The Dive, 5/1/25
Your monthly compilation of what's what on global politics, American society, and an assortment of odds and ends
Quote of the Month
"Among today's adept practitioners, the lie has long since lost its honest function of misrepresenting reality. Nobody believes anybody, everyone is in the know. Lies are told only to convey to someone that one has no need either of him or his good opinion." - Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia, 1.9
What I’m Reading:
1. How Trump is censoring the service academies
Why you should read it: Author and Daily Stoic proprietor Ryan Holiday writes in the New York Times about how the U.S. Naval Academy attempted to censor and then cancelled his talk on Stoic philosophy.
“For the past four years, I have been delivering a series of lectures on the virtues of Stoicism to midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., and I was supposed to continue this on April 14… Roughly an hour before my talk was to begin, I received a call: Would I refrain from any mention in my remarks of the recent removal of 381 supposedly controversial books from the Nimitz library on campus? My slides had been sent up the chain of command at the school, which was now, as it was explained to me, extremely worried about reprisals if my talk appeared to flout Executive Order 14151… When I declined, my lecture — as well as a planned speech before the Navy football team, with which my books on Stoicism are popular — was canceled.”
“No one at the Naval Academy intimated any consequences for me, of course, but it felt extortionary all the same. I had to choose between my message or my continued welcome at an institution it has been one of the honors of my life to speak at… As I explained repeatedly to my hosts, I had no interest in embarrassing anyone or discussing politics directly. I understand the immense pressures they are under, especially the military employees, and I did not want to cause them trouble. I did, however, feel it was essential to make the point that the pursuit of wisdom is impossible without engaging with (and challenging) uncomfortable ideas… The current administration is by no means unique in its desire to suppress ideas it doesn’t like or thinks dangerous. As I intended to explain to the midshipmen, there was considerable political pressure in the 1950s over what books were carried in the libraries of federal installations. Asked if he would ban communist books from American embassies, Eisenhower resisted.”
Why it matters: “The men and women at the Naval Academy will go on to lead combat missions, to command aircraft carriers, to pilot nuclear-armed submarines and run enormous organizations. We will soon entrust them with incredible responsibilities and power. But we fear they’ll be hoodwinked or brainwashed by certain books?… No one at any public institution should have to fear losing their job for pushing back on such an obvious overreach, let alone those tasked with defending our freedom. Yet here we are.”
2. Why military force doesn’t deliver victory
Why you should read it: In Foreign Affairs, strategy scholar Lawrence Freedman assembles evidence that the use of force does not deliver the results those who embark on wars assume it will.
“The idea that surprise offensives could produce decisive victories began to be embedded in military thinking in the nineteenth century. But again and again, forces that undertake them have shown how difficult it is to bring a war to an early and satisfactory conclusion. European military leaders were confident that the war that began in the summer of 1914 could be ‘over by Christmas’—a phrase that is still invoked whenever generals sound too optimistic; instead, the fighting would last until November 1918, concluding with fast offensives but only after years of devastating trench warfare along almost static frontlines. In 1940, Germany overran much of western Europe in a matter of weeks by means of a blitzkrieg, bringing together armor and airpower. But it could not finish the job, and after initial rapid advances against the Soviet Union in 1941, it was drawn into a brutal war with enormous casualties on both sides that would only end nearly four years later with the total collapse of the Third Reich. Similarly, the decision by Japan’s military leadership to launch a surprise attack on the United States in December 1941 ended in the catastrophic defeat of the Japanese empire in August 1945. In both world wars, the key to victory was not so much military prowess as unbeatable stamina… Yet despite this long history of protracted conflict, military strategists continue to shape their thinking around short wars, in which all is supposed to be decided in the first days, or even hours, of combat. According to this model, strategies can still be devised that will leave the enemy surprised by the speed, direction, and ruthlessness of the initial attack. With the constant possibility that the United States could be drawn into a war with China over Taiwan, the viability of such strategies has become a pressing issue: Can China quickly seize the island, using lightning force, or will Taiwan, supported by the United States, be able to stop such an attack in its tracks?”
“The advantages of short wars—immediate success at a tolerable cost—are so obvious that no case can be made for knowingly embarking on a long one. By contrast, even admitting the possibility that a war could become protracted may seem to betray doubts about the ability of one’s military to triumph over an adversary. If strategists have little or no confidence that a prospective war can be kept short, then arguably the only prudent policy is not to fight it at all. Still, for a country such as the United States, it might not be possible to rule out a conflict with another great power of similar strength, even if rapid victory is not assured. Although Western leaders have an understandable aversion to intervening in civil wars, it is also possible that the actions of a nonstate adversary could become so persistent and harmful that direct action to deal with the threat becomes imperative, regardless of how long that may take… So ingrained is the fixation with speed that generations of U.S. military commanders have learned to shudder at the mention of attritional warfare, embracing decisive maneuver as the route to quick victories. Long slogs of the sort now taking place in Ukraine—where both sides seek to degrade each other’s capabilities, and progress is measured by body counts, destroyed equipment, and depleted stocks of ammunition—are not only dispiriting to the belligerent countries but also hugely time-consuming and expensive. In Ukraine, both sides have already expended extraordinary resources, and neither is close to anything that resembles a victory. Not all wars are conducted at such a high intensity as the Russian-Ukrainian war, but even prolonged irregular warfare can take a heavy toll, resulting in a growing sense of futility in addition to mounting costs… In commentary on contemporary warfare, the distinction between ‘winning’ and ‘not losing’ is vital yet hard to grasp. The difference is not intuitive because of the assumption that there will always be a victor in war and because, at any time, one side can appear to be winning even if it has not actually won. The situation of ‘not losing’ is not quite captured by terms such as stalemate and deadlock since these imply little military movement. Both sides can be ‘not losing’ when neither can impose a victory on the other, even if one or both are on occasion able to improve their positions. This is why proposals to end protracted wars normally take the form of calls for a cease-fire. The problem with cease-fires, however, is that the parties to the conflict tend to regard them as no more than pauses in the fighting. They may have little effect on the underlying disputes and may simply offer both sides the opportunity to recover and reconstitute for the next round. The cease-fire that ended the Korean War in 1953 has lasted for over 70 years, but the conflict remains unresolved and both sides continue to prepare for a future war.”
Why it matters: “What is clear is that amid rising tensions between the United States and a variety of antagonists, there is a critical misalignment in defense planning. In recognition of the tendency of wars to drag on, some strategists have begun to warn about the dangers of falling into the “short war” fallacy. By emphasizing short wars, strategists rely too much on initial battle plans that may not play out in practice—with bitter consequences… Wars start and end through political decisions. The political decision to initiate armed conflict is likely to assume a short war; the political decision to bring the fighting to an end will likely reflect the inescapable costs and consequences of a long war. For any military power, the prospect of drawn-out or unending hostilities and significant economic and political instability is a good reason to hesitate before embarking on a major war and to seek other means to achieve desired goals. But it also means that when wars cannot be avoided, their military and political objectives must be realistic and attainable and set in ways that can be achieved by the military resources available. One of the great allures of military power is that it promises to bring conflicts to a quick and decisive conclusion. In practice, it rarely does.”
3. How Nordic NATO allies have pooled their military resources amid a chronic threat from Russia and uncertainty from Trump
Why you should read it: Wall Street Journal reporter Sune Engle Rasmussen profiles the efforts of four Scandinavian NATO allies—Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden—to build their capacity for joint military action in the face of Russian threats and American inconstancy.
“The Nordics have emerged as a model for Europe’s defense. They are leading efforts to reverse decades of military drawdowns to counter both Russian aggression and uncertain security guarantees from the Trump White House… Any Nordic country would struggle to militarily square up to Russia on its own. But combined, the Nordics have an economy about the size of Mexico’s, and nearly the same size as Russia’s. Following Sweden and Finland’s accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, they have pooled some of their forces.”
“Sweden boasts an advanced defense industry that makes submarines, battle tanks and supersonic jet fighters. Norway possesses maritime surveillance and fighting capabilities in the Arctic. Finland has one of the largest standing armies and artillery forces per capita in Europe. And Denmark’s special forces have decades of experience deploying to some of the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan and Iraq to fight American wars. (The fifth Nordic country, Iceland, has no standing army or defense industry)… Now, the shared Nordic view of Russia as a serious future threat has pulled those countries closer together than at any point in modern history. A recent Danish intelligence assessment said Russia could start a major war against one or more European NATO countries within three to five years, a view that chimes more with the Baltic nations than other Western capitals… The Nordics have combined their air forces, establishing a Joint Nordic Air Command in 2023. Last year they set out a vision for common defense through 2030 under the Nordic Defense Cooperation, or Nordefco.”
Why it matters: “To be sure, the Nordics are compensating for decades of disarmament following the end of the Cold War. The need to rearm has only grown amid Europe’s fading trust in the U.S. as a reliable ally under President Trump… For now, a united Nordic bloc could serve as a model for other clusters of nations, such as around the Black Sea, said Matti Pesu, senior research fellow with the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. The model can also serve as an insurance policy for the future, if the trans-Atlantic alliance disintegrates under Trump, he said.”
4. How Trump is giving away the store to China
Why you should read it: Journalist Noah Schachtman writes in the New York Times how Trump’s empty bluster and self-harming policies play right into Beijing’s hands.
“Provoking your enemies, alienating your friends and actively sabotaging your own defenses are no one’s idea of a sound national security plan. And yet this is the playbook that President Trump has apparently followed over the first 100 days of his second term. You can see it most clearly in the global fight he kicked off with China. He’s been scrapping for this showdown since before he entered politics, so you’d think that before taking on such a global powerhouse, he’d strengthen every alliance, game out every possible countermeasure and get his leadership team in peak condition. The mouthiest barroom brawler knows not to pick a fight and then turn his back, but that’s what the president is doing. He promised to ‘make America safe again,’ but instead of building up the nation’s defenses, he’s dismantling them at precisely the moment they are most needed.”
“The president has a former weekend Fox News host at the Department of Defense, and a former aide has complained that there is ‘total chaos at the Pentagon.’ He’s got a Trump donor with no military experience as the secretary of the Navy and picked for director of National Intelligence someone with a tendency to repeat authoritarian talking points. The national security adviser uses a commercial messaging app to share sensitive information about U.S. airstrikes with people he can’t necessarily identify. This month the president sacked the military’s well-regarded cyberwar chief after a conspiracy theorist told him to, and his administration leaked word of plans to cut the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency by 40 percent. Next up appears to be an evisceration of the State Department, particularly the bureau that has challenged some of the worst abuses of hostile authoritarian states. And of course, Mr. Trump has done everything possible to infuriate NATO, America’s primary alliance of mutual military support… MAGA world insists that Mr. Trump’s moving-target approach to tariff negotiations is three-dimensional chess. His bullying approach to diplomacy may hurt some allies’ feelings, his supporters say, but it will bring some of America’s most lethal adversaries to the negotiating table. That might sound persuasive if Mr. Trump weren’t already signaling that he’s ready to back down to Mr. Xi in this trade fight.”
Why it matters: “A showdown with China was one of the most consistent promises Mr. Trump made to the American people. His voters knew this was the war he wanted. But how many of them could have guessed that he’d wage it in China’s favor?”
5. How Trump’s tariffs will inflict maximum damage on the United States
Why you should read it: Peterson Institute of International Economics researcher Maurice Obstfeld details the severe damage Trump’s tariffs will do to the American economy.
“President Donald Trump touted his bewildering array of ‘Liberation Day’ import tariffs as carefully calibrated to offset trade partners' tariff, nontariff, and currency barriers to US exports. However, details of the calculations released by the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) show that in reality, the tariffs' effect will be to curtail US trade the most precisely where it provides America with the biggest benefits. The result will be a direct hit on US consumers and businesses… Trump's administration did not even try to calculate the true heights of trade barriers. For example, Korea was hit with a tariff of 26 percent, even though it has a free trade agreement with America and its tariff rate on US imports was only 0.79 percent in 2024. The tariff's entire justification was Korea's sizable bilateral surplus in goods with the United States, much of it due to Americans' taste for Hyundai and KIA vehicles.”
“Trade barriers certainly can influence bilateral trade balances, but to think that every persistent bilateral balance is due to trade barriers misunderstands the basic reason why countries trade. Countries trade to specialize in the goods and services they are best at producing, which naturally means having possibly persistent surpluses with some trade partners and deficits with others. Trying to squash every bilateral balance to zero through brute-force tariffs is to levy taxes on international trade exactly where it provides the most benefits to Americans… But the tariffs rolled out on April 2 will not even accomplish the goal of balanced American trade. Behind Trump's tariff initiative is his stated desire to reduce the overall US trade deficit in goods, which was 4.2 percent of GDP in 2024. This deficit reflects that Americans spend more than they produce, obliging them to import the difference from abroad. Until the United States reduces its spending relative to its income—for, example, by narrowing the federal budget deficit—the US overall trade deficit will not go away. Since the overall trade deficit is the sum of US surpluses and deficits with all trade partners, the administration's attempt to eliminate all bilateral deficits is doomed to failure. At best, it will be able to shuffle them around, in a game of whack-a-mole where a smaller deficit with one country is matched by higher bilateral deficits with others. In the process, however, the efficiency gains from international trade are sharply curtailed.”
Why it matters: “If the US economy falls into recession because of Trump's arbitrary tariffs and our trade partners' responses, its overall trade balance may improve as consumption and investment crater. Foreign economies will be hit hard too, and in the end, the net outcome for the US trade balance may depend on whether the recession is more severe at home or abroad. That would be a race to the bottom that no one wins.”
6. How Republicans foisted their own subservience to Trump on the world
Why you should read it: Financial Times columnist Alan Beattie contends that Republicans have allowed their “localized pathology” of subservience to Trump to inflict damage on the world in the form of the president’s irrational trade war.
“Well, at least we now know what Donald Trump will do with tariffs, until he is seized by another whim. Perhaps it was better when we didn’t. The ‘reciprocal’ tariffs announced on so-called liberation day were farcical, set by an arithmetic formula based on trade deficits in the apparent belief that current account imbalances can be fixed by trade policy… But this isn’t some general crisis of credibility in trade and globalisation. It’s largely a localised pathology, and particularly one of the Republican Party. The Democrats under Joe Biden accepted far too much of Trump’s first term tariff legacy, but at least with a vaguely coherent industrial policy rationale. The Republicans haven’t necessarily turned into a seething nest of protectionists, but their increasingly extreme bent ever since Richard Nixon took the party to the right in the 1960s has allowed a mindlessly destructive trade warrior to take over and they are too terrified to stop him.”
“Accident, prejudice and unintended consequence play a bigger role in dysfunctional US tariff policy than the grand sweep of economic history might suggest… This current case is not just a tactical mistake: it’s what happens when an ideological extremist becomes president. If there are any grown-ups among Trump’s economic team, they are locked in a cupboard when decisions are taken. Among them is Kevin Hassett, an orthodox free-trade economist who advised George W Bush and Mitt Romney but who is unable or unwilling to stop the chaos. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent was supposed to be the voice of the financial markets: he’s evidently silent or ignored. The animating drive is from Trump himself, who since the 1980s has had a wrong-headed view of tariffs based on an analogy with a corporate profit-and-loss account, and the trade warrior Peter Navarro, who appears closest to the president’s ear.”
Why it matters: “There can be no logic-washing of Donald Trump’s tariffs. This isn’t part of a carefully-designed industrial policy or a cunning strategy to induce compliance among trading partners or a choreographed appearance of chaos to scare other governments into obedience. It’s wildly destructive stupidity, and the generations of American, and particularly Republican politicians, who allowed things to slide to this point are collectively to blame.”
7. How Elon Musk relies on old, dumb ideas
Why you should read it: In the New York Times, historian Jill Lepore outlines how Elon Musk relies on old, conservative ideas that belie his reputation as a visionary futurist.
“Mr. Musk has long presented himself to the world as a futurist. Yet, notwithstanding the gadgets — the rockets and the robots and the Department of Government Efficiency Musketeers, carrying backpacks crammed with laptops, dreaming of replacing federal employees with large language models — few figures in public life are more shackled to the past… Mr. Musk is attempting to go back to that fork and choose a different path. Much of what he has sought to dismantle, from antipoverty programs to national parks, have their origins in the New Deal. Mr. Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration provided 8.5 million Americans with jobs; Mr. Musk has measured his achievement by the number of jobs he has eliminated… I was again struck by how little of what Mr. Musk proposes is new and by how many of his ideas about politics, governance and economics resemble those championed by his grandfather Joshua Haldeman, a cowboy, chiropractor, conspiracy theorist and amateur aviator known as the Flying Haldeman. Mr. Musk’s grandfather was also a flamboyant leader of the political movement known as technocracy.”
“Under the technate, humans would no longer have names; they would have numbers. One technocrat went by 1x1809x56. (Mr. Musk has a son named X Æ A-12.) Mr. Haldeman, who had lost his Saskatchewan farm during the Depression, became the movement’s leader in Canada. He was technocrat No. 10450-1… Leading technocrats proposed replacing democratically elected officials and civil servants — indeed, all of government — with an army of scientists and engineers under what they called a technate. Some also wanted to annex Canada and Mexico. At technocracy’s height, one branch of the movement had more than a quarter of a million members… Technocrats argued that liberal democracy had failed. One Technocracy Incorporated pamphlet explained how the movement ‘does not subscribe to the basic tenet of the democratic ideal, namely that all men are created free and equal.’ In the modern world, only scientists and engineers have the intelligence and education to understand the industrial operations that lie at the heart of the economy. [Leading Technocrat Howard] Scott’s army of technocrats would eliminate most government services: ‘Even our postal system, our highways, our Coast Guard could be made much more efficient.’ Overlapping agencies could be shuttered, and ‘00 percent of the courts could be abolished…’ That Mr. Musk has come to hold so many of the same beliefs about social engineering and economic planning as his grandfather is a testament to his profound lack of political imagination, to the tenacity of technocracy and to the hubris of Silicon Valley.”
Why it matters: “Mr. Musk’s possible departure from Washington will not diminish the influence of Muskism in the United States. His superannuated futurism is Silicon Valley’s reigning ideology… Muskism isn’t the beginning of the future. It’s the end of a story that started more than a century ago, in the conflict between capital and labor and between autocracy and democracy. The Gilded Age of robber barons and wage-labor strikes gave rise to the Bolshevik Revolution, Communism, the first Red Scare, World War I and Fascism. That battle of ideas produced the technocracy movement, and far more lastingly, it also produced the New Deal and modern American liberalism. Technocracy lost because technocracy is incompatible with freedom.”
8. How the rise of AI slop fueled the rise of the modern right
Why you should read it: Writer Ana Marie Cox posits in The New Republic that the rise of AI slop and social media fueled the rise of the modern political right and the return of Donald Trump to the White House.
“…Hollywood’s failure to stay relevant has less to do with the political valence of its content than with the complete transformation of the media ecosystem. Woke was Hollywood’s most recent gambit to appeal to people; a right-wing turn may be its next. And yet conservative dominance of Hollywood may prove to be a much rosier future than the one we’re actually going to get: a future where pop culture is little more than a careless swirl of stock images, slapped together with no rationale beyond ginning up engagement—the wholesale replacement of storytelling with slop. To an extent, this future is already here, and it’s impossible to make sense of the extraordinary power held by right-wing podcasters in American politics or understand the meaning of Hollywood’s ‘unwokening’ without recognizing that slop—content shaped by data, optimized for clicks, intellectually bereft, and emotionally sterile—has been overwhelming Hollywood’s cultural impact and destroying its business model, not to mention countless careers along with it, for years…The foundation of the business had been cracking apart for years. In 2016, Hollywood saw some of its worst ticket sales this century. The industry had changed: Audiences were staying at home more, franchises were becoming a financial necessity, and mid-budget films were vanishing. ‘The tide has moved against movies,’ one analyst said. ‘They used to be the hub of what entertainment is, but that core has shifted to streaming and television.’ In 2018, the film industry seemed to rebound financially, but television was beginning to feel the pain. In 2019, the pace at which Americans were abandoning traditional pay-for television increased by more than 70 percent, and more Americans paid for streaming services than subscribed to traditional cable television… The Great Unwokening may align with Trump’s reelection, but it has as little to do with the aggregate opinions of the American people as did the Great Awokening. Rather, the degradation of Hollywood’s traditional movie- and show-making apparatus—the system’s inability to latch on to sustained audiences—has prompted the decision-makers to sloppily aim for what seems to be popular. (Then, Black Lives Matter; now, Jordan Peterson.)”
“Politically, the real pop culture contest today isn’t between who has the best entertainment franchise—the Reaganesque frontier stoicism of Paramount’s Yellowstone or the perverse feminism of Showtime’sYellowjackets, say—it’s between who can effectively move their audience: Rogan or MrBeast? Liberals aren’t even competing on this front. I’m not sure they even know it’s there. Trump’s appearances on these podcasts helped him because they brought him into an environment. He was joining them... Since Trump’s reelection, liberal pundits have focused on the signifiers of support Hollywood has traditionally supplied: the label ribbons, the performative representation, and whether or not Disney includes content warnings on racial stereotypes present in its classic films. But the rise of the right-winger as trusted hangout interlocutor, and the way the connection he offers shapes how audiences move through the world, are different from the ‘different hat, same ball game’ signaling of past presidential cycles… As chilling as [Hollywood’s] obvious plays for favor to the right may be, we should be more chilled by what’s going on underneath them: the collapse of the broader communal experience of movies and TV. This is not a typical swing in messaging as the party in power shifts; it’s a culture falling in on a hollowed-out center.”
Why it matters: “Mass culture was never perfect, never entirely progressive, much less revolutionary. It can numb as well as inspire us—but at least it provided a shared language… As America loses the superficial liberal flavor of pop culture, we’re losing culture’s transformative power entirely. Good storytelling challenges its audience; it encourages people to question their assumptions instead of accepting the status quo. The surprises matter because characters are changed by what they find; the mere novelty isn’t the point. We’re left with a future in which completely AI-generated families undertake increasingly surreal rituals designed to recall distantly remembered household traditions. This isn’t about ideology. The algorithm doesn’t care what you watch—just that you never stop watching. Just keep the screen on. Auto-play to infinity.”
9. Why America shouldn’t shortchange space science
Why you should read it: In the New York Times, the Planetary Society’s Casey Dreier protests the Trump White House’s desire to eviscerate NASA’s science budget—cutting funding for, among other things, robotic explorers by half in its proposed budget.
“NASA’s science program manages a fleet of over 70 active missions stretching from the sun to interstellar space. Roughly 50 more are under intensive development. Despite this scale, the efforts account for about one-third of the agency’s annual budget — and a tiny 0.1 percent of total U.S. expenditures… If these cuts are enacted, the savings to taxpayers would be negligible, and the impact to science would be calamitous. Dozens upon dozens of productive science spacecrafts would have to be terminated for lack of funds, left to tumble aimlessly in space. Many projects currently under construction would be scrapped midstream, wasting billions already spent. NASA science institutions would be closed. Thousands of bright students across the country would be denied careers in science and engineering absent the fellowships and research funds to support them.”
“Enacting these cuts would be a mistake — not only for the generational damage it would do to America’s scientific pre-eminence, but also for the symbolic curtailment of our ambitions. Space is among the most potent symbols in human society. It is big, unforgiving, alien and extremely hard to reach. Space agencies like NASA, then, are symbols unto themselves, an expression of a national self-identity projected into the heavens. Shattering NASA’s scientific capability would be an abandonment of our ideals: curiosity in the face of the unknown, relentless optimism and a practical determination to engage with the world as it is, not as we want it to be. Instead of looking up and out, we would become a country looking down and in, the national equivalent of a teenager hunched over an iPhone, oblivious to the world beyond.”
Why it matters: “Curtailing the pursuit of space science is more than a question of budgets. It is a question of what kind of country we are and aspire to be. To retreat from the effort to know the cosmos in which we reside should not be the end of this American story.”
Odds and Ends
Visit the Heard and McDonald Islands, hit by President Trump’s tariffs despite being inhabited by zero humans and many, many penguins…
Why dinosaur tracks in Scotland show meat-eating theropods and plant-munching sauropods—predator and likely prey—drank from the same watering hole…
How the super-rich are hurting paleontological research by buying up T. rex fossils at an alarming pace…
Why Australia, of all places, has a the world’s largest feral camel population—and why nothing has worked to tame them…
How advances in 3D scanning technology have made it easier to preserve and visit hard-to-reach historical sites like the wreck of the Titanic…
What I’m Listening To and Watching
Director Martin Scorsese’s enigmatic 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ, starring Willem Dafoe as the title character and featuring an excellent cameo from David Bowie as well as a stellar score by Peter Gabriel.
The second and final season of Andor, the Disney+ series that tells the origin story of the rebellion against the Galactic Empire in the Star Wars mythos.
“California Blues,” a mellow paean to escaping Los Angeles from Duane Betts—the son of legendary Allman Brothers guitarist Dickey Betts—off his 2018 EP Sketches of American Music.
“Everybody’s trying to figure me out,” a new and pensive single from the Haim sisters.
A pair of recent covers of Harvey Danger’s apparently now-classic late 1990s track “Flagpole Sitta”: a dreamy rendition by AWOLNATION (featuring Elohim) and a more straightforward take by the All-American Rejects.
Image of the Month
