In my ever striving, often failing, goal of writing here a bit more frequently, if for nothing else than the exercise. This past week in reading a few pieces struck me...
1. With Robert Mueller's recent Russian indictments, I found this piece from The Economist to particularly good at breaking down the goals of Russian efforts - Russian Disinformation Distorts American and European Democracy.
2. One of the things that has been mostly dissatisfying is the U.S. response to Russian efforts to meddle in the past election, the upcoming election, and to meddle in our politics. The President and his Republican allies in Congress tend to focus on claiming that it had no effect. What I don't understand is why that matters.* A foreign government, considered adverse to our interests and our allies' interests, attempted and continues to attempt to interfere. It really doesn't matter if it succeeds or not, particularly as it determines our response. My feelings are echoed in this piece at The Economist, shining a light as to how abnormal President's Trump response has been. Another piece, this one in the Atlantic suggesting a boycott of the Republican Party, also makes points worthwhile. I used to be at a point where I enjoyed politics as a discussion of differing ideas on how to accomplish the same thing - good things for our country. The way the Republican Party is now the party of Trump, and therefore the party of destroying and tearing down our institutions, convinces me of the importance of the next couple election cycles for our Republic.
3. Speaking of boycotts, in response to the mass shooting a little over a week ago in Florida, there have been growing number of calls for boycotts of corporate affiliations with the NRA, as summarized in this Washington Post article. I share this because of the NRA's response, in part, to these calls for boycott. I understand why it would be frustrating to lose benefits it has gotten for its membership. The last push has been attempting to get streaming services to drop NRATV, which basically acts as a propaganda channel for the organization. In response, the NRA has cried foul, claiming it is an attack on free speech. I often think that the right to free speech is the most cited but most understood of the constitutional rights. Simply, there is no free speech issue here, because the government is not curtailing or limiting the speech of the NRA. Rather, the marketplace of ideas is potentially limiting their speech by stating that the speech is not worthy of consideration. When such speech is excised from the public discourse by this marketplace (and not the government), there simply is no constitutional issue. I would think that the NRA and its spokeswoman, Dana Loesch, being as versed as they allegedly are in the 2nd Amendment right, know this. As such, they are either being dishonest, or are willfully ignorant. Neither is comforting.
4. The Daring Plan to Save a Religious Minority from ISIS - from the New Yorker, this story relates events involving Yazidis, a religious minority in the Iraq/Middle East, and their immigrants in the U.S. This is a powerful piece of journalism, reminding us of the long lasting ripples of foreign policy decisions, and of war in particular. There is a lot of heartache too.
Outside of those particular pieces, I also finished Loaded, a book with a particular argument about the history of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I have started and am slowly working my way through The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia by Masha Gessen. Though I am just barely past 10% in (60/500), I can already tell will be an incredible read - already highly informative and educational.
What are you reading?
I continue to read fiction mysteries. I might actually have to think if I was reading what you are! Enjoy and read what you like. It's mostly all good.
ReplyDelete