Monday, July 13, 2026

Dead and Mostly Dead

At the gym yesterday morning I saw on Fox News and CNN that Lindsey Graham had died. Good riddance. He was bloodthirsty monster and the Senate, not to mention the world generally, is a better place without him actively trying to get children murdered in it.  

However, what I couldn't help but notice was that in the 10 minutes or so of coverage that I watched there was nothing about Mitch McConnell. Now, since yesterday morning a hilarious proof-of-life photo showing McConnell with that day's newspaper positioned under hand while his wife seemed to be helping him stay upright has been released. So the speculation that he had died back on June 14th has been addressed. 

Still, it is insane to me that the media coverage of Lindsey Graham's death minimally danced around there being questions about Mitch McConnell. And that for all the talk of him taking calls and discussing Senate business with leadership and one MAGA troll from CNN none of their stories could be verified. They didn't release a video of him picking up a newspaper, reading, and turning to discuss the news with his wife or a staffer. Nope, a still photo of him with a prop newspaper positioned under his hand so it could be identified. For nearly a month the corporate media gave him a pass and did no reporting, except to note that there were questions. Useless.

CBS News 

 

Thursday, July 9, 2026

Keep it Real Spooky

Beyond Folk Marxism: Mind, Metaphysics, and Spooky Materialism | Salvae

China Miéville’s prose is a specific kind of joy: dense, academic, fascinating, and incredibly enriching. But if you're not in the mood for it and -- like me -- need to be willing to do some look-ups while reading, I can see it being off-putting. No shame ... I found myself looking up tout court, au fond, au fait as I was reading -- not to mention the actual philosophical terms. (Could he have just used the word "simply" instead of tout court? Maybe. Probably? But some measure of richness and nuance would've been lost.)

So, if you aren't eager to read Miéville's prose to begin with, why read his essay and the responses to it at all? What are the stakes here? I'm not convinced they're as high as all involved seem to think, but I was intrigued enough to do the reading anyways.

The concluding paragraphs read:

[O]ne thing is undeniable. Once you’ve argued your way out of an ontologically materialist universe, of the many varieties of metaphysical idealism on offer, theism is probably not the most unlikely.

Of course, it also raises its own manifold problems, not least that of theodicy – evil. But of all Richard’s ‘alarming things’ perhaps the most so is that theism also, in fact, solves an awful lot of problems ...

are you going to figure if that's where all this is going, why bother? Because theism is a dead-end and no amount of poking at materialist, dualist, and idealist answers to questions about what consciousness even is are going lead us to appeal to the divine. Asserted undeniability of theism's greater than least unlikeliness notwithstanding.

My hot take: Miéville isn't trying to sneak spirituality or a "ghost in the machine" back into left-wing thought -- but I do think he's being a bit of a provocateur and deliberately inviting speculation that this feint towards theism is a precursor to a reactionary turn. What I haven't got a bead on is how that move advances his diagnosing of a profound theoretical failure that directly leads to deep political frustrations. 

I was looking for Miéville while dismantling the watery weak emergence metaphor as sufficient basis for understanding consciousness to theorize some kind Weird Emergence strong enough give Marxists an actionable understanding of consciousness. Not a project I'm capable of taking on. Just a blogger here who took some 100s and 200s level philosophy classes decades ago. Fluss and Frim have an informed, thoughtful response that advances the discussion in ways I'm not equipped to, so I recommend taking in both sides of the exchange of ideas as well as Breht and Alyson's discussion on Rev Left / Red Menace. (Finding the youtube link for this post and letting it start playing, I realize what I called "my hot take," may actually have been implanted by Alyson in her prefatory remarks when I first listened and decided to check out the essay. Ah well, everything's a remix anyways.) 

Monday, June 29, 2026

Doctorow's Nuremberg Caucus Makes Sense to Me

 Pluralistic: The Nuremberg Caucus

The Nuremberg Caucus could vow to repurpose ICE's $75b budget to pursue Trump's crimes, from corruption to civil rights violations to labor violations to environmental violations. It could announce its intent to fully fund the FTC and DoJ Antitrust Division to undertake scrutiny of all mergers approved under Trump, and put corporations on notice that they should expect lengthy, probing inquiries into any mergers they undertake between now and the fall of Trumpism. Who knows, perhaps some shareholders will demand that management hold off on mergers in anticipation of this lookback scrutiny, and if not, perhaps they will sue executives after the FTC and DoJ go to work.

While they're at it, the Nuremberg Caucus could publish a plan to hire thousands of IRS agents (paid for by taxing billionaires and zeroing out ICE's budget) who will focus exclusively on the ultra-wealthy and especially any supernormal wealth gains coinciding with the second Trump presidency.

Money talks. ICE agents are signing up with the promise of $50k hiring bonuses and $60k in student debt cancellation. That's peanuts. The Nuremberg Caucus could announce a Crimestoppers-style program with $1m bounties for any ICE officer who a) is themselves innocent of any human rights violations, and; b) provides evidence leading to the conviction of another ICE officer for committing human rights violations. 

Who will be the first elected Democrat to even acknowledge Mr. Doctorow's proposal? 

Monday, June 15, 2026

Back to the Wilderness

About five years ago, I expressed my reservations about RTD returning to run DW

There were moments I really enjoyed in RTD's second run, and every so often I saw reason to hope the show might find its footing, but those moments were far too few. The moments where I cringed and groaned far outnumbered them. So much wasted talent and potential there. 

When it comes back -- and I trust it will someday -- I hope the trans-inclusion, and all the wokeness the reactionary faction of fandom railed against comes back with it. There was a wholesomeness to the series that I truly loved. And yet, if you ever say to me, "there's a twist at the end" of something I may faint dead away. I blame RTD for the structural mess, the misuse of old baddies, the dead-ends and thudding disappointments, and I think my instinct that this would not end well was well-founded. 

And five years later, I see that JMS is still lobbying for a crack at it. I feel like I did five years ago about that, only more so. I want to see someone new take the show in a new direction. Could JMS do that? Maybe? It would definitely mollify some faction of fandom, and I think at least in terms of crafting a story JMS could not make as much of a hash of it as RTD did, but I don't know that I could muster up any excitement to see what he brings to the Whoniverse. As much as I loved the Moffat era, I don't want more of that either. I've seen JMS make great TV and write brilliantly. But -- I've already seen it. Paradoxically, I don't want something I've already seen, though I'm about to argue I actually do; I want to see the show go somewhere new that reminds me why I loved the classic series, and why I loved the new series, too, without getting bogged down in the past.

TV has changed so much, I'm just not sure what I want is something there's any real market for. I miss the old pre-return format. Give me twenty episodes in a season, low-budget scrappiness, and a Doctor who walks in eternity -- while Sarah Jane clowns him. (But, don't make the old mistakes either, keep the recent eras' big-hearted inclusiveness and don't make me twist myself into terrible contortions to try to find a way to make "Talons" acceptable.)  

But, just as with RTD himself, I fear there's no going back, only finding a new way forward. I want stories about a character who seeks to remedy injustices, to help the oppressed, and -- with the help of companions who are learning as they go -- works with the people who were already trying to do the right thing find the levers to pull that will win over those who seek to dominate. I want a Doctor who can help find those levers based on a long history of helping others, understanding that Marx was as important to understanding the world and our place in it as Darwin, careful study and observation, and the strength of right convictions which gives them distinctive insight. 

Charlie Jane Anders has written thoughtfully about what the show should look like when it comes back and I reckon she's pretty much nailed it.

I'd say I'm sorry to see Doctor Who end again, but I don't know that I was very sorry to see it end the first time around either. Then, as now, it had become almost unwatchable, incompetently produced television that needed a shut down and restart to clear the cache. 

Tuesday, May 3, 2022

Doomscrolling

 Alito's majority opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade leaks

The scenario that opens Ministry for the Future inches closer to reality

Watching vote suppression intersect with the inception of a proto-Gestapo

All the ways the media salts the earth to facilitate the roll out of even more repressive state apparatus


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...