P.M. Carpenter

Hershel Walker's polling improves. That's right, improves.

​​​​​An InsiderAdvantage poll commissioned by FOX 5 Atlanta and conducted after a second woman alleged Herschel Walker happily paid for her abortion in the early 1990s has him leading by 3 points among likely voters. Granted, that's not much of a lead and may not be a lead at all; the poll's margin of error is 4%. Still ...

The poll's director, Matt Towery, noted a few of its features. As natural as a Truth Social lie is that 59% of Georgia's white voters favor Walker. Yet the former footballer, failed businessman and Trump rival in the field of mendacity also has the support of about 1 in 5 African-American voters and, according to Towery, he has "closed the gap with female voters."

I rather suspected that Walker would do better in polling when his press took a bad turn, so to speak. The surest way to Republican eminence among the rabble is to be incontrovertibly outed by the "liberal media" as a contemptible lowlife. Alabama's Roy Moore and Missouri's Todd Akin were exceptions to this rule, but I swear I don't know why.

Democrats have hurled all manner of opprobrium at Republican voters for hanging in there with Walker. It's downright scandalous, they say, that this unrepentant abuser of women and unaccomplished liar could be anywhere close in polling to the incumbent senator, Master of Divinity and Doctor of Philosophy Raphael Warnock.

But I "get it," Republicans. I'd write in a vote for Vladimir Putin before I'd cast a ballot for Donald Trump. Literally any competitor would do, on a ticket or off. There is, however, an exorbitantly principled difference between opposition to Trump and opposition to Warnock, and this is what separates the hyperpartisan, anti-authoritarian vote from the pro-creep vote.

"It appears the new allegations had no impact on the race and perhaps are having a reverse effect," said polling director Towery. Somewhere, Roy and Todd are wondering where they went wrong.

Blind hatreds: The reality of surreal Trumpism

The San Francisco district attorney and other law enforcement officials are still being coy, as they should be, about whether online postings by one "daviddepape" are those of David DePape, the man who assaulted 82-year-old Paul Pelosi. CNN, however, reports that "Three of DePape’s relatives ... confirmed that the Facebook account – which was taken down by the social media company on Friday – belonged to him."

Name just about any conspiracy theory, frothing phobia or racist obsession vomited by Republican pols, Fox News, Truth Social, QAnon, grassroots Trumpers and Trump himself and you'll find it in DePape's fulminations. The likes of Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Elise Stefanik may be front and center today in expressing their disgust at political violence, but they were silent when their malice machines were operating overtime, poisoning susceptible minds and the physically prone.    

The NY Times summarizes DePape's writings as "an array of angry and paranoid postings, including antisemitic sentiments and concerns about pedophilia, anti-white racism and 'elite' control of the internet." CNN writes that DePape featured Facebook posts of My Pillow Mike Lindell's videos about the stolen 2020 election and YouTube posts with titles such as "Democrat FARCE Commission to Investigate January 6th Capitol Riot COLLAPSES in Congress!!!"

DePape also posted transphobic images and screeds about the lethal covid vaccine, "Global Elites," big tech censorship and LGBTQ "grooming" of children. It should be observed that not one of DePape's fears, phobias and hatreds would be considered extreme inside the contemporary Republican Party or anywhere on "mainstream" rightist media. Every one of his various ravings could be dropped into any Trump or DeSantis campaign speech and no one would take particular notice. 

Following the violent attack on Mr. Pelosi, the right instantly lept to blaming the left. Post-attack, the first tweet I encountered from one of Elon Musk's proudest of boys asserted authoritatively that the assault was committed by a "leftist extremist" — the very same deliberate lie about Jan. 6 and Antifa, which still reigns in right-wing circles. And, naturally, Fox News kicked into gear:

The consistent theme on every show the entire day on Fox - Democrats are to blame for the MAGA lunatic who tried to murder Paul Pelosi. Just like J6 was Antifa’s fault. https://t.co/oJjsaFGjSS

— Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦 (@RonFilipkowski) October 29, 2022

Never mind that studies have shown that, although there's a much higher murder rate in Trump country, there are "no meaningful differences between cities with progressive or traditional DAs in the trends for larceny and robbery."

Another Times article reports that "In the five years since Mr. Trump was elected in 2016, the number of recorded threats against members of Congress increased more than tenfold, to 9,625 in 2021." Some of these threats were carried out; Reuters has this brief survey of assaults. Trumpers who require visual aids and permission from the Man Himself to escalate from hammers to .45s can find both on Truth Social — this, posted within hours of the attack on Mr. Pelosi:

Of exceptional difficulty is wrapping up a piece such as this one. It's too easy — and wrong — to say simply that this is the world we live in. On the other hand, this is the country we live in — Trump country. There are the violently unhinged on the left as well, but only on the right do we find orchestrated hatreds and pictorial licenses to kill streaming from the political top to the bottommost of society.

The complexity is overwhelming. These are politico-religio-psychosociological phenomena not seen in America since the sectional crisis, when Democratic firebrands and the Southern aristocracy groomed poor whites to hate and kill Northerners, all of whom, purportedly, were out to destroy Southern "values" and the Southern way of life.

Hence we see an impressive amount of historical continuity. What we won't see is the mass slaughter of the Civil War. It's preposterous to imagine the residents of Mississippi taking up arms against Minnesotans. We will, however, see a lot more David DePapes on the hunt.             

How low can the right go?

This woman has more than a quarter-million followers.

“Where is Nancy?” is definitely the new “This is MAGA Country.”

— Lavern Spicer 🇺🇸 (@lavern_spicer) October 28, 2022

Meanwhile, a saddened Trump had time for this, but not a word about Mr. Pelosi.

Musk thinks he'll be able to market THIS?

Notes The Washington Post: "The first hours of his purchase have shown how difficult [Musk's promise to advertisers] could be. One account, created this month, included a Nazi swastika as its profile picture and retweeted quotes from Musk alongside antisemitic memes. Another show[s] a video montage glorifying Nazi Germany":

Good afternoon oomfies.
I hear that there have been some changes around here. pic.twitter.com/Ul9A50mVjI

— Eternia - Reivanchism (@KingAustraliaYT) October 28, 2022

The one rewarding part of this vile garbage is that this is what Republicans demanded all along. Unleash conservative speech! Well, this is what it looks like these days.

Welcome, GOPers and Trumpers. Now you own it, along with Elon Musk. 

Elon steps in, takes over, hashes things out

Except no one knows where his hashing out may lead. NYT:

Twitter [is] on an uncertain course. Mr. Musk, a self-described "free speech absolutist," has said that he wants to make the social media platform a more freewheeling place for all types of commentary and that he would "reverse the permanent ban" of former President Donald J. Trump from the service.

Mr. Musk’s open approach to speech on Twitter could exacerbate long simmering issues of toxic content and misinformation, affecting political debates around the world. Early tests will come within days, when Brazil elects its president and American voters go to the polls on Nov. 8 for the midterm elections. Twitter said it would prohibit misleading claims about voting and the outcome of elections, but that was before Mr. Musk owned it.

"There could be real-world consequences to his leadership," David Kaye, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, who worked with the United Nations on issues of free speech, said of Mr. Musk’s ownership of Twitter. "To the extent that world leaders see they have this space and it’s unmoderated, they could push to see how far they can go."

Unless Musk wants Twitter to be the worst money pit he has ever owned, he'll temper his free-speech absolutism real fast. Because major advertisers will have nothing to do with a snake pit. Indeed, Musk moved quickly to allay advertisers' fears, posting an open letter: "Twitter obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences." 

I question the law professor's assessment implying greater real-world consequences to Musk's leadership. How much worse can the Trump clan become? How much worse can Twitter become? Virtually every neofascist wackjob in America is already on Twitter, exchanging demented messages with others. And I have noticed no restraints on the right's present ability to disseminate disinformation elsewhere. Putting it on Twitter will be redundant at best.

Plus Twitter is a place where few mainstream folks ever go. Last spring Musk told investors he planned on having 931 million users by 2028. But that's just Elon talking. Last year Twitter had about 200 million users. 

I do admit I don't look forward to Trump's return. Despite his vows to never do so, I can't see him refusing a much, much larger spotlight. But again, he'll only be blathering to his fellow nitwits. The media have mostly learned to ignore him, whether he's stumping at rallies or lying on Truth Social. So as a Twitter revenant he may turn out to be only an overweighted orange ass that falls silently in the forest of horseshit.    

***

Just noticed this. "Welcome to Hell, Elon"

"[Twitter's] asset is the user base: hopelessly addicted politicians, reporters, celebrities, and other people who should know better but keep posting anyway. You! You, Elon Musk, are addicted to Twitter. You’re the asset. You just bought yourself for $44 billion dollars."

Typepad, my web host, is still having technical problems that make posting fresh material difficult. Please bear with us. Thank you. 

How the U.S. could end up being a partner in Putin's "new world"

Speaking yesterday at a foreign policy conference outside Moscow, Vladimir Putin provided more evidence of his intent to go nuclear in Ukraine, in part by denying he intends to go nuclear.

"We have no need to do this," he said. "There’s no sense for us, neither political nor military," he added, which only reminded Putinologists everywhere of his early 2022 denials of his intention to invade Ukraine. 

The most proximate key to his nuclear lie was his subjacent lie. Putin repeated Russian propagandists' increasingly circulated falsehood that Ukraine, in a treacherous false-flag operation, is about to detonate a "dirty bomb" somewhere on its own territory.

This would then obligate Moscow to respond in kind or with a tactical nuclear strike. Either way, thousands of Ukrainians would die of radioactive poisoning. 

But it was what underlies Putin's firm insistence that there is "no need" for Russia to go nuclear that most alarmed Western analysts. "This is a trick, it shouldn’t make anyone relax," said Tatiana Stanovaya, a Russian political analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Putin plans to prove a need," which goes back to his paranoia about the West and its support of Ukraine.

"His goal is to show that escalation is the product of Western policies," said Stanovaya. 

She elaborated: "There’s now a sense that he is building an anti-Western coalition on a global scale." Whether he is may be an open question, although as The NY Times reports, yesterday China "offered a full-throated endorsement of Mr. Putin's leadership."

Whatever the actual case, Putin believes he is on an anti-Western upswing. Said Stanovaya: "He doesn’t think he’s been backed into a corner. He thinks he’s a witness to the birth of a new world."

Grotesque but all too real is that one of his partners in this new world order could well be the United States — and that partnership could begin as early as January. Under a Republican House, the presumed leadership has already asserted that President Biden shall have no "blank check" from Congress in his military and humanitarian support of Ukraine.

Putin is playing to this incoming caucus and the base that elects it. "In the United States," he said in his foreign policy address, "there’s a very strong part of the public who maintain traditional values, and they’re with us. We know about this."

Putin went on to analyze — correctly, one should note — American politics in particular. "There are at least two Wests," he ventured. One is a West of "traditional, mainly Christian values," which align with Russia's sentiments. But "there’s another West — aggressive, cosmopolitan, neocolonial, acting as the weapon of the neoliberal elite" —  an elite that wants to shove its "pretty strange" ethics on all others, including "dozens of genders" and "gay parades."

Putin's words could have been delivered by most any Republican candidate on the stump. 

Should the authoritarian Republican Party take control of Congress and the White House in 2025 — through recessionary politics or outright stolen elections — American sentiment, which by 73% supports continuing aid to Ukraine, would make no difference. Authoritarians do what authoritarians wish to do. That's the whole point of authoritarianism.

Cutting aid to Ukraine would be "perfect." As was, for instance, Putin's autocratic decision to invade Ukraine. If Russia had waited, he said yesterday, "the worse it would have been for us, the more difficult and more dangerous." 

The one known, inescapable and most disconcerting fact of the Russia-Ukraine war is that Vladimir Putin cannot lose it. He must triumph to be credible, to hold power. It's everything to him. It is his and Russia's honor, duty, destiny. Without victory in Ukraine, Putin is nothing. He'll soldier ahead until a million of them are dead or he is.

Thus he'll use any means necessary to avoid defeat — knowing, in medias res, that the West will never respond proportionately. And all the while he'll be working to split the West from its own best interests, with a huge assist, quite possibly, from the United States. 

The most surprising facet of American society that could sweep in authoritarianism

Just a quick observation. This morning I encountered these two newspaper entries in rapid succession:

The Washington Post: "Less than two weeks before the midterm elections, Democrats have moved into a defensive crouch. Republicans are well-positioned to make potentially large gains on Nov. 8 ... by hammering them over crime and inflation " (my emphasis). In short, the economy.

The NY Times: "Since the U.S. economy is on firmer footing compared with the rest of the world...."

How many American voters are even aware of the global economic discrepancy in our favor? Sorry for asking because I can't quantifiably answer, except to say a lot. To hear Republicans tell it, we're awash in a severe recession coupled with runaway inflation, both of which are devastating wages and wiping food from every family's kitchen table. We are down and out and heading for more ruin under big-spending Democrats, or so Republicans are "hammering." And voters are falling for it. Yet ...

From a 19 October Forbes report: "The U.S. inflation rate of 8.5% in July." Britain's was 10.1%. The rate of inflation in Turkey, a NATO ally (we think), was 79.6% in July.

A bit more online searching (TradingEconomics.com) found that inflation in Germany was 10%, in the Netherlands, 14.5%, in Russia, 13.7%, and Argentina came in with an inflation rate of 83%.

If any economic measure puts a halt to U.S. inflation it won't be Democratic policies, which weren't the cause of inflation to begin with (see: pent-up demand and clogged chains of supply). It will be the Fed cranking up interest rates — which most likely will put us in a recession. But the blame will be placed on the Dems. 

And if any economic measure would surely aggravate inflation while the Fed labored to tame it, it would be the Republicans' go-to panacea of more tax cuts. The NYT: "While Republicans insist they will be better stewards of the economy, few economists on either end of the ideological spectrum expect the party’s proposals to meaningfully reduce inflation in the short term. Instead, many say some of what Republicans are proposing — including tax cuts for high earners and businesses — could actually make price pressures worse by pumping more money into the economy."

Fortunately for Americans, President Biden's veto pen will avoid the added harm of Cro-Magnon Republicans' macroeconomic policies. Unfortunately for America, voters will fail to appreciate Mr. Biden's scribbled protection from the harm, and go right on blaming Democrats. Into 2024.

By then the Fed will have hiked interest rates too much, and into recession we'll go. Voters will also fail to appreciate the actual perpetrator of our fresh economic woes. But for reasons of low information, hyperpartisanship and voters' usual knack for swinging — every four or eight years — too far in the opposite direction of sane, Biden and congressioanl Democrats will get the blame.

The prospect laid out here is too plausible, too realistic and too historically grounded to dismiss as way-too-early predictive folly. And it gets worse.

Several days ago I read, to understate the matter, a disturbing polling result. Commissioned by the Times, Siena (rated A+) found that though 71% of all voters said "democracy was at risk," only 7% pinpointed the risk as "the most important problem facing the country."

Instead, they'll vote on the short-term economy, overlooking the semipermanent, democratically pestilent, stampeding pachyderm in every district and state. With national unhappiness over the economy, Republicans could sweep into congressional majorities and the White House.

In short, it may not be Trumpism's strongarm electoral tactics that bring authoritarianism to America, but the economy. Neofascism via a whimper, not a bang.   

Trump isn't delusional. He confided, once again, that his Big Lie is a lie.

I once gave thought to the not unreasonable possibility that years of flimflammery had reduced his brain waves to those of his followers, and so he eventually began believing his lies about the stolen 2020 election. His stumping on it and Truth Socializing it 10 times a day before an ocean of adoring gullibility had rendered him a blithering victim of his own humbuggery.  

But, as CNN first reported yesterday, that is just not so. Not only is Trump in possession of his faculties, his revealed condition carries grave legal consequences. His anticipated defense at a federal court trial for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government (etc., etc.) has always been that he believed the 2020 election was stolen, thus he had never knowingly lied about it. Even though that's an invalid defense in law, it might have nonetheless persuaded a juror or two to upend a unanimous verdict.  

But CNN has reported on a telephone conversation — "captured in a Fox documentary" — between Trump and Arizona Republican senatorial candidate Blake Masters earlier this month that destroyed any Trumpian claim to good-faith lying. In a just-concluded debate, Masters had said he had seen no evidence of a fraudulent or stolen 2020 election. This compelled Trump to get on the phone with Masters to offer some campaign advice.  

"If you want to get across the line, you’ve got to go stronger on that one thing. That was the one thing, a lot of complaints about it," said Trump. "Look at Kari [Lake, Arizona's Republican gubernatorial candidate]. Kari’s winning with very little money. And if they say, 'How is your family?' she says the election was rigged and stolen. You’ll lose if you go soft. You’re going to lose that base," Trump said.

With that, quite obviously, he had unambiguously revealed the "rigged and stolen" election claim as nothing more than an incitement to the base. And Masters got the message. In a later debate, reported CNN: "When asked why claims of the 2020 election being stolen were removed from Masters’ website, he responded, 'Well I still believe it, that’s for sure.' He added later in the interview, 'If we had a free and fair election, President Trump would be sitting in the Oval Office today.'"

This is more than just flimflammery and more than Trump undermining his only hope of a hung jury, however. It has also brought real danger to human life.

In a Tuesday radio interview, Masters enhanced the lie by encouraging the flock to personally monitor activity around the state's ballot drop boxes. "If you are planning on watching the drop boxes, hey, stay whatever the – is it 75 feet? Whatever it is, stay that distance away, don’t intimidate any voters, get your video camera out and record to make sure people aren’t ballot harvesting," said Masters. 

Given that he was speaking to an appreciable subset of gun-happy Trumpers who see the wickedest of conspiracies everywhere, Masters' shout-out was the equal of unleashing the hounds of hell.

Sure enough, someone alerted the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office about "two armed individuals dressed in tactical gear [who] were watching [a] drop box" in Mesa, Arizona. The police concluded that no laws were broken, but added an admonition about people trying to "passively intimidate others trying to just cast a vote." Earlier this week, the Arizona secretary of state's office had compiled six reports of voter intimidation and one report of election worker harassment. 

As tensions swarm throughout the Trumpers'  snake pit of paranoia running up to Election Day, easily imaginable is that one of them, with AR-15 in hand, will go berserk in his righteous cause of stamping out fraud. That would add yet another federal count of incitement to Trump's long list of prosecutable crimes. Worse, voting areas on Election Day in America will have become grounds for neofascist bloodbaths.      

Putin himself is now warning of a 'dirty bomb' attack by Ukraine, establishing a pretext for escalation

For days Russian officials have warned the populace of a "dirty bomb" attack by Ukraine inside its own territory. Ukraine's likely target, say these Russian authorities, is the Nova Kakhovka dam about 50 miles northeast of Kherson, the source of water supplies from the Dnipro River to thousands of Russian troops dug in to defend Kherson.  

Should Ukraine retake the dam, the Russians "will have to make a decision very quickly," says the head of Ukrainian intelligence, Gen. Kyrylo Budanov. "Either very, very quickly leave the city and get out, or risk ending up in the same situation that our units in Mariupol found themselves in earlier" in the war. 

Today, for the first time, reports The NY Times, Vladimir Putin "joined the chorus of senior Russian officials" who have been warning of a Ukrainian dirty bomb attack  ... somewhere. Speaking in a video address he advised only that stronger security measures must be taken around critical infrastructure sites, which would include those in Russia's recently annexed Kherson province. 

Putin offered no evidence, as usual, of Ukraine's ability to even devise a dirty bomb, let alone its willingness to use one. He merely said that "It is also known about plans to use a so-called dirty bomb for provocation." Putin then returned to denouncing the U.S. for supplying Ukraine with "heavy weapons," the underlying cause, in his standard rhetoric, of heightened tensions in the region.  

Also today, Russia conducted its annual military exercise of land, sea and air tests of missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The tests were pre-announced, as obligated under disarmament treaties, but Putin’s warning of a Ukrainian radioactive assault on Russian infrastructure on the same day as his warning of a dirty bomb attack — especially just one day after President Biden had warned that any Russian nuclear provocation would be "an incredibly serious mistake" — has the White House, to understate matters, concerned.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken issued only the customary statement: "We haven’t seen a reason to change our own nuclear posture. But it’s something we’re tracking very carefully, and we’ve also communicated directly and very clearly to the Russians, to President Putin, about the consequences" following "any use of a nuclear device."

Also making Washington nervous is that Russian propagandists have, in recent days, moved from speaking about Ukraine's Nazi threat to speaking about Ukraine as a terrorist state, folding accusations of its intention to use a dirty bomb into their scaremongering of the Russian populace. In these accusations have come the pointed warnings of a Ukrainian dirty bomb attack on the Nova Kakhovka dam outside Russian-occupied Kherson. 

"They seem to have decided on a talking point that this is a counterterrorism operation now," said Kyle Walter, the head of a U.S. investigation team that works to counter Russian disinformation. "Rather than framing this as something that’s anti-Nazi or anti-Satanist, you now have a concerted effort to frame it as a counterterrorism operation."

As a scaremongering tactic, it appears to be working. FilterLabs, which tracks public opinion in Russia, reports that "social media posts on the possibility of a dirty bomb attack have gained traction in Russia," in The NY Times wording. There has been "a surge this week in discussions about nuclear terrorism by Ukraine" in which Russians have compared Ukraine's plans to Osama bin Laden's 9/11 attack on the U.S, coupled with demands that the latter cease its support of Ukraine, having morphed into a terrorist state.

It's all a malevolent fantasy, conceived and propagated by a twisted, sociopathic mind — Vladimir Putin's. Yet the fantasy's thrust could soon become a gory reality: Russia's explosion of radioactive material — essentially, the detonation of a nuclear bomb — over the Ukrainian people. After that could come Putin's use of an actual nuclear weapon on Ukraine.

He can't quit his invasion — his ego and power are based on it — and yet his military is incapable of doing the job. Which, in Putin's by-now diseased brain, leaves only the one alternative.

Sorry, Typepad has been down (as you probably noticed) and is still having some technical issues. 

Progressive Democrats played right into Putin's hands

House progressives — 30 of them, led by the politically inept Pramila Jayapal, chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus — drove a dagger into the back of their own party's president yesterday while sending a huge gift to Russia's president, currently engaged in slaughtering the citizens of a once-peaceful, free and democratic neighbor.

The group urged President Biden to unilaterally negotiate with Vladimir Putin on the future of Ukraine, evidently leaving President Zelensky on the sidelines as the two great powers discussed the smaller nation's fate. This extraordinary blunder on the part of the one superpower presumably dedicated to protecting Ukraine's independence was not enough for House progressives, however.

They also somehow overlooked that Russia has already annexed four Ukrainian provinces, and Putin is not about to hand them back to their rightful owner. Hence urging a "proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a cease fire,” as Jayapal wrote in the letter, was utterly removed from reality. (The quote is from The Washington Post.) 

They weren't done. The 30 progressives went on to complain about the Russia-Ukraine war's inconvenience to American citizens, what with it causing higher gas and food prices in the United States, which was a really bad look. Finally — and almost unbelievably — they proposed that the U.S. offer "incentives" for Russia "to end hostilities, including some form of sanctions relief" (emphasis mine). After Putin's illegal international aggression, his massacre of tens of thousands of Ukrainians and his threats to commence a nuclear war, these progressives suggested ... sanction relief.

Worst of all, the Gang of 30 helped to substantiate Putin's belief that the West, one nation at a time, will crack. As Putin has calculated since the war's beginning, each member nation of the Western alliance will groan under the burdens of elevating energy costs and steeper food prices and therefore begin demanding that government leaders bring a swift end to the Ukrainian crisis — essentially, at any cost.

The following tweets from Lee, a PhD student in war studies, and Atkins, a disappointed progressive communications strategist, nicely summarize the House progressives' unthinking gift to Vladimir Putin.

Realizing their blunder only because of thundering blowback, the group reversed itself this afternoon, claiming it was just a silly mistake. Wrote Jayapal: "The letter was drafted several months ago, but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting." The dissembling statement reads like something out of the Russian defense ministry.

The Guardian reports that Jayapal, in her red-faced retraction, added that "The letter sent yesterday has been conflated with GOP opposition to support for the Ukrainians’ just defense of their national sovereignty," as though the comparison was unfair. But the letter was "conflated" with House Republicans' pro-Putin position because that's what it was, a pro-Putin letter. 

President Biden has had a hard enough time keeping the Atlantic alliance patched together in this potentially earth-shattering confrontation with Putin's bloody aggression. One doubts he thought he would encounter the first real break in Western unity from his own troops. Then again, progressives have a history of this sort of blundering, so perhaps he should have expected it.

Putin's use of a dirty bomb would be a Cuban Missile Crisis x10

Nerves are unraveling. The world is on the brink. And Russia is trying to tip it into catastrophe.

In an updated story this morning, The Washington Post reports that "Russia apparently intends to raise ... its unfounded accusation that Ukraine is planning to use a 'dirty bomb'" on its own territory.

Vasily Nebenzya, the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, warned in a letter to the United Nations security council that "We will regard the use of the 'dirty bomb' by the Kiev regime as an act of nuclear terrorism," and urged the U.N.'s secretary general "to do everything in his power to prevent this heinous crime from happening."

(To which Britain's U.N. delegation tweeted: "Reminder: Ukraine has no nuclear weapons." Reuters.)

Tom Nichols, formerly of the Naval War College and a writer for The Atlantic, attempted yesterday to mitigate the "nuclear" facet of a dirty bomb. He noted that nuclear weapons specialists describe it as a "radiological dispersive device" — of course they do — and he alternatively defined a dirty bomb as "a conventional explosive wrapped around a lot of dangerous radioactive material."

Elaborating on his definition, Nichols wrote that "this conventional explosion spreads around a lot of radioactive material, poisoning anyone nearby and rendering the area highly dangerous." In other words, a nuclear bomb.

Despite his effort to define it otherwise, to its victims a launched bomb that spreads poisonous radioactive material is a launched nuclear attack, whether from a conventional nuclear weapon or a conventional weapon releasing radioactivity.

Said a State Department spokesman to reporters: "It would certainly be another example of [Vladimir Putin’s] brutality if he were to use a so-called dirty bomb." Added the spokesman, rather weakly: "There would be consequences for Russia."

One specialist in urban warfare studies suggested issuing a stronger warning:

The world cannot cower to Putin's terrorist threats. He only understands power. @POTUS needs to send a public/clear message that if Putin uses any nuclear, biological, chemical weapon in Ukraine, the response will be direct, immediate, and catastrophic. THIS prevents nuclear war.

— John Spencer (@SpencerGuard) October 24, 2022

Spencer's position is that a "catastrophic" warning would prevent the catastrophe. But inherent in such an unmistakably extreme notice is the huge risk of Putin disbelieving the West and thus proceeding with what he would call a "second use" strike. The West, consequently, would find itself in the unenviable position of having to carry out a catastrophic response. The world would likely then have what Spencer purports to be its prevention: a nuclear confrontation.

Wiser, it seems to me, is a Western alert to Putin and his generals that NATO forces, in the event of his "dirty" nuclear launch — what he would have mendaciously labeled Ukraine's "first use" — would be obligated to hit Ukrainian ground running. Its "catastrophic" effect on Russian forces would be the military equivalent of a nuclear response, but without the no-turning-back "nuclear."

To threaten the extreme and wilt in fear after Putin executed a dirty attack would be the real catastrophe. The West would be far more likely to honor a conventional-force threat.

The NY Times reports that both the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and civilian Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin have spoken with their Russian counterparts in recent days, which is evidence of how seriously the West is taking Putin's saber-rattling.

It also seems to me that the Russian despot and warmonger has no choice but to carry through, unsheathing his saber. U.S. military and civilian officials appear to believe the same. For on Ukrainian ground his forces are doomed, and Putin knows it. But he can't quit.

In Kherson, the Russians are on the run - a kind of mini-Stalingrad, but potentially worse

The city's billboards may be plastered with the slogan, "Kherson is forever with Russia," but Russia is no longer with Kherson.

Not, anyway, the Russian officials who vulturously descended on the city early in the war. The NY Times reports that Kherson's civilian administrators are skedaddling like Czar Nikki II & Family should have skedaddled from Russia itself.

Ukrainian troops are moving on Kherson, and the once-bold authorities have decided that a hasty retreat is the better part of Russian valor. But they're leaving behind the bedraggled, besieged, ill-
euipped troops whom Vlad the Ukraine Impaler has ordered to defend what's left of the city.

Hundreds, possibly thousands of men will soon die in the useless defense of a city illegally occupied and about to be honorably recovered by its authentic owners. The conflagration won't be nearly as colossal as the Battle of Stalingrad, but the losses of life will be just as pointless.

Writes the Times: "The strategically important southern port city of Kherson began to crumble on Monday." Credible sources, videos and fleeing residents have described a "chaotic situation on the ground in Kherson:"

"Merchants are refusing to be paid in Russian currency, government offices have been emptied of essential equipment and civilians have been told by proxy officials loyal to the Kremlin to take 'documents, money, valuables and clothes'" — and run like the wind.

Ukrainian officials and local activists have also reported an increasingly dire humanitarian situation. Russian soldiers are nonetheless digging in and preparing to make matters even worse. Bloody scenes of urban warfare are looming.

Ukraine's top intelligence officer, Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, told a Ukrainian news outlet today that he has seen no signs of Russia's military withdrawing. "They are not preparing to exit now," he said. "They are preparing to defend."

The skedaddling Russian authorities are keeping busy before departing, though. Kherson's exiled deputy governor reported that, with the aid of the military, they are involved in "intense pillaging" and stealing "everything with archaeological and historical significance." You just can't keep a good Russian barbarian down. 

Meanwhile, notes the Times in a separate post, "The top diplomats in France, Britain and the United States ... issued a rare joint statement that rejected Russia’s allegation that Kyiv is preparing to use a so-called dirty bomb on its own territory, calling it a pretext Moscow has concocted for escalating the war."

Terrifyingly, we know what such a final escalation would mean.

P.M. Sunak is (almost) a laughing matter

Welcome, Mr. Sunak, to the Hall of Pain. Only hardcore masochists can understand why you so feverishly sought the prime ministership of a nation plagued by every economic calamity imaginable — largely self-induced — but here you are; or rather, from America, there you are. We can only guess that you possess the same self-harming tendencies as did President Biden, who assumed office after his predecessor had labored so diligently to shipwreck the White House — and take the country down with it.  

Indeed Labour leader Keir Starmer sees you as more than a successor; you are your own predecessor, he says: "If you look at what they all said about each other over the summer, [Sunak] and Truss were slugging it out to say how awful the mess was that they created and that they should be prime minister to sort out the mess of their own making."

Starmer's observation is incontrovertible and what Sunak-Truss have argued is classic Trumpism. One takes a relatively stable economy, one runs it through a gauntlet of stupidities such as Brexit, and then one insists that he or she — the very perpetrator of the nation's wanton economic wreckage — should be the judge and jury on how to regrow the vast wasteland created.    

On the lighter side, Liz's congratulatory tweet on your ascendence was refreshing in its Trussian uniqueness. When she glided into 10 Downing St., she behaved as though you, Mr. Sunak, did not exist.

A Borislike-Trumpian narcissist herself, Liz breezed right by you, Rishi, after winning the party's leadership position those few short weeks ago. She was consumed with her own eminence, celebrity, power and absolute certainty that she and she alone held the solutions to all that ailed Britain. Her breeze-by reminds one of that time in 2017 when Trump pushed himself past Montenegro's prime minister, Dusko Markovic.

As of an hour ago, poor Boris Johnson was still silent about Sunak's elevation to self-invited doom, although earlier he insisted he had a "very good chance" at a second prime ministership if he had just stayed in the race. Such baseless assertions are, of course, a primordial characteristic of incurable narcissists. At least he didn't claim Sunak's election was rigged, which was one giant leap for mankind — including demagogues and self-aggrandizers everywhere.  

Paul Waugh, of the i newspaper, wrote that "perhaps Johnson took exception to the line in Sunak’s speech about serving with 'integrity and humility.'" But Boris would not have been alone in indignation, as suggested above. Truss, too — notwithstanding the brevity of her service (for which no one has thanked her) — had bragged, Trumplike, that only she could properly go to the mat with Britain's intractably monstrous problems. Continuing with Waugh, he also noted that P.M. Sunak now has two options — "abandon Thatcherism or go full Trump." I must admit, limitless legerdemain with actual problems would seem the way to go. After all, c-Conservanomics is dead.

Back to Boris — but not poor Boris. Instead, it's poor Martine Croxall, a BBC News anchor. Reports the Irish Examiner: "[She] has been taken off air amid claims she showed bias after Boris Johnson pulled out of the Tory leadership contest." Her prejudiced, unprofessional transgression? About 90 minutes after Johnson's withdrawal, she said this on her Sunday night show: "Well this is all very exciting, isn’t it Am I allowed to be this gleeful? Well I am."

Her crime against humanity did not stop there, however. After a guest cracked a joke about Johnson, she broke out in uncontrolled chuckles, admitting "I shouldn’t probably [laugh]. I’m probably breaking some terrible due impartiality rule by giggling." It seems she did. The BBC scolds issued a lofty statement about the network's dedication to "the highest editorial standards," which it believed had been violated. Come on, man, as President Biden would say. Everyone knows that when stricken by the giggles, all attempts at cessation only exacerbate them.

We shall conclude this overview where we started, with Mr. Sunak. In bold defiance of detractors, jokesters, economic analysts and political commentators, the prime minister began his reign with a most impressive performance.

The Rishbot pic.twitter.com/qzPnxCJUvT

— John Stevens (@johnestevens) October 24, 2022

With that, as Edward R. Murrow might report from London today: Good night, Britain, and good luck.