Reading the 20th Century discussion
General
>
Welcome to The Midnight Bell (a virtual pub and general discussion thread) (2025)
G wrote: "In other news, my local arthouse theater's annual showing of Casablanca is tonight. I am planning to cheer and boo extra loudly. I hope the audience is in like mood!"Have fun!
I'm watching Tucker Carlson roast Ted Cruzhttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/7PJjoM...
The whole show is available on YouTube btw.
Also thought this piece by Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi who lectures on the history of the Middle East at York, on the assault on Iran was worth reading:https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/pos...
The segment featuring him on Novara Media's 'live' news show is also worth watching, if for no other reason than that it underlines the impact of the bombing on Iranian civilians:
https://novaramedia.com/2025/06/18/ay...
Mod
It's quite something to see Tucker Carlson turning on his own side.
Roman Clodia wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "I'm watching Tucker Carlson roast Ted Cruz."It's quite something to see Tucker Carlson turning on his own side."
I suppose it's indicative of the emerging rifts in the Republican party, Carlson's pretty dodgy but it was pleasing to see Cruz put on the spot - even if it reminded me more of a comedy sketch than a serious political discussion.
Maybe it's just that I'm feeling so markedly/viscerally despondent about the state of things I'm at the point where I'll take small pleasures when I can get them.
Mod
Completely agree. And while it's always enjoyable seeing some red on red attacks (or blue on blue in the UK) the complete degradation of politics with diplomacy now apparently being conducted via MISPELT and sociopathic TWEETS is terrifying to witness.
The Novara Media show today ended with another pleasing clip which led Piers Morgan to come close to conceding that Israel's possession of nuclear weaponry in violation of numerous treaties might actually make countries like Iran nervous. Also a great outtake from the Daily Show demonstrating that Netanyahu has been making the same claims that Iran just weeks/months away from having nuclear capabilities for years.
Roman Clodia wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "Maybe it's just that I'm feeling so markedly/viscerally despondent about the state of things I'm at the point where I'll take small pleasures when I can get them."Completely agree..."
Absolutely! The conduct of the interaction between Carlson and Cruz seemed so ridiculous and so infantile, I actually checked various media sources just to be sure it wasn't in fact a spoof.
Alwynne wrote: "Roman Clodia wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "Maybe it's just that I'm feeling so markedly/viscerally despondent about the state of things I'm at the point where I'll take small pleasures when I can get the..."Cruz was a high school and collegiate debate champion, so his ineffectiveness at responding to Carlson's attack surprised me. It was a fun video to watch. I also take it as a sign of how completely the members of the regime are isolated in their own echo chamber. I can't decide whether to read this as a cause for hope or for despair.
I enjoyed Casablanca. No audible cheering or booing (and I didn't want to disrupt and get ejected), but I did it mentally. I have noticed that the infantilizing of Ilsa annoys me more with each viewing, but I still love the movie.Also, I was more than usually aware that this was Conrad Veidt's most memorable, and his penultimate, role, What a pity that he's remembered for playing exactly the kind of figure that he fled Germany to escape.
Alwynne wrote: "Also thought this piece by Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi who lectures on the history of the Middle East at York, on the assault on Iran was worth reading:https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/pos......"
Thanks for that article, Alwynne. It says much that I have been thinking, but I'm not an expert on Middle Eastern history or politics. This automatic assumption that so many Americans seem to make that other countries will choose democracy if only we destroy their government makes no sense to me at all. In 2001 I remember a very unpleasant Sunday lunch at which I was the only person arguing that invading Afghanistan made no sense. We almost came to blows. Doing so didn't turn out particularly well for the British or the Soviets. I just didn't see why we should have a different outcome. I also saw no moral or policy justification for it. I understood the desire to kill or capture bin Laden and cripple or destroy al-Qaeda, but using that as an excuse to invade and try to topple the Taliban looked a very shaky premise.
Mod
I'm not a huge film fan but that is one of my all-time favourites - along with High Society. I think I watched them at an impressionable age!
I find it interesting that while I can never really switch off that analytical voice in my head while reading or going to the theatre, film along with opera and ballet silence my inner critic and I just sink into the experience.
G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "Also thought this piece by Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi who lectures on the history of the Middle East at York, on the assault on Iran was worth reading:https://newleftreview.org/s..."
I would have agreed. Made no sense. The definition of insanity - to do the same thing over and over and expect a different response.
G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "Also thought this piece by Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi who lectures on the history of the Middle East at York, on the assault on Iran was worth reading:https://newleftreview.org/s..."
I'm glad you found it interesting, he seems a decent commentator, and he's not unaware of the many failings of the Iranian regime, and he's no apologist for them.
Good for you standing up for your beliefs. After 9/11 some things became almost unsayable in numerous circles, so I can only imagine how uncomfortable it must have been for you. I understood the Israeli administration's immediate response to 7/10 but had hoped it would become more restrained as time passed, and there'd be sustained external pressure on Netanyahu's administration to hold back. But that hasn't happened; and events in Gaza and in the West Bank have become almost unbearable to witness.
Like others, I'm extremely concerned about what Netanyahu and his political circle aim to do next. I'm also very worried, as with Iraq and Afghanistan, my government will drag us into Israel's war against Iran. I see no evidence that it's a legal undertaking, it doesn't fulfil the 'imminent threat' aspect of international law about waging war. It was dispiriting to see Keir Starmer fudge that when asked - especially given his own law background. It's hard to know what he's actually thinking. Although I would hope he's rational enough not to enter into what's likely to be yet another devastatingly destructive campaign.
It was also disturbing to read recent reports suggesting Trump is now ignoring all credible intelligence, in favour of what seems to be a personal 'hunch' that Iran is close to having nuclear weaponry. But he's always been happy to bend the truth when it suits him. I wonder what fantasy he's seeking to pursue now? Will those Republicans committed to 'America First' be able to pull him back into line?
Jan C wrote: "G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "Also thought this piece by Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi who lectures on the history of the Middle East at York, on the assault on Iran was worth reading:https://newleftre..."
Absolutely. All those needless losses on all sides. Not to mention environmental blight, infrastructure destroyed and so on...
So America's bombed Iran:https://www.theguardian.com/world/liv...
For anyone hoping cooler heads might prevail, it seems there are none.
Alwynne wrote: "So America's bombed Iran:https://www.theguardian.com/world/liv...
For anyone hoping cooler heads ..."
Cooler heads in the Middle East, Trump? I don't think so. It is a disaster for all concerned.
Alwynne wrote: "So America's bombed Iran:https://www.theguardian.com/world/liv...
For anyone hoping cooler heads ..."
Not in this administration of misanthropes, sycophants and reality TV personalities. And nominally headed up by one aging narcissist desperately trying to look manly strong. Also, warfighting is a thing in their la-la-land.
Wonder if Pakistan still wants to nominate Mango Mussolini for the Nobel Peace Prize. They seemed to be doing it to persuade him to leave Iran alone.
Disgust and fury are doing battle inside my stomach.
Rachel wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "So America's bombed Iran:https://www.theguardian.com/world/liv...
For anyone hopi..."
Apologies. It was meant rhetorically and also slightly sarcastically as a means of reining myself in. Because, quite honestly, my non cool-headed self really really hopes America might finally get to reap what it's sown, it's decades overdue. I know that's a mean thing to say but...
G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "So America's bombed Iran:https://www.theguardian.com/world/liv...
For anyone hopi..."
Disgust and fury seem reasonable responses. How in this country of supposed 'checks and balances' is Trump able to go against his own intelligence officials and do this, seemingly unilaterally? There's the slenderest chance that Iran may capitulate and renegotiate* - the other possible outcomes are rather frightening. But even then the message has been sent that countries can simply attack any other country that they 'perceive' as a concern regardless of evidence or actual likelihood of threat. At least with Iraq there was an attempt to debate and consider the legality/rationality of the war, even if it was clearly based on manipulated reports.
*Ignoring the fact that there was a perfectly workable, successful deal the one brokered by Obama, considered by many one of the shining moments of his presidency, that Trump then chose to trash.
Alwynne wrote: "G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "So America's bombed Iran:https://www.theguardian.com/world/liv...
For a..."
There was a coup, and now we have a different government that does not care about checks and balances. Lots of us are trying to stop the coup, but that's a long process. The corruption in the Supreme Court set the stage for the coup. The election of a figure with a declared intent of overthrowing the the constitutional government made a coup attempt inevitable, and the cooperation of all the Republican members of Congress, and the complicity of many of the Democrats cemented it.
Some people in Congress who have been going along with the coup are finally waking up and realizing they're losing their power. They were working on a resolution to prevent this...as if T would honor their resolution. T needed a boost in the polls the same way that Netanyahu did, and since neither of them has an atom's worth of care about lives other than their own, here we are.
At this point, even reading is not helping me.
G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "So America's bombed Iran:https://www.theguardian.com/world/liv......"
What I also don't understand is how it's possible for Trump to simply order the military to do something which, I believe, was illegal. I'll be interested to see what the international response is - although assume it will be cowardly. From my perspective the bombing seems akin to a war crime, illegal under international law.
Alwynne wrote: "G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "So America's bombed Iran:https://www.theguardian.com/world/liv......"
I absolutely agree that it is illegal under international law, and a war crime. Judging by the number of interactions I've had tonight on BlueSky and Facebook, I'd say there are a lot of Americans who agree.
Trump has spent his whole life thumbing his nose at the law, and somehow he gets away with it. I sort of understand how he manages that in the court system, by exploiting parts of that system that assume at least a minimal degree of good faith, and that take seriously the need to weigh all the evidence and give the defendant procedural room to mount their defense. I do not understand, and never have understood, why so many people believe anything he ever says, or why they let him get away with criminal behavior. But they do. Last week I heard Ruth Ben-Ghiat call him history's most successful propagandist, and I think she's right.
Part of Trump's coup was that he fired all the Judge Advocates General. Each branch of the service is supposed to have one. They are the military's top legal expert; the officers whose job it is to determine when an order is illegal. He also has fired several top military officers in order to install men (always men) whom he views as more likely to be loyal to him. Traditionally the American military has prided itself on its being non-partisan and highly professional. Trump has worked with fair success to undermine that.
He also installed a secretary of defense with no relevant experience, a man with extreme islamophobia and right wing Christian nationalist ideology. A drunkard with a history of sexual misconduct who is beholden to Trump, and so is likely to do whatever Trump asks. Normally the military would have refused an order like this. They did refuse some orders he tried to give during his first term (notably, shooting people who were legally protesting). And he has no one on any of the bodies that advise on national security who have any relevant experience.
It's also important to remember that, the corrupt Supreme Court decided las summer that Trump is immune to prosecution for official acts. And the Republicans in Congress are either full on MAGA, or else are terrified of being "primaried".
That's how he pulled this off. It's totally illegal. And stupid. And immoral. And a war crime. And an impeachable offense under the Constitution. And no other president would ever have been able to get away with it.
Sorry to be so long-winded. I'm too angry and upset to be concise.
G wrote: "Last week I heard Ruth Ben-Ghiat call him history's most successful propagandist, and I think she's right.."The only thing I would disagree with in your essay, G. So much of that in history, you might even say it's the fabric of history. But he is an extraordinarily successful BS'er. Sad article in the FT last week, echoing many others I've read, about how Trump's form of populism and demagoguery degrades a country's political discourse and becomes so difficult to dislodge. Honesty and realism are pale competitors.
And that Trump is not the only US President to use the military offensively without Congressional approval. Obama's extensive use of drone warfare was a sad precedent, and Nixon's bombing of Cambodia (failed attempt to impeach him followed) was heavily criticised as unconstitutional at the time. It an unfortunate but common misapplication of the Constitution making the President the Commander in Chief of a standing army.
But you are spot on with how he has weakened the constraints that have operated in the past, if not to immediately prevent abuses of power but to assemble forces of opposition that ultimately prevailed.
I certainly better understand now the past accounts of citizens and supporters of countries acting evilly, who are actively hoping for their failure, but not without pain.
Mod
Huge irony: yesterday I was teaching a day's introduction to poetry course to adult learners and just as we were discussing Wilfred Owen's Anthem for Doomed Youth, his anti-war poem written in 1917 which has a first stanza dedicated to 'monstrous anger' and the cacophony of sounds of warfare, the anti-war march passed more or less under our windows.
Thanks Ben and G too. My thoughts are mostly with the Iranian people right now - not to mention concerns about potential environmental devastation and the likely impact on Iran's remarkably diverse wildlife - so I'm still not far beyond screw Trump and screw Netanyahu. Oh, and, Starmer's a spineless sycophant who seems to be set on ignoring the issues around the rule of law - not a convincing stance for someone with an extensive legal background.
G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "So America's bombed Iran:https://www.theguardian.com/world/liv......"
I think you mean Inspector Generals rather than JAG - that's the court system in the military.
A sad day. Only democrats can do. The Republicans have control of every part of the government - Supreme Court, both houses of Congress. Narrow domination but domination just the same. We have to hope that enough Republicans in Congress and the Court come to their senses. That or we have to vote them out (providing we still have elections in '26 and beyobd).
Frankly I wondered if he would try to stop elections after he was elected the first time.
Jan C wrote: "G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "So America's bombed Iran:https://www.theguardian.com/world/liv......"
Do you think it's totally reasonable to lay everything on Trump though? He has a lot of interest groups supporting and/or funding him. If not wholly behind him, Republicans - and a large number of Democrats with the exception of people like AOC - are essentially complicit. His public address after the bombing, for example, with the strong emphasis on God, seemed designed to appeal to the large numbers of Christian Zionist Americans who think that supporting Israel will bring them closer to fulfilling their Rapture fantasies. Otherwise it can start to sound like the Germans post WW2, including ones who'd benefited from the Nazi regime, who made everything about Hitler, as if he could have done what he did without vast numbers falling in line behind him. Trump seems to me as much, if not more, symptom as cause.
Mod
That said, there seems to be a lot of support for this action with people believing the nuclear weapons narrative, despite the lack of evidence. Even more jaw-dropping is Americans saying on BBC interviews that they trust Trump's judgement - I can't even ...
Roman Clodia wrote: "What I find interesting is to what extent Trump is falling in line with his backers/funders, and to what extent he's increasingly high on his own sense of power. I think you're right about a regime..."Trump couldn't do what he does without a system that's effectively set up to allow/enable him from the Supreme Court to ridiculously powerful American corporations to Republicans afraid of losing re-election support/funding onwards. He's interesting in that he appears to be a maverick but is always in some sense reflecting vested interests of one kind or another. Ties to Israel which have been very lucrative for various American politicians - Ted Cruz and AIPAC a prime example - go some way to explaining the rush to support Netanyahu. And the attack on Iran is in line with the Republican party hawks' way of thinking, and it's highly likely Trump will also personally profit in some way. That's not to mention the potential boost to things like the weapons industry. And I've already mentioned the nod to the American evangelical lobby which pours a great deal of money into Israel funding West Bank settlements etc Trump just goes that little bit further and is more transparent/less apologetic about his actions.
And, in any case, the notion of America as free and liberal was always a myth - this is after all a country founded on religious fanaticism, slavery and genocide. McCarthyism killed off the development of any credible progressive politics. And America's flexed its muscles for decades. Isn't it estimated that American foreign policy is responsible for at least four million deaths post WW2? Not to mention hordes of displaced peoples, devastated countries etc Trump just doesn't bother trying to sugarcoat any of that, he flaunts and revels. The question is how far that's sustainable given America's precarious economic situation.
Roman Clodia wrote: "What I find interesting is to what extent Trump is falling in line with his backers/funders, and to what extent he's increasingly high on his own sense of power. I think you're right about a regime..."And yes polling on Iran quite interesting, responses very much dependent on the framing of the question. If presented simply as going to war then responses suggested little to no support, if framed in terms of protecting America from being nuked then pretty popular.
I usually don't participate in the political discussions but I am happy to see this elevating the conversation from scapegoating Trump to pointing out more general criticisms that account for Trump. Like you said, Trump exists through the cooperation of the members of the party that elected him. We have a two party system and each party is composed of various minority factions that IMO define the term, "strange bedfellows," but the parties exploit the worst of those minority factions' wishes to generate the voting blocs needed to win an election. Then the party runs for president someone whose name/celebrity can be recognized and has enough appeal to win without regard to capability. That is far too simplified but I think our focus should be on process not individuals. I imagine the world has caught up to the flaws in the American political process and what's needed is a new constitutional convention to perhaps write out some of the flaws, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. My words aren't meant to defend Trump; I just don't see the problem going away with Trump. Seven Supreme Court Justices are Catholic with six of them appointed by Republicans. How can anyone not expect a bias? If parties won't be broken down into the factions they represent, then they should be held to stricter rules on the behavior in how they exploit and reward factions especially in areas like separation of church and state or equality for all.
I just read that JCO is speaking tomorrow evening at a small agricultural & business university near me.
As an American, the other day I heard a radio host (NPR) ask what being American means to you. The first word that came to my mind was shame. As the others have rightly pointed out, the orange one has gamed the system very successfully. For America to work, it needs people with intellect and morals in the government and judiciary and citizens. At this point there are some like that but not a majority.The line "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" was famously spoken by Joseph Welch, special counsel for the U.S. Army, during the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954.
This was the beginning of the end for that demoguage . Will anyone step to the plate now? Highly unlikely.
I see Trump and the evangelical faction (among other factions) as feeding off of each other. He sees everything through the lense of reality television. How will this play on TV? Is his constant question. How to push things and yet not to push them so far that MAGA turns against him. And yet I hear that on one issue or another that 85% is against what he is doing.
Mod
If you go, I'd love to hear more about JCO in person.
Roman Clodia wrote: "G wrote: "I just read that JCO is speaking tomorrow evening at a small agricultural & business university near me."If you go, I'd love to hear more about JCO in person."
I thought about it, but tonight my local art house is showing The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance in 35 mm, and I think that's going to win out.
G wrote: "Roman Clodia wrote: "G wrote: "I just read that JCO is speaking tomorrow evening at a small agricultural & business university near me."If you go, I'd love to hear more about JCO in person."
I t..."
Great film must have been quite jarring on first release, such a departure for James Stewart.
Alwynne wrote: "G wrote: "Roman Clodia wrote: "G wrote: "I just read that JCO is speaking tomorrow evening at a small agricultural & business university near me."If you go, I'd love to hear more about JCO in per..."
It was jarring to me in 2025 to see him wearing an apron and washing dishes! Turns out I'd not seen the whole movie before, though I've either seen clips of some famous moments or John Wayne only changed his costumes and not his lines.
I kept thinking about the work of Heather Cox Richardson and Kristin Du Mez as I watched. Richardson has been writing and speaking recently about what she is calling the idea of dominance -- including the idea that reality is what the party/politician/media personality asserts -- as an organizing principle for this regime and its antecedents. The myth of the individualistic, white, male cowboy (never mind that the West was completely dependent on community, that at least a third of the cowboys were Black, and women were powerful actors in building the West) is an important icon and inspiration for that principle. Du Mez of course wrote Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation, which talks about how a particular type of male dominance is a key feature of American evangelicalism. Watching this film in this moment was very interesting for the way it illustrates both' points while undercutting the assumptions of that dominance mindset.
G wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "G wrote: "Roman Clodia wrote: "G wrote: "I just read that JCO is speaking tomorrow evening at a small agricultural & business university near me."If you go, I'd love to hear more ..."
What you say about male dominance in American Christianity is so true from what I have read. As you all correctly state the whole myth of the American west are based on fantasy. The "brave" cowboy "civilizing" the indigenous people. Also that America was "discovered" completely elimating the people who lived here all along.
Alwynne wrote: "G wrote: "Roman Clodia wrote: "G wrote: "I just read that JCO is speaking tomorrow evening at a small agricultural & business university near me."If you go, I'd love to hear more about JCO in per..."
I don't recall it as being especially jarring. Of course I was probably about 12 at the time. Not a particularly discerning age. And I have seen it innumerable times on TV over the years.
Although it may have been the first time I had seen a gangster-type threatening the freedom of the press.
Jan C wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "G wrote: "Roman Clodia wrote: "G wrote: "I just read that JCO is speaking tomorrow evening at a small agricultural & business university near me."If you go, I'd love to hear more ..."
Certainly John Ford intended Stewart's role to be jarring. He deliberately cast him against John Wayne because of the types they were most often associated with, particularly when they were starting out as actors. But the narrative then takes them in wholly unexpected directions. Stewart the hapless everyman, with a strong idealistic streak - as in his roles in Mr Smith Goes to Washington, Destry Rides again etc Wayne quintessential cowboy/frontiersman. They stand for competing ideals of masculinity but also competing ideas of America. Wayne is the rugged individual of American foundation myths but ultimately becomes obsolete thus demonstrating their falsity/redundancy; Stewart becomes more steely and pragmatic but at the same time underlines the ascendence of different value systems, politics, law etc But I think there's also an element of lament over how America was once framed versus the reality - glimpsed in Vera Miles's reactions to Wayne's fate in her scenes towards the end of the movie.
I've never read Anita Brookner, and am wondering where those of you who have recommend that one begin.
Mod
I liked her Hotel du Lac a lot and we had a great discussion about it here. But I dnf all her other books I tried... Nigeyb is more of a fan than me and I think others here also had more success than me.
Mod
G wrote: "I've never read Anita Brookner, and am wondering where those of you who have recommend that one begin."
I've replied over on our Brookner fave author thread....
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
I am also interested in the enduring nature of the line cowboy as a template for American Masculinity . Hollywood, in it's nascent years, had a lot to do with embedding it in the imagination. Understandable, with the popular narrative of heroism, violence and adventure . I am also curious as to whether it influenced other ideas of masculinity in those other "wide open empty spaces" of colonisation such as Russia , Australia and South America . Certainly Putin understood the Russian version when younger , with his bare chest and hunting .. although I did read his cosplay was more a spin on James Bond ....another fantastically successful literary trope supercharged by film .
Hester wrote: "I am also interested in the enduring nature of the line cowboy as a template for American Masculinity . Hollywood, in it's nascent years, had a lot to do with embedding it in the imagination. Under..."That's a really interesting question Hester, sent me down a rabbit hole or two. It wouldn't have been an issue in the same way it was for many European countries - Germany where American cinema was used as a postwar propaganda tool. The Cold War years would have meant that, what was, the Soviet Union was presumably relatively insulated against Hollywood's output? There weren't any technologies like home satellite, video players or DVDs which would also have narrowed 'bootleg' access.
Reading the 20th Century
Books mentioned in this topic
Emma (other topics)Sea Now (other topics)
Decline and Fall (other topics)
A Handful of Dust (other topics)
Brideshead Revisited: The Sacred and Profane Memories of Captain Charles Ryder (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Carl Sandburg (other topics)Evelyn Waugh (other topics)
Elizabeth Taylor (other topics)
Celia Fremlin (other topics)
Sylvia Townsend Warner (other topics)
More...
Is that boo loudly or boo hoo loudly? Both should be considered.