…is it a tit? …is it a tat? …titter or tatter…it’s all in the eye of the beholder…if those aren’t closed because you just can’t bear to look

While almost all the drones and missiles used in the attack were taken down by Israel, the U.S. and other allied countries, the stakes after the attack could not be higher. In the eyes of some foreign policy hawks, the attacks could be perceived as a grave provocation that demands a furious rejoinder. But other analysts have warned that if Netanyahu decides to hit back hard, it could plunge the wider Middle East into war amid Israel’s devastating months long military campaign in the Gaza Strip. 

Complicating matters, Iran’s intentions are not entirely clear.In the days after the attacks, some analysts have argued that its aerial barrage seemed primarily designed to bolster its position with domestic hard-liners and deter regional foes, but calibrated not to lead to a more sweeping war.

…wishful thinking or not…I wasn’t the only one who went wth the spectacular interpretation

William F. Wechsler, senior director of Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council, an international affairs think tank, similarly argued that the nature of Tehran’s retaliatory mission was telling. 

“Iran sent an unmistakable signal that it wanted to avoid a further escalation that could spark a truly regional war,” Wechsler said in an analysis. “It chose long-range attacks that could be readily thwarted by known Israeli defenses and pointedly did not target any U.S. facilities.”

…but…inevitably, I suppose…there’s other ways to look at the thing

Yet some in Tehran have described the Saturday attack in more drastic terms. “We have decided to create a new equation” with Israel, the chief of the country’s Revolutionary Guard Corps said.

Israel has battled its arch-enemy Iran through clandestine operations and proxy forces, as well as warning Tehran over its intentions as it develops its nuclear programs.  (Iran has long insisted that its nuclear program is peaceful — a claim Israel rejects.) 

Through its proxies, most notably Hezbollah, the powerful and well-armed political party and militant group in Lebanon, Iran has struck at Israel. But before Saturday, neither side had openly and directly attacked the other at home.

“The region is entering uncharted territory where the previous strategic paradigm and rules of engagement no longer apply,” Amal Saad, a lecturer at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom, said in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “Regardless of what Israel does next, there is no going back to the status quo ante,” Saad said in a subsequent post.

Western leaders nonetheless appear eager for Israel to show restraint in its response. 

…pretty much you can find any interpretation you like if you try a bit…not least ones that sound uncomfortably like they’d backfire if you attempted them on a stroppy kid…what with the reverse psychology & all

Iran has long viewed its missile arsenal as the ultimate ace card to deter and threaten its adversaries, but Israel’s success in defending itself against hundreds of Iranian projectiles raised doubts about Tehran’s military power. In an editorial for The Wall Street Journal, a former commander of U.S. Central Command argued that Iran’s aerial assault was a display of weakness.

“The vulnerability of Iran’s force has been exposed, and the regime is gravely weakened as a result,” retired Marine Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. wrote. “Israel has been strengthened by a stunning display of military competence, a striking contrast with that seen on Oct. 7.”

…between your covert efforts & your proxy forces…the part where everyone has to pick a side is both opaque & crystal clear

In many respects, Iran and Israel have been on a collision course for nearly half a century.

Israel and Iran have been enemies since the Islamic Revolution in the late 1970s. Iran’s theocratic regime has vowed to wipe the Jewish state off the map; Israel and the U.S. have long accused Tehran of funding terrorist organizations and armed proxies in the Middle East, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

But the hostilities between Israel and Iran have never risen to the level of face-to-face military confrontation. Instead, the two countries have carried out furtive attacks on each other by land, sea, air — and cyberspace.

Iran routinely targets Israel through its “Axis of Resistance,” a network that extends Tehran’s influence across the Arab world. 

…& this far down the chain of response to response to response…given the line they’d both like to draw under…or perhaps more accurately…through the whole thing…quite who might be provoking who to do what is…anybody’s guess

In the aftermath of Oct. 7, Israel concluded that its past targeting of Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah in Lebanon and other covert actions had failed to sufficiently deter Iran, prompting it to go after the Revolutionary Guard officers at the diplomatic compound in Damascus this month, former U.S. officials and regional experts said.

The covert war between Israel and Iran has exploded into view. What comes next? [NBC]

…maybe we need…whatever “new political technologies” are when they’re at home?

Science alone won’t stop the planet from overheating. But science coupled with political science just might.

That’s the theme of a new book, “Long Problems: Climate Change and the Challenge of Governing Across Time.” It’s by Thomas Hale, an American political scientist who teaches at the University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government.

Hale argues that people are too quick to throw up their hands because the political will to stop climate change is lacking. For political scientists, he writes, “this is not the end but rather the start of the intellectual challenge.”

Hale has specific ideas for how to change institutions and procedures so that today’s inhabitants of Earth give more consideration to tomorrow’s inhabitants. He calls them, at one point, “political technologies,” a phrase I like.

…I don’t know if I like it…but…if they gave more consideration to more of the folks currently knocking about the joint along with their hypothetical progeny…I expect I’d warm to the things?

Long problems such as climate change are ones in which there is a long lag between causes and effects. They are hard to solve, especially with today’s institutions. We don’t act early because we’re uncertain about how big the problem is, and it isn’t as salient as the daily emergencies all around us. Our hesitation gives an opening to obstructionist forces. Today’s decision makers vow to protect the planet for future generations, but the unborn multitudes are mere “shadows” to them, as Hale puts it.

…maybe it’s obtuse of me…but I read that sort of thing & my brain throws any number of examples of things that get to be more imperative than climate stuff on account of being more proximate threats with any number of competing sets of effects, causes & all around fault-finding of the sort that creates fault lines…but…that part’s probably par for the course

On top of all that, Hale writes, “Institutions created to address the early phase of a long problem struggle to remain useful as the problem’s structure develops over time.” Case in point: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was created in 1992. The original concept was for countries to make binding commitments to fight climate change. As the organization has evolved, though, “nothing is agreed until every country agrees on every point,” Hale writes.

That’s not useful. A better approach is the Paris Agreement of 2015, which went into effect the next year. It allows countries to set their own targets for greenhouse gas reductions while triggering a “norm cascade” that induces them to do more and more. Hale likes the Paris Agreement on the whole, though he says it’s not perfect.

…I guess I’d like…actually doing the shit we say we’re going to…last I checked we haven’t really tried that one on for size…apparently we can tell just by looking that it’d clash with our signature outfits & nobody wants to be that fashion forward

There are many more opportunities for political engineering, Hale writes. He approvingly mentions the Finnish Parliament’s cross-party Committee for the Future and the Finnish Government Report on the Future, which interact. He recommends more experimentation in policymaking — as Chinese leaders put it, crossing the river by feeling for stones.

To get the public and lawmakers thinking more about the future, he endorses Britain’s Climate Change Committee, which he writes “has become a significant political force for the long-term interest,” and similar organizations (some of them not as effective) in Hungary, Israel, Malta, Sweden, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates.

To insulate long problems from partisan politicking, he recommends the appointment of a trustee to oversee climate decisions, analogous to the way a politically insulated central bank is delegated the authority to conduct monetary policy. The California Air Resources Board is “perhaps the strongest, though still imperfect” example of such an institution in the realm of the environment, he writes. (Hale told me he’s not aware of anything quite like the California agency elsewhere in the world.)

“Long Problems” is a kind of nonfiction counterpart to Kim Stanley Robinson’s science fiction book from 2020, “The Ministry for the Future,” which took seriously the idea that future generations need to be given as much consideration as our own.

…so…it would probably be unfair to point out that “long problems”…as opposed to just “problems” or “big problems” or “urgent problems”…sound like the ones we’ve spent a while hoping will just go away on their own…even after we’re pretty sure they will in fact steadily get worse

Hale is a co-leader of the Net Zero Tracker, which tracks the decarbonization progress of countries and companies, and the Net Zero Regulation and Policy Hub. He told me that he has been involved in helping people at the United Nations prepare for a Summit for the Future, which will be held Sept. 22-23. On the U.N. website is an early draft of a declaration to be issued at the summit, which says among other things that “our conduct today will impact future generations exponentially.”

Anne-Marie Slaughter, the chief executive of the think tank New America who was Hale’s adviser on his doctorate at Princeton, shared a byline with Hale and two of his Oxford colleagues on a policy brief, “Toward a Declaration on Future Generations,” that recommends the U.N. appoint “a special envoy or high commissioner” to be a voice for the future.

I kind of prefer “envoy” because it sounds like the person has literally come from the future.

…maybe that sounds nice…but I’m familiar with altogether too many sci fi stories that put a high correlation on things being pretty bleak under those kind of circumstances

No one solution will instantly end the political obstacles to fighting climate change. Some of the ideas in Hale’s book may not pan out at all. But I give him credit for focusing on how to solve problems in which the cause and the effect are separated by decades. Getting the “political technology” right is every bit as important as inventing better solar cells, wind turbines and batteries.

To Fight Climate Change, We Need New ‘Political Technologies’ [NYT]

…how about we invent a political technology that…& this might be one of those times where I sound like my head is in the clouds…presuppose something other than a zero-sum scenario in which the postponement of the inevitable is considered to be a staunch defence of the profit margin of the industries that explicitly make the problem harder to solve on account of…well…being all about making it worse

…I know…I know…I sound hopelessly naïve…we’re way too busy threatening to blow up nuclear power plants & all sorts of clever bastard shit

In late March, after two years of withering attacks on Ukraine, Russia knocked out half of Ukraine’s power supply. Up to that point, Russia’s missiles and kamikaze drones had mostly targeted the Ukrainian substations that push electricity from power plants to consumers. But this time they hit the plants themselves, severely damaging and destroying hydroelectric and fossil fuel stations — all of which are difficult to repair or replace.

When power stops, life grinds to a halt. Lights go out. Sewage treatment stops. Clean water stops. Electric cars, buses and trolleys stop. Elevators stop, trapping older and disabled people. For many, home heating, refrigeration, cooking and clothes washing stops, along with medical devices such as oxygen generators.

Even though the world’s dependence on electricity for all of this and more is growing, power grids are still legitimate military targets, according to both international law and our own military rule book. But there are small, promising signs that could be changing. Early last month, before Russia’s most damaging assaults, the International Criminal Court in The Hague concluded that the country’s pummeling of Ukraine’s power system had already crossed the line and issued arrest warrants for a pair of senior Russian commanders, Adm. Viktor Nikolayevich Sokolov and Lt. Gen. Sergei Ivanovich Kobylash, whose units are accused of launching the missiles. (Russia has denied committing war crimes.)

It was the world’s first prosecution of combatants for attacks on a power grid and an important first step toward recognizing electricity’s growing centrality to modern life. But the global community must now draw bright lines for combatants in future conflicts — and strengthen the hand of future prosecutors — by codifying specific protections for power grids. The international community already attempts to do that for select infrastructure, including hospitals, dams and nuclear power plants, via the Geneva Conventions. It’s time to add power grids to that privileged roster.

…it’s time? …or…like the political technologies…is it just maybe overdue to the point of looking like the horse is maybe bolted?

Ukraine’s air defences are being overwhelmed by concentrated waves of Russian bombing aimed at its power stations, acknowledged a senior presidential adviser after the destruction of an entire plant on Thursday.

Ukraine air defences overwhelmed as Russia pounds power stations [Guardian]

…who’s to say?

International law is supposed to curb these kinds of attacks; the laws set out in the Geneva Conventions consider power grids “civilian objects,” to be protected in war. But in practice, thanks to myriad exceptions, militaries can justify nearly any attack where anticipated gains outweigh the projected civilian suffering.

Governments often point to electricity’s role in everything from political and military communications to arms manufacturing. According to Russia’s Defense Ministry, the massive strikes last month were necessary because they disrupted enterprises making and repairing “weapons, equipment and ammunition.” But it would seem that the real goal was to terrorize and break the Ukrainian people. Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri Peskov, said as much while explaining grid attacks in November 2022 that left 10 million people without power: “The unwillingness of the Ukrainian side to settle the problem, to start negotiations, its refusal to seek common ground, this is their consequence.”

…bet you jd vance thinks it’s the ukrainians’ fault russia blew that shit up on account of stubbornly refusing to roll over for his favourite teddy bear…he swallows the rest of vlad’s line on this from hook to sinker…so why not this?

International law is supposed to curb these kinds of attacks; the laws set out in the Geneva Conventions consider power grids “civilian objects,” to be protected in war. But in practice, thanks to myriad exceptions, militaries can justify nearly any attack where anticipated gains outweigh the projected civilian suffering.

Governments often point to electricity’s role in everything from political and military communications to arms manufacturing. According to Russia’s Defense Ministry, the massive strikes last month were necessary because they disrupted enterprises making and repairing “weapons, equipment and ammunition.” But it would seem that the real goal was to terrorize and break the Ukrainian people. Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri Peskov, said as much while explaining grid attacks in November 2022 that left 10 million people without power: “The unwillingness of the Ukrainian side to settle the problem, to start negotiations, its refusal to seek common ground, this is their consequence.”

…wonder what he’d say if we cut him off from all the power supplies in his vicinity along with anything they powered…although…conveniently…we probably wouldn’t notice because without those he’d be remarkably quiet so long as you avoided him in the physical sense

In its Department of Defense Law of War Manual updated last year, the United States says that it views power plants as important enough to a state’s military functions “to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts.” The Pentagon rule book dismisses civilian injuries and deaths caused by blackouts as too “remote” and “myriad” for field commanders to accurately calculate and encourages them to consider only the civilians affected “very soon after the attack,” such as those at a hospital directly connected to a power plant. But even in that case, the manual hews to the general rule for civilian infrastructure, advising American forces to stand down only where the harm of powering down life support will be “excessive” relative to the gains.

…well, sure…when *we* do it…that’s totally different & not at all the same thing

Unsurprisingly, even U.S. military experts on the law of armed conflict have taken divergent stands on Russia’s grid attacks in Ukraine, attacks it continued last week. “At least some” violated international law, wrote one. Another found it hard to “definitively” identify a criminal act.

The three-judge International Criminal Court panel said it had “reasonable grounds to believe” that the officers they seek to apprehend committed crimes against humanity. That charge applies to unlawful acts that are widespread or systematic, and Russia’s grid attacks keep intensifying.

…to be fair uncle sam has been trying to wean his ass off that bit of milk & honey for a decade or two…& how successful that’s been might be up for debate…but I haven’t got all day…so

Other countries would be wise to follow our lead and reject wholesale attacks on the grid. It would save lives and prevent needless destruction; it would also help build an unwritten (yet enforceable) body of international law constraining power grid attacks.

But the international community can and should go further. A strong grid protection protocol that explicitly limits power system destruction could be a game changer. It would ratchet up the threat of prosecution, potentially deterring bad actors who might otherwise be tempted to target power generators. The International Criminal Court said a desire to stop further attacks prompted it to unseal the warrants for General Kobylash and Admiral Sokolov. The hope is that field officers directing missiles and drones may think twice before they order these kinds of attacks in the future.

While Mr. Putin may never face consequences for plunging Ukraine into darkness, General Kobylash and Admiral Sokolov may never leave Russia, for fear of being picked up outside its borders to face trial. If they do, a reckoning could yet lie ahead for those who would thrust civilians into darkness. Prosecutors who pursue war criminals can keep hunting for decades.

There Is a Part of Modern Life That Is So Essential Armies Should Never Attack It Again [NYT]

…is there any aspect of humanity that isn’t a welter of contradictions?

To be clear, what this means is that there are some likely voters whose opinions and actions don’t line up. They’re saying the economy is poor, but they’re behaving as if things are really good. How is Biden supposed to respond to this in his economic speech in Scranton, Pa., on Tuesday, without antagonizing voters by telling them they’re wrong?

…& they make out this part is “good news for biden”…but…they write the news & they do like to hark on about the peril the campaign for the guy who isn’t in court for being a caricature of an overly-entitled asshole who’s never met a consequence he couldn’t spend his way out of on someone else’s dime is somehow in

The good news for Biden in the Times/Siena poll is that the two candidates are nearly tied in terms of whom voters would pick if the election were held today. But if Biden can’t persuade voters that he’s better than Trump on the economy — or at least somewhere in that neighborhood — his re-election campaign will remain in peril.

…& I get it…once burned, twice shy…& the grift went all the way to the top the time a lot of them took it less seriously…so complacency is hardly what the doctor ordered when it comes to heading the assholes off at the pass…but…when it comes to double standards some folk only seem to know how to double down at every turn

As part of the pretrial housekeeping, Justice Juan Merchan delivered the so-called Parker warnings on courtroom behavior directly to the defendant, reminding him that he could be jailed if he disrupted the proceedings.

Trump, who earlier seemed to be dozing, muttered, “I do,” when asked if he understood this and the other elements of the warning, which Merchan was delivering to Trump for a second time — now orally — just to make sure it sank in.

Then the former president had to sit and listen to a discussion of the admissibility of his years of witness intimidation, his arguably illegal social media posts and his efforts to use The National Enquirer to destroy his rivals. The jury didn’t hear any of this, but Trump and everyone else in the courtroom did.

All morning, Trump’s side only won once: when Merchan ruled that during the testimony of Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, there could be no mention in front of the jury of Trump’s wife being pregnant and then being with a newborn (Barron Trump) at home when McDougal says they were having a long-running affair.

…because…somehow that’s the part that might be unfairly prejudicial…don’t ask me…I don’t fucking understand it either

Merchan said he would hold a hearing on April 23 on the prosecution’s motion that Trump be held in contempt of court and possibly jailed for three Truth Social posts attacking Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, which seemed to be a clear violation of Merchan’s gag order preventing Trump from trying to intimidate witnesses.

Merchan indicated that he would reject Trump’s go-to argument that he was just responding in kind.

…I’m almost willing to be sorry about that…because “in kind” could be plenty unkind to his saggy ass…& that could hardly happen to a more deserving asshole…but…if wishes were horses I’d cover a lot more ground than I do…so

The poll, published Saturday, shows Donald Trump holding on to a slight edge of 46 percent to 45 percent over President Biden. And it includes this detail: When survey respondents were asked whether they remember the years of Trump’s presidency as “mostly good,” “mostly bad” or “not really good or bad,” 42 percent said “mostly good,” while just 33 percent said “mostly bad.”

…& It goes without saying…but let’s say it anyway…fuck a poll…but…however their proportion might stack up against the backdrop of registered voters…there’s still the question of how they got people to go on the record as taking that view

Mostly good? Which part? His first impeachment? His second? All the drama at the border (because, yes, there was drama at the border then, too)? All the drama in the West Wing? The revolving door of senior administration officials, his good-people-on-both-sides response to the violence in Charlottesville, Va., his wishful musings about violent attacks on journalists and Democrats, his nutty soliloquies at news conferences early in the coronavirus pandemic, his recklessly cavalier handling of his own Covid infection, his incitement of the Jan. 6 rioting, the rioting itself?

…I mean…aside from the obvious bits

I realize that the “mostly good” camp comprises many MAGA loyalists who will simply answer any Trump-related question in a Trump-adoring way. Tribalism triumphs. I realize, too, that Americans tend to prioritize economic realities in assessments of this kind, and that much of what they’re remembering and referring to are the lower prices of housing, food and other essentials during Trump’s presidency.

But I fear that they’re forgetting too much else in a wash of voter nostalgia. A fresh presidential bid by someone who was in and then away from the White House isn’t just highly unusual. It’s a memory test — and, in the case of a politician as potentially destructive as Trump, a profoundly important one.

…in the end…we probably have to accept that…like the folks in jerusalem & tehran & moscow & such…they really, truly do want to make everything worse…that’s just how they roll

Americans unhappy with Biden’s presidency need no reminders about why. They’re living it every day. But their present discontent may be claiming the space on their mental hard drives where their past discontent was stored, purging all the discord and disgrace that created Biden’s opening.

…or…to pitch it in another direction…like…measles…a condition that we could just about consign to the “things that don’t have to happen” pile on account of the totally working method of prevention we came up with a while back…which…in their wisdom…some parents think their precious kids need saving from…those folks don’t make a lot of sense to me, I’ll admit…probably because if I thought a combo shot had risks I wasn’t comfortable taking my kid’s chances with…then the kid would get individual ones until the bases were covered…so…they don’t seem to think the way I do…& I don’t know who ought to take the blame for that sort of nonsense

As jury selection begins, my thoughts will inevitably turn to this striking lack of precedent. Richard Nixon was pardoned, Bill Clinton was disbarred, and Ulysses S. Grant paid a ticket for speeding in his carriage, but none faced a criminal trial.

…much less flailed about with a matched set of the fucking things most of which have damning sets of material facts the vast bulk of which played out in the public record…to the point that the only thing innocent about the man is the principal that he’s thus far postponed being found guilty…instead of just being & looking that way

The prosecution’s argument that this is a 2016 election interference case is prompting Trump to pursue his usual I’m-rubber-you’re-glue strategy and claim that it’s really the judge and the Manhattan district attorney who are interfering — in the 2024 election. But he won’t be able to make that argument inside the courtroom.

…the man wants it to be political theatre…of course he does…if it isn’t…we might have to deal with the substantive elements…& that way he’s comprehensively screwed

Among the witnesses expected to testify are Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime fixer turned major accuser, whose credibility will be a big issue; Hope Hicks, Trump’s former press secretary, who could help corroborate Cohen’s testimony; Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels), the porn star who received $130,000 in payments Trump is charged with laundering through Cohen; Karen McDougal, a former Playboy playmate of the year who also received hush money; and David Pecker, the National Enquirer chief testifying for the prosecution, whose catch-and-kill scheme to bury dirt on Trump will open a window on how tabloid journalism, well, changed world history.

Trump claimed on Friday that he’s willing to testify, but that may be just his usual posturing. If he rejects the pleading of his attorneys and takes the stand, cross-examination about his many lies would be admissible.

…I guess I’m mostly wondering just how high on his own supply the man can get before it kills him

As everyone knows, Trump’s trial in the Stormy Daniels hush money trial is set to start Monday in Manhattan. Trump has never faced a criminal jury trial in his life. I don’t think he ever thought one of these criminal trials would actually happen — he’s been an escape artist his whole life. The big question: Will this trial actually change anyone’s opinion of Trump when so much about his bad behavior is already baked into our brains? I think a conviction might — there’s some polling that suggests that independents and some Trump leaners would be less likely to vote for him if he’s convicted, especially of a criminal cover-up. Based on a lot of years reporting with voters, and our Times Opinion focus groups, I think voting for a recently convicted criminal for president will be a bridge too far for some Americans otherwise inclined to back him.

…& I dunno…I expect the majority of the people who’d vote for the shit bag today are well beyond being dissuaded by a little detail like that…but…some dogs deserve to eat car

On issues, Trump has boxed himself into a position on abortion that he thought was awfully clever when he rolled it out: Let each state decide its abortion law. Then Arizona’s Supreme Court did just that, upholding a ban from 1864. I’ve rarely seen Trump look as slippery and untrustworthy with his own base, and he’s running away from abortion as far as he can. Do swing voters really believe him when he says he wouldn’t sign a national abortion ban if he had the chance? Doubt it.

…however much it might be tempting to think that verdict & your gut feeling about the defendant’s character ought to line up…sometimes…it might even be better if it didn’t

Not because Assange is innocent or noble. He was originally wanted in Sweden in connection with a sexual assault investigation that was subsequently dropped, and he has demonstrated a distinct preference for authoritarian regimes over democracies. The deed for which the United States is after him, the publication of an enormous trove of classified documents supplied by a U.S. Army private, Chelsea Manning, was carried out without any of the precautions news organizations normally take to protect individuals or information that could imperil national security.

…at least until we got the orange filter on the thing

But Donald Trump, who famously branded the free press as “the enemy of the people,” had no such compunction and set the stage for a trial that could challenge the distinction between exposing abuse of power and helping foreign adversaries harm the United States.

…while being the poster boy for abusing power to help foreign adversaries harm the united states…& funnel money into his son-in-law’s emoluments investment fund & call it business genius instead of explicitly in contravention of the law & that pesky constitution…for which you don’t even get charged, it turns out…I swear…I will never understand the rules of this fucking game

This is not a case the Biden administration should be prosecuting. Given the time Assange has already been in effective detention — far more than the nearly seven years Manning served before her 35-year sentence was commuted by Obama as “very disproportionate relative to what other leakers have received” — the president can legitimately argue that Assange has been amply punished.

…kinda precious when the tinpot tangerine is inevitably going to try to claim that when he did worse it wasn’t a bad thing, actually…in fact it was a good thing…because it made him richer thanks to the deals & angles &…oh…that doesn’t help his case? …are you sure? …did he mention they let him play president like a real boy…because according to some people that’s the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card…not…as you might foolishly suppose…a stricter standard to uphold than us mere mortals play by…no wonder he thinks the courts are unfair…who was it who said the thing about if you’ve only known unfair advantage a level playing field looks like a punishment

Most people tend to think the O.J. story started when the Los Angeles police chased a white Ford Bronco down a deserted highway. But for Black America, the O.J. spectacle began on March 3, 1991, when Los Angeles police officers viciously beat Rodney King. Even though the beating was captured on videotape, the officers were acquitted and the city went up in flames. The O.J. Simpson legend began when the nation decided that King must have done something to deserve his beating.

Every generation of Black people has a moment when this nation betrays them: Emmett Till, the bombing of American citizens in Philadelphia, white racist violence in Tulsa, Okla., the executions of Malcolm X and, later, Trayvon Martin. Rodney King was my generation’s; his beating showed me that a new day had not dawned in this country for Black opportunity and acceptance. Simpson’s legal team was able to paint a story in which he symbolized Black martyrdom to Black America because of such betrayals.

When the Simpson verdict was announced in 1995, I was standing in the student union of my historically Black college. My peers collectively sighed in relief when he was acquitted. But, if the King verdict was the moment when my generation fell out of love with our country, Black America’s relief at the Simpson verdict was the moment that white America fell out of love with the promise of diversity.

…or to put it a different way (these all come from various places in a sort of combo-article but this bit actually showed up before the assange stuff if you should happen to go looking for it in context)

Both Simpson and Trump are mirrors reflecting two images of America — one Black, one white, in Simpson’s case; one Democratic, one Republican, in Trump’s. All of the mirrors are cracked and coming apart, with the shards sharp enough to puncture any remaining illusions we have about ourselves.

…whereas this follows on from the other bit about OJ

Sadly, a woman paid the ultimate price for the O.J. Simpson legend. By many accounts, O.J. abused Nicole Simpson for years. He got away with it through a kind of carte blanche usually reserved for powerful white men, because his public mythology erased his private abuses. For Simpson, that must have felt like a certain type of moving on up.

In a remarkable ESPN documentary, “O.J.: Made in America,” Harry Edwards, a sociologist and activist, remembers when Simpson declined to join a group of Black athletes who were campaigning for civil rights, saying “I’m not Black, I’m O.J.” That line captures the essence of O.J. Simpson, the man and the public figure.

He wanted to be above the rules not because of what he was but because of who he was. It’s the height of karmic irony, then, that what ultimately made Simpson special was the way his Blackness — that socially constructed distance from the white acceptance he so clearly craved — will forever define his legacy.

…parallels are funny things

Soon after the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel, the Israeli defense minister vowed to impose a “complete siege” on Gaza: “no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel” would be allowed into the territory.

…but…*checks notes*…that’s not illegal collective punishment…it’s…something else

In testimony before Congress on Wednesday, [Samantha] Power [the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development.] said that reports that famine was imminent in northern Gaza were credible. Then she was asked directly by Representative Joaquin Castro, a Texas Democrat, “So famine is already occurring there?”

“That is — yes,” she replied.

The official arbiter of famines, an international group of specialists, has not yet designated a famine underway in Gaza using its technical criteria, but the official declarations are based on lagging indicators. So Power’s statement should be taken mostly as a sign of the general seriousness of the food crisis and the risks of widespread death if it continues.

…seems odd to using “lagging indicators” to flag a thing as urgent as people starving…but…what do I know?

Famines primarily kill children under the age of 5. I’ve covered hunger crises around the world, and the scenes are horrible to witness. Dying children are passive, expressionless, silent, not crying — because the body is using every calorie to keep the major organs functioning.

Conflicts in poor countries often kill far more people through hunger and disease than through bombs and bullets. What is unusual about Gaza is this hunger crisis is unfolding in a small, accessible area where 3,000 to 7,000 trucks are reportedly waiting at the border with food. Human Rights Watch has accused Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war.

Israel has repeatedly denied that it obstructs aid. But in the past few days, after a threat by President Biden to put conditions on arms transfers, Israel has allowed far more trucks to enter Gaza. That aid also needs to be distributed, which requires a well-functioning infrastructure that is not now in place.

…they weren’t obstructing it…merely preventing its arrival & distribution…just like dolt 45 hasn’t made a career of obstructing justice & committing crimes with impunity because he’s never been forced to answer for it…see…perfectly normal…nothing to see here

The importance of the word “famine” is that it can light a fire under international officials and groups to act urgently to save children’s lives. The test of Power’s warning is whether, for America and Israel alike, this actually leads to steps on the ground.

…give it up for the eye of the beholder

In 1995, when O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his former wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, The New York Times ran dueling photos on its front page.

One showed white people aghast: a man with his mouth agape, a woman with one hand on her head and the other hugging her own body. The other photo showed three Black people embracing in celebration, one of them, Sylvia Woods, an owner of a popular restaurant in Harlem, seeming to yell, with her arms stretched wide and fists clenched.

…& nothing being what it seems

Many Black people, however, saw it quite differently. O.J. Simpson — who died on Thursday at 76 — was no paragon of Blackness; in fact, he wanted to transcend racial categories. He told The Times in 1994 that his biggest accomplishment was being seen as a man first, not a Black man.

It’s not that most Black people thought him innocent or another Rosa Parks. For them, it was the system itself that was on trial. The question wasn’t whether the justice system would work equally in the service of justice but whether its inherent and inveterate injustices would also be applied equally.

…but some are more equal than others

The Simpson trial, in a strange way, held promise of closure in the ancient eye-for-an-eye sense. Could a Black man, with evidence stacked against him, be acquitted in the same way that those white men, with evidence stacked against them, were?

…so…what does that make an orange OJ in a red ball cap & a suit that has to hide a diaper…asking for a friend?

The party’s panic was led, naturally, by Trump, who is most vulnerable to the anger by virtue of his appointment of three anti-abortion justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, leading to the repeal of Roe v. Wade and thus the re-imposition of old state bans like Arizona’s. On Wednesday, Trump said the Arizona ban went too far, and he predicted the state would fix it. But the hypocrisy of state leaders was, if anything, even more egregious. Kari Lake, a Trump acolyte and U.S. Senate candidate, quickly denounced the court ruling, though she had said less than two years ago that the ban was a “great law.”

Juan Ciscomani, a Republican congressman from the state, who had supported a 15-week abortion ban and has repeatedly voted to restrict abortion access, called the court ruling “a disaster.” His Arizona colleague David Schweikert, who has an A+ rating from anti-abortion groups, said the issue shouldn’t be “legislated from the bench” and demanded the legislature take action.

But Democrats — and hopefully state voters — aren’t going to let Republicans run away from their own records. As a beautifully made Biden campaign ad on the terrible dangers of abortion bans said this week, “Donald Trump did this.” And so did his party.

…whatcha gonna do?

There’s always a lot of noise in the monthly data. Over the longer term, the mystery isn’t why inflation is high but the opposite: why it fell so much from its pandemic peak, even though labor markets have remained tight. Conventional wisdom is that when workers are scarce, they use their bargaining power to demand higher wages, which fuels inflation. That hasn’t happened much.

Servaas Storm, a senior lecturer of economics at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, wrote this week in an article for the Institute for New Economic Thinking that the behavior of inflation has discredited conventional New Keynesian theories about why prices rise and fall.

Storm wrote that central bankers such as Powell “are clear that standard macro models are of little use to them in the current macroeconomic environment.”

That’s a strong claim — perhaps too strong — but it does fit with Powell’s Jackson Hole metaphor about navigating by the stars under cloudy skies. Inflation remains poorly understood.

…what doesn’t?

There’s no more important relationship in the world than the one between the United States and China, the world’s two largest economies. And yet not enough Americans know about the history of confrontations — and human connections — between those superpowers that have brought us to the current level of political tension and economic cooperation.

Americans who got outraged about China’s spy balloon in 2023 should know about the long history of American spying on China. Those who hope to avoid military conflict with China in the future ought to consider how one was avoided when a Chinese fighter pilot confronted — and then collided with — a U.S. military spy plane in 2001.

As China grows more powerful, we had better get far more familiar with the events that have shaped how we are viewed by friends and adversaries alike.

One useful guide to the subject is Jane Perlez, a former New York Times Beijing bureau chief, who has spent much of her time in recent years producing podcasts about the hidden history that has led to the current moment.

In 2022, Perlez created “The Great Wager,” a five-part podcast series from NPR about President Richard Nixon’s historic 1972 trip to China. And on Tuesday, she dropped a new eight-part series called “Face-Off: U.S. vs China,” available on Apple and Spotify.

…one thing’s for sure, though…some writers are just…better than others

Ursula Le Guin has framed science fiction as a thought experiment better suited to describing the present than to forecasting. But what does Liu, a shrewd engineer-turned-novelist, make of bleak moral and geopolitical interpretations of his work? His first edition’s postscript offers a clue. He wrote, “It’s just science fiction, no need to take it seriously. :)”

…but…even if I haven’t quoted literally all of it…I’ve probably taken this one too far already…not least in the sense that the hour struck about 10mins ago & I have yet to get this up

“How Far Can You Go?” is the title of a novel by David Lodge, published in 1980 and portraying the lives of young English Catholics from the 1950s through the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath. The titular question refers to both sex and faith — what kinds of intimacy are allowed to Catholic couples before marriage, and what remains of belief after a period of dramatic religious change?

…your know what…I don’t think even if we took certain people up on their suggestion…god could in fact sort it out

That’s the background for the Vatican document issued on Monday on human dignity, Dignitas Infinita, apparently many years in the making but probably not coincidentally timed to the current moment in the Francis papacy. The document is prolix enough to contain multitudes, but it comes across as an unusually sharp condemnation of transgender identity, surrogacy and abortion, a clearer-than-usual line against developments in progressive thought and culture.

It’s still very much a Francis-era document: His condemnation of the death penalty is especially emphasized, his rhetoric of inclusion and critiques of anti-gay discrimination are still present. But the fact that it’s attracted more praise from conservative-leaning theologians and more disappointment or “whiplash” from groups seeking changes around issues of sexuality is pretty clearly an intended outcome.

…not that all outcomes are equally intentional

Thanks to Trump, there’s no national protection of a woman’s right to choose. The states have started to do their own things, and as abortion access dwindled, Trump discovered that — new surprise! — Republicans were losing elections over the issue. It’s arguably one of the top reasons the House of Representatives, which was supposed to get a big influx of Republicans in 2022, wound up split almost down the middle. Trump’s party now has a majority thinning faster than his hair.

He was reportedly considering a national abortion ban as recently as February and hasn’t ruled out signing one. What else could he do now? How about … try to push the whole issue onto the state legislatures?

Think about this. Maybe, like many Trump Republicans, you believe that human life has to be protected from the moment of conception. Maybe, like many, many other Americans, you believe a decision about continuing or ending pregnancy should be a woman’s personal, private issue.

Or maybe you believe it should all boil down to the state representative from East Kumquat, who chairs one particular subcommittee.

Not that one? Tell it to Donald. I’m sure he’s open to a mind change.

…certainly a lot of people seem to be certain that a lot of people need to change their minds

Congress is back in session after a two-week Easter break, with a bunch of issues that I think, if played correctly, will help President Biden more than Donald Trump in the 2024 race. Why? Most swing voters and independents ultimately prefer leaders who act like adults, not children, and who pursue America’s long-term interests, not short-term partisan politics. That should benefit Biden if he and his team can get swing voters to listen to them and to see Capitol Hill Republicans as focused on silly sideshows rather than serious statesmanship.

…or…just their behaviour

The House and Senate will soon have to sort out military assistance to Ukraine and Israel. Biden has positioned himself as a one-man American bulwark for democracy against Vladimir Putin. I think Biden has a more appealing pitch to independents and swing voters as the man who stood with Ukraine than Trump will have as the man who … stood with Putin? I’ve interviewed a lot of independent voters in my five presidential races; all but surrendering Ukraine to Putin is not a winning message with most of them.

…&…it comes to something when we have to take people seriously because they aren’t

In last week’s tipsheet, I asked whether swing voters had stopped listening to Biden. I think more of them will listen to him if Capitol Hill Republicans prove to be, in the words of Logan Roy, “not serious people.”

Have Voters Really Forgotten Trump’s Presidency? [NYT]

…I had all sorts of other things I meant to get around to…but…places to be…people to see…acts to get together…shows to get on the road…yadda yadda…so…here we are…& I’ll try to find time to find tunes…wish me luck?