Christopher Hitchens, with whom I once shared a small office, and I had our bitter differences, mainly over the Iraq War. But I fondly remember a conversation with him when he passionately argued that executions should be televised live. His point was that if Americans could experience the barbarity of capital punishment, they would oppose this cruel and inhumane practice. I believe that he also thought that people should be fully cognizant of what the state was doing in their name and with their permission and tax dollars. As a foe of capital punishment, I’ve often wondered if Hitchens’ strategic impulse on this was correct. It has a logic. But for much of human history there have been public executions, and that didn’t seem to spur widespread revulsion. Could televised killings become overly sensationalized and crassly voyeuristic—the ultimate bottom in reality TV—and perhaps even desensitize the public and further coarsen the culture? Then again, don’t we have a collective responsibility to witness our own brutality? It’s a tough call.

I was thinking about this back-and-forth this week, for sources who work with the democratic opposition in Myanmar sent me videos and photos showing the aftermath of a horrific massacre committed by the military junta that a year ago overthrew the government. On Christmas Eve, a military unit in Kayah, a state in eastern Myanmar, attacked a group of civilians who were fleeing fighting between a civilian militia and the army. Three dozen or more civilians—including two staffers for the charity Save the Children—were shot and killed; their bodies were burned. According to local Karenni officials—the Karenni are the main population group in the area—many of the victims had their hands tied before they were murdered. Since the military mounted its coup against the democratically elected government led by the political party of Aung San Suu Kyi, the regime has killed an estimated 1,100 people, including dissidents, demonstrators, and resistance leaders, and arrested more than 11,000. It has engaged in torture, mass arrests, forced displacements, indiscriminate air strikes (which have led to a refugee crisis), and other forms of violence. The Christmas Eve massacre was one more obscene act in a year of crimes against humanity.

The videos and photos I received were gruesome. Have you ever seen incinerated skeletal remains? Up close? The video showed piles of bluish-gray ash in and near several burned-out vehicles. The remains of different victims merged into indistinct mounds. The pictures were forensic photos of collections of ash and bone fragments in body bags and on examination tables. There were partial skulls. A piece of jaw. A row of teeth. A femur. A humerus. A day or two earlier, these had been people.

What should I do with this material? Is it disrespectful to disseminate these images? Is it too visceral or too creepy to share? If I posted all this, would I be exploiting this tragedy for its shock value?

I had spoken to several local Karenni officials involved in the investigation of the massacre. They wanted the world to know what the military regime had done. They also were seeking assistance in investigating the killings. They believed they had identified the military unit responsible. But they were looking for international help in conducting DNA analysis on the remains. In this remote area of Myanmar, there was no capacity to do such work. Local officials had compiled a list of missing people who were presumed to be among the victims. But their murders could only be confirmed through DNA work. A unit of United Nations war crimes investigators told me it was collecting information related to the massacre. But without permission from the Myanmar government—that is, the military regime—it could not send its staff into the country to examine the site, and the regime had not responded to its request for information.

I have written intermittently about the coup in Myanmar, an event that receives minimal media coverage and public attention in the United States. The Christmas Eve massacre drew a few news stories in the Western press for a day or two, and that was about it. Would sharing graphic imagery help get out the story further?

My Myanmar sources, including those local Karenni officials, had a simple goal: spread the word of this horror. And it was obvious that videos of the massacre were likely to get more notice. So I wrote an article about the massacre and the UN investigators’ efforts and included the two short videos. I did not post the forensic photos. I thought that might be too much. The videos fully conveyed the nightmare. I calculated that overwhelming readers would not be beneficial. Perhaps I was too cautious and should have displayed every image I had.

The article received more attention on Twitter than my Myanmar pieces usually do. But it hardly went gangbusters. Would more photos have helped? The sad fact is that a massacre in Myanmar and the plight of the democratic resistance there are just not front-and-center matters here. That is no surprise. A 2018 Pew Research poll found that only 17 percent of Americans follow “news about other countries” very closely, and I would guess that number is inflated (perhaps doubled?) by answers from people who feel they ought to or who want to believe that they do. (Don’t assume that the United States is more self-focused than other nations. The global median in that poll was 16 percent.) These days, we hardly track the humanitarian crisis occurring in Afghanistan in the wake of the US withdrawal. (Here is a good report from NBC News on that.)

“Now that the world has seen how cruel the Myanmar junta is by committing many mass killings in our country,” Saw Zin, an officer of the Karenni State Police who has been involved in the investigation of the Christmas Eve massacre, told me, “we beg you to help us, as many of us—a majority, women and children—are becoming internally displaced in our own country. It is a matter of urgency.” I wish more Americans—officials and citizens—could hear his plea and see what a massacre looks like.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at thisland@motherjones.com.

Rebranding This Land…With Your Help

When this newsletter was launched, I explained that I picked This Land as its title because I had long thought that would be a great name for a band. (Please don’t steal that idea.) And, as I noted, “It references a grand cultural tradition—a song that ought to be our national anthem—and an expansive connection between...well, all of us.” As is customary, we conducted a trademark search, but there was an oversight. After we began publishing, an outfit called This Land Press that sells Oklahoma-themed clothing and once produced a quarterly magazine contacted us and complained the title violated their trademark.

This Land is written for you and me, and now it needs a new name. I have one or two in mind. But let’s open it up to everyone. Have any ideas? Shoot them my way. I cannot offer a grand prize to the winner. There are no This Land T-shirts—though given the present situation they would truly be a collector’s item. I can promise a year’s free subscription. Maybe two subs, if the name is particularly great. I repeat: I already have one or two titles that I fancy. (We will be doing a trademark search.) If someone proposes the same name, you’ll just have to take my word that I ain’t a newsletter-title thief. Send me suggestions at thisland@motherjones.com.

Dumbass Comment of the Week

This week, two people running for state offices are sharing the prize. At a candidates’ forum in northeast Texas, Shelley Luther, a former teacher and a Republican running for the state House of Representatives, said, “I am not comfortable with the transgenders. The kids that they brought in my classroom, when they said that this kid is transgendering into a different sex, that I couldn’t have kids laugh at them.” This woman was a teacher? And she was upset that other kids could not taunt a transgender student in her classroom?

It gets worse. On her campaign website, she listed as a political priority to "abolish gender mutilation in children"—a term often used by foes of transgender rights to denigrate gender-affirming surgery. She also recently tweeted, “Chinese students should be BANNED from attending all Texas universities. No more Communists!” In 2020, Luther gained a dash of fame when she operated her Dallas salon in violation of state and local emergency orders that temporarily closed businesses because of the pandemic. So she’s transphobic and racist and a foe of public health measures. She’ll probably go far in Texas.

Her co-winner is Rachel Hamm, a Republican candidate for secretary of state in California. She declared that Black Lives Matter "is really evil at its core" and "a completely evil, corrupt organization that has harmed our country." She added, "Two of the main leaders are witches." This BLM = witches talking point was popularized by Stella Immanuel, the infamous doctor whose unsubstantiated claims about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid were retweeted by Donald Trump. Immanuel once insisted gynecological ailments were caused by “demon spirits.” I’m pretty sure I don’t want to hear Hamm’s views on Covid.

Finally, let’s give a special mention to Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the Republican who sent out that dreadful and much-mocked holiday card with a photograph of him and his family holding assorted guns. He tweeted: “Over 70% of Americans who died with COVID, died on Medicare, and some people want #MedicareForAll?”

This wingnut was suggesting people died because they were on Medicare. I would bet that over 90 percent of those who perished due to Covid also ate food. He is certainly on his way to the Dumbass Comment Hall of Fame.

The Mailbag

An ample flow of mail continues. Thanks for reading and reacting. Apologies again for not being able to spotlight each correspondence. Responding to my article on the nation’s inability to fully absorb Trump’s attempted coup, Leonard Wolf wrote:

How about advice on how to talk to these folks that are somehow too afraid to realize the orange monster was really an abysmal, horrific threat on all that we Americans hold dear?

If I had an answer to that, I’m not sure I’d be writing this newsletter anymore. That’s the big enchilada. How to convince the 74 million Americans who voted for Trump that he is an authoritarian narcissist who poses a threat to democracy and the nation’s wellbeing? Well, you’re not going to reach most of them, particularly if they are still with him after all these years of misconduct and wrongdoing. The question is, can you persuade a slice of this population to jump off the Trump Express? And if so, how? There is no easy answer. Over the past two decades, there has been a great deal of social science research conducted on political/policy persuasion, and it turns out it is really difficult. People don’t change their views if you present them with better and more accurate information. That often causes them to harden their beliefs. What tends to have the most impact is information provided by a person who the recipient already believes is on their side—someone who is part of their tribe. That suggests you need peer-to-peer persuasion on the edges of our tribal politics. Sorry this answer is not better. But this is a topic we can revisit. Meanwhile, during the 2020 election, Stanford University publicized some of its research on this front. It’s fascinating stuff.

Mike Arum emailed:

I just do not understand why the DOJ and the attorney general are not doing more. The attorney general is totally absent from what is going on. Unless he is taking his lead from Biden and they are worried about what might happen if they lose control of Washington. But that is no excuse for doing nothing...Very disappointed in his tenure so far.

I wrote about this a month ago. The Justice Department is a black box, and, under its rules, it is not allowed to state what investigations it is pursuing. That said, I contended that Attorney General Merrick Garland should tell the public whether his department is investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn the election—an unprecedented event. He hasn’t taken my advice.

Bobby Pearl emailed:

Let's just cut to the chase and make a bold move. Recruit Liz Cheney, Kinzinger, and Romney and others that are abhorred by the crazy culture over to the Democratic Party. Not because they are liberal but because they recognize [the GOP is] off the rails and they do not belong in that party until it returns to some sanity. It might also be the best hope to mitigate Trump’s hold and bust it up so [the Republican Party] might be reconstituted with traditional Republican values that they could then return to and serve. Alas, they would become the modern heroes of democracy.

Easy for us to say. The Republicans who oppose Trump obviously know this is an option, and they have not elected to pursue it. I doubt there’s much the Democrats can do in the way of recruitment. I am sure Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would welcome Mitt Romney or any other R with open arms and set them up with attractive committee assignments. Right now, just about every Republican is on record supporting a former commander in chief who did nothing for hours while the US Capitol was being attacked. That still stuns me. It shows how deeply in the Trump matrix they are embedded.

There were lots of thoughtful responses to my contention that Trump has dialed up his racist rhetoric and is inciting racial conflict—or a race war. Mara Math emailed:

While I think you are correct that the former president is inciting race war, I'd argue that the Mango Menace's explicit race war began with his full-page ads calling for the execution of the Central Park Five. (He and his father had, of course, previously waged indirect racial war on black and Latino applicants for their apartments.) As you know, the Rump has never let up on this, sliming the documentarians who drew attention to the case and publicly disputing the Five's exonerations and settlements. And insistently referring to the Five, to this day, as "convicted criminals," despite their convictions having been vacated.

Yes, Trump’s racism is nothing new. He has been playing that card for decades. For a wonderful dramatic depiction of the Central Park Five case, check out Ava DuVernay’s When They See Us on Netflix. Ken Burns made a documentary on this case a few years earlier. When I think about Trump and race, I often recall his 1989 comment that he would “love to be a well-educated Black” because they have “an actual advantage.” Spike Lee called his remark “garbage.”

Bob Yates also had a history lesson for us:

Let's remember since 1948 only one Democrat elected President received more than 50 percent of the white vote. The overt racist appeals by Republicans in 2022 should surprise no one.

Carolyn Sturgis emailed a question: “I look forward to your emails. I have a friend who has macular degeneration. Is there an audio of This Land?” I’m afraid not. It’s a big job just producing the newsletter. Putting together an audio version is not on the table right now. I know there are programs that read aloud computer text, such as Speechify. I cannot say whether any of these work well with emails, but maybe that’s an option.

Dene Karaus had an interesting poli-sci question:

I have not seen coverage of this: The R vs D breakdown of the House was 26/24 after the last election. However, Liz Cheney was the one R from Wyoming. That would have given her the power to make the outcome 25/25. Unlike the Senate with its VP tie-breaker, I have no idea what would have happened had she so voted. Could you ask around and get back to me or your general readership on this?

According to the chart I consulted, there were 27 state delegations in the US House of Representatives with a Republican majority. Consequently, if the House had to decide the 2020 presidential election, even with Cheney voting with the Democrats, the Rs and Trump would presumably have prevailed. Nevertheless, let’s ponder a tie in the House. What happens then? I put this query to my wise friend Norm Ornstein, and he replied:

If the House cannot choose a president, the Senate can choose a vice president, voting as individuals, and that person would become the acting president. Unless and until the House was able to act. It is not clear if the Senate were split 50-50, whether the vice president still in office could break the tie.

Imagine a scenario in which the incumbent vice president was running for reelection. In that case, would he be able to break a Senate tie in his favor and become the vice president and, in the absence of a president, the acting president? And if the Senate could not decide, what then? I suppose without a president or vice president in office, the House speaker would ascend to the presidency. Recall that the House majority can elect anyone its speaker. That person doesn’t have to be a member. (That’s why we face the prospect of Trump as House speaker, should the GOP take the House in November.) So the House majority could choose as speaker its party’s presidential nominee, who had failed to collect enough electoral votes to win, and that person, in this scenario, would become president. What a fun and frightening parlor game this is.

Richard Cantwell had a complaint about my grammar:

[You wrote,] "This brazenness brought to mind a quote that had appeared in the New York Times a few days prior." This should be " . . . a few days before." If you'll notice, almost all writers are using "prior" exclusively when "before" or "previous" is more appropriate. It's a love affair with "prior." You abuse it again in the article. I just read that you can "predownload" a new game. I'm sorry, is that downloading before I download?? [You also wrote,] "During the Trump-Russia scandal, I hypothesized that one reason why Trump’s aiding and abetting . . . . " A reason is why something is the way it is. When you say "reason why," you're saying "why why."

Whew. For my defense, I ran to Daniel King, the Mother Jones copy chief, who graciously reviews each issue of this newsletter. He replies:

Send the reader our copy editor's admiration. And then kindly inform the reader that if we wish to rid the world of runaway colloquialisms, we'll have one helluva time retiring "preheat an oven" when just "heating" will do. One simply heats an oven, but most recipes use "preheat," and many ovens have a "preheat" setting. So, too, does common use intervene in cases where we "predownload" a new game. It's one prefix too many, and to my ear a cheap marketing ploy to manufacture excitement, but no less odd than "preordering" a forthcoming book, or "preordering" any item before it's available. Redundancy ruffles my feathers and rattles my cage, but I have neither feathers nor a cage. Much as I grouse about malapropisms, misuse, and wayward formalities like "prior" rather than "before," "reason why" rather than "reason that," and "utilize" rather than "use," we hug prescriptivism at our peril. The reader shares my soul, but my deference to individual writers' casual voice in newsletters is elastic. Or is it wide, or expansive, or vast? (I'm far more stringent with magazine investigations, to be sure. Not a word goes unscrutinized.)

Nancy Krempa couldn’t fight the urge to chime in after I wondered why Moxie enjoys chewing on sticks so much:

As a regular reader and subscriber, I often find I have too many thoughts on your newsletter. Thus, I hang back to see what others are thinking and saying. This week, however, I find I must share my insight into a possible reason for Moxie's stick-chewing. As a child, I was prone to trying stuff when my parents weren't watching, like many kids. One of those things was putting tooth-marks on their hi-fi cabinet. Believe it or not, I can still remember the satisfying feel of the wood giving way under my teeth. This might also explain the habit many adults have of chewing on wooden pencils? Just thought I'd share. Give that sweet pup a hug from me, 'k?

What’s a pencil? And speaking of Moxie...

MoxieCam™

It’s time for Moxie and me to talk about the elephant in the room.

Read Recent Issues of This Land

February 8, 2022: The Trump coup: maybe we can’t handle the truth; Steve Martin and Martin Short shine in Only Murders in the Building; Invasion’s odd but conventional take on the sci-fi/alien-attack genre; and more.

February 5, 2022: Can we call Trump’s race war a “race war”?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Michele Bachmann and Rick Scott); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 1, 2022: Please tell me: Why is Michael Flynn crazy?; an impressive film about Nicolas Cage and his pig; Wajahat Ali’s impressive memoir about growing up Muslim and nonwhite in America; and more.

January 29, 2022: The inside story of the banning of Maus—it’s dumber than you think; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

January 25, 2022: The snowflake-ization of the right; would you buy cryptocurrency from this man (Steve Bannon)?; Belfast, a feel-good movie about a civil war; Elvis Costello’s delightful and cynical new album; and more.

January 22, 2022: Readers speak out: How to save the republic from Republicans; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

January 19, 2022: Why the Democrats must yield to Manchin to keep the Trump cult from gaining power; gushing about The French Dispatch; a true-crime podcast with political and international significance; and more.

January 15, 2022: We’re all tired of Trump’s crazy, but it’s dangerous to ignore; Dumbass Comment of the Week (US Senate edition); the Mailbag; (a harrowing) MoxieCam™; and more.

January 11, 2022: My interview with Jamie Raskin about his son’s suicide, January 6, and the second Trump impeachment; Aaron Sorkin’s one big mistake in Being the Ricardos; Slow Burn’s look back at the LA riots; and more.