R A

Good morning, and Happy Spring! Here is today’s ramble:

And here is the transcript, edited for clarity:

Good morning. I’m recording this on Thursday, March 20th. It’s 5:30 in the afternoon. Trump has just signed an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education. The fact that he put the wrestling lady at the top of that department should have been an indication that this was always his plan. That’s where we’re at.

I’ve been thinking a lot this week about messaging, because there’s a lot of blame going around. And for the Democrats—and rightly so, especially the Democratic leadership, which has just failed. Point-blank failed. Whether it’s Schumer now and the Democratic leadership in Congress now, or Biden and Merrick Garland before failing to take the threat seriously, or you can go back to Obama in 2016. Same thing. Failed to take the threat seriously, failed to act, assumed that everything was just going to be hunky-dory and the way that it’s always been, and this is just their turn and we’ll have our turn back—and all that kind of stuff, without really reading the room or understanding the situation that we’re in and how dire it is.

But people like to say, “The messaging is bad. The Democrats’ messaging is bad.” I want to push back on that a little bit, just as a thought experiment. Blaming is kind of a waste of time at this point, I realize that, but I want to talk a little bit about messaging. Kamala Harris had very good messaging in the campaign. That was a very, very well-run campaign, and it brought together a lot of people. A lot of people were very, very excited by her in a way that I haven’t seen in a long, long time. That doesn’t mean everybody was, obviously, but an awful lot of people were, and the message did resonate to some degree.

And I think the problem isn’t the message that’s being sent out. The problem is the messengers. The problem is the media, and how these messages get reported. And it’s not changing any. I think—I don’t know what the solution is. I just want to point it out. Okay.

Most people in this country, most of them are unaware of what’s happening right now. They do not know the direness of the threat that we’re under. They just don’t, people don’t understand what’s happening. Plenty of people do, for sure. And plenty of people are also for it; you know—they love Trump, they love MAGA, they think Elon Musk is a genius, they’re just fascists, whatever. And I would say probably the same percentage on our side looks around and says, “Oh my God, the country’s on fire. What are we doing? What are we doing? Why are we just sitting around like everything’s going to be normal? Cause it’s not!”

But there’s a vast group of Americans in the middle who are unaware. And part of the reason they’re unaware is their own fault. They should be aware. It’s a luxury to be unaware of what’s happening in the government. And they’re a victim of that luxury, you know? That’s one thing.

The other thing is that the legacy media isn’t telling them what the threat level is. And that’s the thing that I think I have the most problem with. People are often like, “The Washington Post sucks! Let’s ban the Washington Post!” and “Fuck the New York Times!” or whatever, whatever media outlet it is. And all of these media outlets have not done a good job. Okay. That’s for sure. The legacy ones.

But the ones like the Times and the Washington Post and CNN, these outlets that are supposed to be down the middle are not down the middle. And because they’re continuing to report on things as if everything is normal, that makes the people that aren’t paying attention think that the rest of us are exaggerating the threat level. And that’s the problem that I have right now. I could say, “My God, this is happening. Trump is doing this. Musk is doing that. They’re gonna take away Social Security. They’re gonna kill Medicaid. They’re gonna do all these terrible things!” Which is true. That’s what they’re doing.

But somebody might listen to me say that, and then turn on the TV, and CNN’s not talking about it. Fox News certainly isn’t talking about it. New York Times isn’t really talking about it in the way that it needs to be talked about. And so they just continue to say, “It’s not gonna happen, you’re just exaggerating, everything will be fine. Everything will be fine. It’s always been fine before. It’s gonna be fine now.”

I want to give some examples of what I mean. I went to the just the home pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times. And I want to read just some of the headlines of these articles. And just listen to the way, the tentative way, that they describe what’s happening right now:

That’s such a whitewashing of what’s going on. It’s remaking itself in Trump’s image because Trump is a Nazi. He’s a Nazi, he’s a Hitler-like figure. And for the Justice Department to fashion itself in Trump’s image, which is what it says in the headline, doesn’t mean anything other than, he is weaponizing it. And you can tell by anti-corruption efforts, you know, she’s gonna curtail the anti-corruption efforts. What does that mean? That means they want corruption. That’s what it means. So think about how that headline might be written, you know, to actually convey the threat level. It wouldn’t be like that.

Okay, here’s another one:

Hmm. First of all, Canadians are right to perceive it as a threat. It is a threat. And the origin of it is: he’s a Nazi. This is what Nazis do. You know, Hitler didn’t just hang out in Germany. He rolled into the neighboring country that was weaker. Remember?That’s what happened in World War II. That’s what Nazis do.

So right off the bat, these two headlines from the same paper—Washington Post—are Nazi stuff, but they’re not covering it that way. They’re not linking them together. It’s just, “Huh, why is Trump obsessed with Canada?” Gee, I wonder why.

Another headline:

Now, that’s a very, very, down the middle kind of headline, and it is accurate. But it doesn’t talk about what’s really happening, which is that Trump is not allowed to deploy troops on U.S. soil. That’s not allowed. It is forbidden in the Constitution. It’s just not something that he’s allowed to do. And he’s basically moving a military base right on the border as a way to kind of fudge it. He’s saying, “I’m not putting troops there. I’m putting a military base there. And of course the troops can be on the military base.” So it’s a loophole, but it is a way of mobilizing the armed forces of the United States on U.S. soil, which is not something he’s allowed to do.

So again, Nazi. Right, now we go over to the Times, the New York Times:

Let me make it perfectly clear. Yes, of course, Trump is going to do it that way. Duh. So maybe like act like that’s what’s gonna happen. Why else would this be a thing? Why else would he be doing this? This is just a way to open the door for him to, you know, let anybody enter the home without warrants. Immigration can come to my house, come to your house. What do they know? They’re already arresting people that are here legally. So it’s pretty ridiculous.

Could? Ya think? See, now, this has to be linked to the Department of Education stuff. It’s all of a piece, right? It’s all a piece to control the education system.

I remember sitting in middle school, in my middle school, junior high school, we called it, in Madison, New Jersey, and there was a quote from Benjamin Franklin on top of the stage and it said, “The foundation of every state is the education of its youth.” And I remember just staring at that and being like, “Whatever dude, who cares? Why is that relevant?” Well, suddenly, today, it is relevant, because what Trump wants to do and what his administration wants to do is completely derail the education system—because that’s where free thought occurs. They want to indoctrinate everybody, which is, again, what Nazis do.

So; getting rid of the Department of Education, plus taking over universities, which is what is gonna happen at Columbia—that’s bad. That’s like, again, it’s Nazi shit.

And then, finally:

This is a ridiculous joke. These two people are not—that’s not a real—this isn’t statesmanship. This isn’t like Bismarck sitting down with, you know, the Prime Minister of Britain. That’s not what’s happening here. These are two crooks. They’re two thugs. This is a sit-down, like on The Sopranos. That’s what it is.

And the fact that they’re taking it seriously, like they’re statesmen, like this is a sanctioned activity by a nation that isn’t completely corrupt and anti-democratic is frankly—it’s an insult to the readers.

And Vladimir V. Putin? Thank you. I thought it was Vladimir C. Putin. Thank you, New York Times, for clarifying. They do this dumb shit with their, you know, their style. Mr. This, Mrs. That, they have to, you know, hew to that.

They can’t change. And I don’t think they’re going to change. And that’s what what scares me. I don’t know where this is going. But I think one thing that people can do, you know, is to curate your own news. There’s plenty of outlets doing really great work right now. ProPublica, obviously, there are great reporters at the New York Times, The Washington Post doing great work right now. You know, the AP is doing great stuff. People at the Wall Street Journal are doing great stuff. And obviously, the magazines, you know, New Republic, Atlantic, Mother Jones, The Nation, on and on.

But the people that need to be reached, that are in the middle, that don’t know what’s going on, are not gonna read The New Republic. They’re just not. So it’s up to us to talk to people and tell them what’s going on and try to connect it with things that are happening in the world. And I think it’s gonna be easier and easier as things get bleaker and bleaker and worse and worse—which I guess is good news? I don’t know.

All right, too much prattle for today. I just wanted to get that off my chest and kind of, I don’t know, go through it a little bit because again, I think it’s incumbent upon our legacy media to kind of step up here. And if they’re not going to do it, it’s incumbent on us to cancel the legacy media and make people go elsewhere for news. And I think that’s just the way that it has to go. The magazines are doing great work. If that’s the way it has to be, fine. There’s other newspapers besides these, you know, the Philadelphia Inquirer, for one, doing great work. Support those papers and that’s it, you know, try to curate as best you can.

And if you’re watching this, you’re probably doing a good job with the curation, but there are plenty of people in your orbit—if you’re anything like me—who are not. So, that’s it. That’s something we can do.

I think it’s today, the first day of spring. I think it is. I think March 21st is the first day of spring. So I don’t know. Let’s go, spring?

Have a great weekend everybody. Until next time, we shall prevail!

Share

TONIGHT’S SHOW

Join is at 8pm ET, 5pm PT, as we discuss each of the week’s five most fucked-up topics for eight minutes each on The Five 8:

And for you Severance fans:

Dear Reader,

In March of 2011—13 years ago this month—I found myself, through some bit of extraordinary luck, on a panel with three other novelists at the Quais du Polar literary festival in Lyon, France—a gorgeous city that looks very much like the backdrop for a piece of crime fiction.

We were there, if memory serves, to talk about strong female protagonists in crime fiction—en Anglais, thank God—but the discussion wound up deviating from the intended topic. At one point, we were asked about the utility of the novel. In a century of smart phones and dumb tweets, with attention spans shorter than ever and shrinking on the daily, what possible purpose could such an analog medium serve?

I had no ready answer for such an existential question. Writing novels was just something I did. I didn’t really think about why I did it, or whether novels still mattered, any more than the Christian zealot contemplates the existence of God. Fortunately, the French novelist Sylvie Granotier was prepared. It is exactly the analog nature of the form that makes the novel so necessary, she said. In a world of ADHD, she patiently explained—in English as fluent as my French was not—the novel, alone among the art forms, demanded more, not less, attention from its readers. Only the novel could combat the erosion of our collective ability to focus. And it accomplishes this not with car chases and explosions, but by insisting that its readers move at the deliberate pace set by the novelist.

“The power of the novel,” she said, “lies in its ability to stop time.”

A baker’s dozen of years later, Granotier’s words seem even more prescient. Life moves faster than ever: news, information, images, cultural touchstones, dashing across my phone, whirling around the gyroscope of my mind. Everything feels frenzied—a mad race to some blurry finish line, which when we reach it winds up being the starting point for yet another race. Attention spans are a casualty of the Age of Trump. If the world was ADHD in 2011, it has now tipped into straight-up chaos.

Take music, for example. Time was, there were operas. There were symphonies. Then there were musicals. Then, with the emergence of technology, albums: on vinyl, on cassette, on compact disc. With iTunes and Spotify, it was about no longer about albums but individual songs. And then, finally, thanks to TikTok and Instagram, snippets of individual songs. Just the hooks.

This new model of consuming art and music and fiction and news is not inherently worse, any more than it was inherently better when folks were happy to sit through a four-hour Shakespeare production. The difference, I think, is that a change that used to happen gradually, over many decades, has taken place in my lifetime, such that my own brain has had to adapt to fit the times. In college, I used to watch films constantly. I’d consume two or three a day, because I wanted to have seen everything. Now, I can barely sit through a two hour movie. I get bored. My mind wanders. The action on the screen cannot shout down the voice in my head warning of the futility of the whole enterprise. I hate when this happens.

So in keeping with Granotier’s advice, I have resolved, this year, to read more novels. To make a practice of focusing my mind. To, hopefully, defrag my brain. That’s what brought me, a week or two ago, to the used bookstore in town, where I picked up a copy of The Transit of Venus, by Shirley Hazzard. It called out to me from the shelf. I knew nothing about the novel beyond some vague memory of it being well regarded. Plus, it wasn’t intimidatingly long.

I’m elated to report, Dear Reader, that this was the perfect book for me to read at this moment. According to a piece I read about it after I finished, The Transit of Venus is a book that readers, and younger readers especially, abandon. This makes sense. It is, I think, a novel for grown-ups. It’s also a novel for novelists. Hazzard follows some of the standard rules of novelwriting, breaks others, and seems to invent still more. Her command of the form is evident from the opening chapter: the assurance of her voice, her confidence in the necessity of the story, her command of the language, the poetry and wisdom oozing from every paragraph. I finished it last weekend and I can’t stop thinking about it: marveling at her mastery, the rare combination of technical excellence and emotional payoff. Reading the last page, I literally gasped.

The novel is about the life of Caroline Bell, who with her sister Grace is an orphan from Sydney who made her way to England, and its intersection with the life of Ted Tice, who rose from poverty to become a respected astronomer, and of Paul Ivory, a dashing young playwright who is something of a rake. Caro is dark-haired and beautiful and aloof and brilliant and funny and impenetrable and damaged and possessed of, as Hazzard writes, “the sweetness that all longed for night and day. Some tragedy might be idly guessed at—loss or illness. She had the luminosity of those about to die.” Paul is exactly the sort of charming, attractive, naughty, successful, wealthy, and emotionally sadistic asshole that a beauty like Caro would fall for. Ted is the better, but perhaps duller, choice: steadfast, faithful, patient, loyal, but also brilliant in his own right. Around those three a cast of minor characters orbits, even the most minor written with a depth of feeling that belies their significance to the novel’s action. To Hazzard, everyone is important.

This is from a chapter in which Ted, in France on a teaching trip, is writing a letter to Caro:

Among the students, as with my colleagues here, there is often a background of poverty. There’s no charade around this as in other countries—no dissembling by the poor, no fantasy of brotherhood on the part of the affluent. I remember the university people who used to come around Ancoats in my childhood, adopting our speech and clothes to show a kindred spirit—a sentimental condescension that does damn all for poverty. Membership in the proletariat doesn’t come that cheap. What did it do for us, their guilt-edged security or the moral outrage they exchanged on their way home to their employed parents—and to their hot water and their books and music and savings-accounts, none of which they had immediate intention of sharing? What were their overalls to me, who’d have given anything to see my mother in a decent dress? In themselves, rags confer morality no more than they do disgrace.

The poor don’t want solidarity with their lot, they want it changed.

…Ted Tice got up and went to his flowering window. He sat down again at his table and looked at what he had just written: “They want change.” Even more than change, they want revenge. Men can make up soon enough with enemies who slaughtered them in battle; but never with the brethren who humiliated them in cold blood. They take reprisal on their own shame—that is what makes all hatreds, in war or class, or in love. And I too want revenge.

That sure feels relevant to MAGA USA.

Details are revealed in innovative ways. In that same letter, Ted casually mentions an American he meets at a wedding—an American he nonetheless admires. I didn’t even realize until I went back to look for that passage that said American is Adam Vail—and that is the sneaky way that Hazzard introduces a character who will play an important part in Caro’s life. By that point in the novel, we have already been told, and have probably already forgotten—especially with our short 2024 attention spans—that Tice “would take his own life before attaining the peak of his achievement. But that would occur in a northern city, and not for many years.” Thus does she give away the ending on page 12! The audacity, to do such a thing!

As a novelist, I was stunned by this unorthodox way of communicating information—impressed beyond words. It made me want to immediately write another novel, because Transit is so inspiring, and also not to bother, because how could I ever hope to produce something this good?

Here is a scene, late in the book, where Ted and Caro, having met for lunch in London, part ways. They are not lovers, and the kiss Hazzard mentions is of the European cheek-smooch variety:

A short flight of steps led up to the street. Ted watched the sway of scarlet coat at Caro’s knees as she went up. Saw two her shoes that were shiny as black glass, and thought that he had never seen her feet bare.

It was now well into the afternoon. Caro was taking the Underground. Ted went to the ticket booth with her. “Good-bye.” They kissed. He watched her red coat pass the barrier, move with the Down escalator, gliding, diminishing, descending: a rush-hour Eurydice. At the last moment she looked back, knowing he would be there.

Rush-hour Eurydice! God damn, I wish I’d written that.

Another lovely paragraph, about Caro’s younger sister:

Grace Marian Thrale, forty-three years old, stood silent in a hotel doorway in her worn blue coat and looked at the cars and the stars, with the roar of existence in her ears. And like any great poet or tragic sovereign of antiquity, cried on her Creator and wondered how long she must remain on such an earth.

Even the little throwaway sentences are astonishing. Like this: “He had the complexion, lightly webbed, of outdoor living and indoor drinking, and was a high, handsome man who might have been cruel.” Or this: “At the other end of the room the three old men discussed infirmities; exchanging symptoms in undertones as boys might speak of lust.”

And the effortless world-wisdom:

Caro told Una, “Josie’s belief in her innocence is her warrant for doing harm.”

Una said, “Like America.”

In astronomy, the transit of Venus is when Venus passes in front of the sun. This is mentioned early in the book: it was during a scientific voyage in the Pacific to follow the 1769 transit of Venus that led James Cook to Australia, where Caro was born. In astrology, the term has a slightly different meaning. As the indispensable Robert Hand explains in Planets in Transit:

A transit occurs whenever a planet, moving in its orbit during your lifetime, forms an aspect to a planet, the Sun, Moon, or any of the house cusps in your natal horoscope. Also, whenever a planet passes through the part of the zodiac occupied by a house in your natal chart, we say that planet is transiting the house.

If Caro is Venus—she is a kind of love goddess to the men who adore her, and she certainly moves around a lot—the first few chapters find her literally transiting a different house, a new house: Peverel, the stately manse of the wonderfully-named old astronomer Sefton Thrale. And it is in that house where the characters in the novel first converge—or, to use astrological terms, go conjunct. This happens during a sudden weather event that disrupts the order of things, bringing a waterlogged Tice to the Thrale door, where he first sees Caro, at the top of the stairs, on the pedestal on which he will always place her. We find out at the end that, in this great conjunction, there is also a hidden planet, with Plutonic power: a destructive force, vaguely criminal—malefic, as Robert Hand might say.

Having finished the book, I wanted nothing more than to go back to the beginning and read it again: more slowly this time, now that I needn’t worry about the plot—the better to savor every paragraph, every sentence, every word of this masterpiece: to stop time.

The Transit of Venus is not a novel I want to let go of. As Hazzard points out, “In thoughts, one keeps a reserve of hope, in spite of everything. You cannot say good-bye in imagination. That is something you can only do in actuality, in the flesh.”

Share

ICYMI

Our guest on The Five 8 was Kathryn Cramer Brownell:

Photo credit: Etienne Marais.

In the wake of the joint U.S.-U.K. attack on the Houthis in the Yemen, disinformation is rampant on social media. Here are eight lies about the situation that I have seen circulating:

Lie #1: Joe Biden bombed Yemen.

The Houthis are not “Yemen.” They are a rebel insurgency inside that country, unrecognized by world governments, that has seized control of certain areas of Yemen, including the capital city of Sana’a and the Red Sea coastal region.

The United States did not unilaterally attack the Houthis. It was a joint operation conducted by the U.S. and Britain, with support from Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and Bahrain, an Arab state. And it was in response to unprovoked Houthi attacks on merchant ships in the Red Sea since the Hamas atrocities of October 7.

Lie #2: This attack came out of the blue.

The Houthis have been cruising for a bruising for months now. On November 19, they seized a Japanese ship, taking 25 hostages. On December 3, they attacked three more merchant ships. On December 19, the U.S. launched Operation Prosperity Guardian, a coalition of 20 nations united against Houthi maritime attacks. On January 3, the U.S.—along with Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, he Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea—warned them to knock this shit off or else. On January 9, the Houthis ignored the warning, attacking more ships. On January 10, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution, telling the Houthis, “No, seriously, knock this shit off right now. Don’t make me pull this car over!” And on January 12, after repeated warnings by most of the civilized world, we pulled the car over.

Lie #3: The Houthis are freedom fighters, a ragtag outfit taking on the mighty American Empire, much like the rebels in the Star Wars movies.

This is a violent Islamic fundamentalist sect with close ties to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the odious regime in Tehran. While they are certainly fighting the official Yemeni government—the Houthis assassinated the former president Ali Abdallah Salih, for example, when he ditched them to go along with the Western powers—the Houthis heretofore have demonstrated no larger ambitions.

“Up until this year, I don’t think the Huthis were very focused on what people outside the Arabian peninsular thought of them,” writes Arthur Snell on his Not All Doom Substack. “Their movement was rooted in the specific dynamics of North Yemen and the relatively obscure religious tenets of Zaydism (among other things, much emphasis is placed on families that claim a direct line of descent from the Prophet Muhammad, such as the Huthi family).”

While there may be a direct line of descent, this ain’t Luke and Leia versus Darth Vader.

Lie #4: The United States is an imperial power, with aspirations to global hegemony, and because it is the ultimate colonizing force, any time the U.S. bombs anyone anywhere for any reason, it’s always in the wrong.

While the U.S. has certainly meddled in other countries over the years, with disastrous effect—the Iraq War comes to mind—the world’s preeminent superpower is, contrary to what a certain strain of strident leftists believe, not a true empire, abandoned whatever imperial ambitions it might have had in the first Roosevelt administration, and only engages militarily when there is a compelling reason to do so—usually, to preserve the international order. For sure, that reason might be ill-conceived, and we might all disagree with the decision to drop bombs, but the U.S. doesn’t do these things willy-nilly. In this case, we are guaranteeing the freedom of the seas and attempting, with all those other nations, to stop a volatile situation in the Middle East from further escalation. What part about that does the anti-America far left not like?

A lot of the time, our intervention has the desired effect. The Pax America exists in part because would-be troublemakers fear military reprisal from the policeman of the world. Not only that, but sitting these conflicts out can make things worse. One can make a compelling argument that had President Obama responded more aggressively when Putin took Crimea, or when Assad crossed the red line in Syria, Russia would never have invaded Ukraine and ISIS would never have formed. No one wants innocent people to die, and certainly not the fundamentally decent human being who now occupies the Oval Office. But allowing the Houthis—the Houthis!—to terrorize the seas is a non-starter.

Lie #5: By supporting the Palestinian people in Gaza with their targeted attacks, the Houthis are heroic.

“The Huthis’ decision to attack international shipping, claiming to be acting in the Palestinians’ interests, even as much of their targets are in fact nothing to do with either Israel or Palestine, has proved a massive hit with the Arab Street,” Snell explains. “At a time when no Arab government has been seen to have responded to Israel’s destructive operations in Gaza, and when even Hizbullah appears to be pulling its punches, the Huthis have stepped up as the most determined and active member of Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance’.”

If support for Gaza is popular in Western cities and college campuses, we can only imagine the ardor felt in the Arab world—not least because none of the Arab nations have thrown in with the Palestinians in any meaningful way. Egypt, for example, shares a border with Gaza, but has been reluctant to allow Palestinian refugees to enter the Sinai. With this sort of pusillanimous leadership, any show of resistance to the Great Satan might seem valorous in the Arab world. But, I mean, come on: there is nothing heroic about terrorizing merchant ships.

Lie #6: The ships under Houthi attack are military vessels.

The Houthis are hitting maritime vessels: cargo ships bearing things like fuel, food, and medicine through the perilous Red Sea corridor—always a haven for pirates. Remember when Chris Christie blockaded the George Washington Bridge and ambulances couldn’t get through? This is like that, on a much larger scale, but if the assholes doing the blockade were Islamic fundamentalists who were using ballistic missiles on the ambulances.

This is from Biden’s official statement:

These strikes are in direct response to unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea—including the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles for the first time in history. These attacks have endangered U.S. personnel, civilian mariners, and our partners, jeopardized trade, and threatened freedom of navigation. More than 50 nations have been affected in 27 attacks on international commercial shipping. Crews from more than 20 countries have been threatened or taken hostage in acts of piracy.  More than 2,000 ships have been forced to divert thousands of miles to avoid the Red Sea—which can cause weeks of delays in product shipping times. And on January 9, Houthis launched their largest attack to date—directly targeting American ships.

Many of the same people demanding fuel, food, and medicine be allowed to enter Gaza are cheering fuel, food, and medicine not being allowed through the Red Sea.

Lie #7: The ships under Houthi attack are headed north through the Red Sea, and therefore must be bound for Israel.

Here is a map:

A ship heading south through the Bab al-Mandab Strait, as you can see, is moving away from Israel. A ship heading north through the Bab al-Mandab Strait is moving toward Israel—but also toward the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea. I highly doubt the Houthis are being picky about their targets, and, indeed, there is little evidence to suggest that they are. This is indiscriminate terrorism.

Lie #8: The Houthis are an evolved, peace-loving sect that only wants what’s best for everyone.

The Houthis are world-class child abusers. As Afrah Nesser of the Arab Center Washington DC explains:

In the child soldier recruitment process, international humanitarian aid plays a significant role. According to numerous reports by local media, the Houthi group steals humanitarian aid and then exploits people’s need for said aid in order to recruit children. Several reports have documented that the group has diverted aid to its military effort.

The Houthi group has created the Supreme Council for Management and Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and International Cooperation (SCMCHA), which supervises and regulates all humanitarian aid programs carried out in Houthi-controlled areas. However, it often uses this body and other means to “try to compel the selection of certain contractors, restrict the travel of aid workers or otherwise seek to influence aid operations,” according to a statement made in January by UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Martin Griffiths.

There are a lot of disturbing photographs and videos of Houthi soldiers who in the U.S. would be in middle school. Kids with military weapons in Yemen is a humanitarian crisis.

And you’re not gonna believe this, but the Houthis are hideous, repulsive misogynists. As Moammar al-Eryani, Minister of Information and Culture for the Republic of Yemen—that is, the actual, official government—explains in a piece for the Wilson Center:

The tragedy of Yemeni women in areas controlled by the Houthis is not limited to the propaganda and cultural policies that it spreads through its media and extremist religious platforms. Limiting women’s role to produce fighters is in line with other policies such as preventing women from accessing reproductive health services, especially contraceptives, and the policy of restricting women's movement between governorates and traveling through the Sana’a airport “without a mahram.” Furthermore, the Houthi militia, just like the Taliban in Afghanistan, has banned women from working with organizations, using the phone, and applying cosmetics, prohibited them from going to restaurants except after presenting a marriage contract, banished them from sitting in public parks, and specified the method of tailoring and the colors of the clothes they wear. 

In addition to the repressive practices, crimes, and systematic violations that women have had to endure since 2014, the Houthi militia has abducted thousands from their homes, workplaces, public streets and checkpoints and took them to detention centers and secret prisons on trumped-up charges, subjecting them to all kinds of extortion, psychological and physical torture, harassment, and sexual assault for their political, media and human rights activities. This cruelty prompted the UN Security Council to issue Resolution 2564 in February 2021 to add Sultan Zabin, a leader of the Houthi militia who works as “Director of the Criminal Investigation Department,” to the sanctions list for systematic intimidation, exploitation, detention, torture, sexual violence and rape against politically active women. 

His claims are echoed by Human Rights Watch and the Yemen Organization for Combating Human Trafficking.

And if that doesn’t convince you, the Houthi slogan is Allāhu ʾakbar, al-mawt li-ʾAmrīkā, al-mawt li-ʾIsrāʾīl, al-laʿnah ʿalā 'l-Yahūd, an-naṣr lil-ʾIslām, which translates to “God Is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam.”

Bottom line, the Houthis are a Yemeni Taliban: yet another group of violent religious extremists who believe their interpretation of Islam is the only pure one, who hate Jews, hate Israel, hate America, and who treat women and children like livestock. This is who is terrorizing the Red Sea.

This is indefensible. It must stop.

Share

Photo credit: Abdullah Sarhan. A Houthi banner on a house in Yafaa-Dhamar-Jemen.

roundedcurves2:

Marlene Dietrich in Kismet (1944)

lolabeltran: