Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
April 22, 2024
fuck Newsweek and fuck The Daily Mail, please, please stop giving those RW shitrags exposure and clicks
So bloody sick of them being posted left, right, and centre here. 
April 22, 2024
https://variety.com/2024/music/news/spotify-300-million-streams-tortured-poets-department-taylor-swift-1235977306/
Taylor Swift can’t quit breaking her own records. After Spotify revealed Friday that “The Tortured Poets Department” had become the first album in the DSP’s history to amass 200 million streams in a single day, the service updated that news early Saturday, to report that first-day streams actually surpassed 300 million, when all was said and done and counted.
“History made!” the company tweeted. “On April 19, 2024, Taylor Swift’s The Tortured Poets Department was the first album in Spotify history to have over 300M streams in a single day.” On top of that, “Fortnight,” the album’s Post Malone-featuring first single, set the record as the platform’s most-streamed song in a single day, topping Adele’s “Easy on Me” (set in 2021)
https://twitter.com/Spotify/status/1781694331482714177
It did not hurt in racking up these numbers that, just two hours after “The Tortured Poets Department” came out at the stroke of midnight ET, Swift announced to her sleepy fans that she was adding 15 tracks to the previously existing 16 for a 31-song deluxe digital edition. Before the new album came out, Swift previously held the record for most streams in a single day, with the previous benchmarks set by 2022’s “Midnights” and 2023’s “1989 (Taylor’s Version).”
https://twitter.com/Spotify/status/1781668213807620117
It had already been reported Friday that with “Poets,” Swift had become the most streamed artist in a single day in Spotify history. She previously broke her record as the most streamed artist in a single day when “1989 (Taylor’s Version)” dropped in October last year. Before the album release, she had already set a slightly more mundane record, as “Poets” became the most pre-saved album on the Countdown Page in Spotify history just a day before it arrived.
snip
Taylor Swift's Record-Breaking First Day at Spotify With 'Tortured Poets' Surpassed 300 Million Streams
https://variety.com/2024/music/news/spotify-300-million-streams-tortured-poets-department-taylor-swift-1235977306/
Taylor Swift can’t quit breaking her own records. After Spotify revealed Friday that “The Tortured Poets Department” had become the first album in the DSP’s history to amass 200 million streams in a single day, the service updated that news early Saturday, to report that first-day streams actually surpassed 300 million, when all was said and done and counted.
Taylor Swift - Cassandra (Official Lyric Video)
They knew, they knew, they knew the whole time
That I was onto somethin'
The family, the pure greed, the Christian chorus line
They all said nothin'
Blood's thick, but nothin' like a payroll
Bet they never spared a prayer for my soul
They knew, they knew, they knew the whole time
That I was onto somethin'
The family, the pure greed, the Christian chorus line
They all said nothin'
Blood's thick, but nothin' like a payroll
Bet they never spared a prayer for my soul
“History made!” the company tweeted. “On April 19, 2024, Taylor Swift’s The Tortured Poets Department was the first album in Spotify history to have over 300M streams in a single day.” On top of that, “Fortnight,” the album’s Post Malone-featuring first single, set the record as the platform’s most-streamed song in a single day, topping Adele’s “Easy on Me” (set in 2021)
https://twitter.com/Spotify/status/1781694331482714177
It did not hurt in racking up these numbers that, just two hours after “The Tortured Poets Department” came out at the stroke of midnight ET, Swift announced to her sleepy fans that she was adding 15 tracks to the previously existing 16 for a 31-song deluxe digital edition. Before the new album came out, Swift previously held the record for most streams in a single day, with the previous benchmarks set by 2022’s “Midnights” and 2023’s “1989 (Taylor’s Version).”
https://twitter.com/Spotify/status/1781668213807620117
It had already been reported Friday that with “Poets,” Swift had become the most streamed artist in a single day in Spotify history. She previously broke her record as the most streamed artist in a single day when “1989 (Taylor’s Version)” dropped in October last year. Before the album release, she had already set a slightly more mundane record, as “Poets” became the most pre-saved album on the Countdown Page in Spotify history just a day before it arrived.
snip
April 22, 2024
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/22/johnson-military-aid-damage-ukraine/
https://archive.ph/Vxty9
Debris from apartments hit by a Russian missile in Kharkiv, Ukraine, on Jan. 23. (Alice Martins for The Washington Post)
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) put it well:
https://twitter.com/DNCWarRoom/status/1781336247853592601
When the vote on Ukraine aid finally came, it was overwhelming, 311-112. That raised the question: Why in the world did such a popular measure take so long? It could have been done long ago, when President Biden requested the aid in October, had Johnson simply ignored the histrionics from pro-Putin House members who take their cues from Donald Trump. A week … a month … six months ago, the vote to deliver critical aid could have prevented countless Ukrainian deaths. Just last week, Russian missiles struck an apartment building in the northern Ukrainian city of Chernihiv, killing 17 people and injuring at least 61. That was merely one strike among many Russia has successfully carried out in recent months while Ukraine has been hampered by munitions shortages and inadequate antimissile defenses.
The delay had serious, widespread consequences for Ukraine. Max Bergmann, a former State Department official and director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia program for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, tells me, “Their power sector has been decimated by lack of air defense, which will be incredibly costly to repair.” He adds that on the front “Ukrainians have lost a lot of soldiers because if you don’t have artillery you have to hold the line with men.” In other words, Ukraine has “lost a lot of people simply because we stopped providing them ammo.”
Amnesty International, tracking one of Russia’s many ongoing human rights violations, reported just days before the vote, “In what may be cumulatively one of Russia’s most destructive series of strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, several power facilities were attacked, resulting in further suffering and disruption to Ukrainian civilians.” The organization noted, “Deliberately attacking civilian infrastructure, such as power stations and electricity supplies, and causing overwhelming harm to civilians is a violation of international humanitarian law.” Count that among the consequences of delayed U.S. aid. The shortages of ammunition and antimissile systems for Ukraine meant Russia paid little price for continued aggression......................
snip
Jennifer Rubin: Forget the ticker-tape parade. Mike Johnson is no hero.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/22/johnson-military-aid-damage-ukraine/
https://archive.ph/Vxty9
Debris from apartments hit by a Russian missile in Kharkiv, Ukraine, on Jan. 23. (Alice Martins for The Washington Post)
Foreign policy commentators and proponents of aid to Ukraine spent days gushing over House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) for finally bringing to the floor a bill for aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. Give him credit! He came around! What courage! That praise ignored the immense damage that Johnson and MAGA House Republican pro-Russia propagandists inflicted on America’s beleaguered Ukrainian allies.
https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1780747674355966331
https://twitter.com/WSJopinion/status/1781130635513364918
https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1780747674355966331
https://twitter.com/WSJopinion/status/1781130635513364918
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) put it well:
https://twitter.com/DNCWarRoom/status/1781336247853592601
When the vote on Ukraine aid finally came, it was overwhelming, 311-112. That raised the question: Why in the world did such a popular measure take so long? It could have been done long ago, when President Biden requested the aid in October, had Johnson simply ignored the histrionics from pro-Putin House members who take their cues from Donald Trump. A week … a month … six months ago, the vote to deliver critical aid could have prevented countless Ukrainian deaths. Just last week, Russian missiles struck an apartment building in the northern Ukrainian city of Chernihiv, killing 17 people and injuring at least 61. That was merely one strike among many Russia has successfully carried out in recent months while Ukraine has been hampered by munitions shortages and inadequate antimissile defenses.
The delay had serious, widespread consequences for Ukraine. Max Bergmann, a former State Department official and director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia program for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, tells me, “Their power sector has been decimated by lack of air defense, which will be incredibly costly to repair.” He adds that on the front “Ukrainians have lost a lot of soldiers because if you don’t have artillery you have to hold the line with men.” In other words, Ukraine has “lost a lot of people simply because we stopped providing them ammo.”
Amnesty International, tracking one of Russia’s many ongoing human rights violations, reported just days before the vote, “In what may be cumulatively one of Russia’s most destructive series of strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, several power facilities were attacked, resulting in further suffering and disruption to Ukrainian civilians.” The organization noted, “Deliberately attacking civilian infrastructure, such as power stations and electricity supplies, and causing overwhelming harm to civilians is a violation of international humanitarian law.” Count that among the consequences of delayed U.S. aid. The shortages of ammunition and antimissile systems for Ukraine meant Russia paid little price for continued aggression......................
snip
April 22, 2024
Fears over late-night revellers causing excessive noise are leading to the city council’s clampdown on takeaway food and drink
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/milan-bans-ice-cream-after-midnight-q0qkj7hfb
https://archive.ph/MjEMl
Milan is poised to ban sales of ice creams after midnight in ongoing efforts to clamp down on nighttime revellers sowing havoc on the streets of Italy’s financial capital. The new rules devised by the city council will ban the sale of takeaway drinks and food, including pizza and ice cream, in 12 of Milan’s liveliest districts. “We are seeking a balance between sociality and entertainment, the peace and health of the residents and the free economic activity of traders and entrepreneurs,” Marco Granelli, the deputy mayor responsible for security, wrote on Facebook.
Home to Italy’s banking and technology sectors as well as the country’s stock exchange, Milan has a reputation for its tireless workforce and is credited with inventing Italy’s after-work aperitivo. According to a 2023 study by the market research company NIQ, the city is home to nearly 12,500 bars and restaurants. Now the council is determined to clamp down on drinkers gathering on the city’s streets after hours. “A sizable segment of the population is complaining about excessive noise,” Giuseppe Sala, the mayor, told reporters last month. “In my role I have to listen to all citizens, including those who have to work and those who want to do their business.”
The measure, which is due to come into force on May 7 and will run until early November, will apply to areas including Navigli, where crowds gather outside bars lining two narrow canals, and Paolo Sarpi, or Chinatown, which is home to a growing number of edgy fusion cocktail bars. While the new regulation applies to all kinds of takeaway food, critics have particularly rallied behind gelaterias, which are accustomed to serving late-night customers as an inherent part of Italian culture. The right-wing newspaper Il Giornale claimed Sala had “declared war on ice cream”.
Business representatives have criticised the plans. “This initiative does not solve the problem,” Lino Stoppani, president of the Italian federation of public and tourist operators, told newspaper Il Messaggero. He added that the measure would “damage businesses that generate wealth”. The ban will apply to takeaways from midnight every day and to outdoor tables from 12.30am on weekdays and from 1.30am on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. Citizens and private and public stakeholders have until early May to file suggested changes to the plan. Milan backtracked on plans to introduce a similar ban in 2013, when Giuliano Pisapia, the mayor at the time, claimed there had been a “misunderstanding”. “Milanese residents can continue to freely enjoy an ice cream after midnight,” he said at the time.
snip
Milan bans ice cream after midnight
Fears over late-night revellers causing excessive noise are leading to the city council’s clampdown on takeaway food and drink
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/milan-bans-ice-cream-after-midnight-q0qkj7hfb
https://archive.ph/MjEMl
Milan is poised to ban sales of ice creams after midnight in ongoing efforts to clamp down on nighttime revellers sowing havoc on the streets of Italy’s financial capital. The new rules devised by the city council will ban the sale of takeaway drinks and food, including pizza and ice cream, in 12 of Milan’s liveliest districts. “We are seeking a balance between sociality and entertainment, the peace and health of the residents and the free economic activity of traders and entrepreneurs,” Marco Granelli, the deputy mayor responsible for security, wrote on Facebook.
Home to Italy’s banking and technology sectors as well as the country’s stock exchange, Milan has a reputation for its tireless workforce and is credited with inventing Italy’s after-work aperitivo. According to a 2023 study by the market research company NIQ, the city is home to nearly 12,500 bars and restaurants. Now the council is determined to clamp down on drinkers gathering on the city’s streets after hours. “A sizable segment of the population is complaining about excessive noise,” Giuseppe Sala, the mayor, told reporters last month. “In my role I have to listen to all citizens, including those who have to work and those who want to do their business.”
The measure, which is due to come into force on May 7 and will run until early November, will apply to areas including Navigli, where crowds gather outside bars lining two narrow canals, and Paolo Sarpi, or Chinatown, which is home to a growing number of edgy fusion cocktail bars. While the new regulation applies to all kinds of takeaway food, critics have particularly rallied behind gelaterias, which are accustomed to serving late-night customers as an inherent part of Italian culture. The right-wing newspaper Il Giornale claimed Sala had “declared war on ice cream”.
Business representatives have criticised the plans. “This initiative does not solve the problem,” Lino Stoppani, president of the Italian federation of public and tourist operators, told newspaper Il Messaggero. He added that the measure would “damage businesses that generate wealth”. The ban will apply to takeaways from midnight every day and to outdoor tables from 12.30am on weekdays and from 1.30am on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. Citizens and private and public stakeholders have until early May to file suggested changes to the plan. Milan backtracked on plans to introduce a similar ban in 2013, when Giuliano Pisapia, the mayor at the time, claimed there had been a “misunderstanding”. “Milanese residents can continue to freely enjoy an ice cream after midnight,” he said at the time.
snip
April 22, 2024
The political scientist Eunice Goes explains to Robin Wilson the vicissitudes of social democracy historically and addresses its contemporary challenges.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/social-democracy-its-history-and-its-future
The Great Chartist Meeting on Kennington Common in 1848—Marx was impressed with this working-class movement for voting rights in Britain, albeit only for men
snip
Social democracy: its history and its future
The political scientist Eunice Goes explains to Robin Wilson the vicissitudes of social democracy historically and addresses its contemporary challenges.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/social-democracy-its-history-and-its-future
The Great Chartist Meeting on Kennington Common in 1848—Marx was impressed with this working-class movement for voting rights in Britain, albeit only for men
Robin Wilson: Your new book, Social Democracy, is a sobering account of social democracy since its emergence, charting a steadily diminishing political ambition—a fading of the red flag, if you like—over time. In your telling, in the latter 19th century, social democracy forsook the ill-defined ‘revolution’ of Marx and Engels for a parliamentary road to socialism. In the early 20th century, it demarcated itself from purportedly radical yet authoritarian alternatives. In the later 20th century, it accommodated to neoliberal capitalism. And in this century, it became disorientated by the ‘polycrisis’. Why do you think there was this steady trajectory, rather than more back-and-forth—more moments of social democratic achievement to record, such as the universal welfare states established in the Nordic countries in the middle of the last century?
Eunice Goes: That was the result of different things operating at the same time—and there was a bit of back and forth, which was not so steady. There was always an element of contingency and reacting to events as they emerged. But the first factor that drove this social democratic backsliding—if we can talk about it in those terms—has to do with when theory gets into contact with the messy reality of politics. And this is something we all experience in our lives: before we parent, we read about how to look after children and then, once our children are presented before us, we are faced with completely new sets of situations and have to improvise. In the late 19th century one thing was the theory of social democracy, the way the theorists imagined a socialist society.
Then they got on to start to implement that social-democratic society but reality is always different from the theory. And the first adaptation had to do with the electoral ground on which they were going to bring their vision to fruition. They very quickly saw—and Marx and Engels were the first to argue it—that parliamentary democracy and universal suffrage offered them an incredible tool to bring that vision of society about. But again, how they imagined their electorate, and in particular the working class or the supporters of the labour movement, was quite different from the voters they encountered on the ground. And so if the road to power was through elections—was through the parliamentary road—they had to adapt to these new voters. These voters might have been quite sympathetic to the cause of social democracy—they might have been very supportive. But they were not militants and they were not dogmatic followers of theory.
So if parties wanted to win elections, they needed to adjust to that reality. They also had to adjust to the fact that in many countries the industrial working class was not a majority. So if they wanted to be in power and to start to transform society, they needed to make proposals that offered something to those other voters. Finally, the trajectory of social democracy was also one of struggle. They had to deal with a fairly hostile environment. It was not just the difficulty of winning elections—it was the difficulty of dealing with a series of institutions in the societies in which they were operating that were quite hostile to a socialist project: judicial systems, the law, the media, of course, mostly privately owned. So socialists had to fight, they had to deal with and adapt to those situations. This over 160 years of history has been one of struggle and one where social-democratic parties with the exception of Scandinavia have been mostly in opposition. Very few times have social-democratic parties governed in the countries in which they are operating.
Then they got on to start to implement that social-democratic society but reality is always different from the theory. And the first adaptation had to do with the electoral ground on which they were going to bring their vision to fruition. They very quickly saw—and Marx and Engels were the first to argue it—that parliamentary democracy and universal suffrage offered them an incredible tool to bring that vision of society about. But again, how they imagined their electorate, and in particular the working class or the supporters of the labour movement, was quite different from the voters they encountered on the ground. And so if the road to power was through elections—was through the parliamentary road—they had to adapt to these new voters. These voters might have been quite sympathetic to the cause of social democracy—they might have been very supportive. But they were not militants and they were not dogmatic followers of theory.
So if parties wanted to win elections, they needed to adjust to that reality. They also had to adjust to the fact that in many countries the industrial working class was not a majority. So if they wanted to be in power and to start to transform society, they needed to make proposals that offered something to those other voters. Finally, the trajectory of social democracy was also one of struggle. They had to deal with a fairly hostile environment. It was not just the difficulty of winning elections—it was the difficulty of dealing with a series of institutions in the societies in which they were operating that were quite hostile to a socialist project: judicial systems, the law, the media, of course, mostly privately owned. So socialists had to fight, they had to deal with and adapt to those situations. This over 160 years of history has been one of struggle and one where social-democratic parties with the exception of Scandinavia have been mostly in opposition. Very few times have social-democratic parties governed in the countries in which they are operating.
snip
April 22, 2024
This week MEPs vote on the revised EU economic-governance framework. The stakes could not be higher.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/progressives-must-say-no-to-austerity
The new fiscal rules will deny the scale of investments in the green transition the ecological challenge requires, as well as their necessary social counterparts (metamorworks/shutterstock.com)
Progressives gearing up for the next term have a long list of critical issues to tackle: transforming the European Green Deal into a truly green and social deal, pivoting the European Union from ‘green growth’ to post-growth economics, overhauling the narrow approach to just transition, adapting welfare states to climate risks and refocusing the industrial agenda on quality jobs and environmental standards. Yet the hard truth is that if we do not stand firm against the new fiscal rules, all these proposals will go out of the window. Our manifestos will be toothless without the ability to invest massively in a just transition to climate neutrality. Unless progressives snap out of their slumber and reject this austerity pact by casting a ‘no’ vote on Tuesday in the European Parliament, we shall be complicit in our own downfall.
Widespread criticism
The ‘old’ fiscal rules of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) faced widespread criticism for their pursuit of arbitrary numerical targets without any economic justification: the infamous ratios to gross domestic product of budget deficits (3 per cent) and public debt (60 per cent). These rules, which imposed a fiscal straitjacket on national budgets, have been counterproductive—promoting short-term thinking, neglectful of spending quality and unenforceable (due to their reliance on unobservable variables prone to ex post revisions). Since the European Commission initiated its review of the SGP in 2020, numerous reforms have been advocated to safeguard public investment in social welfare and facilitate the ecological transition. Amid recent social, ecological and geopolitical crises, there was optimism that the EU would finally take decisive action to revamp its economic governance. The pandemic prompted a suspension of the SGP in 2020, allowing for increased deficit spending to safeguard citizens. This was extended until 2024 in response to surging energy prices across the EU.
These four years underscored the essential role of government intervention and emphasised the importance of public services, as well as the invaluable contributions of healthcare and education workers. The release of revised economic-governance guidelines by the commission in 2022 fell short of expectations. While acknowledging some criticisms of the outdated rules, the proposal failed adequately to prioritise public investments. It could, nonetheless, have offered a basis for negotiations. Since then, led by the German finance minister, Christian Lindner, and supported by the so-called ‘frugal’ countries, the old guard has fought back and the situation has actually worsened. After two years of debate, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament reached an agreement on the legislative package, backed in the parliament by the conservative European People’s Party and the liberal Renew groups, with the perplexing complicity of the Socialists and Democrats. The new economic-governance framework would sustain arbitrary and complex rules blindly prioritising debt and deficit reduction over key EU policy objectives, such as the green deal and social cohesion.
Debt fundamentalism
Each member state’s fiscal plan would be based on a single net-expenditure reference trajectory, dictating the required annual reduction in government spending. The commission’s debt sustainability analysis (DSA) would set the variables and assumptions under which any trajectory was deemed plausible, and so the speed of medium-term fiscal consolidation. Debt sustainability is imperative to prevent sovereign default, market panic and reliance on bailouts. But the reform would enforce systematic debt reduction below arbitrary thresholds. The commission’s methodology is overly focused on debt-to-GDP dynamics and fails adequately to integrate financial-market indicators such as debt affordability (interest rates have steadily decreased since the 1990s) or debt structure (EU debt is primarily held domestically). Crucially, a reliable analysis should take into account the fiscal consequences of climate inaction, which require an increase in green expenditure to finance rapid adaptation.
snip
Progressives must say 'no' to austerity
This week MEPs vote on the revised EU economic-governance framework. The stakes could not be higher.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/progressives-must-say-no-to-austerity
The new fiscal rules will deny the scale of investments in the green transition the ecological challenge requires, as well as their necessary social counterparts (metamorworks/shutterstock.com)
Progressives gearing up for the next term have a long list of critical issues to tackle: transforming the European Green Deal into a truly green and social deal, pivoting the European Union from ‘green growth’ to post-growth economics, overhauling the narrow approach to just transition, adapting welfare states to climate risks and refocusing the industrial agenda on quality jobs and environmental standards. Yet the hard truth is that if we do not stand firm against the new fiscal rules, all these proposals will go out of the window. Our manifestos will be toothless without the ability to invest massively in a just transition to climate neutrality. Unless progressives snap out of their slumber and reject this austerity pact by casting a ‘no’ vote on Tuesday in the European Parliament, we shall be complicit in our own downfall.
Widespread criticism
The ‘old’ fiscal rules of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) faced widespread criticism for their pursuit of arbitrary numerical targets without any economic justification: the infamous ratios to gross domestic product of budget deficits (3 per cent) and public debt (60 per cent). These rules, which imposed a fiscal straitjacket on national budgets, have been counterproductive—promoting short-term thinking, neglectful of spending quality and unenforceable (due to their reliance on unobservable variables prone to ex post revisions). Since the European Commission initiated its review of the SGP in 2020, numerous reforms have been advocated to safeguard public investment in social welfare and facilitate the ecological transition. Amid recent social, ecological and geopolitical crises, there was optimism that the EU would finally take decisive action to revamp its economic governance. The pandemic prompted a suspension of the SGP in 2020, allowing for increased deficit spending to safeguard citizens. This was extended until 2024 in response to surging energy prices across the EU.
These four years underscored the essential role of government intervention and emphasised the importance of public services, as well as the invaluable contributions of healthcare and education workers. The release of revised economic-governance guidelines by the commission in 2022 fell short of expectations. While acknowledging some criticisms of the outdated rules, the proposal failed adequately to prioritise public investments. It could, nonetheless, have offered a basis for negotiations. Since then, led by the German finance minister, Christian Lindner, and supported by the so-called ‘frugal’ countries, the old guard has fought back and the situation has actually worsened. After two years of debate, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament reached an agreement on the legislative package, backed in the parliament by the conservative European People’s Party and the liberal Renew groups, with the perplexing complicity of the Socialists and Democrats. The new economic-governance framework would sustain arbitrary and complex rules blindly prioritising debt and deficit reduction over key EU policy objectives, such as the green deal and social cohesion.
Debt fundamentalism
Each member state’s fiscal plan would be based on a single net-expenditure reference trajectory, dictating the required annual reduction in government spending. The commission’s debt sustainability analysis (DSA) would set the variables and assumptions under which any trajectory was deemed plausible, and so the speed of medium-term fiscal consolidation. Debt sustainability is imperative to prevent sovereign default, market panic and reliance on bailouts. But the reform would enforce systematic debt reduction below arbitrary thresholds. The commission’s methodology is overly focused on debt-to-GDP dynamics and fails adequately to integrate financial-market indicators such as debt affordability (interest rates have steadily decreased since the 1990s) or debt structure (EU debt is primarily held domestically). Crucially, a reliable analysis should take into account the fiscal consequences of climate inaction, which require an increase in green expenditure to finance rapid adaptation.
snip
April 20, 2024
Label: United Recordings – UTD 024, Ministry Of Sound – UTD 024, Data Records – UTD 024, Made Records – UTD 024, United Recordings – UTD024, Ministry Of Sound – UTD024, Data Records – UTD024, Made Records – UTD024
Format: Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM, 45 RPM
Country: Netherlands
Released: 2001
Genre: Electronic
Style: Progressive House, Progressive Trance
iio - Rapture (John Creamer & Stephane K. Remix) (feat. Nadia Ali) + Rapture (Riva Remix) (feat. Nadia Ali) 2001🖤
Label: United Recordings – UTD 024, Ministry Of Sound – UTD 024, Data Records – UTD 024, Made Records – UTD 024, United Recordings – UTD024, Ministry Of Sound – UTD024, Data Records – UTD024, Made Records – UTD024
Format: Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM, 45 RPM
Country: Netherlands
Released: 2001
Genre: Electronic
Style: Progressive House, Progressive Trance
April 20, 2024
A top State Department official accepted the West African nation’s demand that American forces leave, a move the Biden administration had resisted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/19/us-troops-niger/
https://archive.ph/SAEqe
Nigeriens participate in a demonstration in the capital, Niamey, on April 13 to demand the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel. (Mahamadou Hamidou/Reuters)
NAPLES, Italy — The United States informed the government of Niger on Friday that it agreed to its request to withdraw U.S. troops from the West African country, said three U.S. officials, a move the Biden administration had resisted and one that will transform Washington’s counterterrorism posture in the region. The agreement will spell the end of a U.S. troop presence that totaled more than 1,000 and throw into question the status of a $110 million U.S. air base that is only six years old. It is the culmination of a military coup last year that ousted the country’s democratically elected government and installed a junta that declared America’s military presence there “illegal.”
“The prime minister has asked us to withdraw U.S. troops, and we have agreed to do that,” a senior State Department official told The Washington Post in an interview. This official, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive situation. The decision was sealed in a meeting earlier Friday between Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Niger’s prime minister, Ali Lamine Zeine. “We’ve agreed to begin conversations within days about how to develop a plan” to withdraw troops, said the senior State Department official. “They’ve agreed that we do it in an orderly and responsible way. And we will need to probably dispatch folks to Niamey to sit down and hash it out. And that of course will be a Defense Department project.” A Pentagon spokesman did not immediately offer comment.
The United States had paused its security cooperation with Niger, limiting U.S. activities — including unarmed drone flights. But U.S. service members have remained in the country, unable to fulfill their responsibilities and feeling left in the dark by leadership at the U.S. Embassy as negotiations continued, according to a recent whistleblower complaint. The Sahel region, including neighboring Mali and Burkina Faso, has become a global hot spot for Islamist extremism in recent years, and Niger saw such attacks spike dramatically following the coup. For U.S. officials who viewed the base as an important counterterrorism asset, the withdrawal agreement is a significant setback. “I think it’s undeniable that it was a platform in a unique part of African geography,” the State Department official said.
For years, the Pentagon has deployed a mix of mostly Air Force and Army personnel to Niger to support a mission scrutinizing militant groups in the region. Until the coup last year, the arrangement included counterterrorism drones flights and U.S. and Nigerien troops partnering on some patrols. Niger’s eviction notice last month followed tense meetings with top officials from the State Department and the Pentagon, whom Nigerien leaders accused of attempting to dictate that the West African nation have no relationship with Iran, Russia or other U.S. adversaries. Efforts by top American officials to persuade Niger to get back on a democratic pathway so that U.S. assistance could resume have made little headway.
snip
U.S. agrees to withdraw American troops from Niger
A top State Department official accepted the West African nation’s demand that American forces leave, a move the Biden administration had resisted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/19/us-troops-niger/
https://archive.ph/SAEqe
Nigeriens participate in a demonstration in the capital, Niamey, on April 13 to demand the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel. (Mahamadou Hamidou/Reuters)
NAPLES, Italy — The United States informed the government of Niger on Friday that it agreed to its request to withdraw U.S. troops from the West African country, said three U.S. officials, a move the Biden administration had resisted and one that will transform Washington’s counterterrorism posture in the region. The agreement will spell the end of a U.S. troop presence that totaled more than 1,000 and throw into question the status of a $110 million U.S. air base that is only six years old. It is the culmination of a military coup last year that ousted the country’s democratically elected government and installed a junta that declared America’s military presence there “illegal.”
“The prime minister has asked us to withdraw U.S. troops, and we have agreed to do that,” a senior State Department official told The Washington Post in an interview. This official, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive situation. The decision was sealed in a meeting earlier Friday between Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Niger’s prime minister, Ali Lamine Zeine. “We’ve agreed to begin conversations within days about how to develop a plan” to withdraw troops, said the senior State Department official. “They’ve agreed that we do it in an orderly and responsible way. And we will need to probably dispatch folks to Niamey to sit down and hash it out. And that of course will be a Defense Department project.” A Pentagon spokesman did not immediately offer comment.
The United States had paused its security cooperation with Niger, limiting U.S. activities — including unarmed drone flights. But U.S. service members have remained in the country, unable to fulfill their responsibilities and feeling left in the dark by leadership at the U.S. Embassy as negotiations continued, according to a recent whistleblower complaint. The Sahel region, including neighboring Mali and Burkina Faso, has become a global hot spot for Islamist extremism in recent years, and Niger saw such attacks spike dramatically following the coup. For U.S. officials who viewed the base as an important counterterrorism asset, the withdrawal agreement is a significant setback. “I think it’s undeniable that it was a platform in a unique part of African geography,” the State Department official said.
For years, the Pentagon has deployed a mix of mostly Air Force and Army personnel to Niger to support a mission scrutinizing militant groups in the region. Until the coup last year, the arrangement included counterterrorism drones flights and U.S. and Nigerien troops partnering on some patrols. Niger’s eviction notice last month followed tense meetings with top officials from the State Department and the Pentagon, whom Nigerien leaders accused of attempting to dictate that the West African nation have no relationship with Iran, Russia or other U.S. adversaries. Efforts by top American officials to persuade Niger to get back on a democratic pathway so that U.S. assistance could resume have made little headway.
snip
April 20, 2024
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/19/israel-iran-retaliate-diplomacy/
https://archive.ph/AxQng
One rule for containing a crisis is to keep your mouth shut, and the United States, Israel and Iran were all doing a pretty good job at that Friday after Israeli strikes near the Iranian city of Isfahan. Maybe the silence was the real message — a desire on all sides to prevent escalation by word or deed. Over the past week, we’ve seen what looks to me like a considered decision by Israel to subtly reshape its strategy for deterring Iran and Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. Israeli deterrence is usually about massive use of offensive military force — a roundhouse punch that seeks to compel compliance through coercion.
But this time was different. When Iran launched a missile and drone barrage last weekend in retaliation for Israel’s April 1 strike on Iranian military leaders in Damascus, Syria, Israel used its Iron Dome defense system and help from allies to absorb the blow. The reported destruction of 99 percent of Iran’s incoming munitions was an astonishing display of missile defense. Some Israelis wanted to respond immediately with a big counter-barrage. But under pressure from President Biden, they waited. When the Israeli response came early Friday, it was muted. Iranian and Israeli reports suggest that the Israeli air force attacked a site near some of Iran’s largest nuclear facilities. Those facilities weren’t damaged, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. But Israel sent the message that it can penetrate Iranian air defenses and hit strategic targets when it chooses.
Israel wanted the last word in this exchange, and it seems to have succeeded. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday, after talks with officials in Tehran, that “Iran does not want an escalation.” Iranian public statements scoffed at the limited action, but Israel showed it can strike when it wants — in this case a jab, but next time, maybe not. In this sense, Israel maintained what strategists call “escalation dominance.” It landed the first blow and the last one. How to explain Israel’s actions over the past week? What accounts for its restraint, in a situation where hawks in the Israeli government were screaming for all-out assault?
Here’s my take: Israel is behaving like the leader of a regional coalition against Iran. In its measured response, it appeared to be weighing the interests of its allies in this coalition — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan — which all provided quiet help in last weekend’s shoot-down. It’s playing the long game, in other words. This would amount to a paradigm shift for Israel. Rather than seeing itself as the embattled Jewish state fighting alone for its survival against a phalanx of Arab and Muslim enemies, Israel knows that it has allies. Top of the list, as always, is the United States. But America is joined by Arab states that oppose Iran and its proxies as much as the Israelis do. That’s the new shape of the Middle East. But for now, at least, this ripening friendship between Israel and its former adversaries in the region must remain unspoken.
snip
The unspoken story of why Israel didn't clobber Iran
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/19/israel-iran-retaliate-diplomacy/
https://archive.ph/AxQng
One rule for containing a crisis is to keep your mouth shut, and the United States, Israel and Iran were all doing a pretty good job at that Friday after Israeli strikes near the Iranian city of Isfahan. Maybe the silence was the real message — a desire on all sides to prevent escalation by word or deed. Over the past week, we’ve seen what looks to me like a considered decision by Israel to subtly reshape its strategy for deterring Iran and Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. Israeli deterrence is usually about massive use of offensive military force — a roundhouse punch that seeks to compel compliance through coercion.
But this time was different. When Iran launched a missile and drone barrage last weekend in retaliation for Israel’s April 1 strike on Iranian military leaders in Damascus, Syria, Israel used its Iron Dome defense system and help from allies to absorb the blow. The reported destruction of 99 percent of Iran’s incoming munitions was an astonishing display of missile defense. Some Israelis wanted to respond immediately with a big counter-barrage. But under pressure from President Biden, they waited. When the Israeli response came early Friday, it was muted. Iranian and Israeli reports suggest that the Israeli air force attacked a site near some of Iran’s largest nuclear facilities. Those facilities weren’t damaged, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. But Israel sent the message that it can penetrate Iranian air defenses and hit strategic targets when it chooses.
Israel wanted the last word in this exchange, and it seems to have succeeded. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday, after talks with officials in Tehran, that “Iran does not want an escalation.” Iranian public statements scoffed at the limited action, but Israel showed it can strike when it wants — in this case a jab, but next time, maybe not. In this sense, Israel maintained what strategists call “escalation dominance.” It landed the first blow and the last one. How to explain Israel’s actions over the past week? What accounts for its restraint, in a situation where hawks in the Israeli government were screaming for all-out assault?
Here’s my take: Israel is behaving like the leader of a regional coalition against Iran. In its measured response, it appeared to be weighing the interests of its allies in this coalition — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan — which all provided quiet help in last weekend’s shoot-down. It’s playing the long game, in other words. This would amount to a paradigm shift for Israel. Rather than seeing itself as the embattled Jewish state fighting alone for its survival against a phalanx of Arab and Muslim enemies, Israel knows that it has allies. Top of the list, as always, is the United States. But America is joined by Arab states that oppose Iran and its proxies as much as the Israelis do. That’s the new shape of the Middle East. But for now, at least, this ripening friendship between Israel and its former adversaries in the region must remain unspoken.
snip
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,255
