Category: Uncategorized

I’m fascinated by Rishi Sunak’s decision to bring David Cameron back into the cabinet. This can’t just be about the Foreign Ministry; it appears to be a signal to the Conservative Party, and to the electorate in general, that he identifies himself with Cameron’s years as PM. That, of course, implies a rejection of everyone who came after him.

On the one hand, running as a change candidate as the representative of a party that has been in power for over a decade is very difficult; this is one way to do it. On the other hand, Cameron notoriously opposed Brexit. Does Sunak think that doesn’t matter at this stage, or is he consciously flipping the bird at Boris and the populist right? Either way, there’s going to be plenty of opposition to this in his own party.

I don’t think this gambit will work, but Sunak has no good options at this point, and it shows some imagination. Also, Cameron is competent, which helps.

Mike Johnson, like his predecessors, is not a magic man. He doesn’t possess some special secret that permits him to unite the moderates and the extremists in his caucus. As a result, we are heading for the pointless shutdown I expected a month ago.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating–this is a fundamental difference between the two parties. In the Senate, for example, the Democrats have only a tiny majority, and their ideologies run from Bernie Sanders to Joe Manchin. They still manage to govern, because everyone is committed to using government to help the American people. The extreme right of the GOP, on the other hand, has no interest in governing; it just wants to get on Fox News and stick it to the left. It’s not the same thing at all.

The GOP field is finally consolidating, but not fast enough. There has never been a rationale for Ramaswamy, but he appears to like the limelight, so there is no telling when he will give up. Christie will get out, but not until after New Hampshire. DeSantis should quit before he completely embarrasses himself in Florida, but whether he will or not is an open question. The only reasonably viable Trump alternative at this point is Haley.

The mere fact that escalation isn’t in the best interest of any of the parties doesn’t mean it can’t happen. If you don’t believe me, just ask Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

If it does happen, it will probably be the result of attacks by Hezbollah or pro-Iranian militias in Iraq or Syria which require a much larger American response than what we are seeing today. That, in turn, could cause the Iranians to participate directly in the war. Would America and Israel tolerate that without retaliation? Probably not.

If America and Israel contemplated attacking Iran at that point, they would have to consider Putin’s position. In years past, it would have been safe to assume that Putin would have acquiesced to an assault on Iran as long as he received something valuable in return. Today, however, conditions have changed; the Russians are tied up in Ukraine, but the Iranians are actively assisting them. Would Putin stand by and watch the destruction of his ally without threatening some form of escalation? If not, what could he do? Would he risk attacking NATO forces helping Ukraine? Would he send hypersonic missiles against the Israelis? Would he even consider using nukes against either the Americans or the Israelis?

Let’s hope we never find out.

1. IRAN AND ITS PROXIES THINK THEY’RE WINNING AS IT IS: Mass martyrdom, with all of its political implications, was always the point here. Why mess with a good thing?
2. IRAN AND THE OTHER PROXIES WEREN’T CONSULTED BEFORE HAMAS ATTACKED: It’s their war, so why bail them out?
3. IRAN NEVER PUT MUCH FAITH IN THE MILITARY CAPABILITIES OF HAMAS: Hezbollah is a far more competent fighting force. Hamas is just about ideology and politics.
4. HEZBOLLAH ISN’T REALLY DESIGNED FOR AN OFFENSIVE WAR: It is very difficult to beat in Lebanon, but it doesn’t have the ability to take and hold Israeli land. That is particularly true if the US gets involved, which is a real possibility.
5. A WAR WITH ISRAEL, AND POSSIBLY THE US, WOULD PROBABLY RESULT IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ISLAMIC STATE: Would you really put your regime at risk for Hamas? Didn’t think so.

Joe Manchin hasn’t written off the possibility of running for president. Ross Douthat thinks he should give it a try. Does that make sense?

Let me ask you a different question: how does he distinguish between himself and Biden? As I have stated on many occasions, it was Manchin, not Biden, who was the most powerful Joe in America during the first two years of Biden’s term. Every legislative accomplishment of Biden’s contains Manchin’s fingerprints. Every significant appointment of Biden’s had Manchin’s approval. In short, Biden’s record is Manchin’s, too.

That means, to justify his candidacy, Manchin would have to argue that Biden is secretly woke, and he isn’t. Really? Does he think the American public believes the elderly president is a woke warrior?

LOL.

For two decades now, the Israelis have refused to take risks for peace, because, well, it was so darn risky. You couldn’t trust your Palestinian partner, and even if you could, there would be serious political violence at home. There would be assassinations–maybe even civil war. Better to rely on conflict management–try to avoid provocations, quietly change the facts on the ground, and cut the grass when necessary.

Call it the Netanyahu consensus. It seemed to work. The Israeli left withered and mostly disappeared. The far right did better, but it never ran the show. Until now.

As I have predicted many times, the Palestinians have a vote. The Netanyahu consensus has been blown to smithereens. As a result, when the war is over, there will be a lot more space for wildly different opinions–either a sincere search for a two-state solution or ethnic cleansing. There will be an open window for a more imaginative approach to the Palestinian issue.

But if and when it fails, the Israelis will go back to conflict management, because, you know, taking risks for peace is so darn risky.

A column in Politico informs us that the WaPo has reported that Trump is already planning to use the Insurrection Act from his first day in office to prevent any demonstrations against him. And, of course, he’s already made it clear that he wants his critics to be prosecuted. And, of course, there is his proposal to impose the 10 percent tariff on all imported goods. Just to name a few.

You would think the moderators at the various debates would want to explore these topics. Do the Trump alternatives support his plan to drive the country into a friendless dictatorship? Does the GOP as a whole think that massive tariffs, even on goods imported from our allies, are a good idea? Don’t the candidates want to use these issues as a way to create distance between themselves and Trump?

Silence.

To me, “Born to Run” in its entirety sounds like a musical. “Jungleland” by itself would make a great musical–something like “West Side Story.” It makes very ordinary people sound heroic. Is that the entire message?

No. Springsteen is not a fool; he knows he’s creating a myth, not describing reality. The biggest line in the song–“But they wind up wounded, and not even dead”–is his way of telling us that.

But that line, devastating as it is, is a form of CYA. The grandness of the music and the narrative overwhelms it. The average listener comes away with the message that street kids in New Jersey are larger than life. That’s why the song is so popular.

I could spill a lot of ink on this topic. I could tell you that Chris Christie had a solid, if low energy, performance; that DeSantis, probably inspired by his home crowd, was better than before; that Haley lost me with her deranged answer to the border question; that Ramaswamy was just as annoying as usual; and that Tim Scott embarrassed himself and should leave the race as soon as possible. But what’s the point?

The mission is to defeat Donald Trump. All of the candidates were given a microphone, a large audience, and an opportunity to explain in detail why Trump is completely unfit for office. Not a one of them took it. So why bother even showing up?

The abortion issue clearly fueled Democratic victories in Kentucky, Virginia, and Ohio last night. GOP leaders have consoled themselves by arguing that abortion will play a less important role in the 2024 election, which will have a much different electorate. Who is right here?

Both, and neither. It is true that abortion, by itself, will probably play a smaller role with a larger electorate in 2024. If the Democrats include abortion in an overall narrative in which the GOP is coming for everyone’s rights, however, it is likely to resonate with the voters. Americans may be reluctant to support new government programs, but they generally hate efforts to take away rights they have enjoyed for decades.

These two Stones songs, both built around similar, irresistible Keith Richards guitar riffs, are absolute classics. Do they have anything else in common?

“JJF” has lyrics about suffering that are wildly baroque–weird, even. I can’t think of another prominent Stones song that sounds like it. What was the point of it? The only plausible answer is that Jagger and Richards wanted to remind their mostly working-class audience that they, in spite of their wealth and fame, still felt their fans’ pain. It was a gesture of solidarity with the base, as it were.

The last verse of “Satisfaction” serves the same purpose. You can easily imagine the average Stones fan saying “What do you have to complain about, Mr. Jagger? You have all of the fame and the booze and the drugs and the chicks that you want. I can barely make ends meet. What is it exactly that we have in common?” Jagger is ready for that question, and he answers it in a way that makes the song universal. He may be rich and famous, but like you, he’s Adam, or Faust. He can never have everything he wants.

That’s what makes the song so great, along with the riff, of course.

Now that Bibi has (to no one’s surprise) admitted that he would rather occupy Gaza than accept a partial success or make meaningful political concessions to the Palestinians, the following is pertinent:

ISRAEL’S ARMY

Don’t stop that bombing.

I could bomb all night.

My mind goes sleepwalking

While I’m putting the war to right.

Call the Biden Administration.

Tell them to prepare for an occupation.

_______________

Israel’s army is here to stay.

Israel’s army are on their way.

Gazans would rather be anywhere else but here today.

__________

Gaza is up for grabs.

The town is full of Arabs.

We should be in Palestine

Changing facts on the West Bank line.

We’re sending the message we won’t leave this time.

____________

But there’s the danger.

The election’s coming up next year.

But it can be arranged

With just a word in Mr. Biden’s ear.

Times are bad, but things could be much worse.

We could send you to the Ukraine first.

___________

Israel’s army is here to stay.

Israel’s army are on their way.

Gazans would rather be anywhere else but here today.

_____________

Parody of “Oliver’s Army” by Elvis Costello.

Some of the greatest pop music from the late 20th century was the product of a very public breakup between Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks. I don’t know if they were better off for it, but we certainly were. You can’t help wondering- what was it like for these two to perform “Dreams” and “Go Your Own Way” in front of an audience every night? At what point did it go from a public psychodrama to just making the doughnuts? We’ll probably never know the answer to that one.

But the Buckingham/Nicks strife was only part of the back story behind “Rumours;” the McVie marriage was crumbling, as well. If you listen carefully, the music that resulted from that breakup was quite different; Christine McVie is actually consoling and reassuring her ex, not throwing mud at him. That’s the real meaning of “Don’t Stop;” it isn’t just a Clinton campaign song.

There was a great outpouring of feeling when Christine died. Now I’m pretty sure I know why.

Like you, I saw the article about Biden losing to Trump in swing states, and I had the same sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. Biden’s poor showing is primarily the result of the electorate, at this early stage of the process, comparing him to the almighty rather than the alternative. It is useful, therefore, to remind the world what a second Trump term would entail before the next similar poll is taken.

I have split the implications of a second Trump presidency into what certainly will, probably will, and could happen. Here is my analysis:

1. CERTAINTIES: Trump will abandon Ukraine to its fate, routinely ignore court orders, replace competent civil servants with obedient hacks, engage in behavior that most normal people would view as corrupt, damage our educational system, institute a regime of unbridled cruelty at the border, and turn his back on efforts to limit the impacts of climate change.
2. LIKELY OUTCOMES: America will probably exit NATO, embrace Putin, permanently alienate our allies, start a low level war with Mexico, attack Iran, cut taxes on the wealthy, enact a national ban on abortion, offer to sell out Taiwan for increased agricultural exports, and increase prices by imposing an across-the-board tariff on friends and foes alike.
3. POSSIBILITIES: Trump completely destroys liberal democracy in America. Using a concocted emergency as a pretext, and employing a newly politicized military as a weapon, he throws his opponents in jail, shuts down dissenting opinions on the internet and in the MSM, and declares martial law in the blue states. The Republicans in Congress make no real effort to prevent any of this, and the Supreme Court is powerless to stop him. America is now officially a white Christian nationalist nation with a dictator at the top.

If you’re tempted to vote for Trump on the basis that you would like to bring back the economy of 2019 (never mind the subsequent pandemic response and the insurrection), please consider two things. First, Trump has no clue as to how to do that under today’s changed circumstances; second, read the list I have provided above. Even if he could turn back time with the economy, would it really be worth it?