to hit back at Israel, but it can hit at the allies of Israel's most important ally, and increase the pressure on the global economy.

    What Trump usually does when one of his dotard plots backfires is to retreat — chicken out, as Wall Street has called it — and pretend it never happened. That sort of works with something like tariffs, where long-term damage takes a long time to appear. But it likely won't be possible here. . . .

    So if Trump tries to cut and run, he will face one of the few things he reacts to — a storm of criticism on television — plus fierce pushback from the D.C. blob. Even if he were to try to do it, Israel almost certainly would bait him back into the conflict by inciting more tit-for-tat bombing.

    If Trump doesn't cut and run, he faces a hole in global energy needs that grows by about 20 million barrels of oil and 20 billion cubic feet of natural gas every day, with steadily increasing damage to the delicate energy infrastructure all around the Persian Gulf that will take months or years to repair, and more and more American soldiers wounded or killed.

    It would be a thorny situation even for the wisest statesmen in world history. Alas, all we have is an elderly idiot whose primary method of diplomacy is posting barely literate screeds on his personal social media site. Folks, it isn't looking good.

  • Yumna Patel [03-20]: Anger in the GCC spreads as Iran retaliates over US-Israeli strikes: "These are signs of the growing impatience of Iran's Arab neighbors with Iran's tactic of striking at them in response to Israeli or American attacks. But the anger of the Gulf states isn't only reserved for Iran." A lot of stress here, which could crack up several ways.

  • Bryan Walsh [03-20]: The pain from the Strait of Hormuz crisis will be felt far beyond the pump: "Four billion people are fed by fossil fuels. The Iran war is showing just how fragile that is." There's a chart here that argues that about half of the world's current population (8 billion) wouldn't be able to live today without synthetic fertilizers, which are mostly made with oil, with about 30% normally shipped through the now closed Strait of Hormuz. This production and distribution has developed with little thought from political leaders, especially ones as stupid and careless as Trump and Netanyahu, who have now endangered the entire world.

  • Caitlin Dewey [03-20]: What everyday life is like for Iranians right now: "Iranians are still trying to work, study, and parent under the constant threat of both airstrikes and regime violence." This is a good question, but to answer it they're interviewing Roya Rastegar, a co-founder of Iranian Diaspora Collective, which is to say someone not in Iran, claiming only to be "in touch with a network of people on the ground in Iran," and even so "the blackout makes it almost impossible to hear about conditions on the ground in real time." So cue to say whatever you think is happening.

  • Ian Welsh [03-20]: This is the end of the American empire. Period. Opens with:

    My friends, this is it. America isn't going to win this war, unless they use nukes, but even if I'm wrong and they squeeze out their .01% chance of success, it is over. The army is exhausted and can't be re-armed in less than a decade, with Chinese help. The Middle East will be in ruins. The AI bubble will crash out without money and resources from the Gulf. Everyone's going to turn hard from hydrocarbons to renewables, especially solar, and that means China is going to make absolute bank.

    I'm a little confused when he demotes this to "the second stupidest war decision I've seen in my entire life" ("the first was Ukraine refusing a very generous peace deal," something I somehow missed, but I don't doubt that Ukraine was solvable had Obama, Trump, and Biden shown any actual concern for the country they were arming), and it's probable that his life is a good deal shorter a period of time than mine. I also doubt that "the Israelis almost certainly have video of Trump raping kids," but in the same sentence he hits on a truism: "Americans can't admit they're losing." So caveat lector here, please do your own thinking. My thinking is divided between: yes, the empire may not be finished, but it is bound to be severely diminished; and, well, it wasn't really an empire in the first place, just a network of bases and arms placed at the service of global capitalism, which probably doesn't need them anymore (not least because countries like China and Russia are already part of that global capitalism, and others like Iran and Venezuela want to be, just not on America's terms).

  • Brian McGlinchey [03-20]: Jion the US military — kill and die for Israel: This seems like a fair and useful debunking of many of the propaganda points used to indict Iran, turning them into a suitable target for US-Israeli aggression. Whether the US is doing its part for Israel or for its own reasons can be debated.

  • Robert Wright [03-21]: War isn't a zero-sum game. I happen to be reading Wright's 2000 book Nonzero, so I'm deep into this sort of logic:

    But, that inconvenience aside, the fact that war is non-zero-sum seems like potentially good news. If nations rationally pursue their self-interest, shouldn't the knowledge that war often makes both sides worse off discourage them from starting wars?

    In theory, maybe. But, back in the real world, there's a massively destructive war going on in the Middle East.

    Well, we might as well put it to good use! I think viewing the Iran War in game theoretical terms can shed light on the question of why humankind seems so bad at respecting the logic of game theory — why nations keep getting into wars that, history tells us, may inflict huge costs on all concerned.

    While I don't want to distract from the very enlightening discussion that follows, I already have two points to make. One is that the weights get distorted when you absolutely don't care for how much harm is done to the other side (or even more if you regard that harm as a positive for your side). This is unfortunately common. Even countries that see themselves as liberators struggle to act in ways that show concern. Then there are countries that are totally self-concerned, like Israel. Second, some countries give themselves a handicap, by assuming that they will be attacked, and counting the losses they could suffer in that event as gains when they attack first.

    Well, I also have a third, which is that hardly anyone thinks to anticipate the long-range costs of seeming to win. Israel's stunning "win" in 1967 led directly to the 1970-71 and 1973 wars, and indirectly to dozens more, including the current war with Iran. Japan's big wins in 1895 and 1905 led to their massive defeat in WWII. Even before such a final reckoning, the arrogance and belligerence took a psychic toll, on the warriors as well as their victims. It's been said that the worst thing that ever happened to the US was "winning" WWII. The US became a very different country after that, much to the woe of the world and to ourselves.

    And maybe there's a fourth point, which is that the people who decide to go to war simply aren't very good at figuring out why. Wright finally gets around to this:

    I listen to a lot of podcasts, and some of them are what you could call foreign policy establishment podcasts — they're produced by, say, the Council on Foreign Relations or some very buttoned up DC think tank, or they feature conversations among the kinds of people who work at such places. And, almost invariably, the people on these podcasts, in gravely assessing the motivations that start and then steer wars, stay at the level of geopolitics and national interest and assiduously avoid the level of domestic politics. To hear them talk you'd think that Trump was Metternich — or at least a dimmer version of Metternich — rather than a former Reality TV star who is just trying to keep his ratings up by staging a new spectacle that's more eye-catching than the last one.

    This kind of credulous discourse is a disservice to the nation. It sustains the myth that the people who steer American foreign policy are by and large worth taking seriously. They're not. The politicians who steer it are for the most part just trying to get re-elected — and will serve whichever cluster of special interests can further that cause. And the "experts" who help steer it, including many of the voices on these podcasts, are people who managed to get hired by think tanks that, for the most part, are funded by the same special interests that are corrupting those politicians.

  • Karim Sadjadpour [03-23]: Iran is trying to defeat America in the living room: "The regime knows that its best ally against American power is American public opinion."

    Although opinion polls, oil prices, and the number of projectiles remaining are measurable, the fate of the war will be determined in part by the resolve of both parties, something far more difficult to measure. A democratic president's will to fight is constrained by elections, polls, gas prices, and the news cycle. An authoritarian regime fighting for its survival answers to none of those pressures. Reagan had resolve until Congress didn't. Bush had resolve until six in 10 Americans called his war a mistake. This asymmetry of resolve is Iran's greatest structural advantage. Tehran wins by not losing; Trump loses by not winning.

  • Kelly Grieco [03-23]: The "Iran is losing" narrative is tracking the wrong number: "Yes, missile and drone launch rates are down 90%+. But hit rate (or confirmed impacts per projectile fired) has been climbing steadily since Day 1." The thread provides more numbers. "And on the metric that matters (cost imposed per missile fired) Iran may actually be getting more effective as the war goes on, not less."

  • Yun Li [03-23]: Volume in stock and oil futures surged minutes before Trump's market-turning post.

    • Paul Krugman [03-24]: Treason in the futures markets: Takes a closer look at this event. I hate the word "treason," and wouldn't use it here, but this sure looks suspicious, even compared to the level of graft we've come to expect. As I recall, back during the Bush admin, some genius wanted to create a futures market on terror attacks, purely as a way to harness the genius of markets as an intelligence source. The idea suffered a crib death, as the prospect of betting on terrorism was hard even for neocons to swallow. New "prediction markets" raise the same concerns about moral hazard, but they're run by the private sector, so nobody asked permission, and this administration won't lift a finger, possibly because ideologically they want rackets unregulated, or perhaps just because they want to use their insider knowledge to play?

      This "sharp and isolated jump in volume" — which you can see for the oil futures market in the chart at the top of this post — was especially bizarre because there were no major news items — no major publicly available news items — to drive sudden big market transactions. The story would be baffling, except that there's an obvious explanation: Somebody close to Trump knew what he was about to do, and exploited that inside information to make huge, instant profits.

      This wasn't the first time something like this has happened under Trump. There were large, suspicious moves in the prediction market Polymarket before previous attacks on Iran and Venezuela. But this front-running of U.S. policy was really large: the Financial Times estimates the sales of oil futures in that magic minute Monday morning at about $580 million, and that doesn't count the purchases of stock futures.

  • Katherine Doyle/Courtney Kube/Dan DeLuce [03-25]: Inside Trump's daily video montage briefing on the Iran war: "The montage, which typically runs for about two minutes, has raised concerns among some of the president's allies that he may not be receiving the complete picture of the war."

  • Dave DeCamp: He writes short news items for Antiwar.com. These are merely the most recent:

Epsteinmania: As Steven Colbert noted right after Trump started the war: "Fun fact: 'Epic Fury' [the name given to the "operation"] is an anagram for 'Forget Epstein.'" This abbreviated section suggests it's working (but I've never pushed the story hard).

  • Elie Honig [03-06]: The Clintons have testified about Epstein. Will Trump be next? No. Nor an I sure he should, but I can't blame folks for asking. The Republicans opened up this can of worms, in one of their few efforts at bipartisanship. As noted, Hilary had nothing to offer, and the only reason for subpoenaing her was to put on the record something we already knew: that Bill sometimes operated on his own. As for Bill, after admitting "some truth of Clinton's claim that he 'did nothing wrong,' Honig continues:

    But the "saw nothing" part of his testimony is open to reasonable questioning. Consider, first, that Clinton's friendship with Epstein peaked in the early 2000s — right as Epstein was running his massive international child-sex-trafficking ring, according to the Justice Department's indictment of Epstein, which charged criminal conduct up until 2005. And this wasn't some passing relationship, some casual glad-handing of a potential donor. Clinton flew on Epstein's plane at least 16 times, sent a warm note to Epstein on his 50th birthday in 2003, and gave a glowing quote to New York Magazine for a 2002 Epstein profile. He also shows up in many photographs partying and swimming and hot-tubbing and receiving massages while with Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and others — including women whose identities have been redacted. (Clinton testified that he did not know and did not have sex with his hot-tub partner.) Yet, through it all, Clinton — a Yale-trained lawyer, reputed possessor of a genius-level IQ, two-term former president — had no idea at all that anything might have been awry, not even an "inkling."

SAVE America Act: "Republicans are pushing to get historically restrictive voter ID bill to the president's desk." Evidently "SAVE" stands for Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, a program "initially made to check if non-citizens were using government benefits." But the proposed law reportedly is much more restrictive, requiring a "birth certificate or passport," something which "half of Americans don't have." People who have changed their names, especially married women, face further obstacles. (I have an expired passport and a "REAL ID" drivers license. Unclear whether either would work, although both are based on a valid birth certificate.) The bill also adds burdens to mail in ballots. (Trump wants to completely ban them.) The bill passed the House on Feb. 11, and is being debated in the Senate.

  • Eliza Sweren-Becker/Owen Backskai [03-20]: New SAVE Act bills would still block millions of American from voting.

  • Jelinda Montes [03-18]: Trump is going all in on the SAVE America Act. It could make voting harder for millions.

  • Jamelle Bouie [03-18]: This is what the president is fixated on right now? He points out that the bill could backfire against Republicans, as it most clearly discriminates against several groups that broke for Trump last time, like women who changed their name for marriage, and uneducated people who never got a passport. I'd throw in older folk who lost track of their documentation (I may be one: I have an expired passport, which should still prove my citizenship, but does it?). Perhaps the biggest question is who has enough motivation to fight the bureaucracy just to vote? Still, Trump and his party cling to the notion that the fewer people who can vote, the better:

    The point of the SAVE Act, for them, is to use a ginned-up panic over noncitizen voting to disenfranchise the tens of millions of Americans who oppose the president and who have, as a result, been placed outside the political community. The SAVE Act embodies Trump and the Republican Party's astonishing contempt for the idea that a fair election is one in which you can vote without being hassled by the state.

The Oscars: Prodded on by my wife, I managed to watch most of the nominated pictures (without, sorry to say, enjoying them much), so I was better informed than usual. I also watched the whole show (on a delay from fixing dinner, so we could fast-forward through the commercials). In last week's Music Week, I wrote a bit about the movies in advance of the show. Maybe I'll follow up in the next Music Week?

Major Threads

Israel: Netanyahu finally got his war against Iran, which is mostly reported in the long Trump Bombs Iran section. Hezbollah offered enough of a reaction for Israel to renew its assault on Lebanon (not that, despite a "ceasefire," it had ever halted). But more importantly, the Iran war distracts the US from Israel's violations of the "Gaza Peace Plan," and provides cover for more aggression against Palestinians in the West Bank.

  • Yakov Hirsch [03-04]: The War to Erase October 7: What 'The Atlantic' leaves out about Netanyahu and the US-Israeli assault on Iran: "The Atlantic's Yair Rosenberg recasts Benjamin Netanyahu as a tragic figure forced to take radical action after October 7, ignoring his long history of fomenting war and exploiting Jewish trauma to further himself and his Zionist ideology." The section on "Weaponizing Holocaust memory" is useful for understanding the psychology that underlies Israeli politics:

    This silence is not just personal to Rosenberg. It flows from a broader Hasbara Culture that treats Netanyahu's worldview as sacred. A certain cluster of "Never Again" journalists — Jeffrey Goldberg, Rosenberg, Kirchick, and others — have spent decades telling American readers that Israel's enemies should be read through Holocaust categories. Iran is not just a hostile state; it is Amalek. Hamas is not just a brutal, rejectionist movement; they are, as Rosenberg himself argues, the new Nazis who simply want to kill Jews. Anyone who doubts that framework is portrayed as naive at best, or dangerously indulgent of genocidal antisemitism at worst. . . .

    In Hasbara Culture's world, Netanyahu is not just another politician; he is the man who sees 1938 coming again. His constant talk of "existential threats" is treated not as rhetoric but as revelation. Once you accept that frame, questioning his motives becomes almost taboo. If you say he is exaggerating or exploiting the threat, you are implicitly saying Jews should not take existential danger seriously. If you suggest he is using Holocaust memory for political gain, you risk being lumped with the people who accuse "the Jews" of "using" the Holocaust.

    That is why, when Netanyahu throws around Amalek and Holocaust analogies, these journalists nod along. It is why they treated his Gaza campaign and now his Iran war primarily as responses to October 7, rather than as the culmination of a long political and ideological project. And the long political and ideological project is the revisionist Zionist program he inherited and perfected: a maximalist claim to the land between the river and the sea; permanent rejection of Palestinian sovereignty; and an "iron wall" ethic that treats overwhelming, exemplary violence as the only reliable guarantee of Jewish safety and supremacy. Read this way, his invocations of Amalek and the Holocaust are not just panic or trauma, but the moral vocabulary of a worldview that prefers endless war-management, de facto annexation, and regional work-arounds to any settlement that would concede equal rights to Palestinians — and that is exactly how Gaza, and now Iran, end up looking like destiny rather than choice.

    Rosenberg's article is here:

  • Tareq S Hajjaj:

  • Ross Barkan [03-06]: The day Israel lost America: "The Iran war sure looks like a breaking point."

  • Qassam Muaddi:

  • Mohammed R Mhawish [03-09]: The Iran war is a disaster for Gaza: "How the crisis leaves Gaza's 2 million people more friendless, isolated, and vulnerable than ever before."

  • Ahmed Dremly/Ibtisam Mahdi [03-10]: 'The war is between Israel and Iran. Why should people in Gaza pay the price?': "After closures of Gaza's crossings drove up food casts and stalled medical evacuations, ongoing Israeli strikes raise fears of a renewed large-scale assault." One could also wonder why Iran should pay the price of Israel's war against Gaza. I fear it's reached the point where it no longer matters to Israel who they are hitting, as long as they are hitting someone else, showing the world that this is what they can and will do.

  • Michael Arria [03-10]: US support for Israel continues to plummet, despite media's best efforts. "Last month, a Gallup poll found that 41% Americans now sympathize more with Palestinians, compared to 36% who say they sympathize more with Israelis." Further down, I saw a term I hadn't heard before: "Holocaust inversion," which is a new code for people who think Israel is guilty of genocide. This tries to force an analogy with "Holocaust denial," which is not uncommon (but probably exaggerated) among old-school antisemites. But the new charge is very different: those who are so charged not only acknowledge the Holocaust, they are consistent in applying the standard definition of genocide, regardless of who's doing the killing, and who's being killed.

  • Elia Ayoub [03-11]: Israel's renewed war on Lebanon is about more than just Hezbollah: "After violating the 'ceasefire' 10,000 times, Israel is once again pounding Lebanon as its enduring thirst for war drives ever expanding ambitions."

  • Oren Ziv [03-13]: 'Our coverage is not truthful': How Israel is censoring reporting on the war: "Barred from publishing details of Iranian missile impacts or interceptions, local and international journalists are struggling to tell the full story."

  • Janet Abou-Elias [03-18]: US policy toward Lebanon is badly broken: "Washington has stoked a cycle of violence by prizing Israeli security over Lebanese stability." Sane people would realize that stability is essential for security, and focus on the basics. Israel has proven repeatedly that security must be mutual, and cannot be attained by one side repeatedly bombing the other.

  • Mayssoun Sukarieh [03-20]: The Gods must be cruel: Inside Israel's psychological warfare campaign in Lebanon: "Israel is waging a campaign of psychological warfare in Beirut by projecting godlike power from the skies, raining down bombs that mete out death and dropping leaflets vowing that Beirut and Gaza will share in the same fate."

  • Michael Sfard [03-21]: From Sde Teiman, the truth about Israel's military justice system has been set free: "By dropping all charges against the soldiers filmed abusing a Palestinian detainee, Israel has abandoned the whole masquerade of accountability."

  • Oren Ziv/Ariel Caine [03-24]: "Erasing the l ines": How settlers are seizing new regions of the West Bank: "After decades consolidating their control over Area C, Israeli settlers are expanding into Areas B and A — nominally under Palestinian Authority jurisdiction — and displacing communities."

Elsewhere Around the World: With Ukraine turning into something of a forgotten war, I thought I'd extend this section to pick up bits on how the rest of the world is reacting to Trump's adventurism. As far as I can tell, slowly and cautiously, which doesn't make for a lot of news, but I suspect there is more going on than I'm noticing.

Trump Threatens the World: I originally set this section up to deal with Trump's threats of war. We're obviously beyond that now, so see the section on Iran for more on that. Nothing much on Cuba here, but that front seems to be heating up. But there is a fair amount here on Trump's newfound militarist mentality. For a while, I thought Trump had an aversion to war — while appreciating the military's usefulness for graft — that distinguished him from classic fascists, but once again we find that fascist power fetishism inevitably ends in war.

  • Leah Schroeder [02-17]: Further US intervention in Haiti would be worst Trump move of all: "Washington sent warships this month to deploy 'gunboat diplomacy' while the island nation continues its frefall of violence and corruption." Note date, 11 days before Iran. Never say never.

  • David French [03-01]: War and peace cannot be left to one man — especially not this man. I disagree with much of this, but he tries hard to make "a case for striking Iran":

    As my colleague Bret Stephens has argued, the Iranian regime is evil, hostile to the United States and militarily aggressive. It has engaged in a decades-long conflict with the United States. Beginning with the hostage crisis in 1979 — when Iranians seized and held American diplomats and Embassy employees for 444 days — Iran has conducted countless direct and indirect attacks against the United States.

    Iranian-backed terrorists are responsible for the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983 that killed 241 Americans. Iranian-backed terrorists killed 19 Americans in the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Iran-backed militias killed hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq.

    Since the second Iraq war, Iranian-backed militias have continued their attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. In fact, it's fair to say that Iran's efforts to attack and kill Americans have been relentless for decades.

    Beyond its attacks on Americans, Iran is one of the most aggressive and destabilizing regimes in the world. It has supported Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis — three of the world's most powerful terrorist militias — it has attacked Israel with ballistic missiles, and it has supplied Russia with drones to use in its illegal invasion of Ukraine.

    Iran is deeply repressive at home. It stifles dissent, deprives women of their most basic human rights and massacres its own people by the thousands when they protest against the regime.

    If you're going to list foreign countries that should not obtain access to nuclear weapons, Iran should be at or close to the very top. Blocking Iran's ability to develop and deploy nuclear weapons is among our most vital national interests.

    This omits a lot of context, and also ignores the counterargument that if these constitute a casus belli for attacking Iran, one could construct a much longer list of similar reasons striking the US. Reasonable people should object to strikes on either, not based on the historical facts but because the attacks won't solve the problem, and will only lead to more problems. (By the way, I don't mean to justify the attitudes and behavior of Iran's rulers. I am critical of them, but one of my main complaints is the extent to which they have embraced their enemies' views on deterrence, subversion, and ultimately war. I also object to what I take to be the arrogant belief that they are a great country and deserve to have influence over lesser countries in the region.)

    French also offers a "case against an attack," which sad to say is even lamer than his case for. It starts with the worry that in attacking Iran, Trump is wasting missiles needed to deter China from attacking Taiwan. More sensible are his worries that Iran will fight back effectively, that the regime might not fall or collapse, and that its new leaders will emerge even more determined than ever to develop the nuclear weapons, especially since those Iranians who favored a path of caution have been killed off.

  • Mark Mazzetti, et al. [03-02]: How Trump decided to go to war: "President Trump's embrace of military action in Iran was spurred by an Israeli leader determined to end diplomatic negotiations. Few of the president's advisers voiced opposition." The "paper of record" explains the semi-official story, which mostly makes sense, even if the reporters have little sense of just how extraordinarily deranged Trump's decision is. The essential elements are: Netanyahu's long, determined campaign to ensnare Trump in a war with Iran; the staffing of the White House and Pentagon with action-first figures, fitting Trump's own instincts; and "a remarkable piece of intelligence," an opportunity for decapitation which spurred Trump to act immediately. The assassination strike is reported here:

  • Michelle Goldberg [03-02]: The idea that Trump was antiwar was always delusional: "Trump's foreign policy has often been less a repudiation of neoconservatism than a mutation of it." Also: "This has always been the real Trump doctrine. Not no wars, but no rules."

  • Ben Rhodes [03-02]: Trump may come to regret this: I doubt it, but that may be because whenever I see Trump's smiling mug, I immediately flash to the face of Alfred E Neumann, whose motto was "what, me worry?" I'm also reminded of the line in the Fog of War movie, where someone comments that "everyone's having Bob's ulcer but Bob." ("Bob" is Vietnam-era Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, the guy who famously saw the "light at the end of the tunnel." What I do wonder is whether Rhodes regrets his own not inconsiderable role in the long "real men go to Tehran" march to this war? He doesn't say, nor does he mention his old boss, Barack Obama.

  • Ross Barkan [03-02]: Republican Warmongers are back in control: Especially Marco Rubio, who Trump in 2016 "mocked for being a neocon . . . a 'perfect little puppet' of hawkish megadonor Sheldon Adelson." Adelson's widow has since become Trump's top donor (or maybe 2nd to Elon Musk).

    There is a dark political logic to this administration's military adventures in Venezuela and Iran and the aborted threat to seize Greenland. As Trump's popularity plummets at home, his immigration and economic policies largely judged a failure by the American people, he has turned to sowing chaos abroad. Overseas, American presidents can act more like sultans than democratic leaders. Military operations can be launched without congressional oversight. Trump, increasingly emboldened, has indicated he might topple Cuba next. All of this is easier and more enjoyable for him than addressing the plight of the American people.

    Barkan notes that "killing a brutal dictator is easy — even Barack Obama did it in Libya"; but "power vacuums are dangerous, and old regime hands don't simply vanish into smoke." Also:

    Little of this new conflict in Iran makes sense other than as a wish-fulfillment scheme for Israel and frothing American neoconservative warriors. The U.S. already claimed to obliterate Iran's sites that were aimed at building nuclear-weapons capacity. The Iranian regime, hobbled before the air strikes, posed little threat to the U.S. Its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas have already been crushed by Israel, the latter in the de facto genocide in Gaza.

    An unsettling reality is that the current crop of neoconservatives in the Trump administration, beginning with Rubio, do not seem to believe in the need to make a popular case for what they do. When Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, he had the American people, misguided as they were, at his back. He had Republicans and Democrats. In apparently starting a war with Iran, the Trump administration has won over the minuscule slice of hawks in the electorate (and the much larger contingent in Washington), but that's about it. Younger Americans on the left and right are weary of what feels like America's constant capitulation to Israel.

  • Aaron Pellish/Eric Bazail-Eimil [03-03]: US launches military operations in Ecuador: "The joint military operation with Ecuador targeted what the US called 'designated terrorist organizations' in the country."

  • Jordan Michael Smith [03-06] Donald Trump has lit a global match: "Trump and his aides think the United States has global leverage that his predecessors refused to use. He seems to forget that other countries have leverage, too — and they're intent on using it to stop him." It's long bothered me to hear the US presidency described as "the most powerful job in the world," probably because it implied what Trump was the first to clearly hear: that the president can do anything, shake anyone else down, and they will have no choice but to submit.

  • Andrew O'Hehir [03-08]: Behind Trump's war fever lies profound weakness: "US wages fast-escalating war, with no clear motivation and no realistic plan. It isn't fooling anyone." Well, they seem to be fooling themselves. Was the problem with Obama really just "no drama"? Is it possible he just didn't know how to get credit for being rational, predictable, and boring?

  • Thomas B Edsall [03-08]: The smash-and-grab presidency reaches its apex.

    But it isn't just in foreign countries. The willingness to adopt policies that will result in increased deaths among Americans, particularly within Trump's loyal MAGA electorate, pervades administration decision making, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, as I wrote in two previous essays, "What Can't Trump Wreck?" and "The MAHA Pipe Dream Is Going to Hurt MAGA the Most."

    Even so, Trump's war against Iran stands apart from past policies adopted on impulse. In this case, preliminary developments suggest Trump will pay a political price for his lack of careful planning and impetuous behavior. In fact, he may be forced to take responsibility for lost lives, damage to U.S. facilities and allies' cities, economic setbacks and the failure to anticipate predictable adverse events.

  • Casey Ryan Kelly [03-10]: Why Pete Hegseth talks like he's in an action movie: "Many observers were taken aback by his haughty tone, hypermasculine preoccupation with domination, giddiness about violence and casual attitude toward death." This notes that speaking "in a manner that is bombastic, outrageous and perverse" isn't unusual in Trump's cabinet (cf. Kash Patel, Sean Duffy, Mehmet Oz), but Hegseth more than any other has made a role out of it. (Meanwhile, Trump himself seems to be becoming terminally blasé.)

Trump Attacks America: Law, lawlessness, and the courts.

  • Sophia Tesfaye [03-17]: Trump wants to punish media for his unpopular war: "The president and FCC Chair Brendan Carr are threatening journalists and broadcasters for their coverage of Iran." "Carr's threat is a grotesque distortion of the FCC's mandate."

  • Elie Honig [03-20]: Trump's losing war against the Federal Reserve: "The thing is, if he'd gone about it more smartly, he would have gotten his way."

  • Robert Kuttner [03-20]: How Trump lost the courts: "With every passing day, another federal judge issues a scathing order to contain Trump's autocracy and Trump keeps alienating the Supreme Court." Don't get excited too soon. But one thing you can expect judges to do is to defend their own authority, which Trump's megalomania is threatening to run roughshod over. If Republicans do manage to pass the "SAVE" act, I think it's going to have a rough time in the courts, and not just because it's blatantly unconstitutional, but because it is corrosive of the idea that the government (including the courts) reflects the will of the people.

Trump's Administration: What they're up to while you're distracted by the flood of shit emanating from the White House.

  • Joah E Bromwich/Michael S Schmidt [03-02]: Trump Administration abandons efforts to impose orders on law firms: "The move amounts to a surrender in a clash that has led many law firms to submit to the president rather than face the threat of his executive orders." For starters, this makes the firms that surrendered in cases that could easily have been defended and won look cowardly and probably complicit in Trump's outrageous shakedowns.

  • Sarah Jones [03-05]: The myth of the root cause: Meet "Dr." Casey Means, Trump's quack nominee for Surgeon General.

  • David Dayen [03-19]: The quietest government shutdown: "It's been almost imperceptible, but the Department of Homeland Security hasn't been funded since February. Avenues to resolve the standoff keep getting cut off." Last month I had this as a separate story, but it barely qualifies for a mention this time — just long lines and other concerns at airports (here's a summary of How a DHS shutdown affects different components and employees). PS: Okay, here's some news on the shutdown:

  • Maxine Joselow/Brad Plumer [03-23]: Trump admistration to pay $1 billion to energy giant to cancel wind farms: And, in case you didn't think the title was outrageous enough: "In exchange, the French company TotalEnergies would inest in oil and natural gas projects in Texas and elsewhere."

Donald Trump, Himself: Up close and personal, or blown up into some kind of cosmic enigma.

  • Margaret Hartmann:

  • Robert Reich [03-19]: Dear allies of America, please don't confuse our president with us: "We are trying our best to resist him, contain him and remove him from office as quickly as we possibly can. Thank you for your patience." This is really dumb. In the first place, our efforts aren't really working, nor are them likely to work until his term expires in 2029, if then. Sure, inside the US, there are lots of things that we are doing, or trying to do, to reduce the damage Trump is causing, but outside the US, for all intents and purposes Trump is the US, and you need to adjust your thinking to that simple fact. Just because you used to have an alliance with the US government (which was never the same as the American people), and thought that worthwhile, doesn't mean that Trump is still your ally, or won't fuck you over on some arbitrary whim. You have to do what's best for you, then reevaluate and adjust in 2029, if things change. Reich writes (my numbers, for future reference):

    In point of fact, we the people of the United States do need your help.

    1. We need your help fighting the global climate crisis.
    2. We need your help heading off pandemics.
    3. We need your help countering global criminal gangs that are trafficking people and dangerous drugs and weapons.
    4. We need your help fighting global poverty, hunger and disease.
    5. We need your help safeguarding freedom and democracy from authoritarian regimes intent on extinguishing freedom and democracy around the world.

    These are all things (and the list is far from exhaustive) that all people in all nations should want to work together on. In olden days, the US could help its "allies" on these (and vice versa), but Trump has changed that: He's said that 1 & 2 aren't problems, so you're on your own; 4 may still be a problem, but it isn't ours; 3 is something we're going to address with arbitrary violence, which you can join in on but have no authority over; and for 5, we want more authoritarian regimes, not more democracy. In short, these are areas where other nations, to the extent they realize these are real international problems, need to find their own solutions for, and that may (and probably should) involve breaking with the US. They don't have to become enemies. They can't really threaten us, and it won't do any good to interfere domestically. They may still find it possible to work with American companies (which aren't even all that American these days). But they shouldn't pretend that the US is their ally, when clearly Trump is not. Maybe when Trump is gone, the US will want to work with their organizations, and help with their solutions. But if the US is a lost cause, as currently it is, they shouldn't sacrifice their future for our ego.

    A lot of liberals, like Reich, are stuck on this idea that the US is, and should always remain, the natural leader of a network of global alliances dedicated to solving the world's problems. US foreign policy has always (but especially since WWII) been directed by financial and military interests, offering a little bit of altruism (and high-minded but often hollow rhetoric) as bait. All Trump has really changed has been to get rid of the nice-guy act. Restoring the act isn't going to wash. The world distribution of power has changed since 1945, even if the American ego has not. Moving forward needs to reflect this change, but also to recognize that power itself no longer suffices, and that cooperation has to be built on mutual respect. Trump is the antithesis of that.

  • Henry Giroux [03-20]: Trump's Crusade: Christian Nationalism and the making of a holy war: This starts with a photo of Trump at his desk, surrounded by Christian clergy, many with their hands on Trump's slumped shoulders, blessing his divinely inspired war.

    In this register, Operation Epic Fury becomes barbarism refashioned as spectacle, draped in an aesthetic of impunity and moral annihilation. War is transformed into a form of public pedagogy, a daily lesson in domination delivered through media images, political rhetoric, and state policy, teaching that cruelty signals strength and that enemies, both foreign and domestic, are rendered disposable, unworthy of recognition or justice and instead subjected to humiliation, repression, and violence. Under such conditions, violence no longer hides behind the worn language of necessity or of making the world safe for democracy. It exposes what it has long been in American foreign policy, a ruthless instrument of imperial power. . . .

    This normalization of lawless violence feeds the broader war culture shaping the political imagination of the MAGA movement. Military force is framed not as a tragic last resort but as proof of national vitality. Violence becomes a measure of masculinity and patriotism, while reflection or restraint is dismissed as cowardice. War is imagined as a cleansing force capable of restoring national greatness. . . .

    When militarism fuses with apocalyptic religion, the consequences are deeply troubling. War ceases to be a tragic failure of diplomacy and becomes a sacred drama instead. Violence is sanctified as the instrument through which divine destiny is said to unfold.

  • Chauncey DeVega [03-19]: Laugh at Trump's shoe gifts all you want — it's a loyalty test: "The Florsheim presents aren't about style — they reveal the mechanics of MAGA authoritarianism and if it can endure."

  • Matt Ford [03-19]: There will be no post-presidential peace for Donald Trump: "The president and his allies will face impeachments, lawsuits, and maybe even The Hague." Shortly after Trump took office in 2025, I gave this some thought, and concluded that whoever follows him should grant him a blanket pardon from criminal prosecution (or maybe just advance clemency against jail time should he be convicted), but should let him fend for himself against civil suits (which are as common to him as eating). For one thing, this would settle the question of whether Secret Service should protect him in jail. (In theory, jail should be the safest place in America, but it doesn't seem to be.) I didn't consider the question of international law, as there seems to be no support for that even from Democrats. As for state laws, that's outside the jurisdiction of the next president, but short of shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, that's unlikely to be a problem. Since then, I find myself caring less and less. The main reason for the clemency, aside from the Secret Service issue (and one could argue that a convicted felon safe in jail doesn't merit that service), is that it helps bury the hatchet, or at least is a gesture in that direction. On the other hand, we already have tons of things that need to be publicly examined. It might be better to do so in a commission, especially one that can subpoena and grant immunity for revealing testimony. It's more important to expose what happened than it is to lock a few people up. As for Trump, I still like my idea of exiling him to St. Helena, where he would be free to build a luxury golf resort no one in their right mind would ever visit. But short of that, Eddie Murphy's advice in Trading Places still seems right: "the best way to hurt rich people is by turning 'em into poor people."

  • Brian Karem [03-20]: Who will stop Trump on Iran? "As the war escalates and the president digs in, the White House says 'nobody tells him what to do.'"

  • Cameron Peters [03-20]: Trump's new coin, briefly explained: "How Trump is celebrating his favorite things: gold and himself."

  • Michael Tomasky [03-20]: Yes, Trump Derangement Syndrome exists; but it's among his supporters: "That Pearl Harbor comment: Aside from being a fascist, the man is a national embarrassment. The deranged Americans are those who still support this charlatan."

    Am I overstating things? Do I suffer — gasp — from Trump Derangement Syndrome? Elsewhere today on this site, Simon Lazarus issues a sharp and necessary reminder to liberals not to get overly obsessed with Trump himself — to bear in mind the movement and the intellectuals that support him.

    He's right about that. At the same time, though, I'd say that we shouldn't even accept the presumption that Trump Derangement Syndrome applies to people like us. It does not. The people who suffer from TDS in this country are the ones who support him. And it's getting worse: This week, Nate Silver found Trump's approval slipping into uncharted territory, and approval of the war generally polls in the 30s — but at the same time, an NBC News poll discovered that among self-identified MAGAs, Trump's approval stood literally at 100 percent to zero.

    They're the ones with TDS. You and I have Trump Awareness Syndrome. We see his un-thought-out war — and by the way, if it's almost over, why is he asking Congress for $200 billion? — and we hear him utter vacuous and offensive statements like the Pearl Harbor remark, and we know all too well what he's doing to this country. Awareness is a far heavier burden than derangement.

    The Lazarus piece is here:

    • Simon Lazarus [03-20]: Trump Derangement Syndrome is a self-destructive distraction: "Liberals aren't wrong to excoriate the president for his misdeeds, but they mustn't lose sight of the fact that Trumpism isn't about one man." As someone who's also recently read Laura Field's Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right, I recognize the names of the so-called "MAGA intellectuals" mentioned here, but I want to point out that a lot of Trump's worst ideas derive not from them (or their gurus like Carl Schmitt and Harry Jaffa) but from more conventional Republican sources (paleocons, neocons, libertarians, Buckleyites, theocrats, and/or unprincipled weasels like Roy Cohn, and that's far from exhaustive, as the same irritable mental gestures and rabid defense of the elite go back centuries, when the same sort waxed eloquent about the virtues of slaveholding and monarchy. But Trump doesn't wax eloquent about anything. He may pick up thoughts on occasion because he swims in their same sewer, but thoughts don't stick to him, because he doesn't think them, he just spouts along with all the rest of his incoherent mish-mash. That leaves us in a quandary: he's too important, and too symbolic, to ignore, but he's too slippery to pin down, or maybe too sticky to escape ("tarbaby" comes to mind)?

      By the way, some more on Field's book:

    • Alexandre Lefebvre [2025-11-14]: A mole in MAGA's midst.

      What unites the New Right? One fear and one hope. The fear is that liberalism is everywhere, its tentacles wrapped around the public sphere and even the most intimate details of private life. Whichever MAGA faction you turn to, there is a shared conviction, as Field puts it, that "for all its pretensions to neutrality, liberal, pluralistic, modern constitutionalism has normative tendencies and implicit preferences and inevitably shapes the liberal democratic psyche in specific ways." Liberalism is right there on dating apps with every left or right swipe, in the empowerment slogans of multinationals, and in the endless Netflix scroll of choose-your-own-identity mush. And so, while MAGA strategies diverge on how to respond — from tactical retreat (the so-called "Benedict Option") to co-opting the liberal machine (Catholic integralists) to burning it all down (the chronically online Hard Right) — there is consensus on the enemy.

      That's the negative. What about the positive? Field credits Anton — author of the galvanizing 2016 essay "The Flight 93 Election" and now a senior Trump administration figure — with distilling MAGA's three-point creed: "secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy." But this, she shows, is only surface politics. The deeper point of Furious Minds is to reveal a near-consensus on a social vision and a set of moral ideals for what a postliberal United States should look like.

      Denoting these "moral ideals" as "the good, the true, and the beautiful" doesn't help explain them, because those are not concepts that liberals (or most people) lack, but ones they define differently (and less absolutely). The key thing is that the New Right wants their state (which is not your state, or any form of democratic state) to tell you what to believe, and to force you into believing it. They believe that if everyone thought the same things (the same things they think) all our problems would vanish and we'd have heaven on earth. And one of the things they think is that anyone who derides Trump is deranged?

    • Adam Gopnik [2024-03-18]: The forgotten history of Hitler's establishment enables: "The Nazi leader didn't seize power; he was given it." A review of Timothy Ryback's book, Takeover: Hitler's Final Rise to Power. This book, like the following review, was cited in the Lazarus piece.

    • Casey Schwartz [2025-11-11]: What could have stopped Hitler — and didn't: "In Fateful Hours, the road map to authoritarian disaster is laid out in gleamingly sinister detail by the German historian Volker Ullrich."

    • John Ganz [03-20]: Grand delusion: "The Trumpist intellectuals wake up." I'm having some trouble digesting this retort to Sohrab Ahmari, but I like the comparison of Trump to Napoleon III and the Marx quote (not the farce that follows tragedy one), but this seemed like as good a place as any to file it for further reference. Intellectuals try very hard to rationalize their world view, even if it has no rational basis at all, which is doubly difficult when your world view is bound to a leader [Trump] who has no sensible grounding at all. Oh, the Marx:

      An old, crafty roué, [who] conceives the historical life of the nations and their performances of state as comedy in the most vulgar sense, as a masquerade in which the grand costumes, words, and postures merely serve to mask the pettiest knavery.

Economists and the Economy: Note that I've moved Dean Baker into his own section.

  • Richard Bookstaber [03-16]: I predicted the 2008 financial crisis. What is coming may be worse. One of the comments mentions how Trump "has bombed himself into a no-exit with the oil market," then concludes: "combine this behavior with our crumbled infrastructure, collapsing job market, rising prices, etc., and it's hard not to see a market meltdown."

Regular Columnists

Sometimes an interesting columnist writes often enough that it makes sense to collect their work in one place, rather than scatter it about.

Dean Baker: For more look here.

  • [03-20]: Are the Biden and Trump economies the same? "While short-term economic data may appear similar, key differences in inflation, labor market strength, affordability pressures, and long-term poicy choices suggest the Trump and Biden economies are meaningfully different."

    Key takeaways:

    • Presidential impact on the economy is often overstated, but policy differences still matter.
    • Claims that Democrats overstated economic success overlook efforts to address affordability concerns.
    • Inflation was trending downward before policy shifts like tariffs disrupted progress.
    • Labor market indicators, especially quit rates and wage growth, point to weakening conditions.
    • Affordability concerns may stem from rising real household costs, especially healthcare and student debt.
    • Trump-era policy changes on energy, immigration, and research could harm long-term growth.
    • Short-term differences are modest, but long-term economic outlook under Trump appears weaker.

    I think the last point should be made much stronger. We're only one year into the Trump economy, and what has happened as a policy level is only starting to impact. Moreover, while the Iran war did quickly signal higher gas prices, it's real impact is still in the future. I don't think we'll actually see the worst-case scenarios that can be projected from Trump's governing principles, because I expect businesses to be more resilient and more resistant to Trump's worst excesses, but best-case is going to be pretty bad, especially as businesses trying to save themselves aren't likely to care much about anyone else.

    I might also note here that I was surprised to see a whole section on "Harris did not cheerlead the Biden economy":

    First, I think he [Jason Furman] is very unfair in saying that former VP Kamala Harris was running around touting that the US economy was the envy of the world. This claim was in fact true, but that was hardly the main story of her campaign.

    Harris went around everywhere saying that she knew people were hurting and outlined proposals, especially on housing, on how she would make things more affordable. We can debate the merits of these proposals, but she was quite explicitly trying to address what she said were major problems in the economy.

    Baker is still far more committed than Harris was to touting the Biden economy, while Harris seemed to be more sensitive to its shortcomings — something she got no credit for during the campaign. The question is why didn't her concerns and proposals get much if any airing in the media? Possible reasons include: that she didn't convey either much outrage or empathy; that her proposals were couched in terms meant to appeal to business and donors; and that she blame the obvious culprits (Biden would have been the easiest mark, as Trump proved). But shouldn't the media have at least tried to sort this out, or are they just totally incapable of reporting on wonky policy matters? I'm reminded here of Hilary Clinton's 2016 gaffe about "baskets of deplorables," which is the only thing the media reported, ignoring the context, which included a fairly detailed and generous plan to revive the economy of areas like West Virginia which had been left behind (something her husband had more than a little to do with). What Clinton proposed would have been much better for the people than Trump's bullshit about "clean coal," but Trump saw his biggest vote gains in areas that Clinton wanted to help, and could have. But who reported that?

  • [03-18]: The "fraud" fraud: "The new anti-fraud push led by JD Vance is portrayed as politically driven, relying on exaggerated claims that don't align with the actual scale of the federal budget or national debt." Opens with:

    Fans of pet-eating migrant stories are thrilled to hear that JD Vance is heading up an anti-fraud task force operating out of the White House. As best anyone cal tell, the purpose is to drum up absurd allegations of fraud against prominent Democrats, like California Governor Gavin Newsom and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker.

    If the reference to pet-eating migrant stories is too obscure, let me remind everyone. During the presidential campaign, Vance admitted that he invented stories about Haitian immigrants eating people's pets in Springfield, Ohio, to advance the Trump ticket's anti-immigrant political agenda. This is important background when considering the sincerity of his new anti-fraud crusade.

    The other important background item is that Trump just gave us an anti-fraud crusade last year. Doesn't anyone remember Elon Musk running around with his chainsaw and his "super-high IQ" DOGE boys? He was supposed to find trillions of dollars of fraud, and send us all $5k dividend checks.

    Baker is right that Vance's interest here is crassly political, and that the sort of blatantly illegal fraud that such a task force could conceivably find is small potatoes compared to the economy as a whole. But fraud is something people do care about, and Democrats would be smart to expose some on their own. They could, of course, start with Trump, and all the money coming in and favors handed out, which will make Reagan's "welfare queens" and whatever it was that Tim Walz got tangled up with in Minnesota look truly microscopic. Moreover, they could start looking at the broader picture of what is supposedly legal but creates a culture which allows fraud to operate and profit. For instance, every day I fend off dozens of phone calls and emails, some from legit businesses I have no desire to hear from, some surely more disreputable. How hard would it be to shut them all down? I'm sure there's a long list of things that could be done, that would in the end make business and government more respectable and trustworthy. But we live in a world where the politicians seem to accept an ethic of everyone having to struggle to screw everyone else, with our best advice being caveat emptor? We're approaching the point where vigilance against fraud is more than a full time job. It's certainly more than one can stand. And one of the worst long-term effects of Trump is that he's poisoning the entire culture by wrapping it up in his graft. Yet somehow he managed to convince lots of voters in 2016 and 2024 that he was the one who wasn't "crooked"!

  • [03-17]: The AI bubble, like the housing bubble, is a big problem and it's not complicated: "Like the housing crash, today's AI bubble driven by inflated expectations and stock valuations poses a major risk to the broader economy when it bursts." I don't doubt that there is a large AI bubble, at least as far as stock prices are concerned, and that it's based on assumptions that won't pan out, but that probably follows 2001 more closely than 2008. On the other hand, I suspect that we're also in a real estate bubble. (My evidence: my tax assessment went up by about 15% this year, and 25% over two years ago.) Both AI stocks and real estate are largely driven to speculative capital, leveraged on a house of cards. The underlying problem is increasing inequality (specifically the ability of the rich to avoid taxation by various schemes).

  • [03-16]: Trump agrees with Mark Carney: the old order is very dead: "Trump's unilateral war on Iran signals the end of the US-led world order and forces allies to reconsider security, trade, and global partnerships."

  • [03-13]: When Pete Hegseth says "lethality" he's talking about killing Iranian school girls: "Relaxed rules of engagement under Pete Hegseth are blamed for increasing civilian casualties, including a deadly strike on a Iranian girls' school."

  • [03-09]: The winning and losing countries from high oil prices: it's not just who has the oil: "Rising oil and gas prices function like a tax on consumers, and despite strong domestic production, US households still face major costs from higher energy prices."

  • [03-05]: Little boy Trump goes to war: "Those of us in the United States who lied through Donald Trump's first presidency know that he is not a person who thinks carefully about his actions and their long-term consequences." For instance, Trump's war is going to accelerate the spread of renewable energy and electric cars. It should also accelerate the realignment of much of the world away from the US: "This war without reason removes any doubt that Trump is a threat to world peace and economic stability. The world needs to move away from any dependence on the United States as quickly as possible and now they all know this."

  • [03-03]: A real abundance agenda starts by rolling back patent and copyright monopolies: "Genuine economic abundance requires weakening monopoly protections and financial rents that enrich the wealthy while driving up costs for everyone else."

  • [02-28]: Trump's stock market is headed down!

  • [02-27]: The Ellisons taking over Warner is pants on fire stuff, but team progressive just whines.

    And this is where progressives are far behind the curve. The fact that the Ellisons can put right-wing hacks like Bari Weiss in charge of the news that people see between the campaign ads is a far greater threat to democracy than the 30-second campaign ads that the rich can buy in abundance.

Jeet Heer: Other pieces cited passim, but let's add these, mostly on Trump/Iran:

  • [03-20]: Will the Iran war destroy MAGA? "Trump's coalition is splintering over nationalism and Israel." Leaving aside what is or is not MAGA, and whether its supposed constituents are anything more than a fad fan base for Trump, what's splintering them is war, specifically the kind that fights back, and seems like none of their business — the kind that Israel is perpetually fighting, and dragging us into. (They seem pretty happy with war on their domestic foes, and would welcome a lot more of that. But engaging abroad, even if just to hurt others, may strike them as unnecessary, especially when it blows back.)

  • [03-13]: The Iran war is spurring global anger at America: "Trump's reckless and unnecessary conflict is hurting allies as well as foes."

  • [03-12]: Is AIPAC doomed? "The hard-line pro-Israel lobby is facing more opposition than ever before. But fully defanging it won't be easy."

  • [03-09]: Trump's war is destroying the global economy: "Spiraling financial chaos might be the only thing that can force the president to pull back from this conflict." It's certainly not going to be analysis, or conscience.

Paul Krugman: I haven't been reading him since he retired to Substack, but his posts there are more frequent and more expansive than the New York Times allowed, and I haven't been paywalled yet. I cite one of his pieces above (under Iran), but here are a few more:

  • [02-23]: Day 1461 of Putin's Three-Day War: "Courage, betrayal — and reasons for hope." He's more hawkishly anti-Putin than I am. I doubt, for instance, that Ukraine have won the war years ago but for Biden's imposing limitations on the use of US-supplied weapons. On the other hand, I do fault Biden for not having the imagination or concern to pursue a diplomatic solution. But his charts do show that Europe has largely made up for Trump's cuts. For now, that only extends the stalemate. The question now is whether Europe can nudge Ukraine into a pragmatic compromise with Russia.

  • [02-27]: The economics of faltering fascism: "Unfortunately for Trump, and fortunately for us, he didn't inherit an economic crisis." Compares this to Hitler and Putin, who were able to consolidate power as they forcefully recovered from inherited crises. Sure, Trump campaigned on Biden being the worst president ever, but Trump's remedies have more often than not made matters worse, and his popularity has stalled and sunk. Krugman cites a couple of interesting pieces here:

    • Mike Konczal [02-09]: Why affordability and the vibecession are real economic problems: "There are many ways inflation makes people worse off even when real incomes recover, especially for essentials."

    • Timothy Snyder [02-25]: Fascist failure: "The state of Trump." This was written just after the SOTU, and just before the resumed bombing of Iran. The prescient point is in the fourth paragraph, but let's not neglect the context (my bold):

      Trump's problem is not with idea of fascism. It suits him well. Just consider the atmospherics of last night. Fascism celebrates a leader who transcends law and aims to unites the people with their destiny. It denies truth in favor of grand stories of struggle against a chosen enemy. It posits an imaginary golden age. All of that was in the speech.

      Fascism demands a chosen enemy, and victims. Trump called the Democrats in the audience "crazy" and associated them with illegal immigration and crime. The United States is engaged in an enormous cleansing project. ICE raids celebrate physical force in the cities and our concentration camp system is landscape of domination in the countryside. The murder of civilians in Minnesota was greeted by big lies about the victims.

      All of this is awful. But it is also stasis. Trump is unpopular, the economy is weak. When the government murdered Americans, this did not deter protest. To actually change the nature of politics, to move beyond the current state of affairs (competitive authoritarianism) to something else, to fascism, Trump needs another kind of conflict.

      Fascism demands a major foreign war to kill one's own people and thereby generate a reservoir of meaning that could be used to justify indefinite rule and further oppression, to make the world seem like an endless struggles and submission to hierarchy as the only kind of life. . . .

      Trump senses that he needs such a war, but, characteristically, he wants a short cut. . . . To complete the fascist transition, Trump has to give the country a war it does not want, and win it, and transform the society. . . .

      And so the state of Trump is that he is stuck. He is failing at fascism. He can break things, but he cannot make things. He can bluster, but he cannot triumph. He is tired, and every day is harder than the day before, and there are rivals in the wings, and elections coming.

      Between now and November 2026 he has two moves: win a war, which he cannot; and suppress the vote, which he has telegraphed that he will try to do.

      Snyder not only mentions Iran, he goes on at some length, to some merit but events have moved beyond speculation. But the notion that Trump would gamble on war to try to shore up his flagging polls on domestic policy was a bit too fantastic for me to figure out, even though it's long been a defining trait of all fascists. Sorry if I thought that even they weren't that stupid, but the core traits that lead folks to fascism do lead to a fetishization of power and violence, and that was already pretty clear with Trump. One more point I should make here is that Trump's problem is not that he's incompetent as a fascist. It's that fascism (even his) doesn't work to fix the problems America has.

  • [03-02]: War, oil and the world economy: "Are we less vulnerable to an oil price shock than we were in 1979?" Answers seems to be "somewhat," based mostly on that real GDP has risen substantially against oil consumption. Still, there are other factors, including "financial fragility." Conclusion — and this was just a few days into the war, before the full impact of closing the Strait of Hormuz factored in — is: "I don't want to engage in doomsaying. But I do worry that people are too complacent about the economic risks this war creates."

  • [03-04]: Reality sets in on Trump's new war: "Surprise! War in the middle of the world's most important oil fields has consequences." Starts with a hart of "traffic through the Strait of Hormuz," followed by one of Brent Crude Oil prices.

  • [03-08]: Oil crises, past and possibly future: "What the 70s can and can't teach us." [Paywall here.]

  • [03-12]: The billionaires' war: "The ultrawealthy put Trump in power but other people will pay the price."

  • [03-16]: No, America is not respected: "Thanks to Trump, we're held in contempt even by our closest allies." I don't doubt the contempt, but still wonder when it's going to be followed up by concrete action. It's still far easier for world elites to humor the US than it is to find ways to work around US obstruction and insanity. Especially as most viable ways would mean moving left.

  • [03-18]: Donald Trump, Petropresident: "Follow the Gulf oil money."

    And then there's Trump's relentless use of his office to enrich himself and his family. As the New York Times editorial board has documented, Trump has raked in at least $1.4 billion since returning to the White House. The biggest single piece of that total is Qatar's gift to him of a $400 million jet. Most of the rest has come from sales of cryptocurrency. We don't know who the buyers of Trump crypto are, but it seems likely that Gulf oil money has accounted for a large share. The Wall Street Journal reports that an Abu Dhabi royal secretly invested $500 million in World Liberty Financial, the center of the Trump crypto empire.

    Meanwhile Jared Kushner, the First Son-in-Law, has been acting as one of the U.S. government's chief negotiators on the Middle East while also raising large sums of money for his personal investment firm from investors in the region, especially the Saudi government's Public Investment Fund.

  • [03-19]: A whiff of staglation: "Inflation was rising and job growth stalled even before the Iran War."

  • [03-23]: When hyperglobalization meets chaos: "Choke points are everywhere you look. . . . While things are bad now, they may very well get a lot worse."

Heather Digby Parton:

Jeffrey St Clair:

  • [03-02]: Preliminary notes on a planned decapitation. The keyword here is "whacked": for Trump, that's all it comes down to, the solution to all problems. And if it doesn't work, just whack again.

    Trump has done the world a service. He has abandoned pretense and clarified the true nature of American power. There is no longer any need to manufacture a case for war, to make an attack seem conform to international law and treaties or to demonstrate its righteousness by acting as part of an international coalition. Now America can do what it wants to whomever it wants solely because the people who run its government want to. This has, of course, almost always been the case behind the curtain of diplomatic niceties. But Trump has ripped those curtains down and now the world is seeing American power in the raw: brazen, arrogant and mindless of the consequences, which will be borne by others and if they complain, they might be whacked, too.

  • [03-06]: Roaming Charges: Calling all angels! Opens with "the shifting rationales (all fictitious) for Trump/Netanyahu's criminal attack on Iran." Let's give a prize to Mario Rubio for the most ironically unselfconscious explanation: "Iran is run by lunatics." This is followed by a video of Paula White ("the spiritual advisor to Trump and head of the White House Faith Office"). Further down, we get to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) explaining, "Iran has been an imminent threat to the United States for 47 years." Some other notes:

    • More than 70 percent of American public school teachers hold at least one side job, according to a new Gallup survey released this week.

    • On Monday, state officials in Ohio approved a $4.5 million sales tax exemption for a $136 million data center expansion in Northeast Ohio. The plant is expected to create a total of 10 new full-time jobs.

    • The number of US adults who feel optimistic about their future life has dropped to 59.2%, the lowest number ever, according to Gallup.

  • [03-13]: Kill, lie, and cover up: The shooting of Ruben Martinez. Like Renee Good, he was a US citizen killed in his car by ICE. "Over the last 14 months, ICE has shot at more than 16 people, hitting 12, including 5 US citizens."

  • [03-20]: Roaming Charges: Trump's little excursion hits the Straits:

    • Meme: "Republican support for war with Iran jumped from 23% to 85% the moment Trump started the war." Comment: "Yet more proof that the Republican Party has turned in to a Jonestown-like cult."

Nick Turse: Covering the US military for The Intercept, he's had a busy month (mostly on Iran, but not only):

Miscellaneous Pieces

The following articles are more/less in order published, although some authors have collected pieces, and some entries have related articles underneath.

Joel Gouveia [02-25]: The death of Spotify: Why streaming is minutes away from being obsolete: Or so says Jimmy Iovine ("arguably the most important living bridge between music and tech": co-founded Interscope, built Beats by Dre, sold it to Apple for $3 billion). Some interesting points here, but none impress me much one way or the other, at least to the point of convincing me that what came before and/or what might come after is any better or worse.

John Herrman [03-05]: Is it really illegal to bet on inside information about the Iran war? How about MrBeast?: "Kalshi and Polymarket are creating a new kind of dilemma." There are few things in this world I find more offensive than gambling, for lots of reasons, but this kind of thing goes orders of magnitude beyond the ordinary.

Chris Dalla Riva [03-06]: Long live Robert Christgau: A conversation with Matty Wishnow: Wishnow has produced a documentary film about the long-time rock critic, The Last Critic, and talks about that here. Also see:

Harold Meyerson [03-19]: Cesar falls: "With the horror of the revelations of his sexual predations, an already tarnished icon collapses." I'm surprised to see this recent spate of stories, as I thought this was already old news. Related here:

  • Timothy Noah [03-19]: The shame of Cesar Chavez: "We shouldn't forget the reasons he has come to be revered, but his legacy was tarnished long before this."

Some notable deaths: Mostly from the New York Times listings. Last time I did such a trawl was on February 27, so we'll look that far back (although some names have appeared since):

Also, not [yet] noted in New York Times:

Tweets: I've usually used this section for highlighting clever responses and/or interesting ideas.

  • Alon Mizrahi: "So basically the US is at war, its president is making one deranged statement after another, and the whole world ignores him like he is a crazy person on a bus."

  • Corey Robin [03-19]: Starts with: "If you haven't seen this yet, you have to take one and a half minutes — that's all it takes — to listen to Marc Andreessen, one of the most powerful people in Silicon Valley, talk about the evils of introspection. He claims that he doesn't do introspection, and I believe him." You can follow the link to six points Robin makes, including "can you think without introspection? Silicon Valley says yes." More on this:

    • David Futrelle [03-23]: Marc Andreessen's Dangerously Unexamined Life: "The tech mogul has declared himself an enemy of introspection, and that conveniently erases considerations of conscience from his amoral investment empire." Includes a Sun Tzu quote that seems to have escaped Trump: "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a thousand battles without disaster."

      We should note that Marc Andreessen does in fact have an inner life, because we all do. As a result, his declaration of zero introspection is either a weird and extreme failure of self-knowledge or (more likely) a performance, a brand identity so thoroughly constructed and maintained that it functions like an authentic account of the brander's experience. Either way, the practical effect is identical: a man with enormous influence over the technologies of war and surveillance, over the political direction of the country, over the infrastructure of violence that his firm has spent a decade funding, has, in effect, announced that he has no interest in examining his conscience.

      Andreessen has built the perfect ideology for Silicon Valley in the Trump age: Move fast, break people, and don't devote even a moment to self-examination.

  • Cory Robin [03-21]:

    Ten headlines from today's New York Times:

    1. You've Lost Your Health Insurance. It Shouldn't Have Been a Surprise.
    2. Trump's Reaction to Mueller's Death: 'Good, I'm Glad.'
    3. I Predicted the 2008 Financial Crisis. What Is Coming May Be Worse.
    4. The 'Hunger Games,' Hamptons-Style: Hiring a Private Chef for Summer
    5. No Pills or Needles, Just Paper: How Deadly Drugs Are Changing
    6. Student Freed From ICE Detention Worries About Those Left Behind
    7. Across the West, Record Heat Is Colliding With a Snow Drought
    8. Unclogging a Hairy Drain Is Gross. This $15 Stopper Makes It Less So.
    9. The Future of the Democratic Party Is Emerging
    10. Here's what happened in the war in the Middle East on Saturday.

Current count: 310 links, 25755 words (30834 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Friday, February 27, 2026

Loose Tabs
Shortly after I posted this on Friday night, Trump (and Israel) launched a wave of attacks against Iran, aimed at decapitating the Islamic regime (at least it appears successful in killing long-ruling Ayatollah Ali Khamineh). Franklin Roosevelt called Japan's surprise attacks on Pearl Harbor a "day of infamy." I used that same phrase to describe GW Bush's opening salvo of "shock and awe" on Baghdad in 2003. While I don't know the dimensions of Trump's attack — it was clearly larger than several similar attacks Trump had already made, but one could argue that the "war" actually started somewhere back — one would not be amiss to reckon this another "day of infamy." Whether this fizzles out in some sort of face-saving agreement, or escalates into WWIII, remains to be seen. That Trump and Netanyahu have blindly thrust us into a new state of the world is undeniable. The things we should be absolutely clear on are: the "crisis" that precipitated this action was totally fabricated, the result of Israel hyping Iran as some kind of supreme existential enemy, for no reason beyond their desire to provide cover for their ongoing displacement of the Palestinian people; that the US has gone along with demonizing Iran because the CIA installation of the Shah in 1953 and the subsequent support of the Shah's terror campaign against his people is something Americans have never acknowledged and made any sort of amends for; and that several generations of American politicians, including Biden and Trump, have allowed themselves to be manipulated and dictated to by Israelis, Netanyahu in particular. There was never any need to go to war with Iran, and even a week ago an agreement could have been negotiated, at least had the US shown any decent respect for the Iranian regime and people.

After rushing this out, I realized that I had left an earlier date in place, so I should at least fix that. This came out on the 27th, not the 24th. I also meant to add the Table of Contents, so that's here now. Beyond that, the only thing I've added was a note to the latest Jeffrey St Clair "Roaming Charges," which includes some useful anticipation of the attack. I haven't had time or stomach to survey the more recent news — literally, as I've come down with something that makes work impossible as well as undesirable. I also missed squeezing in a final February Music Week (although I still could post-date one), or putting up anything on my Substack in February.

This is an occasional collection of newsworthy links and comments, much less systematic than what I attempted in my late Speaking of Which posts. The new name comes from my extensive use of browser tabs. When I get around to cleaning up, I often find tabs opened to old articles I might want to comment on and/or refer back to. So these posts are mostly housecleaning, but may also serve as a very limited but persistent record of what 20+ years ago I started calling "the end of the American empire" and nowadays feels more like "the end of civilization." I collect these bits in a draft file, and flush them out when periodically (12 times from April-December 2025). My previous one appeared 34 days ago, on January 24.

I have a little-used option of selecting bits of text highlighted with a background color, for emphasis a bit more subtle than bold or ALL CAPS. (I saw this on Medium. I started with their greenish color [#bbdbba] and lightened it a bit [#dbfbda].) I'll try to use it sparingly.

Table of Contents:

Topical Stories

Sometimes stuff happens, and it dominates the news/opinion cycle for a few days or possibly several weeks. We might as well lead with it, because it's where attention is most concentrated. But eventually these stories will fold into the broader, more persistent themes of the following section.

Last time: Thanksgiving; Epsteinmania; Zohran Mamdani; ICE Stories; Venezuela; Iran; Jerome Powell.

We're probably not done with all of these (certainly not ICE, although I've moved them into a new regular section I'm calling Trump Goes to War (Domestic Edition)).

Epsteinmania: After numerous delays, the Department of Justice finally released a "large cache" of documents and media related to its investigation of Jeffrey Epstein: this one an overwhelming dump of 3 million pages and 180,000 images.

Melania: The movie Jeff Bezos spent $75 million on to flatter the Trumps. This is, of course, a lightning rod for critical ridicule — which, sure, is a big part of why I'm reporting on it at all. Given the subject and circumstances, I'm not surprised that at Rotten Tomatoes the average of scores given by recognized critics is 8% (50 reviews). It's likely that most film critics are anti-Trump to start with, but even if there is a bit of selection bias, that's a pretty low score, suggesting that the film isn't very good, at least by common critical standards. (The sample size is pretty decent: it may be slightly inflated by critics out to slam Trump, but not much. Moreover, one shoudn't assume that anti-Trump means anti-Melania, as a lot of people like to think that Melania is secretly anti-Trump too.) What's much more suspect is that the viewer ratings appear to be ecstatic at 99% (1000+ verified ratings), for a largest-ever discrepancy between the ratings of 91 points. I don't know how to prove this, but intuitively the self-selection bias here must be huge. Who, after all, would buy a ticket to this particular movie? No one I know, except perhaps to write a nasty review, and those people would show up in the critics column. But I find it hard to understand how anyone would pay money to see Melania. It's not unusual for right-wingers to mass-purchase books to plant them on the New York Times bestseller list. Same thing could be happening here. Indeed 1000 tickets for party operatives promising to follow up on Rotten Tomatoes would be a drop in the Bezos bucket.

The Washington Post:

Super Bowl LX: For the first time in several decades, I watched (and mostly enjoyed) the game, was perplexed by the half-time show, and suffered through enough commercials to fill a new screed like Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle, but no time for that now.

  • Marissa Martinez [02-06]: Bad Bunny is taking over the US. Does he want Puerto Rico to leave it?

  • Sean Illing [02-07]: Enjoy the Super Bowl while you can. Football won't last forever: "The sport feels unstoppable — yet also doomed." Interview with Chuck Klosterman.

  • Izzie Ramirez [02-08]: Bad Bunny's knockout halftime show, explained by a Puerto Rican: "All of the cultural Easter eggs you might have missed."

  • Ophell Garcia-Lawler [02-09]: How Bad Bunny shut down his haters at Super Bowl.

  • Cruz Bonlarron Martínez [02-09]: Bad Bunny's Super Bowl show was political art at its best.

  • Alfred Soto [02-09]: The boricua quotidian: Bad Bunny.

    When MAGA has to coax a barely functional Kid Rock into alternative Superbowl programming, then you know Bunny is lucky to have such feeble adversaries. The show itself? Wobbly at first. Bunny looked like he'd realized several hundred million spectators were learning about him. Then, as he played subject and object for a staged recreation of life in a blighted U.S. territory, his confidence swelled; the recent tracks that nodded towards the boricua quotidian gained resonance. Pedro Pascal and Gaga came across as eager fellow travelers. Past and future Billboard chart toppers Ricky Martin and Cardi B served as reminders of the scope of Puerto Rican popular music. "I appreciate Bad Bunny for bringing the Telemundo Saturday afternoon variety show ethos (dancers, inapt sets, let's-try-this attitude) to global TV," I wrote on Bluesky. The dancers, for many watchers the show's kitschiest part, come straight from the twilight zone that is Spanish language television on a weekend at 4 p.m. Hell yeah. The last two minutes played as much as an elegy to an endangered hemispheric comity as an Epcot parade.

  • Josh Fiallo [02-09]: Kid Rock's lip-synced halftime show brings MAGA pundit to tears.

  • Constance Grady [02-10]: Woke isn't dead. Bad Bunny's halftime show proved it. "Maybe the right didn't capture the culture as much as they thought."

  • Addy Bink [02-08]: Trump calls out this 'sissy' NFL rule a lot. Why? I hadn't watched football for decades, but had little trouble following the game. I didn't notice anything on the initial kickoff, except that the the ball was spotted on the 35-yard-line after the end-zone touchback. I looked up this one after Trump complained about the "sissy" rule. Seems OK to me, but some assholes are primed to complain about anything. Kickoff returns always seemed like a randomizing function to me: a possible (but unlikely) lucky break as opposed to the usual methodical grind. In addition to reducing injuries, it also seems likely that the rule reduces flags away from the play, and good riddance to them.

  • Aaron Ross Coleman [02-13]: The only solution capitalism has is to sell us more useless junk: "Ad makers will never say the quiet part loud, but they increasingly know that we're unhappy and looking for solutions." I've long regarded advertising as one of the fundamental sins of modern life, and I've worked hard to arrange my life so I hardly ever have to face it. So I was far from prepared to watch the Super Bowl, in real time, with full state-of-the-art ads. I was overwhelmed, so I've been hoping to find some clear analysis. This barely glances the surface, but does suggest an explanation for the how hard I found it to figure out who's selling what: if the selling is always implicit, perhaps the best you can do is to just lodge an indelible image. Over the course of the show, I probably recognized 50+ actors in cameo bits, paid just to register their faces in some context. Beyond that, there were dozens (maybe hundreds) of pop culture references, many of which I couldn't pin down. It would take a whole new volume of Cultural Literacy to decipher all the references advertisers assume we know (or perhaps just hope we recognize).

The DHS shutdown: Funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, ended on February 14, causing a "shutdown" of the Department (which doesn't seem to include ICE). As of Feb. 24, the shutdown remain in effect. Seems like this should have been a bigger story, but I've seen very little mention of it (at least that I care to include here). It doesn't even seem to have its own Wikipedia article, although some basic info is available under 2026 United States federal government shutdowns.

The Supreme Court rules on tariffs: Or some of them, some of the time, using some definition of "ruling." The days of the Court doing us favors by clarifying the rule of law seems to be long past.

  • Cameron Peters [02-20]: Trump's tariff defeat, briefly explained.

  • Elie Honig [02-20]: Trump's tariff fantasy just exploded.

  • Ian Millhiser [02-20]: Why a Republican Supreme Court struck down Trump's tariffs: "Trump loses, and the Democratic justices didn't need to concede anything." In particular, the Democratic justices didn't endorse the "major questions" doctrine that Roberts tried invoking, pace Honig above.

  • Eric Levitz [02-20]: The Supreme Court's tariff decision could save you $1,000: "The Court just did Trump a huge favor. Will he take it?" The assumption is that everyone but Trump understands that tariffs are bad, so the Court ruling is saving Trump from self-harm. But it's possible that Trump's focus was always more about enhancing presidential power than anything economic. That's certainly why he's fighting the ruling. Moreover, the whole refund angle is a mess, not least because you can't roll back every consequence of the tariff decision.

  • Greg Sargent [02-20]: Trump's epic loss on tariffs is even worse for him than you think: "The Supreme Court's stunning invalidation of most of the president's tariffs is another sign that Trumpist populist nationalism is in crisis." That's not my take at all. It reduces a bit of the drag that tariffs are taking on the economy, while creating a messy problem of restitution that isn't likely to be handled at all well. (Personally, while I agree that Trump abused the law in implementing his tariffs, I'd write the losses off, except for purposes of blaming Trump.) But more importantly, it gives Trump an excuse for his failed policies, and turns the Supreme Court back into part of the deep state swamp conspiracy that is dead set on stopping Trump from saving the nation. That's a political argument he can, and will, run with. My main hope here is that by stressing the nefariously political nature of the Court, it bites him back.

  • Joshua Keating [02-20]: The Supreme Court just blew up Trump's foreign policy: "How will Trump get countries to do what he wants without tariffs?" Trump has regularly threatened countries to tariffs, demanding "policy concessions on a host of issues that often had little to do with trade." Tariffs were his "big stick," and pretty much the only tool he had, since "soft power" and good will were beneath him.

  • Karthik Sankaran [02-20]: Why SCOTUS won't deter Trump's desire to weaponize trade: "Today's Supreme Court decision only closes one avenue for the president to unilaterally impose tariffs."

  • Harold Meyerson [02-23]: Trump's tariffs weren't really about trade policy: "They were about his nostalgia, his ego, his bigotry, and his greed." Sure, but more than all that, he discovered in them a source of instant presidential power, which he could use for its own sake, as well as to shake down bribes.

  • David Sirota [02-23]: On tariffs, Neil Gorsuch is hardly apolitical.

  • Matt Ford [02-24]: Clarence Thomas has lost the plot: "The associate justice's dissent in the tariffs case deserves some extra attention, because it is hopelessly uncoupled from law, history, and the Constitution."

  • Elie Mystal [02-24]: The giant mess behind the Supreme Court's tariffs ruling: "The 6-3 decision was a rare victory, but it was crafted out of conflicts that leave almost nothing certain — including future tariff rulings."

Threatening/Attacking Iran: As has been standard policy since 1991 — for how and why this happened see Trita Parsi's book, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States (2007) — Israel is once again pushing the US into war with Iran. Reminds me of the Iraq War-era quip about how "real men go to Tehran."

  • Joshua Keating [02-19]: It really looks like we're about to bomb Iran again.

  • Kelley Beaucar Vlahos [02-19]: Military tankers for Iran attack deploying near Iraq War levels: "'Strikes could occur any time now,' say experts who explain what id-air refuelers mean for sustained operations."

  • Nick Turse [02-19]: Trump menaces Iran with massive armada capable of prolonged war: "The amount of military forces gathering near Iran dwarfs even the monthslong build-up before the US coup in Venezuela."

  • Trita Parsi [02-20]: No, even a 'small attack' on Iran will lead to war: "The deal Trump wants is a no-go for Tehran, which is resigned to retaliating if bombed again, limited or otherwise."

  • Ryan Grim/Jeremy Scahill/Murtaza Hussain

    • [02-20]: Trump privately dreams of Iran regime change glory as Democrats cynically weigh political benefits of war: "Trump says he wants to be the president who takes down the Islamic Republic. Democratic leaders see him walking into a political trap of his own making ahead of the midterms."

    • [02-23]: Iranian officials to Drop Site: Tehran is showing "unbelievable level of flexibility" in talks to prevent US war: "Iran understand it is dealing with an erratic US president, but its negotiators still believe they can thread the needle with Trump." Two probably unsurmountable problems with a possible deal: Trump cannot be trusted to honor even his own deal; and Israel still has effective veto over any deal (even if they give in for the moment, they know they can kill it later).

  • Eldar Mamedov [02-21]: Why Arab states are terrified of US war with Iran: "They see the military build-up and now that bombing and regime change can have consequences, especially geopolitical ones." Especially because they are much more vulnerable to Iranian reprisals than Israel or the US is.

  • Chris Hedges [02-21]: The suicidal folly of a war with Iran: While I agree that attacking Iran would be complete and uttery folly, I don't quite buy the word "suicidal." It's folly because the only way to achieve the stated goals is to get Iran to agree to something satisfactory, which probably means the US has to give up some points that don't really hurt and may even be for the better. And there's no real scenario where bombing Iran gets one closer to such an agreement. Indeed, the more you attack Iran, the more insistent you are on dictating a change of government and power, the more resistant you are to treating Iran with any degree of respect, the harder negotiation becomes. Given all the effort the US and Israel have already put into backing Iran into a corner from which they can only lash out in spite, it's remarkable how level-headed their leaders have remained. And that's why another attack doesn't seem likely to be provoke Iran into a response which inflicts serious harm on its attackers. It's not really clear how much harm Iran could inflict, but it's not something that should be dismissed out of hand. US bases and ships in the region are vulnerable, as is a lot of US-friendly oil infrastructure (and the latter is pretty conspicuously vulnerable, as is any shipping going through the Straits of Hormuz). And while Iran has consistently denied any desire to develop let alone use nuclear weapons, it's pretty widely agreed that they could if they wanted to. That mere fact should act as a powerful deterrent, but the US seems determined to push Iran into a corner where they have no other option. A sufficiently large attack could tip that balance. Also, while Iran's leaders clearly want to avoid provoking the US into a massive attack — that's probably why their responses to previous attacks have been muted and advertised — at some point the leaders may decide that their own survival matters more than their people, and risk the latter to save their own skins. (Iraq, Syria, and Libya offer recent examples of regimes that turned on their own people rather than giving up power.) So while the assumption so far has been that Iran's leadership is too responsible to respond to attacks irrationally, is that really something the US wants to depend on in the future? And if it is a dependable assumption, why all the fearmongering about a useless Iranian nuke?

  • James A Russell [02-22]: All aboard America's strategic blunder train. Next stop: Iran: "Our stumbling into war with Tehran would be the latest in a self-inflicted 30-year road to nowhere."

  • Dave DeCamp:

  • Sajjad Safaei [02-23]: What if today's Iran is resigned to a long, hellish war with the US? "Tehran learned from the June attack and its comparative advantage now is to drag Washington into a protracted regional conflict."

  • Sina Azodi [02-24]: History tells us coercion through airpower alone won't work: "Donald Trump won't commit troops because he knows it would hurt him politically. But that's what it would take if he wants Iran to capitulate." Iraq and Afghanistan are examples where air power alone failed, and ground troops were needed to seize the capitals. Whether ground troops worked is arguable: temporarily perhaps, but the US struggled to remain in control, and ultimately lost. The Nazi Blitz of England in 1940-45 and the US bombing of North Vietnam are also examples of air power failing to win. Still, Iran is roughly three times the size and population of Iraq. And while the regime has been weakened by sanctions, there is no reason to believe that the legacy of supporting the Shah, imposing sanctions, and sporadic attacks and subversion has made many Iranians long for a US-imposed, Israeli-directed puppet regime. Maybe Lindsey Graham still thinks that "real men go to Tehran," but I doubt that Trump could line up anyone in the actual Army leadership to sign up for a ground invasion. Even in Venezuela, they made no effort to occupy anything: that was just a snatch and grab operation, leaving the old system in place and hoping they can extort some slightly better deals. I could see Trump thinking he'd like to do something like that, but it's going to be much harder, for lots of reasons. The thing is, he could have cut a deal with Iran (and for that matter with Venezuela) if he only showed them some respect and allowed them to settle differences with dignity. He didn't do that, because he wants to show the world he's really a leg-breaking mobster, someone who can reduce his enemies to ash and dictate terms. The world doesn't work like that. (Although Netanyahu also thinks it does, and with America backstopping his every move and funding his perpetual war machine, he's been able to get away with it so far.)

  • Blaise Malley [02-25]: Who are the Dems giving tacit green light to Iran attack and why? Schumer and Jeffries, for instance.

  • Ori Goldberg [02-26]: Israel's lonely push for war with Iran: "Internationally isolated, restrained in Gaza, and unraveling at home, Israel sees another escalation as the only way to maintain its aggressive regional agenda." Iran doesn't want war with the US. Neither do the great majority of Americans. The only one who wants this war is Israel: they need an enemy to justify their permanent war machine (which provides cover for their continued usurpation of the West Bank), they fear that their right-wing political order will collapse without continued war, and they believe that trapping the US in conflict with Iran will keep American support coming.

Shortly after I posted this, Trump and Netanyahu unleashed a major bombing attack on Iran. I added a bit up top on this, and added a Jeffrey St Clair link below. I wasn't planning on searching for more, but a few early pieces came up anyway (I needed to update this on 03-03 because I missed a link, and wound up adding a couple more pieces; obviously, there is much more I am missing):

  • Richard Silverstein [02-28]: Iran: Trump's war of annihilation: One key point here, not widely reported elsewhere, is that Ayatollah Khamenei "reportedly prepares leadership plan if killed."

  • Al Jazeera [03-02]: Rubio suggests US strikes on Iran were influenced by Israeli plans: This makes it pretty clear that Israel is directing US foreign policy:

    US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suggested that a planned Israeli attack on Iran determined the timing of Washington's assault on the government in Tehran.

    The top diplomat told reporters on Monday that Washington was aware Israel was going to attack Iran, and that Tehran would retaliate against US interests in the region, so US forces struck pre-emptively.

    "We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action," Rubio said after a briefing with congressional leaders.

    "We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn't pre-emptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties."

  • Michael Hudson [03-02]: The US/Israeli attack was to prevent peace, not advance it.

  • Jonathan Larsen [03-02]: US troops were told Iran War is for "Armageddon," return of Jesus: "Advocacy group reports commanders giving similar messages at more than 30 installations in every branch of the military." This story is also reported by:

  • Trita Parsi [03-01]: Some observations and comments on Trump and Israel's war on Iran: I scraped this off Facebook, so might best just quote it here:

    1. Tehran is not looking for a ceasefire and has rejected outreach from Trump. The reason is that they believe they committed a mistake by agreeing to the ceasefire in June - it only enabled the US and Israel to restock and remobilize to launch war again. If they agree to a ceasefire now, they will only be attacked again in a few months.

    2. For a ceasefire to be acceptable, it appears difficult for Tehran to agree to it until the cost to the US has become much higher than it currently is. Otherwise, the US will restart the war at a later point, the calculation reads.

    3. Accordingly, Iran has shifted its strategy. It is striking Israel, but very differently from the June war. There is a constant level of attack throughout the day rather than a salvo of 50 missiles at once. Damage will be less, but that isn't a problem because Tehran has concluded that Israel's pain tolerance is very high - as long as the US stays in the war. So the focus shifts to the US.

    4. From the outset, and perhaps surprisingly, Iran has been targeting US bases in the region, including against friendly states. Tehran calculates that the war can only end durably if the cost for the US rises dramatically, including American casualties. After the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran says it has no red lines left and will go all out in seeking the destruction of these bases and high American casualties.

    5. Iran understands that many in the American security establishment had been convinced that Iran's past restraint reflected weakness and an inability or unwillingness to face the US in a direct war. Tehran is now doing everything it can to demonstrate the opposite - despite the massive cost it itself will pay. Ironically, the assassination of Khamenei facilitated this shift.

    6. One aspect of this is that Iran has now also struck bases in Cyprus, which have been used for attacks against Iran. Iran is well aware that this is an attack on a EU state. But that seems to be the point. Tehran appears intent on not only expanding the war into Persian Gulf states but also into Europe. Note the attack on the French base in the UAE. For the war to be able to end, Europe too has to pay a cost, the reasoning appears to be.

    7. There appears to be only limited concern about the internal situation. The announcement of Khamenei's death opened a window for people to pour onto the streets and seek to overthrow the regime. Though expressions of joy were widespread, no real mobilization was seen. That window is now closing, as the theocratic system closes ranks and establishes new formal leadership.

  • Vijay Prashad [03-03]: A war that cannot be won: Israel and the United States bomb Iran: Of course, I agree with this conclusion, but that's largely because I subscribe to the broader assertion, that no war can ever be won. The best you can do is to lose a bit less than the other guys, but that does little to redeem your losses. I think this is true even when you downgrade your ambitions: instead of regime destruction and regeneration, which happened in Germany and Japan after WWII, or the occupation and propping up of quisling governments that the US attempted in Afghanistan and Iraq, Trump seems to have adopted Israel's Gaza model which is that of periodically "mowing the grass," hitting Iran repeatedly in a forever war that ultimately points toward genocide.

Trump's State of the Union speech: The Constitutionally-mandated annual speech is scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 24. That's approximately when I hoped to post this, so the section starts with speculation, including much Trump is unlikely to say anything honest about, and will be added to if need be.

  • Michael Tomasky [02-23]: The real state of the union: millions of Americans are just disgusted: "Yes, we're angry about what Donald Trump is doing to our country. But even more than that, we're heartsick over the countless ways in which he is destroying this nation."

  • Jeet Heer [02-24]: The state of the union will be even worse than Trump's polling numbers: "What's a flopping demagogue to do?"

  • John Nichols [02-24]: Summer Lee knows the real state of the union: "The progressive representative from Pennsylvania will speak truth to Trump's power tonight." I gather the Democrats' "official" state of the union response will be from centrist Abigail Spanberger, but this one should be more interesting.

  • Alex Galbraith:

    • [02-24]: "These people are crazy": Trump uses State of the Union to attack Democrats, SCOTUS. "I'm not sure this word is the dagger to the heart Trump thinks it is. It's rather like "weird," in that it not only attacks one party, it also shows the attacker to be an elitist, thin-skinned and super judgmental, a prig. I think that Walz calling Trump (and his supporters) "weird" backfired, for many reasons, including that it made Trump look like a possible alternative to a system that was being choked by the dictums of what respectable politicians can say. I doubt Democrats will try to play this by embracing the charge, but one can at least look askance at who's making the charge.

    • [02-24]: "Is the president working for you?": Spanberger hammers Trump on affordability. While Trump mocks them, Democrats have finally found a word which consolidates inflation, debt, wages, and costs into a single concept that better fits one's lived experience. The following is a useful primer:

      • Dylan Gyauch-Lewis [02-11]: What is affordability? "It's more than just prices." It's also more complicated, but perhaps not complicated enough. It's hard to factor in increasing precarity, partly because it strikes so hard in individual but rather random cases. Also the sense of powerlessness more and more people are feeling (because those in power are always pressing their advantages: that alone is enough for a "vibecession"). Quality also factors into affordability: while tech is generally improving, the transition is rarely smooth, creating losers as well as unintended consequences; on the other hand, business is always looking to cut corners, and shirking on quality is one way to do that.

  • Zack Beauchamp [02-24]: The most important line from Trump's State of the Union.

    It came during a discussion of the SAVE Act, a Republican bill designed to combat the fictitious scourge of noncitizen voting. Democrats, Trump claimed, only opposed the bill because "they want to cheat." And then he took it much further.

    "Their policy is so bad that the only way they can get elected is to cheat," Trump said on Tuesday night. "We're going to stop it. We have to stop it."

    Think about that for a second. This is the president of the United States, speaking to the country in a ritualized national address, claiming that the opposition party is not only wrong on policy but fundamentally illegitimate, so much so that if they win an election it must be because they cheated.

    Taken literally, that is the president announcing that the stated policy of his administration is preventing the opposition from winning any future election.

    Of course, the odd thing here is that most of the actual instances we can think of where a party tries to rig elections for their own advantage occur on the right-wing side: today's Republicans, or for white Democrats during the Jim Crow era. The purpose of the SAVE Act is to make it harder for poor people to vote. What Trump really wants is a system where Democrats can never win an election, no matter how unpopular Republican policies are. That's because, well:

    But Trump doesn't see Democrats as opponents. He sees them as enemies. . . . And indeed, this was how Trump talked about Democrats in the State of the Union.

    "These people are crazy. I'm telling you, they're crazy. Boy, we're lucky we have a country with people like this," he said. "Democrats are destroying our country, but we've stopped it, just in the nick of time."

    Beauchamp relates this to Nazi legal theorist Carl Schmitt, but the Nazis studied America's Jim Crow laws for precedents. It's tiring to have to keep talking about democratic principles, but that's the line Republicans insist on drawing. The problem for Democrats is not that they lack moral high ground, but that a great many Americans simply dismiss the notion of moral high ground (except inasmuch as they claim it themselves, ideally as a grant from God), but also the principle allows for either side to win, and leaves it to the people to decide which. In defending that principle, which the other side flat-out rejects, Democrats tend to undermine what should be their real mission, which is to show that it is the Republicans who are the enemies not just of the political system but of the people the system is supposed to represent.

  • Ed Kilgore [02-25]: Trump's State of the Union was a bloated awards show. Much discussion before the speech about Trump's record low approval numbers, and how he desperately needs to turn a corner. No one seems to think that he did with this particular speech. Kilgore thinks it at least "thrilled his base," even if it convinced or much impressed anyone else. I'm left with two thoughts: that for someone who claims to love America, he sure hates an awful lot of actual Americans; yet he seems to sincerely believe in not just the righteousness but the inevitable success of his program. As Kilgore put it: "It appears he will go into difficult midterm elections standing pat on his record, his message, and his unshakable belief in his own greatness." I'm not really sure how Trump could rig the 2026 (and 2028) elections, but as long as he thinks he's winning, he's unlikely to try (at least beyond his habitual complaining about mail-in ballots, voter id, etc.).

  • Meagan Day [02-25]: Pay close attention to Trump's affordability rhetoric: "Donald Trump's State of the Union was mostly lies and grievances. But his aggressive play for economic populism — borrowing progressive ideas and branding them as his own — should be a warning for Democrats to get serious about affordability."

  • Paul Heideman [02-25]: Donald Trump is staying the course: "Donald Trump's inane self-aggrandizement made listening to his State of the Union speech an exercise in endurance. It was also a reminder of how lucky the nation is that Trump's pathologies prevent him from more ably seizing his historical moment."

  • Christian Paz [02-26]: How Democrats reorganized their State of the Union resistance: "The Democrats tried something new to rebut Trump's address." Aside from the "official" response by Abigail Spanbarger, there were others, plus two counter-programming events, one dubbed the "People's State of the Union," the other the "State of the Swamp."

  • Alec Hernandez/Dasha Burns [02-26]: The SOTU moment that Republicans hope saves the midterms: "Americans have soured on the White House immigration enforcement tactics, but the president's speech has the GOP strategizing on how to regain momentum on a favorite issue." Their initial is this 30-second ad, which shows Trump saying: "If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens." It then shows Republicans applauding en masse, and pans to various Democrats who look bored out of their minds. Given Trump's lackadaisical delivery, buried deep within a speech that rambled on for nearly two hours, who wouldn't be bored? Even had they been hanging on every word, Trump's challenge scarcely makes any sense — if you asked me, I'd say that the first job is to ensure equal justice for all, which no one would say ICE is doing. (Then I'd add a few more things, like regulating the economy, protecting the environment, and making war unthinkable. Granted, do those things and American citizens would be safer — most likely "illegal aliens" would neither be illegal nor aliens.) Trump then points to the Democrats, and says "These people are crazy." Really sick burn.

  • Harold Meyerson [02-26]: The SOTU clips that should prove disastrous for Trump and the GOP: "Democrats should stream and broadcast the president's odes to our economy over and over again." Jimmy Kimmel's 60-second edit gives you a taste, but jumps around too much.

  • Corey Robin [02-26]: On the Democratic Party style: Just focusing on style/rhetoric:

    I don't think I've ever encountered, outside academia, people with such a bottomless appetite for mountainous piles of meaningless, unnecessary, empty words and phrases, each genetically engineered, in whole or in part, to make any sentient being stop paying attention. Reading this speech, that is the only conclusion I can come to: that the sole purpose of this speech is to make people stop paying attention.

  • Sasha Abramsky [02-27]: For 108 minutes, Trump gives a tedious Mussolini impersonation. I've never listened to Mussolini, but I'm skeptical that he was ever so offhandedly wry and lackadaisical.

Major Threads

Israel: Enter "stage two" of Trump's Gaza War Peace Plan, which we can now safely say that Trump is implementing in the worst way possible, through his so-called Board of Peace. It is worth recalling my [10-21] piece on Making Peace in Gaza and Beyond, which lays out a different approach (one which cuts Israel considerable slack, arguably much more than they deserve, but which could be tolerated if the Trump and other key Americans decided the war had to end). As I noted last time, the minimal requirements for any serious peace plan are:

  1. Israel has to leave Gaza, and cannot be allowed any role in its reconstruction.
  2. The people who still live in Gaza must have political control of their own destiny.
  3. The UN is the only organization that be widely trusted to guide Gaza toward self-government, with security for all concerned.

Trump's Board of Peace not only bypasses the UN — forget that it's theoretically sanction by UN Security Council Resolution 2803, because Trump already has — it suggests a new alignment under Trump's personal control, excluding any nation not willing to bow and scrape up tribute money. This is reminiscent of Bush's "Coalition of the Willing," but where Bush's ad hoc club was mere propaganda, this is styled as a plot to control the world. Not even Ian Flemming has managed to concoct a villain as megalomaniacal as Trump.

  • Omar H Rahman [01-13]: Israel's Somaliland gambit reflects a doctrine of endless escalation: "By projecting power into the Horn of Africa, Israel aims to increase pressure on rivals, undermine regional stability, and narrow the space for diplomacy." Somaliland is region in northern Somalia, along the coast of the Gulf of Aden, that has broken away from the beleaguered Somali Republic (which Trump has bombed over 100 times). Israel is the only country to recognize Somaliland's independence. One speculation is that Somaliland could be used as dumping grounds for exiling Palestinians from Gaza.

  • Sam Kimball [01-27]: Zionist expansion: a first-hand account of Israel's illegal occupation of southwestern Syria.

  • Muhammad Shehada [01-29]: How Netanyahu is sabotaging phase two of the Gaza ceasefire: "By undermining a new Palestinian technocratic body, Israel is trying to make Gaza appear ungovernable — and prove the need for its sustained military rule." Many details loom large, especially the return of the spectacularly corrupt Mohammad Dahlan masquerading as a neutral "technocratic" functionary.

  • Basel Adra [01-30]: Inside a coordinated, multi-village settler-soldier pogrom in Masafer Yatta: "As settlers set homes ablaze and looted livestock across three villages for over five hours, Israeli soldiers blocked ambulances, arrested victims, and even took part in beatings. This is how it unfolded."

  • Jamal Kanj [02-02]: Weaponizing America's economy in service of Israel: Not only does the US subsidize Israel's wars, especially against "their own people"[*], but the US uses its financial power to punish dissent around the world. Thus, the US has "sanctioned international courts, punished UN officials, pressured humanitarian organizations and national leaders who dared to insist that Israeli crimes be judged by the same standards applied to all nations." In this context, US sanctions against states like Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and North Korea are not just acts of war "by other means," but are threats to other countries of what could happen to them should they stray too far from US dictates in support of Israel.

    [*] One of the most effective propaganda lines used against Saddam Hussein was that he had "gassed his own people": Kurds resident in Iraq, suspected of sympathies with Iran during the ongoing war, and later in open rebellion against Iraq's regime, but still counted as "his own people." Israel bears at least as much responsibility for its Palestinian residents, some nominally citizens but most denied legal rights and standing. Israel is the only nation in the world where we accept that the political elite can divide the people who live there into a favored group of "citizens" and others that can be discriminated against.

  • Deema Hattab [02-03]: A catalog of Gaza's loss: "Recording what has been erased — and making sense of what remains." Part of a series on "A Day for Gaza."

  • Ramzy Baroud [02-06]: On the menu: how the Middle Powers sacrificed Gaza to save themselves.

  • Neve Gordon [02-09]: Demographic engineering connects record murder rates in its Palestinian towns and the weaponisation of antisemitism.

  • Qassam Muaddi [02-11]: Israel just started legalizing its annexation of the West Bank. Here's what that means.

  • Abdaljawad Omar [02-13]: How Israel is eroding life for Palestinians in the West Bank: "Israeli violence in the West Bank isn't as dramatic as in Gaza, but it is methodical, durable, and sometimes harder to understand. Here's how Israel is using settler terror, financial policies, and legal tactics to suffocate Palestinian life." One problem with focusing on the clear cut genocide charge in Gaza is that as far as Smotrich and Ben Gvir (and quite possibly Netanyahu) are concerned, Gaza is just a side show: the real battlefront is the West Bank. Gaza is a test of how much violence Israel can get away with (which has turned out to be quite a lot). Israel clings onto Gaza because no one that matters has told them the obvious, which is that they have to give it up and leave. If the US did make such a demand, I suspect that Israel would have no choice other than to accept the loss. Israel has, after all, already turned the strip into a wasteland. But Israel is unlikely ever to consider withdrawing from the West Bank. Their project there is to make so burdensome for Palestinians that they eventually give up, leaving Israel with the "land without a people" they've always longed for.

  • Mira Al Hussein [02-19]: In widening Saudi-UAE rift, Israel is at the heart of a narrative war: "Saudi accusations that Abu Dhabi acts as Israel's proxy have ignited a media firestorm. But similar anti-Israel sentiments circulate within the UAE itself."

  • Tom Perkins [02-23]: How data on the crackdown on Gaza protests reflects the increasing repression of activist movements in the US: "Data shows Gaza protesters faced harsher punishments than Black Lives Matter protesters did just a few years ago. Experts tell Mondoweiss this is the result of pro-Israel bias and a backlash against protest movements that has been building for years."

  • Farid Hafez [02-24]: Why Israel is joining hands with Europe's far right: "Tel Aviv is courting the same movements that once peddled lies about a global Jewish conspiracy — only now their target has shifted to Islam."

  • Brett Wilkins [02-24]: Huckabee accused of inciting murder after Israeli settlers kill Palestinian-American teen: "The US ambassador to Israel is engaging in empowering and allowing for actions that lead to the targeted lynching and killing of US citizens."

  • Nicholas Liu [02-25]: How the Gaza war changed America: Interview with Bruce Robbins, who "argues Gaza has shifted the debate over how and when the label is used." The label he focuses on is "atrocity," which is the subject of his recent book, Atrocity: A Literary History.

  • Michael Arria [02-26]: International outcry over Huckabee claim that Israel can control from Egypt to Iraq: "The Trump administration is in damage control mode after Mike Huckabee claimed Israeli has the biblically mandated right to stretch from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Iraq." Fallout from a Tucker Carlson interview of Trump's Ambassador to Israel — a Baptist minister and an especially devout and belligerent Christian Zionist.

  • Trump's Board of Peace: The coalition of the willing to pay has had their first meeting, and the coalition of the vulture capitalists are licking their chops. Everyone understands that Israel's destruction of Gaza has been so total that the world community will have to chip in billions of dollars to restore even the bare necessities for modern life today. The purpose of the Board is to raise this money, and to make sure that as little as possible goes to the Palestinians, who remain (as Israel has long insisted) unwanted and unnecessary people. The obvious way to do this is to imagine Gaza as a blank slate for profitable real estate scams, where most of the money will ultimately be siphoned off by the insiders who control the purse strings. Chief among these is "chairman for life" Donald Trump, but the real brains behind this appears to be son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose Saudi-financed investment fund turned out to be the single biggest grift of Trump's first term.

    • Mohammed Haddad/Mohammad Mansour [01-27]: Map shows what would happen to Gaza under the US 'master plan': "The plan treats Gaza as vacant beachfront property, proposing glass towers and industrial zones over historic sites." The "plan" was unveiled at Davos, which was kind of like addressing the Balfour Declaration to the Rothschilds.

    • Tariq Kenney-Shawa [01-30]: Jared Kushner's "plan" for Gaza is an abomination: "Kushner is pitching a 'new,' gleaming resort hub. But scratch the surface, and you find nothing less than a blueprint for ethnic cleansing."

    • Ellen Ioanes [02-09]: Board of Peace is a Board of Profits.

      • Thomas Cavanna [02-19]: How Trump's Board of Peace is set up for a multibillion dollar fail: "A vague mandate and pay-to-play model suggest it'll become a bloated boondoggle in search of an expanded ission lacking full international legitimacy."

    • Dave DeCamp [02-19]: US plans to build a 5,000-person military base in Gaza for international force.

    • Nick Cleveland-Stout [02-20]: Board of Peace will be a bonanza for wealthy board members: "Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner downplayed the potential for profiteering but that's not exactly the case." This is worth quoting at some length, although this only hints at the extent of the coruption.

      Companies are already jockeying for contracts. This week, The Guardian reported that the Board of Peace issued a contract to build a 5,000-person military base for an international force tasked with protecting civilians and training "vetted Palestinian police forces." It's not clear who the contractor is.

      In December, a leaked document revealed that U.S. officials were searching for a "Master Contractor" that would "earn a fair return" for trucking. A U.S. disaster response firm, Gothams LLC, submitted a plan to the White House that would guarantee the company 300% profits for work in Gaza. The company would move goods into Gaza in exchange for a fee, as well as a seven-year monopoly over trucking and logistics for the Board of Peace.

      Administration officials and businesspeople affiliated with the Board have also promoted a new "Gaza supply system" which, according to a January slide deck, offers sovereign investors between 46% and 175% returns in the first year of investment.

      "Everybody and their brother is trying to get a piece of this," one long-time contractor told The Guardian. "People are treating this like another Iraq or Afghanistan. And they're trying to get, you know, rich off of it."

      Israel's representative on the Board of Peace, billionaire Yakir Gabay, said that Gaza's coastline should be "developed as a new Mediterranean Riviera with 200 hotels and potential islands." Gabay made his money largely through real estate, though he claims he will refrain from building hotels in Gaza himself.

      Another member of the Executive Board, Marc Rowan, runs one of the world's largest private equity firms, Apollo Global Management. Rowan touted the money to be made during yesterday's meeting. "The coastline alone? 50 billion in value on a conservative basis," he said. "The housing stock — more than $30 billion . . . The infrastructure — more than $30 billion." Altogether, Rowan said, Gaza contains some $115 billion in real estate value, but "it just needs to be unlocked and financed."

      The dominance of private equity and real estate moguls on the Board, combined with a lack of transparency surrounding policies and timetables for Gaza's reconstruction, raise concerns about abuse. Hugh Lovatt, a Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said that the role of businesspeople such as Rowan and Kushner is "completely at odds with what the Palestinians in Gaza need."

      I'd edit that last line to change "need" for "want." This notion that other people (Americans, Israelis, Saudis), qualified exclusively by their wealth and hubris, are entitled to decide what Gazans need is profoundly not only disrespectful, it is a recipe for class war (even assuming the ethnic and religious "deradialization" proceeds according to plan, which I wouldn't bet on). Let's say, for the sake of argument, that some of this gets built, and some Palestinians are hired to work in these foreign-owned palaces and factories. Workers could strike for better wages and working conditions, but the Board is also running its own private police (think of the 19th century US Pinkertons), and many of the Board members (especially the Saudis and Israelis) are quite comfortable with the idea of importing foreign scab labor, which will further imiserate the Palestinians and kindle new conflicts (on top of the old). This probably ends in Israel leveling Gaza once more, hoping to drive the Palestinians out. And while this might seem like a setback for the war profiteers, they're taking their cut up front, and can always resurrect their graft with a new Board promising another new Peace. I may still be of the opinion that the Trump Plan is better than the naked genocide that preceded it, and perhaps is the best one can hope for given the unchallenged power of Netanyahu and Trump, but it it still far short of the very modest proposals I made back in October.

    • Ishaan Tharoor [02-21]: Donald Trump's pantomime United Nations: "The Board of Peace might be destined to fail, but it still threatens to undermine an international system in which the US was once the linchpin." First paragraph begins: "It didn't take long for the flattery to begin."

    • Michael Arria [02-25]: Meet the companies and billionaires looking to make a massive profit off Trump's plans in Gaza: "U.S. companies are aiming to make huge profits from the Gaza reconstruction plan, with several billionaires on Trump's Board of Peace openly discussing the opportunity to make billions."

    • Matt Wolfson [02-25]: The Gaza Plan's 'sick kind of detachment' and its dangers for America.

    • Ben Armbruster [02-26]: The White House wants Iran to attack Americans: "Trump officials are searching for ways to get into a war with Tehran.">

    • Jehad Abusalim [02-26]: Gaza does not need new overlords: "The U.S. plan for Gaza is the final stage of Israel's genocide. Bombs and bulldozers obliterated Gaza's landscape, and now skyscrapers and data centers aim to dismantle its social fabric and capacity to resist."

Around the World: Formerly "Russia/Ukraine," and that's still going on, but Trump seems to think the US is enjoying a unipolar moment like some Americans fantasized about after the Soviet Union dissolved, and that's having repercussions around the world. For Trump's own activities, see the next section. This one will look at the world is reacting, or sometimes just minding its own business.

  • David Broder [12-18]: The new Europeans, Trump-style: "Donald Trump is sowing division in the European Union, even as he calls on it to spend more on defense." He's probably confusing several different trends, in part because Trump's own foreign policy is so incoherent. I expect his threat to Greenland will spur the re-armament crowd, but not to buy more American arms. (If they're going to buy arms, they shouldn't they build up their own arms industries?) Moreover, the far right, which he has clear sympathies with, is more likely to turn against the US than nearly anyone in the despised center.

  • Dan M Ford [2025-12-31]: 6 stories that defined Trump's approach to Africa in 2025: "Minerals, peace deals, and a complete dissolution of relations with at least one country."

    1. Diplomatic scuffle with South Africa: This doesn't mention Israel, but does mention "genocide," which Trump claimed "was being perpetrated by the country's black population against white farmers."
    2. Massad Boulos' role as Senior Africa Advisor: Boulos is the father-in-law of Trump daughter Tiffany.
    3. Peace agreement between Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda: all the better to tap into the region's "vast mineral wealth."
    4. Effort to end the war in Sudan: ineffectively so far, but Trump has some leverage with outside forces (UAE, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) and, well, there's oil at stake.
    5. Economic engagement with Africa: Where he "secured a record $2.5 billion in business deals."
    6. The US bombs Nigeria: Merry Christmas!

  • Robert Skidelsky [01-30]: Much ado about a Chinese 'mega-embassy' in London: "British newspapers and politicians have taken to fighting an imaginary war with Beijing."

  • Joshua Keating [02-03]: Is a new US-Russia arms race about to begin? "We're about to lose our last nuclear arms control treaty with Russia. What does that mean?" New START, the last of several arms control treaties the US and Soviet Union negotiated, expires on Feb. 5. The treaty limited the US and Russia to 1,550 deployed warheads. As both already have many more warheads in storage, the arms race could be rapid, if either side count think of a rationale for deploying more. I can't think of one, but the US nuke industry has been pushing a multi-trillion-dollar "modernization" for some time.

  • Evan Robins [02-13]: Keir Starmer's failure is nearly complete: "The wildly unpopular UK prime minister is likely doomed in the wake of an Epstein-related scandal entirely of his own making. He deserves every bit of hell he's in." The Epstein connection was through Peter Mandelson ("a longtime Labour power broker and Starmer's handpicked former ambassador to the United States"). Starmer's takeover of the party from Jeremy Corbyn seemed doomed from the start: he purged Corbyn and jettisoned the last vestiges of democratic socialism, leaving the party with no principles other than corrupt compromise with financial power and US militarism. Not only couldn't he make it work, he had no defense when it failed.

  • Johnny Ryan [02-17]: Europeans are dangerously reliant on US tech. Now is a good time to build our own: Actually, now is the time to go open source, and not let any country or company tell you what you can or cannot do, let alone how much tribute you have to pay to keep the lights on.

  • Laura Wittebroek [02-20]: Profit over people: How the world fuels Sudan's war. Since 2019, Sudan has been torn apart by a civil war between two militia factions, each supported by an array of outside opportunists (especially the UAE, but everyone in the international arms trade seems to be involved), although this follows decades of conflict between whoever controlled Khartoum and the outer provinces.

  • Tanya Goudsouzian/Ibrahim Al-Marashi [02-20]: How Pakistan is busting the Great Power monopoly on air power: "The industry here is showing how emerging states are gaining leverage through the democratization . . . of weapons." Long dependent on the US for F-16 aircraft, Pakistan is now building its own fighter-bombers, dubbed the JF-17, co-developed with China, and available for export.

  • Anatol Lieven [02-23]: Ukraine marks biggest evolution in military tactics since WWII: "The transformation in weapons and conventional warfare has resulted in the bloodiest stalemate in generations." This, by the way, led me to a couple of earlier articles, also on futility:

  • Martin Di Caro [02-23]: What does Putin really want? "Four Russia-Ukraine experts tell us if aything has changed as the war enters its fifth year without resolve." Nikolai Petro, Sergey Radchenko, Sumantra Maitra, Nikolas Gvosdev. I have little confidence that any of them know. This is part of an anniversary series, along with the already cited Lieven piece, and:

  • Peter Rutland [02-24]: Ukraine's dilemma: "The nation has fought bravely but will it have the support to keep going, externally and internally, for a fifth year?" The problem is under Biden you had a president who refused to negotiate. Under Trump you have a president who cannot negotiate. Zelensky and Putin are just following their assigned roles, especially given that neither leader can afford to look like a loser, both can sustain what they're doing indefinitely (although Ukraine is in much more precarious shape, with limited resources and dependent on outside help), and outsiders aren't ready to sweeten the pot (end sanctions, offer reconstruction funds, take some steps toward disarmament). I've long believed this would be easy to solve, but the US and Europe have to value peace and cooperation more than division and war. Russia needs to meet them part way, too, but until the West is willing to settle this dispute, it matters little what Putin does.

  • Jason Ditz [02-26]: US demands Iraq end Maliki nomination by Friday: Iraq is another country where Trump feels he should be able to dictate its leader.

Trump Goes to War (International Edition): Formerly "Trump's War & Peace," but not much of the latter anymore. On opening this file, this includes actual or threatened wars in Venezuela, Iran, and Greenland.

  • Heather Digby Parton [01-08]: War has become fashionable again for the GOP: "The right's detour into pacifism under Trump was never going to stick."

  • Pavel Devyatkin [01-13]: Tech billionaires behind Greenland bid want to build 'freedom cities': "As Europeans try to redirect Trump, his Silicon Valley supporters have ideas of their own, involving low-regulated communities and access to rare earths."

  • Sara Herschander [01-30]: America's culture wars are killing people overseas: "When 'pro-life' foreign aid hurts women and children the most."

  • Martin Di Caro [02-02]: Geo-kleptocracy and the rise of 'global mafia politics': "Expert Alex de Waal explains how the capture of Maduro, leaving his corrupt regime in place, is a 'crystalline example' of regime change in the new era."

  • Rachel Janfaza [02-03]: The quiet reason why Trump is losing Gen Z: "They wanted fewer wars. He didn't deliver." Pull quote from a 22-year-old woman in Ohio: "The 'no new wars' thing is now the biggest joke of my life." But why is this just a "quiet reason"? Probably because Democrats don't talk about it. Harris blew the 2024 election by expressing no qualms about the major wars Biden (Gaza, Ukraine) boosted, let alone the piddly strikes that had become so routine they're rarely reported. Clinton blew the 2016 election by trying to come off as the tougher, more belligerent commander-in-chief. Democrats desperately need to find a way to stop looking like warmongers. They could start by relentlessly attacking Trump's tantrums. They could expand on that by developing a broad vision that puts American interests firmly on a foundation of peace and human rights.

  • Tara Copp/David Ovalle [02-03]: Pentagon warns Scouts to restore 'core values' or lose military support: "The relationship dates back decades, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has criticized the organization for allowing girls to join and changing its name from Boy Scouts." The new name is Scouting America. I haven't paid any attention to them, and had no idea that they were supported by the military. (Evidently, the military provides "medical, security and logistical support" for their National Jamboree, which I only recall due to a spectacularly off-color speech Trump gave them a few years back. Article includes a photo of Trump after his 2017 speech.) I joined the Cub and Boy Scouts in my youth, and some of what I learned there has stuck with me (as well as some trauma). In my annual music lists, I routinely note: "As the proto-fascist organization of my youth insisted, one should always be prepared."

  • Leah Schroeder [02-04]: Hegseth to take control of Stars & Stripes for 'warfighter' makeover: "Critics, including veterans and First Amendment advocates, say the proposed overhaul would usurp the storied military newspaper's independence." I suspect its "independence" has always been a mere "story." Still, Hegseth's vision for the "War Department" is uniquely disturbing.

  • Joshua Keating [02-13]: Trump's biggest war is one he almost never talks about: "Why did the US bomb Somalia more than 100 times last year?" The bombing started under Bush, increased under Obama, much more so in Trump's first term, continued at a lower pace under Biden, and accelerated under Trump II.

  • Rubio Goes to Munich: The Secretary of State gave an address to the Munich Security Conference:

    • Eldar Mamedov [02-14]: Rubio's spoonful of sugar helps hard medicine go down in Munich: "The Secretary of State' message on civilizational renewal and self-reliance wasn't too different than Vance's the year before, but it landed much softer." Author agrees that Rubio delivered "a peculiar mix of primacist nostalgia and civilizational foreboding," echoing Vance's more confrontational message a year back, but his "spoonful of sugar" was appealing to Europe's own post-imperial chauvinism, instead of writing it off.

    • AlJazeera [02-14]: Rubio slams European policies on climate, migration as he calls for unity.

    • Mehdi Hasan [02-17]: Forget Maga. Welcome to Mega: Make Empire Great Again: "Marco Rubio arrived at the Munich security conference with a disturbing message for European governments: empire is great." Quotes Rubio as saying: "We do not want our allies to be shackled by guilt and shame. We want allies who are proud of their culture and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization, and who, together with us, are willing and able to defend it."

    • Carol Schaeffer [02-17]: The Munich Security Conference marks the end of the US-led order: "US politicians flooded the summit — but Europe no longer sees the United States as a reliable partner."

    • Nick Turse [02-19]: More US troops are headed to Nigeria: "The Trump administration is sending more troops to a region where US military presence has coincided with increased violence."

    • Zak Cheney-Rice [02-19]: Heirs to plunder: "Marco Rubio's Munich speech made a sinister case for shameless western imperialism."

    • Jonathan Cook [02-19]: Rubio declared a return to brutal western colonialism — and Europe applauded: "Old-school, white-man's burden colonialism is unapologetically back." Not the way I would put it, but while they are unapologetic about their moral and military superiority, their divine right to lead a world that exists only to serve them.

    • John Quiggin:

      • [02-21]: The US state has proved itself dispensable: I doubt that the US was ever indispensable to its allies. At most, it was a convenient crutch, simple-minded enough in its initial anti-communism and later megalomania that it was easier (and more profitable) to humor it than to risk displeasure. But the net value of NATO security was never much, at least as concerned the Russians — more important was that it kept France, Germany, Britain, and maybe Italy from rearming against each other, which would have been a dangerous waste. The dollar, capital and trade flows weren't worth much either, but as long as the US was generous enough to pay for its primacy, it was easier to just go along. But "America First," with Trump's shakedowns and extortions, served notice that such a game couldn't last long. We're seeing some of that now, and will see more over time. One big change Quiggin notes is that Europe has already made great strides in arms development and production, as they've largely taken over supply to Ukraine. Trump's erratic tariff policy has further undermined their interest in America. As Quiggin notes, Rubio's ovation in Munich was mostly polite. But it also came from people who are tightly integrated into the decomposing alliance. Outside the room, the speech wasn't nearly as well received.

      • [2025-02-01]: The dispensable nation: Quiggin refers back to this piece he wrote a year ago. One thing I'd add is that while the notion that the US is uniquely virtuous has obvious attraction to the people who nominally run it, and through it imagine themselves as the natural rulers of the world, this conceit has little practical value to the overwhelming majority of Americans, and is at best humored by the leaders of other nations.

    • Steve Howell [02-24]: Rubio, rodeo, and tall tales of empire: "The secretary of state has provoked the ire of Britain's first black woman lawmaker and put the spotlight once again on how the US has historically treated people of his own heritage."

Trump Goes to War (Domestic Edition): This will carry on from "ICE Stories," and will also pick up skirmishes in the courts. It isn't a stretch to say Trump's waging war against his own people, except inasmuch as he doesn't consider most of us to be his own people.

Trump Regime: This is for stories about what the supplicants and minions in the Trump administration are doing day-in, day-out to make America less enjoyable and livable. This includes bad policies as well as bad actors, but some of the worst are dealt with in other sections. Trump himself merits his own section, a bit further down.

  • Kenny Stancil [01-26]: The Trump regime is making disasters worse: "DHS Secretary Kristi Noem sat atop millions of dollars in flood prevention grants while the West Coast was being inundated. Now she's slashing FEMA disaster response staff."

  • Jelinda Montes [01-29]: South Carolina measles outbreak hits record high: "This is the largest measles outbreak since the United States declared measles eliminated in 2000."

  • Kenny Stancil/Julian Schoffield/Chris Lewis [02-05]: DOGE lives on through Russell Vought: "Trump's White House OMB director has quietly institutionalized the government demolition agenda set in motion by Elon Musk's wrecking crew."

  • Annie Levin [02-10]: How the far right won the food wars: "RFK's MAHA spectacle offers an object lesson in how the left cedes fertile political territory." I'm not sure I'm buying any aspect of this argument.

  • Umair Irfan [02-12]: Trump just blew up a load-bearing pillar of climate regulation in the US. What happens now?

  • Matt Stieb [02-12]: The prediction-market scandals are getting bleaker: I'm not sure where to file this. If people can bet on anything anytime, it's very near certain that those with insider knowledge will try to take advantage. In high-class casinos like the stock market, the SEC at least tries to punish gross instances of insider trading, not that the last 50 years give us much confidence in their ability.

  • Hannah Story Brown/Toni Agular Rosenthal [02-13]: Doug Burgum, the regime today of our time: "Dashing the hopes of establishment Democrats, Trump's interior secretary and 'energy czar' has adopted his boss's excesses as his own."

  • Clyde McGrady [02-13]: Trump nominates an apostle of 'white erasure' for the State Department: "Jeremy Carl, President Trump's nominee to lead the State Department's outreach to international organizations, had a rough confirmation hearing, but he stood by his views on 'whiteness.'" Last section offered a list of "who opposes his nomination?" But then the piece ended by noting:

    Others appointees have weathered the storm, including Darren Beattie, a senior State Department official who was fired from the first Trump administration after speaking at a conference attended by white nationalists.

    "Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities and demoralizing competent white men," Mr. Beattie once wrote on social media.

    Still, some on the right are rallying to Mr. Carl's side.

    The conservative activist Christopher Rufo defended Mr. Carl, writing that Americans have been bullied into believing that "white culture" is "inherently shameful or evil," which leads them to "pretend that it doesn't exist."

    Actually, "competent white men" would be an improvement over many of the Trump nominees, including some who are not men and/or not white (not that I'm recalling many of the latter). As for Rufo, it's fool's errand — an act of deliberate self-crippling — to try to separate "white culture" out of American culture. While the result may not be "inherently shameful or evil," the parts that are shameful and evil will be much concentrated.

  • Nia Prater [02-13]: USAID's remaining funds are paying for Vought's security detail.

  • Ed Kilgore [02-14]: Revoking climate-change regulation may be the worst thing Trump has done.

  • Hayley Brown [02-20]: The Trump administration's catastrophic census proposal.

  • Abdullah Shihipar [02-23]: The staggering costs of Trump's war on public service: "The administration's steep cuts to public service jobs and research opportunities are saving Americans very little money — but they're having a detrimental impact on society." While I share the headline alarm, the stats here about career choices have me wondering if the ideological campaign to deprecate pubic service won out 20-30 years before the mass firings. One factor here is education debt, which has pushed graduates toward more lucrative careers in predatory finance, and away careers in public service. (The military is the exception that proves the point. It has long featured education credits as compensation, and is widely seen as a way relatively poor people can get an education. However, it is nearly useless as public service.) Rekindling the notion of public service, and making it an attractive and fulfilling career choice, is essential for any decent post-Trump recovery. It's going to take more than just rehiring people Trump fired.

  • Emmett Hopkins [02-26]: Trump is threatening to cut transit left and right. This is totally in character:

    Taking away transit funding will also increase congestion and deliver chaos to the streets. It will not only hit people's household budgets but also ripple through small businesses, medical facilities, schools, and grocery stores, all of whom rely on functioning transportation systems — including transit — to move goods, customers, and employees smoothly. Drivers and nondrivers alike will feel the impacts. Transportation is also the largest sectoral source of US greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing public transit would make that even worse, adding further fuel to the climate crisis.

Donald Trump: As for Il Duce, we need a separate bin for stories on his personal peccadillos -- which often seem like mere diversions, although as with all madness, it can be difficult sorting the serious from the fanciful.

  • Sophia Tesfaye:

    • [12-13]: Jared Kushner is at the center of Trump's corruption: "From media mergers to foreign policy, Trump's son-in-law is consolidating power — and making millions." Thanks to his Middle East portfolio, he bagged much more graft in Trump's first term than anyone else. Now he's back as part of Trump's Board of Peace. And he's involved in "the biggest media merger in years."

      After leaving the first Trump administration, Kushner raised over $3 billion for Affinity Partners, including $2 billion from the Saudi government's Public Investment Fund. The Saudis' own advisers reportedly warned Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that Kushner's record did not justify such an investment, but the crown prince overruled them. The UAE and Qatar soon followed, adding another $1.5 billion to the pot. As of late 2024, Kushner had still not produced meaningful returns for these foreign governments, yet he had paid himself at least $157 million in fees. Forbes now calls him a billionaire.

    • [02-11]: MAGA blame game shows Trump in retreat: "Trump and Vance back down and blame unnamed staffers for controversial posts." The buck always stops . . . somewhere else.

  • Toby Buckle [2025-12-18]: The Americans who saw all this coming — but were ignored and maligned: "Call them Cassandra: the people — mostly not white and male — who smelled the fascism all over Trump from jump street. Why were they 'alarmists,' and how did 'anti-alarmism' become cool?" Minor point, but even some elderly white blokes saw this coming. I could measure this not just by what I wrote before the event, but how literally sick I felt on election night, 2024. Sure, I advised against using the word "fascism" during the campaign, but only because I didn't see the practical utility beyond people who already sensed what Trump was planning. I'm reminded here of the term "premature-antifascists," which was applied to leftists in the late 1930s, who in mainstream eyes were only vindicated with the war declarations of 1941. We'll be hearing much more about Trump the Fascist. For example:

    • Robert J Shapiro [02-17]: Hannah Arendt understood the forces behind Donald Trump: "The late scholar of mass movements, charismatic leaders, and government violence foreshadowed the president's rise and the MAGA movement in The Origins of Totalitarianism. Recent polling proves her prescience."

  • Bill Scher [01-19]: The ephemeral presidency: "Except for the damage, nothing Trump is doing will last." That's a pretty big exception, but it seems almost flippant to assume that executive orders can be rescinded at will, or that Democrats will find the will. The courts that helped Trump seize power won't be equally disposed to reversing him. And the world will have changed: mostly for the worse, but those who benefited from the changes will resist giving them up. Then there are the things that shouldn't be reversed. Scher is particularly keen on reverting to a Biden-Obama foreign policy, but they didn't have one worth saving, and their fumbling was a big part of the theory that even Trump couldn't do worse.

  • Jonathan Rauch [01-25]: Yes, it's Fascism: "Until recently, I thought it a term best avoided. But now, the resemblances are too many and too strong to deny." Mostly buried under the paywall, but I take his point. Before the 2024 election, I cautioned against using the F-word for two reasons: one is that it only resonates with people who understand the history but don't need the word to clarify why they oppose (or in rare instances support) Trump; the other is that historically-minded leftists are so sensitive to tones of fascism they tend to overuse the word, sometimes reducing its insight to a mere indictment, and that tends to be taken as too much "crying wolf." On the other hand, our ability to understand what's happening is strongly influenced (or simply limited) by our command of historical precedents. And what the Trumpists have done since the election has been so extreme that the only historical antecedents that come close to having the same impact are the fascists. We have, in short, moved from a state where associating something with "fascist" could suggest a dire future to one where it broadens out understanding of what's actually happening. One effect of this is that it no longer matters if the signs and analogies are precise. It only matters that the tone matches, and that the gravity is comparable. And the current tone and gravity is incomparable to damn near anything else that humans are experienced.

  • Andrew O'Hehir [01-25]: A fake presidency, but real tyranny: "Trump'slazy, crumbling regime values viral AI memes more than actual policy. But the brutality is real." Or as Marie Antoinette would have put it, "let them eat memes."

    By now it's become clear that content creation — feeding the beast, in an all-too-literal sense — is a principal driving force behind all this Nazi-cosplay street theater. The memes will continue, as indeed they must: Over and over again, we see ICE officers stage unnecessary confrontations, smashing car windows or pepper-spraying unarmed demonstrators in front of liberal observers and camera crews.

    Viral videos and meme-worthy images, whether they thrill the loyalists or outrage the libtards or both at once, are not byproducts of these blue-city occupations. They are not incidental to this moment of fascist terror but among its most significant instruments. They are deliberate injections of ideological poison meant to sow division, spread misinformation and render the truth valueless or irrelevant. . . .

    Hateful and stupid social media memes can serve to justify or excuse despicable acts of political violence. Just as important, they also serve to conceal them, as in the "King Trump" video, beneath an unstoppable downpour of crap. When millions of people have persuaded themselves that elementary-school shootings are staged by "crisis actors," the Jan. 6 insurrection was an FBI false-flag operation and the COVID pandemic was the work of a vast global conspiracy, the distinction between verifiable real-world information — an imperfect standard, but in my profession, the only one we've got — and paranoid or narcissistic delusion has become unsustainable. . . .

    I'm not sure any of that is meant to be convincing. It's the blatantly fake ideological wrapping of a crumbling regime built around a rapidly failing con man. His only actionable agenda is nihilistic rage, acted out as a brutal but incompetent reign of terror directed at his own people. Trump's version of fascism barely made it off the couch, and is still more comfortable there. Its vision of the past is imaginary and it has no future, but its destructive energy has changed the world.

  • Chauncey DeVega [01-29]: Vice signaling explains Trump's enduring appeal: "Minneapolis reveals why outrage alone fails to loose Trump's grip." This is a play on the notion of "virtue signaling," where people do good deeds just to appear more virtuous — a charge typically leveled at liberals by people who can't imagine anyone acting altruistically. Vice signalers want to impress on others how bad they are, often to intimidate others into submission as well as to elicit approval from people who yearn to see power used against their supposed enemies. A big part of Trump's popularity owes to his credibility as someone who's willing and eager to abuse his power.

  • Garrett Owen [01-30]: Trump and sons seek $10 billion taxpayer-funded payday in IRS lawsuit: "Leaked tax returns caused the Trumps 'public embarrassment' and reputational harm, lawsuit says."

  • Elie Mystal [01-30]: Want to support the fight against fascism? Boycott Trump's World Cup. Not much of a sacrifice for me, but I know people this would be a big ask of. The difference makes me think this would be a bad idea, but I should note that he's talking about teams boycotting (and even then, just US-hosted events, as opposed to events in Canada or Mexico).

  • Heather Digby Parton [02-03]: Trump is openly cashing in on the presidency.

  • Cameron Peters [02-06]: Trump's racist post, briefly explained: More specifically, since this isn't the only time, the one "depicting Barack and Michelle Obama's faces superimposed on apes."

  • Algernon Austin [02-06]: Trump get spectacularly richer, while putting the country on a path to poverty. The graft you know about, even if the numbers are hard to fathom. Also unsurprising is Fred Wertheimer's assertion that in terms of monetizing power, "the president most similar to Trump is Russian President Vladimir Putin." As for future poverty, there are many points, including:

    About 25,000 scientists have been cut from government agencies. Joel Wilkins of Futurism concluded that the administration's actions have resulted in a "colossal exodus of specialized expertise from institutions important to public health, environmental protection, and scientific research" and that "[t]he effects are likely to be catastrophic — and the reverberations could be felt for decades."

  • Eric Levitz [02-09]: Trump has a plan to steal the midterms. It will probably fail. "The nightmare scenario for American democracy is no longer unthinkable." Sure, he would if he could, but what I'm seeing here looks less like a plan than a set up for a rationalization for a probable loss.

  • Kelli Wessinger/Astead Herndon [02-09]: Just how healthy is Donald Trump, really?: "Why it's so hard to know whether the president is okay." Well, it took almost 200 years to figure out that George III had porphyria, although even that seems to be doubted these days. That he was a narcissistic asshole should have been more obvious at the time. Not that knowing helps much with Trump.

  • Toni Aguilar Rosenthal [02-13]: The antidemocratic zelots presiding over Trump's makeover of US history: "The administration's sketchily funded Freedom 250 project, which will oversee the celebration of America's semiquincentennial, is a pageant of right-wing extremism." This is going to be hugely embarrassing:

    This makeover has mostly been the handiwork of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who serves as ex-officio director of the NPF board. Burgum swiftly set about stacking the board with Trump loyalists, including top Trump fundraiser Meredith O'Rourke and Chris LaCivita, Trump's 2024 campaign co-manager. As a 501(c)3 nonprofit, NPF isn't required under federal tax law to disclose its donors and is even empowered to grant donors anonymity. Donations to the foundation are also tax-deductible — an added bonus for anyone seeking access to Trump's fundraising ecosystem.

    If that sounds like a recipe for grift dressed up as a charitable donation, that's because it is. The New York Times recently unearthed documents showing that Freedom 250 is a clearing house for donor perks. A cool $1 million gift offers photo opportunities with the president; $2.5 million can land you a speaking slot at the marquee July 4 celebration in Washington. And because of the NPF's opaque standing as a 501(c)3, the public may never know who its well-heeled benefactors are.

    There's also a wave of federal funding sluicing into the NPF's coffers. The Trump administration has redirected a $10 million grant initially earmarked for America250.org to the NPF. Another $5 million grant was shuffled out of the National Park Service and to the National Park Foundation to fund "A250 events."

    But these events are more than just vessels for influxes of cash — they're promoting a right-wing bid to whitewash the history of the country, and promote the dogmatic worldview of Christian nationalism.

  • Cameron Peters [02-19]: Trump's ballroom blitz, briefly explained: "How Trump is signing off on his own new ballroom."

  • Shawn McCreesh [02-19]: Why is Trump dumping East Wing rubble in a public park? "The East Potomac Golf Links is a municipal course that has been a fixture in Washington for decades. President Trump is turning it into something else."

  • Tad DeHaven [02-20]: Trump's dream is a giant slush fund Congress can't touch: "From Venezuelan oil to the Board of Pece, Trump is constantly looking for new sources of cash he can control."

    But the long-term risk is not just that Trump might be doing something illegal. The long-term risk is that his presidency is normalizing treating the receipt and disbursement of money as instruments of personal power.

    This is followed by a rhetorical hypothetical about the bloody murder Republicans would scream if a Democratic president was doing this sort of thing, but that misses the point. Democrats may be corrupt, but in the sense of doing favors for donors, possibly with some eventual kickbacks. In short, Democrats are servants of corruption. But what Trump is doing is trying to control the whole casino, so he gets a piece of every transaction, and that only adds to his future power.

  • Naomi Bethune [02-23]: Whitening American history: "Trump's efforts to remove Black people from America's story have been countered by scholars, activists, judges — and history itself." And yet the continue, a relentless effort to hide history that discomfits a few racist fabulists like Trump. There's a link here back to Robert Kuttner [2025-04-15]: Trump's Orwellian assault on Black history.

  • CK Smith [02-22]: Armed intruder shot dead at Mar-a-Lago: "An armed an was killed by Secret Service agents after entering a restricted area of Mar-a-Lago, officials say." Trump was in DC, far away from the site, so it's hard to credit this as an assassination attempt.

  • Margaret Hartmann: This month in Trump trivia (aside from the Melania movie, op. cit., and some Epstein bits):

Republicans: As bad as Trump is, I worry more about the party he's unleashed on America. Here are some examples, both bad actors and dangerous and despicable ideas.

  • Sasha Abramsky:

    • [01-30]: An open letter to Congressional Republicans of conscience: "For the good of the country, it's time to cross the aisle." I have no doubt this plea is falling on deaf ears, even among the very short list he mentions. "Conscience" is a dead letter among Republicans. The last one to claim such a thing was Barry Goldwater, and he was just striking a pose in defense of the indefensible.

    • [02-13]: The Republican crack-up has begun: "Even conservatives are fleeing the GOP as more and more Americans turn against Trump's authoritarian project." Don't get too excited here. His poster boy is "Gary Kendrick, a GOP council member in the red town of El Cajon, on San Diego's eastern outskirts." What we've seen repeatedly is that the few Republicans who have broken ranks have dissolved into nothingness almost immediately. Few of them have even dared run for reelection.

  • Jake Lahut [02-02]: Nancy Mace is not okay: "Something's broken. The motherboard is fried. We're short-circuiting somewhere."

  • Ian Millhiser [02-02]: Republicans are normalizing the one reform they should fear most: "The Supreme Court is the GOP's most durable power center. It makes no sense for them to endanger that source of power." He's referring to efforts at the state level to go to extraordinary legal means to pack courts in their favor: one example is adding two seats to the Utah Supreme Court, which has "sided with plaintiffs challenging Utah's GOP-friendly congressional maps," and "blocked Utah's ban on most abortions, temporarily stopped a law banning transgender girls from playing high school sports, and found the state's school voucher program unconstitutional." He could have mentioned efforts in Kansas, which thus far have been less successful. Republicans seem convinced that any power they grab will be permanent.

  • Ed Kilgore [02-25]: Cornyn's nasty attack on Paxton may haunt Texas Republicans.

Democrats: In theory the people we trust to protect us from Republicans. In practice, they're not doing a very good job, so I tend to latch onto stories about how to do better (then scoff at them).

  • Amanda Marcotte [02-06]: Shock Democratic upset in Texas shows voters still hate book bans: "Running against Moms for Liberty is a winning 2026 strategy." Democrat Taylor Rehmet won a state senate district that Trump carried by 17% in 2024, a "eye-popping swing of 31%."

  • Norman Solomon [02-06]: The actual Gavin Newsom is much worse than you think.

  • Michael Tomasky [02-12]: What the Democrats need to do now: "To win back working-class voters, then need to signal ore clearly to working people that they are on their side. That means picking fights on their behalf with the bad actors who are making their lives harder — and the democracy-hating billionaires." This is a long article which raises a lot of important questions regarding political strategy. As I've given these same issues considerable thought, I could see writing a whole Substack essay on the subject. I've read Tomasky's 2022 book, The Middle Out: The Rise of Progressive Economics and a Return to Shared Prosperity, and some of his earlier work, including many essays. The book is a strong defense of Biden's economic agenda, or what it could have been had Biden not been hobbled (by Republicans, by retro-Democrats, by his own advisers, by the media, and by his own incoherence — a personalized spin on problems that pervade the Democratic Party). Tomasky starts with "four core problems":

    1. Why don't the Democrats fight more? Meaning, against Republicans.
    2. Why do the Democrats fight so much? Among themselves.
    3. What the center gets wrong
    4. What the left gets wrong

    That's followed by sections on:

    1. Stories — and Villains
    2. What Biden Did — and Didn't — Do
    3. Targets
    4. An Economic Bill of Rights
    5. Conclusion: The Democrats' Third Great Challenge

    This is all pretty good, but doesn't quite get out of the mental ruts, especially between center and left. As Tomasky notes, "the left has become the chief source of energy and creativity in the party." The center needs to understand and appreciate that, but also they need to understand that the principles that drive the left are principles that they can and should also subscribe to (more equality; less corruption; peace and broader cooperation; less prejudice and discrimination; more personal freedom; public service; a more robust safety net; opportunity for all). And they need to let the left be itself, committed to principles regardless of consequences, and not demand conformity to the compromises that the center regards as pragmatically necessary. The left needs to think of itself not as an advocate for certain interest groups, but rather as the aspirations for virtually everyone. To do that, the left has to break a bad habit, which is the tendency to dismiss and disparage people they disagree with. This is wrong in principle and self-defeating in practice.

  • Perry Bacon [02-13]: Instead of pandering, Democrats should try changing voters' minds: "How can the party of liberalism make liberal ideas more popular? By creating a more liberal electorate. Yes, it can be done. Here are five ways how." Chapter heads:

    1. Use their bully pulpits
    2. Align with movements
    3. Work the refs — and seed new ones
    4. Become a more civic party
    5. Get more young people voting

  • Ross Barkan:

    • [02-17]: AOC's Munich stumble is a warning to the left: Her "stumble" seems to have been that she "stalled for about 20 seconds" when asked whether "the US should send troops to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion." As she later explained, making a point that most Democrats as well as Republicans find hard to grasp, "we want to make sure we never get to that point." I've tried to make this point before: that war should ever break out testifies to a catastrophic failure of diplomacy, and an even more fundamental misunderstanding of world politics. Democrats need to totally rethink foreign policy: the first point is that war is never an option (a stronger statement than that it is a "last resort," but not one that refuses to fight if one really does have no choice — I'm not personally disagreeing with the pacifist position, but I'm not insisting on it as policy, not least because I recognize that some people will take defenselessness as an invitation to rape and pillage); the second is that we need to build international cooperation through voluntary (not coerced by the dictates or leverages of power). I take these two points to be obvious, but they run counter to virtually every respected voice in US foreign policy — a bipartisan claque constantly spouting nonsense, including such leading questions as "would you commit to sending troops to defend Taiwan against China?" Even Barkan, who is a long-time critic of US foreign policy, gets sucked in to the logic of deterrence (which only deters those disinclined to war in the first place; otherwise the policy aggravates and provokes).

    • [02-23]: The Democratic Party's breakup with AIPAC is almost complete.

  • Jason Linkins [02-21]: There's only one way to eradicate Trumpism for good: His keyword is "accountability," but what does that mean? The examples here are all negative, like Obama's disinterest in holding the Bush administration accountable for its wars and economic disasters. I'm not particularly keen on putting people in jail, but we need to be very clear about what Trump has done, including his extraordinary personal enrichment. Otherwise, Democrats will continue to be punished for sins of their predecessors, as happened to Obama and Biden.

  • Conor Lynch [02-22]: Zohran Mamdani wants to reclaim efficiency from the right.

  • Hafiz Rashid [02-23]: DNC's 2024 election autopsy blames Kamala Harris's stance on Gaza: I've said all along that if Trump won in 2024, the main reason would be Biden's wars. Still, it's surprising to see the DNC admitting to any such error. By the way, the author previously wrote [2024-08-23]: The black mark on the Democrats' big party.

The Economy: Another old section, brought back recently as I needed to talk about the AI bubble. Now it occurs to me that I should split that section in two, so tech gets its own following section, and this deals with the rest of the economy, and what economists have to say about it.

  • Ryan Cooper [12-15]: America can't build homes anymore: "Cities stopped building not by accident but by design. Our housing system is constructed on scarcity, speculation, and private veto power."

  • Vivek Chibber [12-23]: Power, not economic theory, created neoliberalism: Interview: "Ideas become influential when they're latched to the correct constellation of interests. Without that, they remain in the wilderness forever."

  • Eric Levitz

    • [01-23]: Wall Street buying up houses is good, actually: "The surprising truth about corporate investment in housing." Really? First he argues that mega-investors are insignificant so have little effect on prices, then he changes the subject and argues that they're better because they discriminate less ("corporate investment in single-family homes is good for integration"). Levitz has been struggling for some time trying to get a handle on housing costs — e.g., see [2025-08-26]: What far-left cranks get right about the housing crisis, which is a defense of YIMBY-ism that admits it doesn't solve everything. There are lots of problems with housing and its unaffordability, but one of the deepest, and most politically intractable, is the idea that houses should function as long-term investments, indeed that for most people they represent most of their savings. If we get to where we have a housing surplus, the immediate effect will be not just to drive rents down but to reduce the nominal wealth of a big slice of the middle class. That's going to be a tough sell, and it's going to require much deeper thinking than YIMBY considers. (Side point: because Democrats spend nearly all of their time with donors and lobbyists, they only look for fixes that open up more profits, and they never consider savings that are too widely dispersed to organize their own lobbies. Thus, for instance, they subsidize more green power, but pay little attention to reducing energy use.)

    • [02-18]: Why voters hate Trump's (pretty decent) economy: "The data is solid. The vibes are atrocious. What gives?" Perhaps because even better data did so little to enamor voters to the Biden economy?

  • Heather Long [02-03]: We're in an economic boom. Where are the jobs? "AI is sending stocks soaring, rich people are spending big, and hiring is at a crawl."

  • Caitlin Dewey [02-12]: 2025 was a dismal year for jobs.

  • Joseph Stiglitz/Mike Konczal [02-13]: Trump's tariff fantasy collides with economic reality: "The president claims an 'economic miracle.' The data tell a different story." The article is paywalled, but a synopsis notes that "the administration's policies are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of economics, specifically regarding trade, and are leading to higher costs for Americans and long-term structural harm." Key points:

    • Tariffs as a Tax on Consumers: Stiglitz and Konczal argue that tariffs are not a strategic tool paid by foreign countries, but rather a "blunt tool" that functions as a roughly $1,000 tax on the average American family, fueling inflation.
    • Persistent Inflation: Despite claims of an "economic miracle," they note that inflation in early 2025 remained high (around 2.7%) rather than meeting targets, with tariffs contributing significantly to increased consumer prices.
    • Squandering Economic Advantages: They argue that the administration is "squandering" long-term competitive advantages by cutting funding for research, education, and public institutions while simultaneously damaging key trade alliances.
    • Uncertainty and Reduced Investment: Stiglitz notes that the erratic, "on-off" nature of tariff policies, combined with a disregard for the rule of law, creates a "scary place to invest," increasing volatility and decreasing confidence in the U.S. economy.
    • Missed Growth Targets: Stiglitz previously highlighted that, despite large deficits and low interest rates, the economic performance under these policies has failed to deliver the high growth rates promised, falling short of previous administration averages.

  • Ryan Cummings/Jared Bernstein [02-26]: Crypto is pointless. Not even the White House can fix that. "Nearly $2 trillion of wealth has evaporated from the global crypto market since October." But was it ever real in the first place? This also led to an older article:

  • Paul Krugman [02-27]: The economics of faltering fascism: "Unfortunately for Trump, and fortunately for us, he didn't inherit an economic crisis." Charts compare unemployment rates for Hitler, Putin, and Trump, showing how the first two came to power against a dire economic backdrop, whereas despite much bitching the Obama and Biden economies were relatively solid and stable.

    In the end, if Trumpist fascism is indeed defeated, I believe that there will be three sources of that defeat. First is the courage and basic decency of the American people, who refuse to bow down. Second is the egomania and malign incompetence of Trump, who tried to bludgeon and gaslight Americans into submission. And last is the weakness of a fascist movement that just can't deliver the goods.

Technology: Big boomlet here is AI. Some of this will be on business, and some on the technology itself, not that it's easy to separate the two.

  • Sophie McBain [10-18]: Are we living in a golden age of stupidity?: "From brain-rotting videos to AI creep, every technological advance seems to make it harder to work, remember, think and function independently." I've seen cascades of short videos that qualify as brain rot and found it very hard to pull away from them, but eventually I did, probably because I have some deeply embedded protestant ethic which keeps me forever working, allowing entertainment only if it adds to my store of knowledge and reason. Maybe the problem is that my sort of work ethic has gone out of most people's groundings. While the traditional explanation for this is the temptation of sin, I think there's also a pragmatic consideration: why pursue knowledge if there's nothing you can do with it? People don't keep up with technology because it's hard, but also because it's been black-boxed and trade-secreted and esotericized to the point where you have no control over it, even if you do mostly understand it. Same with politics, business, law, even medicine. These, and much more, are dedicated not just to shaking you down but to keeping you powerless. After all, powerlessness begets indifference and incuriosity, which is the secret formula for stupid.

    If brains need friction but also instinctively avoid it, it's interesting that the promise of technology has been to create a "frictionless" user experience, to ensure that, provided we slide from app to app or screen to screen, we will meet no resistance. The frictionless user experience is why we unthinkingly offload ever more information and work to our digital devices; it's why internet rabbit holes are so easy to fall down and so hard to climb out of; it's why generative AI has already integrated itself so completely into most people's lives.

    We know, from our collective experience, that once you become accustomed to the hyperefficient cybersphere, the friction-filled real world feels harder to deal with. . . .

    Human intelligence is too broad and varied to be reduced to words such as "stupid," but there are worrying signs that all this digital convenience is costing us dearly. . . . In the ever-expanding, frictionless online world, you are first and foremost a user: passive, dependent. In the dawning era of AI-generated misinformation and deepfakes, how will we maintain the scepticism and intellectual independence we'll need? By the time we agree that our minds are no longer our own, that we simply cannot think clearly without tech assistance, how much of us will be left to resist?

  • Eric Levitz [02-11]: AI's threat to white-collar jobs just got more real: "You've become increasingly replaceable."

  • John Herrman [02-13]: Oops! The singularity is going viral. "Insiders and outsiders are both feeling helpless about the same thing."

  • Russell Payne [02-26]: Hegseth threatens Anthropic over killer AI limits: I'm not sure which is more troubling: that the War Department has a $200 million contract for AI, or that Hegseth wants the software stripped of any "safeguards." I doubt if he even knows what the technical term means, but wimpy and nonlethal to him, so it's gotta go.

    • Bryan Walsh [02-26]: The Pentagon's battle with Anthropic is really a war over who controls AI. Evidently the points of contention are described here:

      Anthropic's policies allow its models to be used as part of targeted military strikes, foreign surveillance, or even drone strikes when a human approves the final call. But it has maintained two specific "red lines" it won't cross: fully autonomous weapons, meaning AI systems that select and engage targets without a human involved, and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens. Amodei said in his statement that "AI-driven mass surveillance presents serious, novel risks to our fundamental liberties," while frontier AI systems were "simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons."

    • Maria Curi/Dave Lawler [02-26]: Anthropic rejects Pentagon's "final offer" in AI safeguards fight.

The Free Press (for lack of a better term): Note that the recent sacking of the Washington Post has its own section this time.

  • Chris Lehmann [01-30]: The smug and vacuous David Brooks is perfect for The Atlantic: "The former New York Times columnist is a one-man cottage industry of lazy cultural stereotyping." I haven't read him in so many years I may not have noticed the move, and the new paywall is just one more reason to not care.

Miscellaneous Pieces

The following articles are more/less in order published, although some authors have collected pieces, and some entries have related articles underneath.

David Klion [2025-04-17]: The war on the liberal class: As the author tweeted: "Seems like a fine time to re-up this piece I wrote a year ago, about how the Trump Administration and its Silicon Valley oligarch allies are murdering liberalism as a class along with the cultural and intellectual institutions that sustain it." Back in the late-1960s, I grew up to be very critical of the era's liberal nostrums, but lately my views have softened and sentimentalized, now that we risk losing even their last few saving graces. I can now admit that, like the Stalinists of the 1930s they so loathed, they started with fairly decent intentions, before they allowed themselves to be adled and corrupted by power. Astra Taylor had a similar idea when she wrote Democracy May Not Exist, but We'll Miss It When It's Gone.

Klion locates liberalism in a "new class" (borrowing from Djilas, although one could also refer to Reich's "symbolic manipulators"), which gives the "war on liberalism" targets which can be attacked without having to grapple with concepts: universities, nonprofits, bureaucracies, publications — organizations that can be starved of funds and denied audiences. Klion provides numerous examples, including the promotion of right-wing alternatives, which help suck the oxygen out of the atmosphere sustaining independent thought. What isn't clear is why these fabulously wealthy individuals want to live in a world where most people are denied even the basic idea of freedom.

The crisis facing liberalism begins with the crisis of basic literacy. It was the expansion of literacy after World War II that made the ascent of the New Class possible in the first place, and it's only slightly hyperbolic to say that liberals today confront a society in which no one under 30 reads serious books or newspapers. A much-discussed article in the Atlantic last fall flagged that even undergraduates at the most elite universities struggle to read whole books that their counterparts a decade ago were able to handle. Their attention spans have been eroded since childhood by social media addiction, and now the social media they consume is no longer text-based.

In the 2000s and 2010s, the dominant social media platforms were Facebook and Twitter, both of which, whatever their faults (including Facebook's central role in bankrupting traditional news media), primarily circulated the written word. Both of these platforms are currently controlled by Silicon Valley billionaires in hock to Trump, and both have become increasingly degraded, poorly functioning, and saturated with scammers and hatemongers. Even more salient, both are losing market share to the Chinese social media platform TikTok, which prioritizes short-form videos that obviate any need for more than nominal literacy, much less for the critical-thinking skills that liberals have always regarded as essential to a healthy democratic polity. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is increasingly copying TikTok's approach.

Meanwhile, tech firms in both China and the U.S. aggressively compete to develop AI, which functions in part by plagiarizing, synthesizing, and undercutting the reliability of original written work while promising to render human-generated writing redundant and unmarketable. The combination of video-based platforms, AI, and algorithmically "enshittified" text-based social networks that suppress links to actual writing has rendered the internet fundamentally hostile to anyone who crafts words for a living. This is a threat not just to the basic finances of professional writers but also to their ability to socially reproduce a receptive public for what they're selling.

The same tech oligarchs who bankrolled Trump's victory have been using their unprecedented fortunes to fund alternative institutions to compete with, and ultimately sideline, the established ones. As Eoin Higgins documents in his recent book Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left, venture capital-backed platforms like Substack have been instrumental in creating lucrative new career opportunities for veterans of mainstream media, especially those who parrot the reactionary views of their funders. While these platforms are available to writers of any political persuasion, it is reactionaries who disproportionately get the most lucrative deals: Independent blogging doesn't tend to reward robust newsroom cultures and traditional editorial standards as much as invective and audience capture.

Eric Levitz [01-20]: A very simple explanation for why politics is broken: "Entertainment got too good." That's a bit too simple, but covers the right, which as long as Republicans still receive a competitive share of votes suffices to break the whole system. But it's only entertainment on the right. The center-left has its own fissures and chasms, but the only time we get entertainment is on the late-night comic shows, which serve as a palliative against the everyday horrors of the Trump mob. I took a break from Kimmel-Colbert-Myers after the election, and have only recently returned. It is comforting to know that not just these hosts but also their crowds are staunchly on our side. As for the right, I'm simply immune to their "entertainment": I can't recognize it as true, as honest, even as just sincerely misguided. It's based on an instinct for self-flattery, cult-worship, dominance, and cruelty I never acquired (not that I didn't notice its appeal to quite a few folks around me). But the entertainment didn't win over anyone who wasn't prepared in the first place. And the preparation was simple cynicism: first show that no one can be trusted, admitting everyone is crooked, even your own guys; but their guys are even worse, often working not just to feather their own pockets but as supplicants to even more diabolical conspiracies. To fight such people, you need your own fighters, willing to get dirty and bloody.

By the way, this opens with a series of charts showing the split of white presidential vote by income quintiles going back to 1948, each normalized to the national margin. Republicans won the upper two quintiles every year up through 2012, but lost it three times with Trump (small Democratic edge on 2nd quintile in 1956, 1960, 1968, 2000, and maybe 2012, but in each of those cases the top quintile broke strongly R). On the other hand, Democrats won the bottom two quintiles in all of the pre-Trump races except 1960 and 1968 — where the far-from-patrician Nixon was aided by some unusual splits. As for 2016-24, Levitz says:

This development surely reflects Trump's personal imprint on American life. Yet it was also made possible by long-term, structural shifts in our politics.

Aside from the somewhat muddled Eisenhower and Nixon elections, the pattern of Democrats winning the poorer quintiles and Republicans the richer ones has been pretty consistent. The clearest examples were from 1976-88, with 1984 the strongest correlation, but 2008 is nearly as strong. The pattern still held for 2012, but the divide was reduced, partly because right-wing media fanned white racial backlash, but also because the Obama recovery worked much better for the rich than for the poor. Not coincidentally, Obama seemed to identify (or at least socialize) much more with the rich than with the poor. I wouldn't call this a "structural shift," but it did offer Trump an opening that someone like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would have had trouble navigating. But Trump also had the advantage of running against Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, who spent all of their energies cultivating the rich and famous. Even so, Trump was a dumb choice, but Democrats had squandered whatever credibility they once had to point such things out.

When I think of "structural shifts," I think of things that are beyond individual conscious control: technology, capitalism, mass culture, aspirations for freedom and self-determination. Even so, many of them are consequences of political decisions, as when the Democrats decided not to restore let alone expand support for labor unions after Taft-Hartley weakened them, or their decisions to cut taxes on the rich and loosen up regulations constraining finance, or their wrong-headed and mendacious war in Vietnam.

Those structural shifts have blighted the lives of many whites, stranding them in stagnant areas, with limited skills and vanishing opportunities. That many such people would turn against a Democratic Party that seemed to care little and offer less isn't surprising. Unfortunately, in Trump they've found a "savior" who will only make their lot worse, at most giving them hollow flattery, some kind of emotional release at seeing their supposed enemies attacked and/or ridiculed.

Jonquilyn Hill [01-26]: Are we getting stupider? "Technology is rotting our brains — but there are ways to stop it." Interview with neurologist Andrew Budson, "who specializes in and researches memory disorders." Title is broad enough we probably all already have answers, which will be seen to have little bearing on the very narrow subject broached here. Budson focuses on mental decline among individuals, and his main take is "use it or lose it." His main insight is that brains are meant for social networking, not compiling facts or computing results, so he sees isolation and loneliness as major contributing factors. He also notes that watching more than one hour of TV per day "rots your brain," but that's because it's a solitary activity — content seems to be irrelevant, but I'd guess that most people who see this headline will be expecting yet another critique of mind-devastating content. As I read along, I found myself thinking about assisted-care living, and how to better structure those organizations for sustained mental health. I think it's safe to say that's not a high criterion for our current mix of providers and customers, where economics rules, making quality of life an option few can afford. But that's a subject for a future essay.

It's commonly understood that people learn voraciously when they are young, a rate that slows down over time (although accumulated knowledge and insight may still produce qualitative breakthroughs), then usually declines in advanced age, sometimes catastrophically. Plot this out on a line and you'll find that most people most of the time are in decline. A different question is to compare generations using common sample points: how to 30-year-olds today compare to 30-year-olds in 2000 or 1980 or 1960 or 1940? I don't know, maybe because I'm skeptical of metrics (like IQ[*]). But my impression is that the totality of knowledge has only increased, and continues to do so, which makes it impossible for individuals to keep up. We depend on an ever-increasing division of labor to manage all this knowledge, but our inability to keep up with the whole falls ever farther behind, making us feel stupider, or at least less in charge. So it's possible to be smarter than ever before, yet less and less competent to check the intelligence of others. That would be less of a problem if we could trust the experts not just to know their stuff but to do the right thing with their knowledge. Unfortunately, the last 40-50 years has witnessed a boom in fraud and greed with little or no moral or political checks. When those people screw up, as happens pretty often these days, it's often unclear whether it was because they were crooked, or stupid.

[*] The data for IQ suggests that it increased steadily from 1900 to 2000, correlating with broad gains in education and science, but has since declined, which is often blamed on automation, although I could see the same correlation with inequality (time-shifted a bit).

Jeffrey St Clair:

  • [01-30]: Roaming Charges: Bored of Peace: Eventually gets to Trump's insane counter-UN racket, but first half deals with ICE, Minnesota, and other instances of Trump fascism.

  • [02-06]: The story of Juan Hernández.

  • [02-09]: Roaming Charges: If you're not a scumbag, you're a nobody: "One of the world's richest jerks is gutting the once-storied newspaper he bought as a vanity project, used to promote his own narcissistic and predatory brand, ran editorial interference for Trump, eventually grew bored with the shredded like yesterday's news."

  • [02-13]: The Nazi origins of the South American drug trade: Klaus Barbie, cocaine and the CIA.

  • [02-16]: Roaming Charges: Trick or retreat in the Twin Cities?

    • On a chart of "% who are extremely/very confident that Donald Trump acts ethically in office," the score among white evangelical protestants has dropped from 55 to 40%; for white non-evangelical protestants, the drop is from 38 to 26%. The only group not showing a decline is black protestants, who have held steady at 7%.
    • Quotes Kristi Noem: "When it gets to Election Day, we've been proactive to make sure we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders to lead this country."
    • After "CBS Evening News loses nearly a quarter of its audience after editorial takeover": "Bari Weiss buries CBS News, which, like the emasculation of the WaPost, was probably the goal."

  • [02-27]: Roaming Charges: State of the empire in extremis. Just found this as I was trying to wrap up, so I didn't initially cite anything here, but there are various items on Trump's war threat. The one I was most struck by was a tweet from Robert A Pape: "This represents 40-50% of the deployable US air power in the world. Think air power on the order of the 1991 and 2003 Iraq war. And growing. Never has the US deployed this much force against a potential eney and not launched strikes." I'm reminded of the WWI story about how even if mobilization was meant as a threat, none of the powers could back away from war once they did. Also of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which the US anticipated on much the same evidence. Still, even with repeated evidence of how wrong people are to enter into war, I find it hard to expect that they would consciously blunder like that. Until it happened, I was skeptical that Russia would invade Ukraine, and suspected that the reports were just a taunt by the Biden administration hoping that Putin would fall into their trap. Trump's attack on Iran wasn't unannounced: it was repeaed so often that at some point he may have backed himself into a corner where no other option seemed possible. Still, it was a very stupid and careless maneuver, but it's only the last in a long string of totally avoidable mistakes.

  • [03-02]: Preliminary notes on a planned decapitation. The keyword here is "whacked": for Trump, that's all it comes down to, the solution to all problems. And if it doesn't work, just whack again.

    Trump has done the world a service. He has abandoned pretense and clarified the true nature of American power. There is no longer any need to manufacture a case for war, to make an attack seem conform to international law and treaties or to demonstrate its righteousness by acting as part of an international coalition. Now America can do what it wants to whomever it wants solely because the people who run its government want to. This has, of course, almost always been the case behind the curtain of diplomatic niceties. But Trump has ripped those curtains down and now the world is seeing American power in the raw: brazen, arrogant and mindless of the consequences, which will be borne by others and if they complain, they might be whacked, too.

Stefano Tortorici/R Trebor Scholz [02-11]: Socialist co-ops against Silicon Valley empires: While there is much to be said for cooperatives in general, they could be developed as an alternative to the big tech companies, where the fundamental flaw is that the services they offer are merely bait for their main purpose, which is collecting and exploiting user data.

Matt McManus [02-07]: Thomas Mann and the temptations of Fascism: "The resurgence of right-wing populism has set the table for the far right's renewed fortunes. Published in 1947, Thomas Mann's Doctor Faustus offers a guide to the mythmaking and rejection of reason that continues to animate authoritarian politics today." My wife read (or possibly re-read) Mann's book recently, and was so struck by the timeliness of his description of the onset of Nazism that she posted an excerpt, which I logged in my drafts file (and might as well move here):

No, surely I did not want it, and yet — I have been driven to want it, I wish for it today and will welcome it, out of hatred for the outrageous contempt of reason, the vicious violation of the truth, the cheap, filthy backstairs mythology, the criminal degradation and confusion of standards; the abuse, corruption, and blackmail of all that was good, genuine, trusting, and trustworthy in our old Germany. For liars and lickspittles mixed us a poison draught and took away out senses. We drank — for we Germans perennially yearn for intoxication — and under its spell, through years of deluded high living, we committed a superfluity of shameful deeds, which must now be paid for. With what? I have already used the word, together with the word "despair" I wrote it. I will not repeat it: not twice could I control my horror or my trembling fingers to set it down again.

McManus notes:

A well observed feature of the far right is its strange tendency to combine indifference to factual accuracy, or even honesty, with soaring rhetoric about truth, beauty, and greatness. Beyond just a well-documented willingness to obfuscate, bullsh*t, and lie, many of the far right's core ideological convictions seem like bloviated imaginaries and outright fabrications. Often figures on the far right openly acknowledge this tendency, as in a 1922 speech where Benito Mussolini admitted his adulation of the rejuvenated Italian nation was a manufactured myth:

We have created our myth. The myth is a faith, a passion. It is not necessary for it to be a reality. It is a reality in the sense that it is a stimulus, is hope, is faith, is courage. Our myth is the nation, our myth is the greatness of the nation! And it is to this myth, this greatness, which we want to translate into a total reality, that we subordinate everything else.

This willingness to conjure patently artificial values into being, while still insisting all else be subordinated to the products of one's fantasy, is hardly unique to the early twentieth century right. In 2004, a George W. Bush administration official widely believed to be Karl Rove dismissed the "reality based community" for failing to realize that, as an empire, "we create our own reality." In The Art of the Deal, Donald Trump anticipated his political style by admitting he engaged in "truthful hyperbole" that "plays to people's fantasies" and desire to "believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular." More recently J. D. Vance, himself well-versed in far-right thought, has insisted that if he has to fabricate stories to attract people to his cause, then by God, he'll do so.

Dolly Li/Jordan Winters [02-19]: The House of Representatives is too small: The size has been fixed at 435 for more than a century, during which US population tripled. The "one way to fix it" seems to be simply adding more members, each with more compact districts. I have alternative proposal, which I call "Representative Democracy," where districts of whatever size (larger, smaller, doesn't matter, nor do they even have to be all the same size) each elect two or more representatives, where each representative wields a vote weighted by the number of voters who backed he candidate (the weights could be 1-for-each-vote). Typically, this means that each district would have both a Republican and a Democratic representative. If the winner got 60% of the vote, and the runner-up got 40%, both would go to Washington, but when they voted, the winner would cast a vote of 60%, and the runner-up of 40%. This could get more complicated with third parties, and it is an open question whether one wants to promote or retard such things. But this solves several big problems. For starters, it takes away the incentives for gerrymandering. Also, by ending "winner take all" this should dampen the amount of money poured into competitive races. It also, perhaps most importantly, means that everyone will have a representative dependent on one's vote. Elections will still matter, as they will shift relative power, but they will be less susceptible to landslides, as well as other machinations.

Alfred McCoy [02-22]: Accelerating American (and planetary) decline: I'm starting to tire of stories about how America is in long-term decline, and how Trump is only accelerating that decline. But here it is again, in broad outlines. Even before Trump:

While the U.S. was pouring its blood and treasure (an estimated $4.7 trillion worth) into those desert sands, China was enjoying a decade of warless economic growth. By June 2014, in fact, it had accumulated $4 trillion in foreign currency reserves — and in a major strategic miscalculation, Washington had even lent a hand. In deciding to admit Beijing into the World Trade Organization in 2001, Washington's leaders proved bizarrely confident that China, home to a fifth of humanity, would somehow join the world economy without changing the global balance of power in any significant way.

In 2013, as Beijing's annual exports to the U.S. grew nearly fivefold to $462 billion and its foreign currency reserves approached that $4 trillion mark, President Xi Jinping announced his historic "Belt and Road Initiative." Thanks to that initiative and the lending of a trillion dollars to developing nations, within a decade China would become the dominant economic player on three continents — Asia, Africa, and, yes, even Latin America.

While Trump has personally skimmed extraordinary profits from his America First/Make America Great Again racket, tangible benefits to ordinary Americans are less than zero. More troublesome has been his stifling of innovation within the US economy, which not only means that the US is falling behind its old rivals, but crippling its ability to ever catch up. Even the much vaunted US military is nothing more than overpriced, faulty-performing high-tech crap that is useless for any practical purposes but which risks war and moral hazard, while wasting talent and money that could be used for something actually useful. McCoy is especially damning on how "Trump has essentially smothered America's infant green-energy economy in its cradle (and ceded a future green-powered global economy to China). But he has no way of reckoning the final costs of Trump's fossil fuel gambits. Another variation on this:

Zack Beauchamp [02-23]: How to stop a dictator: Compares case studies from Brazil, South Korea, Poland, and Trumpist America. This piece is part of a series Vox is running on America After Trump. Seems like premature optimism, but it's not much fun considering the alternative, which is how much worse things could get if "after Trump" turns out to be just more of the same. Some pieces in this series:

  • Zach Beauchamp [02-18]: How one country stopped a Trump-style authoritarian in his tracks: "What Brazil got right that America got wrong."

  • Julie Myers [02-18]: The Brazilian playbook for defending democracy: "The fall of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and what it proves about Trump-style authoritarians."

  • Jolie Myers/Noel King [02-24]: You got your democracy back. Now what? "What the United States can learn from Poland's experience with autocracy." One lesson: "once democratic norms are broken, they're hard to rebuild — and the temptation to stretch those norms doesn't disappear when power changes hands." Interview with Ben Stanley, who's written a book about Poland and the challenges of undoing the illiberal "Law and Justice" regime. He points to a "trilemma": "Voters want you to reform quickly, legally, and effectively, but it's almost always impossible to achieve all three at the same time." Democrats are gaining political ground by emphasizing the illegality and unconstitutionality of many Trump initiatives, but restoring norms, guard rails, checks and balances won't suffice to undo the damage, and may make it harder to show any effectiveness.

  • Zack Beauchamp [02-25]: Did the Constitution doom American democracy: "In 2015, Matt Yglesias predicted America's political system would collapse. Did Trump prove him right?" The Yglesias essay referred to is here: American democracy is doomed. Interview with Yglesias. I'd be more inclined to argue that the Constitution, with its snarl of checks and balances, was intended to keep democracy safe for the propertied interests (which initially, conspicuously and infamously, included slaveholders). But just because America was never able to develop as a democracy doesn't mean that what passed for democracy was doomed, except perhaps to disappointment. I attribute Trump's ascendancy to frustration: as the system precluded real reform, why not try to break the logjam by investing the guy who promised to break the rules? That the people made a rash and ill-advised choice should be obvious by now. But what better choice were they allowed?

  • Lee Drutman [02-26]: US democracy has repaired itself before. Here's how we can do it again. His argument "why the Progressive Era is the most like our own" has some resonance, in that systemic problems of oligarchy were treated with top-down reforms meant to prevent any major shifts of power (stifling the challenges of populists and socialists). The analogy to the 1960s is less clear, but maybe that's a cautionary tale. By the way, while I've always admired the progressive era reformers, I'm not very happy with many leftist's habit of calling themselves progressives. While I'm more up than down on progress, I don't like the idea that it is inevitable and necessarily good, and I suspect that we're losing votes by not acknowledging the need to limit or at least tone down its excesses. Right now, my preferred self-description is small-d democrats: its distinction from capital-R Republicans is crystal clear, and it reminds us that everything we propose should be aimed at majority support. On the other hand, the alternative of populists has been spoiled by right-wing demagoguery.

Books:

  • Laura K Field: FuriousMinds: The Making of the MAGA New Right:

    • Jennifer Szalai [2025-12-17]: The intellectuals fueling the MAGA movement: "Furious Minds, by Laura K Field, traces the ascendancy of hard-right thinkers whose contempt for liberal democracy is shaping American politics."

  • David Harvey: The Story of Capital: What Everyone Should Know About How Capital Works:

  • Chris Jennings: End of Days: Ruby Ridge, the Apocalypse, and the Unmaking of America:

      Sarah Jones [02-19]: Why is the right so obsessed with the apocalypse? I understand that there are people who believe that the future was literally foretold in the Book of Revelation, and who spend much of their waking lives deep in research on the subject. I understand this because my grandfather was one, as evidently was his father. My own father continued this old family tradition, albeit in his own idiosyncratic way, which I never attempted to understand, because the whole thing always struck me as completely fucking nuts (even, I'm quite sure, when I was still a faithful member in good standing of the Disciples of Christ, which had long been the family church). While my ancestors are long dead, I understand this because I still know otherwise decent people who still seem to believe such things. They, too, are nuts, at least in this one respect, but I try to politely ignore that, because there's simply no way I can wrap my brain around the notion that hastening the end of the world we know could be a good thing. I believe that it is important to try to respect different ideas, even in such shady domains as cosmology. Jones does a pretty good job of explicating this one — at least her story aligns with a dozen other versions I have read — but there's still this unbreachable gap between recognition and belief.

  • Clyde W Barrow [02-05]: Reading C Wright Mills in the Age of Trump: "Seventy years ago C Wright Mills published The Power Elite, a scathing indictment of corporate executives, state officials, and their academic apologists. His analysis has lost none of its bite as we confront an increasingly degenerate US power elite."

Other media/arts:

  • Anis Shivani [2017-05-29]: Four years later, Breaking Bad remains the boldest indictment of modern American capitalism in TV history: "The show's visual style is the greatest-ever rebuke to the gory hold neoliberalism has over our minds and bodies." Stumbled across this piece, not out of any particular curiosity about the 2008-13 Vince Gilligan series (five seasons, which I hated at first, broke with early on, but my wife persevered, and I wound up watching he end of; we also watched Better Call Saul, and have started Pluribus and will probably return to it, but with little enthusiasm, at least from me). While my disgust is undiminished, I'm likely to use its title as the second chapter of my "weird" political book: a brief sketch of how America "broke bad" from WWII to Trump. I don't much care whether the show works as critique or example, but I thought I should flag this for future reference. It also turns out that Shivani, who has also written novels and poetry, wrote a 2017 book called Why Did Trump Win? Chronicling the Stages of Neoliberal Reactionism During America's Most Turbulent Election Cycle, which I hadn't noticed, but looks sharp enough to order.

Some notable deaths: Mostly from the New York Times listings. Last time I did such a trawl was on January 24, so we'll look that far back (although some names have appeared since):

  • [02-27]: Neil Sedaka, singing craftsman of memorable pop songs, dies at 86: Brill Building songwriter, recorded a half-dozen classic hits 1959-62, staged a minor comeback in the 1970s with Sedaka's Back, and never really left.

  • [02-24]: Éliane Radigue, composer of time, silence and space, dies at 94: "Her Tibetan Buddhist spiritual practice and her experiments with synthesizers came together in vast, slow-moving works that drew wide acclaim."

  • [02-21]: Bill Mazeroski, 89, whose 9th-inning blast made Pirates champs, is dead: One of the all-time great defensive second basemen. Hero of the 1960 World Series, a gruesome affair still indelibly etched in my memory.

  • [02-17]: Anna Akhmatova, leading Soviet poet, is dead: "She was a towering figure in Soviet literature who was once silenced in a Stalinist literary purge."

  • [02-17]: Jesse Jackson: "An impassioned orator, he was a moral and political force, forming a 'rainbow coalition' of poor and working-class people and seeking the presidency. His mission, he said, was 'to transform the mind of America.'"

    • Robert L Borosage [02-18]: Jesse Jackson still provides light in these dark times.

    • David Masciotra [02-20]: The poetic symmetry of Jesse Jackson's life: love, rage, and leadership. Author has a previous book, I Am Somebody: Why Jesse Jackson Matters (2023). He makes a good case here.

    • Jeffrey St Clair [02-20]: Up, down and around with Jesse Jackson: "Jesse Jackson's two runs, in 1984 and 1988, were the last Democratic presidential campaigns I had any interest in joining." He goes on:

      Those campaigns, which, among other things, warned about the coming neoliberal takeover of the Democratic Party, spawned dozens of great activists, including my late buddy Kevin Alexander Gray, who would later play vital roles in the movements that followed Jackson's political campaign: anti-World Bank and WTO protests, the Nader campaigns, the Occupy Movement, the Sanders campaign, BLM, and the migrant rights movement.

      The Democratic Party, in league with the Israel lobby, deployed every trick in the book, and some found only the apocrypha, to not only destroy his campaigns but to try to destroy Jackson both as a force in the Party and personally. (RFK and J. Edgar Hoover conspired to do the same with MLK.) Yet, even with the entire party apparatus working viciously against him, Jesse still crushed party stalwarts Joe Biden, Al Gore and Dick Gephardt. His ultimate loss to Michael Dukakis was preordained.

      To watch Jesse Jackson speak in 1984 was to be struck, and often mesmerized, by a voice few Americans had heard before: the fluid, rolling cadences, the urgent tone, the piercing anecdotes, a voice that didn't shout but summoned, that didn't sermonize but called for action. His speeches gave voice to the voiceless, to the destitute, the abandoned and stigmatized, the oppressed and the imprisoned.

      He then cites PJ O'Rourke as "an unlikely admirer of Jackson's oratorical skills," to quote:

      I did, however, want to hear Jesse Jackson speak. He's the only living American politician with a mastery of classical rhetoric. Assonance, alliteration, litotes, pleonasm, parallelism, exclamation, climax and epigram — to listen to Jesse Jackson is to hear everything mankind has learned about public speaking since Demosthenes. Thus, Jackson, the advocate for people who believe themselves to be excluded from Western culture, was the only 1988 presidential candidate to exhibit any of it.

      St Clair details much of the Democratic Party's demonization of Jackson. Some of this is familiar, but much slipped by me. I've often thought that had Jackson run again in 1992, he could have captured the Democratic Party nomination. But he probably would have lost in the fall, and didn't want to be blamed as the spoiler resulting in four more years of Reagan-Bush. Bill Clinton should have owed him a large debt for such circumspection, but never showed any signs of honoring much less recompensing Jackson.

  • [02-16]: Robert Duvall, a chameleon of an actor onscreen and onstage, dies at 95.

  • [02-14]: Roy Medvedev, Soviet era historian and dissident, is dead at 100: "His score of books and hundreds of essays documented Stalinist executions, Communist repressions, and the transition to post-Soviet Russia."

  • [02-11]: Ken Peplowski, who helped revive the jazz clarinet, dies at 66: "Also a saxophone standout, he served as stylistic bridge between the Benny Goodman swing era and the genre-blurring present"

  • [02-03]: Michael Parenti, unapologetic Marxist theorist and author, dies at 92: "A prolific writer and lecturer, he viewed US history through the lens of class struggle."

  • [01-30]: Catherine O'Hara, 'Home Alone' and 'Schitt's Creek' actress, dies at 71: "An Emmy-winning comedian with oddball charm, she got her start with the influential Canadian sketch comedy series 'SCTV.'" I would have led with films like Best in Show, A Mighty Wind, and Waiting for Guffman. Not sure why I gave up on Schitt's Creek, but it probably wasn't her.

  • [01-28]: Sly Dunbar, whose drumming brought complex beats to reggae, dies at 72: "As one half of the famed rhythm duo Sly and Robbie, he played with some of the biggest names in music, including Bob Dylan and Mick Jagger." What about Bob Marley?

  • [01-21]: Rifaat al-Assad, paramilitary leader and 'Butcher of Hama,' dies at 88: "The brother and uncle of Syrian tyrants, he commanded a unit that killed up to 40,000 civilians in a 1982 uprising against his family's rule."

Some other names I recognize: Edward Hoagland (nature writer), Willie Colón (salsa musician), Richard Ottinger (D-NY), ElRoy Face (baseball relief pitcher), Ebo Taylor (highlife musician), Mickey Lolich (baseball pitcher), Lee H Hamilton (34-year representative, D-IN).

Note that the New York Times also offered overlooked no more obituaries for (mostly interesting people I wasn't familiar with, but these two are glaring omissions[*]):

  • Clifford Brown, trumpeter whose brief life left a lasting mark: "He was one of the most talked-about jazz musicians in the 1950s. After he died in a car accident at 25, his influence grew." Brown was already DownBeat's "New Star of the Year" in 1954, by which point he was probably more accomplished and regarded more highly than any other trumpet player in his cohort (he was slightly younger than Miles Davis, Kenny Dorham, Art Farmer, Thad Jones, Chet Baker, Blue Mitchell — they were all b. 1924-30). I have 2 A and 4 A- albums by Brown, and I'm in a distinct minority as a non-fan of his With Strings or his featured collaboration on Sarah Vaughan (a Penguin Guide crown album).

  • Jimmy Reed, the bluesman everyone covered, then forgot (1925-76): "His most enduring hits were recorded by Elvis Presley, Aretha Franklin, the Rolling Stones and the Grateful Dead. But his own career faded from view." I'd question who (beyond the NYT) forgot him. The year after he died, GNP/Crescendo released The Best of Jimmy Reed, which Robert Santelli ranked 11 of the best 100 blues albums ever. I have it and two later best-ofs (a Rhino from 2000, and Shout! Factory from 2007) as full A albums (all three focus on 1953-63), and a 6-CD box of The Vee-Jay Years (1994), as well as a compilation of his 1966-71 Paula records, just a notch behind.

[*] More typical are entries like: Frances B Johnston (photographer), Ruth Polsky (NYC music booker), Louise Blanchard Bethune (architect in Buffalo), Kim Hak-soon (who exposed Japan's "comfort women" program), and Remedios Varo (Spanish painter).

Current count: 400 links, 26903 words (33369 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Saturday, January 24, 2026

Loose Tabs

Note: I accidentally dated this ahead a day. It was initially posted on Saturday, January 24, and not 25. I will add a few items, denoted by red change bars, mostly when they update pieces already here, but will save up other items in my Loose Tabs [Draft File].

This is an occasional collection of newsworthy links and comments, much less systematic than what I attempted in my late Speaking of Which posts. The new name comes from my extensive use of browser tabs. When I get around to cleaning up, I often find tabs opened to old articles I might want to comment on and/or refer back to. So these posts are mostly housecleaning, but may also serve as a very limited but persistent record of what 20+ years ago I started calling "the end of the American empire" and nowadays feels more like "the end of civilization." I collect these bits in a draft file, and flush them out when periodically. My previous one appeared ? days ago, on November 24.

I have a little-used option of selecting bits of text highlighted with a background color, for emphasis a bit more subtle than bold or ALL CAPS. (I saw this on Medium. I started with their greenish color [#bbdbba] and lightened it a bit [#dbfbda].) I'll try to use it sparingly.

I pretty much put this file on hold while I was working on the Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll, only returning to it on January 13. Jimmy Kimmel opened his first January monologue by explaining that "we have a lot to cover," but he had only been off the air for a week. Only a couple pieces in my draft file were dated after December 5, so I've missed more than a month (actually, 7 Music Week posts have appeared in the interim). So this will be even more hit-and-miss than usual.

I was at 57 links, 4207 words when I started my catch up and wrap up. I initially pegged Friday, January 16 at my target posting date, then backed it up to Sunday, and now I'm just letting it chew up as much of the following week as it takes. I'm not in any hury to get back to Music Week, or anything else.

Finally wrapping this up on Saturday, January 25. I may add some more stuff later, but I'm basically caught up, and there is more than enough here to chew on.

I'm reposting this on January 28, along with my much delayed Music Week.

Table of Contents:

Let's start with this quote from Senator Roger Marshall's newsletter [01-21]:

President Trump's first year back in the White House has been nothing short of historic. From the moment he took office on January 20, 2025, the President set an unprecedented pace — operating under what I like to call "Trump time." Promises made, promises kept have defined this administration, starting with decisive action to secure the border, restore law and order, and put the safety of American families first. By enforcing our laws and backing those who protect us, President Trump has brought order where there was chaos and made our communities safer.

That same results-driven leadership has strengthened our economy and put working families back on solid ground. Through pro-growth policies like the Working Families Tax Cuts, fair trade, and a renewed commitment to American energy and manufacturing, the economy is moving in the right direction — creating jobs, attracting investment, and lowering costs. At the same time, the President has put us on a realistic path to healthier living, worked to bring down prescription drug prices, and restored peace through strength abroad. It has been a truly transformative year, and this is just the beginning, with the wins only continuing to pile up for the American people.

In my notebook, I originally just pulled a few select lines from this, but rather than chop it up with ellipses, I figured I should just give you the whole spiel. It's hard to find anything in this quote that is true, but it's noteworthy that this is what Republicans are telling themselves.

Topical Stories

Sometimes stuff happens, and it dominates the news/opinion cycle for a few days or possibly several weeks. We might as well lead with it, because it's where attention is most concentrated. But eventually these stories will fold into the broader, more persistent thmes of the following section.

Thanksgiving:

  • Jane Borden [11-26]: The Pilgrims were doomsday cultists: "The settlers who arrived in Plymouth were not escaping religious persecution. They left on the Mayflower to establish a theocracy in the Americas."

  • Kali Holloway [11-27]: Make Thanksgiving radical again: "The holiday's real roots lie in abolition, liberation, and anti-racism. Let's reconnect to that legacy."

Epsteinmania: Back by popular demand, as Republicans caved in and passed a law to "release all the files," leaving the cover up to the so-called Justice Department (which is a bigger oxymoron these days than the Defense Department used to be, not that renaming it the War Department is a good idea). But so far, nothing much has been revealed, and "Epstein" has mostly occurred as the reason for Trump's "wag the dog" warmaking.

  • Philip Weiss [12-19]: The New York Times ignores an essential part of the Jeffrey Epstein story — Israel: The Times article in question is The untold story of how Jeffrey Epstein got rich, which argues that "Epstein was the greatest conman and swindler that ever lived, and charmed the pants off of every powerful man he met."

    Epstein did numerous chores for Israel that investigative sites have documented and the Times does not touch: he helped Israel broker financial deals with neighbors, he had an Israeli spy living in his house for a time, and he had a close relationship with former Israeli PM Ehud Barak that included business ventures and politics in Israel.

  • Amanda Marcotte [12-21]: Epstein continues to explain everything about Trump: "From Greenland to Minneapolis, it's all rooted in his predatory ways." I don't quite buy this, but: "Like his friend Epstein — who enjoyed targeting small, helpless teenage girls — the most important thread throughout Trump's life is that he tries to feel big by harassing those who he feels can't fight back."

  • Kathleen Wallace [12-25]: Redacting our reality, one Epstein at a time.

  • Elie Honig [01-24]: How Bill and Hillary Clinton could soon become criminal defendants: This reviews their past brushes with possible criminal prosecution, but this time they may feel they're innocent and should stand on principle, as conscientious objectors.

    The Clintons almost certainly aren't going to prison, or even getting convicted. But with characteristic hubris, Bill and Hillary have walked themselves to the brink of federal charges by defying bipartisan congressional subpoenas on the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. And it's a good bet that our current Justice Department — which apparently makes critical decisions by a sophisticated litmus test that asks, "Do we like you, or not?" — will pursue criminal contempt charges.

Zohran Mamdani:

ICE stories: The last couple weeks is the point where Trump's goon squad has turned the corner from being overzealous civil servants rooting out unwanted immigrants to becoming an armed force that freely attacks ordinary Americans. They've been unleashed, with the full-throated support of Trump, Vance, and Kristi Noem, who all understand that their real problem isn't immigrants. It's Americans, especially ones that are guilty of the treason of living in cities that voted against Trump.

  • Cameron Peters [01-07]: Trump's immigration crackdown turns deadly in Minneapolis: "The fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis, briefly explained."

  • Eric Levitz [01-08]: Trump's menacingly dishonest response to the Minnesota ICE shooting: "Trump is telling us he doesn't care why Renee Good died."

    All this is both appalling and frightening. If ICE agents know that they can kill US citizens on video — and still count on the president to lie in support of their freedom — Americans' most basic liberties will be imperiled.

    Trump's response is also politically mindless. The administration could have declined to take a position on the killing until all facts were known. It could have left itself the option of declaring Good's killer one bad apple, whose recklessness undermined ICE's fundamental mission: to keep Americans safe.

    Instead, it has chosen to identify its broader ideological project with contempt for the lives of any Americans who gets in its way.

  • Alex Skopic [01-08]: The only "domestic terrorists" on our streets are ICE.

  • Caitlin Dewey [01-09]: How right-wing creaetors bend reality to their will: "How a scandal about day cares run by Somali Americans led to an ICE surge in Minneapolis."

  • Christian Paz [01-12]: The violent "randomness" of ICE's deportation campaign: "What ICE is doing in American cities is very distinct." Interview with David Hausman.

    ICE, specifically, is operating in a completely different way to how it has historically worked — with big shows of force in neighborhoods, seemingly indiscriminate arrests of immigrants (and citizens), and its careless treatment of bystanders and protesters.

  • Laura Jedeed [01-13]: You've heard about who ICE is recruting. The truth is far worse. I'm the proof. "What happens when you do minimal screening before hiring agents, arming them, and sending them into the streets? We're all finding out." For an update, see:

  • Christian Paz [01-15]: How right-wing influencers are bending reality in Minneapois: "The MAGA media system is going into overdrive." They're always in overdrive. At some point you just have to shut them off, and give them no respect at all.

  • Noah Hurowitz [01-14]: Federal agents keep invoking killing of Renee Good to threaten protesters in Minnesota.

  • Eric Levitz [01-14]: The Trump administration can't stop winking at white nationalists: "The government is recruiting ICE agents with (literal) neo-Nazi propaganda."

  • Ryan Cooper [01-15]: Trump's ethnic cleansing campaign in Minneapolis: "Every part of this illegal, violent occupation is based on lies."

  • Gillen Tener Martin [01-16]: Another way Republicans are overplaying their hand on immigration: "Now they're going after Americans who are also citizens of another country — like me, and Melania and Barron Trump."

  • Alain Stephens [01-16]: ICE agents are even worse at being cops than you think: "Videos of agents falling down and dropping their guns feel beyond parody. But under-trained law enforcement officers are a real danger to the public."

  • Nia Prater [01-19]: The Minneapolis siege is even worse than the videos show: Interview with Will Stancil ("over the past week, Stancil has become a mainstay of citizen patrols, tracking ICE agents around the city in his Honda Fit and sharing his experiences with his 100,000-plus followers").

  • Jacob Fuller [01-21]: We don't know how many people have been harmed by ICE: "How decades of inaction on police reform paved the road for ICE's lack of transparency."

  • Ed Kilgore [01-21]: Should Democrats try to abolish ICE or radically change it? I'm surprised to see such a notoriously middling liberal pundit even raising the possibility of abolishing ICE. I can certainly understand the impulse to abolish, and I doubt that much actual harm would ensue if it actually happened, but I've always been in the reform camp, and probably always will be. (There are, of course, things I would be happy to see abolished, like NATO, and Microsoft, but even there I could see ways of salvaging grams of value from the tons of destruction.) I certainly don't see this as a political fight I'm up for. While I have no particular beef with immigrants, I see them as tangential to what matters most, which is treating both citizens here and foreigners elsewhere much better than the US has been doing. I think it's extremely important that we treat all people decently, but that doesn't mean we should indulge them completely. Of course, Kilgore winds up on the reform side:

    There's no evidence that Americans actually want the "open borders" stance that Republicans have falsely accused Democrats of embracing in the past. Embracing it now makes little sense. The broadest and strongest position for Democrats right now is the abolition of both mass deportation and ICE terror tactics, alongside a new path to citizenship for noncriminal immigrants and fairer and more uniform enforcement of immigration laws without the sort of violence and cruelty perpetrated and celebrated by Trump, J.D. Vance, Kristi Noem, and Stephen Miller. Anyone who thinks such a position represents a surrender to MAGA needs to remember how and why these terrible people rose to power in the first place.

    On the other hand, if you do manage to abolish ICE, I could go along with that too. Kilgore cites Bunch here:

  • Maximillian Alvarez [01-22]: "No work. No spending": Minnesota workers will strike tomorrow to protest ICE: "A critical conversation with Minnesota union leaders on the eve of a massive general strike."

  • Garrett Owen [01-22]: "Gas is coming!": Border Patrol commander Bovino throws gas cannister at protesters in Minneapolis.

  • Jason Linkins [01-24]: This year's first big stupid idea: "retrain ICE": "Some things get so evil that they forfeit their right to exist. Trump's rogue paramilitary gangs are one of them."

  • CK Smith [01-24]: Another Minneapolis resident shot and killed by ICE agent: "Deadly encounters in just a few weeks, residents and officials demand accountability for ICE operations."

    I picked up this story as I was rushing to wrap up, and spent much of Saturday ignoring further reports, including a lot of video. The victim was Alex Pretti, 37, an intensive care nurse at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System. The shooter was a Border Patrol agent (not ICE, but part of the same Trump-ordered operation). I'm not going to report on this at length, but this has become a very big story, and needs a bit more than I initially provided.

    • CK Smith [01-25]: A MN nurse is dead as the government's story falls apart: "Again, officials say ICE agent acted in self-defense, but video evidence and witnesses contradict their narrative."

    • Intelligencer Staff []: Is Alex Pretti's death the breaking point? "Here are the latest developments."

    • Cameron Peters

    • Zack Beauchamp

      • [01-25]: The killing of Alex Pretti is a grim turning point: "Trump's authoritarianism is becoming less subtle — and more vicious." Groping for words, but I don't think "subtle" was ever in play. But Beauchamp wants to contrast the "subtle" arts of a Viktor Orbán vs. pure brutes like Stalin. But all right-wingers want to be brutes. The difference between Orbán and Stalin is that the latter had deep power that the head of a nominally democratic state lacked. Trump may wish he had that sort of power, but he probably doesn't — how much he does have is being tested right now.

      • [01-26]: So what if Alex Pretti had a gun? "The unbearable hypocrisy of pro-gun conservatives defending the Minneapolis killing." This isn't an angle I care much about, probably because I've long ago understood that gun advocates don't care about logical consequences of so many people having so many guns. Part of this goes back to the general conservative belief that rights are something for themselves and not for other people. (Slavery is a pretty clear cut example.) But it does seem fair to ask law enforcement how they are able to tell, in real time and under less than ideal circumstances, when and how to respect one person's right to bear arms, when not to, and what to do about it.

    • Ross Barkan [01-26]: Trump's losing war on Minneapolis.

    • Eric Levitz [01-23]: You don't need to be a liberal to oppose Trump's ICE: "You just need to care about your own constitutional rights." But you may need to be at least a little bit of a liberal to understand that your and other people's rights are connected, so that denying rights to others also affects you. That's not a concern for conservatives, who believe different groups can and should be treated differently.

    • Jeffrey St Clair [01-26]: Where the sidewalk ends, the lies begin: on the execution of Alex Pretti.

      We live in a country where you can be charged with resisting arrest without having committed a crime to be arrested for. We live in a country where even the most passive acts of defiance and resistance are an excuse to kill you. . . . Americans of conscience also find themselves in the crosshairs of their own government.

      We also live in a country where people, ordinary people, are so revolted by what's happening that they are willing to go out every day in Arctic temperatures to confront and resist the paramilitary-style forces that are terrorizing their neighborhoods, knowing the kind of violence that might be visited against them.

      Alex Pretti was one of those "ordinary" Americans. He didn't do anything to deserve being assaulted, never mind shot. He did what nurses are trained to do: help someone who had been hurt, a woman gratuitously shoved to the ground and pepper-sprayed by a CBP agent, a woman who had also done nothing to deserve this brutal treatment. Alex Pretti wasn't the "worst of the worst." He was the best of the best.

    • Branko Marcetic [01-27]: Even law enforcement officers think this has gone too far: "The impunity with which ICE and other DHS agents are carrying out violence and murders in cities like Minneapolis is so awful that now scores of law enforcement officials themselves are speaking out against it."

    • Aziz Huq [01-27]: Where is the off-ramp from all this state violence? "It's hard to think of a parallel effort in US history to build a domestic agency of violence specialists at the scale of ICE."

    • Eric Levitz [01-27]: Trump's deportation forces finally went too far. Not his opinion, mind you. He's taking his cues from "many Republican senators, governors, and influencers [who] called for a thorough investigation into Pretti's killing, as did the NRA."

  • Jelinda Montes [01-28]: Rep. Ilham Omar attacked at town hall. And Trump applauded, tweeting "She probably had herself sprayed, knowing her."

Venezuela: Marco Rubio's 2016 presidential campaign was a pretty lacklustre affair — I was tempted to say "sad," but he had no substance to feel regrets over. But later, I found there was one topic that really animated him, and that is overthrowing the Chavez/Maduro government in Venezuela. I was surprised when he appeared on Trump's short list of VP prospects, along with JD Vance and Doug Burgum. I figured Trump was sniffing for money: Burgum had his own, and Vance belonged to Peter Thiel. I wasn't sure who Rubio's sugar daddy was, but he undoubtedly had one. Nobody makes a serious run for the Republican nomination without at least one billionaire backer. (Newt Gingrich famously complained that Romney beat him 5-to-1 on that critical score.) That Rubio wound up with the Secretary of State post pretty much guaranteed that Trump would make war on Venezuela. That's just happened.

  • Paul R Pillar [11-10]: Dick Cheney's ghost has a playbook for war in Venezuela: "Trump flirting with regime change in Caracas carries eerie similarities to the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

  • Joshua Keating [12-12]: The global shadow economy behind Trump's latest move on Venezuela: "A black market has been growing for years. The escalation puts a new spotlight on it."

  • Vijay Prashad/Taroa Zúñiga Silva [01-03]: The US attacks Venezuela and seizes its president.

  • Cameron Peters [01-03]: How Trump went from boat strikes to regime change in Venezuela: "The US just attacked Venezela. How did we get here?"

  • Caitlin Dewey [01-05]: America's century-long interest in Venezuelan oil: "The long, fascinating history of US entanglement with the Venezuelan industry." Seems to me this piece is missing a lot of detail, both on the rise and fall of Venezuelan oil; e.g., how much light oil can Venezuela still produce? Or, is the decline due to political factors, including lost skills, or are they just running out of easy oil? I'm inclined to believe that Chavez and Maduro have mismanaged the industry, but that doesn't explain that much decline. Another thing I'd stress is that Trump's understanding of the oil industry is almost nil, so his motivations needn't have anything to do with reality.

  • Eric Levitz [01-05]: Did Trump really invade Venezuela for oil? "No. Also, maybe." If he's a rational actor: "no." But he's not, so: "maybe." At least he's not making up any cockamamie stories about "restoring democracy," ridding the people autocrats, etc. Those aren't reasons he in any way cares about. "Taking the oil," on the other hand, is a reason he can get behind. But, as Levitz notes, the American oil industry doesn't need or even particularly want Venezuela's crude (especially the heavy/expensive stuff in the Orinoco reserves). Oil prices are fairly depressed at present, so the last thing the industry wants is more supply from countries like Venezuela and Iran (and for that matter, Russia).

  • Elie Honig [01-07]: Why Nicolás Maduro is facing trial in lower Manhattan.

  • Terry Lynn Karl [01-16]: Trump's petrostate dilemma in Venezuela: "By capturing his Venezuelan counterpart Nicolás Maduro, US President Donald Trump sought to project power abroad but instead exposed his own political vulnerability. Despite his promise to restore Venezuela's oil industry, his overt resource grab is far more likely to fuel regional turmoil."

  • Francisco Rodriguez [01-16]: In what world would Trump's oil play actually help Venezuelans? "It would take major systematic changes both commercially and in government, and it's unclear whether any of that is in the works yet."

  • Benjamin Fogel [01-17]: We're now in the Sopranos stage of imperialism: "the transformation of US hegemony into naked extortion. As with the Mafia, loyalty may ultimately buy nothing, and deals can be broken at gunpoint."

  • Chas Danner [01-18]: How is Trump's Venezuela takeover going? Not as badly as it would be had the US actually invaded and tried to run things directly. The big question is whether Trump will be satisfied with Delcy Rodríguez as "acting president," and whether Rodríguez will be able to satisfy Trump without having the still intact Chavista power base turn against her. Thus far she's mostly conceding things that Maduro wouldn't have had any problem conceding. One could imagine a very different outcome in Iraq had Bush allowed a more amenable Ba'athist leader like Tariq Aziz to remain in power, rather than allowing Paul Bremer to push the entire Ba'athist elite into opposition. Similarly, the US could have tried to negotiate some form of power-sharing agreement with the Taliban in 2001 instead of driving them into a civil war they won 20 years later. This type of "occupation" would have been a novelty for the US, but the concept goes way back. When Alexander destroyed an enemy army, he usually converted the previous king into a satrap, paying him tribute but depending on him to maintain order, as his own army moved on to conquer other lands. The obvious problem with Trump in Venezuela is that his greed and power lust will overshoot, putting US forces into another quagmire.

    The strange thing is that I could see Trump's smash-and-grab foreign policy becoming very popular: the idea is to act brashly, demonstrating his dynamic leadership, then behave sensibly and even generously afterwards, avoiding the usual consequences and blowback. Of course, he didn't have to snatch Maduro to get a pretty decent deal from Venezuela. He could get similarly good deals from Iran and North Korea. He could have had a big win on Gaza, but there the problem wasn't a regime he refused to deal with, but one (Netanyahu's) that didn't take his threat seriously. His failure in Ukraine is due to the same problem: Putin has no reason to doubt that he can just string Trump along. Sure, most of these conflicts can be traced back to Trump's earlier failures, but few people would notice that, or hold him accountable. The whole "peace through strength" line is an old con that still holds many weak minds in its thrall. Hence strong moves impress, if only one can make them without paying a price for hubris.

  • William D Hartung [01-22]: Trump's doubling down on imperialism in Latin America is a formula for decline.

When war breaks out, my first instinct is to find a good history book, to help put it into context. I could use one on Venezuela, preferably by a critical thinker with leftist instincts. I always start out hopeful and sympathetic to leftist political movements, even if they often disappoint. And I distrust their right-wing opponents, who may be right on specifics but remain fundamentally committed to oligarchy and repression. Here's a list of books I've noticed, omitting earlier (often more optimistic) books on Chávez (Tariq Ali, Rory Carroll, Nikolas Kozloff, Miguel Tinker Salas, etc.).

  • Raúl Gallegos: Crude Nation: How Oil Riches Ruined Venezuela (2016, Potomac Books): WSJ reporter on "how Maduro inherited a mess and made it worse."
  • Richard Hausmann/Francisco R Rodriguez, eds: Venezuela Before Chávez: Anatomy of an Economic Collapse (2015, Penn State University Press).
  • Carlos Lizarralde: Venezuela's Collapse: The Long Story of How Things Fell Apart (2024, independent): Goes deep into history, but works backward, where the first chapter covers 1999-2019 (Chavez/Maduro), then 1922-1998 (oil), then 1498-1821 (colonial period, Columbus to Bolivar), then he returns to Chavez. Some of the missing 19th century shows up in an epilogue on "Politics Without a State, 1834-1837."
  • Carlos Lizarralde: One in Four: The Exodus that Emptied Venezuela, 2019-2024 (2025, independent).
  • William Neuman: Things Are Never So Bad That They Can't Get Worse: Inside the Collapse of Venezuela (2022, St Martin's Press): New York Times reporter, did a stint in Caracas 2012-16, critical of Trump.
  • Anya Parampil: Corporate Coup: Venezuela and the End of US Empire (2024, OR Books): Grayzone journalist, so very critical of US.
  • Joe Emersberger/Justin Podur: Extraordinary Threat: The US Empire, the Media, and Twenty Years of Coup Attempts in Venezuela (2021, Monthly Review Press).
  • Timothy M Gill: Encountering US Empire in Socialist Venezuela: The Legacy of Race, Neocolonialism and Democracy Promotion (2022, University of Pittsburgh Press).
  • Dan Kovalik: The Plot to Overthrow Venezuela (2019, Hot Books): Also wrote The Plot to Scapegoat Russia (2017), The Plot to Attack Iran (2018), and The Plot to Control the World: How the US Spent Billions to Change the Outcome of Elections Around the World (2018).
  • Francisco Rodríguez: The Collapse of Venezuela: Scorched Earth Politics and Economic Decline, 2012-2020 (2025, University of Notre Dame Press).
  • Kike Jiménez Vidal: The Collapse of Venezuela: The Untold Story of How a Rich Country Became a Failed State (2025, independent): Sees 1958-78 as a Golden Age, 1979-1998 as the Great Illusion, followed by Initial Demolition, Totalitarian Offensive, Economic Collapse, and Diaspora and Deinstitutionalization. This looks very polemical, but what I've read makes sense.
  • Javier Corrales: Autocracy Rising: How Venezuela Transitioned to Authoritarianism (2023, Brookings Institution Press): The two most reliable common code words for organizing American liberals against a foreign foe. Previously co-wrote (with Michael Penfold) Dragon in the Tropics: Venezuela and the Legacy of Hugo Chavez (2015, Brookings Institution Press).
  • Alistair Pemberton: On the Precipice: The Trump Administration and the Escalating Path Toward War With Venezuela (2025, independent): Short (45 pp), published in November.
  • Pedro Santos: USA Vs Venezuela War: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (2025, independent).
  • Anderson M Bean, ed: Venezuela in Crisis: Socialist Perspectives (2026, Haymarket): "Writing from an anticapitalist, anti-imperialist, and anti-authoritarian perspective, this volume never loses sight of the need to stand with the Venezuelan people rather than their government — even when it claims to be struggling to build socialism." [Scheduled for 02-17]

Here's an excerpt from Gallego's Crude Nation:

Politicians, like regular Venezuelans, spend oil money generously while they still have it, because oil prices will fall eventually. And when that happens, Venezuela is usually left with little to show for it, with no savings to speak of. It soon dawned on me that Chávez and his leftist movement were really just a blip in a long history of larger-than-life leaders who promised to use oil to quickly turn Venezuela into a modern, powerful nation, only to disappoint voters in the end. For the better part of the twentieth century, Venezuela served as a cautionary tale for other nations and regions rich in natural resources, an example of the fate they must avoid.

Venezuela's troubles go beyond left and right political ideas: the world's largest oil patch hasn't learned how to properly manage its wealth. Venezuela is a country that has played and will play an important role in the global energy industry, as long as cars still run on gasoline and not on electricity, water, or cow manure. Three centuries from now, when most of the world's oil is gone, Venezuela could still be pumping crude, if no other energy source has rendered oil obsolete. Venezuela's reality is a tale of how hubris, oil dependence, spendthrift ways, and economic ignorance can drive a country to ruin. Venezuela can teach us all an important lesson: too much money poorly managed can be worse than not having any money at all.

And here's an excerpt from Vidal's The Collapse of Venezuela:

Before oil, Venezuela was a poor nation, yes, but with a real productive structure. An economy based on coffee, cocoa, and livestock farming, where value was created by labor, capital, and land. It was a country of producers, not of parasitic rentiers. Exchange was voluntary, private property was respected — the the clear limitations of the time — and the currency, though weak, was backed by the tangible production of goods.

The arrival of the oil companies wasn't a "blessing." It was the beginning of a curse. It was the equivalent of injecting a healthy but poor patient with a miracle drug that generates instant euphoria while destroying vital organs. This is what serious economists call the Resource Curse or the Dutch Disease. And what did the state do? Instead of creating the conditions for oil wealth to strengthen the private sector, it instead siphoned off revenue through concessions and centralized it in the hands of the elite in power, first under the rule of Gómez and then the military.

And then, no doubt, Chávez and Maduro. It's interesting how often revolutionaries return to the form of those they overthrew, as Stalin became another Tsar, and the Ayatollah became another Shah. I suspect the worst cases are where external pressure puts the revolutionaries on the defensive, and emboldens the old class. That's been a big part of the story in Venezuela. It also reminds us that no matter how unsavory the Chavistas are, their opponents are worse.

Iran: I haven't been following news, but my X feed blew up with tweets on Iran (protests and/or war threats) to which I ascribe very little credibility. Trying to catch up, I checked out this Wikipedia article, which tells me that anti-government protests began on December 28, spreading to many cities, and that they were met with a stiff government crackdown, including "a massacre that left tens of thousands of protesters dead." There have also been counter-protests, defending the regime. While few people doubt that the Iranian people have grievances with their government, these events are occurring against a backdrop of severe sanctions and war threats coming from Israel and the US, who are believed to support violent subversive groups within Iran, and who have long promoted propaganda against the regime. Iran has also responded by shutting down the internet. Thus we have ample reason to doubt pretty much everything we hear from anyone about what is going on. I'll pick out some representative articles below, but I don't expect to get much credible information.

  • Behrooz Ghamari Tabrizi [12-25]: Iran and the price of sovereignty: what it takes not to be a client.

    Now, the so-called 12-day war is over. Iranians have returned to the devastating perpetual violence of U.S. led sanctions and targeted assassinations by the Mossad. The Trump administration and its European allies have called on Iran to accept its defeat, surrender unconditionally, and "return" to the negotiating table. They ask Iran to dismantle its nuclear technology, halt the production of its advance missile program, cease its support of the Palestinian cause, and terminate its network of what is known as the "axis of resistance" against the Israeli and American expansionism. In other words, become a client state. Iran is one of the few remaining fronts of defiance against the American extortionist posture and the Israeli carnage that has engulfed the Middle East. That defiance comes with a very hefty price.

  • Cameron Peters [01-13]: The scariest thing about Iran's crackdown:

  • Hamid Dabashi [01-13]: How Israel and the US are exploiting Iranian protests

    : "Genuine rage over economic stagnation is being manipulated to serve western political ends."

  • Sina Toosi [01-16]: This is not solidarity. It is predation. "The Iranian people are caught between severe domestic repression and external powers that exploit their suffering."

  • Robert Wright [01-16]: The Iranian blood on Trump's (and Biden's) hands. Everything here is important and worth reading, but one could add more, especially on Israel's malign influence.

    We'll never know if the hopes for Iran that Obama's nuclear deal fostered would have been realized had Trump not intervened. Maybe commercial engagement with the world wouldn't have had any internally liberalizing effect, politically or even economically. And maybe more economic interdependence with other countries wouldn't have moderated Iran's policies toward them.

    But even if things didn't pan out on those fronts, it seems safe to say that Iran's people would be much better off economically and no worse off politically, and some now-dead protesters would still be alive. And as of today — with another war in the Middle East one distinct near-term possibility and the violent and chaotic implosion of Iran another one — that scenario doesn't sound so bad.

    It now seems pretty clear that Biden's failure to restore the Iran deal was evidence of his more subservient posture toward Israel: his failure on Iran presaged his failure on Gaza. But Obama doesn't merit much acclaim either. His rationale for negotiating the deal was that he took Israel's fears of a nuclear Iran seriously, recognizing that the only way to stop a determined Iran was to negotiate restrictions that could be enforced. On the other hand, he was careful not to resolve any other issues, let alone normalize relations, which had the effect of preserving decades of kneejerk hostility. That attitude was what made it possible for Trump to break the deal, and it gave Biden cover to keep from reversing Trump's damage.

    Three more charts of interest here: Global AI Computing Capacity (increasing quite rapidly); President Trump's Approval Rating (down markedly since the ICE shooting of Renee Good); Evening News Estimates of Iran Protest Deaths (CBS, since Bari Weiss took over, is claiming 5-24 [or 40?] times as many deaths as CNN/ABC/NBC). Also see Wright's earlier post:

    • [01-09]: Some useful Trump-Hitler comparisons (in light of Minneapolis and Venezuela).

      The joy Trump takes in the use of intimidating force extends from the domestic arena into the international arena. Indeed, it's hard to explain the escalating holiday-season campaign against Venezuela — boat bombings, then a port bombing, and finally invasion — without invoking this kind of visceral motivation. After all, Venezuela isn't the country you'd go after if drugs were your real concern. And as for oil: The basics of the administration's current plan for Venezuela — leave an authoritarian regime in place but profit from its petroleum — didn't require invading the country and snatching Nicolas Maduro; Maduro himself had agreed to that kind of deal. And, though Trump can presumably get somewhat better terms now than he'd have gotten from Maduro, there seems to be a consensus among oil experts that the foreseeable benefits are meager; with oil prices low, and Venezuela still a shaky place, US companies won't want to make the big investments required to extract oil in large quantities.

      I doubt I'll ever see a man more evidently full of pride and self-satisfaction than Trump is when he's talking about his various unprovoked international assaults — the assassination via missile strike of Iran's top general during his first term, the bombing of Iran last year, the attack on Venezuela last week. But I'm guessing that if I spoke German and combed through some recordings of Hitler in the wake of the Poland invasion I'd come close.

  • Orly Noy [01-16]: On Iran's protests, Israeli hypocrisy knows no limits: "Only moments ago, Israelis were cheering on a holocaust in Gaza — and now they dare to celebrate the valiant uprising of the Iranian people."

  • Farshad Askari [01-22]: Iran's protests have gone quiet. But the revolution isn't over. This feels like a bit of a stretch, but to the extent that the protests were real, a news blackout isn't likely to keep them away forever.

  • MEE [01-23]: Trump says US 'armada' moving towards Iran: "President warns Washington is watching Tehran closely as US naval forces move into region."

Jerome Powell: Trump, who originally appointed Powell to the post of Fed Chair, is unhappy with him, ostensibly because Trump wants him to lower interest rates, which Powell had raised as the conventional antidote to inflation. So Trump is threatening to prosecute Powell, which isn't going over well with the Fed Chair, or with the bankers who effectively have captured the Fed.

  • Cameron Peters [01-12]: Trump vs. the Fed, briefly explained: "Why Trump is making a bid to control the US economy." This is somewhat misleading. The Fed doesn't control the economy. The Fed controls the money supply. This has bearing on some important aspects of the economy, like inflation and employment. And those aspects are important enough to people who have a lot of money (especially banks) that they've long insisted on keeping the Fed free of "political interference," which is to say to keep it captured by a higher power: themselves. Thus, for instance, Bill Clinton ditched his entire economic platform after being elected in 1992, because Alan Greenspan convinced him it would unsettle the bond market, probably by threatening to wreck Clinton's economy. Clinton was the first of the last three Democratic presidents to reappoint a Republican Fed chair (as Obama did Bernanke, and Biden did Powell). Like all good Democrats, they recognize that there are higher powers in America, and behave accordingly. So sure, Trump's move is a power grab, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that Powell is on our side, or think that the "independent Fed" is really a good idea. Trump's beef with Powell is supposedly about interest rates, but also about power. The thing to understand about interest rates is that high interest rates can throttle a booming economy, and very high interest rates can strangle it; but while lower interest rates can stimulate the economy, and increase employment (especially when recovering from a recession induced by high interest rates), low interest rates can also cause inflation. So Trump's move here is exactly wrong for fighting inflation. But when the Fed makes it cheaper to borrow, not everyone benefits equally. The Fed loans money to banks, who loan money to rich people, who sometimes use it to build things, but more often (especially when it's cheap) they use it for speculation, pushing up the price of assets so as to make themselves feel even richer. And that, of course, is exactly what Trump wants to see: an asset bubble.

  • Ian Millhiser

  • Mike Konczal [01-13]: The enormous stakes of Donald Trump's fight with Jerome Powell: "The Fed is the final frontier of his quest to dominate every economic institution."

  • Thomas L Friedman [01-13] Trump's scheming to sack Powell paves the road to constitutional ruin: Sure, Friedman's an idiot, and there are hundreds of other things that he could have recognized as "the road to constitutional ruin," but this (unlike, say, genocide in Gaza) seems to be his red line.

  • Ryan Cooper [01-14]: Trump's prosecution of Jerome Powell is even crazier than it looks: "Messing with Federal Reserve independence might spark inflation, and everyone hates that." That seems like something people might say, but I'm less and less convinced that the Fed's rate control is a very practical tool for controlling inflation. The belief is largely based on memory of the Volcker recession (1979-82), based on some pretty sketchy economic theories (like NAIRU), and employed like a wrecking ball to the entire economy.

  • Robert Kuttner [01-21]: The high court sinks Trump's Federal Reserve ploy: "The administration's clumsy effort to oust Fed governor Lisa Cook is stymied again."

Major Threads

Israel: I collected a bunch of articles early on, in the immediate aftermath of the ceasefire/hostage swap. Since then, well . . . Israel has regularly violated the cease fire they had "agreed" to, and their violations haven't bothered Trump in the least. I don't have time to seriously update this section, so the few additions are at best a random sampling.

  • Jonah Valdez [11-25]: Gaza humanitarian foundation calls it quits after thousands die seeking its aid: "The aid group oversaw relief in Gaza during a period defined by the killings of Palestinians seeking food during famine." This is "the U.S. and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation." When I saw this headline, I assumed that the foundation was legit, and the headline reflected some sort of Israeli win against the world's humanitarian impulses. Now it looks like "aid" was really just bait. And sure, not just to kill Palestinians, which Israel was already doing regularly and could have escalated without resorting to such tactics. Rather, the point was to psychologically bind seeking food to the experience of terror. With the ceasefire, the need for aid is undiminished. If aid was GHF's purpose, it would still have much to do. That they're quitting suggests that their real purpose was something else.

    Rather than maintain the existing model of bringing food and supplies to individuals with most need by delivering goods directly to communities, GHF established four distribution sites. The foundation also hired two American logistics and security firms — UG Solutions and Safe Reach Solutions, led by a Green Beret veteran and former CIA officer, respectively — to oversee distribution. The result was the funneling of thousands of desperate people who traveled long distances into aid sites where long lines often devolved into stampedes. Gunfire from Israeli soldiers, or private American contractors, largely former U.S. special forces, was a near-daily reality. While some of those who survived the deadly queues managed to bring home boxes of food, the supplies failed to slow the famine conditions across Gaza which only worsened. The food provided by GHF was widely criticized by nutritional experts and aid groups as inadequate to prevent hunger and difficult to prepare (most items needed water to boil, itself a scarce resource in the territory).

  • Marianne Dhenin [11-27]: International tribunal finds Israel guilty of genocide, ecocide, and the forced starvation of the Palestinians in Gaza: "The International People's Tribunal on Palestine held in Barcelona presented striking evidence of Israel's forced starvation of the Palestinian people and the deliberate destruction of food security in Gaza." The tribunal is sponsored by ILPS (International League of Peoples' Struggle), which of course would find that, not that the evidence can really be interpreted any other way.

  • Mitchell Plitnick [11-27]: Israel is violating ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon, and Trump is allowing it: "Israel's goals are clear enough: endless war." The Trump administration's goals, to the extent one can speak of them coherently, were to win a couple immediate news cycles, free the hostages, and set up negotions to make amends to Qatar and sell more arms to Saudia Arabia. Netanyahu, as he has so many times before, chose to bend to America's will rather than risk a break, confident that he will soon enough rebound, because Trump is just another fickle American fool.

    Israel had never heeded the ceasefire to begin with. More than 340 overwhelmingly non-combatant Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire was put in place, and over 15,000 more structures in Gaza have been destroyed, just as flooding, overflowing sewage, rains, and the cold weather of approaching winter start to hit the already battered population.

    In just the past few days, though, Israel has killed more than 60 Palestinians in Gaza, a sign of escalation. It is no coincidence that this uptick comes on the heels of Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman's (MBS) visit to Washington where he once again insisted, much to Trump's annoyance, that if Donald Trump wanted to see a normalization deal between his kingdom and Israel, there would need to be a clear, committed path to a Palestinian state with a timeline. Whether MBS was sincere about that or not, Netanyahu has no intention of making even the slightest gesture in that direction, and the escalation in Gaza was, at least in part, his response to that part of the Trump-MBS confab.

  • Qassam Muaddi

  • Huda Skaik [11-28]: Gaza's civil defense forces keep digging for 10,000 missing bodies: "Members of Gaza's Civil Defense force describe pulling decomposing bodies from collapsed buildings, and digging in hopes that someone remains alive."

  • Connor Echols:

  • Craig Mokhiber [12-01]: How the world can resist the UN Security Council's rogue colonial mandate in Gaza. This offers "several ways that states and individuals worldwide can challenge its illegality." I'm far less concerned about the legal issues, which get an airing here, or even the political ones. The resolution is inadequate, and probably doomed to failure, but do we really want to "block the implementation"? The pre-resolution baseline was genocide. The only path away was to get Israel and the US to agree to stop, which could only happen on terms favorable to those powers, and therefore far short of justice. While a better resolution would ultimately be better for all concerned, the immediate need is to hold Israel and America to the terms they've agreed to — starting with recognition of Israel's violations of the ceasefire, and Israel's continued aggression elsewhere (beyond the scope of the Gaza resolution). Moreover, even if Israel relents and honors the ceasefire, the delivery of aid, etc., Israel still merits BDS due to its treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and within the Green Line.

  • Philip Weiss [12-02]: The Israel lobby is melting down before our eyes: "The American Newish community is in open crisis over its support for Israel after two years of genocide in Gaza. A key issue in this crisis is a topic once considered too taboo to criticize the Israel lobby."

  • Ramzy Baroud [12-02]: The US-Israeli scheme to partition Gaza and break Palestinian will: "United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803 is destined to fail. That failure will come at a price: more Palestinian deaths, extensive destruction, and the expansion of Israeli violence to the West Bank and elsewhere in the Middle East."

  • Matt Seriff-Cullick [12-02]: Stop calling right-wing criticism of Israel 'anti-Zionism': "Recent comments by Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens have drawn more attention to right-wing critiques of US support for Israel., However, it is a serious mistake for those on the left to see this anti-Israel criticism as 'anti-Zionist.'" Response to pieces like Jeet Heer [11-07]: The return of right-wing anti-Zionism — and antisemitism. While it's generally the case that antisemites support, or at least endorse, Israel — it's local Jews they hate, and Israel offers a convenient option to rid themselves of Jews — while leftist critics of Israel are almost never antisemitic (we see diaspora Jews as our natural allies, and indeed many are among us). The primary motivators here are domestic politics, although the more Israel acts like a fascist state, the more consistent the left-right differences become. The subject here is the small schism of right-wing critics of Israel, who may well be antisemitic, but could just as well be driven by something else: especially the notion that Israel has been dragging the US into wars and/or globalization that impinges on their "America-first" fetishism. In this it helps to distinguish between pro-Israel (which is mostly about military dominance and alliance) and Zionist (which is about Jewish immigration to Israel). Right-wingers can favor Zionism while rejecting the notion that we need to send arms to Israel.

  • Joe Sommerlad [12-03]: Hilary Clinton claims TikTok misinformation is influencing young people's views on the Israel-Palestine conflict: "unreliable media on TikTok, making it difficult to have a 'reasonable discussion' about events in the Middle East." This is pretty short on details, but Clinton's remarks were delivered at "Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom's New York City summit," so her complaint seems to have less to do with "pure propaganda" than with whose "a lot of young Jewish Americans who don't know the history and don't understand" are exposed to.

  • Michael Arria:

  • Michael Leonardi [12-12]: The criminalization of solidarity: The global war on Palestinian voices and their supporters, from Israel to Italy and across the western world.

  • Eve Ottenberg [01-09]: By suspending 37 aid orgs is Israel pushing toward a final expulsion? "At the very least, the decision to cut loose every major Gaza humanitarian group could led to the utter collapse of Trump's peace plan."

  • Ramzy Baroud [01-18]: A war without headlines: Israel's shock-and-awe campaign in the west bank. I've always been skeptical of "shock and awe" as a military tactic: in order to be shocked, you have to survive, in which case whatever awe there may have been has been dissipated by the fact that it's now something you have survived. However, while a single blow dissipates, multiple poundings accumulate:

    In her book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein defines "shock and awe" not merely as a military tactic, but as a political and economic strategy that exploits moments of collective trauma — whether caused by war, natural disaster, or economic collapse — to impose radical policies that would otherwise be resisted. According to Klein, societies in a state of shock are rendered disoriented and vulnerable, allowing those in power to push through sweeping transformations while opposition is fragmented or overwhelmed.

    Though the policy is often discussed in the context of US foreign policy — from Iraq to Haiti — Israel has employed shock-and-awe tactics with greater frequency, consistency, and refinement. Unlike the US, which has applied the doctrine episodically across distant theaters, Israel has used it continuously against a captive population living under its direct military control.

    Indeed, the Israeli version of shock and awe has long been a default policy for suppressing Palestinians. It has been applied across decades in the occupied Palestinian territory and extended to neighboring Arab countries whenever it suited Israeli strategic objectives.

    In Lebanon, this approach became known as the Dahiya Doctrine, named after the Dahiya neighborhood in Beirut that was systematically destroyed by Israel during its 2006 war on Lebanon. The doctrine advocates the use of disproportionate force against civilian areas, the deliberate targeting of infrastructure, and the transformation of entire neighborhoods into rubble in order to deter resistance through collective punishment.

    Gaza has been the epicenter of Israel's application of this tactic. In the years preceding the genocide, Israeli officials increasingly framed their assaults on Gaza as limited, "managed" wars designed to periodically weaken Palestinian resistance.

There's no way to catch up on what's been happening in Israel, so let's just jump ahead to the last week or so, where we find the genocide little inconvenienced by Trump's so-called peace plan. For what little it's worth, I don't think Trump and Netanyahu are on the same page regarding Gaza: the former is fitfully pushing his peace/corruption agenda forward, while the latter sabotages it wherever possible, knowing that even when he has to bend a bit he can outlast his dullard opponent. And while it would be nice for the world to reject them both, it's easy to think that the US is the only party capable of influencing Israel, so the best we can possibly do is to go along with Trump. Given the people involved, it's a lose-lose proposition, but one hopes that not every loss is equal. And nobody's willing to risk bucking the trend. Russia, China, and Europe have their own problems with Trump, as do lesser powers like Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. None of them care enough about the Palestinians to make a stink. Nor are they inclined to risk anything for the principle of a more rational, more just world order.

  • Paul R Pillar [01-19]: Phase farce: No way 'Board of Peace' replaces reality in Gaza: "There is no ceasefire, no aid, no Hamas disarmament, IDF withdrawal or stabilization force. Just a lot of talk about Trump-run panels with little buy-in." According to Steve Witkoff, we are already in Phase Two of Trump's 20-Point Plan.

  • Davie Hearst [01-20]: 'Board of Peace': Trump is running Gaza, and the world, like a mafia boss.

  • Michael Arria [01-22]: Trump unveils so-called 'Board of Peace': "On Thursday, Donald Trump formally announced his so-called 'Board of Peace' during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The body has been widely criticized as an attempt by Trump to undermine the UN and 'takeover the world order.'"

  • Craig Mokhiber [01-22]: A world on its knees: Trump's 'Board of Peace' and the darkness it promises: "Donald Trump's 'Board of Peace' is the result of the world bowing before the global rampage of the US-Israel Axis. Once again, the Palestinian people are being offered as sacrifices, and along with them, the entire global system of international law."

  • Qassam Muaddi [01-22]: How Israel and the US are using the 'shock doctrine' to impose a new administration in Gaza.

  • Mitchell Plitnick [01-24]: The Middle East is at a tipping point as the US fuels crisis across the region: "Long-standing crises in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Sudan, Iraq, and Iran are deepening as the U.S. imprint on the Middle East shows no signs of weakening."

  • Michael Arria:

    • [01-22]: The Shift: Israeli-American Council summit was the latest reflection of Israel's failing brand.

    • [01-22]: Trump unveils so-called 'Board of Peace': Announced at Davos — kind of like the Balfour Declaration first appeared as a letter to the Rothschilds — "the body has been widely criticized as an attempt by Trump to undermine the UN and 'takeover the world order.'" While this article is as negative as you'd expect, you really need to read the "facts only" report in Wikipedia to get a sense of how truly deranged this organization is. Some of this was prefigured by Trump's Gaza peace plan, which led to the prisoner exchanges and Israel's half-hearted (and since oft-violated) agreement to a ceasefire and resumption of humanitarian aid to Gaza. That plan had some serious flaws, but it put the genocide on pause, and the fixes were obvious. My key points were:

      1. Israel has to leave Gaza, and cannot be allowed any role in its reconstruction.
      2. The people who still live in Gaza must have political control of their own destiny.
      3. The UN is the only organization that be widely trusted to guide Gaza toward self-government, with security for all concerned.

      I had some more points, especially on refugees, a right to exile, and reconstruction aid, but they concerned details. These three points are fundamental, and the only people who still dispute them are those who want the wars and injustices to continue. Unfortunately, their names are Netanyahu and Trump, and they are deeply invested in their atrocities and corruption. Trump's vision included a Gaza Executive Board, designed to bypass the UN, ignore the Palestinians, and keep Netanyahu and Trump involved. The Board of Peace adds additional layers: a superior Executive Board ("with a focus on diplomacy and investment"), the Board itself ("mainly leaders of countries": 60 were invited, to form an alternative to the UN, and finally its permanent chairman:

      Trump is explicitly named in the charter as the chairman of the Board of Peace. He is not subject to term limits and holds the sole authority to nominate his designated successor. Only he may invite countries to join the Board, according to the charter's delegation of the right to the chairman alone. As chairman, he also has the exclusive authority to create, modify, or dissolve subsidiary entities of the Board of Peace. All revisions to the charter, as well as administrative directives issued by the Board of Peace, are subject to his approval. Trump's chairmanship of the Board of Peace is independent of his presidency of the United States, and he has indicated that he wants to remain chairman for life.

      Also note that:

      Countries that wish to be permanent members of the Board of Peace must pay US$1 billion into a fund controlled by Trump; otherwise, each country serves a three-year term which may be renewed at his discretion.

      Trump has already withdrawn the invitation to Canada, after Prime Minister Mark Carney crossed him at Davos. The 7 initial members of the BoP Executive Board include Tony Blair and six Americans (Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner, along with billionaire Marc Rowan, Trump adviser Robert Gabriel Jr., and the India-born president of the World Bank, Ajay Banga). Four of them are also on the Gaza Executive Board (Witkoff, Kushner, Blair, and Rowan), along with representatives of several states (Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, UAE), two token UN representatives, and Israeli billionaire businessman Yakir Gabay.

      This is off-the-charts hubris even for Trump. It's hard to see how anyone else with an iota of intelligence and/or self-respect can even entertain such a notion. While hardly anyone is optimistic about this organization, it's also hard to find anyone who fully gets just how totally fucking insane the proposition is. This is just a quick sampling:

Russia/Ukraine: This has become the forgotten war. It's been a stalemate for several years, prolonged initially because Biden had no desire to negotiate, continued because Trump has no "art of the deal," and because Putin isn't losing enough to cut his losses. One thing that isn't clear to me is how intense the war has been in 2025. It does seem to have been much less intensely reported, perhaps because Trump sees less value in demonizing Russia so has cut back the propaganda effort, perhaps because an exhausted media has had to turn to many other conflicts.

  • Jackie Abramian/Artin Dersimonian [01-01]: Listening to what regular Ukrainians are saying about the war: "A number share their views on how to end what they are calling the 'conveyor belt of death.'"

  • MarkEpiskopos [01-06]: Despite the blob's teeth gnashing, realists got Ukraine right: "As usual, critics are still trying to launder their abysmal policy records by projecting their failures and conceits onto others." On this evidence, I'm not very impressed by the "realists" either.

  • Stavroula Pabst [01-07]: US capture of Russian-flagged ship could derail Ukraine War talks: "Experts say this could also give Europeans permission to seize Moscow's ships and kill relations." Refers to this, which suggests the target wasn't Russia but Venezuela:

  • Tamar Jacoby [01-07]: Germany's rearmament is stunning: "The country is determined to strengthen its armed forces in the wake of Moscow's aggression and Washington's volatility, but doing so doesn't come easily to a nation chastened by its past." I'm old enough to think that rearming Germany and Japan is backsliding of the worst sort, but the US has pursued both for decades now, and has customarily been indulged, mostly as a form of tribute. The US has few worries, given continued occupation of bases and control of the supply chain: US weapons are fragile and inefficient, which makes them both lucrative and harmless. But it's also a stupid waste on the part of the countries that indulge us, and it could easily become worse if/when Germany and Japan find they can no longer trust the US (which is certainly true with Trump). By the way, Jacoby's main beat is Ukraine, where Europe tends to be more hawkish than Trump (if not more hawkish than Biden). Recent pieces:

    • [10-23]: Can Europe turn tough talk on Russia into action? "Facing the Russian threat with less help from America, the continent forges closer ties to beef up defense."

    • [11-25]: Three lessons from Trump's latest plan for Ukraine: "Whatever emerges from US-Ukrainian talks in Geneva, nothing good is likely to come from this recipe for appeasing Moscow." But paranoia over "appeasement" is a recipe for perpetual war. This derives from the notion that the conflict is purely a power contest between Russia and NATO, both of which are unlikely to be phased by costs which are largely suffered by Ukrainians. We need to refocus this on finding a better outcome for the people involved.

  • Anatol Lieven [01-15]: If Europe starts attacking Russian cargo ships, all bets are off: "The consequences will be negative, from shattering the order it claims to defend all the way up to a possible nuclear confrontation."

Trump's War and Peace: We might as well admit that Trump's foreign policy focus has shifted from trade and isolation to war and terror.

  • Pavel Devyatkin [10-30]: Reckless posturing: Trump says he wants to resume nuke testing: "The president thinks he is signaling power to Russia and China but this could be the most dangerous gambit yet."

  • Jack Hunter [12-31]: 4 ways Team Trump reminded us of Bush-Cheney in 2025: "From WMDs to bombing Iran, the president who consistently mocked the GWOT is now pushing the same old buttons."

  • Vijay Prashad [12-02]: The angry tide of the Latin American far right. I know little about this, but the news, especially from nations that had leaned left of late (like Bolivia and Chile) seems grim. Popular anger against the establishment should favor the left, but periods of ineffective power only seem to revitalize right-wing politicians whose own period of power should have thoroughly discredited them.

  • Joshua Keating:

    • [12-02]: Why is Trump suddenly so obsessed with Honduras? "As the US considers strikes on Venezuela, another Latin American country has caught the president's attention."

    • [12-27]: Why is the US bombing Nigeria? "Humanitarian intervention, MAGA-style."

    • [01-06]: What is the "Donroe Doctrine"? "Trump's new approach to Latin America is a lot like America's old one." Evidently the New York Post coined the term "Donroe," which is where it should have died. My own coinage, which I haven't seen elsewhere (even though it's pretty obvious) is Bad Neighbor Policy — a reversion to the pre-FDR era that at the time was most often referred to as "Gunboat Diplomacy," or as Smedley Butler put it, "a racket." Of course, you can't exactly go back. America's old attitude toward Latin America was formed from a sense of racist superiority. Trump's is tinged with envy, especially for caudillos like Bolsonaro, Millei, and Nayib Bukele, who exemplify the abuse of power Trump aspires to. If Maduro really was the "narco-terrorist" of his indictments, Trump would probably love him.

  • Elie Mystal [12-03]: Pete Hegseth should be charged with murder: "Nop matter how you look at the strikes on alleged 'drug boats' — as acts of war or attacks on civilians — Hegseth has committed a crime and should be prosecuted."

  • Eric Levitz [12-03]: The twisted reason why Trump is bombing Venezuelan boats: "For this administration, war crimes are a feature, not a bug."

  • Blaise Malley [12-04]: Trump's USIP [United States Institute of Peace] rebrand wields an olive branch as a weapon: "Trump's name was added to the independent institute after his administration purged staff." It's now the "Donald J. Trump United States Institute of Peace," in honor of "the greatest dealmaker in our nation's history."

  • Andrew Ancheta [12-04]: Washington's gallery of puppets: "From Venezuela to Iran, the United States can always find ambitious would-be leaders willing to advocate regime change. But they don't have their countries best interests in mind."

  • Cameron Peters [12-04]: Trump's war crimes scandal, briefly explained: "War crimes allegations are engulfing the Pentagon after a deadly strike in the Caribbean."

  • Eldar Mamedov [12-30]: Five restraint successes — and five absolute fails — in 2025: "Trump's promise of an 'America First' realism in foreign policy has delivered not a clean break, but a deeply contradictory picture." I will note that the "successes" are relative and marginal, while the failures are Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Israel (which they soft-pedal, but is really much worse), and "Congressional derelict in of duty on War Powers."

  • Zack Beauchamp [01-05]: Donald Trump was never a dove: "How critics of American interventionism fell for a myth." These are all important points. I'd add several points. One is that while some "critics of American interventionism" defected to Trump (e.g., Tulsi Gabbard), in some ways the bigger problem was how so many supporters of American interventionism fell for the myth and flocked to support Harris (e.g., the Cheneys), and the welcome she showed them cemented her credentials as a warmonger (relatively speaking). My second point is that while Trump might not be as enthusiastic about war as some conservatives (e.g., Hitler, Netanyahu), he shares with virtually every other conservative a lust for violence in the support of power, and this is what in a pinch predisposes him to start wars that people with more democratic instincts would wish to avoid. My third point is that it was his opponents (Harris and Hillary Clinton, who both felt more need than Biden felt to signal "commander-in-chief toughness") who let Trump get away with his "man of peace" con. It shouldn't have been hard to expose Trump, but they didn't know how or dare try.

    The truth is that an unconstrained Trump, acting on his longstanding hawkish impulses, could cause all sorts of chaos in his remaining three years. While US military interventionism is very precedented, Trump's particular brand of it — naked pre-modern imperialism backed by a modern globe-spanning military — is not.

    Americans should be prepared for things to go very, very wrong.

  • Eric Levitz [01-06]: The one line that Trump's foreign policy still hasn't crossed: "After Venezuela, how far could Trump really go?" He's referring to sending large numbers of American troops into a hostile country. That may be a matter of time — the argument that he can't control a nation like Venezuela without putting troops in is hard to resist once you've decided that control you must — but for now it is also a matter of design. Trump is basically just a gangster, seeking tribute, employing extortion to get it. He will break any nation that resists. He won't promise to rebuild the nations he breaks. If they don't fall in line he'll just break them again. This, by the way, isn't an original idea. The neocons c. 2000 were very big on this idea, which like much of their mindset was based on Israel. Rumsfeld pushed this line viz. Iraq, but Bush couldn't let all that oil go to waste, so he set up a crony government and spent a debilitating decade trying to defend it, to little avail. I'm not going to argue that Trump is too smart to make that mistake again, but his basic attitudes — favoring hard power over soft, never making amends, complete disregard for however his acts impact other people — are consistent with Israel's ultra-nationalism writ large, on a global scale.

  • Ben Freeman/William Hartung [01-08]: The reality of Trump's cartoonish $1.5 trillion DOD budget proposal: "This dramatic escalation in military spending is a recipe for more waste, fraud, and abuse." While promoting "waste, fraud, and abuse" is by far the most likely rationale between any Trump increase in spending, one shouldn't overlook the name change from Department of Defense to Department of War, which would seem to imply a mission change way beyond ordering new stationery.

  • Michael Klare [01-08]: Plunging into the abyss: "Will the US and Russia abandon all nuclear restraints?" The New START treaty lapses on February 6, which is the last of the historic arms reduction treaties that Reagan and Bush negotiated with the Soviet Union in the 1980s. I don't know to what (if any) extent Putin wants to unshackle Russia from the agreements of the Soviet era, but several times during the Ukraine conflict he's threatened to use nuclear weapons should the US/Europe/Ukraine overstep imaginary "red lines." A sane US president would take this as a signal to tone conflict down, settle disagreements, and restore peaceful coexistence, but Trump isn't one, and in this regard I can't say much better of Biden and Obama. The neocons have been chafing at any sort of restrictions on American power since the 1990s, and they have a powerful lobbying ally in the nuclear industry, which has been pushing a $1.5 trillion "modernization" of an arsenal the only purpose of which is apocalypse. Not only is Trump's sanity open to question here, he is blatantly using the threat of US military and economic power to extort submissive behavior, including tribute, from friends and foes alike. He has crossed the fine line between legitimate business sharks and gangsters. And nowhere is that more dangerous than in unleashing an unbridled nuclear arms race.

  • Cameron Peters [01-09]: Trump's Greenland push, briefly explained: "Is Trump really serious about Greenland?" I doubt it, but we suffer from this cognitive limit, where we find it hard to comprehend that other people believe things that make no sense whatsoever. The real question with Trump isn't is he serious? It's can he get away with it? And he's getting away with a lot of crazy shit no one took seriously when he first broached it. Sometimes he does it as distraction — it's probably no accident that Greenland is back in the news after Venezuela. But once he floats an idea, it then becomes a test of his power, and he's always up for that. He certainly doesn't want or need Greenland for bases or business, as the US already has free access to all that. There's no reason to think he wants the people. The only reason I can come up with is that he looked at a Mercator map, which shows Greenland as huge, but also it would add a bit of visual symmetry with Alaska, like a pair of huge Mickey Mouse ears floating above the face of America. Maybe he also thinks that Canada will surrender once it sees itself surrounded on three sides. Or maybe he's just recycling 19th century fantasies of ever-expanding American imperialism? Is he really that stupid? Well, he's also embraced the idea of tariffs, which comes from the same period, and is every bit as discredited as colonialism and slavery — another old idea he's disconcertingly fond of.

    Other pieces on Greenland, some taking this seriously:

    • Fred Kaplan [01-08]: Trump is talking about taking over Greenland. The world is taking him seriously. He dismisses security concerns, and minerals, but does bring up an idea that has occurred to me: that Trump is easily fooled by the distortion of Mercator projection maps, which make Greenland look much larger and more strategic than it actually is. He notes alarm about US reliability, not just in Europe but in South Korea and Japan. "The world is very worried, and we should be too."

    • Ryan Cooper [01-08]: Donald Trump's degenerate plans for Greenland: "The worst president in history wants conquest for its own sake, even if it opens America up to nuclear attack."

    • Joshua Keating [01-08]: Can anyone stop Trump from seizing Greenland? "Europeans and Greenlanders are strongly opposed to an American land grab. But their options are limited." I can think of a few options if anyone wants to take this seriously:

      1. Expel the US from NATO. Cancel all existing US arms orders, and replace them (if needed) with European products (reverse engineering US ones if that helps, but most US weapons, like the F-35, are crap). Free from NATO, Europe could probably cut a better deal with Russia over Ukraine, etc., which might save them from having to re-arm. (I suspect that Russia fears independent European re-armament more than they do US global adventurism, which in any case is more focused on China.)
      2. Sanction the Trump family personally, including seizing their properties in Europe, and impounding their funds. This could be selectively extended, but they don't need to sanction all American businesses, or boycott American companies.
      3. Have the ICC file charges against Trump and his chief operatives, and not just over Greenland.
      4. Pull the plug on Israel. This can involve sanctions and trade restrictions.
      5. Overhaul intellectual property laws, to phase out American claims in Europe, or at least to tax exported royalties. I'm pretty certain that Europe would come out ahead if most or even all such laws were abolished. [PS: See Dean Baker [01-19]: Time for Europe to use the nuclear option: Attack US patent and copyright monopolies.]
      6. Shut down US bases in Europe, as well as agreements that allow US vessels to dock, planes to land or overfly, etc.

      It's time for Europeans to realize that the US isn't their friend, and that Trump in particular cannot be trusted and should not be appeased. Literally fighting to defend Greenland may be out of the question. And fueling a guerrilla operation to drive the Americans out, like happened in Afghanistan and Vietnam, could be a lot more trouble than it's worth. So sure, "options to stop it are limited," but so is America's desire to paint the map with its colors. And note that most of what I just suggested would be worth doing even without Trump's provocation in Greenland. The main thing that Trump is doing here is to drive home the point that after so many years of "going along to get along" America has led Europe into a dark and dreary cul de sac. Realization of that was bound to happen sooner or later. Trump will be remembered as the accelerant in the great bonfire of the Americas.

    • Pavel Devyatkin:

    • Lois Parshley [01-16]: The tech billionaires behind Trump's Greenland push.

    • Sam Fraser [01-17]: On Greenland, Trump wants to be like Polk: "The president's motivation isn't security or money, it's manifest destiny."

    • Kevin Breuninger/Luke Fountain [01-17]: Trump says 8 European nations face tariffs rising to 25% if Greenland isn't sold to the US.

    • Anatol Lieven [01-18]: Trump's new 'gangster' threats against Greenland, allies, cross line: "The president declares that he will tariff the life out of countries if they do not obey him."

    • Jeffrey Gettleman [01-19]: Read the texts between Trump and Norway's Prime Minister about Greenland: "In the exchange on Sunday, Norway's leader sought to 'de-escalate' the growing conflict over Greenland and Trump's latest tariff threat."

    • Jonathan Alter [01-21]: Greenland and the Benjamins: "There's a method behind Trump's madness and it's colored green." Greenland has lots of physical assets, and very few people to claim them, which makes the land ideal for Trump's kind of graft. Sure, this fits roughly into "an 19th and 18th century imperialism tradition, where big countries and big businessmen use these smaller and weaker countries to extract resources." But that's only part of the hustle:

      The new way they want to do this, ultimately, is through what are called crypto-states. The reason that Trump pardoned the former president of Honduras, who was a drug dealer, was because he and other conservatives in Honduras, plus Peter Thiel (JD Vance's mentor) and like-minded free-enterprise authoritarians (no longer a contradiction in terms) in the U.S., favor the establishment of an island state off the coast of Honduras that would be backed by non-transparent crypto and free of any regulation by the Honduran government.

      The goal now is to do the same with other countries, to create crypto-states attached to the Marshall Islands, Nigeria, Panama (one of the reasons Trump is going after the canal) and Greenland.

      These crypto-states would be unregulated, yielding huge profits not just for crypto bros, but for companies trying to extract resources, and for the politicians (and their families) who helped them do so.

    • Pavel Devyatkin [01-21]: Trump's threats against Greenland: When "national security" becomes imperial expansion: "America has become the threat its own allies need protection from."

    • Lukas Slothuus [01-21]: Trump's Greenland push is about global power, not resources: Interesting info here on mining on Greenland, which seems like a very long-term proposition at best. I don't really buy the "global power" argument either, at least beyond the matter of Trump ego.

    • Matt Stieb [01-25]: Will Trump's Greenland deal come with any actual benefits: Evidently, on his way home from Davos, Trump backed down from his Greenland threats and claimed victory with some kind of nebulous deal. Malte Humpert tries to explain.

    PS: An old friend of mine wrote on Facebook:

    I don't always agree with what President Trump says, but I trust him to do the right thing. As a 20 year military veteran, I know that Greenland is a vital part of our global defense. This share shows a long history of our involvement in Greenland. I believe Trump wants some form of alliance, treaty or more to secure our defense as well as the citizens of Greenland.

    I wrote a comment on this, but when I returned to Facebook, the post had disappeared:

    I never trust Trump to do the right thing. Even when he gets boxed in and forced to make a decent gesture, as when he finally told the Jan. 6 rioters to go home, he makes plain his discomfort. But the argument that there is some defense necessity for seizing Greenland is a flat out lie. The US already has all the alliances and treaties needed to build any imaginable defense network in Greenland. Moreover, the way he's going about this threatens to break NATO apart, which if you buy any of the US "defense" dogma is a much bigger risk than any possible gain in Greenland. I don't know what Trump's real reason for his aggressive pressure on Greenland is, because nothing I can think of makes much sense (even given his clearly deranged mind), but one thing I am sure of is that it has nothing to do with defense.

  • Peter Kornbluh [01-13]: Trump's predatory danger to Latin America: "The United States is now a superpower predator on the prowl in its "backyard."

  • Leah Schroeder [01-14]: Trump's quest to kick America's 'Iraq War Syndrome': "Experts say the 'easy' Venezuela operation is reminiscent of George H.W. Bush's 1989 invasion of Panama, which in part served to bury the ghosts of Vietnam." Not a very precise analogy, not least because it involves forgetting that the Panama operation wasn't as fast and easy as they'd like to remember. But even there, the key to success was getting out quickly — a lesson they ignored in invading Afghanistan and Iraq. But thus far, Venezuela is a far more limited operation than Panama was. It's more akin to the "butcher and bolt" small wars Max Boot writes about in his 2002 book, The Savage Wars of Peace, which was meant to affirm that "small wars" always work out fin, so don't worry, just fly off the handle and let the chips fly. Of course, at that point Afghanistan was still a "small war" in its "feel good" days, and Iraq was just another hypothetical cakewalk. Thus far, there is a big gap between what the US has done in Venezuela and Trump's talk about running the country. If he's serious, and with him it's impossible to tell, he's not going to kick anti-war syndrome, but revive it.

  • Edward Markey [01-15]: Donald Trump's nuclear delusions: "The president wants to resume nuclear testing. Is he a warmonger or just an idiot?"

  • Valerie Insinna [01-16]: First Trump-class battleship could cost over $20 billion: That's the CBO estimate, with follow-on ships in the $9-13 billion range.

    • Alfred McCoy [01-20]: Trump's foreign policy, the comic book edition: "How to read Scrooge McDuck in the age of Donald Trump." Refes back to Ariel Dorman's famous Marxist critique of capitalism, How to Read Donald Duck (1971). Plus ça change, . . .

    • Mike Lofgren [01-21]: The Trump-class battleship: Worst idea ever: "It's not just ruinously expensive; it would weaken the Navy." This opening is pretty amusing, but it's also rather sad to see critics resort to Bush-Obama-Biden madness to argue against Trump madness:

      It is virtually impossible to name a single initiative of Donald Trump's that isn't either supremely stupid or downright satanic. From dismantling public health to pardoning criminals who ransacked the U.S. Capitol to brazen international aggression, Trump and his toadies seem hell-bent on destroying the country. With help from Pete Hegseth and other Trump lackeys in the Pentagon, the president has set his sights on weakening the military that Republicans claim to love so fervently.

      I agree that they're "hell-bent on destroying the country," but I'd caution against confusing the country with the Navy. What I see in the battleship is a probably futile attempt to take a real and inevitable decline in strength and dress it up as egomaniacal bluster, especially as the latter's existence will surely tempt the egomaniac-in-chief to use it.

  • Peter Kornbluh [01-21]: Is Cuba next? "As the US attempts to reassert its imperial hegemony across the hemisphere, Havana is clearly in its crosshairs."

Trump Regime: Practically every day I run across disturbing, often shocking stories of various misdeeds proposed and quite often implemented by the Trump Administration -- which in its bare embrace of executive authority we might start referring to as the Regime. Collecting them together declutters everything else, and emphasizes the pattern of intense and possibly insane politicization of everything. Pieces on the administration.

  • Matt Sledge [11-26]: This commission that regulates crypto could be just one guy: an industry lawyer: "Mike Selig had dozens of crypto clients. Now he will be a key industry regulator."

  • Zack Beauchamp [12-03]: The dark reality behind Trump's new anti-immigrant policies: "His administration is now openly advancing a worldview built by white nationalists in the 2010s."

  • Umair Irfan [12-04]: Trump's anti-climate agenda is making it more expensive to own a car: "The president hates EVs. But is policies are making gas cars more expensive too."

  • Dylan Scott [12-05]: RFK Jr.'s anti-vax committee is recklessly overhauling childhood vaccine policy: "America's vaccine playbook is being written by people who don't believe in them."

  • Sara Herschander [12-05]: 200,000 additional children under 5 will die this year — thanks to aid cuts: "The historic increase in global child deaths, explained in one chart."

  • Cameron Peters [12-10]: The "Trump Gold Card," briefly explained: "A fast-tracked green card — for $1 million." Of course, where there's gold, platinum is sure to follow.

  • Merrill Goozner [12-17]: Trump's concepts of a non-plan on health care: "The so-called Great Health Care Plan would do next to nothing to lower overall costs or premiums paid by individuals, families, and employers."

  • Christian Paz [12-18]: Is the Trump administration just a reality TV show? "What influencers can tell us about Trump's second term." Inerview with Danielle Lindemann

  • Avishay Artsy/Noel King [12-21]: What does Trump's AI czar want? "David Sacks, Trump's go-to adviser on all things tech, may help decide who wins the AI race between the US and China." I seriously doubt there is an actual race, except perhaps to determine which vision of the future bottoms out first. A race implies a set of common goals. In America, the goal is what it always is: to build shareholder value for the companies that control the technology. In China, that may be part of it, but they may also have other factors to consider. Sacks is also "crypto czar," so he's no doubt up on all kinds of scams.

  • Dylan Scott [12-29]: The year measles came back.

  • Sophia Tesfaye [12-31]: Project 2025 has been a success — with the help of the press: "Too often, mainstream journalists treated Project 2025 as a claim to be adjudicated rather than a document to be analyzed. They asked whether it was 'Trump's plan' instead of examining how likely its proposals were to be implemented by a Trump administration staffed with its authors." Related here:

    • Amanda Becker/Orion Rummler/Mariel Padilla [12-22]: How much of Project 2025 has actually been accomplished this year? Quite a bit, but I think the key thing was how quickly and forcefully Trump seized control of and politicized the federal bureaucracy — something that conventional rules should have made very difficult. The key thing here was not just the policies being defined, but the personnel being lined up for a blitzkrieg. I don't think that DOGE was part of the Project 2025 plan, but it built on the model of seizing executive control, including the power to fire people and impound funds, thereby gaining an unprecedented amount of political control. So even if the media had recognized that Project 2025 was the master plan, and debunked Trump's denials of relationship or interest, they still would have come up short in anticipating the threat. I think that's because they had little insight into just who the Republicans were, and how committed they were to what they saw as their mission to save America and remold it in their own image. They knew full well that had Harris won, a good 80% of the issues she campaigned on would never have gotten off the ground — as indeed had been the case with Clinton, Obama, and Biden. Democratic campaign failures are not just due to the perfidy of the politicians. It's also because to change anything significant, they have to buck a lot of established but well hidden power centers (especially business lobbies). Republicans don't have that problem, and can easily ignore countervailing forces like unions, so they're able to move much more forcefully than Democrats or the media could ever imagine.

  • Miles Bryan [01-02]: How the US shut the door on asylum-seekers: "One of the most consequential changes to immigration in the US under Trump, explained." Interview with Mica Rosenberg, of ProPublica. I have several thoughts on this, including a certain amount of sympathy with the feeling that the US should limit the number of people it gives asylum to. But sure, I disapprove of the callousness and cruelty that Trump is campaigning on. There should be a universally recognized right to exile. One thing this would do is provide a firmer standard of applicability than the notion that anyone who has fears should be eligible for asylum. Also, from the exile's viewpoint, it shouldn't matter where they move, as long as the conditions that led to exile no longer exist. A right to exile doesn't mean a right to move to the US, or any other specific country. You could come up with a formula to make the distribution more equitable. You could also allow rich countries to pay other countries to fulfill their obligations. But this also sets up some criteria for rich countries to calibrate aid in ways that generate fewer exiles. That could include reducing gang crime, overhauling justice systems, promoting civil liberties, reducing group strife, restricting guns, better economic policies with wider distribution of wealth. The main forces driving people to emigrate are war, repression, economics, and climate change. Asylum policy, for better or worse, only treats the symptoms, not the problems. If Trump was serious about reducing the number of asylum seekers, he'd change his foreign policy (especially viz. Venezuela, but Somalia is another glaring example) to help people stay where they are.

  • Cameron Peters [01-05]: Trump's big change to childhood vaccines, briefly explained.

  • Arwa Mahdawi [01-13]: Stephen Miller wants us to fear him. Speaking of Miller:

  • Umair Irfan [01-14]: Trump's EPA is setting the value of human health to $0: "The agency's new math to favor polluters, explained." The whole idea of trying to run a cost-benefit analysis on public health hazards has always been fraught with moral hazard: who can, or should, say how much government or business should spend to save a life, or one's heath? There's no valid answer, and much room for debate in adjusting the cost-benefit models, there are two answers that are certainly wrong: infinity, which would make it impossible to do anything, no matter how unlikely the risks, and $0, which would allow everything, no matter how grave the risks. Trump's cronies just picked one of the wrong answers — the one that best fits their model of corruption. This is one of the worst things Trump has done to date. Moreover, this is going to have longer term consequences beyond the Trump administration: any project approved under these rules will be all that much harder, and more expensive, to kill in the future, and the sunk costs will be unrecoverable.

  • Cameron Peters [01-14]: The latest on Trump's weaponization of the DOJ, briefly explained: "A big week for Trump's DOJ doing what he wants."

  • Emma Janssen [01-16]: The student loan report the Trump administration didn't want published: "CFPB's whitewash of the report comes on the heels of repeated attempts to fire virtually the entire staff and defund the agency. . . . The bulk of the deleted content from Barnard's report focuses on the struggles borrowers face and the private student loan companies that exacerbate them."

  • Ryan Cooper [01-20]: How Trump doomed the American auto industry: "Ford and GM made a big bet on electrification. Then Trump plunged a knife into their backs."

    Almost all of the EV subsidies in the IRA were repealed, as part of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Now, thanks to that betrayal, plus Trump's lunatic trade and foreign policy in general, the American auto industry is bleeding out. . . .

    Contrary to the triumphalism of various EV critics, all this horrendous waste does not mean that the global EV transition is now in question. As I have previously detailed, in 2025 a quarter of global car sales were EVs, led by Southeast Asia, where the EV share of new car sales in several nations has soared past the 40 percent mark, with many more nations just behind. China, the largest car market in the world, went from almost zero to more than half in just five years. America's failure to gain a serious toehold in EV production — particularly very cheap models — is a major reason why the Big Three's share of the global auto market has fallen from nearly 30 percent in 2000 to about 12 percent today, while China's share has risen from 2 percent to 42 percent.

  • Brandon Novick [01-23]: Encouraging crime: settlement rewards Medicare Advantage fraud.

  • Spencer Overton [01-23]: 12 ways the Trump administration dismantled civil rights law and the foundations of inclusive democracy in its first year.

  • Corey G Johnson [01-24]: Complaint accuses Trump's criminal attorney of "blatant" crypto conflict in his role at DOJ: "Todd Blanche ordered changes to crypto prosecutions while owning more than $150,000 in digital assets."

Donald Trump (Himself): As for Il Duce, we need a separate bin for stories on his personal peccadillos -- which often seem like mere diversions, although as with true madness, it can still be difficult sorting serious incidents from more fanciful ones.

  • David Dayen [10-28]: Here's what Trump's ballroom donors want: "A comprehensive rundown of Prospect reporting on the companies that gave to Trump's monument to himself on the White House grounds."

  • Cameron Peters [12-02]: Trump's confounding pardon of a drug lord, briefly explained: "The former president of Honduras was convicted of trafficking cocaine. Why did Trump pardon him?"

  • Rebecca Crosby & Noel Sims [12-04]: Trump Jr.-backed startup receives $620 million Pentagon loan. This is followed by a related piece, "Trump family crypto scheme runs into trouble."

  • Jason Linkins [12-06]: Hey, does anyone want to talk about Donald Trump's infirmities? "He's clearly slipping, mentally and physically, but the political press suddenly finds it less newsworthy that we have a woefully aging president."

  • Constance Grady [12-08]: The Kennedy Center Honors continue Trump's vengeance on liberal Hollywood.

  • John G Russell [12-12]: Sgt. Trump: The art of implausible deniability: Starts by quoting Sgt. Schultz from Hogan's Heroes ("I know nothing"), a claim I've heard Trump saying many times.

    One would think Americans would have had enough of Trump's falsehoods. Credited with telling 30,573 lies during his first term, he repeats them so relentlessly that the media, numbed by their frequency, no longer bothers to keep count.

    Lies may endure forever, but liars themselves are mortal. At 79, Trump's days in political power are numbered, yet the damage he has wrought will outlast him. We must brace ourselves for a post-Trump America, one that, I fear, may prove as corrosive as his current reign. The Pandora's box he has opened has unleashed a flood of white supremacism, misogyny, xenophobia, and transphobia, leaving Hope to cower meekly inside. Whether that pestilence can ever be contained again remains uncertain, particularly as it thrives on post-Obama white racial resentment and dreams of restored hegemony.

    I'm less concerned about the "Pandora's box," which I believe remains long-term decline even without the inhibitions that before Trump made it less visible, than by how difficult it's going to be to restore any measure of public trust. It is for this reason that Democrats along Clinton-Obama-Biden lines have been shown to be total failures. Most of what Trump has been able to do has been made possible by the view that Democrats cannot be trusted. One result is that it will be even harder for Democrats to regain that trust.

  • Christian Paz:

    • [12-12]: Trump's support is collapsing — but why? "How Trump's winning coalition is unraveling in real time." This is mostly theories, with three offered to explain parts of the "coalition" that have gone wobbly:

      1. Low-propensity voters
      2. Affordability voters
      3. "New entrant" voters

      But aren't these all just variants on the theme of people who simply didn't know any better? That such voters exist at all is an indictment of the Harris messaging campaign, and the conflicted, confusing, and apparently corrupt stances of many Democrats. For Democrats to regain a chance, they're going to have to campaign for votes, and not just expect Republicans to drive voters into their arms, while they raise cash and spend it on ads nobody can relate to. One more point here: "affordability" isn't the only issue that Trump misled voters on and has since proven them to be naive at best and more likely stupid: what about all the folks who thought they wee voting against the Biden-Harris war machine?

    • [12-29]: The most volatile group of voters is turning on Trump: "There's a new line dividing young Americans." New polling shows: "Younger Gen Z men are more pessimistic about the state of the nation." They're also "slightly less likely to disapprove of Donald Trump," but the numbers there are from 64% to 66% for their 23-29 elders.

  • Garrett Owen [12-18]: Kennedy Center board vote to rename venue after Trump: "The president's hand-picked board voted to add his name to the performing arts venue."

  • Heather Digby Parton

    • [12-18]: Trump's primetime speech was a master class in gaslighting: "The president's false claims about economic conditions are the latest indication that he's in serious trouble."

    • [12-21]: Trump's crackdown on the left has decades of precedent: "The Justice Department's plans to target leftist organizations is taking alarming shape." This was in response to Trump's NSPM-7 (a presidential memorandum on "Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence"), targeting the phantom "antifa organization" or maybe just the general idea that fascism — or Trump, since he's the prime example of fascism these days — should be opposed. (For more, see Trump's orders targeting anti-fascism aim to criminalize opposition.) The "decades of precedent" reflects how easy it's always been to red-bait supporters of labor unions, civil rights, world peace, and freedom of speech, but is that still the case? Trump repeats the magic words about "radical leftists" endlessly, but who still listens to them? His true believers, and a few shell-shocked liberals whose cowardice and lack of principles helped the red-baiters run roughshod over decent, reform-minded people.

    • [01-01]: Trump's cultural coup is doomed to fail: "Artists are protesting Trump's Kennedy Center takeover — and creating art in defiance of his repression."

    • [01-08]: War has become fashionable again for the GOP: "The right's detour into pacifism under Trump was never going to stick."

    • [01-15]: Trump is something worse than a fascist: She's pushing for "tyrant": "an ancient word that should nonetheless be familiar to anyone who recalls the founding ideals of this country." But finding the perfect epithet is not the real point: each one illuminates (or doesn't) some facet of a more complex and fractious whole. The question is whether it helps you understand the problem Trump presents. But once you do understand, they're all pretty much interchangeable.

  • Ron Flipkowski:

    • [12-26]: 25 worst villains of the Trump admin: "The most difficult part of this exercise was only picking 25." Nonetheless, your favorites are here, with Stephen Miller at 1 ("the easiest selection"), followed by Howard Lutnick, Pete Hegseth, Russ Vought, and Todd Blanche, with Kristi Noem and Tom Homan down at 8 and 9.

    • [12-27]: 500 worst things Trump did in 2025: "A comprehensive list": This is just the first 100, which still leaves us in February, with more than 300 employees of the National Nuclear Security Admin fired then reinstated after they realized "no one has taken any time to understand what we do and the importance of our work to the nation's national security. Also: "After JD Vance met with the co-leader of Germany's far-AfD party, one German expert here in Munich said: 'First, America de-Nazified Germany. Now, America is re-Nazifying Germany.'"

  • Zack Beauchamp [12-16]: Trump's war on democracy is failing: "And it's his own fault." Author diagnoses something he calls "haphazardism." I think he's trying to impose reason on madness. Trump doesn't really care whether he kills democracy as a concept, as long as it falls into place and does whatever he wants. Maybe if he did have a master plan to destroy democracy, he'd do a more effective job of it. But actually, he's pretty much succeeding, even if he suffers occasional setbacks by making it look inept and, well, haphazard. And while haphazardism isn't as ruthlessly efficient as, well, Hitler, its incoherence offers a bit of deniability that lets people so inclined to cut him some slack. One can say something similar about Israel and genocide. Ineptness and inefficiency seems to be part of the plan, but both in terms of intent and practice, that's exactly what they're doing. Just not as efficiently as, well, Hitler.

    Beauchamp spends a lot of time quoting the following piece, which I'd argue is a good example how focusing on ideological terms like "democracy" and "authoritarianism" misses the mark:

    • Steven Levitsky/Lucan A Way/Daniel Ziblatt [12-11]: The price of American authoritarianism. Levitsky splits hairs arguing that Trump is running an "authoritarian government" but not an "authoritarian regime," because Trump's "systematic and regular abuse of power" is "likely to be 'reversed' in the near future." That's a novel definition of "regime," the only purpose being to posit a hypothetical system even worse than Trump's. I tend to use "regime" to describe any government, however stable or fleeting, that flaunts and abuses its power. Trump may not do that 100% of the time, but he's gone way beyond any previous norms, which is why I'm more inclined to say "regime" than "administration." What's new with Trump isn't ideology but an opportunism that is rooted in a gangster mentality: the power has long been there when presidents want to abuse it, but Trump has done so to an unprecedented degree. That's because gangsters believe in force, don't believe in limits, and pursue wealth and power until someone stops them.

  • Cameron Peters [01-06]: Trump's January 6 victory lap: "Five years later, the White House is still rewriting January 6."

  • Dustin DeSoto/Astead Herndon [01-07]: How Trump brought the World Cup to America: "The Trump-FIFA connection, explained."

  • Moustafa Bayoumi [01-13]: 2026 is already pure chaos. Is that Trump's electoral strategy? The key argument here is that Trump wants to take the challenge of making himself the central issue in the 2026 Congressional elections. This shows a degree of partisan commitment that recent Democratic presidents never even hinted at. Trump understands that he needs loyal Republicans to implement his extremist programs, whereas the Democrats rarely tried to do anything Republicans didn't buy into. It also expresses confidence that Trump's charisma is so strong he can motivate his most clueless voters to come out and vote as he directs. That's a big ask given that Democrats have been much more motivated in midterms where Republican presidents were the issue (e.g., in 2006 and 2018). It also depends on Trump being much more popular in November 2026 than he is now, or ever has been.

  • Sasha Abramsky [01-16]: The week of colonial fever dreams from a sundowning fascist: "The news was a firehose of stories of authoritarian behavior. We can't let ourselves drown."

  • New York Times Editorial Board [01-17]: For Trump, justice means vengeance: Well, where do you think he ever got such a stupid idea? It's almost impossible to watch a cop or law and order show and not be told that the good guy's chief motivation is "to get justice" for someone. And that almost always boils down to vengeance. I've never managed to read John Rawls' much-admired A Theory of Justice, which evidently ties justice to a concept of fairness, but I'm probably fairly close in asserting that the point of justice is to restore one's faith in the fair ordering of society. That suggests to me that the pursuit of justice can never be attained by simply balancing off injustices. Any punishment the state metes out must make the state appear to be more just than it appeared before. Vengeance doesn't do that. Vengeance just compounds injustice, in the vain hope that somehow two wrongs can make a right. Ergo, Trump's pursuit of vengeance (or redemption, as he often calls it), is anti-justice.

    PS: In looking up Rawls, I see that Robert Paul Wolff wrote Understanding Rawls: A Reconstruction and Critique of A Theory of Justice (1977). That's out of print, but probably the place to start. I read several of Wolff's books early on — A Critique of Pure Tolerance, The Poverty of Liberalism, In Defense of Anarchism — probably before I went to college. Those books showed me that it was possible to derive intuitively correct moral postulates from reason alone, and that in turn convinced me to use reason to try to find my way out of schizophrenia (at least as Bateson defined it). More than anything else, I owe those books my life, and what little I have accomplished in the 55 years since I read them.

    By the way, here's a brief quote from Wolff's A Credo for Progressives:

    The foundation of my politics is the recognition of our collective interdependence. In the complex world that we have inherited from our forebears, it is often difficult to see just how to translate that fundamental interdependence into laws or public policies, but we must always begin from the acknowledgement that we are a community of men and women who must care for one another, work with one another, and treat the needs of each as the concern of all.

    In my formulation of this, "complex" is of critical importance, as the more complex life becomes, the more trust matters, and that in turn depends on justice, in the sense of confirming that the world is ordered in a fair and reasonable manner.

  • Melvin Goodman [01-19]: Donald Trump, poster child for megalomania:

    Megalomaniac: Someone with an extreme obsession for power, wealth, and self-importance, characterized by grandiose delusions of being more significant or powerful than they are, often linked to a tenuous grip on reality.

    "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken, "Baltimore Evening Sun," 1920.

    The mainstream media continues to describe Donald Trump as an "isolationist," or a "neo-conservative," or more recently as an "imperialist." These terms are irrelevant; the term that should be applied is "megalomaniac" or "narcissist." These terms fit Trump and help to understand the threat he poses to the peace and security of the United States and much of the global community.

    As he notes, "Trump's narcissism has been on display for decades. What turns narcissism into megalomania is power.

  • Harold Meyerson [01-20]: 25th Amendment time for Mad King Donald: "His narcissism has become psychotically megalomaniacal." I expect a regular stream of 25th Amendment pieces, but the chances of his hand-picked cabinet of cronies taking his keys away are extremely slim, even if he was basically a good sport, which he isn't. His staff are even less likely to move against him (as we saw with Biden). And sure, this article mentions Mad King George III, but not that he ruled for 43 years after he lost the American colonies in 1776.

  • Ed Kilgore [01-22]: Trump only accepts polls that proclaim his greatness. Trump polls seem to be part of Kilgore's beat:

  • Trump in Davos:

    • Sasha Abramsky [01-23]: At Davos, the world watched the rantings of a despot: "President Donald Trump has turned his back on the liberal world order — and Europe is unlikely to follow." While I don't doubt that Europe would be wise to break with Trump, I'm not optimistic, either that they will, or that they'll opt for something better. Right now, Europe is much more hawkish over Ukraine than the US is. While Obama did most of the dirty work in Libya, it was largely at Europe's behest — Libya meant little to the US (or Israel), but much to France and Italy. More generally, while Europe is more "social democratic" than the US, in theory at least, the EU is pretty completely in thrall to neoliberal ideologists, and the continent is chock full of revanchist right-wing parties, making it more likely that an anti-US backlash will come from the right than from the left.

    • Heather Souvaine Horn [01-23]: Trump's terrifying Davos speech is a wake-up call to the global elite: "The World Economic Forum has long suggested that its annual lavish party is about saving the world. Trump just shredded that myth."

    • Sasha Abramsky [01-23]: At Davos, the world watched the rantings of a despot: "President Donald Trump has turned his back on the liberal world order — and Europe is unlikely to follow."

    • Margaret Hartmann [01-21]: The 12 stupidest moments from Trump's Davos speech.

  • Margaret Hartmann: She's been busy of late, as her main theme is "Trump's stupidest moments":

We should also make brief mention of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's Davos speech, which provided a stark contrast and a rare moment of opposition to Trump:

Democrats:

  • Timothy Shenk [09-29]: Democrats are in crisis. Eat-the-rich populism is the only answer. Much here on Dan Osborn, whose independent campaign for a Senate seat from Nebraska in 2024 fell 7 points short, in a state where Trump beat Harris by 20. His pitch: "a blistering assault on economic elites, a moderate stance on cultural issues and the rejection of politics as usual." But he also talks about Mamdani, and what they have in common. This is the first piece in a series, which doesn't look all that promising — devoted Israel war hawk Josh Shapiro is "the future of the Democrats"?

  • Zach Marcus [11-12]: Draining the online swamp: "Instead of accepting the existing digital political battlefield as inevitable, Democrats should challenge it as a root cause of our dysfunctional politics, and vow to be the party that cleans it up." When I saw this article, I was hoping for something rather different, but this is a big subject, with many components, and eventually some things that I would focus on do show up in the fine print. But the key points are: (1) the online cybersphere is indeed a swamp, where money functions like water in physical swamps, and could just as well be drained; (2) Democrats should see draining this swamp as a political opportunity, not with a view toward biasing politics in their direction, but because the swamp is imposing hardships on literally everyone. A large book could be written about this: abuse comes in many forms, but it mostly comes down to attempts to profit: to sell or solicit, directly or through by exploiting information. One should take care, as few politicians do, not to impose their own moral and political stances. But any serious effort to cut back the scams and fraud is bound to be popular, and how hard can it be to have a significant impact? What is hard is getting Democrats to see that they need to do a much better job of serving their voters than their current focus, which is raising money from the exploiters.

  • Virginia Heffernan [12-05]: No, progressives don't want "purity." They just want some courage. "When left-leaning Democrats complain about corporate influence, it's not a 'purity test.' It's a demand for a better politics."

  • Elizabeth Warren [01-12]: Elizabeth Warren's Plan for a Revived Democratic Party: "The Massachusetts senator argues that, in order to prevail in the midterms, the party needs to recover its populist roots — and fighting spirit."

  • Erica Etelson [01-15]: Democrats really can compete in rural America: "The results for the 2025 election cycle send a powerful message regarding strategies that connect outside of urban centers." Given who they're running against, Democrats should be able to compete in literally every district in America.

  • Perry Bacon [01-21]: Abigail Spanberger's first move as Virginia Gov. was a masterstroke: "Even moderate Democrats can be boldly anti-MAGA. Other centrist Democrats should follow her example." What she did was move to force the resignation of several Republican appointees to university boards. That's the sort of thing Trump has done like crazy, and the people she's replacing are the sort of partisan hacks Trump has been appointing.

Republicans: A late addition, back by popular demand, because it isn't just Trump, we also have to deal with the moral swamp he crawled out of:

Economy and technology (especially AI): I used to have a section on the economy, which mostly surveyed political economics. Lately, I run across pieces on AI pretty often, both in terms of what the technology means and is likely to do and in terms of its outsized role in the speculative economy. I suspect that if not now then soon we will recognize that we are in a bubble driven by AI speculation, which is somewhat masking a small recession driven largely by Trump's shutdown, tariffs, and inflation. In such a scenario, there are many ways to lose.

  • Robert Wright [01-23]: Which AI Titan should you root for? He makes something of a case for Demis Hassabis ("head of Google's DeepMind"). While the technology is difficult enough to understand, the business models are even harder to grasp, because they are based on very large bets on very strange fantasies of world domination. In this world, even a tiny bit of self-conscious scruples seems to count for a lot. Still, this is shaping up as a race to the bottom, where even tiny scruples will be quickly discarded as signs of weakness.

  • Jez Corden [11-29]: OpenAI is a loss-making machine, with estimates that it has no road to profitability by 2030 — and will need a further $207 billion in funding even if it gets there. I'm not even trying to follow things like this, but somehow found the tab open, and decided to note before closing. My impression is that most tech companies over the last 30-40 years have been overvalued without a realistic profit path, but a small number of survivors seem to be reaping the monopoly rents the speculators hoped for. Still, it wouldn't be hard to deflate them if we had the insight and political will.

  • Robert Kuttner [12-01]: Sources of America's hidden inflation: "How market power jacks up prices, and how Trump's policies add to the pressure." I've been alluding to this often of late, so it's nice to see so many of these points being made.

  • Ronald Purser [12-01]: AI is destroying the university and learning itself: "Students use AI to write papers, professors use AI to grade them, degrees become meaningless, and tech companies make fortunes. Welcome to the death of higher education." I'm not sure this is the right analysis, and not just because I don't have much love for the old meritocracy that is being wrecked, and not just becuase it never secured much merit in the first place. The "system" has always been crooked, which is something folks with the right skills or hunches have always been able to take advantage of. AI changes the rules, which means that different strategies and different people will win, and some of that will seem unjust. I personally know of a recent case in Arkansas where an AI program was used by a school to detect possible AI use and falsely accused the bright daughter of a friend of cheating. We had a long and fruitless discussion after this on how can someone so charged prove that the AI program is wrong, but the more important question is why does it matter? Which gets us back to politics: in your hypothetical meritocracy, do you want the "merit" (for more people) or the "ocracy" (to empower and enrich the few)? The stock bubble behind the AI companies assumes that AI can be monopolized (kept artificially scarce) allowing its masters extraordinary powers over everyone else. Does anyone but a few monomaniacal entrepreneurs actually want that? Much more that can be unpacked here.

    As for the death of higher education, Jane Jacobs analyzed that in her 2004 book, Dark Age Ahead, where higher education was one of the five "pillars of civilization" she identified decay in (the others were: community and family; science; government; and culture. In education, she blamed the focus shifting from learning to credentialism. I think that shift largely happened in the 1980s, when conservatives decided that education should be reserved for elites, and enforced that by jacking up the costs to ordinary people, creating scarcity and desperation, while the rewards for avarice became ever greater. While AI may be useful as a tool for learning, its applicability to scamming credentialism is much more obvious. I'm not someone who believes that technology is "value neutral," but the values of the politico-socio-economic system do have profound effects on how any given technology is used.

  • Eric Levitz [12-17]: Can money buy Americans happiness? "The real cause of America's 'vibecession.'" Part of a series on The case for growth ("supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures"), the point of which is that the "degrowth movement" is wrong, because, well, "more is more." These arguments seem shallow to me. Sure, there are areas where growth would still help. But there are other areas where all you really need is better distribution. And there are other areas where we already have too much, and would be better off slowing down, or even reversing course. To my mind, "degrowth" is a useful conceptual tool, one that moves beyond the kneejerk notion that growth fixes everything. Some (not all) more pieces in the series:

    • Andrew Prokop [12-12]: Why America gave up on economists: "Both parties have turned their backs on traditional economic advice. Is the country paying the price?" Seems like a lot of false equivalence here. Republicans use economists to ratify their schemes, and sometimes applaud a crackpot idea that they can use (e.g., the Laffer Curve), but they make little pretense of following economics, and will readily dispose of any arguments that question their pet projects (like Trump's tariffs). Clinton and Obama, on the other hand, sought out neoliberal economists and gave them a lot of power, because they start from shared pro-business principles. Biden too, except that a few past figures (like Larry Summers) have been discredited. Prokop offers an example where Democrats supposedly have broken with economic orthodoxy, but I've never seen any evidence of it: price controls. (Unless he means rent control, which is a way to address certain market failures?)

    • Bryan Walsh [12-06]: Breaking free of zero-sum thinking will make America a wealthier country: "The affordability crisis is a growth crisis." Title is true. Subtitle is false, stuck in a mindset that sees growth as a panacea. That so much is unaffordable is only partly due to scarcity (which in many cases is deliberately imposed). It's mostly due to systematic maldistribution.

    • Marina Bolotnikova [12-19]: We need to grow the economy. We need to stop torching the planet. Here's how we do both. "Let's fix the two massive efficiency sinks in American life." She identifies those two "sinks" as "animal agriculture" and cars, and spends most of the article attacking them (and implicitly those of us who like and want them), all the while insisting that vital growth would be much better elsewhere.

  • Ryan Cooper [12-23]: Bari Weiss is the propagandist Donald Trump deserves: "The would-be dictator would get a much better class of censor if his regime didn't hoist the biggest morons in the country in to leadership positions." I'm reminded of an old adage attributed to David Ogilvy: "First-rate people hire first-rate people. Second-rate people hire third-rate people." That's far enough down the slope to make the point, although with Trump and his flunkies, perhaps you should denote inferior classes. Trump seems to hire people who are unfit for any other job. Sure, Weiss only indirectly works for Trump, but his worldview infects his supporters.

  • James Baratta [01-08]: Ransomware recovery firms share in the hacking spoils: "Incident response firms negotiate with hackers while also processing payments to them, leading to potential betrayals of their clients' trust." Sounds like the principal-agent problem, or more specifically the risks of trusting agents who are also paid by other sources (which is most of them these days, even without considering self-interest conflicts). Needless to say, the problem is worse in high-inequality societies, especially where marginal variations take on considerable importance. The greater the inequality, the harder it is to trust anyone. America is more inequal now than ever before, which is reflected in the dissolution of trust.

  • Adam Clark Estes [01-10]: AI's ultimate test: Making it easier to complain to companies: "Imagine actually enjoying a customer service experience." Sure, it could work, sometimes. I like the idea of being able to get answers without having to interact with workers, but I've rarely connected with something the robots could actually answer or handle, so we spend a lot of time thrashing, which is aggravating to me, but of course neither the machine nor the company care. AI is mostly used these days to insulate companies from human contact with customers, and to train customers into expecting less service. Perhaps if we had competitive companies, such tactics would be self-limiting, but more and more we don't.

  • Constance Grady [01-10]: Grok's nonconsensual porn proble is part of a long, gross legacy: "Elon Musk claims tech needs a 'spicy mode' to dominate. Is he right?"

  • Harold Meyerson [01-19]: A new low for American workers: "The share of American income going to labor is at its lowest level since measurements began."

  • Jeffrey Selingo [01-20]: The campus AI crisis: "Young graduates can't find jobs. Colleges know they have to do something. But what?" Starts with a young college graduate who applied to 150 jobs, to no avail. "How much AI is to blame for the fragile entry-level job market is unclear." The author sees an analogy to his own college years, 1991-94, when the Internet suddenly became a big thing, causing disruptions as colleges had to scramble to seem relevant — as they are doing now with programs like "AI Fluency." I'm afraid I don't have any insight here. AI still strikes me as a lot of hype wrapped around a few parlor tricks, most of which have very little relevance to the core economy of goods and services. But then no one can see the future, or even the present. All we can do is look back, and try to imagine what that portends. But the 1990s analogy reminds me of Robert Reich's 1991 book The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for 21st Century Capitalism, where he came up the the idiotic idea that we didn't need manufacturing jobs anymore, because we'd just get high-paying jobs as "symbolic manipulators" and everything would be wonderful. His buddy Bill Clinton read that and saw it as a green light to implement NAFTA. We're still reeling from the consequences of Reich's fantasy. (Clinton may have realized what would happen to US manufacturing, and simply not cared, but was he prescient enough to anticipate the damage to Mexican agriculture, the subsequent explosion of emigration to the US, and the repercussions for American jobs and politics?) About the only thing I'm sure of viz. AI is that if Reich's cornucopia of "symbolic manipulator" jobs had occurred, AI would devastate them, because symbolic manipulation is literally all that AI does and can ever do. Sure, it may, like all stages since the dawn of computing, contribute some productivity, but we'll still depend on real people doing real work for everything we need to sustain life.

Miscellaneous Pieces

The following articles are more/less in order published, although some authors have collected pieces, and some entries have related articles underneath.

Spencer Kornhaber [05-05]: Is this the worst-ever era of American pop culture? "An emerging critical consensus argues that we've entered a cultural dark age. I'm not so sure." I don't recall why I opened this loose tab — possibly because the article opens with a quote from Ted Gioia, who used to be a reliable Jazz Critics Poll voter but abandoned us as he became a Substack star. So, unable to read the piece, I asked Google to summarize it, and got this gibberish back:

Spencer Kornhaber's "Is This the Worst-Ever Era of American Pop Culture?" argues that modern pop culture suffers from stagnation, cynicism, isolation, and attention rot, driven by nostalgia-focused economics (IP, old music catalogs), identity politics stifling creativity, technology fostering loneliness, and algorithmic distractions eroding focus, leading to a "gilded age" of superficially polished but shallow content. While acknowledging real problems like AI and pandemic disruptions, Kornhaber explores this "narrative of decay" in music, film, and art, but also discusses potential counter-narratives and signs of hope. . . .

Kornhaber suggests these issues create a paradox: a Gilded Age where prestigious shows look amazing but lack substance, and where technological abundance paradoxically leads to cultural scarcity and decline. He questions if it's truly the worst era, but details the significant challenges facing creators and consumers, pointing to a breakdown in cultural progress and originality.

Google also offered a link to:

My own thought on this is that culture increasingly became wedded to big business over the 20th century, but the bindings have started to fall apart, as artists are becoming less dependent on capital, and capital is less able to profit from art. As a consumer, or just as a person with the luxury of some leisure time beyond what it takes to satisfy baser needs, I don't see this as, on balance, a particularly bad thing. While capitalism promoted art in the 20th century, there is every reason to expect art to continue being created even without the profit motive. The art will be different: it will be smaller, less flashy, more personal, more in tune with people's feelings, as opposed to the ubiquitous sales schemes of the culture industry. I can think of numerous examples, especially in jazz — which is much more vital as an art than as a business.

On the other hand, I'm pretty vigilant about picking the music I listen to, the video I see, the links I follow, and so on. So I'm inclined to think I'm relatively immune to the effects found in Kyle Chayka: Filterworld: How Algorithms Flattened Culture, but it's hard to be sure, and they've certainly warped the size and shape of everyday culture. It's hard to maintain any semblance of control when you're constantly bombarded by too any options: a state which reduces both creators and consumers while extracting maximal shares for the platform.

Lulu Garcia-Navarro [10-18]: The culture wars came for Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales is staying the course. Interview, airs out numerous political attacks on Wikipedia, mostly from people who don't understand facts, or who understand them all too well. Kurt Andersen linked to this, and commented: "Reading this Jimmy Wales interview reminded me in our Fantasyland age what a remarkable and important creation it is. True pillar of civilization. Runs on only $200 million a year. Requires out support. So I'm finally donating." By the way, Wales has a book, The Seven Rules of Trust: A Blueprint for Building Things That Last.

Current Affairs [07-16]: Rent control is fine, actually: "Regulating rent prices is often called 'bad economics.' But it isn't. The effects of rent control are complex." Unsigned, but substantial article, covering most of the bases. A still more obvious point is in the very name: although "rent" is a word most often used regarding housing, the word itself has more general economic significance, in that it represents any profits in excess of free competition. It is, in other words, a market failure, which can only be constrained by regulation.

Alex Skopic [10-09]: This is why you don't let libertarians run your country: "In Argentina, President Javier Milei has screwed the economy up so badly he needs a $20 billion bailout. That's because his 'free market' economics don't actually work."

Even more so than Donald Trump to his north, Milei was the kind of erratic crackpot you can see coming a mile off. This was a man who dressed up in a superhero suit to sing sad ballads about fiscal policy, "floated legalizing the sale of human organs" on the campaign trail, and told reporters he takes telepathic advice from his dogs, who are clones of his previous dog. You didn't need any special insight to know he wasn't leadership material. But even those personal foibles would be inoffensive, even charming, if Milei had a sound economic agenda. More than the psychic dogs or the yellow cape, the really unhinged thing about him was that he took libertarianism seriously, aiming to slash the functions of the Argentinian state wherever he could. Now, Milei is facing a spiraling series of crises, from unemployment to homelessness to the basic ability to manufacture anything. He should serve as a big, red alarm bell for people far beyond Argentina's shores — because right-wing leaders in the U.S. and Britain are explicitly modeling their economics on his, and if they're not stopped, they'll lead us to the same disastrous end point.

Bad as this sounds:

Dean Baker: This is mostly catching up, but doesn't include every post, especially in December, but most are worth noting:

  • [12-08]: In search of Donald Trump's booming economy: "Trump's claims of historic economic success collapse under data showing rising costs, declining manufacturing, and no evidence of his imagined investment boom."

  • [12-13]: Jeff Bezos uses the Washington Post to promote inequality: "The Washington Post's defense of massive CEO pay illustrates how billionaire-owned media justify inequality despite weak evidence that it benefits workers, shareholders, or society." Refers to a column by Dominic Pino [12-11]: Starbucks's CEO was paid $95 million. It could be worth every cent. The rationale is: "Brian Niccol's compensation history reflects a turnaround skill that can mean billions of dollars."

  • [12-21]: How many manufacturing jobs has Trump actually lost? "More comprehensive employment data show manufacturing job losses under Trump may be worse than standard monthly reports suggest."

  • [12-23]: Donald Trump wants us to pay more for electricity because he is angry at windmills: "Trump's move to cancel wind projects will increase power costs, kill jobs, and slow the clean energy transition."

  • [12-27]: Washington Post's Trumpian ideology boils over: "A critique of Washington Post editorials that distort healthcare and EV economics to align with Trump-style ideology."

  • [12-28]: Did Mark Zuckerberg throw $77 billion of our money into the toilet? "Mark Zuckerberg's $77 billion Metaverse gamble wasn't just a corporate misstep, but a massive diversion of talent and resources with real economic costs as Big Tech now pours even more money into AI." I think what he's saying here is that when a company blows a huge amount of money, that's not just a book loss for the investors, it's also an opportunity loss for everyone. I'm not sure where he wants to go with this, but I'm tempted to say that tech companies aren't necessarily good judges, especially as so many of their schemes are little better than scams.

  • [01-05]: Venezuela will pay for its own reconstruction: "Comparing Iraq in 2003 to Venezuela today shows that Trump's claims of an easy, self-financing intervention are far less believable than Bush's already-failed promises." While the analogies are too obvious to ignore, the differences may matter more. In 2003, there were real fears of running low on oil, so bringing more oil to market could be seen as a general economic gain, even if the oil companies would prefer to just drive the prices up. But we have a glut of oil right now, and that's with Venezuela, Iran, and Russia largely out of the market. So I wouldn't bet on Trump wanting to reconstruct Venezuela, regardless of who plays for it.

  • [01-05]: Walz pulls out: chalk up another one for racism, coupled with Democratic Party and media ineptitude: "Tim Walz's exit shows how exaggerated fraud claims, media failure, and racialized politics can end Democratic careers."

  • [01-07]: Trump's United States as number three: "Trump's threats and economic bluster ignore the reality that the US is now only the world's third-largest economy and increasingly isolated from larger democratic blocs." Behind China and Europe (EU + United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Norway). Lots of smaller economies are also gaining ground: add them together and the US could slip a notch. Baker cites several examples where Trump's tariffs failed because the US simply didn't have the economic muscle to enforce them. That leaves American superiority in arms, which may explain why Trump is becoming increasingly trigger-happy, but converting that to genuine economic power may be difficult:

    Ordinarily, the old line about herding cats would apply here, but a government that claims it can do anything it has the military force to do can help focus minds. Hitler managed to bring together Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin. Trump may have a comparable effect in uniting the world today.

  • [01-08]: Donald Trump's $6 trillion tax hike and increase in military spending: "Trump's $600 billion military plan would be financed by higher tariffs that raise prices for US consumers." But surely it wouldn't just be tariffs paying for this. Income taxes are a more practical option. If that's impossible, and it goes straight to the deficit, won't it ultimately be paid for with inflation? And what about opportunity costs? Imagine spending that kind of money on something actually useful. Then, of course, there are risks: the chance that some of these extra weapons will be used in wars, and everything that entails. Risks on that level cannot even be hedged against.

  • [01-09]: Jobs report and remembering Renee Good "The official response to the killing of Renee Good — marked by falsehoods from Trump administration figures — signals a dangerous erosion of accountability for state violence."

  • [01-12]: Three bad items and three good items in the December jobs report: "The December jobs report shows a softening labor market, with higher underemployment offset by lower unemployment and slightly faster wage growth."

  • [01-12]: Donald Trump, Mineral Man, vs. sodium batteries: "Trump's mineral strategy is undermined by China's move toward sodium batteries that make lithium less critical."

  • [01-13]: The billionaires and the November election: "Markets barely reacted after Trump moved to threaten the independence of the Federal Reserve."

  • [01-14]: Trump takes responsibility for post-pandemic inflation: Trump's attempt to blame Biden for inflation nearly a year into his term undercuts his own record and exposes the lagged effects of Trump-era policies."

  • [01-15]: Can the AI folks save democracy? "The AI stock bubble is sustaining Trump's political support — and its collapse could change US politics fast."

  • [01-16]: We're paying the tariffs #53,464: "Import price data confirm that Trump's tariffs are largely a tax on Americans, not foreign countries.

  • [01-19]: Trump wants to hit us with a huge tax hike for his demented Greenland dreams: "Trump's Greenland fixation would hit Americans with a massive tariff tax while serving no real security or economic purpose."

  • [01-19]: Time for Europe to use the nuclear option: Attack US patent and copyright monopolies: "Trump's Greenland obsession would raise prices for Americans, while Europe has a far more effective response by suspending US patent and copyright protections." As I noted under Greenland above, this is the kind of medicine that's actually good for you.

  • [01-21]: Patent applications drop 9.0 percent in 2025: not good news: I doubt the signal here is as strong as Baker thinks, but that Trump is having a negative impact on research and development is almost certainly true, and only likely to get worse. The obvious one is that many (most?) engineers in America are immigrants, and Trump is trying to drive them away. He's also undermining education, and any sort of culture of innovation. His tariffs help companies profit without having to compete, and amnesty for criminals will only make fraud more attractive. But I don't feel sad here, because I think patents are bad in general. By the way, Baker also has a section on "The Imagined Crisis: China Running Out of People." This is, of course, wrong on many levels.

  • [01-23]: Spending under Trump: drugs up, factories down. Trump claims "he lowered drug prices 1,500 percent and we're bringing in $18 trillion in foreign investment." The former is mathematically impossible, and the latter is nearly as absurd. And that's without even going into the question of what foreign investment does to a country: mostly it means that they own it, and now you're working for them.

  • [01-24]: Mark Carney: world hero: a take on the Canadian Prime Minister's Davos speech, also noted elsewhere.

  • [01-25]: When it comes to the stock market, Trump is a loser.

  • [01-26]: Doing well by doing good: dump your American stocks.

  • [01-27]: Donald Trump's $300 billion temper tantrum over Canada: "Feel like paying another $2,400 a year in taxes because an old man suffering from dementia got humiliated? . . . Donald Trump is threatening to impose a 100 percent tax (tariff) on items we import from Canada.".

Ray Moulton [12-30]: Children and helical time: Starts with a chart which asserts that half of your subjective experience of life occurs in childhood, between age 5 ("start of long term memory") and 20 ("midpoint of subjective life"). The math is just a log function. The question is whether this intuitively makes sense. I'm not sure it does, and not sure it doesn't. Perhaps that's because most of the story is focused on kids, and I only know about being one, not about having them, or even much about living vicariously through other folks' kids. But I do feel that, in thinking about memory, I feel an intensity of focus between ages 5-20 that I lack for anything that came after then

Ian Millhiser: Vox's legal beat reporter, author of Injustices (2015). If he writes a sequel, it will be twice as long and only cover 10 years. Some more pieces filed elsewhere.

Pete Tucker [12-04]: How the game is played: Pull quote talks about how the Koch network put Antonin Scalia's name on the George Mason law school, and added something called "the Global Antitrust Institute" ("which works to ensure that Big Tech isn't broken apart like the monopoists of over a century ago"). But the article itself starts with a long prelude on Stephen Fuller, a Washington Post-favored pundit whose "quotes came cloaked in academic objectivity, owing to his dual titles as an economics professor at George Mason University and leader of the school's Center for Regional Analysis" (later renamed the Stephen S. Fuller Institute).

Jeffrey St Clair:

  • [12-12]: Gaza Diary: They bulldozed mass graves and called it peace. The only things that are dated here are the number of Palestinians killed since the "cease fire," and the amount of money the US has spent in aid to Israel, including military operations in Yemen, Iran, and the wider region (then pegged at $31.35-$33.77 billion since 2023-10-07).

  • [12-19]: Roaming Charges: The politics of crudity and cruelty: Starts with a story about Rob Reiner, which leads into his murder, followed by Trump's tweet, where Reiner "passed away, together with his wife," after long suffering from "the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME." As St Clair notes:

    This is evidence of a sick mind: petty, petulant, crude and sadistic . . . but but also one that likely needed help writing this depraved attack on two people whose blood was still wet from having their throats slit by their own tormented son, since the words "tortured" "unyielding" and "affliction" don't come naturally to Trump's limited lexicon.

    Some more notes (and I'm writing this nearly a month after the fact):

    • In the last five years, the wealthiest 20 Americans increased their net worth from $1.3 trillion to $3 trillion. Whether the economic policies are those of the neoliberals or the Trump Republicans, the same people keep making out.

    • David Mamet has always been a jackass, but whatever's below rock bottom, he just hit it . . . [Reference to Mamet's piece, "Why Dr King, Malcolm X and Charlie Kirk were modern prophets."]

    • Erika Kirk, already a millionaire before the Lord Almighty claimed her husband, has raked in another $10 million+ since Charlie ascended to the heavens, according to a report in the Daily Mail. It really is the prosperity gospel!

    • John Cassidy, writing in the New Yorker, on how the Trump family ventures have cashed in on his presidency:

      As the anniversary of Donald Trump's return to the White House approaches, keeping up with his family's efforts to cash in is a mighty challenge. It seems like there is a fresh deal, or revelation, every week. Since many of the Trump or Trump-affiliated ventures are privately owned, we don't have a complete account of their finances. But in tracking company announcements, official filings, and the assiduous reporting of several media outlets, a clear picture emerges: enrichment of the First Family on a scale that is unprecedented in American history . . . in terms of the money involved, the geographic reach, and the explicit ties to Presidential actions — particularly Trump's efforts to turn the United States into the "crypto capital of the world" — there has never been anything like the second term of Trump, Inc.

  • [12-25]: Goodbye to language: the year in Trumpspeak. The earth's atmosphere is divided into various layers — troposphere, stratosphere, ionosphere (which now seems to be subsumed into the mesosphere) — as the density of air changes various physical properties. Perhaps we could subdivide the media into analogous layers. One would be the Trumposphere: the fantasy realm where only what Trump says — and to some extent what others say about Trump, although that's reported mostly to keep the focus on Trump — and this seems to account for at least a third of all "national" news. This is a long piece which offers pretty comprehensive documentation of 2025 in the Trumposphere. It is horrifying, or would be if you weren't so used to it by now.

  • [12-05]: Roaming Charges: Kill, kill again, kill them all: Starts with this:

    Pete Hegseth is a producer of snuff films. The media-obsessed, if not media-savvy, Hegseth has produced 21 of these mass murder documentary shorts in the last three months, featuring the killings of 83 people — if you take his word for it. Hegseth introduces these kill shots like Alfred Hitchcock presenting an episode of his old TV show — without the irony, of course. There's no irony to Pete Hegseth. No intentional irony, that is. It's all bluster and protein-powder bravado to titillate the Prime-time Fox audience as they nibbled at their TV dinners. . . .

    The irony, lost on Hegseth, is that these are the precise kinds of videos that ethical whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning used to scrape from the secret vaults of the Pentagon and ship to Wikileaks. Videos of crimes committed by US forces. In his dipsomaniacal mind, Hegseth seems to believe these snuff films are proof of the power and virility of the War Department under his leadership. In fact, each video is a confession. The question is: will he be held to account and who will have the guts to do it?

  • [01-09]: Roaming Charges: An ICE cold blood. Opens with:

    Many of the people who have spent the last five years denouncing the killing of Ashli Babbitt for raiding the Capitol in an attempt to overturn an election are celebrating the murder of Renee Nichole Good, a terrified mother killed by masked men from unmarked cars who chased her down a neighborhood street and shot her in the face. . . .

    These kinds of raids, while shocking to most Americans, are familiar to many immigrants from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, countries still haunted by the death squads funded, armed and trained by the CIA. Horrors that they fled and have now reappeared like ghosts from the past here on the streets of Chicago and Minneapolis and Los Angeles. They know all too well that collateral damage is a feature of all paramilitaries.

    With the murder of Renee Good, ICE has now advanced from scaring the hell out of American citizens to killing them.

    Also lots of good information here on Venezuela, including "The New York Times interviews Beelzebub [Elliott Abrams] on Venezuela, who, surprise!, wants more kidnappings and bloodshed." He also notes that Israel has violated the ceasefire 969 times over 80 days, "including the killing of 420 Palestinians, the wounding of 1,141 and allowing only 40% of the aid tracks mandated by the truce into Gaza." Also: "Israel has killed more than 700 relatives of Palestinian journalists in Gaza." Also:

    • Stephen Miller: "We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time." Almost invariably, people who have lived by this "iron law" have tended to come to rather unpleasant ends. [I would have unpacked this view rather differently. One of the maxims I learned early was "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Even if one starts with good intentions, the resort to power perverts them, and ultimately becomes an obsession with obtaining and defending ever more power. And that, of course, produces a backlash, which if unsuccessful drives the powerful to ever greater atrocities. Whether such people die in a bunker like Hitler or in bed like Stalin isn't really the issue. Either way, their memory is cursed by our wish to have stopped them earlier. Of course, if you don't start with good intentions, you descend faster, as Miller has done.]

    • Of course, there was something deeply wrong with this country long before Donald Trump came to power. Imagine playing a New Year's Day football game just down the road from Ground Zero in Nagasaki, as a celebration of an atomic blast that killed 70,000 people only five months earlier?

  • [01-16]: Roaming Charges: What a fool believes:

    • It's revolting, but hardly surprising, that a woman (Kristi Noem) who thought bragging about the time she shot her puppy in the head for disobeying a command and dumped its body in a gravel quarry would advance her political career, also thinks it's entirely justified to shoot a mother of three in the head for "disobeying" confusing commands from her ICE agents.

    • Trump has sent 13.6% of all ICE agents to Minneapolis, a city that represents .13% of the population of the United States.

  • [01-23]: Roaming Charges: Are we not men? No, we are DAVOS: "But a funny thing happened on the way to Davos":

    The stock market collapsed. The Prime Minister of Canada cut a trade pact with China and urged other countries to do the same. Denmark told Trump to fuck off (literally). Unhelpfully for Trump, the Russians chose this week to publicly endorse his scheme to snatch Greenland from the Danes. The European Union, usually so timid and fractious, resisted his impetuous bullying and threatened to join military exercises in defense of Greenland and levy retaliatory tariffs of their own against the increasingly frail US economy.

    Trump landed a deflated man. During his nearly incoherent speech at the World Economic Forum, Trump looked morose and sounded peevish. The words slurred, the fraying sentences trailing off into the ether. His insults lacked fire and punch. He rambled aimlessly. His cognitive decline, never a fall from alpine heights to begin with, was on full public display.

    Was this the fearsome tyrant, so many had trembled in obeisance before? He looked like an old man, frail in body, infirm in mind. Not the new Sun King of his cult-stoked fantasies, but a patriarch deep into his autumn, struggling to find the words for retreat. Trump's strategy (if you can call it that) for cultivating more enemies than friends was always doomed to backfire on him. The only question was how long it would take and how many he'd drag down with him.

    So, Trump backed down. The intemperate bombast was spent, replaced by wheezing and stammering. He backed down on invading Greenland. He backed down on imposing new tariffs against European nations. He backed down in front of the elites he both despises and envies.

    Bullet points:

  • Bari Weiss memo to CBS News reporters and anchors: "Yes, Trump referred to Greenland as Iceland 7 times in his speech, but make clear that he referred to Greenland as Greenland 13 times."

  • This week, there was another death in ICE custody. That's 6 in the last 18 days, one every 72 hours — not counting the people they shoot in their cars.

Matt McManus [01-02]: Why Fascists always come for the Socialists first: "Here's why the left poses such a threat to them." This is a long and very well researched and thought out piece. I've long been skeptical of the usefulness of labeling anyone fascist, but I've changed my thinking somewhat over the past year. I think the key thing is that we mostly understand events through historical analogy. Those of us on the left were quick to pick up the early warning signs of fascism, but as long as alternative explanations were possible, most people resisted the diagnosis. What's different now is that we've reached the point where fascism is the only close historical analogy. Sure, there are minor minor deviations, but no other historical analogy comes close. The point of identifying Trump as a fascist is less to check off a list of similarities than an assertion that we take him very seriously as a threat to our world. While many other comparisons may occur to us, none quite match our fear of fascism.

Eric Levitz [01-12]: The fiction at the heart of America's political divide: I don't quite understand why someone who recognizes and basic difference between left and right can twist himself in such knots of nonsense as the Hyrum and Verlan Lewis book The Myth of Left and Right. Levitz shows he understands the difference when he writes:

The ideological spectrum was born in France about 237 years ago. At the revolutionary National Assembly in 1789, radicals sat on the left side of the chamber and monarchists on the right, thereby lending Western politics its defining metaphor: a one-dimensional continuum between egalitarian revolution and hierarchical conservation. The more a faction (or policy) promoted change in service of equality, the farther left its place on this imaginary line; the more it defended existing hierarchies in the name of order, the farther right its spot.

There are some corollaries, but that's it: hierarchy on the right, equality on the left. Perhaps the most obvious corollary is that the right's defense of hierarchy is inherently unpopular, so they are quick to defend it with violence. The left, on the other hand, has become increasingly opposed to violence. This should be simple, but Levitz, like most political analysts, likes to muddy the waters by saddling left and right with arbitrary positions on other issues that don't intrinsically divide between hierarchy and equality. He doesn't fully accept the Lewis case that parties are just competing interest groups whose policy differences follow group rather than ideological dynamics, but he readily assumes that all Democrats are leftist and all Republicans are on the right.

Robert P Baird [01-15]: The crisis whisperer: how Adam Tooze makes sense of our bewildering age: "Whether it's the financial crash, the climate emergency or the breakdown of the international order, historian Adam Tooze has become the go-to guide to the radical new world we've entered." There's more here — Tooze has moved from academia into the public intelligentsia racket as impressively as anyone else I can think of, and that includes Jill Lepore, Paul Krugman, and Stephen J Gould — but let's start with the section on Biden Democrats that Jeffrey St Clair pointed me to:

It was notable, then, that after joining the Brussels panel, Tooze didn't waste much time before stating flatly that the Biden team had "failed in its absolutely central mission, which was to prevent a second Trump administration". Not only that, he argued, but the dismantling of the liberal world order — something discussed with much rueful lamentation at the conference — had been hastened, not hindered, by the Biden veterans on stage. As he'd written a few months earlier, Tooze saw Biden no less than Trump aiming "to ensure by any means necessary" — including strong-arming allies — "that China is held back and the US preserves its decisive edge".

"I feel the need to say something," [Katherine] Tai said, when Tooze was finished. She recalled a parable Martin Sheen had delivered in front of the White House during the 25th anniversary celebration of The West Wing, the haute-liberal political fantasia that remains a touchstone for professional Democrats. Sheen's story concerned a man who shows up at the gates of heaven and earns an admonishment from St Peter for his lack of scars. "Was there nothing worth fighting for?" St Peter asked the man. Tai turned the question on Tooze: "Where are your scars, Adam? I can show you mine."

Recalling this exchange several months later, Tooze was still flabbergasted. "I'd be silly if I didn't admit that it was a bruising encounter," he told me recently, in one of three long conversations we had over the past year. Nevertheless, he said, "it confirmed my underlying theory about what was going on. These were a group of entirely self-satisfied American liberal elites who were enacting a morality tale in which Sheen and The West Wing and that whole highly sentimental vision of power and politics is a central device. She says this, I think, meaning to sound tough, like, 'I'm the warrior. Who are you? You're just some desktop guy.' Which just shows how little she understands what I'm saying, which is: 'You people are a bunch of sentimental schmucks who don't understand that you lost. If you had any self-respect, you would not be on any podium again, ever, sounding off about anything. Because comrades, if we were in the 30s, I would have taken you out and shot you. You fail like this, you don't get to come back and show off your wounds.'"

That's a bit extreme for me: the 30s aren't exactly remembered for best political practices, and even as a lapsed Christian I'm still inclined to forgive sins that are sincerely repented. But Tai and her other Biden hands not only haven't repented for their failures, they're still in denial, blind-sided by events they thought they were handling just fine. (In this, the Queen Bee of denial remains Hillary Clinton, which is why she has absolutely nothing to contribute to the party she once led.) The piece has much more on Tooze — enough to convince me to order his book Crashed. It also summarizes a critique of him by Perry Anderson.

Kate Wagner [01-21]: The Line, a Saudi megaproject, is dead: "It was always doomed to unravel, but the firms who lent their name to this folly should be held accounable." I knew nothing about this project, so found the Wikipedia entry to be helpful background. Also see the longer List of Saudi Vision 2023 projects, of which NEOM (including The Line and Trojena) was by far the most expensive. This reminds me of some of the Shah's extravagant projects shortly before the revolution overthrew his regime. I've been thinking a bit about Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states in relationship to the "resource curse" theory, which explains so much of what went wrong with Venezuela. Saudi Arabia doesn't look like the economic basket case we find in Venezuela and Iran, but perhaps that's just because they've been able to keep selling oil, and thereby able to keep their own bubble economies from collapsing. They've managed this by being very submissive to the US and western capitalism, while they've managed political stability at home through a generous welfare state for their citizens, combined with the large-scale import of "guest" workers. Still, their oil wells generate so much money that they wind up investing in a lot of extravagant schemes — the Line is relatively benign, at least compared to the jihad-fanning, gun-running, war-mongering adventurism in Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. In terms of GDP, these petrostates are among the richest in the world, but one can't help but feel that there is rot and mold just under the surface, and that whole edifices could suddenly collapse (as they did in Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Venezuela). Also that the risk of that happening is much sharper with megalomaniacs in charge like Mohammed Bin Salman, and especially as Trump turns the US into a pure gangster state.

Chas Danner [01-24]: All the terms you need to know for the big winter storm: "From frost crack to Arctic blast to thunder ice."

Music end-of-year lists: I started collecting these when they were few and far between, and didn't keep it up. See the AOTY Lists for more. Also the Legend for my EOY Aggregate. While substantial (2776 albums), I've done a very poor job of keeping this file up to date, as is obvious when you compare this year's legend (116 sources) to the one from 2024 (610 sources). While I'm likely to add more data to this year's EOY aggregate, I'm unlikely ever again to match the 2024 total.

Of course, the most important EOY list [for me, anyhow] is: The 20th Annual Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll: See the essays on ArtsFuse, by yours truly except as noted:

On listmaking:

  • Album of the Year: 2025 music year end list aggregate: Rosalia edging out Geese (413-404) was a surprise, especially as a late-breaker among two albums I didn't especially are for, but both the landslide wins over two of my A- records — Wednesday (203) and CMAT (187) — and a following mixed bag: my A- records were by Clipse (6), Lily Allen (11), Billy Woods (14), Water From Your Eyes (27), Big Thief (29), Sudan Archives (32), Tyler Childers (43), and Rochelle Jordan (50). One interesting note here is that they systematically devalue unranked lists, allowing 5 points each if the list is 10 albums or less, 3 for 25 or less, and 1 for ore than 25 albums; ranked lists are given 10 points for 1st place, 8 for 2nd, 6 for 3rd, 5 for top 10, 3 for top 25, 1 for other. That's a bit more generous to unranked lists than my own scheme for my EOY aggregate, and also offers a bit more spread for 1-2-3 albums, but the basic logic is similar.

Some miscellaneous music links:

  • Tom Lane [01-20]: 2026 Rock Hall Nominee Predictions: Something I have no opinion about, not least because I have no idea who's in or out, what the eligibility rules are, and therefore who's missing, even though hall of fames are something that has always fascinated me. My rough impression is that the R&R HOF has always been too lax in its selections, unlike virtually every other HOF. (In jazz, DownBeat's HOF is hopelessly backlogged, and their peculiar Veterans Commitee rules have actually made the missing seem to be more glaring.) Only one on this list I'd be tempted to vote for is B-52s, although Beck had a couple of very good albums, my early dislike of De La Soul may have been misguided, and I wouldn't scoff at Oasis or Luther Vandross (although I wouldn't pick them either). Speaking of B-52s, I wonder whether Pere Ubu is in, and if not why not? [Not: eligible in 2001.] They're linked in my mind because I saw both bands at Max's Kansas City in the late 1970s, back when they both only had singles (and really great ones at that).

  • RiotRiot [01-28]: RIOTRIOT's official 2026 Grammys predictions: I'm not sure I ever took the Grammys seriously, but certainly not after Robert Christgau skewered them in 2001's Forever Old. But this suggests they're not a total wasteland, for someone who knows where to look.

  • Nathan J Robinson [01-20]: Jesse Welles is the antidote to everything that sucks about our time. I was tipped off to the folksinger-songwriter recently, and will review albums in the next Music Week.

Books:

  • Sasha Abramsky: American Carnage: How Trump, Musk, and DOGE Butchered the US Government: "follows eleven federal workers, in eight government agencies, from the time they were told they were fired in the early weeks of Donald Trump's second presidential administration through to the summer of 2025. . . . Their stories, which show a country in a profound moment of crisis and dislocation, are America's stories. What happened to them — the bullying, the intimidation, the deliberate removal of financial stability — also happened to hundreds of thousands of other employees."

  • Sven Beckert: Capitalism: A Global History:

    • Nelson Lichtenstein [12-04]: Sven Beckert's chronicle of capitalism's long rise. Review provides what looks like a good summary of the book, which is huge and sprawling. Most interesting point to me is that he starts early and looks everywhere:

      "There is no French capitalism or American capitalism," writes Beckert, "but only capitalism in France or America." And there is also capitalism in Arabia, India, China, Africa, and even among the Aztecs. In his narrative of merchants and traders in the first half of the second millennium, Beckert puts Europe on the margins, offering instead a rich and, except for specialists, unknown account of how the institutions vital to commerce and markets, including credit, accounting, limited partnerships, insurance, and banking flourished, in Aden, Cambay, Mombasa, Guangzhou, Cairo, and Samarkand. These are all "islands of capital," a recurrent metaphor in Beckert's book. For example, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Aden was host to a dense network of merchants who played a pivotal role in the trade between the Arabian world and India. It was a fortified, cosmopolitan city of Jews, Hindu, Muslims, and even a few Christians.

      Capitalism spread from these "islands of capital," initially through trade but increasingly through war, especially where forced labor proved advantageous for producing fungible goods.

    • Seven Beckert [11-04]: The old order is dead. Do not resuscitate. The "old order" he is referring to is what is commonly alled "the neoliberal order" ("and that held sway until very recently"):

      Capitalism is a series of regime changes. Thinking about what unites them will help us better navigate the current reverberations and think more productively about the future. All these transitions, and perhaps the present one as well, were characterized by the inability of the old regime, in the face of economic crisis and rebellions, to reproduce itself. All featured disorientation, and an elite belief that a few tweaks to the old order would allow it to continue. All confronted a world in which the previous economic regime felt like the natural order of things — slavery in the mid-19th century, laissez faire in the 1920s, Keynesian interventionism in the 1960s and market fundamentalism in the 2000s.

      Not once was the old regime resurrected. Instead, capitalism forged ahead in entirely new directions. We had better accept this about today, as well.

      Unclear what his answer is here, or even whether he has one. He sees critiques of neoliberalism both on the left and on the right. He notes that "China was never beholden to the neoliberal agenda." Also that "the politicization of markets is rapidly making a comeback," for which he offers both Trump and Biden examples.

  • Marc J Dunkelman: Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress — and How to Bring It Back:

    • Sean Illing [01-12]: How America made it impossible to build: "A system built to stop government from doing harm stopped it from doing anything." An interview with Dunkelman. I'm someone who's strongly oriented toward building things, so I should be sympathetic to books like this (the more famous one is Abundance), but I often choke when I see actual project proposals (especially things like new sports stadia). One thing I agree with here is "the trust problem is enormous." That's largely because projects are being driven by private greed-or-glory-heads, and depend on public finance from politicians beholden to their sponsors. What we need instead are more projects driven by consumer/user groups, with compensation for anyone adversely affected, and some clear criteria for when the downside exceeds the benefits. If you could do that in a system that most people could trust, ticking off the checkboxes could go much quicker (and if they don't tick off, the reasons will be clear, and not just a game of who bribes whom).

    • Miles Bryan/Astead Herndon [12-28]: Ezra Klein's year of Abundance: We've kicked this around before, so might as well file it here. Klein notes in here that his original title was "Supply-Side Progressivism," which makes more explicit that this is a pitch to business that at best hopes to trickle down some more general value.

  • Eoin Higgins: Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left:

    • Ed Meek [08-02]: How to buy left-wing journalists: Review of Owned, where the most prominent journalists mentioned are Matt Taibbi and Glen Greenwald.

      Higgins follows Taibbi's investigation into Hunter Biden's laptop (a favorite target of MAGA supporters). The Biden administration, with Twitter's cooperation, may have suppressed information about wrongdoing in these files, but Taibbi never really found anything substantial. Meanwhile, he was critiqued by the left, relentlessly, for investigating what partisans saw as a trivial distraction. This led to Taibbi's move to Substack, where he has a big following. Higgins points out that Substack was funded by Andreessen (founder of Netscape) as a way to move liberal journalists out of mainstream publications. Along with creating a space for independent voices, Owned posits that the right wing has been very effective at manipulating and creating new media to influence Americans to support Republicans. Substack was part of that divide-and-conquer strategy.

      I read Greenwald's initial 2006 book, How Would a Patriot Act?, but didn't follow up with later books, and haven't tried since he bowed out of The Intercept. I read Taibbi as long as he was in Rolling Stone (but Rolling Stone itself is paywalled these days), then followed him on Twitter. I read most of his books up through 2019's Hate Inc.. He's always had a weakness for both-sidesing (e.g., singling out "9-11 Truthers" as a left-equivalent of the right's paranoid tendencies), but his critical views of the right remained sharp. If he was still freely available, I'd check him out. I don't consider him to be a traitor/enemy, like David Horowitz.

      I hadn't read that point about Substack before, but there is considerable logic to it. Yglesias and Krugman are prime examples, although their former publications are also paywalled these days. I've rarely looked at their Substacks, but so far have managed to see everything I've looked at. The bigger point is that they're trying to price any sort of critical commentary out of the reach of most folks. This follows the same general logic as the move to quell student demonstrations in the 1980s by making college much more expensive: on the one hand, you exclude the riff-raff; on the other, you saddle those who survive the gauntlet with a lifetime of debt, forcing them to keep their nose to the grindstone, which is to say work for the increasingly dominant rich. They probably didn't plan on Google and Facebook sucking up all of the advertising revenue, but that's what's given them the chance to starve out any sort of free press.

    • Will Solomon [2025-01-05]: How tech billionaires bought the loudest voices on the left and right: An early review of Eoin Higgins: Owned.

    • Eoin Higgins [12-27]: Yes, I'm being sued by Matt Taibbi: This is the story that got me looking at Higgins' book, so that's why I'm digging up links from a year ago. I don't see a lot more, at least recent, on his Substack (and sure, he has one) to stick around, but a couple titles are Marjorie Taylor Greene makes her move and Weasel World comes to Minnesota.

  • Gene Ludwig: The Mismeasurement of America: How Outdated Government Statistics Mask the Economic Struggle of Everyday Americans: Former Treasury official under Clinton, a connection that gets him a nice blurb from Hillary here, set up a nonprofit in 2019 "dedicated to improving the economic well-being of low- and middle-income Americans through research and education," starting with his 2020 book, The Vanishing American Dream: A Frank Look at the Economic Realities Facing Middle- and Lower-Income Americans.

    • Jared Bernstein [10-03]: Measuring the Vibecession: "Why top-line federal statistics miss the economic pain average Americans feel." Biden's best economic adviser reviews Ludwig's book, quibbling that the standard measures aren't "mismeasurement" but merely incomplete. For instance, the Consumer Price Index is an average, which masks different impacts among various groups. Unemployment understates underemployment and other precarity.

  • Harriet Malinowitz: Selling Israel: Zionism, Propaganda, and the Uses of Hasbara:

  • Olivia Nuzzi: American Canto: A journalist of some fame and ill repute, wrote a memoir, teasing dirt on an affair with RFK Jr.

    • Scaachi Koul [12-02]: Olivia Nuzzi's book has the audacity to be boring: "Never mind the dogshit writing, the self-mythologizing, the embarrassing metaphors. How can you make this story so incredibly dull?"

      Historians will study how bad this book is. English teachers will hold this book aloft at their students to remind them that literally anyone can write a book: Look at this, it's just not that hard to do. Three hundred pages with no chapter breaks, it swerves back and forth through time, from Nuzzi's interviews with Donald Trump over the years to her combustible relationship with fellow annoying journalist Ryan Lizza to her alleged affair with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as he was running for president himself. Reading it is like spending time with a delusional fortune cookie: platitudes that feel like they were run through a translation service three times.

  • Tim Wu, The Age of Extraction: How Tech Platforms Conquered the Economy and Threaten Our Future Prosperity:

    • Rhoda Feng [12-10]: The internet's tollbooth operators: "Tim Wu's The Age of Extraction chronicles the way Big Tech platforms have turned against their users."

      The process by which companies metastasize from creators into extractors goes something like this: First, they make their platform "essential to transactions"; next, they hobble or buy rivals; then, they clone winners, lock partners in, and finally ratchet up fees for both buyers and sellers. The convenience we prize — our one-click orders, our autoplay queues — becomes, in Wu's mordant phrase, "a long slow bet on laziness": a wager that users will tolerate almost any indignity rather than face the costs of leaving.

      If the platform extraction model has become the dominant template of 21st-century capitalism, Wu emphasizes that it is by no means confined to technology. Since the 2008 financial crisis, investors have begun platformizing entire industries and reorganizing them around centralized ownership and predictable revenue streams.

      He offers examples from health care and housing, showing that this is not just a high-tech issue. But right now, big future bets are being placed on tech monopolists:

      According to a recent report by Public Citizen, Trump's return to power has brought a bonanza for Big Tech. Of the 142 federal investigations and enforcement actions against technology corporations inherited from the previous administration, at least 45 have already been withdrawn or halted. The beneficiaries read like a who's who of Silicon Valley: Meta, Tesla, SpaceX, PayPal, eBay, and a constellation of cryptocurrency and financial technology firms.

      Since the 2024 election cycle began, tech corporations and their executives have spent an estimated $1.2 billion on political influence — $863 million in political spending, $76 million in lobbying, and a further $222 million in payments to Trump's own businesses. The return on investment has been immediate: a sweeping "AI Action Plan" directing the Federal Trade Commission to review and, where possible, rescind consent decrees that "unduly burden AI innovation." Among the cases at risk are investigations into OpenAI and Snap for generative AI harms and antitrust cases against Microsoft.

    • Tim Wu [10-25]: Big Tech's predatory platform model doesn't have to be our future.

A few end-of-year books lists:

  • Connor Echols [12-26]: The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025:

    • Seth Harp: The Fort Bragg Cartel: Drug Trafficking and Murder in the Special Forces
    • Francisco Rodriguez: The Collapse of Venezuela: Scorched Earth Politics and Economic Decline, 2012-2020
    • William D Hartung/Ben Freeman: The Trillion Dollar War Machine: How Runaway Military Spending Drives America into Foreign Wars and Bankrupts Us at Home
    • Emma Ashford: First Among Equals: US Foreign Policy in a Multipolar World
    • Michael Schaeffer Omer-Man/Sarah Leah Whitson: From Apartheid to Democracy: A Blueprint for Peace in Israel-Palestine
    • Kenneth P Vogel: Devils' Advocates: The Hidden Story of Rudy Giuliani, Hunter Biden, and the Washington Insiders on the Payrolls of Corrupt Foreign Interests
    • Charles L Glaser: Retrench, Defend, Compete: Securing America's Future Against a Rising China
    • Hussein Agha/Robert Malley: Tomorrow Is Yesterday: Life, Death, and the Pursuit of Pece in Israel/Palestine

  • Constance Grady [12-16]: The 10 best books of 2025: In addition to The 9 best books of the year so far (from back in July).

Some notable deaths: Mostly from the New York Times listings. Last time I did such a trawl was on November 24, so we'll look that far back (although some names have appeared since):

Tweets: I've usually used this section for highlighting clever responses and/or interesting ideas, but maybe I should just use it to bookmark some of our leading horribles.

  • Molly Jong-Fast [11-29]: Cites quote from OpenAI is a loss-making machine, with estimates that it has no road to profitability by 2030 — and will need a further $207 billion in funding even if it gets there: "All of this falls apart if humans don't adopt the tech. This is why you've seen Meta cram its lame chatbots into WhatsApp and Instagram. This is why Notepad and Paint now have useless Copilot buttons on Windows. This is why Goodle Gemini wants to 'help you' read and reply to your emails."

    Imagine if they just subsidized newspapers and magazines the way they're subsidizing this slop

  • Doug Henwood [01-06]: Recalls a Michael Ledeen quote, from 1992:

    "Every 10 years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."

  • Tom Carson:

      [01-16]: Minneapolis or no Minneapolis, it's ridiculous and insulting to say MAGA supporters are a bunch of Nazis. A good many of them, perhaps a majority, are innocuous Nazi sympathizers, Nazi enablers, Nazi-neutral in a Too Soon To Tell kinda way, Nazi-curious thanks to The Night Porter or Ilsa, She-Wolf of The SS, or else plain dimwits who used to go into daily comas during history classes back when they still had 'em at good old Lowenbrau High. There, does that clear everything up? We may be angry, but that doesn't give us a license to be unfair.

    • [01-18]: Some of you stunned people have caught on over the years I'm not the world's biggest Trump fan. I know, I know, strange but true. But that's not the most urgent business at hand. The bottom line is that he's gone drooling loco, stone crazy, beyond barking mad, Old Yeller would sue for plagiarism AND libel if they hadn't shot him and Rin Tin Tin's gone MAGA and won't take the case, pretty soon Merriam-Webster will redefine "white as a sheet" as the penultimate step in the Republican Party before canonization. He's beyond Renee Good and Evel Knievel, I stole that from Nietzsche but never trust a Kraut who can't even take charge of his own mustache, let alone Poland, at least Hitler knew how to dress for success. He's beyond delusional and so deep in transactional the last man up his butt will have to bring along a comb to tart up the President's hair. Arse brevis but hair longa as Mussolini only wished with his drying Fred Trumpth I mean dying breath, chump. Siri where's the nearest gas station he's all hung up on learning to fly and you alone can fix it. He's as goofy as the Black Plaque his dentist can't find a final ablution for, probably a Jew ya know, you'd be getting long in the tooth yourself if we hadn't taken care of those with the pliers, Dr. Rosenfeld. He's non compos Mentos (he needs candy), looney as Looney iTunes, more gaga than a gag order shutting Kristi Noem up for Christ's sake, just plain nuts as the 101st Airborne used to say at Bastogne only this time we'll get creamed, no sugar. He's got so many screws loose a whorehouse madam would go bankrupt. And none of the earthworms in baggy boxcar suits and red ties overrunning the WH, the Capitol, and SCOTUS are going to do a blessed thing about it, so you can rest easy in this green land, Mr. President. With love to Allen Ginsberg, your fellow citizen, Tom.

    • [01-22]: The interview I'm hoping to see, and who knows but I may get my wish. Q: "General Spackleheimer, are you concerned about the President's mental state?" SPACKLEHEIMER: "Well, I'm not a psychiatrist, so I don't have any standing to attest to that as a licensed mental-health expert, of course. That said, it's kind of jazzy to remember I DO have standing as a professional soldier who's got so many medals the Army had to tailor a special jacket that currently reaches to my knees, and I'm as tall as Fred Gwynne on stilts. So yeah, he's fucking nuts. I mean loco, [gestures with his former saluting hand], zoom!, you know? I mean, we're so deep in the shithouse all the cows are on strike."

    • [01-25]: I'm a government/Washington D. C. brat and I'd like to think I can recognize what a well-run Federal agency answerable to the public looks like. So if anybody out there thinks ICE agents are a) only hired if they meet rigorous standards qualifying them for law-enforcement and public-safety duties, b) adequately supervised by competent professionals who understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, c) adequately overseen by a Congress alert to its responsibilities as the public's watchdog and ready to restrict or deny taxpayer dollars to ICE unless the agency submits to agreed-on guardrails that protect citizens' rights and safety, d) adequately backstopped by a rough popular, legislative and judicial consensus regarding said agency's purpose and necessity, e) adequately restrained by the consequences they'll face if they go rogue, and f) adequately trained in any field other than brutality, street brawling, and terrorizing their fellow Americans with threats of harassment, sanctioned violence, and Mob-style murders of absolutely anyone who gets in their way or just bugs the shit out of them, lemme know.

Memes noted:

  • A felon who married an immigrant is telling a lot of y'all that the problems in this country all stem from felons and immigrants. But keep buying that stupid red hat that's made in China.

Original count: 459 links, 31382 words (38692 total)

Current count: 502 links, 34126 words (42166 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Monday, November 24, 2025

Loose Tabs

Note that I previously weighed in on the elections, the shutdown, Dick Cheney, Jack DeJohnette, and more in my [11-12] Notes on Everyday Life.

Also that I've completely lost control of the collection process here. This column has never been more than a collection of notes, and its publication has tended to be driven less by a sense that now I have something complete to say than by the realization that my notes are fading into the deeper recesses of history, losing relevance day by day, and I should kick them out before they lose all purpose and meaning. Still, while much is missing, many of the things I do latch onto elicit serious thoughts, which I hope will be useful, and not too repetitive. Editing in these quarters is very haphazard. I apologize for that, but options are few when you're already running late. I do hope to do a better job of editing my Substack newsletter. I may even return there with a reconsideration of what I'm posting here, as I did on Sept. 24 with my More Thoughts on Loose Tabs.

Given how much other work I have to do today, tomorrow, and the rest of the week, I might as well post this today (Monday, Nov. 24). It's already pushed Music Week off until Tuesday, at the earliest. I may return with change marks here, or may just move on to the draft file — probably depends on the story. Meanwhile, I'm restarting my day with the Deluxe Edition of Jimmy Cliff's The Harder They Come, which I reviewed here.

This is an occasional collection of newsworthy links and comments, much less systematic than what I attempted in my late Speaking of Which posts. The new name comes from my extensive use of browser tabs. When I get around to cleaning up, I often find tabs opened to old articles I might want to comment on and/or refer back to. So these posts are mostly housecleaning, but may also serve as a very limited but persistent record of what 20+ years ago I started calling "the end of the American empire" and nowadays feels more like "the end of civilization." I collect these bits in a draft file, and flush them out when periodically. My previous one appeared ? days ago, on October 21.

I'm trying a experiment here with select bits of text highlighted with a background color, for emphasis a bit more subtle than bold or ALL CAPS. (I saw this on Medium. I started with their greenish color [#bbdbba] and lightened it a bit [#dbfbda].) I'll try to use it sparingly.

Topical Stories

Sometimes stuff happens, and it dominates the news/opinion cycle for a few days or possibly several weeks. We might as well lead with it, because it's where attention is most concentrated. But eventually these stories will fold into the broader, more persistent thmes of the following section.

November Elections: November 4 was the first significant chance voters had to re-evaluate the choices they made a year ago. Democrats won pretty much everywhere, despite little evidence that voters are very pleased with their current Democratic leadership. By far the most publicized election was the mayoral race in New York City, so I'll separate that out in a following section.

And more specifically, Zohran Mamdani:

  • Zohran Mamdani [09-08]: New York City is not for sale.

  • Astead W Herndon [10-14]: Inside the improbable, audacious and (so far) unstoppable rise of Zohran Mamdani. Pull quote from Mamdani: "Being right in and of itself is meaningless. We have to win. And we have to deliver." Also quotes Mark Levine, saying Mamdani "is the first nominee in memory that has made a concerted effort to reach out to people who were against him in the primary."

  • Nathan J Robinson [11-05]: Follow Mamdani's example: "This is how you run. This is how you win. This is the politics we need right now. Democratic socialist candidates can inspire people again, and fight the right effectively."

  • Nia Prater [11-06]: ICE wants NYPD cops who are mad about Mamdani: "The agency put out a new recruitment ad that tries to promote and capitalize on postelection angst within the NYPD."

  • Michael Arria [11-06]: The Shift: Pro-Israel groups melt down over Mamdani win. Not that the mayor of New York City could do anything about Israel, but this shows they may not be as all-powerful as they've long wanted people (especially Democrats) to think.

  • Thomas B Edsall [11-11]: Steve Bannon thinks Zohran Mamdani is a genius. It's not a feint. Much here about the mobilization of the youth vote, especially how Mamdani's mobilization of the youth vote dramatically expanded the electorate, which made it possible to overcome the enormous advantages Cuomo had in money and regular party support. As for Bannon, the key quote is: "Modern politics now is about engaging low-propensity voters, and they clearly turned them out tonight, and this is kind of the Trump model. This is very serious."

  • Paul Krugman [11-17]: The plutocrats who cried "commie": "About that 'fleeing New York claim." This cites a pre-election article claiming to have a poll showing that "Nearly a million New Yorkers ready to flee NYC if Mamdani becomes mayor — possibly igniting the largest exodus in history." Post-election: not really.

  • Brett Wilkins [11-21]: After threats throughout NYC campaign, Trump lauds Mamdani at White House: "'I feel very confident that he can do a very good job," Trump said of Mamdani after their White House meeting. 'I think he is going to surprise some conservative people, actually.'" The pictures of an uncharacteristically beaming Trump have circulated widely, at least in my circles. I'm not particularly interested in unpacking their meaning, but should note this odd twist.

  • Astead Herndon/Cameron Peters [11-22]: How Zohran Mamdani won over Donald Trump — for now.

  • MJ Rosenberg [11-25]: Morris Katz, Jew, 26, is Mamdani's top guy: "Some antisemite, that Zohran! And Katz is a typical Gen Z Jewish kid."

Federal government shutdown:

  • Cameron Peters [10-17] Why is this government shutdown so weird? "Four questions about the ongoing deadlock, answered by an expert." Interview with Matt Glassman ("a senior fellow at Georgetown" and "author of the Five Points newsletter"). I don't know him, but a glance at his latest Linkin' and Thinkin' post is more than a little interesting. I'm getting less from his shutdown analysis here. "Weird" just isn't much of an analytical tool.

  • Dean Baker [10-21]: Roadmap to the shutdown: This is a pretty good summary of the issues.

  • Michael Tomasky [11-10]: Once again, Senate Democrats show they don't get who they represent: "The party was riding high on election wins, a fractured GOP, and a flailing Trump. And then the Senate Surrender Caucus handed Republicans a win." The "Surrender Caucus" names: Catherine Cortez Masto, Dick Durbin, John Fetterman, Maggie Hassan, Tim Kaine, Angus King, Jacky Rosen, Jeanne Shaheen.

  • Andrew Prokop [11-10]: Democrats were never going to win the shutdown fight. Note that Prokop was advising against shutdown from the beginning. One thing he doesn't appreciate is that in shutting down the government, Democrats acted like they cared enough about Trump's abuses to fight against him. There aren't many ways one can do that.

  • Ed Kilgore [11-10]: Why Democrats couldn't hold out any longer on the government shutdown: "It only took eight Senate Democrats to decide the pain outweighed the gain, and now the party must decide whether to fall into civil war or move on."

  • Joan Walsh [11-10]: The bill to end the shutdown is full of giveaways to Republicans.

  • Corey Robin [11-12]: Democrats caved in the shutdown because of the filibuster. "For Democrats, the main issue in the shutdown wasn't electoral backlash — it was the filibuster. Leadership feared its removal, viewing it as a safeguard to keep the party's rising left wing in check." This doesn't make a lot of sense. The filibuster allows a large but determined minority to obstruct bills that have thin majority support. The left may be rising, but they are nowhere near the range where the filibuster works. I'm not aware of anyone on the left who thinks the filibuster is a good idea. For now, the filibuster does allow Democrats to hold up bills like the continuing resolution, but Republicans could at any point have ditched the rule (as they've already done for presidential appointments). Since the filibuster more often helps Republicans than Democrats, there's an argument that it would be good for forcing the Republicans to get rid of it. But the "surrender caucus" kept that from happening, perhaps because they wanted to preserve the filibuster. But if so, it wasn't from fear of the left. It's because they wanted to preserve what little leverage they have from being Democrats willing to break ranks. Even though Schumer didn't vote to surrender, I can see him thinking preservation of the filibuster helps his leverage. Robin quotes a piece arguing that some Senate Republicans want to preserve the filibuster as an excuse "to avoid doing things they don't see as sound policy or politics without infuriating Trump." If so, it's them, as opposed to the Democrats they needed to cave in, who are breathing a sigh of relief at the filibuster's survival.

Gambling and sports: My interest in sports has declined steadily since the 1994 baseball lockout broke my daily habit of box score analysis, although over time the political metaphors and the cultural spectacle have also taken a considerable toll. My dislike of gambling goes back even further, and not just to my mother (who loved playing cards, but never for money). The combination is toxic, but that doesn't begin to convey the many levels of disgust I feel. So what, now we have a scandal? That's even more predictable than providing free guns and ammo to psychopaths.

Dick Cheney: Dick Cheney died, at 83. I'm showing my age here, but for sheer political evil, no one will ever replace Richard Nixon in my mind. I'm not alone in that view. I've loathed Bob Dole ever since his execrable 1972 campaign — not that I didn't dislike his 1966 campaign, or his tenure in the House — but I had to concede that he had some wit, especially for his quip on seeing a "presidents club" picture of Carter, Ford, and Nixon: "see no evil, hear no evil, and evil." But if you're 20-30 years younger than me, Dick Cheney could have left you with the same impression. I'll spare you the details, which like Nixon were foretold decades before his ascent to real power, other than to remind you that the great blogger Billmon regularly referred to the Bush years as "the Cheney administration." If you're 20 years younger still, you probably have Trump in that slot — he's the only one who exercises power on that level, although the cunning behind it is harder to credit as sheer evil (but maybe that's just proof of the great dumbing down).

Epsteinmania, again: Back in the news, by popular demand I guess, or at least by Congressional demand.

Major Threads

Israel:

  • Spencer Ackerman [10-15]: Sharm El-Sheikh shows that the US has learned nothing from Gaza: "Palestinians are expected to accept the same deal that led to October 7: permanent subjugation under the guise of 'prosperity.'" Tell me more about this "prosperity" stuff. Even if Trump's buddies make a killing on some real estate/finance transactions doesn't mean that anyone in Gaza will get a fair share of the gains — especially if they don't have the political power to support their claims.

  • Michael Arria [10-17]: As support for Israel drops, the mainstream media is becoming even more Zionist: "Support for Israel is plummeting among the US public, but Zionism dominates mainstream media more than ever. Several recent high-profile examples show the staggering disconnect between the media establishment and its viewers."

  • Avrum Burg: Former speaker of the Knesset, still trying to keep something he believes in:

    • [10-20]: More ethics less high-tech: I saw this in Mazin Qumsiyeh's newsletter as his "quote of the day," but the link was mangled:

      In global interviews and conversations, one question keeps returning: how could the Jews, a people who once saw themselves as a moral messenger for all humanity, commit such horrific crimes in Gaza? It is a question that cuts to the rawest nerves of our identity, our faith in our righteousness, and our understanding of who we are. . . .

      How cruel the irony. The so-called start up nation, proud to call itself the only democracy in the Middle East, has created the most sophisticated and repressive death industry in the region, exporting its poisonous fruits to any authoritarian buyer for profit. The cult of security has turned high tech into an endless military service. Civilian companies develop for the defense establishment new tools of killing, occupation, and violation of human rights, while the army feeds the civilian market with skilled manpower and profitable technology. Thus an entire economy has been built on domination, oppression, smart sensors, and a dead conscience. . . .

      The Judaism I grew up with was a moral system, not a cult of power. A way of life that sanctified life, not death. It placed the human being, not the land, at its center. It did not seek to rule the world but to repair it. . . .

      Israel after the crimes of Gaza does not need more advanced tanks or sophisticated algorithms. It needs an education system that teaches people to think and to feel. . . . For in the end, all the technology in the world, every smart system, every precise weapon, is worthless when placed in the hands of a hardened heart. Like ours have been in these terrible years.

    • [10-12]: The showman, the reconciler and the cynic — who this trinity must succeed: "Netanyahu will kick and scream, but Trump and Blair can drag Israel into a brighter future for the Middle East." Of course, he's much too generous to all three, but at least he realizes that there is no "brighter future" with Netanyahu still anywhere near power.

  • Lydia Polgreen [10-23]: What happened in Gaza might be even worse than we think. I think that's very likely, and in this I'm concerned not just in whether the counted deaths reflect reality but in the overwhelming psychological toll this war has taken, and not just on Palestinians, but on others not comparable but still significant. I think most people find what has happened to be beyond imagination, even ones close to the conflict but especially those of us who are well buffered from the atrocities, and even more so those trapped in the Israeli propaganda bubble.

  • Qassam Muaddi [10-24]: Trump's push to uphold Gaza ceasefire is creating a political crisis in Israel. Starts with a Vance quote about Israel not being a "vassal state," but the bigger revelation is that Trump seems to be breaking free of the notion that the US is a vassal state of Israel. Much of Netanyahu's credibility within Israel is based on the belief that he possesses magical power to manipulate American politicians, and that belief starts to fade when he slips. The subordination of American interests to Israeli whims really took hold under Clinton, and reached its apogee with Biden, but mostly depended on American indifference to consequences, which genocide is making it harder to sustain. And as Netanyahu slips, Israel is not lacking for others who would like to take his place, whispering sweet nothings into the ears of Americans while keeping a steady course.

  • Robert Gottlieb [10-25]: From Apartheid to Democracy - a 'blueprint' for a different future in Israel-Palestine: A review of a book by Michael Schaeffer Omer-Man and Sarah Leah Wilson, From Apartheid to Democracy: A Blueprint for Peace in Israel-Palestine, which "describes in granular detail the conditions for dismantling apartheid in Israel-Palestine." While I'm happy to see people inside Israel thinking along these lines, I have to ask what world they think they are living in? Democracy has always been a struggle between interest groups to establish a mutually satisfactory division of power. It has sometimes expanded to incorporate previously excluded groups, but mostly because an established insider group thought that expansion might give them more leverage, but it's never been done simply because it seemed like a good idea. Yet that seems to be the pitch here:

    Thus, the Blueprint places the onus on the State of Israel — as the state exercising effective control over all peoples in Israel, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza — to meet its international legal obligations by ending its crimes and respecting the rights of all people under its rule. Only once Palestinians have political, civic, and human rights equal to Israeli Jews living in the Territory will Palestinians and Israelis be able to democratically determine what political structures and outcomes best server their collective, national, political, ethnic, and religious interests. The Blueprint is not a plan for achieving national self-determination; it is a plan to create the conditions under which achieving self-determination and deciding political issues of governance are possible.

  • James P Rubin [10-27]: The only thing that can keep the peace in Gaza: Author is credited as "a senior adviser to two secretaries of state, Anthony Blinken and Madeleine Albright," which suggests that the only thing he's qualified to do is to write New York Times op-eds. He proves his cluelessness here by focusing on the "international force for Gaza," which he sees as necessary to fill "the growing security vacuum in Gaza." At every step on the way, he puts Israel's phony security complaints ahead of aiding Palestinians. Israel has always been a source of disruption in Gaza, never of stability. Their removal is itself a step toward order, which can be augmented by an ample and unfettered aid program. Granted that the supply lines need a degree of security to prevent looting, but the better they work, the less trouble they'll elicit. Rubin's claim to fame here seems to be that he's spent a lot of time talking to Tony Blair about this. Blair is pretty high up on the list of people no honest Palestinian can trust in. Rubin's earned a spot on that list as well.

  • Jamal Kanj [10-27]: How Israel-First Jewish Americans plan to re-monopolize the narratives on Palestine.

  • Vivian Yee [10-27]: US assessment of Israeli shooting of journalist divided American officials: "A US colonel has gone public with his concern that official findings about the 2022 killing of a Palestinian American reporter were soft-pedaled to appease Israel." The journalist, you may recall, was Shireen Abu Akleh. The Biden administration "found no reason to believe this was intentional," and attributed it to "tragic circumstances."

  • Abdaljawad Omar [10-27]: Israel seeks redemption in the Gaza ruins: "Throughout the Gaza war, Israel has debated what to call it. The military says 'October 7 War,' while Netanyahu wants 'War of Redemption.' What's clear is that Israel believes it can only resolve its ongoing cycle of crisis through genocidal violence." Notes that name chosen for the military operation was originally "Swords of Iron" (derived from "Iron Wall": "the fantasy of unbreakable security through permanent domination"), but that's hard to distinguish from every other exercise in collective punishment inflicted on Gaza since 2006. The military preference "fixes the war to a date of trauma, as if to anchor the nation's moral position in the moment of its own suffering," which is to say that they see one day's violent outburst as justifying everything that came after, the details hardly worth mentioning. But that at least treats the war as a collective national experience. Netanyahu's "War of Redemption" is his way of saying that the war (by which we mean genocide) simply proves that he and his political faction were right all along. This makes it a war to dominate Israel as much as it is a war to destroy Palestine.

  • Adrienne Lynett/Mira Nablusi [10-26]: From the margins to the mainstream: how the Gaza genocide transformed US public opinion: "Two years into the Gaza genocide, public opinion on Israel, Palestine, and US policy has undergone a profound shift. A close examination of poll data shows Palestine is no longer a niche issue but one with real electoral consequences." Which might matter in a real democracy, but in a nation where politics is controlled by the donor class, Israel still exercises inordinate influence. Still, as long as Israel remains a niche issue — something a few people feel strongly about, but which most people can ignore — I doubt that shifting opinion polls will have much effect. But it's impossible to be a credible leftist without taking a stand against genocide and apartheid. And Democrats need the left more than ever, because they need to provide a credible, committed, trustworthy opposition to the Trump right.

  • Louis Allday [10-30]: Palestinian scholar who wrote iconic book on Zionism reflects on the Gaza genocide and our duty to history: "Mondoweiss speaks to celebrated Palestinian scholar Sabri Jiryis about his life, Zionism, the genocide in Gaza, and the judgements of history."

  • Haaretz [11-14]: Israel's violent Jewish settlers are neither marginal nor a handful.

  • Mark Braverman [11-16]: Charting Judaism's moral crossroads at the Gaza genocide: Book review of Susan Landau, ed., Thou Shalt Not Stand Idly By: Jews of Conscience on Palestine. "The moral clarity of its contributors is more needed than ever as the self-proclaimed Jewish state commits a genocide in Gaza." [PS: Links available on book page to read online or download.]

  • Craig Mokhiber [11-19]: The UN embraces colonialism: Unpacking the Security Council's mandate for the US colonial administration of Gaza: I don't doubt the validity of the complaints, but it's not like there's any other game in play. No one can force Israel to heal, other than perhaps the US, and then only within narrow limits — both constraints imposed by Israel, and by the peculiar mentality of the Trump administration. So I can see an argument for rubber stamping this now, then as various aspects of the scheme fail, lobbying for improvements later. One thing other countries can do is to put some BDS structures in place, which can be triggered if/when Israel and/or the US fails, violates and/or reneges on their promises, or simply doesn't produce a just result.

  • Mitchell Plitnick [11-14]: Why normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia won't happen now, regardless of what Trump wants.

  • Mattea Kramer [11-20]: Trump's most original idea ever: An unexpected con to end free speech: Trump has taken the classic fascist focus on suppressing free speech and dressed it up as a noble campaign to protect Jews from antisemitism — their code word for any criticism of Israel, even if it's plain as day that Israel is committing not just atrocities but genocide. But I'm not sure the irony works here, because I'm not sure it's ironical. There isn't that much daylight between Israeli and American fascism, especially when it comes to suppressing truths and ridiculing justice.

Russia/Ukraine: Nothing much here until Trump, or wheover speaks for him in such matters, issued his "28-point plan" to end the war. Reaction predictably, much like his 20-point Gaza plan, splits between those who realize that Trump's support is necessary to end the war, even if it is ill-considered, and those willing to suffer more war for the sake of some principles, no matter how impractical. Examples of both follow below, and the ones I list are far from exhaustive. Perhaps at some point I'll find time to look at the "plan" and tell you what I think should happen, as I did with Gaza here and here. (By the way, the second piece was partly written with Ukraine in mind, if not as an explicit subject.)

Trump's War and Peace: We might as well admit that Trump's foreign policy focus has shifted from trade and isolation to war and terror.

Trump Regime: Practically every day I run across disturbing, often shocking stories of various misdeeds proposed and quite often implemented by the Trump Administration -- which in its bare embrace of executive authority we might start referring to as the Regime. Collecting them together declutters everything else, and emphasizes the pattern of intense and possibly insane politicization of everything. Pieces on the administration.

  • Daniel Larison

  • Jonathan V Last [11-03]: Donald Trump is a Commie: I scraped this quote off a tweet image, before trying to figure out its source (this appears to be it):

    On Friday I wrote about the Trump administration's latest foray into national socialism:

    • Trump wants to build nuclear power plants.
    • He has chosen Westinghouse to build them.
    • He will pay Westinghouse $80 billion for the projects.
    • In return he has compelled Westinghouse to pay him the government 20 percent of any "cash distributions."
    • Between now and the end of January 2029, the government can compel Westinghouse to go public via an IPO, at which point the government will be awarded 20 percent ownership of the company, likely making it the single largest shareholder.

    This is literally seizing the means of production. But to, you know, make America great again. Or something.

    Other of Trump's national socialist policies include:

    • Refusing to enforce a 2024 law requiring the sale of TikTok until he was able to compel that business be sold at an extortionately discounted price to his political allies.
    • Creating a Golden Share of U.S. Steel for his government.
    • Requiring Nvidia and AMD to pay the government 15 percent of all revenues from chip sales to China.
    • Acquiring a 10 percent ownership stake in chipmaker Intel.
    • Acquiring a 15 percent stake in rare earth producers MP Materials, a 10 percent stake in Lithium Americas Corp., and a 10 percent stake in Trilogy Metals Inc.
    • Creating a "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and Digital Asset Stockpile."
    • Taking steps to create a sovereign wealth fund to be used as a vehicle for government investment.
    • He has demanded that Microsoft fire an executive he does not like and demanded that private law firms commit to doing pro bono work on behalf of clients he chooses for them.

    At first this read like a right-wing parody rant against socialism, but the adjective "national" deflects a bit. Still, some of these steps aren't totally bad — e.g., I can see some value in "a sovereign wealth fund to be used as a vehicle for government investment," but I wouldn't trust Trump (or Clinton or Obama) to run it.

  • Brad Reed [11-17]: 'Americans should be enraged': Reports expose unprecedented corruption at Trump DOJ.

Donald Trump (Himself): As for Il Duce, we need a separate bin for stories on his personal peccadillos -- which often seem like mere diversions, although as with true madness, it can still be difficult sorting serious incidents from more fanciful ones.

Democrats:

  • New York Times Editorial Board [10-20]: The partisans are wrong: moving to the center is the way to win: Their main evidence is that 13 Democrats who won in districts Trump won are less left than average Democrats, and 3 Republicans who won in districts Harris won are less right than average Republicans. Duh. For a response:

    • Nathan J Robinson [11-04]: The case for centrism does not hold up: "The New York Times editorial board is wrong. Principled politics on the Bernie Sanders model is still the path forward." I basically agree, but I rather doubt that the issues are well enough understood or for that matter can even be adequately explained to make much difference. The bigger question isn't what you stand for, but whether you stand for anything. Why vote for someone you can't trust? Sure, someone else may be even more untrustworthy, and many of us take that into consideration, but you can never be sure, and the less you know the more confusing it gets. If the only thing that mattered was the left-right axis, the centrists should have an advantage, because they promise to expand on their left or right base. But centrists are deemed untrustworthy, partly because they try to straddle both sides, and because the easy out for them is corruption. Sanders stands for something, and you can trust him not to waver. But also if all politicians were honest, the left would have a big advantage, because their policies design to help more people. Conversely, when centrists flirt with and then abandon leftist policies, it hurts them more, because it undermines basic trust. Clinton and Obama may have won by straddling the middle, but as soon as they got elected, they joined the establishment and betrayed their trust. Right-wingers are more likely to get away with discarding their platforms, because people expect less from them, so have fewer hopes to dash.

  • Timothy Shenk [09-29]: Democrats are in crisis. Eat-the-rich populism is the only answer. I've read the author's Realigners: Partisan Hacks, Political Visionaries, and the Struggle to Rule American Democracy, which made some interesting choices in the search for pivot points in American politics, but not his more recent Left Adrift: What Happened to Liberal Politics, which tries to anticipate history by focusing on similar figures whose legacies are as yet unclear: Stanley Greenberg and Doug Schoen. Here he tries to draw a line between Dan Osborn in Nebraska and Zohran Mamdani in New York. "Eat-the-rich" is a gaudy image I'm not partial to, but they do make juicy targets, especially when you see how they behave when they think they have uncheckable power.

  • Chris Hedges [11-03]: Trump's greatest ally is the Democratic Party: Easy to understand this frustration with the Democratic Party, especially its "leadership," but harder to find a solution. I'm especially skeptical that Hedges' preference for "mass mobilization and strikes" will do the trick.

    If the Democratic Party was fighting to defend universal health care during the government shutdown, rather than the half measure of preventing premiums from rising for ObamaCare, millions would take to the streets.

    The Democratic Party throws scraps to the serfs. It congratulates itself for allowing unemployed people the right to keep their unemployed children on for-profit health care policies. It passes a jobs bill that gives tax credits to corporations as a response to an unemployment rate that — if one includes all those who are stuck in part-time or lower skilled jobs but are capable and want to do more — is arguably, closer to 20 percent. It forces taxpayers, one in eight of whom depend on food stamps to eat, to fork over trillions to pay for the crimes of Wall Street and endless war, including the genocide in Gaza.

    The defenestration of the liberal class reduced it to courtiers mouthing empty platitudes. The safety valve shut down. The assault on the working class and working poor accelerated. So too did very legitimate rage.

    This rage gave us Trump.

    I'm more inclined to argue that what gave us Trump wasn't rage but confusion. Democrats deserve more than a little blame for that — they haven't been adequately clear on what they believe in (perhaps, sure, because they don't believe in much) nor have they done a good job of articulating how their programs would benefit most people (perhaps because they won't, or perhaps because they're preoccupied with talking to donors at the expense of voters). Still, this is mostly the work of what Kurt Andersen called Evil Geniuses. Give them credit, not least of all for making Hedges' reasoned complaint sound like enraged lunacy.

Republicans: A late addition, back by popular demand, because it isn't just Trump, we also have to deal with the moral swamp he crawled out of:

  • Zack Beauchamp

    • [10-17]: Inside the war tearing the Heritage Foundation and the American right apart: "A Heritage insider alleging 'openly misogynistic and racist' conduct shines a light on the right's inner workings." Much ado about Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and Kevin Roberts.

    • [10-27]: The GOP's antisemitism crisis: "Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, and the looming Republican civil war over Jews." Author puts a lot more effort into untangling this than the subject is worth. The natural home for anti-semitism (prejudice against Jews in one's own country) is on the right, because it depends on a combination of malice and ignorance, and that's where the right thrives. The left is, by its very nature supportive of equality and tolerant of diversity, so it is opposed to prejudice against anyone. The Israel lobby has tried to play both sides of this street. With liberals, they stress the common bond of American and Israeli Jews, each with its own history of oppression, as well as their common legacy of the Holocaust. With the right, they emphasize their illiberalism, their common beliefs in ethnocracy and the use of force to keep the lesser races in place. With Christians, they can stress their joint interest in Jewish repossession of the Holy Land (albeit for different purposes). And with even the rawest anti-semites, they welcome the expulsion of Jews from the Diaspora. However, the more Israel breaks bad, the easier it is for the right to sell anti-semitic tropes not just to white nationalists but to Blacks and Latinos who recognize racism when it becomes as obvious as it is in Israel.

  • Merrill Goozner [11-06]: Republicans have stopped pretending to care about health care: "The long-term medical cost crisis can't be solved without universal coverage. For the first time in US history, the GOP doesn't even have a concept of a plan."

  • Hady Mawajdeh/Noel King [11-15]: The insidious strategy behind Nick Fuentes's shocking rise: "How a neo-Nazi infiltrated so deep into the Republican Party."

  • Christian Paz [11-22]: What Marjorie Taylor Greene's feud with Trump is really about: "MTG isn't turning against MAGA. She's trying to save it." Since this piece appeared:

Economy and technology (especially AI): I used to have a section on the economy, which mostly surveyed political economics. Lately, I run across pieces on AI pretty often, both in terms of what the technology means and is likely to do and in terms of its outsized role in the speculative economy. I suspect that if not now then soon we will recognize that we are in a bubble driven by AI speculation, which is somewhat masking a small recession driven largely by Trump's shutdown, tariffs, and inflation. In such a scenario, there are many ways to lose.

  • Whitney Curry Wimbish/Naomi Bethune [10-02]: Microsoft is abandoning Windows 10. Hackers are celebrating. "Advocacy groups warn this will leave up to 400 million computers vulnerable to hacks or in the dump." Also: "But about 42 percent of Windows computers worldwide are still using Windows 10." My counter here is that any orphaned technology should become public domain. In particular, any orphaned software should become open source. Moreover, there needs to be minimum standards for support, beyond which it can be declared as orphaned, so we don't just wind up with a lot of tech controlled by sham caretakers. I could see payouts as a way of expediting the transfer of technology to the public domain, so companies have some incentive to let go of things they don't really want anyway. I'd be willing to consider a staged approach, where instead of going into the public domain, the tech is initially transferred to non-profit customer/user groups, who can take over the support function, and possibly decide later to give it to the public. Of course, we could save ourselves a lot of trouble by getting rid of patents and other forms of censorship in the first place.

  • Zephyr Teachout [10-15]: So long as oligarchs control the public square, there will be corruption: "It's time to break up Big Media, Big Tech, and the finance system that binds them together."

  • Eric Levitz [11-04]: The most likely AI apocalypse: "How artificial intelligence could be leading most humans into an inescapable trap." He wobbles a lot between things that could be good and things that could be bad, but the latter don't quite rise to the level of apocalypse, unless he really expects the people who own the AI to use it to target and wipe out the no-longer-needed workers. I don't quite see how that works. His point that the way to avoid this "apocalypse" is to build socio-economic support institutions to spread out benefits and reduce risks. He sees AI as a resource bounty, like discovering oil and minerals, and gives Norway as an example of one country that handled its newfound wealth relatively well, as opposed to Congo, which hasn't.

  • Dean Baker: I've cited several of his pieces elsewhere (on shutdown, health care expense), but much more is worth citing, and he is an economist:

    • [11-05]: New York Times pushes blatant lies about neoliberalism. Always, you may be thinking, but specifically an op-ed by Sven Beckert [11-04]: The old order is dead. Do not resuscitate. Which argues that "capitalism is a series of regime changes," and notes that "If Davos was the symbolic pilgrimage site of the neoliberal era, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference may be emerging as the spiritual center of a new order." So it sounds like he's come to bury the old neoliberalism, but his new regime smells suspiciously like the old regime, except run by people whose only distinguishing characteristics are meaner and dumber.

  • Dani Rodrik [11-10]: What even is a 'good' job? Good question.

Miscellaneous Pieces

The following articles are more/less in order published, although some authors have collected pieces, and some entries have related articles underneath.

Daron Acemoglu [01-26]: A renewed liberalism can meet the populist challenge: Liberalism is an honorable political philosophy, which for most of its history has helped not just to increase individual freedom but to more broadly distribute wealth and respect. (Unlike conservatism, which has rarely been anything but an excuse for the rich and powerful lording it over others.) However, something is amiss if this is the best you can do:

At its core, liberalism includes a bundle of philosophical ideas based on individual rights, suspicion of and constraints on concentrated power, equality before the law and some willingness to help the weakest and discriminated members of society.

That "some willingness" doesn't get you very far. That reminds you that these days liberalism is defined not by what it aspires to but by what it's willing to discard to preserve self-interest. Meanwhile, those who still believe that individual rights can be universal have moved on to the left.

Henry Farrell [10-16]: China has copied America's grab for semiconductor power: "Six theses about the consequences." Mostly that the adversarial relationship between the US and China can easily get much worse. Or, as the last line puts it: "The risks of unanticipated and mutually compounding fuck-ups are very, very high."

Yasmin Nair:

  • [03-15]: It's freaky that movies are so bad, but AI is not the problem: No, capitalism is. Although what's freaky is how much the speculative wealth of capitalism is being propped up by the idea that whoever controls AI will dominate the world, much like how private equity companies buy up productive companies, loot them, and drive them into bankruptcy.

    PS: I found this piece from a Nathan J Robinson-reposted tweet. I was rather taken aback to find this on the bottom of the page:

    Don't plagiarise any of this, in any way. I have used legal resources to punish and prevent plagiarism, and I am ruthless and persistent.

    I'm probably safe here in that I cited her article, but just to be clear, while I often paraphrase arguments put forth by other writers in cited articles, nothing I wrote above was actually derived from her article, which I barely scanned. The title simply struck me as an opportunity to make a point, so I ran with it — as indeed I'm doing here. I did do some due diligence and searched my archives, and found that I had cited Yasmin Nair twice before:

    • Yasmin Nair [2024-03-27]: What really happened at Current Affairs?: I described this as "looks to be way too long, pained, deep, and trivial to actually read," but noted that I once had a similar experience.
    • Yasmin Nair [2024-08-23]: Kamala Harris will lose: Cited with no comment. While this was written in August, I didn't pick it up until I was doing my post-election Speaking of Which [2024-11-11]. Her ideas were pretty commonplace among left critics back in August (which is not to say they had been plagiarized, either from or by her), and were largely vindicated by her loss. Her main points were: Harris stands for nothing; Democrats are taking voters for granted; Even liberal and progressive values are being shunned; COVID is still around. The latter is a somewhat curious point she doesn't do much with, but it's rather extraordinary how quickly and thoroughly lessons and even memories of the pandemic were not just discarded but radically revised.

    My own view was that Harris had made a calculated gamble that she could gain more votes — and certainly more money, which she actually did — by moving right than she stood to lose from a left that had no real alternative. Given that, I didn't see the value in either arguing with her experts or in promoting her left critics. Her gamble failed not because she misread the left (who understood the Trump threat well enough to stick with her regardless) as because her move to the right lost her cred with ideologically incoherent voters who could have voted against Trump but didn't find reason or hope to trust he.

  • [11-12]: Kamal Harris's memoir shows exactly why her campaign flopped: A review of her campaign memoir, 107 Days: "In her new book, Kamala Harris insists she only lost the election because she didn't have enough time. But she accidentally demonstrates the real reason: she's a terrible politician."

  • [04-10]: Kamala Harris and the art of losing: Same article, pre-memoir. Just a stray thought, not occasioned here, but one big difference between Haris and Mamdani is that she was obviously reluctant to leave her safe zone, which made her look doubtful, while Mamdani seems willing to face anyone, and talk about anything. Perhaps one reason is that he seems to always speak from principles, but he doesn't use them as cudgels: he's confident enough in what he stands for to listen to challenges, and respond rationally. Nair's charge that Harris has no principles may be unfair, but unrefuted by her campaign.

Thomas Morgan [10-14]: A universe of possibilities within their resource constraints: "all about the new album Around You Is a Forest." Morgan is a jazz bassist of considerable note, out with his first album as a leader after 150+ albums supporting others. The album was built using a computer program called WOODS, which takes input from a musician and turns it into a duet of considerable variety and charm.

Sean Illing [10-26]: Why every website you used to love is getting worse: "The decay of Google, Amazon, and Facebook are part of a larger trend." Interview with Cory Doctorow, author of Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It. I've been reading a book called The Shock of the Anthropocene, which invents a half-dozen synonyms (Therocene, Thanatocene, Phagocene, etc.), but misses Doctorow's Enshittocene. Still, when I mention this concept to strangers, they grasp its meaning immediately. It's that obvious. I recently read Doctorow's The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation, which covers much of the same ground.

Nathan J Robinson:

  • [10-08]: The rise of Nick Fuentes should horrify us all: "A neo-Nazi is trying to fill the void left by the failures of the two major parties. Unless Americans are offered a visionary alternative, Fuentes' toxic ideology may flourish."

  • [09-30]: The right's latest culture war crusade is against empathy: "Blessed are the unfeeling, for they shall inherit the GOP. Books, sermons, and tweets now warn that 'toxic empathy' is destroying civilization." Cites recent books by Allie Beth Stuckey (Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion) and Joe Rigney (The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits).

  • [11-18]: There have to be consequences for advocating illegal wars: "Yet again, the New York Times' Bret Stephens advocates the overthrow of a sovereign government. Why do the readers of the 'paper of record' tolerate this dangerous propaganda?" Pundits like Stephens have a long history of failing upward, because their services are always in demand no matter how shoddy their track record: they're not paid for getting it right, just for saying the "right" things. As for consequences, Robinson proposes to give anyone who cancels their New York Times subscription a free year of Current Events.

Dylan Scott

  • [11-04]: Why are my health insurance premiums going up so much?: "One of the Democrats' best political issues is to defend the Affordable Care Act. Is it worth defending?" Up to a point, but valuable as it is, it was never more than a stopgap solution to some glaring problems (like exclusion of benefits for "previous conditions").

    • Dean Baker:

      • [10-03]: Health care cost growth slowed sharply after Obamacare: This is a key story that is easily overlooked, largely because Republicans have carped endlessly about "Obamacare," and because doing so has obscured the trends before passage.

        In the decade before Obamacare passed, healthcare costs increased 4.0 percentage points as a share of GDP — the equivalent of more than $1.2 trillion in today's economy. By contrast, in the 15 years since its passage, health care costs have increased by just 1.4 percentage points.

      • [11-03]: Why is healthcare expensive? While the ACA slowed down increases in health care expenses, it didn't eliminate the really big problem, which is monopoly rents ("the costly trinity: drugs, insurance, and doctors").

  • [11-14]: Meet the newly uninsured: "Millions of Americans will soon go without insurance. We spoke with some of them."

Julio C Gambina [11-14]: How Milei prevailed in Argentina's midterms despite economic and political problems.

Danielle Hewitt/Noel King [11-22]: The 2 men fueling Sudan's civil war: "The fall of El Fasher and Sudan's ongoing conflict, explained by an expert." Alex DeWaal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation at Tufts.

Some notable deaths: Mostly from the New York Times listings. Last time I did such a trawl was on October 21, so we'll look that far back (although some names have appeared since):

Tweets: I've usually used this section for highlighting clever responses and/or interesting ideas, but maybe I should just use it to bookmark some of our leading horribles.

  • Corey Robin [11-11]: Responds to a complaint by Paul Begala that: "Zohran Mamdani had the weakest win of a successful New York Democrat in 35 years." Begala compares Mamdani's 50.4% to Eric Adams (67%) and Bill DeBlasio (66-73%), without noting that turnout this time was 40% vs. 23-26% in recent elections, so Mamdani actually got a third more votes than any of his predecessors. In the comment section, Glenn Adler explains:

    Begala might have added that splitting the vote is the predictable result when losers of Democratic Party primary elections refuse to 'vote blue no matter who,' and choose to contest the general.

    But how many losers of Democratic primary elections for mayor of New York ever do such a thing? In the last 50 years only two, both named Cuomo.

    After losing a crowded primary to Ed Koch in 1977, Mario Cuomo lost again to Koch in a run-off, and ran again and lost to Koch in the general. With the party vote split, Koch received precisely 50% of the vote. (And, contra Begala, few would have called Koch's win 'weak'.)

    The campaign manager in this three-peat defeat? Andrew Cuomo.

    My wife worked on a financial newspaper in the late '80s, and one of the older editors reminisced about playing basketball with Cuomo when they both attended St John's Prep: "Mario was the only player who used to steal the ball -- from his own teammates!"

    A motto for the Cuomo family crest?

  • Rick Perlstein [11-18]: Responding to Richard Yeselson: "Hating Ezra Klein—as opposed to just disagreeing with him when you think he's wrong—is a weird, yet common pathology expressed by leftists here."

    For me, rooted in a pattern since his desperation to elevate Paul Ryan as worthy good-faith interlocutor. Charlie Kirk is the apotheosis: seeing politics as an intellectual game between equal teams, "left" and "right," systematically occluding fascism's rise. I hate him for it.

    It gets the better of his deeply humane impulses. And makes him far more powerful than he deserves to be, because there will always be a sellers market for anyone who helps elites play up the danger of "left" and play down the danger of "right."

    I'm pretty sure I don't hate Klein — I mostly find his interviews, essays, and the one book I've read (Why We're Polarized, not the Abundance one) to be informative and sensible, albeit with occasional lapses of the sort that seems to help him fail upwards (a pattern he has in common with Matthew Yglesias and Nate Silver). On the other hand, in my house I can't mention Klein without being reminded of his Iraq war support, so some people (and not only leftists) find some lapses unforgivable. (On the other hand, Peter Beinart seems to have been forgiven, so there's something to be said for making amends.)

  • Jeet Heer [11-21]: In response to a tweet with a video and quote from Sarah Hurwitz, where she argues that "Jewish schools should ban smartphones to keep youths from seeing the carnage in Gaza." I'm quoting there from Chris Menaham's tweet. The actual Hurwitz quote is: "I'm sorry if this is a graphic thing to say, but . . . when I'm trying to make arguments in favor for Israel . . . I'm talking through a wall of dead children." Heer responds, "if this is the case, maybe you should really reconsider your job?" My wife played me much more of Hurwitz opining, and I found the thinking to be really circular, but it really boils down to a belief that Jews are really different from everyone else, and that only Jews matter, because "we are family." That may explain why some Jews, feeling very protective of their "family," are willing to overlook "a wall of dead children," but how can anyone think that argument is going to appeal to anyone outside the family? "We're family" is something you tell your family, along with "and I love you," but before pointing out the atrocities members of your family have committed, sometimes in your name. But, let's face it, sometimes your family screws up real bad, and you have to do break with them to save yourself. For example, the Unabomber was turned in by his brother. That couldn't have been easy, but was the right thing to do. Mary Trump wrote a book, which was uniquely sympathetic to her cousin, but didn't excuse him. Too many Jews to list here have broken with Israel over the genocide, and many of them over decades of injustice toward Palestinians. That Hurwitz hasn't suggest to me that she has this incredibly insular worldview, where the only problem facing the world is antisemitism, because the only people who matter are Jews. If you take that view seriously, you might even argue that genocide in Gaza is a good thing, because it's pushing the world's deep-seated antisemitism to the surface, so you can see that Zionism is the only possible answer. But unless you're Jewish, why should you care? And if you are, why deliberately provoke hate, especially in countries like the US where most people are tolerant of Jews?

    Had I planned better, I would have given this its own subsection, back under Israel, but my wife got worked up enough of the Hurwitz panel discussion that she pointed me to a couple more articles worth mentioning here:

    • Alison Glick [11-25]: Sarah Hurwitz and liberal Zionism's hail mary: "Sarah Hurwitz's now-viral appearance at the Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly has exposed the crisis of Zionism in the U.S. and Jewish leaders' desperation to confront it."

    • Rabbi Sandra Lawson:

      • [10-20]: When power confuses equity for a threat: Regarding Hurwitz, she writes:

        Let's be clear about what she's actually saying: The problem isn't what's happening. It's that young people can see it. The issue isn't the carnage; it's the loss of narrative control. She's not disagreeing with the moral lesson that we should stand against the powerful harming the vulnerable. She's upset that people are applying it universally. The lesson was supposed to stay contained, meant only for certain victims.

        This is what it looks like when people who've always controlled the narrative suddenly don't. Hurwitz frames this as a "generational divide," but that's a misdiagnosis. Younger Jews aren't rejecting Jewish values. They're taking them seriously. They learned tzedek, tzedek tirdof ("justice, justice you shall pursue"), Tikkun Olam (our obligation to repair the world), and "do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor" — these values actually mean something to them. They were taught "Never Again" and they believe it applies to everyone. The divide isn't generational; it's between those who see Jewish ethics as universal and those who see them as exclusive. When someone with that much institutional power experiences the widening of moral concern as a threat, when visibility itself becomes the enemy, that tells you everything about who has been centered and who has been erased. . . .

        Equity is not a modern invention. It's Torah. It's the demand that we build a world where every person's divine image is honored, not just the ones historically centered. Our sages taught Kol Yisrael arevim zeh bazeh: all of us are responsible for one another. And responsibility only works if everyone has access, voice, and dignity. Communal solidarity is impossible without equity.

        So when people respond to equity with fear or rage, I see it clearly: They're mourning the loss of unexamined advantage, not the loss of dignity.

      • [11-07]: The ADL is no longer a civil rights organization. Here's what we all lose: Worth noting a couple earlier pieces. Probably muich more where these came from.

      • [10-28]: Fear is not a strategy: why this letter does not make us safer: "This letter" is one signed by more than 1000 rabbis and cantors targeting New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani.

  • Brett Wilkins [11-19]: Top Dem speechwriter says young Jews' empathy for Gaza shows Holocaust education has backfired.

  • Adam Parkhomenko: Picture of Trump and Obama sitting at some distance, looking away from each other, which Trump glum and Obama indifferent. Meme reads: "The next time someone tells you that America isn't a sick & racist country, just remind them that this nation is willing to accept treason, rape, and child abuse from a white president but not healthcare from a black one." Much more wrong with this, but I limited my comment to this:

    I'm not sure it's even possible to malign Trump, but this seems rather tone deaf a week after the Trump-Mamdani photo op. While Trump is guilty of much, these particular charges are hardly clear cut -- neglect, carelessness, entitlement, abuse of power, and lots of lying and conniving are more than obvious -- meanwhile Obama's contribution to health care was little more than fine tuning, protecting insurance companies and the rest of the industry from the ire their policies were provoking, while helping some people afford a bit better care.

Current count: 185 links, 11365 words (14443 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Tuesday, October 21, 2025

Loose Tabs

This is an occasional collection of newsworthy links and comments, much less systematic than what I attempted in my late Speaking of Which posts. The new name comes from my extensive use of browser tabs. When I get around to cleaning up, I often find tabs opened to old articles I might want to comment on and/or refer back to. So these posts are mostly housecleaning, but may also serve as a very limited but persistent record of what 20+ years ago I started calling "the end of the American empire" and nowadays feels more like "the end of civilization." I collect these bits in a draft file, and flush them out when periodically. My previous one appeared 36 days ago, on September 14.

I rather arbitrarily rushed this out, partly because it had been so long that some of the old stories have started to fade — like Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel, in the new "Topical Stories" section — while others have taken significant turns. Back when I was doing Speaking of Which I had a routine of cycling through a series of websites and sorting out whatever I found. This isn't normally anywhere close to that systematic, with this time even less than usual. Another reason for doing it now is that I have better things to do this week, and I don't want the draft file hanging over my head. I figure I can add more if need be, and possibly revisit some bits, like I did ten days after my last one, in More Thoughts on Loose Tabs. No guarantee that I'll do that again, but it seems like there's always more to say.

Topical Stories

Sometimes stuff happens, and it dominates the news/opinion cycle for a few days or possibly several weeks. We might as well lead with it, because it's where attention is most concentrated. But eventually these stories will fold into the broader, more persistent themes of the following section.

Charlie Kirk: Right-wing activist, hustler, and media personality, shot and killed on September 10, his martyrdom quickly refashioned as an excuse to purge any critical discussion of the right. Wikipedia offers a comprehensive biography as well as a sampling of his views. He ran Turning Point USA, an organizing group reputed to be popular on college campuses and instrumental in getting the vote out for Trump -- one of many ways he was closely aligned with Trump (I'm tempted to say, like Ernst Röhm was aligned with Hitler, but less muscle and more mouth). He had a prominent talk radio program, and wrote several books:

  • Time for a Turning Point: Setting a Course Toward Free Markets and Limited Government for Future Generations, with Brent Hamachek (2016)
  • Campus Battlefield: How Conservatives Can WIN the Battle on Campus and Why It Matters (2018, forward by Donald Trump Jr)
  • The MAGA Doctrine: The Only Ideas That Will Win the Future (2020)
  • The College Scam: How America's Universities Are Bankrupting and Brainwashing Away the Future of America's Youth (2022)
  • Right Wing Revolution: How to Beat the Woke and Save the West (2024)

Some more articles on Kirk:

  • Jeffrey St Clair [09-15] An occurrence in Orem: notes on the murder of Charlie Kirk. Much of this appeared in a Roaming Charges at the time, but here has been restructured for this one subject.

  • Kyle Chayka [09-17]: Charlie Kirk and Tyler Robinson came from the same warped online worlds: "The right-wing activist and his alleged assassin were both creatures of a digital ecosystem that rewards viral engagement at all costs."

  • Eric Levitz [09-20]: The comforting fiction that Charlie Kirk's killer was far-right: "Why some progressives lied to themselves about Tyler Robinson." Not a lot of good examples of "progressives" lying to themselves here (Heather Cox Richardson, Jimmy Kimmel, although few reports are detailed enough to tell). I see little value in trying to tag a label on a shooter, and much risk, of confusion or worse. But in general, shooting your opponents isn't a very left thing to do, while on the right it's both more common and more in tune with their ideology (inequality bolstered by power ultimately based on force) and custom (like their gun fetishism). But it's also likely that the more violent people on the right become, the more tempting their victims will find it to fight back in kind. When they do, that shouldn't suggest that their violence is somehow the consequence of left thinking — where inequality is seen as the key problem, and violence is opposed both on moral and political grounds — as opposed to a stray impulse from the broader American gun culture. I'd go so far as to say that if/when someone who identifies with the left shoots an alleged enemy of the left, that such a person is experiencing a (perhaps temporary) suspension of principles, not acting from them. I can even imagine scenarios where anti-right violence is reasonable — e.g., "self-defense" (which I reject as a right, where as with our "stand your ground" laws can easily be construed as a license to kill, but may accept as a mitigating factor, one rooted less in ideology than in our common human culture).

  • Katherine Kelaidis [09-24]: MAGA's first martyr: "The killing of Charlie Kirk could turn the movement into a faith that outlives Donald Trump. "As MAGA's first martyr, the myth being crafted around Kirk both mirrors that of earlier religions' martyrs while still bearing the unique marks of the MAGA faith."

  • Zack Beauchamp [09-24]: The right wants Charlie Kirk's death to be a "George Floyd" moment. Not that they want anyone to react quite like Kirk himself reacted to George Floyd's murder. Interview with Tanner Greer ("a conservative author and essayist who had written brilliantly about what Kirk meant to the right on his blog the Scholar's Stage"). This starts with a pretty thorough description of why Kirk mattered to the right ("second only to Donald Trump himself"). Beyond the media prowess, the grass roots organizing, and the networking, Greer claims him as a model: "an example of how this conservative national populist thing can be done without authoritarian measures and be very popular."

  • Steven Pinker [09-28]: The right's post-Kirk crackdown has a familiar mob logic.

  • Art Jipson [10-01]: Charlie Kirk and the making of an AI-generated martyr.

  • Alain Stephens [10-14]: The right wing desperately wants to make Charlie Kirk its MLK: "On Kirk's 'National Day of Remembrance,' white supremacists want to replace a tradition of justice with their own manufactured myth."

Jimmie Kimmel: His late-night show was suspended in response to orchestrated outrage over some speculation over Charlie Kirk's shooter, but reinstated (with numerous local stations blacked out) after a week or so. The suspension appears to have been triggered by the affiliates, which are often owned by right-wingers who jumped on this opportunity to exert their political preferences, but they did so in the context of inflammatory rhetoric by Trump's FCC chair. This goes to show that while acquiescence to fascism can be coerced, it's often just eagerly embraced by previously closeted sympathizers.

  • Zack Beauchamp [09-17] Let's be clear about what happened to Jimmy Kimmel: He "was just taken off the airwaves because the Trump administration didn't like what he had to say — and threatened his employer until they shut him up." Trump's agent here is FCC head Brendan Carr, who earned his appointment by writing the FCC section for Project 2025.

    Carr's threat should have been toothless. The FCC is prohibited by law from employing "the power of censorship" or interfering "with the right of free speech." There is a very narrow and rarely used exception for "news distortion," in which a broadcast news outlet knowingly airs false reports. What Kimmel did — an offhand comment based on weak evidence — is extremely different from creating a news report with the intent to deceive.

    But months before the shooting, Carr had begun investigating complaints under this exception against ABC and CBS stations, specifically allegations of anti-conservative bias. Stations had to take Carr's threat seriously — even though Carr himself had declared (in a 2024 tweet) that "the First Amendment prohibits government officials from coercing private parties into suppressing protected speech."

    Hours after Carr's Wednesday threat, Nexstar — the largest owner of local stations in America — suddenly decided that Kimmel's comments from two nights ago were unacceptable. Nexstar, it should be noted, is currently attempting to purchase one of its major rivals for $6.2 billion — a merger that would require express FCC approval.

  • Constance Grady [09-18] How Jimmy Kimmel became Trump's nemesis.

  • Jason Bailey [09-18] Jimmy Kimmel's cancellation is un-American: "Everyone concerned about free speech should be concerned about his show being pulled from the air."

  • Cameron Peters [09-18]: Trump's brazen attack on free speech: "How the Trump administration took Jimmy Kimmel off the air."

  • Jeet Heer [09-18]: Jimmy Kimmel's bosses sold us all out: "The mainstream media is complicit in the biggest attack on free speech since the McCarthy era. Kimmel's suspension is just the latest proof."

  • Adam Serwer [09-18]: The Constitution protects Jimmy Kimmel's mistake.

    What happened to Jimmy Kimmel is not about one comedian who said something he should not have said. The Trump administration and its enforcers want to control your speech, your behavior, even your public expressions of mourning. You are not allowed to criticize the president's associates. You do not even retain the right to remain silent; you must make public expressions of emotions demanded by the administration and its allies or incur its disfavor, which can threaten your livelihood.This is the road to totalitarianism, and it does not end with one man losing his television show.

  • Eric Levitz [09-19]: The right's big lie about Jimmy Kimmel's suspension: "the right believes that liberals are getting a taste of their own medicine."

  • Paul Starr [09-22]: Capture the media, control the culture? "Trump's attack on Jimmy Kimmel helps spotlight an even bigger problem."

  • Christian Paz [09-24]: Jimmy Kimmel's return showed the potential — and limits — of celebrity: "An emotional monologue, a takedown of Trump, and a victory for individual action." But note: "Sinclair and Nexstar are continuing their boycott of his show."

The right-wing war on free speech: The Kimmel suspension was just one headline in a much broader offensive.

  • Benjamin Mullin [09-15] Washington Post columnist says she was fired for posts after Charlie Kirk shooting: "Karen Attiah said she was fired for 'speaking out against political violence' and America's apathy toward guns."

  • Shayan Sardarizadeh/Kayleen Devlin [09-18] What is Antifa and why is President Trump targeting it?.

  • Zack Beauchamp [09-17]: The third Red Scare: "The right's new assault on free speech isn't cancel culture. It's worse."

  • Charlie Savage [09-18]: Can Trump actually designate Antifa a terrorist group? Here are the facts.

  • Jeff Sharlet [09-26]: Rubber glue fascism: "A close reading of "National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7: Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence."

  • Louis Menand [09-26]: Where the battle over free speech is leading us: Starts by quoting Trump's Jan. 20 executive ovder on "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship," then this:

    The President and his Administration then proceeded to ban the Associated Press from certain press events because it did not refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, sanction law firms that represented clients whose political views the Administration regards as unfriendly, arrest and seek to deport immigrants legally in the United States for opinions they expressed in speech or in print, defund universities for alleged antisemitic speech and leftist bias, sue the Wall Street Journal for libel, extort sixteen million dollars from the corporate owner of CBS because of the way a "60 Minutes" interview was edited, set about dismantling the Voice of America for being "anti-Trump" and "radical," coerce businesses and private colleges and universities to purge the word "diversity" from their websites, and order the National Endowment for the Arts to reject grant applications for projects that "promote gender ideology."

    After threats from the head of the Federal Communications Commission, a late-night television personality had his show suspended because of some (rather confusing) thing he said about Trump's political movement. Other media outlets were advised to get in line. Trump has proposed that licenses be withdrawn from companies that air content critical of him. The Administration has opened Justice Department investigations into and yanked security details from people whose political views it dislikes. It has also warned that it may revoke the visas of and deport any foreign nationals who joke about the death of Charlie Kirk. West Point cancelled an award ceremony for Tom Hanks, after having already winnowed its library of potentially offensive books.

    This piece goes on to review a couple of books: Christopher L. Eisgruber: Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right; Fara Dabhoiwala: What Is Free Speech? The History of a Dangerous Idea. "Eisgruber thinks that the maximalist character of American free-speech law is the best thing about it, but Dabhoiwala thinks it's the worst."

  • Matthew Whitley [09-27]: What liberals get wrong about Trump's executive order on antifa: "Liberals dismiss antifa as just an idea — instead of acting to defend the activists, researchers, and organizers facing persecution."

  • Nicole Hemmer [09-30]: We have seen the 'woke right' before, and it wasn't pretty then, either.

  • Thor Benson [09-16]: Republicans want to protect free speech for themselves and no one else: "The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress continue to attack free speech in numerous ways." Based on an interview with Adam Serwer, who sums up: "Conservatives can say what they want, and everyone else can say what conservatives want. So it basically means that only conservatives have a right to free speech." Or: "I sometimes refer to it as conservatives believing they have a right to monologue. They can speak, and you have to listen and like it. But you can't talk back."

Trump's political prosecutions: He's been collecting his grudge list. Now his DOJ has it, and is moving against his "enemies," including his investigation of John Bolton, and indictments so far against James Comey and Letitia James.

Trump, Hegseth, and the rally at Quantico: They're certainly making it look like they want to use the military to dominate and control their political enemies. The New Republic did a series of articles in 2024 about What American Fascism Would Look Like, and they're worth revisiting now that it takes less imagination to see their relevance. In particular, see Rosa Brooks [2024-05-16]: The liberal fantasy is just that: on the military in fascist America. While she starts dismissive of "liberal fantasy," she does concede this much:

Even without the specter of a president bent on retribution, the vast majority of military personnel will err on the side of obedience if there is even the slightest uncertainty about whether a particular presidential directive is unlawful. And if the senior officers most inclined to object have already been demoted or dismissed, it is implausible that Trump's orders will face widespread military resistance.

No one should kid themselves about the degree of legal latitude President Trump would enjoy. Bush administration lawyers had to turn themselves into pretzels to argue that torture wasn't really torture­. But most of Trump's stated plans won't even require lawyerly contortions. Historically, there's been a strong norm against domestic use of the military to suppress protest or engage in law enforcement activities, and some legal safeguards exist. But under the Insurrection Act, the president can employ the military domestically in response to rebellion or insurrection, or when "any part or class of [a state's] people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution," or when an act of rebellion or violence "opposes or obstructs the execution" of the law.

The Supreme Court has historically interpreted this as giving the president complete discretion to decide what kind of activity justifies domestic use of the military. "The authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President," opined the court in Martin v. Mott in 1827. If Trump invokes the Insurrection Act and deploys military personnel domestically to quell protests or round up immigrants, there will be plenty of unhappy military personnel—but they are unlikely to have any basis on which to claim such deployments are unlawful.

And when it comes to military action outside the United States, the news is worse. Notwithstanding Congress's constitutional powers and legislation such as the War Powers Act, successive presidents have enjoyed a virtually unconstrained ability to use military force beyond our borders. There would be plenty of military unhappiness if Trump directed attacks on Mexican soil or the use of tactical nuclear weapons, but it's unlikely military leaders would have any lawful basis to object.

Military leaders who dislike the orders they receive sometimes engage in the time-honored Pentagon tradition of stonewalling and slow-rolling, looking for ways to quietly thwart the objectives of their civilian masters while maintaining a facade of compliance. But if President Trump uses his power to fire or demote insufficiently loyal general officers, as he says he will, even this dubious avenue of military resistance will likely be closed off.

The purpose of the Quantico gathering of all of the military's general officers was pretty clearly to assess and police their loyalty to the administration, which increasingly matches Trump's political agenda. One big thing on that agenda is staying in power beyond Trump's elected term. Using the military to do that seems desperate and risky, but it is something to think about, if only because it is something Trump's people are definitely thinking about. The following are some articles on the Trump-Hegseth military — rechristened the War Department, because they want you to fear it, and because they see a growing cult of "warrior ethos" as serving their needs:

Shutdown: The federal government was nominally shut down on October 1, with the expiration of the earlier continuing resolution that allowed the government to spend appropriated money pending new authorization. For an overview, see Wikipedia: 2025 United States federal government shutdown. it has continued at least 12 days, making it one of the longest of the increasingly frequent shutdowns. I've paid very little attention to this, but have noted a few articles below. Without careful study, I'm inclined to believe that Democrats are historically so opposed to shutdowns that if they're responsible for this one — and they are blocking cloture on some kind of continuing resolution in the Senate — they must have an awful good reason for doing so. And with Trump politicizing every nook and cranny of government, I'm not sure that shutting things down will be much worse than letting them continue to run amok as they've been doing. But that's not a reason for or against shutdown; it's just a reason not to get overly worked up over the issue.

Bari Weiss: Former "anti-woke" New York Times commentator keeps failing upwards, now to the top editor spot at CBS News.

Epsteinmania: Not dead yet, especially if you're a Democratic pol, but fading fast.

Kamala Harris: She's in the news (barely) with her campaign memoir, 107 Days.

  • Jeet Heer [09-26]: The shortest presidential campaign: "a devastating indictment of Joe Biden. It also documents the limits of her own politics."

  • Eoin Higgins [10-07]: Jonathan Chait thinks Kamala Harris went too far left. He's just falling for Trump's demagoguery. I haven't read Chait since he moved to The Atlantic — not that I wouldn't have taken the opportunity to ridicule recent pieces like Democrats still have no idea what went wrong, but paying for him seems a bit much — but he seems stuck in the idea that the left-right axis is all there is to politics, and that implies that the left party should hew as close as possible to the right party in order to obtain the most votes. But politics doesn't work that way: some issues don't have a left-right divide, and there are other traits to consider, like integrity, competency, fortitude, and leadership skills. But perhaps most foolishly, he assumes that the right's talking points matter to the mugwump voters he reveres as centrists. The problem is centrism isn't merely a shade between left and right. Centrists are conflicted, embracing some things the right says, and some things the left says. The trick isn't to muddy the waters, as Chait would have you do, but to make your points seem more important than theirs. Soft-pedaling rarely if ever works, because they pick up on your doubts and don't believe you.

    By the way, for an idea of what Chait's been writing over there, see this list of titles. His anti-Trump pieces are probably as good as ever.

  • Amy Davidson Sorkin [10-08]: Who can lead the Democrats? "Kamala Harris almost won in 2024. So why does her new book feel like another defeat?" Possibly because henceforth the losing is what people remember, what defines her, and what she'll never escape from. "One of the puzzles of 107 Days is that such details do not, on the whole, come across as humanizing, let alone endearing, but as dreary and even sour." Maybe because she's a loser? And nothing she has to say is substantial enough to overcome that? "Harris was dealt an enormously difficult hand and for the most part she played it well, galvanizing much of her party while enduring an immeasurable level of misogyny and racism. And she almost won." But she didn't. And the "galvanizing" had less to do with her than with a party base that desperately wanted her to be the leader they needed. The party was psyched to move beyond Biden, and readily accepted her as their leader. I can nitpick now, but I didn't have a problem with going with her back then, nor did other Democrats. We trusted her, and even her team, and they let us down. That's not easily forgiven. Still, one thing I wonder here is since she does have some kind of critique of Biden, would it have helped had she been more explicit about it during the election.

  • Ross Barkan [10-11]: The emptiness of Kamala Harris: "The lack of vision in her book tour shows why she lost."

No Kings protests: I've never had much interest in demonstrations. My first was against the Vietnam War, and while I was not just opposed, the war had shaken all my faith in American justice and decency, I only went because my brother insisted. I only went this time because my wife insisted. We wandered around the northwest perimeter, and left early. Lots of people, all sorts, many in costume, most with a wide range of homemade signs. They were lining Douglas, but hadn't blocked traffic. It was very loud, with chants of "this is what democracy looks like," and car horns (presumably in approval, but I saw one Trump pickup with four flags blasting out "YMCA"). Here's some video (caption says "8,000 to 10,000 people"). I'm not making a search for articles, but ran across some anyway:

  • Quinta Jurcic [10-18]: Resistance is cringe: "But it's also effective."

    Idealism helped motivate Trump's opponents during his first term. But it has the potential to carry even more weight during his second, given how the president's anti-democratic project is not as constrained as it was the first time around. As Levin of Indivisible told me, "The real enemy in an authoritarian breakthrough moment is nihilism and cynicism and fatalism." This idea was a regular subject of the philosopher Hannah Arendt, who famously argued that totalitarian regimes depend on eroding their subjects' sense of political possibility. Such governments, she wrote, aim not "to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any."

    "I didn't like resistlib cringe content in the first Trump administration," wrote Adam Gurri, the editor in chief of Liberal Currents, in a social-media post two months after Trump's second inauguration, admitting: "I was wrong. I was just being a snob." As Gurri suggests, the administration's insistence on irony and insincerity has given a new power to plain, old, corny symbols. Recently, a photo published in the Chicago Tribune went viral, showing a Marine veteran protesting amid clouds of tear gas in front of an ICE detention facility in Broadview, Illinois, stoically holding not one but two American flags. Even the name of the No Kings protest is a reclamation of foundational American heritage that might have felt cheesy a year ago, but today carries a new seriousness.

Major Threads

Israel: Worse than ever, but main news story as been "Trump's Peace Plan," which (without much research yet, I can safely say) doesn't show much understanding of "peace" or "plan," and is probably just a deniable, insincere feint by Netanyahu. Still, it's hard to imagine Israel accepting any measure of peace without strongarming by the US, so hopeful people are tempted to read more into this than is warranted. Many articles scattered below. I'll try to sum them up later.

  • Muhannad Ayyash [07-13]: Calling the world to account for the Gaza genocide: Review of Haidar Eid's book, Banging on the Walls of the Tank, which "reveals a disturbing but irrefutable reality: the world has abandoned the Palestinian people to be annihilated as a people in the most calculated and brutal fashion possible."

  • Amos Brison [08-01]: Germany's angel of history is screaming: "As Israel obliterates Gaza with Berlin's backing, German public support is plummeting. Yet the government is crushing dissent and refusing to change course — all in the name of atoning for Germany's own genocidal history." One sign from the demo pic: "NEVER AGAIN FOR ANYONE."

  • Ben Lorber [08-20]: Israel's iron grip on the American right is slipping away: "Generational shift, isolationism, and nationalist anger are breaking the GOP's pro-Israel consensus. But the left must remain wary of their motives."

  • Alaa Salama [08-29]: Forget symbolic statehood — the world must recognize Israeli apartheid: "To push to recognize a Palestinian state creates the illusion of action, but delays the real remedies: sanctioning and isolating Israel's apartheid regime."

  • Bernie Sanders [09-17]: It is genocide: "Many experts have now concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. I agree." It took him quite a while, but he's pretty clear (and blunt) about it here.

  • Lili Meyer [09-18]: How "antisemitism" became a weapon of the right: "At a time when allegations of antisemitism are rampant and often incoherent, historian Mark Mazower offers a helpfully lucid history of the term." Review of Mazower's book, On Antisemitism: A Word in History.

  • Abdallah Fayyad [09-19]: The growing conseusns that Israel is committing genocide: "A UN commission joined a chorus of experts in calling Israel's actions a genocide. Will the world listen?

  • Joshua Keating [09-23]: Turning point or political theater? The big push for Palestinian statehood, explained.

  • Nick Cleveland-Stout:

    • [09-25]: Israel is paying influencers $7,000 per post: "Netanyahu referred this week to a 'community' pushing out preferred messaging in US media -- and boy are they making a princely sum."

    • [09-29]: Israel wants to train ChatGPT to be more pro-Israel: "In a new $6M contract, US firm 'Clock Tower X' will generate and deploy content across platforms, help game algorithms, plus manage AI 'frameworks" to make them more friendly to the cause." Former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale "is at the center of the Israeli government's new deal," so aside from whatever misinformation they produce, there is an element of old-fashioned payola at work.

    • [10-07]: Israel wants to hire Chris Pratt and Steph Curry: "The Jewish state is seeking to target Christian Evangelical churches for support, using celebrities and an anti-Palestinian message in a new $3.2M effort."

  • Lama Khouri [09-26]: The necropolitics of hunger: man-made famine and futurity of the Palestinian nation. This stresses that both the short-term and long-term impacts of Israel's starvation tactic concentrate on children. Even those who survive will bear the scars as long as they live. This is sometimes hidden in jargon, like "the mental architecture of unchilding" and "intergenerational biological inheritance," which may take you a while to unpack, but is no less hideous in abstraction.

  • Kelley Beaucar Vlahos [09-27]: Israel wins TikTok: "Larry Ellison and a constellation of billionaires will finally get their way, buying the very app they wanted to kill a year ago for being too 'pro-Palestinian'. Hard to credit this, but note: "TikTok has now become where 30% of Americans get their news." Related here:

  • Jonah Valdez [10-01]: The Trump-Netanyahu peace deal promises indefinite occupation.

  • Joshua Keating:

  • Phyllis Bennis [10-03]: Trump and Netanyahu's 20-point Gaza ultimatum: "The plan for Gaza does not promise to end Israel's genocide — but does promise indefinite occupation."

  • Qassam Muaddi

  • Shaul Magid [10-07]: The Zionist consensus among US Jews has collapsed. Something new is emerging: "Two years after the 7 October massacre and the onset of Israel's slaughter in Gaza, American Jewry has been profoundly transformed." Magid is the author of an interesting book on the relationship between American Judaism and Zionism, The Necessity of Exile.

  • William Hartung [10-07]: $21.7 billion in US military aid has fueled Israel's war on Gaza: "A new report shows how American support has been essential to what many experts are now calling a genocide."

  • Jeffrey Sachs/Sybil Fares [10-08]: A decolonised alternative to Trump's Gaza peace plan: "Only a deoclonised plan centered on Palestinian sovereignty can bring lasting peace to Gaza." They list 20 points, in parallel to the Trump points. The most problematic part of this is the extension of Palestinian sovereignty to include some (or all) of the West Bank, with all of it governed by the PA. Although I can imagine Israel, under pressure, giving up its claims to Gaza, there is no chance of it doing so with the West Bank settlements let alone the (illegally, sure) annexed Jerusalem and Golan Heights. While the situation for Palestinians in the West Bank is grim, the situation in Gaza is far more dire, so much so it has to be addressed separately — which means bracketing the broader and more intractable issues of ethnocracy and apartheid. A second point is that the PA is more accurately seen as an Israeli client than as a representative of the Palestinian people. They have no more right to administer Gaza than Hamas does. While I expect that whoever organizes aid to a post-Israel, post-Hamas Gaza will be in the driver's seat, the goal there should in a fairly short time frame to stand up a new polity, which will certainly still have to negotiate with donors but will practice sovereignty. One big problem is that Israel (and before them the UK, and before them the Ottomans) has never allowed the establishment of democracy in any Palestinian territory. Hence, leadership has either been appointed to quislings, or seized by revolutionaries, with neither serving the people well, giving Israel an excuse to run roughshod over all of them.

  • Trita Parsi [10-09]: Trump Gaza Deal will work: If he keeps pressure on Israel: That assumes that Trump has any independent will in the matter. No evidence of that yet.

  • Gershon Baskin [10-09]: A first short note on some thoughts this morning. I was pointed to this piece with a tweet from Michael Goldfarb, who wrote: "Simply the most important piece written about the deal to end the war in Gaza written by a man with two decades of negotiating experience negotiating with Hamas including the last two years since the war started." Baskin is a New York-born Israeli columnist, who founded the think tank IPCRI. He was an adviser to Rabin during the Oslo years, and was involved in the Gilad Shalit negotiations, and has been involved in later "back channel" negotiations with Hamas (via Qatar). He offers some details here:

    During the period between the Israeli attack in Doha and September 19, I was working on ways to get back to the point where we were negotiating the end of the war, with all of the details. Hamas was in a paralysis mode and did not know what to do or how to get back to talks about ending the war.

    On September 19, in the late evening Witkoff called me and said "we have a plan." We had a long conversation and I supported what the Americans were planning and I made a few suggestions on how to get Hamas on board. I was requested to convince the Hamas leadership that Trump was serious and wants the war to end. Throughout the last months I have been in contact with 8 members of the Hamas leadership outside of Gaza. Three of them engaged with me in discussions. I did not make suggestions regarding the Israeli side because for over a year I believed that if President Trump decides that the war has to end, Trump will force Netanyahu into the agreement. That is exactly what happened.

    So he seems to have some inside connections, but isn't really an insider, especially on the Israeli side. He admits to having very few details, but stresses that this isn't just a ceasefire, but an end to the war. He's very generous to Trump, Witkoff, and Kushner. I'm skeptical — perhaps he is also, and simply realizes that these are very vain people who respond to flattery, something I'm in no position to care about — and in any case I'm less forgiving, but it does appear that Netanyahu's decision to bomb Qatar finally crossed a red line, which at least temporarily moved Trump to what seems to be Witkoff's deal. Netanyahu has always preferred bending to breaking, so he bent, trusting his own skills to win out in the end. (After all, he signed Wye River, but kept it from being implemented.) One more quote here (my bold):

    The new government in Gaza — this has to be a Palestinian government and not a neo-colonial mechanism which the Palestinians do not control. The names of independent Gazans with a public profile have been given to the Americans and also to other international and Arab players involved with the day after and the reconstruction of Gaza. The names that Samer Sinijlawi and I submitted to these important players were Gazan civil society leaders that we met with several times on zoom. They drafted a letter and signed it to President Trump that I delivered to Witkoff for the President stating that they were willing to play a role in the governance of Gaza. We don't know how this new government will be formed and when it will take over. Hamas agreed from the outset to this kind of government, even from last year. We don't know if Mahmoud Abbas will ask Dr. Nasser Elkidwa to play a role in the governance of Gaza — something that he has said that he is ready to do.

    I would go much farther in separating Gaza from Israel, including from the Palestinian Authority, which is of necessity an instrument of occupation. I also worry about the thinking on future governance and development by everyone involved, which is another reason to stress the importance of self-determination in Gaza. On the other hand, the people need help, and humoring the rich is inevitably baked into that deal.

  • Refaat Ibrahim [10-10]: When the bombs in Gaza stop, the true pain starts: "The ceasefire brought a silence that revealed Gaza's deepest wounds — the grief, loss and exhaustion that war had only buried."

  • Ramzy Baroud [10-13]: The defeat of Israel and the rebirth of Palestinian agency: It's hard to argue that either of those things happened, but there is still life in Gaza after two years of genocide, and the current "mere pause" (Baroud's term) offers a moment to reflect on the many failures of Israel's vilest schemes and the West's indulgence of Israeli atrocities. Baroud's prediction that "there will certainly be a subsequent round of conflict" depends primarily on whether Israel can be permanently separated from Gaza, which is not yet envisioned in the Trump plan. Then, of course, there is the West Bank, which is still up for grabs, and will be until Israel learns from its failures, including the damage to its reputation, and sets out on another course.

  • Juan Cole [10-14]: Terror from the skies of the Middle East: a hug airbase with a small country attached to it. Cole, by the way, as a new book: Gaza Yet Stands.

  • Jonah Valdez [10-15]: Israel's mounting ceasefire violations in Gaza: Israel has repeatedly violated ceasefires in the past, and one has good reason to be wary, but I'm not seeing a lot of detail here, beyond the aid restriction from 600 to 300 trucks per day.

  • Connor Echols [10-16]: Gaza ceasefire hanging by a thread: "Repeated violations of Monday's agreement could provoke a return to war." The both-sides-ism here, as everywhere regarding Gaza, is remarkably asymmetrical: Hamas is accused of dragging its feat on repatriating the bodies of dead hostages, some or many of which are likely buried under the rubble of Israeli bombing; Israel, on the other hand, is killing people, and hindering the delivery of aid. The reports about Hamas executing Israel-supported gang members are troubling, but could well be fake (easy to understand why Hamas might execute Israeli agents, harder to see why they would take and publish videos) — in any case, if Israel cared, they should prioritize the release of gang members over hostage corpses. And by the way, Israel's decimation of the Hamas civilian administration is making the transition to peace all the more treacherous. Israel's support for gangs to sow chaos shows even more bad faith. That, too, was undoubtedly part of the plan.

  • Tom Hull:

    • [10-17]: Gaza War Peace Plan: "Twenty Trump points, for better or worse." The first of two pieces I've written on plans to end the war. This one takes Trump's 20 points one-by-one, noting the hidden assumptions and various possible meanings. I promise a second piece, more on what I think should be done.

    • [10-21]: Making peace in Gaza and beyond: A second piece, fairly long, tries to put the Gaza War Peace Plan back into its broader context, so peace can work for everyone. Along the way, I sketch out several ideas for developing international law to provide a framework that puts people about nation states and their power interests.

  • Win McCormack [10-19]: The crime is nationcide: "This is the precise offense of which Israel is guilty." I find this less useful than Baruch Kimmerling's term "politicide" (the title of his 2003 book, subtitled "Ariel Sharon's War Against the Palestinians, which I recall as the first book to really get to the core of Sharon's agenda). Sharon's goal was to destroy the Palestinian Authority, leaving Palestinians with no political options or hopes: with none, all they could do was fight, and Sharon was confident in his ability to kill any who do. This is where the "utterly defeated people" phrase came from. But nationcide makes two mistakes: it assumes that there is a nation to kill, and it suggests that the genocide is incidental to some other aim. There never has been a Palestinian nation to kill. The idea of one was a reaction to Israeli nationalism, and Israeli has struggled mightily (and successfully) to prevent one from forming, but there is a Palestinian people. While Sharon was content merely to reduce them to powerlessness, the current mob has gone much further. I'm not sure "genocide" is the best word for what they're doing, but it is a word that that has legal weight, and if it is to mean anything it has to be applied here.

Russia/Ukraine:

  • Connor Echols:

  • Anatol Lieven [09-30]: 'The West demanded that we get involved in a war with Russia': "In an interview, Georgian President Mikheil Kavelashvili talks about how external interference has poisoned his country's chances for EU ascension."

  • Carl Bildt [10-19]: Putin is out of options: "Whether Russian leaders realize it or not, they have no path to victory." That's been true for a long time. But Ukraine also has no path to victory, and it's long proven futile for either or any side to think in those terms. Perhaps Putin's hope was that Trump would throw Zelensky under the bus, but he missed his chance to dicker in Alaska, and when Europe regrouped behind Zelensky Trump had to pick sides. So the war slogs on, under the dead weight of leaders who were selected not for insight and reason but because they projected as tough and tenacious, cunning and/or stupid.

Trump Regime: Practically every day I run across disturbing, often shocking stories of various misdeeds proposed and quite often implemented by the Trump Administration -- which in its bare embrace of executive authority we might start referring to as the Regime. Collecting them together declutters everything else, and emphasizes the pattern of intense and possibly insane politicization of everything. Pieces on the administration.

Donald Trump (Himself): As for Il Duce, we need a separate bin for stories on his personal peccadillos -- which often seem like mere diversions, although as with true madness, it can still be difficult sorting serious incidents from more fanciful ones.

  • John Whitlow [09-18]: The real estate roots of Trumpism and the coming clash with democratic socialism: "Trump's brand of authoritarianism emerges out of New York's real estate industry. As mayor, Zohran Mamdani vows to curb that sector's outsized power."

  • Michael M Grynbaum [09-19] Judge dismisses Trump's lawsuit against the New York Times: "The judge said that the complaint failed to contain a 'short and plain statement of the claim.' Trump has 28 days to refile." Trump was asking for $15 billion in damages, because four New York Times reporters were "disparaging Mr. Trump's reputation as a successful businessman."

  • Cameron Peters [09-23]: Trump's weird day at the UN, briefly explained.

  • Abdallah Fayyad [09-25]: Why voters keep shrugging off Trump's corruption.

  • Eric Levitz [09-26]: The big contradiction in progressive thinking about Trump: "The Democratic debate over whether 'moderation' works is very confused."

  • Brian Karem [10-03]: I've covered Trump for years -- and I've never seen him this scared.

  • Margaret Hartmann [10-10]: Will Trump win a Nobel Peace Prize? All about his desperate bid. Lots of grotty details, but all? The main thing that's missing is the calculation behind the bid. Trump surely knows that he has no real interest in the prize, what it stands for and/or the legacy behind it. And given that he focuses much more on being seen as a warrior (or maybe just a thug), wouldn't he be a bit embarrassed if he actually won? Even Obama was embarrassed when he won. I'll never forget Ariel Sharon's face when GW Bush introduced him as "a man of peace." Sharon's autobiography was Warrior, and he wasn't exactly reknown for his wit. But most importantly, Trump surely understands that the absurdity of his bid guarantees that it will be huge publicity either way. And his supporters will add his loss to the long list of slights and insults he has endured as their champion.

  • Alex Shephard [10-10]: Why Trump will never win a Nobel Peace Prize: "He's embarrassingly desperate for the honor, but his presidency is becoming ever more dictatorial and bloodthirsty."

  • Michael Tomasky [10-10]: Memo to future historians: This is fascism, and millions of us see it: "From Chicago to Portland, James Comey to Letitia James, and so much else — this is no longer America.

  • Nia Prater [10-12]: Trumpworld goes to war over Nobel Peace Prize loss: "The White House and Trump allies are attacking the Nobel Committee, which gave Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado this year's prize."

  • CK Smith [10-13]: Trump saves Columbus Day from "left-wing arsonists": No more Indigenous Peoples' Day.

  • Kim Phillips-Fein [10-14]: A family business: "Trump's theory of politics." A review of Melinda Cooper's book, Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance.

  • George Packer [10-17]: The depth of MAGA's moral collapse: "How we got to 'I love Hitler.'" Paywalled, of course, but looks to be a major review of the recent prevalence of Nazi paraphernalia among young MAGA Republicans -- I've already skipped over dozens of such stories, figuring that there is little reason to nitpick among the excrescences of people we already know to be vile and/or stupid. But if you need to be reminded that "Professing love for Hitler is more than anti-Semitic — it's antihuman," Packer is here for you. My only question was whether to give this its own slot in the miscellaneous articles, or to dedicate a whole section to recent right-wing ideologizing. But then I realized I already had a section on that explains his subtitle. While one could just as plausibly argue that Trump is merely the vessel of Fox's fermented rot, is unique contribution was in freeing the right from any second-thoughts of shame. In such a universe, the new normal is to seek out the most extreme expressions, which brings them back to Hitler.

  • Simon Jenkins [10-20]: In Gaza, and now Ukraine, Donald Trump may be peace activists' greatest ally. That deserves our backing: "It's a fool's game trying to understand the president's true motives, but do our misgivings matter if the outcome is a speedy end to war?" Yes, it does matter. Peace terms matter, and their variances reflect the intents and goals of those who negotiate or dictate them. Never trust the fascist, even if it seems like the trains are finally running on time. They won't be for long, because the inequity and arrogance, the belief above all in the efficacy of force, is fundamental for them, and will always come back to bite you. Other key point here is don't assume that what Trump is pushing for is really peace. Real peace requires that people on all sides feel safe and secure. That's not Trump's thing. I'd also worry about giving Trump any praise, even ironical, that can be taken out of context (as you know he will do). I don't have a problem acknowledging real accomplishments, but we should keep in mind that the wars Trump supposedly is ending were ones that he helped start in the first place, and has helped sustain as long as he's been president.

  • Devlin Barrett/Tyler Pager [10-21]: Trump said to demand Justice Dept. pay him $230 million for past cases: "Senior department officials who were defense lawyers for the president and those in his orbit are now in jobs that typically must approve any such payout, underscoring potential ethical conflicts."

Democrats:

Republicans: A late addition, back by popular demand, because it isn't just Trump, we also have to deal with the moral swamp he crawled out of:

Miscellaneous Pieces

The following articles are more/less in order published, although some authors have collected pieces, and some entries have related articles underneath.

Jeffrey St Clair:

  • [07-25]: Un-hinged: Trump at the UN. Mostly excerpts from the speech, as they practically write their own critiques. For instance, when Trump says, "Under my leadership, energy costs are down, gasoline prices are down, grocery prices are down, mortgage rates are down, and inflation has been defeated," all St Clair needs to add is: "Energy costs are up, gas prices are up, grocery prices are up, inflation is rising."

  • [09-26]: Roaming Charges: What's the frequency, Donald?

  • [10-03]: Roaming Charges: He loves a (buff) man in uniform: Quotes from Trump's nonsense at Quantico, then moves on to recent ICE tactics, then to Israel. He quotes an Israeli rabbi praying for all the children in Gaza to starve, and another "frequent commentator on NewsMax" as saying he wants Greta Thunberg terrified, "rocking in a corner, covering her eyes, pissing." Then there's this Mike Huckabee quote:

    I've been married 51 years . . . There comes a point where there's just no point in even thinking about getting a divorce. The reason Israel and the US will never get a divorce is because neither country can afford to pay the alimony . . . We're hooked up for life.

    It's hard to tell what he understands less of: international relations, America, Israel, or marriage. But he must be thinking of divorce if he's rationalizing so hard against it.

  • [10-10]: Roaming Charges: United States of Emergency. Opens with (examples follow):

    The fatal flaw in Donald Trump's scheme to whitewash American history of its most depraved and embarrassing episodes is that his administration is committing new acts of barbarity and stupidity in real-time on an almost hourly basis. Consider the last week in Chicago and Portland.

    Much more, including:

    • The Energy Department has added "emissions" and "climate change" to its banned words list. Too bad George Carlin isn't around to expound upon the 1,723 words you can't say in the Trump Administration . . .

Marcy Newman [08-17]: Sarah Schulman tackles the urgency, and pitfalls, of solidarity: A review of her book, The Fantasy and Necessity of Solidarity.

Zack Beauchamp

  • [08-20]: How conservatives help their young thinkers — and why liberals don't: This is a basic asymmetry: the right wants hierarchy and inequality, and those who profit can afford to hire propagandists; the left, lacking such incentives, depends on good will/altruism, which can be tough to muster when everyone has to scratch out a living. That may have been good enough for a long time, but the big right-wing media push since the 1970s has flooded the zone with crap — a surprising amount of which was taken seriously during the New Democrat vogue. We don't need our own counter-crap, but we do need a way for scholars and reporters to do honest work about the real world, and to make a living doing so.

  • [09-03]: The right debates just how weird their authoritarianism should be: "A roundtable discussion among leading MAGA intellectuals suggests they might be suffering from success." Not an interview, but a review of a 2-hour video roundtable featuring Curtis Yarvin, Patrick Deneen, Chris Rufo, and Christopher Caldwell. "The overall direction, it is clear, is giving more and more power over our lives to Donald J. Trump." For background, refer back to:

  • [2024-09-25]: The 6 thinkers who would define a second Trump term: Caldwell, Deneen, and Yarvin again, plus James Burnham, Harvey Mansfield, Elbridge Colby.

  • [09-19]: This is how Trump ends democracy: "The past week has revealed Trump's road map to one-party rule." Having just read his chapter on Orban's Hungary in his The Reactionary Spirit book, much of this seems pretty familiar.

Katha Pollitt [09-09] We're living in an age of scams: "The anonymity of the Internet makes us all vulnerable to being swindled — and it's making us trust each other less." This is very true, and very important, aside from the obvious point that the age of scams didn't start with the Internet: scams have plagued us at least since the snake oil salesmen of the medicine shows, accelerating with every media advance. They grew out of the invention of money as a representative of value, and the spirit of capitalism, which considered all profits morally equal. This article hardly scratches the surface, not even mentioning AI, which is already a major source of fabricated scam props. I'm surprised that nobody has taken this up as a political issue, given that nearly everyone would support measures to cut down on fraud, spam, and non-solicited advertising. (I wouldn't have a problem with people producing ads and putting them on a public website where people could request them.)

Henry Giroux [09-26]: The road to the camps: echoes of a fascist past.

Julian Lucas [09-29]: Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web. Now he wants to save it." "Today, in the era of misinformation, addictive algorithms, and extractive monopolies, he thinks he can do it again." Not real clear to me how he intends to do that, but I suppose more of it is laid out in his new memoir, This Is for Everyone: The Unfinished Story of the World Wide Web.

[PS: I was struck by this book title by one of Berners-Lee's blurbists: The Future of the Internet — and How to Stop It. This also led me to Tim Wu: The Age of Extraction: How Tech Platforms Conquered the Economy and Threaten Our Future Prosperity, and (only slightly blunter) Cory Doctorow: Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse, and What to Do About It.]

Umair Irfan [09-29] America's flood insurance system is doomed to fail: "Between Congress, property development, and climate change, there's no easy fix."

Peter Balonon-Rosen/Jolie Myers/Sean Rameswaram [09-30]: How Rupert Murdoch took over the world.

Peter Turchin [10-02]: Hundreds of societies have been in crises like ours. An expert explains how they got out. "An analysis of historical crises over the past 2,000 years offers lessons for avoiding the end times." I read Turchin's 2023 book End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration, which is based on a database of crisis periods that increasingly looks like a misguided AI training set. Here he reduces the wisdom of ages to something he calls "the wealth pump," where:

  1. It causes growing popular discontent.
  2. The wealth pump creates too many wealthy elites — more than there are high-power positions.
  3. The wealth pump creates too many youths pursuing not just college but even more advanced degrees in hopes of escaping looming "precarity."

Thus he sees frustrated, desperate "wannabe elites" driving nations to ruin. He suggests some remedies here that I don't disagree with: regulation encouraging production over rent extraction; progressive taxation; worker empowerment (including unions); reducing concentrations of political power. Still, when I read his title, my gut reaction is emphasize new aspects of the present instead of recurring patterns of inequality — and not because I discount the problems posed by significant inequality. It's just that the quantity and quality of changes from 250, 100, even 50 years ago are so overwhelming.

Whitney Curry Wimbish/Naomi Bethune [10-02]: Microsoft is abandoning Windows 10. Hackers are celebrating. "The company will stop supporting the OS on October 14. Advocacy groups warn this will leave up to 400 million computers vulnerable to hacks or in the dump." Ok, here's an idea to mull over: any time a company effectively ceases to support a copyrighted software product, that product must be surrendered to the public, as open source software, so that the public can pick up the slack. Stuff that's officially mothballed obviously should qualify. There also needs to be a mechanism for to appeal cases of inadequate support, so companies that aren't serious about support can't simply lock up their old products by pretending to go through the motions. Selling off the technology to a sham company might be another way to work around this, and another loophole that could be tightened up. There are probably more angles to consider, but the general point is that we should do what we can to make forced obsolescence unviable as a business strategy.

Jared Bernstein [10-03]: Measuring the vibecession: "Why top-line federal statistics miss the economic pain average Americans feel."

Tom Hull [10-04]: Cooking Chinese: My own piece, but surely worth a mention here. Some pictures and links to recipes. Not much technique, but all you really need are some knife skills, a glossary of ingredients, and a willingness to turn the heat up and work fast. Some philosophizing on the theme that a possible path to world peace is learning that all food, no matter how exotic it seems, lands on the same universal taste buds. I also wrote a postscript here:

Dan Grazier [10-07]: US gov't admits F-35 is a failure: "With some wonky, hard to decipher language, a recent GAO report concluded the beleaguered jet will never meet expectations." It was conceived in the 1990s in Lockheed's famous "skunk works" as a state-of-the-art stealth fighter-bomber. The contract was awarded in 2001, but the first plane didn't fly until 2006. It's been a fiasco, but has made Lockheed a lot of money. Lately, you mostly hear about it when some sucker ally agrees to buy some, less because they need or even want it than to please America's arms exporters.

Ruth Marcus [10-09]: Nixon now looks restrained: Author focuses on cases where a president weighs in on a pending criminal case, as Nixon did with Charlie Manson, and Trump with James Comey, but the point can be applied almost everywhere. "But the thirty-seventh President looks like a model of restraint when compared with the forty-seventh, and his supposedly incendiary commentary anodyne by contrast to what emanates daily from the current occupant of the White House. What was once aberrant — indeed, unimaginable — is now standard Trumpfare, demeaning not only the Presidency but to the rule of law." Still, one shouldn't hold Nixon up as a "model of restraint," or as any sort of moderate or liberal, as he consistently did things that in their context were every bit as extremely reactionary as Trump is today. Indeed, Trump's argument that nothing he does as president can be illegal has a singular precedent: Richard Nixon. The slippery slope that Nixon started us on leads directly to Trump.

Bruce E Levine [10-10]: Celebrating Lenny Bruce's 100th birthday: "The world is sick and I'm the doctor".

Democracy Now! [10-10]: 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for anti-Maduro leader María Corina Machado "opposite of peace": interview with Greg Grandin, who pointed out (per Jeet Heer, link below):

Machado's brand of democracy promotion, reliant as it is on US military intervention, deserves skepticism. Speaking on Democracy Now! on Friday, Yale historian Greg Grandin described her winning of the Nobel as a "really a shocking choice." Grandin noted that Machado supported a coup against democratically elected President Hugo Chávez in 2002. Her hard-line position on economic matters has both hampered and divided the anti-Maduro coalition. And the fact that she's praised both the bombing of Venezuelan boats and welcomed further American interventions into Venezuela is likely to strengthen Maduro's hold on power, since it vindicates his claim that the opposition is filled with US puppets. Grandin also pointed out that if the Nobel committee had wanted to legitimize the anti-Maduro opposition, they could've given the award to feminist leaders who are both critics of the regime and oppose US intervention.

    Jeet Heer [10-13]: The Nobel Peace Prize just surrendered to Trump: "Trump is mad that he didn't win. But by honoring Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Committee has endorsed his war against Venezuela — and continued Europe's MAGA groveling." Heer concludes:

    Trump is foolish to think he needs to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He has all the power and glory he could want, because the people who could theoretically stop him have decided to surrender.

  • Greg Grandin:

    • [09-09]: The rift in Trump world over Venezuela: "The Trump administration wants to exert more control over Latin America. Will it come by deal-making or by force?"

      The latter question isn't even rhetorical. To Trump, a "deal" is an occasion when someone else surrenders to his ultimatum. Such deals tend to be as resented as force, just less dramatically opposed. But also note that Trump's maneuvers against Latin America are easy to pin on Marco Rubio, who often seems even more excited to restore reaction there than he is here, and will be no less so when they blow up. Ominous section here on "importing the logic of Gaza."

    • [10-14]: Trump's Caribbean killing spree: "The president's unprecedented and lawless attacks supposedly target drug cartels, but serve a far more troubling political agenda."

  • Gabriel Hetland [10-14]: How María Corina Machado's Nobel Peace Prize could lead to war: "Machado's record makes a mockery of the idea she is a committed champion of peace, promoter of democracy, or unifying figure."

Some notable deaths: Mostly from the New York Times listings. Last time I did such a trawl was on July 20, so we'll look that far back (although some names have appeared since):

Tweets: I've usually used this section for highlighting clever responses and/or interesting ideas, but maybe I should just use it to bookmark some of our leading horribles.

  • Jamelle [09-30]: Links to After volatile summer, Trump's approval remains low but stable, poll finds, and adds:

    Perhaps instead of cowering under a blanket labeled "health care," Democrats should respond and advance on the issues that move people. This, of course, would require a foundation of conviction and principle, which may be asking too much of the party's leadership and strategists.

    Note that the image cut off before showing the most damning poll results, that Trump is -20 on "the war between Russia and Ukraine," and -19 on "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict": two issues that Biden blew even worse.

  • Josephine Riesman [10-05]:

    It is morally wrong to want a computer to be sentient. If you owned a sentient thing, you would be a slaver. If you want sentient computers to exist, you just want to create a new kind of slavery. The ethics are as simple as that. Sorry if this offends.

    • Apologies in advance for including an Amazon book link, but I doubt any review can really do this one justice. The book is: John Kennedy: How to Test Negative for Stupid — And Why Washington Never Will. Senator Kennedy ("the one from Louisiana") is being billed as "one of the most distinctive and funny politicians," lauded for "his perceptive (and hilarious) takes on the ridiculousness of political life in this scathingly witty takedown of Washington and its elite denizens." I've seen him dozens of times, and can't say I've ever noticed his wit, but he does offer a pretty good impersonation of the dumbest person in all of America, as well as one of the most repugnant politically. On the other hand, his most quotable quotes turn out to be more humorous than I expected:

    • "Always be yourself . . . unless you suck."
    • "I say this gently: This is why the aliens won't talk to us."
    • "If you trust government, you obviously failed history class."
    • "I believe that our country was founded by geniuses, but it's being run by idiots."
    • "Always follow your heart . . . but take your brain with you."
    • "I'm not going to Bubble Wrap it: The water in Washington, D.C., won't clear up until you get the pigs out of the creek."
    • "I have the right to remain silent but not the ability."
    • "Common sense is illegal in Washington, D.C., I know. I've seen it firsthand."
    • "I believe that we are going to have to get some new conspiracy theories. All the old ones turned out to be true."

    Granted, on balance we're not talking Groucho Marx level here, or even Yogi Berra. But he's possibly funnier than Bob Dole, who was much wittier than anyone so evil had any right to be.

  • Comfortably Numb [08-18]: Features a New York Times headline from Sept. 18, 1931 [most likely fake]: "HITLER CONDEMNS RIOTS.; He Says They Were Provoked by Paid Agents in Germany." This appeared in my feed just below a picture of mink-clad protesters with signs for "Rai$e the Rent," "Frack Brooklyn," and "Billionaires Against Mamdani." And just above a Fox News headline: "Billionaire's cash flows to anti-Israel activists in nationwide 'No Kings' rallies." More signs noted on placcards:

    • First they came for the immigrants and I spoke up because I know the rest of the God damn poem"
    • No crown for the clown
    • Trump gave my nut to Argentina [chipmunk costume]
    • I caught the woke mind virus and all I got was empathy and critical thinking skills

    Other comments:

    • Imagine what a shitty president you have to be to have nearly 7 million Americans use their day off to protest you.

    Miscellaneous memes:

    • Republicans have $200 million for a ballroom, $1 billion for a new jet and $72 million for endless golf trips. They have money to give ICE $50,000 bonuses. They have $1 million per day to occupy American cities. They have $3.8 billion to send Israel weapons and $40 billion to bailout Argentina. But there's no money for healthcare.

Current count: 255 links, 13953 words (18491 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Sunday, September 14, 2025

Loose Tabs

I moved an already long draft file into the blog queue on Friday, after posting my Notes on Everyday Life piece, More Thoughts on Bernie Sanders and Capitalism. In doing so, I set an implicit deadline for posting this before Monday, when I normally expect to post a Music Week. I could spend an infinite amount of time wrapping this up, trying to make sense of it all, so the budget was hopeful self-discipline. But at 3AM Sunday night/Monday morning, I'm sick and tired of working on this, with no good answer, so I'm opting for the short one, which is to post what I have. If I look at it Monday, I may add a few more similar things, edits some of what I have, write extra notes, or maybe just shrug and move on. There is certainly no shortage of material here. Whether it does any good is another question I can't begin to contemplate, much less answer.

This is an occasional collection of newsworthy links and comments, much less systematic than what I attempted in my late Speaking of Which posts. The new name comes from my extensive use of browser tabs. When I get around to cleaning up, I often find tabs opened to old articles I might want to comment on and/or refer back to. So these posts are mostly housecleaning, but may also serve as a very limited but persistent record of what 20+ years ago I started calling "the end of the American empire" and nowadays feels more like "the end of civilization." I collect these bits in a draft file, and flush them out when periodically. My previous one appeared 28 days ago, on August 17.

I'm trying a new experiment here with select bits of text highlighted with a background color, for emphasis a bit more subtle than bold or ALL CAPS. (I saw this on Medium. I started with their greenish color [#bbdbba] and lightened it a bit [#dbfbda].) I'll try to use it sparingly.

Index to sections:

The first section here are major categories, where I didn't wait for a keynote article. These are not necessarily regular features.

Epsteinmania: I'm ready to retire this one, but Trump keeps squirming, so his most opportunistic opponents still hope to reel him in. Since last time: the appearance of Ghislaine Maxwell as Trump's character witness ("a perfect gentleman"); the leak of Trump's contribution to Epstein's "birthday book."

Israel: This is just a small sampling on what remains the single gravest issue in American politics -- even though, by looking at both parties in Congress, it barely seems to register. That's not just because the slaughter and devastation has grown to immense proportions, not because Israel has discredited itself to most people around the world, nor because in providing so much economic and military support the US is now widely viewed as complicit and discredited. It's because Israel is the example Trump is following to secure his own domination domestically. (I explain some of this in my latest Notes on Everyday Life post, but if you know what to look for, you can spot numerous examples throughout this and other Loose Tabs posts. Israel has become a veritable laboratory for fascism. America is not only following their model, but has been bankrolling them for decades. The neocon right understood this at least as far back as their 1996 paper A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. The religious right got an even earlier jump with their apocalypse mongering. Democrats, on the other hand, have cut their own throats by pledging eternal loyalty to a regime that is completely inimical to their own stated beliefs and values. It's no wonder why so many Americans find them undeserving of trust.)

Russia/Ukraine: Last time I posted was just after the Alaska summit, but before Zelensky and his European allies descended on Washington to derail whatever impression Putin had made and return Trump to his usual path of fickle incompetence. As I've since noted, "all sides seem to have lost sight of the ball and are just kicking air." What I mean is that we need to focus more on the people involved than on the land that both sides feel so entitled to. The war started in 2014 when three divisions of Ukraine rejected election results and attempted to split from Ukraine. Russia aided their division, especially in Crimea, but it still seems likely that most of the people there supported realignment with Russia then, and still do now. They should be given the right to decide on their own, free of military coercion, where they want to belong. Of course, the war, both before and after the 2022 invasion, has brought changes, mostly in turning large numbers of people into refugees, but it probably means that the people on both sides of the front line are on the side they want to be. If so, neither side should fear a referendum, as it would very likely legitimize lines that are basically stalemated. One should also be talking about refugees, their rights to return and/or compensation, minority rights in the postwar settlements, and the options of people who find themselves stranded to move wherever they want. Unfortunately, leaders like Putin and Trump have little concern for people. They're much more into symbolic bragging rights. But both sides have done nothing but lose since war broke out. They both need to stop. Refocusing on people is one way out.

Trump regime exploits: Practically every day I run across disturbing, often shocking stories of various misdeeds proposed and quite often implemented by the Trump Administration -- which in its bare embrace of executive authority we might start referring to as the Regime. Collecting them together declutters everything else, and emphasizes the pattern of intense and possibly insane politicization of everything. Pieces on the administration.

Donald Trump (himself): As for the Duce, we need a separate bin for stories on his personal quirks -- which often seem like mere diversions, although as with true madness, it can still be difficult sorting serious threats from fanciful ones.

  • Zachary Small:

  • Margaret Hartmann: Basically a gossip columnist who's made "tremendous content" out of Trump's follies. (She also covers the British royals, Michelle Obama, and some Epstein matters I filed [or ignored] elsewhere.) After the newer pieces, some older ones for your amusement.

  • Ed Kilgore [08-24] Trump sees whitewashed US past and dystopian present: Well, as Mort Sahl once said about Charlton Heston, if he were more preceptive, he'd be a happy man. But Trump doesn't want to be happy. His stock in trade is being angry, which gives him a mission in life, and a readymade excuse for everything. This starts off with the Trump tweet I cite below. It's impossible to rank all of the ways Trump offends me, but his insistence on recasting history to suit his prejudices is fundamental to all his other lies.

  • Arwa Mahdawi [08-27] Why does the MAGA elite love conspicuous cosmetic surgery? Picture of Kristi Noem.

  • Ashlie D Stevens [08-28] Don't buy the Cracker Barrel fallacy: "Online petitions and viral outrage give the illusion of influence — but real power lies elsewhere."

    • Katrina Vanden Heuvel [09-09] What was the Cracker Barrel skirmish really about? "Trump is repaying rural voters' loyalty by shafting them." Sure, but the thing to understand is that the right is really just a rage machine. Any sort of change can kick them into high gear.

  • Brian Karem [08-29] As America implodes, Trump can do anything he wants.

  • Laura Beers [09-02] The Orwellian echoes in Trump's push for 'Americanism' at the Smithsonian.

  • Elie Mystal [09-05] Donald Trump really is the biggest loser. For starters:

    The Trump administration repeatedly lost in court this week. A federal judge in California ruled that Trump violated the Posse Comitatus Act when he deployed federal troops to Los Angeles. A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that Trump violated the law when he attempted to cut off federal funding to Harvard. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that most of Trump's tariffs are illegal. And a panel of judges from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals — the most conservative and reactionary appellate court in the country — ruled that Trump's targeting of Venezuelans was an illegal use of the Alien Enemies Act.

    One reason for not celebrating is that the Supreme Court can still reverse most of these rulings. But they all reflect Trump actions, so (a) they've already had impact, and (b) frustrating them reinforced the idea that Trump needs even more support and power to overcome the forces against him and those he represents. This is a column which rounds up a lot of miscellany: notably this:

    In her new book, Amy Coney Barrett positions herself as a helpless cog in a legal machine that gives her no choice but to rule the way she does, even if she doesn't like it. As Joe Patrice explains over at Above the Law, her entire act is risible. But it's an act we've seen from every first-year, fascist-curious law student who wants to make a career as a Federalist Society judge.

    Mystal also references:

    • Elie Mystal [09-04] The military has officially entered the deportation business: "The administration's decision to deploy military lawyers as immigration judges is terrible and illegal, but when has that ever stopped Trump?"

    • Steve Vladeck [09-02] 176. Illinois v. Texas: "A quick look at President Trump's (apparent) plan to send uninvited and unfederalized Texas National Guard troops into Illinois — and how it could (and maybe should) quickly end up in the Supreme Court."

  • Amanda Marcotte [09-03] Trump's long weekend of humiliation: "The harder he tries to be a dictator, the more he's mocked by both Americans and foreign leaders." Same theme as Mystal's piece, but less obviously written by a lawyer:

    Alas, Trump is still alive, but there is a consolation prize for those who were holding vigil: He and the White House reacted with over-the-top defensiveness, removing all doubt that the infamous narcissist was feeling deeply embarrassed by the gleeful speculation of his demise.

    While it may be impossible to dissuade the faithful, it certainly isn't hard to get under il Duce's paper-thin skin. [Original draft had der Führer, but upon reflection I opted for the diminutive form. I also changed "thin" to "paper-thin" per Marcotte.]

  • Richard Luscombe [09-04] Trump's second presidency is 'most dangerous period' since second world war, Mitch McConnell says: "Former Senate leader likens administration's fixation with tariffs to isolationist policies of the US in the 1930s." As I'm not alone in pointing out, McConnell blew his chance to get rid of Trump during the second impeachment vote: had he and a handful of other Republicans voted to convict, Trump could have been disqualified under the 14th amendment from running again, which would have kept him off the ballot in 2024. At the time, it would have cost Republicans nothing, as Trump was already out of office.

  • Daniel Warner [09-05] Donald Trump's media domination. Pardon me while I scream: Why anyone has even the slightest interest in this flaming asshole is one of the few things about the world I find utterly incomprehensible. But Warner has a theory (or two):

    Like an avalanche, Trump news gathers speed and buries everything in its path only to pop up in another place. It's exhausting, and overwhelming. As for intentionality, the former Trump chief adviser Steve Bannon described the strategy in 2018, "The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit." . . .

    This is how the former CNN executive sees Trump's relation to the media:

    "Donald Trump was chosen by Robert Thomson, chief executive of News Corp. Mr. Thomson understands the media business better than all the rest. Mr. Thomson found a true believer in the power of television with highly addicted viewers, typically those offended by smart people. This was — still is — the Fox audience. The money flowed in from cable TV subscriptions and advertisers selling cheap goods."

    The relationship between Trump and the media is perfectly symmetrical. He wants to be front page every day. The media believes he sells. The result is that the public gets its dose of Trump news daily. So whether or not Trump sets out to headline the daily news, he manages to be there. The media can't get enough of him.

    This points to:

    • Stef W Kight [2017-09-22] The insane news cycle of Trump's presidency in 1 chart. While the topic labels are cryptic, and the events 8 years old, I remember literally every one of them, even though most are trivial and stupid, and those that aren't trivial (e.g., Putin, North Korea, repealing Obamacare) were handled as stupidly as possible.

  • David Friedlander [09-06] Trump bump: "The president has jumped into the mayor race. But is he helping Cuomo or Mamdani?" He probably sees this as win-win: if Cuomo does win, he can claim credit; if not, he gets an enemy he can hate from a distance -- actually two: Mamdani and New York City -- and he knows how to play that with his base.

  • Andrew Lawrence [09-08] Trump's strongman image got boos at the US Open, and perhaps that was the point: "It was just the authoritarian image Donald Trump hoped to project at the US Open: the president himself, looming from Arthur Ashe Stadium's giant screens like Chairman Mao at Tiananmen Gate, as he stood at attention for the national anthem." Also this:

    • Bryan Armen Graham [09-07] The USTA's censorship of Trump dissent at the US Open is cowardly, hypocritical and un-American: "By asking broadcasters not to show any protest against Donald Trump at Sunday's final, the governing body has caved to fear while contradicting its own history of spectacle." Doesn't this article just feed into his cult? Trump thrives on being hated more than any president since FDR (or probably ever). And is anything more American than hypocrisy? (I could riff on cowardice as well, but probably would wind up defending it.)

  • Radley Balko [09-08] Roundup: One month of authoritarianism. "Here's what happened in just one month of the Trump administration's dizzying push toward autocracy." This is a very long bullet list. It's likely he has more in the archives, but as with Amy Siskind's The List: A Week-by-Week Reckoning of Trump's First Year (2018, 528 pp), it risks turning into numbing overkill. You really don't have to know everything bad that Trump has ever done to decide whether to vote him up or down. A fairly modest random sampling should suffice.

  • Moira Donegan [09-09] Trump apparently thinks domestic violence is not a crime.

  • John Ganz [09-09] Trump's petty-tyrant brand of fascism: "The GOP president is both a dire threat to democratic governance and a clownish mob boss."

  • Kojo Koram [09-09] From Washington to Westminster, the populist right needs to erase history to succeed. It's up to us to resist: Trump you know about. Farage is also pushing his own "patriotic curriculum."

  • Jeremy Varon [09-11] Trump is already at war:

    Trump's current penchant for military aggression has odd roots in his professed disdain for the "stupid wars" of recent decades. His "peace" persona is skin deep. Trump supported the Iraq War before it began, turning against it only when it bogged down.

    One gets little sense that he grew to question dodgy interventions based on judicious assessments of what conflicts are, for reasons of principle or national interest, worthy of military sacrifice. "Stupid wars" are for him simply ones that America can't decisively win. And winning is the ultimate measure of strength, or virtue, or sound policy.

    Trump's fondness for this view has long been clear. Recall his claim that Senator John McCain, for the sin of being captured, was "not a war hero." Or his disparaging the U.S. dead in a French World War Two cemetery as "losers" and "suckers" because "there was nothing in it for them." Even winners can be losers, when the victory is not a life-sparing blowout. True to form, Trump praises the "Department of War" moniker for sending "a message of victory."

    Military victory, most simply, means overwhelming one's foe, with minimal loss of American life. So Trump punches down, attacking those with little capacity or will to fight back. Hapless, alleged drug smugglers on the high seas are no match for U.S. missiles. Neither is the Venezuelan army, should President Maduro be baited into a response that triggers a full-bore U.S. assault. Nor can undocumented immigrants — vulnerable, frightened, often poor — physically resist ICE agents with big guns. Americans outraged at the assault on their communities and neighbors are stymied as well. The homeland, for Trump, is a soft target, with a near-guarantee of zero losses. Winning indeed.

    Actually, the Bushes aimed to "punch down" as well. The younger just underestimated the risks, as bullies are wont to do. The author has a book: Our Grief Is Not a Cry for War: The Movement to Stop the War on Terror.

Democrats:

  • Jamelle Bouie [2024-12-18]: Now is not the time for surrender: Reminded of this because he quoted a chunk of it on Bluesky:

    This is a grave mistake. Trump's hand is not as strong as it looks. He has a narrow, and potentially unstable, Republican majority in the House of Representatives and a small, but far from filibuster-proof, majority in the Senate. He'll start his term a lame duck, with less than 18 months to make progress before the start of the next election cycle. And his great ambition -- to impose a form of autarky on the United States -- is poised to spark a thermostatic reaction from a public that elevated him to deal with high prices and restore a kind of normalcy. But Democrats won't reap the full rewards of a backlash if they do nothing to prime the country for their message.

    Obviously, the big miss here was that Congressional Republicans have been totally aligned with and subservient to Trump, so their thin majorities have held, even to the extent of bypassing their own filibuster rules in the Senate. Moreover, corporate America, including big media companies, have jumped at the opportunity to debase themselves to please Trump. (And they've kept very quiet whatever reservations they may have felt to his tariffs and other economic policies.) Much of this is unsurprising, given the way the election spun in its last couple months -- although I admit I resisted recognizing it at the time. But the last line is spot on, and you can prove it by noting that while Trump's popularity has steadily dropped since January, the Democrats not only haven't picked up his losses, they've actually lost approval alongside him.

  • Matthew Sheffield [2024-12-09] Local political ecosystems are vital to protecting democracy nationally: "Author Erik Loomis discusses how labor unions and liberal religious organizations preserve institutional memories and explain progressive viewpoints." Interview with Loomis, who has written books like A History of America in Ten Strikes, Organizing America: Stories of Americans Who Fought for Justice, and Out of Sight: The Long and Disturbing Story of Corporations Outsourcing Catastrophe. First thing I was struck by here was the section "Democrats only talk to their voters for three months every two years." I would have followed that immediately with "but they talk to their donors all the time." The donors are their patrons, their constant companions, their friends, and ultimately their eyes and ears. And politician, like fishers, naturally value, and tend to obsess over, landing the big donor over the little voter. In the short term, that's seen as the key to success. Over the longer term, it's their ticket to the revolving door. The next section is "The decline of unions and liberal religion has significantly hurt the Democratic party." Everything else here is useful, ending with "Campaigns need coherent and simple narratives to win."

    I mean, that's the lesson Democrats need to take care of, right? You, having a candidate who could articulate a policy is not going to win. Nobody cares. Having a candidate that can articulate your hopes, your dreams, your fears, or your hatreds, that's a win. That's a much more winning approach, right?

    And they'd better learn that, right? Some, I don't know, like. The conditions in 2028 are likely to be different, right? So maybe a Josh Shapiro Gretchen Whitmer, some of these people on a fairly deep Democratic bench could win, but if they are going up against somebody, presumably not Donald Trump, but who can continue to channel the kind of Trumpian resentment.

    There's a very good chance that while we may think that these people are clowns, that they are in fact incredibly strong candidates because the everyday low information voter sees them as articulating their again, hopes, dreams, fears, and or hatreds. And if Democrats don't learn that. Then it's going to be very difficult for them to tap into what is a very clear desire for a populist politics in this country.

    And populism could go either way, right? Populism can be incredibly reactionary as in Trumpian populism, or it can be channeled for a progressive, for progressive aims as it was in the 1930s. Democrats have to figure out how to manage that. And if they don't, then people that we might think are idiots and clowns, like anybody who's been appointed into the Trump administration, like one of them is probably going to be the candidate in 2028, whether it's a Vance, or another candidate, or Laura Trump, I mean, or Dana White, the head of UFC, like maybe a perfect Republican candidate.

  • Harold Meyerson [08-28] The idiocy (both moral and strategic) of the Democratic National Committee: "At its meeting this week, the DNC opposed a ban on US provision of offensive weapons to Israel." The article stops there, but unfortunately the idiocy doesn't. This title can be recycled regularly.

  • Katrina Vanden Heuvel [09-03] What the Democrats can learn from Gavin Newsom's Trump mockery. I don't see Newsom as a viable presidential candidate, and I suspect his trolling will only reinforce that view, but I don't mind him having a little fun at Trump's expense, and given his target, it's hard to imagine that he could escalate into excess -- that may be a fundamental flaw in his strategy. But his example reminds us that Democrats are looking for someone who can and will fight back, and he understands that much, and is auditioning for the role.

  • Anthony Barnett [09-03] Stephen Miller calls Democrats a "domestic extremist organization": "Congressional Democrats should demand that he retract his grotesque claims or resign." No, they shouldn't. They should reply in kind, or just shrug him off, as in why should anyone care what a fascist troll thinks? He's so clearly obnoxious that you could use him as the public face of the Trump regime. Demanding an apology just grants him power he doesn't deserve.

  • Chris Lehmann [09-03] What makes Democrats so afraid of Zohran Mamdani? More on Mamdani:

  • Jeet Heer [09-05] Old, wealthy Democrats are sabotaging their won party: "The problem of gerontocracy includes the donor class."

  • Ross Barkan:

    • [09-05]: Imagining an imperial Democratic president: Sure, dream on. I expect the courts to spin on a dime, pretty much like they did when Trump took charge. The only things that might limit them are overwhelming popular support, and fresh legislation that explicitly allows a Democratic president to do what Trump can only do with executive orders. And if the courts still obstruct, you can impeach some miscreants, and create new court positions which can be filled with more reasonable jurists. But Biden and Obama wound up making extensive use of executive orders, especially after Congress was lost, and both took heat from Democrats for not going farther. Trump has demolished many of the inhibitions they felt, and many Democrats will push their next president to do much more, especially how important it has become to revise his rules and replace many of his personnel.

    • [08-31]: Democrats will have to shift on Israel. But when? That, of course, is a theme of his recent book on the 2024 election. More generally, Democrats have to decide whether they're for or against war, for or against racism, for or against universal rights, or they want to spend their remaining days trying to convince voters that Israel deserves to be exempted from the standards of justice and decency they expect everyone else to adhere to. The main reason Democrats lose elections isn't that people disagree with the ideals they like to tout. It's that they don't find Democrats to be credible advocates because, well, they're conflicted and incompetent.

    • [2021-03-28]: The three factions of the American left: "Understanding what it means when we talk about 'the left' in America." This is an old (2021) piece that popped up in some discussion somewhere. Seemed like it might be useful, although I'm having trouble following it. I think he's saying the three factions are: (1) The Socialist Left (specifically, the DSA, but he sees Sanders are the leader); (2) The Liberal Left (here Warren is a leader; but under them he also mentions "The Alphabet Left," of which WFP is the only example given; and (3) The Moderate Left, which needs some more explanation:

      The moderate voter is not more fiscally conservative, in a classic sense, than even the socialist voter, but the moderate retreats from certain left signifiers. Unlike the socialist, the moderate is proudly pro-capitalist. Unlike the liberal, the moderate does not treat patriotism or religion as an embarrassing or ironic vestige of a lost world. Many moderates earnestly embrace nationalism and American iconography. They go to church on Sundays and, if they live in small towns, might organize their lives around religious institutions. Secularism is the default in both the socialist and liberal left; moderates are far more likely to turn to religion to give meaning to their lives.

      There is good news for those who want Americans to embrace incredibly progressive or even socialistic economic policy: moderates are in full support, as long as it's packaged appropriately.

      He then goes on to say that "unlike 20 or 30 years ago, there is no moderate faction of the Democratic Party complaining about deficit spending or the growth of welfare. RIP the Atari Democrat. RIP neoliberalism." The "Atari Democrat" article is dated 2016. I've heard the term, but needed a refresher, so we're basically talking about Clinton + Silicon Valley. "Neoliberal" I know all too well, both as Charles Peters and Milton Friedman. I wouldn't dismiss the existence of either of them within the Democratic Party. What progress may have been made under Biden is that some of them may now agree that some things should be done to actually help labor and the poor, instead of just assuming that everyone who loses their job to globalization and financialization will land on some kind of ritzy "symbolic manipulator" job (per Robert Reich). But lots of Democrats like that are still around, still chasing money, even if they've loosened up a bit.

  • Isaac Chotiner [09-08] Texas's gerrymander may not be the worst threat to Democrats in 2026: An interview with Nate Cohn, "the New York Times' chief political analyst, on a consequential Supreme Court case and why Republicans are registering so many new voters."

  • Eric Levitz [09-10] Democrats can't save democracy by shutting down the government: "The party should only force a shutdown for its own political gain."

  • Gabrielle Gurley [09-12] Virginia special election shaves GOP House margin: "Democrat James Walkinshaw triumphs in a ginormous victory." This was one of the seats elderly Democrats won in 2024 then lost through death, so this isn't really a pickup. Another one, in Arizona, is up for a vote on Sept. 23.

  • Andrew Prokop [09-12] Democrats are on the verge of a dangerous mistake: "There's one big guardrail left on Trump's ambitions." He means the Senate filibuster. Republicans have used long used it to keep Democrats from passing much-needed reforms, or at least to dilute them to ineffectiveness. But if Democrats use the filibuster to block some Republican outrage? Republicans could just change the rules to get rid of the filibuster — as, indeed, they've already done to keep Democrats from blocking their extremist judicial nominations. Unexplained is what good a rule is if you can't use it, but they're free to use it against you? Not much, as far as I can see.

The following articles are more/less in order published, although some authors have collected pieces, and some entries have related articles underneath.

Current Affairs:

Ezra Klein [01-17] Democrats are losing the war for attention. Badly. Actually, just an interview with Chris Hayes, relating to his book, The Siren's Call: How Attention Became the World's Most Endangered Resource, with a title cleverly chosen to grab your attention. Why was Trump able to win with lies while Democrats struggle to make anyone aware of their accomplishments? Attention is one obvious metric which is skewed ridiculously in favor of Republicans and especially Trump. I've read Hayes' book, and he makes a lot of interesting points. But he also engages in hyperbole, because he knows the surest way to get attention is to stick your neck out, become conspicuous, and flaunt it as far as you can get away with it. And he wants attention as much as his subjects do. It is, as he admits, his business. So it's not surprising that he overrates it, especially its fungibility -- which in his business may translate directly into advertising revenues, but for most people the profit motive is less obvious. Still, it's useful as a prism, not least because it renders part of the scheme opaque.

  • Derek Thompson [02-28] The end of reading: Only an excerpt of a transcript from a podcast, probably got here from a link in the Klein/Hayes interview. One stat: "50 years ago, about 40 percent of high school seniors said they had read at least six books for fun in the past year compared to about 12 percent who hadn't read any. And now those percentages have flipped."

George Salis [06-30] Borne back ceasefully: a rare interview with Tom Carson: He was one of the rock critics Christgau cultivated in the late 1970s. I first heard about him when he wrote a review of Brian Eno's Another Green World that was good enough it almost bumped my assigned piece. I met him once in New York, uneventfully, and read him as regularly as I could, though not as often as my wife read his Esquire reviews (usually on the newsstand). He was one of two critics Christgau tapped to fill in while he was off doing the CG-70s book -- the other one I remember better, probably because he didn't do as good a job. So I had something of a bond with him, with mixed feelings, but he wrote a brilliant piece on 1945, especially the observation that winning WWII was the worst thing that happened to America. Shortly after that, he published a novel called Gilligan's Wake, and I felt like he could have written it just for me. (I knew the TV show intimately, and most of the literary and historical references -- not that I ever made any headway through Joyce, but that seemed unnecessary. The only choice he made that I strongly differed with was saying nice things about Bob Dole.) I still frequently refer back to a couple of key concepts from the novel: the notion of America's perpetual innocence illustrated by Mary-Ann's self-healing virginity; the argument that America exists only for a certain group of people: the true Americans. I became reacquainted with him when he edited my essay in the Christgau Festschrift Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough: A Rock & Roll Critic Is Something to Be.

Robert Kuttner [07-30] Tom Lehrer and Mort Mintz, RIP: "Both challenged American smugness, one with satire and the other with great journalism."

Daniel Felsenthal [08-01] A book called Fascism or Genocide that's reluctant to discuss either: A review of Ross Barkan's "engrossing, literary analysis of the 2024 election disappoints with its blinkered vision of US politics." The book is Fascism or Genocide: How a Decade of Political Disorder Broke American Politics. The title comes from a Palestinian activist's view of the Trump or Harris choice, although the review tells us Barkan was reluctant to go deeper into either topic (but especially Gaza). This sounds like a version of the book I've been contemplating on the 2024 election, perhaps one where the focus is on the cognitive dissonance that allowed voters for both candidates to ignore much of what each stood for (which in the case of Harris included democracy, at least as we knew it, and some semblance of justice under law and economic opportunity for many, if not really all). Instead, people voted on phantom fixations and whims, which tilted to the macabre, bequeathing us a suddenly real dystopia.

Nick Turse: National security fellow for The Intercept, has been covering the Trump military everywhere, with a unique specialty in Africa. I've touched on many of these stories above, and could have distributed them accordingly, but for now, let's keep them together to see the pattern:

David Dayen:

Sarah Jones [08-20] The manifest destiny of J.D. Vance. I can't say as the analogy occurred to me, but not since McKinley has there been an American president so ebullient about expanding American territory, from Greenland down into Mexico (or perhaps Venezuela is next?). One snag may be that land comes with people already on it, but Israel has some ideas about that (updating Hitler's use of America's own Manifest Destiny idea).

It's not hard to understand why Manifest Destiny might appeal to the Trump administration, and particularly its Department of Homeland Security, whose agents carry out another act of conquest, a purge they justify in the name of Western civilization. The administration has occupied the streets of Washington, D.C., because it wants to punish the people who live there, because it wants to remove immigrants who it does not like, and because it sees itself as a conquering force. The streets properly belong to it, and not to locals. Manifest Destiny was about blood and soil, too. "A Heritage to be proud of, a Homeland worth Defending," as DHS wrote in its post of Gast's work. Trump even used the term in his inaugural address this year.

Harold Meyerson [08-25] A federal appellate court finds the NLRB to be unconstitutional: "And just like that, it frees Elon Musk -- and any fellow employers -- to violate whatever rights their workers thought they enjoyed." This reverses 88 years of rulings upholding the act's constitutionality. It's like they're daring us to revolution.

The New Republic: David W. Blight edited a special issue on Trump Against History, asking "how is Trump changing our sense of who we are?" Probably a lot more to talk about here than I had time for. Titles:

  • Johann Neem: Trump is the enemy of the American Revolution: "He has produced a crisis much like the one the colonists faced two and a half centuries ago. Now it's our responsibility to uphold the Founders' legacy."

  • Molly Worthen: What besieged universities can learn from the Christian resurgence: "Educators can fight back against Trump's attacks by re-embracing 'old-fashioned' disciplines and ideas."

  • William Sturkey: Trump's white nationalist vision for the future of history: "The administration is using the tools of the state to influence — even poison — how America's racial history will be taught in our public forums and schools."

  • Edward L Ayers: Trump's reckless assault on remembrance: "The attempts of his administration to control the ways Americans engage with our nation's history threaten to weaken patriotism, not strengthen it."

  • Michael Kazin: The two faces of American greatness: "It is the task of historians to grapple with Trump's favorite concept — and to redefine it."

  • Jen Manion: Learning history is a righteous form of resistance: "It's a way to combat Trump's attempts at remaking the past to justify erasing protections for the most vulnerable."

  • James Grossman: "Indoctrination"? We call it "education." "It's not 'divisive' to teach about division. It's divisive to bury it."

  • Geraldo Cadava: The diversity bell that Trump can't un-ring: "The biggest problem with the history Trump wants to impose on us is that it never, in fact, existed."

  • Amna Khalid: Authoritarianism is made — and it can be unmade: ""Autocrats do not merely fade away; they have to be countered and stopped."

  • David W Blight: What if history died by sanctioned ignorance? "We must mobilize now to defend our profession, not only with research and teaching but in the realm of politics and public persuasion." Includes a useful summary of the Nazi ascent in 1930s Germany (I edited this to use a numbered list):

    In Richard J. Evans's trilogy on the Third Reich, he shows indelibly how the Nazis achieved power because of eight key factors:

    1. the depth of economic depression and the ways it radicalized the electorate;
    2. widespread hatred for parliamentary democracy that had taken root for at least a decade all over Europe;
    3. the destruction of dissent and academic freedom in universities;
    4. the Nazis' ritualistic "dynamism," charisma, and propaganda machinery;
    5. the creation of a cloak of legality around so many of their tactics, stage by stage of the descent into fear, terror, and autocracy
    6. the public manipulating and recrafting of history and forging Nazi mythology to fit their present purposes
    7. they knew whom and what they viscerally hated — communists and Jews — and made them the objects of insatiable grievance;
    8. vicious street violence, with brownshirts in cities and student thugs on college campuses, mass arrests, detainment camps, and the Gestapo in nearly every town.

    All of these methods, mixed with the hideous dream of an Aryan racial utopia and a nationalism rooted in deep resentment of the Versailles Treaty at the end of World War I, provided the Nazis the tools of tyranny.

    In 2025, our own autocratic governing party has already employed many, though not all, of these techniques. Thanks to a free press and many courts sustaining the rule of law, Trumpism has not yet mastered every authoritarian method. But it has launched a startlingly rapid and effective beginning to an inchoate American brand of fascism.

  • Leslie M Harris: The high price of barring international students: "Global collaboration is necessary for success, if not survival, in our hyper-connected world."

Trevor Jackson [08-25] The myth of clean energy: "Is all the hope placed in renewables an illusion?" Review of Jean-Baptiste Fressoz: More and More and More: An All-Consuming History of Energy. Part of the argument here is that new energy technologies don't directly replace old ones, and often require more use of the old ones, at least in the short term (e.g., a lot of oil and gas, and still some coal, goes into making the turbines that generate electricity from wind). That isn't news, and certainly doesn't discredit the shift from fossil to renewable energy sources. Fressoz is co-author of an earlier book, The Shock of the Anthropocene: The Earth, History, and Us, which I've ordered.

Henry Giroux [08-29] Domestic terrorism and spectacularized violence in Trump's warfare state: I don't often read, much less cite, his pieces, because the language and hyperbole don't strike me as all that useful (e.g., Resisting the deadly language of American fascism; Against the erasure machine; Trump's reign of cruelty; Trump's theater of cruelty; Childicide in the age of fascist theocracies; Neoliberal fascism, cruel violence, and the politics of disposability; The nazification of American society and the source of violence). But we've entered a stage where reality is rising to meet its most fevered denunciation, so maybe we need to invoke the specter of nazi/fascism not to scare the naive but to grasp the full enormity of what is happening.

The spectacle operates both as distraction and as pedagogy. By dramatizing state violence as entertainment, whether through militarized parades, campaign rallies, or sensationalist media coverage, the Trump regime trains the public to see authoritarian repression as normal, even desirable. The spectacle is a form of civic illiteracy: it numbs historical memory, erodes critical thought, and recodes brutality as patriotism.

The spectacle is more than distraction; it is a smokescreen for systemic violence. Behind the theatrics lie black-site detention centers, the militarization of U.S. cities, and surveillance technologies that monitor everyday life. The media's complicity, obsessed with immediacy and balance, enables this process by masking the deeper truth: the rise of an authoritarian warfare state at home. . . .

Here the spectacle does not conceal fascism but embodies it. Each act dramatizes the message that Trump alone decides who is safe, who is punished, who is disposable. Reich's insight into the fascist "perversion of pleasure" is central: the staging of cruelty is not only meant to terrify; it is meant to gratify. Citizens are invited to experience the humiliation of the weak as a form of release, to find satisfaction in the punishment of the vulnerable. Theodor Adorno's warnings about the authoritarian personality come into sharp relief here: the blending of obedience and enjoyment, submission and aggression, produces subjects who come to desire domination as if it were freedom.

What emerges is an authoritarian economy of desire in which cruelty is transformed into theater. Images of militarized parades, mug shots of political enemies, or caged immigrants circulate across media platforms like advertisements for repression, producing both fear and illicit pleasure. The spectacle trains citizens to consume cruelty as entertainment, to eroticize domination, and to accept vengeance as the highest civic virtue. Watching becomes complicity; complicity becomes a source of satisfaction; satisfaction becomes a form of loyalty.

Besides, this piece led me to others, like:

Jeffrey St Clair:

  • [09-01]: Defender of the backwoods: the good life of Andy Mahler.

  • [09-05]: Roaming Charges: Multiple megalomaniacs. Starts with the US attack on a boat near Venezuela. When I asked google for "us sinks boat near venezuela," AI replied:

    There are no recent or documented incidents of the United States sinking a boat near Venezuela, although there have been historical concerns about Venezuelan narcotics trafficking and tensions between the two nations regarding foreign involvement.

    However, further down the same page, we find:

    The Wikipedia entry notes:

    James Stavridis, a former US Navy admiral, characterized the strike and other US military activity around the same time as gunboat diplomacy intended to demonstrate the vulnerability of Venezuelan oil rigs and materiel. He wrote that drug interdiction was likely not the sole reason for the increased US military activity. On September 5th Trump ordered the deployment of 10 F-35 fighters, to conduct combat air patrols in the region and support the Southern Caribbean fleet, amid growing tensions. Following the flyover of the USS Jason Dunham, Trump gave permission to shoot down Venezuelan planes if they presented a danger to U.S. ships.

    In an exchange on X in which writer Brian Krassenstein said "killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime", Vice President JD Vance responded "I don't give a shit what you call it."

    Much more here, of course. Notable quote from Benjamin Balthasar: "It's funny how the Right likens everything to slavery, except slavery, much the way everything is antisemitism, except actual antisemitism."

  • [09-12] Roaming Charges: The broken jaws of our lost kingdom: Starts with a personal story about being shot at while protesting the Iraq war in 2003, then notes: "The murder of Charlie Kirk is awful, disgusting and about as American as it gets." He also notes that Trump said nothing about the recent assassination of Democrats in Minnesota, or the "173 shots at the CDC HQ in Atlanta last month," although he added that Trump's quiet "was probably welcome, given what he might have said." He then lists some of the right-wing incitements to further violence I noted below. He digs up more, of course, including a 2023 Kirk quote: "I think it's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the 2nd Amendment. That is a prudent deal. It is rational." It's not often you see a right-winger put their body where their mouth has gone. St Clair also notes, "After these kinds of traumatic episodes, Fox News invariably tries to coax Trump into saying something humane, but time after time, he shows that he just can't do it."

    On other fronts, note:

    • The 400 richest people in the US are now worth a record $6.6 trillion. Their wealth grew by $1.2 trillion in the past year.

    St Clair also cited a tweet from Sen. Elissa Slotkin:

    We are in an AI Race with China right now. The last ti me we were in such a race - with Russia on nuclear technology - we won because we set up the Manhattan Project. We need that level of ambition again, for the modern age.

    I've often sympathized with Slotkin when she was critiqued from the left, but this is wrong on more levels than seemed possible in just three sentences. She assumes: that AI and nukes are comparable; that both are worth pursuing; that there is a race with a definite goal; that the "race winner" gets some kind of advantage; that the "race loser" is a failure; that "ambition" is measured by such a race. She also gets basic history wrong: the Manhattan Project was set up out of the misplaced fear that Germany was developing such weapons; Russia's nuclear program was a response to the US using nuclear weapons, and threatening Russia in what became known as the Cold War only after both sides had but respected and refrained from using nuclear weapons (although most vocal threats came from US warriors, from 1940s calls for preëmptive attack before Russia could respond in kind up through Nixon's "madman" theory). Also note that Slotkin is falling back on one of our dumbest tropes, the notion that declaring war proves we are serious -- although in examples like the "war on poverty" and "war on drugs," that seriousness quickly dissipated after the PR campaign, not so much for lack of serious effort as because war didn't work on abstract targets.

Harold Meyerson [09-01] Trump celebrates Labor Day as the most anti-union president ever: "His unbound union busting is one front of his war on democracy." More on labor:

Doug Muir [09-09] Five technological achievements! (That we won't see any time soon.) Crooked Timber's "resident moderate techno-optimist" presents "five things we're not going to see between now and 2050."

  1. Nobody is going to Mars.
  2. Speaking of space woo, we are not going to see asteroid mining.
  3. Coming down to Earth, we are not going to have commercial fusion power.
  4. There will be no superconductor revolution.
  5. There will be no useful new physics. No anti-gravity, telepathy, faster-than-light communication or travel, time-travel, teleportation booths, force fields, manipulation of the strong or weak nuclear forces, or reactionless drives. We're not going to get energy from the vacuum, or perpetual motion, or glowing blue cubes.
  6. Airships.

Matthew Duss [09-09] Encased in amber: "Biden's wars and the unmaking of liberal foreign policy." The subtitle suggests a ringing and much deserved indictment, but the article itself is just a review of Bob Woodward's latest insider blabfest, succinctly titled War. While Woodward has no opinions of whatever he writes about -- or perhaps I should say, conveys from his insider sources -- Duss is fairly admiring of Biden's "restraint" regarding Ukraine. While as I'm sure I've made clear by now, I mostly blame Putin, we still haven't seen a clear history on what Biden did or did not do between taking power and Putin's invasion. After all, it took Putin 8 years between the 2014 coup and secession and the 2022 invasion, so what spooked him? Where the record is clearer is how little Biden did after the invasion, and especially after the war stalemated, to negotiate a peace. That's been bad for Ukraine, bad for Russia, and bad for the world, including the US. But if Ukraine suggests that Biden and his crew didn't feel like peace was worth their effort, Gaza not only proved it, it showed that they had no regard for human rights, they had no clue how to talk about war, and they had no willpower to back up what few humanitarian sentiments they could muster. As Duss notes, not only did Biden's wars cost them the election, they still have no comprehension of their failures.

Jill Lepore [09-10] How Originalism killed the Constitution: "A radical legal philosophy has undermined the process of constitutional evolution." Another Atlantic article I can't read (and you probably can't either), on a subject various people have written entire books on (just from my roundup files: Erwin Chemerinsky, Madiba K Dennie, Jonathan Gienapp, Eric J Segall, Cass R Sunstein, Ilan Wurman), but none as long as Lepore's own new We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution, which this is most likely tied to. The short definition is that "originalism" is whatever Antonin Scalia thinks at any given moment. While the article and book are no doubt interesting, you might start with a review:

David Dayen [09-10] Political violence and the reality distortion field: "Sadly, we've always had violence in America; what's different today is the aftermath, and the battle to define political opposition amid violence." The occasion for this article was the fatal shooting of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed today. Dayen starts by decrying and condemning all political violence, and offers very little information about Kirk -- probably for the best, given that it's hard to say anything about Kirk that couldn't be misconstrued, especially by trigger-happy right-wingers, as suggesting that he had it coming. Dayen does place the shooting among the "47 episodes of mass violence on school campuses this year" (by the time of writing, Kirk's wasn't even the most recent). But his bigger point was how the right sought to exploit this shooting not just for political advantage but to direct violence against the left:

My view of this is not very controversial or provocative. It has been shared by every Democratic political leader who has made a statement about this, at least the hundreds that I've seen. But what I say in this moment, or what any of those leaders say, doesn't really matter when there's an open struggle, in these moments of confusion, to redefine reality.

"The Democrat party is a domestic terrorist organization," said Sean Davis, a conservative activist who was merely echoing the words of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller just a couple of weeks ago. "Every post on Bluesky is celebrating the assassination," said writer Tim Urban. "The Left is the party of murder," said incipient trillionaire Elon Musk on his personal microblogging site, X.

I'm not interested in collecting opinions about Charlie Kirk, but for an example for the first quoted paragraph, consider this from Barack Obama:

We don't yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. Michelle and I will be praying for Charlie's family tonight, especially his wife Erika and their two young children.

As a non-believer, "praying" always triggers my bullshit detector, but then I start wondering what Obama's selection algorithm is for who he prays for -- I doubt that he has time to qualify thousands of Gazans (or Africans, or hundreds of ordinary American citizens) for personal attention (like knowing spouse names and counting children). And if he's so selective, why single Kirk out, except perhaps that he's semi-famous? Surely he's not a fan? I also don't care for the motivation clause, which suggests that condemning some murders turns on motivations. But then, as someone who's ordered and rationalized murders, that may be the way his brain works.

Along these same lines, Eric Levitz tweeted:

We do not yet have any confirmation of the shooter's political ideology or motivation.

In recent years, political violence has emanated from both the left and the right.

The way to honor the memory of a "free speech" proponent is not to crack down on progressive speech.

The casual "both sides do it" tone is completely baseless, as is claiming Kirk as a free speech proponent. And scoring shooters by incidental ideological attachments is just a pointless game, unless you can show that the ideology promotes violence (which, come to think of it, right-wingers often do, including implicitly in their opposition to regulating guns). In his usual too-little, too-late mode, Levitz qualified his "both sides" assertion with statistics, a chart show 444 total deaths from "Domestic Extremist-Related Killings in the U.S. by Perpetrator Affiliation," where right-wingers were responsible for 75%, Islamists for 20%, and "left-wing extremism (including anarchists & Black nationalists)" 4%, with 1% unaccounted for.

As for the second quoted paragraph, the first example I ran across was a tweet from someone named Matt Forney:

Charlie Kirk being assassinated is the American Reichstag fire. It is time for a complete crackdown on the left. Every Democratic politician must be arrested and the party banned under RICO. Every libtard commentator must be shut down. Stochastic terrorism. They caused this.

I don't know who this guy is -- but his X handle is @realmattforney, so he must think he's somebody special, and the image showed 687K views by 3:09PM, so less than 3 hours after the shooting -- but you have to not just reel in disgust but actually marvel at some pundit whose first thought after a news event was "what would Hitler do?" Similar, minus only the explicit Nazi appeal, reaction from Laura Loomer (who I have heard of):

It's time for the Trump administration to shut down, defund, & prosecute every single Leftist organization.

If Charlie Kirk dies from his injuries, his life cannot be in vain.

We must shut these lunatic leftists down. Once and for all.

The Left is a national security threat.

Trump himself took up this same line of argument, here:

For years those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country and it must stop right now. My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges and law enforcement officials.

And while right-wingers are lambasting Bluesky for "cheering the assassin," the closest thing to an off-color comment I've seen there was from "Kim," who wrote:

Remember while they are chastising you for not mourning a dead Nazi, these are the same cunts who cheered Kyle Rittenhouse and gave him a television contract.

Calling Kirk a Nazi may be rude, and may even be technically inaccurate (not something I'm expert enough, or interested enough, to argue one way or the other), but its relationship to terrorism isn't real, not even in some hazy stochastic correlation. Trump just fixates on it because it hits close to home. But the use of violent hate speech is hundreds or maybe thousands of times more prevalent on the right than on the left. It's so common it rarely gets noticed. But the incredible whining on the rare occasion the tables get turned is pretty disgusting.

By the way, everyone dies in vain. That may not be right, but it's just the way the world works. That's just a rhetorical device that sounds sensible until you give it any thought. Someone should write up a full guidebook to how to make bogus right-wing arguments, not because the right needs one, but to simplify deciphering -- much like Gramsci argued that Machiavelli wrote The Prince not for actual princes, who grew up learning those tricks, but for the rest of us, to understand what they were doing.

More background on Kirk and/or reaction to his shooting:

  • A Mighty Girl [09-10] Three months, two political killings: the poison in our politics. The other assassination featured here was Emerita Melissa Hortman, a Democratic leader of the Minnesota House, although her husband, also killed, was mentioned only in passing (see 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators.

  • James H Williams [10-10] New York Yankees hold moment of silence for Charlie Kirk.

  • Rev. Graylan Scott Haglar [09-11] The killing of Charles James Kirk: Violent speech leads to violence.

  • Susan B Glasser [09-11] Did Trump just declare war on the American left? "After Charlie Kirk's tragic killing, the President speaks not of ending political violence but of seeking political vengeance." Well, that's what he said. Granted, he's sometimes unclear on what he can and cannot do, and on when and if what he says will be taken seriously by his staff, his fans, and everyone else. But what he says does give you some insight into what he's thinking and what he wants to see happen, which is mostly evil.

  • Avishay Artsy/Noel King [09-11]: What Charlie Kirk meant to young conservatives: "The late Talking Points USA [sic] leader built a movement that will outlive him."

  • Ben Burgis/Meagan Day [09-11]: Charlie Kirk's murder is a tragedy and a disaster: This joins "most on the Left [who] have rightly condemned his murder," but focuses more on the threat of right-wing vengeance for martyrdom, which they worry may be facilitated by failing to show due remorse and contrition. No doubt the treat is real. But why should we set ourselves up for a moral test, and blame ourselves for offenses they've long wanted to do, that Kirk himself was at the center of. It's not like Kirk ever felt the slightest twinge of guilt over the genocide in Gaza, or all sorts of other offenses. He lived to amass power to inflict terror, and his followers have no interest in anything but exploiting his death to further those same goals. I don't know how to stop them, except by making clear how horrible what they want to do really is. But blaming anyone other than the one who killed him won't help. Nor does offering sympathy when all it will do is inflate his importance and be used to hurt others.

  • Eric Levitz [09-11]: The right's vicious, ironic response to Charlie Kirk's death: "They're calling him a martyr for free speech as they demand a violent crackdown on progressive dissent." Even here, and even though he clearly knows better, he can't help but kick at some phantom leftists to burnish his both-sidesism.

  • Joan Walsh [09-11]: Let's not forget who Charlie Kirk really was: "The right-wing influencer did not deserve to die, and we shouldn't forget the many despicable things he said and did."

  • Ian Ward [09-12]: Why Charlie Kirk had no counterpart on the left: "Over the past decade, Kirk built an entirely new infrastructure for the GOP." This seems quite plausible, not that I've ever had any interest in understanding how this sort of politics works.

  • Chris Hedges [09-12]: The martyrdom of Charlie Kirk: He calls the killing "a harbinger of full-scale social disintegration."

    His murder has given the movement he represented — grounded in Christian nationalism — a martyr. Martyrs are the lifeblood of violent movements. Any flinching over the use of violence, any talk of compassion or understanding, any effort to mediate or discuss, is a betrayal of the martyr and the cause the martyr died defending.

    Martyrs sacralize violence. They are used to turn the moral order upside down. Depravity becomes morality. Atrocities become heroism. Crime becomes justice. Hate becomes virtue. Greed and nepotism become civic virtues. Murder becomes good. War is the final aesthetic. This is what is coming.

    "We have to have steely resolve," said conservative political strategist Steve Bannon on his show "War Room," adding, "Charlie Kirk is a casualty of war. We are at war in this country. We are." . . .

    The cannibalization of society, a futile attempt to recreate a mythical America, will accelerate the disintegration. The intoxication of violence — many of those reacting to Kirk's killing seemed giddy about a looming bloodbath — will feed on itself like a firestorm.

    The martyr is vital to the crusade, in this case ridding America of those Trump calls the "radical left."

    It seems significant that Bannon called his program "War Room" long before the killing, to show us that he had already resolved to wage war, long before Kirk gave him excuse and rationalization. It's worth noting that while Democrats seek to marginalize the left, reducing us to a harmless minority, right-wingers insist on obliterating us. This suggests that they fear something more fundamental, like exposure. They want a public that follows them uncritically, unaware that there is any other alternative.

  • Alain Stephens [09-12] Charlie Kirk's assassination is part of a trend: spiking gun violence in red states: "It's not Washington or Chicago but Republican-run, reliably right-wing states that lead the nation in gun violence rates."

  • Elizabeth Spiers [09-12] Charlie Kirk's legacy deserves no mourning: "The white Christian nationalist provocateur wasn't a promoter of civil discourse. He preached hate, bigotry, and division."

  • Elie Mystal [09-12]: How to canonize a white supremacist: "On the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk, the certain blowback, and this country's raging gun problem." One piece Mystal spend some time critiquing is Ezra Klein [09-11]: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way.

  • Zach Beauchamp

    • [09-12]: Let's be honest about Charlie Kirk's life — and death: "We can hold two thoughts in our head at the same time." Sure, but oddly enough the right can't do honest: to them it's only how can this help us and/or hurt them (which in their zero-sum worldview amount to the same)? People who can hold two thoughts can be conflicted. They can feel ambivalent. They can act confused. Carried too far, felt too intensely, they can be schizophrenic: floundering, acting in contradictory ways, even lapsing into catatonia. The right have it so much easier. They're wrong, but at least they're sure of themselves. They can act, boldly, decisively, Too bad they're sociopaths.

      Ok, I'm just riffing on the line. The article sticks to its subject. Beauchamp says, "I want you to think about two sentences," but when I do I'm not sure the distinction they make is significant, or even that he's deciphering them right. Inflection, which isn't clear written down, would reveal more than order. He cites a lot of pieces (some cited elsewhere in this section, some I'm not bothering with), then attempts to draw a set of "red lines" around what one can and cannot say, proscribing every other possible reaction — especially ones that are quite natural for those who have been personally injured by Kirk's bigotry. I'm not saying Beauchamp's wrong, and I agree that conscientious leftists should avoid unnecessary offense, but before Kirk and his cohort can lecture us on how to speak, they need to show some discretion themselves.

    • [09-11]: Our country is not prepared for this: "On the horrible murder of Charlie Kirk — and the threat to democracy it created."

  • Christian Paz [09-12]: How Charlie Kirk remade Gen Z: "Three reasons his message resonated so strongly with young conservatives." The third is the most interesting: "He tapped into a nascent oppositional culture on campuses, and among youth." I don't really get how or why, or even how much, but this doesn't seem right, and certainly not necessarily so.

  • Jamelle Bouie [09-13]: Charlie Kirk didn't shy away from who he was. We shouldn't either.

    It is sometimes considered gauche, in the world of American political commentary, to give words the weight of their meaning. As this thinking goes, there might be real belief, somewhere, in the provocations of our pundits, but much of it is just performance, and it doesn't seem fair to condemn someone for the skill of putting on a good show.

    But Kirk was not just putting on a show. He was a dedicated proponent of a specific political program. He was a champion for an authoritarian politics that backed the repression of opponents and made light of violence against them. And you can see Kirk's influence everywhere in the Trump administration, from its efforts to strip legal recognition from transgender Americans to its anti-diversity purge of the federal government.

    Also notable by Bouie:

    • [09-10]: They don't want to live in Lincoln's America: A "response, of sorts, to Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri, whose speech for 'national conservatives' was a direct rebuke of the creedal nationalism of the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg." I'm not surprised that right-wingers should hate iconic credos of American liberalism like "all men are created equal" and "government of, by, and for the people" -- I save my own ire for the avowed liberals who are so quick to sell their fellow citizens out. But it's rare, and perhaps a sign of the times, to see "conservatives" like Schmitt come out so explicitly against the original aspirations of American patriotism.

    • [08-27] We are not 'property of Donald Trump'. "The White House does not belong to Donald Trump. It is the property of the United States -- of the American people." "The Smithsonian Institution does belong to Donald Trump, either." Yet Trump feels entitled to remake both in his own image, with no consult or consideration of anyone else.

  • John Ganz [09-13] Reflections on violence: "Two reasons for Kirk's murder." The 2nd amendment, and the 1st. I don't particularly agree with either explanation, or with the first section below: I think it's possible to objectively distinguish hate speech, and that it should also be protected as free speech, although one should also be free to reply, even in kind. The real variable is power (as the 2nd section below notes), and that is not symmetrical either in fact or in theory: it is almost invariably the right that feels entitled to suppress the speech of others, or to require that their own favored speech be propagated, because their notion of order requires power to establish and maintain, and cannot withstand scrutiny. (I'm not denying that there are people who identify with the left who are tempted to take up the tools of the right, especially when they have been victimized, and that such people become more and more dangerous as they gain power, but it is not their leftness that drives them to abuse power — it is power itself.)

    It's long been my contention that almost no one really believes in free speech in principle; people believe free speech is what we do, hate speech is what they do. It's actually a difficult principle to hold to without contradiction. . . .

    Norms of civility are also impossible to enforce without abrogating someone's freedom of expression. For instance, some believe that at this time one should refrain from criticizing Kirk and his ilk. That's an exercise of power. Calls to decorum exist to circumscribe what can be said. . . .

    I think Charlie Kirk made the country a worse place. I believe his murder makes the country even worse. But I also won't engage in the dirty rhetorical trick that slyly suggests that a speaker created the unruly conditions for his own murder, as that late lamented beau idéal of civility, William F. Buckley, once did about Martin Luther King Jr. I opposed both the substance and form of Kirk's politics and still do. That's my opinion, and I feel it's a reasonable opinion shared by many — by millions in fact — although there are now efforts to drown it out as being unacceptable and disrespectful to the dead. I consider such talk tantamount to intimidation and blackmail, and I resent it. It's the same kind of droning idiocy and enforced conformity that led us from 9/11 to the destruction of civil liberties and to disaster in Iraq.

  • Media Matters [09-10] Fox News host on mentally ill people who commit crimes: "Just kill them": Brian Kilmeade. Given the people Trump has pardoned, and the ones he wants to prosecute, it's hard to give him or any other Republican any credit for anything they say about "law and order."

  • Intelligencer Staff [09-12] Charlie Kirk's assassination and the manhunt for his killer: What happened: "A running account of the shooting and its aftermath." This is the first piece on the shooter I've seen, and as one of the subtitles puts it, "Misinformation about the suspect is all over the place." As I tried to point out before, I don't really care what his motivations and/or identities are. But one tweet by Zachary D Carter seems fairly plausible:

    I see no point in searching for left/right valence in Tyler Robinson. He fits the school shooter archetype: young, disaffected, ideologically amorphous, extremely online and raised in gun culture. The theater of such violence is just expanding to include political assassination.

  • Joseph L Flatley [09-11]: Death of a troll "Charlie Kirk, 1993-2025." Like the author, one of the first things I thought of on hearing of Kirk's assassination was the 1967 assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell. Maybe Kirk wasn't as flagrant a Nazi as Rockwell, but Rockwell never had a shred of respectability or influence, and his killing had no discernible consequences or import. It merely removed a shit stain of an individual from the public eye. Kirk differs not in being a better person but in having rich and powerful promoters, who still seek to use his death for their own gain. One thing I had forgotten was that Rockwell was killed by one of his own disgruntled followers. Makes sense. Who else would consider him worthy of a bullet? By the way, good pull quote here: "Charlie Kirk died as he lived — making very little sense."

Tweets: I've usually used this section for highlighting clever responses and/or interesting ideas, but maybe I should just use it to bookmark some of our leading horribles.

  • Donald J Trump:

    • The Museums throughout Washington, but all over the Country are, essentially, the last remaining segment of "WOKE." The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future. We are not going to allow this to happen, and I have instructed my attorneys to go through the Museums, and start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities where tremendous progress has been made. This Country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE is BROKE. We have the "HOTTEST" Country in the World, and we want people to talk about it, including in our Museums.

    • Here's another one, which seems to be Trump reminiscing about his days as a Democrat:

      The confused and badly failing Democrat Party did nothing about Jeffrey Epstein while he was alive except befriedn him, socialize with him, travel to his island, and take his money! They knew everything there was to know about Epstein, but now, years after his death, they, out of nowhere, are seeming to show such love and heartfelt concern for his victims. Does anyone really believe' that? Where were they during his very public trials, and for all of those years before his death? The answer is, "nowhere to be found." The now dying (after the DOJ gave thousands of pages of documents in full compliance with a very comprehensive and exacting Subpoena from Congress!) Epstein case was only brought back to life by the Radical Left Democrats because they are doing so poorly, with the lowest poll numbers in the history of the Party (16%), while the Republicans are doing so well, among the highest approval numbers the Party has ever had! The Dems don't care about the victims, as proven by the fact that they never did before. This is merely another Democrat HOAX, just like Russia, Russia, Russia, and all of the others, in order to deflect and distract from the great success of a Republican President, and the record setting failure of the previous administration, and the Democrat Party. The Department of Justice has done its job, they have given everything requested of them, it's time to end the Democrat Epstein Hoax, and give the Republicans credit for the great, even legendary, job that they are doing. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!

  • I've seen several this several times, without a source:

    Behold. The festering carcass of American rot shoved into an ill-fitting suit: the sleaze of a conman, the cowardice of a draft dodger, the gluttony of a parasite, the racism of a Klansman, the sexism of a back-alley creep, the ignorance of a bar-stool drunk, and the greed of a hedge-fund ghoul—all spray-painted orange and paraded like a prize hog at a county fair. Not a president. Not even a man. Just the diseased distillation of everything this country swears it isn't but has always been—arrogance dressed up as exceptionalism, stupidity passed off as common sense, cruelty sold as toughness, greed exalted as ambition, and corruption worshiped like gospel. It is America's shadow made flesh, a rotting pumpkin idol proving that when a nation kneels before money, power, and spite, it doesn't just lose its soul—it shits out this bloated obscenity and calls it a leader.

    I would have left out the "draft dodger" bit, which I consider a mark of real courage (although not really in Trump's case).

  • cassius marcellus clay [08-23]: [PS: sorry, lost the link]

    in 10 yrs dem voters asks have gone from "please improve something" to "please stop trump/fix what is being broken" to "you dont even need to accomplish anything just pretend to have the same contempt for the GOP that you do for your voters" and the answer has been "no, send us $3" every time

  • Doris Ravenfeather Gent [08-17]: Meme with picture of Putin and caption: "we did not get Trump elected because we like Trump. We hate America, and he is weak and stu pid, and that is good for us." Gent comments:

    No doubt this is Putin's thought process . . . it may not be an actual quote, but definitely believable . . . Because Trump is weak and Stupid and very manipulative! . . . Annnd, Agent Krasnov is and has been an asset for Putin all along.

    I seriously doubt this, on many counts (not Trump being weak and stupid; while that clearly hurts America, how, or whether, that helps Russia is a different; but first you have to figure out what Putin wants, rather than just assuming he started with hating America, and deriving everything from that, projecting your own global ambitions onto a country with limited means for attaining them). I am saddened to say that the meme was forwarded by a local leftist friend, who isn't normally affiliated with the warmongering Democratic cabal, which just goes to show how poorly the world is understood by even our friends, and how much work it's going to take

  • Nate Silver: not a direct link to something that evidently appeared on X (where it looks like an attempt to flatter the algorithm). Normally "more" is followed by "than" (not "that"), but that incoherency is easily lost in trying to imagine what the fuck "Blueskyism" might possibly mean, especially if you assume that it must fit somewhere in the remaining tangle of nebulous concepts.

    Electorally speaking it's more important for Democrats to avoid Blueskyism that leftism. Not that Bluesky is important but it embodies all the characteristics that make progressivism unappealing to normal people. If you could subtract those the left would win more often.

    Kim draws more conclusions from this than I would, including, "he's a miserable being choosing a miserable life when choosing the be less miserable requires so little action from him." I'm more of the view that he's a spreader of misery than a victim.

  • Dave Roberts [09-01]: Tweet and additional comments, something that could have been said more succinctly and calmly in 2 or 3 paragraphs, but for the record, let's unravel it here:

    To me, the lesson of the pandemic is a very familiar one, although as far as I can tell, no one is talking about it or learning it (which is also familiar). It's about the contrast between America's two political parties.

    When Covid popped up, the parties' reactions were extremely on brand.

    Dems, America's A students, scrambled to do the responsible thing. Strained, sweated to do the responsible thing, to be seen doing the responsible thing, to get the gold star from the (imaginary) teacher.

    Now, of course there were lots of decisions made by Dems in the heat of crisis, with insufficient information, facing no-win trade-offs, that one could go back and second guess. (Indeed, that is US pundits' favorite indoor sport!) Perhaps you would have made the trade-offs differently.

    But the entire Dem professional establishment was desperately trying to do the right thing & be responsible.

    Contrast: immediately upon the arrival of the virus, the right started spreading insane conspiracy theories, attacking public health officials, & refusing to act in solidarity.

    At every single second, they worked their hardest to destroy trust, to foment doubt & anger & resentment, to prevent solidarity.

    And those lies mattered. The vaccine skepticism deliberately spread by the right led to 100s of 1000s of preventable deaths. Again: they caused mass death.

    And then afterward -- this is the part that makes me feel crazy -- all the retrospective analysis & discussion shit on Democrats. They've been on the defense ever since, criticized from all quarters for this or that decision. Much of that criticism is fact-free bullshit, but . . .

    . . . even if you buy it all, surely the party that worked desperately to save lives & end the pandemic deserves more credit, a higher grade, than the party that worked desperately to spread lies & get people killed! Surely they're not the ones that should be apologizing!

    But it's always like this. Democrats try to do the right thing. They fall short, like humans do. Everyone teams up to shit on them.

    Republicans don't even bother pretending. They lie, they smear, they destroy lives, they get people killed, & they face NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT.

    Somehow our diseased information environment has produced the net outcome that the pandemic is considered a political problem for Dems, not the party that lied about it & got people killed at every juncture. The party that tried, but not perfectly, to save lives, is being forced to apologize.

    I've written a million threads on this theme, it's pointless, I know. But it's insane. Dems have to try, to be responsible, to please everyone. Republicans just have to jump around like fucking gibbons, throwing shit at the wall, and if they occasionally, accidentally hit something . . .

    . . . it's their targets who must apologize. They're never held responsible for the lies. Never held responsible for getting so many people killed. Never held responsible for anything. It's just the people who care, who try, that we hold responsible, that we shit on & demonize. Never the gibbons.

    Think about it. "Dems were too zealous in trying to prevent the spread of the virus" is, in US politics, a greater disadvantage, a bigger problem, than "Republican lies got hundreds of thousands of Americans killed for no reason."

    Just a pathetic fucking country. Pathetic.

    Adding one thing: this whole dynamic is neatly replicated around the issue of climate change. Dems take shit constantly: they're acting too fast, too slow, doing the wrong things, focusing on the wrong tech, bad Dems!

    GOP gibbons just throw shit & lies & block all policy & that's fine I guess.

    Dems care, and try, and for that are punished.

    GOP lies, hurts people, doesn't give a shit, and is rewarded.

    Various comments, including this from Ben Weinberg:

    The way this pathetic state of affairs is such a mass scale self-inflicted regression feels unique to our history. While people went thru far worse for the good of the country, this is the most unsympathetic populace we've ever had.

    My belief is that big tech decided technofascism was preferable to regulation and tried to align algorithms to that in late 2021-22. The idea of a shift absent that just doesn't hold up.

    I don't put a huge amount of stock in the notion that Democrats care where Republicans don't. Another way of looking at this is to go back to Karl Rove's argument that Democrats are bound to study reality, while Republicans are free and bold enough to act and, thereby, create their own better reality. Democrats responded to this by embracing the "reality-based community," but it also locked them into an orbit of conventional thinking where it became impossible to do anything that wasn't underwritten by their corporate sponsors. In effect, they substituted their own phony reality, which constrained them as apologists for the status quo. Democrats sometimes remind me of the "shoot and cry" Israelis, who could never see a way to avoid a war they were bound to regret. And while they could point to their crying as proof that they're living, caring humans, they're effectively no different from the shameless right-wingers they hope to guilt-trip. It's a losing proposition, because if you're going to shoot anyway, it makes sense to go with the side that's really into shooting.

  • Bari Weiss [09-12]: Matthew Yglesias responded to this, adding that "the core of free speech and a liberal society is precisely that I don't need to agree with the hagiographic accounts of Kirk's life and work to find his murder unacceptable and chilling."

    Someone in the newsroom said that this shattering event feels like the aftermath of another Charlie: Charlie Hebdo. It was a decade ago that Islamists burst into the offices of the satirical Paris newspaper and murdered 12 people who worked there.

    One similarity was that the killings were condemned by people all across the left-right political spectrum, as opposed to the killings that are only condemned by the left. Another similarity is that in both these cases, the right jumped on their victimhood as an excuse to foment violence against their supposed enemies. One might contrast this with, say, the bombing of Gaza, where several US Senators skipped the "hopes and prayers" and jumped straight into cheers and jeers, like "finish the job!"

  • Keith Edwards [09-12]: asks "Why did Laura Loomer delete this [tweet from 7/13/25]?"

    I don't ever want to hear @charliekirk11 claim he is pro-Trump ever again. After this weekend, I'd say he has revealed himself as political opportunist and I have had a front row seat to witness the mental gymnastics these last 10 years.

    Lately, Charlie has decided to behave like a charlatan, claiming to be pro-Trump one day while he stabs Trump in the back the next.

    Here's another (or possibly just longer) Loomer tweet attacking Kirk. Evidently Kirk's treason against Trump was in criticizing Trump's Israel-directed bombing of Iran.

  • erictastic:

    He was killed on camera. No one's family deserves to have to witness that. It's unthinkably cruel that people would then go on the internet and use their platform to say about an innocent man that "I don't care that he's dead." "He's not a hero." "He's a scumbag." "He shouldn't be celebrated."

    I'm talking about George Floyd. You thought I was talking about Charlie Kirk? No, those are actual quotes BY Charlie Kirk about George Floyd. Outrageous that anyone would say that of the dead, right?

    Further down my Facebook feed, I ran across this, which quoted California D governor Gavin Newsom:

    I knew Charlie, and I admired his passion and commitment to debate. His senseless murder is a reminder of how important it is for all of us, across the political spectrum, to foster genuine discourse on issues that deeply affect us all without resorting to political violence.

    The best way to honor Charlie's memory is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse. In a democracy, ideas are tested through words and good-faith debate — never through violence.

    I shouldn't complain about safe pablum coming from politicians, who know better than most that anything else will get them crucified. I also don't mind the occasional ironic twist that presents a foe as an unwitting ally, as long as it is remotely credible and/or amusing. But this is more than a bit excessive, and it makes you wonder who Newsom knows, and why.

Current count: 321 links, 19901 words (25023 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Sunday, August 17, 2025

Loose Tabs

This is an occasional collection of newsworthy links and comments, much less systematic than what I attempted in my late Speaking of Which posts. The new name comes from my extensive use of browser tabs. When I get around to cleaning up, I often find tabs opened to old articles I might want to comment on and/or refer back to. So these posts are mostly housecleaning, but may also serve as a very limited but persistent record of what 20+ years ago I started calling "the end of the American empire" and nowadays feels more like "the end of civilization." I collect these bits in a draft file, and flush them out when periodically. My previous one appeared 28 days ago, on July 20.

This file came together in several widely separated spurts, between which it slowly accreted. The time spread is such that I no longer have any real sense of structure or coverage. It's not clear to me what I looked at, and what I'm missing. Several pieces led to long digressions, some of which I may go back to and refine into distinct posts in my new Notes on Everyday Life newsletter. While whatever I write there will eventually show up on my website, I promise that it will be more focused there, as well as delivered direct to you via email, than the piles of scattered notes I've been assembling here. So please consider subscribing.

The first section here are major categories, where I didn't wait for a keynote article. These are not necessarily regular features.

Epsteinmania: As far as I'm concerned, the Epstein-Trump story is a complete waste of time. The facts have been around for a long time now, and hardly anyone outside of the news media and the kiddie pool of the DNC care. The only thing that keeps the story going is how Trump keeps finding novel ways to deny it. All he has to do to shut up, and it will be gone within a couple news cycles. That he keeps it going suggests that there are other things he doesn't want us to talk about. Indeed, there is a lot, as the Walsh article below utterly fails to disclose.

  • David Dayen [07-15] Jeffrey Epstein Is a Policy Issue: "It's about elite immunity, the defining issue in America for more than two decades." No, the defining issue is increasing inequality. Warping the (in)justice system is an inevitable side-effect, but Epstein isn't exactly proof for "elite immunity": no doubt he got favorable treatments, but he wound up dying in jail. Maybe Trump is proof, but under pretty extraordinary circumstances. (That Trump's exception will make the system even worse is extremely likely.) Also, I think the both-sidesism here is way out of bounds. I agree that Democrats suck up to the rich more than they should, but virtually all of them accept that there are rules that everyone (even presidents) have to live by. Trump sees power as purely partisan. Even if he only supports "elite immunity" for elites on his side.

  • Ryan Cooper [07-18] Epstein Signals the End of Donald Trump's Crackerjack Crisis Management Style: "For a decade, his chump fan base automatically believed his lies — until now."

  • Eric Schliesser [07-21] On the Epstein Files; and Corruption. "It is a curious fact that in our public culture hypocrisy is treated as a worse sin than many actual crimes."

  • James D Zirin [07-24] Epstein and Trump: Why We're Unlikely to See the Files: "Judges will probably keep the Epstein files sealed, Bondi seems unlikely to release anything, and the Supreme Court's version of blanket presidential immunity will thwart any criminal case against Trump."

  • Allison Gill [08-01] Someone Waived Ghislaine Maxwell's Sex Offender Status to Move Her to a Minimum Security Camp in Texas.

  • Maureen Tkacik [08-01] Making America Epstein Again: "Trump's transactional ethics are making the US a refuge for criminals. This mirrors something Israel has done for years." I'm a bit surprised by the Israel angle here, not that I have any reason to doubt it. More can be found here:

    • Mouin Rabbani [07-25] Israel: Safe Haven for Pedophiles? "An examination of Darryl Cooper's claim that Israel functions as a safe haven for criminals and pedophiles escaping justice."

  • Peter Rothpletz [08-02] The simple way Democrats should talk about Trump and Epstein: "The scandal has haunted the president in part because of a truth voters already feel: Republicans protect elites."

  • Rebecca Solnit [08-03] The problem is far bigger than Jeffrey Epstein: "Treating the scandal as an aberration misunderstands the global epidemic of violence against women." My first reaction was that this is an instance of claiming a story for one's other crusade, much like how every fire or hurricane gets turned into a lecture on global warming, or every case of fraud can be turned into an indictment of capitalism. That works, of course, because there is truth in the larger stories, but it can also cover up peculiarities that are interesting on their own. In this case, while Epstein may share in the bad habits of many other men, what's distinctive about his case is the extraordinary wealth he held, and was able to use to get his way. (I have no idea whether violence was involved or implied, as in most other cases of rape — a possible weak link in Solnit's argument — but power is almost always backed up with the threat of force.) Still, while I wouldn't have approached this story in this way, I agree with Solnit's conclusion:

    The piecemeal stories — "here is this one bad man we need to do something about" — don't address the reality that the problem is systemic and the solution isn't police and prison. It's social change, and societies will have changed enough when violence against women ceases to be a pandemic that stretches across continents and centuries. Systemic problems require systemic responses, and while I'm all for releasing the Epstein files, I want a broader conversation and deeper change.

    I'd just shift the focus to Epstein's wealth, and the great power we concede to people with such wealth. I'm not saying that every billionaire is inherently evil, but those who have impulses in that direction are empowered by their wealth to pursue them. Epstein is an example of that, and he's far from the only one.

  • Judith Butler [08-05] Trumpists against Trump: St Clair quoted this bit, while noting that "in the latest Pew Survey, Trump's popularity among his own voters has fallen by 10%." I'm skeptical. (The 10% certainly seems credible, as well more than that was based on gross misunderstanding of who they were voting for, but of this being the specific issue that moved them.)

    Trump insists that the whole Epstein affair is a "hoax" and that his own followers are "stupid" and "weaklings." Their reaction has been intense and swift, since Trump now sounds like the elitists who disparage them — elitists like Hillary Clinton, who called them "a basket of deplorables." Trump scoffs at their complaints, noting that his supporters have nowhere else to go. They feel not only deceived by their hero but demeaned, insulted and outraged, the way they felt when Democrats were in power.

    Still, Butler's point that Trump's a whiny bitch is on the mark, and more of his voters are likely to come around to that view, even if they can't find anyone else to vote for.

  • Bryan Walsh [07-26] Four stories that are more important than the Epstein Files [PS: This entry was the basis for Notes on Everyday Life: Four Stories]: This piece should have been an easy lay up. Instead, Walsh has done the impossible, and come up with four stories even more inane and useless than the Epstein Files:

    1. America's dangerous debt spiral: maybe if he was talking about personal debt, but he means the old federal debt sawhorse, which Trump is pumping up (but lying about, because deficits only matter when Democrats might spend them on people).
    2. A global hunger crisis: he's talking about places like Nigeria, with just one side mention of Gaza, even more casual than "surges in food prices driven by extreme weather"; while climate change could be a major story, the most immediate food crises in the world today are caused by war.
    3. A real population bomb: the complaint that American women aren't having enough babies.[*]
    4. A generational security challenge: here he's complaining about America not being able to produce enough ships and missiles, with the usual China fearmongering, but no regrets about squandering stockpiles on Ukraine and Israel.

    The title works as clickbait, as I imagine there are lots of people out there thinking there must be more important matters than Epsteinmania. And I could imagine this as an AI exercise: gimme four topics that sound big and important but aren't widely covered, except for scolding mentions by fatuous frauds. Still, as usual, natural stupidity is the more plausible explanation — at least the one my life experience has trained my neurons to recognize.

    To some extent, the Epstein-Trump scandal recapitulates the conspiracy-mongering after Vincent Foster's death. I don't care about either enough to sort out the sordid details. But this got me wondering about a 1990s edition of "Four stories that are more important than Vincent Foster's death." I'm not going to hurt my brain by trying to imagine what Walsh might come up with, but these strike me as the big stories of Clinton's first half-term:

    1. Clinton's surrender of his "it's the economy, stupid" platform, which he campaigned and won on, to Alan Greenspan and "the fucking bond market," effectively embracing Reagan's "greed is good" policies and "the era of big government is over."
    2. Clinton's surrender to Colin Powell of his promise to end discrimination against gays in the military, which was not only a setback for LGBT rights but the end of any prospect of a peace dividend following the end of the Cold War, as Clinton never challenged the military again; they in turn were able to dictate much of his foreign policy, laying the groundwork for the "global war on terror," the expansion of NATO, the "pivot to Asia," and other horrors still developing.
    3. Clinton's prioritization of NAFTA, which (as predicted) demolished America's manufacturing base, and (less publicized at the time) undermined the political influence of unions and triggered the mass influx of "illegal immigrants" — factors that Republicans have taken advantage of, not least because they could fairly blame worker hardships on Democrats.
    4. Clinton's health care fiasco, a bill so badly designed and ineptly campaigned for that it set the right to health care back by decades (while ACA was better, it still contained the corrupt compromises of the Clinton program, and still failed to provide universal coverage).

    It took several years to clarify just how important those stories actually were (or would become). It's taken even longer to appreciate a fifth story, which is arguably even greater and graver than these four: the commercialization of the internet. At the time, this was regarded as a major policy success, but one may have second thoughts by now. The Clinton economy was largely built on a bubble of speculation on e-businesses. While some of that bubble burst in 2000-01, much of it continues to inflate today, and its effect on our world is enormous.

    But in 1992-93, Republicans were so disgusted as losing the presidency to a hayseed Democrat like Clinton — especially one who claimed to be able to do their pro-business thing better than they could — that they latched on to petty scandal. They flipped the House in 1994, largely on the basis of checking account scandal. Bringing down Clinton was a bit harder, but started with flogging the Foster story. It grew more important over time, despite everyone agreeing that there was nothing to it, because it ensconced Kenneth Starr as Clinton's permanent prosecutor, uncovering the Lewinsky affair, leading to the sham impeachment, and more significantly, his circling of the wagons, which turned the DNC into his personal political machine, eventually securing Hillary Clinton's doomed nomination, and Trump's rise to power.

    I'm not really sure yet which four stories I'd pick if I had to write this article — mostly because there are so many to choose from, and they overlap and are replicated and reflected in various guises everywhere the Trump administration has influence. While the wars trouble me the most, and gestapo tactics initially directed at immigrants are especially flagrant, one also cannot ignore the gutting (and extreme politicization) of the civil service, the use of extortion to dominate various previously independent institutions (universities, law firms, media companies), the carte blanche given to fraud and corruption (with crypto an especially flagrant example of both), and the utter debasement of the "rule of law."

    There are also a whole raft of economic issues, which only start with fraud and corruption, but mostly stem from a shift of effective power toward corporations and their financier owners, increasing inequality and further entrenching oligarchy. The emerging Trump economy is not less efficient and less productive, it is increasingly unfair and unjust, and much fuller of precarity, which will sooner or later cause resentment and provoke resistance, sabotage, and possibly even revolution. Inequality is not just unfair. It is an acid which dissolves trust, faith, and good will, leaving only force as a means of preserving order. Sure, Trump seems cool with that, as well as the Hobbesian hell of "war of all against all," figuring his side has a big edge in guns, and maybe God on his side. But nearly everything we do in the world depends on trust that other people are going to be respectful, civil, orderly. It's hard to imagine coping in a world where our ability to trust the government, other institutions, and other people has decayed, stranding us in a savage jungle of predators.

    You might be wondering why I haven't mentioned climate change yet. I've long described failure to act on it as an opportunity cost — a choice due to political decisions to prioritize other things (like war), but so many opportunities have been squandered that one suspects more malign (or at least ignorant) interests. Although one cannot doubt human responsibility, it is effectively a force of nature now, beyond political agendas, so the more urgent concern is how does government copes with inevitable disasters. With Trump, no surprise that the answer is badly — even worse than under Biden — and not just in response but in preparation, even to the ability to recognize a disaster when one occurs.

    Climate change may well be the factor that destroys Trump: he can't keep it from happening, he has no empathy for victims when it does, he lacks the ways and means to respond adequately, and having denied it at every step along the way, he has no credibility when his incompetence and/or malice is exposed. It undermines his very concept of government, which crudely stated is as a protection racket, as the people who normally pay him for favors will soon find they are anything but protected. Sure, lots of poor people will be hurt by climate change, but the rich can take little comfort in that, because they own the property that will be devalued and in some cases destroyed — and even if it doesn't hit them directly, the insurance spikes will do the trick. Businesses and lenders will go under because they can't bear the risks, and no amount of blame-shifting Fox propaganda is going to cover that up.

    I could say similar things about AI, automation, and other technological advancements, but the issues there are more complex. Suffice it to say that Trump's let-the-market-and/or-China-decide stance (depending on who chips in the most) won't work. There is much more I could mention. Civil rights enforcement is dead. Does that mean old-fashioned racism will rebound? Antitrust enforcement is dead (provided you bribe the right people, as Paramount just did). Federal grants for arts and sciences are pretty much dead. So is any chance of student loan relief. There is very little but your own scruples to keep you from cheating on your taxes, and who has those these days? Want to talk about pollution? Measles? We're not even very far down the list.

    And the kicker is, instead of having all this ridiculous stuff to complain about, we're really in a position to do some extraordinarily good things for practically everyone on the planet. What's holding us back is a lot of really bad thinking. And it's not just Trump and his toady Republicans and their rabid fanbase, although they're easily the worst. I spend a lot of time reading Democrats on strategy, agenda, media, etc., and they still fall way short of what is needed, due to lack of understanding and/or will power. I'd like to think that they at least are capable of empathy, understand the concepts of civil rights and a government that serves all people, and are at least open to reason, but all too often they leave you in doubt.

    By the way, only later did I notice that none of Walsh's stories implicate Trump. He gets a glancing mention in the debt story, as Gaza does with hunger, but he's effectively saying that everything else involving Trump is even less important than Epstein. I limited my alternate to Clinton stories, because they were easier to weigh against Foster. There were other big stories of Clinton's first half-term, like the dissolving of the Soviet Union, the founding of the European Union, the Oslo Accords, and even the Hubble Telescope, but I tried to keep my head in the game. Walsh seems to be hoping for another game entirely: one where we can pretend Trump doesn't matter.

    [*] There are lots of ways to debunk this. See John Quiggin [07-22] The Arguments for More (or Fewer) People, including many valid comments. One of this cites a book — Adam Becker: More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley's Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity — as "required reading for understanding where these people are coming from and why they are all completely insane."

Israel/Palestine: The atrocities hardly need me keeping track. What interests me more is how and when people see them, and realize that something else has to be done.

  • David Wallace-Wells [06-25] The Judgment of History Won't Save Gaza. No, but denying where Gaza fits in the long history of mass killing won't excuse Israel either. That the notion that "being on the right side of history" should be a motivation for good behavior may seem quaint in a culture that celebrates Breaking Bad, but in most times, most people have preferred to think of themselves as decent and virtuous. That such sentiments are scorned in today's Israel and America is not something to brag about. But even in a basically apologetic piece, here's a quote on what Israel has actually done:

    Reporting from the United Nations shows that today, nearly every hospital in Gaza has been damaged or destroyed, as have most schools and mosques. According to the United Nations Satellite Center, in less than two years, nearly 70 percent of all structures in Gaza have been possibly, moderately or severely damaged — or destroyed. As of January, U.N. figures showed nine in 10 homes were damaged or destroyed. About 90 percent of the population has been displaced, with many Gazans multiple times. A study published in January by The Lancet, the London-based medical journal, suggested that nearly 65,000 Palestinians had been killed by traumatic injury in the first nine months of the war — a figure 40 percent higher even than the estimates suggested by the Gaza Ministry of Health. The study also estimated that more than half of the dead were women and children; some estimates of the share of civilian casualties run higher. More than 175 Palestinian journalists have been killed.

    Those figures have been disputed, by Israel and many of its supporters, as has the degree to which this war has killed proportionally more civilians than many of the most gruesome military offensives of recent memory (Falluja, Mosul). But as you read about the recent targeted strikes on Iran, which according to the Israeli military killed a number of senior military and nuclear leaders, it's worth reflecting on reporting by +972 magazine, from earlier in the Gaza conflict, that for every low-level combatant that Israel's military A.I. targeted, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians in a strike — and that, in at least several instances, for higher-ranking figures, as many as 100 or more civilian deaths were tolerated. (Last April, I wrote about +972's reporting, much of which was later corroborated by The Times.)

    In recent weeks, the most horrifying news from Gaza has been about the attacks on those lining up for desperately needed humanitarian aid. Earlier in the conflict, it was especially striking to watch Cindy McCain — the head of the World Food Program and the widow of Senator John McCain, so much a stalwart supporter of Israel that his laughing face has been used in memes about the recent strikes in Iran — raise the alarm about the critical levels of hunger throughout Gaza. In May, she warned of famine — as she had been, on and off, for about a year. After that alarm-raising, a new food-distribution system was soon established. According to the U.N. human rights office, hundreds of Palestinians have been killed since then, while waiting for food.

  • Peter Beinart [06-30] A New Playbook for Democratic Critics of Israel: "Zohran Mamdani's primary victory shows pro-Palestine candidates how to win without abandoning their values."

  • Muhannad Ayyash [07-13] Calling for world to account for the Gaza genocide: Review of Haidar Eid: Banging on the Walls of the Tank, which "reveals a disturbing but irrefutable reality: the world has abandoned the Palestinian people to be annihilated as a people in the most calculated and brutal fashion possible."

  • Bret Stephens [07-22] No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza: While the New York Times is legendary for their supplicant bias towards Israel, none of their columnists have more militantly cheered on the complete and utter devastation of Gaza than Stephens has. The only surprise here is that he doesn't come right out and embrace the genocide charge, but evidently whoever pulls his strings urged him to be a bit more circumspect. (Although his main argument that Israel isn't committing genocide is his brag that if Israel wanted to do so, they would have killed a lot more than 60,000 Palestinians.) Obviously, there's no point arguing with someone like him. Henceforth, we should just make sure to identify him always as "Holocaust Denier Bret Stephens."

  • Alice Speri [07-22] Harvard publisher cancels entire journal issue on Palestine shortly before publication.

  • Jason Ditz:

  • Aaron Maté [07-27] As Gaza starves, Trump tells Israel to 'finish the job': "The Trump administration abandons ceasefire talks just as aid groups warn of 'mass starvation' in Gaza, and Israeli officials admit to yet another murderous lie."

  • James North:

  • Aaron Boxerman [07-28] In a First, Leading Israeli Rights Groups Accuse Israel of Gaza Genocide: Notably, B'Tselem finally opens its eyes.

  • Malak Hijazi [07-29] Don't stop talking about the famine in Gaza: "Israel wants you to believe that airdrops and symbolic aid trucks will solve the famine in Gaza. Don't believe them. These measures are not meant to end hunger, only to quell growing global outrage as the genocide continues unchecked."

  • Branko Marcetic [07-29]: How much is shoddy, pro-Israel journalism worth? Ask Bari Weiss. "As her Free Press is poised to seal a $200 million deal with the mainstream news giant CBS, let us reflect on why."

  • Katrina Vanden Heuvel [07-29] A New Report Exposes How Major American Corporations Have Been All Too Eager to Aid Israel's Atrocities in Gaza: "It also reveals our nation's now undeniable complicity in what has been described as the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century."

  • Qassam Muaddi

    • [07-31]: As Gaza starvation shocks the world, Witkoff is in Israel to push for a ceasefire deal. Really? Just a day before, Muaddi wrote US pulls out of Gaza ceasefire talks, and nothing here really contradicts that. We should be clear here that while it's possible for Israel to negotiate with Hamas for release of the few hostages who have managed to survive the bombardment (and Israel's own Hannibal Directive), a ceasefire is something Israel can (and should) implement unilaterally. If Trump wanted a ceasefire, all he has to do is convince Netanyahu to stop the shooting and bombing. And if he has any trouble, he can halt Israel's supply of bullets and bombs. That he hasn't done this so far strongly suggests that he doesn't want to, possibly because he's a monster, or because he has no will in the matter. Once you have a ceasefire, there are other things that need to be negotiated. My preference would be for Israel to renounce its claim to Gaza and kick it back to the UN, which would have to then deal with the Palestinians, with aid donors, the US, etc. My guess is that once Israel is out of the picture, the UN would have no problem getting Hamas to release the hostages and to disband and disarm. Israel could claim their victory, and would be left with defensible borders. (This would, of course, leave Palestinians in Israeli-occupied territory, and in external refugee camps, with their own serious issues, but they're less pressing than ending the slaughter and starvation in Gaza.)

    • [08-13]: Starvation chronicles in Gaza: "I'm mostly tired of expecting the world to end this. I need to sleep. I have to wake up early to go look for food."

    • [08-14]: Israel swings between plans to occupy Gaza and resuming ceasefire talks: "As the Israeli army announced it was preparing plans for the occupation of Gaza City, initial reports indicate the ceasefire negotiations may resume, leaving open the question of whether Netanyahu's occupation plan is a negotiating tactic." Or (more likely) the negotiation rumors just another feint?

  • Michael Arria:

  • Philip Weiss [08-01]: Israel's international isolation has begun: "US and global politics surrounding Israel are shifting rapidly as the world recoils in horror at Israel's starvation of Gaza."

  • Jack Hunter [08-01]: How MTG became MAGA's moral compass on Gaza: "Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has bucked her president, called for yanking aid to Israel, and was the first Republican to call what is happening 'a genocide'." By the way, I'm getting the impression that Responsible Statecraft is increasingly betraying its Koch roots and leaning right. Hunter is merely the writer most desperate to tout MAGA Republicans (including Trump) as peace icons.

  • Stavroula Pabst [08-01] Admin asked if US approves Gaza annex plan, says go ask Israel: More evidence of who's calling the shots for Trump foreign policy.

  • Mitchell Plithnick [08-01] Interview with Prof. Joel Beinin: No transcript, but I listened to all 1:09:31 of this. One side comment here was Beinin's note that the Jewish population had collapsed following the destruction of the 2nd temple (AD 70), with only a small minority adopting the new Rabbinic Judaism, which defined Judaism up to now. The implication is that as Jews turn against Israel, most will simply cease to identify as Jewish, while some will attempt to come up with a redefinition of Judaism that frees itself from Israel. I haven't found anything he's written on this, except complaints from some Zionist sources about his interpretation of Jewish history.

  • Francesca Fiorentini [08-01]: The 7 Worst Plans for Gaza: Don't bother. The article is a joke piece, and not a funny one. Besides, we already know the worst plan, which is for Israel to continue doing what it's done for 650+ days now, until they finally admit that all the Palestinians have died, just to spite Israel, who tried so hard to keep a few alive for decades, because war was the only way of life Israelis ever knew.

  • Aaron Boxerman/Samuel Granados/Bora Erden/Elena Shao [08-01] How Did Hunger Get So Much Worse in Gaza? Maybe because the aid trucks are used as bait for snipers? But that's just worse compared to what? Way before 2023, Israelis were restricting food imports to Gaza — their euphemism was "putting Gazans on a diet."

  • Mehdi Hasan [08-02]: The US is complicit in genocide. Let's stop pretending otherwise. I'm skeptical that "the US government, enabled by the media, is an active participant in Israel's atrocities in Gaza." Complicit? For sure. One could probably go further and argue that Israel could not, and therefore would not, be able to commit genocide, at least in this manner, without US material and diplomatic support, which under both Biden and Trump has been uncritical and unflinching, sometimes even beyond what was asked for. I also think the US has a deeper responsibility for Israel's turn toward genocide, even if much of the ideological underpinnings was imported from Israel, starting with the neocon embrace of Israel's far-right anti-Oslo opposition in the 1990s. (The Project for a New American Century started with a position paper on Israel's "defense of the realm.") But it's hard to be a participant in a reality you're so dedicated to pretending isn't real. I think it's probable that most Americans who still side with Israel are merely misinformed and/or deluded, and not fully in line with genocide. However, such negligence is hard to excuse for people who have a public responsibility to know what Israel is doing, and to implement US policy according to our own best interests. Hasan isn't wrong to include them among the "participants," even though their actual role is often passive and banal — words that have previous uses in describing people who not just tolerated but facilitated holocausts.

  • Aviva Chomsky [08-03] On Creating a Cover for Genocide: "Preventing criticism of Israel by defining it as antisemitic."

  • Julie Hollar [08-04]: Mainstream media largely sidelined starvation story, until it couldn't: "A deep dive into coverage shows a shocking lack of interest until now, and even then the reporting is skewed away from culpability."

  • Richard Silverstein:

  • Nathan J Robinson [08-05]: Why Won't US Politicians Say "Genocide"? Starts with a long list (with links) of organizations that have.

  • Max Boot [08-05] I still love Israel. But what I'm seeing is wrong. "It's still possible to love the country and condemn this war. But it's getting difficult." Original title (per Jeffrey St Clair, who added "imagine what it takes to finally turn Max Boot's war-mongering stomach") was "I hate the war in Gaza. But I still love Israel." I don't mind when people say they love Israel, as long as they understand that ending the war is the only way Israel can save itself.

  • Tareq S Hajjaj [08-07] Israel claims it's allowing aid into Gaza, but its 'engineering of chaos' ensures the aid doesn't reach starving Palestinians: "As limited aid trickles into Gaza, Israel's strategy of 'engineering chaos' by shooting at aid-seekers and permitting looters to steal aid ensures that food doesn't get to starving Palestinians."

  • Qassam Muaddi [08-07] Leaked Cabinet transcript reveals Israel chose to starve Gaza as a strategy of war: "Netanyahu chose to blow up the ceasefire and starve Gaza's population in order to force a surrender from Hamas, while top military and security officials favored moving to the second phase of a ceasefire, leaked cabinet meeting minutes reveal."

  • Abdaljawad Omar [08-08] The war without end in Gaza: "Israel's latest plan to occupy Gaza City reveals that the assault on Gaza is more than just a war over territory. It is a war to extend, and dictate the tempo of killing and destruction — to exhaust Gaza into submission." My main quibble here is that "submission" implies survival. Israel wants Gaza to be depopulated, either by death or by exile, and they don't care which (although as Deir Yassin in 1948 showed, they've long understood that mass murder is effective at driving exile).

  • Jonathan Ofir [08-08] 4 out of 5 Jewish Israelis are not troubled by the famine in Gaza: 79%.

  • Asaf Yakir [08-13] How War Became Israel's New Normal: "It is a mistake to think that Benjamin Netanyahu is solely responsible for Israel's genocide or that removing him would bring it to an end. To win support for war, he has mobilized large swathes of Israeli society, from liberals to the far right."

  • Ali Ghanim [08-12] Anas al-Sharif Was My Friend. Here's Why Israel Feared Him So Much. "On Monday, Anas, 28, was targeted, along with three other Al Jazeera journalists, in an Israeli strike on a tent complex around Al-Shifa Hospital."

  • Elfadil Ibrahim [08-14] Why Egypt can't criticize Israel for at least another two decades: "A record gas deal exposes a strategic vulnerability as Cairo trades political autonomy for energy security."

  • Martin Shaw [08-16]: When Genocide Denial Is the Norm: "Genocide scholar Martin Shaw argues that ending Israel's genocide in Gaza and isolating Israel on the international stage must become the cause of every country that claims to represent human values."

  • Angel Leonardo Peña [08-16] How Zionism is leading the reactionary wave worldwide: "Zionism is no longer hiding in the shadows, as it once did, supporting global reactionaries with training and support. It has now taken center stage as the vanguard of the global right, and all reactionaries are following." Back in the 1930s, one thing nearly all fascists had in common was anti-semitism. Today the nearly universal common thread is their embrace of Israel, especially as genocide becomes more obvious. The argument that criticism of Israel is proof of antisemitism is not just wrong; the opposite is much closer to the truth.

  • Tony Karon [08-17]: Anti-Semitism, Zionism and "the Americanization of the Holocaust: Much to recommend here, including this quote from Hagai El-Ad:

    We're approaching the moment, and perhaps it's already here, when the memory of the Holocaust won't stop the world from seeing Israel as it is. The moment when the historic crimes committed against our people will stop serving as our Iron Dome, protecting us from being held to account for crimes we are committing in the present against the nation with which we share the historical homeland.

Russia/Ukraine: During the 2024 campaign, Trump promised to end this war "in a day." Of course, he had neither the diplomatic skills nor the inclination to actually do that — and he spent his day on other priorities, like pardoning his insurrectionists and organizing his gestapo — but even observers as skeptical as me of his peace credentials and foreign policy aims thought he'd be more likely to end the war than Biden's neocons, who saw the war as nothing more or less than an opportunity to bleed a hated foe dry. Granted, the terms would be less than ideal, but at this point ending the war on any terms is preferable to slogging on "to the last dead Ukrainian" (which seemed to be the Biden/Zelensky policy). I've never bought the line that Trump is Putin's stooge. Still, Putin holds most of the cards here, and it's been clear for some time that the war would only be settled on his terms. That Trump couldn't move faster was partly due to his own incompetence, but also because Putin decided to press his advantages: to gain more ground, while Trump made plain his disinterest in supporting Ukraine (not that he had reservations about allowing Europe to buy American arms to fight Russia).

The first stories below, from Aug. 1, reflect the moment Trump turned hawkish on Ukraine. Less than two weeks later, there seems to be a deal float, starting with a face-to-face meeting. There is not a lot of reason to expect this to pan out. (The meetings with Kim Jong-Un went nowhere, but mostly because Trump's security cabal was run by deep state saboteurs like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. No doubt similar people are still around, but buried deeper in the bureaucracy.) Whether this one does is almost totally up to Putin. If he can get most of Russian-speaking Ukraine and relief from most sanctions, he should be happy to let the rest of Ukraine go their own way. It's hard to see what more he could demand with any chance of agreement, and the downside is he pushes most of Europe into being even more aggressively anti-Russian than the US has been under Biden. Plus he gets a chance to make Trump look good — not something Trump can readily do on his own.

The last stories immediately follow the Trump-Putin summit on August 16, during which nothing was concluded, as the next step will be for Trump to meet with Zelensky.

  • Eli Stokols/Paul McLeary [08-01] Trump, escalating war of words with Russia's Medvedev, mobilizes two nuclear submarines.

  • Anatol Lieven [08-01] Trump vs. Medvedev: When talking tough is plain turkey: "Exchanging nuclear threats like this is pure theater and we should not be applauding." The war of words started over Trump's threats to impose sanctions if Russia doesn't comply with a ceasefire in 10 days." This led to Trump publicly positioning nuclear submarines to illustrate his threat to Russia, in a rare attempt at nuclear blackmail. Lieven argues that "Medvedev and Trump are both trying to look tough for domestic audiences." I doubt that either people much cares, but the leaders' personal machismo is on the line. What is truly disturbing about the Trump position is that the one thing Putin is least likely to accept is an ultimatum that would expose him as weak. On the other hand, rejection would make Trump look weak, so he's walked into his own trap.

  • Tyler Pager/David E Sanger [08-08]: Trump Says He Will Meet With Putin in Alaska Next Week: "Trump also suggested that a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine would include 'some swapping of territories,' signaling that the US may join Russia in trying to compel Ukraine to cede land."

  • Stavroula Pabst:

  • Anatol Lieven [08-09] Trump's terms for Russia-Ukraine on the right course for peace: "A meeting in Alaska, while putting land concessions on the table, is an essential first step." I've separated this from his earlier piece, because events intervened. Holding out any degree of hope viz. Trump strikes me as foolish, which is why I say it all comes down to Putin. But if Putin really did want to make Trump look good, why wait until now?

  • Norman Solomon [08-09] Democrats should give peace a chance in Ukraine: Democrats need to align with peace and social justice movements everywhere, pushing diplomatic solutions to conflicts that also recognize and advance human rights, regardless of power politics, narrow economic concerns, and the arms lobbies. But they need to prioritize peace, which is something the Biden administration failed to recognize — and which tragically cost them the 2024 election. The one advantage they have over Republicans is that they lean, at least in principle, toward social justice. Unfortunately, US foreign policy, under Democrats as well as Republicans, has reduced such views to hypocrisy, which has done immense damage to their reputation — both around the world and among their own voters.

  • Michael Corbin [08-12] Trouble in Russian economy means Putin really needs Alaska talks too: "Mixed indicators signal wartime growth has plateaued." I haven't really sorted this out. I don't think that economic considerations is going to dictate Putin's policy, but they must be somewhere in the back of his mind.

  • Harrison Berger [08-14] Stephen Cohen's legacy: Warnings unheeded, a war without end: "At his own peril, the late historian used his considerable influence to challenge rather than echo establishment narratives about Russia and Ukraine."

  • Zachary Paikin [08-14]: On Ukraine war, Euro leaders begin to make concessions — to reality: "The spirit going into Alaska will continue to be cautiously optimistic, as long as the parties with most at risk don't get in their own way."

  • Kelley Beaucar Vlahos [08-15]: Deal or no deal? Alaska summit ends with vague hints at something: "There was no ceasefire, but none of the new sanctions Trump threatened, either. Whether this was a 'win' or 'loss' depends on who you ask." Why ask us? We're only "experts"! A lot of people were quick to pick on Trump for failing to bring home a peace deal, but that assumes he has a lot more power than he actually has. The main power that the US has is to underwrite the indefinite extension of the war, as Biden did from 2022 on. One side can get a war going and keep it going. But making peace requires some agreement from both sides, where one side is unambiguously Putin. So all Trump could hope for was for Putin to give him something he could take back to his side, which minimally includes Zelensky, NATO, and the EU. Whether what he brought back works depends on how good an offer Putin made, but that he brought it back signals that he's abandoned Biden's "fight to the last dead Ukrainian" plot. Now we have to see whether the "allies" were just going along with Washington, or have red lines of their own.

  • Adam Pasick [08-17]: What to Know About Russia-US-Ukraine Peace Talks: Actually, there doesn't seem to be much to know here. Trump got his marching orders from Putin in Alaska. He now has to face Zelensky and other European leaders (including NATO and EU's über-hawk Von Der Leyen) in Washington. If they buckle, and given the loss of US support bankrolling the forever war they might, then presumably there will in short course be an agreement that will cede the Russian-speaking Ukrainian territories (Crimea, Luhansk, and Donbas) to Russia, and leave the Ukrainian-speaking parts of Ukraine free and independent, with both sides agreeing not to fight any further. That's basically what could have happened in 2014, when a pro-western faction seized control of the Kiev government, and Crimea and Donbas revolted and declared their independence. Something like that happened peacefully with the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. It's never been clear why something along those lines didn't happen in Ukraine, but many nationalists — including, obviously, some Russian ones, but they are far from alone — are attached to their territorial ambitions, plus there was the underlying geostrategic interest of the US in advancing NATO at Russia's expense.

    The 2014-22 war was basically one waged by Ukraine to reconquer lost territory, even though there is little reason to think that the people living there preferred Kiev over Moscow. Putin sought to reverse that war by invading in 2022, which allowed Russia to gain some extra territory in the south, establishing a land bridge between Donbas and Crimea, mostly because Ukrainian forces were preoccupied with defending Kiev and Kharkhiv in the north. Ukraine reversed some of their losses late in 2022, but their 2023 counteroffensive failed, and the war has largely been stalemated ever since, with some minor Russian gains in Donetsk recently.

    Since the Russian offensive failed in 2022, it's been clear that Russia would not be able to overturn the Kiev government, let alone occupy western Ukraine. It's also been clear that Ukraine would not be able to dislodge Russian forces from territory that favors Russia, and that Russia has much greater depth which would allow it to wage the war much longer than Ukraine could. That Ukraine has been able to fight on as long and hard as it has is largely due to American and European support, which is waning. It is also clear that the impact of sanctions against Russia has not dimmed their will to continue the war. The idea that Russians would turn against Putin also appears fanciful. However much one may dislike the idea of allowing any nation to conquer part of any other, there is no practical alternative to a peace which largely vindicates Putin's decision to invade. The US under Biden refused to consider any concessions, which allowed (encouraged?) Zelensky to take a maximalist stand. Trump, on the other hand, seems inclined to respect Putin's needs. His problem is squaring them away with the minimal needs of Ukraine and their European partners.

    Whether he can, I suspect, will depend more on how reasonable a deal Putin is willing to offer than on Trump's hitherto clueless "art of the deal." However much Russia resented NATO, the fact that America was always in charge used to moderate the risk NATO posed to Russia. If Putin doesn't offer something Ukraine/Europe can live with, they're liable to break with Trump and continue the fight on their own. A Europe provoked to break with the US could become much more of a threat to Russia than NATO ever was (not an existential threat, in that Europe will never conquer and occupy Russia, but it could be more effective at isolating and shunning Russia).

    I'm not bothered by Putin's insistence on no ceasefire. While my approach would be to start with a ceasefire, Putin is wary that offering one first would allow Ukraine to drag out future negotiations (much like the US has never come to terms with North Korea, 72 years after that ceasefire). While any killing that occurs between now and whenever is unnecessary and probably meaningless, it is more important to get to a proper peace deal sooner rather than later. And while Putin is an intensely malign political figure, it is better for all concerned to establish some sort of civil relationship with Russia post-bellum — as opposed to America's usual grudge-holding (again, see North Korea, also Iran, and for that matter Afghanistan).

    Personally, I would have liked to see this worked out better, but no one involved cares what I think. They're going to operate according to their own craven impulses. But I wouldn't worry too much about the details, as long as we get to some kind of peace. Justice is a much taller order, but better to pursue it in peace than in war.

    The NY Times has more on Ukraine here, where the latest title is "Trump Backs Plan to Cede Land for Peace in Ukraine."

  • Anatol Lieven [08-17]: Why Trump gets it right on Ukraine peace: "In Alaska he found reality: he is now embracing an agreement without demanding a ceasefire first, which would have never worked anyway." I wrote the above before getting to this piece. Nothing here changes my mind on anything. Lieven is right to point out that "Trump is engaged in a form of shuttle diplomacy." He needs to get both sides to agree, but he only has leverage over one side, so he only gets the deal that Putin will allow, and that only if Putin allows a deal that Zelensky can accept. He's gambling that both are agreeable, in which case he hopes to snag a Nobel Peace Prize before he blunders into WWIII. That at least is a motivation one can imagine him considering. Anything else is laughable: e.g., Lieven's line that "We should at least give [Trump] credit for moral courage." Also hilarious is "Putin is hardly the 'global pariah' of Western political and media rhetoric." It's almost like Lieven thinks he's such a big shot pundit he imagines that his flattery might sway Putin and Trump to do the right thing. Rest assured that even if they do, it won't be for the right reasons. And neither will admit that it was someone else's idea.

Trump administration: Practically every day, certainly several times every week, I run across disturbing, often shocking stories of various misdeeds proposed and quite often implemented by the Trump administration. Collecting them together declutters everything else, and emphasizes the pattern of intense and possibly insane politicization of everything.

Current Affairs:

  • [08-06] Our 200th News Briefing! I signed up for the free peak at this when it originally came out, but they soon moved it off Substack, and it doesn't normally seem to be available on their website, so I lost track of it. (I'm still signed up for something on Substack, which mostly seems to be funding appeals.) Still, as a tribute to round numbers, this sample is available. Some interesting stuff here, but nothing I'd pay money for.

  • Andrew Ancheta [05-21] Why You Should Fix Your Own Stuff: "Companies like Apple and Microsoft don't want you to repair your own tech, because they make a fortune from planned obsolescence. But learning to do it yourself brings empowerment." Few things bother me more than business schemes to make their products independently repairable. The right-to-repair bills mentioned here would help, but we need to go further, and make all software and hardware open source and interoperable. And while I can personally attest that being able to repair your own stuff feels good, there is so much stuff that's so complicated that no one can understand how to repair it all. I'd like to start thinking about repair cooperatives, and publicly funding them.

  • Nathan J Robinson

    • [07-24] Rise of the Idiot Interviewer: "Podcast bros are interviewing presidents and power players without doing basic research beforehand. The result is a propagandistic catastrophe."

    • [07-30] Living in Omelas: "When we face the suffering that our civilization is built on, what are our obligations?" Starts with a Ursula Le Guin story, but eventually circles back to Gaza.

    • [2024-10-01] Surely AI Safety Legislation Is A No-Brainer: "Radical Silicon Valley libertarianism is forcing us all to take on unnecessary risks, and the new technology is badly in need of regulation." Not a new piece, but new to me. I've done essentially nothing with AI so far, but probably should start working with it. I'm already finding Google's searches to be significantly improved with it (and not just because the web page links are almost exclusively commercial crap). But I have no idea how you go about regulating it to ensure any degree of safety. What I am fairly sure of is that the profit motive ensures that it will be used for purposes ranging dubious to nefarious, so one was to reduce risk would be to cut back on profit motives.[*] However, it is very hard to regulate industries without their cooperation — indeed, the main force for license requirements is the desire to limit competition — because our political system is designed so that special interests compete, while the general interest has no lobby.[**] So I wouldn't be surprised to find most of the push to regulate coming from the companies themselves, not so much to protect users as to validate their own business models.

      [*] One simple way to do this would be to declare and nothing developed with AI can be patented or copyrighted. You could go a step further and declare that nothing that can be reverse-engineered with AI is eligible. The arguments for doing this are pretty obvious. Needless to say, we're not going to see a lot of lobbying to limit patents and copyrights, although the AI companies will probably lobby for laws to limit their exposure for whatever harm AI may cause. We'll hear that without limitation of liability, the industry will be stifled, which means they won't be able to make as much money, or be as careless in making it.

      • [**] By the way, I have a solution for this: tax lobbying expenses at 100%, so that in order to spend $1 on lobbying, you also have to donate $1 to a public fund for counter-lobbying. That way every side of every issue gets equal weighting, so winners will be determined on their merits. Same thing can apply to political donations. It would take some work to set up a fair and effective distribution system, but I have a bunch of ideas for that, too.

  • Grady Martin [07-29] The "Careless People" Who Make Up Elite Institutions: "Sarah Wynn-Williams' bestseller is a disturbing exposé about the inner workings of Facebook. But Wynn-Williams herself is complicit in the harms she criticizes, and so is her entire class of elite strivers."

The following articles are more/less in order published, although some authors have collected pieces, and some entries have related articles underneath.

Laura Snapes [2024-09-30] Farewell to the car CD player, source of weirdly deep musical fandoms. Some time after I bought my 1986 Audi, I replaced the radio with a CD player. Same with my 1994 Nissan, unless it came with one (I'm a bit unsure, but if it did, it was gone within a week). The 2006 Toyota had one by default, but we opted for the 6-CD changer. I don't think I ever loaded more than one CD at a time, but it came with extra speakers, and made a statement. When I started contemplating a new car just before 2020 happened, I was dismayed to find virtually nothing offering CD players, or even radios that could be ripped out and easily replaced. When we finally gave in and bought our new Toyota, all we could get was a 10.5-inch media/info console with bluetooth, wi-fi, one usb port, and a bunch of trial subscriptions. I spent our first week driving in silence, except when the wife insisted on NPR, which was painful.

Thomas Frank [2024-11-09] The Elites Had It Coming: Just stumbled across this, not recalling it but thinking, of course, this is what he would say the day after the election debacle. Turns out I did cite this piece in my post-election Speaking of Which, even pulling out a quote indicting Democrats as "their most brilliant minds couldn't figure [Trump] out." In rereading the piece, I'm more struck by the two paragraphs above the one I quoted:

Mr. Trump, meanwhile, put together a remarkable coalition of the disgruntled. He reached out to everyone with a beef, from Robert Kennedy Jr. to Elon Musk. From free-speech guys to book banners. From Muslims in Michigan to anti-immigration zealots everywhere. "Trump will fix it," declared the signs they waved at his rallies, regardless of which "it" you had in mind.

Republicans spoke of Mr. Trump's persecution by liberal prosecutors, of how he was censored by Twitter, of the incredible strength he showed after being shot. He was an "American Bad Ass," in the words of Kid Rock. And clucking liberal pundits would sometimes respond to all this by mocking the very concept of grievance, as though discontent itself were the product of a diseased mind.

Elie Mystal [07-02] Democrats Should Become the Pro-Porn Party. I was surprised to see this, and welcome it, but don't hold out much hope. Democrats have long sought to portray themselves as exemplars of probity, even to the point of allowing themselves to be caricatured as elitist scolds, with the suggestion that they are really just virtue signalling hypocrites. Perhaps they're still reeling from the Cleveland-era charges of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion"? (Not far removed from their preference for blue over red, which can be linked back to McCarthyite-era red scares, something they felt vulnerable to because, like communists, they tended to at least pay lip service to the notions of equal rights and social justice. The purpose of red-baiting was not just to attack and isolate communists but also to tar the liberals, who when they ran scared discredited themselves, isolating themselves from their most principled and committed allies.)

Prohibition was at the heart of those charges, and so it remains: the belief that "improper" personal behavior can and should be repressed by those in power. While people with good intentions can be tempted by prohibitionism — the temperance movement being a prime example — its real constituency is on the right, because they are the ones who believe in power, which in hard and/or soft form is the only way they can maintain their unjust social and economic hierarchy. While they happily invent their own morality to suit their interests, it's even easier to ride on old religious prejudices, especially as they have a ready constituency, led by their own authoritarians. Moreover, labeling some people as deviants seems to make the others feel superior, and that is the definition of social hierarchies.

Democrats could oppose these right-wing schemes by defending every targeted group, but that lets the right set the framework for the debate, taints you, divides you, and dissipates energy with many isolated defenses. Much better to articulate a general principle, and show how prohibition and other prejudices spread to harm others, ultimately including the people who initially approved. To some extent Mystal does this, seeing porn as a free speech issue, and personal access to it as a question of privacy. Democrats mostly agree as far as law — Mystal cites a Kagan dissent against Alito & Thomas — but muddle their defense by trying to show their disapproval of acts, speech, and thoughts they would stop short of prohibiting. This fails on all counts: it reinforces the right-wing view that they're right and you're evil; it makes you look and sound guilty; it offers the targets of their hatred little reassurance that you'll defend their rights, or that you even care much about them. You'd be much better off making a strong defense of key rights, including free speech and privacy, then making it clear that their defense extends to things like porn, regardless of whether one personally approves or not.

Some Democrats have made some effort here (in terms of not just defending but showing some respect for targets of attack), at least on issues like abortion and even the T in LGBTQ, but drugs (beyond marijuana) and sex work still seem to be taboo. (Whether there's a political constituency to be gained there is hinted at but not much discussed. A lot of people enjoy porn, even if few will champion it in public.) A big problem here is that anti-porn forces try to shift the question to the question of children — conventionally under 18, which is several years past the point where people start taking an interest in sex and really should understand. I'd go further than Mystal and argue that all age restrictions on viewing porn should be abolished. (I could see where acting in porn might be a different concern, but there are lots of areas where I doubt the value of being so overly protective and controlling of adolescents — the matter of younger children is certainly less clear cut.) Still, porn seems to me like a relatively low-priority issue, unlikely to gain much traction, although more clearly articulated views of free speech and privacy might help, especially to counter the rampant bigotry of the right.

  • Elie Mystal [07-30] The Rule of Law Is Dead in the US: "The rule of law presupposes that there are rules that provide a consistent, repeatable, and knowable set of outcomes. That's no longer the case.".

Kevin Munger [07-14] Attention is All You Need: On the collapse of "literary culture," and social media as "secondary orality," followed by a primer on how AI works. Title collides with Chris Hayes' recent book on attention, so Munger recommends "best experienced through the medium of an Ezra Klein podcast, then also mentions "Derek Thompson's report on the end of reading, which leads to a joke about their recent book, Abundance.

Nate Chinen [07-15] The Times, A-Changin': Reports on a leaked "internal memo" of a shake-up in the New York Times arts coverage, where "veteran critics" Jon Pareles (pop music), Margaret Lyons (TV), Jesse Green (theater), and Zachary Woolfe (classical music) "will soon be taking on unspecified 'new roles,' while the paper searches for replacements on their beats." I was pointed to this by Piotr Orlov, who concluded "The whole episode simply reaffirms a basic Dada Strain [his blog] tenet: the need to organize and build our own institutions. (And maybe stop chasing the ever-more poisoned chalice.)" I've believed that much since the early 1970s, as soon as I ran into the notion of controlling the "means of production"; which is to say, even before I first encountered, and developed an immediate distaste for, the New York Times. Chinen's reaction is milder, perhaps a lingering effect of having tasted that poisoned chalice, tempered by personal familiarity. And, for now at least, the four still have jobs, and may come to find opportunities in writing less routine coverage, as well as behind-the-scenes influence. But the more disturbing aspect of Chinen's piece is the broader shift of media megacorps, which is really what the Times has become (the newspaper itself just a facade from an earlier era), to monetizing novel forms of attention grabbing, which increasingly substitute for critical thinking. As a non-reader (or a hostile one when I do glimpse something), I've long regarded the New York Times as some kind of black hole, where good writers cash in and become irrelevant, rarely if ever to be seen or heard again. Jon Pareles has long been a prime example: I remember him fondly from his 1970s reviews in Crawdaddy, notably for introducing me to musicians I had never heard of, like George Crumb and Dudu Pukwana. Many more have followed, willing cogs in their machine. Jon Caramanica, for instance: Chinen reports that he's given up "the word," finding a new calling making "popcast" videos. Sounds like a waste to me, but I guess they've figured out how to make money out of it, and for them, what else matters?

Bob Boilen [07-16] The end of public radio music?

Ryan Cooper [07-17] How Did Elon Musk Turn Grok Into MechaHitler? "The malfunctioning xAI chatbot provides some insights into how large language models work." For starters, it appears they haven't overcome the oldest maxim in computer science: "garbage in, garbage out."

Paul Krugman [07-22] Has Brazil Invented the Future of Money? "And will it ever come to America?" I'm not familiar with this concept, but it's long been obvious to me that we could save a huge amount of money if we set up a public non-profit utility to handle payments.

Last week the House passed the GENIUS Act, which will boost the growth of stablecoins, thereby paving the way for future scams and financial crises. On Thursday the House also passed a bill that would bar the Federal Reserve from creating a central bank digital currency (CBDC), or even studying the idea.

Why are Republicans so terrified by the idea of a CBDC that they're literally ordering the Fed to stop even thinking about it?

I'd go much farther and wipe out much of the existing banking industry, which is predatory and counterproductive. It's unclear to me that there is anything worthwhile that banks can do more efficiently and/or productively than a public service utility. Given that government can borrow less expensively than private banks — especially if you overlook the favorable terms banks receive from government — this can extend to most routine loans. Everyone could be provided not just a free checking and savings account, but a credit card. (Note that many other forms of loans, like mortgages and student loans, are already backed by government, so would cost less to administer directly.)

As Krugman notes, the finance industry has a lot of lobbying clout in America, and this is directed at preventing consideration of alternatives. (Same for the better known but actually smaller health care and oil industries.) So we are, at least for now, screwed, repeatedly. Inequality is effectively a measure of the political power that elites have to concentrate surplus value in their own hands. Other nations, like Brazil, don't have to get sucked into this trap, and as such, especially as the rot of the so-called Washington Consensus becomes more obvious, can offer us laboratories for alternative approaches.

I've read Krugman regularly for many years, but I didn't follow his move to Substack. Looking at the website, these are a few posts that caught my eye (although some are cut short, so there's some kind of shakedown involved):

  • [04-03]: Will Malignant Stupidity Kill the World Economy? "Trump's tariffs are a disaster. His policy is worse." The basic analysis is solid. The suggestion that the methodology could have been cooked up by AI is amusing. The top comment by George Santangelo is worth quoting:

    Tariffs aren't imposed by Trump for economic reasons. Trump has found the ultimate grift. Put tariffs on everything and wait for the requests to remove them, industry by industry, company by company. In return, Trump or his family or his pals receive money, business, information and any other advantage for the removals. Who will know whether a real estate development by Jared Kushner for the Saudis results in an advantageous price for the land and development fees for the Trump organization? It's the perfect corrupt plot. Any and all United States monies are subject to theft by the ultimate thief.

    I chopped off the "BTW" bit, relating to Trump's convictions and impeachment. The latter is an impossible reach, so it might be better to just admit that Trump — with his packing of the courts and personal takeover of the DOJ — is above and beyond the law, and make voters face the consequences of that. Along the way, just try to document the many ways (criminal or not) Trump and his cronies line their pockets from his administration's arbitrary and often irrational actions.

  • [07-16]: Trump's parade flopped. No Kings Day was a hit. "Right now, images largely determine the outcome."

  • [07-29]: I Coulda Made a Better Deal: "What, exactly, did Trump get from Europe?" His "better deal" was none at all.

  • [07-30]: Fossil Fool: "How Europe took Trump for a ride."

  • [07-31]: The Media Can't Handle the Absence of Truth: "And their diffidence empowers pathological liars." More on the gullibility of the media. Their assumption is that both sides have slightly tinted views of reality, allowing them to interpolate. But that breaks down when one side goes bonkers, and they lack the critical faculties to determine which. (Of course, they fare even worse when both sides are grossly wrong, as on Israel.)

  • [08-01]: Trump/Brazil: Delusions of Grandeur Go South: "Trump thinks he can rule the world, but he doesn't have the juice."

  • [08-03]: The Economics of Smoot-Hawley 2.0, Part I: "Tariffs will be very high as far as the eye can see. What does that mean?"

  • [08-05]: The Paranoid Style in American Economics: "Remember, every accusation is a confession." The subtitle is a truism that should be pointed out more often. The main thing I learned in my high school psych class was the concept of projection: how we ascribe to others our own sick motives and ambitions. Thus the US thinks China wants to rule the world. Thus Bush thought Saddam Hussein would nuke New York if we didn't prevent him from developing any form of nuclear deterrence. Thus a bunch of white idiots think that any loosening civil rights would turn blacks into slave masters. Most often when you accuse someone else of nefarious motives, you're admitting to your own.

  • Greg Sargent [07-30] Krugman Wrecks Trump's Europe Deal: "Scam on His Voters: An interview with Paul Krugman, who "explains at length why [Trump's trade agreement with Europe is] actually a big loss for our country — and especially for his MAGA base."

  • Krugman also has a series of papers on "Understanding Inequality" published by Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality:

    1. Why Did the Rich Pull Away From the Rest?
    2. The Importance of Worker Power
    3. A Trumpian Diversion
    4. Oligarchs and the Rise of Mega-Fortunes
    5. Predatory Financialization
    6. Crypto: This one is still paywalled, and despite the "Part VII" in the title may not be part of the series, but he offers it has a case study, "seen as a sort of hyper-powered example of predatory finance, influence-buying and corruption." Points listed: 1. The strange economics of cryptocurrency; 2. Crypto as a form of predatory finance; 3. How crypto drives inequality; 4. How the crypto industry has corrupted our politics.

Catherine Rampell [07-23] 11 tips for becoming a columnist: Washington Post opinion columnist, now ex, started writing about business for the New York Times, has done TV punditry at CNN and MSNBC. I've cited her 10 times in Speaking of Which, but my recall is vague.[*] This seems like generally wise advice, so I thought I'd check up on what else she's written in her last days:

  • [07-17] Democrats risk taking the wrong lessons from Trumpism: "Replicating Trump's populism is not the answer." Lead picture, and much of the article, is Zohran Mamdani, but she also mentions Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and "new convert" Chris Murphy, while exempting "more pragmatist, technocrat-driven" Democrats like Obama. But consider her definition:

    After all, that is the unifying theme of populism: Promise voters they would have a better life and nicer things if not for [insert scapegoats here]. Identifying a cabal to blame can help win elections, but it is not a great strategy for governing. . . . But the rhetoric from the populist left and right has some similarities: You would have nice things if not for the corrupt elites keeping them from you. . . . The common tendency to respond to complicated social problems with scapegoats, slogans and simple solutions explains why a populist everyman such as Joe Rogan can seemlessly transition from Feeling the Bern to jumping on the Trump Train.

    Several (well, many) things come to mind here. Identifying enemies is common to all effective politics. This is because most people need to personify the forces affecting them, rather than just blame abstractions (isms, groups, secret cabals, etc.). This only seems unusual because mainstream Democrats, desiring to be all things to all people, shy away from opposing anyone (or limit themselves to safe targets among the powerless — scapegoats, as you say). Left and right (and for that matter middle, in their own muddled way) share the trait of identifying enemies and promising benefits to others. But the differences in who they blame and what they promise are considerable, so why ignore that? Once you look, there are obvious differences between left and right. For starters, the left blames people who actually exercise substantial power, whereas the right blames phantoms and ascribes them with mythical power. (Ok, some of their targets are real, like unions, public interest groups, and honest Democrats, but few wield substantial power.) And the left tries to offer real solutions. The right may try to appeal to the same people and issues as the left, but they blame false villains, and offer ineffective solutions. So sure, they may be able to confuse some folk like Rogan, but note that Rogan only switched to Trump after Democrats excluded Sanders — although in Rogan's case, that Trump appeared on his program but Harris refused may have mattered more.

    One more point here: Rampell, like many recent left-adverse liberals, uses "populism" derisively, as a crude attempt to smear sincere leftists by associating them with right-wing demagogues. There are many problems with this[**], but the one I want to note here is that it betrays a distrust in the ability of most people to understand their own best interests and to govern themselves. The implication here is that we know better, and you should defer to our superior understanding — which is conditioned by their own economic interests and cultural values. It shouldn't be hard to understand why the anti-elitist impulses that most people hold might kick in here, especially given the track record of "pragmatic Democrats" like Clinton and Obama. There are lots of things one can say about Trump's demagoguery and how it exploits the worst impulses of popular opinion, but to call it "populist" implies that the fault lies in the people, and not in their manipulators. After all, what are anti-populist liberals but higher-minded manipulators?

    One more quote, which offers a good example of how cynically centrist-liberals distort leftist programs to arrive at nothing but a defense of the status quo:

    Rich people and corporations can definitely afford to pay higher taxes, as I have argued many times. But the reason we don't have Medicare-for-all (as designed by Sanders) is that Americans don't have the stomach for the middle-class taxes such a huge expansion of the safety net would require.

    Even if you seized the entire wealth of every billionaire in the country — i.e., impose a 100 percent wealth tax — that would pay for Medicare-for-all for just over a year. Forget free college or other Scandinavian-style welfare-state expansions that the fabled billionaire money tree is also earmarked for. But anyone who points out math problems like this, or suggests some less ambitious alternative, is tarred and feathered as a corporate shill or handmaiden to the oligarchs.

    I count about five major fallacies here, but we could split hairs and double that. One actually tilts in favor of her argument: a lot of the wealth counted by rich people is illusory, based on inflated values for assets, bid up by other rich people desperate for assets. So there are practical limits to how much wealth one can tax away. On the other hand, destroying all that imaginary value wouldn't be a bad thing. Moreover, whatever real value there is, is redistributed, mostly to people who can put it to better use. Moreover, even if you can't satisfy desired spending by only taxing the rich, that doesn't mean you shouldn't tax the rich. They're the obvious place to start, because they have most of the money, and they can afford it.

    New welfare services don't have to be fully funded out of new revenues. In many cases — health care being an obvious one — they directly replace current expenses. There's much more along these lines. For what it's worth, I think Democrats are hurting themselves in proposing to only raise taxes on the rich. There is certainly a lot of room to do so, and doing so would have some positive benefits beyond raising revenues that can be put to better ends, but to fix the worst problems of inequality, we also need to work on the rules and policies that create so much inequality. As that is done, the rich will have less money to tax away, so the mix of revenues, like the mix of wealth, should spread out. As long as income and estate taxes are strongly progressive, it shouldn't be a problem to set the overall tax level according to desired expenses and make up the funding with consumption taxes. Any service that can be done better and/or cheaper by a public utility is a good candidate for public funding, especially if metering it would be harmful. Those cases should be net savings for the whole nation, even if they appear as tax increases. We already do this in many cases, but it's easy to think of more that can be done better (e.g., banking).

    [*] Sample titles, which despite some both-sidesism suggests why an increasingly Trump-friendly WP might be disposed to get rid of her:

    • It's almost like the House GOP never care about deficits after all
    • A year after Dobbs, House GOP proposes taking food from hungry babies
    • Supposed 'moderates' like Nikki Haley would blow up the government
    • Efforts to kill Obamacare made it popular. Trump says he'll try again.
    • Trump can't find anyone to spot him $464 billion. Would you?
    • Two myths about Trump's civil fraud trial
    • The internet was supposed to make humanity smarter. It's failing
    • Those who would trade democracy for economic gain would get neither
    • Hot tip: Both parties should stop bribing voters with tax cuts [on exempting tip income]
    • Voters prefer Harris's agenda to Trump's — they just don't realize it. Take our quiz.

    [**] As a Kansan, I associate populism with the 1892-96 People's Party, a left-democratic movement that emerged in response to the ultra-conservative Grover Cleveland and the oligarchic takeover of the Republican Party. They were especially successful in Kansas, so I tend to view them as part of my political heritage (as does Thomas Frank; see especially his book, The People, No: A Brief History of Anti-Populism; some reviews are still interesting, such as Aaron Lake Smith [Jacobin], and James Traub [NY Times], which also covers a Gene Sperling book that looks better than expected).

Will Hermes [07-23] Nick Drake, Long a Folk Mystery, Is (Partly) Revealed: "A 42-track collection built around two found recordings helps illuminate the creative process of the revered but elusive icon, who died in 1974."

Moira Donegan [07-26]: Columbia's capitulation to Trump begins a dark new era for US education: "The university's agreement reveals its willingness to bend to the administration's will and undermines an American myth." The agreement includes paying "a $220 million fine," and more:

The deal that resulted gives the Trump administration everything it wants. A Trump-approved monitor will now have the right to review Columbia's admissions records, with the express intent of enforcing a supreme court ban on affirmative action — in other words, ensuring that the university does not admit what the Trump administration deems to be too many non-white students. The Middle Eastern studies department is subject to monitoring, as well, after an agreement in March.

The agreement is not a broad-level, generally applicable regulatory endeavor that applies to other universities — although given the scope of the administration's ambitions at Columbia, it is hard to say whether such a regulatory regime would be legal. Instead, it is an individual, backroom deal, one that disregards the institution's first amendment rights and the congressionally mandated protections for its grants in order to proceed with a shakedown. "The agreement," writes the Columbia Law School professor David Pozen, "gives legal form to an extortion scheme." The process was something akin to a mob boss demanding protection money from a local business. "Nice research university you have here," the Trump administration seemed to say to Columbia. "Would be a shame if something were to happen to it."

That Columbia folded, and sacrificed its integrity, reputation and the freedom of its students and faculty for the federal money, speaks to both the astounding lack of foresight and principle by the university leadership as well as the Trump movement's successful foreclosure of institutions' options for resistance

Ben Schwartz [07-30] Jay Leno's Phony Case for Balanced Comedy: "The former Tonight Show host thinks a dose of bothsidesism will punch up the late-night scene."

David A Graham [07-31] The Warped Idealism of Trump's Trade Policy: "The president once promised he'd prioritize Americans' bottom line above all else. He's abandoned that pledge."

Paul Starr [07-31]: The Premature Guide to Post-Trump Reform: "American history offers three general strategies of repair and renewal." But has the need for reform ever been so acute? Or so fraught with obstacles based on entrenched pockets of power? He offers three "levels": The post-Watergate model; Changing the Supreme Court; Amending the Constitution.

Pankaj Mishra [08]: Speaking Reassurance to Power: Basically a long rant about the fickleness of the American intelligentsia, so eager to celebrate any note of freedom tolerable to the ruling class, and so reticent to break ranks when that same ruling class turns tyrannical and bloody.

Why 'King of the Hill' Is the Most Significant Work of Texas Culture of the Past Thirty Years. Cartoon series, ran from 1997-2009, gets a reboot, after Hank and Peggy spend their last years working in Saudi Arabia, and return to Texas retirement, finding their old world changed in oh so many ways — one being that their son, Bobby, has become a German-Japanese fusion chef. We've seen 4-5 episodes so far, and they bounce off in interesting directions. (My wife has probably seen the entire original run. I've only seen enough to get the general idea.)

Steve Kopack/Monica Alba/Laura Strickler [08-01] Trump fires labor statistics boss hours after the release of weak jobs report: "Without evidence, Trump called the data 'rigged' and implied that BLS commissioner Erika McEntarfer manipulated the numbers 'for political purposes.'" Fake data is something that only Trump is entitled to, and everyone else must line up behind his lead. I rarely do this, but here's the actual Trump "truth":

Last week's Job's Report was RIGGED, just like the numbers prior to the Presidential Election were Rigged. That's why, in both cases, there was massive, record setting revisions, in favor of the Radical Left Democrats. Those big adjustments were made to cover up, and level out, the FAKE political numbers that were CONCOCTED in order to make a great Republican Success look less stellar!!! I will pick an exceptional replacement. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAGA!

  • Haley Brown [08-08] They Shoot Messengers, Don't They?

  • Edward Helmore [08-02] Republicans slam Trump's firing of Bureau of Labor Statistics chief.

  • Chris Lehman [08-14] The Case Against EJ Antoni: Meet Trump's pick to destroy the BLS. Actually, he needs no introduction, as he's one of the few right-wing hacks so awful I recognized the name immediately. As Lehman puts it:

    But killing the messenger who brandishes bad economic news is only half the battle for the ambitious MAGA fateful; to really get things rolling, you need to promote a practiced bootlicker into the new policy void. And this is where central casting appears to have unearthed Antoni, who is basically the economics version of Chris Rufo—a mendacious talking head who will do virtually anything to distort the basic terms of inquiry in order to arrive at an ideologically predetermined outcome.

    Lehman digs up damning testimonials, even from conservative economists (Kyle Pomerleau at AEI: "He has either shown a complete misunderstanding of economic data and principles, or he's showing a willingness to treat his audience with contempt and mislead them"). Lehman also notes that BLS doesn't just send out press releases. Its statistics feed directly into the economic policy machinery, affecting millions of Americans through things like the COLA (cost of living adjustment) used to calculate Social Security benefits.

Dean Baker [08-01] Bringing Back Stagflation, Lower Growth, and Higher Prices: "When Trump talks of turning the economy around, he speaks the truth — he just gets the direction of change wrong." This does us the favor of sorting out and summing up the economic reports on Trump's first six months, and looks ahead, expecting growth to continue slowing and prices to continue rising, even though those factors are supposed to cancel each other out. Further deterioration in the trade balance was not supposed to be the result of tariffs, but here you go. (Tourists spending money in the US count as imports, and Trump's gestapo tactics are warning people away.) All this was before Trump's latest move to make the numbers more "politically correct." Whether future numbers can be believed is impossible to know, but many voters had no problem disbelieving Biden's relatively decent numbers. By the way, Baker's blog is always worth reading:

Ryan Cooper [08-01] COVID Contrarians Are Wrong About Sweden: "Trying to 'let it rip' in early 2020 was a disaster."

David Daley [08-01] How the GOP Hopes to Gerrymander Its Way to a Midterms Victory: "In a series of mid-decade redistricting gambits, state legislatures are looking to rig next year's congressional balloting in advance." We're basically in a race where Republicans are trying to lock down centers of power to make it near impossible for Democrats to regain power by merely winning elections. Daley has especially focused on the gerrymandering issue — his first book on the subject was Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America's Democracy (2016), and his latest is Antidemocratic: Inside the Far Right's 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections — but they've done much more, all stemming from their belief that government "of, by, and for the people" is an intolerable risk to their special interests.

Jeffrey St Clair, plus some more from Counterpunch:

  • [08-01] Roaming Charges: Something's Gone Wrong Again: First half on Israel, and does as good a job of summarizing the atrocities and factoring in American complicity as anything in that section. A brief section on famines around the world reminds me not to make light of Walsh's 2nd story, but that's because he doesn't sacrifice credibility by softballing Gaza, where "the risk of famine is total." He also notes a New York Times example I don't recall from North's articles (St Clair's highlight in bold):

    While Israel allows some food into Gaza, it has drastically reduced the number of places from which food is distributed, forcing Palestinians to receive food aid from a handful of sites that are hard to access. In a crude form of crowd control, Israeli soldiers have repeatedly shot and killed scores of Palestinians along routes leading to the new food distribution sites, forcing civilians to choose between the risk of gunfire and the risk of starvation.

    Isn't this not just the textbook definition of terrorism but an extraordinary, hitherto unexampled instance of it? While killing is an obvious metric of the war, pegging the number at 60,000 — about 3% of Gaza's population — risks underestimating the psychological impact. (Israel lost about 1% of its Jewish population in the 1947-49 War of Independence, which is generally remembered as a time of extraordinary trauma — by the way, about two-thirds of those were soldiers, so the civilian impact was much less, although still horrifying, I'm sure.) But death is just one of many metrics for Gaza: the most obvious being the 90% displaced, and at least that many malnourished. Figures like that are driving up the death rate — which I suspect is increasingly uncounted — but the much more widespread effect is psychological. We don't have a word for one army systematically trying to drive a whole country insane, because no one has ever done anything like that before, but that's a big part of what Israel is doing right now. And the chances that they don't fully comprehend what they're doing are almost inconceivably slim.

    As for the people who've just realized that Israel is committing genocide, St Clair cites an article by Raz Segal in Jewish Currents dated October 13, 2023: "A Textbook Case of Genocide: Israel has been explicit about what it's carrying out in Gaza. Why isn't the world listening?" That, by the way, was about the same date when I realized that Israel was not going to stop with a particularly draconian revenge tantrum but fully intended to, as more than a few of their fans put it at the time, "finish the job."

    Much more, as usual, seguing to ICE, the heat dome, fire season, pollution, and much more. This item is worth noting:

    Under Jair Bolsonaro, the proportion of Brazil's population suffering from food insecurity reached 23%. Today, 19 months into the 3rd Lula administration, the UN has announced this proportion has dropped below 2.5%. Brazil has been removed from the FAO UN World Hunger Map.

    Trump, by the way, is threatening Brazil with high tariffs unless they drop the prosecution of Bolsonaro and regulation of US social media companies.

  • [08-08] Roaming Charges: Empire of the Downpresser Man: Starts with the latest batch of ICE atrocities. Cites (but doesn't link to) a piece by Max Boot: "I hate the war in Gaza. But I still love Israel." In a similar vein of bad people having second thoughts about their evil commitments, St Clair quotes Alexander Dugin: "I come to very sad conclusion: Donald Trump is totally mad. It is the shame. We loved him."

  • [08-15] Roaming Charges: From Police State to Military State: Starts with the question of crime in DC. Then ICE and/or Israel. Among the tidbits is this Newsweek headline: "Intersectional Communist Zohran Mamdani Shows Democrats Can't Quit Obamaism." This is like the answer to the question of after all the garbage up front, what's the dumbest word you can possibly end this headline with? Another amusing bit: in Gallup's latest "most popular political figures" poll, the richest man in the world came in dead last, 5 points behind Netanyahu, 12 behind Trump.

  • Danbert Nobacon [08-08] Economic Terror and the Turbochuggf*ck in Texas: I'm not sure the neologisms help, like "capitrickalist free malarketry" and even "entrapocracy" (which turns out to come from a song title), but the rant about "toxic business activism" and the "Kochtopus" isn't wrong.

  • Nafis Hasan [08-08] War and the Cancer-Industrial Compex: An excerpt from a new book: Metastasis: The Rise of the Cancer-Industrial Complex and the Horizons of Care.

  • Thomas Knapp [08-08] Attack of the Bubble Boys: On Trump and Vance, "isolated and coddled lest contact with regular human beings harm them."

  • Michael Zoosman [08-08] Bearing the Mark of Cain for Naming the Gaza Genocide. A founder of L'chaim! Jews Against the Death Penalty regrets that he waited until July 2025 to use the word "genocide" re Israel, and bears witness to the level of "vitriol and recrimination" he's since received.

Adam Gabbatt [08-03] 'He has trouble completing a thought': bizarre public appearances again cast doubt on Trump's mental acuity. I expect I'll be able to find an article like this every week for the remainder of his term. These stories are easy sells because we're so used to associating age with dementia that we think to note exceptions. And of course, some are retribution for the political savaging of Joe Biden's never-all-that-astute mental acuity. Biden had been muddled and gaffe-prone for so long that it was hard to discern actual age-related deterioration from his norm. Trump benefits even more from the camouflage provided by having been crazed and inane for decades now. He himself has claimed that his incoherent rapid-fire hopping among disconnected topics is really just proof of his genius, and the world is starkly divided between those who never believe a word he says and those who celebrate every morsel of "genius" (not caring whether they believe it or not — they're fine with anything that hazes the normies, and Trump is the world champion at that). Same dynamic appeared in his first term, but pre-Biden, the focus was more on Trump's psychopathology, another fertile field for speculation and confirmation bias. While anything that discredits Trump is welcome, we should always bear in mind that the real problem with Trump is his politics, and that having won the 2024 election his administration has little further need of him, so his debilitation is unlikely to offer much comfort.

Adam Bonica [08-03] The Mothership Vortex: An Investigation Into the Firm at the Heart of the Democratic Spam Machine: "How a single consulting firm extracted $282 million from a network of spam PACs while delivering just $11 million to actual campaigns."

Rhonda Ramiro/Sarah Raymundo [08-06] How US imperialism blackmails the world with nuclear weapons, from Hiroshima to today: "Since the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, US imperialism has driven nuclear proliferation worldwide. Current nuclear flashpoints, such as Iran, show how the US continues to use nuclear blackmail to reinforce its dominance." There are two theories behind nuclear weapons: deterrence and blackmail. Neither involves using them, unless one tragically miscalculates and has to do so for credibility. But sane people see no possible value in nuclear war, or in war for almost any other purpose, so they have no desire to test deterrence. Roughly speaking, from 1953 through 1993, the US accepted the deterrence theory, and sought a "detente" with the Soviet Union, rather than pushing its luck with blackmail stratagems (like Nixon's "madman theory"). Since 1993, the US has become more aggressive, but is still cautious when faced with nuclear-armed "foes" like Russia and China (or even North Korea), while growing very aggressive with its conventional weapons. Israel conceived their nuclear arsenal as a deterrent against larger Arab enemies, but that threat evaporated with the 1979 treaty with Egypt, and even more so with the 1991 defeat of Iraq. Since then, their nuclear threat has allowed them to bomb Syria and Lebanon with impunity, as neither nation has any ability to retaliate against Israel. Since the 1990s, Israel has recognized that Iran is capable of producing a nuclear weapons, which could undermine Israel's blackmail threat. So Israel mounted a propaganda campaign to play up the Iranian threat, mostly to hold the US alliance firm (Americans have still not moved beyond the 1979-80 hostage crisis), However, as Israel has turned genocidal, they've found that their credibility depends on showing that they can and will strike Iran, and that they can and will use US forces to reinforce theirs. If Iran's leaders actually believed in the logic of deterrence and/or blackmail, they will proceed directly to developing and deploying their own weapons. There is no evidence yet that this is happening, but either way we should understand that the fault lies in the original adoption by the US and Israel of the nuclear arms race.

More nukes (turns out that FDR jumped the gun: the day that has really stood out "in infamy" is August 6):

  • Tony Karon [08-07]: A Hiroshima-Gaza connection? "Curiously enough, it's Israel's leader that claims the US nuclear massacre of 200,000 mostly civilians in Japan in 1945 legitimizes the genocide for which he's wanted at The Hague."

  • Peter Dodge [08-08]: 80 Years at the Brink, Time to Change the Narrative.

  • Eric Ross [10-12]: Hiroshima Remains an Open Wound in Our Imperiled World.

    Not everyone in the Allied nations shared in the prevailing atmosphere of apathy or even jubilation over those nuclear bombings. Before the second bomb struck Nagasaki, French philosopher Albert Camus expressed his horror that even in a war defined by unprecedented, industrialized slaughter, Hiroshima stood apart. The destruction of that city, he observed, marked the moment when "mechanistic civilization has come to its final stage of savagery." Soon after, American cultural critic Dwight Macdonald condemned the bombings in Politics, arguing that they placed Americans "on the same moral plane" as the Nazis, rendering the American people as complicit in the crimes of their government as the German people had been in theirs.

    American scholar Lewis Mumford likewise regarded that moment as a profound moral collapse. It marked, he argued in 1959, the point at which the U.S. decided to commit the better part of its national energies to preparation for wholesale human extermination. With the advent of the bomb, Americans accepted their role as "moral monsters," legitimizing technological slaughter as a permissible instrument of state power. "In principle," he wrote, "the extermination camps where the Nazis incinerated over six million helpless Jews were no different from the urban crematoriums our air force improvised in its attacks by napalm bombs on Tokyo," laying the groundwork for the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. . . .

    In a 1986 keynote address before the World Jewish Congress in Jerusalem, "The Final Solution to the Human Problem," [Carl] Sagan argued that Hitler "haunts our century . . . [as] he has shattered our confidence that civilized societies can impose limits on human destructiveness." In their mutually reinforcing preparations to annihilate one another, erase the past, and foreclose the possibility of future generations, he concluded, "the superpowers have dutifully embraced this legacy . . . Adolf Hitler lives on."

    This reminds me of the argument that Hitler succeeded in his campaign to destroy Judaism, not so much by killing so many Jews as in turning the survivors into Nazis.

James K Galbraith [08-07] The Trump Economy? Some Reagan Parallels: "In contrast with the now sober-seeming Reaganites, Trump has taken credit for the economy from day one." Well, not every day, especially with the recent flurry of "fake news."

Melvin Goodman [08-08] Trump's Policies Will Make China Great Again: Well, "great" is greatly overrated, but it's so much a part of Trump's mentality it's tempting to taunt him with for failing on his own terms. In economic terms, China doesn't need America any more. One questions whether they ever did: whether it was just western conceit to see the rest of the world as developing in our footsteps, repeating our same mistakes. For instance, their recent shift from coal to solar has turned them from followers to leaders. Trump, on the other hand, is trying to smash us into reverse.

David D Kirkpatrick [08-11] The Number: "How much is Trump pocketing off the Presidency?" Plenty of detail here, but the bottom line is $3.4 billion.

Bhaskar Sunkara [08-11] Democrats Keep Misreading the Working Class: "Many in the party see workers as drifting rightward. But new data show they're more progressive than ever on economic issues — if Democrats are willing to meet them there." Related:

  • David Kusnet [07-17] How the Left Lost the Working Class — and How to Win Them Back: "To avoid becoming the foil for Right Populism, Left Populists need to respect working-class values of work, family, community, patriotism, and the aspiration for stability and security." I think he's confusing the Left with Democrats here. If you look at the polling for Bernie Sanders, who actually speaks "working class" (as opposed to Elizabeth Warren, who prefers "middle class" although she has a similar meaning and equivalent policies — what's missing is the sense that she's one of us), the Left polls pretty well, as do nearly every Left economic issues. Sure, the "cultural" stuff is more mixed, but Sanders' very liberal views on those matters isn't much of a deal breaker. Center Democrats lost the working class with their trickle-down rationalizations for their pandering to neoliberal businesses (mostly tech and finance) that turn out to be as predatory as the old robber barons. Republicans won a few votes with lies, demagoguery, and salt-of-the-earth flattery, but to call such rhetoric — and that's literally all it is — Populist just betrays your own insecurity with working class folk. [PS: I just wrote that reacting to the headline. Turns out this is a review of Joan C Williams: Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back. I liked her previous book, White Working Class: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America [2017], so I figure she's mostly on solid ground, and that her use of "Left" instead of "Democrats" targets her prospective readers. Kusnet, by the way, is a former Clinton speechwriter, but from 1992-94, when he was still looking for working class votes, and not just foundation donors.]

Ian Bremmer [08-11] Can Democracy Survive AI? Two better questions are: Can democracy survive capitalism? And can capitalism survive AI? I'm not saying that AI is some kind of value-neutral technology that could equally be put to good or evil purposes. It potentially changes a lot of things. But it is a power tool, and the politico-economic system decides who gets power and how they can use it, and right now all this power is in the hands of a few megalomaniacal capitalists. Regulation may take some of the edge off, and allow for some breathing room, but unless it changes who owns AI and what they can do with it, the threats not only remain but multiply. And note that my first question predates AI. Capitalists, operating under their own logic, have already destroyed much of what passes for democracy in the US. AI is only going to make this worse, at least in the short term. As for the long term, that's harder to speculate on. As Marx was not even the first to realize, capitalism is inherently unstable. AI could make it even more unstable — and if it's any kind of intelligence at all, it probably will.

Sheila Jordan, jazz singer extraordinaire, died on August 11, age 96. [PS: See Notes on Everyday Life for my piece on her.] I read about her failing health a few weeks ago — like so many Americans, she was struggling with the costs of home hospice care, as if agreeing to die wasn't sacrifice enough — but I hadn't noticed that she released an evidently new album this January. [Portrait Now, with Roni Ben-Hur (guitar) and Harvie S (bass), recorded in 2023, and released in time for her last tour date, in Chicago.] Here are some pieces, starting off with obits, plus a few older pieces:

Nicholas Liu [08-13] The Case Against Business Schools: I don't doubt that they teach a few useful practical skills, and sure, you can call them "finishing schools for capitalism's managerial aristocracy," but their real reason for being is to counteract any ethical impulses their students may have, to make them more ruthless and efficient economic predators. Any reference to "social responsibility" is just camouflage, following the Churchill-Rumsfeld quote that "the truth is so precious it must be surrounded by an armada of lies." This refers to a book by Martin Parker: Shut Down the Business School: What's Wrong With Management Education (2018).

Aaron Regunberg [08-13] Establishment Democrats Are Going to Torpedo the 2026 Midterms: "Having failed to learn the key lesson from last year's defeat, party leaders are promoting moderate candidates to run against populist progressives in next year's elections." Steve M called this "the most disheartening thing I read yesterday."

Ian Millhiser [08-14]: Justice Kavanaugh just revealed an unfortunate truth about the Supreme Court: "The Court has a special set of rules for Trump." A couple more pieces by Millhiser, plus some related pieces:

Zach Beauchamp [08-14] The "weirdos" shaping Trump's second term: "A liberal writer explains her journey through intellectual MAGAland." The writer in question is Laura K Field, who has a new book, Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right, which is about how a few "intellectuals" are using Trump to advance their own peculiar thinking -- the book page mentions Patrick Deneen, Christopher Rufo, Peter Thiel, and JD Vance, but the interview focuses more on Michael Anton, and mentions Adrian Vermeule and Sohrab Ahmari. First, can we stop with calling them "weirdos"? That doesn't clarify anything, and may make them seem cuter than they merit. Second, while MAGA is useful to these "thinkers," MAGA doesn't need them, because whatever MAGA is, they aren't ideologically driven. At most, they pick up ideas to support gut instincts, with Trump the most obvious case of all. So understanding their "thinking" doesn't help us much, either with their political appeal or with their consequences.

Eric Foner [08-14] The Education of a Historian: "Freedom is neither a fixed idea, nor the story of progress toward a predetermined goal." One of America's preeminent historians reminisces, starting with his star-studded leftist family. Excerpt from his new book, Our Fragile Freedoms: Essays.

Adam Shatz [08-16] 'Like a Hymn': "The jazz pianist Amina Claudine Myers has spent her career weaving jazz, blues, gospel, and classical music into a distinctively personal idiom."

Tweets:

  • Daniel Gilmore [08-01]:

    Increasingly firm in my belief that if Trump had gotten into office and basically just fucked off—golfed, took some bribes, traveled a bunch—he'd be at like 50-55% approvals. Every single day of the ~6.5 months he's been back in power thus far has been an exercise in bleeding himself out.

    To which jamelle added:

    oh absolutely. the issue is that trump is too vindictive to have just let sleeping dogs lie. he wanted to get revenge on everyone that aggrieved him in his first term. i am 100% certain, in fact, that the project 2025 stuff was sold to him as a tool for getting that revenge.

  • Joshua Ehrlich [08-17]: Response to "what's your take on the moment we're living through in 50 words or less":

    we are living in a time of profound suffering and profound opportunity. restoring the post-war status quo is not a solution, and the real roadblock to fixing our country is that nearly all of the will to be innovative is on the side of the fascists.

    I doubt I'd call it "innovation," but they are willing to break convention with little or no concern for consequences, which makes them appear to be dynamic -- something people who don't know any better are easily impressed by.

Current count: 277 links, 20674 words (25025 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Sunday, July 20, 2025

Loose Tabs

This is an occasional collection of newsworthy links and comments, much less systematic than what I attempted in my late Speaking of Which posts. The new name comes from my extensive use of browser tabs. When I get around to cleaning up, I often find tabs opened to old articles I might want to comment on and/or refer back to. So these posts are mostly housecleaning, but may also serve as a very limited but persistent record of what 20+ years ago I started calling "the end of the American empire" and nowadays feels more like "the end of civilization." I collect these bits in a draft file, and flush them out when periodically. My previous one appeared 25 days ago, on June 26.

Some of what follows I've had sitting in the draft file a while. I figured that once I was done with the Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll: Mid-Year 2025, the next thing I should do is shake out the accumulated Loose Tabs, plus make a quick tour to catch up with news I've mostly neglected for a month or more. I knew I couldn't get that done by Monday's Music Week, so I kicked it out until the window opened for next week's column. I initially set Friday as the date, but I had until Sunday. No surprise that I'm wrapping this up Sunday evening, knowing full well I could continue working on it indefinitely. But I figure it's good enough for now. We'll talk about next week in the next Music Week.

Internal index:

Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill": I cribbed this from a meme explaining "what's in Republicans' 'Big, Beautiful Bill'?" Reading columns left-to-right, top-down within:

  • More than $3.5T added to the national debt
  • Cuts to food support for veterans
  • $148B in lost wages and benefits for construction workers
  • Billionaires get massive tax breaks
  • Hundreds of thousands clean energy jobs lost
  • 16 million kids lose free school meals
  • Higher premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket expenses, even if not on Medicaid
  • Cuts tax credits for buying electric vehicles
  • Increases in gas prices
  • 16 million Americans lose health care
  • Nationwide increases in energy bills
  • The largest cut to Medicaid in history
  • $186B in cuts to SNAP food assistance
  • New student loan borrowers pay more
  • Billions for surveillance & deportation
  • Largest transfer of $$ from the poor to the rich in history

The bill has since been passed by Congress and signed by Trump, so is now the law of the land. Until it passed, it was essentially true that everything Trump's administration had done took the form of an executive power grab. Trump's ability to impose his will on Republicans in Congress was also evident here: the days of having to negotiate with nominal party leaders like Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan are long gone. The new law validates and extends many of Trump's power grabs. Meanwhile, the courts are bending over backwards to extend Trump's powers even more. Some more pieces follow here (and there'll probably be more scattered about):

  • Matt Sledge [05-28] Trump's big, beautiful handout to the AI industry: The bill "bans states from regulating AI while pumping billions into autonomous weapons."

  • Cameron Peters [07-02] Trump vs. after-school programs, briefly explained: "The Trump administration is withholding nearly $7 billion in education funding."

  • Umair Irfan [07-02] Trump's plan to replace clean energy with fossil fuels has some major problems: "The budget bill sabotages one of the biggest growth sectors of the US economy." There's also a map here of how "The Senate's bill would raise electricity prices in every state." As well as the usual trolling about how Trump is the future of clean energy development to China.

  • Andrew Prokop:

  • Russell Payne [07-02] "Special treatment": How Republicans bought Lisa Murkowski's vote.

  • Dylan Scott [07-03] Republicans now own America's broken health care system: "The $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts will be felt by Americans." I'll believe this one when I see it. Republicans have broken things to hurt many people's lives going at least as far back as Taft-Hartley in 1947, yet they rarely get blamed for anything, with even major debacles quickly forgotten.

  • Nicole Narea

  • Branko Marcetic [07-08] A Tale of Two BBBs: Trump's Big Beautiful Bill vs. Biden's Build Back Better. "It's hard not to conclude from all this that Trump and the GOP simply cared more about the policy agenda contained in their BBB than Biden and the Democrats did about theirs." I suspect that is largely because Republicans have learned that not delivering on their promises costs them credibility, while Democrats don't think they need credibility because even at their most inept they're still a better bargain than Republicans. Even when they went through the motions, as Clinton did in 1993-94 and Obama in 2009-10, they pulled their punches, passing weak measures that did little for their base (and in their trade deals actively undercut themselves). Then both lost Congress, and with it the expectation they could ever implement anything (even when they won second terms). Biden did a little better, but not much.

  • Eric Levitz:

    • [07-08]: The wrong lesson to take from Trump's gutting of Medicaid: "Did the president just blow up Democrats' model for fighting poverty?" This has to do with the debate between means-tested and universal rights. It's easier for Republicans to cut Medicaid because they think it only benefits poor people, who mostly aren't Republicans, so fuck them. On the other hand, if we had a universal right to health care, then we wouldn't need a cut-rate version just to apply to poor people. Medicaid was basically just a band-aid over a much larger wound, which the reductions will further expose. On the other hand, Republicans are ignoring two less obvious benefits of Medicaid: it saves lives of people who otherwise can't afford America's ridiculous profit-seeking system, as opposed to just letting them die, which could expose the injustice and moral bankruptcy of the system, and possibly undermine the social and economic order they are so enamored with; and it also provides a subsidy to the industry, without which they'd be driven to even greater levels of greed and extortion.

    • [07-16]: The lie at the heart of Trump's entire economic agenda: "The White House wants to send Medicaid recipients to the mines." Apt sub-heds here: "America is not desperate for more low-paying, arduous jobs"; "The administration's solutions to this problem are all whimsical fantasies"; "The high cost of post-truth policy."

  • Ryan Cooper/David Dayen [07-07] Ten Bizarre Things Hidden in Trump's Big Beautiful Bill: They suggest that "with the president asleep at the switch, all kinds of nutty provisions got snuck into the bill," but Trump's such a fan of nutty that even if he was unaware, they may have done it for his amusement. The list:

    1. Incentivizing SNAP Fraud
    2. The Mass Shooter Subsidy
    3. The Spaceport Sweetener
    4. No Tax on Oil Drillers
    5. Handouts for Chinese Steel Companies
    6. The Garden of Heroes [$40M to build big, beautiful statues]
    7. A Tax on Gambling Winnings
    8. Unlimited SALT [state and local tax deduction]
    9. Tax Breaks for Puerto Rican Rum
    10. More Chipmaker Subsidies?

  • Heather Digby Parton [07-09] How $178 billion is creating a police state: "A massive funding increase for ICE means more detention camps and more masked agents in the streets."

  • Dylan Scott [07-18] Your health insurance premiums could soon go up 15 percent -- or more: "The health care consequences of Trump's budget bill are already here."

  • David Dayen [07-18] Crypto Week Revealed the Dittohead Congress: "There are no 'hard-liners' in the Republican conference. And nobody interested in standing up for the institution of Congress either." Also on crypto:

    • Jacobin [06-13] The Crypto State: An interview with Ramaa Vasudevan: "The Trump White House has helped install the ticking time bomb that is cryptocurrency directly into our economy. When it blows up, the damage will be catastrophic."

Israel/Gaza/Iran/Trump: Another catch-all topic:

Current Affairs: Nearly everything here is worth looking at:

David Klion [02-27] Chris Hayes Wants Your Attention: "The Nation spoke with the journalist about one of the biggest problems in contemporary life -- attention and its commodification -- and his new book The Siren's Call." I picked this up, because I've started to read the book, although I'm not sure how much attention I want to give it. This reminds me a bit of James Gleick's Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything (2000), which starts out with a concept that seems to govern much of everything, but all the examples pale next to the concept, which is more fun to think about than to read about. Interesting here that the interview suggests that Hayes has already moved on. When Klion makes a comment about "the development of a mass intellectual culture after World War II" and finishes with "it feels like we've come in at the very end of that era," Hayes responds:

Part of that is a story about that growth plateauing. There was an idea that an ever-higher percentage of people were going to be four-year college grads, but it stopped at a certain level. That's the structural, sociological part of the story, but it's also technological—we're seeing a generational shift from typing out your texts to dictating them, which seems deranged to me. The move away from writing and reading is clearly happening, and it is more than a little unnerving.

That bit about "growth plateauing" could be his next book. There's already a big, fairly technical book on the subject -- Robert J Gordon's The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The US Standard of Living Since the Civil War -- but no one has really written the book about what it really means. For one thing, the notion that Clinton took from Robert Reich that increasing inequality would be palatable as long as there was sufficient growth and upward mobility via education has clearly failed -- and not just because growth has plateaued, which for the US happened in the 1970s, but because there never was (and never would be) enough work for "symbolic manipulators" in this or any world.

  • Eric Levitz [06-24] Is the decline of reading poisoning our politics? "Your brain isn't what it used to be." I looked at this piece, decided not to bother with it, then remembered it while reading the Hayes quote, so thought I'd log it here. I'm sure there's a vast literature on crap like this [I mean: unguarded generalizations based on defective psychological modeling, not that there aren't other kinds of crap floating about] where the exceptions turn the norms to mush. This one tempts me because I read serious non-fiction books, and doing so helps make me smarter about things than many of the people I read are, so there's an element of flattery at work here. But then I read something like: "Garfinkle believes that this aversion to the rigors of abstract thought underlies the left's illiberal dogmatism, and the right's xenophobic populism." Actually, if you had any skills whatsoever at abstract thought, you'd realize that two things that aren't things can't possibly have anything underlying them. I mean QED, motherfucker!

Peter Beinart [04-03] Chuck Schumer Cannot Meet the Moment: "In his new book on antisemitism, the minority leader offers a vision of progress without popular struggle that profoundly underestimates the Trump threat." This covers the book very nicely, but is if anything too gentle to the politician. He is certainly right that it wasn't just the Holocaust that convinced Americans to discard antisemitism: the civil rights movement was pivotal, and not just because most Jews supported it, but because most of us came to see antisemitism and racism as aspects of the same fundamental wrong. Schumer's focus on "left antisemitism" is not just an unwarranted exaggeration but a logical fallacy. All leftists, by definition, oppose all forms of subordination, directed against all classes of people -- Jews, Palestinians, any and every other identity group you care to name. Moreover, the left has a one-size-fits-all solution: don't privilege any group over any other. The right, on the other hand, breeds all sorts of prejudice and discrimination, because once you start with the belief that some people should rule over others, it's inevitable you'll start applying labels -- it's also inevitable that the people the right attack will resist, with some replying in kind, and others gravitating toward the left.

Jews in the diaspora have tended to align with the left, because they seek a principled opposition to the prejudice that targets them, and they understand that defending other targeted groups helps build solidarity for their own cause. (Right-wingers, at least in the US, keep returning to antisemitism less due to old prejudices than to the understanding that equality for Jews, as for any other group, undermines their preferred hierarchy, and their political program. The present moment is even better for them, as they get some kind of dispensation from the antisemitism charge by embracing Israel, in all its prejudice, repression, and violence -- trademarks of the right.) Some American Jews, like Schumer, find this confusing, because they so identify as Jews that they feel obligated to defend right-wing power in Israel that they neither agree with nor fully understand, often by misrepresenting or flat-out denying what that power is plainly doing. And they're so desperate to defend their credulity they buy into this totally bogus argument about "left antisemitism." Note that I'm not saying that there aren't some people who oppose Israel's apartheid and genocide don't also hold antisemitic beliefs: just that any such people are not leftists, and that the answer to them is to join the left in demanding liberty and justice for all. Name-calling by Schumer not only doesn't help -- it betrays one's ignorance and/or duplicity. This is perhaps most clearly exposed in the Schumer quote: "My job is to keep the left pro-Israel." The layers of his ignorance and arrogance are just mind-boggling. But doesn't this also suggest that the first loyalty of the Democratic Party leader in the Senate is not to his voters, to his constituents, to his party, or even to his country, but to Israel? Perhaps that's part of the reason he's served his party so poorly?

One more point should be made here: Israel is not, and for that matter never has been, worried about stirring up antisemitic violence in the diaspora: their solution is for Jews to immigrate to Israel, which they maintain is their only safe haven. They've done this for many years, especially in Arab countries like Iraq and Yemen. So they have ready answers whenever they provoke blowback. Nor do they mind when their right-wing allies use moral outrage against Israel for their own purposes, such as clamping down on free speech in US universities. Worse case scenario: people blame "the Jews" for this assault on their freedom, which they use to market aliyah.

Also worth citing here:

  • Peter Beinart [06-06] The Era of Unconditional Support for Israel Is Ending: Here I was expecting that this would be about the increasing turn of American Jews against blind blank check support for Netanyahu, but it's really more about how Trump has reprioritized US foreign policy to line his own accounts. Nothing to get excited by: even if Trump starts to maneuver independently, he has no principles we can put any faith in, and the Arab princes he's so enamored with are among the world's most right-wing despots.

  • Peter Beinart [07-06] Democrats Need to Understand That Opinions on Israel Are Changing Fast.

  • Ezra Klein [07-20] Why American Jews No Longer Understand One Another. This tiptoes uneasily around the arguments, but at least acknowledges that for many American Jews, there are limits to their support for Israel, with an increasing share becoming quite critical. And that many of them oppose Netanyahu for the same reasons they oppose Trump.

Luke O'Neil [2019-04-09] What I've Learned From Collecting Stories of People Whose Loved Ones Were Transformed by Fox News: Old piece, but this dovetails with people I know. In particular, I had two cousins who were socioeconomic and cultural twins (both small town, one Arkansas, the other Idaho), but their views on politics and society diverged radically when one fell into the Fox lair, while the other got her news from sources like the BBC. This piece comes from a book, Welcome to Hell World: Dispatches From the American Dystopia. He also wrote a 2021 sequel, Lockdown in Hell World. Related here:

  • Sarah Jones [07-18] It's Okay to Go No Contact With Your MAGA Relatives. Sure, but is it necessary? In my experience it generally isn't, but I'm not easily offended, or offensive, and as someone who's social contacts are pretty limited in the first place, I don't feel like I need more trouble. On the other hand, I don't go looking for it either, so "no contact" can easily become the norm.

Yasha Levine [06-13] Bari Weiss: Toady Queen of Substack: "How a cynical operative married a California princess, sucked up power, and found fame and fortune and love. And how technology won't save us." I know very little about her other than that she's a major Israel hasbaraist, and that her "The Free Press" is the "bestselling" U.S. politics newsletter at Substack. Levine offers some numbers: one million free subscribers, "somewhere near" 150,000 paid subscribers, and a company valued at $100 million, partly due to investments of patrons like Marc Andreessen ("who also funds Substack") and David Sacks.

William Turton/Christopher Bing/Avi Asher-Schapiro [07-15] The IRS is building a vast system to share millions of taxpayers' data with ICE: "ProPublica has obtained the blueprint for the Trump administration's unprecedented plan to turn over IRS accounts." This is just one instance. Sorry for burying the lead, but for more on the big picture:

Viet Thanh Nguyen [06-16] Greater America Has Been Exporting Disunion for Decades: "So why are we still surprised when the tide of blood reaches our own shores? Some personal reflections on Marco Rubio and me -- and the roots of Trump's imperial ambitions." PS: I should take a closer look at Nguyen's older essays.

Timothy Noah [06-19] How the Billionaires Took Over: "Yes, Donald Trump is a threat to democracy. But the far bigger menace is the monstrous growth in wealth concentration over five decades that made a Trump presidency possible -- and maybe inevitable. Here's how we let it happen." Long piece, lots of history.

Anatol Lieven [06-20] The 17 Ukraine war peace terms the US must put before NATO: "Threats must be imposed if either side or both reject these demands. The time is now." I've followed Lieven closely from well before Putin's military invasion of Ukraine, and I've found him to be a generally reliable guide, but I'm scratching my head a bit here. Certainly, if they all agreed to these 17 terms, far be it from me to object. But about half of them seem to add unnecessary complications just to check off superfluous talking points. For instance, "7. Ukraine introduces guarantees for Russian linguistic and cultural rights into the constitution. Russia does the same for Ukrainians in Russia." Why should either nation have its sovereignty so restrained? Ukraine was so constrained as part of the Minsk Accords, which turned out to be a major sticking point for Ukrainian voters. Besides, how many Russian-speakers still remain in Ukrainian territory? And how many Ukrainians are still living in Russian-occupied territory?

The arms/NATO provisions also strike me as added complexity, especially on issues that should be addressed later. In the long run, I'm in favor of disbanding NATO, but that needs to be a separate, broader negotiation with Russia, not something ending the war in Ukraine depends on. I could expand on this, but not here, yet.

I wrote the above paragraph shortly after the article appeared. Since then a lot has changed viz. Ukraine, or has it?

  • Aaron Sobczak [07-11] Diplomacy Watch: Trump changes tune, music to Zelensky's ears: "The president's views on Putin shifted dramatically this week."

  • Cameron Peters [07-14] Trump's new Ukraine plan, briefly explained.

  • Ian Proud [07-14] Russia sanctions & new weapons, is Trump stuck in Groundhog Day? "The president who insisted that the Biden era policies did not work finds himself in a rerun of his own first term on Ukraine policy." Which, you might recall, didn't work either. Trump's whole approach to foreign policy was so incoherent no one ever did a real accounting of all the things he screwed up, and what the long-term costs have become -- or will, as some of them are still mounting. Granted, his predecessors did a lousy job, and Biden's analysis of what Trump did wrong was faulty and Biden's fixes were worse. Ukraine is a good example: the drive to expand NATO started in the 1990s under Clinton, but the real demonization of Putin kicked in under Obama, and became much more tangible with the 2014 coup in Ukraine, which led directly to the secession crises and civil war. Trump sat on that conflict for four years, doing nothing but pushing Democrats into a hot lather over his efforts to extort Ukraine to gather dirt on Biden. Biden then tilted so hard toward Ukraine that Putin invaded, leaving the present stalled war -- which Trump campaigned on a promise to "end in a day," something he not only hasn't done but hasn't made any progress at. Speaking of things Trump could have done but only made worse (with no recovery from Biden):

  • Jennifer Kavanagh [07-15] How Trump's 50-day deadline threat against Putin will backfire: "The 'art of the deal' will likely result in the opposite of its intended effect on the Russian president."

  • Stavroula Pabst [07-18] Diplomacy Watch: Will Europe pay for Trump's Ukraine aid? "The Europeans, via NATO, will reportedly pay for the deal."

Samuel Moyn [06-25] Why America Got a Warfare State, Not a Welfare State: "How FDR invented national security, and why Democrats need to move on from it." A review of Andrew Preston: Total Defense: The New Deal and the Invention of National Security.

Jack Hunter [06-26]: Don't read the funeral rites for MAGA restraint yet: "Influencers in the movement are choosing to turn ire on Israel's role and warning Trump off protracted, regime change quagmire." But Trump is the one with all the power in this relationship, and the chorus only matters when they stay in tune. Besides, it's not like Trump needs, or even wants, ideological cover. His brand is to shoot from the hip, to be unpredictable, to take US foreign policy wherever the money leads. Hunter, on the other hand, is desperately looking for any inkling that at least some of his conservative cohort are anti-war. This leads to a long string of articles like:

Elie Honig [06-27] The Supreme Court Just Gave the President More Power. The Court's ruling in Trump v. CASA severely limits the power of district courts to issue injunctions against Trump's executive power abuses. More Court stuff:

  • Ian Millhiser: He covers the Supreme Court for Vox, and I've always found his explanations to be quite enlightening. I used to cover nearly everything he wrote, but haven't cited much of late, as Vox became increasingly difficult. So we've got some catching up to do.

  • Cameron Peters [07-08] The Supreme Court's order letting Trump conduct mass federal layoffs, briefly explained. I want to add a few points here, that may seem too obvious to mention, but are important nonetheless: (1) if Biden, or any other Democrat, was firing people and impounding money to pursue narrow political vendettas and/or to impose partisan policies, it's very unlikely that the Republican majority on the court would be ruling in favor as they did with Trump; it's even unlikely that the Democratic-appointed minority would allow a Democratic executive doing the same. (2) No Democratic president -- not just a Biden or an Obama, but you could extend the list as far left as Sanders and Warren, would think to invoke such powers, so the Court is risking very little in allowing to a generic "president" powers that would only be claimed by a fascist would-be dictator. (3) When/if we ever have another Democratic president, the Court majority will scramble to shut down this and many other doors they've opened Trump can unilaterally impose his will on government. After all, the main reason for packing the Court was to prevent any future change that would weaken autocratic/plutocratic power. (4) Any future Democratic president will face increasing pressure from their own ranks to make comparably bold actions in search of whatever policy goals were embraced by the voters. Democrats have long been lambasted for failing to deliver on promises. Trump shows that they shouldn't let "norms" and even existing laws get in the way. The Courts won't like this, but contesting it will be political, and will expose the partisan nature of the current packed Court. Savvy Democratic politicians should be able to campaign on that. (Meanwhile, the not-so-savvy ones -- the ones we're so accustomedto deferring to -- should fade to the sidelines.)

    I think the point I'm getting at is this (and let's bring out the bold here): The more Trump succeeds at imposing his agenda, the more he hastens his demise, and the more radical the reconstruction will have to be. Of course, my statement is predicated on strong belief that what Trump wants to do will fail disastrously, even on his own terms. It might take a sizable essay to explain how and why, but suffice it here to say that the more I see, the more I'm convinced. My first draft of that line had "restoration" in lieu of "reconstruction," but when I started thinking of history, my second thought (after the obvious Hitler/Mussolini analogues) was the Confederate secession. We tend to overlook Jefferson Davis as a revolutionary political figure, because his government was immediately overwhelmed by the Civil War. I keep flashing back to a weird, thin book I read 50 years ago, by Emory M Thomas, called The Confederacy as a Revolutionary Experience (1971), which tries to run with the idea. I only remember a few points -- like how late in the war they ran so short of soldiers they considered freeing slaves to fight on their behalf -- but with Trump one could riff on this subject ad nauseum. But it's not like we need more reasons to oppose Trump -- like there's anyone who failed to see Trump as a fascist would wake up and say, "oh yeah, now I see the problem." The more interesting thing is what happened to the Union once they were freed of the dead weight of the slaveocracy. The Civil War has been interpreted as a Second American Revolution, with profound effects, even if Reconstruction itself was sabotaged early by Andrew Johnson, ended prematurely by Rutherford Hayes, and ultimately undone by Jim Crow -- all mistakes that won't be forgotten. I'll spare you my own riffing on this, but lots of interesting things flow from this thought.

  • Karen J Greenberg [07-08] Courts open door to Trump's terrifying "occupying force" fantasy: "Trump's authoritarian playbook just got court approval -- and it won't stop at California."

  • Austin Sarat [07-16] Rule of loyalists: Emil Bove would be the perfect Trumpian judge: "A reckless judicial nominee who would serve Trump's agenda instead of the rule of law."

Kelsey Piper [06-27]: A million kids won't live to kindergarten because of this disastrous decision: "The world's war on child death was going well. Then RFK Jr. came along."

Nick Turse:

Ed Kilgore [07-01] Do Democrats Need or Want a Centrist 'Project 2029'? First thing is they shouldn't call it that, and anyone who thinks otherwise should be disqualified immediately. Trump ran scared from Project 2025, for good reason -- and clearly now, not because he disagreed with it, but because he realized it was bad marketing. Other than that, my first reaction was that it might not be such a bad idea. I'd like to see centrists try to articulate their policies, instead of just pissing on anything coming from the left as unrealistic, unaffordable, etc. I've long thought that if they ever honestly looked at problems as something they'd be obligated to solve, they'd find viable not in the corporate think tanks and lobbies but on the left. Maybe they could repackage ideas like Medicare for All and Green New Deal to make them more palatable to their interest groups, but the core ideas are sound. If so, they have a chance to regain some of the credibility they've lost in repeatedly losing to Trump. And if not, someone can rise from the ranks and rally the left against these scumbags. (Some of whom, like Jake Sullivan, are irredeemable.) More on 2029:

  • Branko Marcetic [07-20] Democrats' Project 2029 Is Doubling Down on Failure: At first this looks like the sort of anticipatory putdown left critics are prone to, but it offers profiles of the project's movers and shakers, and they are indeed a sorry bunch: Andrei Cherny, Neera Tanden, Jake Sullivan, Ann-Marie Slaughter, Justin Wolfers, Jim Kessler. That's as far as he gets, finally noting: "All but three of Third Way's thirty-two serving trustees hail from the corporate world, with a heavy emphasis on finance."

Emily Pontecorvo [07-02] Trump Promised Deregulation. His New Law Would Regulate Energy to Death: "The foreign entities of concern rules in the One Big Beautiful Bill would place gigantic new burdens on developers." I didn't read past the "to continue reading, create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles" sign, but scrolling down suggests that there are more articles worth exploring, like:

  • Here's How Much Money Biden Actually Spent From the IRA
  • NRC Expected to 'Rubber Stamp' New Reactors
  • Noem Defends FEMA's Response to Texas Floods
  • The Pentagon's Rare Earths Deal Is Making Former Biden Officials Jealous
  • EPA Claims Congress Killed the Green Bank
  • How the Interconnection Queue Could Make Qualifying for Tax Cuts Next to Impossible
  • Trump Opened a Back Door to Kill Wind and Solar Tax Credits
  • The Only Weather Models That Nailed the Texas Floods Are on Trump's Chopping Block
  • The Permitting Crisis for Renewables

Eric Levitz [07-03] California just showed that a better Democratic Party is possible: "California Democrats finally stopped outsourcing their policy judgment to their favorite lobbies." Well, specifically, they passed a pair of housing bills: "One exempts almost all urban, multifamily housing developments from California's environmental review procedures. The second makes it easier for cities to change their zoning laws to allow for more homebuilding." This looks like a big victory for the Abundance crowd, where California had been a prime example of regulation-stifled housing shortages. (Newsom was explicit: "It really is about abundance." That's the kind of left critique that centrists can get behind, because it doesn't necessarily involve taking from the rich.) What this shows to me is that Democrats are open to change based on reasoned arguments that appeal to the greater good. Don't expect that to work with Republicans. But a big part of my argument for voting for Harris and all Democrats in 2024 was that they are people who we can talk to, and sometimes get to listen.*

[*] Except for Israel, as Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick explain in their book, Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics. We're still working on that.

Abdallah Fayyad [07-03] Zohran Mamdani's not-so-radical agenda: "Despite the Democratic nominee for NYC mayor being labeled a communist, his agenda actually promises something more ideologically modest." I don't have a good sense of New York City these days, or follow its politics, so I've paid scant attention to Mamdani, even as lots of people I do follow are very besotted with him. But I know my left, so the first thing that struck me here was the implicit fear-mongering of assuming that a "Democratic socialist" -- or any other label you want to assign to someone who initially strikes me as a personable and very intelligent politician, including "communist" -- would run on a truly radical platform. That he won the primary in a city where Democrats are an overwhelming majority should be taken as proof that he presents himself as a reasonable, sensible guy, and that most of the people who have paid attention accept him as such. I can see how people who know next to nothing about New York might easily get confused, but they should just accept that they don't know, and leave it to the people who live there.

I know something of what I'm saying here. I lived in NYC in the late 1970s, when rents were manageable (sure, at first they seemed high after moving from Kansas, but wages -- I made my living as a typesetter, and wrote some on the side -- were better too), and I returned pretty regularly up through 2001 (I was there for 9/11). After that, not so much, and not at all in the last 10 years. My last couple visits were especially depressing, as rents had gone way up, and most of my favorite bookstore haunts had vanished. So I can see how some of Mamdani's proposals could resonate, even as they strike me as inadequate for real change. But that's always the problem for candidates who start out with a left critique but wind up spending all their energy just fighting the uphill battle against past failures and lingering corruptions. Left politicians are ultimately judged less on what they accomplish, than on the question of whether they can retain their reputation for care and honesty, even when they have little to show for it. So I respect them, first for running, perhaps for winning, and hopefully for surviving. But I also have some pity for what they're up against, at each step on the way. As such, I find it hard to get excited when they do succeed, as Mamdani has so far. One might hope that this shows that the people want what the left has to offer. But it may also just show that the people are so disgusted with the alternatives they're willing to try anything. After all, the guy Mamdani beat was Mario Cuomo, and do to some peculiarity of NYC politics he still has to beat him again. Then there's Eric Adams. Sure, in retrospect, Bernie Sanders' 2016 vote was inflated by the quality of his opposition. So, no doubt, is Mamdani's, but it's fun to watch, because he, like Sanders, is a rare politician who's fun to watch.

Ok, more Mamdani:

David Corn/Tim Murphy [07-03] Here are the Declaration of Independence's Grievances Against King George III. Many Apply to Trump.

Lydia DePillis/Christine Zhang [07-03]: How Health Care Remade the U.S. Economy. They lead with a chart showing that health care has become the single largest employment segment, with 13% of all workers, vs. 10% for retail, and 8% for manufacturing (down from a more than double that when Clinton was elected in 1992). The share of spending has grown even larger -- outpacing even housing, which is also growing -- in large part because profits are so exorbitant. They offer some other reasons, which are valid to a point, but profits are the driving force. None of this is news, unless you're one of those people who only believe what they read in the New York Times.

Andrew O'Hehir [07-06] Alligator Alcatraz: American history from the dark side: "Yeah, it's a concentration camp. It's also a meme, a troll and an especially ugly distillation of American history." It's significant enough that Trump has started building concentration camps, but even more important is the effort they're putting into marketing them. They not only think this is a good idea, they think it will be massively popular -- at least among the people they count on as their base.

Alligator Alcatraz, like nearly everything else about the second Trump regime, is a deliberate, overt mockery of the liberal narrative of progress. It's a manifestation of "owning the libs" in physical, tangible and almost literal form. (So far, MAGA's secret police have not specifically targeted the regime's domestic opponents, but the threats get more explicit every day.) Terrorizing, incarcerating and deporting immigrants is an important regime goal in its own terms, of course, but the real target of terrorism -- state terrorism included -- is always the broader public. Liberal outrage, to some significant degree, is the point, as are a mounting sense of powerlessness and increasing anxiety about the rule of law and the constitutional order.

  • Maureen Tkacik [07-17] Meet the Disaster Capitalists Behind Alligator Alcatraz: "Incompetent and militarized 'emergency response' is on track to be a trillion dollar industry by the end of Trump's second term." I've always thought that Naomi Klein's "Disaster Capitalism" was less a stage than a niche, but with Trump in power it's becoming a very lucrative one:

    The forecasters of such things predicted last winter that "emergency management" will be nearly a trillion-dollar sector of the economy by 2030. And that was before Trump declared eight new national emergencies during his first week in office, then went about variously nuking and systematically dismantling every federal agency equipped to respond to emergencies. Disaster capitalism's windfall could come a year or two early, so don't let this lesson escape you. Those who fail to procure a no-bid contract to build the next concentration camp may be condemned to live in it. Or as Crétier himself put it in 2020: "I see the world in a very predatorial way. You're either on the menu or you're looking in the menu."

Sarah Kendzior [07-07] Guns or Fireworks: "America is not its government and normal does not mean right." Celebrating the 4th of July in St. Charles, MO, with a "38 Special" ("fifty ride tickers for thirty-eight dollars"). The title is a guessing game played at the Riverfest ("full of fun, unsafe rides").

Maggie Haberman [07-09] Trump Treats Tariffs More as a Form of Power Than as a Trade Tool: "Instead of viewing tariffs as part of a broader trade policy, President Trump sees them as a valuable weapon he can wield on the world stage." I think this is an important insight, although one could push it a bit farther. Trump has no real trade policy. I don't think he can even conceive of one. He doesn't have a notion of national interests -- sure, he talks a lot about "nation," but that's really just himself: he assumes that the nation's happiness is a simple reflection of his own happiness. He understands power as a means for engorging himself, and that's all that really matters to him. Congress did something stupid way back when, in allowing presidents to arbitrary implement tariffs, sanctions, and such. They gave the office power, so now he has it and is using and abusing it, because that's all he is. I'm tempted to say that nobody imagined that could possibly happen, but that sounds just like something he'd say.

Zack Beauchamp [07-09] Liberalism's enemies are having second thoughts: "Why Trump 2.0 is giving some anti-liberals second thoughts." A rather scattered survey of various thinkers who have tried to critically distinguish their ideas from conventional liberalism, suggesting that there are anti-liberal currents both on the right and on the left. I'm not very conversant with these people, being only vaguely aware of Patrick Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed from the right and Samuel Moyn's Liberalism Against Itself to the left, and little else other than the Abundance Agenda (under "Where do we go from here?" where it is viewed as part of the liberal revival). These titles suggest that the problem with liberalism was never what it promised but simply what it delivered, most often because the desire for equality so often fizzled once one's own needs were met.

Charles R Davis [07-09] "This is going to be normal": Soldiers descend on US cities: "The raid on MacArthur Park did not lead to any arrests, but that wasn't the point."

Elizabeth Kolbert [07-10]: Flash floods and climate policy: "As the death toll climbs in Texas, the Trump Administration is actively undermining the nation's ability to predict -- and to deal with -- climate-related disasters." See St Clair (below) for more on this, as well as:

  • Umair Irfan [07-07] Why were the central Texas floods so deadly? "How missed flood warnings and infrastructure gaps cost so many live in central Texas."

  • Cheyenne McNeil [07-08] Cruz pushed for NOAA cuts days before Texas flooding: "The Senator was on vacation in Greece when fatal flooding hit Texas." In case you were expecting him in Cancun.

  • Noel King/Cameron Peters [07-18] Trump cut the National Weather Service. Did that impact Texas flood warnings? "What NWS and FEMA cuts could mean for future disasters, explained." Interview with CNN climate reporter Andrew Freedman. NWS cut 600 employees, including several in key positions in Texas, while FEMA cuts were described as "quite broad." Freedman doesn't seem to think that made much difference. I'd counter that it says much about what Trump considers important. One side effect of all the climate change denialism is that they also wind up pretending climate disasters won't happen, so they don't prepare for them, so they screw up when they do. Democrats may not be any better than Republicans at preventing climate change -- their efforts are mostly limited to subsidizing businesses offering "green" technology -- but by accepting the reality of climate change, and by believing that government has an important role in helping people, they put a much more serious effort into disaster recovery assistance. Clinton promoted FEMA to cabinet level. Bush buried it under DHS, where the focus was countering terrorism (and, extremely under Trump, immigration).

Zack Beauchamp [07-10] Trump quietly claimed a power even King George wasn't allowed to have: "A scary new revelation about Trump's effort to circumvent the TikTok ban."

Adam Clark Estes [07-10] Little videos are cooking our brains: "The future of the internet is a slop-filled infinite scroll. How do we reclaim our attention?" I don't deliberately look at TicToc or Instagram, which seem to be the main culprits here, but I've noticed the same thing with X and Bluesky (although I've found settings on the latter to do away with autoplay). I've certainly felt the sensation, as I would scroll through dozens of short videos, finding it hard to resist, with my will power increasingly sapped. I ordered the Chris Hayes book, The Siren's Call: How Attention Became the World's Most Endangered Resource, after one such session. We'll see if that helps . . . if I can focus enough to read it?

Zusha Ellinson [07-10]: The Rapid Rise of Killings by Police in Rural America: "A 17-year-old shot and killed by a sheriff's deputy on a New Mexico highway last summer was one in a growing number of cases." This is uncomforting reading, even though it seems so predictable.

Jeffrey St. Clair:

  • [07-18] Roaming Charges: Masked and Anonymous: Starts with a long list of ICE horrors, before moving on to climate horrors and other horrors. He offers this translation of Ezra Klein's Abundance: "Trickle-Down for Hipsters." Offers this quote from Astra Taylor:

    Supreme Court says the president can't abolish student debt, but he CAN abolish the Department of Education. This isn't hypocrisy. It's end times fascism—a fatalistic politics willing to torch the government and incinerate the future to maintain hierarchy and subvert democracy.

  • [07-11]: Roaming Charges: Heckuva Job, Puppy Slayer! I assume you get the reference. While nobody expects Republicans to prevent disasters, you'd think that they'd try to seem less incompetent when they do happen, as with no prevention efforts they inevitably do. This starts off with the Texas flood disaster, and covers it succinctly, before moving on to ICE, Israel, and other matters. Closes by repeating his Mid-Year Poll ballot, having written more about Francis Davis (and me) here:

  • [07-07] Sound Grammar: Francis Davis and the Best Jazz of 2025, So Far.

Chris Hedges [07-11] The Persecution of Francesca Albanese: She holds the post of UN Special Rapporteur, charged with investigating the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Having found the obvious, the Trump administration is moving to sanction her. It's not clear to me how they can do that, or what the practical effects might be, but the linkage pretty much cinches the case that Trump is complicit in the genocide.

Michael Brenes [07-11] What If the Political Pendulum Doesn't Swing Back? This revisits Arthur M Schlesinger Jr's 1986 book, The Cycles of American History. Noted because I've been thinking about cycles theory, pendulum moves (including what Bill James called the "plexiglass principle"), and such, although I don't have a lot of respect or interest in Schlesinger.

Dexter Filkins [07-14]: Is the US ready for the next war? Long article on how cool drones and AI are, by a veteran war reporter who lacked the empathy and/or moral fiber to follow Chris Hedges into questioning the whole world. Ukraine and Israel are prime examples, where new techniques for dealing death are being field-tested. The real question isn't how to fight the next war, but why? Filkins, as usual, is clueless.

Adam Gurri [07-14] Marc Andreessen Is a Traitor: "It is the tech oligarchs, not young radicals, who have turned against the system that made them."

Kiera Butler [07-14] Churches Can Now Endorse Candidates and Trump Couldn't Be Happier:

David Daley [07-16]: How Texas could help ensure a GOP House majority in 2026: When I first heard Trump pushing to further gerrymander House seats in Texas, I was surprised they had left any seats open. The current split is 25-12, with Democrats concentrated in the big cities, and everything else neatly carved up to favor Republicans. Turns out there are two districts along the Rio Grande that Democrats won by thin margins in 2024. Still, that depends on Trump consolidating his 2024 gains among Latinos, which isn't a strong bet.

Molly Jong-Fast [07-18]: Canceling Stephen Colbert Isn't Funny. Coming two weeks after [07-02] Paramount to Pay Trump $16 Million to Settle '60 Minutes' Lawsuit, this feels like the other shoe dropping. The lawsuit was utterly bogus, and any company with an ounce of faith in free speech would have fought it to the Supreme Court (or probably won much easier than that), but the settlement is a conveniently legal way to pay off a bribe, and cheap compared to the multi-billion dollar sale Paramount is seeking government approval on. (And Trump, of course, is back at it again: see Trump will sue the WSJ over publishing a "false, malicious, and defamatory" story about Trump and Epstein.) I'm not up on Colbert: I haven't watched his or any other late night talk show since the election. Before the election, I took some comfort in their regular beatdowns of Trump and his crew, and especially in the audience's appreciation, which made me feel less alone. However, with the loss I resented their inadequacy (as well as even more massive failures elsewhere in the media and in the Democratic political classes). But I suppose I was glad that they still existed, and hoped they would continue fighting the good fight -- maybe even getting a bit better at it. At this point, it's pretty clear that Trump's popularity will continue to wane as the disasters pile up. So his only real chance of surviving is to intimidate the opposition, to impose such fear and dread that no one will seriously challenge him. You'd think that would be inconceivable in America, but here you see companies like Paramount bowing and scraping. And as the WSJ suit progresses, how much faith do you have that someone like Rupert Murdoch will stand up to Trump? More:

Kaniela Ing [07-18] This Viral Speech Shows How We Win Back Rural America: "Voters aren't tuning out because they don't care. They're tuning out because they've been exhausted by fake choices, sold out by both parties, and tired of inauthenticity."

Chuck Eddy [07-18] A Load of Records Off My Back. Mixed feelings here, including some I simply don't want to think about. My only serious attempt to sell my music was in 1999 in New Jersey, when we were moving and the LPs seemed like a lot of dead weight -- not least because some flood water seeped into still-packed boxes in the basement, making me think that if I couldn't take better care, I didn't deserve to own such things. I did spend many hours salvaging what I could from the mess: cleaning pulp out of the grooves of vinyl, putting them in blank sleeves. I mostly kept old jazz that I thought I might want to refer back to. I probably saved more money in moving charges than I made selling them. We moved here in 1999, and since then I've never sold anything. I do think of disposing of much of what I have, but it's a lot of trouble for very little reward (and I don't just mean money). Chuck's story doesn't inspire me, but I suppose it's worth knowing that if he can do it, maybe there's hope for me.

Obituaries: Last time I did an obituary roll was May 14, so we have some catching up to do. This is quickly assembled, mostly from New York Times obituaries.

  • John Ganz [06-05] The Last True Fascist: "Michael Ledeen and the 'left-hand path' to American Fascism." I remember him as the right-wing ideologue of the poli sci department at Washington University, back in the early 1970s when I was a sociology student there. I never had any dealings with him, but friends who majored there loathed him (and vice versa, I'm sure). This was well before he became famous for putting bad ideas into worse practice. But while I always knew him as an ogre, this adds much more detail and nuance.

  • John Fordham [07-27] Louis Moholo-Moholo obituary: "Jazz drummer with the Blue Notes who brought enthralling new sounds from South Africa to the wider world in the 1960s."

  • Jannyu Scott [06-26] Bill Moyers, a Face of Public TV and Once a White House Voice, Dies at 91: One of the few people from the Johnson Administration to put Vietnam behind him and redeem himself with a long public service career. I have many memories of him, but the one that always seemed most telling was the story of how he tried to get Johnson to call his program "The Good Society" instead of "The Great Society." Like another politician who comes to mind, Johnson always wanted more, and never got it. (Mary Trump hit a similar note when she called her book, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man.)

  • Linda Greenhouse [05-09] David H. Souter, Republican Justice Who Allied With Court's Liberal Wing, Dies at 85: "He left conservatives bitterly disappointed with his migration from right to left, leading to the cry of "no more Souters." Which is to say that he was the last of the Republicans to allow decency, good sense, and respect for law to guide him instead of right-wing ideology. He was GWH Bush's second appointment to the Court (after Clarence Thomas), a New Hampshire fellow promoted by John Sununu to replace William J. Brennan (an Eisenhower appointment, and one of the most honorable Justices in my memory). While Reagan's appointment of Scalia sailed through without a hitch, he leaned so hard to the right that the later appointments of Bork and Thomas turned into pitched political battles. Some Democrats feared the same from Souter, but I remember at the time two bits of evidence that suggested otherwise. One was that he showed great respect for Brennan, and solicited his advice. The other was a comment by a friend, Elizabeth Fink, that Souter might surprise us, because as a bachelor he had lived an unconventional lifestyle. She proved right, as she so often was. (Another Liz Fink story: Chuck Shumer used to like to walk up to people on the street and ask them "how am I doing?" He did that to Liz once, and she answered curtly: "you're evil.")

  • Alex Traub [06-02] Alasdair MacIntyre, Philosopher Who Saw a 'New Dark Ages,' Dies at 96: On him, also see Samuel McIlhagga: The Anti-Modern Marxism of Alasdair MacIntyre.

  • Ludwig vanTrikt (66): He was one of our long-time voters in the Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll, from Philadelphia, worked in radio there and wrote for Cadence. Here are notes on Instagram and Echovita. I've corresponded with him a fair amount, and always found him warm and engaging. Mutual friends have described him as "a really good person," who generously "did what he had to do in whatever way he could."

  • Some more names I recognize: with New York Times obituaries. Connie Francis (singer, 87); David Gergen (political hack, 83); Michael Madsen (actor, 67); Jimmy Swaggart (preacher/con man, 90); Dave Parker (baseball, 74); Mick Ralphs (guitarist, 81); Lou Christie (singer, 82); Foday Musa Suso (kora player, 75); Sly Stone (bandleader, 82); Guy Klucevsek (accordion player, 78); Al Foster (drummer, 82); Loretta Swit (actress, 87); Bernard Kerik (crooked cop, 69); Tom Robbins (journalist, 76); Susan Brownmiller (feminist author, 90); Joe Louis Walker (blues singer-guitarist, 75); Johnny Rodriguez (country singer-guitarist, 73).

    Some more I didn't catch in the Times, but found in Wikipedia: Hal Galper (pianist, 87); Alan Bergman (songwriter, 99); Lalo Schifrin (composer, 93); Sven-Åke Johansson (drummer, 82); Brian Wilson (singer, 82); Robert Benton (film director, 92). Obviously, some names in the second list should have been caught in the first (Wilson, Benton). I also took a glance at Jazz Passings, noting a couple more names (like Aïyb Dieng and Brian Kellock), but mostly from earlier in the year.

No More Mister Nice Blog: This is becoming a regular feature. I may skip the occasional piece.

  • [07-10]: This former(?) right-wing extremist is a smarter Democrat than most of the Party's establishment: Joe Walsh, "who was an extremely conservative Republican member of Congress before he became a Never Trumper," interviewing Dean Phillips, who ran for president as a Democrat in 2024, but now says there's no room in the Democratic Party for both him and Mamdani.

    Moderate Democrats don't have to like Zohran Mamdani. But if they're certain he's bad for the party, they should simply say as little as possible about him. That way, they're not denigrating the party as a whole and they have more time to criticize Republicans -- y'know, the party they run against every election cycle? But Democrats apparently don't believe that criticizing only your opponents is good politics.

  • [07-11]: Republican vulnerabilities are obvious, but the Democratic Party doesn't seem to notice.

  • [07-12]: Live by the ooga-booga, die by the ooga-booga.

  • [07-13]: Oh, look, it's time for the downfall of Trumpism (again): He's being sarcastic. Surely he knows better than to take David French's word for unease among the Magadom, especially over a charge as ridiculous as pedophilia: the reason they love to attack liberals for that is because they like to see them squirm and recoil in disgust (or look defensive in denial), not because they care one whit about the issue. And if you do manage to prove that Trump is guilty, that's just one more feather in the badass plumage they love him for. But this piece eventually comes around: "Republicans don't really fight one another. They hate us too much to do that."

  • [07-14]: This is how Trump thinks he'll turn the page on Epstein? Looks like he's doing some "wag the dog" over Ukraine. He's turning so belligerent that Lindsey Graham is on board.

  • [07-16]: Establishment Democrats choose the least appealing option: There's a lot here on how many of the young male-oriented podcasts that turned toward Trump in 2024 are turning against him, but not toward the Democratic Party (although Sanders and Mamdani have been picking up support):

    The one political philosophy that doesn't appeal to young voters is mealy-mouthed left-centrism, but that's precisely what Democratic leaders seem to want to give us all. They don't even want the Democratic Party to be a big tent that includes progressives, even though progressives seem to have solved the problem -- winning back young voters -- that the party is paying consultants millions to solve.

    There's a fumbled sentence next to the end here. I think what he means is that the party mainstream is so afraid of losing billionaire donors that they've forgotten that elections are ultimately about winning more votes. The Harris campaign offered pretty conclusive proof that raising more money doesn't guarantee winning, especially when you lose all respect doing so.

Mid-Year Music Lists: I usually collect these under Music Week, but it's probably easier here.

Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll: Mid-Year 2025: I had hoped to see more press about our poll, and fear that once again I dropped the ball after struggling so just to get my piece published. I'll collect whatever relevant articles I find here. One sidelight: DownBeat published their 73rd Annual Critics Poll on the same day, competing with our claim to be the biggest critics poll anywhere. I don't mind. I'm not competitive in that way. I'm pleased to see many of our voters getting belated but much-deserved invites, and I suspect that they helped lift the margins of their major category winners this year, especially: Anthony Braxton (Hall of Fame); James Brandon Lewis (artist of the year); Mary Halvorson (group of the year); and Patricia Brennan (album of the year, our winner last year, Breaking Stretch; our Mid-Year winner, Steve Lehman's Plays the Music of Anthony Braxton came out after their disorienting April 1 dividing line, so not a fair comparison there). I'll have to look at their poll more closely, including the list of 251 voting critics, and write more on it later. I did, however, annotate my own ballot here.

Tweets:

  • Middle Age Riot: Picture of bleeding Trump with fist raised:

    FLASHBACK: One year ago, this was staged, I mean happened.

    sassymaster commented:

    you can't grow an ear back. What's the shooter's name? Why no 24 hour media coverage about the shooter. Maybe Jake Tapper will write a book with the answers.

    I threw in this lost-gestating comment:

    Isn't there an Agatha Christie book where the murderer shoots herself in the ear to deflect attention by pretending to be the target? The ear looks good: it bleeds profusely, and is scary close to the brain, but it's safer than anywhere else, so if you were going to fake a shooting, that's the way [to do it].

    I thought of that at the time -- we had just finished a massive Agatha Christie TV binge -- but discounted it only because I couldn't imagine how they thought they could keep such a scam secret. Of course, he wouldn't have had to shoot himself. Once he dropped to the ground, he could clamp a tiny explosive to the ear and detonate it. Killing the supporter behind him made it look more real, and killing the "shooter" on the distant roof brought the story to a sweet ending. The second "assassin" lurking at the golf course further sold the story, which couldn't have been better scripted to propel his "miraculous comeback." And his media critics are so conditioned to never believe conspiracy stories they never questioned it.

  • Laura Tillem [07-13]:

    Just watched the PBS Hannah Arendt documentary. Let me count the ways it is like now:

    1. The rise of Hitler so very much like Trump whipping up hatred against all kinds of people.
    2. The deliberate starvation of the Jews to the point of extermination like Israel's concentration camps in Gaza. As currently being described by Holocaust scholars.
    3. The rise of McCarthy and the searching out and turning in and persecuting dissent in the universities. Like Canary Mission et al.
    4. The lawlessness of Nixon just like Trump.

    Makes me sick.

The Intercept [07-19] No American Gulags. I gets tons of fundraising emails, and delete them nearly as fast as they come in. This looked like one, but is actually an action pitch -- something else I get lots of and quickly delete. If you want to sign up, the link will get you there. But I was struck by the text, which deserves a place here (their bold):

When unidentified people in masks jump out of unmarked vehicles, handcuff someone, take them to an undisclosed location, and detain them indefinitely, that's not law enforcement. It's kidnapping.

When the U.S. government then sends people it's kidnapped to a foreign country, the practice escalates to human trafficking.

ICE is creating a global pipeline of American-sponsored gulags in countries often notorious for violence and human rights violations.

People sent to these overseas prisons have no idea how long they'll remain incarcerated in a country that is not their home.

The U.S. Constitution is clear: Not only is every person entitled to due process in a court of law, but even those convicted of crimes must not endure cruel and unusual punishment.

More than 71 percent of current ICE detainees have no criminal conviction — and still ICE trafficked detainees to CECOT, the infamous Salvadoran torture prison where it's been said "the only way out is in a coffin."

There should be no such thing as an American gulag.

Current count: 276 links, 13502 words (17370 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Friday, June 27, 2025

Loose Tabs

This is an occasional collection of newsworthy links and comments, much less systematic than what I attempted in my late Speaking of Which posts. The new name comes from my extensive use of browser tabs. When I get around to cleaning up, I often find tabs opened to old articles I might want to comment on and/or refer back to. So these posts are mostly housecleaning, but may also serve as a very limited but persistent record of what 20+ years ago I started calling "the end of the American empire" and nowadays feels more like "the end of civilization." I collect these bits in a draft file, and flush them out when periodically. My previous one appeared 23 days ago, on June 4.

I've been busy working on the Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll: Mid-Year 2025, which may seem a bit like "fiddling while Rome burns," but quite frankly, we'd all be much better off catching up with this year's still-remarkable parade of new jazz releases, including another bounty of dusted-off oldies, than we are helplessly watching Fox and CNN regale us with what little they can grasp of the world, and how little they -- let alone the actors and ideologues they report on -- understand of it. Jazz is, after all, music for people who take pleasure in thinking about what gives them pleasure, and often who are willing to expose themselves to the frontiers of human creativity. Politics is something nearly opposite: it hurts to even think about it, in large part because it's hard to recognize as human people who are so full of greed, petty hate, and lust for power, the class of people who promote themselves as others' expense, you know, the "newsmakers."

Note that the long comment on Ezra Klein and the long intro on Israel were written a couple weeks ago -- the latter after the bombing of Iran started, but I haven't tried to update it. Most of the tweets were collected as the popped up. (I could probably build whole posts out of them, but they'd be even more scattered than this forum is.) The music stuff has also been sitting around (but I should update the mid-year lists -- or more likely, I may keep adding to that section). Most of the rest of the comments are of recent vintage, even if the articles are a bit old. No doubt I'm missing some major stories. One I'm aware of is the New York mayoral primary, as a lot of my sources are thrilled by how well Mamdani has fared and/or afraid of what establishment Democrats may try to do to sabotage him. I'm going to go ahead and post whatever I have by bedtime, then return tomorrow to my jazz poll and whatever else I have need of working on.

PS: I posted this, incomplete and scattered as it is, end of Friday, figuring I should start Saturday off with a clean state, to get back to working on the Poll. But my mailbox was empty when I got up Saturday morning, and I noticed a couple typos to fix here. (They're not flagged with change marks, which only seem to work on whole blocks.) Then I found some more loose tabs, so added a couple of those. I'll add more in my spare time throughout the day, but there's clearly much more news that fits.

Posting the update on Monday, along with Music Week. I've been extremely swamped working on Poll stuff, so apologies for all I missed or merely glossed over.

Israel: I'm loathe to group articles, but there's too much here not to, especially given the rate at which it is piling up. I've been thinking about revolution lately. It's taken me a while because first I had to disabuse myself of the idea that revolutions are good things. That idea was deeply cemented in my brain because first I was taught that the American Revolution was a good thing, overthrowing monarchy and aristocracy to establish an independent self-governing democracy. Then the US Civil War was a second good revolution, as it ended slavery. Such events, as well as less violent upheavals like the New Deal and the movements of the 1960s made for progress towards equal rights and justice for all. Moreover, one could point to revolutions elsewhere that made for similar progress, although they often seemed somewhat messier than the American models. That progress seemed like an implacable tectonic force, driving both revolution and reform. And when you put more pressure on an object than it can resist, it either bends or breaks. So I came to see revolutions not as heroic acts of good intentions overcoming repression but as proof that the old order is hard and can only give way by shattering. France and Russia are the key examples: both absolute monarchies that could not reform, so had to be overturned. China, Vietnam, and Cuba were variations on that same theme. So was Iran, which was harder to see as any kind of shift toward the progressive left.

Meanwhile, leftists became more aware of the downsides of revolution, and wherever feasible more interested in reforms, reducing militancy to ritualized non-violent protest. On the other hand, while right-wingers also protest, they are more likely to escalate to violence, probably because right-wing regimes so readily resort to violence to maintain control. The result is that revolutions are more likely to come from the right these days than from the left. Which can be awkward for people who were brought up to see revolutions as progressive.

I'm bringing this up under Israel because Israel's far-right coalition government, going back to its formation before the Gaza uprising of Oct. 7, 2023, makes much more sense when viewed as a revolutionary force. The single defining feature of all revolutionary forces is independent of their ideologies, which are all over the map, but has to do with with simple discovery that people previously denied power now find themselves free to test their limits -- which leads them to act to excess, as long as their is no significant resistance.

This may seem surprising given that Netanyahu has been in power off-and-on since the late 1990s. While his sympathies have always been with the far-right fringe of Zionism, and he's consistently pushed the envelope of what's possible in Israel and the world, he has always before exhibited a degree of caution. But since Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who were long identified not just as outsiders but as criminals, joined his coalition, they have effectively driven Israel's agenda: the genocide in Gaza, expropriation and terrorism in the West Bank, military adventurism in Lebanon and Syria, and not starting a war with Iran. Only a truly revolutionary government can go so far off the rails so fast and so carelessly.

Once you dispense with the assumption that revolutions have to be progressive, you'll find plenty of other examples, both left and right, some (like the French) oscillating between two poles, some generated from below (like the French or Russian), some from guerrilla wars (like Cuba and Afghanistan), some were simply gifted (like the Red Army's installation of Kim Il Sung, whose decision to invade the South was not directed by Moscow, nor effectively throttled), or more relevant here Hindenburg's appointment of Hitler as chancellor (the main difference between Hindenburg and Netanyahu is that the former died soon and was forgotten, whereas Netanyahu continues as the figurehead for a regime spinning out of control.

One might note that Israel has always been a revolutionary state (more or less). Ben-Gurion was more artful than Netanyahu, but he always wanted much more than he could get, and took every advantage to extend the limits of his power. Had he believed his own rhetoric in 1947 when he was campaigning for the UN partition plan, he would have legitimated his victory in 1950, but instead he still refused to negotiate borders, biding his time while building up the demographic, economic, and military strength to launch future wars (as happened in 1956, 1967, 1982, up to this very day. When his successor, Moshe Sharett, threatened peace, he seized power again and put Israel back on its war path. He was shrewd enough to caution against occupation in 1967, but as soon as war seemed to triumph, he got swept up in the excitement. Nothing stimulates the fanatic fervor of a revolutionary like seeing what you took to be limits melt away. Just look at Hitler after Munich, or Netanyahu after his American allies encouraged his long-dreamt-of program of extermination.

We should be clear that until 2023, Israel's "final solution" was just a dream -- not that it was never acted on (e.g., Deir Yassin), but most dreams, no matter how vile, are harmlessly forgotten. We can date it way back, easily through Ben-Gurion and Jabotinsky, perhaps to the foundings of Zionism with Herzl. And we know well that settler colonialism, even when one imagines and/or professes benign intentions, is conducive to genocide -- perhaps not inexorably, but we have enough of a sample to draw that conclusion. What allowed Israeli dreams to be turned into action was the realization that the restraints which had inhibited Israeli leaders in the past had lost all force, and could be ignored with no consequences.

  • Richard Silverstein [06-06] Shin Bet's Palestinian Proxies Are Gaza Gangsters: I've read a ton of books on Israel/Palestine, but two I never got to but always wished I had are Hillel Cohen's books on Israel's manipulation of Palestinian collaborators: Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948 (2008), and Good Arabs: The Israeli Security Agencies and the Israeli Arabs, 1948-1967. I imagine the series could continue up to the present day, and will whenever the relevant archives are opened. Given this history, that Israel should be organizing and even arming Palestinian gangs is hardly a surprise, but underscores more forcefully than ever the moral bankruptcy of the occupation. Another lesson that one should draw from this is the realization that if Israel wanted Palestinians to have a stable and docile government, they could easily find people to lead it, and deliver enough respect and dignity to keep those leaders democratically elected. That they don't so isn't due to the intransigent militance of the Palestinian masses, but to their conviction that they can win by grinding the Palestinians into dust.

  • Zack Beauchamp [06-13] The Israel-Iran war hinges on three big things: "It's impossible to know how this war will end. But here's how to make sense of it." Section heads: "What is Israel's objective?"; "Can Iran fight back?"; "How does Iran think about the bomb after this?" All of these points are fairly superficial: the first draws way too much on what Israel says, much of which is obviously misleading; the others ignore what Iran says, and especially the question of whether Iran wants to fight back, or even to fight in the first place. Like many critics, this piece attempts to approximate objectivity by hedging while remaining trapped in a profoundly distorted cloud of propaganda. (The word I first thought of was noosphere, but I settled for a plainer term, which puts more emphasis on its distinctly political construction. Beauchamp is not an apologist for Israel, but he is also not fully independent of a society that accepts the legitimacy of hasbara.) Beauchamp followed this piece with more:

    • Zack Beauchamp [06-22]: Three ways Trump's attack on Iran could spin out of control: "How does this war end?" Which, of course, misses the obvious point, which is that Israel doesn't want this (or any) war to end. They'd be happy to keep periodically "mowing the grass," as they did for well over a decade in Gaza, and if that ever blows back on them, they'd be happy to demolish the entire country (especially given that the prevailing winds for nuclear fallout are blowing away from Israel). The only practical limit on Israel's warmaking is financial: as long as the US is willing to foot the bills, and the American political system is effectively a wholly owned subsidiary of pro-Israeli donors, they're happy to fight on, oblivious to the consequences.

    • Zack Beauchamp [06-18] Trump doesn't have a foreign policy: "What he has instead is the promise of chaos." Instincts not reason, a blind faith that chaos will always break in your favor. He surrounds himself with people who tell him he's on a mission from God. And so far he's gotten away with pretty much everything, so doubt and worry are for losers.

    • Eric Levitz [06-23] 3 ways Americans could pay for Trump's war with Iran: "The conflict could take a toll in both blood and money." Section heads: "How Trump's war on Iran could impact the economy"; "Trump's attack has put American soldiers in harm's way"; "Trump may have made an Iranian nuclear weapon more likely." These are all pretty likely, and much more is remotely possible. Israeli/US aggression against Iran is a species of the Madman Theory, which can only work if the other side remains sane. (Indeed, that's true for all deterrence theories.) One problem here is that the more successful you are at decapitating responsible enemy leadership, the more likely you are to promote someone who's lost his marbles.

  • Chris Hedges [06-10] Genocide by Starvation. Also led me to:

  • Tony Karon [06-18] Tony Judt was right about Israel, wrong about the West. Bob Marley did warn us: "As long as we rely on the existing constellations of nation states, decolonization will remain a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained."

    So, all stakeholders need to understand that they're not dealing with the America they knew 30 or 20 or even 10 years ago. The crumbling edifice has entirely collapsed, and is unlikely to return. There will be no Pax Americana, because Washington no longer sees any incentive to taking that level of responsibility for anything. As the President sounds off like a cartoon gangster from an ancient Hollywood movie threatening to murder Iran's leader and to devastate its capital. The only sure bet here is that even if it did manage to topple Iran's regime, the U.S. of today has no interest in sticking around to manage the chaos that would follow. As Trump made clear in a recent speech in Saudi Arabia, the U.S. is done with "nation-building." (And as it has proven in Iraq and Afghanistan, its unmatched ability to destroy things is paralleled by epic failure to build anything of use to it on the ruins.

    The end of the article is also worth quoting here:

    Gramsci might have called it a morbid interregnum in which the old is dying but the new is unable to be born. But as the late, great Mike Davis wrote in what turned out to be his farewell missive, "Everyone is quoting Gramsci on the interregnum, but that assumes that something new will be or could be born. I doubt it. I think what we must diagnose instead is a ruling class brain tumour: a growing inability to achieve any coherent understanding of global change as a basis for defining common interests and formulating large-scale strategies . . . Unlike the high Cold War when politburos, parliaments, presidential cabinets and general staffs to some extent countervailed megalomania at the top, there are few safety switches between today's maximum leaders and Armageddon. Never has so much fused economic, mediatic and military power been put into so few hands."

    Which means humanity only has a future to the extent that it can take power from those destructive hands, and collectively chart a different course independent of the tumor-stricken ruling classes called out by Davis.

    By the way, my favorite line in the Davis piece comes early: "In a world where a thousand gilded oligarchs, billionaire sheikhs, and Silicon deities rule the human future, we should not be surprised to discover that greed breeds reptilian minds."

  • Ahmed Ahmed/Ibtisam Mahdi [06-20] 'The Hunger Games': Inside Israel's aid death traps for starving Gazans: "Near-daily massacres as food distribution sites have killed over 400 Palestinians in the past month alone."

  • Orly Noy [06-20] Why everything Israelis think they know about Iran is wrong: "For historian Lion Sternfeld, Israel's regime change fantasies ignore realities inside Iran and risk repeating historic mistakes."

  • Jamal Kanj [06-25] Ceasefire Not Peace: How Netanyahu and AIPAC Outsourced Israel's War to Trump? This article explains a lot about Israel's policy of sowing chaos throughout the Middle East, dating it to the 1982 Yinon Plan. That's one I was unfamiliar with, but it makes a lot of sense, and is consistent with a lot of otherwise bizarre behavior, like the practice of seemingly random bombings of Syria (and Lebanon and Iraq and now Iran) just meant to inflict terror. In 1979, after the Carter-brokered peace agreement with Egypt, Israel could have negotiated similar deals with Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, and come up with some kind of decent implementation of their promise of "autonomy" for the remaining Palestinians, but instead they lashed out at Lebanon and doubled down on repression and settlement in the occupied territories. I don't know whether the Yinon Plan was a blueprint or just a reflection of the mindset which Begin had brought to power, but which was latent in previous decades of Labor Zionism.

  • Vijay Prashad [06-25] Why the US Strikes on Iran Will Increase Nuclear Weapons Proliferation. This is pretty obvious, yet rarely seems to be factored into the war plans of the US and Israel, which invariably underestimate future risks. But there is little evidence that the US cares about nonproliferation anymore.

  • Rahman Bouzari [06-26] Against Israel's New Middle East Vision. Israel "issued an evacuation order for Tehran"?

  • Jeff Halper [06-24] Global Palestine: Israel, the Palestinians, the Middle East and the World After the American Attack on Iran.

  • Medea Benjamin/Nicolas JS Davies [06-25] How the US & Israel Used Rafael Grossi to Hijack the IAEA and Start a War on Iran. Grossi is Director General of the watchdog group that is supposed to monitor nuclear power and weapons programs around the world. This has a lot of detail on its operations and how the information they collect can be abused.

  • Richard Silverstein [06-23] Regime Change in Iran Will Not End Well.

  • Asa Winstanley [06-10] Illegal police raid on my home won't stop me covering Gaza: "The police broke the law when they ransacked my house. When will they stop harassing pro-Palestine journalists?" Winstanley is British, author of the book, Weaponising Anti-Semitism: H ow the Israel Lobby Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn (2023).

  • Branko Marcetic [06-18] Tulsi said Iran not building nukes. One senator after another ignored her: "seems like an odd thing to do unless you really want to go to war."

  • Tom Collina [06-08] Killing the Iran nuclear deal was one of Trump's biggest failures. It's not unusual for bad decisions to take years to mature into full-blown catastrophes. Not that he didn't produce enough immediate disasters, but the tragic costs of Trump's first term continue to emerge. Trump's surrender to Israel in scuttling the JCPOA, along with his let's-just-normalize-business-and-fuck-the-Palestinians Abraham Accords, as well as his signal that the US would always back Israel no questions asked, have lead directly to the current war and genocide. He bungled Ukraine and Afghanistan as bad, and probably North Korea too (although thus far Kim Jong Un has had the good sense not to embarrass him there). Back when Trump was first elected, I stressed that his presidency would result in four severe years of opportunity costs. The assumption there was that most of what he did wrong could later be reversed. That's proven difficult, and not just for lack of trying -- Biden not only didn't reverse Trump on Israel and Ukraine but made matters worse, and that's probably true, if less evident, for Afghanistan and North Korea as well. His second term is likely to be even more irreversible.

  • Jamal Abdi [06-29] How Biden Is to Blame for Israel and the US's 12-Day War Against Iran: "Biden's failure to reenter Obama's nuclear deal helped create the risk for a potentially catastrophic US war against Iran."

  • Jason Ditz [06-12] Israeli Minister Calls for Israeli Control Over Syria and Lebanon: So says Avichai Eliyahu, Heritage Minister and grandson of a former Sephardi Chief Rabbi, whose solution for Gaza is "they need to starve."

  • Jonah Shepp [06-21] 'Regime Change' Won't Liberate Iran: Not that anyone in Israel or the US cares a whit about liberating Iran. Nudging it from one orbit of misery to another, preferably lower one, is all they really care about.

  • Mitchell Plitnick [06-27]: What comes next following the US-Israeli war on Iran? Follows up on his previous article:

    • Mitchell Plitnick [06-13]: How Israel and the US manufactured a fake crisis with Iran that could lead to all-out war. I think he's right that nothing that happened has turned out very satisfactorily for any party. However, his reason for Israel starting the war needs a bit of elaboration: "The purpose of 'Iran nuclear issue' sham is and has always been to create a regime-change bloc in Washington and Brussells to force the Islanic Republic from power." "Regime change" in Iran isn't a realistic goal, but it holds out the false promise of an end to the war other than complete failure, which helps keep the Washington and Bussells blocs bound to, and subservient to, Israel.

  • Jeremy R Hammond [06-26] Lessons Unlearned from Israel's Bombing of Iraq's Osirak Reactor: "The claim that Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 halted or set back Saddam Hussein's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability is a popular myth."

  • Elfadil Ibrahim [06-24] Israeli-fueled fantasy to bring back Shah has absolutely no juice. That the author even considers the hypothetical gives this idea far more credit than it deserves.

  • Sanya Mansoor [06-27] Israeli soldiers killed at least 410 people at food aid sites in Gaza this month: "Israeli soldiers and officers have said they were ordered to shoot at unarmed civilians waiting for food in Gaza."

Yanis Varoufakis [05-06] In the EU nothing succeeds like gross failure: The astonishing case of Ursula von der Leyen. She is president of the European Union, elected for a second term, and recipient of some big deal prize, although she's mostly been in the news lately for her cheerleading of Israel's Gaza genocide.

Eric Alterman [05-08] The Coming Jewish Civil War Over Donald Trump: "Trump is offering American Jews a kind of devil's bargain: throw in with us against the antisemitic universities and campus rabble-rousers, but pay no attention as we dismantle the traditions and institutions that Jews value." This article has a lot of useful information, especially the first section which shows pretty clearly how Trump is still an anti-semite, and how his particular brand of anti-semitism is especially ominous for American Jews.

Gabrielle Gurley [05-20] Republicans Break the Weather: "The private sector can't match the value proposition of the National Weather Service, but companies work to entice Americans to pay up anyway. What happens if they can't?"

Phil Freeman [05-22] Why Do You Hate Jazz? Who, me? This is Freeman's monthly column, with his monthly batch of 10 jazz album reviews (5 I've heard, only one A- so far: Horace Tapscott), but his intro is a review of a book by Andrew Berish, Hating Jazz: A History of Its Disparagement, Mockery, and Other Forms of Abuse (2025, University of Chicago Press). Turns out that neither Berish nor Freeman hate jazz, and of course there are things one can learn from their chronicle of people who do. But I'm not exactly psyched to find out. It's a bit like trying to survey "unhappy families": there are so many, so different, and ultimately so pointless. I should, however, check out the other five albums Freeman likes.

Adam Tooze [05-23] Chartbook 387: What fires burned at Auschwitz? On the place of the Holocaust in uneven and combined development. This is a long and very technical piece, the main point being to argue against exaggerating the size and importance of the "death factories" in comparison to much larger logistical concerns of running the war. Toward the end of the article, Tooze also mentions the Manhattan Project: "In this sense the coincidence of the Final Solution and the Manhattan project is significant, not for their identity, but because of the juxtaposition of two such incongruous projects of modern killing." Among Tooze's many recent posts, a couple more that caught my eye:

  • [06-08] Chartbook 389: Europe's zombie armies. Or how to spend $3.1 trillion and have precious little to show for it. "European militaries are repeatedly out of their depths in facing the new world created by Russia attack on Ukraine." The American solution is to spend vast additional sums on warmaking systems -- "to increase their budgets to 3.5 percent of GDP, or even 5 percent" -- but what will they get for all that money? (I was tempted to say "bang for the buck," but bang is about all they'd get.) Relevant here:

  • [06-20] Chartbook 392: Incoming from outer space: The geo-military radicalism of Iran v. Israel 2025. "It takes a conscious effort to comprehend just how extraordinary this war is."

    I don't mean by that the politics of the Iran-Israel clash: the huge international effort to anathematize the idea of an Iranian nuke; or the conflation of Israel's utterly ruthless strategy of preemption and regional dominance with anodyne assertions of its right to self-defense. I mean the strangeness and novelty of the war itself, as a war.

    Tooze focuses on technical issues, the rockets and the distances and the extreme difficulty of intercepting ICBMs, and adds this on top of the vast expansion of drone warfare, which he associates with Ukraine/Russia but was largely developed by the US since 2001. This leaves aside the more political and philosophical points, like why did anyone think this high-tech warfare would work in the first place?

  • [06-22] Chartbook 393: Whither China? - World Economy Now, June 2025 Edition: ". . . or 'Quality into quantity': how to see China's historic development through the veil of macroeconomics." Nearly everything I read about China's economy reeks of preconception and self-absorption, often in support of a transparent political agenda. This one present a ton of information -- much more than I can deal with at the moment -- without the stench, perhaps because there is no stab at a conclusion: just the observation that self-identity as a "developing country" allows for an even brighter future. "Once you are 'advanced,' you are declining."

Barry S Edwards [05-29] Why Did Americans Elect a Felon Instead of a Prosecutor: I would have started with the observation that a great many Americans actually admire criminals. As someone whose childhood was rooted in the years when the Hays Office Code was still in effect, I tend to date this to the emergence of TV shows like It Takes a Thief (1968-70) and movies like The Dirty Dozen (1967), which showed how bad people could be employed to "do good" as defined by American political powers, but said powers' culpability for criminal malfeasance goes back deeper, becoming even more obvious during the Vietnam War. But Edwards starts with mass incarceration. While that could be cited as evidence that Americans are sticklers for rules, it also exposes how arbitrary and capricious the police state is, which erodes confidence in what they call justice. In that system, it is easy to see prosecutors as cruel political opportunists, and "criminals" as their victims -- even when they're as guilty as Trump.

Also at Washington Monthly:

Jared Abbott/Dustin Guastella [05-30] What Caused the Democrats' No-Show Problem in 2024? "New data sheds light on the policy preferences of nonvoting Democrats in the last election." They add "it may disappoint some progressives," but it looks to me like data we can work with. Unlike the cartoon progressives characterized here, I don't have any real complaints that Harris didn't run on sufficiently progressive policy stances. The big problem she (and many other Democrats) had was that voters didn't believe they would or could deliver on their promises. And a big part of that was because they cozied up to the rich and put such focus on raising money that voters often felt they were an afterthought, or maybe not even that.

Sarah Viren [06-06] A Professor Was Fired for Her Politics. Is That the Future of Academia? "Maura Finkelstein is one of many scholars discovering that the traditional protections of academic freedom are no longer holding."

Ezra Klein [06-08] The Problems Democrats Don't Like to See: The co-author of Abundance defends his book and its political program, mostly from critics on the left, who see it as warmed-over, trickle-down growth fetishism that pro-business centrist ("new") Democrats have been have been peddling as the only viable alternative to whatever it is that Republicans have been peddling since Reagan or Goldwater. Unfortunately, both of these ideologies are often critiqued, or just labeled, as "neoliberalism": indeed, they have much in common, most notably the view that private sector capitalism is the only true driving force in the economy, even as it requires increasing favors from the public, including tolerance of high degrees of inequality, corruption, and deceit; the main difference is in ethics, where Democrats tend to be liberal (which is more often hands-off than helping), and Republicans tend to be laissez-faire (which is to say none, or more specifically that any pursuit of money is to be honored), not that they aren't quite eager to impose constraints on others (sometimes as "morality," often just as power). I wish we could straighten this terminological muddle out, as the net effect is to make the "neoliberal" term unusable, and the themes indescribable. This extends to "neoconservative," which has no practical distinction from "neoliberal": they are simply Janus masks, where the former is used to look mean, and the latter to look kind.

Klein's article originally had a different title: The Abundance Agenda Has Its Own Theory of Power. By the way, that link is from a reddit thread. I've never paid any attention to reddit, but the link has a number of interesting and insightful comments, including this one:

I think Ezra is largely right that the populist left needs to: a) work off of an actual coherent vision of the world and b) understand the risks of simplifying policy to simplify politics

To which someone else adds:

It's unironically even simpler than this and makes it wild that the progressives have been unable to figure out Abundance. The entire book and thesis can be boiled down to "the party of big government needs to make government actually work."

That's it. That's the whole thing. The rest of it is presenting theories for different areas that need more or less regulation, for enabling policy to take shape, etc. But that's literally the entire bag. . . .

It's not about a platform for winning elections, it's about materially making peoples' lives better so that they trust you when you say you want to do things.

One thing I've repeatedly tried to stress is that there are major asymmetries between the two big political parties. One is that while both parties have to compete to win votes -- for better or worse, most effectively by impugning the other party -- only the Democrats actually have to deliver on their promises by governing effectively. Republicans have cynically peddled the line that government is the problem, so all they are promising is to hobble it (for which they have many easy tools, including tax cuts, deregulation, corruption, and incompetence). Needless to say, when Republican administrations succeed in their sabotage, Americans are likely to vote them out, but by then they've dug enough holes that Democrats can never quite build their way out, let along deliver tangible benefits, leaving Republicans set up for the next round of political demagoguery.

So I think we should welcome whatever help Klein & Thompson have to offer toward making Democratic government more competent and fruitful. However, before one can implement policy, one has to win elections, so it's no surprise that Democrats of all stripes will focus immediately on the book's political utility. That's why Klein is perplexed: that the Democrats he was most critical of -- "blue-state governors like Gavin Newsom and Kathy Hochul and top Obama and Biden administration officials" who actually had power they could work with but have little to show for their efforts -- have embraced the "Abundance agenda," while "some of my friends on the populist left" have raised objections. He then goes on to develop his "theory of power," contrasting his own "more classically liberal" credo against "the populist theory of power," under which "bad policy can be -- and often is -- justified as good politics." This part of his argument is somewhat less than coherent -- even if I gave up my reluctance to accept his redefinition of "populism" -- and unlikely to be useful anyway.[*]

In his conclusion, Klein says:

So I don't see any contradiction between "Abundance" and the goals of the left. I don't think achieving the goals of the modern left is even possible without the overhaul of the state that "Abundance" envisions.

I haven't read his book[**], so I can't point to specifics one way or the other, but I also don't see the contradiction: there certainly are goods and services that we could use more of, and that's even more true elsewhere in the world. And it would be good to produce them more efficiently, at lower cost, and/or higher quality, which is to say that we should work on better systems and policies. But while I don't doubt that there is room for growth on the supply side, the larger problem for most people is distribution: making sure that everyone's needs are met, which isn't happening under our current system of price-rationed scarcity. A more explicit identification with the left, including more emphasis on distribution, and acknowledgment of other important issues like precarity, debt, and peace, would have improved his points about building things and trust.

It also would have made his agenda harder to co-opt by Democratic politicians who are basically bought and paid for by rich donors, who seem to be little troubled by rare it is that most of their voters ever benefit from the crumbs left over from their corruption. As Robinson points out, "They insist that their agenda is not incompatible with social democracy and wealth redistribution. But it's clearly a different set of priorities." It's a set of priorities that cause no alarm to the donor class, and may even whet their appetite, and that's why their agenda has the appeal it has, and is drawing the criticism it deserves.[***]

[*] In Kansas, where Thomas Frank and I were born, populism was a decidedly left-wing movement, mostly rooted in debt-saddled free farmers (like my great-grandfather, not that I know anything about his politics). Frank defends this view in The People, No! A Brief History of Anti-Populism (2020). Also see his especially biting critique of the business/financial wing of the Democratic Party, Listen, Liberal! Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? (2016). It's easy to condemn liberals as elitist when they recoil so fervently against common folk, even if in theory they believe everyone should share in their blessings. As for theories of power, there are some that make sense. The largely forgotten Rooseveltian countervailing powers is one, with faint echoes in recent antitrust and pro-union work. Anarchists have a more negative theory of power -- negative both in the sense that power is intrinsically bad, and that in almost always generating resentment and blowback it is dysfunctional. As a child, I was exposed to the saying, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," and I've found that to be true.

[**] I wouldn't rule out reading the book in the future, especially if I find myself in need of boning up on certain technical issues like housing and infrastructure development. I read Klein's Why We're Polarized (2020), and found it to be worthwhile, especially for citing and digesting a lot of technical political science literature. I certainly wouldn't read him to expose him as an idiot and/or crook, as Nathan J Robinson suggests in his review below. I also wouldn't read Matthew Yglesias's One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger (2020) for that reason, although I'd probably find even more evidence there.

[***] Aside from political agenda and policy mechanics -- various critiques on specific policies, especially their lack of concern for "intellectual property" rents, which is a major cost concern, a source of artificial scarcity -- there is a third strain of criticism, having to do with growth itself. There is good reason to acknowledge that sooner or later growth will have to slow and stabilize, or we will eventually fall victim to crashes. This was my initial reaction to "Abundance," and one I'd like to return to at some point, but while such crashes may hypothetically not be distant in the future, they could be much better managed if only people were more able to deal with immediately pressing political problems.

  • Nathan J Robinson [06-13] Abandon "Abundance": "The latest Democratic fad sidelines equality and justice in favor of a focus on cutting red tape. This is not the path forward." After having complained about the masochism of having to read the book -- even after he's repeatedly made sport of dissecting much more obvious right-wing dimwits -- at least he admits this much: "Some of what's in Abundance is both true and important." The question this raises is whether, from a practical political standpoint, it does more good to cite Abundance in support of the "true and important" bits, or to discredit Klein & Thompson for the parts they get wrong, or that they use disingenuously. Robinson focuses on the latter, but that's what you'd expect from a critic (or just a rigorous thinker). For instance, he points out their use of motte-and-bailey arguments, which allow common sense to be turned into exaggerated claims, which when challenged can retreat into common sense. (I mean, who doesn't hate red tape?) Supporters can then pick and choose among such claims. For example, "Klein might personally believe in wealth redistribution and unions, but he's offered a great program for billionaires who don't want us to talk about the predations of the health insurance industry or big corporations crushing union drives. Let's talk about zoning reform instead!" He also points out how the authors ingratiate themselves with Democratic royalists by misrepresenting critics on the left: especially, "they spend more pages criticizing Ralph Nader and the degrowth movement (both politically marginal) than they do explaining how corporate power stands in the way of, for example, a universal healthcare system."

  • Nathan J Robinson [2024-12-03] Matt Yglesias Is Confidently Wrong About Everything: "The Biden administration's favorite centrist pundit produces smug psuedo-analysis that cannot be considered serious thought. He ought to be permanently disregarded." Yglesias and Klein are bound together as co-founders of Vox, from which they both bounded for more lucrative pastures. Yglesias in particular has repeatedly been a pioneer in new ways to exploit the internet. I read a lot by him for a long time, finally losing interest when he left Vox for Bloomberg and Substack and made his bid for the Thomas Friedman market with his One Billion Americans -- which fits in here as a prototype for Abundance. Because this piece came out back in December (when I was avoiding any and all news sources), Robinson doesn't dwell on that connections, while dwelling on numerous other faux pas. (It's impossible for me to mention either Yglesias or Klein in my household without being reminded of their support for the Iraq War.) I also just discovered that Robinson wrote a review of One Billion People back on [2020-11-13]: Why Nationalism Is a Brain Disease.

By the way, Mamdani showed us how a leftist can take the Abundance arguments and build on them instead of just carping about their compromises and blind spots, see:

  • Plain English with Derek Thompson [06-23] NYC Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani on Abundance, Socialism, and How to Change a Mind: An interview by the co-author of Abundance. Mamdani opens with a very precise and polished argument:

    As someone who is very passionate about public goods, about public service, I think that we on the left have to be equally passionate about public excellence. And one of the most compelling things that I think Abundance has brought into the larger conversation is how we can make government more effective, how we can actually deliver on the very ideas that we are so passionate about, and a recognition of the fact that any example of public inefficiency is an opportunity for the argument to be made against the very existence of the public sector.

    And so to truly make the case time and time again that local government has a role in providing that which is necessary to live a dignified life, you have to ensure that every example of government's attempt to do so is one that is actually successful. And I think that's what speaks to me about abundance. And I think that's the line in the speech that speaks of both who we're fighting for but also the fact that we're delivering on that fight. And it's one that is actually experienced each and every day by New Yorkers across the five boroughs.

  • Batul Hassan [06-23] Zohran Mamdani Is Proposing Green Abundance for the Many: Among other things, quotes Bernie Sanders, with his own framing: "The government must deliver an agenda of abundance that puts the 99 percent over the 1 percent."

  • Ross Barkan [03-26] Why 'Abundance' Isn't Enough: Looking for more of Sanders' thinking on Abundance, I found this, which posits Sanders as the better alternative. I don't see that one has to make the choice. But what should be clear is that inequality is the big picture problem, which cannot be ignored when dealing with smaller, more technical problems like "abundance."

Ben Rhodes [06-08] Corruption Has Flooded America. The Dams Are Breaking. I don't doubt that crypto represents yet another higher stage of corruption than ever before, but the dams broke long ago, most obviously in the "greed is good" 1980s, not that they ever held much water in the first place. "President Trump has more than doubled his personal wealth since starting his 2024 election campaign." But most of that is phony paper wealth, slathered onto his corpulence like flattery.

Henry Grabar [06-10] It's Robotaxi Summer. Buckle Up. "Waymo and Tesla offer competing -- and potentially bleak -- futures for self-driving cars in society."

Doug Henwood [06-13] We Have Always Lived in the Casino: "John Maynard Keynes warned that when real investment becomes the by-product of speculation, the result is often disaster. But it's hard to tell where one ends and the other begins." I flagged this because it seems like an interesting article, but I can't read it because it's behind their paywall. Speaking of which, some more articles I clicked on but cannot read:

  • Adam Serwer [05-27] The New Dark Age: "The Trump administration has launched an attack on knowledge itself." Starts talking about "the warlords who sacked Rome," suggesting that they were less culpable than Trump for the benighted period that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire. Maybe, or maybe not. But having read Jane Jacobs' Dark Ages Ahead (2005), I'm inclined to view Trump and his minions less as instigators of a Dark Age than as an example.

  • Adam Serwer [06-08] Musk and Trump Still Agree on One Thing: "Whatever they may be fighting about, they are both committed to showering tax cuts on Americans who already have more than they need."

Jeffrey St Clair

    [06-13] Roaming Charges: From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Venice Beach: "It's becoming clearer and clearer every day that the South finally won the Civil War and the Insurrectionists won J6." Also: "The drones are coming home to roost." Also quotes Greg Grandin: "Only fools believed Trump is somehow antiwar. He's not a break with neocons but their evolution."

  • [06-27] Roaming Charges: After Midnight: "Trump mega-bombed a mountain in Iran and called it peace." St Clair doubts the effectiveness of the bombing. I don't have any particular stake in that argument. Anything that was damaged in the bombing, including the people who were killed or maimed, can be replaced easily enough. The physics and technology of nuclear weapons have been understood since the 1940s. At the end of WWII, the US rounded up all of Germany's atomic physicists and holed them up on a farm on rural England. They had spent years fiddling and fumbling in their efforts to build even a simple reactor, but what confused them was their uncertainty that it might work. Within two days of hearing about Hiroshima, they figured out a functional design. They couldn't build one. That took the Russians four more years, not because they had to figure out how it worked, but because the materials were hard to come by, and the processes complex. It took France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea even longer, but they all did it, and the timelines have more to do with motivation than with skill. A number of other nations, most obviously Germany and Japan, have demonstrated they have all the skills they need. It is, after all, easier to get a bomb to blow up than it is to keep a power plant from melting down. Iran, too, has amply demonstrated that they have the necessary skills, and for that matter the materiel. Netanyahu was probably right way back in the 1990s that Iran could produce atomic bombs from their program within 3-5 years, or 6-12 months, or whatever time frame he was projecting to panic his people and allies. That Iran never met his timelines is primarily because they didn't see the point of actually having nuclear weapons. Perhaps they were thinking that if Israel and America could see that they could, that would be enough of a deterrent to keep them from being attacked. Perhaps that thinking even worked until now. The big problem with the "madman theory" is that it assumes the other side will always be the sane one, without bothering to examine one's own sanity in contemplating such a contest. Iran's quite rational notion of deterrence failed because Netanyahu and Trump have not only called Iran's bluff, they've upped the ante, giving Iran the one necessity it was lacking: motivation. The gamble is that Iran will still realize that nuclear weapons are useless, a fool's game. They only seem to have value as a deterrent, but that no longer works against Netanyahu and Trump, who act like they're daring Iran in hopes of burying the entire country under mushroom clouds. After all, what's the point of nuclear superiority if you can't use it to extort your enemies and force them to submit to your will?

    Also linked here:

    Further down, St Clair spots a tweet by Stephen Miller:

    The commentary about NYC Democrats nominating an anarchist-socialist for Mayor omits one point: how unchecked migration fundamentally remade the NYC electorate. Democrats change politics by changing voters. That's how you turn a city that defined US dominance into what it is now.

    That's a fairly accurate description of New York City, but from the 1880s through 1910s, when borders really were open (albeit only for whites). The result was a long series of Irish-, Italian-, and Jewish-American mayors. And he's right that their descendents, mostly with Democratic mayors, led New York City to a dominant position in American finance and culture. They've also made it the richest and least affordable city in America, but even with all that wealth few New Yorkers see Republican nihilism as an attractive proposition.

Peter Shamshiri [06-16] The Politics of Eternal Distraction: "To some Democrats, everything Trump does is designed to distract you." It's taken Democrats an awful long time to realize that much of what Trump does is sheer distraction, so when they point that out, along comes someone to attack you for overstating your insight: after all, some of what Trump does is so plainly damaging that he needs this other crap to distract you from what he's really doing. I can't sort this out right now, but I'd caution against thinking that the "distractions" are the harmless parts: they often reveal what Trump is thinking, even where he doesn't have the capacity to deliver. That he even says he wants to do something profoundly stupid should make you suspicious of everything else, even if superficially plausible. But also you have to guard against getting carried away responding to every feint he throws your way. The word "distraction" can help in that regard, if immediately followed by redirecting back to something important.

Charlotte Klein [06-19] Are You a $300,000 Writer? "Inside The Atlantic's extremely expensive hiring spree." A certain amount of professional jealousy is inevitable with articles like this, and is indeed much of the interest. I mean, they could hire me for much less than any of these writers I've mostly never heard of, and I could write some genuinely interesting content -- mostly innovative engineering solutions to tricky political problems -- that won't read like everyone else's warmed-over punditry. On the other hand, I probably wouldn't want to write what they're so eager to pay for. I don't know who's footing the bills behind their current menu, but they're up to no good.

Scott Lemieux [06-19] Getting the war criminals back together: Quotes Elisabeth Bumiller seeking the sage advise of a washed up US General:

One person who sees little similarity between the run up to Iraq and now is David H. Petraeus, the general who commanded American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and led the 101st Airborne Division in the initial invasion in Baghdad. "This is clearly the potential run up to military action, but it's not the invasion of a country," he said on Wednesday.

Mr. Trump, he said, should deliver an ultimatum to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, and order him to agree to the complete dismantlement of his nuclear program or face "the complete destruction of your country and your regime and your people." If the supreme leader rejects the ultimatum, Mr. Petraeus said, "that improves our legitimacy and then reluctantly we blow them to smithereens."

Nobody's even talking about fixing Iran here. There's no warning that "if you break it, you own it." They just want to fuck it up, leave it bruised and bleeding in a ditch somewhere, washing their hands of the whole affair . . . unless they have to come back and do it again, which they probably will. Sheer nihilists, because that's the power they think they have.

Ryan Cooper [06-20] Climate Change Will Bankrupt the Country: "Climate-fueled disasters cost America almost a trillion dollars over the last year, far more than economists predicted." By "economists" he's referring to work by William Nordhaus, which he was critical of at the time and even more so now. The price tag will only continue to rise, and with it private insurance becomes increasingly untenable. While this will be bad for everyone, the ones with the most to lose are property owners and lenders, who will experience ever greater precarity, and no doubt will finally be driven to attempt to socialize their risks. This will be a huge political factor in coming years. The phrase "too big to fail" will haunt us. And while one may debate the merits of bailing out individual companies, the whole country poses a somewhat different problem: who's big enough to bail us all out?

Josh Dawsey/Rebecca Ballhaus [06-20] Stephen Miller's Fingerprints Are on Everything in Trump's Second Term: "The deputy chief of staff has played an outsize role in immigration -- and amassed more power than almost anyone else at the White House." Also on Miller:

Naomi Bethune [06-24] ICE Impersonators Proliferate Amid the Agency's Undercover Tactics: "Pretending to be an ICE agent to commit crimes is disturbingly easy."

David Klion [06-24] State of Exception: National Security Governance, Then and Now.

Carol Schaeffer [06-27] NATO Rolls Out the Red Carpet for Trump, the President Who Would Be King: "The NATO secretary general has one mission: Keep Trump happy. And to keep Trump happy, you sacrifice your difnity and treat him like a monarch." I haven't followed the recent NATO summit or anything else tied to the organization, like NATO's ringing endorsement of bombing Iran, or the recent pledges to radically increase military spending (see "#0523Tooze">Tooze above), but it appears that Europe's military elite have overcome their first-term jitters and Biden-interregnum relief with the realization that it isn't ideological for Trump: you just have to suck up and pay up. And that seems to be what's going on here. What isn't clear yet is whether their governments will go along with the charade. Being a general has been a pretty pointless job in Europe since 1948 -- or since the 1960s for those states still holding down their colonies -- but irrelevancy has led to some degree of autonomy, which seems to be at play here. And if all it takes to make Trump happy is to buy a lot of crap and scrape and bow (or curtly salute), that just feathers their nests. The risk, of course, is that some Madeleine Albright will come along and dare them to use their arms, starting wars that will inevitably turn sour, but for now, Trump is a bonanza.

  • Anatol Lieven [06-20] The 17 Ukraine war peace terms the US must put before NATO. I originally had the Schaeffer article hung under a mere mention of this piece, then rediscovered it and wrote a longer comment, so I moved this piece here. Meanwhile, I wrote something longer on this piece into the drafts file, figuring I'd return to it later. I still may, but seeing as how it's already in play, let me quote myself here:

    "Threats must be imposed if either side or both reject these demands. The time is now." I've followed Lieven closely from well before Putin's military invasion of Ukraine, and I've found him to be a generally reliable guide, but I'm scratching my head a bit here. Certainly, if they all agreed to these 17 terms, far be it from me to object. But about half of them seem to add unnecessary complications just to check off superfluous talking points. For instance, "7. Ukraine introduces guarantees for Russian linguistic and cultural rights into the constitution. Russia does the same for Ukrainians in Russia." Why should either nation have its sovereignty so restrained? The first part was part of the Minsk Accords, and turned out to be a major sticking point for Ukrainian voters. Besides, the ceasefire line effectively removes most Russian-speakers from Ukraine. And how many Ukrainians are still living in Russian-occupied territory? The arms/NATO provisions also strike me as added complexity, especially on issues that should be addressed later. In the long run, I'm in favor of disbanding NATO, but that needs to be a separate, broader negotation with Russia, not something that is partly tucked into ending the war in Ukraine. I could expand on this, but not here, yet.

Ukraine is now wrapped up in the larger question of NATO, where the question is increasingly whether Europe will continue to accept its subordinate role in the imposition of a regime of Israeli-American militarism. For now, those in power seem willing to play (and pay) along, but how long will such an attitude remain popular in supposed democracies?

No More Mister Nice Blog: This might as well become a regular feature. I've skipped over a few pieces, mostly about the NYC mayor race, which are also of interest:

  • [06-10]: Gosh, if only there were a way to test the premise that the LA protests are an "80-20 issue" favoring Republicans: "Hand-wringing Trump critics think America won't vote for a candidate who's linked to controversial protests, and they cling to this belief even though America just elected the guy who did January 6." He also offers some sound advice:

    Why can't Trump critics be advocates for their own side? Why must they echo right-wing critiques of the protest movement? Given the way most Americans consume news these days, I'm guessing that it might not register on many voters that the protestors are waving Mexican flags (and that they should see this as a moral outrage) until they start hearing about the flags from both sides. (Compare this to the war on "woke" language: I'm sure most voters have now heard the word "Latinx" far more often from centrist Democratic language police than they have from actual "woke" Democrats.)

    I'll say it again: If your critique of Democrats/liberals/progressives echoes right-wing critiques, shut up. You're just an extra megaphone for the right, which doesn't need any help getting its messages out. . . . So please stop the tone policing, and stick up for your side.

    My bold.

  • [06-11]: Trump came into office wishing a mf'er would: "Two commentators I respect . . . believe that Donald Trump is militarizing Los Angeles out of weakness. I don't think that's true."

  • [06-13]: Everyone knows that only Republicans are normal!: "They're engaging in totalitarian repression, obviously, but they claim they're freeing people." Exmaples of Republican "normalcy" follow.

    Republicans struggle with the idea that anyone could possibly want to live in a place where people are of very different ethnic backgrounds, speak different languages, and have different religious beliefs (or non-beliefs), just as they struggle with the idea that anyone could be unalterably gay or bi or pan or trans just because they aren't. They struggle with the idea that anyone would want to live in a city where you can do most of your errands in a fifteen-minute radius, because they're used to long drives whenever you have to run errands. Increasingly, they're selling the message that everyone wants a marriage consisting of a male breadwinner and a stay-at-home "tradwife" who gives birth to large numbers of children, after marrying young (and preferably as a virgin), and they can't believe anyone really wants a life that's different from that.

    It is true that Republicans have chosen to represent an imagined majority: a large bloc of people who can be characterized as "true Americans" and flattered as "patriots." They can be treated as a socially and economically cohesive bloc, with some sleight of hand added to line them up behind the true economic powers. This has always been true: it was built into the design of the Republican Party in the 1850s, when white, protestant free soil farmers and small-time business and labor actually formed something close to a majority of voters. That's baked into the initials GOP, which writers (including me) find irresistible because we tire of overly repeating words, especially "Republican." (It's effectively a proprietary pronoun. One of the many asymmetries of our warped politics is that Democrats don't have an equivalent pronoun or alias.) Republicans are skating on thin ice here: their "majority" is thinning out, haphazardly reinforced as various ethnic groups become honorary whites, and various sects are accepted as close enough to protestants (the new term is "Judeo-Christian," with "Abrahamic" in the wings, held back by the political opportunism of anti-Islam bigotry.) But the larger risk Republicans run is that they don't represent their voters at all well. They lie to them, they steal from them, they double-cross them whenever they see an opportunity to make a quick buck. On the other hand, Democrats are developing their own nascent myth of a majority built on diversity, equity, tolerance, mutual respect and aid, and solidarity.

  • [06-14]: Trump's muddled, on-and-off militarism won't split the GOP at all.

  • [06-18]: Jeb Bush was right about Trump and "chaos". Cites a piece by Jamelle Bouie ([06-18: Maybe Trump and Miller Don't Understand Americans as Well as They Think They Do), regarding Trump's polling slump.

  • [06-21]: Your right-wing neighbors still don't believe the Minnesota shoter was a conservative ideologue: I haven't yet cited any articles on the June 14 assassination of Democratic politicians in Minnesota, but the basic facts are available on Wikipedia (2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators), not for lack of interest or alarm but mostly a matter of timing. That right-wingers have worked overtime to twist the stories into unrecognizable shapes is unsurprising: if anything, it's standard operating procedure, and the examples are as telling as their penchant for gun-toting vigilantism. One of the most fundamental differences between right and left is that only the former believes that violence works, and will resort to it readily (and will lie about it afterwards, because that's even more part of their nature). Two earlier pieces on the shootings:

  • [06-22]: To your right-wing neighbors, this will be Trump's war only if it works. Cites a Joshua Keating article ([06-21]: This time, it's Trump's war) I had initially skipped over.

  • [06-23]: Will Democrats be too high-minded to respond to young people's war fears? I don't know what he means by "high-minded." What Democrats need to do is convey the view that any time Americans pull the trigger that represents a failure of American foreign policy, regardless of whether you hit the target or not. Of course, from 2021-25, Biden was the one demonstrating incompetence by not preventing war situations from developing and/or spreading. But why show Trump the slightest leniency when the voters cut them no slack?

  • [06-26]: In New York, I'm enjoying this billionaire freakout.

  • [06-28] The Supreme Court's Republicans know our side will never use the power they've potentially given us: The Supreme Court "ruled that lower-court judges can't protect even fundamental constitutional rights using nationwide injunctions."

    The Supreme Court's Republicans aren't worried that the shoe might be on the other foot someday because they know the shoe will never be on the other foot. This is why they're willing to give Donald Trump nearly unlimited power: they know that any Republican would use the power in ways they like and no Democrat would ever use it in ways they dislike. They're giving powerful weapons to Trump and future party-mates because they know the enemy -- Democrats -- will never use those weapons.

Tweets:

  • Alan MacLeod [06-05]: The most American leading ever: Kids could end up in foster care over lunch debt, Pennsylvania school district warns parents

  • Adam Serwer [06-08]: Don't let Trump and Musk's feud obscure their fundamental agreement: Both men and the party they own are committed to taking as much as possible from Americans who need help in order to give to those who have more than they could ever want. [link to his Atlantic article: Musk and Trump Still Agree on One Thing]

    For years, commentators have talked about how Trump reshaped the Republican Party in the populist mold. Indeed, Trumpism has seen Republicans abandon many of their publicly held commitments. The GOP says it champions fiscal discipline while growing the debt at every opportunity. It talks about individual merit while endorsing discrimination against groups based on gender, race, national origin, and sexual orientation. It blathers about free speech while using state power to engage in the most sweeping national-censorship campaign since the Red Scare. Republicans warn us about the "weaponization" of the legal system while seeking to prosecute critics for political crimes and deporting apparently innocent people to Gulags without a shred of due process. The GOP venerates Christianity while engaging in the kind of performative cruelty early Christians associated with paganism. It preaches family values while destroying families it refuses to recognize as such.

    Yet the one bridge that connects Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush to Donald Trump is slashing public services while showering tax cuts on the rich. This is the Republican Party's most sacred, fundamental value, the one it almost never betrays. Whatever else Trump and Musk may fight about, they are faithful to that.

  • Nathan J Robinson [06-09] goddamnit so many @curaffairs readers have requested a review of "Abundance" that now I'm having to write it. why do our readers want me to suffer[?]

    I commented: Why, compared to idiots you love writing about (like Peterson & Rufo), is Klein a sufferance? Maybe it takes more work to accept and build on what he offers than to trash it as not enough or some kind of sellout, but the idea that Dems need to build/deliver isn't wrong.

    When I clicked on post, I got a pop-up saying: "Want more people to see your comment? Subscribe." The days when social media companies were happy just to profit off our free content are obviously over. Now in their pay-to-play racket they view everyone as an advertiser, which will tend to reduce every comment to the credibility level of advertisements (i.e., none: advertising has been proudly post-truth for over a century, and indeed was born that way).

  • Richard D Wolff [06-09] US liberals also enabled Trump. They let the right enlist them against the left after 1945. As the GOP right-turned authoritarian, a unified liberal-left opposition would have been real and powerful, unlike today's liberal-vs-left split opposition.

  • Isi Breen [06-09]

    Has anyone written an article about how Abundance is a swan song for Obama's presidency? That it's less about doing anything new and more about getting back to the last time it seemed like the party had its shit together?

    Problem here is how can anyone still think that the Democrats had their shit together under Obama? He promised "change" and shrunk it down to virtually nothing. He lost Congress after two years, and never won it back, giving him an excuse to do even less than he was inclined to do. Even the articulateness he was famed for before he ran deserted him. (Or was it some kind of race to the bottom with the dumbing down of the American people?) I have dozens of examples, but one specific to "abundance agenda" is that Obama refused to pursue any stimulus projects that weren't "shovel-ready." (Reed Hundt, in A Crisis Wasted, has examples of things proposed but rejected because Obama and his locked-in advisors like Summers and Emmanuel wouldn't consider anything that smacked of long-term planning.)

  • Kate Wehwalt [06-13]:

    It's crazy how in 40 years the internet made everyone stupid and ruined the entire world

    Nah. It just made you more aware of how stupid people already were.

  • Kim, Bestie of Bunzy [06-19]

    Watching this man try to get rid of imaginary raccoons he thought were invading reminds me of what white people are currently trying to do [to] America to get rid [of] immigrants they think are invading

    This comes with a 0:43 video, where the captions read: "My dad had raccoons in his tree house. Nobody has been up there in years. He tried to get rid of them with a combination of . . . smoke bombs and firecrackers. Anxiously watching for fleeing raccoons . . . [the tree house catches fire and is destroyed]. No raccoons were seen or found." Much more of interest in Kim's feed. I didn't expect (i.e., couldn't have imagined) this one:

    Israeli Interior Minister Ben-Gvir accuses Mossad chief Barnea of starting a war: - Why did you provoke Iran! Barnea: - I didn't know Iran had such rocket capabilities!

    The head of Mossad "did not know"

    I've been imagining that Ben-Gvir was the architect of the war, and conjuring up rationales for him doing so. Netanyahu has been complaining about Iran's rockets ever since Israel pivoted against Iran after the 1990 Gulf War neutralized Iraq as Israel's chief bête noire (more like a boogeyman meant to frighten the US and make it subservient to Israel -- a card they've played many times, and which you still see working as US politicians clamor for war against Iran). What this suggests is not that they were unaware of Netanyahu's propaganda, but that neither Ben-Gvir nor Barnea believed Israel's own propaganda, which they both used for their own purposes. Long-range rocket attacks were a significant part of the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, with Iraq using Soviet Scuds and Iran building their own (after exhausting their US-built rockets). Extending their range to reach Israel would have been easy, and didn't cross an obvious red line, like nuclear bombs would have. Still, to be a nuclear threat, as Netanyahu has long insisted Iran is, you both need warheads and some way to deliver them: Iranian rockets have always been an obvious part of the equation. (Same for North Korea, which has even larger rockets.) Israel has routinely blamed Iran for every rocket from Gaza, Lebanon, and/or Yemen, so claiming now that you didn't know Iran had "such rocket capabilities" is an admission that you thought the rockets from Gaza, etc., weren't serious threats. They were just propaganda foils.

  • Pessimistic Intellect, Optimistic Will: Includes graphic of a press release by Hakeen Jeffries ("Democratic Leader"). Second and third paragraphs are solid points, although I wouldn't say that the kind of diplomacy the US needs to engage in at the moment is "aggressive": how about "serious"? or "constructive"? or just something that suggests you're not insane? However, before he could allow himself any of that, first Jeffries had to recite his pledge of allegiance:

    Iran is a sworn enemy of the United States and can never be permitted to become a nuclear-capable power. Israel has a right to defend itself against escalating Iranian aggression and our commitment to Israel's security remains ironclad.

    Not only is none of this true, and as articulated is little short of psychotic. Still, the real problem with always putting this pledge first isn't that it suggests you cannot think clearly. It's warning other people that you cannot or will not do anything about Israel's behavior because you're not even in charge of you own thoughts let alone actions.

  • Matthew Yglesias [06-22]:

    Every president of my lifetime except Joe Biden actually started wars, but somehow he ended up getting lambasted from the right and the left for providing military supplies to allies as if that made him the greatest warhawk in American history.

    No one I'm aware of has tried to sort out a ranking of "greatest warhawks in American history," but even if one did, not being the "greatest" wouldn't be much of a compliment. Biden needed not just to not start new wars, but to end them. He not only didn't do the necessary diplomacy to end the wars in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza, what diplomacy he did do, combined with his unflinching supply of arms and money to support the war efforts, made it possible for the wars to extend and spread. (Ukraine is slightly different, in that sending arms there can be justified by the need to counter Russian aggression, but also in that there are clear opportunities for diplomatic resolution. Support for Israel, given their long history of aggression and domination, is impossible to justify.) And while you might credit Biden with ending the Afghanistan war, once again he failed to show any diplomatic skill or interest. His popularity sunk not because he ended the war, but due to the ineptness of his withdrawal. The only thing you can say for him is that he was painted into an untenable corner by predecessors, but it's hard to see where he even tried to right their wrongs.

  • Ian Boudreau [06-26] Responding to a tweet noting that "mamdani's win has made the ny times, the washington post, fox news, trump, third way, and the democratic establishment very mad" citing a Washington Post Editorial Board article: "Zohran Mamdani's victory is bad for New York and the Democratic Party: New York cannot take its greatness for granted. Mismanagement can ruin it."

    Wow, mismanagement of New York City - what a genuinely terrifying prospect! Siri who is the current mayor of New York City?

    I don't have the bandwidth to deal with what looks to Wichita like a remote mayoral primary, but is obviously big news for the media centers and for the electorally-oriented left. It's quite possible that left candidates are much better at articulating problems and proposing solutions than they are at administering and implementing, but couldn't that just as easily be due to the obstacles entrenched powers can throw into the way, including their cozy relationship with the establishment press? One thing for sure is that whatever management skills conservatives think they have aren't helped by the evils of their ideology.

    Jamelle Bouie adds: "i think i would take the hysteria over mamdani's ability to govern more seriously if half these people hasn't endorsed eric adams."

    Ryan Cooper quotes Paul Krugman: "centrist Democrats often urge leftier types to rally behind their nominees in general elections. I agree. Anyone claiming that there's no difference between the parties is a fool. But this deal has to be reciprocal."

  • Don Winslow [06-28]:

    16 million Americans are about to lose their health insurance because 77 million Americans voted for this shit.

Mid-Year Music Lists: I usually collect these under Music Week, but it's probably easier here.

Current count: 146 links, 12549 words (14967 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

-- next