Josh Scott: The deleted scenes of guitar history – Guitar.com

The phrase history is written by the victors has ricocheted off the halls of history for as long as there have been victors. This saying implies that those who win or come out on top get to write how it all went down and, more importantly, how we remember it. While revisionist history has made a comeback through avenues like Broadways Hamiltonand Malcolm Gladwells appropriately titled podcast Revisionist History, this is still largely true. This saying shines a light on how we perceive the past, what we remember, and why.

Even guitar history is susceptible to this dynamic. The first half of the 1960s was an explosive time for music and the innovation that fueled it, and the Maestro Fuzz-Tone was at the center of that explosion. Although many credit the Fuzz-Tone with single-handedly starting the fuzz craze, thats a major oversimplification. True, it helped transform the electric guitar from the adolescent, clean, jangly sound of Peggy Sue and I Want To Hold Your Hand into the full-on nuclear assault of songs like Purple Hazeand Communication Breakdown, but the Fuzz-Tone didnt do it alone.

The Fuzz-Tone was the first fuzz pedal (and guitar pedal in general) to be produced for mass consumption, but it was not the first device to create such a sound. Up until now in this series, youve mostly heard the winners stories, but between that accidental malfunction of Glen Snoddys tube mixer channel during the Nashville recording session of Dont Worry and Keith Richards mid-sleep epiphany of Satisfactionfour years later in 1964, a lot happened behind the scenes.

So, before we tackle the Tone Bender and commit to moving our narrative fully into 1965, I want to cover these easily overlooked moments from the first half of the 1960s. You can think of these as the guitars deleted scenes from the greatest decade in rock history.

As the worlds first guitar pedal, the Fuzz-Tone would set the template for every pedal that came after it

Our first stop is Phoenix, Arizona. Producer and songwriter Lee Hazlewood was known as a pioneer in the recording booth, and in 1960 he commissioned a Phoenix radio station technician to create a fuzz box that would allow him to produce the sound of fuzzed-out distortion on demand. Sadly, the technicians name is lost to history, which only underscores my earlier point: important moments (and people!) are often obscured by the bigger headlines.

Session guitarist Al Casey was the first musician to use this fuzz box in a recording, specifically in Sanford Clarks Go On Home. In an interview, Casey explained that he and Clark wanted a good, nice, clean sound but that Hazlewood pushed for something more distorted. Hazlewood got his way in the end, and as a result Go On Homewas released in March 1960 featuring gritty, distorted fuzz. Listen to the track and you will hear this fantastic fuzz sound used in tandem with what seems to be the tremolo tone from his amplifier. The sound is fat and warm and the tremolo adds the perfect movement to the track. Its like a beautifully broken Spaghetti Western soundtrack.

This is one of the first, if not the first recorded use of an electronic circuit specifically built to create a distorted fuzz tone on a guitar. Note that this is not the first recorded use of fuzz, as many other methods of producing fuzzy, distorted guitar tones had been used prior to this (even as far back as 1946 with the Bob Wills Boogie), but this was likely the first use of a solid-state electronic device to produce the sound. Now, heres where the timeline gets a little confusing. That same year, Dont Worry was recorded and the infamous broken mixer channel created a very similar fuzz tone on Grady Martins six-string bass. The difference? Dont Worryachieved its fuzz sound purely by accident, an electronic malfunction due to a blown transformer, whereas Hazlewood had built a device specifically to create this fuzz sound.

If youve been following this column, you already know that Glen Snoddy liked the fuzz effect in Dont Worry so much that he collaborated with radio technician Revis Hobbs to create a circuit that replicated that broken mixers sound. This collaboration in return created the first mass-produced guitar pedal, the Maestro Fuzz-Tone. What most people do not realize is that the fuzz box that Hazlewood commissioned in 1960 and used on Sanford Clarks Go On Home predates the Maestro Fuzz-Tones design by at leasta year (Revis designed that circuit sometime in 1961).

Does this devalue Hobbs and Snoddys monumental accomplishment in creating the Fuzz-Tone? Not at all. But Hazlewoods unnamed fuzz box also represents a (largely unknown) landmark moment in guitar history. This comparison also highlights how much a good idea is usually dependent on great marketing. Both Hazlewood and Snoddy made a groundbreaking device, but because Snoddy successfully pitched his device to Gibson/Maestro, he and Hobbs were the victors. In turn, this partnership allowed the Maestro Fuzz-Tone to make its way from the humble beginnings of Revis Hobbs home workbench into the hands of such guitarists as Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon and Keith Richards.

Lee Hazelwood. Image: C Brandon / Redferns

Our next stop is California, 1961, the same year that Revis Hobbs designed the Maestro Fuzz-Tone with Glen, but a full year before it would hit the market. A pedal steel guitarist and electronics technician named Orville Red Rhodes tried his hand at making a fuzz circuit he could use in the recording studio and he succeeded. He produced the Rhodes fuzz in a small metal box, a simple device with a distortion level knob and a bypass switch. The Rhodes fuzz box worked so well that he ended up making several to sell to his fellow musicians (including Nokie Edwards of the Ventures and Billy Strange of the Wrecking Crew).

The best-known use of the Rhodes fuzz was in the Ventures 1962 hit The 2000 Pound Bee. This single is generally accepted as the first recorded use of fuzz in a rock n roll song. I dont know about you, but I find it deliciously ironic that country music popularized fuzz first, not rock n roll. Nokie Edwards played guitar on the track and also used the Rhodes fuzz on albums like Walk Dont Run(1964) and Live in Japan(1965).

Some historians speculate that the Rhodes fuzz was created in 1962 and inspired by Dont Worry, but this theory has major issues. For one thing, both Billy Strange and Ann-Margret Olsson used the Rhodes fuzz on separate recordings in 1961. For another, Nokie Edwards was seen using the Rhodes fuzz while performing in Hawaii in December 1961. Unless time travel was in play in the early 1960s, we have a problem. Theres even evidence to suggest that Rhodes may have made this fuzz circuit as early as 1960 which means it could possibly predate the Hazlewood fuzz box andthe Maestro Fuzz-Tone.

Basically, this isnt a well-documented period of history, so it can be challenging to know for certain who did what first. But recordings like The 2000 Pound Bee, Go On Home, and Dont Worrydefinitely prove one thing: circa 1962, fuzzed-out electric guitar was already on the rise.

Fuzzy Rhodes

The United Kingdom may be the birthplace of modern rock, but in 1962 (two years before the British Invasion) fuzz was still finding its feet. The same year that Gibson released the Maestro Fuzz-Tone, Dick Denney (who designed the Vox AC15 and AC30 amps) claims to have made his own prototype clone of the FZ-1 more than three years before he assisted in developing the Vox V816 Distortion Booster, encasing the simple prototype circuit in a truly DIY OXO Cube tin.

The reason this first pedal never made it to the production line, Denney argues, is that the Fuzz-Tone was still selling poorly (this was three years before The Rolling Stones would rocket it to popularity with Satisfaction), so Vox wasnt willing to risk financial loss by producing their own version. Moreover, Tom Jennings absolutely hated the sound of distortion and didnt want anything to do with a fuzz box. Curiosity pushed Denney to make his prototype anyway and Denney claims that a rogue employee working for Vox stole this design and started selling fuzz boxes himself (though its anyones guess who this employee could have been, I have my hunches). Nearly 60 years later, Denneys prototype still hasnt resurfaced, so we have to file this pedals existence under rumor rather than fact.

But another Fuzz-Tone clone may have been created in 1964. Guitarist Jimmy Page allegedly approached electronics guru Roger Mayer (you may know Roger better as the guy who later designed the Octavia Fuzz and pitched it to Jimi Hendrix after a gig in 1967) and Jimmy asked him to build a device that would replicate the Ventures distorted guitar sound in The 2000 Pound Bee. Although the FZ-1 had been on the market for two years at this point, it was still considered a flop and wouldnt have been easily available in London. So how could Roger Mayer have made a clone of it? A touring musician might have brought the FZ-1 back from the United States and sold it to Roger Mayer. More likely, the design of the FZ-1 circuit was so simple that it was easy for another engineer to recreate it or get darn close using transistor cookbooks available at the time.

For his part, Mayer claims that he had never seen an FZ-1 when he created this pedal, so the facts are a little murky on this, too.

In any case, the pedal that Roger Mayer produced for Jimmy Page was a clone or approximation of the FZ-1 with a few major differences:

It was rumored (but not confirmed) that Page used this pedal both in the recording studio and while touring with the Yardbirds. With almost 60 years between us and this story, we may never know for sure.

Image: LarissaVanDerVyver

Full disclosure: I debated whether to include this story. Its not exactly a deleted scene (honestly, its a story that weve all heard in one form or another), but its important to the timeline of fuzz, so Im rolling with it.

To understand this story well, you have to understand that there are myths that are so ingrained in the guitar community that we dont really care if theyre true or not. This is one of those stories. Whats funny is that we know what happened. Its a certified fact. What we dont know is howit happened.

The Davies brothers, founding members of the Kinks, recorded arguably their most iconic song in 1964 You Really Got Me. This song basically trail-blazed the use of power chords as we know them, and its cited as the birthplace of the metal genre (its no coincidence that Van Halen covered the song in 1978). The heart of the song is, naturally enough, a fuzzed-out electric guitar. But the real question is howthat fuzz effect made it onto the track.

Dave and Ray Davies both claim to have taken a razor blade, box cutter or knitting needle to an Elpico amp nicknamed Little Green. Reports vary as to what weapon was used or who wielded it, for that matter but the end result was an utterly destroyed speaker that produced a distorted, fuzzed-out sound.

Dave attempted to set the record straight in a 2015 Facebook post, in which he clarified: My brother [Ray] is lying. I dont know why he does this but it was my Elpico amp that I bought and out of frustration I cut the speaker cone up with a razor blade I played the riff on my guitar with MY new sound. I ALONE CREATED THIS SOUND. But this still raises more questions than it answers: why would a frustrated Dave take a knife to his own amp? Was the amp not working? Was he frustrated with the direction the band was going? Did he just lose to his brother in a particularly competitive game of rock, paper, scissors? We dont know, but this brotherly feud has gone down in history as one of the greats, right alongside the Gallagher brothers and Cain and Abel.

Coincidentally, this specific sound was so coveted that Electro-Harmonix released a distortion pedal in 2021 called the Ripped Speaker Fuzz. In the end, life imitated art.

Image: Electro-Harmonix

This next story comes courtesy of fellow pedal historian Nick Sternberg, a dude who has devoted countless hours to the study of guitar pedals and may actually have me beat in terms of sheer nerdiness. He is also British, which automatically makes him more interesting than me, a boring Midwest American. His website fuzzboxes.org and his generous time answering my insane questions were a huge help in putting this article together, but Id be remiss if I didnt include his most recent discovery: the Harmonic Generator.

The story starts in the early 1960s, with a gear company called GP Electronics, founded by inventor Gerry Pope. During the 60s and 60s, GP produced a pretty wide variety of gear, including amps, PAs, treble and bass boosters and one guitar pedal: The Harmonic Generator distortion.

According to Nick, the Harmonic Generator was allegedly conceived in 1964, after somebody referred Pope to an American recording of a fuzz sound. This would have been a year too early for The Stones Satisfaction, so its likely that the American recording in question was either The 2000 Pound Bee, Dont Worry or Grady Martins The Fuzz. Nick adds that strong anecdotal evidence confirms that the Harmonic Generator was already available to the general public between late 1965 and early 1966. Again, this is where the dates get a little dicey. Depending on just how late in 1965 PG Electronics released the Harmonic Generator, it could pre-date the Sola Sound Tone Bender. Regardless, the timeline shows that Pope had the foresight to develop a fuzz pedal before Satisfactionrocketed the effect to fame in 1965, which reflects impressive intuition.

The Harmonic Generator allegedly made its way into the hands of guitarists like Martin & Glen Turner (later of Wishbone Ash), The Shadows (in Bombay Duck & Tennessee Waltz) and the New Vaudeville Band (in Winchester Cathedral).

This all basically boils down to two questions. Have most people heard of the Harmonic Generator? No. Did it still change guitar history? Yes.

In closing out this chapter of forgotten guitar effects, it is important that we take the time to dig a little deeper. Invention is more of a gradual evolutionary process than a sudden epiphany. Nothing just appears from thin air. Everything we love about guitar comes from a collective of ideas that have been accumulated, shared and improved upon, and every guitar effect has its roots in another device or inventor. Some ideas make huge splashes while others are resigned to a ripple, but that doesnt mean one is more important than the other.

It just means that, for better or for worse, history is written by the victors.

Join Josh for more effects adventures at thejhsshow.com.

See the article here:

Josh Scott: The deleted scenes of guitar history - Guitar.com

Watertown tenant with history of painting biblical quotes arrested Friday for allegedly causing over $40k in damage to apartment – Yahoo News

Jan. 21WATERTOWN A man who has a history of damaging apartments and painting biblical quotes on the walls was arrested again on Friday after allegedly causing more than $40,000 in damage.

Mark R. Stewart, 61, of 521 Jefferson St., was charged by city police with second-degree criminal mischief. He was arrested Friday morning and appeared for an arraignment hearing in the afternoon, after which he was held in jail without bail.

In July 2021, Mr. Stewart was renting an apartment from Cardmen Gee at 310 S. Massey St. when he allegedly caused extensive damage to the unit, as well as painting all over the walls. The estimated repair cost is $40,866.16, according to city police.

Mr. Stewart had rented Mr. Gee's apartment for roughly nine months, the landlord said in September when a criminal investigation into Mr. Stewart was getting started. The fully furnished apartment which Mr. Gee offers to soldiers was turned into what looked like a mangled construction site. A plastic tarp was hung in a hallway. The door to the refrigerator was ripped off. A smiley face made of charcoal medallions was left on the floor. The bathtub was broken, as well as the chimney.

The paintings mainly consisted of what appear to be posters for Jimmy Swaggart's ministries, with phone numbers and addresses at the bottom. Mr. Swaggart was a pastor in Baton Rouge, La., whose ministry TV show was popular in the 1970s before he was defrocked by the Assemblies of God for a sex scandal involving prostitutes in 1988.

Mr. Stewart pleaded guilty in 2014 to a felony attempted criminal mischief count, admitting he caused more than $5,000 in damage to an apartment on Washington Street. He was sentenced in that matter to five years of probation and ordered to pay $500 to the property owner and $26,177 to the property owner's insurance carrier in the form of a civil judgment.

In 2009, Mr. Stewart was sentenced to three years of probation and ordered to pay $5,800 in restitution after damaging an apartment on LeRay Street. In 2013, Mr. Stewart was arrested in Baton Rouge and charged with entering and remaining at Mr. Swaggart's ministry campus after having been banned from the property.

Excerpt from:

Watertown tenant with history of painting biblical quotes arrested Friday for allegedly causing over $40k in damage to apartment - Yahoo News

McDonald’s Has a New Sandwich; History Says Nobody Will Buy It – TheStreet

McDonald's (MCD) - Get McDonald's Corporation Report wants customers who care about healthy eating, and it wants options for its existing customers when they want a meal that's healthier than a Big Mac or a 10-piece Chicken McNuggets.

The business logic for this makes sense -- some people want to eat healthy food -- but the reality has never proven that anyone wants healthy choices from McDonald's. McPlant might be different, but the fast-food giant has gone down this road before and the ending has always been the same.

McDonald's/TheStreet

McDonald's dropped all of its salads during the pandemic. That happened as part of an effort to streamline the company's menu -- which made sense during the time when the chain's dining rooms were closed and all orders were delivery or drive-through -- but they have not returned to its menu even though operations have returned to (somewhat) normal.

The reality is that people looking to eat healthy don't choose McDonald's. Salads might be attractive to adults who take their kids to the fast-food chain, but that's a very limited audience.

"According to food research firm Technomic, 47% of Americans say they want healthier restaurant options, but only about 23% actually order them. So Wendy's, Burger King and McDonald's can offer all the apple slices and plain baked potatoes and yogurt parfaits they want, but despite what customers say, these items aren't selling," Huffpost reported.

That same article also noted that salads only accounted for 3% of the chain's sales before they were discontinued.

TheStreet Recommends:3 Trends Shaping the Future of Farming, Agriculture, and Land Use

Adding a plant-based burger brings McDonald's good publicity. The chain, however, has been very careful in how it has rolled out the Beyond Meat (BYND) - Get Beyond Meat, Inc. Report sandwich option. It started the test in a handful of stores and plans to bring it to 600 locations in mid-February.

McDonald's has about 14,000 locations in the U.S.

Chains often test new products in a small number of stores then increase availability. That's sort of what's happening here, but McDonald's has also taken every chance to tout its efforts because offering a plant-based burger option brings good publicity while quietly dropping it when nobody wants it -- as Dunkin' did with its Beyond Meat sausage sandwich -- barely gets noticed,

"The McPlant includes a plant-based patty co-developed with Beyond Meat thats exclusive to McDonalds and made from plant-based ingredients like peas, rice, and potatoes. The patty is served on a sesame seed bun with tomato, lettuce, pickles, onions, mayonnaise, ketchup, mustard, and a slice of American cheese," the company touted in a press release.

In addition, it's important to note that the McPlant won't appeal to many people who don't eat meat for a reason the chain probably can't correct.

"Its also cooked on the same grill as meat-based products and eggs," the company shared.

That makes the McPlant a plant-based sandwich for non-vegetarians. (It's already not a vegan-friendly product as it comes with cheese and mayonnaise, though it can be ordered without those). That's a very small audience -- probably fewer people than might have eaten a McSalad -- and it makes McPlant a product that's not likely to succeed if you base success on sales, not media attention.

TheStreet Recommends:Why Investors Should Care About the Resource Transition

Read more:

McDonald's Has a New Sandwich; History Says Nobody Will Buy It - TheStreet

Take an online journey through the history of math – Science News Magazine

Around 1900 B.C., a student in the Sumerian city of Nippur, in whats now Iraq, copied a multiplication table onto a clay tablet. Some 4,000 years later, that schoolwork survives, as do the students errors (10 times 45, for example, is definitely not 270). The work is a reminder that no matter how elegant or infallible mathematics may seem, its still a human endeavor.

Thats one lesson I took from History of Mathematics, an online exhibit developed by the National Museum of Mathematics in New York City and Wolfram Research, a computational technology company. Bringing together the Sumerian tablet and more than 70 other artifacts, the exhibit demonstrates how math has been a universal language across cultures and throughout time.

Divided into nine galleries, the exhibit sums up the development of key topics related to mathematics, including counting, arithmetic, algebra, geometry and prime numbers. Each gallery has a short timeline and features a handful of artifacts that serve as entry points to explore some milestones in more depth.

Headlines and summaries of the latest Science News articles, delivered to your inbox

Thank you for signing up!

There was a problem signing you up.

Among the highlights: The oldest known surviving calculating device, the Salamis Tablet, is a marble counting board from the Greek island of Salamis dating to 300 B.C. Its a precursor to the abacus. By moving pebbles across the board, a person could perform calculations. An early documented instance of using a symbol for zero as a placeholder (to, say, distinguish 1 from 10, 100 or 1,000) appears in the Bakhshali Manuscript, an Indian text dating to perhaps as early as A.D. 300. The manuscripts black dots eventually morphed into the open circles we know today as zeros. Also on display is Al-Jabr. Written in around 820 by Persian polymath Muammad ibn Ms al-Khwrizm, the book established the field of algebra and gave the discipline its name. In 1557, the Whetstone of Witte, an English algebra text, introduced the modern equal symbol.

But the exhibit is more than just a collection of fun facts. As the galleries explain, humans relationship with numbers goes back deep into prehistory. Modern math, however, stems from the rise of cities, with the need to keep track of people and supplies, and to undertake ever more complex construction projects.

Some mathematical principles must have been so vital to civilizations success that they appeared in many ancient cultures. Take the Pythagorean theorem. The Greek philosopher Pythagoras, who lived in the sixth century B.C., famously related the side lengths of a right triangle in the equation a2 + b2 = c2. But a clay tablet reveals that people in Mesopotamia had worked out the relationship more than 1,000 years earlier. Ancient Chinese and Indian scholars were also familiar with the relationship.

Other math problems have had multiple solutions. The history of counting is littered with an array of methods for keeping track of numbers, from various forms of finger counting to the stringed recording devices called quipus, or khipus, used in the Inca Empire in the 1400s and 1500s. The placement and types of knots along a quipus strings indicate different numerical values, though researchers today are still trying to understand exactly how to interpret the data recorded on these devices (SN: 7/6/19 & 7/20/19, p. 12).

Parts of the exhibit assume a high level of mathematical knowledge, such as some of the interactive features that give technical explanations behind some artifacts mathematical principles. But a section of learning journeys aimed at kids and others provides materials that fill in some of the missing details from the main galleries and will appeal to adults whose memories of high school or college math are fuzzy.

History of Mathematics is a fascinating starting point for anyone interested in learning about the origins of the mathematical concepts that so many of us use every day but often take for granted.

See the original post here:

Take an online journey through the history of math - Science News Magazine

This Day in Braves History: Chipper Jones elected to Hall of Fame, Justin Upton trade and more – Talking Chop

Braves Franchise History

1973 - Warren Spahn becomes just the sixth player to be elected to the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility. Spahn received 316 of 380 votes to gain admission.

2008 - The Braves avoided arbitration with reliever Rafael Soriano by signing him to a two-year, $9 million deal.

2013 - The Braves acquire outfielder Justin Upton and third baseman Chris Johnson from the Arizona Diamondbacks in exchange for Randall Delgado, Zeke Spruill, Martin Prada, Nick Ahmed and Brandon Drury.

2018 - Chipper Jones is elected to the Hall of Fame in his first attempt along with Jim Thome, Trevor Hoffman and Vladimir Guerrero.

MLB History

1939 - Eddie Collins, Willie Keeler and George Sisler are elected to the Hall of Fame. Sisler set a major league record with 257 hits in 1920 and hit .420 in 1922. Collins hit .333 for his career and stole 744 bases while winning the World Series four different times. Keeler hit .341 for his career while amassing 2,932 hits.

1950 - Jackie Robinson signs a contract for $35,000 reportedly making him the highest-paid player in Brooklyn Dodgers history.

2012 - The Detroit Tigers sign Prince Fielder to a nine-year, $214 million contract. The Giants also agreed to a two-year, $40.5 million deal with Tim Lincecum avoiding what would have likely been a record pay out through arbitration.

Talking Chop Archives

2021 - The Braves signed Pablo Sandoval to a minor league contract and invited him to spring training. They would later deal Sandoval at the deadline to Cleveland in exchange for Eddie Rosario who would play a huge part in their run to the World Series title.

2018 - Mentioned above but here is Demetrius write up of Chipper Jones being elected to the Hall of Fame on his first ballot.

2013 - The Justin Upton trade is completed. Scott took a closer look at Chris Johnson whom the Braves also acquired in the deal.

2007 - A fun series completes with John Smoltz landing in the top spot in the list of the 29 most important Braves during their run of division titles.

Information for this article was found via Baseball Reference, Nationalpastime.com and Today in Baseball History.

Read the original post:

This Day in Braves History: Chipper Jones elected to Hall of Fame, Justin Upton trade and more - Talking Chop

The godfather of populism: Silvio Berlusconi bows out of politics – TheArticle

So. Farewell then, Silvio Berlusconi. The tone of Private Eyes obituarist and poet in residence seems somehow appropriate for a man who never seemed to take either politics or himself entirely seriously. Abroad, this most colourful of post-war Italian politicians will be remembered less for his impact on Europe than for his Bunga Bunga parties and other playboy extravagances. He was a media magnate who never ceased to provide copy for the tabloids, whether incessant speculation about possible Mafia connections, thousands of courtroom appearances, or his constant, hitherto seemingly irresistible comebacks.

In the end, only the frailties of old age seem to have persuaded Berlusconi to bring down the curtain on his own political career. At 85, he still hoped to enjoy one final act, with a bid for the biggest job of all: head of state. He might even have got away with it, had not a lifetime of overindulgence finally caught up with him. A heart condition serious enough to require hospitalisation is the official reason, though doubtless not the only one, for the former crooner who liked to be known as il Cavaliere to take his last bow.

Yet Berlusconis career has changed the world more than most of his rivals on the world stage. Long before Donald Trump, he was the godfather of populism. Unlike Trump, who was just a media personality, Berlusconi actually owned the media. At the height of his power, he was estimated to enjoy, directly or indirectly, control over 90 per cent of the Italian press and broadcasting. Whereas Trump was just one of many New York real estate billionaires, Berlusconi was the richest man in Italy. And he used his wealth and control of the media ruthlessly to dominate politics for a generation. Berlusconi was the original, Trump merely the imitation.

Though he held office for less than a decade, that was enough to make him the longest serving Prime Minister in post-war Italy. Indeed, over the century and a half since the unification of the Risorgimento era, the only men to have led Italy for longer were the liberal Giovanni Giolitti and the fascist Benito Mussolini. Berlusconi was so often compared to the latter that he developed a soft spot for the Duce though he did not approve of the fascists anti-Semitic laws. In 2003, the then Prime Minister told the Spectators Nicholas Farrell and the magazines then editor that Mussolini was not a bad leader: he never had his opponents killed, but merely sent them on holiday.

That editor was a certain Boris Johnson. Was Berlusconi a role model for the man who became Britains Prime Minister 16 years later? To ask the question is to realise how absurd the comparison really is. Were Johnson to have been accused of any one of the myriad crimes and scandals in which Berlusconi has been embroiled, his career would never even have got off the ground. In spite of the overblown rhetoric of their accusers, Boris is no more a populist than Silvio is a fascist.

Just as Britain has genuine populists, such as Nigel Farage, so Italy has had genuine neo-fascists, such as the postwar Italian Social Movement (MSI) and its later offshoot, the National Alliance (AN) of Gianfranco Fini. Yet although Berlusconis own party, Forza Italia, has sometimes been in coalition with Fini, this was only after Fini had distanced himself from Mussolinis legacy.

What is undeniable, however, is that Berlusconi has contributed to the return of authoritarian politics in Italy. The fact that he has exercised a control over his national media of which even Rupert Murdoch could only dream has undoubtedly made it easier for far-Right parties, such as the Brothers of Italy, to gain a sizeable parliamentary foothold. That power has also enabled Berlusconi to keep the judges at bay whom he has accused of defying democracy in their pursuit of him.

The Spectator interview took place at Berlusconis villa in Sardinia, where the notorious Bunga Bunga parties took place that eventually contributed to his downfall. Over the past seven years he has been embroiled in a series of trials for bribing underage girls to keep quiet about what happened at these parties. Together with his conviction for tax fraud in 2013, Berlusconis legal travails had kept him out of public office for several years until just before the pandemic.

What, if anything, did Berlusconi achieve? The fact that he had never held public office until he burst onto the political scene in the mid-1990s was one of the main reasons for his popularity in a country where most voters assumed that all politicians were corrupt. Berlusconi was so rich and so powerful that he was presumed by many to be impossible to bribe, and consequently worthy of their trust. Unfortunately the experiment, repeated many times since, has never proved the correctness of this presumption. Tycoons, it seems, are no less dishonest than the rest, merely more munificent.

At the European level, Berlusconi was often treated as a buffoon, particularly by the more sober-sided northern leaders such as Angela Merkel. On one occasion, he was recorded telling a newspaper editor that the German Chancellor was an unfuckable lard-arse. It was left to Jeremy Paxman in 2014 to ask the now ex-Prime Minister whether he had used these words. The footage, which can be viewed here, is priceless. After a long silence, in which Berlusconi gesticulates to feign shock at such language, he replies that in 20 years in politics I have never insulted anyone.

Perhaps this exchange should be the Cavalieres epitaph. Having transformed Italian politics from a sinister harlequinade into an absurdist opera buffa, Berlusconi can claim at least to have modernised its style and idiom. His debauchery may have lowered the tone of public life in the Eternal City; unlike the Church, however, he never claimed to be holier than thou. In 2011 Pope Benedict XVI told the Prime Minister, then mired in scandal, to rediscover his spiritual and moral foundations. Berlusconi prefers Benedicts successor, Pope Francis, who is less intellectual and more worldly. He once remarked that Francis acts as Pope in exactly the way I would. Some have even joked that if the Quirinale, the Presidential palace in Rome, were to elude him, Berlusconi would set his sights on the Vatican.

Despite the ongoing court cases, at least he will avoid ending his days behind bars. At the climax of Puccinis opera Tosca, the eponymous heroine throws herself to her death from the parapet of the Castel Sant Angelo, the papal prison, to evade capture. Silvio Berlusconi has no need of such desperate measures. Convicted of tax evasion, he benefited from a law he had passed while in office: those over 70 cannot be sent to prison. Handed down a four year sentence, he spent just one of them doing community service in a care home. Silvio the silver fox has always had the last laugh.

Here is the original post:

The godfather of populism: Silvio Berlusconi bows out of politics - TheArticle

In an era of rightwing populism, we cannot destroy democracy in order to save it – The Guardian

The recent anniversary of the Trumpian riot at the Capitol building highlighted a growing anxiety about the state of democracy both in America and around the world.

In a widely circulated article, the Canadian professor Thomas Homer-Dixon warned of a rightwing dictatorship in the US by 2030. At the same time, a Quinnipiac University poll found nearly 60% of Americans believed their democracy is in danger of collapse.

Internationally, the Stockholm based-NGO International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance says more nations than ever before faced democratic erosion, while Freedom House argues that in every region of the world, democracy is under attack by populist leaders and groups that reject pluralism and demand unchecked power.

Unfortunately, in response to that rightwing populist threat, many centrists fall back to the bad arguments of the past.

In the wake of the first world war, US journalist Walter Lippmann claimed the mass media and its techniques of persuasion rendered the ordinary voter so susceptible to propaganda as to render democracy unworkable.

The world about which each man is supposed to have opinions, he complained, has become so complicated as to defy his powers of understanding.

Lippmann drew explicitly on a critique made by Plato in The Republic, where the philosopher described the Athenian assembly as giving liberty to demagogues. Such men, Plato explained, used rhetoric and emotion to whip up the masses behind power-hungry rogues, rather than allowing competent leaders to rule.

Following Trumps shock election in 2016, a modern-day version of this argument became a kind of centrist common sense, neatly captured in a viral New Yorker cartoon by Will McPhail. The drawing showed an airline passenger addressing others in the plane: These smug pilots have lost touch with regular passengers like us. Who thinks I should fly the plane?

The gag was widely circulated by liberals aghast at Trumps policies. Yet, as Ive argued elsewhere, rather than critiquing his racism and sexism the cartoon implied that the problem lay with a system that allowed ordinary people to opine on matters they werent qualified to adjudicate. Running the country, the image suggested, was like flying a plane: a matter best left to the experts.

That was pretty much Platos argument the basis on which he advocated a dictatorship by philosopher kings.

Yet, contrary to what centrists claim, the real problem with rightwing populism is not that its populist but rather that its not and cant be populist enough.

The evolution of the Republican party into a vehicle for Trumpian populism provides a good illustration. The Washington Post recently noted that at least 163 politicians who accept Trumps false claims about fraud in the 2020 poll are now running for statewide positions that would give them authority over the administration of elections.

That matters because legislatures dominated by Trump supporters have already been cracking down on mail-in ballots, imposing onerous ID requirements and otherwise making voting more difficult, with the nonpartisan Brennan Centre for Justice reporting at least 19 states imposing laws in 2021 that restricted voting access in some way.

Why do those associated with Donald Trump seek a restricted franchise?

A movement dominated by the super-wealthy and exploiting racial and gender anxieties relies upon exclusion. Despite its populist rhetoric, Trumpian demagoguery appeals to a minority: it cannot offer solutions to the population of an increasingly diverse nation.

The key to defeating Trump thus lies in mobilising ordinary people to articulate their real needs.

But across the United States, the legislative response to the Capitol riot pushed by Democrats has centred not on extending democratic rights but on laws criminalising demonstrations.

As Branko Marcetic points out, the aftermath of 6 January saw a crackdown on dissent: a dramatic increase in anti-protest bills around the country, including at least 88 that have been introduced since the Capitol riot; a massive buildup of the Capitol police into a national force to target terrorism; as well as the rollout by the Biden administration of a sweeping domestic counter-terror strategy.

The strategy includes on its list of domestic violent extremists groups such as environmentalists, anti-capitalists and animal rights activists, all of whom youd expect to play an important role in a movement against Trump to cultivate.

During the Vietnam war, an American commander supposedly explained the necessity of destroying a village in order to save it. In an era of rightwing populism, we need to ensure that the defences of democracy doesnt follow a similar logic.

Instead, progressives require a program that, as Nicholas Tampio puts it, treats people as citizens that is, as adults capable of thoughtful decisions and moral actions, rather than as children who need to manipulated. That means entrusting them with meaningful opportunities to participate in the political process rather than simply expecting them to vote for one or another leader on polling day.

Democracy isnt an institution. Its a practice and, as such, it becomes stronger through use.

Thats the real problem. Whens the last time you felt your opinion actually mattered in your daily life? How often do you take part in democratic debates in your workplace, your neighbourhood, your trade union or your community group?

The withering of opportunities for ordinary people to exercise meaningful power over their collective affairs gives the Platonic critique of democracy an unwarranted credibility.

Conversely, the more we practise governing ourselves by debating, by organising, by demonstrating and protesting the more natural democracy seems and the more isolated demagogues become.

Link:

In an era of rightwing populism, we cannot destroy democracy in order to save it - The Guardian

Tryst with Strong Leader Populism review: The rise to absolute power – The Hindu

The objectives of the study on How Modis hybrid regime model [is] reshaping political narratives, ecosystems and national symbols are ambitious. The projects of the ruling party are certainly ambitious. It wishes to spatially and ideologically remake the country by reconstructing Lutyens Delhi, by building a temple where once a grand mosque stood, by introducing a political language that cares two hoots for propriety, and by superciliously dismissing the contributions of Jawaharlal Nehru to democracy.

Has it succeeded? Perhaps yes. Barely 10 years ago scholars were writing on multiculturalism, secularism, and minority rights. Today we are back to where modern political theory began the right to life and liberty in times of mob lynching and police atrocities. How did the political mood turn around so quickly? P. Raman in this detailed exposition of one mans rise to absolute power answers the question very well.

Standing up to the RSS

The story begins on February 19, 2013, when Mohan Bhagwat assured the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) hierarchys full support to Modi as the prime ministerial candidate. Very soon Modi defied the fundamental presupposition of the organisation; that the individual, no matter how powerful he may be, is subordinate to the collective. He informed senior leaders that he would always be there whenever they called. There was no need to set up a coordination committee to regulate the relationship between a future government and the RSS. In any case his Mission-272, that of securing a majority in Parliament, was intended to reduce dependence on secular allies. He would institutionalise Hindutva so dear to the heart of RSS leaders. They need not worry.

Some leaders were nevertheless wary of him. His commitment to liberalisation and to the corporatisation of the economy went against Swadeshi so ardently defended by the organisation. But he was backed enthusiastically by RSS supremo Bhagwat. He was also openly supported by top corporate leaders of initially Gujarat, and then from the rest of the country. The scene was set for the rise of a classical kind of authoritarian political boss... Like the elected dictators the world over, he communicated directly to voters and party ranks. Modis political strategy was a deadly mix of hard Hindutva and unadulterated neoliberal framework.

Old vs. the new

Economic liberalisation was conjoined to political illiberalism. The former was secured by corporates. They placed their enormous funds, their media houses, PR agents, digital engineers and survey agencies at the feet of an incoming Modi regime. Political illiberalism was secured by Hindutva that relentlessly subordinates individual citizens to the nation conceived of in purely majoritarian terms, argues Raman.

Around the twin planks of his ideology gathered WhatsApp administrators, lynch mobs coordinators, those who rallied audiences, cash dispensers and alcohol distributors, says Raman. Modi rallies have rewritten the grammar of how elections are fought. His image was projected on gigantic screens, and cheer leaders outshouted other BJP leaders. He was presented as Indias new messiah, the conquering hero who would vanquish the old elite.

No visibility and voice

The BJP came to power in 2014 and we witnessed the quick degeneration of parliamentary democracy into autocratic populism. Under the Modi regime, elected ministers have been reduced to nothing. They have little visibility and even less voice. The PM chastises them as if they are schoolboys. They are not invited to meetings he holds with their bureaucrats. Civil servants are responsible directly to him. All decisions of ministries have to be cleared by the Prime Ministers Office. RSS leaders monitored the government for the first two years. With the appointment of Amit Shah as the party president, the rules changed. The RSS was pushed to the margins.

Centralised rule seldom makes for good governance though. Badly conceptualised policies of demonetisation and GST led to chaos and intensified poverty. Schemes announced with much fanfare lapsed, and the enthusiasm of the leadership waned.

As power came to be centralised in the office of the prime minister, organisations meant to share power or check it, from the RBI to the CBI were hijacked. Yet the Modi juggernaut continued to roll. The BJP secured even more seats in the 2019 general election. This encouraged the government to unfurl the full agenda of Hindutva from Kashmir to Ayodhya and beyond.

Demise of institutions

In the last chapter, Raman surveys the literature on authoritarian populism and concludes that the concept is appropriate for India. The country has seen the personalisation of power and the demise of institutions ranging from Parliament to civil society. Enthusiastically acclaimed by a media that forgets that it is a part of civil society which keeps watch on the exercise of power, and not a PR arm of the government, Modi has succeeded in making people forget the tragedies his misconceived policies have heaped on India. We are left to ponder an unpalatable question. Have Indians become apolitical, more attracted to strong leaders rather than democratic ones?

Tryst with Strong Leader Populism; P. Raman, Aakar Publications, 695.

The reviewer is Distinguished Fellow, Centre for Equity Studies.

Read more from the original source:

Tryst with Strong Leader Populism review: The rise to absolute power - The Hindu

Cityshaping without the politics of populism and polarisation – Building Design

Cycling to work this week I listened to a podcast hosted by the two-wheel nuts Toby Fox and David Taylor who use a Desert Island Discs-inspired format to conduct a long-form conversation with a built environment specialist and committed cyclist. The latest episode of Tracks Of My Tyres features Patricia Brown who runs Central, a consultancy that provides strategic advice on city infrastructure, development and regeneration.

Pats entire career has been built on her innate ability to connect people to create collaborative environments in order to make change happen. As I listened I couldnt help but think this was a podcast that everyone in our industry right now should be listening to.

For 10 years from 1997 Pat set up and ran the Central London Partnership, the first really significant time public and private sector came together to do things to improve London.

The private-sector property investment and development industry was flying and Pat, recognising peoples interest in improving the quality of the built environment and the feel of the city as well as their interest in investing in it, knew this could only happen if there was a collaborative effort between everyone involved to deliver it. She describes it in the podcast as enlightened self-interest on the part of the development community.

Central London Partnership brought together representatives from higher education, private-sector development, finance and investment, the cultural sector, business leaders and Londons local government, seed-funded by national government, to create a vision for future economic success built on quality of life and quality of experience of the city. It was about drawing a line under the car-dominated city of the 1970s and 80s and thinking afresh about how to create a city that moved efficiently and worked for everyone. The pedestrianisation of the north side of Trafalgar Square was one of the key interventions inspired by this process.

An early research trip to New York remember those before any kind of foreign travel by local government representatives was branded a jolly and banned? inspired the development of Londons Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) to promote a sense of investment in the public realm and a shared sense of pride in the city.

In the 25 years since Pat established the Central London Partnership London has, like all major cities, suffered from the twists and turns of health, economic, social and climate emergencies. Its a bewildering task trying to work out how to respond effectively. I have often wondered why Pat has never sought formal public office to be able to drive change through the power such election would bring but, listening to her talk, I understood why. Its simply because she feels she can be so much more effective as a behind-the-scenes facilitator, convening and enabling the kind of conversations, debate and collaborative working that gets things done.

Its a rare skill to understand with such sensitivity the inter-connectivity of the myriad components of what makes successful urbanism and the economic and social sustainability of a city. Pat believes that we should be spending more time talking together and reaching consensus about agendas rather than specific places. This is at odds with the nature of the development industry that is in business to build specific schemes by negotiating the planning system with local authority regulators.

She talks about aggregation how do we ensure the widest possible buy-in to the issues that most effectively shape the wider city? This seems crucial in a post-covid world where it is not remotely clear to me who is leading Londons recovery, exploring ideas for change that will not only allow us to build back but, in the governments words, to build back better.

Its also about easing conflict. Just bringing people together doesnt automatically mean they will agree. Careful negotiation, led by experienced facilitators, is necessary to find consensus among a raft of competing agendas and ideas about the best way forward.

How, for instance, do we most effectively reconcile the needs of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians in a city thats short of space? Empathy has to replace anger and conflict and that needs encouraging and shepherding to create a shared vision of a good life that works for everyone. You could argue that this kind of consensus-seeking slows things down its an argument we hear over and over in opposition to proportional representation. But Id take slower consensus over speedier autocracy (or even inaction) any day of the week.

Pats newest move is a project she calls London 3.0. It follows the London 1.0 that she was instrumental in defining in the late 1990s and the London 2.0 that began with the arrival of the GLA and the London mayoralty. Its driven from her belief that London is a city that needs constant reinvention and the only way to do that is to bring together everyone with a stake in its success around a virtual table, spotting links and leading agendas around which they can reach consensus. I think, right now, we need this more than ever.

View original post here:

Cityshaping without the politics of populism and polarisation - Building Design

Boris Johnsons populism may be muted, but it is still accelerating Britains decline – iNews

Defenders of Boris Johnson are telling mutinous Tory MPs not to focus solely on the dolce vita lifestyle enjoyed in No 10 when the rest of the population was locked up at home. Instead, they ask those who want rid of the Prime Minister to view his achievements more generally, citing his taking Britain out of the EU, winning the general election in 2019, and overseeing the vaccine programme.

Ignore the validity of these claims for the moment and, taking Johnson loyalists at their word, consider his position against the backdrop of British history. It is not premature to do so because, even if he clings on as Prime Minister, his freedom of action will be limited which means that his political heritage is already in place. Important questions requiring an answer include how far he is a one-trick pony who rose to power thanks to his populist nationalism, which was ideally suited to political currents during the era of Brexit? Equally important, how far will his premiership be seen as an aberration rather than as a permanent transformation of British politics?

Boozing and partying by politicians and civil servants who were simultaneously ordering everybody else to live in conditions of semi-siege is grossly hypocritical. But their behaviour was in keeping with the self-indulgence shown by populist nationalist leaders elsewhere in the world. It is always striking how, for all Johnsons British boosterism, his actions mirror those of populists in the rest of the world.

There are specific reasons why Johnsons leadership should be tottering a year after his supporters were boasting that he might be in power for a decade. His successes took place while Dominic Cummings was directing his actions and, once he lost his chief adviser, he wobbled from misjudgement to misjudgement. Downing Street increasingly resembled the court of a minor monarch in the 18th century, with consorts and courtiers vying for the kings ear.

Populist nationalist movements are not new, but in their modern version, they have proved to be the worlds most powerful political force over the past decade.

But they have tended to produce permanent instability and frequent crises from the US to Hungary and from Britain to Brazil. This is because populist leaders lead unwieldy coalitions made up of contradictory interests. A good word for these movements is pluto-populist with plutocrats and the well-off in uneasy alliance with marginalised victims of globalisation. Donald Trump was absurdly nicknamed the blue-collar billionaire by his supporters when he became Republican presidential candidate in 2016.

Johnsons brand of populism is more muted with its levelling up slogan which is still awaiting a much-delayed White Paper spelling out what it means two years after the general election. Business investment is below what it was prior to the referendum and mean real average weekly pay is still lower than in 2007. No wonder red wall Tory MPs are rebellious.

The Johnsonian brand of British nationalism is similarly in trouble. Future historians chronicling his career may point to his role in the 2016 Brexit referendum as the moment when he played a truly decisive role, because without his intervention the vote might have gone the other way. His other achievements are all more dubious: any Tory leader would have won the last general election against a divided Labour Party and credit for the vaccine belongs primarily to the scientists and the NHS, which would have got the support of any British government in power.

Britain has declined as an international power under Johnson, something which was inevitable once Brexit weakened its links to its allies and main trading partners in Europe. Friction with France and Ireland, Britains two closest geographical neighbours, has become the norm. The position of England within the British Isles as a whole is less secure than at any time over the last 300 years, with the SNP dominant in Scotland and Sinn Fin likely to become the largest political party in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland in the next few years.

Yet it would be nave to attribute all of Britains ills to Johnson and his government because, like all governments, their control over events is less than they pretend. Much that has gone wrong with the NHS during the epidemic, for example, is because the health service was weakened by underfunding under David Cameron and George Osborne. But the root of the problem stretches back over 70 years since Britain has always tried to have a top-class health service on the cheap, leaving it with far fewer doctors and hospital beds per head of population than in France and Germany.

One damaging feature of the Johnson years is symbolised by the No 10 parties. They may appear to be trivial but they exemplify a feckless frivolity, a sort of Gilbert and Sullivan lack of seriousness, that flavours everything the Government tries to do.

What worries me is the casual political vandalism, Jonathan Powell, the chief negotiator of the peace accords in Northern Ireland, is quoted as saying. They really dont seem to care. I mean the damage they are doing to the very fragile political settlements in Northern Ireland by posturing. A similar disengagement from reality was on show when the Foreign Office failed even to read the emails containing pleas for help from Afghans with British connections during the fall of Kabul.

It is not too early to try to identify the main consequences of the Johnson era, even if he does stay in office, because in future he will be damaged and vulnerable and bent on survival. This might be no bad thing because his ability to do wrong will be curtailed as he loses his ability to take control of events.

But a wounded populist is a dangerous thing, as Donald Trump has shown as he spews out calls to arms to rally his core supporters. Johnson is reacting in a somewhat similar fashion, threatening the BBC, one of the few remaining British institutions with real prestige in the world, with defunding and sending the Royal Navy to stop refugees crossing the Channel.

There is an egotism and an irresponsibility about Johnson at bay that is breathtaking and it will probably get worse. He may not have started the decline of Britain, but he has certainly speeded it up.

See the article here:

Boris Johnsons populism may be muted, but it is still accelerating Britains decline - iNews

Patel’s navy Channel threat once again exposes the Tory’s militarist populism – The Canary

Support us and go ad-free

The latest Tory threat to use the navy to stop refugees in the English Channel has been ripped to shreds. This week Boris Johnson, possibly to distract from his partying habits, signed off on a cruel and inhumane plan to hand control of the channel to the military. But two security scholars have pulled this pledge apart.

Professor Timothy Edmonds and research associate Scott Edwards, both from the University of Bristol, published their critique in The Conversation. The pair looked at key Tory claims around the issue. But they werent particularly convinced.

Home secretary Priti Patel then told the Commons on Tuesday 18 January, that she had commissioned the MoD [Ministry of Defence] as a crucial operational partner to protect our Channel against illegal migration. She spoke of a blended approach which she said the public would support.

While the Ministry of Defence said:

Unacceptable numbers of people continue to make the dangerous Channel crossings and last Novembers tragic deaths serve as the strongest reminder of the need to stop them.

The Bristol academics debunking starts with the maths. They said that while on the face of it navy ships outnumber Border Force ships, this is itself deceiving. The Archer and River class ships which would be most useful are already in use as far away as the Indo-Pacific, Gibraltar, the Caribbean and the Falklands/Malvinas.

They added:

Read on...

With so many vessels already in use elsewhere, it seems unlikely that the Admiralty will welcome new deployments to the Channel - especially so soon after anannouncementthat Border Force is receiving money for an upgraded fleet of cutters.

So it seems that the navy lacks the ships for the task, and the political will to do the job anyway.

Secondly, the pair questioned how naval involvement would change anything even if the capacity was found. They also tested the underlying motivations:

Perhaps there is a hope that the Royal Navy will put some backbone into this policy, especially given that Border Forces union has recentlythreatened strikes if pushbacks are implemented.

But would the navy even have the authority to carry out the governments cruel and inhumane anti-refugee operations? Legally, this doesnt seem to be the case at all.

Edmonds and Edward warned that if the navy did start to push back small boats crossing the channel, they would breach long established maritime law:

This is enshrined inArticle 98of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea andelsewhere. The Royal Navy is just as bound by the law of the sea as Border Force.

They wrote:

The navy has already indicated that it haslittle appetite for such pushbacks, and any extra capacity it can bring is most likely to be deployed in search and rescue tasks.

This leads to questions about what the navy can actually do in the Channel. As the authors point out, not much more than they already are. The authors registered surprise at the announcement of a blended response. Because that is exactly whats already happening.

They say the navy has been increasingly integrated into border operations since 2010. One recent expression of this blended approach is:

The Joint Maritime Security Centre, established in 2020, coordinates the UKs maritime assets and helps different agencies to work together at sea. Hosted by the navy, it enables cross-agency information sharing through itsMaritime Domain Awareness programme.

So if this is already happening and has been for a decade we should question why Priti Patel is calling for it anyway.

Edmonds and Edwards proposed a different approach. They said:

The UK needs to move beyond populist announcements on the small boat problem and develop a response along three lines.

First, it should continue to develop better interagency operations. Secondly, it should foster closer cooperation with France and Belgium to help manage this shared problem of human desperation and misery. And thirdly, it should recognise that policing at sea can only addresssymptoms rather than causes of increased Channel crossings.

They added:

A long-term solution requires the reestablishment of humane and accessible refugee and migration routes into the UK.

The Tories have made a habit of using refugee-bashing and the militarist populism to distract from their internal problems. This latest call looks much the same. But this time the incoherence of such callous inhumane plans has been laid bare.

Johnson and Patel seem oblivious to the fact theyve blood on their hands when it comes to refugees crossing the Channel and instead want to talk the talk. But even if the navy did have the capacity to intervene in the channel, doing so does nothing to address the root causes of the refugee crisis.

Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/LA Phot Nicky Wilson, cropped to 770 x 440, under Open Government Licence.

See more here:

Patel's navy Channel threat once again exposes the Tory's militarist populism - The Canary

Faster internet speeds linked to lower civic engagement in UK – The Guardian

Faster internet access has significantly weakened civic participation in Britain, according to a study that found involvement in political parties, trade unions and volunteering fell as web speeds rose.

Volunteering in social care fell by more than 10% when people lived closer to local telecoms exchange hubs and so enjoyed faster web access. Involvement in political parties fell by 19% with every 1.8km increase in proximity to a hub. By contrast, the arrival of fast internet had no significant impact on interactions with family and friends.

The analysis of behaviour among hundreds of thousands of people led by academics from Cardiff University and Sapienza University of Rome found faster connection speeds may have reduced the likelihood of civic engagement among close to 450,000 people more than double the estimated membership of the Conservative party. They found that as internet speeds rose between 2005 and 2018, time online crowded out other forms of civic engagement.

The studys authors have also speculated that the phenomenon may have helped fuel populism as peoples involvement with initiatives for the common good, which they say are effectively schools of democracy where people learn the benefit of cooperation, has declined.

Other studies have shown that social media engagement has strengthened other kinds of civic engagement, for example by helping to organise protests and fuelling an interest in politics, even if it does not manifest in traditional forms of participation.

However, politics conducted online has been found to be more susceptible to filter bubbles, which limit participants exposure to opposing views and so foster polarisation.

We observed that civic participation and the form of engagement in the activities of voluntary organisations and political participation declined with proximity to the network, said Fabio Sabatini, a co-author of the study. Fast internet seems to crowd out this kind of social engagement.

Face-to-face volunteering in the UK has been in decline for substantial periods in recent history. It fell from 2005 to 2011 and again in 2020 as Covid-19 hit, according to separate analysis by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.

The new study, published in the Journal of Public Economics, gathered information from the communications regulator Ofcom about the location of local internet cabling exchanges, which during the period studied were a key determinant of data speeds. It then cross-referenced this with residents survey responses from the British Household Panel Survey and the UK Household Longitudinal Study about their engagement with social organisations.

The combined effect on engagement with organisations such as political parties, unions and professional associations was a 6% reduction in participation from 2010 to 2017 for each 1.8km closer to the local exchange someone lived.

The biggest impact was on political party involvement, while the impact on trade unions was far smaller a 3.6% reduction. That chimes with estimates of declining membership of the main UK parties over the period studied, with the exception of a spike caused by a surge in Labour membership before Jeremy Corbyns election as party leader in 2015.

The decline in political parties appeal when internet speeds rise compared with unions may be because political parties only indirectly safeguard their supporters particular interests [while] trade unions have a stronger and more explicit commitment to advocate for their members, the study suggested.

The effect on volunteering with organisations that deliver social care and environmental improvements as well as the Scouts, which have been defined by sociologists as instilling habits of cooperation, solidarity, and public-spiritedness, was measured at a 7.8% reduction.

These kinds of organisations have been defined as schools of democracy where people learn the benefit of cooperation Sabatini said, adding that involvement with such organisations also helped people to trust strangers.

The rise of populism has been linked to a decline in interest in public affairs and we thought that, being less politically and socially active, people may be less capable of interpreting political phenomena and understanding the complexity of the management of public affairs, Sabatini said.

While bonding social capital [family and friends] seems resilient to technological change, bridging social capital [politics, volunteering, unions] proves fragile and vulnerable to the pressure of technology, the study concluded.

This result is disturbing as it suggests that progress in information and communications technology can undermine an essential factor of economic activity and the functioning of democratic institutions.

Read the original post:

Faster internet speeds linked to lower civic engagement in UK - The Guardian

Wolfgang Streeck In the Superstate: What is technopopulism? LRB 27 January 2022 – London Review of Books

By and large, we know what we mean by technocracy: the delegation of public authority to an elite cadre with some sort of scientific expertise, their legitimacy derived from their superior knowledge. In a technocracy, decisions can be challenged only by other experts. Everyone else must sit back and watch.

Its less clear what we mean by populism, since the term is used for so many different things. Most current definitions share the idea of a people divided and short-changed by an elite, and who come to consciousness by pushing that elite aside, replacing it with a new leadership that has a relationship of something like mystical unity with the people. Populism, on the left and the right, promises a social unity achieved through politics and the state, overcoming division by eliminating the enemies of the common people the capitalists in left populism, non-nationals of various sorts in the populism of the right. While elite rule divides the people into self-seeking factions, populism unites them, in a struggle against those who claim to know better than the masses what the masses need.

In their attempt to understand todays post-democratic politics, Christopher Bickerton and Carlo Invernizzi Accetti note overlooked commonalities between technocracy and populism which, they argue, allow for an unlikely synthesis between the two. Both involve the replacement of an old elite, one that is seen as technically incompetent or parasitic, with a new one that is more proficient or more responsive. Both see political legitimacy as rooted in unanimity, involving the indisputably best solutions to indisputably collective problems.

Bickerton and Invernizzi Accetti suggest that technopopulism entails a claim to legitimacy on the part of new political actors who are seeking power after the long-drawn-out decay of postwar democracy the state-managed capitalism of the class compromise that began to unravel in the late 1970s. It promises to do away with the deadlocked factionalism, ideological divisions and party political corruption that cause the failure of contemporary politics to resolve the crises affecting contemporary societies. Technopopulism advises us to turn governance over to independent experts who are not corrupted by involvement in the politics of the past and have no personal or ideological commitment to old-style political parties. Policymaking is redefined as problem-solving, avoiding both the technical deficiencies and the social divisions associated with parliamentary democracy. As populist politics restores the unity of the people, that unity allows technocracy to serve the people by solving their problems.

Technopopulism, Bickerton and Invernizzi Accetti claim, is an emerging reality in several European countries where the failings of traditional party democracy have eroded its legitimacy. They analyse five such cases. Three of them the UK under New Labour, France under Macron, and the Italian Five Star Movement are classified as pure: leaders present themselves as neither left nor right, but separate from the politics of the past. The other two cases, Podemos in Spain and the Lega in Italy, are described as hybrid: Podemos fashions itself as a far left party and the Lega as a far right one.

A detailed discussion of the five cases must be left to specialists. To explain whether and how the technopopulist tendencies described by Bickerton and Invernizzi Accetti are present beyond France, the UK and Italy, it seems useful to consider the long rule of Angela Merkel, whose regime did have technopopulist traits, though what was presented as non-partisan problem-solving tended to be driven by quite traditional politics aimed at stabilising Merkels electoral base. Ultimately this project failed. All her technopopulist rhetoric achieved was to establish a temporary and fragile period of quasi-presidential personal rule under a parliamentary constitution. There is, it seems, no technopopulist cure for the decline of political parties and social institutions as mechanisms enabling political and social integration in a neoliberal society. Post-democratic politics, in whatever form, cannot pacify conflict-ridden capitalist society.

Merkel was always noted for her astonishing political flexibility you could also call it a remarkable lack of principles or ideological commitment. It was often attributed to a deep-seated pragmatism. She never seemed to feel the need to explain herself, to rationalise decisions by fitting them into a coherent political project, and made no memorable speeches expressing her feelings or beliefs in her sixteen years in office. She didnt waver from the fundamentals of the (West) German politics she inherited: membership of Nato, the EU and the EMU, alliance with France and the United States, a pursuit of open world markets for German manufacturing. But when it came to keeping her social and political bloc together, she was willing and able to live with stark contradictions that might have torn other governments apart.

When she was elected leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in 2000, Merkel aspired to be the German Thatcher, arguing for the full neoliberal programme, including the abolishment of free collective bargaining and worker participation in management. But when she almost lost her first election in 2005, and had to govern through a grand coalition a coalition with Germanys other major party, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) she soon discovered that she could attract or, just as usefully, demobilise middle-class SPD voters by appropriating social democratic policies. Then, in 2011, the Atomkanzlerin the nuclear energy chancellor who had invoked her authority as a physicist to tell voters that nuclear power plants were safe, reversed her position after the Fukushima disaster and decided to phase out nuclear energy, a policy of the SPD/Green government of Gerhard Schrder and Joschka Fischer that she had fought tooth and nail.

Another volte face came in the summer of 2015. To repair several PR blunders over immigration policy, to woo the Greens, and perhaps to placate the Obama administration, which was annoyed by Germanys refusal to send ground troops to Syria or Libya, Merkel opened Germanys borders to roughly one million migrants, mostly from Syria. While this met with enthusiastic support among the middle class, it caused a profound split in her party and both saved and radicalised the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD), which had seemed about to decline into insignificance. Without a formal mandate from the other EU states, Merkel then negotiated a deal with Recep Tayyip Erdoan, under which Turkey would receive billions of euros for preventing Syrian and other migrants crossing into Europe. Towards the end of her chancellorship, she was applauded as at once a supporter of open borders and a defender of Europe against uncontrolled immigration. She was also widely regarded as a model of environmentalism, even though her turn away from nuclear energy prolonged Germanys need to burn coal by more than a decade.

What enabled this remarkable sequence of reversals? The answer lies in both character and social structure. For the first 35 years of her life, Merkel was a well-adjusted but not particularly enthusiastic citizen of the GDR, before rising to power after reunification in the CDU, the most West German political party, in hardly more than a decade. During the 1990s, centre right parties like the CDU/CSU (the Christian Social Union is the CDUs Bavarian sister party) went through an existential crisis which many of them, such as the Italian Democrazia Cristiana, did not survive a crisis well described by Bickerton and Invernizzi Accetti. Such parties tended effectively to be coalitions, with members supporting one of three political positions: capitalist modernism, anti-communism, or Catholic-patriarchal traditionalism, especially with respect to work and family. These coalitions fell apart under the pressure of the accelerated capitalist development that accompanied neoliberalism, as international competition made capitalist rationalisation spread beyond national markets and workplaces, as women took advantage of growing opportunities for paid work outside the family, and as communism finally collapsed. (A similar crisis befell most centre left parties, originally coalitions between a now shrinking working class and a growing white-collar middle class, but now placing their hopes in what they saw as an expanding non-manual and entrepreneurial labour market.) Conservative centrism became increasingly unable to project a coherent vision of a good life and a good society to which all its factions could subscribe, and conservative politics found it necessary to distance itself from old ideologies and identities, and to attempt to move to a new politics free from traditional precepts.

Merkel turned out to be a godsend to the ailing CDU. Helmut Kohl had resigned as leader after his defeat by Schrder in the 1998 federal election. Indebted to none of the CDU cliques, Merkel was profoundly indifferent to attempts to define a new programme for a party overrun by economic, social and cultural change. She realised more quickly than everyone else that the old politics had had its day and that the time had come to try something new, responding to particular events rather than taking an ideological position, oriented to the present instead of a hoped-for future, dealing with one crisis at a time, unencumbered by principle or precedent.

Eventist politics of this kind suit a society that has lost its sense of location in a historical movement from past to present, and present to future. Theres no such thing as society, the much underrated social theorist Margaret Thatcher proclaimed. There are individual men and women and there are families. Unlike Thatcher, Merkel never lectured her public. Rather than demanding that people change their lives get on their bikes, as Thatchers minister Norman Tebbit put it she made the state seem like a service company, ready to fix peoples problems so that they could continue to live as they pleased. This helped to counter a perception of the world as fundamentally incoherent. No large plan, no holistic approach can be of help in such a world, only fast and flexible responses to dangers as they arise, carried out by an experienced leader with a strong capacity for improvisation.

Can this be considered technopopulism? In a sense it can. For the new conservatism, crises arise from disorder, not from a wrong order, and their handling should be entrusted to technicians in command of special knowledge, whether scientific or magical, or both (they are hard to distinguish for the political consumer). Merkel never claimed to be an economist, or a lawyer, or an expert in foreign policy or military strategy. She did, however, have herself described by her communications team, and sometimes described herself, as privy to knowledge of a special kind: that of a scientist trained to solve problems by analysing them from the desired outcome backwards.

In this way, Merkel presented herself as the embodiment of the hard-to-translate German concept of Sachlichkeit. The closest English equivalents are objectivity and matter-of-factness, to the extent that they imply an emotional detachment from the problem at hand, and a concentration on its specific demands and internal logic. But, looking at Merkels years in office, its clear that her dominant concern wasnt with finding the optimal solutions to specific issues, but with the age-old basics of governance: the building and maintenance of a sustainable governing majority a technical approach, yes, that addressed problems as they arose, but which saw them as problems of politics rather than policy. Post-ideological, but certainly not post-political.

When Merkel turned away from nuclear energy, for example, what she was looking for was not a safer method of energy generation but a stable government majority. It wasnt physics that carried the day in 2011, but Merkels now favourite science, polling, which showed that the Germans had had it with nuclear energy. The end she had in mind was not public safety but political realignment: a durable coalition with the Greens. They would replace not just the liberal Free Democratic Party (FPD), which was too suspicious of Merkels social democratic mimicry and too headstrong in foreign affairs, but also the SPD, which as a formerly socialist party must have seemed unreliable to this former citizen of the GDR and in any case was too big to be a sufficiently compliant partner. It was for a similar reason that Merkel, eager to shed her ice queen image in parts of the German press, allowed the refugees to enter Germany in 2015.

If we accept that this is a version of technocracy, was there also an element of populism? Passionate appeals to the German people were alien to Merkel, who seems always to have been keenly aware of the pitfalls of German history for German politics and the countrys reputation abroad. Germany and the German people were hers only to the extent that they followed her; in an hour-long audience she gave to her favourite television journalist during the open border crisis she said: If we now have to apologise for showing a friendly face in an emergency, then this is not my country. The populus in Merkels politics was not a German but a European one, though one governed and structured as much as possible along German lines, through the single market and, in particular, the EMU. Under Merkel, it was the Europe of the EU that was the imagined community of German politics, a nation in the making, forging the peoples of Europe into an ever closer union a community without conflict and contradictions governed expertly by a well-meaning elite.

In the German collective consciousness, Europe has long taken the place of Germany, which is seen as an outdated and outgrown political shell, an embarrassing historical legacy. Populist appeals to the German people are rarely made in Germany, except of course by the AfD, while Europe is frequently invoked as both the ultimate objective and the legitimate location of (post-)German (post-)national policy. Merkel herself may have preferred Europe for more than just historical reasons. The kind of political decision-making she favours closely resembles that characteristic of the EU: decontextualized, event-driven, legitimised by expert opinion rather than agreed through public debate and negotiation, with deep structural problems treated as superficial political ones. The politics of Sachlichkeit allow potentially democratic nation-states to be replaced by a technocratic superstate, and class conflict to be replaced by international macroeconomic management.

Merkels record, and that of her brand of technopopulism, was far from impressive when it mattered most to her. In three of the four elections in which she stood as party leader (2005, 2009 and 2017), the CDU/CSU did worse than it had at the previous election; its vote also declined in 2021. Only in 2013 did the CDU vote go up, from 33.8 per cent to 41.5 per cent. Four years later, it was down to 32.9 per cent, and four years after that to 24.1 per cent. If the hidden agenda of Merkels technopopulism was to establish a new bourgeois centre, extending the CDU/CSU vote by adding recruits from the Greens, it failed spectacularly. In 2009 Merkel broke with her marriage of convenience with the SPD to form a government with the liberal FDP, which had had its best ever election result, winning 14.5 per cent of the vote. Marginalised and humiliated by Merkel and her finance minister Wolfgang Schuble, who came to see the FDP as competing for rather than adding to their voter base, the FDP was voted out of the Bundestag four years later, winning less than 5 per cent of the vote. The Fukushima incident which took place towards the middle of Merkels second term, in March 2011 then offered an ideal opportunity for reorganising the political centre. Merkels Energiewende (energy turn) paid off in the 2013 election. But while the SPD vote also increased (though only by 2.7 per cent), the Green vote dropped, from 10.7 to 8.4 per cent, with Merkel getting almost all the credit for a policy change that was high on the Green agenda. As a result of all this, Merkel found herself forced into another grand coalition.

Her next opportunity to rebuild Germanys political centre came in 2015, with the opening of Germanys borders, to the applause of German Willkommenskultur. This, too, backfired. Two years later, in 2017, the CDU/CSU and the SPD vote dropped dramatically, while the Greens stagnated. The FDP, which had kept silent in 2015, rebounded, and the AfD, fiercely opposed to immigration in any form, entered the Bundestag for the first time at 12.6 per cent. Merkels overture to the Greens had caused her party to do badly enough that the coalition for the sake of which she had made this move was once again impossible. When she tried to put together a three-party coalition by adding the FDP, its leaders remembered how she had treated them before and bowed out at the last minute. It was only after heavy pressure from the federal president, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, an SPD foreign minister in an earlier grand coalition, that the SPD could be convinced to join a government under Merkel for the third time.

The 2017 election was the beginning of the end for Merkel. When the CDU lost heavily in a Land election in 2018, it allowed her to continue as chancellor until the 2021 election only if she resigned as party chair. In 2021 the CDU/CSU ended up on 24.1 per cent while the Greens won a record 14.8 per cent, but this, once again, wasnt enough to make up for the CDU/CSUs losses. The AfD vote remained stable, as did the FDPs. The SPD vote went up by 5.2 per cent, leaving it 1.6 percentage points ahead of the CDU/CSU, and enabling its candidate, Olaf Scholz, Merkels sitting finance minister, to become chancellor in a three-party government with the Greens and the FDP.

Merkels unhappy ending shows that technopopulism is not necessarily any more durable than old-fashioned centrist conservatism. Realising that the centrism of the postwar era was collapsing, Merkel had been grooming the Greens as a next-generation bourgeois centre party, but she couldnt overcome the logic of popular politics. There is no insurance in politics against bad luck, unanticipated side effects, or strategic miscalculation. Technopopulism seems to have a succession problem and a smooth succession is essential to the stability of a regime. Armin Laschet, the candidate for chancellor on whom the CDU/CSU agreed after a long battle, had nothing in his favour other than his loyalty to her and his promise to be exactly the same kind of leader. Anything else would have drawn her ire, as her initial favourite, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, could confirm, and would also have caused still more divisions inside the party. Even if we ignore the possibility that some centrist voters may have wanted at least a degree of change, Laschet had no way of proving himself. Without being chancellor, he couldnt demonstrate the problem-solving pragmatism, the skills of technopopulist post-democratic leadership, that had been the hallmark of Merkels rule, or at least its public faade. The only person who could do this at all was Scholz, who made a point during the campaign of presenting himself to the voters as Merkels legitimate heir, even adopting some of her characteristic hand gestures.

Bickerton and Invernizzi Accetti place their hope for a restoration of democracy on the rebuilding of political parties as intermediaries between particular and general social interests. Here, the book falls short in a number of respects, raising the question, rarely discussed among social scientists, of whether pointing out a problem necessarily creates the obligation to suggest a solution, however flimsy. Not every problem can be fixed.

Bickerton and Invernizzi Accetti are remarkably selective about the institutions that need to be rebuilt to enable a return from technopopulism to democracy. Before the victory of neoliberalism, it was taken for granted that in order to resolve the differences between competing interests, capitalist democracy required not just a functioning party and parliamentary system but also a system that made room for negotiation between employers and workers. There was wide acceptance of the idea that, in a capitalist political economy, trade unions in whatever form, varying from country to country could provide what the Norwegian political scientist Stein Rokkan called a second tier of government, one that recognised and dealt with the class conflict between capital and labour in a way party democracy could not.

Recently, democratic theory has focused almost exclusively on the state, neglecting industrial democracy. The assumption is that society-wide consensus will come about through rational discourse, as though class interests can be adjudicated by means of public debate and some notion of shared values. Trade unionism and collectivism are entirely excluded from the neoliberal understanding of the political economy. This, perversely, allows current democratic theory to do without a concept of capitalism, trivialising if not altogether excluding the fundamental conflict between those creating and those owning the capital on whose profitable deployment the fate of a capitalist society depends. The aim of state democracy, as contemporary theorists see it, is to achieve the normative unity of a classless society of equals. They imagine the formation through public debate of a consensus on the just distribution of something whose distribution cannot by its nature be just. Settlements between ultimately incompatible class interests under capitalism must come about through conflict, even if that conflict is institutionally contained by bargaining between unequals, not reasoning among equals. Rescuing democracy from technopopulist distortion without conceiving it as democracy-in-opposition-to-capitalism looks like a fairly hopeless endeavour.

This conception of a state democracy that produces normative unity is closer to populism, especially statist right-wing populism, than it may seem. Indeed, there are striking affinities between the Habermasian liberal image of politics as a way of overcoming dissent through public argument and the populist utopia of a people united in and by their belief in the collective values embodied in the constitution of the state. The desired result differs sharply middle-class v. plebeian political rule but what these conceptions have in common is that both fail to allow for the relentless obstruction and disruption of social and political integration that is rooted in the capitalist mode of production. Democratic theory without a theory of class conflict pretends that there can be normative unity despite material disunity a normative unity that is more than the manufactured consent described by Noam Chomsky.

Quite apart from Bickerton and Invernizzi Accettis implicit separation of political science from political economy, there seems to be a good deal of wishful thinking behind their call for a return to party democracy. While the disintegration of postwar party systems in the 1990s may have contributed to the rise of technopopulism, it didnt happen out of the blue, but was caused by the rapid progress of capitalist modernisation, which blew apart the precarious coalitions both within and between the centre parties that kept postwar democratic capitalism together. Capitalism, indeed turbocapitalism, is still around, and if a new kind of party system is to take over the mediating functions of its predecessor, the least one would expect is that it would reflect the disruptions that capitalist progress is bound to inflict on the societies it revolutionises.

Capitalism produces winners and losers, and democracy under capitalism must offer the losers a chance to make up through politics something of what they have to yield to the market to correct market justice through something like social justice. This requires a political space that provides a society not only with alternatives to argue about, but with a real choice between them. If that space is too narrow or restrictive, politics is likely to be diverted to issues of moral rectitude about which one cannot disagree without bringing into question peoples right to exist in society. This, too, is something that populism and left liberalism seem to have in common.

It is important to remember that almost no such political space exists for EU member states, which may be the most important reason that European politics, more than any national politics, tries to be populist and technocratic at the same time. Under the single market, debates on limits to the free movement of goods, services, labour and capital are pointless. The treaties between member states preclude any such limits and are enforced by a supranational court against whose rulings there is no recourse. If a country is also a member of the EMU, its fiscal policies have to observe strict guidelines and its yearly budgets must be inspected. Again, all this is excluded from public debate because it has already been decided by the treaties, which rule out any control of capital movements even across the external borders of the EU itself.

In the politics of a rapidly modernising capitalist society, while progress may be sought through Schumpeterian creative destruction of modes of production and ways of life, tradition may call for paternalistic protection and socialistic solidarity. This may cause a recombination of the factions of the sunken party systems of the postwar era: capitalist modernisers and the former working class, who now make up a new, often green middle class, on the one hand, and the old working class, the new precariat and cultural protectionists suspicious of modernisation, on the other. Bringing about this realignment may appear easier than it really is. Merkels technopopulism was a front behind which she tried to build a political bloc in which a renewed conservative party would play a dominant role a conservatism capable of getting a new bourgeois progressivism to join it around a policy of, as Merkel once put it, market-conforming democracy. But this required credible ideological content, which didnt materialise, presumably because a marriage of conservatism, turbocapitalism and democracy is so difficult to conceive.

In a growing number of countries, the resulting political void is increasingly filled by a new left, which disguises its own problem of coalition-building between economic globalism and national social protection behind public soul-searching for moral deficiencies in a permanent cultural revolution. The public sphere of capitalist democracies today tends to be moralised in a way that obstructs the formation of collective interests, which are replaced by safe symbolic spaces for self-defined rights-bearing minorities. Radical politics becomes reduced to struggles, often adjudicated by the courts, by ever smaller groups for control over their symbolic representation. Instead of coalition-building and majority-formation, postmodern politics of this sort gives rise to social fragmentation.

Merkels project of building a new conservative-progressive centre for German politics that would politically neutralise the class-conflicted core of capitalist society was always bound to fail. More than anything else, it failed because she was unable to keep the right the reactionary answer to turbocapitalist modernisation on her side, as she lost up to 10 per cent of the electorate to the AfD, a party she had to declare untouchable in order to keep her constituency together. But all her new political formula had to offer was technical competence, the appearance of Sachlichkeit vested in her as a person. It wasnt enough.

More:

Wolfgang Streeck In the Superstate: What is technopopulism? LRB 27 January 2022 - London Review of Books

Willie, Nay. Apu, Aye – The American Conservative

Heres a piece from The Herald, a Scottish newspaper, in which Parag Khanna, one of the worlds top experts on migration, says that Scotlands future is Asian. Excerpts:

Europe should view mass migration not just as a benefit but a lifeline, Khanna believes. The Wests entire discussion around migration is cock-eyed, he feels. We have low birth rates, ageing populations, not enough workers especially to care for our growing elderly populations and plenty of space. Europe should be competing in a cut-throat manner to recruit as many smart Asians as possible.

Instead, Europe has seen the rise of anti-immigrant nationalist and populist politics. You cannot simultaneously hold that labour shortages are becoming more acute and also hold that populism remains an immutable force because the truth is that the more painful the demographic and therefore fiscal circumstances become, the more likely it is that populism will have to bend to economic realities, Khanna says.

We tend to default towards this view that national identity and anti-immigration postures are the persistent norm and everything will have to hold and wait until a Great Enlightenment transpires. Thats not at all the case. If that were true Germany wouldnt be the mass-migration country it is today.

Around one million migrants arrive in Germany each year, and 13.7 million people are first-generation migrants. Recent elections saw Germany swing to the left with an SPD-Green-Liberal coalition, and the collapse of the hard-right anti-migrant AfD. That proves, says Khanna, that populism is more bark than bite.

In fact, says Khanna, populism is complete bull****. Italy, he points out, has more migrants than when Matteo Salvini [the right-wing anti-migrant populist leader] was at the peak of his powers. Khanna notes that after Brexit, demographics and worker shortages now mean its factually easier to migrate to Britain as a young Asian than it was five years ago and right under Trumps nose, America became more diverse, more mixed race. We should really view populism for the political blip it is.

More:

Western democracies need to change their policies for pragmatic, rational and self-interested reasons. If the West continues to adopt anti-immigrant policies, despite the economic and demographic pressures, migrants will still come anyway, only in an uncontrolled, dangerous manner, as weve seen in the English channel. Economics and demographics mean eventually Britain is going to wind up reverting to pro-immigration norms. Canada, with its liberal policies, says more about the future of the West than Hungary does.

The media has skewed the conversation on migration, Khanna believes: concentrating more on bogeymen like Hungarys authoritarian populist Viktor Orban than Canadas liberal Justin Trudeau.

Focusing on Orban flies in the face of the nature of reality. Says Khanna: Canada absorbs more people in a few years than the entire population of Hungary; Orban is on his way out, and nobody wants to go to Hungary anyway. We put all this attention on a peripheral loser rather than the greatest mass-migration story of the 21st century: Canada. Shame on us for that. We do ourselves a great disservice.

This is key:

In Singapore, where theres practically one Filipino care-giver for every old person, neglect of the elderly would be scandalous. Old people are treated with the kind of dignity [the West] can only dream about. Clearly, though, Singapore is far from a free, democratic society.

With demographic destiny staring the West in face, Europeans, says Khanna, should actually be the most pro-immigrant people in the world. You should want your parents to have a Filipino nurse in Dresden so you can in good conscience go and be a millennial living in Berlin.

Read it all.

St. Theresa of Calcutta once said, about abortion: It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.

We could say: It is a poverty to decide that a culture and civilization must die so that you may in good conscience go and be a millennial living in Berlin.

The reader who sent me that interview from Scotland said that its like The Camp of the Saints, except the immigrant invasion is portrayed as a good thing. Hes right about that. Youll recall that The Camp of the Saints is that dystopian French novel from 1973 depicting a mass invasion of France by Third World migrants, who are welcomed by the French establishment, and resisted with violence by a handful of French normies. It is routinely denounced as racist and in fact, it is racist. Back in 2015, I read the book, and said that it is, in fact, racist, repugnantly so. Yet it also tells some important truths. Excerpt from that post:

The Camp of the Saintsis a bad book, both aesthetically and morally. I was ambivalent about its moral status in the early parts of the book. I thought Raspail expressed himself more crudely than I would have done, but his cultural diagnosis struck me as having more merit than I anticipated, given the books notorious reputation. In the novel, a million-man armada of the wretched of the earth decide to sail to Europe from India, more or less daring the West to stop their migration. Most of the narrative focuses on how France prepares itself for the invasion.

Raspail, a traditionalist Catholic and far-rightist, draws in broad strokes a portrait of a France that has given up. All the countrys institutions and leaders across the board decide that it is the moral duty of all Frenchmen to welcome the armada with open arms. Raspail is at his satirical best mocking the sentimental liberal humanitarianism of the political, media, and clerical classes, all of whom look to the armada as a form of salvation, of redemption for the Wests sins. As I wrote here the other day, the scenario reminds me of the exhausted civilization in Cavafys poem Waiting For the Barbarians. A couple of years ago, Cavafy translatorDaniel Mendelsohn wrote inThe New Yorkerabout the poem and the poets political vision(Mendelsohns translation of the poem is in the article). Excerpt:

Cultural exhaustion, political inertia, the perverse yearning for some violent crisis that might break the deadlock and reinvigorate the state: these themes, so familiar to us right now, were favorites of Cavafy. He was, after all, a citizen of Alexandria, a city that had been an emblem of cultural supremacyfounded by Alexander the Great, seat of the Ptolemies, the literary and intellectual center of the Mediterranean for centuriesand which had devolved to irrelevancy by the time he was born, in 1863. When youve seen that much history spool by, that much glory and that much decline, you have very few expectations of historywhich is to say, of human nature and political will.

More:

The cardinal sins in Cavafys vision of history and politics are complacency, smugness, and a solipsistic inability to see the big picture. What he did admire, extravagantly, were political figures who do the right thing even though they know they have little chance of prevailing: the great losers of history, admirable in their fruitless commitment to ethical behavioror merely sensible enough to know when the game is up.

Raspail blames Frances elites for this too, with reference to the problem of multiculturalism and migration. He even waylays the fictional pope, Benedict XVI (remember, the book was written in 1973), a Latin American (Brazilian) who sells all the treasures of the Vatican to give to the Third World poor, and who exhorts Europe to thrown open its doors to the migrant horde.

The reader who sent me the Herald piece puts his finger on a fundamental and fundamentally dishonest and manipulative aspect of contemporary dialogue with the Left, and with globalist elites (some of whom are right-wing liberals): that they hold the truth of a claim to be dependent on who is making it, and why. If you are Jean Raspail talking about how Third World migrants are going to overwhelm a European country and fundamentally transform it by replacing the native population, and you believe this is a bad thing, then you are a bigot who deserves to be silence and exiled for making up alarmist, racist myths. If, however, you are Parag Khanna talking about the same thing, but you construe it as a good thing, then you are a hero and a prophet who foresees the glorious future.

Its a version of the Law of Merited Impossibility: It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.

UPDATE: Reader Jonah R.:

The grungy lower-middle-class suburb I grew up in was an amalgam of various non-Protestant European-derived white folks (Poles, Italians, Czechs, etc.) and a large African American population. It was a fun mix. By 1980, some of us had families that went back two, three, even four generations. Some of the black families went back even longer than that. Over the course of the 20th century, we had a sense of place.

Then came massive immigration. Im 52 years old. I go back to where I grew upI cant really call it homeand everything has been utterly changed by Asian and Hispanic immigrants. The area is unrecognizable. White people have been replaced, and so have many of the black people. I dont begrudge the newcomers their desire for a better life or their obvious industriousness, butmost traces that my people and my culture were ever there is gone. Its depressing and unnecessarily divisive, and it sends a bad message to younger Americans of any race or ethnicity: Why have kids, plan for the future, and try to leave anything for posterity when theres inevitably no sense of a shared culture worth perpetuating, not a trace of anything that will outlive us and resonate in the world, just lots of people having economic transactions with each other who will be replaced by other people who have economic transactions with each other?

Read more:

Willie, Nay. Apu, Aye - The American Conservative

Protesters embraced the cognitive dissonance of claiming to own science while basking in conspiracies and fanciful theories – Coda Story

Before the anti-vaccine mandate protesters on Sunday marched across the National Mall, event organizers prepared for their arrival at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. A row of inspirational photos of anti-vax activists was unfurled at the bottom of the steps pictures of an African-American family, an older Latina woman, a Native American man, an Orthodox Jewish couple, a woman of Asian descent among others.

In a movement associated with the far-right, where its leaders liken vaccine passports to full-blown totalitarianism, and at a demonstration where the mostly white speakers declared themselves not woke but awake, the organizers had clearly gone out of their way to also try to present a welcoming, inclusive context. In posters and in speeches, they co-opted the language of diversity to give the impression of appealing to a wide audience and the appearance of embracing mainstream values.

It was hardly the sole instance of cognitive dissonance at the demonstration. Conservative YouTube comedian JP Sears got the ball rolling, telling the thousands of protesters We didnt come here to agree with each other.

The crowd roared in agreement. The short, balding man in front of me turned to the tall, balding man next to him and said, Exactly.

There to denounce government vaccination mandates (and Big Pharma, the medical establishment, school closures, Bill Gates, fascism, CNN and surveillance) and champion truth and freedom (and vitamin D supplements, ivermectin, dissident doctors, parental choice and Joe Rogan), Sears and subsequent speakers repeatedly cited Martin Luther King Jr. as inspiration. Reminding the protestors that he had given his I have a dream speech on the same steps 58 years ago, King, said Sears, wasnt a mandate kind of guy. He knew you cant comply your way out of tyranny.

But behind their abuse of language and their warping of science in support of their unscientific arguments, the organizers had identified correct currents of concern: authoritarianism, surveillance, loss of privacy, digital tools of social control, experts selling the public a false bill of goods. These are legitimate sources of dread, potential threats to everybodys liberty and freedoms. They are topics deserving scrutiny.

But by putting these issues in service of their right-wing populism and viral disinformation, it begs the question whether any of the anti-mandate crowd speakers and protesters actually care about these things in the first place. Hours into the event, when all the soaring language of liberty and freedom faded and muted by repetition, what was left were true motives: influence, power, attention, and profits from selling useless medical remedies.

Organizers had been adamant that this was a demonstration against government vaccination mandates, not an anti-vax event. That party line fell away when the speakers took to the podium but it had been a crucial messaging tactic. Instead of getting deplatformed by social media companies for propagating vaccine disinformation, organizers quickly amassed tens of thousands of followers on their anti-mandate Facebook pages, galvanizing people to travel to DC from across the country.

But from the start of the demonstration or the show, as JP Sears described the rally vaccination hostility shared center stage with an anti-mandate agenda. The event headliner, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (son of Senator Robert Kennedy), warned of a coming apocalypse stemming from vaccinations and mandates. Even under the Nazis, he said, his voice shaking, Anne Frank was able to hide. But those seeking relief from vaccine tyranny will have nowhere to go. Another key figure behind the march, Robert Malone, a virologist and immunologist, peddled misinformation, fake cures, and compared the United States to a psychotic society similar to Nazi Germany.

At the March: Anti-mandate firefighters local media reported 200 DC firefighters attended around a giant flag they had carried horizontally from the Washington Monument; different groups of protestors giving interviews in Spanish; the Proud Boys, a white supremacist group, mingling in the crowd.

Demonstrators and reporters lined up to take photos of a man with a white, wispy chin-beard, dressed head-to-toe as Uncle Sam with a giant syringe around his head. One man in his early 20s wore a Guy Fawkes mask; another man stood on stilts in a grim reaper costume, his sign warning of the deadly consequences of In Pfizer we trust.

While the crowd thronged the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, around the edges, small groups held placards and commented on the proceedings with bullhorns, like an unhinged Greek chorus. One gaggle of people stood on the sidewalk, incessantly correcting the speakers that Christ is who matters here. We need to remember what Lincoln stood for, said a speaker. You need to remember what Jesus stood for, a member of the sidewalk group answered. This went on for about 30 minutes when, as three Hasidic Jews walked toward the Lincoln Monument, the group told them through the bullhorn to get right with Jesus you dirty Jews.

Another scraggly group on the sidelines chanted Darwin wins as protesters passed. At first, I took them as counter-protesters, an anti-anti-mandate carve-out. But apparently, no: they were anti-vax and anti-mandate, and felt Darwin was on their side. The data shows otherwise: Although Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness decreased with emergence of the Delta variant and waning of vaccine-induced immunity, protection against hospitalization and death has remained high.

Many of the protesters had drawn similar conclusions. Science is on their side. Speakers invoked Albert Einstein and Saint Augustine. While one particularly intricately drawn sign proclaimed I trust and follow my intuition & instincts discerning what is fight & true for me, most of the others begged the world to follow the data. Echoing the science is real lawn signs in front of progressive U.S. households, the rally signs urged people to believe in credentialed experts, but only the vanishingly small minority of medical experts who condemned vaccines and are unfairly persecuted by their colleagues, and realize, as one sign read, Galileo also was accused of spreading misinformation.

The pre-rally messaging of a solely anti-mandate agenda, instead of anti-vaccination, allowed organizers to focus on what they argued is the true peril facing the world: the loss of liberty and freedom to digital vaccine passports, coerced vaccine shots, and medical surveillance. Speakers cited the Chinese social credit tracking system, surveillance phone apps, and Chinas one child policy, which was rescinded in 2015. Protesters signs echoed the same concerns.

Much of that isnt viewed as over the top by millions of Americans, according to the Center for Countering Digital Hate. While about 75% of Americans eligible for the vaccine have taken at least one shot, conspiracies centering vaccinations, government mandates, and disinformation are on the rise. Since January 2020, the 153 most influential anti-vaccine social media accounts have gained 2.9 million new followers.

The number of protesters who showed up for the demonstration was far less than the 20,000 promised by the organizers. But in promoting he message of diversity and multiculturalism while simultaneously denouncing woke culture, in claiming to defend science while simultaneously contradicting it, in condemning authoritarianism, surveillance, and the theft of privacy while promoting right-wing populism and a conspiracy worldview that allows for these things to prosper, the organizers have struck a chord. Its dissonant, but it works. The next march will be bigger.

Go here to read the rest:

Protesters embraced the cognitive dissonance of claiming to own science while basking in conspiracies and fanciful theories - Coda Story

During the pandemic, conspiracy theories have run rampant. Europe needs to counter it with a public service internet Work and digitalisation – IPS…

Covid-19 is at once a health crisis, an economic crisis, a political crisis, a cultural crisis, a moral crisis, and a global crisis with no end to the crises in sight.

Since the 1980s, the hegemony of neoliberalism has generated a social crisis characterised by strong inequalities, in particular the growing inequality between capital and labour. More and more areas of society have been subjected to the logic of commodification and profit. The 9/11 attacks set in motion a political crisis characterised by a vicious circle of terror and war. In 2008, the financialisation of the economy resulted in a global economic crisis.

In the years that followed, authoritarian and nationalist movements, parties, and politicians became increasingly successful, leading to a crisis of democracy and the spread of post-factual politics. It comes as no surprise that in the wake of all these crises, a significant number of people have become susceptible to conspiracy theories, populism, demagoguery, and fake news.

The correct and important antidote to these developments is a renewal of social democracy in the 21st century and the liberation of society from neoliberalism. Todays societies urgently need a restoration of the welfare state, higher taxation of capital, and a politics of redistribution that benefits primarily working people with low and middle incomes. Of course, even in post-neoliberal societies with a strong welfare state and few inequalities and injustices, there will be conspiracy theories. But these will most likely be less strong and less militant.

In my study on the spread of Covid-19 conspiracy theories on social media, I analysed materials and comments from the internet. The study underlines that Covid-19 conspiracy theories often rely on a clear distinction between friend and foe and present Bill Gates in particular as an enemy. A crude economism is used in the discourse: Every possible action of individuals like Bill Gates is reduced to the profit motive, a personalising critique of capitalism.

We lack time for deep political debates on the internet, further fuelling echo chambers, polarisation, and the colonisation of the public sphere by commerce and ideology.

However, billionaires like Bill Gates are so rich they can afford and want philanthropy that actually reduces their wealth. What follows is therefore an ineffectual attempt at rationalisation by claiming that everything Bill Gates does is necessarily evil. His actions are necessarily always motivated by the interest and plan to accumulate capital and power because he is a billionaire and the founder of a monopoly corporation. There are no coincidences in this worldview; everything is considered the result of a secret plan by an elite.

There is no panacea against conspiracy theories: neither moral appeals nor legislation will suffice. The fundamental problem is that todays societies are highly polarised politically and the public sphere is fragmented by echo chambers and post-factual politics where people are not guided by facts but by ideology and emotions. The distinction between friend and foe, which turns individuals into scapegoats, is not only found in conspiracy theories, but in everyday media and political discourse.

The tabloidisation of media and politics plays a significant role here. Tabloids, conspiracy theories, and demagogy are driven by the logic of resentment, one-sidedness, and gut feelings.

The internet platforms through which conspiracy theories and ideologies are primarily disseminated belong to global corporations that are beholden to their owners profit interests. They have contributed to a kind of digital fast-food media culture that thrives on fast, short-lived, superficial, and advertising-saturated snippets of opinion and information. We lack time for deep political debates on the internet, further fuelling echo chambers, polarisation, and the colonisation of the public sphere by commerce and ideology.

The challenge, then, is to strengthen democracy and the democratic public sphere while expanding and developing the welfare state as part of a post-neoliberal turn. Public media have, on the one hand, been very popular in the pandemic as sources of information and education. On the other hand, their existence and the admissibility of broadcasting fees are repeatedly questioned by their opponents, especially by the right. For instance, in order to steer attention away from his own scandals (Partygate), British Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently announced that he would abolish the licence fee, which would inevitably lead to the break-up of the BBC.

In the media landscape, Europes greatest strength is the tradition of public broadcasters.

To strengthen the public sphere and save democracy, we need more public service media not less. The Public Service Media and Public Service Internet Manifesto calls for securing the existence, funding, and independence of public service media and the creation of a public service internet. This includes internet platforms as well as associated formats and services operated by public service media. This manifesto is already supported by over 1,000 individuals and organisations, including Jrgen Habermas, Noam Chomsky, and the International Federation of Journalists.

For instance, the public broadcasters ARD, ZDF, BBC, and France Tlvisions have jointly organised a public service internet platform modelled on YouTube, where new debate, information, education, culture and entertainment formats are realised with user participation. Public service media, unlike the digital giants such as YouTube, Amazon, Netflix, and many more, have a public mandate that promotes high-quality services and formats.

Scandals like the Cambridge Analytica controversy have shown that the Big Tech giants focus on profit maximisation poses a real threat to democracy. Donald Trump, Facebook, and Twitter have all profited from each other: one politically and ideologically, the other financially. European media and digital policy has tried for too long to imitate the innovations of Silicon Valley. This strategy has failed. There is no European Google, Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon.

In the media landscape, Europes greatest strength is the tradition of public broadcasters. These should not be undermined, but strengthened, expanded, and made fit for the digital age. Saving democracy needs public service media and a public service internet.

Conspiracy theories, fake news, online hatred, post-factuality, and political polarisation are expressions of the overflow of economic, social, political, and cultural crises and social contradictions. There are no simple recipes against these developments. To strengthen democracy, we need a paradigm shift away from the tabloidisation, commercialisation, and acceleration of media and communication towards the creation of a new (digital) public sphere. This requires a media and digital policy transformation and a digital-democratic structural change of the public sphere.

Go here to see the original:

During the pandemic, conspiracy theories have run rampant. Europe needs to counter it with a public service internet Work and digitalisation - IPS...

Glenn Youngkin wants to be the Education Governor but he doesn’t want schools to teach the truth – LGBTQ Nation

Possibly because the notion of Critical Race Theory is so vague to most conservative voters, when Republican Glenn Youngkin, then-candidate for Virginia governor, ran for office, he labeled himself as the parents rights candidate by attempting further to instill fear on the part of the white electorate.

He raised his racist bullhorn by declaring not only his intent to ban Critical Race Theory the day he is elected but also to outlaw the reading of the critically acclaimed and award-winning novel by author Toni Morrison, Beloved, which was turned into a major feature film.

Related: 64 things Joe Biden has done for the LGBTQ community during his first year in office

Beloved, a truthful and painful story of the lives and loves of two enslaved black people in the U.S. South, has become an integral part of the cannon of not only African American literature but of U.S.-American literature generally.

After winning the Virginia gubernatorial election and with the support of the Virginia state legislature, new bills to limit the teaching of our countrys true past have circulated throughout the Virginia statehouse.

House bill No. 781, proposed by Republican Delegate Wren Williams, prohibits divisive concepts from instruction in Virginia public elementary and secondary schools.While Williams made clear his opposition to the teaching of Critical Race Theory, the wording divisive concepts in its vagueness closes the door on the teaching of anything and everything conservatives deem appropriate and necessary to ban.

In the wording of the bill, Virginias social studies curriculum will be standardized (a.k.a. controlled and regimented) and educators will teach about, founding documents of the United States, like the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the Federalist Papers, including Essays 10 and 51, excerpts from Alexis de Tocquevilles Democracy in America, the first debate between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, and the writings of the Founding Fathers of the United States.

Even Virginias elementary and secondary school students, I would hope, know so much more than the legislators attempting to enact severe constraints on curriculum and pedagogy throughout their systems of education.

By the 5th grade, students should have learned about the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 in Illinois between incumbent Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas and Lincoln, his Republican challenger in the race for U.S. senator. The major topic during the series of seven debates included the candidates views on whether new states joining the union would permit or prohibit slavery within their borders.

In Youngkins inauguration speech on Saturday, January 15, 2022, he seemed to talk from both sides of his mouth when he promised,We will remove politics from the classroom and re-focus on essential math, science and reading. And we will teach all of our history the good and the bad.

Then within an hour following his speech, he immediately signed 11 executive orders including lifting the mask mandate for Virginia schools and ending the vaccine mandate for state employees in a school system and state with increasingly rising infection rates.

Wanting to be known as The Education Governor, one of his executive orders ends the use of divisive concepts in schools such as Critical Race Theory, which is not currently part of the curriculum.

One day later in an interview on Fox, Youngkin doubled down on his misunderstanding, the perpetuation of misinformation, and yes, the politicization of the teaching of the legacy of racism and race relations in the United States.

We are not going to teach the children to view everything through a lens of race. Yes, we will teach all history, the good and the bad. Because we cant know where were going unless we know where we have come from. But to actually teach our children that one group is advantaged and the other disadvantaged because of the color of skin, cuts everything we know to be true.

So, whom does Youngkin designate as we in everything we know to be true?

The Virginia governor and state legislature pose a great and common example clearly demonstrating why politicians cannot and must not dictate the parameters of what educators teach in the schools throughout the nation.

Professor and Executive Director of the Human Rights Center at the University of Dayton, Shelley Inglis, studies authoritarian leaders around the world and came up with a list of ten common markers characteristic to many.

One maker states that authoritarians appeal to populism and nationalism. While populism encompasses a range of political stances emphasizing the idea of siding with the people against the so-called elite and can exist on the political left, the right, or the center, right-wing populism co-opts the term and juxtaposes nationalist and nativist aims. This form of populism we have clearly witnessed during this era of Trumpism.

Another of Inglis markers of authoritarianism is the control of information at home (propaganda and stifling of truth in schools, the media, and the larger society) and misinformation abroad.

Though Youngkin is but a petty autocrat in one state, his influence has become immense since winning the Virginia statehouse. The larger Republican Party is taking several pages from his political playbook by first, straddling the line between embracing Trumps brand of populism while keeping a certain distance from the twice impeached failed president.

Secondly, they have implemented Youngkins successful tactic of scaring parents and other community members with the false flag of Critical Race Theory by banning age-appropriate truthful education of young people to the realities of our history.

While Youngkin promised to allow the teaching of our history, the good and the bad, the schools will continue to teach a watered-down whitewashed version of what students need to know to help our country come to terms with and begin to heal from the violations to human and civil rights of the past.

Before Youngkin won his election and continuing to the present day, since January 2021, Education Week has found that 32 states have either introduced bills in their legislatures or have taken other actions that would ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory or restrict how educators discuss racism, sexism, and LGBTQ issues in the classroom. Thirteen states have already inflicted these restrictions.

Just think about it: States are passing laws and enacting executive orders banning the teaching of how the states passed laws banning the teaching of enslaved peoples under the apartheid system of U.S.-American slavery.

They are passing laws and enacting executive orders banning the teaching of how the states passed laws banning voting rights of people of color.

These very laws and executive order banning the teaching of the true legacy of race confirms one of the primary characteristics of Critical Race Theory: that racism is a permanent feature of the U.S. political and social system.

These laws challenge any reality, any truth that contradicts the pablum we are fed as young people of the nationalist narrative that this country functions as a meritocracy: that the individual succeeds or fails based chiefly on their merit, from their motivation, abilities, values, ambition, commitment, and persistence, rather than on their backgrounds or social identities.

Autocrats have a vested stake in withholding the true accounting of our past.

Read the original:

Glenn Youngkin wants to be the Education Governor but he doesn't want schools to teach the truth - LGBTQ Nation

Freedom Township Trustee News – The Weekly Villager

Freedom Twp. 2021 exited quietly for most of Freedom Township including the Trustees. The meeting scheduled for December 30th was canceled for health reasons. Fortunately the first meeting of 2022 went on as planned. Newly elected Trustees Tom Mesaros and Charlene Walker (pictured) attended their inaugural meeting on January 6th.

The first meeting of 2022 was called to order by Trustee Jeff Derthick at 7:00 p.m. Present were Trustees Charlene Walker, Tom Mesaros and Jeff Derthick. Also attending were Fiscal Officer Jennifer Derthick, Road Supervisor Tony Vansteenberg and Zoning Inspector Linda Chartier. The first order of business was to hold the organization meeting for the new year. During this process the trustees select their chair and vice-chair for the coming year as well as set rates for town hall/community center fees, nominate representatives for various boards and confirm holidays/vacations and sick days for employees. In addition the compensation for Zoning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals members is set. The trustee board chairman for 2022 will be Mr. Derthick and Mrs. Walker will serve as vice-chairman. The special meeting adjourned at 7:16 immediately followed by the regular meeting called to order by Mr. Derthick.

The minutes for the December 2, 2021 meeting were approved. The Zoning Inspector Linda Chartier recapped the permits, notice of violations and cleared violations issued during 2021. The Board of Zoning Appeals did not meet in December.

In the course of the zoning report Ms. Chartier stated the address belonging to Dukes K9 Dash and Splash is still in violation of township zoning. Mr. Derthick stated that at this time Mrs. Filler is in compliance per the direction of the County Prosecutors office. If at a future date Mrs. Filler changes the use of her property she will need to seek approval of the Zoning Board. At the conclusion of the zoning report and period for public questions, Trustee Walker made a motion for the immediate dismissal of the current zoning inspector. The motion passed. An ad will be placed in the Villager and the Record Courier. Also an advertisement will be placed for alternates for the Zoning Commissions and the Board of Zoning Appeals.

The trustees then broke for an executive session with the township solicitor. Upon the return of the trustees a motion was made to return to regular session. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Walker.

The meeting continued with the road report and inventory report given by Road Supervisor Tony Vansteenberg. Mr. Vansteenberg requested $900 to replace the disc on the boom mower and $120 to replace the garage lighting with newer LED lighting. He also stated he would like to continue the cleanup of the township service area with the rental of a dumpster for $340. This fee covered a 14 day rental. Mr. Derthick requested a motion to have the County Engineer prepare and submit a grant application to the Ohio Works Commission for the replacement of the Asbury Road culvert. The motion was made and passed. He also mentioned the trustees should have new information regarding the Hankee Road ODOT grant in February.

Under unfinished business; the County Regional Planning Commission will be preparing bids to bring the ADA ramp and parking spaces at the Township hall and ADA parking at the schoolhouse into compliance. The monies to pay for these projects will come from the existing CBDG grant money of approximately $24,000 and remainder will come from AARP funds. Unfinished business continued with a discussion regarding the construction of an auxiliary pole barn building with a shed roof addition for the schoolhouse. The building will be used for storage and cover for picnic tables used for school groups. Mr. Derthick requested a motion for a budget not to exceed $17,200 be made a available for the project with provision the board of directors of obtain quotes for the project. Mrs. Walker motioned. Mr. Mesaros seconded. Motion passed.

In other business; the State Route 700 park will be closed for the winter season and the portable toilet will be removed. The park will remain closed until spring weather permits reopening. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for January 20th at 7:00 p.m.

Like Loading...

The rest is here:

Freedom Township Trustee News - The Weekly Villager

Breakdown of the Jan 18, 2022 RTM Moderator Vote – Greenwich Free Press

On Tuesday night the Representative Town Meeting held an election for a new moderator to replace Tom Byrne who retired after holding the position for 26 years.

Neither of the two candidates, Alexis Voulgaris and Brian Raney, are affiliated with a political party.

Voulgaris, who has served as moderator pro tem for four years, won in a vote of 150 to 67. She will be the first woman moderator in the history of the RTM and its first independent candidate.

Per the RTM member handbook, The RTM is a non-partisan, collegial body, and ballots do not indicate a candidates party affiliation, but there has been speculation that the 230-member non-partisan body is becoming politicized.

In the 2019 election for the RTM, Fiscal Freedom for Connecticut, created a scorecard ranking RTM members based on their voting records on issues including the plastic bag ban, mill rate reduction, and For/Against Tolls SOMR. After the subsequent vote some popular longtime members lost their seats.

In 2017, after the election of Donald Trump, a third of the seats on the RTM turned over after a group of women from March On Greenwich organized to field candidates. In all, 79 new candidates with successful petitions earned spots on the ballot.

Last week when the RTC held caucuses to elect members, there was an unusually high turnout of new voters and new candidates. After the caucuses, about half the 62 RTC members were new, and 21 incumbents lost their seats. GFP published the list of RTC caucus winners on Wednesday.

Last month, GFP published a breakdown of votes on Item 8, which concerned whether to refer the legality of a proposed ordinance to the Legislative & Rules committee that originated from Carl Higbies petition proposing to override state regulations requiring masking school children.

After GFP published the results from the town clerks office, it revealed there was an error in tabulation. In district 9 were votes not reported accurately to the town clerk.

Below is the breakdown of Tuesdays vote for RTM moderator.

District 1

Voulgaris: Katherine Ashworth, Jillian Aufderheide, Ed Dadakis, Fred Feldman, Lyn Garelick, Alison Ghiorse, Judy Goss, Alanna Hynes, Julia Lane, Brigitte Lee, Fred Lee, Jaysen Medhurst, Dan Quigley, Lihong Zhang

Raney: Carl Carlson, Dean C Goss, William Lewis, James OBrien, Marla Weston

Abstained or absent: Elizabeth Mills Sanders

DISTRICT 2

Voulgaris: Katherine Lobalbo, Mary Ellen Markowitz, Pragati Soni, Joyce Teevan, Eileen Toretta, Henry Scott Walter

Raney: Duncan Burke, Nancy Burke, Don Conway, Laura Gladstone, Wilma Naninovich, Aldo Pascarella, Erika Walsh

DISTRICT 3

Voulgaris: Louise Bavis, Martin Blanco, Tom Conelias, Ed Lopez, Andrew Melillo, Sylvester Pecora Sr, Adam Rothman, Steven Rubin, Alison Walsh

Raney: Rosalind Nicastro

Absent or abstained: Joan Lowe

DISTRICT 4

Voulgaris: Javier Aleman, Joshua Brown, Ronald Carosella, Andrea Casson, Elizabeth Eckert, Leonard Mackey, Robert McKnight, Romulo Samaniego, Diego Sanchez, Samarpana Tamm, Donald Vitti, Lucy Von Brachel, Bonnie Zeh

Raney: Seth Bacon, Alex Popp, Maria Madeleine Popp

Absent or abstained: Robert Tuthill

DISTRICT 5

Voulgaris: Eric Beiley, Joseph Benoit, Edward Broadhurst, Alison Icy Frantz, Paul Kramer, Lucy Krasnor, Lindy Lilien, Paul Olmsted, Charles Parkhurst, Martha Ozizmir Shoemaker, Ashley Smith, Joan Thakor, Peter Van Duyne

Raney: Alison Rogers, Felix Rovelli, Andrew Taylor, Catherine Whitaker

Absent or abstained: Christopher Parker

DISTRICT 6

Voulgaris: Sally Bednar, Tom Byrne, Marilyn Ross Cahn, Robert Carter, Nancy Dearing, Matt DesChamps, Carol Ducret, Daniel Izzo, Coline Jenkins, Brian Maher, John McShea, John Merrill, Stephen Meskers, Tracy Parsons Grossman, Kathleen Kathy Smith, David Snyder, Mary Tobin, Alexis Voulgaris, Victoria Martin Young

Raney: None

Absent or abstained: Barbara ONeill

DISTRICT 7

Voulgaris: Debbie Appelbaum, Kimberly Morgan Blank, Ellen Brennan-Galvin, Bill Galvin, Scott Kalb, Anthony Moor, Tara Restieri, Marina Rosin

Raney: Mary G Nanette Burrows, Thomas Cahill, Alice Duff, Elizabeth Betsy Galindo, Hilary Gunn, Lucia Jensen, Beth MacGillivray, Henry Orphys, Valerie Stauffer, Luke Szymczak

Absent or abstained: Wynn McDaniel, Doreen Pearson

DISTRICT 8

Voulgaris: Hector Arzeno, Lisa Becker Edmundson, Peter Berg, Francis Burgweger, Neil Caton, Irene Dietrich, Hannah Doherty, Christine Edwards, Dana Gordon, Myra Klockenbrink, Richard Margenot, Janet Lee Mchon, Cheryl Moss, Kathlen Myer, Jonathan Perloe, Caryn Rosenbaum, Alison Soler, Cory Williams

Raney: Jill Capalbo, Randy Caravella, Adele Caroll, Philip Dodson, Andrew Oliver, Vincent Pastore

Abstained or absent: Molly Saleeby

DISTRICT 9

Voulgaris: Claudia Carthaus, Donna Gaudioso-Zeale, Sarah Haag-Fisk, Elizabeth Porcher Hester, Mark Kordick, Lauren OKeefe, Joanne Steinhart

Raney: Michael Brescia, Barbara Darula, Patricia Patti DeFelice, Betsy Frumin, Carl Griffasi, Anne Jones Dawson, Abbe Large, Brian Malin, Brian Raney, Ferdinando Schiro, Jonathan Shankman, Jane Weisbecker, Carol Zarrilli

DISTRICT 10

Voulgaris: Jude Collins, Mareta Hamre, Sandra Harris, Brooks Harris, Katherine Hynes, Steven Katz, Debra Ciampi Kolman, Radhika Patel, Diana Singer, Alan Small, Louisa Stone

Raney: Gerald Anderson, Allyson Cowin, Anne Driscoll, Hilary Haroche, Ramya Hopley, Kara Philbin, Daniel Schreck, Sheryl Sorbaro, Jane Sprung

DISTRICT 11

Voulgaris: Nancy Better, Victoria Bostock, Adam Brodsky, Thomas Devaney, Susan Fahey, Tracy Freedman, Karen Giannuzzi, Dana Neuman, Richard Neuman, David Oliver, Ralph Penny, Nerlyn Pierson, Brad Radulovacki, Cathryn Fineman Steel, Thomas West, Gregory Zorthian

Raney: Laura Darrin, Margaret Heppelmann, Jan Kniffem, Kimberly Salib, Ronald Strackbein

Absent or abstained: Adam Leader, Michael Spilo

DISTRICT 12

Voulgaris: Thomas Agresta, Francia Alvarez, Craig Amundson, Glen Canner, David DeMilhau, Mary Flynn, Barbara Hindman, Mary Keller, David Lancaster, Chalon LeFebvre, Robert May, Ellen Murdock, Jocelyn Riddle, Jane Sulich, James Waters, Andrew Winston

Raney: Jeffrey Crumbine, Paula Legere Mickley, Aaron Leonard, Frederick Lorthioir

Absent or abstained: Abigail McCarthy, Miriam Mennen

NOTE: In district 8 Molly Saleebys abstention was omitted and has been added.

See also:

Voulgaris is First Woman RTM Moderator; Lobalbo Becomes Moderator Pro Tem

Tabulation Error Acknowledged in RTM Item 8 Appeal of Town Attorney Opinion on Unmasking Our Children Ordinance

Wondering How RTM Item #8, Unmask Our Children Vote Broke Down?

197 Viewers Zoom in for RTM Vote on Legality of Unmask Our Kids Ordinance

View original post here:

Breakdown of the Jan 18, 2022 RTM Moderator Vote - Greenwich Free Press

Florida crash of high-tech F-22 blamed on human error, glitches and tape – Tampa Bay Times

Several mistakes including maintenance, pilot and technology errors, plus a wayward piece of tape combined to cause a May 2020 plane crash in the Florida Panhandle that totaled an F-22 Raptor fighter, according to the results of an Air Force investigation.

Redacted results of a commander-directed inquiry into the $202 million incident, obtained by Air Force Times via the Freedom of Information Act, sheds the most light so far on what was behind the crash of one of the nations most advanced airframes at the Eglin Air Force Base training range.

Air Force Times first reported in October 2021 that the F-22 grew increasingly wobbly upon takeoff, then refused to turn left and barrel-rolled into the ground after the pilot safely ejected.

The service said last year that mismanaged cleaning of the jet caused its demise, but didnt offer further details. It was one of nine major F-22 mishaps in fiscal 2020.

The unnamed pilot involved in the May 15, 2020, crash was a captain serving as the 43rd Fighter Squadrons assistant operations director. The 43rd Fighter Squadron is the only Air Force unit that provides initial and requalification training for active-duty, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve F-22 pilots.

Problems began two days earlier when maintainers towed in the advanced fighter jet for its monthly wash to help prevent corrosion.

A crew chief was tasked with managing the wash team of four maintainers to ensure they correctly cleaned the jet. The crew chief periodically checked in on their work but didnt stay throughout the process, and inspected the plane once the wash was done, the report said.

According to the technical order, or maintenance manual, that tells airmen how to wash the Raptor, a supervisor needs to watch over and participate in the cleaning. But the only team member with training in that role didnt know who the designated supervisor was supposed to be. Neither did the other three airmen.

Hurricane Michael, the Category 5 hurricane that forced F-22s to relocate from Tyndall Air Force Base to nearby Eglin Air Force Base in 2018, was partly to blame.

The discipline and standardization of conducting washes in this unit suffered when operations moved from Tyndall AFB to Eglin AFB after Hurricane Michael, the report said.

Airmen saw no problems during routine preflight checks run before and on the day of the crash, though its unclear how thoroughly the jet was inspected. They missed something crucial.

Maintainers need to cover up electronics on the outside of an aircraft that would be damaged by water before they start a wash. But airmen left tape on a part of the F-22s air data system, known as a Beta port, that no one caught before the jet took flight.

The port, manufactured by Collins Aerospace, is one of multiple pieces that collect and process information about a planes activity. Then they send those figures to a flight control system that uses the data to tell the plane how to adjust.

Subscribe to our free DayStarter newsletter

Well deliver the latest news and information you need to know every weekday morning.

Want more of our free, weekly newslettersinyourinbox? Letsgetstarted.

A series of human and technical issues quickly piled up.

While the jet was still on the runway, an alert popped up to tell the pilot that something was amiss with the flight control system. The pilot ignored it and started to climb.

A new emergency procedure, instituted for the F-22 just 15 days before the crash, told pilots to abort takeoff if a flight control system advisory comes up during departure.

The pilot who would soon face that exact situation did not review the updates before signing off on the new file and wasnt aware of changes to the emergency protocol, the investigation found.

An official in charge of F-22 standards had pinged airmen on the Slack chat app to let them know the flight manual had changed, but pilots arent required to read Slack messages. Nor do they have to read the new material on their tablets in order to accept an updated flight manual.

If the pilot had aborted the takeoff, the aircraft would have avoided the flying environment that depended on the left Beta port providing reliable air pressure data, the report said.

A week after the accident, multiple other pilots tablets hadnt been updated with the new flight manual either.

In my opinion, poor (technical order) distribution practices failed to proactively notify the F-22 community of the existence (of) a new publication and any critical flight safety changes contained in the new version, Col. Jonathan King, the accident investigation board president, said in the report. This factor substantially contributed to the mishap.

When asked whether the incident has spurred any changes to how airmen learn of manual revisions, Capt. Sarah Johnson, a spokesperson for the 325th Fighter Wing, said the organization follows Air Force guidance and procedures for technical order updates.

While airborne, the tape interfered with the ports ability to sense where the F-22 was in the air and gathered wrong information about the planes position. The jet showed the pilot an altitude and airspeed that were off by about 1,000 feet and 40 knots, or 46 mph, the report said.

Typically, redundancies built into an F-22 allow it to still fly even when one component isnt working. The flight control system can determine which part is providing false data and turn it off, according to the report.

However, that backstop didnt kick in because the pilot was moving faster, and at a steeper angle, than what constitutes the F-22s happy place. The term refers to flying at no more than 1 G, 400 knots, or 20 degrees up; the jet was climbing at 480 knots, 5.5 Gs and 55 degrees.

The (pilot) was aware of the (flight control systems) happy place, but did not think about it during the departure, the report said.

Flight controls had permanently shut off one component of the air data system while the plane left the runway. Because the tape was interfering with another component, causing the jet to roll, the flight controls turned off a second piece of the sensor system to adjust for the pressure changes.

At this point, it was no longer possible for the (pilot) to recover the aircraft safely, the report said.

If he had stayed within the planes happy place and reset the flight controls, the F-22s computer would have instead shut down the taped-over Beta port to cut off the faulty data.

The (aircraft) would have been sufficiently controllable to perform a safe landing, the report said.

F-22 manufacturer Lockheed Martin ran the scenario through a simulator about 100 times. Each time, the report said, the planes wobbly departure caused the flight controls to turn off part of the air data sensors.

Al Killeffer, a spokesman for Collins Aerospace, the maker of the port, referred to the Air Force a query on whether the company has revamped its air data and flight control components following the crash, and whether related issues have affected any other jets.

Johnson declined to answer whether anyone was disciplined for their mistakes that day, citing privacy concerns.

The wing remains focused on a maintenance culture that ensures assigned aircraft and equipment are safe, serviceable and properly configured to meet mission needs, she said.

Witness testimony revealed that clear violations have occurred during other F-22 washes, too, the report said. Johnson told Air Force Times that shoddy cleaning protocols havent caused any other Raptor malfunctions.

The Air Force lost a B-2 Spirit bomber in 2008 due to a similar issue. In that case, rain interfered with the air data sensor upon takeoff and sent the stealth aircraft plummeting to the ground.

In the F-22 accidents aftermath, the 43rd Fighter Squadron made some internal adjustments to provide more oversight on aircraft washes, Johnson said. She did not provide further details.

The coronavirus pandemic contributed to the decay of robust maintenance practices as well. Leaders at the 43rd Fighter Squadron and 325th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron each broke into two teams and began switching between in-person and telework every other week.

Most meetings, to include pilot meetings, were canceled or held virtually in accordance with COVID-19 mitigation directives, the report said. This disrupted the normal flow of communication and learning.

In total, the F-22 mishap cost more than $202 million in damages, including the $201.6 million aircraft, two CATM-9 air-intercept training missiles valued at $32,000 apiece, and $850,000 in environmental cleanup costs.

- Rachel S. Cohen

Read the rest here:

Florida crash of high-tech F-22 blamed on human error, glitches and tape - Tampa Bay Times