Wednesday, June 10, 2026

As Maine Goes

The 2026 Maine Democratic Primary for US Senate took place yesterday.  The New York Times lost.  

The rest of us won.  In a document on Graham Platner's campaign  website detailing what he calls his Defend Democracy Agenda is this paragraph:

For too long, the promise that all people are created equal has remained unfinished business in our Constitution. Passing the Equal Rights Amendment would help complete that work by making clear that equality under the law cannot be denied because of sex. But we must also confront how protections like those in the Fourteenth Amendment—written to defend the freedom of formerly enslaved people and guarantee equal rights—have been twisted over time to shield powerful corporations while the rights of real people are attacked. Communities of color, LGBTQ Americans, immigrants, and others have too often found those protections turned against them instead of working in their defense. We need a 21st-century Constitution that restores the original purpose of these guarantees: equal rights under the law, protected for every person in this country

Women's issues come up repeatedly in Platner's platform. Defending the right to choose abortion; legislating against government intrusion into women's lives; passing the Equal Rights Amendment to constitutionally guarantee equality in the law for women.  All are on Platner's agenda for the Senate.  Additionally, Platner is a proponent of policy that improves the lives of working women (and men):  early childcare for all; healthcare reform including Medicare for All; funding and protecting Public education; clean air and water and a healthier environment.  

The 989 American billionaires and the megacorporations who offshore their wealth fare less well. Platner's tax plan to "End Billionaire Welfare" is a must read for understanding how Platner intends to work for legislation that imposes a modicum of burden on the ultra wealthy in repayment of the some of the debt they owe society for their obscene riches.  Is there a better equally non-violent way to take care of the billionaire problem than electoral politics and popular legislation?  If I were a billionaire I wouldn't want to find out.  For the rest of us, Platner promises to work to ease the burden with protections to social security, increases in the Child Tax Credit, and a buffer against tax hikes on the poor and working classes thanks to "making the wealthy pay their share."  

Also in the platform are policies that address campaign finance flaws and other crises of democracy; housing (including the epidemic of private homes being sucked up by hedge funds while home buying becomes more out of reach for each generation)l; tribal rights; increased protections and enhancements of quality of life for the disabled; the promise to prevent pointless wars, overspending on the military budget-- including especially to aid Israel's genocide in Gaza-- while underspending on those who sign up for the military or who have served.

Platner's run-of-the-mill Centrist Democratic Primary opponent (and Chuck Schumer's pick), Governor Janet Mills had already seen the writing on the wall and suspended her campaign, so one has to wonder what this outburst of anti-Platner propaganda in the past few weeks has been for.  Maine voters foiled the campaign of the mainstream media and the Democratic and Republican establishment who are terrified of a candidate who promises to bring change to the system that elevated our feeble-brained elite and its infrastructure in an effort to rise the tide and lift the boats of all of his constituency.  But do not count the media campaign out just yet, because the stakes are not just about Maine, but about what a Platner defeat of  Susan Collins portends for the nation.  It's an effort to besmirch Platner before his energy infests the Senate.

Privilege is when your identity comes before your socialism.  But a socialist whose platform is not for women, for African Americans, for Native Americans, for new and would be Americans, for Gay and Trans men and women, for working men and women of all identities, for old and young and in between, for solidarity with those across the globe, isn't really a socialist.  Take time with Platner's extensive Platform and it is impossible to to miss why the Privileged and powerful and the bought gatekeepers of the status quo in the mainstream media do not want what he brings to the table in its full power and glory.

Saturday, May 30, 2026

Moanin' and Moanin'

Ernestine Anderson sings Bobby Timmons' Moanin' (lyrics added by Jon Hendricks) with Cherry Wainer on Hammond organ and her husband Don Stoner on drums on German TV show Beat Beat Beat in 1967.


 Not to be confused with Charles Mingus's 1959 piece of the same name with actual moaning (along with bass) from the man himself and Pepper Adams on baritone sax:



Sunday, May 24, 2026

I Heart to Hate Read


I am just starting to read a "most highly anticipated book of 2026" based on a recommendation from a local "political" bookstore's almost daily spam newsletter I am on a mailing list for.  The topic is the basis of force of International Law.  I had not anticipated the book personally, nor had I heard of the author, a professor at an elite Northeastern college.  But the topic sounded a bit irresistible to me in light of current events-- and in a book highly anticipated by someone no less-- so I snapped it up.  Already on reading the Introduction, alarm bells are going off.  The introduction indicates that the Nuremberg Trials will be a focus, which makes sense, but as for contemporary topics, while it makes reference to Putin's aggression against Ukraine, there is not one mention of Gaza.  Since it was Gaza that motivated my interest in the topic to begin with, I ask myself, what can be said of a book on the topic of international law published rather deep into 2026 that does not promise in its introduction to treat the issue of Gaza?  I start to wonder, is this going to be the at least one book per year I have been told I should try to read that I do not agree with?

I don't remember where I came across this piece of advice about one's reading habits-- it seems likely to have come from Current Affairs editor Nathan J Robinson or someone like that-- but I do remember my distaste for the idea when it was proposed to me.  I don't think it should be much of a challenge to imagine why a very prolific reader would suggest such a thing.  It can't be a bad thing to expose yourself to the caliber of thought of influential people you disagree with.  Challenging your beliefs strengthens your own argument on the theory that what does not kill my principles makes them stronger.  But the thought of deliberately putting myself through the exercise of trying to stomach the literary voice of a Bill O'Reilly, an Ezra Klein or an Ann Coulter makes me gag.  I couldn't see myself doing it as a matter of habit.  But as my habit demands a steady stream of new titles to read, I would keep it in mind.

What happened instead was that the advice became a guidepost for me for those instances I was already familiar with of finding myself in the middle of reading a book I had innocently "anticipated" for some preconceived notion that turned out to be something else-- rather like what I am now preparing myself for with the book on International Law that I'm currently reading.  In short, it is now my firmly established habit that while I won't generally seek out titles I expect to disagree with for the purposes recommended by whoever introduced me to the concept of the intentional annual hate read, when I find myself in the middle of one I will finish reading it on the basis that it will satisfy the ideal quota.  

For instance, last year, probably on the basis of a recommendation from the very same political bookstore's newsletter, I leapt on Breakneck, by Canadian tech writer  Dan Wang on the topic of China's intention to dominate engineering at which it is largely succeeding.  I came across the title fresh from learning about the Chinese version of AI which reportedly actually does machine learning with far fewer resources than the over-hyped American vaporware version, as well as the electric vehicle from Chinese car company BYD models of which can be purchased for less than $20,000 wherever they are allowed in the market, and which can be fully charged in the time it takes to fill a gas tank.  I expected some journalism about what made Chinese innovation possible and how it could be emulated in the United States, and failing that support for the idea of liberating the US market for Chinese products.  I did not expect a whiny echo of Ezra Klein's neo-liberal Abundance bullshit, which is what I got.  Had it not been for the Hate Read quota, I might have abandoned it close to the jump, but I soldiered through.  If nothing else, I got some value for the bucks I spent on it.

A very similar experience occurred reading the much vaunted collaboration of emeritus Princeton economics professors (and real life husband and wife) Anne Case and Sir Angus Beaton, Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism.  This was a book that had been mentioned in several recent titles I had read that had earned my respect.  In finally undertaking the filling in of this gap in my personal bibliography, I was focused on the first half of the title, a reference to the phenomenon of suicides, overdoses and other avoidable deaths due to neglect and lack of healthcare among the largest poorest percentiles of Americans.  I was not keyed into the puzzling emphasis on the second half of the title, the preservation of Capitalism in spite of its role in the epidemic of desperate deaths (particularly white deaths which was the book's primary focus).  Nothing could have prepared me, given the severity of the problem discussed for Case and Beaton's insistence that Medicare for All was not part of the solution, but rather that what was needed was more capitalism.  In light of its obtuse insistence on Capitalism as not only the cause but the cure of the epidemic, it never fails to surprise me that the bulk of references to the book that I come across in readings to this day do not mention this gaping flaw.

A little more in keeping with the Hate Read Quota, I purposely selected Dirtbag by Amber A'Lee Frost a couple of years ago when it came out.  It's a collection of memoir-flavored essays about her brand of irreverent leftist politics as could be encountered via her writings for Jacobin, Current Affairs and other leftist journals and particularly her semi-regular hosting of the Chapo Trap House podcast with Will Menaker, Matt Christman, Felix Bederman and (formerly) Virgil Texas.  I have been edified by Frost's formerly fresh perspective on multiple occasions over the years, but had become impatient with the growing pre-occupation with Democrat Derangement Syndrome at least in my sparser and sparser encounters with the dirtbag scene, and what once seemed fresh has now taken on a patina of stale. Pre-COVID it was impossible not to trip over members of the Trap House in any casual surfing for leftist media online, but as my own quest for a leftism I can live (and hope) with post Bernie Sanders has developed over time, I am finding the Dirtbag left, outside of some overlap with my own orientations, to be a mostly empty pose.  My last encounter with Frost was in a discussion around the launch of her book in which she reveled in the disgust she felt for the earnest sincerity of Greta Thunberg.  Having nothing else lined up at the time and knowing that Frost's style would at least be palatable and might occasionally be entertaining I took the plunge.  As I expected, the charm of the Dirtbag approach had worn off for me.  Beware of being trapped in a pose.  You might get stuck that way.

I was introduced to former New Republic editor Martin Peretz's The Controversialist by an essay by the Nation's Jeet Heer (himself a former writer for New Republic) who highly recommended it for its fascinating "unreliable narrator" view of the devolution of a leftist into neo-conservatism.  Peretz had gone through a period of disgrace following the disaster of the Iraq War that he pushed aggressively in the pages of his magazine and had written the memoir to explain himself and to make an attempt at another few moments in the conversation.  True to Heer's word, it was a fun read.  It was clear to me that from the start what Peretz had always been was a Zionist first and foremost.  Any beliefs that contradicted that stance had had to be jettisoned along the way and at the end of a long career of contrary refinement, Zionism was essentially all that was left.

Am I about to face something similar with the book I'm reading?  I don't know but I am itching to find out.


Sunday, May 17, 2026

Pineapple Kryptonite

While we are on an extended vacation we retroactively present Atarashii Gakko with their hit Pineapple Kryptonite.  Thank you for your understanding.



Wednesday, May 6, 2026

My Affluence is Your Good News

Imagine a system of thought that not only tells you that your Truth is privileged, but that holds that your affluence has been justified by Rationality.  Imagine a world view in which elaborations of the extent of wealth inequality between percentiles of the national, let alone global, population can be dismissed as missing the point  that greater wealth overall means that more people (perhaps including yourself and those intelligent enough to call themselves your readers) are living better, happier longer lives today than possible in the remote past.  The plight of the most poor though real according to this world view is still an improvement over poverty that existed before the skyrocket of wealth among the wealthiest nations engendered by industrial innovations of the past 200 years.  And never mind that inequality of incomes and outcomes might be exacerbated by the damages inflicted on the parts of the world where the poorest live in service of extracting the resources demanded for sustaining growth in the wealthiest parts of the world.   It is a mistake according to this system of belief to measure the success of a society in terms of how far short it falls from an "unattainable" ideal of equality; it should be measured instead against the extent to which its enlightened cleverness has increased its distance in aggregate from a dismal past.

This world view overlooks the fact that beyond your affluent neighborhood people are struggling, because you hardly need statistics to tell you that your storybook world is direct evidence that wealth has actually increased, and your own abundant happiness is itself evidence that wealth contributes to an increase of happiness in the world.  You insist that the $3 per day that the most miserable percentile along whom you inhabit the earth live on is hundreds of percentages more than the pennies their even more miserable forebears made do with (and more evidence in itself that life has become better globally since your world view took sway), although this may be what blinds you to the trifling problems of the poorest of your own country who are tens of times wealthier with access to goods and services such as smart phones and televisions, cars and refrigerators that the most miserable can't even dream of owning in the poorest parts of the world.  Notions of injustice in this worldview are really a blindness to how fortunate we all are in the aggregate even if some of us are vastly more fortunate than others.  But don't take your word for it, this is science we're talking about.  This is the enlightenment and the wisdom of the market, inventions of a clever group of mostly men, mostly pale rich men, mere centuries ago.  

How do you imagine someone with this world view might perceive global warming?  You would be right if you imagined that this person would both acknowledge the healthy nature of the challenge as well as pooh pooh those who fret about it and urge drastic change rather than merely trust that more cleverness from the smart, enlightened class that caused it and that daily exacerbates it will address it as needs to address it arise.  

Why take his word for it, though,  even if it is backed up by rigorous statistical analysis of the data?  Because he is a scientist.  He has advanced degrees in cognitive psychology and linguistics.*  He teaches at Harvard.  He lives in Boston.  He is a best selling author of good genetic stock.  

What do you got?

~~~~~

* On which topics, read him.

Thursday, April 30, 2026

O fole roncou

And now for something completely different, a 1973 classic from the king of Forró music of Brazil's  Northeast, Luis Gonzaga.  The song was revived in the US by its inclusion up front on Luaka Bop's 1991 release Brazil Classics 3 with liner notes by label founder David Byrne.  The song's title (and first line) refers to the roar of an accordion's bellows.


O fole roncou no alto da serra
Cabroeira da minha terra
Subiu a ladeira e foi brincar
O fole roncou no alto da serra
Cabroeira da minha terra
Subiu a ladeira e foi brincar
O Zé Buraco, Pé-de-Foice, Chico Manco
Cabra Macho, Bode Branco
Todo mundo foi brincar
Maria Doida, Margarida Florisbela
Muito triste na janela, não dançou
Não quis entrar
O fole roncou no alto da serra
Cabroeira da minha terra
Subiu a ladeira e foi brincar
O fole roncou no alto da serra
Cabroeira da minha terra
Subiu a ladeira e foi brincar
Naquela noite me grudei com Juventina
E o suspiro da menina era de arrepiar
Baião bonito tão gostoso e alcoviteiro
Que apagou o candeeiro pro forró se animar
O fole roncou no alto da serra
Cabroeira da minha terra
Subiu a ladeira e foi brincar
O fole roncou no alto da serra
Cabroeira da minha terra
Subiu a ladeira e foi brincar
Naquela noite eu fugi com Juventina
Quem mandou a concertina
Meu juízo revirar
Eu sei que morro de bala de carabina
Mas o amor da Juventina
Me dá forças pra brigar
O fole roncou no alto da serra
Cabroeira da minha terra
Subiu a ladeira e foi brincar
O fole roncou no alto da serra
Cabroeira da minha terra
Subiu a ladeira e foi brincar

English (lightly edited from Google Translate's rendition) -

The bellows roared high in the mountains, The kids from my land climbed the hill and went to play.
The bellows roared high in the mountains, The kids from my land climbed the hill and went to play.
Zé hole, Sickle-Foot, Chico Manco
Male Goat, White Goat
Everyone was playing
Crazy Mary, Margaret with the Beautiful Flowers
Very sad in the window, didn't dance,
I did not enter.  
The bellows roared high in the mountains, The kids from my land climbed the hill and went to play.
The bellows roared high in the mountains, The kids from my land climbed the hill and went to play.
That night I clung to Juventina, and the girl's sigh was breathtaking. A beautiful, delicious, and suggestive baião, that blew out the lamp so the forró could liven up.
The bellows roared high in the mountains, The kids from my land climbed the hill and went to play. The bellows roared high in the mountains
The kids from my land
Climbed the hill and went to play
That night I ran away with Juventina
Who ordered the concertina to
Turn my mind around
I know I'll die from rifle bullets
But Juventina's love
Gives me strength to fight
The bellows roared high in the mountains
The kids from my land
Climbed the hill and went to play
The bellows roared high in the mountains
The kids from my land
Climbed the hill and went to play

Wednesday, April 22, 2026

A Manifesto Improved

I made some revisions:

1. Silicon Valley owes a moral debt to the country that made its rise possible. The engineering elite of Silicon Valley has an affirmative obligation to participate in the defense of the nation.  It must return all of its gains to a public commons and put an end to itself.

2. We must rebel against the tyranny of the apps Tech Bros. Is the iPhone our greatest creative if not crowning achievement as a civilization? The object has changed our lives, but it may also now be limiting and constraining our sense of the possible.

3. Free email is not enough. The decadence of the elites of Western culture or civilization, and indeed its ruling class will be forgiven only if that is unforgiveableThe culture that replaces the criminal elite of technofeudalism as soon as we are able to put an end to it shall succeed only if it is capable of delivering economic growth and security  for what the public and the planet needs.

4. The limits of soft power, of soaring rhetoric alone, have been exposed. The ability of free and democratic societies to prevail requires something more than moral appeal. It requires hard power, and hard power in this century will be built on software.  It requires us to get along with each other and with everyone and everything we share the planet with such that we all prevail TOGETHER.

5. The question is not whether A.I. weapons will be built; it is who will build them and for what purpose. Our adversaries will not pause to indulge in theatrical debates about the merits of developing technologies with critical military and national security applications. They will proceed.  We must criminalize AI weaponry technology worldwide and confiscate its funding and its profits to be redirected toward fulfilling human needs and toward planetary restoration to undo the harms that made it possible.

6. National Planetary and community service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving move away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the costThere is no need for war if we are all engaged in the human and planetary struggle.

7. If a U.S. Marine asks for a better rifle, we should build it; and the same goes for software. We should as a country be capable of continuing a debate about the appropriateness of military action abroad while remaining unflinching in our commitment to those we have asked to step into harm's way.  No war.

8. Public servants need not be our priests. Any business that compensated its employees in the way that the federal government compensates public servants would struggle to survive.  We must replace electoral politics with representatives and leaders scientifically randomly selected from among all of us to represent each of us for short, non-consecutive terms.  Truly government of, for and by the people is the only way out of the mess bought and sold electoral politics has made and enabled.

9. We should show far more grace towards those who have subjected themselves to public life. The eradication of any space for forgiveness—a jettisoning of any tolerance for the complexities and contradictions of the human psyche—may leave us with a cast of characters at the helm we will grow to regret.  See Number 8.

10. The psychologization of modern politics is leading us astray. Those who look to the political arena to nourish their soul and sense of self, who rely too heavily on their internal life finding expression in people they may never meet, will be left disappointed.  See Number 8

11. Our society has grown too eager to hasten, and is often gleeful at, the demise of its enemies. The vanquishing of an opponent is a moment to pause, not rejoice.  We need to learn to disagree intelligently.  We are not enemies.  We are just sisters and brothers who can, must and will get along.

12. The atomic age is ending. One age of deterrence, the atomic age, is ending, and a new era of deterrence built on A.I. is set to begin.   We need to expand our sense of possibilities and find room within them for peace, for the meeting of human needs and for the enabling of truly meaningful and inclusive human and planetary flourishing in all of their varieties at every step.

13. No other country in the history of the world has advanced progressive values more than this one. The United States is far from perfect. But it is easy to forget how much more opportunity exists in this country for those who are not hereditary elites than in any other nation on the planet.  The Global North and West, through cultures of unique rudeness and gall, disproportionately benefit from the world's resources due to remorseless exploitation of the Global South.  Our elite academies have been built in the Global North and West to produce a body of learning that excuses this.  We must redress these imbalances once and for all.  There is enough wisdom and intelligence in this world (including even, believe it or not, in suppressed , neglected and ignored patches of the Global North and West) to figure out how to accomplish this rebalancing without further harm to the planet or punishing those undeserving of punishment and with enough urgency, strength and righteousness of purpose to force recalcitrant resisters of the formerly dominant classes to come cooperatively along.

14. American power has made possible an extraordinarily long peace. Too many have forgotten or perhaps take for granted that nearly a century of some version of peace has prevailed in the world without a great power military conflict. At least three generations — billions of people and their children and now grandchildren — have never known a world war.  See Number 13.

15. The postwar neutering of Germany and Japan must be undone. The defanging of Germany was an overcorrection for which Europe is now paying a heavy price. A similar and highly theatrical commitment to Japanese pacifism will, if maintained, also threaten to shift the balance of power in Asia.  See Number 13.

16. We should applaud those who attempt to build where the market has failed to act. The culture almost snickers at Musk's interest in grand narrative, as if billionaires ought to simply stay in their lane of enriching themselves . . . . Any curiosity or genuine interest in the value of what he has created is essentially dismissed, or perhaps lurks from beneath a thinly veiled scorn.  The concept of the market and the grand tales that are told around it are fables that serve the purpose of the marketeers.  We need to re-orient the production of goods to the meeting of needs.  A place of not necessarily remunerated honor can be maintained for those individuals or groups who direct (with our consent and via public ownership of the means) the production of goods thanks to the best ideas and inspiration.

17. Silicon Valley must play a role in addressing violent crime. Many politicians across the United States have essentially shrugged when it comes to violent crime, abandoning any serious efforts to address the problem or take on any risk with their constituencies or donors in coming up with solutions and experiments in what should be a desperate bid to save lives.  There will be less "crime" in a world where needs are met.  We must replace the criminal justice method of responding to injustices with a system of restorative justice.

18. The ruthless exposure of the private lives of public figures drives far too much talent away from government service. The public arena—and the shallow and petty assaults against those who dare to do something other than enrich themselves—has become so unforgiving that the republic is left with a significant roster of ineffectual, empty vessels whose ambition one would forgive if there were any genuine belief structure lurking within.  

19. The caution in public life that we unwittingly encourage is corrosive. Those who say nothing wrong often say nothing much at all. Billionaires fucking suck. Since 1990,  the world's wealthiest 10% have caused twice as much global warming as the bottom 90% and the smaller the top percentile the worse the violation.  A society that does not ban wealth hoarding is not serious about surviving.

20. The pervasive intolerance of religious belief in certain circles must be resisted. The elite's intolerance of religious belief is perhaps one of the most telling signs that its political project constitutes a less open intellectual movement than many within it would claim. See Number 8.

21. Some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive. All cultures are now equal. Criticism and value judgments are forbidden. Yet this new dogma glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures . . . have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful.  See Number 13.

22. We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what?   The future we need but that our bad habits have kept us from is possible, and making it happen has never been more crucial. We are plural.  We are singular.  We walk into the future together or alone.  Together is better.