Whitmer Recaps the Impact of Six Months of COVID-19 – 9 & 10 News – 9&10 News

Posted on by

This week is the marker for six months of COVID-19 in Michigan.

The first cases announced on March 10th, nothing has been the same since.

I found myself saying, Weve never lived through anything like this, and I feel like Ive said that time after time after again, says Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

Michigan has been through a lot in the past half year as it fought against COVID-19.

Starting as one of the hardest hit states, Michigan has rebounded and is leading the way to recovery.

That came with a lot of decisions made by Gov. Whitmer. The hardest she says was closing schools.

That was a tough decision, she says, It weighed heavily on me.

The most difficult fight? The pushback on mask wearing.

If we could get the politics out of simple actions like that.

And the criticism.

Closing down sectors of the economy, controversial nursing home strategies and budget cuts, many not popular but Whitmer stands by the science at the time.

If I could go on a time machine with the knowledge that I have today, says Whitmer, Would we make different decisions? Of course.

Thats the biggest thing, how much the fight has changed as they learn more.

Do you think about the incredible amount of knowledge that we have gotten about this virus in the last six months? says Whitmer, We know a lot more but there still a lot to learn though.

The biggest will be a vaccine, the only way out of this pandemic according the Whitmer.

Thats a very compressed timeline, says Whitmer, Ordinarily its a five-year process and if in the next six months there is a number of approved vaccines and they can start ramping up? That would be great.

With it, will come new challenges, like people willing to take a vaccine. Already many saying they wont.

Were going to have to give the public assurances, says Whitmer, Im going to want to know, before I take a vaccine, that there is some efficacy that is safe.

Originally posted here:

Whitmer Recaps the Impact of Six Months of COVID-19 - 9 & 10 News - 9&10 News

Opinion | Charlie Hebdo should remind us the value of free speech – University of Pittsburgh The Pitt News

Posted on by

Clement Mahoudeau/Maxppp, Zuma Press | TNS

A man raises a "Je Suis Charlie" translation: I am Charlie sign during a rally in support of Charlie Hebdo on Jan. 7, 2015, in Marseille, France.

The Charlie Hebdo trial is underway in Paris, and in response, the French satirical newspaper has republished the cartoons that sparked the terrorist attack five and a half years ago depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, which is prohibited in Islam.

This is a reaffirmation of the newspapers continued dedication to the freedom of expression. Following the killing of 12 people at the newspaper offices, as well as a police officer and four Jewish men the following day in a kosher supermarket, the attack set off a global debate about free speech and its limitations.

For Americans, the attack on Charlie Hebdo should serve as a reminder of the importance of the First Amendment in a time where it is being heavily scrutinized. Political correctness and the cancelling of public figures for views declared socially objectionable culminate in todays struggle for civil discourse something that has serious consequences for the American public.

Nearly a year before the terrorist attacks occurred, American comedian and political commentator Bill Maher was invited to the University of California, Berkeley, to address the graduating class. It was fitting that someone such as Maher, a free-speech advocate, should be selected to give the commencement speech on the occasion of the 50-year celebration of the Free Speech Movement.

During an episode of his HBO show, Maher, who has long been an opponent of organized religion, had made strong criticisms of Islam. Because of this, student groups on campus attempted to have him removed as the speaker, claiming he was blatantly bigoted and racist for raising legitimate concerns about the Islamic world. Maher would later say that Berkeley, the cradle of free speech, had become the cradle for fing babies.

Universities should be the bastion of the free exchange of ideas. Unfortunately, instances such as the Maher controversy and a host of other resistance movements decrying hate speech to silence voices is often the extent of the contemporary free speech debate in America.

Advocates for hate speech legislation should seriously consider the consequences should the wrong censor fall into power. Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment for precisely that reason, as UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ notes, and the many people who want hate speech laws would certainly not concur with President Donald Trumps definition of such speech.

If you determine that someone has the right of determining what is hate speech and what is not hate speech, I believe you give a dangerous kind of authority to the government, Christ said.

Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo wrote in 1937 that freedom of expression is the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom, but dissenters argue that it can sometimes be an impediment to another persons freedom and should therefore have limitations. The constitutional approach aside, the cultural implications of political correctness and cancel culture have been substantially more damning to the political polarization and national conversation in America.

Consider former New York Times opinions columnist Bari Weiss. While her colleagues allege that she brought trouble upon herself for mischaracterizing turmoil inside the paper following a controversial op-ed from Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Weiss claimed she was subjected to harassment and bullying by fellow staffers for her conservative views, despite describing herself as a left-leaning centrist. She claims staffers called her a Nazi and a racist, and she received comments about how she was writing about the Jews again.

But the truth is, Weiss writes in her resignation letter, that intellectual curiosity let alone risk-taking is now a liability at The Times.

Political affiliation and religion are two sides of the same coin. The difference between the two is that a person falls into risk of being labeled a bigot, or in the case of Charlie Hebdo, being murdered, should they criticise the latter. Organized religion should not be immune to criticism and generally that practice is implemented across the board with healthy discourse.

Islamism, however, has often been an outlier for the left. It is a concern that a political tradition about reason and egalitarianism is often afraid to confront the very ideology that opposes the values liberalism holds so dearly, such as freedom of speech. In 1988, there was a decadelong Iranian government-backed fatwa calling for the execution of Salman Rushdie, the author of the controversial book The Satanic Verses.

The fact that 28% of British Muslims supported Ayatollah Khomeinis bounty because of Rushdies novel, which, similar to Charlie Hebdo, depicts the Prophet Muhammad, demonstrates the importance to protect the right to criticize religious ideas without fear of being hunted.

Religion and politics are not the only troubled waters of free speech. The pinnacle of the debate is stand-up comedy the rawest expression of the most essential human right dating back to when Lenny Bruce was arrested and convicted in 1962 for obscenity, to which he would say, Take away the right to say f and you take away the right to say f the government.

According to The Wall Street Journal, A-list comedians such as Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld are refusing to play college shows because they believe the audiences are becoming too easily offended. Not only that, universities often present contracts forbidding comedians to use certain words or even broaching entire subjects, the Journal reported.

Take, for instance, Dave Chappelle a provocateur celebrated for his sophisticated and explicit takes on race and pop culture. His jokes about transgender people in his Grammy award-winning special have angered many people, however, and for this some have labeled him a transphobe. Whether Chappelle is actually transphobic or merely joking about another group of people is irrelevant he has the right to do so.

As Noam Chomsky writes, If youre really in favor of free speech, then youre in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, youre not in favor of free speech.

The night of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, thousands of Parisians held up pens referencing the pen is mightier than the sword and signs that read, Je Suis Charlie, French for I Am Charlie. Americans should heed warning of this act of terror whenever the First Amendment is called into question. For when Charlie Hebdo was attacked, the most inextricably human right was attacked as well.

Aidan is a senior majoring in English writing with a certificate in Jewish studies. He primarily writes about Israel, anti-Semitism and film. Write to Aidan at [emailprotected].

More here:

Opinion | Charlie Hebdo should remind us the value of free speech - University of Pittsburgh The Pitt News

Protecting the First Amendment would be this President’s priority – Poughkeepsie Journal

Posted on by

Ive decided to scrap this writing stuff and go into direct action. I am now a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. I know its a bit late but I wanted to make clear what I would do as President regarding the guarantees of the First Amendment.

After all, we cannot have a Constitutional democracy without freedom of assembly, speech and press. Self-governing calls for an enlightened public a clich, I understand but we cant even approach enlightenment without debate, discussion and reliable information.

So here are my Top Ten Commandments:

First, we need to find a way to dramatically reduce the gobs of money now spent on elections. A plutocracy is a society that is run by and for the wealthy.We are supposed to be a democracy, by and for the people. But in the 2016 elections we spent $6.5 billion.Yes, billion! Thats money that could be used for so many other important things.

Broadband funding a matter of establishing information equality

Communication key to toppling underlying issues in statues debate

Amid clash with Trump, Facebook should follow Twitter and protect freedom: Opinion

Instead, it pays for advertisements and political claptrap. And, more importantly, it means that whoever wins will owe his soul to Wall Street and the corporations.Its not a violation of free speech to tell speakers they cannot dominate the marketplace with their money.Level the playing field so the $10 speakers and $10 million speakers are on the same plane

The only way to make change is to overrule the Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United, which said that limiting political contributions violates the First Amendment.It does not. We balance many liberties. Find a way in Congress to stop the money madness.

Second, begin again to treat the American press with the respect it not only is insured by the Constitution but that it deserves and the people need.The press is not the enemy, but the friend of the people. We cannot decide important matters without its help.Stop threatening the press and encouraging people to not only to disrespect this Fourth Branch of Government but threaten violence against it.

Fake news is a danger and it may exist, but much of it comes from Russian bots, not the mainstream press.

Third, I will respect, tolerateand appreciate the right of and need for dissent.Football players can take a knee.Doctors in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control can disagree with each other and me; and my staff can engage me in respectful debate and disagreement.And non-violent protestors, not carrying weapons but signs, are welcome in American cities and on the Washington Mall!

Remember, the First Amendment says very specifically the people can peaceably assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Simply put, when angry, you have the right to scream in public! There may not be good people on both sides of the political aisle, but their speech and assembly is all protected.

Fourth, without question, the worlds most powerful tool, that international network of computers known as the World Wide Web, must be maintained as a neutral force. The internet service providers think Time Warner and Comcast cannot try to influence or drown out the messages of the voices they carry. They are public utilities make a profit, yes, but serve the public interest first of all. The net is neutral when it comes to the people that own and distribute its content.I will not let their foot in the door of controlling the flow of messages.

Fifth, I pledge federal funding and support for an improved computer infrastructure that is as important to us as bridges and roads and water systems.We need to find a way get the Internet to the 18 million Americans who now are cut off from the lifeblood of education and information, especially in the virus times we live in when so many children will have to be taught remotely via computers.

Sixth, we must return the Federal Communication Commission to an agency that seeks to broaden and diversify the ownership of the public airwaves, and seeks to lessen the influence of large chain-owned radio stations especially.We need more voices in our marketplace, fewer ones with vested interested in their political ends.

The public airwaves are just that: public and the public deserves better than one-sided information and talk and commercial overload. I dont support a return to a government imposed fairness doctrine, but with broader ownership of the air waves and a hands-off approach to the Internet we have a better chance of getting more reliable and balanced information.Make the marketplace of ideas work better.

Seventh, we must end this new era of secrecy.A Presidents medical history must be public. Tax returns must be shown. Full disclosure allows people to decide the fate of the nation. I will support laws that eliminate people being forced to sign codes of silence on matters of public interest and importance. Stop silencing and intimidating the whistleblowers.Democracy dies in darkness and insiders can open the windows that shed light on that deep state so many worry about.

Eighth, I will support a federal law, finally, that gives reporters and the press a privilege to protect confidential sources of information in federal law enforcement cases and congressional investigations.

Ninth, we must stop using the laws of defamation slander and libel as weapons of intimidation and silence. Of course, everyone, including public people, deserve the right to defend their reputations and their livelihoods, but defamation was never meant to be a way to silence critics. We need wide open discussion about public people and matters of public interest.

Lastly, the First Amendment is a two-edged sword. It protects debate and dissent which is often harsh and divisive. On the other hand, it is also a tool for healing.We have devoted ourselves to toleration with this document. We agree to disagree, and we defend each others right to speak, even when we disagree.In the end, the ability to talk with each other can heal our wounds and bring us together.Without that, we are no better than the worst of the worlds authoritarian nations where only one voice counts.

Democracys business is never finished. We need to just keep talking, discussing, debating and disagreeing.But in a way that is respectful of different ideas.The next President needs to use freedom of speech to heal not to inflame, antagonize and to go after his critics.

Rob Miraldis writing on the First Amendment has won numerous state and national awards.He teaches journalism at SUNY Paltz. Twitter @miral98 and email miral98@aol.com.

Read or Share this story: https://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/opinion/2020/09/09/protecting-first-amendment-would-presidents-priority/5753005002/

See more here:

Protecting the First Amendment would be this President's priority - Poughkeepsie Journal

What Is The State of Free Speech Today? ‘It’s Under Profound Threat,’ Says the Head of PEN America – TIME

Posted on by

For advocates of free expression, 2020 has been a deeply troubling year. In recent months, federal officers have been deployed to American cities, and the ongoing pandemic has brought a dangerous new dimension to the battle over false information online. Abroad, a draconian new national security law has silenced dissent in Hong Kong, while Maria Ressa, a journalist and 2018 TIME Person of the Year, was convicted of cyber libel in June. The implications of those events are not lost on Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America, a nonprofit that supports writers and journalists and advocates for free expression rights, and author of the new book Dare to Speak, which came out July 28. Nossel sat down with TIME to discuss her book and the state of free speech in the U.S. and around the world.

Are you concerned that freedom of expression is under threat in the U.S.?

Absolutely. I think its under profound threat. The President has made clear if it were up to him, he would have responded, and may still respond, with violent force to suppress protests. We have federal officers being sent to American cities against the wishes of mayors and local officials. Peaceful protesters are being menaced on the streets. The President just called for postponing the election. Were at a perilous moment. And this comes against the backdrop of a pattern of violations of the First Amendment in terms of threats against journalists and efforts to suppress books from publication. This is a President who is prepared to run roughshod over the expressive rights of Americans. And that makes the First Amendment, the courts and the conviction of citizens to assert and uphold their rights extremely important right now.

From a free speech perspective, how should we reckon with comments, some even from the highest levels of government, that are seen as encouraging violence against protesters?

Incitement to imminent violence is not protected by the First Amendment. But what I would underscore is the reason why we have been so wary of government intrusion on freedom of speech. We see right now, given whos in power, how that authority is being misused. Its only because that power is constrained by the Constitution that free expression rights are still alive and well. While people can imagine a wise, measured government exercising their authority to suppress hateful speech, theres no guarantee that thats the government well be dealing with. Its not the government were dealing with at the national level right now. Thats why I make such a strong argument in my book that increased government power to police speech is not the answer.

Twitter has recently censored one of the Presidents messages for glorifying violence. Can we trust social media platforms to police public speech?

I think we have great reason to be leery of aggressive policing of speech by private internet platforms. We know that theyre profit-making entities, that they have their own ideologies, that they cut corners when evaluating speech, and that their business model often privileges the most incendiary and viral types of speech. On the flip side, we see the grave dangers of speech that is weaponized in the digital realm, whether its disinformation that can pollute our democracy, quackery and conspiracy theories relating to COVID-19, or cyber-bullying and online harassment. So the question becomes, how can we move forward with a much more robust effort to contain those ills without impairing freedom of expression? I think one of the keys is transparency. We need to understand how these companies are going about content moderation. Individuals whose speech is silenced or whose accounts are disabled need to be told why, and need an avenue of recourse.

Why did you decide to write a book delving into issues around inclusiveness and freedom of expression?

In running PEN America I confront these issues day in and day out, and I came to feel I was beginning to see patterns and in some cases paths forward that could help break through some of these really pitched conflicts and help people recognize what the other side is talking about. I felt like putting this down on paper and trying to offer a set of principles might enable us to collectively deal with these issues more constructively.

How has the coronavirus pandemic affected PEN Americas thinking on freedom of expression?

We have been working on disinformation and misinformation for nearly four years, but mainly in the political context, and the COVID-19 pandemic has really illustrated just how dangerous false information online can be. But its also pointed in a hopeful direction in that [social media] companies have been more assertive in trying to eradicate false information and amplify credible sources. This points to a way these companies can direct users toward trustworthy sources on other topics as well. On the flip side of it, during this period the companies have also stepped up their reliance on artificial intelligence as opposed to human content moderation. Theres concern that there could come a sense of license for companies to vastly increase their reliance on automated moderation. When it comes to political speech, thats very dangerous, because its so context specific and I dont think artificial intelligence, certainly not now and maybe not ever, will be able to arbitrate the line between what speech ought to stay and what ought to go.

Free speech seems to be under assault abroad. Is there anything we can do?

This is a moment of democracy in retreat and authoritarianism on the rise. Reversing this trend will depend first off on a turnabout in the U.S.s own backtracking on commitments to democratic and constitutional principles. When people see journalists being brutalized in the streets of American cities and arrested while covering protests, and see individuals being pulled into unmarked cars, it becomes very difficult to criticize governments around the world that resort to those tactics. So the abdication of leadership in Washington has created an enabling environment for authoritarianism around the world. But thats not the main cause. You have countries, and I put China at the top of the list, that do not ascribe to democratic principles. As China becomes more powerful, they see a huge opening to promulgate their systems of surveillance and information control. The situation in Hong Kong is particularly poignant because its such a vibrant, democratic culture with world class universities, a robust media landscape, dynamic politics, a rising generation of civically minded young people showing leadership in inspiring ways. And all of that right now is being snuffed out.

Can we count on this administration at all to uphold U.S. commitments to free speech around the world?

I fear we have forfeited all credibility when people see a President who is retaliating against the press, when they witness professional news organizations like the [U.S. Agency for Global Media] being subject to punitive purges where staff is fired and political overlords are installed in their place, where the President threatens the use of violence against peaceful protesters. I think people around the world do recognize that this administrations approach is anathema for many Americans, and is a repudiation of what we have stood for imperfectly but more or less consistently for many decades. And the U.S. can in the future play a role in defending free expression rights and press freedom rights around the world, but our position is very much compromised right now.

For your security, we've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered. Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters. If you don't get the confirmation within 10 minutes, please check your spam folder.

Write to Alejandro de la Garza at alejandro.delagarza@time.com.

Original post:

What Is The State of Free Speech Today? 'It's Under Profound Threat,' Says the Head of PEN America - TIME

Censoring hate speech can backfire just like it did in Germany – The Jewish News of Northern California

Posted on by

Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms face increasing pressure to crack down against antisemitism and other forms of hate speech. This summer, the Anti-Defamation League and NAACP led a one-month corporate boycottagainst advertising on Facebook, and a group of British Jewsleda24-hour boycottof Twitter.

Nadine Strossen, the former head of the ACLU and a daughter of Holocaust survivors who is generally supportive of the ADL, believes such moves to censor hate speech are generally ill-advised.

In this wide-ranging conversation, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency spoke with Strossen, the John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita at New York Law School, about the best ways to counter hate speech, the limits and importance of free speech, new media, and more.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Jewish Telegraphic Agency: How would you personally define hate speech?

Nadine Strossen:For starters,its really important to understand that there is no agreed upon legal definition of hate speech in the United States the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently, unanimously refused to carve out an exception from free speech protections.

The label is usually used in everyday speech to refer to speech that conveys a hateful or discriminatory message, particularly about people who belong to racial, religious, sexual or other groups that have traditionally been marginalized and oppressed.

The classic example would be racist epithets, certainly antisemitic epithets. But its important to understand that people use that term very indiscriminately to refer to ideas that they personally hate, or political candidates that they personally hate. For example, Black Lives Matter activism is regularly denounced as hate speech. Advocating for the reelection of Donald Trump is also regularly denounced as hate speech.

In a conversation with Noah Feldman for his Deep Background podcast, you mentioned the idea of an emergency principle being used to determine what the government can legally do to counter specific instances of discriminatory speech. Walk me through what this principle is, and what qualifies.

The First Amendment protects us only against government restrictions on our speech. We have no free speech rights against Facebook or any private sector entity. There are a lot of people who are shocked to learn that!

However, this is not an all-or-nothing dichotomy: Hate speech is not either completely protected or completely unprotected. Rather, its much more complicated in a way that actually makes good sense.

The Supreme Court unanimously, for a long time, has held that the government may not outlaw any speech based solely on the disapproval of its content. No matter how much we hate the idea, and no matter how much we may vaguely fear that it might be dangerous in some way, that is never a justification for censoring it.

However, when you get beyond the content of the speech and look at the overall context in which it is expressed, then the Supreme Court has laid out what is often summarized as the emergency principle: If speech poses as a direct threat of imminent, specific and serious harm in the particular context, facts and circumstances then it may and should be punished.

And hate speech often satisfies that standard not solely because you hate its ideas, but because in the context, it poses an emergency such that nothing short of suppression will avert the extremely likely imminent harm.

If it is a less tight and direct connection between the speech and some specific harm, then the court says you have to use non-censorial tactics, such as education and persuasion. You only use censorship as a last resort.

I can illustrate the differences with a concrete example thats really salient to me as a Jew and to everybody who cares about equality. Thehorrific incidents in Charlottesvillealmost exactly three years ago, when thewhite supremacistswere demonstrating there, voicing the most odious messages You will not replace us. Jews will not replace us. Blood and soil. I mean, it just sends chills up and down my spine as the daughter of a Holocaust survivor.

But my organization, the ACLU, was absolutely correct in defending their free speech right to utter that odious message, and the federal judge was absolutely correct in upholding that right.

However, when they massed andconfronted others in a threatening way, brandishing lighted torches and other weapons at counter demonstrators, not to mention actually engaging inphysical attacks, that was across the line and could and should have been punished consistent with the emergency principle.

Of course, the outright violence itself is punishable: Even simply marching en masse with lighted torches and other items that could be used as weapons, including firearms, is clearly punishable as what the Supreme Court has called a true threat a specific type of speech that satisfies the general emergency principle; when the speaker is targeting a specific audience and means to instill a reasonable fear on the part of the audience member that they are going be subject to attack.

Even if the speaker doesnt intend to actually carry out the attack, if the fear is objectively reasonable, that already causes harm. Because the person whos targeted by a true threat is deterred from engaging in their free speech rights.

I would have been there counter-demonstrating if I had been in the vicinity. But seeing those people with their lighted torches I prize my life as well as my liberty. I would have fled. So I would have been deprived of my free speech rights as well as my freedom of movement.

There was anonpartisan reportafter the fact that was commissioned by the City Council in Charlottesville, and it strongly critiqued all the law enforcement officials for not having intervened and protected the counter-demonstrators at that point.

Is it common that the people actually responsible for maintaining law and order dont understand nuances of free speech law and the limits of legitimate use of First Amendment rights to protest?

The vast majority of people including all government officials, and all citizens, and all lawyers with too few exceptions are completely ignorant of the proven principles of free speech law.

So in my most recent book, Hate, I quote a couple of examples. The mayor of Portland, Oregon,justifiedhis decision to deny free speech rights in an open public forum to some right-wing speaker, and he publicly proclaimed hate speech is not free speech.

And other elected officials, including those who are lawyers, have made exactly the same ignorant statements. I assume that law enforcement officials are probably more trained than most people on what are the limits of free speech, and to what extent they should protect free speech.

But theres either a lack of information or lack of willingness to honor the information about what rights are, and thats why the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild and others are constantly coming to the defense of the rights of protesters.

Speaking of Portland, Oregon, this summer, weve been very busy. And so far, to the best of my knowledge, weve won all of our court cases that have been brought on behalf of not only protesters but journalists and neutral observers, because they have not only been not allowed to continue their activities, but theyve actually been subjected to physical force and violence by law enforcement at all levels. Thats a constant problem; theres just too much ignorance in general about constitutional rights.

Youve noted elsewhere that laws or private company policies designed to limit hate speech often end up being more often wielded against minority individuals. And it seems that this same phenomenon might also apply when were talking about restrictions on free speech that are perpetuated by law enforcement officials.

Is it something that youve seen historically?

Absolutely. Observation and international human rights organizations reveal that there is a pattern of disproportionately enforcing any restriction on speech, including hate speech restrictions which do exist in the laws of most other countries, disproportionately against speech by and on behalf of minority groups. This includes demographic minorities racial, religious, ethnic minorities, and so forth, and political minorities like dissident protesters. And that is trueregardless of whois doing the enforcement. Whether it is the government, a private university, or a private sector media company.

And the reason for it is really straightforward: We are talking about groups that are in a minority and therefore are never going to wield majoritarian political power.

One cant forget that over time, in general, the powers that be are directly accountable to majoritarian interests or powerful business interests and are not going to be disposed to protect the speech of those who are members of minority groups and who are advocating minority causes.

For that reason, many minority group organizations throughout U.S. history have, to the best of my knowledge, all opposed censorship including hate speech laws, even when those laws are allegedly designed to benefit their interests.

Leaders of the civil rights movement in the United States always opposed censorship and always supported free speech very vigorously. That message came loud and clear to me during the recent funeral observations for John Lewis.

He was such a proponent of free speech, such an eloquent one. I included one of his famous lines in my book: Without robust freedom of speech and dissent, the civil rights movement would have been a bird without wings.

And Martin Luther Kings very last speech was all about freedom of speech and how censorship had been used to try to thwart the civil rights movement.

The ADL, which was started to protect minority rights and to counter antisemitism, is encouraging private companies to crack down on free speech. What do you make of this impulse? Will it backfire?

I actually have close colleagues and friends within the ADL with whom Ive had the privilege of working very closely. To my knowledge, the ADL with only one exception has always opposed any government censorship of antisemitic speech or any other hate speech.

And many people dont realize that, because the one exception was one that was very well publicized that infamousSkokie casein 1977 and 1978. The ACLU defended the free speech rights of Neo-Nazis to demonstrate in this city that had a large population of Jews, including many Holocaust survivors.

The ADL was on the other side in that case, but to the very best of my knowledge, that was the first and last time that they took that position.

And when the internet was new, I spoke on an ADL forum in which they were opposing any government censorship of the internet, including of hate speech, and were instead advocating harnessing the power of the internet to engage in whats often called counter speech: If somebody is looking for, for example, a Holocaust denial site, you would reroute him to the Simon Wiesenthal Center and bombard him with information about how the Holocaust did in fact happen.

Perhaps the huge dominance of social media as such an overwhelmingly important platform from which people are getting information and ideas brought about the change.

To the ADLs credit, as far as I can observe, they are not in one iota reducing their very strong drive for counter speech. I cite them and the Southern Poverty Law Center every time I talk about these issues, because they both put out fantastic educational resources, all available online, for schools and for others, which I think and I assume they think is an even more effective way to deal with the inevitable hate speech that is going to continue.

I think its futile, ultimately, to try to drive hate out of these forums. The companies are dealing at such scale. I dont think anybody believes that all antisemitic speech is going to be taken down from Facebook.

Nobody expects that these problems are going to go away. I think they just assume, well, private censorship of hate speech does more good than harm, and so its worth pursuing. But I have the opposite calculus, and I wish that we would focus more efforts on information affirmative information, education and media illiteracy, because people are always going to be exposed to hateful, misleading, potentially dangerous, potentially upsetting and traumatizing speech. And so we have to prepare people to deal with that.

The other thing that Ive been very, very concerned about is that its very clear that social media companies are using algorithms to manipulate what various users see. And there are complaints that they areamplifying hate speech!Amplifying disinformation! Why? Because that gets more attention and makes more money for them, right?

Its one thing to say that we shouldnt force them to censor. But I think its another thing to say that they shouldnt be increasing the spread of hate speech, especially when theyre getting all this PR benefit from bragging about how theyre trying to remove hate speech.

We should maximize informed freedom of choice for end users. And to the extent that we are being unwittingly, unknowingly and without information let alone consent being manipulated by algorithms, in terms of what we see what we dont see, I consider that to be a deep violation not only of individual privacy, but also the individual freedom of thought and expression.

To me, requiring transparency and accountability and user control of the information feeds that were getting from these platforms would be a much more fruitful direction for regulation.

It seems to me, just looking at the scale of some of these social media companies, that theyre basically quasi-countries that arent held to the same rules that advanced countries are.

These companies are the worst of both worlds: They exercise full censorial power. From its public reports, each month, Facebookclaimsit is taking down more alleged hate speech messages than all governments added up together all around the world throughout history. Theyre taking down hundreds and hundreds of thousands of posts, a huge percentage of which are subject to appeal.

So on one hand, they have this enormous power, but on the other hand, theyre not subject to any of the constitutional constraints that restrain government power. Not only are they not subject to the First Amendment itself, but theyre not subject to any kind of due process. They dont have to give us notice of what their roles are. They dont have to give us an opportunity to argue against being removed from the platform or having a particular message removed.

Theyre not accountable, ultimately, to We the People the way the government is. So its a terrible combination of power without democratic restraints. And that power really can have an enormous adverse impact, not only on your individual wellbeing, but also on our democratic republic.

While I certainly support their free speech rights, and I think it does more harm than good to pressure them to engage in censoring disinformation or hate speech, I still am very, very concerned about taking other steps to restrain their power consistent with democratic principles.

For example, the European Union has very strongly protected data privacy. That, I think, is something that is positive from a users perspective and its too bad that we have much less strong protection for data privacy and surveillance in this country.

In your interview with Noah Feldman, you mentioned that during the Weimar Republic, there were actually very strict hate speech laws that were then used as Nazi propaganda tactics. Can you say a bit more about how that played out? Was there not a conscious realization in the body politic that maybe the more you crack down, the worse these things are?

No, I dont think there was that realization at all, and in fact, there isnt today.

I did a debate about a year ago with what I think of as the online censorship czar for the EU, Vra Jourov. And she cheerfully agreed with me that laws such as the German internet law werecoinciding withan alarming rise in the strength of the AFD, an expressly racist party in Germany, and with a rise in hate crimes in Germany, including against Jews and other minorities.

My conclusion from that is that these laws are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive.

And her conclusion is,we need evenmorelaws! And we need to make them even tougher! We need to restrict and enforce them even more strictly!

So I think theres just a basic philosophical disagreement and no amount of empirical observation is going to nudge people one way or the other.

But people have often said to me, Oh, the Holocaust wouldnt have happened if only Germany had enforced laws against all antisemitic expression without realizing that the laws that were in place in Germany then were every bit as strict as German laws now, which are the strongest in the world with the possible exception of many countries in the Middle East, and were very strictly enforced.

There were dozens of prosecutions, including successful prosecutions, against Nazis including Julius Streicher, the publisher of Der Sturmer. And it just became a propaganda platform for the Nazis. It got all kinds of attention they otherwise would not have received, and sympathy they otherwise would not have received.

And we see the same tactic in the United States. I dont want to overemphasize the comparison to the Nazis, but todays white supremacists court tactics such as being shouted down or being deplatformed precisely because it garners attention.

The Southern Poverty Law Center did afabulous pamphletfor students as it was becoming clear that so many white supremacist organizations were planning to organize on campus. And they said to the students, look,we know it can feel verymorally satisfying to try to shut them down,but youre just playing into their hands. Please do not do that. It is strategically and tactically unwise.

When were dealing with someone who is a master of reframing hateful arguments so that they seem more palatable, theres often an insidious slow mainstreaming of their ideas into media entertainment. Is engaging with hateful ideas any less harmful than outright protesting the speech?

As somebody whos always wrestling with what is the least bad response, I think what you are pointing out, among other things, is that even speech that does not satisfy the emergency principle can do an enormous amount of harm.

Many, many analysts say that its that more subtle drift,as you say, the mainstreaming that does the most harm. I mean, you used that great word insidious, right? I dont think horrible racist chants persuade anybody! It just persuades people that theres a real serious problem here and a lot of anti-racist activism all over the country.

But the more subtle stuff is more pernicious precisely because its sugarcoated and people may not realize what theyre buying into. And we could never censorall of that speech without completely ending ourdemocracy.

I spoke in a media ethics course in which they were debating to what extent you have a responsibility to cover this garbage. Because you want people to be aware of it. You dont want to whitewash it.

But on the other hand, if you do that, you have a very severe danger of glorifying it and amplifying it. So its a really difficult question to which there is no perfect answer. And certainly prohibiting that kind of coverage would be unthinkable in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of the press and democratic principles.

Were never going to eradicate the dangerous speech. We have to take it as a given.And we have to equip members of our society to encounter it, and deal with it, and resist it in affirmative ways.

Building resilience, building their own research capabilities, building their own ability to not be insulted but rather to look down on the people who are trying to insult them; building a sensibility of coming to support anybody else who was denigrated, proactively educating people in ways so they will be resistant to this kind of propaganda and attentive to it and refute it, these are all important steps.

Are attempts to get someone canceled any more effective at actually stopping these sort of hateful ideas from metastasizing? Or does this also fuel the intended targets?

I very, very strongly oppose cancel culture. But cancel culture itselfis an exercise of free speech.

Now, where doeseven the most vigorous robustcriticism of hateful ideas and counter speech end and inappropriate cancel culture bullying intimidationbegin? I think the basic distinction is that robust, even highly critical,defamatory freedom of speech seeks to prolongthe debate to engage the person whose ideas you dislike, whereas cancel culture seeks to end the debate and intends to use not analysis or evidence or reasoning, but conclusoryepithets that the idea or person is racist and seeks not only to end the debate but to end the speakers participation in the debate.

I love the term historic humility that you used in aninterviewwhen discussing our misunderstanding of social medias power. Is there anything truly different about social medias ability to perpetuate terribly hateful and harmful ideas?

I usethat phrase constantly. And I also use a counterpart phrase, historical hubris. On issue after issue, we have historical hubris.

And Ive heard the purported dangers about every new medium thats come to my attention, starting with cable television, talk radio, video games and then the internet.

Every single one brought on this notion of, never before has a medium reached so many, including so many children, and those are going to be especially vulnerable!

The same thing was encountered with the invention of the radio or the telephone, in the 20th century, not to mention the printing press.

If you look back at all of the attempts to censor other media when they were seen as being equally dangerousin their heyday, we now look back and say, well, that was completely wrong. The censorshipdid more harm than good.

And I think the same thing happened with the web. So far, there has not been direct government censorship of social media. But there has been this enormous pressure from politicians and citizens to pressure social media to engage in more censorship.

Those of us who are trying to exert counter-pressure are asmall minority, unfortunately.

Read the original here:

Censoring hate speech can backfire just like it did in Germany - The Jewish News of Northern California

Anti-Semitism on the rise as new semester starts – Inside Higher Ed

Posted on by

For Jewish students at the University of Delaware, the fall semester was preceded by heightened anxiety and worries about returning to campus. Not because of the coronavirus pandemic, but because two weeks ago an arsonist set fire to the universitys Chabad Center, which many students considered a home away from home and a safe space to celebrate their Jewish identity and culture.

Talia Feldman, a senior and student leader in the universitys Hillel and Chabad organizations, said she was shocked and confused to learn on the morning of Aug.26 that the center had been destroyed by fire overnight. Feldman said she thought about the hundreds of hours she had spent hanging out, attending meetings and having meals or Shabbat dinner every Friday evening in the small blue house in Newark.

I definitely have a lot of memories in that house, and its really crazy for me that its gone, she said.

While both Hillel and Chabad have centers on campuses across the country, Chabad is based around more traditional religious and cultural aspects of Judaism, while Hillel is more of a social organization for Jewish students that also incorporates religion and culture.

Officials said the fire at the Chabad Center at Delaware caused an estimated $200,000 in damage but that there is currently no indication it was a hate crime, according to a press release from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Baltimore Field Division, which is investigating the incident. Donna Schwartz, executive director of UD Hillel, said whether or not the fire is officially determined to be an act of anti-Semitism, it feels like one to the Jewish community.

No matter what, it feels like a hate crime, and thats a problem, Schwartz said. Its a Jewish organization. There are thousands upon thousands of houses in Newark. Why that house?

The fire and verbal and online harassment targeting Jewish students over the past month are part of a larger trend of rising anti-Semitic incidents at higher ed institutions, Jewish college community leaders say. Hillel, an international Jewish student organization, recently reported that anti-Semitic incidents reached an all-time high of 178 during the 2019-20 academic year at the 550 colleges and universities in North America the organization serves. Anti-Semitism on college campuses has been rising significantly since 2016, according to the Anti-Defamation League.

Theres more of a heightened anxiety on campus and around the country. Its not specific to our campus, Schwartz said. Youre seeing it on the news, in tweets and social media posts, and its hard not to continuously think about that. College campuses are just sort of a great breeding ground for it.

Schwartz said in an email that Jewish people are also on "high alert" for anti-Semitic acts around significant Jewish holidays, two of which are later this month and typically occur near the start of the academic year. Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, is on Sept.19 and 20, and Yom Kippur, a day of atonement, is on Sept.28.

Mark Rotenberg, Hillel International's vice president of university initiatives and legal affairs and a law professor at American University, said the rise in anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish students, including many incidents of online harassment, have come from both far right and far left ideological orientations, such as white supremacists and those who accuse pro-Israel students of being Zionist racists.

There is a distinct difference between free speech criticizing Israels relations with nations in the Middle East or Israeli policies that affect Palestinian people and personal attacks on students for their support of Israel or Jewish identity, said Rotenberg, who is also former general counsel for the University of Minnesota and Johns Hopkins University.

No one is suggesting that universities should in any respect suppress the values of academic freedom and free speech, but singling out individual students and groups of students for attack is an entirely different matter, Rotenberg said. Thats the line that separates robust, critical engagement on policy questions from unacceptable and unlawful targeting of individual students.

In one such incident in early August, Rose Ritch, former vice president of the Undergraduate Student Government at the University of Southern California, felt she was forced to step down from her position after she was harassed and pressured by students who called her a racist for her support of Israel and launched a campaign to impeach her, a letter by Ritch posted on Facebook said. These students felt her support for Israel made her unsuitable to be a student leader, and the rhetoric they used played into the oldest stereotypes of Jews, including accusations of having dual loyalty to the United States and Israel and holding all Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, she wrote.

The sad reality is that my story is not uncommon on college campuses, Ritch wrote in the letter. Across the country, Zionist students are being asked to disavow their identities or beliefs to enter many spaces on their campuses. My Zionism should not and cannot disqualify me from being a leader on campus, nor should others presume what that means about my position on social justice issues.

USC president Carol Folt called the incident unacceptable in a Aug.6 message to students, staff and faculty members and wrote that it is critically important to state explicitly and unequivocally that anti-Semitism in all of its forms is a profound betrayal of our principles and has no place at the university. Forty-three faculty members condemned the incident in a letter to the USC community on Aug.30. The faculty members reject in the strongest possible terms any and all attempts to associate Zionism with such inflammatory accusations as racism, colonialism, and white supremacy, which are diametrically antithetical to Zionist ideas and aims, the letter said.

Folt said in her message that USC still grapples with a history of anti-Semitism and announced the university had launched a new initiative, Stronger Than Hate, to address biases against marginalized students through educational programming and conversations about culture and identity.

Over the last several years, incidents of anti-Semitism in American higher education have dramatically increased, and anti-Semitic attacks remain the most common religiously motivated hate crime in the United States, Folt wrote. As a result, this has been an extremely painful period for our Jewish community It is more important now than ever for our university to serve as a global beacon of belonging.

Rotenberg said far too often, university administrators do not call out anti-Semitism for what it is and do not take steps to prevent incidents from occurring, such as providing education programs that help students and staff members understand how anti-Semitism manifests on their campuses in 2020. Jewish students are fed up with being marginalized and want college administrators to call it out when it occurs rather than put out plain vanilla statements about overall commitments to diversity and inclusion.

Danny Goldberg, who is Jewish and a second-year law student at Arizona State University in Tempe, Ariz., is advocating for university leadership and others on campus to speak up about anti-Semitism after posters praising Hitler were discovered on campus on Aug.30 for the second consecutive year. The posters were immediately removed and campus police were made aware of the incident and are investigating, a university statement issued Aug.31 said.

"ASU is a community that values diversity, tolerance, respect and inclusion," the statement said. "We support open debate and honest disagreements and we reject and will not accept antisemitism or hateful rhetoric of any kind."

Michael Crow, the university's president, also spoke about the posters during a student forum on Sept.3, calling them anti-Semitic.

Goldberg is glad administrators spoke out and were unequivocal. He said anti-Semitism can become acceptable on campuses if incidents are not clearly and vocally condemned. Doing so is especially important to help non-Jewish students, who may not as easily identify certain language or acts as being anti-Semitic, understand the hurt and impact of such actions, he said.

Right now, words really do matter, and we have to call out anti-Semitism whenever and wherever it shows up, he said. We have to speak up no matter how small the incident is Its important to use the word anti-Semitism, because if not, its only normalizing the behavior.

Hillel recently launched the Campus Climate Initiative, a pilot program for university leaders to learn how to best address and prevent anti-Semitic incidents on campus. The program will partner with administrators and higher education organizations, such as the American Council on Education, said Rotenberg, who is leading the initiative. Among the goals is to have condemnation of anti-Semitism explicitly incorporated into existing mission statements, values and structures for antiracism, inclusion and equity, he said.

Proposed improvements of campus climate will vary from campus to campus based on their current climate, but some examples could include implementing better reporting structures for bias incidents against Jewish or pro-Israel students to ensure colleges are tracking them properly, Rotenberg said. The initiative will also aim to inform student affairs officials on where to draw lines between freedom of speech and direct anti-Semitic harassment and how to condemn such speech within the boundaries of the First Amendment, which allows officials to speak out against rhetoric that is antithetical to institutional values, he said.

In the context of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic expressions of anti-Zionism, theres less familiarity with how to draw these lines, Rotenberg said. Some administrators might say, Well, maybe the Jewish students should just get some tougher skin. Theyre condemning Israel and Zionism, and thats part of the rough and tumble of academic discourse.

Rabbi Avremel Vogel, who leads the University of Delaware Chabad Center, said its going to take more than just making statements to stem rising anti-Semitism. Officials must work to remove the hate but also replace it with understanding and acceptance of the Jewish community, if they are to actively prevent future anti-Semitic acts, he said.

Vogel said the overwhelming tragedy of the destruction of the Chabad Center at the university has been quickly overshadowed by support for Jewish students from the Newark community and people across the country. A GoFundMe page started by UD Chabads Student Board to raise money to rebuild the center had received about $533,000 in donations by Sept.7.

Former United States vice president Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic nominee for U.S. president, who is a UD alumnus, called the Chabad Center arson deeply disturbing and noted the rise in anti-Semitism across the country on Twitter. Dennis Assanis, president of the university, and Jos-Luis Riera, vice president for student life, called the arson upsetting and offered support services in an email on Aug.26 to students and staff members. Vogel said there would be further public response from UD if the incident is declared a hate crime.

We as the community feel attacked, but that doesnt mean the intent of the person was to attack us specifically, Vogel said. But thats not the important part. At the end of the day, this Jewish house for students on campus is gone, and they take that as a personal attack If hate is going to strike us down, were going to get back up and be bigger and better and provide a space for more students.

View original post here:

Anti-Semitism on the rise as new semester starts - Inside Higher Ed

Commentary: Millennials are breaking the taboos on discussing salaries – Bend Bulletin

Posted on by

If youre a worker today and you ask about your co-workers pay, you might be asked to pack up your belongings and shown the door.

A decade ago, the Institute for Womens Policy Research , or IWPR, conducted the first national survey that asked workers whether their bosses allowed them to discuss wages and salaries. Results revealed that half of all workers and approximately two-thirds of private sector workers were either formally banned or discouraged from talking about pay. Since 2010, 10 states and D.C. have passed legislation penalizing employers who retain these pay secrecy policies.

In 2017 and 2018, a team of us myself, Patrick Denice of Western University and Shengwei Sun, who recently joined IWPR partnered with the research firm GfK and expanded on IWPRs initial efforts. We surveyed nearly 2,600 full-time workers . Our findings indicate that these state-level efforts, and all the ongoing national attention to the issue of pay secrecy in the contemporary workplace, have proved ineffective.

Overall, half of full-time workers today labor under a pay secrecy policy of some sort. Among nonunion workers in the private sector, two-thirds cant exercise their free speech rights to disclose their own pay or ask about their peers pay. An analysis limited to those states that have taken action on the issue indicates employers have hardly noticed: Over 40 % of the working population remains subject to a pay secrecy policy.

One reason for the lack of movement? The enduring social norm against discussing wages and salaries. We asked those subject to a pay secrecy policy whether they supported this infringement of their free speech rights. The overwhelming majority said yes.

But there are emerging cracks . Our survey indicates that one group in particular is more likely to discuss pay with colleagues, more likely to know what their colleagues earn and more likely to reject the salary taboo explicitly: millennials.

What about those respondents subject to a pay secrecy policy? Our data reveal that millennials are more likely to violate the restriction. Among workers either discouraged or formally prohibited from talking about pay, over half of millennials report discussing pay with their colleagues, compared to just 26 % of baby boomers.

Is this simply a case of a broader embrace of an oversharing, extremely transparent lifestyle among a group that came of age in a landscape saturated by social media? Could be. But we argue for a different interpretation. Combined with their strong support for organized labor and willingness to vote for socialist political candidates, we contend that millennials rejection of pay secrecy rules reflects a set of workplace dynamics that our youngest workers recognize as fundamentally broken.

The basic underpinnings of the normative employment contract, as the sociologist Beth Rubin has termed it, that structured labor markets when past generations began their careers have eroded. The oldest millennials began their careers too late to enjoy the late-1990s economic expansion, and instead saw their incomes fall during the lost decade of the aughts. The youngest, meanwhile, finished schooling and embarked on careers during the onset of the Great Recession, with many struggling to gain a firm grip on a middle-class lifestyle during the uneven and prolonged recovery. As a result, millennials have lower earnings and less wealth than older generations did when they were of the same age. And, of course, young adults trying to enter the workforce today confront unemployment rates unrivaled since the Great Depression.

These broader economic trends may have created ripe conditions for younger workers to challenge long-standing workplace norms. One of these is the general prescription against talking about pay. Its an outdated norm and unfair violation of our freedom of speech that penalizes women and lowers all workers leverage when negotiating for a fairer share of company resources. You wont ask for a raise that you deserve if you dont know and cant find out that youre being underpaid.

Jake Rosenfeld, a professor of sociology at Washington University-St. Louis, is author of the forthcoming Youre Paid What Youre Worth and Other Myths of the Modern Economy.

Continue reading here:

Commentary: Millennials are breaking the taboos on discussing salaries - Bend Bulletin

Editorial: Tolerance is our only path forward – Riverhead News Review – Riverhead News Review

Posted on by

In the hyper-ugly political moment we are living in, its certainly part of the climate that someone, or some group, could be so horribly offended by political signs for candidates they cant stand that they would stop on the side of the road, pull them up and throw them away.

Take that! I hate you! I hate your candidates! I cant stand looking at their names when I see them by the side of the road! I only want to see posters for the candidates I support!

Throw into the conversation the photograph that flashed across social media on Sunday of a taxpayer-funded Brookhaven Fire Department ladder truck in a parade in Patchogue decorated with a large Confederate flag. America in September 2020.

Now, while it was certainly true that during the Civil War (1861-65) the North Fork was loaded with Confederate sympathizers (they were called Copperheads), waving that banner today proclaims alignment with white supremacy. No one can pretend otherwise.

As has been said many times, we are living in a post-truth America, where everyone has his or her own version of reality and hypocrisy runs a mile deep. Imagine a political candidate running on a law enforcement platform who has had at least seven close associates and advisors either indicted for or pleading guilty to crimes. You pretty much cant make that up.

Ripping out political signs because they offend you and flying the flag once held high by traitors and slave owners resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of young men who believed their leaders were right and took up arms in support is taking political insult to a new level.

As Patchogue Mayor Paul Pontieri said in Newsday of the parade banner, It lights a fire where a fire doesnt need to be lit.

On Monday, Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone called on the county Human Rights Commission and the New York State Division of Human Rights to investigate the flag incident.

To some, history is malleable. It can be anything they want it to be and no one can tell them otherwise. There were no gas chambers at Auschwitz! Thats a made-up story! I have my history and you have yours and dont tell me anything different!

In our letters to the editor pages we include one from Southold Supervisor Scott Russell and 1st District county Legislator Al Krupski. They write that the removal of political signs is an act aimed at suppressing free speech, a right which we Americans cherish and one protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Suppression of free speech is unpatriotic and will not be tolerated in our community.

regardless of your political beliefs, we are facing an extremely contentious national election, one which threatens to divide our community to the detriment of all of us. There is no need to bring any divisiveness into our community. This is a time, as we face so many stresses and tensions, when it is vitally important for all of us to be tolerant of one another and of opinions and beliefs that differ from our own.

These are the founding principles of our nation. This means respecting freedom of speech and property, whether the speech is in the form of a written or spoken word or the property is a political sign on your neighbors lawn. We call on all Southold residents to practice tolerance, and perhaps compassion.

Very well put. But to some who will read it, this plea will land on deaf ears. They will think out loud, Who are these two to lecture me? And regardless, the Southold and Riverhead police blotters will soon have frequent mentions of political signs being pulled up and tossed aside.

The people who do this are speaking clearly: That is the intolerant America they want to live in.

Read this article:

Editorial: Tolerance is our only path forward - Riverhead News Review - Riverhead News Review

Protest and Patriotism | Opinion – Harvard Crimson

Posted on by

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to spend time as an exchange student in Germany, traveling with a group of students from across the United States. Part of traveling is a constant comparison between home and abroad: Public transportation? Germany wins. Sports? Toss-up. Food? Home. The reflex is natural for travelers, but some of my friends took it to extremes. Any positive experience they had had in America was dust in the Bavarian wind; Germany offered a superior alternative to every American system. The disposition, like our time abroad, proved temporary. But what was temporary among a bunch of Yankee tourists seems to have become a cultural default stateside.

The current intellectual mode is critical analysis and re-evaluation of important American moments and figures. Recurring tragedies of injustice understandably dampen any celebration of our history. And so the pendulum has swung harshly away from American exceptionalism, rejecting the city on a hill mythos and adopting a more cynical narrative: American inferiority. It reaches from high-profile academic work to popular protests, and leaves little room for patriotism. In a jungle of political connotations, that sentiment has been identified as a clawed and aggressive predator of the same genus as savage nationalism.

And yet what if we need patriotism? American inferiority, while it rightfully points out some errors of the exceptionalist mindset, hides a dangerous nihilism.

A revolutionary air hangs over the moment. The philosophy of American inferiority demands change, and its intellectual dissent has grown into physical revolt. There are two sides to any movement: the change and the ideal. The change is the force of action; the ideal is the goal. Each balances the other, change bringing ideal into actuality, and ideal keeping change from anarchy. Every movement skews one way or the other, never completely balanced. An overly philosophical movement is inert. But an overly aggressive movement is destructive. As protests sweep America, buildings burn down and bullets steal lives. Amid this frightening outbreak of violence, it is clear that this movement does not skew toward inaction. Yet without firm temperance, activism devolves into chaotic upheaval; focus upon the construction of a more just republic descends into rage against the ancien rgime; societal progress becomes a euphemism for the tumbril rolling to the guillotine. Rash enthusiast of Change, beware!

In every era, change has needed some guiding ideal to ascend to the height of progress. What ideal will guide this movement? The right of the people is a popular suggestion symbolized by the anonymous raised fist of humanity, ubiquitous in Portland, Minneapolis, and Washington, D.C. A fine sentiment, but an unspecific assertion. Modern America, more mosaic than melting pot, responds, Which people? Our nation divides itself cleanly not even along political lines. With such diversity, the right of the people cannot possibly mean more than the right of each person; and the right of each person, carried to its furthest, is no more than anarchy. The people are the object, but are not the sort of thing a right, a virtue, an idea that can guide change.

Past protests had patriotism to guide them. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his most famous speech beside an American flag, overlooking a sea of red, white, and blue signs holding America accountable to its founding dream. Likewise, the civil rights marchers followed a platoon of American flags into Montgomery. If patriotism is unpopular now, it is because we have misunderstood America. Our history has its flaws. Too often the flag has witnessed the oppression and suffering of its own people. But whereas other nations base identity on dates and bloodlines and locations, America is not, at heart, a history. What is America? More than anything, she is an idea a dream of equality in the form of a republic. America is a social covenant, a commitment to the equality and unalienable rights written in the Declaration of Independence and applied through the Constitution. Patriotism is not a flag blindfolding the patriot to injustices. It is hope for this ideas ever-increasing realization; it tethers change to the transcendent ideals that form America.

Nevertheless, today one is as likely to find a flag flying as to find it upside down or burning in protest cities. Decrying an inherently corrupt America, the protests across the nation are all but void of national symbols. Consider athletes kneeling for the national anthem, a forerunner of todays demonstrations. The players action is rooted in the fact of unjust killings at the hands of the law, but what does its symbolism mean? For the civil rights movement, the flag was a symbol of hope they held onto that flag, letting go of equality for all men for nothing. Disregarding the flag or the national anthem, then, speaks to a nihilism about America. The nation will never be more than the worst of its history; there is no hope in a transcendent American ideal. Herein lies the danger of American inferiority. Far enough away to see the nations faults, it remains too close to see anything but the faults.

Patriotism cannot solve our nations problems. It cannot fix a wage gap. It cannot stop unjust killings. It cannot abolish injustice. But we cannot realize the sublime idea of America without patriotic hope. Otherwise all we have is American inferioritys nihilistic vision of a stumbling nation. Our eyes darkened, we may advocate and legislate, but we will be forever tossed upon the whims of the moment always reacting, never progressing. Our untethered change will create the stumbling nation we feared, and America will mean nothing more than a history or a place. Without patriotism, we will lose America, for we will have given up on the idea.

Joseph McDonough 23 lives in Kirkland House.

Original post:

Protest and Patriotism | Opinion - Harvard Crimson

Film review The Roads Not Taken. (R) – Hampstead Highgate Express

Posted on by

PUBLISHED: 10:26 03 September 2020 | UPDATED: 10:26 03 September 2020

Michael Joyce

Javier Bardem, Elle Fanning

Adventure Pictures

In a depressingly nihilistic film Javier Bardems character explores three versions of the life he might have led and all of them are miserable

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

If there are an infinite number of universes, splintered realities formed every time we make a decision, then there must be a few where Javier Bardem makes cheerful films. Some, but not many. For him, the multiverse is a series of glass half empties.

Here his character Leo flicks between three alternate realities, in each of which he is miserable. In one of these, he is married to Salma Hayek, which you might expect to put a bit of wind into his willow, but in that reality they are grieving for a lost son. In another he is an author of upbeat children books no of course not, hes a suffering artist.

In the main one, presumably the real one from which the other two are imagined, he is suffering from some form of dementia, living in a crummy New York apartment being helped around town by his daughter (Fanning.)

The incredibly drab choice of title is indicative of the lack of interest and energy with which the film tackles its subject. It has nothing to reveal other than he made a couple of choices that profoundly affected his life, but it would have turned out badly whichever path he took. Sally Potters movie seems as deflated by this conclusion as the audience. Thats some sedentary nihilism for you.

2/5 stars

Starring Javier Bardem, Elle Fanning, Branka Katic, Milena Tscharntke, Laura Linney and Salma Hayek. Partly subtitled. In cinemas. 85 mins.

If you value what this story gives you, please consider supporting the Ham&High. Click the link in the orange box above for details.

See the rest here:

Film review The Roads Not Taken. (R) - Hampstead Highgate Express

The Dark and the Wicked Is One of the Scariest Movies of 2020 | Review – Collider.com

Posted on by

There are few things as scary as someone or something that wants to hurt you just because they can. And because they enjoy it. Bryan Bertino twisted the knife into that primal terror with his 2008 directorial debut The Strangers, which set a bar for the early-aughts home invasion trend by packaging pure evil as a trio of masked killers and setting them loose on a couple you couldnt help but root for. With The Dark and the Wicked, Bertino delivers another bleak and brutal home invasion story of sorts, but this time, its not the malice of mankind knocking at your door, its the dang devil himself.

Set on an isolated family farm, The Dark and the Wicked stars Marin Ireland andMichael Abbot Jr.as Louise and Michael; a distant sister and brother who return to their homestead on their fathers deathbed. Their mother gives them a vague warning not to come, which they obviously ignore, dutifully heading to their fathers bedside to say goodbye. But when they arrive, something is off. Their mother (Julie Oliver-Touchstone) is a rattling shadow of her former self and their father (Michael Zagst) is all but gone, but its not just the grief casting a shadow over their family home. Theres something else, something sinister in the air, and its not long until their already dreary homecoming turns into a hellish nightmare.

Image via RLJE/Shudder

Bertino stages his action over several days, giving the grief and the menace alike time to fester, swell, and transform. Punctuating his moments of terror with title cards not only track the passage of time, but infuses each moment with the knowledge that were heading towards some unholy endgame. If theres a start date, there must be an end date, and when you start in such a grim place, you cant help but wince in anticipation of whats to come.

In many ways, The Dark and the Wicked feels like a sibling film to The Strangers. Theres the remote rural setting, the sinking sense of despair, and the complicated emotional relationships, but they also share structural and thematic overlaps that slip the knife into the same existential terror: that in this world, there are cruel forces that will kill you just to see you die and torment you for the simple pleasure of watching you suffer.

Except The Dark and the Wicked kicks that dread up a notch, projecting the cavalier because you were home cruelty of his Strangers onto devilish otherworldly forces. Those Dark and Wicked entities dont just want your suffering, they want your soul, and there are no walls to build, doors to lock, or shotguns to load that can keep them from their desires. It makes no difference to them whether you believe. As the film puts it, the wolf doesnt care if the sheep believes in it. A meals a meal, a souls a soul.

As for the souls in question, both leads are fantastic at translating their terror through grounded, believable reactions. Ireland has always been one of those performers youre happy to see and coming off her scene-stealing role in The Umbrella Academy Season 2, its wonderful to see her carry the lead with such commanding presence and raw vulnerability. For his part, Bertino again proves hes a master of directing fear, giving his performers time and space (his use of a wide frame remains killer) to register the harrowing escalation of fear. Bertinos characters are more likely to crumple themselves up and cower in fear that run off shrieking, which means any time a scream cuts through the already hair-raising sound design, its earned and all the more effective for it.

Image via RLJE/Shudder

The Dark and the Wicked comes in quick with a smothering sense of dread and offers some early carnage to establish the stakes, but Bertino always takes time to sit with the characters, lingering in their agony, ramping up the oppressive atmosphere with each new sequence. Movies like this often get labeled a slow burn, but Bertinos effect is more of a slow freeze. He sets the stage with a chilling event that settles into the blood, then the gut, then your bones until youre frigid, frozen solid, ready to shatter on impact. Anyones whos seen The Strangers can tell you that Bertino knows how to land a blow. In fact, The Strangers has proved to be one of my most enduring horror movie-going experiences specifically because of its devastating ending.

But where The Strangers builds and builds and builds towards its inescapable climactic gut-punch, The Dark and the Wicked crescendos in smaller waves. Its scary and effective, and youd probably have better luck counting the scenes where you dont have goosebumps, but it never quite lands that finishing blow. The Dark and the Wicked is at its best when it weaponizes its existential nihilism, needling at the helplessness of facing down cosmic evil. But by roping that evil into the demonic, the film spins an uneven web of mythology that it never quite contends with, leaving too many unanswered questions that feel unsatisfying rather than provocative.

The Dark and the Wicked may not have the staying power of some of Bertinos other works (the ending of The Blackcoats Daughter, which he produced, has also haunted me for years), but its effect is certainly strong enough to linger into the night, when the lights are out and you ponder what might be waiting for you in the darkness. Its sinister and certainly one of the scariest movies of the year, elevated by Irelands outstanding performance and Bertinos skill for plunging head-first into some of the darkest spectrums of the human experience.

Rating: B+

The Dark and the Wicked premiered at Fantasia Fest 2020 and arrives in theaters, On Demand & Digital November 6th.

See the article here:

The Dark and the Wicked Is One of the Scariest Movies of 2020 | Review - Collider.com

Venice Review: The World to Come is a Gorgeous Drama Told in a Subdued Gear – The Film Stage

Posted on by

In The World to Come, an unlikely romance blossoms against the rugged rural backdrop of the American Northeast. The action plays out during the year 1856 somewhere in the region of Syracuse, a few years shy of the American Civil War. The setting could hardly be more isolated; the living much further from easy. On January 1st, our lonesome protagonist welcomes the changing of the calendar with the bleakest of resolutions: With little pride and less hope, we begin the new year.

Directed by Mona Fastvold, a Norwegian filmmaker now based in Brooklyn, the film marks her follow-up to The Sleepwalker, which followed another isolated couple whose marriage was set to crumblealbeit in the present day and with much more dancing. After co-writing The Childhood of a Leader and Vox Lux with partner Brady Corbet, it is with great anticipation that Fastvold returns to the directors seat. Its also the first time Fastvold has worked with a script not her own and its interesting to see her move away from all that nihilism and foreboding toward something so movingeven if the transition ultimately proves too much of a leap.

The narrative was taken from a short story of the same name by Jim Shepard, who developed it for the screen with Ron Hansen, the author of The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford. Taking place over the course of a year, we follow the introverted Abigail (played beautifully by Katherine Waterston), who meets and soon falls for the naturally more confident and worldly Tallie (Vanessa Kirby). Abigail is married to Dyer (Casey Affleck), a decent if somewhat distanced man; Tallie to the more affluent Finney (Christopher Abbott), a seemingly likable sort who grows more possessive and menacing as the film wears on.

Fastvold says she was drawn as much to the content of Shepards text as she was to the rigor of his historical accuracy. (Fans of Kelly Reichardts period films will surely be pleased.) Most of this dialogue is heard in voiceover and delivered with real pathos from Waterston, an actress who has always seemed at home to these kinds of melancholic roles. The two women share real chemistry which Fastvold patiently draws out using only small gestures and, of course, stolen glances in devastating close-upone of the oldest and most reliable tricks in the book.

Shot on location using 16mm filmwith Romania filling in for the frontier, as it did in Jacques Audiards The Sisters BrothersAndr Chemetovs rurals vistas are as painterly as they are naturalistic. In particular, the early snow-swept sequences nod pleasingly towards Robert Altmans McCabe & Mrs. Miller. Daniel Blumbergs scorehis first for a featureis gentle and unobtrusive but powerfully moving when it needs to be. The sets feel lived in, Waterston and Kirby are immaculate, and Affleck and Abbott find interesting angles on what might have otherwise been archetypal roles.

Yet somehow the drama runs just a touch too flat, which is a shock coming from an artist whose last work reimagined A Star is Born with a high school shooting as the inciting incident. Perhaps as a force of habit, Fastvold never quite shakes the melancholy of the first act and seems almost reluctant to indulge the central romance even as it progresses. The comparisons to Cline Sciammas Portrait of a Lady on Fire (already an untouchable film to many) are unfair but just as difficult to ignore. It is a thoughtful, unquestionably moving piece of work with much to say about the inner lives of the women at the center, but it could have used another gear. Working alongside Corbet, Fastvold has delivered some of the most daring work to come from American independent cinema in recent memory. The World to Come undoubtedly shows her talents, and we look forward to them fully blossoming in the years to come.

The World to Come premiered at the Venice Film Festival.

View original post here:

Venice Review: The World to Come is a Gorgeous Drama Told in a Subdued Gear - The Film Stage

Album of the Week: Uniform Shame – Treble

Posted on by

Uniforms music feels like a particularly intense form of therapy. Their songs are loud and punishing, unapologetically sothough the band has expanded to a trio, retiring the pummeling industrial beats of early releases in favor of a full-time drummer, their aural assault has lost none of its sting in the transaction. Amid Ben Greenbergs thrash metal guitar riffs and the brutal impact of Mike Sharps drums, no element of Uniforms sound cuts as deep as Michael Berdans manic primal scream. Whether reckoning with his own complicated faith, unpacking trauma or simply serving up reminders of the fucked-up America in which we live, Berdan always sounds like hes physically tearing at pieces from his own soul.

In the past three years, Berdan and Greenberg have released five albumsincluding two collaborations with The Bodythat have seen them refine their industrial machinepunk from a raw, direct form of catharsis into a more sophisticated form of soul shredding. Their 2018 album The Long Walk, featuring drummer Greg Fox (Liturgy, Ex Eye), revealed more textural variance and nuance in their seemingly subtlety-free approach, providing a greater degree of depth inside their urgent rippers. Shame, their first with Sharp, takes that even further, tracing the outline of traumas tattoos through their best and most varied set of songs to date.

On past albums, Uniform would begin with a squeal of feedback and a bombastic rush of noise-caked guitars, Shame immediately feels different. Leadoff track Delco immediately settles into a groove, Sharp playing at about half the BPMs most listeners are probably used to from this band, but the open space gives Berdan the opportunity to repeat a mantra of, You are what youve done/You are whats been done to you, reflecting on the imprint that childhood violence leaves on a person. The unexpected consequence isnt that of a mellower, less aggressive Uniform, but one whose songs have the real estate to build out something bigger and far more ominous. With Berdans scream of, I dream of blood/So much blood, during the songs chorus, it puts a pin in the moment that Uniform became their most terrifying selves.

The degree to which Shame assaults the ears hasnt wanedUniform are still as loud as ever, still frequently making space for piercing frequencies and sonic discomfort. They give themselves more room to work with, however, and between those shrill peaks and guttural valleys is a surprising array of ear candy. During the chorus of The Shadow of Gods Hand, Greenberg layers his typical power-chord crunch with a shimmering arpeggio riff reminiscent of The Stooges Gimme Danger. The title track is more of an oozing slow burn than a concrete brick to the face, Greenbergs guitars employing more of a shoegazing mist than the jagged edges of thrash, Berdan narrating a cycle of self-destructive behavior (Thats why I drink/Thats why I weep) inside of hypnotic layers of distortion. Its still nice to get a reminder in Dispatches form the Gutter that the building blocks of Uniforms music are structurally sound even without the added production layers, with Berdan going full nihilism against the straight-up hardcore beatdown: I know what Im missing/I just dont care.

Discussing Shame as Uniforms most nuanced album requires an understanding that the New York trio will never deliver a set of ballads or slowcore dirges. This album is meant to be played loud, because Uniform, themselves, play really fucking loud. Yet theres a level of depth in both the arrangements and in Berdans examinations of psychic wounds that reveal how much growth the band has undergone in half a decade and half a dozen albums. Play this album while running a few miles or sparring with a punching bag and youll find it provides the necessary fuel to keep going. But take a moment to catch your breath and dont be surprised of just how remarkable everything sounds between those moments of impact.

Label: Sacred BonesYear: 2020

Similar Albums:Godflesh Post-SelfStreet Sects The Kicking MuleSpecial Interest The Passion Of

Sep 8, 2020Jeff Terich

See the original post:

Album of the Week: Uniform Shame - Treble

China schooling the Mongols – Daily Pioneer

Posted on by

There is a growing sense of insecurity in the ruling elite that makes it impatient to stamp out differences and deviations from the norm

Residential schools were a common feature of European settler societies (except New Zealand) until quite late in the 20th century, and their purpose was not just to educate but to deracinate their aboriginal pupils: That is, to cut them off from their roots. The Chinese Government would reject the analogy with its last breath, but it is now doing the same thing. Last week, in Chinas Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region, ethnic Mongolian parents began holding rallies and keeping their children home from school in protest against new measures to reduce teaching in the Mongolian language in favour of Chinese. Under the new rules, history, politics, language and literature will be taught in Mandarin Chinese, not in Mongolian.

It has not been reported in the Chinese media, of course, but the BBC reports that students at one demonstration chanted Our language is Mongolia and our homeland is Mongolia forever! At another school, only 40 students registered for the autumn term instead of the usual 1,000 and most of them left after the first day. It should be noted that in Inner Mongolia, ethnic Chinese (Han) people are a four-fifths majority of the 25 million residents. The province is beyond the Great Wall and was once almost entirely Mongolian, but it was already majority Han before the current Chinese Communist regime came to power in 1949.

Most of Chinas five million Mongols are concentrated in three eastern districts of Inner Mongolia, but even there they are not a majority of the population and many of these Mongolian-speakers are urbanised people who are fully bilingual and intermarry freely with their ethnic Chinese neighbours. The core of the unrest is among the million or so who still pursue a modified version of the old nomadic culture. They are the traditional Steppe-dwelling people who follow their herds on horseback or in all-terrain vehicles through their seasonal rounds. Unlike aboriginal languages, Mongolian has been written in its own script for many centuries, and Genghis Khans empire once briefly ruled about a quarter of the world, but the nomadic Mongols do depend on boarding schools.

Such schools are simply a practical necessity for people who live in small groups and move frequently, and in the Chinese case, they were not originally conceived as instruments of cultural genocide. Until recently, in fact, they operated entirely in Mongolian, with Chinese taught as a second language. The Chinese policy towards tribal minorities has traditionally been more tolerant than the US or Canadian policy towards native Red Indians, the Australian policy towards Aborigines, the Scandinavian policy towards Sami (Lapps) or the Russian policy towards Siberian native peoples. All of those unlucky people got the kind of residential schools that aimed at cultural assimilation and religious conversion.

The children spent most of the year in boarding schools, not with their families. They were taught the religion of the settlers, not that of their native culture. They were forced to use the language of the dominant European group and forbidden to speak their own. And most of them were subjected to violence. (Yes, most.) Many of the adults who emerged from this ordeal were tormented men and women, and their legacy of alcoholism, drug abuse, child abuse, nihilism and despair is still being passed down the generations. Nothing of the sort has happened to the Mongols of Inner Mongolia, so far as is known but something bad is starting to happen to them now. The Chinese culture has always been patronising towards the minorities living within Chinas borders, but it didnt usually see them as threats. They arent threats now, either, but there is a growing sense of insecurity in the ruling elite that makes it impatient to stamp out differences and deviations from the norm. You can see it in Tibet, where the screws have been turned so tight on dissent that more than a 100 people have burned themselves to death in protests since 2009. You cannot avoid seeing it in Xinjiang, where more than a million Uyghurs have been sent to concentration camps that operate like residential schools for adults, trying to separate the residents from their religion, language and values.

And you can detect it in a minor key even in Inner Mongolia, in a needless, destabilising attempt to force Mandarin down the throats of loyal, innocent people who pose no threat whatever to the State. What drives President-for-Life Xi Jinping and his advisers to such ridiculous and counter-productive extremes? The only plausible answer is fear that history will repeat itself. Chinas rulers are all Communists in theory (though how many still really believe it is another matter), and so they rightly worry that what happened the communist parties of Europe in 1989 could also happen to them. However, two years after that the Soviet Union broke up as well. Its really unlikely that China will ever do the same, because more than 90 per cent of the population is ethnic Chinese, but the guilty flee where none pursue.

(Gwynne Dyers new book is Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy and Work.)

Read more here:

China schooling the Mongols - Daily Pioneer

The Royal Opera: Live in Concert review – Italianate fizz with a patch of flatness – The Arts Desk

Posted on by

What could be better than Mozarts Overture to The Marriage of Figaro to celebrate the Royal Operas next step on the path out of lockdown? Ideally, the rest of the opera, especially remembering Antonio Pappanos lively interaction with his singers playing the continuo role. But the unavoidably touchy-feely action, even in a semi-staged performance, still cant be realized, so what we got on Friday night was a starry(ish) gala instead always a tricky act to sustain.

First, the real cause for celebration: the full Royal Opera Orchestra filling the stalls area and the Chorus in the boxes and stalls circle. No-one conducts the Italian repertoire better than Pappano, and if the Figaro Overture felt ceremonial rather than human-vivacious, with just one dodgy moment of co-ordination, the rest was perfection from an orchestral point of view. Sheer sparkle carried us along with Vito Priantes Rossini Figaro tough on him not to have a proper audience to address, but the Royal Opera forces were in front of him, and gave due applause the Act One Adina-Nemorino duet from Donizettis Lelisir damore with (Italian) Americans Charles Castronovo and Lisette Oropesa, complete with elixir-bottle and a mixture of gravitas and fireworks in the final scene of La Cenerentola.

Aigul Akhmetshina (pictured below), graduate of the Royal Operas Jette Parker Young Artists Programme, is a happy international treasure, but could have done with some direction to give due seriousness to Cinders acknowledgement of her unhappy recent past. Later her Carmen seemed to be laughing at Don Joses desperation, when surely the point is that our heroine stands firm and proud and simply refuses to lie when shes fallen out of love. Still, Akhmetshina sustained the spirit. Oropesa as Bellinis sleepwalking Amina shone in the most perfect of bel canto finales, always better excerpted (perhaps along with the Act One duet) so that we dont have to sit through the whole thing. The dip began, and a note of strain to what needed to seem effortless crept in, when Castronovo returned to sing Ricardos last-act aria from Verdis Un ballo in maschera; in any case, is this anyones favourite? Gerald Finley settled in to Iagos Credo after a touch of insecurity right at the top; hes now an accomplished villain, an eyebrow-raising satyr, and villainous was his one note of the evening, the nihilism of Otellos tempter matched in the grand final with the cupidity in church of Puccinis Scarpia.

It might have been better to stick to the Italian repertoire throughout. Kristne Opolais as Dvoraks Rusalka didnt fit, and though she is an instinctive stage animal, the dramatic soprano voice has suffered some wear and tear (less problematic in her Tosca, pictured below with Finley). I could have done without the Offenbach (Priante again as diamond-wielding Dapertutto) and Massenet (Oropesa in Manons Gavotte). Act 4 of Bizets Carmen from the Toreador Chorus onwards raised the temperature again and allowed the chorus to really let rip; ditto the Te Deum of Tosca, the flamboyant return of grand opera to Covent Garden. Some have lamented the lack of a British star in this fourth livestreamed evening from the Royal Opera House, but the national presence has already graced the first and second concerts, while the third showcased the Jette Parker young artists, so no complaints there. Only praise, too, for the sound and look of the thing (backdrop from Bob Crowley's designs for the well-wearing production of La traviata) Pappano pointed out, in one of the more interesting chats with presenter Katie Derham - a few too many of those - that shifting quarantine rules had made booking artists tricky; he lost six in one day. All the more credit, then, to the end result; but if you havent seen it yet and I still recommend you do you might like to skip the less successful numbers so that the champagne properly flows. And watch this space for some kind of return to audience life at Covent Garden: not too long to wait now.

Read this article:

The Royal Opera: Live in Concert review - Italianate fizz with a patch of flatness - The Arts Desk

The most overrated and under-appreciated films of 2020, so far – The Depaulia

Posted on by

The pandemic has changed everything. We have had to quickly adapt our entire lives and plans. Peoples lives have been unceremoniously upended I sometimes lose hope thinking about the damage that has been done. In the past, whenever I felt sad or isolated, I would find comfort in movies.

Now, most of us have sought similar solace these last six months. With the world on lockdown, streaming and binging has become an all-day, everyday exercise for those of us who have the luxury in these brutal times. Regardless of the pandemic, we have been barraged with new films and series and often I feel as though we focus our attention on the less interesting content. So, here are my top five most overrated and most underseen films of 2020.

OVERRATED

Tiger King (d. Rebecca Chaiklin and Eric Goode):

This series (I know I said films, but this will be one exception) took the world by storm its release lined up with the start of mass quarantining and a world brimming with dread created the perfect cocktail for a cultural phenomenon. And to be honest, I enjoyed it and found it interesting and occasionally compelling. But, the hype is unfounded, probably exacerbated by its timely release.

The public reaction, frankly, angered me. People perceived Joe Exotic as a cocky, funny, deranged man up to all kinds of wacky hijinks in Oklahoma. In truth, Exotic is a sadistic individual who abuses animals and entraps vulnerable, cash-addled men into his snare, filling them with drugs and attention.

Carole Baskin, who is similarly twisted, though more cold and callous, was treated with vitriol. Everybody loves Joe Exotic and they love to hate Carole Baskin. Tiger King has altered our baselines and encouraged us to embrace celebrities in a way that is hollow and lacks reflection. Not to mention the obvious sexism rooted in the response to the series dual subjects.

It is formally and structurally a strong documentary, and an entertaining one, but it lacks reflexivity and it fails to go deeper. Rather than take a look inside the minds of some truly sick people, it becomes an absurd horror show, basking in the warmth of its own grotesqueness.

The Way Back (d. Gavin OConnor):

Ben Affleck is a confounding individual. He is an actor and director who has managed to be both mind-numbingly awful and delicately nuanced. This film, his most personal, shows him as an alcoholic former high school basketball star, who is ham-fistedly recruited into coaching the basketball team at his alma mater.

Affleck, a recovering alcoholic himself, certainly had a lot to draw from, and does display his acting prowess, although for me, it does not match his impeccable work in Gone Girl and The Town. Regardless of Afflecks performance, the film fails in almost every other aspect. The story is textbook and the script particularly the dialogue is trite and devoid of subtext.

Nothing screams amateur hour more than an old, out of touch man attempting to write dialogue for disaffected youths. While there is some slight subversion in the last act, everything you see in this film you have seen before, and seen it pulled off with much more visual flair and more compelling characters. We must stop giving Affleck over-the-top kudos anytime he does something that isnt a colossal failure. The Way Back is not that, but its something far worse: mediocre.

Saint Frances (d. Alex Thompson):

This one comes with a heavy heart, as I had the pleasure of spending last winter quarter under the tutelage of Raphael Nash, one of the producers of Saint Frances. But, Mr. Nash is an artist a successful artist which makes his work, like the work of other successful artists, open to criticism. This film follows Bridget, a woman approaching 30 and something of a lonely loser, as she decides to have an abortion after an unplanned pregnancy.

She decides to take a job as a nanny for an adorable six-year-old girl named Frances, with whom she forms an unlikely bond. This film has many problems but it starts with the protagonist: a wholly unlikeable, unfeeling, scowling human with all of the neuroses of a flawed character, without the charm or relatability. The only saving grace here is Frances, played by Ramona Edith Williams, who is, as mentioned, absolutely adorable.

With her comes many saccharine moments for Bridget meant to express emotional clarity, most of which land with a thud. There is a scene near the end of the film which takes place at a park that was so telegraphed pulled straight from the wokescold handbook that it reached levels of unintentional comedy. The film is, at its best, a mediocre, unimaginative interpretation of an important story. At worst, it is an unwatchable tragicomedy with commentary that collapses on top of you as you watch.

For a far more interesting and emotionally satisfying tale in a slightly similar vein, I would recommend Never Rarely Sometimes Always, which is one of the best films of the year.

Color Out of Space (d. Richard Stanley):

Every few years, the enigmatic and completely electric Nicolas Cage stars in an interesting film that properly utilizes his specific talents. The most recent example is Mandy, a gorgeous and terrifying psychedelic horror odyssey, which inspired my excitement for this next film: Color Out of Space.

Directed by Australian filmmaker Richard Stanley, this HP Lovecraft adaptation had the makings of a fun, wild ride through a phosphorescent nightmare world. What we get instead is a horribly (and I mean horribly) acted and written film about a weird family in the middle of nowhere, albeit with some genuinely fantastic alien practical effects and makeup work.

But there is no allure to the characters, no mystery to the story and not even the rambunctious Cage can elevate any of the scenes he is in. It felt like he was phoning it in which is a shame, as I am a fan of Cage, ironically and otherwise. But none of that matters, because Stanley had no control of the material from the very start.

Onward (d. Dan Scanlon):

I know we are in the midst of a pandemic and we want to escape to magical worlds and fairytale stories that make us feel warm inside. But, we can do a lot better than this and so can Pixar. It takes place in a world of magical creatures and follows two elven brothers who embark on a quest to see their deceased father for one more day.

For a film set in a fantasy realm, it fails to inspire any amount of awe or wonder. It is an acceptable film.There is nothing worse than being painfully average, and the shallowness of this tale is shocking, considering the depth of emotion that previous Pixar films have evoked.

The voice cast is fun, with Tom Holland and Chris Pratt filling out their characters nicely, one a meek and smart young man and the other a brash older brother with adventure on the brain. The transcendent Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who has one of the most dynamic and commanding voices of her generation, plays their mother. Frankly, her immense talent is wasted. If you have the option to watch Onward, then you likely have Disney+, and your time would be much better spent watching Wall-E or The Incredibles.

UNDER SEEN

Shirley (d. Josephine Decker):

While most will be clamoring this year about Elisabeth Mosss performance in The Invisible Man, its this indie film from Josephine Decker that really shines. The film follows Moss as famous writer Shirley Jackson, as she and her philandering husband take in a young couple. The film seethes with tension, though most of it implicit, which is part of what gives the film such quiet gravitas.

Moss is incredible as usual, embodying a genius, yet emotionally withered writer who gets off on the destruction of others. Michael Stuhlbarg takes the role of her overtly skeevy husband, Stanley. The film echoes the four-person intensity of Whos Afraid of Virginia Woolf? but with a subversive, gendered twist.

This film is great based on its acting alone, but the subtle work of Decker, who has carved herself out as an essential aut eur of strange cinema (see her previous film, the bonkers Madelines Madeline) is what makes the film more than an actors showcase.

You Dont Nomi (d. Jeffrey McHale):

Few people will have heard of this documentary, which reexamines Showgirls, the camp classic heralded as one of the worst films ever made upon its 1995 release. First of all, Showgirls is incredible think of it like The Room, a film so terrible that it becomes gloriously great. But this doc has a few tricks up its sleeve as it looks back at the barrage of hate the film got, specifically aimed at star Elizabeth Berkley.

She was essentially thrown out of the film industry, and this doc sheds light on the severe sexist backlash which plagued her career after the 95 film. The director of Showgirls, Paul Verhoeven, got off fairly easy, as he released his satirical masterpiece Starship Troopers two years later, which has similarly reached new heights of critical reevaluation.

You Dont Nomi goes incredibly in-depth into what makes Showgirls so appealing: its hilariously bad dialogue, the gonzo, larger-than-life performance from Elizabeth Berkley, and Verhoevens grasp of the nihilism and grotesqueness of American culture. This combination will make a great double-feature of film buffs for years to come.

The Assistant (d. Kitty Green):

This is not one for the mainstream crowd; they might fall asleep. Not much happens over the course of the brisk 87-minute runtime, yet this is a taught, eye-opening thriller.

It follows the assistant to a Hollywood producer over the course of an entire work day, as she meticulously approaches each task with the same frightened attentiveness as she would tip-toeing around her boss.

You never see the producer (you hardly hear his voice over the phone), but his presence looms over the entire film, as does the weight of patriarchy and sexism over the entire film industry. Despite literally saying so little, The Assistant speaks volumes about the workplace, no matter the industry, as potentially dangerous waters for women. Simultaneously, it also proves womens vitality to industry, and sheds light on how much more difficult it can be for women due to societal expectations and the shark-like competitiveness of the working world.

Bad Education (d. Cory Finley):

This film, previously reviewed in The DePaulia, is one of the most engrossing and economically paced films of the year. It tells the true story of the largest embezzlement scandal in U.S. history, spearheaded by a school district superintendent, played perfectly by Hugh Jackman.

His performance is multi-faceted, as he plays a man masking his insecurities and deep-seated narcissism with a warm, welcoming facade. The story unravels slowly and meticulously, taught and filled with intrigue, evoking classic 70s political thrillers like All the Presidents Men or The Parallax View. The film is astute in its observations on greed and excess it does not only come in the form of sociopathic CEOs or sleazy stockbrokers. It also shows itself in educators, well-intentioned individuals with smiles on their faces. Greed can take hold of any of us, even though with their hearts in the right place.

Boys State (d. Amanda McBain and Jesse Moss):

This incredibly revealing documentary is my favorite film of the year so far. It captures the 2019 Texas Boys State, a yearly event that draws hundreds of high schoolers to run a government over a week. What ensues is an intensely compelling experience I wish I could have had in a theater.

The docs primary focus is four would-be candidates, all of whom display moxie and oratory prowess. The filmmakers take an entirely objective perspective, never injecting outside politics or interfering with what is happening.

The entire thing plays out as a microcosm of modern politics, complete with targeted attacks on social media fueled by race, in-fighting among political factions and attempting to whip votes from the other side. By the end, I was filled with sadness, but also a profound sense of optimism for the future of our fractured nation.

Read the rest here:

The most overrated and under-appreciated films of 2020, so far - The Depaulia

Tenet box office performance: Earns a whopping $7.16 million in UK & Ireland – report – Republic World – Republic World

Posted on by

Christopher Nolan's Tenet has been doing quite well at the box-offices in UK and Ireland, despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Reports indicate that movie has been screening in many different locations around the islands and many fans have commended the film. Read ahead to know exact details.

Also Read |'Tenet' release date in India: Here's when Nolan-directed flick will release in India

Reports from Variety have indicated that the movie Tenet is currently being shown in 611 locations all acrossUK and Ireland. Despite many people's reservations against going to theatres, the movie has grossed$7.16 million till now, according to Comscore.

Also Read |Did you know The Crown's Elizabeth Debicki 'insisted' on auditioning for 'Tenet'?

Even Disney's new filmOnward, which has recently been released in the UK and Ireland, has been doing quite well. The film has reportedly earned over$8,934,898. Reports from these portals have also indicated that many people in the UK and Ireland don't have reservations against going to the theatres. Now the industry awaits the box office numbers from America.

Also Read |Twinkle Khanna pens appreciation post for mom Dimple Kapadia with a BTS video from 'Tenet'

Tenet'scastincludes actors like John David Washington,Robert Pattinson,Elizabeth Debicki,Dimple Kapadia,Michael Caine, andKenneth Branagh. Many fans reviews have mentioned that the movie is remarkable and have also added that the movie takes inspiration from different Nolan's films and also has a James Bondtype feel. A few critics also added that they thoroughly enjoyed the plotline and called it 'Nolan's most ambitious movie ever'

Also Read |'Tenet' cast: A list of the actors and the characters they play

Another critic also mentioned that the general tone of Nihilism in Nolan's movie made Tenet's plot ring quite close to The Batman Trilogy. Some critics pointed out that the fight scenes in the movie looked very similar to thosein Inception. Dimple Kapadia's performance has also been commended by most critics.

Indian actor Dimple Kapadia is also seen in the film Tenet. Dimple plays the role of Priya who is an arms dealer in the film. Many actors like Huma Qureshi and Sonam Kapoor have praisedDimple's performance. Sonam put up a post mentioning how much she enjoyed the film. She wrote -'to watch the luminous Dimple Kapadia in the film gave me goosebumps. Nothing compares to cinema, the big screen and its magic. Nothing.' Take a look:

Get the latest entertainment news from India & around the world. Now follow your favourite television celebs and telly updates. Republic World is your one-stop destination for trending Bollywood news. Tune in today to stay updated with all the latest news and headlines from the world of entertainment.

See the article here:

Tenet box office performance: Earns a whopping $7.16 million in UK & Ireland - report - Republic World - Republic World

Is The Venus Project The Next Stage In Human Evolution? – Forbes

Posted on by

The Venus Project

A seismic shift is under way. Against the backdrop of rising temperatures, collapsing ecosystems, and the threat of species extinction,technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics are now moving to transform the global order. Indeed, for the first time in our history, we have the tools and technologies to guide and shape our evolution. But what will this future look like?

I recently spoke with Roxanne Meadows and Nathanael Dinwiddie of The Venus Project to better understand their thoughts on the future. As they explain, the status quo is no longer working. Climate change, social inequality, and technological innovation are now disrupting a market-driven society. The key to resolving these global challenges, they suggest, is rooted in aResource Based Economy.

The term Resource Based Economy was first coined by Jacque Fresco, the founder of The Venus Project. Fresco believed that a Resource Based Economy could support the scientific integration of automating technologies (AI and robotics) and engineering systems in providing the highest possible living standards. Meadows and Dinwiddie suggest that this kind of economy is the next stage in human evolution. But what do they mean?

Abstract of city skyscrapers and trees

1. What is The Venus Project?

Meadows and Dinwiddie:The Venus Project is a non-profit organization that presents a new socio-economic model utilizing science and technology. For the past 40 years, we have maintained a 21-acre research center in Venus, Florida. We propose a new scientific foundation in transcending humanitys current problems by testing a new social design for organizing our society as a global operating system.

Taken as a whole, the Venus Project fills the egregious gap between the sciences and the humanities by combining a social philosophy of the future with technical knowledge applied at a global scale to solve the problems of the human condition. Our methodologies are designed to realize the full potential of science and technology to achieve social betterment for all living systems without exception. Our approach to social organization calls for changes in governance, economics, urban planning, education, human relationships, language, and values.

2. We appear to be in the early stages of a massive economic depression. What is your sense of what is happening politically and economically right now?

Meadows and Dinwiddie:We are witnessing an unprecedented political polarization and economic disruption around the world today. The status quo is no longer working. Many people are now beginning to understand how dysfunctional the management of nations, peoples, and resources has been. Human needs and the needs of our environment are far too complex to be managed by political means, arbitrary economic direction, or an elite without the relevant understanding of science and technology.

Compounding this problem, nature operates as a closed-loop system, but we do not. We extract resources without replenishing them, accumulate waste materials without recycling them, and we pollute our air, water, and food crops for the need to maintain competitive profit margins. There are many other factors converging at once besides the pandemic, all of which contribute to the systems unrest.

walkway in office park,

3. Younger generations seem disaffected with Capitalism. Could you describe your vision of a post-scarcity society?

Meadows and Dinwiddie:The Venus Project recognizes that if we utilize a global systems approach as a basis for organizing and managing resources, we can design a much more humane environment for all. Our goal is to advance the health and the protection of the ecosystem, as opposed to the accumulation of wealth, property, and power. We do not have enough money to fulfill the needs of the worlds people, but we do have enough resources, if wisely managed. Ultimately, it is not money that people need, but unencumbered access to the necessities of life and self actualization.

Accomplishing this is a technical and engineering challenge requiring massive coordination by transdisciplinary teams of engineers and scientists in managing the Earths resources within its carrying capacity. This kind of scientific endeavor would eliminate the vicious rivalries over scarce resources and, in turn, generate very different behavior amongst people.

Briefly, this is what Jacque Fresco, founder of The Venus Project, termed a Resource Based Economy. This is a necessary step for humanitys evolution. It could be thought of as a new science, a science of Earth Management where, by necessity, all of Earths resources become the common heritage of all the worlds people.

4. How does the Venus Project differ from Socialism or Communism?

Meadows and Dinwiddie:Rather than worker revolts and the forcible overthrow of the system (Communism), or the redistribution of capital (Socialism), The Venus Project approaches social change as a process of guided evolution. In our view, the challenges before us are a matter of engineering and design. The Venus Project calls for an experimental analysis of a new social system. This system is unlike any communist revolution, utopian commune, or coup dtat tried in the past.

In our view, the fundamental issue limiting social management in the past has been the lack of an effective data-driven methodology for evaluating and improving the systems functioning. Full-scale blanket application of social policies to vast geographic areas be it through revolution or legislation without a means for evaluating their effectiveness, follows from an approach heavy in ideology but short in scientific method. The Venus Project calls for iterative prototyping of cities that we take as the unit of analysis in validating or falsifying hypotheses. All of this begins with testing a prototype, not a revolution.

Although Karl Marx did envision a society wherein money, private property, and social hierarchy were abolished, he could not begin to imagine how to implement this system at a technical level. In contrast to Communism, The Venus Project calls for the total redesign of cities (transportation, distribution, manufacturing, recycling, infrastructure) to produce abundance of goods and services. This is achieved through automation and optimized infrastructural efficiency.

Robotic Arms controlled by smart device

5. What role does technology and automation play in The Venus Project?

Meadows and Dinwiddie:For the first time in history, we have the tools and technology to guide and shape our evolution. To accomplish this, The Venus Project advocates the humane and intelligent use of technology and the methods of science directed toward the well-being of all people and the environment which sustains all life.

In our view, technology and automation should be strictly used for social betterment and to eliminate repetitive, dangerous and monotonous work. If automation displaces a job, for example, that means all people would gain more access to the products those machines produce. The necessities of life are distributed without a fee with the aim of expanding to all goods and services. Consequently, there is no threat resulting from technological labor displacement. On the contrary, technology and automation have the potential for enhancing the worlds standard of living, enabling people to learn, spend time with their families, travel, and confront the new frontier of challenges in improving the resilience of the system as a whole.

6. How do you envision utilizing AI in decision-making?

Meadows and Dinwiddie:Applying the methods of science and technology (including AI) to the operation of the worlds societies will lead to a substantially more reliable functioning of support systems than we have today. Homelessness, starvation, war, and environmental degradation are consequences of todays political and economic approaches to decision-making. A Resource Based Economy operates within a unified systems approach that utilizes the methods of science and AI to arrive at the most appropriate decisions at any given time. Unlike todays implementation of technology, this new approach would be carefully carried out with the utmost human and environmental concern. The real-time influx of quantitative and qualitative data would provide real-time feedback, enabling humanity to constantly observe and continually improve the operation of the system over time.

Future city

7. What are the future goals of The Venus Project?

Meadows and Dinwiddie:At present, we are focused on formalizing and systematizing the body of work of The Venus Projects founder, Jacque Fresco. In an age that is sorely lacking an approach updated to current knowledge and capability, we enter uncharted territory with the methods of science to help us through. This is the crucial job that no one has attempted, until now.

In the short term, we are focused on a systems approach to organize a holistic understanding of the natural world and human culture. This involves understanding economics and human social systems in the broader contexts of Earth processes and ecosystems, and communicating this understanding through books, videos, the internet, podcasts, transmedia storytelling, and course curricula.

In the mid-term, we aim to fulfill the desperate need for the strategic coordination of consilience by synthesizing the knowledge of academia and the know-how of industry. This network of intelligence will produce a transdisciplinary research agenda, research program, and global theory of change. Constructing a new planning center will function as a living lab and think tank devoted to designing the first prototype city.

In the long term, The Venus Project hopes to see the construction of new prototype cities for the purpose of testing the hypothesis of a holistic, technical design-solution for a social system. Iterations of these prototypes will form a worldwide network of cities. The study of these cities will function as the basis for a science of Earth management, the models of which guide the intelligent allocation of resources for the purpose of optimizing civilization to adapt and evolve in relationship with an Earth ecology.

There is a lot to consider and we welcome participation in the development of such a system.

Continue reading here:

Is The Venus Project The Next Stage In Human Evolution? - Forbes

COVID-19 has catalysed the evolution of digital finance | Financial Services – FinTech Magazine – The FinTech & InsurTech Platform

Posted on by

Although digital technology was permeating the payments space prior to the pandemic, few would contend that changes havent now been accelerated.

What was once an opportunity for tech companies to transform the relationship between consumers and the financial institutions that served them has become a necessity, particularly in light of the impracticality of cash when trying to prevent the spread of infection.

Reflecting on how the sector has evolved, Vaduvur Bharghavan, President and CEO of card app platform Ondot, told FinTech Magazine, Apple Card was the first to enter and really set the expectation for what a modern, digital-first card should be: get a card quickly, understand spending clearly, manage your account on-the-go, and engage with perks and offers.

Google and Samsung have built on these experiences, but could be even more disruptive. Google is looking beyond just one card portfolio and has already signed eight financial institutions with more expected, meaning they could try to become a platform for banking rather than just a card portfolio.

Furthermore, following the announcement of Samsungs new Pay Card (in collaboration with Curve), Conor Pierce, Corporate VP of Samsung UK & Ireland, intimated that the development was a direct attempt at reconciling consumer needs with current socio-economic conditions:

Now, more than ever, people need a secure payment solution they can rely on. Were excited to be able to put the control back into our customers hands by launching Samsung Pay Card, he said.

However, the developments dont stop at payments and transactions; fintech startup PrizePool recently made headlines when it raised US$4.25m for its savings account platform which also allowed customers to win monthly cash prizes of up to $50k.

Now more than ever, Americans need to be saving money to protect their future, commented Frank Chien, Co-Founder and CEO. We know that saving can be hard to prioritize and our goal is to reduce the barrier to saving money by making it fun.

Also, Stem managed to secure $10m in funding for its distribution and payments platform in support of independent artists, who are struggling to adjust to the new post-COVID-19 restrictions on their income.

Adam Nash, one of the ventures angel investors, said, The music industry has been extremely slow to bring the transparency and capabilities of modern software to creators. Stems fintech solution brings opportunities to a wider range of artists than ever before.

It seems readily apparent, then, that financial backing for new, digitally-inflected forms of finance management are being actively developed in the fintech community as a direct result of COVID-19.

The diversity and spread of this innovation give a positive indication for the future: each industry could soon receive the bespoke solutions it needs to thrive in this new economic environment.

See the original post:

COVID-19 has catalysed the evolution of digital finance | Financial Services - FinTech Magazine - The FinTech & InsurTech Platform

The Evolution Of Dave Matthews Band’s ‘Warehouse’ – JamBase

Posted on by

When Dave Matthews Band played their first official show as part of a Middle East Childrens Alliance benefit on March 14, 1991 at Trax in Charlottesville, Virginia the group debuted seven original songs. The setlist that night featured Ill Back You Up and Cry Freedom, which continued to be performed by the band, though less often in recent years. The other songs premiered at the first show became setlist staples: Typical Situation, The Best of Whats Around, The Song That Jane Likes, Recently and Warehouse.

Of all the songs debuted that night, according to DMBAlmanac.com, Warehouse has been played the most by DMB, currently at 829 performances. Warehouse has also made it into Dave Mathews solo setlists and performances by Dave Matthews & Tim Reynolds.

Regarding Warehouse, which appeared on the bands 1994 debut album Under The Table And Dreaming, the DMBAlmanac states, This song ranks near the top of the list in terms of all time fan favorites. It was played since the very beginning and has remained a highlight nearly every show it is played.

There are dozens of videos of Warehouse available to view via the JamBase Live Video Archive (JBLVA). The earliest version currently in the database dates back to June 17, 1992, click below to watch:

Warehouse has continuously evolved over the years, as detailed by the DMBAlmanac. Take a journey through JBLVA to see and hear the evolution of Warehouse, guided by the DMBAlmanacs entry for the song.

December 28, 1993 (Dave Solo)

DMBAlmanac: In the early days of 92-93, the song frequently featured a Shortnin Bread interpolation towards the end of the song.

August 1, 1994

DMBAlmanac: After the summer of 1994, the last verse evolved beyond the mere repetition of Thats my blood down there.

October 10, 1996

DMBAlmanac: Starting in 1995, a stop-time intro began to occasionally be played during full-band versions. After 1996, every full band performance of this song has included a stop-time intro.

February 19, 1999 (Dave & Tim)

DMBAlmanac: Dave and Tim versions have continued to contain the original intro, as well as a Passion intro where Dave interpolates the vocals from Peter Gabriels song Passion.

July 17, 1999

DMBAlmanac: This song has also been featured as a fake, in which the Warehouse intro is played several times before the band goes directly into Ants Marching.

August 2, 2000

DMBAlmanac: In 1999, fans from the original nancies mailing list began organizing to chant Woo! during the stop-time intro. By the summer of 2000, the Woos caught on and are now a standard crowd chant at the start of every Warehouse.

July 30, 2003

DMBAlmanac: Starting in 2003, the jam evolved into what has come to be known as the salsa jam outro with a more celebratory salsa vibe.

August 15, 2009

DMBAlmanac: In 2007, the band began playing what we call a UTTAD-style intro, [Under The Table And Dreaming] where Dave sang an intro verse similar to the one found on the songs studio cut. Since the chords Dave played during this intro are the same ones he plays during the Passion intro, some have also labeled this intro as Passion; however, this intro is completely unrelated to the Peter Gabriel song and is therefore distinct from the Passion intro.

Juy 14, 2010

DMBAlmanac: In 2010, the band began playing the intro exactly as it appears on the album, which we have labeled UTTAD intro.

See the rest here:

The Evolution Of Dave Matthews Band's 'Warehouse' - JamBase