Where's the Peace Movement? Where it has always been.

On one of the Bulwark podcasts recently (sorry -- can't remember which one), head honcho Sarah Longwell tossed off a throwaway laugh line about the Orange Toddler's assault on Iran: "now where's the Peace Movement?" 

I'm appreciative of the Bulwark. Their conservative revulsion from the Trump regime demonstrates guts and integrity -- what we all need. But moments like this remind me that, coming from the right, they are butt ignorant of whole dimensions of American political activism.

Longwell neither understands how a Peace Movement begins nor the trajectory through which one is built. In my long experience through Vietnam, Reagan's Central American incursions, Afghanistan and Iraq, here's how that goes:

1) As Longwell knows professionally, the first stage of a Peace Movement is getting some critical mass of the American people to pay attention to something very far away. We don't habitually pay attention to what happens in other countries. Peace Movements start by getting more people aware and caring that our government is doing something wrong. Sometimes that involves dead GIs. The war mongers contest objections by claiming what they are doing is necessary and reasonable. Peace Movements have to dent that argument in the public arena.

2) Once some significant number of Americans buy into an understanding that some wrong is being done in our name, a Peace Movement can generate friction from within the institutions in which people gather: churches, schools, workplaces, unions, etc. Local groups can eventually generate some level of broad coalition infrastructure bringing together objectors from multiple sectors. 

3) Eventually, the accumulating opposition to the current war will be noticed by politicians. In our Peace Movements, politicians whose natural state is raising a finger in the wind to test which way it is blowing, seldom lead. A Peace Movement is making strides when the pols encounter strong winds against whatever war we're in now. When the organized people lead, the pols -- Democrats first in the last 50 years -- follow.

All phases of this Peace Movement trajectory are currently well underway in the time of the Orange Toddler and MAGA, 

Nowadays, we are able to watch video of US missiles blowing up fishing boats, Iranian schools, electric plants and bridges. This seems wrong. Since our regime doesn't bother to present any plausible argument for its use of force, we skip both the becoming aware and the argument phase. 

Meanwhile, by assaulting all the pillars of civic life, MAGA, Elon, and Russell Vought have already roused important components of civic resistance. There are local, sectoral and even national activist formations, notably 50501 and the more than 3000 local Indivisible chapters.

And Democrats get it that they can't make excuses for Trump's violence, that opposition is popular. (They even begin to get it that it has ceased to help them to excuse Trump-buddy Bibi's genocide.) They are now running on stopping this shit, including the wars.

Where's the Peace Movement? From its perspective, the Peace Movement of our time is one and the same with the entire resistance movement to Trump. In fact, if you are aware of the history, the resistance to Trump has taken the same trajectory as all Peace Movements of the last 70 years. This mass political activism is apparently only dimply perceptible to folks who have come up through the right.

Perhaps those of us on the left side find Trump's mass evangelical base equally incomprehensible? I suspect so, which is why I try to study its adherents and activity. This is a country where mass enthusiasms both left and right can still set the political climate and sometimes agenda.

Friday cat blogging

The boy is substantial. When people first meet Mio, they are often surprised by his heft. He carries it well, all 18 pounds of him. When he wants to, he can sprint and even jump surprisingly high, chasing after Janeway in a flurry of fur.

She's even faster. When not enticing Mio from a sultry posture, Janeway also dashes about, often leaping onto furniture to menace her big playmate.

We stay out of the way when they get the zoomies. 

MAGA's nostalgia for a fictitious white America

The Trump regime shows very little actual imagination. MAGA looks backward to a non-existent past when men were men and dark people knew their place. Columnist Jamelle Bouie has their number: 

... You can understand the two Trump presidencies as attempts to relive and re-enact the most atrocious moments in American history, as if the nation were led by toxic obsessives who relished the cruelty and criminality of the past and worshiped perpetrators as heroes — the supposedly hard men who built the country we know.

The president himself gestures toward this game of copycat when he hails Andrew Jackson or praises William McKinley as a man who made America great. And the administration itself seems to want to consciously emulate those moments of infamy and ignobility in the American past.

The administration’s hegemonic war in Venezuela and anti-Canadian saber rattling evoke the crudely imperial posture of the United States at the turn of the 20th century. 

... Its use of ICE and Customs and Border Protection as a roving deportation force, aimed at anyone who looks suspect, is more than a little reminiscent of the federal bounty hunters deputized under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. 

It is also an echo of the first Red Scare, the Palmer raids and J. Edgar Hoover’s hunt for radicals during the Woodrow Wilson administration. ...

Bouie concludes:

[Trump's] vision of the future rests on a rotten nostalgia, and his plans for getting there were drawn from the wreckage of a shameful past.

Healthy, living countries look forward. MAGA poses the question: do we choose life?

• • •

The Trump regime's hatred of migrants frequently seems to focus on Mexicans, Central Americans and other speakers of Spanish. But MAGA's venom is also directed at many others, particular those long time targets of racist nativism: Chinese immigrants. Catherine Rampell is the economics decoder for The Bulwark; she picked up on the focus of the White House's attack on the Smithsonian Museum. 

... the White House recently released a 162-page report on the most critical issue facing voters: woke museum exhibitions. ... the most telling section of the White House report relates to its defense of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The report’s authors bristle at any suggestion that this famously racist law may have been motivated by any kind of racial animus. After all, such an acknowledgment might raise uncomfortable questions about the policies of Donald Trump and Stephen Miller—policies that are explicitly modeled on laws like this one.

... The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first major federal law to restrict immigration based on race or nationality. It banned nearly all Chinese laborers from coming to the United States for a decade; it also blocked Chinese immigrants who were already in the United States from ever becoming naturalized citizens. The premise was: If you were of Chinese descent, you were incapable of ever becoming an American, on account of your race.

The law was born of widespread anti-Chinese sentiment. It was passed amid a decade of growing repression and violence against Chinese immigrants in the Western United States, which resulted in massacres such as those in L.A.’s Chinatown (1871) and at Deep Creek in Oregon (1887), as well as many other acts of violence in the region before and after the bill was made law.

And then as now, economic precarity laid the predicate for virulent nativism. The late nineteenth century was a period of significant economic and technological upheaval owing to industrialization, job displacement, and the country’s evolving geographic footprint (including the completion of the first transcontinental railroad, which relied heavily on Chinese and Irish immigrant labor).

There's nothing new about MAGA's nativism. Unless we're from indigenous native ancestry, we all came to this continent from somewhere else. And, together, we make the country however great it may be and become.

Gone but not forgotten

Bishop Christopher Senyonjo has passed. Rest in peace.

He was that rare priest in the Anglican Church in Uganda who understood that LGBTQ folks were just yet more suffering humans, in need of knowing God's love. He was booted out, denied his pension, and harassed for his stand.

I had the privilege of spending several days with him at Seabury-Western Seminary in 2009.

Here he preached in San Francisco.

His life and story taught many of us that there are so many people all over the world -- people we might never hear of -- doing what they think is right and what they understand Love to demand.

What did she die for?

We can assume Stephen Miller thinks she was disposable, if not a pollutant in the blood of the white nation. Donald Trump certainly never gave her a thought.

She's dead in Trump's little error in the Orient, the war he's thoughtlessly dragged this country into. The same war which has also killed thousands of Iranians and thousands of Lebanese, all just collateral damage sacrificed to Don and Bibl's fantasies of total victory over their enemies.

 

Former GOP Congresscritter and veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan Adam Kissinger brings the perspective of a person who has fought. The way Pete Hegseth's military is limiting what we know sickens him.

A missile strike does not end when the fire goes out. The pressure from the blast moves through doors, walls and the spaces body armor cannot protect. A service member may get back on his feet, answer a medic’s questions and return to work. On a Pentagon spreadsheet, that can look reassuring. 

In the body, it may mean headaches, vertigo, trouble sleeping or memory problems that persist long after the uniform comes off. The military’s own medical experts warn that blast exposure can produce symptoms that are delayed, difficult to detect and potentially life-altering.

That distance—between what an injury looks like in a report and what it feels like to the person carrying it—is where the Trump administration has chosen to hide much of the cost  [to American personnel] of its war with Iran.

Roughly 430 American service members have been injured since the war began on February 28. But in the week before an Iranian attack killed Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, 19, and 1st Lt. Tyler James Feehan, 25, at a base in Jordan, Iran struck American forces in the country three other times. Those attacks injured dozens of troops and damaged several helicopters. ...  After the latest deaths, Donald Trump wrote that Iran would “pay for that killing many times over.” Vengeance was announced before the administration explained what another round of escalation was supposed to accomplish. ...

Kinzinger knows the lessons of history that Trump doesn't know and would erase if he could. (Ever wondered what posturing pretty boy Pete serves his master for?)

A Pentagon that treats scrutiny as hostility will eventually lose the credibility it needs during a genuine emergency. That loss cannot be repaired by a patriotic video, an angry social-media post or a secretary declaring that casualties will stiffen American resolve. Credibility accumulates through disclosures that are often inconvenient to the people in charge. It disappears when every unwelcome fact is treated as aid to the enemy.

The Vietnam-era “credibility gap” did not begin with one spectacular lie. It widened as official optimism repeatedly failed to match what soldiers, reporters and eventually the public could see. Body counts became measures of progress. Internal doubts remained hidden while presidents and generals described success. ...

The deception can travel inward. When injuries are classified as minor, attacks go unmentioned and damaged aircraft vanish from public briefings, leaders may begin making decisions inside the same edited reality they have constructed for voters. A government that cannot admit what the enemy has done will have trouble judging what the enemy can still do.

Trump has made lying and incompetence central to his method of governance....

And Isabelles of this country die for Donald's deceptions.

• • •

Michael Tomasky makes some educated guesses about where this all is going. 

The World’s Worst Nightmare: Donald Trump in Charge of a Real-Live War: 
There are no best-case scenarios when a corrupt, vainglorious toddler is running the world’s deadliest military. 

Read and weep ...

Trumpism is our Brexit

Watching the British transition to a new governing Labour Party prime minister from afar, I had what is probably a very obvious insight about this country which seems worth musing on.

First the disclaimer: I know very little about British politics and the broad stroke observations that follow may be inaccurate. I only dare write this because the actual subject is our, American, political follies -- and those I know plenty about.

Andy Burnham's takeover as Prime Minister makes him the seventh person in the top British job in the last ten years. And there is overwhelming agreement that his country is not serving its citizens as well as they wish it would. There's a housing crisis; there's a health care mess; international standing is precarious; racial tensions are unremitting; and "affordability" seems a mirage. The level of government turnover suggests the political landscape is both full of pratfalls and beset with confusion.

From across the pond, it seems obvious that the passionate, the successful exercise of popular sovereignty that was the the narrow 2016 vote to leave the European Union has been a sad wrong turn. Without Europe, Britain is poorer and weaker and the governments trying to manage national assertion within economic and intellectual isolation have been feckless failures. They can't satisfy anyone. The majority of Brits seem to think that Brexit was a mistake; and also they don't want to jump back into heated controversy over it. That hurt. There's a sharp age difference among the people: 

It may also be, as one British pollster observed, that the 2016 majority for Brexit “has literally died out,” since the Leave camp at the time included a disproportionate number of elderly voters. And so the conversation in Britain is shifting to what can be done to reverse the damage ...

Sound familiar ... ?

There's flooding in Texas, there's strife in Iran ... Apologies to the Kingston Trio

Like the Brexiteers, the Trumpists in power destroy without building. Stick that old crank JFK Jr at Health and Human Services, throw out the scientists, and you get a cyclosporiasis epidemic. Two cheers for the microbes! Empower Russell Vought at the Office of Management and Budget and government ceases to be able to do its job. MAGA cheers while emergency management is cut until no one answers the phone as flood waters rise.

Like the Brits, when the American people shrug off our impulse to destroy government without building (I think largely we do this so as not to have to deal with brown people ...), reconstruction is going to be tough. You can't stop the clock and you certainly can't go backwards. When people experience Trump's grafting minions, his anti-science religious know-nothings, and the gloating of our domestic oligarchs, we don't like it. The reaction will and should be extreme.

I trust we'll take government back. The federal system and the country's vast wealth gives us a fighting chance to pull out of our Trumpist national nosedive into self-pity, perhaps more smoothly than the Brits. But what are we going to do with our chances?

Found out and about

The Mission District is full of houses which have been made canvasses for murals. On a recent walk, I encountered these:

 

The visual conceit works, I think.

Heck of an amendment to a bank of very ordinary garage doors.

Killing the fathers

 

Adrian Carrasquillo covers the Trump tribe's war on immigrants for The Bulwark. Sometimes I wonder how even such a professional journalist can bear the anguish that is his subject.

ICE's new permanent family separation

... In the first Trump administration, opposition to the president’s immigration agenda was galvanized by the horrors of family separation. As Adam Serwer memorably noted back in 2018, “The cruelty is the point.”

 

Today, the opposition is different, and the stakes seem far higher. It’s not separation that drives the fear; it’s disruption and death. There is deep mourning, but there is also a growing fury at these ICE killings all over Latino social media. It’s become clear that mass deportation comes with this type of violence—and maybe that’s by design.

 

Under images of Araujo and Guerrero as departed angels, the page Latino and Muslim Unity wrote,  “Our fathers deserve to come home to their families. We demand accountability.”
 

Carlos Espina, a social media influencer with 23 million followers across TikTok, Instagram and Facebook, posted videos at turns angry and heartbroken.
 

“The Colombian immigrant that was assassinated in a hail of bullets by ICE in Maine was in the car with his three-year-old baby,” Espina said in one. “It shows this agency has no type of respect for human life, much less the lives of our people. They see us as dogs, animals or worse.”
 

JC Frias, a Mexican-American activist with nearly 250,000 Instagram followers, shared the final words of both men: “Me estan matando” and “I tried to stop.”
 

“They were fathers. They were providers. They were loved. And they were HUNTED because of the color of their skin,” he wrote. In another post, Frias echoed a sentiment I’ve seen repeated often, including in private messages to me from Latinos and Mexican-Americans who saw their own father in Lorenzo Araujo.
 

“Lorenzo’s memorial says more than words ever could,” Frias wrote, describing the candles, Mexican flags, soccer jerseys, and families stopping to pray. “One message echoed over and over,” he said. “Lorenzo could have been any of our dads.” ...

Follow Carrasquillo at Huddled Masses.

Are the AI tech bros conning us? And also themselves?

Last month, I bought a new Apple iPad to use for travel. Since I bought the last one in the mid-2010s, I thought the $450 price pretty cheap for a very powerful tool. But I was also aware that the Erudite Partner had two weeks before bought the same iPad for notably less. What led to the price increase?

Alex Reisner, a staff writer at The Atlantic, blames the AI boom [giftlink]. He's provocative.

Generative AI Is an Engineering Disaster: A shockingly inefficient trillion-dollar project

... The prices of some laptops have gone up as much as 50 percent, and low-cost computers are being hit the hardest. Affordable entry-level computers may “disappear by 2028” according to one forecast. And the memory shortage is expected to continue for years.

The memory is being put into data centers, which tech firms are expanding at incredible speed. They are planning to multiply total U.S.-data-center capacity by a factor of eight over the next few years. The demand for electricity at these sites is already so great that some companies are repurposing jet engines to power them. ...

He thinks the tech moguls who are building the AI future have blithely launched themselves into a morass.

... The problem with generative AI, in the industry’s own jargon, is that it does not scale. The cost of growing from, say, a thousand users to a million is a key factor that venture capitalists examine when they evaluate start-ups. They want to see that the cost of adding each new user decreases over time, so that the company can support millions of users and make increasing profits. ...

With generative AI, the work of building efficient, scalable systems has not been done. And the problem is exacerbated by the ever-larger generative-AI models, which have grown from 175 billion parameters in 2020 to more than 1 trillion today, according to independent estimates (the actual sizes of the models powering products such as Claude and ChatGPT are secret). 

The large in large language model [LLM] should not be a selling point. But the industry’s observation that bigger models tend to outperform smaller ones has given rise to a totemic belief in “scaling laws” that suggest any problem can be solved by simply making models bigger. 

Yet the returns are diminishing. The bigger an AI model is, the less it improves with each added parameter, and so it must be made bigger at a faster rate just to sustain steady progress. I asked a few AI researchers whether they could name any other real-world software that scales so poorly. None of them could think of any. ... By economic and engineering measures, generative AI might be the worst technology ever deployed. 

But, Reisner concludes, the tech barons are enthralled by their messianic delusions.

Chatbot companies are aware that their products are inefficient. ... we seem stuck with LLMs, perhaps because they have been so aggressively marketed. They are now being added to everything, whether you want them or not. In 2024 and 2025, they were integrated into both Windows and MacOS, which means that more computing power is now needed to run a basic personal computer. Smartphones are also being sold with upgraded hardware as companies anticipate new AI features. Inefficient AI is also being added to common programs such as Adobe Photoshop and Microsoft Word, meaning that computers need to be more powerful to run this software.

This is all especially bad because computers are no longer improving at the rate they used to. Since the 1950s, manufacturers have learned to make microchips steadily faster, smaller, and cheaper, a trend known colloquially as Moore’s Law. But in the past few years, components have gotten so small that manufacturers have run into molecular-level limitations on shrinking them any further, which has slowed progress significantly.

Ultimately, inefficiency may be of little concern to the people within the tech industry who believe that they are replicating intelligence itself. There is an almost-religious conviction among many in Silicon Valley that something mindlike could arise from LLMs, which are ultimately just statistical language-generating software—this, despite the software’s inability to recall basic facts, its lack of common sense, and its complete dissimilarity to a biological brain. ... But the mythological lure of AI is so strong that many engineers believe that nothing should stand in their way. Not even the basic task of writing efficient software. 

Is Reisner correct that AI is powering toward a messy, expensive, debilitating dead end? I'm certainly not qualified to evaluate, but I'm glad to have read his case. You can do that yourself at this gift link.

What makes Reisner's case highly plausible to me is where it touches on an area in which I do think I have the capacity for discernment. (And you, the reader, likely do too.) In the US political arena, these tech boys act like intoxicated teenagers with unmerited riches to throw around. Nobody can directly gainsay them; with their kind of money, they are surrounded by supplicants, flatterers, and, of course, politicians eager for a piece. An experienced con man like the Orange Toddler may seem to them a mark, but he's the true professional swindler. 

Scientific and business "geniuses" have lent themselves to fascist regimes in the past. The results were not to their liking; the Trial of the Industrialists at Nuremberg exposed cooperation with Nazi war crimes and mass murders. (Yes -- many escaped justice become "the West" decided they were useful to the Cold War... but that's another story.) Some of these guys are making themselves targets for a future fall.

They are good at standing around and being seen

 

To a bemused observer, one of the weirdest things about the regime in Washington is that most of its appointees in significant executive roles seem to spend so much time being props at various performative events. Don't these people have jobs to do? 

On the other had, when they do attend to the agencies and offices they've been dropped into, they mostly serve only as wreckers. So maybe we should be glad that they view their roles primarily as extras on a stage set.

No more "consequence free world" -- thanks Donnie!

What's the Orange Toddler going to say in his national broadcast tonight? Looks like he wants to whine on about the 2020 election he lost -- and threaten the 2026 midterms which he is going to lose. I won't be watching; I've got something better to do.

But I know at least one purpose that inspires this unwanted intrusion in our evening: he's managed to start a war against Iran which he is losing. He is desperate for some distraction. He/we are being humiliated by a second rate theocracy with a lot more brains and a lot more guts than exist in the US government these days.

Military historian Phillips P. O'Brien provides an apt and accurate description of what's going on:

The US-Iran War is a war of superlatives, because it is so absurd. It has already been the most “corrupt” war in US history (easily), the most “strategy-free” war in US history, and the most pointless war in US history. It might also be the stupidest. Another thing it is, without a doubt, is Donald Trump’s War (indeed that might be its name in history). This makes it a war with the stability of Donald Trump’s personality (i.e., very little). This week, for instance, the ceasefire between Iran and the USA completely broke down (yes, four days of constant bombardment means it has broken down) but if it instantly reasserted itself today, no one could be surprised because that is how Trump operates. ....

... The most recent polls are pretty consistent—somewhere between 60-66% of Americans do not support the war and consider it a failure. Only the GOP/MAGA base still supports this unending war (ironically enough). Also, the Iranian regime has consolidated its hold on power and seems to have rebuilt some of its military assets. However that is an irrelevance in Donald Trump’s War. He will do anything not to accept defeat for now.

... Look, Khamenei was a terrible guy, but the USA had pursued and legitimized a policy of leader assassination. Now it complains about this policy that has made Trump himself a legitimate target for Iran. What did he think? Did Trump believe he could assassinate whomever he wanted in Iran and Iran would not contemplate retaliating in kind?

The US believed for too long that it was living in a consequence free world, where it could do what it wanted and was so powerful that other states would simply bow to its magnificence, accept all insults, and grovel for its friendship. Well guess what? Actions have consequences, and the US has deliberately chosen policies with pretty terrible ones.

Wake up and smell the roses America. You planted these ones.

Actually, I am not sure Donald Trump's War on Iran is the stupidest war in our history. I could make a case for what we call the "War of 1812" and what Europe, if it remembers it at all, thinks of as minor skirmish adjacent to the Napoleonic wars which shaped the modern era. The USofA got lucky in that one; the world powers were distracted by their own quarrels and couldn't follow up on the blows they'd dealt the Americans. (I'm an interested student of that one; one of its failures laid the basis for my family's subsequent well-being.)