Shared posts

11 Apr 02:44

People are Recreating Famous Artworks Using Whatever They Have at Home During Quarantine

by Grace Ebert

By sporting a bonnet fashioned out of toilet paper and clutching a celery-stalk cigarette, people are finding ways to engage with their favorite artworks from a distance. This week, the Getty challenged folks to imitate classic pieces with whatever they can find around their homes and since has gotten thousands of hilarious (and well-done) responses.

The Los Angeles museum’s call was inspired by the account Between Art & Quarantine, which has been asking people to choose three aspects of their favorite works to recreate using anything they’ve got at home, hence the pets, kids, and vegetables in the mix. Check out a few of the Getty’s picks on its Instagram, and don’t forget to take a peek this hashtag for some gems. (via Design You Trust)

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Tussen Kunst & Quarantaine (@tussenkunstenquarantaine) on

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Getty (@gettymuseum) on

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Melissa Nordan (@mlnordan) on

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by La Segreta (@la_segreta_umbria) on

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by @be.for.a.mirror on

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Paulina (@paulina.bonaparte) on

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Kelsey Keena (@kelseykeena) on

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by trparz (@trparz) on

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Winston Fergus (@thewienerdogwinston) on

 

Do stories and artists like this matter to you? Become a Colossal Member and support independent arts publishing. Join a community of like-minded readers who are passionate about contemporary art, apply for our annual grant, and get exclusive access to interviews, partner discounts, and event tickets.

01 Apr 02:58

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee is what real coronavirus leadership looks like

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has long had an uneasy relationship with both the media and the overwhelmingly Democratic residents of his state. He has let the vital New York City subway fall into ruin, actively connived with Republicans to give them control of the state Senate, and generally been a thorn in the side of anyone who wants to do anything good. But now, thanks to the novel coronavirus outbreak, suddenly everyone loves him. He's getting breathless (even lustful) media coverage, and his approval rating has jumped by 27 points.

Don't be fooled, though: Cuomo has royally messed up the coronavirus outbreak, just like he has everything else. If you want an example of effective crisis leadership, look to Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee.

To begin with, the numbers don't lie. New York state has thus far had the worst outbreak not just of any state, but of any place in the world. Its deaths have risen faster than any other sub-national region at an equivalent point in their outbreaks, even Lombardy, Italy and Madrid, Spain.

Many have pointed to the density of New York City, with its heavy reliance on public transportation and many international travelers, as one reason its outbreak spread so fast. But while it is surely easier for a virus to spread in such a place, this fails to explain why Hong Kong and Singapore, which are both comparably dense and internationally connected, and also much closer to the initial coronavirus outbreak, have not seen shattering numbers of cases.

Pandemic control measures work in dense cities just as they do in rural areas (which are not remotely immune to viral epidemics), and Cuomo was inexcusably lax in setting them up. New York had its first confirmed case on March 1, and its second on March 3, a "super-spreader" event who was linked to 28 more cases by March 6. But on that same day, Cuomo was still reminding people that more people were in the hospital from the flu than COVID-19. The state transit authority (which Cuomo controls) also informed its employees they would not be issued protective gear, and forbade them from wearing their own. On March 8, he said shutting down public transit was unnecessary. He did not start even moderate lockdown measures until March 12.

To be fair, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio was also incredibly irresponsible about this. He also downplayed the virus' severity, dragged his feet on lockdown measures, and was still going to the gym on March 16. But that, in turn, points to the horrible relationship between the governor and the mayor, which is about three-quarters Cuomo's fault. De Blasio is an incompetent nincompoop, but Cuomo is a vicious political backstabber who seems to take great personal delight in needling de Blasio, starting pissing matches with him, and obstructing his agenda out of pure spite. Now, when a working relationship between the two most important authorities in New York could not be more important, that childish pique is taking its toll.

Now that the outbreak is extremely bad, New York's hospitals are being overwhelmed. Few are more responsible for this than Cuomo, who has relentlessly hacked away at his state's hospital capacity during his terms as governor. He pushed through repeated cuts to the state's funding of Medicaid and vetoed a funding increase, which helped bankrupt several hospitals that served New York's poorest residents. Several of them were subsequently turned into luxury housing developments, which was probably half the point. In sum, the state has lost about 20,000 hospital beds since 2000 — a trend that predated Cuomo but kept going under his watch. Even today Cuomo is still trying to push further Medicaid cuts, as hospitals face a completely unprecedented onslaught of work and costs.

Yet for the last few weeks, Cuomo has been holding daily televised updates about the progress of the outbreak in New York. His clear warnings about the dangers of mass death, and the obvious contrast between him and President Trump's daily buffoonery, have made these briefings ripe for media pickup and must-watch viewing for many Americans who are desperate for information. But no amount of showmanship now will make up for the early delays that set New York on its current trajectory.

Returning to the above chart, Washington state, despite being the site of the earliest cluster of confirmed cases in the U.S., has contained its outbreak better than any state, and many other sub-national regions as well. This simply must be because Governor Inslee started testing earlier, implemented clampdown measures earlier, and tightened them earlier. By late February it was clear that Washington would suffer a serious outbreak, and Inslee declared a state of emergency on the same day, Feb. 29, that the state recorded its first COVID-19 death. Working closely with Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan, Inslee first strongly encouraged people to avoid groups and stay at home, then started requiring them to do so in early March. The state set up a command center to coordinate the overall response and direct resources to where they were most needed, and Inslee began regular briefings to inform the public about what was going on.

A month later, Washington has less than a tenth as many cases as New York, and its hospitals have so far been strained but not overwhelmed. It easily could have been just as bad — Washington is only somewhat smaller than Lombardy, where the devastating Italian outbreak has been centered. As we have learned over and over and over, quick action is absolutely vital when it comes to containing the coronavirus.

Now, Inslee was lucky to have access to the world-class medical research centers of the University of Washington system, and the bottomless pockets of Bill Gates, who has provided a lot of resources and assistance to the state. Even his efforts fell far short of Taiwan's or Vietnam's, which actually squelched their outbreaks almost entirely. But on the other hand, Inslee was and is seriously hampered by the lack of a coordinated federal response. With the doddering lunatic Donald Trump in the White House, Washington state is heavily limited in what it can do — and yet has managed better than many European cities.

This is what competence looks like: not some faux-macho media hound going on television a lot, but careful, agile governance informed by the best available information. Inslee may not get such an approval bump from role-playing as the Important Leader, but his quick work saved thousands of lives.

Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.

31 Mar 03:28

Lake Waves Appear Frozen in Time Amidst the Rocky Mountains in Photographs by Eric Gross

by Grace Ebert

All images © Eric Gross, shared with permission

Shot at an elevation nearing 10,000 feet in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains, a series of images by Eric Gross capture a high-alpine lake covered in icy ridges and dips that mimic sleek waves. The Colorado-based photographer tells Colossal that local experts believe the phenomenon is caused by snowdrifts blowing onto the already frozen lake, melting there, and then refreezing. “Through multiple melt/freeze cycles and after periods of high winds, the mounds and divots are shaped into deep curves, sometimes with sharp ridges and lines that give the appearance of regular lake waves, frozen in time,” Gross says. “Composing images from ground level revealed that the dark ice waves exhibit psychedelic reflections of the surrounding mountainous landscape.” To see more of the photographer’s phenomenological works, head to Instagram.

 

Do stories and artists like this matter to you? Become a Colossal Member and support independent arts publishing. Join a community of like-minded readers who are passionate about contemporary art, apply for our annual grant, and get exclusive access to interviews, partner discounts, and event tickets.

31 Mar 03:25

A different type of puzzle

by Minnesotastan


I couldn't solve any of these until I saw the 20th one.  With that enlightenment I immediately figured out #19 - but I couldn't solve the others.

The answer is in a link at Miss Cellania.
29 Mar 19:19

The church forests of Ethiopia

by Aeon Video

‘The church is within the forest, the forest is inside the church.’

Ethiopia’s northern highlands were once covered by trees. But over the past century, development and exponential population growth have all but wiped out the region’s forests, transforming the landscape into an expanse of brown fields, given over to cattle grazing and agriculture. However, an aerial view of the region reveals small pockets of green with round buildings in the middle, dotting the barren expanses. Born of the centuries-old belief of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church that churches should be surrounded by forests so as to resemble the Garden of Eden, these sites have become valuable sanctuaries of biodiversity amid the extreme pressures of population growth. The Church Forests of Ethiopia explores how the Ethiopian ecologist Alemayehu Wassie is partnering with church leaders in a last stand against deforestation – an inspiring and uncommon partnership between science and religion. You can read more about the project at Emergence Magazine.

By Aeon Video

Watch at Aeon

29 Mar 16:17

Idyllic Landscape Paintings by Artist Tomás Sánchez Render Nature’s Meditative Qualities

by Grace Ebert

“Aislarse” (2001), acrylic on linen. All images © Tomás Sánchez

For nearly three decades, Cuban painter Tomás Sánchez has been painting serene landscapes of calm waters and verdant forests full of towering palms and dense shrubs. Now part of a lengthy series, his realistic works focus on nature’s immensity as they contrast massive waterfalls and miles of endless treetops with a nondescript figure, who often can be found seated or standing amongst the lush scenery.

In a statement, Sánchez explained how his practice of meditation informs his work. “The interior spaces that I experience in meditation are converted into the landscapes of my paintings; the restlessness of my mind transformed into landfills,” he writes. “When I paint, I experience meditative states; through meditation, I achieve a union with nature, and nature, in turn, leads me to meditation.”

For more of the Costa Rica-based artist’s projects, head to Instagram, and check out Artsy to see which tranquil paintings you can add to your own collection.

“Orilla y cielo gris” (1995), acrylic on canvas, 23½ x 35½ inches

“Autorretrato en tarde rosa” (1994), acrylic on linen, 30 x 39 ³/₄ inches

“Llegada del caminante a la laguna” (1999)

“Meditación y sonido de aguas” (1993), acrylic on canvas 60.5 x 76 centimeters

“Atardecer,” acrylic on canvas, 109.9 x 149.2 centimeters

 

Do stories and artists like this matter to you? Become a Colossal Member and support independent arts publishing. Join a community of like-minded readers who are passionate about contemporary art, apply for our annual grant, and get exclusive access to interviews, partner discounts, and event tickets.

29 Mar 03:06

How Socialists Can Govern

by Bill Fletcher Jr.

Many on the U.S. left fear governing power, in part because it has been so difficult to achieve. More recent optimism among socialists is a welcome development—but we need a middle ground between being cynical and naive.

15 Mar 20:26

Trump Got Me Released From Prison. But I Support Bernie.

by Aya Hijazi
Aya Hijazi, center, a dual U.S.-Egyptian citizen, is acquitted by an Egyptian court on April 16, 2017, after nearly three years of detention over accusations related to running a foundation dedicated to helping street children, in Cairo, Egypt.

Aya Hijazi, center, a dual U.S.-Egyptian citizen, is acquitted by an Egyptian court on April 16, 2017, after nearly three years of detention over accusations related to running a foundation dedicated to helping street children, in Cairo, Egypt.

Photo: Mohamed el Raai/AP

If it was about me, I would have thrown myself into President Donald Trump’s embrace when I walked into his office, as he stood to greet me. I could use being in the grace and warmth of the president of the United States, after having rotted in an Egyptian prison for three years, enduring a savage defamation campaign, and facing multiple life sentences. Dina Powell, who facilitated my release in 2017, actively encouraged the hug, twice. “He likes you, Aya. He thinks you’re an angel. Hug him.”

But it was never about me. I was not in prison for a nefarious act that I committed. I was in prison because as an American who is inspired by the story of our nation, I felt that I could make my native homeland more like us, a democracy that respects the individual, human rights, and the rule of law. But the Egyptian dictatorship would not have it. It arrested me and accused me of being a spy, among other salacious and farcical charges, and persecuted me as it continued to arrest and torture thousands of activists like me.

But Trump did not get it. He thought that I could forget what I was about and asked me to “thank President Sisi.” I felt slighted. Clearly, the president viewed both my suffering, and freedom, as a deal. A deal that freed me physically but killed my fight for justice.

I suffered emotionally for nearly a year after the meeting. I did not want to be ungrateful to the president. I forced myself to reexamine my stance. At least Trump gets things done, I tried to persuade myself. I decided to closely watch his administration, still in its first 100 days of rule. I hoped against all odds that the president’s toxic campaign talk would prove to be hollow rhetoric and then cease or transform.

But it did not. It grew worse. Moreover, unlike the way he presented himself, the president did not get things done. My release was the exception. It was an opportunity to prove, as he repeatedly told me in the meeting — and to his supporters in rallies — that he saved me when Barack Obama failed.

He considered my release just a trophy win. After me, he failed to press for the release of other Americans detained in Egypt. Indeed, when U.S. citizen Moustafa Kassem — who was detained for political reasons in Egypt — was arbitrarily killed in Egypt’s prison in January, Trump remained silent. Worse, just last week, the State Department issued a travel advisory, stating that it has “limited ability to assist dual U.S.-Egyptian citizens who are arrested or detained in Egypt.” Kassem was not a dual citizen at the time of his death.

Such a statement codifies what I, and those in marginalized black, brown, immigrant, non-WASP communities felt all along. We are not equal citizens, and America is not about equality and rights. As such, Trump is not only failing Americans, he is defining America.

Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders is working hard to redeem it and redefine it. The Sanders campaign has succeeded in demonstrating what America has become. The nation had foregone its status as a rebel against brutal exploitation of the individual by the ruling monarch, and morphed into one of institutional exploitation of the individual by the corporation, the patron of the ruling few.

Sanders has demonstrated that it is not just people like me — brown, Muslims, Jews, immigrants, children of single mothers — who struggle. He has revealed that the average Joes and Janes have become marginalized. Yet, we the marginalized, not finding the space to discuss financial struggle in a society that that exhibits itself as wealthy with plenitude, found only ourselves to blame.

Sanders is patting us on the back, telling each of us that it is not our fault. The problem is not us, but them: the system. The establishment. Even if macroeconomy looks good with mean income levels skewed by billionaires, the people are suffering, and the people’s suffering requires a pause.

Sanders’s pause is reviving the Constitution from becoming “we the few, the billionaire and corporations” to “we the people.” All the people. Everywhere. This is progress for America. It is an awakening that cannot go back. And the America I know does not go back; it is like the arrow, always forward, never stalling. What makes America America is not vicious capitalism, not technology. What defines America is progress. And a Sanders administration is progress.

The post Trump Got Me Released From Prison. But I Support Bernie. appeared first on The Intercept.

05 Mar 03:31

Self-Isolate

Turns out I've been "practicing social distancing" for years without even realizing it was a thing!
05 Mar 03:28

The anybody-but-Bernie comeback

For decades, the cliché about American political parties has gone that "Republicans fall in line, while Democrats fall in love." But for a significant portion of today's Democratic electorate, that is not the case. Joe Biden's campaign came back from the brink of death on Super Tuesday, on the winds of a sudden burst of coordinated support from the Democratic establishment. At time of writing he was projected to have won Virginia, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Alabama, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Arkansas, Texas, and Tennessee, and was running close in Maine.

In the South Carolina primary last weekend, exit polls showed that Biden won a smashing victory primarily thanks to one person: House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, the most powerful Democrat in the state, who endorsed Biden just days before the primary. After that win, both Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar dropped out and endorsed Biden, as did his former opponent Beto O'Rourke and several other Democratic officials.

But this flash coronation wasn't because Biden convinced his competitors that he had the best policies or the best temperament to take on Donald Trump. There is one reason and one reason alone the establishment has rallied around Biden: He is not Bernie Sanders.

The argument coming from the establishment is all about electability and uniting the party. "We need somebody who can beat Donald Trump," said O'Rourke in his speech endorsing Biden. "If we spend the next four months dividing our party, we will spend the next four years watching Donald Trump tear apart this country," said Klobuchar in her speech. Democratic voters who are understandably terrified of a Trump second term apparently listened.

In reality, propping up Biden was a desperate reaction to the momentum Sanders had after winning the popular vote in each of the first three primary states. It is guaranteed to drag out the primary as long as possible, and creates a distinct risk of a brokered convention that will create a lot of bitterness and make beating Trump more difficult. Before the establishment rallied around Biden, his campaign was on the verge of collapse. He had been crushed in the first three states, he had little money or campaign organization, and was polling far behind Sanders in most of the Super Tuesday states.

Now it is basically an even race. While Sanders lost in the South Tuesday, he also won Utah, Colorado, Vermont, and probably California (it will take days for the votes to be counted there). With approximately two thirds of delegates yet to be awarded, it will likely be a grueling race that will go on until the convention.

Electability is the only argument that has even a fig leaf of plausibility, so it's what the establishment goes with. But it's not remotely the case that Biden is a sure thing while Sanders is a terrible gamble. Sanders, it's true, would be the most left-wing president in history, and openly identifies as a socialist — something a majority of Americans say they dislike. But it's also true that Sanders has been tarred as a socialist for years now and still consistently polls well ahead of Trump, and about as well as Biden. He also has an army of dedicated activists, and by far the strongest fundraising machine in the party (outside of oligarchs like Mike Bloomberg who can casually spend a half-billion dollars of their own money).

Biden also has particular risks that are not easily quantifiable but still obvious. He has run a horrible, lazy campaign — indeed, even Clyburn said as much while endorsing him. He had basically no ground game in any of the Super Tuesday states. He has a long history of being creepy with women. And let's be frank: Biden is clearly suffering some kind of cognitive decline. He performed horribly in almost all of the debates, frequently rambling off on bizarre tangents. He opened his speech Tuesday night by mixing up his wife and his sister. He also has a habit of making up fake stories — like that he was involved in civil rights protests, or that a general asked him to honor a brave soldier, or most recently, he was arrested in South Africa trying to visit Nelson Mandela. None of these things happened.

Biden's appalling record is also utterly at odds with the modern Democratic Party's branding. He voted for the Iraq War, and defended that vote for months afterwards. He was a key architect of the bankruptcy bill that made it impossible to get rid of student loan debt, and various crime and war on drugs bills that threw millions of Americans in prison. He tried repeatedly to cut Social Security and Medicare, and voted for multiple rounds of financial deregulation. (That is just scratching the surface.)

Conversely, going with a moderate like Biden risks deflating the activist energy that has built up around Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The younger voters that Sanders is winning by huge margins in most states may figure the fix is in and decide not to vote in November.

In short, Joe Biden could very easily lose to Trump. Unlike Obama, he is not some once-in-a-generation political talent. He is a fading, washed-up operator with decades of baggage who has lost a step or three. Nominating him would be a terrific gamble — and given his record and staffing choices (one of his top policy advisers is the architect of the disastrous 1996 welfare reform), a gamble with very little upside.

For whatever reason, the Democratic establishment hates and fears the prospect of a Sanders nomination almost as much as they fear a Trump re-election, if not more. Perhaps it is because he would screw up a lot of carefully-planned careers, or break up the comfortable revolving door that keeps a lot of Democratic elites in hot tubs. Perhaps it is because he would indicate that decades of sellout compromises were not as necessary as they seemed. Perhaps they just don't like him.

But Democratic voters, know this: The establishment is leveraging your fear of Trump to get you to support a weak, unsteady candidate. If Bernie Sanders calls to your heart, I recommend listening.

Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.

01 Mar 19:22

Photo

TimB

:-O



01 Mar 18:13

Bloomberg Is Wealthier Than The Bottom 125 Million Americans

by Matt Bruenig

Michael Bloomberg’s net worth is $64.2 billion, according to Forbes. This makes him the eighth wealthiest person in America. Wealth at that scale is hard to comprehend and so it can be useful to compare it to something else. And if you are trying to highlight the high level of inequality in the country, the best thing to compare it to is the wealth held by those at the bottom of our society.

Every three years, the Federal Reserve releases its Survey of Consumer Finances, which is the best household wealth survey in the country. In the latest SCF data, the bottom 38 percent of American households have a collective net worth of $11.4 billion, meaning that Michael Bloomberg owns nearly 6 times as much wealth as they do.

The bottom 38 percent of households is equal to around 47.8 million households. Since households have an average of 2.63 members, this is equal to about 125.7 million people. Thus, Bloomberg’s wealth is nearly 6 times greater than the wealth of the bottom 125 million people combined.

In fact, this 125 million figure actually understates how lopsided things are. The definition of wealth used in the official SCF publications includes cars as wealth. But academics that study wealth inequality, like Edward Wolff, often do not count cars as wealth because they are rapidly-depreciating consumer durables that most people can’t really sell for the practical reason that they need a car to get around and live.

When you exclude cars from the definition of wealth, what you find is that the bottom 48 percent of households have less combined wealth than Michael Bloomberg does. This is 60.4 million households or 158.9 million people.

Regardless of which measure you use, the upshot is clear: the United States is simultaneously home to some of the wealthiest people on earth and to a large propertyless underclass that have scarcely a penny to their names.

27 Jan 14:31

Saving Our Bacon

by monbiot

Farmfree foods might be the only thing that gets us – and much of the rest of the living world – through this century.

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 8th January 2020

It sounds like a miracle, but no great technological leaps were required. In a commercial lab on the outskirts of Helsinki, I watched scientists turning water into food. Through a porthole in a metal tank, I could see a yellow froth churning. It’s a primordial soup of bacteria, taken from the soil, using hydrogen extracted from water as its energy source. When the froth was siphoned through a tangle of pipes, and squirted onto heated rollers, it turned into a rich yellow flour.

This flour is not yet licensed for sale. But the scientists, working for a company called Solar Foods, were allowed to give me some. I asked them, filming our documentary Apocalypse Cow, to make me a pancake: I would be the first person on Earth, beyond the lab staff, to eat such a thing. They set up a frying pan in the lab, mixed the flour with oat milk, and I took my small step for man. It tasted … just like a pancake.

But pancakes are not the intended product. Such flours are likely soon to become the feedstock for almost everything. In their raw state, they can replace the fillers now used in thousands of food products. When the bacteria are modified, they will create the specific proteins needed for cultured meat, milk and eggs. Other tweaks will produce lauric acid – goodbye palm oil – and long-chain omega-3 fatty acids: hello cultured fish. The carbohydrates that remain when proteins and fats have been extracted could replace everything from pasta flour to potato crisps. The first commercial factory built by Solar Foods should be running next year.

The hydrogen pathway is around ten times as efficient as photosynthesis. But because only part of a plant can be eaten, while the bacterial flour is mangetout, you can multiply that efficiency several times. And because it will be brewed in giant vats, the land efficiency, the company estimates, is roughly 20,000 times greater. Everyone on Earth could be handsomely fed, using a tiny fraction of its surface. If, as the company intends, the water is electrolysed with solar power, the best places to build these plants will be deserts.

We are on the cusp of the biggest economic transformation, of any kind, for 200 years. While arguments rage about plant- versus meat-based diets, new technologies will soon make them irrelevant. Before long, most of our food will come neither from animals nor plants, but from unicellular life. After 12,000 years of feeding humankind, all farming except fruit and veg production is likely to be replaced by ferming: brewing microbes through precision fermentation. I know some people will be horrified by this prospect. I can see some drawbacks. But I believe it comes in the nick of time.

Several impending disasters are converging on our food supply, any of which could be catastrophic. Climate breakdown threatens to cause what scientists call “multiple breadbasket failures”, through synchronous heatwaves and other impacts. The UN forecasts that by 2050 feeding the world will require a 20% expansion in global water use. But water use is already maxed out in many places: aquifers are vanishing, rivers are failing to reach the sea. The glaciers that supply half the population of Asia are rapidly retreating. Inevitable global heating – due to greenhouse gases already released – is likely to reduce dry season rainfall in critical areas, turning fertile plains into dustbowls.

A global soil crisis threatens the very basis of our subsistence, as great tracts of arable land lose their fertility through erosion, compaction and contamination. Phosphate supplies, crucial for agriculture, are dwindling fast. Insectageddon threatens catastrophic pollination failures. It is hard to see how farming can feed us all even until 2050, let alone to the end of the century and beyond.

Food production is ripping the living world apart. Fishing and farming are, by a long way, the greatest cause of extinction and loss of the diversity and abundance of wildlife. Farming is a major cause of climate breakdown, the biggest cause of river pollution and a hefty source of air pollution. Across vast tracts of the world’s surface, it has replaced complex wild ecosystems with simplified human food chains. Industrial fishing is driving cascading ecological collapse in seas around the world. Eating is now a moral minefield, as almost everything we put in our mouths – from beef to avocados, cheese to chocolate, almonds to tortilla chips, salmon to peanut butter – has an insupportable environmental cost. But just as hope appeared to be evaporating, the new technologies I call “farmfree food” create astonishing possibilities to save both people and planet. 

Farmfree food will allow us to hand back vast areas of land and sea to nature, permitting rewilding and carbon drawdown on a massive scale. It means an end to the exploitation of animals, an end to most deforestation, a massive reduction in the use of pesticides and fertiliser, the end of trawlers and longliners. It’s our best hope of stopping the Great Extermination. And, if it’s done right, it means cheap and abundant food for everyone.

Research by the thinktank RethinkX suggests that proteins from precision fermentation will be around ten times cheaper than animal protein by 2035. The result, it says, will be the near-complete collapse of the livestock industry. The new food economy will “replace an extravagantly inefficient system that requires enormous quantities of inputs and produces huge amounts of waste with one that is precise, targeted, and tractable.” Using tiny areas of land, with a massively reduced requirement for water and nutrients, it “presents the greatest opportunity for environmental restoration in human history.”

Not only will food be cheaper, it will also be healthier. Because farmfree foods will be built up from simple ingredients, rather than broken down from complex ones, allergens, hard fats and other unhealthy components can be screened out. Meat will still be meat, though it will be grown in factories on collagen scaffolds, rather than in the bodies of animals. Starch will still be starch, fats will still be fats. But food is likely to be better, cheaper and much less damaging to the living planet.

It might seem odd for someone who has spent his life calling for political change to enthuse about a technological shift. But nowhere on earth can I see sensible farm policies developing. Governments provide an astonishing £560 billion a year in farm subsidies, and almost all of them are perverse and destructive, driving deforestation, pollution and the killing of wildlife. Research by the Food and Land Use Coalition found that only 1% of the money is used to protect the living world. It failed to find “any examples of governments using their fiscal instruments to directly support the expansion of supply of healthier and more nutritious food.”

Nor is the mainstream debate about farming taking us anywhere, except towards further catastrophe. There’s a widespread belief that the problem is intensive farming, and the answer is extensification (producing less food per hectare). It’s true that intensive farming is highly damaging, but extensive farming is even worse. Many people are rightly concerned about urban sprawl. But agricultural sprawl – which covers a much wider area – is a far greater threat to the natural world. Every hectare of land used by farming is a hectare not used for wildlife and complex living systems.

A paper in Nature suggests that, per kilo of food produced, extensive farming causes greater greenhouse gas emissions, soil loss, water use and nitrogen and phosphate pollution than intensive farming. If everyone ate pasture-fed meat, we would need several new planets on which to produce it.

Farmfree production promises a far more stable and reliable food supply, that can be grown anywhere, even in countries without farmland. It could be crucial to ending world hunger. But there is a hitch: a clash between consumer and producer interests. Many millions of people, working in farming and food processing, will eventually lose their jobs. Because the new processes are so efficient, the employment they create won’t match the employment they destroy.

RethinkX envisages an extremely rapid “death spiral” in the livestock industry. Only a few components, such as the milk proteins casein and whey, need to be produced through fermentation for profit margins across an entire sector to collapse. Dairy farming in the United States, it claims, will be “all but bankrupt by 2030”. It believes that the US beef industry’s revenues will fall 90% by 2035.

While I doubt the collapse will be quite that fast, in one respect the thinktank underestimates the scale of the transformation. It fails to mention the extraordinary shift taking place in feedstock production, of the kind pioneered in Helsinki. This is likely to hit arable farming as hard as cultured milk and meat production will hit livestock farming. Solar Foods could reach cost parity with the world’s cheapest form of protein (soya from South America) within five years.

Instead of pumping ever more subsidies into a dying industry, governments should be investing in a crash programme to help farmers into other forms of employment, while providing relief funds for those who will suddenly lose their livelihoods.

Another hazard is the potential concentration of the farmfree food industry. We should strongly oppose the patenting of key technologies, to ensure the widest possible distribution of ownership. If governments regulate this properly, they could break the hegemony of the massive companies that now control global food commodities. If they don’t, they could reinforce it. In this sector, as in all others, we need strong anti-trust laws. We must also ensure that the new foods always have lower carbon footprints than the old ones: farmfree producers should power their operations entirely from low-carbon sources. This is a time of momentous choices, and we should make them together.

We can’t afford to wait passively for technology to save us. Over the next few years, we could lose almost everything, as magnificent habitats such as the rainforests of Madagascar, West Papua and Brazil are felled to produce cattle, soya or palm oil. By temporarily shifting towards a plant-based diet with the lowest possible impacts (no avocados or out-of-season asparagus), we can help buy the necessary time to save magnificent species and places, while the new technologies mature. But farmfree food offers hope where hope was missing. We will soon be able to feed the world without devouring it.

George Monbiot’s film Apocalypse Cow is free to view on Channel 4

27 Jan 14:13

Through Monochromatic Photographs, Aleksey Myakishev Documents Rural Life in Russia

by Grace Ebert

All images © Aleksey Myakishev, shared with permission

Born in Kirov and now based in Moscow, photographer Aleksey Myakishev is adept at capturing the simple moments of life and transforming them into alluring black-and-white images. Taken mostly throughout Russia, his projects tend to focus on unassuming subjects as they navigate their daily lives. In one photograph, three figures walk over a snow-covered landscape away from a lit firework, and in another, Myakishev creates an uncanny juxtaposition between a hilly horizon and a man swinging a child by his hands as a winter boot flies from his foot. When describing the dozens of series he’s created, the prolific artist said capturing life in his native country can be complex.

It is always difficult to photograph the place where you live. Nevertheless, sometimes I pick up my camera and go to the streets to capture the city’s pulse. When I look through the camera’s viewfinder, a dialogue with the city takes place. There are lots of everything here, be it people, vehicles, buildings. Sometimes the city looks ugly to me, sometimes beautiful. Through photography I try to find something especial in this city, perceiving the underlying surrealism of what is going on.

Myakishev also has published three books chronicling his monochromatic works. To find more of his documentary-style images, head to his Instagram and keep an eye out for his upcoming project on provincial Russia.

Moscow (2019)

Davydovo (2013)

Arkhangelsk (2018)

 

Do stories and artists like this matter to you? Become a Colossal Member and support independent arts publishing. Join a community of like-minded readers who are passionate about contemporary art, apply for our annual grant, and get exclusive access to interviews, partner discounts, and event tickets.

21 Jan 03:19

Big Oil’s Plan B is already in the pipeline: More plastic

by Beth Gardiner

This story was originally published by Yale Environment 360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

As public concern about plastic pollution rises, consumers are reaching for canvas bags, metal straws, and reusable water bottles. But while individuals fret over images of oceanic garbage gyres, the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries are pouring billions of dollars into new plants intended to make millions more tons of plastic than they now pump out.

Companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, and Saudi Aramco are ramping up output of plastic — which is made from oil and gas, and their byproducts — to hedge against the possibility that a serious global response to climate change might reduce demand for their fuels, analysts say. Petrochemicals, the category that includes plastic, now account for 14 percent of oil use, and are expected to drive half of oil demand growth between now and 2050, the International Energy Agency says. The World Economic Forum predicts plastic production will double in the next 20 years.

“In the context of a world trying to shift off of fossil fuels as an energy source, this is where [oil and gas companies] see the growth,” said Steven Feit, a staff attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, an advocacy group.

And because the American fracking boom is unearthing, along with natural gas, large amounts of the plastic feedstock ethane, the United States is a big growth area for plastic production. With natural gas prices low, many fracking operations are losing money, so producers have been eager to find a use for the ethane they get as a byproduct of drilling.

“They’re looking for a way to monetize it,” Feit said. “You can think of plastic as a kind of subsidy for fracking.”

America’s petrochemical hub has historically been the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana, with a stretch along the lower Mississippi River dubbed “Cancer Alley” because of the impact of toxic emissions. Producers are expanding their footprint there with a slew of new projects, and proposals for more. They are also seeking to create a new plastics corridor in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, where fracking wells are rich in ethane.

Shell is building a $6 billion ethane cracking plant — a facility that turns ethane into ethylene, a building block for many kinds of plastic — in Monaca, Pennsylvania, 25 miles northwest of Pittsburgh. It is expected to produce up to 1.6 million tons of plastic annually after it opens in the early 2020s. It’s just the highest profile piece of what the industry hails as a “renaissance in U.S. plastics manufacturing,” whose output goes not only into packaging and single-use items such as cutlery, bottles, and bags, but also longer-lasting uses like construction materials and parts for cars and airplanes.

Since 2010, companies have invested more than $200 billion in 333 plastic and other chemical projects in the U.S., including expansions of existing facilities, new plants, and associated infrastructure such as pipelines, says the American Chemistry Council, an industry body. While some are already running or under construction, other projects await regulators’ approval.

“That’s why 2020 is so crucial. There are a lot of these facilities that are in the permitting process. We’re pretty close to it all being too late,” said Judith Enck, founder of Beyond Plastics and a former regional director for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “If even a quarter of these ethane cracking facilities are built, it’s locking us into a plastic future that is going to be hard to recover from.”

The impact goes beyond the waste problem that is the focus of public concern. Although plastic is often seen as a separate issue from climate change, both its production and its afterlife are in fact major sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Global emissions linked to plastic — now just under 900 million tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent annually — could by 2030 reach 1.3 billion tons, as much as almost 300 coal-fired power plants, the Center for International Environmental Law found. If output grows as planned, plastic would use up between 10 and 13 percent of the carbon emissions allowable if warming is to stay below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the Center reported.

Those emissions come from nearly every stage of plastic’s life. First, there is the energy-intensive nature of oil and gas extraction. Then, ethane cracking requires enormous amounts of power, with a concomitantly large greenhouse gas footprint. The Shell plant has a permit allowing it to emit as much carbon dioxide annually as 480,000 cars.

An estimated 12 percent of all plastic is incinerated, releasing more greenhouse gases, as well as dangerous toxins, including dioxins and heavy metals. Industry is promoting an expansion of incineration in waste-to-electricity plants, which it describes as a source of renewable energy. What’s more, new research suggests plastic in the environment releases greenhouse gases as it degrades — a potentially vast and uncontrollable source of emissions.

The industry argues that plastic delivers many benefits, including environmental ones. It makes cars lighter and therefore more efficient, insulates homes, reduces waste by extending food’s life, and keeps medical supplies sanitary, among many other uses, said Keith Christman, managing director of plastic markets at the American Chemistry Council.

“These things are going to continue to be important applications that protect our health and society going forward,” he said. “The key here is context. If you aren’t going to use plastics, what are you going to use instead?” Alternatives like steel, glass, and aluminum have negative impacts of their own, including carbon footprints that can be greater than plastic’s, he said. And while critics focus on disposable items that seem frivolous, much plastic is put to longer lasting use, he said.

Still, convenience — like consumers’ taste for eating and drinking on the go — is a big driver of plastic use in wealthy nations. And the developing world has become an important new market, too. In parts of Asia, international companies sell single portions of products such as shampoo, soap, and lotion to low-income consumers in individual packets. But while industry points to a lack of waste management infrastructure in poor countries as a cause of the ocean plastic problem, Americans use dozens of times more plastic per capita than Indians, five times more than Indonesians, and nearly three times as much as Chinese.

In addition to its climate impacts, petrochemical production can release airborne toxins such as 1,3-Butadiene, benzene, and toluene, causing cancer and other illnesses. Many plants are in poor areas, often communities of color, although as the fracking connection drives expansion into rural areas, poor white communities will likely be increasingly affected, too.

Fires and explosions are another problem. The day before Thanksgiving, a blaze at the Texas Petroleum Chemical plant in Port Neches set off two explosions, forcing 50,000 people to evacuate their homes. A week later, authorities issued another evacuation warning after air monitors detected high levels of carcinogenic 1,3-Butadiene.

It was the state’s fourth major petrochemical fire of 2019. “This is the nature of where we live, and the unfortunate side effect of all this production,” said Yvette Arellano, of Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services. “I think the general public has a misunderstanding of the full breadth of plastic impacts, especially regarding human health.”

Still, many welcome the jobs petrochemical facilities bring, particularly in areas hit by the loss of coal and other industry. Pennsylvania granted the Shell plant a tax break valued at $1.6 billion — one of the biggest in state history — and officials in Ohio and West Virginia are wooing firms eager to build more ethane crackers, storage facilities, and pipelines. IHS Markit, a data and analysis company, said the region could produce enough ethane to supply four more cracking plants like Shell’s.

One concern for the industry is the spread of laws aimed at reducing plastic’s proliferation. The European Union is banning single-use plastic items including cutlery, plates, straws, cups, and food containers starting in 2021. Eight U.S. states and a number of cities have outlawed plastic shopping bags, and so have 34 African countries.

“Despite those efforts, the demand for plastic is continuing to grow very rapidly” in both developing nations and richer ones, said Peter Levi, a lead author of the IEA’s 2018 report on petrochemicals’ future. Analysts predict annual demand growth of 4 percent. “The capacity additions are not there for no reason,” Levi said.

Annual production has already doubled since 2000, growth driven in part by plastic’s low cost and versatility. “It’s a bit of a dream material,” Levi said.“If you think about how much you can put in a plastic bag relative to how much it weighs, it’s remarkable. That means the substitutes for it have to compete at that level.”

In the case of plastic, though, demand doesn’t always come directly from consumers, but from companies in the food, beverage, consumer products, and other sectors who use it to package their goods.

The American Chemistry Council aims for all plastic to be recycled or recovered by 2040, although critics dismiss the goal as unrealistic greenwash. The E.U., in addition to its ban on single-use items, will also require that plastic bottles contain 25 percent recycled content by 2025.

An IHS Markit report said recycling’s technical capabilities, logistics, and economics were inadequate to such ambitions. Plastic recycling is technically difficult, and China’s closing of its doors to foreign plastic waste in 2018 laid bare the inadequacy of global recycling systems, leaving many wealthy nations with mountains of waste.

Recycled material is unlikely to contribute more than 10 to 12 percent of future plastic production, said Robin Waters, IHS Markit’s director of plastics analysis and one of the report’s authors. And the kinds of items covered by bans like Europe’s only account for about 5 percent of plastic demand, he said.

The industry’s critics fear the expansion of supply is likely to guarantee additional plastic usage regardless of whether consumers want it. Once new ethane cracking plants are built, producers will want to keep them running to maximize revenue, Feit said.

“So then the next concern is that there will be an innovation in ways to get plastic on the market,” he said. “This is what we’ve seen [in the past] — more and more things come packaged in more and more plastic. There is a whack-a-mole issue.” Unless production slows, he added, “they’ll just find something else to wrap in plastic.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Big Oil’s Plan B is already in the pipeline: More plastic on Jan 20, 2020.

07 Jan 15:17

Scalability VS Creativity

by Nenad

Do u evr wonder why everything u want 2 do seems meaningless, insignificant and pointless?

U can easily think of an idea. In the moment, the idea makes u feel alive. The thought of putting that idea into action, creating something, showing something 2 the world makes u feel alive. More alive than anything u’ve ever felt.

In a matter of seconds, u r simply overcome with the thought, “Why effing bother?”

Ur idea will never reach EVERY1 in the world.
They will not be MOVED by ur idea.
Ur idea will not IMPACT their world.
The world does not care abt ur idea.
The world is fucking busy and does not have time 2 give a shit abt u.
The world won’t even ‘get’ ur idea and ‘appreciate’ the true beauty of your (in)tangible originality.
N e ways, some1 already tried ur shitty idea, and it failed fucking miserably, so stop thinking ur special anyways.

Ur idea will nvr SCALE in2 something bigger.

Whether ur a writer, a musician, a startup, a blogger, a Youtuber, a chef, a famous Instagrammer, a person who opens up a knick-knack store, a local cronut bakery, a person with a dream, or any type of solo entrepreneur, u have 2 achieve scale or else ‘it is all just a waste of time.’ No matter how pure ur product is, don’t kid urself–it’s all about scale.

No1 can compete with Nike not bc they have the ‘swaggest effing kicks’, but bc they have the best network of enslaved AZNs who ‘have 2 keep making those Nikes.’ The great idea is not the shoe, but the massive network of enslaved humans that must create the idea ovr and ovr again.

“Don’t overthink the idea–think abt how to create ur legally enslaved workforce.’
Uber & Lyft

Why do u need 2 scale evrythng?
Scalability is the way society validates ideas. If ur idea is useful, u should have the opportunity 2 scale. Scalability is the ultimate ‘pat on the back’ via society. You can be reminded that the world NEEDS u. Ppl ARE DEPENDENT upon u 4 something ‘unique.’ Thanks 4 manifesting that scalable idea.

Established brands protect themselves, bc scalability is the ultimate barrier 2 entry.

Our eternal standards of societal success are defined by scale.
We must achieve scale in order 2 feel as though we have ‘fans,’ which is the nice term 4 ‘recurring customers.’
While u scale (especially online), u must retain customer data in a widely-used contemporary medium in order to eternally re-market to your fans/users.
Scale creates a ‘fear of missing out’ by those who have not interacted and/or invested in ur brand. 4 example, ppl who don’t live in California think In & Out Burger is some rare fucking burger. However, In & Out is scaling across the nation, bringing their ‘amazing burger’ 2 the world.
Eventually, u’ve scaled s0o0o big that u don’t even have 2 try n e more. U can just do whatever u do in a shittie way, and it doesn’t even matter. U will continue 2 exist bc u’ve scaled 2 the point that it doesn’t matter.
Even if u tried 2 make ur product ‘more meaningful’, it will actually just be a waste of time and money. Ur product is what it is.

The questions of asserting urself in the world have less 2 do with the thoughts and ideas manifesting themselves, and more 2 do with ‘how u can scale them.’ Be realistic abt ur potential customer base.

Subconsciously, I want this blog post ‘2 reach the entire world and change the way every1 thinks.’ This is what drives me to keep typing, 2 keep crafting my words in2 something ‘beautiful’ that describes ‘the human condition.’ I want 2 believe that ‘what I write’ could mean something 2 every1 bc ‘the universal message is inside me’ [via Millenial Gen Y vibes]. I want 2 feel comfort in feeling that what I feel is the exact same way people who are like me feel, except that what I feel is different, too.

The only infinitely scalable idea/feeling is depression.

Ur not unfulfilled because u ‘can’t be creative.’ Ur unfulfilled bc u can’t instantly scale your idea 2 feel validated.
I think it’s always going to be difficult to have a ‘creative existence’ and feel ‘fulfilled.’ Gen-Y’s identity is very tied in2 ‘creativity’ being the thing that frees u from feeling like ur trapped at the bottom of an employment pyramid. When u create something beautiful, nothing else matters… until u realize ur poor. :-(

If u aren’t thinking abt scaling ur idea, u have conceded the ideas:
I am poor
I am not going to ascend towards the top of an industry or business’ employment pyramid.
I am not going 2 create a personal narrative of ‘substantial growth’ that ‘started from the bottom.’
I have ‘settled’
I am just another idiot in this world continuing 2 arbitrarily exist even though all i really want is food, shelter, and periodic indulgent experiences.

A.B.S.: Always be scaling.

We go 2 school to learn abt other ppl who have scaled ideas. Whether it is for commerce or art, every ‘successful historical entity’ has undertaking a successful scaling project, like that time Hitler scaled the Holocaust 2 unchill levels. No matter what niche u r interested in, u can’t avoid the stories that involve scaling towards money and notoriety. Like that time Obama ‘scaled’ the idea of HOPE.

Scale = Ambition?
Scale = reaching the Zuckerberg-level of fame, creative fulfillment and societal validation?
Does wanting more = keep u driven?
Does presenting the idea that u ‘want more’ keep ppl ‘respecting u’ bc they are 2 lazy 2 actually want more?
Does ‘achieving scale’ mean u have reached the top of an employment pyramid and have a perpetual stream of income

“Content is not scalable.
Technology is scalable.”

“We’re not a content company. We’re a technology company.’
-online media companies trying 2 convince ‘investors’ that they are ‘valuable’ even though scalable media is all worthless so they pretend they ‘know how 2 make things go viral’ and ‘are building ad solutions of tomorrow’ and ‘glorified content management systems’

Every ‘great idea’ that we’ve seen created on the internet has greatly warped our perception of ‘success.’ We were manipulated into ‘championing’ these new scalable business in trackable conversations that were stored in the cloud.

I struggle with the difference between finding fulfillment by scaling vs creating.
Am I driven 2 scale?
Or am I driven 2 create?
Do I want to create in order to feel in control of a process that I feel meaningful?
Or do I ‘create’ in order 2 create an entity that is scalable into mass customers/users/audiences?
Am I driven 2 conform 2 an existing business model?
Am I driven 2 be a cog in the machine of another person’s scalable project? [via consistent employment]
Does my message even matter?
Or does the idea that I am scaling matter the most?

Should I actually be thinking of new ideas and concepts, or should I just focus on the process of scaling? Should I just replicate existing models of scalability in existing industries? Or is there some abstract message that can be ‘scaled’ [via ‘art’]?

Why is a traditional job seen as ‘settling’ in the eyes of most generations? Bc u have given up on any sort of scalable ideas. Ur a quitter. Ur not ready 2 ‘build something.’

The process of scaling = ‘the meaningful narrative’
Ur supposed 2 have ‘some sort of great idea’ that ‘reaches the world’ and ‘changes lives’, like the iPhone or some shit.

Because ur existence is attached to this ‘idea’ or scalable innovation, u some how have ‘more meaning.’ Why am I jealous of Steve Jobs? Bc he was rich? Bc he had a network of scalability? Bc he was perceived as a thought leader? Bc he had mad black mock turtle necks?

I guess we r supposed 2 find meaning during the process of scaling. The idea that we #grew and getting some sort of validation that our product ‘means something 2 ppl’ [via ppl are willing 2 pay 4 it]. We think abt when it was all just an idea.

U have the opportunity 2 scale.
More ppl will like u.
More ppl will become dependent upon u.
More ppl could not live without u.
More ppl see u as a source of ________.
More ppl = scaling.
scaling = more ppl.

The misleading perception of ‘scalability’ on the internet.
I don’t think we are even impressed by $$$ figures. Instead, we just have arbitrary assumptions of scaled values. The idea that 1,000,000 Youtube views = $1,000,000.

The illusion of online scale is that one thing u must achieve in order 2 frame ur value. It’s why ppl buy Twitter followers Facebook likes, and Youtube views. Remember the time that fat North Korean guy got a billion Youtube views?

Is the current crop of ‘the creative class’ actually just an enslaved 2 scalable mediums on the internet?
Can u really measure anything [via success]?

Is there room for creativity on the internet without the pressure 2 scale? Is all content created ‘2 go viral’? Has internet entrepreneurship created false scaling expectations 4 every creative/business/life idea?

‘One man’s 2,000,000 Instagram followers are another man’s 450 Myspace friends’
-the internet

We’ve been told that if we do something ‘creative’, it will make us happie, which is basically why HOBBY LOBBY exists–2 prey on the empty dreams of failed creative types who can only rlly evr replicate existing mediums of self-expression.

There are always the standard artistic issues of authenticity and ever-changing mediums. However, I think the biggest challenge for the current creative class are the limitations of reasonable scalability in mediums that only create an illusion of ‘reach.’ By pumping more content in order to validate the monetizable metrics of the internet, content is no longer seen as ‘created bc it is important.’

Users now see the entire world as clickbait, and every message is compromised in order 2 scale.

Should creative entities have 2 worry abt undertaking projects 4 the purpose of scaling?
How do new artists succeed when online mediums are built to promote topics that already have an expansive reach?
Can websites rlly ‘be cultural hubs’ when their ultimate goal is 2 scale at all costs?
Does ‘the best art’ eventually reach appropriate audiences so none of this bullshit even matters?
‘Pop music hasn’t gone anywhere for a reason, yall’ -some1 being deep

I believe that the future of authentic independent culture cannot continue as a mechanism of large scale content farms.

Art cannot exist in the scalable landscape.
Art criticism does not exist on scalable media websites.
Audiences who process ‘art’ in the scalable media landscape are not ‘authentic’.
The message of artists becomes compromised when they are ‘promoted’ on scalable media.

Do we rlly like bands that exist 4 the purpose of scaling?
Do we rlly ‘trust’ websites that primarily exist 2 scale?
Do we like businesses that only rlly want to scale and don’t actually care abt their customers?

Why do we ‘celebrate’ scalable ideas?
Do ideas that are ‘scalable’ represent the optimal solutions 4 human existence? Or are they the businesses that have the most successful scalable ideas eventually oppress us by marginalizing necessary human actions into metrics & monetizable opportunities?

Is it worth it 2 post 2 Instagram/Facebook/Twitter when ‘some1 else’ is just making money [via u]?
Is it worth it 2 take an Uber when some driver is just ‘getting ripped off’ and virtually enslaved?
Is it worth it 2 click on a clickbait when u represent $0.0001 of their monthly revenue?
Is it worth it 2 romanticize the hit Aaron Sorkbro film ‘The Social Network’ when it is just a celebration of scalability?
Do u evr feel like u r just a Winklevoss ass bitch? [via ‘I swear I had a scalable idea!’]

Is scale worth ‘resenting’?
Should u ‘believe in ur message/product’ 2 scale because u ‘want 2 change the world’?
Or is it better 2 approach ‘scalable opportunity’ like it is some sort of fight by ‘the human spirit’ in order 2 ‘survive’?

Should we continue 2 scale 2 the point of ubiquity?
Do u want 2 be evrything? [via god?]
When will u be happie?
How do u ‘rationalize’ the way u spend ur time?

Is ‘authenticity’ rejecting scalability?
Is ‘happiness’ embracing the narratives of scalability?

What r u gonna scale in ur lifetime?
Or do u not actually have an idea/product idea that could evr matter 2 n e 1?

This was part III of Homage to “Terminal pop-up art website blog” Carles.Buzz

 

07 Jan 15:16

Bernie Sanders and the socialist Christmas spirit

During the Great Depression, farmers facing terribly low crop prices, or no buyers at all, were forced into foreclosure by the thousands. Some local communities looking for some way to protect themselves from financial apocalypse hit on the "Penny Auction," where during a foreclosure auction anyone bidding more than a few cents would find a heavy, unfriendly hand on his shoulder, and retract the bid with a squeak. One whole farm, equipment and all, was disposed in such a way for a mere $5.35. Then the "winners" would return all the property to the original owner for free.

The idea of this kind of angry collective solidarity has been systematically beaten out of the American imagination over the last several decades. But Bernie Sanders is attempting to bring back that old solidarity spirit — allowing not just for the possibility of drastic political change, but rebuilding some of the frayed bonds between the American citizenry and their government. It's a surprisingly warm message for the holiday season, coming from a famously rather cranky politician.

Let's compare that 1930s auction story to a recent medical billing story. In July 2018, a California man named Tom Saputo with a rare lung disease stopped breathing. A normal ambulance took him to a local hospital, and four days later he was airlifted to UCLA specialists, where he got a double lung transplant. His insurance covered the procedure, which cost $40,575, including $31,605 for the surgeon. That price is probably high by international standards, but to be fair a double lung transplant is an extraordinarily difficult and complex procedure.

But the air ambulance company, Mercy Air — which carried him a piddling 27 miles — charged far more: $51,282. And because it was out of his insurance network, the company stuck Saputo with the balance bill of $11,525. As he was recovering from the grueling operation, they harassed him constantly, calling him, his wife, and his daughter, and trying to pressure him into setting up a payment plan.

We should be clear about what sort of business this is: namely, a legal extortion racket. Like most air ambulance companies, Mercy Air is owned by a private equity firm, and it is no coincidence they were out of Saputo's insurance network. As an Anthem spokeswoman told Kaiser Health News, they often choose to do so in order to be able to bill patients "whatever they choose." (Though Mercy Air later signed a contract with Anthem.) These firms worm their way into hospital contracts, and then whenever somebody is desperately ill and needing an emergency flight, they can be soaked for their every last red cent. Private equity goons have done the same trick with regular ambulances across the country, with devastating effects both for prices and for service quality.

Just thinking about real resources exposes what is happening here as well. You can rent a medium-size helicopter for a few hundred dollars an hour. There is no way five minutes of time on ambulance medical equipment plus a couple EMTs to watch vital signs actually costs $50,000. A few bankers are quite literally making out like bandits here.

But while this story — and there are literally thousands more like this, happening every day — got some media attention, there was no broader populist backlash. There were no torch-wielding mobs on Wall Street or Capitol Hill demanding drastic changes to medical pricing. Nobody was personally threatened or even much criticized. It's all somehow a complicated policy dispute, not medical gangsterism.

The reason none of that happened is the neoliberal mindset that held hegemonic sway in the United States from about 1980-2008. By this view, economic events are always under one's personal control — if you get foreclosed on, or lose your job, or face some massive medical expense, it's your fault by definition. Modern Americans facing a turn of bad economic luck often turn the pain inwards, blaming themselves for their plight instead of organizing together to defend themselves. As economist Steve Randy Waldman writes, American economic victimization "is relegated by custom and practice into the sphere of the 'private,' the sort of bureaucratic struggle one quietly hires professionals to deal with and hides as much as possible from friends and coworkers." Even when people don't accept blame, they struggle to get attention, much less mass support, in the face of such an enervating, atomized mindset.

Now, Bernie Sanders is attempting to resurrect that older American spirit — in the broadest socialist tradition, thinking not just about the economy narrowly, but about how a nation relates to itself on a fundamental level. As Ruby Cramer writes in an excellent profile at Buzzfeed News, in contrast to the mass rallies and speeches that he gave during his 2016 run, this time:

He is trying to change the way people interact with private hardship in this country, which is to say, silently and with self-loathing. He is trying, in as literal a sense as you could imagine, to excise "shame" and "guilt" from the American people … Bernie says he is trying to "redefine our value system." Jane [Sanders] talks about breaking down decades of societal muscle memory: "It seems to be the American way," she says. "That we all think it’s our fault — instead of recognizing there is a system that is making it unfair for them." They are, as they see it, trying to dismantle the ideal of "rugged individualism," an entire era of political thought. [Buzzfeed News]

Individualist ways of thinking do have a long American history. But the collectivist tradition is just as strong. Abolitionists built a ferocious movement against slavery in the mid-19th century. Populists, socialists, and union organizers banded together to demand government action to rein in ruthless monopolists in the Gilded Age and the New Deal. Civil rights groups did the same against Jim Crow in the 1950s and 60s. There is no reason Sanders couldn't rekindle the embers of that old ideology.

Indeed, if you just stop to think for a moment, it is preposterous to believe one can fully determine one's economic fortunes. When a factory is shipped to Mexico, or a financial crisis throws millions out of work, or somebody gets a $11,000 bill because they fell sick, no amount of learning to code would have helped the people trampled under the tank treads of capitalism.

It is only when someone has been conditioned to believe solutions are impossible that they will just sit and take such punishment. And Wall Street likes it that way. They want depressed and anxious sheep who can be sheared without a peep.

So perhaps this Christmas, think about Bernie Sanders and his peculiar program of socialist political therapy. The problems facing America are severe indeed, but they are also eminently solvable. As George Bailey says in that classic piece of American Christmas culture, "We can get through this thing alright. We've got to stick together though, we've got to have faith in each other."

Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.

07 Jan 15:16

The Most Interesting Scientific Idea of the Decade: Time Is More Real Than Space

by Charles Mudede
by Charles Mudede
GettyImages-1048331118.jpg
AlexandrIvasenko/gettyimages.com

Lee Smolin is a theoretical physicist whose work has been defined by a rejection of what is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics (the study of how the smallest known things behave). The distinction of the Copenhagen Interpretation is that it fully accepts the weird (I would even use the Japanese word kwaidan) behavior of the fundamental constituents of reality. Yes, it is spooky, but quantum mechanics still works. This point of view (that it works) is also called operationalism.

Albert Einstein rejected the Copenhagen Interpretation, stressing, again and again, that the celebrated quantum weirdness was the result of our ignorance, our inadequate knowledge of quantum-scale phenomena. Once we have a hypothesis informed by a deeper understanding of reality, then the ghosts would evaporate and a hard connection could finally be established between events that are large and those that are extremely small. Smolin's goal as a theorist has been to do exactly that: make Einstein's theories reach into the quantum realm and replace the theory of quantum events that depends on ghosts and human participation. It is in this sense that Smolin is a realist. He wants the world to be out there and possible without humans being there. Reality must stand on its own. With the Copenhagen Interpretation, it does not.

The task to bring the hard and large reality of stars, trees, and tables (the classical mechanics reinterpreted by Einstein in the early 20th century) with the ghostly mechanics described by Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr in the mid-1920s is no easy task, and by all accounts, it seems Smolin, as brilliant as he is, has found no way out of the established interpretation, or operationalism. Nevertheless, in the process, he has discovered an idea that's truly startling and revolutionary.

During the last decade, he described the different aspects of the idea in three books, the most recent of which was published in 2019, Einstein's Unfinished Revolution: The Search for What Lies Beyond the Quantum. The idea is simply this: space emerges from time. What this means is that space is an illusion, and time is real. And so without time, space would not exist. How is it possible to think in this way? It seems very wrong-headed. But it's not at all. The more one considers the idea, the more sense it starts to make.

In the Einstein's Unfinished Revolution: The Search for What Lies Beyond the Quantum, Smolin writes:

...space and time cannot both be fundamental. Only one can be present at the deepest level of understanding; the other must be emergent and contingent. This seems ultimately to be forced on us by the nonlocality of entanglement, which leads to a tension between realist approaches to quantum mechanics and special relativity... I would then like to suggest that the tension is resolved by making one of the pair space/time fundamental, while the other is an emergent and approximate description, ultimately a kind of illusion... I choose to focus on the hypothesis that time is fundamental, while space is emergent.

The thing that time fundamentalism resolves is the phenomena in quantum foundations known as entanglement. This is when the state of particles interact in such way that their quantum properties are no longer independent. They are connected, even if separated by a great distance. Einstein famously denounced entanglement as "spooky action at a distance." But it's as real as concrete or a loaf of bread or a toothache; it happens, and we can do nothing but live with it. Indeed, scientists in Scotland even managed to take the world's first photo of quantum entanglement in 2019, though this story did not make as much noise as the photo of the black hole.

The problem that quantum entanglement presents to a theorist is that of space. It is a non-local event. Meaning, it is indifferent to space. Or, put another way, it operates as if space does not exist. You can't even call entanglement fast. It does not move. It just happens all at once. And so "positing that space is emergent," Smolin is able to explain "quantum nonlocality as a consequence of defects that arise" from spaceless relations that are present prior to the emergence of space from a time governed by these principles: it's causal; it's irreversible.

Smolin writes:

The process by which future events are created from present events can’t go backward. Once an event has happened, it can’t be made to un-happen. Space is emergent. There is no space, fundamentally. There are events and they cause other events, so there are causal relations. These events make up a network of relationships. Space arises as a coarse-grained and approximate description of the network of relationships between events.

The implications of this idea are profound. To give just one example, Paula Marchesini argues in her 2018 paper "The End of Time or Time Reborn?" that the problems in Smolin's idea of the primacy of time can be cleared if Henri Bergson's concepts of time are adopted. Although there are a number of things that are solid in Marchesini's argument, the paper nevertheless fails to overcome my feeling that it is the other way around: The metaphysics of time formulated by Bergson at the beginning of the 20th century are actually enhanced by Smolin's "temporal relationism." Bergson thought that what is most real is the movement of time (or duration), and what's an illusion are moments in time. But philosophy and science have privileged frozen time (moments) over a time that is pure movement. According to Smolin, time is fundamentally durational, relational, dynamic, causal, and is there ticking and ticking when space is not there. In fact, this radical demotion of space presents a way for rethinking one of Bergson's theoretical preoccupations, the nature of memory.

In his 1896 book Matter and Memory, Bergson distinguished between two forms memory. One that is habitual, merely functional, and therefore not philosophical; and another that is pure recall (a process Bergson calls "image-remembrance"), and is therefore spiritual. Despite influencing the greatest novel ever written, Marcel Proust's Remembrance of Things Past (À la recherche du temps perdu), there is nothing really that interesting about Bergonsonian memory (and it's a little too mystical for my taste). But if we were to consider memory in the context of Smolin's idea of time, which makes space illusory?

The first thing that goes is the Bergsonian distinction between utilitarian memory and memory that's basically loafing around. Everything is memorized, and it is this memorization that, no matter what it's doing—recalling the words of a beloved dead person, re-membering a recipe—it is always amazing. And what does Smolin's concept of time make possible, in regards to a new philosophy of memory (the meaning of this longish post)? That it shares some of the features of quantum entanglement. Memory is essentially non-local.

What dissolves with a new philosophy of memory is precisely space. The present in the past becomes present in the present. Memory is only about past nows rotating in the mind with actual nows. The 17th century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza had some idea of this when he described images from the past as being present to the imagination. In the 26th proposition of his Ethics, Spinoza wrote that "the human mind will regard an image from the past... as actually existing, or as present to itself, until the human body be affected in such a way, as to exclude the existence or the presence of the said [image]." Chronologically, the presence might be fixed in the past, but when it is reimagined (memory is not pure but creative), it is no longer in the past. Why? Because the space between the time has dissolved. Space is the ghost in the machine. The deepest question that leaves us with then is this: If space were fundamental, could there be memory?

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

04 Jan 03:47

Artist Nancy Liang Combines Illustration, Craft, and Digital Art to Create Playful Gifs of Nighttime Scenes

by Grace Ebert

Sydney-based artist Nancy Liang (previously) takes an unusual and multidisciplinary approach to creating whimsical looping gifs of star-filled nights. Liang begins with kraft paper cutouts and hand-drawn illustrations in her sketchbook that she transfers to a digital platform like Photoshop or After Effects. She then arranges her work in a collage and animates it, creating darkly colored, moving scenes that often focus on the natural elements of cityscapes and suburban life in Australia.

Liang said in an interview with Paper Darts that much of her inspiration comes from her habit of working throughout the night, something she’s done since she was a child. “While most people are asleep, I find something very exciting about being awake. The night is quiet and still, and much like my thoughts, this inspires curious and mysterious urban stories out there,” Liang says.

You can learn more about the artist’s unconventional process that combines programming, craft, and illustration on Tumblr and Instagram.

04 Dec 03:52

The case for Bernie Sanders

The Democratic presidential primary has apparently settled down into a four-way race. Elizabeth Warren briefly took the lead awhile ago, but has since fallen back. Joe Biden is leading once more in the high 20s, while Sanders is about tied with Warren in the high teens. Then Pete Buttigieg is bringing up the rear, having surged to about 10 percent in just the last week or so. (Everyone else is in low single digits and either flat or falling.)

Many Democratic voters are surely weighing their options. But Bernie Sanders is the strongest choice to lead the Democratic ticket in 2020. Here's why.

Let's begin by going through the candidates. Joe Biden's polling is remarkably steady and is based on his support among the Democratic rank-and-file, especially black voters in the South. But he really is an awful representative for these constituencies. He is deeply implicated in many of the policy disasters that devastated the middle class and helped give rise to President Trump: deregulation, bankruptcy reform, austerity, mass incarceration, the war on drugs, and on and on. Biden is also shockingly out of step with the times — boasting of his friendships with segregationist Dixiecrats and asserting that he can still get bipartisan compromises with a party that conspired with Trump to gin up a fake investigation of Biden's own family. Even the Obama presidency (Biden's main claim to fame) was disastrous in many ways for the middle class — especially black homeowners, who were wrecked by his administration's decision to use homeowner bailout funds as a backdoor bank bailout. But at the very least we do not need someone who thinks 1970s comity between the parties (which incidentally relied on white racist backlash) can be restored.

And while Biden polls the best against Trump in a head-to-head, he is also a fumbling campaigner who can't even raise much money, and is clearly trying to coast to the nomination. There is a real risk he would not be able to put forth maximum effort in a grueling general election.

Then there's Pete Buttigieg, who has risen up as a fresh face who seems smart, with a good balance between progressivism and realism. In reality, he is quite clearly a cynical shapeshifter — a guy who abandoned Medicare-for-all not because it is bad policy (it isn't), but because he spotted an opening in the center by making dishonest attacks against it. He also has a disturbing tendency to treat black people like campaign props, and a history of talking a big game and then capitulating to a corrupt status quo. As Ryan Grim details, he fired the first black South Bend police chief (which was later rescinded to a demotion), reportedly in part due to pressure from racist white officers who didn't like a black man in charge. The Young Turks reports that recordings show one officer said, "It is going to be a fun time when all white people are in charge." It's no wonder Buttigieg has almost no black support.

Also, Buttigieg is just preposterously inexperienced. He would be 39 on inauguration day, and thus the youngest president in American history, with nothing but the mayoralty of the 306th-largest city in the country and a single seven-month tour in Afghanistan as a low-level officer as experience. Among presidents, only Trump would have had less before taking office.

Experience isn't everything, of course (there have been some terrible presidents with lots of experience) but the federal government is a massive and complicated machine, and this time especially we need someone who can work its levers aggressively. We don't need someone who will learn on the job, much less someone who clearly just wants power for its own sake. Oh, and Buttigieg also polls the worst by far against Trump.

Then there is Elizabeth Warren, who is far better than either Biden or Buttigieg. Her relative acceptability to both Team Sanders and Team Clinton is surely why she rose so high in the primary polls. Pace Nathan Robinson, her record of fighting corporate abuses is strong, and her policy platform is also very good. She and Sanders are surely the top choices for anyone who takes the Democratic Party's supposed commitment to social justice and equality seriously.

Yet pulling off that kind of a straddle is hard, and Warren has recently shown a troubling tendency to waffle on her previous commitments, notably on Medicare-for-all, which annoyed supporters but did not convince critics — which is probably why her polling has fallen of late. Moreover, her foreign policy thinking is distinctly less bold than that of her domestic policy. She was standard-issue Israel partisan for years, only shifting left when she started prepping a presidential run — and even then, she is still less specific than Sanders about pressuring the Israeli government to end its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. And unlike Sanders, she was distinctly hesitant to call the recent military coup in Bolivia what it clearly was. She also polls third-best against Trump, though by a small margin.

Finally, there is Bernie Sanders, who has probably the hardest core of support, yet has failed so far to break out of the pack, probably because so many loyal Democrats view him with suspicion for challenging Hillary Clinton. But this attitude is unwarranted.

To start with, his foreign policy thinking is far and away the best in the field. Since his 2016 run he has staffed up with experts critical of the imperialist "Blob," and developed a policy framework that would set the United States as the center of an alliance of democratic, egalitarian nations to contest the worldwide rise of right-wing authoritarian oligarchy.

The president has near-dictatorial foreign policy powers, and Sanders is the only one talking seriously and consistently about sharply rolling back the American empire — ending the war in Afghanistan, cutting the bloated defense budget, and halting support for various bloody proxy wars. Astoundingly, he actually got a bipartisan bill through Congress that would have halted U.S. support for the Saudi war in Yemen — incidentally demonstrating that Sanders is actually a canny legislator with a long history of negotiating policy wins where he could get them (though Trump vetoed the Yemen bill, of course).

And while Warren's platform is good, Sanders' is better where it counts. There is no question about his support for Medicare-for-all — especially not some goofy promise that he would try to pass it in two pieces. Like Warren he supports worker codetermination (in which firm employees would elect part of their corporate board) but also supports ownership funds that would reserve part of a company's stock to be controlled by workers. Most critically, his climate spending package would be more than three times the size of hers — the only policy program of any candidate that is anywhere close the to the size of the problem it is supposed to solve.

Sanders also polls second-best against Trump, just slightly behind Biden — a remarkable fact given hostile media treatment and years in the spotlight as the most left-wing major politician in the country.

And this brings me finally to theories of change. Either Sanders' or Warren's full agenda would be non-starters in the current Congress, and probably not much more likely after 2020 if current trends hold. Sanders argues that he can upturn the political landscape by activating the enormous population of disaffected non-voters, who are disproportionately non-white, young, and less educated, both to elect new representatives and senators and pressure existing ones. (And sure enough, his base of support is more rooted in these groups than any other candidate.) This is the formula he followed as mayor of Burlington, which was a smashing success, though at an obviously far smaller scale.

To be sure, this is a pretty optimistic idea. But it's also the only strategy even proposed that would change the political system fast enough to deal with the multiple crises bedeviling the United States — above all climate change. A recent United Nations report showed that the world must cut emissions by 25 percent by 2030 to stay under 2 degrees of warming, and 55 percent to stay under 1.5 degrees as agreed in the Paris Climate Accords. Meanwhile China, the largest emitter by far, is slashing its renewable subsidies and planning dozens of new coal power plants.

Without U.S. leadership and pressure, there is frankly no chance of getting even close to these goals. If Joe Manchin is the swing vote in the Senate for the next several years, the consequences could be disastrous beyond imagining. Sanders' "political revolution" might be a long shot, but we must have something like it to stave that off.

Now, of course Sanders is not perfect. He would be the oldest first-term president in American history, and suffered a heart attack earlier this year. Though he appears to have recovered nicely, there is still a non-trivial chance he would die in office. At a minimum he would need a solid and much younger running mate — someone who would be trusted and experienced enough to share presidential duties, in case they need to step in and take his place.

But alas, you never get the absolutely ideal candidate in politics, and all such choices involve some kind of risk. And on balance, Bernie Sanders is clearly the strongest candidate the Democratic Party can put up against President Trump in 2020 and beyond.

04 Dec 03:41

How McKinsey Helped the Trump Administration Detain and Deport Immigrants

by by Ian MacDougall

by Ian MacDougall

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

This article is co-published with The New York Times.

Just days after he took office in 2017, President Donald Trump set out to make good on his campaign pledge to halt illegal immigration. In a pair of executive orders, he ordered “all legally available resources” to be shifted to border detention facilities and called for hiring 10,000 new immigration officers.

The logistical challenges were daunting, but as luck would have it, Immigration and Customs Enforcement already had a partner on its payroll: McKinsey & Company, an international consulting firm brought on under the Obama administration to help engineer an “organizational transformation” in the ICE division charged with deporting migrants who are in the United States unlawfully.

ICE quickly redirected McKinsey toward helping the agency figure out how to execute the White House’s clampdown on illegal immigration.

Get Our Top Investigations

Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.

Don’t miss out on ProPublica’s next investigation. Sign up and get the Big Story email whenever we break news.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

But the money-saving recommendations the consultants came up with made some career ICE staff uncomfortable. They proposed cuts in spending on food for migrants, as well as on medical care and supervision of detainees, according to interviews with people who worked on the project for both ICE and McKinsey and 1,500 pages of documents obtained from the agency after ProPublica filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act.

McKinsey’s team also looked for ways to accelerate the deportation process, provoking worries among some ICE staff members that the recommendations risked short-circuiting due process protections for migrants fighting removal from the United States. The consultants, three people who worked on the project said, seemed focused solely on cutting costs and speeding up deportations — activities whose success could be measured in numbers — with little acknowledgment that these policies affected thousands of human beings.

In what one former official described as “heated meetings” with McKinsey consultants, agency staff members questioned whether saving pennies on food and medical care for detainees justified the potential human cost.

But the consulting firm’s sway at ICE grew to the point that McKinsey’s staff even ghostwrote a government contracting document that defined the consulting team’s own responsibilities and justified the firm’s retention, a contract extension worth $2.2 million. “Can they do that?” an ICE official wrote to a contracting officer in May 2017.

The response reflects how deeply ICE had come to rely on McKinsey’s assistance. “Well it obviously isn’t ideal to have a contractor tell us what we want to ask them to do,” the contracting officer replied. But unless someone from the government could articulate the agency’s objectives, the officer added, “what other option is there?” ICE extended the contract.

The New York Times reported last year that McKinsey ultimately did more than $20 million in consulting work for ICE, a commitment to one of the Trump administration’s most controversial endeavors that raised concerns among some of McKinsey’s employees and former partners. The firm’s global managing partner, Kevin Sneader, assured them in a 2018 email that the firm had never focused on developing, advising or implementing immigration policies. He said McKinsey “will not, under any circumstances, engage in work, anywhere in the world, that advances or assists policies that are at odds with our values.”

But the new documents and interviews reveal that the firm was deeply involved in executing policies fundamental to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. McKinsey’s recommendations for spending cuts went too far for some career ICE employees, and a number of the proposals were never implemented.

McKinsey has faced mounting scrutiny over the past two years, as reports by The New York Times, ProPublica and others have raised questions about whether the firm has crossed ethical and legal lines in pursuit of profit. The consultancy returned millions of dollars in fees after South African authorities implicated it in a profiteering scheme. The exposure of its history advising opioid makers on ways to bolster sales induced the usually secretive firm to declare publicly that its opioid work had ended. Last month, the Times reported that McKinsey’s bankruptcy practice is the subject of a federal criminal investigation. The firm has denied wrongdoing in each case, but it apologized for missteps in South Africa.

“The scope of our work, contractually agreed to during the Obama administration, was designed to help the agency find ways to operate more effectively and cost-efficiently,” a McKinsey spokesman said of the firm’s consulting for ICE. “The focus of our work did not change as a result of these executive orders. The assertion that McKinsey’s work was ‘redirected’ because of these orders is inaccurate.”

In a statement, ICE spokesman Bryan D. Cox said McKinsey’s work “yielded measurable improvements in mission outcomes, including a notable decrease in the time to remove aliens with a final order of removal.”

McKinsey responded quickly to Trump’s executive orders on immigration. On Feb. 13, the consultants presented ICE officials a set of “initiatives to improve ICE Hiring and address the Executive Order,” according to an accompanying slide deck.

Hiring 10,000 immigration officers was an immense undertaking, and similar attempts to swiftly ramp up staffing, under the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, ended badly. They resulted in lax hiring standards, according to experts, and a subsequent spike in misconduct and corruption cases among Border Patrol officers.

To expedite the process in 2017, McKinsey proposed hiring en masse, including what the consultants called “super one-stop hiring”: ICE could rent a gymnasium or similar space and compress the recruitment, screening and hiring process into a single day. The consultants, they wrote in a slide deck, aimed “to reduce time to hire by 30-50% (hundreds of days)” — significantly improving ICE’s capability to staff the president’s immigration crackdown.

By the summer of 2017, according to contracting records and a former ICE official, the agency had begun to adopt McKinsey’s proposals to speed up hiring. (ICE has hired only a fraction of the 10,000 officers called for because of budget constraints.)

Within months, McKinsey was making significant strides toward advancing the Trump administration’s policy goals. The firm’s work showed “quantifiable benefits,” ICE officials stated in an October 2017 contracting document, “including increased total removals and reductions in time to remove a detainee.”

As some McKinsey consultants worked on the staffing challenge, others took aim at the logistical hurdles posed by an expected influx of detainees flowing from the Trump administration’s directive to enforce immigration laws more strictly.

The consulting team became so driven to save money, people involved in the project said, that consultants sometimes ignored — and even complained to agency managers about — ICE staffers who objected that McKinsey’s cost-cutting proposals risked jeopardizing the health and safety of migrants.

Cox, the ICE spokesman, denied that McKinsey’s recommendations could harm the well-being or due process rights of detainees. McKinsey’s spokesman said the firm’s work aimed to identify where detention center contractors were overcharging ICE — long a concern of watchdog agencies — and to propose remedies.

McKinsey, the firm’s presentations show, pursued “detention savings opportunities” in blunt ways. The consultants encouraged ICE to adopt a “longer-term strategy” with “operational decisions to fill low cost beds before expensive beds.” In practice, that meant shunting detainees to less expensive — and sometimes less safe — facilities, often rural county jails.

“There’s a concerted effort to try to ship folks ICE sees as long-term detainees to these low-cost facilities run by local sheriffs’ offices where conditions are abysmal,” said Eunice Cho, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union who focuses on issues involving the detention of immigrants. (The ACLU has brought several lawsuits against ICE, including over its detention policies, during the Trump administration.)

McKinsey also looked to cut costs by lowering standards at ICE detention facilities, according to an internal ICE email and two former agency officials. McKinsey, an ICE supervisor wrote in an email dated March 30, 2017, was “looking for ways to cut or reduce standards because they are too costly,” albeit, the supervisor added, “without sacrificing quality, safety and mission.”

The consultants found it difficult to attach a dollar figure to the standards themselves, the former ICE officials said. So they shifted their focus to trimming operating costs at several detention centers and coaching agency officials as they renegotiated contracts with companies managing some of those facilities. The renegotiated contracts saved ICE $16 million, according to Cox, the ICE spokesman, who insisted that no “degradation to service” resulted.

One of Trump’s executive orders had directed immigration agencies to concentrate resources near the southern border, and the consultants prioritized slashing costs at those facilities.

The McKinsey proposals that most troubled agency staffers — like cutting spending on food, medical care and maintenance — were not incorporated into the new contracts, one former ICE official said. Internal project emails point to cutbacks in guard staffing as the source of most cost savings.

But the McKinsey recommendations remain on the books at ICE. The consultants analyzed how the agency could save money at detention centers beyond those where they helped renegotiate contracts — including several near the border, like ICE’s largest family detention facility, in Dilley, Texas — and Cox said these analyses remain reference points for future efforts to curb spending. A report issued this summer by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general raised concerns about food quality and upkeep at several ICE facilities, both categories on which McKinsey recommended ICE spend less.

McKinsey’s work at ICE ended in July 2018. Among agency officials, there was growing dissatisfaction with the consultants’ work, and leadership turnover in the agency had left the consulting firm with few defenders, two former ICE officials said.

But the firm’s work supporting the Trump administration’s immigration clampdown has continued. Just a week after Sneader announced that the ICE engagement was over, McKinsey signed a $2 million contract to advise Customs and Border Protection as it drafted a new border strategy to replace the Obama administration’s approach, and it has since signed still another contract with CBP — worth up to $8.4 million — that will keep the firm at the agency through September 2020 at least.

Among the border strategy priorities listed in McKinsey slide decks for the CBP are: “invest in impedance and denial capability,” “work with partner agencies and components to maximize programs that discourage illegal entries” and, in one instance, simply, “Wall.”

Update, Dec. 3, 2019: This story has been updated to include additional comments from McKinsey.

02 Dec 04:46

The Brassica cousins

by Minnesotastan

I knew they were related; didn't know they were selected in this fashion.  Interesting.  via.
02 Nov 21:26

What Is a Middle Class Tax Hike? Am I Losing My Mind?

by Matt Bruenig

I have been swimming in the Medicare for All waters for over a decade now, going back to when I worked on the Ralph Nader presidential campaign that made Medicare for All its number one issue. And during this time, I developed a specific understanding of what we might call the M4A Financing Problem.

The Problem

The M4A Financing Problem, in simple terms, is that even if you bring in existing federal spending on health care, existing state spending on health care, and a bunch of new rich-people taxes, you still fall short of financing the program. Thus to actually complete the financing, you have to use some middle class taxes.

The proper response to this “problem” has always been to point out that it is no problem at all. Yes you will have to impose some middle class taxes to round out the total amount of money you need, but those taxes will charge the middle class far less than they are currently paying for health care. What people don’t like about taxes is that it means they have less money. But swapping these taxes for the elimination of premiums and out-of-pocket expenses would actually mean that the middle class has a lot more money.

However, for some pundits, this explanation has never been satisfactory. They say that any tax imposed on the middle class is a problem and has to be avoided. And insofar as you cannot do M4A without some middle class taxes, it is a nonstarter.

The Solution?

When Warren released her Medicare for All financing proposal this week, nearly every left/liberal journalist declared she had made a huge breakthrough: an M4A financing plan with no middle class taxes.

David Dayen of The American Prospect announced that “Warren’s Medicare for All Plan Includes No New Taxes on the Middle Class.” Sahil Kapur says that, contrary to Bernie Sanders, Warren’s plan has “no middle class taxes.” Danielle Kurtzleben of NRP says Warren’s plan has “no new taxes on the middle class.” Ady Barkan of The Intercept writes that “her plan doesn’t raise taxes on working families.” Even Eric Levitz of NYMag, who seems to know better in parts of his piece, says that the plan “does not raise the American middle class’s taxes by a dime.”

Every single one of these people is incorrect, under the typical definition of “middle class taxes” that has always been used in this discussion. Just like every person that came before her, Warren realized that after bringing in existing government spending and some targeted rich-people taxes, there was still more money that needed to be collected. And just like those people, she came up with a middle class tax to do it. Her middle class tax is an employer-side head tax. It is an $8.8 trillion tax hike on the middle class.

To understand where the discourse has gone so far off the rails on this, it is necessary to distinguish between three concepts.

  1. Middle class taxes. Any tax whose incidence falls on the middle class, meaning that it is the middle class who really pays the tax, regardless of how it is collected.
  2. Direct middle class taxes. Any tax that is directly charged to middle class people, including employee-side payroll taxes and income taxes.
  3. Indirect middle class taxes. Any tax whose incidence falls on the middle class but is collected from entities other than the middle class, including employer-side head taxes, employer-side payroll taxes, and value-added taxes.

Discourse participants who are claiming Warren’s employer-side head tax is not a middle class tax hike seem to be stuck in a kind of weird conceptual vortex in which they drift between the point that (a) Warren’s employer-side head tax is charged to employers rather than directly to workers (i.e. it is an indirect tax) and the point that (b) the employer-side head tax simply replaces employer premiums in a way that actually costs less than the status quo. Somewhere in the intersection of these two concepts comes the claim that Warren’s head tax is not a middle class tax hike.

But point (b) is just the standard point mentioned at the top of the piece that what matters is not whether something is a “tax” or “a premium” but rather what the total cost is to the middle class. Pointing out that you are replacing health care spending with a lower tax has never been enough in the past to be able to claim that you are not imposing “middle class taxes.” Yet now it somehow is.

And point (a) just says that indirect middle class taxes are not middle class taxes. But in that case, employer-side payroll taxes and value-added taxes are also not middle class taxes and so proposals to use those have actually been solving the M4A Financing Problem all along. Yet, as with (b), nobody has ever previously permitted people to claim that indirect middle class taxes are not middle class taxes in this debate.

Of course, my analysis probably gives pundits on this more credit than they deserve. A heaping dose of pro-Warren bias and a general inability to really evaluate policies that are put in front of them no doubt goes a long way towards explaining why so many people ran with the talking points put out by the Warren campaign.

But regardless of that, if we want to be serious about this debate, we really should establish some kind of ground rules for what solves the M4A Financing Problem (however defined). If an employer-side head tax solves the problem because middle class health care costs are still lower after its imposition, then every M4A financing proposal I have ever seen solves the problem and does it in a much more progressive way than Warren has. If the employer-side head tax solves the problem because it is less costly while also being an indirect tax, then an employer-side payroll tax also solves the problem but in a way that is far more progressive than Warren’s head tax.

The idea that Warren’s specific cost-saving indirect middle class tax hike — an employer-side head tax — is the only thing that counts as solving the M4A Financing Problem is clearly nonsensical. And yet here we are with the least progressive M4A funding proposal I have ever seen being championed as the only one that solves the problem.

02 Nov 17:29

The Treat

by Nicholas Gurewitch

The post The Treat appeared first on The Perry Bible Fellowship.

22 Oct 19:48

Public Voice Launches Petition for an International Moratorium on Using Facial Recognition for Mass Surveillance

by Bruce Schneier

Coming out of the Privacy Commissioners' Conference in Albania, Public Voice is launching a petition for an international moratorium on using facial recognition software for mass surveillance.

You can sign on as an individual or an organization. I did. You should as well. No, I don't think that countries will magically adopt this moratorium. But it's important for us all to register our dissent.

21 Oct 01:49

The Obamanauts

by Corey Robin

What is the defining achievement of Barack Obama?

21 Oct 01:49

Don’t knock wood: an ordinary material goes high-tech

Nature, Published online: 16 October 2019; doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03138-7

A wooden chip imprinted with microscopic patterns serves as a grid of lenses.
21 Oct 01:48

A land-speed record for ants set in Saharan dunes

Nature, Published online: 16 October 2019; doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03124-z

World’s fastest ants zip along at 85 centimetres per second, at times with all 6 legs off the ground at once.
02 Oct 18:22

The pointing ape

by David Leavens

How a chimpanzee named Clint trained a psychologist to question human exceptionalism and reconsider the intelligence of apes

By David Leavens

Read at Aeon

02 Oct 18:22

Civilian Deaths in U.S. Wars Are Skyrocketing Under Trump. It May Not Be Impeachable, but It’s a Crime.

by Murtaza Hussain
WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 26: Members of Congress and activists support an immediate inquiry towards articles of impeachment against U.S. President Donald Trump at the “Impeachment Now!” rally on the grounds of the U.S. Capital on September 26, 2019in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Paul Morigi/Getty Images for MoveOn Political Action)

Members of Congress and activists at the “Impeachment Now!” rally on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 26, 2019.

Photo: Paul Morigi/Getty Images for MoveOn Political Action

After nearly three years in office, President Donald Trump may have finally gone too far. His boneheaded attempt to enmesh another member of America’s gilded class into legal trouble with the help of a foreign country has awakened the full moral outrage of his political rivals. They are out for blood and, at long last, they may get it. “The president must be held accountable,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a stern address announcing an impeachment inquiry. “No one is above the law.”

There are so many reasons why Trump should be the object of our moral outrage, not least his role in the violent deaths of thousands of innocent people.

Anyone interested in the integrity of American democracy should welcome such accountability. And yet there are even more consequential reasons why Trump should be the object of our moral outrage. Not least among them are his central role in the violent deaths of thousands of innocent people.

Since his emergence as a political figure, Trump has promised that if he ever attained power, he would use the U.S. military to inflict a massive bloodletting on others, including noncombatants. Unlike other campaign promises, Trump has delivered on this one. Since taking office, he has presided over skyrocketing rates of civilian casualties in America’s many foreign conflicts. Beneath the hue and cry of the impeachment announcement, more people are dying in wars that are being waged as Trump promised, with more brutality than ever.

The last few weeks provide several horrifying examples.

This September, in Afghanistan’s Helmand province, a wedding party was turned into a massacre after a commando raid by Afghan forces operating with U.S. support. Over 40 people were killed. Just days earlier, a drone strike in Nangarhar province blew up a gathering of pine nut farmers resting after their day’s harvest. “We had huddled together around small bonfires and we were discussing the security situation in our villages, but suddenly everything changed,” one survivor later told reporters. “There was destruction everywhere.” A letter that had been sent to local authorities informing them about the presence of the farmers failed to save them from the drone. As many as 30 people were killed, with 40 more injured.

Relatives and residents pray near a coffin during a funeral ceremony of one of the victims after a drone strike, in Khogyani district of Nangarhar province, Afghanistan September 19, 2019.REUTERS/Parwiz - RC1790411250

Relatives and residents pray near a coffin during a funeral on Sept. 19, 2019, for one of the victims of a drone strike in the Khogyani district of Nangarhar province, Afghanistan.

Photo: Parwiz Parwiz/Reuters

As always, these attacks have been justified in the name of fighting terrorism. It’s unclear, however, who is spilling more innocent blood at this point. In the early years of occupying Afghanistan, the U.S. could rightfully claim that the Taliban insurgency was killing more civilians than the coalition. But, according to United Nations figures, the U.S. and its local allies have actually killed more civilians in Afghanistan this year than the Taliban. After Trump abruptly ended recent peace talks aimed at ending that war, it may continue to rage for years to come — even escalating in brutality as high-ranking officials in the administration gruesomely brag about the body counts they are racking up.

It’s not just Afghanistan, either. Independent investigations have shown huge civilian death tolls from the ramped up air wars waged on Trump’s watch in Iraq and Syria. The numbers are far greater than the publicly stated figures released by the Pentagon. And, under Trump, the number of incidents in which the U.S. military has denied or hidden civilian deaths seems to have increased.

What’s more, we’ve learned new details about another gruesome death toll in yet another theater of war. According to a just-released Amnesty International investigation looking into an incident in Somalia this past March, three innocent men traveling near Mogadishu were killed after being targeted by a U.S. drone strike. Like many of the recent dead in Afghanistan, these Somali men were farmers. They had been traveling in an SUV back to their homes after a day’s work, when their vehicle came into the sights of an American drone. That would be the last drive home of their lives. A friend of one of the dead, a 46-year-old man named Abdiqadir Nur Ibrahim, described the aftermath of the attack: “Abdiqadir’s body was completely destroyed but I recognized … his face that was burnt. … I also recognized his watch which was hanging from the front side of the car.”

press release put out by the military’s Africa Command, or AFRICOM, on March 19 stated that the victims of this strike were “three terrorists,” but did not cite any evidence. The statement also added, somewhat confusingly, that the military was “aware of reports alleging civilian casualties” in the incident. To date, AFRICOM has not provided any more evidence to justify the strike, which took place amid an already growing tide of civilian casualties in Somalia. The military has not so much as indicated that the deaths of these men — the fathers of 21 children between them — are important enough to merit further investigation.

“This is just one of many cases of the U.S. military wantonly tarnishing large parts of the Somali population with the ‘terrorist’ label,” Abdullahi Hassan, a Somali researcher at Amnesty, said in a press release about the investigation into the attack. “No thought is given to the civilian victims or the plight of their grieving families left behind.”

In the post-9/11 era, the U.S. military has made a point of not publicizing the civilian death tolls from its operations. But studies by independent researchers and nongovernmental organizations conservatively put the number of civilians killed in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan into the hundreds of thousands. The real figures are likely even higher. Trump, it is worth noting, is not the only one responsible for these deaths. The wars began long before he came into office, after all. But under his watch, and with his assent, they have been waged with more brutality and less apparent regard for innocent life.

During his 2015 campaign, Trump promised to “kill the families” of suspected terrorists. Recently he has begun publicly musing about killing millions of people in Afghanistan to end the war there, though, for now, he is still magnanimously congratulating himself for choosing that option. At a recent press conference with Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, Trump bragged about dropping the largest non-nuclear bomb in the world earlier in his term. “We dropped it in Afghanistan,” he said. “It left a hole in the earth that looked like the moon. It looked like a crater from the moon. It’s still there. It was — nobody has ever seen anything like it.”

If Trump is going to be impeached, don’t fool yourself that what he is alleged to have done to Hunter Biden is the worst crime he committed while in office.

At the very least, Trump has strongly signaled that he has no problem with killing civilians and will not give anyone under his command a hard time for carrying out such killings. Trump has been willing to vocally defend those who do find themselves accused of war crimes, while punishing those who investigate them. It is no surprise that death tolls have skyrocketed on his watch and that military campaigns, many of which can be characterized as “wars of choice,” are being waged more brutally. There is little political pressure for it to be otherwise.

Does this matter? Do the extremely violent deaths of innocent people — wedding guests and farmers in distant countries — factor into the moral calculus we use to judge Trump as being fit or unfit for office? The American public seems only dimly interested in the ramped-up killings that have taken place on his watch. The whole thing has become routine. The Jewish historian Raul Hilberg once observed the banality of bureaucratic killing in a different time and place: Germany during the 1940s. “Most bureaucrats composed memoranda, drew up blueprints, talked on the telephone, and participated in conferences,” Hilberg wrote about the society that collectively helped carry out a genocide. “They could destroy a whole people by sitting at their desks.”

The U.S., for many reasons, is profoundly different from that regime. But Hilberg’s words are still an uncomfortable reminder of how terrible violence can become so ordinary we don’t even notice it, or let it factor into our moral image of ourselves. Even if Trump never shoots anyone directly, he and his administration are responsible for deaths on a scale that screams at us to take notice. If Trump is going to be impeached, don’t fool yourself that what he’s allegedly done to Hunter Biden is the worst crime he committed while in office.

The post Civilian Deaths in U.S. Wars Are Skyrocketing Under Trump. It May Not Be Impeachable, but It’s a Crime. appeared first on The Intercept.