Excerpts

You are currently browsing the archive for the Excerpts category.

The two short quotes below are from Stanford media historian Fred Turner, who sat for a very smart Medium interview conducted by Kim-Mai Cutler. In the Q&A, Turner explains how the very type of tools developed to combat fascism wound up being subverted in this era of fake news, often a tactic of white nationalists. The academic also places Donald Trump on a continuum of tyrants, including Mussolini, who caused catastrophic carnage in the last century.


“Some key elements of fascism include the following:

  1. A reversionary desire to return to an imagined state of greatness from the past.
  2. A celebration of heterosexual masculinity. You could think of Vladimir Putin’s need to take off his shirt or Donald Trump’s obsession with the size of his hands.
  3. A charismatic leadership style.
  4. An absolute disregard for facts and a celebration of myth.
  5. An integration of the corporation and the state, which is what Mussolini wanted to do and feels reminiscent of what Trump wants to do today.
  6. A deep, structural racism. There is always someone on the outs. In Japan, it was particular minority groups. In Germany, it was obviously the Jews, but it was also gypsies, queers and communists, among others. And you can see that kind of racism, that kind of in-group and out-group dynamic here, with Trump.

Many people have called Donald Trump a populist. I don’t think that’s quite right. His anti-elitist rhetoric is certainly in that vein, but his racism, his sexism, and his emphasis on a return to a formerly great America, belong to the fascist line.

To me, the constellation of forces that he’s put into play look like early Mussolini. The key difference is that Mussolini and Hitler came to power by essentially building parties first. Trump has used the media to take over an existing state apparatus. Whether he’s able to do what he wants or not, whether he’s competent or not, and whether institutions will resist him, that’s an open question. I don’t think he’s Andrew Jackson though.”•


“One of the things we see with Trump and the Twitter-sphere is that when new technologies come on the scene, they don’t replace old technologies. They layer onto older technologies.

Twitter and its liberating potential is already mass mediated. It’s already commercial. When Donald tweets, he isn’t just tweeting to a general populace. He’s generating stories for CBS and NBC, and for that matter, Facebook. He’s generating stories that create an entire media sphere on their own. That is the source of his power. He is using the old fascist charisma, but he’s doing it in a media environment in which the social and the commercial, the individual and the mass, are already completely entwined.”•

Tags: ,

Steve Jobs possessed many great qualities if you could look past the bullying tyrant who disliked philanthropy, which, admittedly, wasn’t easy, but it’s always been tremendously galling that Apple’s grammatically challenged 1997 “Think Different” campaign used Mahatma Gandhi’s likeness to peddle marked-up consumer electronics manufactured by sweatshop labor. Yes, they were really cool computers, but still. 

The slain civil rights leader was, of course, a complicated and contradictory character, and no one more ably parried against the simple-headed sanctification and commodification of him than Salman Rushdie did in a Time essay published a year after the ad was launched. The opening:

A thin Indian man with not much hair sits alone on a bare floor, wearing nothing but a loincloth and a pair of cheap spectacles, studying the clutch of handwritten notes in his hand. The black-and-white photograph takes up a full page in the newspaper. In the top left-hand corner of the page, in full color, is a small rainbow-striped apple. Below this, there’s a slangily American injunction to “Think Different.” Such is the present-day power of international Big Business. Even the greatest of the dead may summarily be drafted into its image ad campaigns. Once, a half-century ago, this bony man shaped a nation’s struggle for freedom. But that, as they say, is history. Now Gandhi is modeling for Apple. His thoughts don’t really count in this new incarnation. What counts is that he is considered to be “on message,” in line with the corporate philosophy of Apple.

The advertisement is odd enough to be worth dissecting a little. Obviously it is rich in unintentional comedy. M.K. Gandhi, as the photograph itself demonstrates, was a passionate opponent of modernity and technology, preferring the pencil to the typewriter, the loincloth to the business suit, the plowed field to the belching manufactory. Had the word processor been invented in his lifetime, he would almost certainly have found it abhorrent. The very term word processor, with its overly technological ring, is unlikely to have found favor.

“Think Different.” Gandhi, in his younger days a sophisticated and Westernized lawyer, did indeed change his thinking more radically than most people do. Ghanshyam Das Birla, one of the merchant princes who backed him, once said, “He was more modern than I. But he made a conscious decision to go back to the Middle Ages.” This is not, presumably, the revolutionary new direction in thought that the good folks at Apple are seeking to encourage.

Gandhi today is up for grabs. He has become abstract, ahistorical, postmodern, no longer a man in and of his time but a freeloading concept, a part of the available stock of cultural symbols, an image that can be borrowed, used, distorted, reinvented to fit many different purposes, and to the devil with historicity or truth.

Richard Attenborough’s much-Oscared movie Gandhi struck me, when it was first released, as an example of this type of unhistorical Western saintmaking. Here was Gandhi-as-guru, purveying that fashionable product, the Wisdom of the East; and Gandhi-as-Christ, dying (and, before that, frequently going on hunger strike) so that others might live. His philosophy of nonviolence seemed to work by embarrassing the British into leaving; freedom could be won, the film appeared to suggest, by being more moral than your oppressor, whose moral code could then oblige him to withdraw.

But such is the efficacy of this symbolic Gandhi that the film, for all its simplifications and Hollywoodizations, had a powerful and positive effect on many contemporary freedom struggles. South African antiapartheid campaigners and democratic voices all over South America have enthused to me about the film’s galvanizing effects. This posthumous, exalted “international Gandhi” has apparently become a totem of real inspirational force.

The trouble with the idealized Gandhi is that he’s so darned dull, little more than a dispenser of homilies and nostrums (“An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind”) with just the odd flash of wit (asked what he thought of Western civilization, he gave the celebrated reply, “I think it would be a great idea”). The real man, if it is still possible to use such a term after the generations of hagiography and reinvention, was infinitely more interesting, one of the most complex and contradictory personalities of the century.•

Tags: , ,

chris-cuomo-jason-miller

In some quarters of national political discourse, a theory holds that Americans elected Donald Trump not because they thought he would keep his promises but because they wanted to explode the status quo and burn down the house. This may be received wisdom.

If so, the citizens grossly undervalue the stability of the traditional state of affairs, which, for all its flaws, has served them better than they may accept. More likely, many Trump supporters are true believers, maybe not convinced he’ll build a gold-splattered wall to protect us from a nonexistent Mexican invasion but certain he would “drain the swamp” despite his long career as a creature from the black lagoon.

The thing is, some of the goods he swore he’d deliver (e.g., a return to manufacturing greatness) are all but impossible and others (say, tax breaks for billionaires, harassment of immigrants and the press) may lead to ugly consequences for all. Mix in the usual GOP voodoo that could now be realized (gutting Medicare, devastating labor unions, etc.), and it may soon be a bell-ringing hangover for those who got drunk at the Trump Winery. Further, a descent into actual autocracy is now on the table, the Constitution resting in the pocket of a careless man who may pretend to forget it’s there.

In the aftermath of the worst possible political outcome for the country, Holger Stark of Spiegel interviewed New Yorker Editor-in-Chief David Remnick, whose whole career has prepared him well for a moment he wished would never arrive. In addition to the ramifications of the appalling turn of events on Election Day, they discuss the failings of the Democrat Party, Putin’s use for Trump and the emergence of fake news. The opening:

Spiegel:

On the night of the election, you published a stunning warning that the election’s outcome was “surely the way fascism can begin.” It’s been three weeks now. Has fascism begun?

David Remnick:

No it has not and I want to be clear about what I wrote. The whole sentence, the complete thought is this: I don’t think there will be fascism in America, but we have to do everything we can to fight against it. As the Germans know better than we do, disaster can take a nation by surprise, slowly, and then all at once. My deep sense of alarm has to do with his seeming lack of fealty to constitutionalism. He seems to think it is within his rights to trample the First Amendment, to disdain the press, to punish protesters or flag-burners, to ban ethnic categories of immigrants, and so on. He has myriad conflicts of interest. He appoints people of low quality, to say the least. He lies with astonishing frequency and in stunning volume. His temperament and character is precisely what you would hate to see in your children, much less your president. We can wish all these things will magically change once he is in office, but will they?

I’ve lived through terrible presidents, we all have. I lived through the Nixon administration, which prolonged a horrific war for years and ran a criminal operation out of the White House, and I lived through the years with George W. Bush. And I lived for years in the Soviet Union and have seen the promise of democratic development turn, with Putin, into an authoritarian state. So yes, I think we should be alarmed, watchful, and, as journalists, rigorous and fearless. I think we should be alert.

Spiegel:

Similar developments have taken place in other countries as well.

David Remnick:

Trump’s election is part of an international trend that’s no less alarming, in Britain, in France, in Germany, in Austria. Vladimir Putin wanted to see this outcome no less than he would like to see nationalists and anti-Europeanists win in France. He wants to become the de facto head of an illiberal, xenophobic, hypernationalist trend in world politics.•

Tags: ,

andwarholsupermarket5678

A post yesterday concerned a gargantuan French grocery using Li-Fi to observe shopper behavior, a technology that could potentially allow stores to instantaneously update pricing to spark sales or employ surge pricing in aisle six.

Another way to sell citizens on surrendering privacy is to offer them convenience, as Amazon plans to do with its pay-and-go supermarkets in which an app tallies the bill and charges customers, no checkout required. As sensors fall in cost, such options become possible.

It’s a disappearance of millions of jobs, of course, eliminating cashiers, but more than that a way for Amazon to track you as much as possible, to know what you want so it can figure out more ways to sell it to you. The company’s goal is to reverse the normal order of things, putting you in its pocket rather than the other way around. 

From Leslie Hook at Financial Times:

Online retailer Amazon is looking to eliminate the checkout in real-world supermarkets with the opening of its first physical grocery store early next year.

Its initial Amazon Go store will feature “Just Walk Out” technology that allows customers to take items from the shelves and walk out, without ever standing in a queue for a till.

The company said the store would use the same technology as driverless cars, employing sensors, computer vision and deep learning to determine which products a shopper had placed in their bag.

For Amazon Go, shoppers download an app on their smartphones and show the barcode it produces to a scanner as they enter the store. They can then shop freely from the shelves, where sensors will detect which items they have selected. When shoppers walk out, their bills will be automatically tallied and receipts will appear on their phones.•

Tags:

forest-city_05

He who isn’t busy being born is busy dying, wrote the Nobel Prize winner.

For China, the vertiginous arrival of urbanism has been a rough birth, fueled by a crash course in capitalism which willed into existence insta-megalopolises in search of residents. The building boom has led to “crazy bad” air pollution, and even stiff measures to combat it have prove unable to force the choking genie back into the bottle.

The thing about such breakneck capitalism is you have to keep feeding it massive servings because the end can mean economic disaster, so Chinese companies in the city-building business running out of desirable plots of land at home need to look abroad for acreage to conquer with outsize projects. They hope to export their model, which certainly is bad environmentally and may prove a financial folly.

The landscaped lawns and flowering shrubs of Country Garden Holdings Co.’s huge property showroom in southern Malaysia end abruptly at a small wire fence. Beyond, a desert of dirt stretches into the distance, filled with cranes and piling towers that the Chinese developer is using to build a $100 billion city in the sea.

While Chinese home buyers have sent prices soaring from Vancouver to Sydney, in this corner of Southeast Asia it’s China’s developers that are swamping the market, pushing prices lower with a glut of hundreds of thousands of new homes. They’re betting that the city of Johor Bahru, bordering Singapore, will eventually become the next Shenzhen.

“These Chinese players build by the thousands at one go, and they scare the hell out of everybody,” said Siva Shanker, head of investments at Axis-REIT Managers Bhd. and a former president of the Malaysian Institute of Estate Agents. “God only knows who is going to buy all these units, and when it’s completed, the bigger question is, who is going to stay in them?”

The Chinese companies have come to Malaysia as growth in many of their home cities is slowing, forcing some of the world’s biggest builders to look abroad to keep erecting the giant residential complexes that sprouted across China during the boom years. They found a prime spot in this special economic zone, three times the size of Singapore, on the southern tip of the Asian mainland.

The scale of the projects is dizzying.•

Tags: , ,

trumpkiss1

While Nero twitters, Rome burns.

There are varyng levels of exasperation about what became possible with the election of Donald Trump, an orange supremacist who waves his penis around like a masturbating Mussolini and exchanges compliments with the murderous kleptocrat Vladimir Putin, making it feel like America has retroactively lost WWII as well as the Cold War. 

Even if we avoid a descent into autocracy and the future doesn’t play out like an infomercial for internment camps (both possibilities), we’re still headed for trouble. Three quick excerpts about the personality, economics and politics of the wholly unqualified hatemonger 62+ million Americans deemed worthy of their vote.


From Garrison Keillor:

He will never be my president because he doesn’t read books, can’t write more than a sentence or two at a time, has no strong loyalties beyond himself, is more insular than any New Yorker I ever knew, and because I don’t see anything admirable or honorable about him. This sets him apart from other politicians. The disaffected white blue-collar workers elected a Fifth Avenue tycoon to rescue them from the elitists — fine, I get that — but they could’ve chosen a better tycoon. One who served in the military or attends church or reads history, loves opera, sails a boat — something — anything — raises llamas, plays the oboe, runs a 5K race now and then, has close friends from childhood. I look at him and there’s nothing there.•


From Lawrence Summers on the Carrier deal:

It seems to me what we have just witnessed is an act of ad hoc deal capitalism and, worse yet, its celebration as a model. As with the air traffic controllers, only a negligible sliver of the economy is involved, but there is huge symbolic value. A principle is being established: It is good for the president to try to figure out what people want and lean on companies to give it to them. Predictability and procedure are less important than getting the right result at the right time. Like Hong Kong, as mainland China increasingly imposes its will, we may have taken a first step toward a kind of reverse transition from rule of law capitalism to ad hoc deal-based capitalism.

The commentary on the president-elect’s actions has emphasized its novelty, has emphasized the difficulties of scaling, and in the case of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), has argued that the actions taken were insufficiently forceful because some workers will still be relocated to Mexico. All of this misses the point. Presidents have enormous latent power, and it is the custom of restraint in its use that is one of the important differences between us and banana republics. If its ad hoc use is licensed, the possibilities are endless.•


From Alan Feuer and Andrew Higgins of the NYT:

As the founder of the Traditionalist Worker Party, an American group that aims to preserve the privileged place of whiteness in Western civilization and fight “anti-Christian degeneracy,” Matthew Heimbachknows whom he envisions as the ideal ruler: the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin.

“Russia is our biggest inspiration,” Mr. Heimbach said. “I see President Putin as the leader of the free world.”

Throughout the presidential campaign, Donald J. Trump mystified many on the left and in the foreign policy establishment with his praise for Mr. Putin and his criticism of the Obama administration’s efforts to isolate and punish Russia for its actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. But what seemed inexplicable when Mr. Trump first expressed his admiration for the Russian leader seems, in retrospect, to have been a shrewd dog whistle to a small but highly motivated part of his base.

For Mr. Heimbach is far from alone in his esteem for Mr. Putin. Throughout the collection of white ethnocentrists, nationalists, populists and neo-Nazis that has taken root on both sides of the Atlantic, Mr. Putin is widely revered as a kind of white knight: a symbol of strength, racial purity and traditional Christian values in a world under threat from Islam, immigrants and rootless cosmopolitan elites.•

Tags: , , , ,

edisonbulb

Kaveh Waddell’s recent Atlantic article about the potential of Li-Fi, a wireless communication technology enabled by light bulbs, received most notice because of the eerie example at its center: a French supermarket that utilizes the fledgling tool to spy on the practices and preferences of its customers. It’s potentially possible for the store to regularly raise or lower prices based on customer activity–even as you inspect a jar in hand. 

It’s easy to envision a future in which Li-Fi or some other system in the IoT age transforms quotidian experiences in discomfiting ways, making every waking moment a game, a challenge. Really, it’s more likely than not.

From Wadell:

In an enormous grocery store in northern France, the lights above the aisles aren’t all they seem to be. They look ordinary—more than a mile and a half of fixtures exuding bright light, folded into a grid overhead—but they’re actually flickering faster than the human eye can see. The unique patterns each individual section of lighting emits are a 21st-century twist on Morse code, meant not for people, but for the cameras on their phones.

If shoppers grant the store’s app access to their smartphone’s front-facing lens, the phone can watch for the lights and use the pulses to pinpoint its location. Doing so allows the app to plot the best routes for shopping lists, tracking people as they travel through the store. (The guidance might come in especially handy for first-time visitors to the 84,000-square foot Carrefour “hypermarket,” the French equivalent of a Walmart.)

Location information is one of the most valuable types of data a retailer can gather from its customers, says Joseph Turow, a professor of communications at the University of Pennsylvania. (I interviewed Turow about the future of retail surveillance last month.) If a retailer knows where you spent most of your time inside of a store, it can follow up with discounts for a product you looked at but didn’t buy—either after you’ve left the store, to encourage a return trip, or even right as you’re lingering in the aisle, to nudge you to buy it now. In the U.S., Target and Walmart are rumored to use lighting technology to locate smartphone-toting shoppers, but aren’t forthcoming about their plans. 

The system being tested in the French supermarket offers a glimpse of what light bulbs might soon be able to do.•

Tags:

mussolini09876234567-09876

trumpgun-1

As I’ve noted many times, Benito Mussolini is the truest historical analog for Donald Trump, each of them a vulgar, unhinged clown not taken seriously until too late. Of course, that doesn’t mean they’re precisely the same nor are their milieus. We can’t prepare for the future by expecting it to be identical to the past, though it can teach plenty  

In “An American Authoritarian,” Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s smart Atlantic essay, the writer explores the similarities and differences between the two buffoonish, dangerous figures. Early in the piece, she writes that “Trump is not a Fascist. He does not aim to establish a one-party state.” That may be true in form but perhaps not in function. I wonder if he intends to use the office of the President and the loyalists he appoints to create a de facto one-party system even if the ornaments of the traditional arrangement remain. Also: Believing an aspiring autocrat’s more soothing words is usually a mistake. Mussolini boasted in the early 1920s that Italy’s free press was the envy of the world, and a decade later he was dictating front-page stories to newspapers at the point of a Carcano. When it comes to tyrants (and ones with those aspirations), believe the threats and doubt the rest.

An excerpt:

A century before Trump, Benito Mussolini burst onto the Italian political scene, confounding the country’s political establishment with his unorthodox doctrine and tactics and his outsized personality. Mussolini’s rise offers lessons for understanding the Trump phenomenon—and why he was able to disarm much of the American political class.

Many Italians did not know what to make of Mussolini when the former Socialist founded Fascism as an “anti-party” on the heels of World War I. His was an outsider movement, born from the conviction that the establishment parties—along with the political systems they represented, liberalism and socialism—were broken or posed a grave threat to Italy.

A mercurial hothead, Mussolini reveled in his role as a political disrupter. His crisis-mongering platforms contained a confusing blend of socialist and nationalist tenets, trafficking in contradiction and paradox, the better to challenge traditional ideas about politics. “Does Fascism aim at restoring the State, or subverting it? Is it order or disorder?” he taunted Italians in print six months before he took over as prime minister.

His grassroots followers spoke more directly, terrorizing Italy’s hinterland as a prelude to claiming control. Taking Mussolini’s incendiary rhetoric to heart, his blackshirts beat and executed thousands of political opponents—including priests—at rallies and on trains, in shops, schools, and taverns. Everyday violence primed the country for an exceptional outcome: In 1922, Mussolini staged a march on Rome and demanded the post of prime minister from the terrified king.

Italians learned in the 1920s what Americans are learning in 2016: Charismatic authoritarians seeking political office cannot be understood through the framework of traditional politics. They lack interest in, and patience for, established protocols. They often trust few outside of their own families, or those they already control, making collaboration and relationship building difficult. They work from a different playbook, and so must those who intend to confront them.•

Tags: , ,

thiel7890 (1)

Speaking of liberal government under siege, Jedediah Purdy penned the Politico piece “The Anti-Democratic Worldview of Steve Bannon and Peter Thiel,” which looks at two members of the transition team guiding the singularly sociopathic bully about to become President. Trump’s disdain for freedom of the press, basic constitutional liberties and democracy itself are not lonely views within his inner circle.

Thiel is an intellectual fraud who loves monopolies and possesses the moral blind spot of Hitler’s secretary. White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon is a racist wingnut given to grandiosity who’d prefer if only slave property owners could vote. Their overt (and well-documented) disdain for democracy is deeply troubling. 

If Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post is truly puzzled why Trump’s received so much flak for his cabinet picks since, as he states, all Presidents appoint a few loyalists to their cabinet, he should realize Bannon and incoming National Security Adviser, Mike Flynn, two of those cronies, seem eager for some sort of large-scale war on Islam. It’s not the quantity of the loyalists that disturbs as much as their qualities.

From Purdy:

Two of Trump’s close advisers have known views on some big-picture issues about the world, and if you read them, there’s a troubling commonality that goes far beyond any specific policy areas: They are our first clear view of Trumpism as an illiberal theory of politics with deep doubts about democracy.

The advisers are Steve Bannon, the right-wing media provocateur who ran Breitbart News, then Trump’s campaign, and has now been named to the influential post of “chief strategist,” a role in which he is expected to have the new president’s ear in the White House. The other is Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley libertarian who spoke at Trump’s convention, gave more than $1 million in support of his campaign and is now a member of Trump’s transition team. Although Thiel says he doesn’t intend to have a full-time position in Trump’s administration, he reportedly has been feeding the president-elect ideas from a Silicon Valley “brain trust,” and a principal at Thiel’s venture capital fund has beennamedto Trump’s defense transition team. The speeches and writings of these two political outsiders suggest that beyond policy, there’s something much deeper at work: an impulse to reshape the country, and the world, in a way that would change the meaning of democracy in unsettling ways—and, maybe, ultimately undermine it.•

Tags: , ,

In a smart Guardian piece by Hannah Devlin, novelist Kazuo Ishiguro wonders if liberal democracy will be doomed by a new type of wealth inequality, the biological kind, in which gene editing and other tools make enhancement and improved health available only to the haves. It’s likewise a major theme in Yuval Noah Harari’s second book, Homo Deus, which wonders where we’ll take biotech, or perhaps more likely, where it will take us. Ishiguro isn’t a fatalist on the topic, encouraging more public engagement.

Some believe exorbitantly priced technologies created for the moneyed few will rapidly decrease in price and make their way inside everyone’s pockets (and bodies and brains), the same distribution path blazed by consumer electronics. That’s possible but certainly not definite. Of course, as the chilling political winds of 2016 have demonstrated, liberal democracy may be too fragile to even survive to that point.

The opening:

Imagine a two-tiered society with elite citizens, genetically engineered to be smarter, healthier and to live longer, and an underclass of biologically run-of-the-mill humans. It sounds like the plot of a dystopian novel, but the world could be sleepwalking towards this scenario, according to one of Britain’s most celebrated writers.

Kazuo Ishiguro argues that the social changes unleashed by gene editing technologies, such as Crispr, could undermine core human values.

“We’re going into a territory where a lot of the ways in which we have organised our societies will suddenly look a bit redundant,” he said. “In liberal democracies, we have this idea that human beings are basically equal in some very fundamental way. We’re coming close to the point where we can, objectively in some sense, create people who are superior to others.”•

Tags: ,

the_end_is_near (2)

If enough people believe the end is near, is it?

Well, the end may not be upon us, but a surprising number of Americans believe something significant is coming to a close. Could it be white dominance, the Industrial Age or democracy itself? We just elected a self-adoring autocrat to somehow regain control of a world in chaos–although the crime rate is low, the economy decent, terrorism rare and large-scale war non-existent. But for many, the machinery feels like it’s falling to pieces. Or maybe they unwittingly harbor a fantasy that the center cannot not hold in our frighteningly complex, dawning Digital Age. Collapse is a time machine minus the technology.

From Cheryl Stritzel McCarthy’s Chicago Tribune report on the end-of-days industry::

The prepper movement, while not mainstream, is no longer just the province of outliers holed up in doomsday bunkers.

“It’s become less out of the ordinary, less extreme,” says Arthur Markman, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin. “At first, 10 years ago, it was a real spectacle. Now there are more websites on it. Even people who don’t think of themselves as preppers are thinking, ‘Is there something I could do to be prepared in case I have to do things for myself?’

“The undercurrent of mistrust in society has gotten bigger,” Markman says. “Look at the current election climate. You have a lot of angry voters.” News stories such as the Flint, Mich., water supply, or banks too big to fail, prompt citizens to distrust large-scale institutions traditionally seen as safe. 

Food, water and .22 ammo are the essentials for apocalypse, agrees “Loren,” a sporting goods store clerk who asked that his real name not be used. “Over years, (preppers) collect guns and ammunition. They’re a tight-lipped group. Some have regular jobs; you wouldn’t know they have an arsenal under their house.”•

Tags: ,

8484205576_75d9daa43f_b

The twin political shocks of 2016–the bad Brexit and the worse Trump victory–have provoked Stephen Hawking to pen the Guardian editorial, “This is the Most Dangerous Time for Our Planet,” which encourages those with vast power and wealth to address the needs of ones left behind in our technological age.

The physicist’s focus is noble, though I wonder about the efficacy of his prescriptions. Hawking believes we need to retrain those whose skills are no longer required. That’s easier said than done, and automation may make it unlikely enough jobs exist even for those who are successfully upskilled. Not every trucker can become a self-driving car engineer.

He further feels we need to support those being retrained financially while they’re indoctrinated into a computer-dominant era, though with the miserly, bigoted plutocrats soon entering the White House, a dismantling of existing social safety nets is far more likely than some form of Universal Basic Income.

The scientist also believes global development on a larger scale is needed to in the face of mass migration, which is great but unlikely in many war-torn areas and even in more stable locales, that level of investment is unlikely without a profit motive. Hawking is rightly saying it shouldn’t be that way, but that’s the way it is.

An excerpt:

The concerns underlying these votes about the economic consequences of globalisation and accelerating technological change are absolutely understandable. The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining.

This in turn will accelerate the already widening economic inequality around the world. The internet and the platforms that it makes possible allow very small groups of individuals to make enormous profits while employing very few people. This is inevitable, it is progress, but it is also socially destructive.

We need to put this alongside the financial crash, which brought home to people that a very few individuals working in the financial sector can accrue huge rewards and that the rest of us underwrite that success and pick up the bill when their greed leads us astray. So taken together we are living in a world of widening, not diminishing, financial inequality, in which many people can see not just their standard of living, but their ability to earn a living at all, disappearing. It is no wonder then that they are searching for a new deal, which Trump and Brexit might have appeared to represent.•

Tags:

fab1

echo_familyThere’s something inherently human about people trying to make machines speak. It may seem a paradox, but history has proven it so.

Just one example: Nearly 170 years before Siri, German inventor Joseph Faber demonstrated his Talking Machine, most commonly known as “Euphonia,” which was able to speak sentences in a human if monotone voice. The marvel became a staple of Barnum’s shows, billed as the “Scientific Sensation of the Age,” though it proved a fleeting success.

With Siri, machine conversation was here to stay. Amazon’s Echo, the Alexa-enabled next big thing after Apple’s invention, can answer all manner of question, but the company wants long conversations not quick exchanges, the better to keep you engaged in its products for longer spans. Such dialogues may make us less lonely, though we’ll become a little more artificial as gadgets become increasingly “real.”

In an interesting Backchannel interview, Steven Levy questions Rohit Prasad, Amazon’s VP of Alexa. One passage about human-machine conversation:

Rohit Prasad:

Are you aware of the Alexa Prize competition?

Steven Levy:

This is the $2.5 million challenge to computer science students that you announced in September?

Rohit Prasad:

Yes. In academia it’s hard to do research in conversation areas because they don’t have a system like Alexa to work with. So we are making it easy to build new conversational capabilities with a modified version of the Alexa skills kit. This grand challenge is to create a social bot that can carry on a meaningful, coherent, and engaging conversation for 20 minutes.

Steven Levy:

Would that be a Turing-level kind of conversation, do you think?

Rohit Prasad:

No, the Turing test comes down to human gullibility — can you fool an outsider into thinking it’s a human? If you think about certain tasks, Alexa is already better than a human. It’s super hard for a human to play a particular song out of millions of catalog entries within a second, right? If you ask Alexa to compute factorial of 60, that’s hard for a human. So we definitely did not want it to be like a Turing test. It’s more about coherence and engagement.

Steven Levy:

What are people going to be talking about in these 20 minute conversations with Alexa?

Rohit Prasad:

We are giving topics. Like, “Can you talk on the trending topics in today’s newspaper?” We expect the social bot to be able to chat with you on topics like scientific inventions, or the financial crisis.•

Tags: ,

30-romney-w710-h473

While lessons can be learned from utilitarian philosophy, taken as a whole it seems to run counter to human nature, holding that we can constantly view the world with clinical, calculated precision. That’s just not so.

Moral philosopher Peter Singer believes utilitarianism should be applied by those considering working in the Trump Administration. He suggests that if you feel you can mitigate the considerable pain about to be administered to our most vulnerable, take the job, but also be prepared to resign if you’re forced to contribute to evil.

That might work on paper but not so much in real life, and not just for pragmatic concerns like someone being unable to quit a position because they need to care for their family. If you’re on the inside of Team Trump, you will in some way casue harm. Even if you believe another would be doing more damage, there’s no way to know how your small efforts to protect will be used to do a much greater bad a few steps down the line.

In her New York Review of Books essay “Trump: The Choice We Face,” Masha Gessen reflects on the thorny compromise of Jewish Councils during the age of Nazism, concluding that “we need to shift from realist to moral reasoning.” That seems a more apt and human response to our moment.

In a wonderful Five Books interview, Nigel Warburton discusses his favorite philosophy titles from 2016, including Singer’s Ethics in the Real World. An excerpt:

Question:

Does [Singer’s] controversiality stem from his utilitarianism? Say in the article in this book, about Thabo Mbeki refusing to admit that HIV causes AIDS. He is saying, ‘OK Mbeki killed more people because of this view on HIV/AIDS than the entire apartheid regime did, so how do we compare these two?’ That’s what he is measuring up. Is that the kind of thing a utilitarian does, count up numbers of people killed?

Nigel Warburton:

There are lots of different forms of utilitarianism. The basic principle is that it focuses on the consequences of actions and not the intentions (though the intentions might have consequences as well — in terms of how other people perceive what you do if you express them, for instance).

This is a case of somebody who, without an explicit intention to bring about people’s deaths, through their actions has done so. Utilitarianism, traditionally, looks for a currency that can measure different actions through the probable consequences and plays off those different consequences. Weighing the consequences against each other is the basic benefit of utilitarianism.

You can work out the best course of action because it is the one with the best consequences, or most likely to have the best consequences. So, if you take that really seriously, if you had to choose a world without apartheid, or a world without this statement from Mbeki, the world without Mbeki would be better (in terms of lives lost), even if it had apartheid. There might be other negative consequences of apartheid, there certainly were, but just on that factor, a consequentialist approach would lead to that conclusion.

Obviously in some situations, the consequences are incredibly important. But the obsession with consequences can seem inhumane in many situations. It’s a kind of straightforward cost-benefit analysis, and when applied to people close to you, it seems incredibly cruel and lacking in compassion.

Question:

Is compassion not important then?

Nigel Warburton:

Utilitarians find a value in compassion, but they celebrate a clinical assessment of outcomes above all. I think, in a sense, that is both the strength and weakness of the approach.•

Tags: ,

mcluhannewspaper

Jeff Jarvis, theorist or something, was one of the most gleeful of public figures in celebrating the demise of traditional media. Having made his bones in the business, he wanted the new tools to feast on the flesh of print publications and network TV, believing there would emerge a democratic revolution. In ways he couldn’t anticipate, he was correct.

Jarvis grew apoplectic as a Trump Presidency seemed increasingly possible, spending great personal time volunteering for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania and making desperate appeals to traditional media personalities like Howard Stern, hoping, belatedly, that the new abnormal could somehow be tamed by phone banks and talk radio. Not possible. The ethical standards and common decency that had washed away easier than ink helped make sure of that. What seemed an evolution to him turned out to be a devolution. 

From “Meet the New Gatekeeper, Worse Than the Old Gatekeeper,” Nicholas Carr’s astute Rough Type post:

We celebrated our emancipation from filters, and we praised the democratization brought about by “new media.” The “people formerly known as the audience” had taken charge, proclaimed one herald of the new order, as he wagged his finger at the disempowered journalistic elites. “You were once (exclusively) the editors of the news, choosing what ran on the front page. Now we can edit the news, and our choices send items to our own front pages.”

“The means of media are now in the hands of the people,” declared another triumphalist:

So now anyone can control, create, market, distribute, find, and interact with anything they want. The barrier to entry to media is demolished. Media, always a one-way pipe, now becomes an open pool. . . . Whenever citizens can exercise control, they will. Today they are challenging and changing media — where bloggers now fact-check Dan Rather’s ass — but tomorrow they will challenge and change politics, government, marketing, and education as well. This isn’t just a media revolution, though that’s where we are seeing the impact first. This is a chain-reaction of revolutions. It has just begun.

And the pundits were right — the old media filters dissolved, and “we” took control — though the great disruption has not played out in quite the way they anticipated.•

Tags: ,

Despite the god-awful results of the recent American Presidential election, nightmares rarely play out, thankfully, but conjuring worst-case scenarios can speak truth to very justifiable fears.

Those who bought into the Trumpian nostalgia for a more alabaster America delivered the country to a cohort of profiteers, polluters and plutocrats that will leave the nation bleeding from the wherever. The Simon Cowell-ish strongman’s biggest supporters, older and whiter and working-class, will be hurt as badly as anyone with the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and Social Security resting in the hands of the merciless. Labor unions will also be attacked relentlessly and climate change ignored, further endangering this demographic, which already has little shelter from the storm.

With the selection of Tom Price as Health and Human Services Secretary, a war will also be waged on the poor. As Politico states: “Price wants to limit federal Medicaid spending to give states a lump sum, or block grant, and more control over how they could use it — a dream of conservative Republicans for years and a nightmare for advocates for the poor who fear many would lose coverage.” There is basis for grave concern.

Peter Frase’s newly published book, Four Futures: Life After Capitalism, looks at the potential paths ahead should automation obviate too many jobs. Such a revolution in production could be boon or bane and probably will ultimately reside somewhere in between, but in the author’s most dire prediction, a post-apocalyptic explosion of wealth inequality emerges, with some obscenely rich and the rest meat for crows. Tomorrow probably won’t work out that horribly, but the hard-right shift we’re likely to now endure makes it frighteningly easy to visualize.

From Ben Tarnoff at the Guardian:

There are far worse things than boredom, however. Frase’s fourth and final future, “exterminism,” is truly terrifying. Exterminism has the robots and scarcity of socialism, minus the egalitarianism. The result is a neo-feudal nightmare: the rich retreat to heavily fortified enclaves where the robots do all the work, and everyone else is trapped outside in the hot, soggy hell of a rapidly warming planet. “The great danger posed by the automation of production, in the context of a world of hierarchy and scarce resources,” Frase says, “is that it makes the great mass of people superfluous from the standpoint of the ruling elite.” The elite can always warehouse this surplus humanity in prisons and refugee camps. But at a certain point, the rich might find it more convenient to simply exterminate the poor altogether, now that they’re no longer needed as workers.

It is a testament both to Frase’s ability as a writer and the barbarism of our present moment that exterminism feels like the most realistic of his futures. I lost sleep over it. Yet he is careful to counsel his readers against despair.•

Tags:

L. Ron Hubbard (1911 - 1986), writer of science fiction and founder of the Church of Scientology, in the greenhouse of his Sussex mansion, Saint Hill Manor, December 1959. He is using orchids to develop his theory that plants experience the same sensations and emotions as humans. (Photo by Chris Ware/Keystone Features/Getty Images)

If David Miscavige could time travel–and, no, he can’t–the Scientology leader would probably make as amenable as possible Leah Remini’s exit from the controversial pseudo-religion. The outspoken actor has done the one thing the paranoid cult least wanted: She’s normalized loud criticism of the group. There were angry apostates before, and journalists who poked and prodded the scheme that L. Ron Hubbard built, but there was always a bullying fear of retribution that strongly encouraged quiet. Remini, as much as anyone else, shattered the silence.

She just did a Reddit Ask Me Anything about her former faith. A few exchanges follow.


Question:

How are they able to recruit intelligent people into what appears to be an obvious scam and cult?

Leah Remini:

Most Scientologists are 2nd or 3rd generation, they were born and raised into an ideology and have been surrounded and isolated. It is all they know. They are victims. Most of the original Scientologists are all out and have spoken out. Unfortunately, their children were indoctrinated by them…. are still loyal, faithful and have cut off communication due to the policy of disconnection.

Question:

How do the powers that be in Scientology keep their followers from reading anti-Scientology news, or your book? Why don’t more Scientologists leave?

Leah Remini:

Great question. Because very early on in the brainwashing process, L. Ron Hubbard’s “technology” teaches you that outside sources (i.e. The news, the Internet, books, magazines) are ALL LIES and hellbent on destroying something decent like Scientology. The AMA, and APA, and all “governments” do not give Scientology its due because they have a vested interest in not healing people and not helping people. And Scientology is in the business of making people better. So Scientologists are taught that their safest bet is to get their info from the only true decent people…and those are Scientologists. And if they look on the internet, if they read time mag, they will be met with punishment at their expense. And, as a Scientologist…you have to confess that you’ve read outside materials, and that will be met with punishment at your expense.


Question:

Is it true they record your meetings and blackmail you with the recordings?

Leah Remini:

Yes, every “therapy room” is equipped with cameras and listening devices, as admitted by the “Church.” Do they use it for blackmail? No, they use it to discredit you when you speak out.


Question:

How much did you pay to the church throughout your time there?

Leah Remini:

Millions.


Question:

Do you personally feel like you’re being watched/tracked/etc by the church for doing everything your doing?

Leah Remini:

I am. I’m okay with it because I knew what I was getting into and I knew the policies of the “church” and what would happen by my speaking out against it.


Question:

Do the higher ups know it’s a scam or do they really believe this crap?

Leah Remini:

The higher up is singular. And he definitely knows. However I believe most parishioners and Sea Org members (people who work for the “church”) are in the dark and believe that they are doing amazing things for the world. And David Miscavige is directly responsible for that fraud.


Question:

Why do you think there are so many people in the entertainment industry in the religion?

Leah Remini:

If you really look at the numbers at the entertainment industry, in comparison to the small number of Scientologists that are celebrities, the number wouldn’t even register. I think Scientology has done an amazing job convincing people that there is a great number of celebrities in the “Church.”


Question:

Considering that Scientology is consistently painted in such a negative light how did you maintain the commitment to Scientology for so long?

Leah Remini:

Because i was taught to believe that the controversy was due to people being unaware of what Scientology was truly doing in the world which was good things. I also felt the press was focused on making fun of Scientology and not what was important, so it was easy to turn away from the information. And also a major part of Scientology is learning how to fight your critics. If i wasn’t fighting I wasn’t being a good Scientologist.


Question:

What odds do you give of the whole thing collapsing once Miscavige dies?

Leah Remini:

The policies of the “Church” are the policies of the “Church.” They will not change, and there will be someone right behind him ready to pick up where he left off.


Question:

If all Scientology’s secrets were revealed tomorrow, which do you think would be most shocking?

Leah Remini:

When you reach the top of The Bridge (OTP 8) you will be told that God is lie for LRH, and there are more levels ahead, that will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is no end to Scientology.


Question:

How can we destroy Scientology?

Leah Remini:

I don’t want to destroy Scientology. I only want them to admit to the fraud that they promote, to not deny the confidential upper levels of the religion, so people can decide if they want to spend $250K and their lives doing it. That they admit to the policies of Fair Game. That they allow people to decide for themselves where they get their information. That they admit to disconnection and leave families the fuck alone.•

Tags:

Something about Forrest Fenn’s treasure hunt speaks so directly to the nature of America.

The New Mexico art dealer claims he’s hidden a box of bronze containing nuggets of gold in the Rocky Mountains, penning a poem that purports to offer clues to the whereabouts. He or she who finds the quarry, acquires it. No one has collected the bounty, though some have given up their old lives to search full-time.

Even when there was a solid middle class, the nation has always been taken with lottery tickets, gold pans and stock certificates. We want what we don’t have to make up for things we’ll never get. Increasingly absent a middle as we now are, some have-nots seem even more desperate and illogical than usual.

Voter behave the same way, often casting ballots for their aspirations rather than their realities. They don’t want taxes to rise on the wealthiest so they won’t have to pay the levy when they join the club. They would do better focusing on what’s real and possible rather than the long shot, and Fenn would be far more benevolent if he used this trove to, say, sponsor scholarships for underprivileged kids, but, alas, it’s America.

From the Economist:

IN THE mid-19th century, hundreds of thousands of Americans flocked west in search of gold. Today those with an appetite for treasure head to the Rocky Mountains, where Forrest Fenn, an octogenarian art collector, claims to have hidden a bronze box containing gold coins, Chinese jade, emerald jewellery and other riches, including two gold nuggets “as large as chicken eggs”. Mr Fenn first had the idea to stash away the treasure nearly 30 years ago, when he was diagnosed with aggressive kidney cancer and told his chances were slim. Over the decades he spent hawking art to the likes of Steve Martin, an actor, and former President Gerald Ford from his gallery in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Mr Fenn had built up an enviable personal collection of art and artefacts. He decided to pack as much as he could carry and hike to his favourite spot to die. The only way to track him—and his cache—would be to solve the riddle he would leave behind.

Mr Fenn’s cancer later vanished, but the idea of hiding the treasure continued to grip him. “When I hid my treasure about six years ago, this country was in a deep recession…I wanted to give some hope to those who were willing to search for the treasure,” Mr Fenn explained, sitting in a study lined with shelves crammed with Kachina dolls, beaded moccasins and fore-edge painted books. In 2010, without alerting his wife or daughters, Mr Fenn slipped into the mountains north of Santa Fe, where he lives in an estate of adobe houses, and deposited the bronze box “where warm waters halt”.•

vrhelmet7

Everyone knows Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality are the next big things, but the when, what, where and how remain undefined. You can even fairly ask “why?” VR certainly appeals to those in all corners of the entertainment industry, promising to embellish everything from family blockbusters to hard-core pornography.

More sober applications also abound. Imagine people being able to step into a sort of time machine and experience what the Holocaust or slavery was truly like. Or perhaps a modern catastrophe, like the aching wound that is Aleppo, could be simulated. It would be akin to “walking through the news,” and it might sensitize the masses–or, perhaps, have the opposite effect. Maybe it will diminish the immensity of the moral horror to a fleeting experience that can be entered and exited, just another thing to do before binge-watching a sitcom. 

Deceased loved ones could be “kept alive” with the tool, allowing the living to continue a relationship of sorts with them (which chills me). Soldiers could “return” to the battlefield to work past PTSD. Older folks would have the option of visiting with their younger selves. None of these scenarios is beyond belief.

In an excellent Wall Street Journal article, Elizabeth Dwoskin, Michael Alison Chandler and Brian Fung explore VR’s possibilities as well as its potential ethical and emotional pitfalls. An excerpt:

Over the past two years, technology giants and Hollywood have poured millions of dollars into virtual reality in the hope that the medium will transform gaming and entertainment. But a growing crop of filmmakers, policymakers, researchers, human rights workers and even some law enforcement officials see a broader societal purpose in the emerging medium’s stunning ability to make people feel as if they have experienced an event firsthand.

These advocates cite research that shows virtual reality can push the boundaries of empathy and influence decision-making about issues ranging from policing to the environment. But they’re also facing new questions about the unintended consequences of an early-stage technology that may doing harm to users by putting them in situations that seem all too real.

This summer, a 15-person film crew flew to the concentration camps of Auschwitz and Majdanek to record the horrors of the Holocaust in virtual reality as part of an effort to preserve the memory of the atrocity for future generations. They filmed a scene in which viewers who don a VR headset can enter a gas chamber, escorted by a three-dimensional hologram of a living survivor.

“We don’t actually know whether it’s this empathy machine or whether, if you have an immersive experience, you traumatize your users,” said Stephen Smith, executive director of the Shoah Foundation at the University of Southern California, which is creating the Holocaust simulations in partnership with virtual reality start-ups. “There’s also a danger that when you have so many extreme experiences, that you become desensitized.”•


Whenever I read something about VR, I immediately wonder what Jacob L. Moreno, the student of Freud who invented the psychodrama (and hypnodrama) would have done with the tool. It’s definitely necessary to be wary of how living in the virtual could impact our behavior in the actual, because no matter how much we’ve gotten into traditional films, TV shows and paintings, VR is a further immersion and will affect our brains differently. But I assume some patients (e.g., soldiers with PTSD) could be aided by such technology. 

Below are two videos of Moreno in action at psychodrama theaters (the first in 1964, the second in 1948), places where individuals could act out scenarios from their lives within a group dynamic, hopefully gaining insight into their behavior, especially the self-destructive kind.

Tags: , ,

henrykissinger123

In any fair world, Henry Kissinger would have spent the greater part of his adult life in leg irons or perhaps met with the business end of a meat hook, his thoughts and actions responsible for the needless death of so many. Alas, the universe does not dispense justice in a suitable manner. 

It’s a big complicated world,” Hillary Clinton said when attacked during the primary for her regard for the former Nixon and Ford Secretary of State, and that’s certainly true. The problems of three little people–or three million–don’t amount to a hill of beans when the wrong people are in power, and a wronger group than the incoming cabal of monsters could not be birthed in Victor Frankenstein’s laboratory.

Just prior to the election, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic published excerpts from interviews with Kissinger about what might result from a Clinton or Trump triumph. It surprises me that at that late stage, the publication’s new Editor-in-Chief still believed Trump might govern as a “pragmatic liberal democrat.” By then, that hope had long vanished from my mind. Neither suggests what’s long seemed obvious about the President-Elect: He may be a dangerously mentally ill person whose words and actions defy rational analysis. The two men spoke again right after Trump’s alarming Electoral College victory.

An excerpt from the pre-election conversations:

Jeffrey Goldberg:

Since we last spoke, he’s said various things that must have made you go pale.

Henry Kissinger:

I disagree with several of Trump’s statements, but I do not historically participate in presidential campaigns. My view of my role is that together with like-minded men and women, I could help contribute to a bipartisan view of American engagement in the world for another period; I could do my part to overcome this really, in a way, awful period in which we are turning history into personal recriminations, depriving our political system of a serious debate. That’s what I think my best role is.

Jeffrey Goldberg:

Donald Trump does not rise in your mind to the level of a person who is so clearly unqualified for the presidency that you should preemptively say, “this person cannot function in this job?” More and more Republicans are saying that, especially national security professionals.

Henry Kissinger:

I’ve decided I’m not going into the name-calling aspect of the campaign. I’m approaching 94; I will not play a role in the execution of day-to-day policy, but I can still aid our thinking about purposeful strategy compatible with our role in shaping the postwar world. Before the campaign, I said over the years friendly things about Hillary. They are on the record. I stand by them. In fact, my views have been on the record for decades, including a friendly attitude towards Hillary as a person.

Jeffrey Goldberg:

Let me ask again: Is Donald Trump teachable?

Henry Kissinger:

Every first-term president has to learn something after he comes into office. Nobody can be completely ready for the inevitable crises. If Trump is elected, it is in the national interest to hope that he is teachable.

Jeffrey Goldberg:

You know, there’s a chance he would govern as a pragmatic liberal Democrat.

Henry Kissinger:

He has said things that sound like it. He has also said many much more contrary things. I simply do not want to get into this sort of speculation. I don’t know Trump well. I intend to make my contribution to the national debate on substance. There is no point in trying to get me into the personal aspects of the campaign.•


Like the first President he served, Kissinger became quite a baseball junkie, especially in his post-Washington career. At the 15:40 mark of this episode of The Baseball of World of Joe Garagiola, we see Kissinger, who could only seem competent when standing alongside that block of wood Bowie Kuhn, being honored at Fenway Park before the second game of the sensational 1975 World Series. During the raucous run by the raffish New York Mets in the second half of 1980s, both Nixon and Kissinger became fixtures at Shea Stadium. Nixon was known to send congratulatory personal notes to the players, including Darryl Strawberry. It was criminals rooting for criminals.

Tags: ,

trumpchin09874567

He must be taken seriously,” Edward Luce wrote in the Financial Times in December 2015 of Donald Trump, as the anti-politician trolled the whole of America with his Penthouse-Apartment Pinochet routine, which seems to have been more genuine than many realized.

Like most, the columnist believed several months earlier that the Reality TV Torquemada was headed for a crash, though he rightly surmised the demons Trump had so gleefully and opportunistically awakened, the vengeful pangs of those who longed to Make America Great White Again, were not likely to dissipate.

But the dice were kind to the casino killer, and a string of accidents and incidents enabled Trump and the mob he riled to score enough Electoral College votes to turn the country, and world, upside down. It’s such an unforced error, one which makes Brexit seem a mere trifle, that it feels like we’ve permanently surrendered something essential about the U.S., that more than an era has ended.

In “Goodbye to Barack Obama’s World,” Luce looks forward for America and the whole globe and sees possibilities that are downright ugly. An excerpt:

One of Mr Obama’s core traits is to believe that reason governs how people act. It is the perennial failing of liberal technocrats to suppose human affairs are settled by rational argument. When people failed to see the merits of the case — whether Republican legislators, or foreign leaders — Mr Obama would retreat into injured silence. The world has been a disappointment to Mr Obama. When Vladimir Putin’s Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, John Kerry, the outgoing secretary of state, said: “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in a 19th-century fashion by invading another country on [a] completely trumped up pretext.” But that is how the world often operates. The US had done just that to Iraq in the 21st century.

America tends to choose presidents whose personalities are the opposite of their predecessors. Mr Obama, the reasoner, replaced Bush the decider. Mr Trump is a pure bluffer. Much like one of his property deals, Mr Trump will cajole, bully, flatter, and bribe whomever he is dealing with. When he fails — which he surely must — he will declare it a success and divert people’s attention. That is what his outrageous tweets are about. When people tell the truth about him, he will call them liars. When they praise him, he will call them geniuses. When a crisis strikes, he will gamble from the gut. Buyers’ remorse will grip the US public. Mr Obama’s post-presidential approval ratings are likely to stay up.

But Mr Trump will not reverse America’s relative decline. The chances are he will drastically accelerate it. The global role that Mr Obama inherited — and tried, to some degree, to uphold — is now in tatters. It would be hard to overstate the epochal significance of Mr Trump’s election. The US-led international order as we knew it for 70 years is over. The era of great power politics is back. An ebullient Russia, led by the strongman Putin, and an increasingly confident China, led by the strongman Xi Jinping, will deal with a wounded America led by strongman Trump. The long-term trajectory is towards China. But the short-term drama will focus on Mr Trump’s dealings with Mr Putin. How they play out is anybody’s guess. But it will not be pretty. Europe will be the loser. So too will American prestige.•

Tags: , ,

trump-msnbc

In a New Yorker comment piece, Amy Davidson runs through the myriad conflicts of interest and questionable ethics of the professional controversialist about to become our next President, ultimately speaking to the most important if amorphous concern: The mere fact that a demagogue who undermines democracy at each turn was elected could alter what it means to be American.

The writer maintains hope that both sides of the aisle will work to thwart this Simon Cowell-ish strongman, though I wonder if Trump will take much heat from the GOP as long as he’s useful in advancing a conservative agenda.

My bigger-picture concern, though, is that even before the Administration commences, just the very election of such an illiberal provocateur may have caused America to cease being what it was, a very imperfect place that reliably pulled itself from the brink of disaster because of underlying good intentions. No, November 2016 is certainly not as terrible as the time of slavery or the Jim Crow South or Japanese-American internment, but even during those dark moments we held dearly to our central principles even if we were blind and horrible in our distribution of them. Now it feels like something essential has been sacrificed because we willfully opted for evil at a moment when we should have known better and been better. It announced itself loudly and we ushered it inside.

An excerpt:

More important than all these concerns is the way that a Trump Presidency might change our common conception of what it means to be American. In addition to naming [Jeff] Sessions, Trump has chosen a chief strategist who has retailed alt-right rhetoric, a national-security adviser who tweeted out a video presenting reasons to fear Islam, and a C.I.A. director who has called for the execution of Edward Snowden. And this is in a time of relative peace. Where Trump’s instinct for blame and diversion would take him and the country during an emergency—a terrorist attack, for example—is an unpleasant question to contemplate. This is why many people voted for Clinton rather than for Trump. But he won, so what do they do now?

Trump has a shot at being the century’s worst President, but Americans are not in the worst position they have ever been in from which to confront him. We’ve been more economically desperate; we’ve been, in terms of the breadth of the franchise, less free. In the Trump Presidency, as in all Administrations, there will be political fights that define the course of events. There are constitutional tools available, but only if people in both parties, inside and outside of government, are willing to use them—to sustain a sense of non-Trump possibility.

Tags: ,

Top_Women_at_U.S._Steels_Gary_Indiana_Works_1940-1945

“No one wants to admit that our half-measures aren’t working and won’t work” is something that needed to be said by the Presidential candidates this election season in regards to the dying of the Industrial Age, the irreversible decline of manufacturing jobs and the potential attenuation of many other types of employment. No such discussion was had, however, as a vulgar Mussolini-Lampanelli clown shouted and taunted and danced. The future will likely arrive most ferociously for those very working-class people most drawn to his spectacle.

Those quote was actually delivered to Sean Illing of Vox, in an interview with Andy Stern, former union president and current Universal Basic Income advocate who fears a Hunger Games future for most of America if policy doesn’t address the challenges that will attend widespread automation. The Raising the Floor author also addresses another perplexing topic: What if we get UBI and most people aren’t working? What would we do with all that free time? I almost shudder. Lots of people who have a life-or-death need for Medicare, Social Security and the Affordable Care Act just voted for a party desperate to be rid of those things. Imagine the trouble we could get into if food and shelter were assured.

An excerpt:

Question:

Let’s pivot from unions to universal basic income, which is a cardinal issue for you these days. In your book, Raising the Floor, you conclude that a UBI will eventually be necessary. Can you say, first, what UBI means and, second, why you think we need it?

Andy Stern:

A universal basic income is essentially giving every single working-age American a check every month, much like we do with social security for elderly people. It’s an unconditional stipend, as it were.

The reason it’s necessary is we’re now learning through lots of reputable research that technological change is accelerating, and that this process will continue to displace workers and terminate careers. A significant number of tasks now performed by humans will be performed by machines and artificial intelligence. We could very well see 5 million jobs eliminated by the end of the decade because of technology.

We’ve already seen Uber-deployed driverless cars in Pittsburgh, and driverless trucks will be deployed in the next five to six years — we’ve already seen them across Europe. The largest job in 29 states is driving a truck. There are 3 and a half million people who operate trucks and 5 million more who support them in various ways.

So there’s a tsunami of change on its way, and the question is twofold. One is how does America go through a transition to what will be I think an economy with far fewer jobs — particularly middle-class jobs? What policies will guide us through this transition? And second, what do we want this to look like on the other end?

I believe a UBI is a way to ease the transition, and it’s also a way to provide a floor for people — not necessarily a substitute for work, but a supplement to work that allows them to have a sense of economic security, have consumer buying power. We want to allow people to be entrepreneurs, to take risks and raise kids and do other things without turning the world into the Hunger Games.

Question:

Obviously you’re an advocate for a UBI, but I’d like to hear what you think is the most compelling counterargument against UBI.

Andy Stern:

Certainly our concept of work is problematic. This is a country in which people have not figured out what to do if they don’t work for money. I think there are many other ways that people potentially can work but, psychologically, the Protestant work ethic is embedded in the psyche of our country. The idea that someone would get something for nothing is anathema here. People that work feel like those who don’t shouldn’t be rewarded. It’s just an alien concept.•

Tags: ,

1238

There’s a tremendously fun and insightful article in the Jewish Journal by the Rabbi Mordecai Finley about his late congregant, Leonard Cohen. The poet of despair, who lived for a time in a monastery, spent some of his last decade discussing spirituality and more earthly matters with the Los Angeles-based rabbi, who explains how the Jewish tradition informed Cohen’s work. “We shared a common language, a common nightmare,” he writes. The prophet of doom’s remark to Finley about the aftermath of America hits especially hard with the demons awakened during this election season. An excerpt:

Let me tell you how generous Leonard was. First, after I knew him about a year, he gave me one of his fedoras, right off of his head.

Second, when our synagogue was scraping bottom during a brutal remodeling of the dilapidated building we bought, Leonard (with several other families) came to the rescue. He was very generous (always handed his checks in person) and appreciative of the work my wife (the designer and general contractor) was doing. On one of this visits to the building, he spent a full afternoon with Meirav. He delighted in everything we had done, especially the café and the preschool. He visited with the kids in the pre-kindergarten. (The teachers almost fainted.) Got some of the lentil soup that he loved — he liked to call it “Jacob’s stew.”

He often signed his emails “Old Priest” and so I called myself “Old Sarge.” He got a kick out of knowing that I was a sergeant in the Marines a million years ago and hearing some of the stories from my military days. When we talked politics, he would quote a line of his: “Oh, and one more thing. You won’t like what comes next after America.”

A few more things. He aimed to be a vegetarian but made exceptions every time my wife made her Yemenite lamb soup. One Passover seder, he testified to the benefits of yoga and showed us poses, including standing on his head. He loved the music at Ohr HaTorah (handcrafted by our music director, the rebbetzin). One year, he brought all of the singers and not a few of the musicians on his tour to our High Holy Days services. We saw him at one point standing up and dancing. I read from his “Book of Mercy,” and do so every year.

Leonard and Judaism

People asked how could he be Jewish if he was a Buddhist monk. He told me Zen Buddhism, at least the kind that he practiced, was not a religion. It was a tuning fork for consciousness. He was a devoted Jew, a learned, deep and troubled one — a genius. He had candles lit every Shabbat. I received photos of candles lit on the tours.

Tags: ,

castro

Fidel Castro, who could not live without Florence Henderson, has died. During his final moments, a rerun of The Brady Bunch played quietly in the background. It was the one about Jan murdering another girl at summer camp. Controversial episode.

“A revolution is not a bed of roses,” the bearded despot once said, and under his guidance the post-revolution was far worse, an unholy mix of autocracy, oppression, poverty and torture. The promised democracy never materialized and after playing a key role in the brinkmanship of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Castro and his country retreated inward, the island nation becoming frozen in time. Initially, he blamed “Yankee imperialism” for Cuba’s underdevelopment, but during his awful stewardship the economy stalled and tanked.

Castro managed to overthrow a racist regime, but what he replaced it with was also terrible. He thwarted America and its oft-awful foreign policy in toppling him from power, but he needed thwarting just as surely. Ultimately, he was miserable for his people. History will not remember the tyrant fondly nor should it.

What follows is the beginning of an introduction Castro penned to Che Guevara’s memoirs, which were published in a 1968 edition of Ramparts magazine, and a 1959 video of Ed Sullivan conducting a hopeful interview with the soon-to-be dictator after the successful revolution.


[A NECESSARY INTRODUCTION By FIDEL CASTRO]

IT WAS CHE’S HABIT during his days as a guerrilla to write down his daily observations in a personal diary. During the long marches over abrupt and difficult terrain, in the middle of the damp woods, when the lines of men, always hunched over from the weight of their mochilas, munitions and arms would stop for a moment to rest, or when the column would receive orders to halt and pitch camp at the end of a long day’s journey, one could see Che—as he was from the beginning affectionately nicknamed by the Cubans—take out his notebook and, with the small and almost illegible letters of a doctor, write his notes. What he was able to conserve from these notes he later used in writing his magnificent historical narrations of the revolutionary war in Cuba. They were of revolutionary content, pedagogic and human.

This time, thanks to his invariable habit of jotting down the principal occurrences of each day, we have at our disposal rigorously exact, priceless and detailed information concerning the heroic final months of his life in Bolivia.

These notations, not exactly written for publication, served him as a working guide in the constant evaluation of the occurrences, the situation and the men. They also served as an expressive outlet for his profoundly observant spirit, analytical but often laced with a fine sense of humor. They are soberly written and contain an uninterrupted coherence from the beginning to the end.

It should be kept in mind that they were written during those rare moments of rest in the middle of an heroic and superhuman physical endeavor—notwithstanding Che’s exhausting obligations as chief of a guerrilla detachment in the difficult first stages of a struggle of this nature—which unfolded under incredibly hard material conditions, revealing once more his particular way of working and his will of steel. In the diary, detailed analyses of the incidents of each day, the faults, criticisms and recriminations which are appropriate to and inevitable in the development of a revolutionary guerrilla are made evident.

In the heart of a guerrilla detachment, these criticisms must take place incessantly, especially when there is only a small nucleus of men, constantly confronted by extremely adverse material conditions and an enemy infinitely superior in number, when a little carelessness or the most insignificant mistake can be fatal and the chief has to be extremely demanding. He must use each occurrence or episode, no matter how insignificant, as a lesson to the combatants and future leaders of new guerrilla detachments.

The formation of a guerrilla is a constant call to the conscience and honor of every man. Che knew how to touch on the most sensitive fibers of the revolutionaries. When Marcos, repeatedly admonished by Che, was warned that he could be dishonorably discharged from the guerrillas, he said, “First I must be shot!” Later on he gave his life heroically. The behavior of all the men in whom Che put his confidence and whom he had to admonish for some reason or another during the course of the struggle was similar. He was a fraternal and human chief who also knew how to be exacting and occasionally even severe, but above all, and even more so than with the others, Che was severe with himself. He based the discipline of the guerrilla on their moral conscience and on the tremendous force of his own personal example.

The diary also contains numerous references to Regis Debray and makes evident the enormous preoccupation stirred up in Che by the arrest and imprisonment of the revolutionary writer whom he had made responsible for carrying out a mission in Europe, although in reality he would have preferred Debray to remain in the guerrilla. This is why he manifests a certain inconsistency and occasionally some doubts concerning his behavior.

For Che it was not possible to know of the odyssey lived by Debray and the firm and courageous attitude he took in front of his capturers and torturers while he was in the clutches of the repressive forces.

However, he did emphasize the enormous political importance of Debray’s trial, and on the 3rd of October, six days before his death, in the midst of tense and bitter happenings, Che stated; “An interview with Debray was heard, very valiant when faced with a student provocator,” this being his last reference to the writer.

Since in this diary the Cuban Revolution and its relation to the guerrilla movement are repeatedly pointed out, some might interpret the fact that its publication on our part constitutes an act of provocation supplying an argument to the enemies of the Revolution—the Yankee imperialists and their cohorts, the Latin American oligarchies—for redoubling their plans for blockade, isolation of and aggression toward Cuba.

For those who judge the facts in this way it is well to remember that Yankee imperialism has never needed pretexts to perpetrate its villainy in any part of the world and that its efforts to smash the Cuban Revolution began with the first revolutionary law made in our country; for the obvious and well-known fact is that imperialism is the gendarme of the world, systematic promoter of counterrevolution and protector of the most backward and inhuman social structures in the world.

Solidarity with the revolutionary movement might be used as a pretext but shall never be the cause of Yankee aggression. Denying solidarity in order to deny the pretext is ridiculous ostrich-like politics, which has nothing to do with the internationalist character of contemporary social revolutions. To cease solidarity with the revolutionary movement does not mean to deny a pretext but actually to show solidarity with Yankee imperialism and its policy of domination and enslavement of the world.

CUBA IS A SMALL economically underdeveloped country, like all those countries dominated and exploited by colonialism and imperialism. It is situated only 90 miles from the United States’ coast, having a Yankee naval base on its own territory, and confronts numerous obstacles in the carrying out of its economic and social development. Great dangers have threatened our country since the triumph of the Revolution but not because of this will imperialism succeed in making us yield, since the difficulties which a consequent revolutionary line entails are not important to-us.

From the revolutionary point of view, the publication of Che’s diary in Bolivia admits no alternative. Che’s diary fell into Barrientos’ possession who immediately sent copies to the CIA, the Pentagon and the United States government. Newspapermen connected with the CIA had access to the document in Bolivia and have made photostatic copies of it—but with the promise to abstain from publishing it for
the moment. Barrientos’ government and his highest military chiefs have abundant reasons for not publishing the diary since it confirms the tremendous incapacity of the Bolivian Army and the innumerable defeats which it suffered at the hands of a small fistful of determined guerrillas who captured almost 200 arms in combat in a few weeks.

Che also describes Barrientos and his regime in terms which they deserve and with words that cannot be erased from history.

On the other hand, imperialism had its reasons: Che and his extraordinary example gain increasing force in the world. His ideas, his image, his name, are the banners of the struggle against the injustices of the oppressed and exploited and stir up a passionate interest on the part of students and intellectuals all over the world.

Right in the United States, members of the Negro movement and the radical students, who are constantly increasing in number, have made Che’s figure their own. In the most combative manifestations of civil rights and against the aggression in Vietnam, his photographs are wielded as emblems of the struggle. Few times in history, or perhaps never, has a figure, a name, an example, been so universalized with such celerity and passionate force. This is because Che embodies in its purest and most disinterested form the internationalist spirit which characterizes the world today and which will do so even more tomorrow.

From a continent oppressed by colonial powers yesterday and exploited and kept down in the most iniquitous underdevelopment by Yankee imperialism today, there surges breath of the revolutionary struggle, even in the imperialist and colonial metropolises themselves.

The Yankee imperialists fear the force of this example and all that may contribute to reveal it. The intrinsic value of the diary, the living expression of an extraordinary personality, is as a guerrilla lesson written in the heat and tension of each day. It is inflammable gun powder. It is the real demonstration that Latin American man is not impotent in the face of those who would enslave the peoples with their mercenary armies and who prevented the publication of this diary until now.

It could also be that the pseudorevolutionaries, opportunists and charlatans of every kind who call themselves Marxists, communists, or give themselves any other titles, are interested in keeping the diary from being known. They have not vacillated in qualifying Che as wrong, as an adventurer, and when referring to him in the most benign form, they call him an idealist whose death is the Swan Song of the revolutionary armed struggle in Latin America.

“If Che,” they exclaim, “the highest exponent of these ideas and an experimented guerrilla fighter, was killed in guerrilla warfare and his movement did not liberate Bolivia, this only demonstrates how wrong he was!” How many of these miserable characters have been happy about the death of Che and haven’t even blushed to think that their position and reasoning coincide completely with those of the most reactionary oligarchies and with imperialism!

In this way they justify themselves or justify treacherous leaders who at certain moments have not vacillated in playing a game of armed struggle with the real purpose of destroying the guerrilla detachments, as could be seen later, putting the brake on revolutionary action and asserting their shameful and ridiculous political deals because they were absolutely incapable of any other line; or they justify those who do not want to fight, who will never fight, for the peoples and their liberation and who have caricatured the revolutionary ideas turning them into a dogmatic opium without content or any message for the masses, converting the organizations of the people’s struggle into instruments of conciliation with external and internal exploiters and proponents of politics which have nothing to do with the real interest of exploited peoples on this continent Che contemplated his death as something natural and probable in the process and tried to emphasize, especially in
the last documents, that this eventuality would not impede the inevitable march of the revolution in Latin America.

In his message to the Tricontinental Congress, he reiterated this thought: “Our every action is a battle cry against imperialism. . . wherever death may surprise us, let it be welcome, provided that this, our battle cry, may have reached some receptive ear and another hand may be extended to wield our weapons.”

He considered himself a soldier of this revolution without ever worrying about surviving it. Those who see the end to his ideas in the outcome of his struggle in Bolivia could with the same simplicity negate the validity of the ideas and struggles of all the great precursors and revolutionary thinkers, including the founders of Marxism who were unable to culminate their work and see during their lifetimes the fruits of their noble efforts.•


Tags: ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »