Asides

A Snapshot of American Discontent

Every morning I read five or six newspapers/websites. In papers like The Washington Post and The New York Times I’m curious about the articles that have generated the most comments from the readership. They often provide a snapshot of American discontent. I read the articles, then go to the “comments” section. I preselect the “Reader’s Picks” because I think this gives me a glimpse of the general tenor of the readership who agree with another reader who cares enough about the article to take the time to express themselves about it. Sometimes those comments coincide with the editorial board members who also pick their favorite comments.

On December 15, 2021 the weekly New York Times columnist Thomas B. Edsall wrote a story titled How to Tell When Your Country Is Past the Point of No Return. I found the article pretty thought-provoking, so I was curious about the readers comments. Below are the ones that the most readers, including the Times editorial board, agreed with most. The sentiments expressed in the comments says a lot about what issues a good portion of Americans find disturbing, and why.

James Landi commented December 15 Camden Maine Times Pick  An excellent public education system is the absolute necessary cornerstone for a strong foundation of democracy. So sad to say, but we have a government reflecting this structural weakness. I began my teaching career over fifty years ago, and by the early 80s, when Reagan’s blue ribbon national education assessment committee presented “A Nation At Risk,” I, having been a school man by then for over 15 years, needed no convincing. ●Our children are distracted, ●our teachers worn down, and ●our education system is underfunded, underappreciated, and, for decades, good teachers have been fighting a losing battle for kids’ attention. Now we have a new crop of elected officials who are happily engaged in destroying the very foundations of our constitution democracy— the result of ●self-serving, ●power grasping, ●ignorant, ●arrogant “lawmakers” who are representing ●several generations of Americans who don’t have the intellectual power to know the difference.  34 Replies, 1884 Recommended

GI Doc commented December 15  Nashville Times Pick  A pandemic did not mobilize sufficient political will to restructure our absurd healthcare system, Sandy Hook did not mobilize sufficient political will to address ●our absurd gun fetish, and–so far– a violent coup to subvert a free and fair election has not mobilized sufficient political will to strengthen the absurd and obvious weak points in our democracy. Point of no return? More like point of no escape. In those examples above, and many others, take a moment to reflect upon ●which faction of our wide political spectrum is responsible for this toxic inertia. ●Clearly one step in the right direction would be to get money out of politics, but in the meantime, I ask these businesses with their heft of lobbying powers that have traditionally sided with said faction–is it good for business to have a country in such precarious disarray? What does the constant fear of political violence do for consumer confidence? Please don’t be penny-wise and pound-foolish.  48 Replies,  1881 Recommend

David commented December 15  Canada,  Times Pick,  So, how many countries have adopted a system like the U.S., not any I can think of. ●Two parties unable to compromise on anything. A country ●where small populations have the same power are much larger ones. The ●ability to change the voting game depending on who is in power. ●Money, money money flowing through the system. ●A system where some get elected and then have to spend most of their time trying to get re-elected rather than serving the people. Get real …no one has a perfect system but yours is unraveling fast…change is the answer…are there any leaders among you to pick up the torch?  52 Replies, 1482 Recommend

Uncle Jetski commented December 15  Moorestown, NJ, In Bush v Gore, we stood down out of respect for the institution of the Supreme Court. In 2016, we stood down out of respect for the Electoral College. We will not stand down again.  33 Replies, 1428 Recommend

Tom J. commented December 15 Berwyn,Times Pick, My point of no return was the period between the onset of COVID through the Jan. 6 attack on the capitol. I can’t forgive without some olive branch from the other side and there has been none. Perhaps others are kinder and more forgiving than me, good for you. I’m done with them.  18 Replies, 1215 Recommend

Rick commented December 15  Cedar Hill, TX Times Pick, The elephant in the room is big money. Both parties are own and controlled by it and until that problem is corrected nothing will change, it is that simple. Seems no one wants to address the hard problem. You don’t vote, you don’t get.  21 Replies, 1161 Recommend

Michael commented December 15 Hatteras Island, Times Pick, Not sure how anything can or will change except to continue our current trajectory. The internet has unveiled what we are. A nation of ●violence, ● lies, ●superficiality, ●propaganda, and ●a fixation on all things money. There is no ‘fix’. We’re operating on autopilot.  16 Replies, 1079 Recommend

Ethan Allen commented December 15  Vermont, The academic analyses quoted here all discuss the theoretical steps and indicators that a tipping point is being reached, in language that suggests the authors are unaware that all the things they describe have not already happened. But they have indeed already happened, which to a sentient reader implies that we have already reached – and likely gone far beyond – this point of no return. The time to write these calls to urgent action was twenty years ago, when Republicans first began to openly disassemble America’s democracy. Their project to make minority rule permanent has been going on at least twice that long, but they have been brazenly acting in the open for at least two decades, when the critical alarm should have been sounded. I’m sorry but all these pleas for the population to take note of incremental damage to our democracy and way of life ring very hollow when the clock is already at one minute to midnight.  13 Replies, 1054 Recommend

The Importance of Critical Thinking

Today we live in what is commonly called the “digital era” or “the information age”. New ideas fly at us unrelentingly and at greater speed than at any other time in human history. Not surprisingly, these new ideas often come to us in ways that tempt us to fire off a quick response, or reaction. And it’s not uncommon to see tragic examples of people who have been lured into doing just that: acting before thinking. It can ruin careers, and lives, creating a world of regrets. Accordingly, never before has it been more crucial that we process these new ideas with as much clarity as possible. If we’re going to maintain any self-determination about how we shape and live our lives, it’s essential that we have the desire and the skills to think critically about the ideas constantly swarming at us.

Propaganda, lies, distortions, manipulation, coercion, and deception in human messaging have never been more pervasive and insistent. (Again, largely because of the unprecedented speed of communication.) Ideas, propositions, and general information constantly bombard us from politics, commerce, social media, and entertainment. Accepting everything pushed in our faces without questioning its validity is as dangerous to our well-being as recklessly handling a firearm.

But what is critical thinking? If you do a quick check on the Internet a Wikipedia entry will give you a single-spaced twenty-something page introduction with a lengthy bibliography. The Oxford English Dictionary will give you (for starters): “The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.” But if you’re inquisitive enough about the subject to want to learn more, one of the best places to start is with a book written by Dr. Diane Halpern, an American educator and psychologist. Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking is in its 5th edition and has become a standard text on the subject.

While the subject of critical thinking can quickly become an overwhelming topic to explore, Dr. Halpern believes it has two main components: 1) understanding information at a deep, meaningful level, and 2) overcoming fallacies and biases. There are many options about how to start learning to think more critically. Each of us can improve how we do it, and the possible methodologies we employ can vary on a continuum from philosophy to common sense. There’s a path for all of us.

Critical thinking can be taught at any grade level, as long as it’s taught in a way that is developmentally appropriate. It can be learned at any point in life. But it does have some key prerequisites: the awareness that issues we encounter need to be thought through more clearly; the desire to seek the truth and the willingness to suspend biases; open-mindedness; the willingness to suspend judgment; and trust in reason.

Most things of great value in life don’t come to us easily. They require some effort. Often a lot of effort. But the rewards for doing so can be incalculable.

The Price of Our Silence

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

These words were written by Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) a German theologian. As a young man he was an avid and loyal German military officer, first in the Imperial German Navy, then in WWI a U-Boat commander. In 1920 he decided to follow in his father’s footsteps and began seminary training at the University of Munster.

Niemöller was a staunch supporter of the coming of the Third Reich. Until in 1934 he along with two prominent Protestant bishops had a personal meeting with Adolph Hitler to discuss the state’s pressures on churches. At that meeting it became clear that Niemöller’s phone had been tapped by the Gestapo, and that the group he represented, the Pastors Emergency League, had been under close state surveillance.

That meeting was a wake-up call for Niemöller. It changed everything for him, and he began to see the Nazi state as a dictatorship. He devoted the remainder of WWII combatting Nazism from the inside. In 1937 he was arrested and eventually confined in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps. His crime was “not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement.” Niemöller was released in 1945 by the Allies.

Today in Trump’s angry minorities of the far-right wing of American politics we see a similar danger to us that Niemöller saw in the emergent Nazi party of his days. There’s only one way: their way. Any and everything else is met with absolute annihilation. They are intolerant of any other option, any other path for America. During the past few months, I’ve seen a storm of articles The Washington Post, The New York Times, on CNN, MSNBC, the major networks, The Atlantic—the list goes on and on, warning America of the growing dangers of the Trumpian right-wing to American democracy. They all emphasize: this is a genuine threat, not a passing trend or phase. And it cannot be ignored.

There is a serious, organized effort underway to legitimize the views of the radical right-wing anger, along with all of its many prejudices. For example: ● at least 10 people involved in the Capitol riots were just elected to state and local office, ● at least 5 more are running for Congress.

We have to speak up, with our voices, with our votes. I underestimated Trump’s electability and appeal in 2016. I won’t do it again. And neither should you. The price of our silence will be our democracy.

How U.S. Gun Culture Stacks Up With the World

Following facts are highlights from a CNN news story that ran 2021-11-26.

● The U.S. is the only nation in the world where civilian guns outnumber people

● There are 120 guns for every 100 Americans

● About 44% of US adults live in a household with a gun, and about one-third own one personally, according to an October 2020 Gallup survey.

● U.S. firearm manufacturing is on the rise, with more Americans buying guns.

● U.S. has the highest firearm homicide rate in the developed world.

● Almost a third of US adults believe there would be less crime if more people owned guns, according to an April 2021 Pew survey.

● U.S. was home to 4% of the world’s population but accounted for 44% of global suicides by firearm in 2019.

● U.S. recorded the largest number of gun-related suicides in the world every year from 1990 to 2019

● No other developed nation has mass shootings at the same scale or frequency as the U.S.

● As of the date of the publication of this article the U.S. has had 641 mass shootings.

● A gun reform bill in stuck in the U.S. Senate.

Meanwhile in Texas where I live, we have some of the most shockingly irresponsible gun laws in the nation.

● no permit required to purchase handguns or long guns

● a gun owner does not have to register his firearm

● no gun license required to own a firearm

● everyone is allowed to openly care any firearm, no permit required

● everyone is allowed to carry a concealed firearm

● there is no magazine size limit on any firearm

Another thought-provoking read on this subject is Key facts about Americans and guns, a Pew Research Center Survey.

None of this reflects well on the U.S. or Texas. In the long term it invites chaos, and seems demonstrably inconsonant with America’s idealistic claims of being a guiding light to other nations. On the issue of gun culture, we are an example of what should be avoided by other nations, not emulated.

For the People Act of 2021

If you're not familiar with the details of the For the People Act, you should be. I've provided a summary below. Passage of this bill is essential to preserving our democracy and we all should be urging our elected representatives in Congress to work for it, and see that it becomes the law of the land.

Summary:

Rep. Sarbanes, John P. [D-MD-3] (Introduced 01/04/2021)
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR] (Introduced o3/17/2021

The bill will address voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government.

● Expands voter registration (automatic and same-day registration)

● Expands voting access ( vote-by-mail and early voting)

● Limits removing voters from voter rolls

● Requires states to establish independent redistricting commissions to carry out congressional redistricting

● Sets forth provisions related to election security, including

  1. –supporting states in securing their election systems
  2. –developing a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions
  3. –establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions
  4. –other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems

● Addresses campaign finance

  1. –including by expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals
  2. –requiring additional disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending
  3. –establishing an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices

● Addresses ethics in all three branches of government

  1. –including by requiring a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices
  2. –prohibiting Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity
  3. –establishing additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House

● Requires the President, the Vice President, and certain candidates for those offices to disclose 10 years of tax returns.

All these provisions are essential and obvious necessities for protecting the most basic element of democracy: the peoples' voice. The right to vote freely without coercion or manipulation through gerrymandering or bizarre election rules.

Weasel Words

I imagine most people have used Wikipedia. It’s a common go-to site for quick reference to find basic information about almost anything. It’s a free, nonprofit reference site supported by readers’ donations.

In this age of growing feints and deceptions in social media, politics, and the Internet in general, Wikipedia’s entry on “Weasel Words” is a good place to visit from time to time remind ourselves how important it is to be vigilant.

A weasel word or phrase is often used when someone wants to give the impression that something specific and authoritative is being expressed when in fact it is only a vague generalization. Weasel words are invaluable tools for people who want to deceive, and they are essential elements of propaganda. They can also be used to make a statement more ambiguous than it is.

Entire books have been written about weasel words but here are a few examples from the Wikipedia article about them.

“A growing body of evidence . . .” (Where is the raw data for the reader to verify?)

“Up to sixty percent . . .”   (so, 59%? 50%? 10%?)

“There is evidence that…” (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)

“The vast majority…” (75%? 85%? 99%? How many?)

“Questions have been raised…” (Implies a fatal flaw has been discovered; also who raised the questions?)

“Researchers believe . . .”  (Who are they?)

A 2009 study of Wikipedia found that most weasel words in it could be divided into three main categories:[12]

  1. Numerically vague expressions (for example, “some people”, “experts”, “many”, “evidence suggests”)
  2. Use of the passive voice to avoid specifying an authority (for example, “it is said”)
  3. Adverbs that weaken (for example, “often”, “probably”)

As I said, books have been written about weasel words, but these examples give us a glimpse into how easy it is to accept the anonymous voices we hear and read every day if we aren’t vigilant. All of us should be reading critically. And applying critical thinking to everything we encounter on the Internet. Alice’s rabbit hole hides in plain sight just about everywhere today.

(By the way, if I had left off the two words “I imagine” at the beginning of this post, I would have been guilty of using weasel words in my opening sentence.)

The Changing Times

We know that nothing ever stays the same, that change is constant and inevitable. Heraclitus is famously attributed the idea that “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man”.

Nothing ever stays the same—except, I think, human nature.

Regardless, one of the ways we survive the constant change is by adapting. Adapt or die is a common cliché. And now, with the arrival of the digital age, we see that not only do things continue to change but we’ve now been introduced to the acceleration of change. Things change faster, monumentally faster, so fast its difficult for many of us to absorb the implications of what those changes are. We see this every day.

But it’s true, too, that change has consequences.

All of these ideas and issues play a significant role in a recent article in The Atlantic Monthly: “A Secretive Hedge Fund is Gutting Newsrooms,” by McKay Coppins. This article tracks the demise of the Chicago Tribune and sees it as a prime example of what is happening to local newspapers all across the nation. Coppins says,

In the past 15 years, more than a quarter of American newspapers have gone out of business. Those that have survived are smaller, weaker, and more vulnerable to acquisition. Today, half of all daily newspapers in the U.S. are controlled by financial firms, according to an analysis by the Financial Times, and the number is almost certain to grow.

Coppins quotes David Simon, a former Baltimore Sun reporter turned screenwriter, and author of the television series, “The Wire,”

“The practical effect of the death of local journalism is that you get what we’ve had,” he told me, “which is a halcyon time for corruption and mismanagement and basically misrule.”

So how do we adapt to this enormous change in our culture if we are to survive? Do we need to adapt? Or do we just watch it happen and live with the consequences?

I urge you to read this article. There’s a lot of food for thought in it. And some alarm bells as well.

A change of mind about the kind of trees we plant in the future

Spring morning in West Lake Hills, Texas

I spend long hours in front of my computer screen most days, so in the afternoons I like to work on our property here in West Lake Hills. Joyce and I have plenty of work to do, and enjoy planting a variety of shrubs and trees and hedges. It’s good exercise, and often just plain hard work.

In the freakish ice storm in February of this year in Texas, and the equally scary windstorm that swept through a small part of West Lake Hills, in May, we lost half a dozen palm trees that we had planted a couple of decades earlier. I vowed that I would replace them because I love the way they look, and because until recent years, the heat of central Texas along with the our periodic draughts accommodated palms quite nicely.

However, a few days ago I read this article on CNN: Florida is ditching palm trees to fight the climate crisis. It seems that palms are of little benefit in removing CO2 from the atmosphere compared to most other trees. Here’s an illustration of how the numbers stack up for three kinds of trees.

When you consider that the “standard passenger vehicle” emits about 10,000 (4.6 metric tons) of CO2 EVERY YEAR, the benefits from the entire lifetime of even the most beneficial tree is cancelled out every year by a single vehicle. This is lousy news! Today atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are higher than at any point in the past 800,000 years. The last time carbon dioxide concentration was this high was more than 3 million years ago!!

So, a sad goodbye to my beloved palms. In the future any new trees we plant will be chosen to fight climate change. But being able to adapt to change, especially when it benefits the greater good, is one of the best attributes of human nature. And so we will.

An Important Invitation to a Necessary National Debate

Harper’s Magazine has invited America to a season of national self-examination. The cultural struggles we are going through now are signs of progress. They are necessary if we are to continue to grow toward justice. But such changes are not supported by bumper sticker philosophies. They are nuanced and complex, and the following letter is an invitation to open debate about how wisely we guide these changes.

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

July 7, 2020
The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Elliot Ackerman
Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University
Martin Amis
Anne Applebaum
Marie Arana, author
Margaret Atwood
John Banville
Mia Bay, historian
Louis Begley, writer
Roger Berkowitz, Bard College
Paul Berman, writer
Sheri Berman, Barnard College
Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet
Neil Blair, agent
David W. Blight, Yale University
Jennifer Finney Boylan, author
David Bromwich
David Brooks, columnist
Ian Buruma, Bard College
Lea Carpenter
Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus)
Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University
Roger Cohen, writer
Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret.
Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project
Kamel Daoud
Meghan Daum, writer
Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis
Jeffrey Eugenides, writer
Dexter Filkins
Federico Finchelstein, The New School
Caitlin Flanagan
Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School
Kmele Foster
David Frum, journalist
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Atul Gawande, Harvard University
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
Kim Ghattas
Malcolm Gladwell
Michelle Goldberg, columnist
Rebecca Goldstein, writer
Anthony Grafton, Princeton University
David Greenberg, Rutgers University
Linda Greenhouse
Rinne B. Groff, playwright
Sarah Haider, activist
Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern
Roya Hakakian, writer
Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution
Jeet Heer, The Nation
Katie Herzog, podcast host
Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College
Adam Hochschild, author
Arlie Russell Hochschild, author
Eva Hoffman, writer
Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute
Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute
Michael Ignatieff
Zaid Jilani, journalist
Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts
Wendy Kaminer, writer
Matthew Karp, Princeton University
Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative
Daniel Kehlmann, writer
Randall Kennedy
Khaled Khalifa, writer
Parag Khanna, author
Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University
Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy
Enrique Krauze, historian
Anthony Kronman, Yale University
Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University
Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University
Mark Lilla, Columbia University
Susie Linfield, New York University
Damon Linker, writer
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
Steven Lukes, New York University
John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer

Susan Madrak, writer
Phoebe Maltz Bovy, writer
Greil Marcus
Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center
Kati Marton, author
Debra Mashek, scholar
Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago
John McWhorter, Columbia University
Uday Mehta, City University of New York
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
Samuel Moyn, Yale University
Meera Nanda, writer and teacher
Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine
Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University
Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer
George Packer
Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita)
Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden
Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
Katha Pollitt, writer
Claire Bond Potter, The New School
Taufiq Rahim, New America Foundation
Zia Haider Rahman, writer
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin
Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic
Neil Roberts, political theorist
Melvin Rogers, Brown University
Kat Rosenfield, writer
Loretta J. Ross, Smith College
J.K. Rowling
Salman Rushdie, New York University
Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment
Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University
Diana Senechal, teacher and writer
Jennifer Senior, columnist
Judith Shulevitz, writer
Jesse Singal, journalist
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Andrew Solomon, writer
Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer
Allison Stanger, Middlebury College
Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University
Wendell Steavenson, writer
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School
Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University
Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University
Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama
Adaner Usmani, Harvard University
Chloe Valdary
Lucía Martínez Valdivia, Reed College
Helen Vendler, Harvard University
Judy B. Walzer
Michael Walzer
Eric K. Washington, historian
Caroline Weber, historian
Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
Bari Weiss
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Garry Wills
Thomas Chatterton Williams, writer
Robert F. Worth, journalist and author
Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Matthew Yglesias
Emily Yoffe, journalist
Cathy Young, journalist
Fareed Zakaria

Institutions are listed for identification purposes only.

America is not exceptional. But we are the exception:

With the death toll surpassing 120,000, we account for the most COVID-19 deaths in the world.

American police kill over 1,000 people every year.

We’re the only one out of 22 advanced nations that doesn’t give all workers some form of paid sick leave.

We’re the only industrialized nation without guaranteed, universal healthcare.

We have the largest prison population on Earth.

We have the largest CEO-to-worker pay gap.

We spend more on the military than the next seven nations combined.

The above headline and facts are from We’re Not Winning, a video from economist Robert Reich’s website Inequality Media.

The ever-changing dangers of the ever-changing Internet.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is sometimes heralded as “the ‘Magna Carta’ of the internet.” It was passed in 1996 to provide websites with incentive to delete pornography, but it has since evolved. It is now effectively a shield that websites use to protect them from responsibility for all sorts of activity on their platforms, from illegal gun sales to discriminatory ads.

This week The Markup reporter Sara Harrison examines the U.S. law that enables both the good and the bad of internet speech, and explores how the law might be reformed to meet the new challenges of the ever-changing Internet.

Excellent article.

US billionaires have become $565 billion richer during the last 90 days

Matt Egan, writing for CNN Business, noted today that even though the past three months have been financially painful for many Americans – it hasn’t been for billionaires.

US billionaires have become $565 billion richer since March 18, according to a report published Thursday by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank.

Total wealth for billionaires now stands at $3.5 trillion, up 19% from the low point near the beginning of the pandemic, the report said. Amazon (AMZN) boss Jeff Bezos alone is worth $36.2 billion more than he was on March 18.

Since that day, nearly 43 million Americans have filed for initial unemployment benefits. Continue reading the article here.

“We are the hollow men . . .”

Washington Post columnist George Will, ever the staunch conservative, wrote a column in yesterday’s paper titled Trump must be removed. So must his congressional enablers. This column was extraordinary in several ways. It represented yet another revolt among a growing number of influential members of the President’s own party. It has garnered the most comments (approaching 7,000 as I write this) that I think I’ve ever seen in a newspaper column. It is a rebellious voice during a week of growing rebellion on many fronts for many reasons in America. It is yet another harbinger that Donald Trump is in a centrifugal spin that seems likely to eventually destroy him.

But the central importance of this article to me his emphasis on “the enablers”. We know who the vociferous enablers are. Their madness confronts us nearly every day. But I hope we are taking note of the quiet and silent ones as well. They are the cowards of the Presidents venal and power-thirsty followers. They support him openly when his power is full strength, and support him quietly but loyally when his power wanes.

And soon, as Trump increasingly spins out of control, these enablers, feeling the changing winds, will begin to make quiet, equivocal statements and start to drift toward the political center. They will begin positioning themselves for the post-Trump world. They will want, above all, a place in that world too. A place of influence; a place that allows them to benefit from that influence; a place that will enrich them, and allow them to drift with the political winds without being held accountable for anything. The men without character. The hollow men.

Zuck. The research. And his decision.

A stunning story in Wall Street Journal on May 26, 2020 reported that an internal study by Facebook’s own researchers in 2018 revealed that the social media company’s algorithms not only did not bring people together, but in fact were driving people apart.

“Our algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness,” read a slide from a 2018 presentation. “If left unchecked,” it warned, Facebook would feed users “more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform.”

Many of Facebook’s own experts agreed. Their research showed that:

● extremist groups were growing on Facebook and Facebook’s algorithms were responsible for the growth

● 64% of all extremist groups that join Facebook are due to Facebook’s own “recommendation tools” pushing extremist connections and growth

● a disproportionate amount of the bad behavior (fake news, spam, clickbait inauthentic users) came from a small pool of hyperpartisan users

● in the U.S. Facebook saw a larger infrastructure of accounts and publishers on the far right than on the far left.

That meant that if Facebook adjusted its algorithms to not promote “bad behavior” that would result in disproportionately limiting right wing actors. When that became apparent, Mr. Zuckerberg lost his enthusiasm for changing Facebook’s algorithms to mitigate extremist clicks. Two reasons: (1) he needed right wing support in Washington and didn’t want to alienate the party in power, and (2) reducing clicks was tantamount to leaving money (a lot of money) on the table. Zuckerberg was loath to do either of these things.

The bottom line: Facebook had effectively monetized nastiness, divisiveness, and rage. It paid, and it paid big. And his friend in the White House had just given big companies like Facebook a whopping tax break in 2o17. Zuckerberg didn’t want to do anything to upset the status quo.

The result: Zuckerberg shelved the research. What’s a little divisiveness in the world when there is so much money to be made from it?

How the Supreme Court Lets Cops Get Away With Murder

“Police officers don’t face justice more often for a variety of reasons — from powerful police unions to the blue wall of silence to cowardly prosecutors to reluctant juries. But it is the Supreme Court that has enabled a culture of violence and abuse by eviscerating a vital civil rights law to provide police officers what, in practice, is nearly limitless immunity from prosecution for actions taken while on the job. The badge has become a get-out-of-jail-free card in far too many instances.”

The New York Times, editorial, 2020-05-30

In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death we are again asking the same question we’ve been asking for more than five decades: Why are we letting this continue to happen? And everyone’s frustration with the death of yet another black man at the hands of police has reached the boiling point.

How did we get here? The above editorial is an excellent tutorial. It’s an important and insightful editorial. Please read it.

Understanding how we got here is essential knowledge for all of us if we’re going to forge a remedy to this tragic and chronic injustice.

Now we have to hold our lawmakers accountable for making this happen. As “we the people”, that’s our responsibility.

Facebook and Its Secret Policies

Below is an article from today’s The New York Times by Shira Ovide who writes the On Tech column for them.

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Facebook had studied for two years whether its social network makes people more polarized.

Researchers concluded that it does, and recommended changes to the company’s computerized systems to steer people away from vilifying one another. But the Journal reports that the company’s top executives declined to implement most of the proposed changes.

Fostering open dialogue among people with different viewpoints isn’t easy, and I don’t know if Facebook was right in shelving ideas like creating separate online huddles for parents arguing about vaccinations. But I do want to talk over two nagging questions sparked by this article and others:

Continue reading “Facebook and Its Secret Policies”

In a new era, new challenges and new choices for how we want to live . . .

“The decades of economic injustice and immense concentrations of wealth that we call the Gilded Age succeeded in teaching people how they did not want to live. That knowledge empowered them to bring the Gilded Age to an end, wielding the armaments of progressive legislation and the New Deal. Even now, when we recall the lordly ‘barons’ of the late nineteenth century, we call them ‘robbers.’

 “Surely the Age of Surveillance Capitalism will meet the same fate as it teaches us how we do not want to live. It instructs us in the irreplaceable value of our greatest moral and political achievements by threatening to destroy them It reminds us that shared trust is the only real protection from uncertainty. It demonstrates that power untamed by democracy can only lead to exile and despair.   . . . it is up to us to use our knowledge, to regain our bearings, to stir others to do the same, and to found a new beginning. In the conquest of nature, industrial capitalism’s victims were mute. Those who would try to conquer human nature will find their intended victims full of voice, ready to name danger and defeat it. This book is intended as a contribution to that collective effort.”

The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, Shoshana Zuboff, (Public Affairs, 2019).

If they represent us, then . . .

Below are two infographics from a September, 2019 PEW Research Center poll that shows how Americans feel about citizen inequality in the U.S.

Majorities of Republicans and Democrats who say reducing inequality should be a top priority also point to inequality giving the wealthy too much political influence and access and being harmful to economic growth as major reasons why they think reducing inequality should be a priority.

So, if our Senators and Representatives in Congress truly represent “we, the people”, then why is so little being done to address the views reflected in the above poll figures? Do our Congressional “servants” serve us . . . or not? If not, then cui bono? Who does benefit from their actions? If not us, then who? Watch and read the news with a discerning eye. Be aware of what bills are passed in Congress. Perhaps more importantly, be aware of what bills are being held up in the Senate and are NOT being passed? Why aren’t they being passed? What does that answer tell us?