thebulwark--2020-05-29--Trump and the 100,000

Trump and the 100,000

It apparently wasn ’ t Stalin but the German-Jewish satirist Kurt Tucholsky who first said , “ One man ’ s death : that is a catastrophe .
A hundred thousand dead : that is a statistic.
” What does Donald Trump know of loss , remembrance , and statistics ?
On Thursday morning , after the various trackers all showed the United States had surpassed 100,000 COVID-19 casualties , this came from the president ’ s Twitter account : The message of “ heartfelt sympathy and love ” is welcome .
But it ’ s worth noting how it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s previous messages .
Here , for example , is another tweet from the president , from two days earlier : That tone of ranting defensiveness and indignation is the norm for Trump .
And on the substance : Is “ 100,000 plus ” really a number to be proud of ?
America has now suffered 28 percent of the world ’ s coronavirus deaths , despite having just 4 percent of the world ’ s population .
It is brazen , if not misleading , for the president to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those 100,000 deaths represent a potentially endless web of familial bonds .
Each individual may have left behind a spouse , children , parents , grandchildren , siblings—the list goes on .
Presumably not wanting to be seen as so insensitive and foolish as to shrug off the almost unimaginable number of human losses , the president followed up that Tuesday tweet with a platitude— “ One person lost to this invisible virus is too much , ” one of Trump ’ s favorite clichés , and strangely inappropriate when talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just prelude to typically Trumpian defensiveness and deflection .
The dead seem not to matter to the president , except when he thinks a show of sympathy is to his advantage .
This should not surprise us : Trump has exhibited an aching lack of respect for deceased Americans and their families throughout his presidency—including a willingness to use them for political gain , whether they are veterans , politicians , or ordinary citizens .
Remember Humayun Khan ?
At the height of the 2016 election , Trump mocked the parents of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a car bomb in Iraq in 2004 .
Khan ’ s parents appeared at the Democratic National Convention in opposition to then-candidate Trump—Khizr Khan spoke as his wife Ghazala stood by his side .
In response , Trump insinuated that Mrs. Khan had been silenced .
“ Maybe she wasn ’ t allowed to have anything to say .
You tell me.
” The implication was that because of her cultural and religious background—as a Pakistani-American and Muslim—she was not granted permission by her husband to speak at the convention .
Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s scorn—this was back in the day , long ago , when Republicans still spoke up against him—he simply would not relent .
In an interview with the New York Times , Trump said : “ I ’ d like to hear his wife say something.
” There is no other way to square it : Trump used the death of a fallen soldier to bolster his credentials as a critic of Islam .
Breitbart followed his lead in a headline , smearing Khizr Khan for supposedly believing that the Constitution “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump benefited from disrespecting the dead and their mourners as a presidential nominee .
He continues to use the same tactics , as in his recent conspiracy-mongering about Joe Scarborough and the late Lori Klausutis , which Charlie Sykes wrote about in a moving newsletter earlier this month .
Klausutis ’ s widower ’ s plea that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey take down Trump ’ s tweets is equally harrowing .
Even in these strange times , it is unsettling to read a letter of complaint about the president of the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least for the sake of the decency of our public discourse , we should not allow ourselves to become desensitized to Trump ’ s rants about the dead .
A leader in this time of crisis might do well to look to America ’ s culture of national remembrance , a mark of distinction compared to other western democracies .
Even in times of conflict America has paused to memorialize the dead and show gratitude for their sacrifices .
The first ceremony for Memorial Day—known then as Decoration Day—was observed in 1868 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a congressman for Ohio and previously a Union major general , addressed the crowd at Arlington National Cemetery .
He opened by recognizing the limitations of his words .
“ If silence is ever golden , it must be here beside the graves of fifteen thousand men , whose lives were more significant than speech.
” COVID-19 is not a military conflict .
However , as Jonathan V. Last reminds us , few events other than war can compare to a tragedy of such scale .
More Americans have now been killed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But amidst all this loss , we lack a president with the ability to engage with—let alone articulate—America ’ s exceptional culture .
He seems to think of the victims of COVID-19 merely as statistics that threaten or aid his reelection prospects .
There is no mourning , whether in silence or speech .
The public , civic aspect of our grief is entirely absent .

It apparently wasn’t Stalin but the German-Jewish satirist Kurt Tucholsky who first said, “One man’s death: that is a catastrophe. A hundred thousand dead: that is a statistic.”
What does Donald Trump know of loss, remembrance, and statistics?
On Thursday morning, after the various trackers all showed the United States had surpassed 100,000 COVID-19 casualties, this came from the president’s Twitter account:
We have just reached a very sad milestone with the coronavirus pandemic deaths reaching 100,000. To all of the families & friends of those who have passed, I want to extend my heartfelt sympathy & love for everything that these great people stood for & represent. God be with you! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 28, 2020
The message of “heartfelt sympathy and love” is welcome. But it’s worth noting how it clashes with the tone and substance of the president’s previous messages. Here, for example, is another tweet from the president, from two days earlier:
For all of the political hacks out there, if I hadn’t done my job well, & early, we would have lost 1 1/2 to 2 Million People, as opposed to the 100,000 plus that looks like will be the number. That’s 15 to 20 times more than we will lose. I shut down entry from China very early! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 26, 2020
That tone of ranting defensiveness and indignation is the norm for Trump. And on the substance: Is “100,000 plus” really a number to be proud of? America has now suffered 28 percent of the world’s coronavirus deaths, despite having just 4 percent of the world’s population. It is brazen, if not misleading, for the president to congratulate himself on a job well done. Those 100,000 deaths represent a potentially endless web of familial bonds. Each individual may have left behind a spouse, children, parents, grandchildren, siblings—the list goes on.
Presumably not wanting to be seen as so insensitive and foolish as to shrug off the almost unimaginable number of human losses, the president followed up that Tuesday tweet with a platitude—“One person lost to this invisible virus is too much,” one of Trump’s favorite clichés, and strangely inappropriate when talking about a disease. But even that was just prelude to typically Trumpian defensiveness and deflection.
The dead seem not to matter to the president, except when he thinks a show of sympathy is to his advantage. This should not surprise us: Trump has exhibited an aching lack of respect for deceased Americans and their families throughout his presidency—including a willingness to use them for political gain, whether they are veterans, politicians, or ordinary citizens.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Remember Humayun Khan? At the height of the 2016 election, Trump mocked the parents of the fallen soldier, who had been killed by a car bomb in Iraq in 2004. Khan’s parents appeared at the Democratic National Convention in opposition to then-candidate Trump—Khizr Khan spoke as his wife Ghazala stood by his side. In response, Trump insinuated that Mrs. Khan had been silenced. “Maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.” The implication was that because of her cultural and religious background—as a Pakistani-American and Muslim—she was not granted permission by her husband to speak at the convention.
Despite widespread outrage as a result of Trump’s scorn—this was back in the day, long ago, when Republicans still spoke up against him—he simply would not relent. In an interview with the New York Times, Trump said: “I’d like to hear his wife say something.” There is no other way to square it: Trump used the death of a fallen soldier to bolster his credentials as a critic of Islam. Breitbart followed his lead in a headline, smearing Khizr Khan for supposedly believing that the Constitution “must always be subordinated to the Sharia.”
Trump benefited from disrespecting the dead and their mourners as a presidential nominee. He continues to use the same tactics, as in his recent conspiracy-mongering about Joe Scarborough and the late Lori Klausutis, which Charlie Sykes wrote about in a moving newsletter earlier this month. Klausutis’s widower’s plea that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey take down Trump’s tweets is equally harrowing. Even in these strange times, it is unsettling to read a letter of complaint about the president of the United States addressed to a businessman.
At least for the sake of the decency of our public discourse, we should not allow ourselves to become desensitized to Trump’s rants about the dead.
A leader in this time of crisis might do well to look to America’s culture of national remembrance, a mark of distinction compared to other western democracies. Even in times of conflict America has paused to memorialize the dead and show gratitude for their sacrifices. The first ceremony for Memorial Day—known then as Decoration Day—was observed in 1868. Future president James A. Garfield, then a congressman for Ohio and previously a Union major general, addressed the crowd at Arlington National Cemetery. He opened by recognizing the limitations of his words. “If silence is ever golden, it must be here beside the graves of fifteen thousand men, whose lives were more significant than speech.”
COVID-19 is not a military conflict. However, as Jonathan V. Last reminds us, few events other than war can compare to a tragedy of such scale. More Americans have now been killed by COVID-19 than in Vietnam and Korea combined.
But amidst all this loss, we lack a president with the ability to engage with—let alone articulate—America’s exceptional culture. He seems to think of the victims of COVID-19 merely as statistics that threaten or aid his reelection prospects. There is no mourning, whether in silence or speech. The public, civic aspect of our grief is entirely absent.


thebulwark--2020-05-29--Trump’s Executive Order on Social Media Grows the Administrative State

For all their disagreements , President Trump ’ s supporters and his opponents agree on at least one thing : that the Trump administration has been committed to “ deconstructing the administrative state.
” This has been conventional wisdom on the pro-Trump right from the moment presidential adviser Steve Bannon announced it at the 2017 CPAC conference , and the president ’ s critics have taken it to be obviously true ; if nothing else , that narrative certainly suits both sides ’ arguments .
But Trump ’ s latest executive order , asserting vast new regulatory powers over social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth is actually very different .
While the Trump administration has done much in three years to reform , reduce , and modernize regulatory programs—the most recent example of which I applauded just last week—the fact remains that the administration isn ’ t “ deconstructing ” the administrative state .
Quite the contrary : On the issues that President Trump cares about the most—immigration , trade , and now social media regulation—he has actually worked to grow the administrative state .
And his administration ’ s efforts and innovations may become the precedents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To be clear , the Trump administration ’ s regulatory reforms should not be understated , and they too may be significant precedents .
Agency efforts to promote transparency in the public interest , including transparency for guidance documents , seem unlikely to be rolled back by the next administration .
Even last week ’ s executive order ’ s provisions for “ Fairness in Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication ” could have long-lasting salutary effects : A future administration might repeal the order in part , but it would be surprising to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s requirement of “ prompt and fair ” agency enforcement practices , or reject the provision that says penalties should be “ proportionate , transparent , and imposed in adherence to consistent standards and only as authorized by law.
” Nor should we understate the work that many agencies in the Trump administration have done to make their regulations and regulatory practices more efficient , transparent , and lawful .
But on President Trump ’ s two core policy commitments—immigration and trade—his administration has done much to empower the administrative state .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending more and regulating more .
On trade , the administration ’ s policies significantly expand administrative power over American economic activity , at great cost—indeed , that ’ s the entire point .
And to those two longtime policy commitments , we can now add a third : President Trump ’ s goal of punishing social media companies for what he characterizes as unfair treatment of politically conservative viewpoints ( such as his own ) .
His new executive order , issued yesterday afternoon , directs the Commerce Secretary , via a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Information Administration , to petition the FCC for a rulemaking to “ clarify ” that Congress ’ s 1996 grant of civil liability immunity to “ interactive computer services ” ( in 47 U.S.C .
§ 230 ( c ) ( 2 ) ) does not cover social media companies whose editorial actions are “ deceptive , pretextual , or inconsistent with a provider ’ s terms of service.
” Such a withdrawal of immunity could have significant consequences , especially when the same executive order directs the Federal Trade Commission to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ unfair or deceptive acts or practices ” under federal law , opening up the risk of liability .
This abrupt and unilateral policy maneuver calls to mind one of the most significant and controversial policy gambits of President Obama ’ s final years in office : his abrupt recalibration of immigration law , in the DACA and DAPA policies .
At first , President Obama had sought legislative reforms for those aspects of immigration law , conceding that he had no power to unilaterally change immigration law ; but when Congress did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Obama finally went ahead on his own .
Now President Trump has taken a similar approach .
After two years ’ debate over whether Congress should amend Section 230 ’ s legislative grant of immunity , the president has suddenly announced that he can achieve the same aims by simply reinterpreting the statute .
The resemblance doesn ’ t stop there .
When one looks beyond the specific policies at issue , it is not hard to find significant continuities between the Trump administration and its predecessor , in terms of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one could see continuities between the Trump and Obama administrations in terms of their use of innovative executive orders and enforcement discretion for unilateral policymaking .
Similarly , while the Trump administration ’ s resistance to opposite-party congressional oversight was broader than the Obama administration ’ s , the precedent for such an approach was noticeable from the start .
Perhaps President Trump ’ s latest radical policy innovation , based on dubious readings of federal law , will be blocked by federal courts—again echoing the fate of some of the key administrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own last years in office .
But regardless of how long- or short-lived this particular social-media policy might turn out to be , its real legacy could be much more long-lasting .
It is not hard to imagine a future Democratic president issuing an executive order or taking other administrative action to leverage the Telecommunications Act of 1996 , federal consumer protection laws , or other federal laws or resources to force social media companies to more aggressively manage online content .
Or , looking beyond social media companies altogether , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president taking President Trump ’ s approach and applying it to other issues important to that president .
Just as Democrats disagreed with President Trump ’ s immigration policy but saw great promise in his use of emergency powers as the means towards presidential ends , so too might the Democrats who criticize Trump ’ s particular social-media policy today see great promise in the tools Trump used to create it , in the years to come .

For all their disagreements, President Trump’s supporters and his opponents agree on at least one thing: that the Trump administration has been committed to “deconstructing the administrative state.” This has been conventional wisdom on the pro-Trump right from the moment presidential adviser Steve Bannon announced it at the 2017 CPAC conference, and the president’s critics have taken it to be obviously true; if nothing else, that narrative certainly suits both sides’ arguments. But Trump’s latest executive order, asserting vast new regulatory powers over social media platforms, reminds us that the truth is actually very different.
While the Trump administration has done much in three years to reform, reduce, and modernize regulatory programs—the most recent example of which I applauded just last week—the fact remains that the administration isn’t “deconstructing” the administrative state. Quite the contrary: On the issues that President Trump cares about the most—immigration, trade, and now social media regulation—he has actually worked to grow the administrative state. And his administration’s efforts and innovations may become the precedents on which future administrations further build.
To be clear, the Trump administration’s regulatory reforms should not be understated, and they too may be significant precedents. Agency efforts to promote transparency in the public interest, including transparency for guidance documents, seem unlikely to be rolled back by the next administration. Even last week’s executive order’s provisions for “Fairness in Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication” could have long-lasting salutary effects: A future administration might repeal the order in part, but it would be surprising to see a White House renounce the order’s requirement of “prompt and fair” agency enforcement practices, or reject the provision that says penalties should be “proportionate, transparent, and imposed in adherence to consistent standards and only as authorized by law.” Nor should we understate the work that many agencies in the Trump administration have done to make their regulations and regulatory practices more efficient, transparent, and lawful.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But on President Trump’s two core policy commitments—immigration and trade—his administration has done much to empower the administrative state. On immigration, the administration has focused on spending more and regulating more. On trade, the administration’s policies significantly expand administrative power over American economic activity, at great cost—indeed, that’s the entire point.
And to those two longtime policy commitments, we can now add a third: President Trump’s goal of punishing social media companies for what he characterizes as unfair treatment of politically conservative viewpoints (such as his own). His new executive order, issued yesterday afternoon, directs the Commerce Secretary, via a Commerce Department agency, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, to petition the FCC for a rulemaking to “clarify” that Congress’s 1996 grant of civil liability immunity to “interactive computer services” (in 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)) does not cover social media companies whose editorial actions are “deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service.” Such a withdrawal of immunity could have significant consequences, especially when the same executive order directs the Federal Trade Commission to deem some activities by social media platforms “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” under federal law, opening up the risk of liability.
This abrupt and unilateral policy maneuver calls to mind one of the most significant and controversial policy gambits of President Obama’s final years in office: his abrupt recalibration of immigration law, in the DACA and DAPA policies. At first, President Obama had sought legislative reforms for those aspects of immigration law, conceding that he had no power to unilaterally change immigration law; but when Congress did not enact the reforms he wanted, President Obama finally went ahead on his own. Now President Trump has taken a similar approach. After two years’ debate over whether Congress should amend Section 230’s legislative grant of immunity, the president has suddenly announced that he can achieve the same aims by simply reinterpreting the statute.
The resemblance doesn’t stop there. When one looks beyond the specific policies at issue, it is not hard to find significant continuities between the Trump administration and its predecessor, in terms of the administrative state. A year ago, one could see continuities between the Trump and Obama administrations in terms of their use of innovative executive orders and enforcement discretion for unilateral policymaking. Similarly, while the Trump administration’s resistance to opposite-party congressional oversight was broader than the Obama administration’s, the precedent for such an approach was noticeable from the start.
Perhaps President Trump’s latest radical policy innovation, based on dubious readings of federal law, will be blocked by federal courts—again echoing the fate of some of the key administrative policy initiatives of President Obama’s own last years in office.
But regardless of how long- or short-lived this particular social-media policy might turn out to be, its real legacy could be much more long-lasting. It is not hard to imagine a future Democratic president issuing an executive order or taking other administrative action to leverage the Telecommunications Act of 1996, federal consumer protection laws, or other federal laws or resources to force social media companies to more aggressively manage online content. Or, looking beyond social media companies altogether, it is not hard to imagine a future Democratic president taking President Trump’s approach and applying it to other issues important to that president.
Just as Democrats disagreed with President Trump’s immigration policy but saw great promise in his use of emergency powers as the means towards presidential ends, so too might the Democrats who criticize Trump’s particular social-media policy today see great promise in the tools Trump used to create it, in the years to come.


thebulwark--2020-05-29--For Italy’s Sake, Put the Central Bankers in Charge

Today , barely ten years after the European sovereign debt crisis roiled world financial markets , Europe is in the midst of its worst recession since the Great Depression .
Once again , the future of the Euro is threatened .
Surviving the crisis may require a quantum leap towards full European economic integration .
In 2010 , in the wake of the Great Recession , the Eurozone experienced a sovereign debt crisis as markets came to question whether countries in the Eurozone ’ s periphery – namely Greece , Ireland , Italy , Portugal , and Spain – could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burdens .
That in turn raised serious questions as to whether or not the Euro could survive .
In the event , the Euro did survive and the Eurozone economy eventually did recover , albeit gradually , with substantial support from the IMF , the European Central Bank ( ECB ) , and the European Commission to the countries in the Eurozone ’ s beleaguered economic periphery .
Its success was particularly the result of then-ECB President Mario Draghi ’ s July 2012 commitment to have the ECB do whatever it took to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is difficult to overstate how fortunate Europe was to have an ECB so well equipped and so well led .
Such a fortunate alignment of means , individuals , and ends was by no means guaranteed .
Today , largely as a result of the coronavirus epidemic , the Eurozone is again in the grips of a major recession .
This recession is officially forecast to be the Eurozone ’ s worst since the Great Depression and will be significantly worse than that expected in the United States .
The grim outlook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries in the Eurozone periphery , which did not take advantage of the good times to put their public finances on a sustainable path .
The case of Italy is of particular concern to the world economic outlook both because of the very size of the Italian economy and because of the unsustainable trajectory of its public finances .
Italy is the Eurozone ’ s third-largest member country by GDP .
Official estimates project that in 2020 , Italy ’ s economy is likely to decline by more than 10 percent and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 10 percent of GDP .
That in turn will cause the Italian public-debt-to-GDP ratio to skyrocket to more than 160 percent by end 2020 .
That frightening prospect is already raising serious questions in the markets about the country ’ s ability to service its debt .
In principle , if the markets lose faith in Italy , it could be bailed out by the ECB .
However , it is likely that this would be more difficult now than was the case with Greece in 2010 .
In part this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least $ 2 trillion – almost seven times as much as the $ 300 billion bailout of Greece in 2010 .
But money is not the only obstacle .
Thanks to a recent ruling by the German Constitutional Court , which questioned the legality of the ECB ’ s earlier large-scale bond buying program , the ECB may no longer be able to do whatever it takes to bail out as large a country as Italy .
The German court is threatening to restrain the German Bundesbank from participating in any future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the ECB is not engaging in the monetary financing of a member country ’ s government .
Any heightened doubts about Italy ’ s ability to service its debt are likely to unsettle world financial markets .
This is , in part , because with its government debt totaling more than $ 2.5 trillion , Italy is the world ’ s third-largest sovereign debt market after the United States and Japan , and because German and French banks own a sizeable part of Italy ’ s debt .
Reappraisal of the value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ balance sheets and thereby roil international financial markets .
Crashing out of the Euro wouldn ’ t solve Italy ’ s problems in the short term , and certainly wouldn ’ t be likely to encourage bullishness about the prospects of French and German banks .
However , unlike was the case in 2012 , the German Constitutional Court is now threatening to limit the ECB ’ s ability to save the Euro .
Hopefully , the German court will realize the stakes involved and will soon back down in its standoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long run , if Italy is to remain in the Euro , Rome will need to fundamentally reform its sclerotic economy to give the country a real chance to grow its way out from under its debt mountain .
Europe ’ s present threat to the global financial system and to the world trade order would be reduced if the Eurozone were to move soon towards a political and fiscal union .
That would allow for the Eurozone ’ s debt to be mutualized as well as for Europe to adopt a bolder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unfortunately for the world economy , Europe shows every sign of not being ready to take that bold step .

Today, barely ten years after the European sovereign debt crisis roiled world financial markets, Europe is in the midst of its worst recession since the Great Depression. Once again, the future of the Euro is threatened. Surviving the crisis may require a quantum leap towards full European economic integration.
In 2010, in the wake of the Great Recession, the Eurozone experienced a sovereign debt crisis as markets came to question whether countries in the Eurozone’s periphery – namely Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain – could continue to service their large public debt burdens. That in turn raised serious questions as to whether or not the Euro could survive.
In the event, the Euro did survive and the Eurozone economy eventually did recover, albeit gradually, with substantial support from the IMF, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the European Commission to the countries in the Eurozone’s beleaguered economic periphery. Its success was particularly the result of then-ECB President Mario Draghi’s July 2012 commitment to have the ECB do whatever it took to save the Euro.
With hindsight, it is difficult to overstate how fortunate Europe was to have an ECB so well equipped and so well led. Such a fortunate alignment of means, individuals, and ends was by no means guaranteed.
Today, largely as a result of the coronavirus epidemic, the Eurozone is again in the grips of a major recession. This recession is officially forecast to be the Eurozone’s worst since the Great Depression and will be significantly worse than that expected in the United States. The grim outlook is undermining the public finances of the countries in the Eurozone periphery, which did not take advantage of the good times to put their public finances on a sustainable path.
The case of Italy is of particular concern to the world economic outlook both because of the very size of the Italian economy and because of the unsustainable trajectory of its public finances.
Italy is the Eurozone’s third-largest member country by GDP. Official estimates project that in 2020, Italy’s economy is likely to decline by more than 10 percent and its budget deficit is likely to swell to more than 10 percent of GDP. That in turn will cause the Italian public-debt-to-GDP ratio to skyrocket to more than 160 percent by end 2020. That frightening prospect is already raising serious questions in the markets about the country’s ability to service its debt.
In principle, if the markets lose faith in Italy, it could be bailed out by the ECB. However, it is likely that this would be more difficult now than was the case with Greece in 2010. In part this is because an Italian bailout could cost at least $ 2 trillion – almost seven times as much as the $300 billion bailout of Greece in 2010.
But money is not the only obstacle. Thanks to a recent ruling by the German Constitutional Court, which questioned the legality of the ECB’s earlier large-scale bond buying program, the ECB may no longer be able to do whatever it takes to bail out as large a country as Italy. The German court is threatening to restrain the German Bundesbank from participating in any future ECB bailout program unless it is satisfied that the ECB is not engaging in the monetary financing of a member country’s government.
Any heightened doubts about Italy’s ability to service its debt are likely to unsettle world financial markets. This is, in part, because with its government debt totaling more than $2.5 trillion, Italy is the world’s third-largest sovereign debt market after the United States and Japan, and because German and French banks own a sizeable part of Italy’s debt. Reappraisal of the value of Italian debt could affect those banks’ balance sheets and thereby roil international financial markets.
Crashing out of the Euro wouldn’t solve Italy’s problems in the short term, and certainly wouldn’t be likely to encourage bullishness about the prospects of French and German banks. However, unlike was the case in 2012, the German Constitutional Court is now threatening to limit the ECB’s ability to save the Euro.
Hopefully, the German court will realize the stakes involved and will soon back down in its standoff with the ECB. But in the long run, if Italy is to remain in the Euro, Rome will need to fundamentally reform its sclerotic economy to give the country a real chance to grow its way out from under its debt mountain.
Europe’s present threat to the global financial system and to the world trade order would be reduced if the Eurozone were to move soon towards a political and fiscal union. That would allow for the Eurozone’s debt to be mutualized as well as for Europe to adopt a bolder stimulatory budget policy than that at present. Unfortunately for the world economy, Europe shows every sign of not being ready to take that bold step.


thebulwark--2020-05-29--Actually, Virtue Signaling Is Good

Actually, Virtue Signaling Is Good

Back in the halcyon beforetimes of Summer 2014 , there was an annoying online trend that began materializing in all of our social media feeds , something cultural commentators and jaded social media users alike knew needed to be snuffed out if we were going to preserve our cherished online spaces .
Looking back on it now , that might seem to be misplaced angst .
After all , there were other emerging online trends that were soon to consume our lives .
The white nationalists .
The trolls and bots .
The foreign actors dividing us rather easily through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race-baiting vlogger planning to run for president based on his ability to bully his fellow Americans with malignant cruelty .
But all of that lay over the horizon .
Life on the internet was good .
Even if we didn ’ t realize it .
So for a brief moment amidst our summer holidays , the big annoyance wasn ’ t the white-nationalist trolls who were about to take over a major political party , but the gratuitous proto-thirst trap “ charity ” selfies that were taking over our online lives .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one our quasi-friends would strip down to show off their beach-ready bodies and dump cold ice onto their tightening muscles in the name of “ charity.
” Then they ’ d tag us , and demand that we , in our not-quite-as-beach-ready bodies , join them .
You know .
For the “ cause.
” The gall !
The nerve !
These jerks were trying to get us to help them raise millions of dollars for people suffering a neurodegenerative disease .
Next thing you knew these performative goody-two-shoes were everywhere .
Changing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Tweeting out Change.org petitions .
Demanding that movies have heroes who are not just white men .
Talking about being vegan .
And thus the “ virtue signal ” was born .
More than five years later when you look up “ virtue signaling ” on Wikipedia , the defining image is one of those show-offs with the caption : “ A person performing the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge for charity .
The activity has been criticized as virtue-signaling.
” The term might have been new , but social media had merely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is as old as time .
The ancient Greek gentleman Glaucon may have been the original virtue signaler .
In Plato ’ s Republic he tells Socrates that a just man who is thought to be unjust will still be scourged , and thus will “ understand that he ought to seem only , and not to be , just.
” Jesus wasn ’ t much impressed with those virtue signaling Pharisees in the temple .
And every kid who has ever gone through elementary school has had to deal with their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way , our Trumpian political culture transformed this complaint about those who want to signal their virtue without doing anything about it into something more sinister .
Rather than merely mocking poseurs who were all talk and no action , people began turning on the very idea of virtue .
Jesus telling the Pharisees that acts were more important than words somehow became Cheeto Jesus telling the Twitterati that acts and words were both bad—LOSERS !
—and the righteous man was really the one who had no compunction about his cruelty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was out .
Actually trying to save the world was double-out .
The only thing people admired anymore was the balls on the guy who wanted to watch the world burn .
For these pernicious twats , there was no act that a president—or at least this president—could undertake that merited public disavowal .
As long as the right people were “ virtue signaling ” their anger—that meant that the act was in-bounds .
Concerned about Americans being jailed for the color of their skin ?
That ’ s just virtue signaling , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the U.S. border ?
Oh no .
Check out the virtue signal on this doofus .
You think the president of the United States shouldn ’ t be retweeting white nationalists ?
VIRTUE SIGNAL .
VIRTUE SIGNAL .
VIRTUE SIGNAL .
Still talking about how the president committed serial sexual assault even after he won the election ?
Nice virtue signal .
I hope she sees this .
More upset by the enraging slow-motion murder of an unarmed black man at the hand of police than at those protesting the execution ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this Orwellian Pivot was mostly an annoyance for those of us who waste our days arguing with Trump supporters on the internet .
But then the anti-virtue mindset began to expand , with supporters of the president not just mocking virtue signalers , but engaging in an entirely new practice : The term , popularized by Jane Coaston , refers to people who now gleefully portray themselves publicly as amoral or immoral in order to demonstrate some sort of strength or sophistication .
You can see how , once the gate is open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of control .
In the past few weeks , vice signaling has seeped out of Twitter ’ s virtual borders and into the real world , where there are actual , literal , life-and-death consequences .
As the COVID-19 pandemic became subsumed by the black hole that is our Trumpian culture war , the president went out of his way to make certain that people began to see even commonsense health precautions as another front in his grand struggle .
The result has been the purest distillation of the virtue signal divide imaginable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health choices can be made invisibly .
Unless you post it to your Instagram , nobody has to know you worked out , or ate a salad , or took a multivitamin .
But wearing a mask can not help but be visible .
And unless someone in a leadership position—say , the president of the United States—goes out of his way to make wearing a mask a normal part of everyday life ( like wearing a seatbelt when you drive or helmet when you bike ) then it can not help but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of his way to do the opposite .
He didn ’ t even remain neutral or silent on the question of masks .
Instead , he made a show of his positive refusal to wear one .
He was sending a vice signal to his people and they got the message : It ’ s more important to look “ strong ” and trigger the libs than it is to slow the spread of a deadly virus .
And thus the battle lines were drawn .
For Trump fans , individual and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which team you ’ re on .
In Charlotte , an ESPN radio personality was called “ sissy , ” “ snowflake , ” and “ sheep ” for wearing a mask .
In Elgin , Texas , a bar-owner banned masks , saying he wanted customers “ that aren ’ t pussies , that aren ’ t sheep.
” Same story in Kentucky .
The owner of a campground in Wisconsin seemed to threaten mask wearers on her property with deadly force .
In Nashville , Roseanne Cash ’ s daughter was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wearing a mask in a grocery store .
Her heckler was , one assumes , unaware that this woman had nearly died from the H1N1 virus and so has a high mortality risk if she contracts COVID-19 .
And it ’ s not just the randos .
For Trump ’ s enablers in Conservatism Inc. , the mask wars have been an irresistible call to own the libs .
The Federalist wrote about how George Washington wouldn ’ t have worn a mask ( wut ? )
in one piece and in another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to choose your side ” in the election year of the mask .
Dan Crenshaw has chosen his , tweeting that Democrats are “ scared ” and showing “ cowardice ” because they want to implement proxy voting rather than have people fly from all around the country to vote .
On Fox , Laura Ingraham ’ s effete sidekick Raymond Arroyo claimed that when Joe Biden wore a mask to a cemetery he was “ projecting an image of trepidation.
” Fox regular Brit Hume tweeted about the same event asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other than to virtue signal.
” And there it is again .
Virtue signaling .
As Hume ’ s tweet indicates , the people who now own the conservative movement believe that an aspiring president modeling behavior recommended by the cucks at the Center for Disease Control in an attempt to show solidarity during a time of national crisis is something to be derided .
That taking reasonable safety precautions amidst six-figure death counts makes you a fraidy cat .
We ’ ve come a long way from Ronald Reagan , haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the president should be signaling some contorted quasi-manliness associated with risking someone else ’ s life rather than showing the nation that we ’ re all in this together .
How did we get here ?
Because of the corrupting influence of Trumpism .
If we were talking about President Mitt Romney , there is no way—none , at all—that Brit Hume would be working overtime to vice signal .
He would be rightly praising the president ’ s model behavior and discretion .
We know this to be true .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objectively—a man of utterly irredeemable personal character .
And so , in order to justify their continued enabling of him , people such as Hume begin to not just ignore virtue , but bow toward vice .
Which brings us back to the Ice Bucket Challenge .
I don ’ t know about you , but I ’ m currently feeling pretty guilty about having been anti-Ice Bucket .
When you look back on the ghosts of virtues signaled past , it sure looks like even though they were occasionally grating or hypocritical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of communal uplift and a sense of unity , not to mention a tangible financial impact for those trying to ameliorate a disease .
These days , when signaling virtue might convince a few more Americans to act in a way that helps contain a deadly contagion , the concept starts to sound downright appealing .
And when 100,000 people have suffered from painful and lonely deaths from a disease that leaves no ability for shared grieving , amdist an enraging rash of vigilante executions against black men , online efforts to try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for those who have lost loved ones sounds not just like a good thing , but something our country deeply needs .
So , in short , I guess what I ’ m saying is : Yeah , it ’ s five years out of date .
But I see it now .
Virtue signaling is actually good .
Somebody go find me a damn ice bucket .

Back in the halcyon beforetimes of Summer 2014, there was an annoying online trend that began materializing in all of our social media feeds, something cultural commentators and jaded social media users alike knew needed to be snuffed out if we were going to preserve our cherished online spaces.
The Ice Bucket Challenge.
Looking back on it now, that might seem to be misplaced angst. After all, there were other emerging online trends that were soon to consume our lives. The white nationalists. The trolls and bots. The foreign actors dividing us rather easily through some pretty crappy memes. A huckster race-baiting vlogger planning to run for president based on his ability to bully his fellow Americans with malignant cruelty.
But all of that lay over the horizon. Life on the internet was good. Even if we didn’t realize it.
So for a brief moment amidst our summer holidays, the big annoyance wasn’t the white-nationalist trolls who were about to take over a major political party, but the gratuitous proto-thirst trap “charity” selfies that were taking over our online lives.
We did not like them.
Not one bit.
One by one our quasi-friends would strip down to show off their beach-ready bodies and dump cold ice onto their tightening muscles in the name of “charity.” Then they’d tag us, and demand that we, in our not-quite-as-beach-ready bodies, join them. You know. For the “cause.”
The gall! The nerve! These jerks were trying to get us to help them raise millions of dollars for people suffering a neurodegenerative disease.
Next thing you knew these performative goody-two-shoes were everywhere. Changing their avatars for breast cancer awareness month. Tweeting out Change.org petitions. Demanding that movies have heroes who are not just white men. Talking about being vegan.
The worst.
And thus the “virtue signal” was born.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
More than five years later when you look up “virtue signaling” on Wikipedia, the defining image is one of those show-offs with the caption: “A person performing the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge for charity. The activity has been criticized as virtue-signaling.”
The term might have been new, but social media had merely hung a sign on a complaint that is as old as time. The ancient Greek gentleman Glaucon may have been the original virtue signaler. In Plato’s Republic he tells Socrates that a just man who is thought to be unjust will still be scourged, and thus will “understand that he ought to seem only, and not to be, just.”
Jesus wasn’t much impressed with those virtue signaling Pharisees in the temple.
And every kid who has ever gone through elementary school has had to deal with their own virtue-signaling Martin Prince.
But somewhere along the way, our Trumpian political culture transformed this complaint about those who want to signal their virtue without doing anything about it into something more sinister.
Rather than merely mocking poseurs who were all talk and no action, people began turning on the very idea of virtue.
Jesus telling the Pharisees that acts were more important than words somehow became Cheeto Jesus telling the Twitterati that acts and words were both bad—LOSERS!—and the righteous man was really the one who had no compunction about his cruelty.
Saying you wanted to save the world was out. Actually trying to save the world was double-out. The only thing people admired anymore was the balls on the guy who wanted to watch the world burn.
For these pernicious twats, there was no act that a president—or at least this president—could undertake that merited public disavowal. As long as the right people were “virtue signaling” their anger—that meant that the act was in-bounds.
Concerned about Americans being jailed for the color of their skin? That’s just virtue signaling, bro.
Sickened at kids being caged at the U.S. border? Oh no. Check out the virtue signal on this doofus.
You think the president of the United States shouldn’t be retweeting white nationalists? VIRTUE SIGNAL. VIRTUE SIGNAL. VIRTUE SIGNAL.
Still talking about how the president committed serial sexual assault even after he won the election? Nice virtue signal. I hope she sees this.
More upset by the enraging slow-motion murder of an unarmed black man at the hand of police than at those protesting the execution? Virtue. Signal.
For a while this Orwellian Pivot was mostly an annoyance for those of us who waste our days arguing with Trump supporters on the internet. But then the anti-virtue mindset began to expand, with supporters of the president not just mocking virtue signalers, but engaging in an entirely new practice:
Vice signaling.
The term, popularized by Jane Coaston, refers to people who now gleefully portray themselves publicly as amoral or immoral in order to demonstrate some sort of strength or sophistication.
You can see how, once the gate is open, these things tend to spiral out of control.
In the past few weeks, vice signaling has seeped out of Twitter’s virtual borders and into the real world, where there are actual, literal, life-and-death consequences.
As the COVID-19 pandemic became subsumed by the black hole that is our Trumpian culture war, the president went out of his way to make certain that people began to see even commonsense health precautions as another front in his grand struggle.
The result has been the purest distillation of the virtue signal divide imaginable: The Mask Wars.
Most daily health choices can be made invisibly. Unless you post it to your Instagram, nobody has to know you worked out, or ate a salad, or took a multivitamin.
But wearing a mask cannot help but be visible. And unless someone in a leadership position—say, the president of the United States—goes out of his way to make wearing a mask a normal part of everyday life (like wearing a seatbelt when you drive or helmet when you bike) then it cannot help but become a signal.
President Trump went out of his way to do the opposite. He didn’t even remain neutral or silent on the question of masks. Instead, he made a show of his positive refusal to wear one.
He was sending a vice signal to his people and they got the message: It’s more important to look “strong” and trigger the libs than it is to slow the spread of a deadly virus.
And thus the battle lines were drawn.
For Trump fans, individual and societal safety is now secondary to signaling which team you’re on. In Charlotte, an ESPN radio personality was called “sissy,” “snowflake,” and “sheep” for wearing a mask. In Elgin, Texas, a bar-owner banned masks, saying he wanted customers “that aren’t pussies, that aren’t sheep.” Same story in Kentucky. The owner of a campground in Wisconsin seemed to threaten mask wearers on her property with deadly force.
In Nashville, Roseanne Cash’s daughter was called a “liberal pussy” for wearing a mask in a grocery store. Her heckler was, one assumes, unaware that this woman had nearly died from the H1N1 virus and so has a high mortality risk if she contracts COVID-19.
And it’s not just the randos.
For Trump’s enablers in Conservatism Inc., the mask wars have been an irresistible call to own the libs. The Federalist wrote about how George Washington wouldn’t have worn a mask (wut?) in one piece and in another talked about how it’s “time to choose your side” in the election year of the mask. Dan Crenshaw has chosen his, tweeting that Democrats are “scared” and showing “cowardice” because they want to implement proxy voting rather than have people fly from all around the country to vote. On Fox, Laura Ingraham’s effete sidekick Raymond Arroyo claimed that when Joe Biden wore a mask to a cemetery he was “projecting an image of trepidation.” Fox regular Brit Hume tweeted about the same event asking “what was the mask for, other than to virtue signal.”
And there it is again. Virtue signaling.
As Hume’s tweet indicates, the people who now own the conservative movement believe that an aspiring president modeling behavior recommended by the cucks at the Center for Disease Control in an attempt to show solidarity during a time of national crisis is something to be derided. That taking reasonable safety precautions amidst six-figure death counts makes you a fraidy cat.
We’ve come a long way from Ronald Reagan, haven’t we?
In this warped worldview, the president should be signaling some contorted quasi-manliness associated with risking someone else’s life rather than showing the nation that we’re all in this together.
How did we get here? Because of the corrupting influence of Trumpism.
If we were talking about President Mitt Romney, there is no way—none, at all—that Brit Hume would be working overtime to vice signal. He would be rightly praising the president’s model behavior and discretion. We know this to be true. Instead we have a Republican president who is—just objectively—a man of utterly irredeemable personal character. And so, in order to justify their continued enabling of him, people such as Hume begin to not just ignore virtue, but bow toward vice.
Which brings us back to the Ice Bucket Challenge.
I don’t know about you, but I’m currently feeling pretty guilty about having been anti-Ice Bucket.
When you look back on the ghosts of virtues signaled past, it sure looks like even though they were occasionally grating or hypocritical, on balance they provided a modicum of communal uplift and a sense of unity, not to mention a tangible financial impact for those trying to ameliorate a disease.
These days, when signaling virtue might convince a few more Americans to act in a way that helps contain a deadly contagion, the concept starts to sound downright appealing. And when 100,000 people have suffered from painful and lonely deaths from a disease that leaves no ability for shared grieving, amdist an enraging rash of vigilante executions against black men, online efforts to try to recognize and memorialize and signal collective support for those who have lost loved ones sounds not just like a good thing, but something our country deeply needs.
So, in short, I guess what I’m saying is: Yeah, it’s five years out of date. But I see it now. Virtue signaling is actually good.
Somebody go find me a damn ice bucket.


thebulwark--2020-05-29--Trump’s Cowardly “Press Conference”

Trump’s Cowardly “Press Conference”

Protesters gather around a liquor store in flames near the Third Police Precinct on May 28 , 2020 in Minneapolis @ @ @ @ @ protest over the death of George Floyd , an unarmed black man , who died @ @ @ @ @ on his neck for several minutes .
- A police precinct in Minnesota went up @ @ @ @ @ 28 in a third day of demonstrations as the so-called Twin Cities of Minneapolis and @ @ @ @ @ shocking police killing of a handcuffed black man .
The precinct , which police had @ @ @ @ @ group of protesters pushed through barriers around the building , breaking windows and chanting slogans @ @ @ @ @ demonstrated as the building went up in flames .
( Collage by Hannah Yoest / @ @ @ @ @ )

Protesters gather around a liquor store in flames near the Third Police Precinct on May 28, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during a protest over the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, who died after a police officer kneeled on his neck for several minutes. - A police precinct in Minnesota went up in flames late on May 28 in a third day of demonstrations as the so-called Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul seethed over the shocking police killing of a handcuffed black man. The precinct, which police had abandoned, burned after a group of protesters pushed through barriers around the building, breaking windows and chanting slogans. A much larger crowd demonstrated as the building went up in flames. (Collage by Hannah Yoest / photos: KEREM YUCEL/AFP /GettyImages)


thebulwark--2020-05-30--Picnic at Hanging Rock is the Perfect Quarantine Novel

As the pandemic continues to keep people homebound and cripple businesses , the already fragile book industry is facing declines in sales like all the rest .
On top of lost revenue , there is the never-ending fight for peoples ’ attention as the burdens and stresses of quarantine have led to fatigue and dependence on screens for diversion .
Even for the most seasoned and dedicated of readers for whom undistracted reading is never an issue , pandemic-induced anxiety is leading to impaired attention limiting their ability to focus or read .
Nevertheless , recommendations persist .
In March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ project calling for people to submit their favorite books in order to receive personalized reading recommendations .
In the first round , Emily Temple recommended Picnic at Hanging Rock for reader Aimee P. who loves Donna Tartt ’ s The Secret History , Shirley Jackson ’ s We Have Always Lived in the Castle , and Midsommar , the popular horror film from earlier this year .
Her recommendation surpasses the school-yard mystery genre and while it is not quite horror , it is perfect , both for the place among the books @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Picnic at Hanging Rock is the story of the disappearance of four Australian school girls from a class trip .
It is a mystery and also a work of historical fiction blurring the lines between the real and imagined .
The story is laced with erotic tension—school girls in restrictive Victorian uniforms versus the wild of the Australian Bush , the hunt of lost versus found , etc .
The story does not suggest that the girls are abducted , but that they are called or compelled by some force the deeper they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is set against the backdrop of Hanging Rock , a monolith and former volcano of spiritual significance to Aboriginal tribes displaced in the 19th century by settler-colonists .
The book is considered an Australian classic and was adapted to film in 1975 , directed by Peter Weir .
Most recently , Amazon also released a mini-series adaptation starring Natalie Dormer with an expanded backstory departing from the original text ( I do not recommend the mini-series—I mention it only as evidence of the story ’ s staying power ) .
Upon the 50th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jia Tolentino , the zeitgeist-essay It-girl of our time recommended it : As quarantine lags on , another kind of lassitude has taken hold of many .
While our fatigue is less romantic , the sense of danger and its closeness is eerily similar .
The sense of stasis allowing for nature to creep back , while threatening and indefinite in the novel , is treated as meme today as the internet churns so many earnest sentiments into glib coping devices : “ Nature is healing .
We are the virus , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and circulated with exemplar stories or in sarcastic comments .
Nonetheless , as we grieve a summer lost to tragedy , the parallel of the story ’ s struggle with a shadowy natural force beyond comprehension is strangely satisfying in its mystery and handling of the unknown .
There is also something uncanny about the timeline of the book .
Beginning on Valentine ’ s Day and ending on Easter , the ‘ College Mystery ’ of the Applewood School for Girls mirrors the president ’ s wishfully asserted narrative that America would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on April 15 .
That obviously wasn ’ t the case .
And so too , the ending of the novel is unresolved .
The girls are still missing after the final page and any number of people from the cast die in the shadow of Hanging Rock .
A reoccurring aspect of the story is that time seems to stop , clocks break , or the passing of time is indeterminate .
After spending prolonged time in the Bush searching for the girls , one of the characters begins to experience an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ timeless days melted imperceptibly into timeless nights .
Sleeping or waking it made no difference in the dim grey regions where he was forever seeking the unknown nameless thing .
Invariably it vanished just as he drew near.
” This is a prevailing aspect of time under lockdown as well .
In 2019 , Katherine Miller wrote “ The 2010s Have Broken Our Sense of Time ” and so they did .
The beginning of the new decade seems to be only magnifying the phenomenon she documents .
Miller makes the observation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment of algorithmic timelines.
” But it has come to pass that he is not the man for a moment of logarithmic timelines .
Like many , Miller has also written about the peculiarity of time under quarantine , calling it “ surreal.
” She focused on novels as well for a way to navigate the haze of loneliness and longing for certainty .
“ The beauty of novels , actually , is that they offer endings , even the ones that slip any kind of conclusion .
… The lack of resolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As we find ourselves waiting for resolution or closure to the crisis , the sense that time has warped continues as the months seem to contract and expand .
The other major themes of the book deal with nature , repression , and power .
These , too , are foils for the pandemic .
Notably , the plight of the Aborigines is entirely ignored in the book , not unlike the lack of government attention paid to Native Americans—the Navajo Nation has surpassed New York for the highest COVID-19 infection rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Picnic at Hanging Rock .
The most basic and obvious is the headmistress of the school , a figure of control and inadequate compassion .
The next is the lurking , mystical danger of the Hanging Rock which seems to lure the girls away from safety .
Then the galaxy-brain villain is the British colonizers being there in Australia in the first place , trespassing on sacred land .
The villains of the pandemic depend on perspective as well : there are the minor characters who eschew civic responsibility and protest the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then the larger failings of authority , and again a galaxy-brain question of the virus ’ s origin remains contentious as to whether or not it was a natural phenomenon or act of negligence ( or even malice ) unleashed on the world .
But perhaps the most surprisingly relatable element of the story is a vein of astute media commentary and criticism .
At the outset of the girls ’ disappearance the narrator remarks , “ As always , in matters of surpassing human interest , those who knew nothing whatever either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most emphatic in expressing their opinions ; which are well known to have a way of turning into established facts overnight.
” An observation easily applied to our current media landscape .
Later when one of the girls is recovered , again press attention bares down on the school .
“ Strong-minded persons in authority can ordinarily grapple with practical problems of facts .
Facts no matter how outrageous can be dealt with by other facts , ” the narrator explains .
“ The problems of mood and atmosphere known to the Press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sinister.
” Substitute ‘ situations ’ for ‘ narratives ’ and this can be directly applied today .
If you still aren ’ t convinced it is a book for our times , what better example of social distancing than walking off into the forest bush never to be seen again ?

As the pandemic continues to keep people homebound and cripple businesses, the already fragile book industry is facing declines in sales like all the rest. On top of lost revenue, there is the never-ending fight for peoples’ attention as the burdens and stresses of quarantine have led to fatigue and dependence on screens for diversion. Even for the most seasoned and dedicated of readers for whom undistracted reading is never an issue, pandemic-induced anxiety is leading to impaired attention limiting their ability to focus or read.
Nevertheless, recommendations persist. In March, LitHub’s editors began a project calling for people to submit their favorite books in order to receive personalized reading recommendations. In the first round, Emily Temple recommended Picnic at Hanging Rock for reader Aimee P. who loves Donna Tartt’s The Secret History, Shirley Jackson’s We Have Always Lived in the Castle, and Midsommar, the popular horror film from earlier this year. Her recommendation surpasses the school-yard mystery genre and while it is not quite horror, it is perfect, both for the place among the books that prompted it and the pandemic.
Picnic at Hanging Rock is the story of the disappearance of four Australian school girls from a class trip. It is a mystery and also a work of historical fiction blurring the lines between the real and imagined. The story is laced with erotic tension—school girls in restrictive Victorian uniforms versus the wild of the Australian Bush, the hunt of lost versus found, etc. The story does not suggest that the girls are abducted, but that they are called or compelled by some force the deeper they go into the Bush. The novel is set against the backdrop of Hanging Rock, a monolith and former volcano of spiritual significance to Aboriginal tribes displaced in the 19th century by settler-colonists. The book is considered an Australian classic and was adapted to film in 1975, directed by Peter Weir. Most recently, Amazon also released a mini-series adaptation starring Natalie Dormer with an expanded backstory departing from the original text (I do not recommend the mini-series—I mention it only as evidence of the story’s staying power).
Upon the 50th anniversary re-release by Penguin in 2018, Jia Tolentino, the zeitgeist-essay It-girl of our time recommended it:
I picked up the book because I suspected it would help address a desire I’ve been having lately, to lie down for hours in a hot secluded garden, crushing flower petals under my skin. It did. Just before the girls disappear, they’re “overcome by an overpowering lassitude,” and they fling themselves onto the rock and fall asleep. Lizards and beetles crawl over them, and the scene is “beautiful and complete.”
As quarantine lags on, another kind of lassitude has taken hold of many. While our fatigue is less romantic, the sense of danger and its closeness is eerily similar. The sense of stasis allowing for nature to creep back, while threatening and indefinite in the novel, is treated as meme today as the internet churns so many earnest sentiments into glib coping devices: “Nature is healing. We are the virus,” and other such slogans are oft tweeted and circulated with exemplar stories or in sarcastic comments. Nonetheless, as we grieve a summer lost to tragedy, the parallel of the story’s struggle with a shadowy natural force beyond comprehension is strangely satisfying in its mystery and handling of the unknown.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
There is also something uncanny about the timeline of the book. Beginning on Valentine’s Day and ending on Easter, the ‘College Mystery’ of the Applewood School for Girls mirrors the president’s wishfully asserted narrative that America would be free of the virus and reopening on April 15. That obviously wasn’t the case. And so too, the ending of the novel is unresolved. The girls are still missing after the final page and any number of people from the cast die in the shadow of Hanging Rock.
A reoccurring aspect of the story is that time seems to stop, clocks break, or the passing of time is indeterminate. After spending prolonged time in the Bush searching for the girls, one of the characters begins to experience an altered sense of reality: “the timeless days melted imperceptibly into timeless nights. Sleeping or waking it made no difference in the dim grey regions where he was forever seeking the unknown nameless thing. Invariably it vanished just as he drew near.” This is a prevailing aspect of time under lockdown as well.
In 2019, Katherine Miller wrote “The 2010s Have Broken Our Sense of Time” and so they did. The beginning of the new decade seems to be only magnifying the phenomenon she documents. Miller makes the observation that Trump is “the man for a moment of algorithmic timelines.” But it has come to pass that he is not the man for a moment of logarithmic timelines. Like many, Miller has also written about the peculiarity of time under quarantine, calling it “surreal.” She focused on novels as well for a way to navigate the haze of loneliness and longing for certainty. “The beauty of novels, actually, is that they offer endings, even the ones that slip any kind of conclusion. … The lack of resolution is the resolution,” she concludes. As we find ourselves waiting for resolution or closure to the crisis, the sense that time has warped continues as the months seem to contract and expand.
The other major themes of the book deal with nature, repression, and power. These, too, are foils for the pandemic. Notably, the plight of the Aborigines is entirely ignored in the book, not unlike the lack of government attention paid to Native Americans—the Navajo Nation has surpassed New York for the highest COVID-19 infection rate in America.
There are several antagonists in Picnic at Hanging Rock. The most basic and obvious is the headmistress of the school, a figure of control and inadequate compassion. The next is the lurking, mystical danger of the Hanging Rock which seems to lure the girls away from safety. Then the galaxy-brain villain is the British colonizers being there in Australia in the first place, trespassing on sacred land. The villains of the pandemic depend on perspective as well: there are the minor characters who eschew civic responsibility and protest the measures being taken to save lives, then the larger failings of authority, and again a galaxy-brain question of the virus’s origin remains contentious as to whether or not it was a natural phenomenon or act of negligence (or even malice) unleashed on the world.
But perhaps the most surprisingly relatable element of the story is a vein of astute media commentary and criticism. At the outset of the girls’ disappearance the narrator remarks, “As always, in matters of surpassing human interest, those who knew nothing whatever either at first or second hand were the most emphatic in expressing their opinions; which are well known to have a way of turning into established facts overnight.” An observation easily applied to our current media landscape. Later when one of the girls is recovered, again press attention bares down on the school. “Strong-minded persons in authority can ordinarily grapple with practical problems of facts. Facts no matter how outrageous can be dealt with by other facts,” the narrator explains. “The problems of mood and atmosphere known to the Press as ‘Situations’ are infinitely more sinister.” Substitute ‘situations’ for ‘narratives’ and this can be directly applied today.
If you still aren’t convinced it is a book for our times, what better example of social distancing than walking off into the forest bush never to be seen again?


thebulwark--2020-05-31--Trump’s Biggest Enemy is Context

Trump’s Biggest Enemy is Context

Oh , the unsoiled bliss of the context-free mind !
One yearns for the ability to process information only as it enters the brain , without regard for anything that came before it or is bound to come after .
A brain unburdened by the complicated task of applying the sticky concepts of “ learning ” and “ connections.
” It is these minds that , without embarrassment , wonder aloud why there is no “ white history month , ” or why African-Americans are allowed to use the “ n-word.
” They believe they won ’ t get COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And they use this proud denial of context to defend the President of the United States .
Justifying Donald Trump ’ s buffoonery takes an intellect that is incapable of connecting bits of information in a timeline ; each of his vile utterances discarded before the next one comes firing out of his Twitter feed .
Take , for instance , last week , when Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi concern-trolled Trump , suggesting he was especially susceptible to COVID-19 because he was “ morbidly obese.
” Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crying that it was inappropriate for Pelosi to remark on the president ’ s weight , completely ignoring the fact that Trump is a man who has spent his adult life mocking the looks and weight of female opponents and employees .
Of course , on cue , Trump retweeted a follower who suggested Democratic Vice President aspirant Stacey Abrams has “ visited every buffet restaurant ” in Georgia and who said Pelosi ’ s “ face seems glossy and she is sporting a poorly marked 2nd set of eyebrows.
” L ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s earlier declaration that he was regularly taking Hydroxychloroquine , a pill he had been pitching as a miracle anti-COVID-19 drug that a subsequent study said led to an increased risk of death for coronavirus patients .
When a nonplussed reporter asked whether he was being truthful in saying he was taking a drug that may be dangerous , Trump ’ s new press secretary , Kayleigh McEnany , took exception .
“ The reason is the President of the United States said it , and if it were any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would take him at his word , ” McEnany said .
Yes .
That is exactly the point .
Trump , of course , tells lies like Michael Jordan holds grudges – they are their very life force , necessary to survive .
There is a reason the media might be willing to give other presidents the benefit of the doubt – because every word out of their mouths isn ’ t false .
( Trump has made over 18,000 false or misleading statements in office , according to the Washington Post ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can escape last week ’ s Trump self-medication foolishness , on Tuesday , presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden was asked about Trump ’ s declaration that he was taking Hydroxycloroquine .
“ It ’ s like saying maybe if you injected Clorox into your blood , it may cure you…come on , ” replied Biden .
This angered always-Trumper Benny Johnson , who tweeted that Biden “ just compared President Trump taking Hydroxychloroquine , a drug that has been prescribed to people for 65 years by doctors , to injecting himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forgotten that Trump literally suggested the possibility that injecting yourself with disinfectants like bleach might kill the virus .
In each of these cases , defenses of Trump have to be made by divorcing his actions from previous behavior .
Trump supporters have to fantasize that every damaging thing the president says happens in a vacuum , separate from all his other actions .
Trump critics , however , are capable of seeing the cumulative effect of his derangements – how they add up and make each other worse .
Normal thinking people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president wasn ’ t “ exonerated ” for his role in the “ Russia hoax ” – while Special Counsel Robert Mueller didn ’ t charge Trump , there is overwhelming evidence his campaign sought assistance from foreign governments and that Trump repeatedly obstructed justice when he was finally investigated .
People who can process information understand that while Trump was acquitted by a partisan senate , the behavior he engaged in when blackmailing Ukraine into investigating the Bidens was abhorrent .
And anyone who isn ’ t injecting themselves with Lysol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Biden , no matter how unreliable , does not wash away the more than two dozen allegations against Trump .
Or how a Biden misstep on race absolves Trump – a man who rose to political prominence by accusing America ’ s first African-American president of being born in Kenya – of his tawdry history on racial issues .
When strung together , all of these issues cumulatively add up to someone singularly unfit to be president .
Yet by pretending each incident was committed by a person independent of the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chain of accountability .
If a typical Trump loyalist had to play the vintage memory game Simon , he ’ d never be able to move past the first flashing light , refusing to believe the sequence of colored lights existed .
As Soren Kierkegaard said , we live forward but understand backward .
The key to defending Trump is pretending he doesn ’ t understand the past in the hopes that the future he promises will remain ever divorced from the reality of consequences .

Oh, the unsoiled bliss of the context-free mind! One yearns for the ability to process information only as it enters the brain, without regard for anything that came before it or is bound to come after. A brain unburdened by the complicated task of applying the sticky concepts of “learning” and “connections.”
It is these minds that, without embarrassment, wonder aloud why there is no “white history month,” or why African-Americans are allowed to use the “n-word.” They believe they won’t get COVID-19 because nobody they know has gotten it.
And they use this proud denial of context to defend the President of the United States.
Justifying Donald Trump’s buffoonery takes an intellect that is incapable of connecting bits of information in a timeline; each of his vile utterances discarded before the next one comes firing out of his Twitter feed.
Take, for instance, last week, when Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi concern-trolled Trump, suggesting he was especially susceptible to COVID-19 because he was “morbidly obese.”
Trump’s band of sycophants immediately took umbrage, crying that it was inappropriate for Pelosi to remark on the president’s weight, completely ignoring the fact that Trump is a man who has spent his adult life mocking the looks and weight of female opponents and employees.
Of course, on cue, Trump retweeted a follower who suggested Democratic Vice President aspirant Stacey Abrams has “visited every buffet restaurant” in Georgia and who said Pelosi’s “face seems glossy and she is sporting a poorly marked 2nd set of eyebrows.”
L’affaire buffet was actually set off by Trump’s earlier declaration that he was regularly taking Hydroxychloroquine, a pill he had been pitching as a miracle anti-COVID-19 drug that a subsequent study said led to an increased risk of death for coronavirus patients.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
When a nonplussed reporter asked whether he was being truthful in saying he was taking a drug that may be dangerous, Trump’s new press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, took exception.
“The reason is the President of the United States said it, and if it were any other President of the United States the media would take him at his word,” McEnany said.
Yes. That is exactly the point.
Trump, of course, tells lies like Michael Jordan holds grudges – they are their very life force, necessary to survive. There is a reason the media might be willing to give other presidents the benefit of the doubt – because every word out of their mouths isn’t false. (Trump has made over 18,000 false or misleading statements in office, according to the Washington Post’s fact-checkers.)
Lest one thinks we can escape last week’s Trump self-medication foolishness, on Tuesday, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden was asked about Trump’s declaration that he was taking Hydroxycloroquine.
“It’s like saying maybe if you injected Clorox into your blood, it may cure you…come on,” replied Biden.
This angered always-Trumper Benny Johnson, who tweeted that Biden “just compared President Trump taking Hydroxychloroquine, a drug that has been prescribed to people for 65 years by doctors, to injecting himself with Clorox.”
But Johnson may have forgotten that Trump literally suggested the possibility that injecting yourself with disinfectants like bleach might kill the virus.
In each of these cases, defenses of Trump have to be made by divorcing his actions from previous behavior. Trump supporters have to fantasize that every damaging thing the president says happens in a vacuum, separate from all his other actions.
Trump critics, however, are capable of seeing the cumulative effect of his derangements – how they add up and make each other worse.
Normal thinking people, for instance, can see that the president wasn’t “exonerated” for his role in the “Russia hoax” – while Special Counsel Robert Mueller didn’t charge Trump, there is overwhelming evidence his campaign sought assistance from foreign governments and that Trump repeatedly obstructed justice when he was finally investigated.
People who can process information understand that while Trump was acquitted by a partisan senate, the behavior he engaged in when blackmailing Ukraine into investigating the Bidens was abhorrent.
And anyone who isn’t injecting themselves with Lysol understands that an accusation of sexual assault against Biden, no matter how unreliable, does not wash away the more than two dozen allegations against Trump. Or how a Biden misstep on race absolves Trump – a man who rose to political prominence by accusing America’s first African-American president of being born in Kenya – of his tawdry history on racial issues.
When strung together, all of these issues cumulatively add up to someone singularly unfit to be president. Yet by pretending each incident was committed by a person independent of the last one, Trumpers try to break the chain of accountability. If a typical Trump loyalist had to play the vintage memory game Simon, he’d never be able to move past the first flashing light, refusing to believe the sequence of colored lights existed.
As Soren Kierkegaard said, we live forward but understand backward. The key to defending Trump is pretending he doesn’t understand the past in the hopes that the future he promises will remain ever divorced from the reality of consequences.


thebulwark--2020-05-31--Rodney King Was Right

Rodney King Was Right

I happen to have spent some time over the last couple of days in a socially distanced , zoom-hosted reading group with a few friends .
Our text was Gotthold Ephraim Lessing ’ s 1779 play Nathan the Wise , about which I knew little and of which I understood less .
I hasten to say that I still don ’ t know or understand much about this impressive work .
Fortunately , though , the group consisted of others better educated than I , individuals well-versed in political philosophy with a gift for close reading and deep interpretation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they plumbed some of the play ’ s depths , and considered some of its complexities .
It quickly became clear that Lessing ’ s understanding of politics and religion , and of reason and faith , was far more complex than the usual superficial summary of his teaching , which is that he was an enlightened advocate of liberal tolerance and mutual understanding .
We cheerfully discussed many of those complexities .
But at one point one of the participants usefully called the rest of us up short : We shouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surface teaching of the play—which was a teaching of liberal tolerance and mutual understanding .
After all , the surface matters .
Lessing knew what he was doing .
He seems to have thought it important to convey that lesson to many readers , as a practical matter , and to convey it powerfully .
In making his point , my friend recalled Rodney King ’ s famous statement from May 1 , 1992 , made as riots convulsed Los Angeles : People , I just want to say , you know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Can we get along ?
Can we stop making it , making it horrible for the older people and the kids ?
.
.
.
It ’ s just not right .
It ’ s not right .
It ’ s not , it ’ s not going to change anything .
We ’ ll , we ’ ll get our justice .
.
.
.
Please , we can get along here .
We all can get along .
I mean , we ’ re all stuck here for a while .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .
Things didn ’ t work out too well back in 1992 .
The LA riots , sparked by the acquittal of the four policemen who had brutalized Rodney King , saw some 55 people killed , with more than 2,000 injured , and property damage estimated at $ 1 billion .
On the other hand , riots of that scale have not been commonplace in the decades since .
So maybe Rodney King ’ s words had an effect .
And so , as my friend said , with a nod @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe we shouldn ’ t undervalue Rodney King ’ s message .
At this terrible moment , it would be good to be able to say—and even better to be able to show—that we all can get along .
Of course Rodney King ’ s message has a tougher side as well .
It calls for us to get along , yes .
But it also means saying No .
As in : No excuse for police brutality , let alone murder .
None .
No excuse for mob brutality , let alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism .
None .
No excuse for violence against innocent citizens of any race .
None .
Obviously that No has to be accompanied by a positive discussion and debate of policy reforms and civic and political actions that improve our current situation .
Some of these will come from the left , some from the right .
About some there will be consensus , some will be the subject of contentious debate .
But that consensus , and that debate , require civic peace .
To achieve consensus , to engage in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree—to some degree at least—to all get along .
It ’ s fashionable on both left and right , and among sophisticates of all sorts , to look down on the simple plea of the late Rodney King .
And of course there ’ s a need for more sophisticated analyses of the complexities of liberal democracy and of the deep challenges of maintaining—or creating—the norms of civilization .
But for now we need to get back to basics .
To the basics of Rodney King .
And of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal society .

I happen to have spent some time over the last couple of days in a socially distanced, zoom-hosted reading group with a few friends. Our text was Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s 1779 play Nathan the Wise, about which I knew little and of which I understood less.
I hasten to say that I still don’t know or understand much about this impressive work. Fortunately, though, the group consisted of others better educated than I, individuals well-versed in political philosophy with a gift for close reading and deep interpretation. And I was happy to listen as they plumbed some of the play’s depths, and considered some of its complexities.
It quickly became clear that Lessing’s understanding of politics and religion, and of reason and faith, was far more complex than the usual superficial summary of his teaching, which is that he was an enlightened advocate of liberal tolerance and mutual understanding. We cheerfully discussed many of those complexities.
But at one point one of the participants usefully called the rest of us up short: We shouldn’t forget, he said, the surface teaching of the play—which was a teaching of liberal tolerance and mutual understanding. After all, the surface matters. Lessing knew what he was doing. He seems to have thought it important to convey that lesson to many readers, as a practical matter, and to convey it powerfully.
In making his point, my friend recalled Rodney King’s famous statement from May 1, 1992, made as riots convulsed Los Angeles:
People, I just want to say, you know, can we all just get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids? . . . It’s just not right. It’s not right. It’s not, it’s not going to change anything. We’ll, we’ll get our justice. . . . Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we’re all stuck here for a while. Let’s try to work it out.
Things didn’t work out too well back in 1992. The LA riots, sparked by the acquittal of the four policemen who had brutalized Rodney King, saw some 55 people killed, with more than 2,000 injured, and property damage estimated at $1 billion.
On the other hand, riots of that scale have not been commonplace in the decades since. So maybe Rodney King’s words had an effect. And so, as my friend said, with a nod to what’s happening now, maybe we shouldn’t undervalue Rodney King’s message. At this terrible moment, it would be good to be able to say—and even better to be able to show—that we all can get along.
Of course Rodney King’s message has a tougher side as well.
It calls for us to get along, yes. But it also means saying No. As in: No excuse for police brutality, let alone murder. None. No excuse for mob brutality, let alone murder. None. No excuse for racism. None. No excuse for violence against innocent citizens of any race. None.
Obviously that No has to be accompanied by a positive discussion and debate of policy reforms and civic and political actions that improve our current situation. Some of these will come from the left, some from the right. About some there will be consensus, some will be the subject of contentious debate.
But that consensus, and that debate, require civic peace. To achieve consensus, to engage in debate, we’ll have to agree—to some degree at least—to all get along.
It’s fashionable on both left and right, and among sophisticates of all sorts, to look down on the simple plea of the late Rodney King. And of course there’s a need for more sophisticated analyses of the complexities of liberal democracy and of the deep challenges of maintaining—or creating—the norms of civilization.
But for now we need to get back to basics. To the basics of Rodney King. And of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. To the basics of a decent and liberal society.