Andreas Kluth: Even Republicans are now calling out Putin’s lies

posted in: Politics | 0

As America’s support for Ukraine hangs in the balance, so does its commitment to truth over lies, and its resolve to resist Russian disinformation. The good news, after lots and lots of bad news, is that the pro-truth, pro-Ukraine resistance is now, at last, mobilizing even inside the Republican Party in Congress.

Troll and bot armies commanded by Russian President Vladimir Putin have been waging active information warfare against the U.S. and other Western democracies for years. And Putin’s tactics seem to be working: Witness the aid package to Kyiv that’s been stuck in Congress for half a year, and is now likely to come up again within weeks. One reason for the delay, which costs Ukrainian lives every day, is that Putin’s lies have messed with the minds of some Republicans in Congress — few in number, but enough to cause trouble and deadlock.

The reality distortions and inversions include Kremlin memes suggesting that Ukraine and its president are corrupt or even at fault for the war, that Putin and his invasion aren’t really that bad, and that all sorts of other problems — Joe Biden, the southern border, you name it — are immeasurably more urgent. The most influential “useful idiot” (a term of art dating to Soviet times) regurgitating Putin’s narratives is of course former President Donald Trump, who increasingly phones and tweets direct instructions to his MAGA cronies in Congress.

That’s why it’s encouraging to see Republicans including Michael McCaul, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, openly admitting that “Russian propaganda has made its way into the United States, unfortunately, and it’s infected a good chunk of my party’s base.” Such candor allows other Republicans to speak out too. Rep. Michael Turner, chair of the intelligence committee, says that McCaul’s assessment is “absolutely true,” and that some of the Russian memes “we even hear being uttered on the House floor.”

Calling out and rejecting disinformation from any source is the only way to meet this threat, as another Republican, Ronald Reagan, demonstrated in the 1980s. Back then, long before most of us logged on to the internet, the Kremlin’s disinformation machines were already humming, as the New York Times has documented. All KGB agents had to devote at least 25% of their time to producing deception campaigns to make Americans hate and distrust one another and their government. And one of those KGB agents was a young Vladimir Putin.

A textbook example was Operation Infektion.

In 1983 the KGB planted a made-up narrative in a pliable and obscure Third World newspaper, Patriot Magazine in New Delhi. The lie was that the U.S. government had engineered the AIDS virus to kill Black Americans and gay people. Then the Soviets waited for a few years. Eventually, they ran the same story in a Moscow newspaper, citing Patriot Magazine as a source. They also found useful idiots (again, they actually use that term) in the form of a married couple in East Germany, who put a scientific sheen on the fabrication. Newspapers in Africa and other regions, including the U.S., then reported on what we would call the thread. The climax came in 1987, when Dan Rather read the allegation out loud on the CBS evening news.

The difference between then and now is that Reagan confronted Mikhail Gorbachev with the hoax, and the Soviet leader publicly apologized. The similarity is that even this retraction didn’t stop millions of people from believing this bilge to this day.

Once Putin became president of Russia and the internet’s newfangled social media invaded our lives, the Kremlin kept upping its game. The recipe stayed the same, though. Moscow looks for pathologies in the target society (racial tensions, worries about migration or partisan polarization, say), then curates distortions or lies to make those worse. It usually seeks out some kernel of truth (an actual pizza parlor in Washington that’s mentioned in a campaign email, say), then builds a Big Lie on top of it (that Democrats run a pedophile ring from said pizza parlor). Russia always hides and denies its own role in seeding the lie, while letting the useful idiots in the target society’s media or politics do the work of spreading. The overall goal is to get us to tear each other apart.

This is also how Moscow interfered, for example, in the U.S. election of 2016 and continues to meddle today, as the Washington Post has revealed, after obtaining internal Kremlin documents. The Russians instruct their troll farms to impersonate Americans and create posts, videos or articles — often on social-media accounts that are deleted as soon as the disinformation has been reshared — to stoke hysteria over immigration, inflation, crime or the Biden administration.

And, of course, to cast doubt on Ukraine as a victim of Russian aggression and a defender of its own liberty and the whole international order. Here’s just one lie with eerie echoes of that AIDS hoax from the 1980s. The Russians, via several intermediaries, planted a fabrication in an American internet publication that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had pilfered American aid money to buy himself two luxury yachts. It was nonsense. And yet people including the most idiotic of useful idiots, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, linked to the story and tweeted that “anyone who votes to fund Ukraine is funding the most corrupt money scheme of any foreign war in our country’s history.”

And where is Trump in all this? In 2016 he benefited from Russian disinformation, even though he may not have “colluded” in it. His Big Lie that the 2020 election was “stolen” is also a favorite of the Russian trolls. His first impeachment centered on his attempt to browbeat Zelenskyy into digging up dirt on Biden. After Putin attacked Ukraine in 2022, Trump called the invasion “genius.” More recently, he “encouraged” Putin to attack “delinquent” NATO countries (which he defines as those not paying enough for defense). And he’s bragged that he could end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours, using his allegedly unrivaled negotiating skills.

How he would do that is unclear. But his idea seems to involve coercing Ukraine into ceding large parts of the territory Russia has conquered, including Crimea and the Donbas. How or why that would prevent Putin from rearming and regrouping and attacking again a few years later, in Ukraine or elsewhere, is nebulous.

One person who remains remarkably disciplined in this geopolitical clown show is Zelenskyy. The Ukrainian leader knows that he needs the U.S. for his country to survive, and also that Trump may well return to the White House. Lamenting the Russian penetration of the American political system, Zelenskyy has now renewed an invitation to Trump to visit Ukraine. One can only hope that such a journey would lead Trump to a moment of truth, or what Freudians call an “encounter with the real.”

Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering U.S. diplomacy, national security and geopolitics. Previously, he was editor-in-chief of Handelsblatt Global and a writer for the Economist.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Alison Schrager: The 4-day work week is decades away

Opinion |


James Stavridis: Putin’s new front in the Ukraine war is in the Balkans

Opinion |


Thomas Friedman: Iran made a big mistake. Israel shouldn’t follow. Now, isolate Iran.

Opinion |


Jamelle Bouie: When politicians invoke the Founding Fathers, remember this

Opinion |


Other voices: Criminal justice reform is alive. Thank conservatives

Gretchen’s table: Chicken shawarma in a bowl is a tasty, healthy meal

posted in: News | 0

Protein bowls are appealing for many reasons, the biggest of which is they’re incredibly versatile.

Whether you top them with a lean meat like roasted chicken or a fatty, good-for-you fish like salmon — or opt for a vegetarian source of protein such as tofu or canned chickpeas — bowls can fill you up with countless combinations, while also making you feel great about how well you’re eating.

Plus, they’re easy to assemble on a busy weeknight or quick lunch break, without the need for any fancy-pants equipment. Besides its namesake dish, all that’s really required to create the perfect lunch or dinner bowl is a cutting board for all the chopping (of toppings) and a small bowl for a bit of mixing (of sauce).

Start with a base of rice, quinoa, farro or another grain. Or choose a sturdy, leafy green such as spinach, Romaine lettuce or baby kale. After the chosen protein, pile on whatever crunchy vegetables are killing time in your fridge, add a healthy fat such as feta cheese and sliced avocado or a handful of nuts or seeds. Then, drizzle it with a yogurt-based sauce, vinaigrette or squeeze of lemon.

This recipe, which was adapted from a similar dish that showed up on my social media feed, features aromatic, Mediterranean-style chicken shawarma cooked in a loaf pan with red onion and then shredded. Chickpeas and assorted veggies complete the combo, along with a generous scoop of white rice.

If you prepare the grains and chop the toppings while the chicken thighs are roasting, you’ll only need about 5 minutes to pull it all together come meal time. Sweet!

Chicken Shawarma Bowl

INGREDIENTS

For chicken:

2 pounds boneless chicken thigh, fat trimmed
2-3 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
Salt and freshly cracked black pepper
2 tablespoons plain yogurt
Juice of 1 lemon
1 tablespoon dried thyme
1 1/2 tablespoons garlic powder
1 tablespoon smoked paprika
1/2 teaspoon cayenne pepper
1/2 teaspoon turmeric
1/2 teaspoon cumin
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon
Dash of ground nutmeg
1/2 large or 1 small red onion, thinly sliced

For bowl:

1 1/2 cups cooked white or brown rice
1 cup whole canned chickpeas
2 small cucumbers, sliced into half-moons
1 red or yellow bell pepper, seeds and ribs removed, chopped
1/2 cup feta cheese crumbles
Chopped parsley, for garnish

For sauce:

1 cup plain Greek yogurt
2 cloves garlic, minced
1 tablespoon chopped fresh dill
Juice of 1 lemon

DIRECTIONS

Prepare chicken: Trim fat off chicken thighs, season generously with salt and pepper and place in a large bowl. Drizzle with olive oil.
In small bowl, mix yogurt and lemon juice, then add to bowl with chicken and toss to combine with a rubber spatula.
In another bowl, combine thyme, garlic powder, paprika, cayenne, turmeric, cumin, cinnamon and nutmeg. Add to pan with chicken, and toss well to combine. (Feel free to add more or less of any particular seasoning.)
Add sliced onion to bowl, toss to combine and then allow to marinate for an hour or up to a day in the fridge. Or you can place it in a loaf pan and cook it right away.
When ready to cook, preheat oven to 425 degrees, and bring chicken mixture up to room temperature (if it’s been in the fridge). Pack chicken and onions into a loaf pan, then cook in hot oven for 45-55 minutes (instant thermometer should read 160 degrees.)
While chicken is cooking, prepare rice according to package directions, drain and rinse chickpeas and chop vegetables. Prepare sauce by mixing together yogurt, garlic, dill and lemon juice, then set aside.
When chicken is done, drain excess juices from the pan and flip the loaf pan onto a cutting board. Cut the meat into thin strips or chunks.
Assemble bowls with a scoop of rice, 1/4 cup chickpeas, sliced vegetables and feta. Add chopped chicken, then drizzle with sauce. Season to taste with additional salt and pepper, if desired, and serve. Use leftover chicken (there will be plenty) for a salad or sandwich the next day,

Serves 4.

— Gretchen McKay, Post-Gazette

Related Articles

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Spring fever menu: Herby chicken and noodles, asparagus salad and citrus ambrosia

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Passover recipe: Turmeric Vegetable Matzo Ball Soup

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Passover Recipe: Cast-Iron Potato and Caramelized Onion Kugel

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


With ‘functional’ beverages, brands rush to quench a thirst for drinks that do more than taste good

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Chef-driven eatery opens in former No Neck Tony’s in Lake Elmo

Alison Schrager: The 4-day work week is decades away

posted in: News | 0

Billionaires and Bernie Sanders agree on at least one thing: They see a four-day workweek in America’s future. Hedge fund manager Steve Cohen is investing in golf courses because he anticipates a big increase in leisure time, and IAC founder Barry Diller is expecting people to be in the office only four days a week. The senator from Vermont, meanwhile, has proposed legislation that will set the workweek to 32 hours.

Put me down as skeptical. Some big technological innovations promise to make people more productive, but a four-day workweek will not be the norm anytime soon. And legislation imposing it over the next four years would harm the economy.

The first question is what a “four-day workweek” means. Sometimes it means working 40 hours in four days instead of five, though this tends to be less efficient. Or it may mean working an eight-hour day four days a week, which is what Sanders has in mind. Both kinds of arrangements have become more common over the years in the U.S. and elsewhere — though much of the increase is among people who work fewer than 40 hours.

As for the merits of the idea, there are basically two arguments for a shorter workweek. One presumes that people waste so much time at work that working 20% less won’t make a difference if they use the time more efficiently. A few small studies, mainly in non-customer-facing service jobs, find that a 20% drop in hours does not result in a decline in revenue.

But whether this finding applies to more labor-intensive jobs is doubtful. The only large experiment comes from France, which imposed a 35-hour workweek in 1998 on large firms, with the hope it would increase employment. Studies show it did not increase employment or happiness — and France later tried to appeal it.

The Sanders bill is in many ways worse than the French law. Like that law, it does not force people to work fewer hours. Instead, it lowers the threshold at which overtime pay kicks in. The Sanders bill also stipulates that employers can’t reduce pay if people work fewer hours as a result, so for some workers it would be akin to a 20% pay increase on an hourly basis.

That is a remarkable burden to impose on the economy (though some workers will be exempt). Perhaps some very profitable companies will be able to accommodate such a big pay increase. Advocates insist that people will be so happy and productive, companies won’t notice any difference. But a 20% productivity increase just from being happier and more engaged? And for many firms — in, say, manufacturing, or industries where face time is necessary — the productivity gains from higher morale are more limited.

The labor-time-intensive jobs also tend to be at companies that have lower margins. When Iceland reduced the workweek by just a few hours for 1% of its population about a decade ago, the Icelandic government had to hire more people, increasing labor costs. A 20% wage increase will force many private firms to either close, increase prices or replace workers with technology. The gains from the Sanders bill will mostly benefit high-skill and well-paid workers in already productive companies.

Besides which, imposing fewer hours may not be necessary. The 40-hour workweek has been the full-time standard since 1938 in the US, but even without big legislative changes, work hours have fallen as technology and wealth have shortened the workweek for many people in the developed world. There are reasons to believe this trend will continue.

The other, somewhat related, argument for a shorter workweek is that technology makes people more productive, enabling them to work less. In 1930, for example, John Maynard Keynes envisioned a 15-hour workweek.

That did not pan out. But Keynes was not totally wrong: People are working fewer hours than they did in his day. Back then, low-wage workers tended to work more. Today, high earners do. Technology does not always mean people work less. What matters is how technology affects their job. In the last 50 years technology has tended to benefit high-skill workers, so working more brought them greater gains.

Now technology allows for working from home and more flexibility — for white-collar workers. This will probably enable more part-time work and fewer hours for high earners, and perhaps a convergence toward everyone working less.

Overall, however, when it comes to economic matters, I have more faith in John Maynard Keynes than in Bernie Sanders. By which I mean, we’ll all probably be working fewer work hours in the future. But it will be several decades before the 32-hour workweek is standard — and moving to it too soon will make a lot of people worse off.

Allison Schrager is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering economics. A senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, she is author of “An Economist Walks Into a Brothel: And Other Unexpected Places to Understand Risk.”

Related Articles

Opinion |


Andreas Kluth: Even Republicans are now calling out Putin’s lies

Opinion |


James Stavridis: Putin’s new front in the Ukraine war is in the Balkans

Opinion |


Thomas Friedman: Iran made a big mistake. Israel shouldn’t follow. Now, isolate Iran.

Opinion |


Jamelle Bouie: When politicians invoke the Founding Fathers, remember this

Opinion |


Other voices: Criminal justice reform is alive. Thank conservatives

Other voices: Iran’s attack failed. Its threat to peace remains

posted in: Society | 0

Though largely thwarted by Israel and its allies, the assault launched by Iran against the Jewish state over the weekend was a powerful reminder that the Tehran regime remains the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East. Israel’s security would be best served now through resolve and restraint, rather than military escalation.

Iranian leaders tried to portray Saturday’s attack as a proportional response to a presumed Israeli strike that killed a top Iranian commander and several advisers in Damascus, Syria, on April 1. The operation involved more than 300 drones and cruise and ballistic missiles, with Iran attacking Israel from its own territory for the first time. The assault dramatically increased the risk of a regionwide war, even if Iran hoped the matter was now “concluded.”

In military terms, Iran’s attack was a failure. Israeli and U.S. forces, with help from the U.K., France, Jordan and possibly some of Israel’s other Arab neighbors, shot down an estimated 99% of the incoming missiles and drones, most of them before they reached Israeli airspace. Rather than reinforcing Israel’s isolation, the attack illustrated how strong its alliances remain despite anger over its conduct of the war against Hamas in Gaza. President Joe Biden rightly vowed “ironclad” support for Israel’s defense, even as he pressures Israeli leaders to ease conditions for Gazans.

Like any state, Israel reserves the right to respond to a direct assault on its territory. But a tit-for-tat strike on Iran would cast Israel once again as the aggressor, jeopardizing the support of Europe and even the U.S. Meanwhile, the war in Gaza is far from finished, with top Hamas leaders still free and more than 100 Israeli hostages in captivity. The border with Lebanon remains unsettled, preventing thousands of Israelis from returning to their homes in the north. After months of fighting, Israel’s military is stretched.

The obvious strength of Israel’s defenses should serve as some deterrent against future Iranian attacks. Covert action by Israel has had success degrading Iran’s nuclear program and its network of militant proxies and could be used again.

Most important, restraint would allow Israel and its supporters to capitalize on the moment, not least by reminding Arab neighbors where their true interests lie. The failed strikes underscore the danger Iran poses to them as well as to Israel. Iran’s nuclear advances — it can now assemble enough fissile material for several bombs within weeks — threaten a regional arms race. Its proxies have attacked the Saudi and Gulf monarchies in the past; the détente they have struck with Tehran is unlikely to last. In foiling the weekend attack, the U.S. and Israel have demonstrated to Arab leaders just how useful they can be as partners.

The Biden administration should seize this opportunity to further isolate Iran within the region and beyond. The U.S. should work with its G-7 partners to refocus global attention on Iran’s destructive behavior, including its continued support for militant groups like Hamas, its supply of drones and missiles to Russia for use against Ukraine, and its continued stonewalling of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Simultaneously, U.S. officials should press ahead with efforts to revive a deal to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which could open the door to a broader and more unified coalition to contain Iran.

Israel’s long-term security requires peaceful relations with its neighbors, including the Palestinians, coupled with containment of Iran and its proxies. Rigorous and assertive diplomacy is needed to accomplish those objectives and prevent a wider war.

— The Bloomberg Opinion editorial board

Related Articles

Editorials |


Other voices: Criminal justice reform is alive. Thank conservatives

Editorials |


Other voices: Legal marijuana is making roads deadlier

Editorials |


Other voices: The U.S. still owes a debt to its Afghan allies

Editorials |


Other voices: No, voters aren’t imagining it. Inflation has been a bear

Editorials |


Other voices: When crime comes for Congress, it funds the police