Sky

Wendall -- every other Thursday

The world is in such turmoil at the moment that it seems quite hopeless. So, I am sharing one of the small but powerful things that is keeping me going here in Los Angeles.

The sky.

 

 

Although we live in a stupidly urban area, surrounded by concrete and power lines and overlooking a busy LA freeway, we are lucky enough to have a balcony where, every day, I see something in the sky that is gorgeous and restorative. 

 

 

So I’m sharing some of the photos I’ve taken from our balcony over the past year, in hopes the images might be a balm to all of you as well.

 

 

Take care of yourselves out there and hope to see some of you at Left Coast Crime. You can find me here:

Speed Dating with Matt Coyle Thursday March 13  9-11am

"Been There, Wrote That" panel Thursday March 13 3:45-4:30pm Confluence C

Moderating the "Best Novel" panel Friday March 14 11:00 -11:45am Confluence C 

--Wendall

Corporate Media Keeps Smoothing Over Trump’s Wreckage

Wed--Kwei

 

A Blaze of Euphemisms

If you’ve been following the mainstream media’s coverage of Donald J. Trump, you’ve probably noticed a strange phenomenon. News outlets that should be calling out blatant lies and destructive policies are instead tiptoeing around with language that paints Trump as “muscular,” “bold,” or “unconventional.” That is a full-on sane-washing of an administration whose actions have repeatedly undermined democratic norms.

To understand why mainstream outlets keep sane-washing Trump’s most destructive actions, we need to look at who owns these media empires. The Washington Post, for example, is controlled by Jeff Bezos through Amazon’s vast influence. The New York Times, while still family-run, relies heavily on billionaire investors and hedge funds that thrive under political stability—meaning their editorial stance often leans toward keeping the establishment intact, even if it means sanitizing an authoritarian.

Corporate media exists to protect the status quo the ultra-wealthy have built. It’s no coincidence that newsrooms increasingly adopt centrist, or even right-centrist, toned-down language when discussing Trump’s policies. Billionaire owners have no interest in radical pushback—whether against Trump’s tariff chaos, environmental rollbacks, or outright democratic erosion—because instability, not justice, threatens their bottom line. That’s why we keep seeing “muscular” instead of “destructive” or “bold” instead of “reckless” and “controversial” instead of “dangerous.”

The legacy press is not failing; it’s functioning as designed—keeping billionaire interests safe while the rest of us deal with the fallout.

 

The New York Time’s Sugarcoating of Trump’s Executive Orders

In his NYT piece, Chairlie Savage wrote, "On Monday, as Mr. Trump took the oath of office to begin his second term, he asserted a muscular vision of presidential power." There’s nothing “muscular” about slamming the door on refugees, rolling back environmental protections, or flirting with outright unconstitutional travel bans. "Punitive” or “draconian,” is closer to the mark. “Muscular,” as if Trump is flexing his biceps rather than acting like a wannabe strongman.

Here’s why that matters: words shape perception. When these moves masquerade as displays of strength, the actual impact—people losing crucial protections, fragile international alliances on edge—gets blurred. It shifts public discourse from “Is this policy ethical or lawful?” to “Isn’t the President showing leadership by being so decisive?” One of these questions holds Trump accountable; the other gives him a free pass.

 

Ezra Klein’s Muddled Arguments in “Don’t Believe Him”

In The New York Times, Ezra Klein penned a piece titled “Don’t Believe Him.” Frankly, the title alone deserves a second look. Here’s the thing: we actually should believe Donald Trump precisely because he’s so bizarrely transparent about his intentions—even when those intentions are harmful or self-serving. He floated punitive tariffs against our closest allies, cozied up to tyrannical regimes like Russia, and took pleasure in upending decades of diplomatic norms. If his statements seem fantastical, that’s because they reflect the very real fantasies he has—and the terrifying part is that he’s got enough power to make some of them real unless the courts or Congress manage to block him.

The real problem with Klein’s piece isn’t that he questions Trump’s honesty. How he hides the urgent truth in a cloud of scholarly-sounding language makes everything feel ambiguous. Instead of sounding the alarm, Klein sometimes slips into academic dissection, as though unable to pin down Trump’s ever-shifting claims. But come on, sometimes Trump’s flat-out lying or steamrolling ahead on yet another misguided crusade. It doesn’t need couching in paragraphs of theoretical framing. We should believe what Trump says because it’s usually a preview of what he’ll try to do for better or (most often) for worse.

 

The GOP’s Lockstep Support, Despite Grassroots Resistance

It’s not just the so-called liberal media that keeps giving Trump a pass. The Republican Party itself has lined up right behind him, no matter how off-the-rails his policies get. Sure, we’ve witnessed some spirited town hall protests in deep-red districts—voters voicing concerns about healthcare, government overreach, and reckless foreign policy. Yet most Republican lawmakers seem more terrified of Trump’s Twitter wrath than they are concerned about representing the very people who elected them. They may occasionally mumble disagreement, but in the end, they fall in line, backing Trump’s judicial nominations and rubber-stamping his executive orders with a shrug that abandons any semblance of checks and balances. The GOP used to pretend at least to care about fiscal conservatism or moral values. Now, they’re backing a president who tears down allies and coddles authoritarian regimes. These are not the principles the party claimed to champion for decades, but apparently, fear of Trump’s ire—and fear of losing seats to primaries—has overridden any sense of principle.

 

Why Language Matters More Than Ever

Let’s be clear: We live in a time when democracy can feel precarious. When influential outlets downplay authoritarian behavior as “unconventional” or “muscular,” they do more than tone-police the conversation—they normalize a political style that shreds democratic norms. Suddenly, the fact that a legally embattled man is the sitting president doesn’t feel alarming; it becomes part of the background noise.

We rely on the press to hold leaders accountable. When that press gets timid—choosing gentle or indirect words to critique blatantly oppressive or illegal policies—it fails in its responsibility. Sure, journalists may harbor bias, and that’s the nature of the beast. But “bias” against authoritarian power grabs isn’t a flaw. It’s called doing your job.

 

How to Combat Sane-Washing

So, what do we do about all this sane-washing? First, recognize it for what it is. Pay attention to how reporters and commentators describe Trump’s actions. If the words “unprecedented,” “chaotic,” or “dangerous” mysteriously morph into “assertive” or “muscular,” call that out. Second, stop trying to parse Trump’s statements for hidden meaning. He usually says what he wants—whether it’s feasible, moral, or even sane. Lastly, remember that democracy works best when we stay engaged. If the media doesn’t ring the alarm bells loudly enough, we’ve got to do it ourselves. Write letters, show up at town halls, and support independent media that call things by their real names.

No, Trump’s policies aren’t “muscular.” He’s vindictive, impulsive, and willing to steamroll constitutional boundaries if it benefits him politically or financially. Without the press using clear, forceful language to describe that, catastrophic actions are too easy to pass as mere “experiments” in governance. Words matter, especially when democracy is at stake—and it sure as hell is right now.

We must do it ourselves if the legacy press won’t do the job. Our democracy might depend on our ability to cut through the euphemisms and speak out about the stark reality. Don’t settle for sanitized headlines and hedged takes. Demand honest, unflinching reporting—and spread the word yourself if that’s what it takes.

 

The Shortest War in History

Tomorrow I leave to return to NYC after 2 1/2 months in my other home city.  Getting ready is onerous.  And lots of people here are wondering, given the political situation, why I want to go back.  I know why.  But that's another story.

I also am in a place in my WIP where one of my characters is about to go into a dangerous battle in WWI, and I am worried about what will happen to him.

I am hoping that WW III will  not be breaking out soon and also that my character will not be...  I can't even type it.

The best I can today is go back to this post about another war that I first offered 11 years ago. 

It will take longer to write this post than the duration of the war.  Much longer.

The combatants were the British Empire and the Sultanate of Zanzibar.  Want to guess who won?

We will get to that, but let’s start further back.

Though I knew nothing of Zanzibar’s location on the map or its history, the very sound of its name was synonymous with “romantic and exotic” in my mind when I was a child.  Its story has proved my young imagination correct.  Its position and its protected, defensible harbor made it a base for voyaging traders from time immemorial.   Arabs, Indians, and Africans had used it as such for millennia when the Vasco Da Gama arrived and assumed control of it in 1499.   It took the Ottomans two hundred years and at least two shooting wars to unseat the Portuguese for good in 1698.

Sultan Seyyid

Afterwards, under the control of the Sultanate of Oman, the island became a center of agriculture and an important post for trading ivory and slaves.

During the 19^th century Scramble for Africa, the British set their sights on Zanzibar. Its main potential uses: it would give them a leg up in their competition with the Germans for control of East Africa AND they could claim it as key to abolishing slavery.   The Empire’s progress there came in diplomatic fits and starts until 1856, when the Brits recognized Sultan Seyyid Said, who in return gave their East African ambitions his support, favoring them over their German rivals.

But… and since this is about a war, there must be a “but.”   Said’s heir, the pro-British Hamad bin Thuwaini, died on August 25^th 1896, whereupon Hamad’s nephew Khalid bin Barghash took over in a coup d’etat.

The treaty between Her Majesty’s government and the Sultan Seyyid had given Britain the right to approve of who ruled Zanzibar.

The Brits saw that Khalid threatened their favored position and would play the Germans and the British off against each other.   They were most seriously  displeased.  They much preferred another heir, Hamud bin Muhammed, who would be their man.

The game was afoot.

Khalid had 2800 men with him in the fortified palace and an armed yacht anchored in the harbor.  The rest of the regular Zanzibar Army was elsewhere on the island and under the command of General Lloyd Matthews, formerly a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy.  Needless to say, Khalid was not getting any help from that quarter.

On August 26^th, the Brits moved in with five cruisers.  They also landed a few platoons of Royal Marines.  They delivered an ultimatum to Khalid: Stand down and give up the palace by 9 tomorrow morning or you will be toast.  Khalid ignored the order.  Big mistake.

On August 27^th, at 9:02 in the morning, Rear-Admiral Henry Rawson gave the order to open fire.  That volley set the Sultan’s palace afire and destroyed the defenders’ artillery.  The British sank the HHS Glasgow, the Zanzabari royal yacht.  Khalid’s retreating troops fired a few desperate shots at the Brits.  At 9:40 AM, a final shot from the HMS Thrush’s 12-pounder brought down the Sultan’s flag at the palace and the war was over.

Khalid absconded to the German embassy and eventually escaped to German East Africa on the mainland.  The British puppet, Sultan Hamud took the throne.

Five hundred of Khalid’s men—largely composed of civilians and slaves—were killed or injury.  One British sailor was wounded.

And the way was paved for the Brits to gain hegemony over British East Africa (now Kenya).  You can meet some of those Brits—real and fictional—in my Strange Gods, which will launch on June 24.

Annamaria - Monday

I Asked This Question Three Years Ago: Is Our World at War?

 

Jeff–Saturday

  

Three years and two days after Russia INVADED Ukraine on February 24, 2022, I wrote the following introduction to a post titled, "Is Our World  at War?":

 

I think everyone would agree that the world is a very different place today than it was one  week day ago. 24/7 news coverage of Russia invading Ukraine [and live coverage of yesterday's White House confrontation] has driven that home to American audiences. But how do Europeans see the war?  For that I turned to Ekathimerini, the newspaper of record in Greece, and found three interesting stories directly bearing on the topic. The first is an opinion piece by Nikos Konstandaras, titled,“A Geopolitical Earthquake:” 

 

History’s tectonic plates are shifting. No one knows the magnitude, depth or duration of the earthquake caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Thursday. What is certain is that our world is changing. We will either see a strengthening of the system of global government and Russia’s retreat (and consequent loss of great power status), or we will enter an era of absolute fluidity and danger, with neither laws nor principles. February 24, 2022, did away with the illusion of a collective understanding, in which powerful countries maintained balance with each other, kept to certain rules, avoiding confrontation even when they disagreed over important issues. 

 

When a nuclear power and permanent member of the UN Security Council invades a neighbor, with arguments that are aimed more at convincing its own citizens than the international community, this is a direct threat to the global system of governance and to the principles of behavior that developed after World War II. The Russian president is fully aware that his actions can open the gates of hell, issuing a direct threat that “anyone who would consider interfering from the outside… will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history. All relevant decisions have been taken. I hope you hear me.” It is clear that, after this statement, there is no return to the world that we knew. Either the international community will get its act together and stop Vladimir Putin, or we will enter a period of instability and barbarism, where those who can will tread all over international law at the expense of the weak. The last time such circumstances prevailed, Europe was led to 1939.

 

The last decades do not inspire optimism. The United States often set a bad example with unilateral actions, autocratic regimes have taken hold in many countries, liberal democracy is under fire, the UN has been weakened. But disaster is not a given. Putin faces two insurmountable obstacles: His country, with a population of 144 million and GDP of 1.5 trillion dollars, is not as powerful as he considers himself to be; the only great power that could support him, China, has invested in stability and development. With the United States and the European Union putting on a united show, with China looking after its own interests, Putin – though always dangerous – will be on his own.

 

Picking up on that point is Stathis N. Kalyvas, Gladstone Professor of Government at the University of Oxford, with his observation on what Greece’s stance on the Ukrainian crisis should be:

Russian aggression is justified with geopolitical excuses: It feels surrounded after losing a large geographical zone over which it once held complete sway. Such analyses usually also contain some reference to the catastrophe that befell Russia with the collapse of communism and the trauma that caused.

But a closer look at the situation in Russia reveals that it is less at risk from being surrounded than it is from other factors: Its economy is overly reliant on energy (with the production of oil and natural gas accounting for some 40% of its economy), its demographics are nosediving (its population shrank by a million between 2020 and 2021 alone), and its young and educated people are migrating in droves. Politically, it is a combination of an old-school autocratic regime that openly stomps on individual freedoms and an oligarchic economic structure with all the traits of a mafia.

 

The real threat, therefore, lies within its own borders. Regardless of the mistakes made by the United States from 1990 onward, Russia could have chosen to take a different path, similar to that of the European countries that were once part of the Soviet bloc, just as Ukraine is trying to do.

 

So, the real issue is about politics and principles. On the one hand, we have an autocratic power that is employing methods harking back to Austria or Czechoslovakia in 1938 and behaving toward its neighbors like a colonialist. Vladimir Putin himself even wrote that the Russians and Ukrainians are one people, a position rejected by the vast majority of Ukrainians. On the other hand, we have a nation that is trying to get ahead and threatening nobody in the process, by adopting modern political and economic practices. The situation is crystal-clear and there should be no hesitation whatsoever about what stance Greeks must take.

In reporting on the Greek government’s position, Ekathimerini wrote:

Greece’s Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis told an emergency summit of NATO countries on Friday that Revisionism is the main threat to world peace and should not be tolerated, no matter where it comes from. 

The Prime Minister stressed that Russia’s aggressive actions violate international law and are a blow to European and international security and stability.

 

He reiterated the Greek position on respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of all countries, and condemned in the strongest possible terms the Russian revisionist actions that run counter to those values.

 

With so much of the sane world of the same mind…albeit each nation facing differing potential political and societal consequences, the question on everyone’s mind is simply this: NOW WHAT?

 

Two years have passed without my finding an answer to that question. Perhaps well have one by next week. But don't bet on it.

 

–Jeff