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
Editorials & Other Articles
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
February 7, 2026
As great powers abandon international law with impunity, Europe must unite or risk fragmentation and subordination.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/europe-and-the-end-of-the-post-war-international-order
The US military operation in Venezuela involving the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who have been incarcerated in a notorious New York detention facility pending their trial in a US federal court, was in flagrant breach of international law. The UN Charter prohibits any violation of the territorial integrity or political independence of another state except in self-defence or if authorised by the UN Security Council. Like Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine or Israel’s disproportionate and often indiscriminate use of force in Gaza, the US’s armed intervention in Venezuela illustrates the growing disdain shown by militarily powerful states for the strictures of international law. If China has been more cautious than either Russia or the US in using armed force to achieve its goals, this reticence is likely temporary. The speed with which China is upgrading its armed forces and the massive scale of its military investment suggest that it is only a matter of time until Beijing employs overwhelming force, or the threat of such force, to achieve its strategic aims, including the annexation of Taiwan.
International legal norms investing states with rights such as sovereignty and territorial integrity are now openly flouted, while mechanisms designed to preserve or restore international peace and security are ignored. President Trump has boasted that the only meaningful constraint on his actions in the international sphere is not international law but his “own morality”, his “own mind”. An admittedly imperfect international legal regime for the maintenance of international peace and security, established in the wake of the Second World War, is rapidly giving way to an unstable, violent and fundamentally amoral world order reminiscent of the nineteenth century, composed of shifting political alliances, competing spheres of influence and powerful states largely free to pursue their interests unhindered by normative or institutional constraints.
In this “brave new world” that Trump and Putin have done so much to inaugurate, quaint but increasingly obsolete legal doctrines—the self-determination of peoples, the sovereign equality of states, the prohibition of the threat or use of force, the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries and the duty of belligerents to abide by international humanitarian law—can be ignored by any state that enjoys overwhelming military superiority over its adversaries. As in centuries gone by, might is once again right.
The costs of Hobbesian disorder
Even for the United States, the world’s foremost military and economic power, the likely costs of the new Trumpian world order—in reality a condition of Hobbesian disorder—are far from negligible, whether in terms of heightened insecurity, the need for increased defence spending or less stable trading relations with other countries. Robert Kagan has warned that “Americans are entering the most dangerous world they have known since World War II… with multiple great powers and metastasizing competition and conflict”.
snip
Europe and the End of the Post-War International Order
As great powers abandon international law with impunity, Europe must unite or risk fragmentation and subordination.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/europe-and-the-end-of-the-post-war-international-order
The US military operation in Venezuela involving the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who have been incarcerated in a notorious New York detention facility pending their trial in a US federal court, was in flagrant breach of international law. The UN Charter prohibits any violation of the territorial integrity or political independence of another state except in self-defence or if authorised by the UN Security Council. Like Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine or Israel’s disproportionate and often indiscriminate use of force in Gaza, the US’s armed intervention in Venezuela illustrates the growing disdain shown by militarily powerful states for the strictures of international law. If China has been more cautious than either Russia or the US in using armed force to achieve its goals, this reticence is likely temporary. The speed with which China is upgrading its armed forces and the massive scale of its military investment suggest that it is only a matter of time until Beijing employs overwhelming force, or the threat of such force, to achieve its strategic aims, including the annexation of Taiwan.
International legal norms investing states with rights such as sovereignty and territorial integrity are now openly flouted, while mechanisms designed to preserve or restore international peace and security are ignored. President Trump has boasted that the only meaningful constraint on his actions in the international sphere is not international law but his “own morality”, his “own mind”. An admittedly imperfect international legal regime for the maintenance of international peace and security, established in the wake of the Second World War, is rapidly giving way to an unstable, violent and fundamentally amoral world order reminiscent of the nineteenth century, composed of shifting political alliances, competing spheres of influence and powerful states largely free to pursue their interests unhindered by normative or institutional constraints.
In this “brave new world” that Trump and Putin have done so much to inaugurate, quaint but increasingly obsolete legal doctrines—the self-determination of peoples, the sovereign equality of states, the prohibition of the threat or use of force, the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries and the duty of belligerents to abide by international humanitarian law—can be ignored by any state that enjoys overwhelming military superiority over its adversaries. As in centuries gone by, might is once again right.
The costs of Hobbesian disorder
Even for the United States, the world’s foremost military and economic power, the likely costs of the new Trumpian world order—in reality a condition of Hobbesian disorder—are far from negligible, whether in terms of heightened insecurity, the need for increased defence spending or less stable trading relations with other countries. Robert Kagan has warned that “Americans are entering the most dangerous world they have known since World War II… with multiple great powers and metastasizing competition and conflict”.
snip
February 6, 2026
https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1021999-sancocho
https://archive.ph/N51gu
Sancocho, a word often used as slang by Puerto Ricans to mean a big old mix of things, is a rustic stew eaten across the Caribbean and made with every imaginable combination of proteins and vegetables. My father cooked his with beef, corn and noodles; my mom with chicken breasts, lean pork and sweet plantains; my grandmother with beef, pork on the bone and yautia. As such, I’ve rarely used a recipe, so this one is based largely on observation, taste memory and what I like. Pretty much every ingredient can be swapped out, and it also makes for a sumptuous vegetarian dish without meat. Sancocho epitomizes the resilience of Puerto Rican people, as it is often prepared in times of crisis — such as after a hurricane — and made with whatever you have on hand.
Featured in: Von Diaz’s Essential Puerto Rican Recipes
Preparation
Step 1
Peel and cut the yuca, yautia, green plantain and yellow plantain into 1-inch pieces. Scrape out the seeds, then chop the calabaza, skin on, into 1-inch pieces. Put each ingredient in a separate bowl, adding water to cover vegetables in order to prevent them from turning brown while you prepare the rest of the soup.
Step 2
Husk the corn, then slice it into 2-inch-thick segments. Set aside.
Step 3
Season pork (or beef) and chicken with ½ tablespoon salt and ¼ teaspoon black pepper.
Step 4
Heat 1 tablespoon oil in a large pot over medium-high. Add the pork and brown on all sides for 5 minutes. Using a slotted spoon, transfer to a clean, large bowl, then add the chicken to the same pot, and brown on both sides for another 5 minutes, adding oil as needed if the pot gets dry. Transfer with a slotted spoon to the same bowl as the pork.
Step 5
Reduce heat to medium and add sofrito to the pot, scraping up any browned bits of meat and incorporating them into the mix. Cook for 5 to 7 minutes, until liquid has evaporated and mixture darkens in color.
Step 6
Return the pork, chicken and any accumulated juices to the pot. Add the stock, bay leaves and remaining 1 tablespoon salt, and bring to a boil over high heat. Once simmering, reduce heat to medium-low and cook uncovered for 15 minutes, stirring occasionally.
Step 7
To keep the vegetables from falling apart, add each one in order of firmness, cooking each for 5 minutes before adding the next. Begin with the yuca, then yautia, green plantain, yellow plantain, calabaza and corn, cooking the yuca for a total of 30 minutes and the corn for only 5 minutes.
Step 8
Add chorizo and stir well to incorporate. Cook for another 10 to 15 minutes over medium-low heat until meat and vegetables are tender and break easily with a fork. Because of all the starches and meat in this dish, this stew tends to be thick and rich. Some of the vegetables will fall apart, giving it a porridge consistency. This is a good thing.
Step 9
Adjust salt to taste, and serve with fresh bread or white rice on the side.
Tip
Root vegetables such as yuca and yautia can be difficult to find in some supermarkets, though you may be able to find them in the freezer section. Farmers’ markets, or Hispanic, Caribbean or Asian supermarkets are your best bet. There’s no real substitute for the rich, earthy flavor of these tubers, but potatoes can be used. If using potatoes, reduce the cooking time.
Sancocho
https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1021999-sancocho
https://archive.ph/N51gu
Sancocho, a word often used as slang by Puerto Ricans to mean a big old mix of things, is a rustic stew eaten across the Caribbean and made with every imaginable combination of proteins and vegetables. My father cooked his with beef, corn and noodles; my mom with chicken breasts, lean pork and sweet plantains; my grandmother with beef, pork on the bone and yautia. As such, I’ve rarely used a recipe, so this one is based largely on observation, taste memory and what I like. Pretty much every ingredient can be swapped out, and it also makes for a sumptuous vegetarian dish without meat. Sancocho epitomizes the resilience of Puerto Rican people, as it is often prepared in times of crisis — such as after a hurricane — and made with whatever you have on hand.
Featured in: Von Diaz’s Essential Puerto Rican Recipes
Preparation
Step 1
Peel and cut the yuca, yautia, green plantain and yellow plantain into 1-inch pieces. Scrape out the seeds, then chop the calabaza, skin on, into 1-inch pieces. Put each ingredient in a separate bowl, adding water to cover vegetables in order to prevent them from turning brown while you prepare the rest of the soup.
Step 2
Husk the corn, then slice it into 2-inch-thick segments. Set aside.
Step 3
Season pork (or beef) and chicken with ½ tablespoon salt and ¼ teaspoon black pepper.
Step 4
Heat 1 tablespoon oil in a large pot over medium-high. Add the pork and brown on all sides for 5 minutes. Using a slotted spoon, transfer to a clean, large bowl, then add the chicken to the same pot, and brown on both sides for another 5 minutes, adding oil as needed if the pot gets dry. Transfer with a slotted spoon to the same bowl as the pork.
Step 5
Reduce heat to medium and add sofrito to the pot, scraping up any browned bits of meat and incorporating them into the mix. Cook for 5 to 7 minutes, until liquid has evaporated and mixture darkens in color.
Step 6
Return the pork, chicken and any accumulated juices to the pot. Add the stock, bay leaves and remaining 1 tablespoon salt, and bring to a boil over high heat. Once simmering, reduce heat to medium-low and cook uncovered for 15 minutes, stirring occasionally.
Step 7
To keep the vegetables from falling apart, add each one in order of firmness, cooking each for 5 minutes before adding the next. Begin with the yuca, then yautia, green plantain, yellow plantain, calabaza and corn, cooking the yuca for a total of 30 minutes and the corn for only 5 minutes.
Step 8
Add chorizo and stir well to incorporate. Cook for another 10 to 15 minutes over medium-low heat until meat and vegetables are tender and break easily with a fork. Because of all the starches and meat in this dish, this stew tends to be thick and rich. Some of the vegetables will fall apart, giving it a porridge consistency. This is a good thing.
Step 9
Adjust salt to taste, and serve with fresh bread or white rice on the side.
Tip
Root vegetables such as yuca and yautia can be difficult to find in some supermarkets, though you may be able to find them in the freezer section. Farmers’ markets, or Hispanic, Caribbean or Asian supermarkets are your best bet. There’s no real substitute for the rich, earthy flavor of these tubers, but potatoes can be used. If using potatoes, reduce the cooking time.
February 6, 2026
https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1021999-sancocho
https://archive.ph/N51gu
Sancocho, a word often used as slang by Puerto Ricans to mean a big old mix of things, is a rustic stew eaten across the Caribbean and made with every imaginable combination of proteins and vegetables. My father cooked his with beef, corn and noodles; my mom with chicken breasts, lean pork and sweet plantains; my grandmother with beef, pork on the bone and yautia. As such, I’ve rarely used a recipe, so this one is based largely on observation, taste memory and what I like. Pretty much every ingredient can be swapped out, and it also makes for a sumptuous vegetarian dish without meat. Sancocho epitomizes the resilience of Puerto Rican people, as it is often prepared in times of crisis — such as after a hurricane — and made with whatever you have on hand.
Featured in: Von Diaz’s Essential Puerto Rican Recipes
Preparation
Step 1
Peel and cut the yuca, yautia, green plantain and yellow plantain into 1-inch pieces. Scrape out the seeds, then chop the calabaza, skin on, into 1-inch pieces. Put each ingredient in a separate bowl, adding water to cover vegetables in order to prevent them from turning brown while you prepare the rest of the soup.
Step 2
Husk the corn, then slice it into 2-inch-thick segments. Set aside.
Step 3
Season pork (or beef) and chicken with ½ tablespoon salt and ¼ teaspoon black pepper.
Step 4
Heat 1 tablespoon oil in a large pot over medium-high. Add the pork and brown on all sides for 5 minutes. Using a slotted spoon, transfer to a clean, large bowl, then add the chicken to the same pot, and brown on both sides for another 5 minutes, adding oil as needed if the pot gets dry. Transfer with a slotted spoon to the same bowl as the pork.
Step 5
Reduce heat to medium and add sofrito to the pot, scraping up any browned bits of meat and incorporating them into the mix. Cook for 5 to 7 minutes, until liquid has evaporated and mixture darkens in color.
Step 6
Return the pork, chicken and any accumulated juices to the pot. Add the stock, bay leaves and remaining 1 tablespoon salt, and bring to a boil over high heat. Once simmering, reduce heat to medium-low and cook uncovered for 15 minutes, stirring occasionally.
Step 7
To keep the vegetables from falling apart, add each one in order of firmness, cooking each for 5 minutes before adding the next. Begin with the yuca, then yautia, green plantain, yellow plantain, calabaza and corn, cooking the yuca for a total of 30 minutes and the corn for only 5 minutes.
Step 8
Add chorizo and stir well to incorporate. Cook for another 10 to 15 minutes over medium-low heat until meat and vegetables are tender and break easily with a fork. Because of all the starches and meat in this dish, this stew tends to be thick and rich. Some of the vegetables will fall apart, giving it a porridge consistency. This is a good thing.
Step 9
Adjust salt to taste, and serve with fresh bread or white rice on the side.
Tip
Root vegetables such as yuca and yautia can be difficult to find in some supermarkets, though you may be able to find them in the freezer section. Farmers’ markets, or Hispanic, Caribbean or Asian supermarkets are your best bet. There’s no real substitute for the rich, earthy flavor of these tubers, but potatoes can be used. If using potatoes, reduce the cooking time.
Sancocho
https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1021999-sancocho
https://archive.ph/N51gu
Sancocho, a word often used as slang by Puerto Ricans to mean a big old mix of things, is a rustic stew eaten across the Caribbean and made with every imaginable combination of proteins and vegetables. My father cooked his with beef, corn and noodles; my mom with chicken breasts, lean pork and sweet plantains; my grandmother with beef, pork on the bone and yautia. As such, I’ve rarely used a recipe, so this one is based largely on observation, taste memory and what I like. Pretty much every ingredient can be swapped out, and it also makes for a sumptuous vegetarian dish without meat. Sancocho epitomizes the resilience of Puerto Rican people, as it is often prepared in times of crisis — such as after a hurricane — and made with whatever you have on hand.
Featured in: Von Diaz’s Essential Puerto Rican Recipes
Preparation
Step 1
Peel and cut the yuca, yautia, green plantain and yellow plantain into 1-inch pieces. Scrape out the seeds, then chop the calabaza, skin on, into 1-inch pieces. Put each ingredient in a separate bowl, adding water to cover vegetables in order to prevent them from turning brown while you prepare the rest of the soup.
Step 2
Husk the corn, then slice it into 2-inch-thick segments. Set aside.
Step 3
Season pork (or beef) and chicken with ½ tablespoon salt and ¼ teaspoon black pepper.
Step 4
Heat 1 tablespoon oil in a large pot over medium-high. Add the pork and brown on all sides for 5 minutes. Using a slotted spoon, transfer to a clean, large bowl, then add the chicken to the same pot, and brown on both sides for another 5 minutes, adding oil as needed if the pot gets dry. Transfer with a slotted spoon to the same bowl as the pork.
Step 5
Reduce heat to medium and add sofrito to the pot, scraping up any browned bits of meat and incorporating them into the mix. Cook for 5 to 7 minutes, until liquid has evaporated and mixture darkens in color.
Step 6
Return the pork, chicken and any accumulated juices to the pot. Add the stock, bay leaves and remaining 1 tablespoon salt, and bring to a boil over high heat. Once simmering, reduce heat to medium-low and cook uncovered for 15 minutes, stirring occasionally.
Step 7
To keep the vegetables from falling apart, add each one in order of firmness, cooking each for 5 minutes before adding the next. Begin with the yuca, then yautia, green plantain, yellow plantain, calabaza and corn, cooking the yuca for a total of 30 minutes and the corn for only 5 minutes.
Step 8
Add chorizo and stir well to incorporate. Cook for another 10 to 15 minutes over medium-low heat until meat and vegetables are tender and break easily with a fork. Because of all the starches and meat in this dish, this stew tends to be thick and rich. Some of the vegetables will fall apart, giving it a porridge consistency. This is a good thing.
Step 9
Adjust salt to taste, and serve with fresh bread or white rice on the side.
Tip
Root vegetables such as yuca and yautia can be difficult to find in some supermarkets, though you may be able to find them in the freezer section. Farmers’ markets, or Hispanic, Caribbean or Asian supermarkets are your best bet. There’s no real substitute for the rich, earthy flavor of these tubers, but potatoes can be used. If using potatoes, reduce the cooking time.
February 6, 2026
Today on TAP: As on January 6th, even Republican opposition may not suffice to keep him from trying.
https://prospect.org/2026/02/05/how-to-deter-trump-from-rigging-overturning-midterm-election/
An FBI press office staffer approaches the Fulton County Election Hub and Operation Center, January 28, 2026, in Union City, Georgia. Credit: Arvin Temka/Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP
The good news about Donald Trump’s efforts to take control of the upcoming election is that the legal changes he’s seeking to make won’t get through the Congress. The bad news is that his illegal efforts might succeed. When Trump first raised the topic on a podcast over the weekend, his own press secretary felt compelled to say he was only referring to his support for the SAVE Act, now pending before Congress, which would require a raft of documentation from those trying to register to vote. Given the 60-vote threshold that the bill will run up against in the Senate, however, the nation will be saved from SAVE by Democratic opposition.
Similarly, Trump has no legal authority to get states to send him their voter rolls, which he fairly lusts after so he can strike likely Democratic voters from these lists. That absence of legal authority was rather glaringly revealed last week when Attorney General Pam Bondi offered Minnesota a deal: If the state just forked over its rolls, she hinted that the administration might just withdraw its ICE and Border Patrol goons. No administration action has revealed so starkly as Bondi’s ploy the fear Trump harbors about the coming election, and the absence of legal channels available to him to rig or curtail it.
As we’ve seen in Atlanta over the weekend, Trump can use the FBI to try to seize ballots, though he’s being sued by local government officials over that action. Come November, he could, I suppose, send in the feds to stop the vote counting in Democratic cities (and keep in mind that virtually every large American city is heavily Democratic). The problem with that is that if an urban county can’t certify its votes, neither can the state in which it’s located certify its votes. Impounding the ballots in, say, Harris County (Houston and its suburbs) means that Texas can’t certify its statewide election results for senator, governor, and its members of Congress and the legislature. Trump would probably be fine with that if he’d interceded in so many states that the new Congress couldn’t convene, but it’s hard to imagine that Republican elected officials would feel the same way.
In fact, a rift has already opened between Republicans on Capitol Hill, in various statehouses, and even in the West Wing, on the one hand, and Trump himself over the extreme measures he’s advocated for rigging the election. The GOP’s Senate majority leader, John Thune, has pointedly noted that the Constitution vests the administration of elections in the states, not the federal government. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s attempts to walk back Trump’s podcast comments made clear that much of the White House staff isn’t on board with overt election-rigging and denial, either.
snip
How to Deter Trump From Rigging and Overturning the Midterm Election
Today on TAP: As on January 6th, even Republican opposition may not suffice to keep him from trying.
https://prospect.org/2026/02/05/how-to-deter-trump-from-rigging-overturning-midterm-election/
An FBI press office staffer approaches the Fulton County Election Hub and Operation Center, January 28, 2026, in Union City, Georgia. Credit: Arvin Temka/Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP
The good news about Donald Trump’s efforts to take control of the upcoming election is that the legal changes he’s seeking to make won’t get through the Congress. The bad news is that his illegal efforts might succeed. When Trump first raised the topic on a podcast over the weekend, his own press secretary felt compelled to say he was only referring to his support for the SAVE Act, now pending before Congress, which would require a raft of documentation from those trying to register to vote. Given the 60-vote threshold that the bill will run up against in the Senate, however, the nation will be saved from SAVE by Democratic opposition.
Similarly, Trump has no legal authority to get states to send him their voter rolls, which he fairly lusts after so he can strike likely Democratic voters from these lists. That absence of legal authority was rather glaringly revealed last week when Attorney General Pam Bondi offered Minnesota a deal: If the state just forked over its rolls, she hinted that the administration might just withdraw its ICE and Border Patrol goons. No administration action has revealed so starkly as Bondi’s ploy the fear Trump harbors about the coming election, and the absence of legal channels available to him to rig or curtail it.
As we’ve seen in Atlanta over the weekend, Trump can use the FBI to try to seize ballots, though he’s being sued by local government officials over that action. Come November, he could, I suppose, send in the feds to stop the vote counting in Democratic cities (and keep in mind that virtually every large American city is heavily Democratic). The problem with that is that if an urban county can’t certify its votes, neither can the state in which it’s located certify its votes. Impounding the ballots in, say, Harris County (Houston and its suburbs) means that Texas can’t certify its statewide election results for senator, governor, and its members of Congress and the legislature. Trump would probably be fine with that if he’d interceded in so many states that the new Congress couldn’t convene, but it’s hard to imagine that Republican elected officials would feel the same way.
In fact, a rift has already opened between Republicans on Capitol Hill, in various statehouses, and even in the West Wing, on the one hand, and Trump himself over the extreme measures he’s advocated for rigging the election. The GOP’s Senate majority leader, John Thune, has pointedly noted that the Constitution vests the administration of elections in the states, not the federal government. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s attempts to walk back Trump’s podcast comments made clear that much of the White House staff isn’t on board with overt election-rigging and denial, either.
snip
February 6, 2026
Trump’s White House OMB director has quietly institutionalized the government demolition agenda set in motion by Elon Musk’s wrecking crew.
https://prospect.org/2026/02/05/doge-russell-vought-elon-musk-office-management-budget/
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought listens during a cabinet meeting at the White House, January 29, 2026, in Washington. Credit: Evan Vucci/AP Photo
The Revolving Door Project recently published a comprehensive accounting of Trump 2.0’s deadly rampage across the federal government. “" target="_blank">DOGE: From Meme to Government Erosion Machine” is a nearly 70-page audit of the Department of Government Efficiency’s origins, architects, and scorched-earth campaign against the federal government’s public-interest responsibilities.
More than a timeline of DOGE’s infiltration of the Treasury Department, Environmental Protection Agency, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to name a few of the agencies covered, the report details how former shadow president Elon Musk and current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought “eagerly shred political, professional, and legal precedent in their effort to dismantle the essential functions of the federal government—and most importantly, democracy at large.”
From rural elders forced to live in dilapidated homes to families abandoned in the midst of carbon pollution–intensified disasters, real people are experiencing material harms as a result of DOGE’s attacks on the administrative state. DOGE, foolishly embraced by lawmakers across the political spectrum, should have never existed.
Although Musk’s wrecking crew officially disbanded last year, many of its operatives have “burrowed into” federal agencies “like ticks,” Wired has reported. Moreover, the reality is that DOGE’s reactionary mission was being carried out in parallel—and continues to be executed today—by Vought, a far quieter, but no less villainous, figure.
snip
DOGE Lives On Through Russell Vought
Trump’s White House OMB director has quietly institutionalized the government demolition agenda set in motion by Elon Musk’s wrecking crew.
https://prospect.org/2026/02/05/doge-russell-vought-elon-musk-office-management-budget/
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought listens during a cabinet meeting at the White House, January 29, 2026, in Washington. Credit: Evan Vucci/AP Photo
The Revolving Door Project recently published a comprehensive accounting of Trump 2.0’s deadly rampage across the federal government. “" target="_blank">DOGE: From Meme to Government Erosion Machine” is a nearly 70-page audit of the Department of Government Efficiency’s origins, architects, and scorched-earth campaign against the federal government’s public-interest responsibilities.
More than a timeline of DOGE’s infiltration of the Treasury Department, Environmental Protection Agency, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to name a few of the agencies covered, the report details how former shadow president Elon Musk and current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought “eagerly shred political, professional, and legal precedent in their effort to dismantle the essential functions of the federal government—and most importantly, democracy at large.”
From rural elders forced to live in dilapidated homes to families abandoned in the midst of carbon pollution–intensified disasters, real people are experiencing material harms as a result of DOGE’s attacks on the administrative state. DOGE, foolishly embraced by lawmakers across the political spectrum, should have never existed.
Although Musk’s wrecking crew officially disbanded last year, many of its operatives have “burrowed into” federal agencies “like ticks,” Wired has reported. Moreover, the reality is that DOGE’s reactionary mission was being carried out in parallel—and continues to be executed today—by Vought, a far quieter, but no less villainous, figure.
snip
February 5, 2026
The 2026 primaries will likely see even bigger levels of corporate and issue-based PAC spending. But there may be diminishing returns on these investments.
https://prospect.org/2026/02/04/2026-primaries-spending-aipac-analilia-mejia-tom-malinowski/
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Analilia Mejia, candidate for New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, at a campaign event in Wayne, New Jersey, January 19, 2026. Credit: Kyle Mazza/UNF News/NurPhoto via AP
A preview to this year’s congressional primary season kicks off, unusually, on Thursday. Former Rep. Mikie Sherrill won a landslide to become New Jersey’s governor last year, and a crowded primary to replace her in the state’s 11th Congressional District is being held tomorrow. It’s a light-blue district, but the winner of the 11-candidate Democratic primary is expected to easily prevail in the general election in early April. That’s brought a familiar face out of the shadows to help determine the outcome: AIPAC.
Though some reports indicated that the pro-Israel PAC was pulling back on electoral spending, it has thrown down nearly $2.3 million in television ads through its subsidiary United Democracy Project (UDP), and $1.83 million more in direct mail and phone banks, to block former Rep. Tom Malinowski from winning the seat. As is typical for single-issue groups, the ads are 100 percent pretextual. One uses a 2019 omnibus funding bill to dubiously claim that Malinowski supports increasing funding on ICE; the other somewhat cleaner hit involves Malinowski’s failure to disclose stock trades during the pandemic. (Malinowski has consistently called this lack of disclosure a mistake.)
The target here is rather unusual. In the past, Malinowski has received money from AIPAC’s PAC directly, and during prior campaigns " target="_blank">he took over $399,000 from pro-Israel interests. He has responded to the latest attacks by pointing out that AIPAC’s current funders include right-wing donors, which is true. But paradoxically, the biggest beneficiary of the attack-ad campaign could be a candidate who’s far more opposed to AIPAC’s interests.
The four front-runners in the primary are Malinowski, former Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way, Essex County Commissioner Brendan Gill, and Analilia Mejia, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy and a former campaign political director for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Mejia has a host of national endorsements, from Sens. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA).
snip
Big Money Is Back
The 2026 primaries will likely see even bigger levels of corporate and issue-based PAC spending. But there may be diminishing returns on these investments.
https://prospect.org/2026/02/04/2026-primaries-spending-aipac-analilia-mejia-tom-malinowski/
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Analilia Mejia, candidate for New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, at a campaign event in Wayne, New Jersey, January 19, 2026. Credit: Kyle Mazza/UNF News/NurPhoto via AP
A preview to this year’s congressional primary season kicks off, unusually, on Thursday. Former Rep. Mikie Sherrill won a landslide to become New Jersey’s governor last year, and a crowded primary to replace her in the state’s 11th Congressional District is being held tomorrow. It’s a light-blue district, but the winner of the 11-candidate Democratic primary is expected to easily prevail in the general election in early April. That’s brought a familiar face out of the shadows to help determine the outcome: AIPAC.
Though some reports indicated that the pro-Israel PAC was pulling back on electoral spending, it has thrown down nearly $2.3 million in television ads through its subsidiary United Democracy Project (UDP), and $1.83 million more in direct mail and phone banks, to block former Rep. Tom Malinowski from winning the seat. As is typical for single-issue groups, the ads are 100 percent pretextual. One uses a 2019 omnibus funding bill to dubiously claim that Malinowski supports increasing funding on ICE; the other somewhat cleaner hit involves Malinowski’s failure to disclose stock trades during the pandemic. (Malinowski has consistently called this lack of disclosure a mistake.)
The target here is rather unusual. In the past, Malinowski has received money from AIPAC’s PAC directly, and during prior campaigns " target="_blank">he took over $399,000 from pro-Israel interests. He has responded to the latest attacks by pointing out that AIPAC’s current funders include right-wing donors, which is true. But paradoxically, the biggest beneficiary of the attack-ad campaign could be a candidate who’s far more opposed to AIPAC’s interests.
The four front-runners in the primary are Malinowski, former Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way, Essex County Commissioner Brendan Gill, and Analilia Mejia, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy and a former campaign political director for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Mejia has a host of national endorsements, from Sens. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA).
snip
February 5, 2026
Senator Elissa Slotkin says she won’t cooperate with the Justice Department’s investigation into Democrats’ message to troops.
https://newrepublic.com/post/206214/elissa-slotkin-refuses-doj-request-investigation-message-troops
https://archive.ph/EVwA5
Senator Elissa Slotkin has denied an interview request from the Justice Department regarding its sham investigation into her participation in a video message telling troops they should “refuse illegal orders.” Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, joined five other military and intelligence veterans in Congress last fall to urge service members to refuse illegal orders.
The video angered President Trump, who accused them of sedition and suggested they be executed. The Justice Department announced an individual probe into Slotkin’s role in January, and her recent refusal to cooperate is a confrontational move that will force the administration to show how serious it really is about this sedition thing.
“I did this to go on offense,” Slotkin said on Wednesday. “And to put them in a position where they’re tap dancing. To put them in a position where they have to own their choices of using a U.S. attorney’s office to come after a senator.”
Slotkin’s lawyer, Preet Bharara, requested that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro “immediately terminate any open investigation and cease any further inquiry concerning the video.” Senator Mark Kelly has also struck back, suing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for retaliating against him and violating his rights to free speech and due process.
snip
Slotkin Refuses DOJ Request in Sham Probe Over "Illegal Orders" Video
Senator Elissa Slotkin says she won’t cooperate with the Justice Department’s investigation into Democrats’ message to troops.
https://newrepublic.com/post/206214/elissa-slotkin-refuses-doj-request-investigation-message-troops
https://archive.ph/EVwA5
Senator Elissa Slotkin has denied an interview request from the Justice Department regarding its sham investigation into her participation in a video message telling troops they should “refuse illegal orders.” Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, joined five other military and intelligence veterans in Congress last fall to urge service members to refuse illegal orders.
The video angered President Trump, who accused them of sedition and suggested they be executed. The Justice Department announced an individual probe into Slotkin’s role in January, and her recent refusal to cooperate is a confrontational move that will force the administration to show how serious it really is about this sedition thing.
“I did this to go on offense,” Slotkin said on Wednesday. “And to put them in a position where they’re tap dancing. To put them in a position where they have to own their choices of using a U.S. attorney’s office to come after a senator.”
Slotkin’s lawyer, Preet Bharara, requested that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro “immediately terminate any open investigation and cease any further inquiry concerning the video.” Senator Mark Kelly has also struck back, suing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for retaliating against him and violating his rights to free speech and due process.
snip
February 5, 2026
The Democrats are folding on their demand that federal agents stop covering their faces with masks while making arrests.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/schumer-jeffries-begin-cave-simplest-162503101.html
After demanding ICE and other federal agents be banned from wearing face coverings, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer decided to fight for less, adding caveats and loopholes to their mask stances during a press conference on Wednesday.
“No secret police. I find it amazing that the Speaker of the House [thinks] they should be allowed to have masks,” Schumer said. “They need identification and no masks, except in extraordinary and unusual circumstances.” “There are several demands that we will articulate on behalf of the American people,” Jeffries said. “Certainly, I think there’s agreement that no masks should be deployed in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, as has been the case, horrifying the American people.”
In what “extraordinary and unusual circumstances” would these masked militiamen be justified in hiding their identities? They are federal officers who are in quiet suburbs and city streets alike, going door to door and kidnapping, brutalizing, and killing people along the way. And how exactly does Jeffries think that ICE can wear masks in a manner that isn’t arbitrary or capricious?
Above all, this is yet another confusing concession from a party whose base is desperately starving for its leaders to do something, anything, to stop the Trump administration from continuing to enact terror in their communities. Jeffries and Schumer are once again appealing to the GOP’s good faith and honesty—a move that has yet to actually work for them.
snip
Democrats Begin to Cave on Their Simplest ICE Demand
The Democrats are folding on their demand that federal agents stop covering their faces with masks while making arrests.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/schumer-jeffries-begin-cave-simplest-162503101.html
After demanding ICE and other federal agents be banned from wearing face coverings, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer decided to fight for less, adding caveats and loopholes to their mask stances during a press conference on Wednesday.
“No secret police. I find it amazing that the Speaker of the House [thinks] they should be allowed to have masks,” Schumer said. “They need identification and no masks, except in extraordinary and unusual circumstances.” “There are several demands that we will articulate on behalf of the American people,” Jeffries said. “Certainly, I think there’s agreement that no masks should be deployed in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, as has been the case, horrifying the American people.”
In what “extraordinary and unusual circumstances” would these masked militiamen be justified in hiding their identities? They are federal officers who are in quiet suburbs and city streets alike, going door to door and kidnapping, brutalizing, and killing people along the way. And how exactly does Jeffries think that ICE can wear masks in a manner that isn’t arbitrary or capricious?
Above all, this is yet another confusing concession from a party whose base is desperately starving for its leaders to do something, anything, to stop the Trump administration from continuing to enact terror in their communities. Jeffries and Schumer are once again appealing to the GOP’s good faith and honesty—a move that has yet to actually work for them.
snip
February 5, 2026
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n02/adam-shatz/another-country
‘The very word “America” remains a new, almost completely undefined and extremely controversial proper noun,’ James Baldwin wrote in 1959. ‘No one in the world seems to know exactly what it describes, not even we motley millions who call ourselves Americans.’ Is it a dream or a nightmare, a democratic paradise or a bastion of white supremacy and religious intolerance? Is it a geographic territory or a phantasmagorical hyperreality in Baudrillard’s sense – something that is more real than real, a hall of mirrors in which the separation between the world and its representations dissolves? Or perhaps all of the above?
The ‘rich confusion’ of American identity, as Baldwin put it, has given rise to endless attempts at definition, by foreign observers as well as Americans. The French film critic Serge Daney, who loved America’s cinema as much as he despised its imperialism, called it ‘the place that makes it possible to dream, but also the corner of reality that dreams crash into’. Octavio Paz, evoking the country’s immense scale, described it as ‘geography, pure space, open to human action’. In the words of the French filmmaker Jean-Pierre Melville, ‘America is the sublime and the abominable.’
Critics of American racism, class inequality and foreign policy have tended to focus on the abominable. ‘Two centuries ago,’ Frantz Fanon wrote in 1961, ‘a former European colony decided to catch up with Europe. It succeeded so well that the United States became a monster, in which the ... sickness and inhumanity of Europe have grown to appalling dimensions.’ George Kennan, the least sentimental of American diplomats, echoed Fanon, describing America as ‘a prehistoric monster’ with a ‘brain the size of a pin’. Yet even Fanon, who saw it as a ‘country of lynchers’, turned to it for inspiration, drawing on the work of Black writers such as Richard Wright and Chester Himes. America is a ‘battlefield’, Simone de Beauvoir wrote, ‘and you can only become passionate about the battle it is waging with itself, in which the stakes are beyond measure.’
Since Beauvoir made this observation in 1947, at the beginning of the Cold War, there has been one battle after another, both inside America itself, and over the idea of America and its role in the world. Currently led, if that is the word, by an infantile would-be king while the future is being forged in Shanghai and Beijing, America may no longer be a serious country. It may even be a laughable one. Yet, as the Swedish diplomatic historian Anders Stephanson writes in his book American Imperatives, ‘the alarming fact’ is that ‘everyone on this earth has an enormous stake in how the United States chooses to be and act in this world.’* Not just enormous, but existential: consider, for example, the recent termination of USAID programmes, which may lead to as many as fourteen million deaths by 2030. Or the kidnapping of foreign leaders in countries with large oil reserves. Or the insistence on acquiring Greenland, even – or especially – if it means tearing up the rules-based order established after the war. Or the creation of a ‘Board of Peace’ in Gaza, designed to replace the United Nations – the list goes on.
snip
Another Country (an essay on the parlous state of the US)
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n02/adam-shatz/another-country
‘The very word “America” remains a new, almost completely undefined and extremely controversial proper noun,’ James Baldwin wrote in 1959. ‘No one in the world seems to know exactly what it describes, not even we motley millions who call ourselves Americans.’ Is it a dream or a nightmare, a democratic paradise or a bastion of white supremacy and religious intolerance? Is it a geographic territory or a phantasmagorical hyperreality in Baudrillard’s sense – something that is more real than real, a hall of mirrors in which the separation between the world and its representations dissolves? Or perhaps all of the above?
The ‘rich confusion’ of American identity, as Baldwin put it, has given rise to endless attempts at definition, by foreign observers as well as Americans. The French film critic Serge Daney, who loved America’s cinema as much as he despised its imperialism, called it ‘the place that makes it possible to dream, but also the corner of reality that dreams crash into’. Octavio Paz, evoking the country’s immense scale, described it as ‘geography, pure space, open to human action’. In the words of the French filmmaker Jean-Pierre Melville, ‘America is the sublime and the abominable.’
Critics of American racism, class inequality and foreign policy have tended to focus on the abominable. ‘Two centuries ago,’ Frantz Fanon wrote in 1961, ‘a former European colony decided to catch up with Europe. It succeeded so well that the United States became a monster, in which the ... sickness and inhumanity of Europe have grown to appalling dimensions.’ George Kennan, the least sentimental of American diplomats, echoed Fanon, describing America as ‘a prehistoric monster’ with a ‘brain the size of a pin’. Yet even Fanon, who saw it as a ‘country of lynchers’, turned to it for inspiration, drawing on the work of Black writers such as Richard Wright and Chester Himes. America is a ‘battlefield’, Simone de Beauvoir wrote, ‘and you can only become passionate about the battle it is waging with itself, in which the stakes are beyond measure.’
Since Beauvoir made this observation in 1947, at the beginning of the Cold War, there has been one battle after another, both inside America itself, and over the idea of America and its role in the world. Currently led, if that is the word, by an infantile would-be king while the future is being forged in Shanghai and Beijing, America may no longer be a serious country. It may even be a laughable one. Yet, as the Swedish diplomatic historian Anders Stephanson writes in his book American Imperatives, ‘the alarming fact’ is that ‘everyone on this earth has an enormous stake in how the United States chooses to be and act in this world.’* Not just enormous, but existential: consider, for example, the recent termination of USAID programmes, which may lead to as many as fourteen million deaths by 2030. Or the kidnapping of foreign leaders in countries with large oil reserves. Or the insistence on acquiring Greenland, even – or especially – if it means tearing up the rules-based order established after the war. Or the creation of a ‘Board of Peace’ in Gaza, designed to replace the United Nations – the list goes on.
snip
February 5, 2026
https://www.theideasletter.org/issue/eternal-recurrences/
Evgeny Morozov knows how to theorize (and, a fortiori, how to intellectually provoke) like few other mortals. The elegance of his argumentation and the sophistication of his critiques are legendary. Several issues back, Morozov launched a grenade by suggesting that socialist attempts to harness AI have treated it like other basic tools of capitalist production—as a neutral instrument that can simply be redirected—rather than as a transformative force that actively shapes social values and human capacities.
We now have two responses to Morozov’s original essay, one from the Cornell historian Aaron Benanav, a target of Morozov’s earlier salvo, and another from the NYU scholar Leif Weatherby. For Benanav, humanity stands between two technological revolutions—generative AI and the green energy transition—and how we choose between them will determine the shape of the future. His essay develops a broader project of designing a post-capitalist “multidimensional economy” (for more see his coruscating essays in New Left Review this past year ) while rebutting Morozov’s claim that such a framework would stifle technological “worldmaking.”
Weatherby, who looks at both Morozov and Benanav, argues that contemporary Marxist and socialist analyses of technology fail to engage adequately with the entanglement between technological rationality and capitalist ideology. To understand AI and the digital economy, Weatherby suggests, one must see them as the logical outcomes of a longstanding merger between mathematics, computation, and neoliberal governance—a fusion that has turned “optimization” into both the logic and the theology of capitalism itself.
Morozov responds in analytically stentorian tones asserting misrepresentation. His rebuttal is a blistering defense of his original essay on socialism and AI. Morozov accuses Benanav of no less than misreading his arguments, erecting straw men, and evading core challenges. His piece blends close textual analysis and cultural critique to argue that Benanav’s institutional blueprint remains trapped in capitalist categories and fails to inspire a desirable post-capitalist life.
snip
The Ideas Letter #57 - Eternal Recurrences (several articles debating AI)
https://www.theideasletter.org/issue/eternal-recurrences/
Evgeny Morozov knows how to theorize (and, a fortiori, how to intellectually provoke) like few other mortals. The elegance of his argumentation and the sophistication of his critiques are legendary. Several issues back, Morozov launched a grenade by suggesting that socialist attempts to harness AI have treated it like other basic tools of capitalist production—as a neutral instrument that can simply be redirected—rather than as a transformative force that actively shapes social values and human capacities.
We now have two responses to Morozov’s original essay, one from the Cornell historian Aaron Benanav, a target of Morozov’s earlier salvo, and another from the NYU scholar Leif Weatherby. For Benanav, humanity stands between two technological revolutions—generative AI and the green energy transition—and how we choose between them will determine the shape of the future. His essay develops a broader project of designing a post-capitalist “multidimensional economy” (for more see his coruscating essays in New Left Review this past year ) while rebutting Morozov’s claim that such a framework would stifle technological “worldmaking.”
Weatherby, who looks at both Morozov and Benanav, argues that contemporary Marxist and socialist analyses of technology fail to engage adequately with the entanglement between technological rationality and capitalist ideology. To understand AI and the digital economy, Weatherby suggests, one must see them as the logical outcomes of a longstanding merger between mathematics, computation, and neoliberal governance—a fusion that has turned “optimization” into both the logic and the theology of capitalism itself.
Morozov responds in analytically stentorian tones asserting misrepresentation. His rebuttal is a blistering defense of his original essay on socialism and AI. Morozov accuses Benanav of no less than misreading his arguments, erecting straw men, and evading core challenges. His piece blends close textual analysis and cultural critique to argue that Benanav’s institutional blueprint remains trapped in capitalist categories and fails to inspire a desirable post-capitalist life.
snip
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 06:25 PM
Number of posts: 53,995