MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 1 week ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
China hasn't followed Russia on disinformation — yet
By artappraiser on Mon, 08/06/2018 - 2:47pm |Part 2 of Kim Hart's "Daily Log-In" for Axios.com, Aug. 6; where she is summing up "David's full post "
The Chinese government certainly has the ability to pursue an online political disinformation campaign directed at foreign elections — but hasn’t yet because it favors long-term thinking over Russia’s scorched-earth foreign policy, experts told Axios' David McCabe.
Why it matters: While China has been less aggressive than Russia in the online sphere, it has allegedly pursued other equally potent strategies for meddling in the political affairs of other countries.
Experts believe that China is exploring more digital disinformation campaigns, but that it has yet to be publicly tied to an attempt to influence politics in the U.S. through a covert social media campaign.
“Putin, I believe, is largely acting out of weakness [....]
URL:
https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-login-aa1e4a5c-f2e1-44d8-85aa-fe28a6907630.html
- Add new comment
- 6092 reads
Comments
China has always thought long-term, that's why it's where it is today. Trump doesn't get that, 'cause he's a seat-of-your-pants kinda fellow.
by barefooted on Mon, 08/06/2018 - 2:56pm
Taking all together: the initial article, your comment, the Axios piece about the Russian "invasion" of the US. electric grid, the news of the silly Steven Seagal appt., knowing the Seagal movie persona, and then this summary graph from this July 21 The Atlantic piece which I just read, Russia’s Strength Is Its Weakness: How Putin sows division in America
I think this: China is a culture and government confident in its #1-ness. No need to prove it. Will consider "meddling" only for pragmatic reasons, not for propaganda purposes and confidence building. Putin and Russia have an inferiority complex problem since the Berlin wall fell and are working on that. Mr. MAGA Trump therefore sees Putin as an amigo in trying to boost the confidence of his people, as he thinks the U.S. lost it's mojo, too. And China as someone to fight mano a mano against just in order to gain their respect as an equal adversary.
Edit to add this suggestion as well: all Trump's real and faux bullying of countries like EU and Canada and tossing off the 3rd world as "shitholes" is simply trying to put them in their place as lesser beings to the U.S. with a symbolic rating system. Everything is like a simplistic kayfabe wrestling narrative to him? Even more, outside foreign policy, you have all the emphasis on "stable geniuses" at the top and ranking all leaders along those lines, dismissing people he thinks "low IQ".
by artappraiser on Tue, 08/07/2018 - 12:19am
AA, here are a few observations that my point of view lead me to when reading the block quote above.
As a weaker player on the international stage, Moscow is also deeply pragmatic.
That seems to be a smart way for a country to be whether weak or powerful.
Russia doesn’t launch crusades to build a beacon of freedom in Iraq.
Two things: That is indeed an example of intelligent pragmatism on Russia's part as by now should be perfectly obvious. But, since that statement is obviously presented as a difference between Russia and the U.S, I take it that the author is saying that our illegal, stupid invasion of Iraq justified at the time by what became known to be lies about its danger as a country filled with weapons of mass destruction which they might use or might give to terrorists was actually to establish that country as a "beacon of freedom'. Who believes that is a proper description?
That’s the kind of luxury war that only a superpower can afford.
Even if I refrain from ranting about the lack of conscience indicated by approvingly calling it a "luxury war" I strongly question whether we can "afford it" even if it seems so now, or that we can continue to afford more of the same. The author goes on for the rest of the paragraph supposedly drawing a distinction between the two countries by pointing out things that both countries do over and over and wrapping up that list of charges against Russia with the humorously ironic charge that Putin justifies his various actions as being those of the "indispensable peacemaker".
No one is more keenly aware of Russian fragility than Putin—or more desperate to project an image of global prestige. And so, optics become crucial: ...
I suggest that there is a leader on the world stage that actually is more desperate to project an image of prestige on every subject and in every place worldwide. I do agree completely though that optics are crucial.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 08/07/2018 - 2:30pm
Your comment urged me to read the article in full, and I suggest that you do the same. (Apologies to arta for not doing so in the first place.)
eta: I'm referring to the Atlantic article.
by barefooted on Tue, 08/07/2018 - 3:03pm
I have read the article but my comment was specific to what was quoted, I think, approvingly.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 08/07/2018 - 3:06pm
Please do not attribute an excerpt I quote from foreign policy analysis as my "approving" of the policy, if that is what you meant. You should only impute I found the analysis interesting or helpful in understanding something.
It's really beyond me why anyone here cares so much about the personal opinions of pseudonymous users on this site about what policy should be. I'll tell you straight out: I really am a semi-retired art appraiser, never worked for the CIA nor the State Dept. and not going to now. Just another news junkie on the internet.
Why does it matter so much what I would prefer to see happen?!!! Strikes me as ridiculous to care.
I am merely trying to figure out what's going on with the input from other minds. I think it would be the height of arrogance on my part to think I could change another person's mind on what policy should be.
Like I tried to get across: all I was doing with that quote is saying it seemed to fit with those other news items in making a pattern that might be an explanation for Trumpian foreign policy behavior. Not at all a judgment on Russia by me for, against or anything between, but instead seeing something that might explain how Trump thinks and just throwing it out there, wondering if anyone else sees the same.
BECAUSE the Trump administration really has never clarified any real foreign policy theory AT ALL. So we are left with trying to read tea leaves.
But you turn it immediately into a Russia/China fer or agin issue! To be very frank, that's a "what the fuck?" kinda thing for me. I just don't think like that. I don't even like a lot of professional opinion, would almost always prefer analysis. Don't respect someone who feels that they know so well how to run the world.
Why do you think your pseudonymous opinion or my pseudonymous opinion of Russia is so goll damn important? What does that do for you? If you really were truly passionately serious about effecting national policy, you would at the very least be blogging on it publicly under your real name, if not doing something like campaigning for someone of like mind or running for office yourself.
by artappraiser on Tue, 08/07/2018 - 11:14pm
Sorry but it still appears to me that you offered the article because you thought it was of value, as you repeat here. That is why I concluded that you offered it with approval. You found in it interesting analysis that helped you understand something and presented it because you thought it might help the rest of us understand. So generous of you even though you say you don't care what we think. You say you are merely trying to figure out what's going on with the input from other minds. I applied my mind to analyzing what the author you brought to the conversation said. That does not mean that I either demand or expect you to accept my analysis but analysis is exactly what you say you want.
I don't "care", in the way you suggest, what your personal opinion is, but offering an article which offers analysis invites a different analysis if you really do want intelligent, nuanced, discuss as you claim. Why do you get so defensive when I analyze something differently than does the author of the article you brought into the conversation? Don't you claim to want participation in nuanced conversation among the participants here at dag?
I do not think your 'pseudonymous opinion or my pseudonymous opinion of Russia is so goll damn important' I think they are both just opinions, but I did arrive at my opinion of the points in the article which I commented on through analysis. It is just as valid for me to analyze the authors opinions or studied conclusions as it is for her analyze the world situation and present her conclusion publicly and for you to then bring it here as interesting and helpful. I found much of what she said interesting but wrong and explained why.
You very often applaud someone's comment when you agree. Why do you do so if you honestly think no one should care what others think? Arguing, in the classical sense which is what we are both doing [but in this case at least I am not arguing angrily] but at the same time truly not caring if anyone agrees is, IMO, simply an exercise in mental masturbation. Whack on if that is how you get your mental kicks but you might as well quit wasting your time trying to convince me that your way, which you describe vociferously but do not live up to in practice, is the only proper way to participate in topics here.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 08/08/2018 - 12:54am
Yes, Russia doesn't launch ill conceived campaigns to bring "freedom" from brutal dictatorships. They still use the old style foreign policy of propping up brutal dictators that are friendly to them. See Assad in Syria. That used to be the favorite US move in Latin America, propping up brutal right wing dictators that were friendly to the US. I think it's likely you condemn that US behavior in Latin America. I doubt you called it, "intelligent pragmatism."
by ocean-kat on Tue, 08/07/2018 - 3:26pm
Haha good one.
by NCD on Tue, 08/07/2018 - 4:46pm
You are easily amused. And, you are funny too.
Edit to add: There is an art to flying, a knack actually, it's the ability to throw yourself at the ground and miss - Hitchikers guide to the galaxy
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 08/07/2018 - 9:06pm
What I called intelligent pragmatism is NOT invading a country like the U.S. did Iraq which was a mistake in the first place [a mistake which many smart informed analysts with a knowledge of our history have called the worst foreign policy disaster in our country”s history] and which invasion was followed up by one stupid action there after another which just amplified and continued the mistake.
Right, I don’t and never did, ever, call that [“propping up right wing dictators”] intelligent pragmatism. I have never indicated anything of the sort. You are trying to indict me for being consistent. Maybe because you have mischaracterized what what I actually did say it would be appropriate for me to call you liar! liar! LIAR! What do you say, would that be a good way to encourage “productive conversation”?
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 08/07/2018 - 5:07pm
Perhaps I misunderstood your post. You seem to be praising Russia for it's "intelligent pragmatism." At the least intelligent pragmatism seems to have a positive connotation. I see intelligent pragmatism as the old style of foreign policy of propping up brutal dictatorships used by both the US and Russia during the cold war especially in Latin America. It's gone somewhat out of style for the US which claims it favors regime change leading to democracy but that type of foreign policy still seems very popular with Putin. That's why we didn't support Mubarak in Egypt. The theory behind it is that while propping up dictators might have short term value their brutality toward their own people leads inevitably to their downfall with negative blow back to the US for propping them up.
I'm not sure what you mean by "intelligent pragmatism" but it seems to me Russia's version of it is the old style of propping up brutal dictatorships the are friendly to him. Perhaps you could explain how your version of Russia's intelligent pragmatism differs from mine since I'm not really sure how I mischaracterized your comment.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 08/07/2018 - 10:26pm
"deeply pragmatic" - " That seems to be a smart way for a country to be" - so you subscribe to Henry Kissinger's realpolitik, eh? would have expected you to favor idealism and morals once upon a time.
I do agree that "beacon of freedom" is farcical, and remind that this was started by Republicans, the same fuckups that brought the 2008 crash and the Trump treason-fest presidency. Maybe Obama put some lipstick on a few pigs, but I don't recall him going in for clueless nation-building (destroying). If you recall, Obama *didn't* bomb Syria despite the use of chemical weapons; arranged a peace treaty with Iran as the result of our nuclear showdown; put together an international coalition to take down ISIS multilaterally...
" I suggest that there is a leader on the world stage that actually is more desperate... " - presuming that means Trump, but Trump's been in office 1 1/2 years and doesn't face 0 serious opposition. Putin's $60 billion Sochi Olympics and much of his other shameless self-promotion is much more profound an impact on that country. I expect Trump to be gone in half a year, an even worse performance than the Nazis' "1000 year reich" that lasted maybe 6.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 08/07/2018 - 3:57pm
I may be said to mostly ascribe to the 'Realist" camp of foreign policy and agree. You are not the first to point out that Kissinger belonged to that camp and therefore I must agree with Kissinger's actions. AA beat you to that punch long ago and was just as wrong. An approach to accomplishing an objective which is thought to be pragmatic can be the opposite by being stupid, criminal, and unachievable.
Yes, I do favor following policies that demonstrate "idealism" and "morals" to the very closest as is possible. I have no doubt you have heard one or many of the versions of the old bromide, "A young man who is not a communist [socialist, Democrat,etc] has no heart. An old man who is still a communist has no brain". Kissinger is a no-good scumbag lying prick bastard who never had a heart. He is a sociopathic, psychopathic, undead, prick who callously directed the death of hundreds of thousands, probably millions, and is still honored for doing so. Why anyone would say or imply anything good about the prick fuckhead is beyond me and I reject, in case that is not obvious yet, any implication that I am allied with anything about him.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 08/07/2018 - 4:45pm
So look at Putin's record towards killing civilians in Chechnya and Syria and Ingushetia, his record of confiscating companies and imprisoning or killing political opponents & the press - why is that prick fuckhead so much more excusable than Kissinger? He's never seemed to have a heart either...
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 08/07/2018 - 4:58pm
Oh oh, and then the conversation stops.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 08/07/2018 - 11:59pm
Partly because it is past midnight and I am getting tired but if the conversation with you stops at this point it is mostly because I am tired of your intellectually dishonest accusations. I never excused Putin for anything you suggest in your scurrilous comment.
Tomorrow I will be traveling.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 08/08/2018 - 1:30am
Then set the record straight, please - it seemed earlier you found Putin the global adult in the room fighting off war-mongering, were supportive of his freedom fighting in Dinbas and annexation of Crimea,, and just a couple days ago it was another bout of "hysteria" about Russia with mealy-mouthed "both sides do it" (which is true if Putin owns Trump especially, not so much if we discuss Obama). So where have I git you wrong?
(and it wasn't midnight when I posted this and you answered AA extensively -I don't need so much, just a couple lines clarifying the errors of my ways/beliefs about you - I.e. my "dishonesty")
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 08/08/2018 - 1:37am
I probably went on and off that subject looking at different comments and knocked off the bold highlighting and so missed it until later. But regardless, I would owe you no apology for just ignoring your comment which I correctly called spurious. I never “excused” Putin for the things you accused me of and you know that is the truth and therefore your comment is a case of intellectual dishonesty. That is the most polite way I can put it. And, I am through for the night so you can have the last word. You should try not to embarrass yourself.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 08/08/2018 - 2:25am
"Spurious"? I read the fucking article you whined about no one reading and gave you specifics to respond to. Burtina, Manafort's case, Putin's decade long billion dollar hacking & illegal influence effort, and supporting Syria's use of chemical weapons/attacks on ccivilians vs the US *not* overthrowing Syria and making a peaceful nuclear treaty with Iran. Both sides don't do it nearly the same.
So you post something, whine about it, but dont answer serious questions. (Or maybe you want to play the spurious " I dont agree with everything I linked to" game). Yep, you shit the bed. Embarrassment. Followed by "it's past my bedtime" and "i'll be travelling, catch you later".
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 08/08/2018 - 2:49am
Since China has bought so much of our debt and are so deeply involved with our consumer products, they have more incentive to be a part of business plans than mess them up. Russia is barely present in investments outside of real estate here. Saudi Arabian money has more skin in the game here than Russians do.
Russians do have a lot of cash. What can cash buy?
by moat on Tue, 08/07/2018 - 5:34pm