Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
April 27, 2024
In constantly reaching for past parallels to explain our peculiar times we miss the real lessons of the master historian
https://aeon.co/essays/what-thucydides-really-thought-about-historical-analogies
In the weeks after Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte seized power and declared himself Napoleon III, Emperor of the French, Karl Marx sat down to write a history of the present. The purpose of this work was straightforward. Marx wanted to understand how the class struggle in France had ‘made it possible for a grotesque and mediocre personality to play a hero’s part.’ Much of The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852/69), as the work would be known, accordingly consisted of fine-grained political and economic analysis. But Marx opened in a more philosophical vein. After quipping that history repeats itself first as tragedy and then as farce, he reflected upon the role that historical parallelism played in shaping revolutionary action:
This tendency had pervaded European history, Marx thought, and occasionally served the ends of progress. The cloak of Roman republicanism, for instance, had helped French society lurch blindly forward during the revolution of 1789. In the present case, however, the appropriated symbolism of that earlier revolution served no higher purpose than to veil a grifter’s power grab in a more compelling guise.
Marx points toward one of the more paradoxical tendencies of modern political life: the more times feel unprecedented, the more we reach for past parallels. We do so, however, not only to legitimate new regimes. Just as often, historical analogies are invoked to explain, predict and condemn. The past decade alone offers a trove of examples. Among them, the use of ‘fascism’ to characterise Right-wing populist movements has generated the most heat, giving rise to a multifaceted debate about the legitimacy of historical analogy as a mode of political analysis. But there are others that have occasioned less self-reflection. In reckoning with the possibility of open conflict between the United States and China, for instance, foreign policy experts have routinely likened the escalating tension to the Cold War, the First World War, and even the Peloponnesian War. Similarly, in the early days of COVID-19, many dealt with the uncertainty of the pandemic by turning to the Spanish Flu, the Black Death, and the Great Plague of Athens for guidance. Something of the sort is also happening in real time with generative AI. How we interpret the risk that it poses hinges in large part on which analogy we favour: will it be most akin to the Industrial Revolution, the nuclear bomb, or – perhaps most horrifying of all – the consulting firm McKinsey?
If many of these parallels seem self-evident, one recurring point of reference does not: Thucydides, the ancient Athenian general and author of History of the Peloponnesian War. Though hardly a household name, he has been a favourite of those intent on doom-scrolling the historical record for relevant exempla. In the first month of the COVID-19 shutdown, for instance, so much was written about his account of the Athenian plague that one prominent scholar deemed Thucydides himself to be a virus. Something comparable could be said of Thucydides’ role in the viral discourse surrounding Sino-American relations. Ever since the early 2010s, when Graham Allison began referring to the stress on global order produced by hegemonic rivalry as ‘Thucydides’ Trap’, foreign policy discussions have themselves often appeared trapped by the need to balance geopolitical analysis with exegesis of an ancient text.
snip
What would Thucydides say?
In constantly reaching for past parallels to explain our peculiar times we miss the real lessons of the master historian
https://aeon.co/essays/what-thucydides-really-thought-about-historical-analogies
In the weeks after Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte seized power and declared himself Napoleon III, Emperor of the French, Karl Marx sat down to write a history of the present. The purpose of this work was straightforward. Marx wanted to understand how the class struggle in France had ‘made it possible for a grotesque and mediocre personality to play a hero’s part.’ Much of The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852/69), as the work would be known, accordingly consisted of fine-grained political and economic analysis. But Marx opened in a more philosophical vein. After quipping that history repeats itself first as tragedy and then as farce, he reflected upon the role that historical parallelism played in shaping revolutionary action:
The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. And just when they seem engaged in revolutionising themselves and things, in creating something that has never yet existed, precisely in such periods of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from them names, battle-cries and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time-honoured disguise and this borrowed language.
This tendency had pervaded European history, Marx thought, and occasionally served the ends of progress. The cloak of Roman republicanism, for instance, had helped French society lurch blindly forward during the revolution of 1789. In the present case, however, the appropriated symbolism of that earlier revolution served no higher purpose than to veil a grifter’s power grab in a more compelling guise.
Marx points toward one of the more paradoxical tendencies of modern political life: the more times feel unprecedented, the more we reach for past parallels. We do so, however, not only to legitimate new regimes. Just as often, historical analogies are invoked to explain, predict and condemn. The past decade alone offers a trove of examples. Among them, the use of ‘fascism’ to characterise Right-wing populist movements has generated the most heat, giving rise to a multifaceted debate about the legitimacy of historical analogy as a mode of political analysis. But there are others that have occasioned less self-reflection. In reckoning with the possibility of open conflict between the United States and China, for instance, foreign policy experts have routinely likened the escalating tension to the Cold War, the First World War, and even the Peloponnesian War. Similarly, in the early days of COVID-19, many dealt with the uncertainty of the pandemic by turning to the Spanish Flu, the Black Death, and the Great Plague of Athens for guidance. Something of the sort is also happening in real time with generative AI. How we interpret the risk that it poses hinges in large part on which analogy we favour: will it be most akin to the Industrial Revolution, the nuclear bomb, or – perhaps most horrifying of all – the consulting firm McKinsey?
If many of these parallels seem self-evident, one recurring point of reference does not: Thucydides, the ancient Athenian general and author of History of the Peloponnesian War. Though hardly a household name, he has been a favourite of those intent on doom-scrolling the historical record for relevant exempla. In the first month of the COVID-19 shutdown, for instance, so much was written about his account of the Athenian plague that one prominent scholar deemed Thucydides himself to be a virus. Something comparable could be said of Thucydides’ role in the viral discourse surrounding Sino-American relations. Ever since the early 2010s, when Graham Allison began referring to the stress on global order produced by hegemonic rivalry as ‘Thucydides’ Trap’, foreign policy discussions have themselves often appeared trapped by the need to balance geopolitical analysis with exegesis of an ancient text.
snip
April 27, 2024
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/opinion/trump-immunity-founding-fathers.html
https://archive.ph/EIuvL
Did the American Revolution actually happen? If it did, was it a good thing? This is more or less what Justice Elena Kagan seemed to be wondering during the oral arguments in Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 immunity case at the Supreme Court on Thursday morning. “Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?” she asked. Like her, I had assumed those questions were answered decisively in the affirmative more than 200 years ago. But now, after almost three hours of circuitous debate and bizarre hypotheticals at the Supreme Court, I’m not so sure.
The right-wing justices seemed thoroughly uninterested in the case before them, which involves a violent insurrection that was led by a sitting president who is seeking to return to office in a matter of months. Instead, they spent the morning and early afternoon appearing to be more worried that prosecuting Mr. Trump could risk future malicious prosecutions of former presidents by their political rivals. And they tried to draw a distinction between official acts, for which a president might have immunity from prosecution, and private acts, for which no immunity would apply. The upshot was that a majority of justices appeared prepared to send the case back down to the lower courts for further unnecessary litigation, which would almost certainly eliminate any chance of a trial being held before Election Day.
So let’s remember how we got here. The case began last year with the special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of the former president on charges of obstruction, fraud and conspiracy relating to his central role in the effort to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election, which resulted in the deadly attack at the U.S. Capitol. This scheme was, by a long shot, the most egregious abuse of authority by any president in history. It has resulted in multiple federal and state indictments of Mr. Trump and his associates, some of whom have already pleaded guilty to elements of the broader plot. In short, the justice system is doing its job by trying to hold to account a former president for subverting the last election before he runs in the next one.
That is a very important job! And yet the right-wing justices are saying, essentially, not so fast — and maybe not at all. The federal Jan. 6 trial should have been underway for almost two months by this point. Instead, Mr. Trump managed to derail the prosecution with an off-the-wall appeal that he is absolutely immune from prosecution for his actions up to and on Jan. 6, which he claims were taken in the course of his official duties — even though the president has no role in overseeing how states run their elections. The lower courts, in opinions by judges appointed by both Republicans and Democrats, dispatched this appeal with ease. But the Supreme Court decided to take the case anyway, scheduling it for the final argument day of the term. The arguments on Thursday tracked with this oddly leisurely pace, laced with hypothetical arguments.
snip
Trump's Immunity Case Was Settled More Than 200 Years Ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/opinion/trump-immunity-founding-fathers.html
https://archive.ph/EIuvL
Did the American Revolution actually happen? If it did, was it a good thing? This is more or less what Justice Elena Kagan seemed to be wondering during the oral arguments in Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 immunity case at the Supreme Court on Thursday morning. “Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?” she asked. Like her, I had assumed those questions were answered decisively in the affirmative more than 200 years ago. But now, after almost three hours of circuitous debate and bizarre hypotheticals at the Supreme Court, I’m not so sure.
The right-wing justices seemed thoroughly uninterested in the case before them, which involves a violent insurrection that was led by a sitting president who is seeking to return to office in a matter of months. Instead, they spent the morning and early afternoon appearing to be more worried that prosecuting Mr. Trump could risk future malicious prosecutions of former presidents by their political rivals. And they tried to draw a distinction between official acts, for which a president might have immunity from prosecution, and private acts, for which no immunity would apply. The upshot was that a majority of justices appeared prepared to send the case back down to the lower courts for further unnecessary litigation, which would almost certainly eliminate any chance of a trial being held before Election Day.
So let’s remember how we got here. The case began last year with the special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of the former president on charges of obstruction, fraud and conspiracy relating to his central role in the effort to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election, which resulted in the deadly attack at the U.S. Capitol. This scheme was, by a long shot, the most egregious abuse of authority by any president in history. It has resulted in multiple federal and state indictments of Mr. Trump and his associates, some of whom have already pleaded guilty to elements of the broader plot. In short, the justice system is doing its job by trying to hold to account a former president for subverting the last election before he runs in the next one.
That is a very important job! And yet the right-wing justices are saying, essentially, not so fast — and maybe not at all. The federal Jan. 6 trial should have been underway for almost two months by this point. Instead, Mr. Trump managed to derail the prosecution with an off-the-wall appeal that he is absolutely immune from prosecution for his actions up to and on Jan. 6, which he claims were taken in the course of his official duties — even though the president has no role in overseeing how states run their elections. The lower courts, in opinions by judges appointed by both Republicans and Democrats, dispatched this appeal with ease. But the Supreme Court decided to take the case anyway, scheduling it for the final argument day of the term. The arguments on Thursday tracked with this oddly leisurely pace, laced with hypothetical arguments.
snip
April 26, 2024
Tracklist:
00:00 Argy, Son of Son - Faust
03:31 Son of Son - Du Ska Inte
07:04 Argy, Baset - Sierra (Cercle Records)
10:38 Argy, Weekend Heroes - No Ones Coming
14:35 Omnya - Reflections (unreleased)
18:29 Argy, Cay - ID (unreleased)
21:45 Nick Matthew, Valano - Celestial Pulse (unreleased)
25:39 Jenia Tarsol & Jinga - Takadoom (Argy Edit)
30:25 Argy - All Day Long
33:50 Son of Son - Lost Control
37:44 Argy - Guru
41:35 Shinedoe - Phunk (Steve Angello Re-Edit)
45:40 Enai - Horus
49:59 Argy - Wilderness
54:00 Argy, Omnya - Aria
58:48 Monolink - Laura (Argy & Omnya Remix)
1:03:35 Argy - Dreamstates
1:08:26 Rabbit in the Moon - Deeper
1:12:38 Anyma, Argy, Magnus - Higher Power
1:16:35 Son of Son - Succession (unreleased)
1:19:49 Argy - Collision
1:23:51 Safri Duo - Played-A-Live
1:29:38 Interview with Argy
1:52:51 The Best Of Cercle Interviews
This artistic performance has been recorded live.
"PLAYED-A-LIVE (THE BONGO SONG)”
Interpreted by Safri Duo (P) 2000 Universal Music (Denmark) A/S
Authorized by Universal Music Publishing Film & TV
______
Argy at Sphinx Observatory, Jungfraujoch - Top of Europe, Switzerland for Cercle
Tracklist:
00:00 Argy, Son of Son - Faust
03:31 Son of Son - Du Ska Inte
07:04 Argy, Baset - Sierra (Cercle Records)
10:38 Argy, Weekend Heroes - No Ones Coming
14:35 Omnya - Reflections (unreleased)
18:29 Argy, Cay - ID (unreleased)
21:45 Nick Matthew, Valano - Celestial Pulse (unreleased)
25:39 Jenia Tarsol & Jinga - Takadoom (Argy Edit)
30:25 Argy - All Day Long
33:50 Son of Son - Lost Control
37:44 Argy - Guru
41:35 Shinedoe - Phunk (Steve Angello Re-Edit)
45:40 Enai - Horus
49:59 Argy - Wilderness
54:00 Argy, Omnya - Aria
58:48 Monolink - Laura (Argy & Omnya Remix)
1:03:35 Argy - Dreamstates
1:08:26 Rabbit in the Moon - Deeper
1:12:38 Anyma, Argy, Magnus - Higher Power
1:16:35 Son of Son - Succession (unreleased)
1:19:49 Argy - Collision
1:23:51 Safri Duo - Played-A-Live
1:29:38 Interview with Argy
1:52:51 The Best Of Cercle Interviews
This artistic performance has been recorded live.
"PLAYED-A-LIVE (THE BONGO SONG)”
Interpreted by Safri Duo (P) 2000 Universal Music (Denmark) A/S
Authorized by Universal Music Publishing Film & TV
______
April 26, 2024
Taken from The Fall's 23rd studio album 'The Real New Fall LP (Formerly Country on The Click).
Label: Action Records (2) – TAKE 21, Action Records (2) – TAKE21
Format: Vinyl, LP, Album
Country: UK
Released: 27 Oct 2003
Genre: Electronic, Rock
Style: Leftfield, Garage Rock, Punk, Post-Punk
The Fall - Theme From Sparta FC 🖤
Taken from The Fall's 23rd studio album 'The Real New Fall LP (Formerly Country on The Click).
Label: Action Records (2) – TAKE 21, Action Records (2) – TAKE21
Format: Vinyl, LP, Album
Country: UK
Released: 27 Oct 2003
Genre: Electronic, Rock
Style: Leftfield, Garage Rock, Punk, Post-Punk
April 26, 2024
https://feps-europe.eu/issues/issue-24/
The spring issue of the Progressive Post magazine is now available (free download)
https://feps-europe.eu/issues/issue-24/
2024 is gearing up to be an exceptional electoral year: about 400 million citizens will elect a new European Parliament, the US might send Donald Trump back to the White House and, altogether, more than 2 billion people cast their votes in 50 countries. For European progressives, it is time for back to basics, which, in an era of shrinking welfare states, increased inequalities and rising living costs, includes a return to strong and impactful social policies. Hence our Special Coverage The future is social highlights progressive ideas for a fairer Europe, which is at stake in these European Parliament elections.
The transformative role progressives can play is also at the core of the Dossier The art of progressive governance in turbulent times: European social-democratic governments have successfully managed the Covid-19 crisis, made key contributions to shaping European recovery and can play a decisive role in the future. However, the increasing strength of the radical right looms behind many of this year's elections—it could even affect the war in Ukraine.
The Focus Ukraine: two years of full-scale war underlines this risk and the conflict's implications for the Ukrainian people's difficult path to democracy. Ahead of this new electoral cycle, we also reflect on women's role in politics. The Dossier Women in politics: beyond representation looks at the crucial contribution that women in the European Parliament have made to key decisions that truly boost women's emancipation and the advancement of society at large.
The transformative role progressives can play is also at the core of the Dossier The art of progressive governance in turbulent times: European social-democratic governments have successfully managed the Covid-19 crisis, made key contributions to shaping European recovery and can play a decisive role in the future. However, the increasing strength of the radical right looms behind many of this year's elections—it could even affect the war in Ukraine.
The Focus Ukraine: two years of full-scale war underlines this risk and the conflict's implications for the Ukrainian people's difficult path to democracy. Ahead of this new electoral cycle, we also reflect on women's role in politics. The Dossier Women in politics: beyond representation looks at the crucial contribution that women in the European Parliament have made to key decisions that truly boost women's emancipation and the advancement of society at large.
April 26, 2024
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-03-29-handmaids-of-the-patriarchy/
Because I’m cursed with having a capacity for empathy, I sometimes spare a thought for how much it must suck to be a woman in the Republican Party. Sure, many Republican women have it good: They tend to be wealthier and their homes are big enough to never have to see their spouses, who think of them as trophies rather than humans. But they’re also trapped in a party that relishes misogyny. It’s not golden handcuffs so much as a gilded obstacle course that gives an illusion of freedom but disciplines them swiftly if they wander off-track.
Two events that led to my latest bout of sympathy? Nikki Haley’s exit from the Republican primary, and Sen. Katie Britt’s overacted rebuttal to the State of the Union address, which was torched even by her own party. “All a woman’s good for in my book is having babies and taking care of the house,” a male Republican voter in North Carolina told NBC when asked if he would vote for Haley. An older female Republican voter in Texas told Fox News she wouldn’t vote for Haley either, because “she’s probably menopausal.” That was the level of respect Haley garnered from the GOP base. Now, as a progressive, I’d like to toss Haley’s hawkish neoconservative corporatism into the dustbin of history. But you can’t help but appreciate her for staying in the primary as long as she did, and having a bigger pair than any of her male counterparts when critiquing Trump. But rather than knock her on the merits, she’s reduced to her gender.
https://twitter.com/BenjaminGoggin/status/1765103314306297941
https://twitter.com/tradingbonus_io/status/1765886992577888590
Then there’s Britt, whose monologue was called “creepy” and “cringe” by Republicans. And I mean, sure. Except she gave Republicans what they claim to want out of women: a beautiful tradwife in her rightful place, the kitchen, railing against Joe Biden. She even served up a harrowing anecdote about a woman who was supposedly raped by a drug cartel in the U.S., only to be caught lying about nearly every part of the story, all in service of re-electing Donald Trump, a guy found legally liable for sexual abuse and a serial liar.
Republicans are arguably more desperate for women to represent their cause than ever, as they simultaneously seek the female vote while explicitly taking away those voters’ rights to abortion, and in some cases, even IVF. So you’d think they’d be a tad more forgiving of the women still trying to participate in GOP politics, which for them has become a beauty pageant where the interview question is “How would you make yourself a second-class citizen?” And yes, there is a swimsuit portion.
snip
Handmaids of the Patriarchy
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-03-29-handmaids-of-the-patriarchy/
Because I’m cursed with having a capacity for empathy, I sometimes spare a thought for how much it must suck to be a woman in the Republican Party. Sure, many Republican women have it good: They tend to be wealthier and their homes are big enough to never have to see their spouses, who think of them as trophies rather than humans. But they’re also trapped in a party that relishes misogyny. It’s not golden handcuffs so much as a gilded obstacle course that gives an illusion of freedom but disciplines them swiftly if they wander off-track.
Two events that led to my latest bout of sympathy? Nikki Haley’s exit from the Republican primary, and Sen. Katie Britt’s overacted rebuttal to the State of the Union address, which was torched even by her own party. “All a woman’s good for in my book is having babies and taking care of the house,” a male Republican voter in North Carolina told NBC when asked if he would vote for Haley. An older female Republican voter in Texas told Fox News she wouldn’t vote for Haley either, because “she’s probably menopausal.” That was the level of respect Haley garnered from the GOP base. Now, as a progressive, I’d like to toss Haley’s hawkish neoconservative corporatism into the dustbin of history. But you can’t help but appreciate her for staying in the primary as long as she did, and having a bigger pair than any of her male counterparts when critiquing Trump. But rather than knock her on the merits, she’s reduced to her gender.
https://twitter.com/BenjaminGoggin/status/1765103314306297941
https://twitter.com/tradingbonus_io/status/1765886992577888590
Then there’s Britt, whose monologue was called “creepy” and “cringe” by Republicans. And I mean, sure. Except she gave Republicans what they claim to want out of women: a beautiful tradwife in her rightful place, the kitchen, railing against Joe Biden. She even served up a harrowing anecdote about a woman who was supposedly raped by a drug cartel in the U.S., only to be caught lying about nearly every part of the story, all in service of re-electing Donald Trump, a guy found legally liable for sexual abuse and a serial liar.
Republicans are arguably more desperate for women to represent their cause than ever, as they simultaneously seek the female vote while explicitly taking away those voters’ rights to abortion, and in some cases, even IVF. So you’d think they’d be a tad more forgiving of the women still trying to participate in GOP politics, which for them has become a beauty pageant where the interview question is “How would you make yourself a second-class citizen?” And yes, there is a swimsuit portion.
snip
April 26, 2024
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-04-25-son-of-bush-v-gore-day-supreme-court/
It looks like some work needs to be done to the pediment atop the front doors of the Supreme Court (R). There, chiseled in marble in large letters for all to see, are the words “Equal Justice Under Law.” The Republican justices’ comments during today’s oral arguments in the Trump immunity case made such a mockery of those words that those words will need to be replaced, or at minimum, augmented. Something like “Equal Justice Under Law, Except for Republican Presidents, Who Are Henceforth Immune When They Violate It.” That’s a lot to chisel, but chiseling (and worse), if you’re a Republican president, is now OK. As the special prosecutor’s case against Donald Trump for inciting a violent mob seeking, at his behest, to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election wended its way through lower courts, those courts found no merit in Trump’s claim that anything he did while president was not subject to U.S. law because presidents are immune from U.S. law’s strictures.
Only when the case reached the Supremes did it find Republican judges so partisan that they were willing to grant immunity to Republican presidents’ running amok. While most of the Republican justices seemed willing to imply that not every action a president commits is inherently immune from the laws that every other American is obliged to follow, they made clear that courts had to distinguish those actions made as president from those actions made, say, as a candidate, or a bribe recipient, or an abusive husband, or a belligerent drunk. And unless they choose to spell out these distinctions in their own ruling, the Republican justices are likely to send this case back to the federal district court whence it originated, requiring the judge there to rule which of the charges brought against Trump pertain to his presidential duties and must therefore be dismissed, and which do not. This would surely push Trump’s trial into next year, or into never-never land should Trump win the November election.
Rather than deal directly themselves with the case filed against Trump, most of the Republican justices sought to cloak themselves with a patina of concern for larger questions. “We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch (R) intoned, raising the specter of future presidents being persecuted during their well-deserved retirements. The redoubtable Sam Alito (MAGA) expanded that thought to the point that it quite reversed the identity of the guilty parties in the assaults to American democracy. The president who incited an insurrection? No, the prosecutors who’ve sought to hold him accountable. “A stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully,” Alito said. Then, however, he noted that if a president thought he might be prosecuted for whatever he did to cling to the office, he would be likely to keep clinging by any means possible. So as to the possibility of post-presidential prosecution, Alito pondered, “Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”
In Alito-Land, it’s not the insurrection that destabilized American democracy, it’s prosecuting the guy who fomented that insurrection. Never mind that the case before the justices concerned whether fomenting that insurrection was a prosecutable offense. No less than Chief Justice John Roberts (R) once warned against courts’ treating the case before them as a pretext to make some larger point that was not actually before the court. “If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case,” Roberts wrote, “then it is necessary not to decide more.” But simply by the fact that it decided not to rule immediately on Trump’s absurd case for blanket presidential immunity, and now with the likelihood that it will return the case for further study to the district court, the Court is effectively doing all it can to decide a great deal more: It is endeavoring to decide the upcoming presidential election in Trump’s favor. In his “To be or not to be” soliloquy, Hamlet cites as one of the reasons to end it all “the law’s delay.” The delay that the Court’s Republicans have caused, and today further abetted, is shoving American democracy in the direction of “not to be.”
snip
'Son of Bush v. Gore' Day at the Supreme Court, Which henceforth must be referred to as the 'Supreme Court (R)'
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-04-25-son-of-bush-v-gore-day-supreme-court/
It looks like some work needs to be done to the pediment atop the front doors of the Supreme Court (R). There, chiseled in marble in large letters for all to see, are the words “Equal Justice Under Law.” The Republican justices’ comments during today’s oral arguments in the Trump immunity case made such a mockery of those words that those words will need to be replaced, or at minimum, augmented. Something like “Equal Justice Under Law, Except for Republican Presidents, Who Are Henceforth Immune When They Violate It.” That’s a lot to chisel, but chiseling (and worse), if you’re a Republican president, is now OK. As the special prosecutor’s case against Donald Trump for inciting a violent mob seeking, at his behest, to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election wended its way through lower courts, those courts found no merit in Trump’s claim that anything he did while president was not subject to U.S. law because presidents are immune from U.S. law’s strictures.
Only when the case reached the Supremes did it find Republican judges so partisan that they were willing to grant immunity to Republican presidents’ running amok. While most of the Republican justices seemed willing to imply that not every action a president commits is inherently immune from the laws that every other American is obliged to follow, they made clear that courts had to distinguish those actions made as president from those actions made, say, as a candidate, or a bribe recipient, or an abusive husband, or a belligerent drunk. And unless they choose to spell out these distinctions in their own ruling, the Republican justices are likely to send this case back to the federal district court whence it originated, requiring the judge there to rule which of the charges brought against Trump pertain to his presidential duties and must therefore be dismissed, and which do not. This would surely push Trump’s trial into next year, or into never-never land should Trump win the November election.
Rather than deal directly themselves with the case filed against Trump, most of the Republican justices sought to cloak themselves with a patina of concern for larger questions. “We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch (R) intoned, raising the specter of future presidents being persecuted during their well-deserved retirements. The redoubtable Sam Alito (MAGA) expanded that thought to the point that it quite reversed the identity of the guilty parties in the assaults to American democracy. The president who incited an insurrection? No, the prosecutors who’ve sought to hold him accountable. “A stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully,” Alito said. Then, however, he noted that if a president thought he might be prosecuted for whatever he did to cling to the office, he would be likely to keep clinging by any means possible. So as to the possibility of post-presidential prosecution, Alito pondered, “Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”
In Alito-Land, it’s not the insurrection that destabilized American democracy, it’s prosecuting the guy who fomented that insurrection. Never mind that the case before the justices concerned whether fomenting that insurrection was a prosecutable offense. No less than Chief Justice John Roberts (R) once warned against courts’ treating the case before them as a pretext to make some larger point that was not actually before the court. “If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case,” Roberts wrote, “then it is necessary not to decide more.” But simply by the fact that it decided not to rule immediately on Trump’s absurd case for blanket presidential immunity, and now with the likelihood that it will return the case for further study to the district court, the Court is effectively doing all it can to decide a great deal more: It is endeavoring to decide the upcoming presidential election in Trump’s favor. In his “To be or not to be” soliloquy, Hamlet cites as one of the reasons to end it all “the law’s delay.” The delay that the Court’s Republicans have caused, and today further abetted, is shoving American democracy in the direction of “not to be.”
snip
April 25, 2024
Several masked men, described by anti-racism magazine Expo as "a group of Nazis" carried out the attack at an event organised by the Left Party and Green Party. Here's what we know so far.
https://www.thelocal.se/20240425/explained-what-we-know-about-the-attack-on-a-swedish-anti-fascist-meeting
https://archive.ph/HBVHJ
Police and paramedics at the scene of the attack on Wednesday. Photo: Fredrik Sandberg/TT
What happened?
Several masked men burst into a Stockholm theatre on Wednesday night and set off smoke bombs during an anti-fascism event, according to police and participants. Around 50 people were taking part in the event at the Moment theatre in Gubbängen, a southern suburb of the Swedish capital, organised by the Left Party and the Green Party. "Three people were taken by ambulance to hospital," the police said on its website, shortly after the attack.
According to Swedish media, one person was physically assaulted and two had paint sprayed in their faces. "The Nazis attacked visitors using physical violence, with pepper spray, and vandalised the venue before throwing in some kind of smoke grenade which filled the foyer with smoke," Expo wrote on its website. The magazine's head of education Klara Ljungberg was at the event in order to hold a lecture at the invitation of the two political parties.
What was the meeting about?
According to the Left Party's press officer, the event was "a meeting about growing fascism". Left Party leader Nooshi Dadgostar described the event to public broadcaster SVT as an "open event, for equality among individuals". As well as Ljungberg from Expo, panelists at the event included anti-fascist activist Mathias Wåg, who also writes for Swedish centre-left tabloid Aftonbladet. "They were determined and went straight for me," Wåg told Expo just after the attack. "I received a few blows but nothing that caused serious damage." "I was invited to be on a panel in order to discuss anti-fascism with representatives from the Left Party and the Green Party," he told the magazine. "I didn't know this was going to happen, but there's obviously a risk when Expo and I are in the same place."
What has the reaction been like?
All of Sweden's parties across the political spectrum have denounced the attack, with Dadgostar describing it as a "threat to our democracy" when TT newswire interviewed her at the theatre a few hours after the attack occurred. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, from the conservative Moderates, called the attack "abhorrent". The Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberals are currently in government with the support of the far-right Sweden Democrats, while the Social Democrats, Left Party, Centre Party and Green Party are in opposition. "It is appalling news that a meeting hosted by the Left Party has been stormed," Kristersson told TT. "I have reached out to Nooshi Dadgostar and expressed my deepest support. This type of abhorrent action has no place in our free and open society."
snip
The masked people are said to have thrown in both colour bombs and smoke bombs. Photo: Reader image
What we know about the attack on a Swedish anti-fascist meeting
Several masked men, described by anti-racism magazine Expo as "a group of Nazis" carried out the attack at an event organised by the Left Party and Green Party. Here's what we know so far.
https://www.thelocal.se/20240425/explained-what-we-know-about-the-attack-on-a-swedish-anti-fascist-meeting
https://archive.ph/HBVHJ
Police and paramedics at the scene of the attack on Wednesday. Photo: Fredrik Sandberg/TT
What happened?
Several masked men burst into a Stockholm theatre on Wednesday night and set off smoke bombs during an anti-fascism event, according to police and participants. Around 50 people were taking part in the event at the Moment theatre in Gubbängen, a southern suburb of the Swedish capital, organised by the Left Party and the Green Party. "Three people were taken by ambulance to hospital," the police said on its website, shortly after the attack.
According to Swedish media, one person was physically assaulted and two had paint sprayed in their faces. "The Nazis attacked visitors using physical violence, with pepper spray, and vandalised the venue before throwing in some kind of smoke grenade which filled the foyer with smoke," Expo wrote on its website. The magazine's head of education Klara Ljungberg was at the event in order to hold a lecture at the invitation of the two political parties.
What was the meeting about?
According to the Left Party's press officer, the event was "a meeting about growing fascism". Left Party leader Nooshi Dadgostar described the event to public broadcaster SVT as an "open event, for equality among individuals". As well as Ljungberg from Expo, panelists at the event included anti-fascist activist Mathias Wåg, who also writes for Swedish centre-left tabloid Aftonbladet. "They were determined and went straight for me," Wåg told Expo just after the attack. "I received a few blows but nothing that caused serious damage." "I was invited to be on a panel in order to discuss anti-fascism with representatives from the Left Party and the Green Party," he told the magazine. "I didn't know this was going to happen, but there's obviously a risk when Expo and I are in the same place."
What has the reaction been like?
All of Sweden's parties across the political spectrum have denounced the attack, with Dadgostar describing it as a "threat to our democracy" when TT newswire interviewed her at the theatre a few hours after the attack occurred. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, from the conservative Moderates, called the attack "abhorrent". The Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberals are currently in government with the support of the far-right Sweden Democrats, while the Social Democrats, Left Party, Centre Party and Green Party are in opposition. "It is appalling news that a meeting hosted by the Left Party has been stormed," Kristersson told TT. "I have reached out to Nooshi Dadgostar and expressed my deepest support. This type of abhorrent action has no place in our free and open society."
snip
https://twitter.com/magdandersson/status/1783199130665275492
The attacks against the political event in Gubbängen tonight are a direct attack on our democracy and the right to organise ourselves. My thoughts are with those affected. Right-wing extremists want to scare us into silence. They will never be allowed to succeed.
The attacks against the political event in Gubbängen tonight are a direct attack on our democracy and the right to organise ourselves. My thoughts are with those affected. Right-wing extremists want to scare us into silence. They will never be allowed to succeed.
The masked people are said to have thrown in both colour bombs and smoke bombs. Photo: Reader image
April 25, 2024
Label: Shelter Records – 11 662 AT
Format: Vinyl, 7", 45 RPM, Single, Stereo
Country: Germany
Released: Jan 1977
Genre: Rock, Blues
Style: Blues Rock
JJ Cale - Cocaine (Johnson Somerset remix)
Label: Shelter Records – 11 662 AT
Format: Vinyl, 7", 45 RPM, Single, Stereo
Country: Germany
Released: Jan 1977
Genre: Rock, Blues
Style: Blues Rock
April 24, 2024
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/apr/23/caitlin-clark-nike-contract-signature-shoe-deal-indiana-fever
Caitlin Clark appears to be on the cusp of setting another record. The most prolific scorer in NCAA Division I history and the No 1 overall pick in the WNBA draft will continue her association with Nike by signing a $28m contract that spans eight years and includes a signature shoe.
The Wall Street Journal and The Athletic reported the pending deal, citing unnamed people familiar with the negotiations between the sportswear giant and Clark’s agents. Excel Sports Management, which represents Clark, declined to comment. Nike did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Associated Press.
Clark’s initial name, image and likeness deal, signed in 2022, expired at the end of the 2023-24 season. The new deal would be the richest sponsorship contract for a women’s basketball player. Under Armour and Adidas also participated in contract discussions with Clark’s team in February, according to the WSJ and Athletic. Puma also showed some interest but walked away when told the bidding would start at $3m per year, according to the WSJ.
Clark received offers of $16m over four years from Under Armour and $6m over four years from Adidas, with both including a signature shoe, according to the WSJ. Clark earned about $3m in NIL money at Iowa with deals she has had with State Farm, Gatorade and others, according to On3.com.
snip
Caitlin Clark set to ink record Nike deal valued at $28m over eight years
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/apr/23/caitlin-clark-nike-contract-signature-shoe-deal-indiana-fever
Caitlin Clark appears to be on the cusp of setting another record. The most prolific scorer in NCAA Division I history and the No 1 overall pick in the WNBA draft will continue her association with Nike by signing a $28m contract that spans eight years and includes a signature shoe.
The Wall Street Journal and The Athletic reported the pending deal, citing unnamed people familiar with the negotiations between the sportswear giant and Clark’s agents. Excel Sports Management, which represents Clark, declined to comment. Nike did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Associated Press.
Clark’s initial name, image and likeness deal, signed in 2022, expired at the end of the 2023-24 season. The new deal would be the richest sponsorship contract for a women’s basketball player. Under Armour and Adidas also participated in contract discussions with Clark’s team in February, according to the WSJ and Athletic. Puma also showed some interest but walked away when told the bidding would start at $3m per year, according to the WSJ.
Clark received offers of $16m over four years from Under Armour and $6m over four years from Adidas, with both including a signature shoe, according to the WSJ. Clark earned about $3m in NIL money at Iowa with deals she has had with State Farm, Gatorade and others, according to On3.com.
snip
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,362
