Trump is apparently arguing on the stump that our inflation rates are comparable to those of the Weimar Republic in 1923. That’s laughably stupid, of course, but let’s take the analogy to Weimar a step further.
If Trump wins the election and puts an end to Weimar America, what does that make him? What was that guy’s name again? Didn’t he have a funny little mustache?
Two observations are pertinent before I respond to the question. First, the Zionist movement only really started in the late 19th century, so it is difficult to make a plausible argument that Zionism is an integral part of the Jewish religious identity. Second, it is inherent in the idea of a Jewish state that Christians and Muslims are second class citizens. That makes Zionism a sort of inverted form of antisemitism, which has created a problem for the leaders of Israel from the country’s inception.
That aside, based on my definition of antisemitism, the answer to the question depends, not on what the anti-Zionist is against, but on what he is for. Here are the possibilities:
The American government’s position is that the solution to the problem is the creation of a viable, but militarily weak, Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza. This concept maintains Israel as both a Jewish and a democratic state and solves the problem of discrimination. As such, it is the best possible approach to the problem–that is, if the facts on the ground have not already made it impossible, thanks to the efforts of extremists on both sides.
The meaning of the loaded term “antisemitism” is ambiguous and hotly disputed. Republicans who love Jews in Israel, but not elsewhere, and who know a wedge issue when they see one want to legally impose a definition which includes opposition to Zionism. Progressives strongly disagree. Who is right here?
“Antisemitism” is, simply put, discrimination against Jewish people on the basis of their religion. It can be attributed to individuals, groups, or governments. It can manifest itself in a variety of ways–social, economic, political, and even public safety. The bottom line, however, is clear; Jewish people, according to antisemites, are not entitled to the same rights as other people.
How does this relate to Zionism? For that, see my next post.
To American reactionaries, Viktor Orban is a hero, and Budapest is the new Jerusalem. Hungary was the first place wokeness went to die. It is a role model.
The problem is that those same reactionaries insist that China is an existential threat to America, and Orban is China’s best friend in Europe. Xi was there a few days ago. He received an extremely warm welcome.
You would think the closeness of the China-Hungary relationship would cause the reactionaries to rethink their position on Orban, or, at least, create some embarrassment. Not at all! They just ignore anything that conflicts with their narrative and change the subject.
The Israeli government insists that there is no way to fight the war effectively that avoids such large numbers of casualties, and that it is doing everything it can to facilitate the provision of aid to innocent civilians. Are those statements true?
No. If the Israeli government treated the war, as it should, as a guerrilla conflict against a group of fighters, not against the population as a whole, it would make every possible effort to protect and feed civilians in order to separate them from the fighters. That would both reduce casualties and permit vastly more aid without detracting from the objective of destroying Hamas. That has been my position for many months; I am quite certain the US government is telling the Israelis the same thing. Mostly for domestic political reasons, however, Bibi and his cabinet have decided to fight the war in a way that offends world opinion, kills tens of thousands of civilians, and results in a long war and an expensive occupation purely at Israeli expense. Why should America be a partner in that endeavor?
It shouldn’t. The cutoff of weapons that are likely to kill massive numbers of civilians in Gaza without any large offsetting benefits is a good first step.
It appears to me that the defense has succeeded in showing that Stormy Daniels was largely motivated by money. Her recollections of the sexual encounter over the years may also have been slightly inconsistent. She also clearly hates Trump but behaves just like him in some respects. That’s all the defense got out of her. I don’t think it is nearly enough to keep Trump off the stand, if he wants to rebut the allegations; you can’t beat something with nothing.
The one person, other than Trump, who has some personal knowledge of the 2006 events is a former bodyguard named Keith Schiller. Schiller has also been identified as someone who transported check to Cohen from Trump for signature. He doesn’t work for Trump at this point. Is he going to be a witness, and if so, for whom? That’s something I’ll be looking for in the days to come.
“I don’t want to hear it is what it is/It was what it was.”—Haim
It can hardly be denied that women were second-class citizens throughout most of our country’s history. This was due largely to an economy that placed great value on the physical strength and skills of men. With the advent of the knowledge-based economy, however, things have started to change dramatically. Men whose skills are no longer much valued are feeling left behind and are angry about it. Both sexes argue that the glass is half empty–women due to the remaining vestiges of the past, and men for the present and an apparently dismal future. Who is right here?
Women are right in wanting the remaining barriers to disappear, but probably a bit too inclined to use the language of victimhood and to deny men a fair hearing in the process (right, Mr. Franken?). As for the men, the obstacles to their success are purely psychological, not legal or social, so they need to suck it up and find roles that work in the new economy instead of retreating to the gym and whining on social media. Their claims to be victims don’t warrant your sympathy.
Even the most rabid American reactionary has to admit that people of color have been oppressed by the white majority throughout most of the country’s past. Blacks were enslaved, and then subjected to varying forms of both de jure and de facto discrimination; Native Americans were deprived of their land and their identity; Asians were excluded; and so on. It’s not a pretty picture.
But the predominant reactionary view is that these actions are ancient history. They have no relevance in contemporary America; people of color should stop whining and just get over it. In fact, the federal government openly favors racial minorities over white people by imposing affirmative action, which is pervasive in today’s society. As a result, it is white people, not minorities, who are the true victims in America in 2024.
The reactionaries have no case on this issue. Affirmative action has never been nearly as ingrained in our society as they would imagine, while the impacts of past discrimination are still being felt, particularly with regard to inherited household wealth. In addition, plenty of surveys still show evidence of contemporary discrimination. As a result, while there is lots of room for legitimate debate about the wisdom of providing compensation for past sins, the notion of white victimhood is complete rubbish.
Naturally, the prosecution ignored my advice and put Daniels on the stand in their case-in-chief. If I were a juror, here is how I would respond to her testimony:
Why did the prosecution put her on? I have to think they are trying to bait Trump into testifying. For a variety of reasons, they really want to destroy him on cross.
I can’t think of a more plausible explanation.
Ron DeSantis has just signed a bill outlawing the production and sale of lab-grown meat in the state of Florida. In part, this is obviously a reward to Florida agriculture for its political support, but is there something else going on here?
Yes, there is. The GOP claims to be the party of freedom and the deregulation of business, but here, as with Disney, other reactionary values are taking priority. Republicans often accuse Democrats of interfering in the free market and picking winners, but in this case, the right is doing the same thing. The real issue here is that Democrats want to pick winners that will be viable in the future, while Republicans prefer to invest in the economy of the past. Lab-grown meat is to DeSantis as electric cars are to Trump.
King Lear would approve.
Personally, I would have called the bookkeeping people after, not before, Michael Cohen, because he’s going to need all of the corroboration he can get. Putting him on last runs the risk of leaving the jury with a bad impression of the case if he performs poorly on what figures to be a difficult cross. If he shines, however, the gamble will work. We will just have to see how it works out.
In the meantime, the NYT is insisting that the prosecution is going to call Stormy Daniels in its case-in-chief. Since it is not necessary for Daniels to testify to prove the existence of the payment, I would view that decision as a horrible mistake. Daniels is best used as a rebuttal witness, and only if Trump denies knowing her. Under those conditions, she could be devastating.
The right is critical of Biden because he won’t give unconditional support to the Israelis in their war, as they see it, against the Palestinians (not just Hamas). The left is critical of him because he doesn’t value the lives of Palestinian civilians over his ultimate goal of a peaceful and prosperous Middle East with a moderate Palestinian state. The center generally agrees with his objectives, but wants to see more immediate protection of innocent civilians through the use of leverage. Since nobody is satisfied with the current approach, why won’t Biden change it?
I am convinced Biden believes that putting conditions on the use of American resources will damage his credibility with the Israeli public–not the current government, which is beyond redemption–when it comes time to talk about a reasonable political solution to Gaza. In the long run, he might be right, but in the short run, it is doing a lot of damage to him at home. The current policy, barring some conspicuous successes in the immediate future, is unsustainable. He is going to have to make some sort of dramatic statement about protecting civilians if he wants to keep the convention under control and the left on his side.
Members of the right frequently accuse Biden of having no coherent plan for victory in Ukraine. Is the criticism fair?
No. It is quite clear that Biden defines “victory” as the survival of Ukraine as a viable state; this does not require the retaking of all, or even much, of the land currently possessed by the Russians. The problem is that the Ukrainian government at this point is still demanding the return of the invaded territory, and Biden is not going to force them to accept less ambitious objectives against their will. As a result, he has to continue to talk about a Ukrainian “victory” even though his actions indicate that he doesn’t believe in the Ukrainian version of it.
I think the failures of the past year are starting to make an impression on the Ukrainians. If Biden wins the election, Putin will know that he can’t swallow all of Ukraine, as well. The possibility of a peace of exhaustion could, therefore, re-emerge after November. That’s the realistic end game here–the Korean solution.
Both John Bolton and William Barr are talented hard right ideologues who thought they could separate the reactionary “good” Trump from the narcissistic man on golf cart who pursues nothing but his own whims and interests. Both of them were proved wrong and left the administration on bad terms. Both of them have been deeply critical of Trump since January 6. Bolton has remained so; Barr, on the other hand, says he will support Trump for president in spite of his innumerable shortcomings and his appalling record. Why the difference?
Personalities matter here, of course, but I think there is a deeper reason. The Trump critics who focus on his foreign policy have, with one glaring exception, continued to oppose him because they know there are no meaningful checks and balances in foreign affairs. If Trump wants to embrace dictators and surrender Ukraine, no one is going to stop him. Barr, on the other hand, probably believes the legal guardrails in the system will hold again. He is probably wrong about that.
In case you were wondering, the exception is Lindsey Graham, who values golf outings with Trump over support for democratic regimes overseas.
A: The given name of the porn star who was at the center of Trump’s hush money trial.
Q: Who is Stephanie Clifford?