Assorted fascinating links

I've often read about the alleged conspiracy of the CIA and contra drug smugglers to introduce a new cheap form of cocaine into black communities, and how it started with south central Los Angeles. The reporting series was done by the San Jose Mercury News. I haven't read it but instead have read the critiques of it. This is the most detailed, and it shoots down most of the theory. Black people and black communities in the US have been badly mistreated for hundreds of year, but this was probably not perpetrated on them. Many other wrongs were. 

Fighting over which organizations are the true Trumpers. Gag! For a terrible, fascistic narcissist to have organizations fighting to be his representative on earth--why would that happen? Peter Navarro claims to be the true messenger. The evil ones include the America First Policy Institute with Larry Kudlow and Bobby Jindal. They're trying to con Trump and slip in their own candidate as the MAGA heir. 

Boris Johnson got outsted from his party leadership for being a boorish liar. Why didn't Trump? Good question. 

US prisons released thousands due to covid and only 17 were rearrested. This provides lessons for who and how to release prisoners, save money, be compassionate, and make life better. 

The Michigan GOP doubles down on right wing nutters with their election of an election-fraud diehard as state chair. 

Liar extraordinaire, unapologetic hatemonger, and possibly the worst person in the US, Alex Jones is finally facing some much deserved reckoning. This civil trial, in Austin, TX, is about the monetary judgement against him. He was in contempt of the original trial, didn't cooperate to such a degree that there was a default judgement against him.

Dominion Voting Systems settled its suit with Fox News for over $750 million on the day jury selection was to start. It's hugely embarrassing for Fox. Google will help with the links, I'm sure. All The Texts Fox News Didn't Want You to Read, but you can, snicker, snicker. 

I didn't write anything about the 2022 midterm elections, which were anticipated to be a blow-out hurting the Dems because of inflation, but didn't turn out that way. Here's a report on voter sentiment just after the election. 69% think the midterms were fair. 50% hate the Democratic party. 53% hate the GOP. No one is winning a popularity contest. 

TRUMP IS FINALLY INDICTED. In New York, for fraudulent business reporting or something? Reactions are delicious. Also about Trump: he is the focus of a major political movement. This is different from life as usual because a fairly large number of people are motivated to make changes.

The House held a hearing on China which wasn't just grandstanding. The focus was that there is an existential struggle between China and the US. I have my doubts about this. China has been a country for millenia, so they're unlikely to disappear. The US is a much newer country but still almost 250 years old, and quite vigorous. Neither seems likely to disappear for any reason, much less due to another country an ocean away. 

Image: youtube.com

Brilliant or crazy: Was Moynihan a neocon?

I have to repeat the headline: is it a brilliant insight or insanity to list Daniel Patrick Moynihan as a neocon?

You may be wondering where this crazy notion came from. Honestly, I never would have thought of it myself, so of course it came from some reading on the web. Specifically, it came from this article:

"A historian of American intellectual thought would probably conclude that once there were actually serious neoconservative thinkers like Daniel Bell, Nathan Glaser, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol who published original and ground-breaking works on social and economic policy, some of which have become classics in the field. But when it comes to the field of international relations, neoconservatism has failed to produce any great thinkers, and will instead be remembered for its many pundits and operators, or policy entrepreneurs..."

The article is a reflection or complaint about neoconservative foreign policy, and is worth reading. But what really lit my fuse was the reference to Moynihan as a neocon. Is it possible that he actually was a neocon?

I have a few memories of Moynihan, who was senator from New York (my home state) from 1977 to 2001. He seemed to have a clearer insight into problems than other politicians, and he wasn't afraid to depart from the party line. In that vein, he raised concerns about welfare and its effect in breaking down black families. He was decades ahead of others with that insight (though it doesn't tell the whole story of family breakdown).

I know I can't rely on my memory to answer the question of whether Moynihan was a neocon, so I went to my constant friend Google. It brought me to another fascinating article about Moynihan's long history in politics. The article contains a hint that perhaps Moynihan was a neocon:

"He had predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union as early as 1979 (all those years spent studying ethnic conflicts and failed economic development projects were not in vain). As the Berlin Wall came down, he began to rethink the world in the most sweeping terms. He decided that that moment was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to establish global rule of law. Needless to say, that project didn’t come to anything. But his letters on the subject still make for fascinating reading."

Luckily, he couldn't have been full neocon because he voted against authorization of the first Gulf War. Perhaps he could be classified as a social neocon since he voted for outlawing partial-birth abortions (more properly called dilation and extraction abortions). But his voting record is quite mixed--against welfare reform (strangely), against the Defense of Marriage Act--so he doesn't seem like a social conservative either.

The upshot is that it seems a stretch to define Moynihan as a neocon. Phew, that's a relief!

Image: urbanland.uli.org