Years ago, I was sitting in a waiting room about the time of an international conference in Uruguay. The waiting room TV was set to Fox. I was reading and didn't pay much attention, but I gradually became aware of a scene of mayhem: protesters hurling Molotov cocktails, etc
The subliminal scene became alarming enough that I closed my book and watched the TV. It took a moment, but I realized that I was watching the same single man throwing the same Molotov cocktail on an endless loop over and over again as the TV folk chatted.
But wait, there's more. The Uruguayan police had formed a line around the protest zone. The molotov man started running about 100 feet from the line, hurled his little firecracker at 50 feet, so it crashed and burned just on the SAFE side of the line from the cops, who ignored it
The whole thing was a total kabuki show, all made for TV. And of course all involved had to know that, from the molotov man down in Uruguay to the video editors in NYC. The whole point was to convert a non-event into the appearance of something upsetting
So that's what's going on in Portland, isn't it? Why is breaking windows the paradigmatic anti-fa crime? It creates a big mess, but it's a misdemeanor offense and one that won't upset the cops too much.
It's all a show, everybody knows it. And if it stops being a show - Portland alone employs 1000 police, the state of Oregon many more, plus there's the national guard. Plus again, all those involved are surely well known to the police, who can find and lay charges if they want
Meanwhile (2) women in the US are 21 times more likely to be shot dead by a partner than women in other developed countries, according to the Giffords Center
I have zero sympathy for street hooliganism of any kind, for any professed motive. Break a window, go to jail. But on this anti-fa business, we are all being scammed in a way so blatant that I have to believe it offends truly professional scam artists (END)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So many people quote the famous line from Thucydides - "The strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must" - and forget that the amoral imperialists who used that line in the end lost their war and their empire.
Thucydides does not offer the line, "The strong do what they can," as a neutral analysis of how international affairs operate. He offers it as an expression of the reckless arrogance that brought about the destruction of the Athenian Empire.
The lesson to take is that no power is strong enough to disregard justice and legitimacy. Arrogant and aggressive states, no matter how strong, conjure an even stronger coalition of enemies against them. See Charles V, Louis XIV, Napoleon, the Second Reich, the Third Reich.
1) It's the law. The Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense were so named by the National Security Act amendments of 1949. Only Congress has the power to change the name. nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/28655…
2) It's commonsense. Not all national security threats take the form of outright wars. EG the US is not at war with the Houthis of Yemen, but it does defend sea traffic against Houthi terrorism. (Or anyway it tries to, if only the SecDef would quit blabbing operational details.)
While I was on CNN at 1 pm predicting that the Trump administration would use the Charlie Kirk murder as an excuse to deploy government power against peaceful and legal political competition in 2026 ...
... Vice President Vance and other Trump officials were simultaneously on Charlie Kirk's podcast vowing to use the murder as an excuse to deploy government power against peaceful and legal political competition in 2026. nytimes.com/live/2025/09/1…
1) The Trump administration is corrupt on scale almost beyond comprehending. If they lose control of Congress in 2026, they face all kinds of legal jeopardy. nytimes.com/2025/09/15/us/…
Government taking control of private companies ...
Supply shortages and price increases due to government attacks on free commercial exchange;
The government imposing huge fines on media corporations for First Amendment protected speech that displeased the president ...
Enormous tax increases imposed on Americans without any vote by Congress;
Violent convicted criminals released onto the streets because they directed their violence against persons the president targeted as his personal enemies ...
In a few minutes, @theAtlantic will release video of the episode of David Frum show featuring ex ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink. Audio is already posted on your favorite platform. (thread)
The interview with Ambassador Brink and the opening monologue were recorded before today's news of Trump cut-off of essential weapons of self-defense to Ukraine. But both were recorded in ominous awareness that Trump abandonment of Ukraine was imminent. 2/x
A point I make in opening: while Trump's Putin-subservient abandonment of Ukraine deserves as much anger and scorn as the non-Putin side of the political spectrum can muster ... a word also has to be said about Biden administration's lack of urgency to aid Ukraine in time. 3/x
The Benin artifacts previously delivered to Nigeria from UK and Germany have disappeared from public view. They are not on display in any museum. Some or all may have been sold into private markets. (Links in next tweet)
The late PJ O'Rourke had a great line: "Just as some things are too strange for fiction, other things are too true for journalism." The fate of artworks delivered to Nigeria is one of those subjects too true for journalism. Fiction and fantasy are reported as moral imperative.