‘Massive decrease’: Dog euthanasia cases drop 92% as number of pooch licences soars – CBC.ca

Significantly fewer dogs are beingeuthanized in Winnipeg at a time when the numberof owners registering their pets continues tosoar.

"There are less animals coming in, but there's a massive decrease as far as euthanizations,"said Leland Gordon, chief operating officer for the city'sAnimal Services Agency.

The agency continues to take inabout 1,000 pets each year, but that's down from closer to 1,500 in 2008,Gordon said. Twenty-eightdogs were euthanized in 2016, compared to 359 in 2008.

"The residents of Winnipeg, the taxpayers can be really happy to hear a stat like that," Gordon said.

One big reason for the decline, Gordon says, is a rise in dog and cat licences in the city.

Fifty per cent more owners registered their dogs with the city in 2016 than in 2008.

More than 54,000 dog and 28,900 cat owners licensed their pets last year, compared to in 2015when 48,600 dog and 22,900 cat licenses were issued.

Thanks to that uptick in licensing, Gordon said 311 operators have been able to help about 600 lost pets find their way back home in recent years.

But the drop ineuthanasiafor pets isn't just from a rise in licensing, Gordon said.

"We've been doing a lot ofprogressivethings in the past few years to try and save really as many animals as possible," Gordon said.

Public awareness campaigns on social media andcommunity outreach initiatives about responsible pet ownershiphave also helped, he said.

"We go to over 30 community events a year," Gordon said."I think people are seeing more of animal services in the community and they're becoming more responsible."

Gordon previously said the agency was only able to find homes for 75 per cent of the dogs it rescued in 2008. Posting cuddly photos of adoptable dogs online a few years ago has helped change that, he said.

All of the agency's social media accounts are maintained by volunteers, Gordon says, and they often work with groups such as Winnipeg Lost Dog Alerts to reunitepups withtheir rightful owners.

Euthanasia will always be used in the case ofaggressive or terminally ill dogs that are brought into animal services and can't be released back into the community, Gordon said.

"Willnever be zero, but we can work as a team to keep that number as low as possible," hesaid.

Dramatic decrease in euthanized dogs0:55

Read the original:

'Massive decrease': Dog euthanasia cases drop 92% as number of pooch licences soars - CBC.ca

11 ‘awesome’ dogs face euthanasia – Las Cruces Sun-News

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

118

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Shelter officials are seeking homes for 11 dogs with treatable conditions that otherwise will be euthanized next week.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Sun-News Reports , . 3:40 p.m. MT June 6, 2017

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Doa Ana County-Las Cruces shelter officials are seeking homes for 11 dogs with treatable conditions that otherwise will be euthanized. Some of the adoptable dogs are seen here.(Photo: Courtesy)

LAS CRUCES - Shelter officials are seeking homes for 11 dogs with treatable conditions that otherwise will be euthanized next week.

Shelter officials said they won't hold the dogs past June 14, roughly one week from now.

Three of the dogs are heartworm-positive, while eight areEhrlichiaAnaplasmosis-positive.

"Understand that we testall dogs(for these illnesses) before adoption or a transfer toanother adoption agency,which is whyeverymonthwe have these positive dogs to find assistance with," said shelter Executive Director Beth Vesco-Mock. "Thesedogs are otherwiseextremely healthyand are extremelybehaviorallysound."

Adoption fees will be waived for the dogs, which have tended to be more difficult to adopt out because of their conditions.

"If anyone is interested in these awesome animals,I would encourage you to consult withyourveterinarian for treatment options," Vesco-Mock said. "Then, if still interested, please stop in the ASCMV at 3551 Bataan Memorial West and meet your new family pet."

To find out how to adopt one of the dogs,call the ASCMV or stop in at the shelter, 3551 Bataan Memorial West in Las Cruces. Information: 575-382-0018.

Shelter officials said the high numbers ofheartworm- andEhrlichiaAnaplasmosis-positive dogs at the facility show that the diseasesare prevalent in Doa Ana County. They encouraged pet owners to get their pets on preventative regimens to reduce the risk of heartworm infection. Also, pet owners can attempt to reduce animals' exposure to ticks, which spread Ehrlichia and Anaplasmosis.

Read or Share this story: http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/local/2017/06/06/11-awesome-dogs-face-euthanasia/374464001/

Read the rest here:

11 'awesome' dogs face euthanasia - Las Cruces Sun-News

Letter: Judges should get say in drug sentencing – Times Herald-Record

CNN recently reported that a federal judge in Iowa reluctantly imposed the federal mandatory minimum drug sentence of five years in prison on a grandmother who was convicted of conspiracy to distribute five or more grams of methamphetamine. The judge noted that had she been tried in state court, she would have gotten probation since she was never in trouble with the law before.

Mandatory sentencing takes administering the law out of judges' hands, leaving them unable to consider all mitigating circumstances. The judge should have authority over administering the law, not federal agencies in D.C. and certainly not Attorney General Jeff Sessions, since neither hear these cases. Mandatory sentencing on those convicted of victimless crimes also impose an economic burden on society, who not only has to pay room and board of the convicted in prison, but also the families of those convicted are deprived of the economic and family role that those convicted of victimless crimes played at home.

This imposes a burden on the rest of society, for the people left behind need to be provided for to the extent they can't provide for themselves. Put federal drug sentencing back in the hands of the judges where it belongs.

Michael Radowitz

Newburgh

View original post here:

Letter: Judges should get say in drug sentencing - Times Herald-Record

Schenectady man sentenced to 7 years in prison for child porn – Albany Times Union

ALBANY A Schenectady man was sentenced to seven years and three months in prison Tuesday for receiving and possessing child pornography.

Jeffrey Butler, 33, was also sentenced to 15 years of post-release supervision.

While pleading guilty on Feb. 6, Butler admitted he used the Internet and a peer-to-peer file sharing program to download more than 300 child pornography files.

"Many, many people continue to believe that viewing child pornography is a victimless crime," U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino said before sentencing Butler. "But it is important, I think, for the record to establish that what you were viewing, Mr. Butler, was horrendous crimes being committed against children who are real children

"They're not fake, they're not three-dimensional caricatures, and it's not victimless," the judge said. "Every time you view child pornography, you are prolonging and perpetuating the agony that these real children sustained when they were being tortured and raped as depicted in many of the images and films that you viewed."

Investigators found videos and still images depicting the sexual exploitation of children on electronic devices inside Butler's home, according U.S. Attorney Richard S. Hartunian of the Northern District of New York, and James C. Spero, Special Agent in Charge of the Buffalo Field Office of Homeland Security Investigations.

This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Emmet O'Hanlon as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to protect children from online exploitation and abuse.

Read more from the original source:

Schenectady man sentenced to 7 years in prison for child porn - Albany Times Union

Making Whitefish best it can be – The Missoulian

I am running for Whitefish Municipal Court judge for one reason: to make the court and our community the best it can be.

My initial goal is to reduce your taxes. I will make the judge position part-time, with a corresponding reduction in salary, to save your tax bill. I want to increase efficiency.

I will use video arraignments to free county deputies for patrol rather than transporting prisoners. This will also make scarce jail space available for more serious offenders.

I will improve case resolution by implementing simple business practices, such as telephone conferences, so citizens will not miss work to resolve a parking ticket and visitors will not have to make multiple return visits for a traffic violation.

I will punish domestic violence. On average, a woman is beaten 25 times before she makes a police report. Women are killed by abusers at twice the rate of our troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Fifty to 75 percent of those deaths are when she leaves her abuser. I will issue restraining orders when a victim makes the courageous decision to seek help, and will strongly punish domestic abusers.

I will protect our community from drunk drivers and those without insurance or licenses. These are not victimless crimes. I will impose maximum penalties, including treatment and interlock devices, to protect each of your families and our community.

I will do more with less of your tax dollars. You are being taxed for a new city hall, a new high school and the Haskill Basin conservation easement. Soon you will be asked to pay for a new middle school and a new county jail. As I said, I will reduce the courts budget, beginning with the judges salary.

I will bring experience to the job. I am the only candidate who has served as Brad Johnsons sub-judge. As Johnson's sub-judge, I handled all cases when he was absent, had a conflict of interest or did not want to handle the case.

I have long been a public servant. I have lived and practiced law in Whitefish for 26 years. I have been Planning Board chairman, Flathead Countys Employer of Choice and the Whitefish Chambers Citizen of the Year.

For more information on my background, experience and goals, go to my website at http://www.tornowforwhitefish.com or call me at 862-7450.

With all these things in mind, I respectfully ask for your vote in November so that together, we can make the court and our community the best it can be.

Tom Tornow is a candidate for Whitefish municipal judge.

View post:

Making Whitefish best it can be - The Missoulian

Is Germany Blowing It? – The Awl

BOOM + ELECTION = BUBBLE, proclaims University of Dortmund economics and journalism professor Henrik Mller in a provocative op-ed in Der Spiegel this week.

Go ahead, dude, rub it in: The German economy, thanks to either its peoples inherent genius or their indiscriminate Europe-wrecking penny-pinching, is allegedly boomingor, to use the German, it boomt. Employment, state revenue, exports, corporate moraleall at record highs, Mller explains. Real estate prices are rising rapidly, both in large cities and rural areas. The construction sector is expanding. GREAT.

But wait! Economists, largely in agreement, warn that German companies have been working beyond their production capacities for some time, and that the economy is, and will remain, berhitzt (OO-bur-HITST), or overheated. Yes, Mller allows, this boom could last for years. But that doesnt make it any less dangerous, he warns. For the longer the boom, the harder the bust. Unless someone (possibly someone in a brightly colored pantsuit?) does something, the German economy is headed for a bubble.

The problem, says Mller, is that Germanys in an election year, and apparently nobodys eager to campaign on the platform WE MUST STOP THIS IMPRACTICAL BOOMeven though, from at least this outsiders perspective, that would be the single Germanest campaign slogan in the history of Menschheit.

Mllers is your standard-issue mildly interesting Krugmanian/Keynesian boilerplate, just in BUSINESS GERMAN, so automatically more authoritative-sounding. But its interest is compounded for American observers (GET IT? MONEY JOKE!) when we consider the multitudinous cross-cultural delights that lurk inside.

First, the German word for election is der Wahlkampf (VAHL-komff), which literally means vote fight, and who doesnt enjoy the mental picture of she who so recently jilted us in the boxing ring, kicking the asses of a bunch of balding dudes in tiny glasses? I bet shed have a special boxing suit jacket made, or perhaps one in every color, and theyd all look amazing.

Second, the German word for bubble, as you can see in the Spiegel headline, is die Blase (BLAH-suh), which, coincidentally, is the same as the word for bladder, which for anyone who has ever read Little House in the Big Woods, makes perfect sense.

But Blase is also the nominalization of the verb blasen, which means to blow, which, as in English, carries meanings in both the bubble-based and fellatial sense. To say blow me in German, for example, you say Blas mir einen, which literally means blow me one, BUTas my flatmate Henrik was clear to point out when I asked him for this very translation in 1997is not to be used as an insult, but simply a request.

Speaking of which: Mller suggests that the only way to avoid the bubble is to do the economic equivalent of stopping mid-hookup to inquire about your paramours most recent HIV test and the whereabouts of his or her prophylactics. And, even though its the 90s and everybody cool does it, that conversation is a 100-percent boner killer, with boner here being Business German for elections. (Let it not be said that I dont put the shaft in Wirtschaft.)

Anyway, according to Mller, who I am sure definitely supports this extended sex metaphor (and Im just getting started), the German-economy-saving equivalent of Where the Gummis at? is to raise federal interests rates in the name of gegensteuern (GAY-gun stoy-urn), which technically means countersteering, but also carries within it the word for to tax, steuernwhich also means to steer, to pilot, to govern and to regulate, which is where the second part of Mllers boner-ruining plan comes in.

For, he argues, another crucial way to prevent a bubble isPaul Ryan, you might want to look awayto steer the German economy in the right direction by curbing demand, by raising individual income taxes on the middle class specifically. WUT? IS THAT EVEN LEGAL TO WRITE? You read me right, he assures me. To only increase taxes on the wealthy (as the Left demands) would bring little stability, because these additional burdens would hardly slow down high earners lust for consumption.

Wait, so taxing the bejeezus out of the rich doesnt stop them from buying shit? But thats not even his point. His point is that they have to get ordinary Germans to stop buying so much shit. But this suggestion is the electoral equivalent of not just asking where the rubbers is, but of explaining in detail the symptoms of advanced gonorrhea. Or, in the Business German: Politically, this idea is not feasible.

Some perspective: Current German income tax rates range from zero to 45 percent of ones taxable income, with a middle-class earner of about 50,000 Euros per year taxed at what Americans would see as an extortionate 42 percent. (Although, because university is free, it just might end up balancing itself out, considering.) German goods also include VAT in all prices (be prepared for an earful if you ask about the American practice of adding on sales tax at the register), and Germans pay a set 8 percent of their pre-tax salary toward the Krankenkasse, or national health insurance Koffer.

So on the one hand, you can see why anyone who wants to win an election isnt campaigning on a promise to raise those rates even higher. Its logical, agrees Mller, that nobody wants to be the buzzkillthe person who turns the music down and the lights up.

On the other hand, youd think that if there was one thing Germans would be great at, it would be ruining a party.

Theres no quicker and more efficient way to put the brakes, as Mller says, on a great time than to tell a joke to a German that involves any measure of sarcasm or exaggerationyou can almost hear the record-scratching sound, as all merriment halts in the afterglow of the universal German anti-mating call of Ektually, zets not right.

Also, honestly, if youre already paying 42 percent of your income toward your countrys staggering array of immaculate free parks, roads, bridges, schools, universities, doctors, spa cures and day cares, and you do so out of a completely different understanding of what it means to be in a free society, whats another few hundred Euros to insure against den Crash? I mean, Germans insure everything else on Gods green earth, why not their economy?

It appears to me, a seasoned economist if ever there were one, that the major German political parties resistance to running on a very Teutonic cautious boom-dampening may be a result of GLOBALISM RUN AMOK!!! If the Paris climate agreement, a.k.a. The One-World Government of Gun Taking and the Antichrist masquerading as people who understand scientific fact, can infect America despite our brave Presidents ability to see the TRUTH, whats to stop globalism from operating in reverse? The Information Superhighway runs both ways, after all: If the Elitist Cosmopolitan Polyglots can infect us with their bogus climate stuff, clearly we can also infect them with our ridiculous belief that unfettered Capitalism is virtuous.

Yes, Germany may think its broken up with us, but not before the metaphorical mutual Blasen of our years as super close allies left a little something in its wake: It appears the worst aspect of American influence has lingered in Germany, like if Ayn Rand were an STD.

As Mller suggests, if the politicians dont start counter-steering the ship, Germany may have already blown it. (Or, at any rate, it comforts me to think so, and have a little Schadenfreude in my continued time of heartbreak.)

Read this article:

Is Germany Blowing It? - The Awl

Political Biology on American Campuses: The Left’s Angry Young Devour the Liberal Old – Townhall

|

Posted: Jun 07, 2017 3:00 PM

What should we call the disturbing trend on American college campuses with students of the hard left angrily devouring their terrified and older liberal professors?

No, they don't eat human flesh, but students of the hard left are devouring just the same, shutting down free speech and free inquiry, and targeting liberal professors for silencing and revenge for offering up liberal notions of equality.

We've seen it at Yale with two liberal professors denounced as racists, shamed and driven off for daring to tell students there may be more important things to worry about than vetting Halloween costumes through the lens of racial identity politics.

And we see it now at Evergreen State College, a left-leaning school where Bret Weinstein, a professor of biology, is under siege for daring to suggest that racism, even when practiced by minorities, is no virtue.

You can't truly study a thing until you call it what it is. So what to call it? Many haven't had the time, preoccupied instead with the low-hanging fruit of President Donald Trump's ridiculous Twitter account.

I get it. Headline: Trump Tweets Stupid Things. His foolish social media tantrums reinforce his narcissism. They undercut his administration's policies.

The man is in the White House as a consequence of Republican establishment collapse and betrayal of its base years ago.

But with all those ripe, idiotic presidential figs falling into pundits' hands, journalism has been somewhat distracted from the Democratic tension on college campuses.

What happened to the Republicans years ago -- a collapse of the middle ground -- is now happening to the Democrats, and it bears watching too.

So what shall we call it?

We might find the answer in the remarks of Robespierre, a student of the use of fear and the mob. But who reads European history anymore?

As the academy moves inexorably leftward, few conservatives remain on college campuses. Conservative professors may be such an endangered species that there's probably no sport in chasing them across the quad.

But it has become clear even to a few prominent liberal writers that liberal professors have become the targets of the hard left.

It looks like meat's back on the menu, boys and girls.

So again, what do we call this phenomenon?

Professor Weinstein is a biologist. His politics are liberal. And biology offers us an answer:

Matriphagy, the devouring of the mother by their young.

I suppose I could call it patriphagy, the devouring of the father, but I don't want to be denounced as some kind of science denier. Biology is clear in stubbornly insisting that despite our modern politics, the mother gives birth.

Matriphagy is a rare occurrence found among certain spiders and the caecilian, a blind, legless amphibian that lives underground.

Some spiders, for example, give birth, and later deposit food sacks around the web for their young to eat. But when these sacks are gone, something else must be done. The young must eat, and develop necessary predatory behavior in order to survive. And nature provides an answer.

The mother spider stimulates the young by thrumming on her web. She triggers them. And once triggered, they sink their fangs into her and begin to feed.

Even as I type this I can hear it now, the cries of anger about my sins of micro or macro aggression, perhaps yelled through those black masks worn by the young fascists of the left, for daring to compare them to ravenous spider babies.

Professor Weinstein is a self-described liberal who held close to a liberal idea, best expressed by the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He had a dream, remember? He dreamed that one day, people would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. These days, it's the conservatives who support this idea as the left moves further into race- and gender-based identity politics.

But Professor Weinstein incurred the wrath of the leftist mob by opposing a new take on the so-called Day of Absence at Evergreen State.

In the past, minorities made themselves absent from campus to highlight racial discrimination, hence the Day of Absence. Weinstein supported this.

What he would not support was a new demand of the angry left, to compel white students to leave campus grounds.

"On a college campus, one's right to speak -- or to be -- must never be based on skin color," he wrote in a private email to a colleague that was made public and incited hatred against him.

In it, he highlighted the differences between the original Day of Absence and the new racial component.

"The first is a forceful call to consciousness which is, of course, crippling to the logic of oppression. The second is a show of force, and an act of oppression in and of itself."

That makes great sense. But he's now been denounced by some faculty members scrambling to get ahead of the young mob on the left. And campus police suggested he leave school grounds, at least for a day or two, because they could not protect him from his students.

The liberal as heretic, pursued and denounced by the angry children of the liberal ideal.

It may not be as thrilling as those cringeworthy presidential tweets. But it's out there.

It is not the first such episode. And it won't be the last.

Read this article:

Political Biology on American Campuses: The Left's Angry Young Devour the Liberal Old - Townhall

A Liberal defence policy could cost you – The Globe and Mail

The review of Canadas defence policy took more than a year to assess the potential threats in the world and came back with one real priority: wed better figure out a way to pay for a military.

There are some new things in the Liberal governments blueprint: more drones, surveillance, cyberdefence and special forces.

But the big thing is an admission a rare one that Canada must spend more to have an army, a navy and an air force.

Read more: Ottawa lays out $62-billion in new military spending over 20 years

Its going to be a lot more, $7-billion a year more a decade from now, in 2027, on an accrual-accounting basis. And it wont really buy a bigger or flashier fighting force. Mostly, the extra money is needed because there wasnt enough set aside for the long-planned buys of essential equipment, such as fighter jets and warships.

The policy issued Wednesday was supposed to take stock of the challenges the military will face in the coming world, but the assessment was groundbreaking: The job is still to protect Canadian territory, work with the United States in North America and NORAD and join with allies in global security, either in NATO missions or UN peacekeeping. Theres terrorism and theres cyberthreats. Thats not news.

The real issue was cost. And on that score, the Liberals were refreshingly realistic. They dispensed with some of the perennial flim-flam of Canadian defence policy, which involves underestimating what the military needs and low-balling costs, then shifting budgets around to make do.

This was a Liberal defence policy for the harder realism of 2017, when the Liberals have been forced to face the fact that there isnt enough money set aside for the planes that make the air force an air force and the ships that make the navy a navy. Theres a new U.S. President, Donald Trump, who demands allies bear a greater share of the defence-spending burden. Plus, theres concern, outlined in a speech by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland on Tuesday, that the United States might shrug off the burden of world leadership, requiring other countries to do more.

But it was a long way from the way Justin Trudeaus Liberals talked about defence when they ran for office in 2015, or even last year. This was a good defence policy, but for the Liberals, the snag is that it clashed with so many of the things they said about military matters in the past.

Remember how Mr. Trudeau talked about pulling CF-18s from air strikes in Iraq and Syria, as he suggested a Liberal government would be less combat-minded? He emphasized a return to Pearsonian peacekeeping. Last year, he tasked Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan with preparing a deployment to a UN peacekeeping mission; thats still on hold.

Instead, Mr. Trudeau is proposing to devote the kind of money to defence that his Conservative predecessor, Stephen Harper, was unwilling to spend.

Even if the biggest bumps in spending are slated to come five years from now, the increases start this year and will see the defence budget rise from $17.1-billion to $24.6-billion in the 2026-27 fiscal year, in accrual accounting terms.

Is that what Liberal voters expected? A Justin Trudeau government spending billions more on the military? No.

Mr. Sajjan said Canadians want the government to equip the military properly. But the price tag alone means increased defence spending is a new Liberal priority and that will be a surprise to many of those Liberal voters.

In 2015, he promised to save by ordering cheaper fighter jets than the F-35s that Mr. Harpers Conservatives planned to buy. Now, his Liberal government says the military needs 88 fighter jets, not the 65 Mr. Harpers government planned to buy at roughly double the cost estimated by the Tories. Similarly, the Tories promised to buy 12 to 15 warships and now, the Liberals say it will be 15, period but theyll cost $30-billion more.

Give Mr. Sajjan credit for that. It was always widely believed that 65 fighter jets would be too few the last time Canada bought fighters, it ordered 138 CF-18s. The cost estimates for planes and ships were low-balled. Thank goodness Mr. Sajjan did away with that guff.

The Liberals say they were surprised at the extent of the budget shortfall for big equipment buys. In the harder world of 2017, they chose to look past their campaign rhetoric and face the real cost of a military. The political question is still whether Liberal voters of 2015 want to pay it.

Follow Campbell Clark on Twitter: @camrclark

The rest is here:

A Liberal defence policy could cost you - The Globe and Mail

Liberal Trump hysteria, Salem witch trials – Washington Times – Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Liberal hysteria over President Donald Trumps legally impeccable international disengagements has surpassed the hysteria that fueled the Salem Witch Trials. But there is no Arthur Miller among the contemporary glitterati to dramatize the frenzy.

Consider the hyperbolic thunderbolts of the owlish Lawrence Summers, professor and past president of Harvard University, former Secretary of Treasury under President Bill Clinton, and economic adviser to President Barack Obama. Writing in the op-ed pages of The Washington Post (Are we at a historical turning point? June 5, 2017), Professor Summers sirens, It is possible that last week will be remembered as a hinge in historya moment when the United States and the world started moving away from the peace, prosperity and stability that have defined the past 75 years.

But the economics wizard economized on the truth. After 9/11, the United States entered a state of perpetual, global warfare. President Obama inherited three unconstitutional presidential wars from his predecessor, and left nine unconstitutional presidential wars to his successor. Current wars have given birth to a staggering 65 million refugees. The Middle East and South Asia are convulsed from Libya and Egypt to Yemen, Syria, and Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The international terrorist threat is greater today than it was on 9/11 despite the United States expenditure of $10 trillion, killing 3 million to 4 million Muslims and pointlessly sacrificing the lives of tens of thousands of Americans in the armed forces.

Peace and stability have not defined the past 75 years. Among other things, that interval has witnessed the Korean War; the United States overthrow of Prime Minister Mosaddegh in Iran and President Arbenz in Guatemala; the Bay of Pigs invasion to topple Cubas Fidel Castro; assassination plots against Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, Castro in Cuba and Salvador Allende in Chile; the Vietnam War, including napalm and the My Lai Massacre; the secret war in Laos (1964-1973) featuring 2.5 million tons of cluster bombs which continue to kill and maim Laotians to this very day; the Chinese Cultural Revolution; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; the blood-stained disintegration of Yugoslavia; the 1956 British-French-Israel invasion of Egypt, the 1967 Six Days War, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War; and protracted civil wars in South Africa and Rhodesia against apartheid.

Professor Summers accuses President Trump of losing an imaginary paradise on earth by withdrawing from the 2015 Paris climate agreement, by seeking to revise NAFTA, by declining to deliver moral encyclicals to the world and by failing unilaterally to commit the United States militarily to defend the borders of all NATO members from external aggression, for instance, a Russian attack on Turkey or Estonia.

Each accusation betrays a delirious mind. The 2015 Paris climate accord was never ratified by the Senate as required by the U.S. Constitutions Treaty Clause. As an executive agreement approved by the president alone, the climate accord never commanded constitutional validity. President Trump simply wrote an official epitaph to a legal corpse. Moreover, everything in the agreement was hortatory. Nothing was binding. Signatory nations simply agreed to do what they would do out of self-interest without the Treaty, a political-environmental dynamic that remains undisturbed.

President Trump has not repudiated one word of NAFTA, a 1700 page agreement signed into law in 1993. He has not withdrawn from NAFTA by giving 6-months notice as was his right under Article 2205. Instead, the President has notified Canada, Mexico and the United States Congress 90 days in advance of contemplated negotiations of his intent to update the 23-year-old agreement in response to seismic changes in our economic landscape. The notification letter signed by United States Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer could not be more measured or reasonable. Among other things, it elaborates:

[W]e note that NAFTA was negotiated 25 years ago, and while our economy and businesses have changed considerably over that period, NAFTA has not. Many chapters are outdated and do not reflect modern standards. For example, digital trade was in its infancy when NAFTA was enacted Our aim is that NAFTA be modernized to include new provisions to address intellectual property rights, regulatory policies, state-owned enterprises, customs procedures, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, labor, environment, and small and medium enterprises.

Professor Summers fury at President Trumps refusal to deliver moral sermons to the world is particularly fatuous. (Mr. Summers served without protest under a president who played prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner to kill Americans suspected of endangering national security on his say-so alone, based on secret, unsubstantiated information.) Nothing in constitutional law or international relations commends schoolmarm-like preaching from the White House. As British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston taught, nations have no permanent friends or enemies, but only permanent interests. President Woodrow Wilsons moral lectures during World War I facilitated the wretched Treaty of Versaillesthe fuse of World War II. French President Georges Clemenceau acerbically remarked about Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference that while he talked like Jesus Christ he acted like [British Prime Minister] Lloyd George. Has Mr. Summers forgotten that those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make morally arrogant?

Finally, Article 5 of NATO does not and constitutionally could not commit the United States to war to defend the borders of member nations. Article 11 provides: [The provisions of] this Treaty shall becarried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The Declare War Clause of the U.S. Constitution exclusively empowers Congress to take the nation from a state of peace to war. It cannot be done by the president alone or by the president and Senate in making treaties. The U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Reid v. Covert (1957) that treaties are subservient to constitutional limitations.

Now you know why William F. Buckley Jr. declared he should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.

Read the original:

Liberal Trump hysteria, Salem witch trials - Washington Times - Washington Times

Letter backing bilingualism watchdog nominee signed by key Liberals, Conservatives say – CBC.ca

Conservatives say signatories to an open letter last week from prominent members of the francophone community in support of Madeleine Meilleur's candidacy for languages commissioner include many Liberal partisans with a vested interest in seeing a fellow Liberal take the top job.

Canadian Heritage MinisterMlanieJolytwicecited the letter in questionperiod this week as evidence the government's nominee enjoys support within thefrancophonecommunity.

"We believe the selection committee made the right choice," the 94 signatories said in the letter. "Throughout her different careers, [Meilleur] has demonstrated professionalism, judgment and especially, integrity."

But the Conservatives said many of the letter's signatories have made donations to the Liberal Party of Canada and thus it is little surprise they would backMeilleur.

Ontario Conservative MP JohnBrassardsaid it is a further sign thatMeilleur'snomination has been tainted by Liberal partypolitics.

"It just deepens the partisan aspect of this appointment," Brassardsaid. "There shouldn't even be any semblance or sense that this is partisan."

CBC News found that 42 of the 94 names on the letter appear to be donors to the federal Liberals, according to analysis of Elections Canada data.

The signatories and donors include not only several prominent Franco-Ontarian leaders in the areas of business, law and culture, but also people who have worked for the federal orOntario Liberal parties. They include Pierre Cyr, the Ontario Liberal Party's operational vice-president of organization, and Noble Chummar, who previouslyworked for formerOntario Liberal premier DaltonMcGuinty andformer Liberal prime ministerPaul Martin.

"I'm not surprised the minister is holding up letters signed by Liberal donors,"Brassardtold CBC News in an interview. "Ms.Meilleurwas a Liberal donor herself."

Since 2009,Meilleurhas donated more than $3,000 to the federal Liberal Party, its local campaigns, and Justin Trudeau's2013 leadership race, according to analysis of Elections Canada data.

Ontario Conservative MP John Brassard says Madeleine Meilleur's nomination as official languages commissioner has been tainted by partisanship. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

The appointment process has become too political forMeilleurto take up the position with any credibility, Brassard said.

"It's one thing to wave a letter of support in the House of Commons," Brassard said. "But the reality is that not everybody within the francophone, the Acadian and even the anglophone community is supporting this appointment."

Several organizations representing official language minority communities initially congratulatedMeilleuron her nomination, but have since withdrawn their support in light of the debate as to whether the process was above board.

Earlier this week, theSocitdel'Acadiedu Nouveau-Brunswick a group that defends the rights ofAcadiansin New Brunswick announced itwill seek a judicial reviewof the appointment process.

Ronald Caza, the Ottawa lawyer who rallied Meilleur's supporters to write the open letter to Joly, said he's surprised by the backlash against her nomination.

"All of those people, they signed because they believe in Madeleine Meilleur," Caza said."We just wanted the [Canadian heritage] minister to know that Madeleine does have all this support in the francophone community and that we're all very happy she's been nominated to play this role."

Caza, who has previously served as counsel to former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty, said he wanted to give voice to those in the francophone community who know Meilleur personally andbelieve she's best placed to advance the interests of official language minority communities.

"Everyone who signed that letter that's what they want," he said. "Whether they're Liberals or not is irrelevant."

Heritage Minister Mlanie Joly is defending the process that led to Meilleur's nomination as open, rigorous and merit-based. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

A spokesperson for Joly, Pierre-Olivier Herbert, said "the experience, expertise and integrity of Ms. Meilleur has been recognized by many in the official languages community across Canada."

SinceMeilleur'snomination was announcedon May 15, the government has had to fend accusations from the opposition thatMeilleurbenefited from herties to officials in both the Prime Minister's Office and Joly's office.

Joly told the House of Commons last Wednesday that Gerald Butts and Katie Telford two of the prime minister's top advisers never discussed with Meilleur her nomination as official languages commissioner.

Joly has also said that none of her employees who previously worked with Meilleur or had contact with her were involved in the selection process.

Meilleurtestified before a special sitting of the Senate Monday evening, defending her record and promising to put the languages post ahead of party politics.Underthe Official Languages Act, a language commissioner must be approved by a vote in both the House of Commons and Senate before he or she can start the job.

A vote in the Senate will be held at a later date.

Read the original post:

Letter backing bilingualism watchdog nominee signed by key Liberals, Conservatives say - CBC.ca

The United States of America: Liberal Democracy or Liberal Oligarchy? – Center for Research on Globalization

Liberal Democracy is a system of governance conditioned not only by political liberties such as free and fair elections, universal suffrage, and rights to run for office, but also by constitutional liberties such as the rule of law, respect for minorities, freedom of speech, religion and assembly, private property rights, and most importantly, a wide separation of powers. The founding pillar of liberal democracy, therefore, is its citizens ability to influence the governments policy formulation through the exercise of the aforementioned political and constitutional liberties. In other words, while a flawless correspondence between government policy formulation and majority preferences is idealistic, government responsiveness to citizens interests and concerns, in the process of policy formulation, is of central importance when evaluating democratic governance.

Ergo, by embracing the Iron Law of Oligarchy and The Elite Theorys perspective, this paper will illustrate how the U.S. system of governance, while providing constitutional, that is, civil liberties to its citizens, espouses more focused and more powerful interests over more diffused and less powerful interests. This inevitably results in the U.S. political system being a liberal oligarchy rather than liberal democracy as it is presumed by many (see Dahl, 1971, 1985, 2006; Tocqueville, 2000; Monroe, 1979; Key, 1961 and famously Lincoln, 1989).

First, the paper will review the Iron Law of Oligarchy and The Elite Theory while highlighting some of their most prominent advocates. Next, by briefly reflecting upon the definition of the oligarchs and the elites, the paper will place the concept of political influence that corporate power exerts in context. Subsequently, the paper will survey an eminent empirical study that found a vast discrepancy in the U.S. governments responsiveness to the majority preferences as opposed to the preferences of the elites. Last, the essay will illustrate how studies confirming an ostensibly desirable degree of governments responsiveness to the preferences of average citizens neglect the reflection of those preferences to those of wealthy citizens.

The Iron Law of Oligarchy and The Elite Theory

Political theory, The Iron Law of Oligarchy, was first proposed by Robert Michels in his book Political Parties(1999) and laterdeveloped into The Elite Theory by scholars such as C. Wright Mills, Elmer Eric Schattschneider, G. William Domhoff, etc. Opposing pluralism, the theory focuses on the disparity between the political influence exerted by the oligarchs or the elites, actors that control considerable concentrations of wealth, as opposed to that of the average citizen. This school of political thought argues that the U.S. system of governance espouses more focused and more powerful interests over more diffused and less powerful interests. That is, the advocates of the Elite Theory stress that, in the case of the United States government policy formulation, influence is conditioned by affluence. Mills (1959), in his magnum opus, The Power Elite, offered a comprehensive description of how U.S. political, economic, military and social elites have dominated key issues in public policy formulation. Similarly, inThe Semisovereign People, Schattschneider asserted that the realm of the pressure system is actually fairly small:

the range of organized, identifiable, known groups is amazingly narrow; there is nothing remotely universal about it (1960: 30).

Schattschneider continues by arguing that

business or upper-class bias of the pressure system shows up everywhere (ibid: 30), therefore, the notion that the pressure system is automatically representative of the whole community is a myth (ibid: 36).

Instead, Schattschneider posits,

the system is skewed, loaded and unbalanced in favor of a fraction of a minority (ibid: 36).

G. William Domhoff made a significant contributed to the elite theory with his book, Who Rules America: The Triumph of the Corporate Rich. Domhoff (2013) presented a detailed depiction of how operating through various organizations such as think-tanks, opinion shaping apparatus and lobby groups enable elites to control key issues within policy formulation.

Oligarchs and The Elites

credits to the owner of the photo

According to Aristotle (1996), oligarchs are citizens who control and command an extensive concentration of wealth who always happen to be the few. Similarly, people who, due to their strategic positions in powerful organizations, have the ability to influence political outcomes, are classified by most scholars as economic and political elites (Higley, 2006). Therefore, the terms oligarchs and elites are often used interchangeably. These individuals can affect the basic stability of political regimes, the overall arrangements and workings of political institutions, and the key policies of the government (Higley and Burton, 2006: 7). Typically, elites and oligarchs consist of the top directors and executives of the major corporations. Nonetheless, they can belong to other essential sectors of the society such as political, military and administrative (Keller, 1963). By owning a wealth-producing property, these individuals make large-scale investment and, therefore, employment decisions, which ultimately regulates the United States economy (Higley and Pakulski, 2012). Therefore, a large percentage of American economic assets are disproportionally controlled by a rather small number of corporations.

The degree to which such private and totally unaccountable concentration of wealth has the potential to translate into political power is aptly synopsized by a closer look at Fortune 500 companies. For instance, in 2015, the top 500 corporations had a total revenue of $12 trillion, which represented two-thirds of the United States GDP (Fortune 5000, 2015). Therefore, a fairly small number of individuals disproportionally control the economic might of the United States. By obtaining access to influential policy makers, these individuals exercise power through congressional campaigns contributions. Consequently, according to Centre for Responsive Politics (2016), campaign donors spent nearly $3.1 billion in 2016s elections alone. In their study titled Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials, Kalla and Broockman (2015) concluded that superior access to policy makers are indeed obtained through political campaign donations.

Empirical Study

Over time, a variety of diverse actors that seem to have influence on U.S. policy formulation have been identified. Coincidentally, normative concerns that the U.S. political system is vastly influenced by capital driven individuals and groups have been growing. Until recently, however, providing empirical evidence that supported these concerns proved to be very difficult, almost impossible. Nonetheless, several, fairly recent empirical studies have demonstrated that, in the case of the United States, the policy making process is influenced, to a great degree, by more focused and more powerful interests compared to more diffused, less powerful interests (see Gilens and Page, 2014; Winters and Page, 2009; Page, Kalla and Broockman, 2015; Jacobs and Page, 2005; Bartels and Seawright, 2013; etc). However, due to its limited scope, this paper will survey only one of these studies.

By employing an imposing data set drawn from a heterogeneous set of policy initiatives, 1,923 in total, Gilens and Page demonstrated that

economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence (2014: pp. 565).

By comparing policy preferences of American citizens at the 50th income percentile to that of American citizens at the 90th income percentile, Gilens and Page (2014) found that the United States policy formulation is conditioned by the preferences of the latter group far more than it is conditioned by the preferences of the former group. In fact, the influence that the medium voter exerts on the U.S. policy formulation is near zero (Gilens and Page, 2014: pp. 576). By including the data that dates all the way back to 1980 the authors illustrated that such state of affairs has been a long-term trend, making it harder for ordinary citizens to comprehend, let alone reverse. However, ordinary citizens, might often be observed to win, that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes, even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites, with whom they often agree with, actually prevail as policy formulation is not a zero-sum game (Gilens and Page, 2014: pp. 570). Nevertheless, it is crucial to point out that this correlation is erroneous in terms of causal impact and, consequently, provides a false sense of political equality. In other words, the results obtained by the authorsdemonstrate how the relatively high level of governments responsiveness to the preferences ofaverage and low income citizens is nothing more than a reflection of the preferences shared by wealthy citizens. However, by incorporation a multivariate analysis of different test groups, Gilens and Page (2014), illustrated how the influence of average citizens preferences drops rapidly once their preferences differ to that of wealthy citizens.

The ideal of political equality that average American citizens, as well as many scholars, hold dear, stands in stark contrast to the immense representational biases demonstrated by Gilens and Page. While acknowledging that a perfect political equality has a particularly idealistic character, the enormous dichotomy in the systems responsiveness to citizens at different income levels reinforces doubt associated with the presumed liberal democratic character of American society and leads this paper to conclude that the U.S. is, contrary to popular belief, a liberal oligarchy as opposed to liberal democracy.

Conclusion

By embracing the Iron Law of Oligarchy and The Elite Theorys perspective, this paper illustrated how the U.S. system of governance, while providing constitutional, that is, civil liberties to its citizens, espouses more focused and more powerful interests over more diffused and less powerful interests. This inevitably results in the U.S. political system being a liberal oligarchy rather than liberal democracy as it is presumed by many. First, the paper reviewed the Iron Law of Oligarchy and The Elite Theory and highlighted some of their most prominent advocates. Next, by briefly reflecting upon the definition of the oligarchs and the elites, the paper placed the concept of corporate power and political influence it exerts in context. Subsequently, the paper surveyed an eminent empirical study that found a vast discrepancy in the U.S. governments responsiveness to the majority preferences as opposed to the preferences of the elites. Last, the paper illustrated how studies confirming ostensibly desirable levels of governments responsiveness to the preferences of the average citizen neglect the reflection of those preferences to those of wealthy citizens.

Sources

Aristotle, (1996). The Politics and The Constitution of Athens. Ed. Stephen Everson, Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Center for Responsive Politics. 2013. The Money Behind the Elections. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/ [Accessed 13 April 2017].

Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dahl, R. A. (1985), A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Dahl, R. A. (2006), On Political Equality. New Haven: CT: Yale University Press, p. 4.

Domhoff, G. W. (2013), Who Rules America: The Triumph of the Corporate Rich. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fortune. 2015. Fortune 500. http://beta.fortune.com/fortune500/. [Accessed 19 April 2017].

Higley, J. (2006), Elite Theory in Political Sociology. University of Texas Austin. Retrieved from http://paperroom.ipsa.org/papers/paper_4036.pdf on 11/04/2017.

Higley, J., Burton, M. (2006), Elite Foundation of Liberal Democracy. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield.

Higley, J., Pakulski, J. (2012), Elites, elitism and elite theory: unending confusion?. Paper prepared for Research Committee on Political Elites (RC02), panel Elite Dilemmas and Democracys Future, World Congress of the International Political Science Association. Madrid: School of Journalism.

Hotelling, H. (1929), Stability in Competition. Economic Journal, 39: 41-57.

Kalla, J. L., Broockman, D. E. (2015), Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials: A Randomized Field Experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 0: 1-14.

Lincoln, A. (1989), Address at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. In Speeches and Writings 1859 1865. New York: Library of America.

Keller, S. (1963), Beyond the Ruling Class: Strategic Elites in Modern Society. New York: Random House.

Mills, C. W. (1959), The Power Elite. Galaxy edition, New York: Oxford University Press.

Michels, R. (1999), Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: Transaction Publishers.

Mullen, A., Klaehn, J. (2010), The Herman- Chomsky Propaganda Model: A Critical Approach to Analyzing Mass Media Behaviour. Sociology Compass, 4(4), pp. 215-229.

Monroe, A. (1979), Consistency between Public Preferences and National Policy Decisions. American Politics Quarterly, 7: 3-18.

Gilens, M., Page, I. B. (2014), Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3): 56481.

Page, B. I., Bartels, L. M. and Seawright, J. (2013), Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans, Perspectives on Politics, 11(1), pp. 5173.

Schattschneider, E. E. (1960), The Semisovereign People: A Realists View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Tocqueville, A. D. (2000), Democracy in America. Translated and edited by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Winters, J. A., Page, B. I. (2009). Oligarchy in the United States? Perspectives on Politics 7(4): 73151.

Petar Djolic is currently in his final year of Masters of International Relations at University of Sydney, Australia.

Featured image: credits to the owner

Excerpt from:

The United States of America: Liberal Democracy or Liberal Oligarchy? - Center for Research on Globalization

ESPN downplays study revealing perceptions of liberal bias – Washington Examiner

ESPN this week downplayed the results of a new study that said most people who think the sports channel is biased believe it leans to the left.

A survey conducted by ESPN and Langer Research Associates found that 30 percent of those asked think ESPN is biased. Within that group, 63 percent think the channel has a liberal bias, and 30 percent think it has a conservative bias.

But in a Monday story on the survey, ESPN only mentioned the 30 percent who think the channel has a conservative bent, and made no mention of the 63 percent who think it's liberal. When asked why the 63 percent figure wasn't included in the ESPN story, a spokesman for ESPN said in an email to the Washington Examiner it was "implied."

The study was released on the heels of a decline in subscribers to ESPN, which many said was due to perceptions of political bias. The network lost more than 10 million subscribers over the last few years, according to the New York Times.

Charges of the network's political bias escalated after ESPN was forced to lay off roughly 100 journalists, on-air talent, analysts and production staffers.

The study, which was conducted from May 3 to May 7, also found that 64 percent of ESPN fans believe the network is "getting it right" with its coverage of sports news and political issues.

In its post online, ESPN said there was "no doubt" that some Americans disagreed with how different issues were discussed on ESPN platforms. However, the network said those opinions didn't affect their viewing behavior "in any material way."

Original post:

ESPN downplays study revealing perceptions of liberal bias - Washington Examiner

State should not control alcohol – The Wilson Times (subscription)

John Hood

Contributing Columnist

They dont currently possess that freedom. Our state places significant limits on the sale of beer, wine and spirits. Above a low statutory cap, breweries are not allowed to market their wares directly to retailers. Distilleries are even more encumbered, both in how much liquor they can sell directly to consumers and in the range of retailers they can use namely, only the government monopoly of ABC stores.

North Carolina actually fares relatively well in assessments of personal freedom, according to analysts at the Cato Institute. Its Freedom in the 50 States report uses three categories of variables: fiscal, regulatory and personal. North Carolinas overall freedom ranking is 19th, but we do best in the personal freedom category, where we rank 13th.

By this broad measure, North Carolina is the freest state in the Southeast. Still, wed be even higher on the list if our alcohol laws werent so restrictive, ranking us 35th in the country in this area.

There are two movements underway in North Carolina that, if successful, would improve the situation. One of them began at the General Assembly this year as House Bill 500. As originally written, it would have allowed craft breweries to distribute up to 200,000 barrels of beer directly to retailers, rather than having to use a state-sanctioned cartel of wholesalers. The current cap is 25,000 barrels.

Wholesalers prevailed in the initial legislative battle, so the version of the bill that ultimately passed the House in late April would only modestly expand the ability of some breweries and wineries to sell their products as they wish. In response, some craft breweries have filed a lawsuit to strike down the states distribution cap and franchise laws as a violation of the state constitution.

The other measure, Senate Bill 155, would allow distilleries to sell up to five bottles directly to visiting consumers. It would also loosen limits on the sale of spirits at festivals and conventions, while allowing restaurants and retailers to sell alcohol after 10 a.m. on Sundays, two hours earlier than the current limit. It has already passed the Senate and is now awaiting action in the House.

Some opposition to alcohol deregulation comes from interest groups, public and private, that benefit from the current system. No one should be surprised by their special pleading, which is always skillfully delivered.

But others inside and outside the General Assembly argue that North Carolinas regulatory scheme is designed to curb alcohol abuse, which they tie to such social ills as drunken driving and domestic abuse. I think their concerns deserve respect, although I dont ultimately agree with their conclusions.

As I said, Im a teetotaler. One reason is that my family has often suffered the ravages of alcoholism. The great-uncle for whom I was named, for example, was struck and killed on the railroad track behind our house either because he had fallen down drunk or because hed first been beaten to unconsciousness by fellow drunks. His uncle, in turn, had been murdered decades before during an alcohol-fueled gunfight. Other close relatives have had less deadly but still debilitating experiences with alcohol.

But if your conception of freedom is that it ought only to extend to behavior with which you personally agree, youve conceived it out of existence. The state should certainly punish actions that violate the rights of others, such as drunken driving or violent crimes committed while inebriated. The adult consumption and sale of alcohol, however, are not the proper concern of the state.

Most drinkers arent drunks, most drunks arent dangerous and most governmental attempts to save people from themselves create more problems than they solve.

John Hood is chairman of the John Locke Foundation and appears on the talk show N.C. Spin. Follow him on Twitter @JohnHoodNC.

Go here to see the original:

State should not control alcohol - The Wilson Times (subscription)

Air Force Leaders Discuss The Future Of Air And Space Power – ECNmag.com

Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill June 6.

At the forefront were the efforts to restore readiness and increase the lethality of the force. Wilson said any objective evaluation of todays Air Force reaches two conclusions:

The Air Force is too small for the missions demanded of it, she said in advance of the hearing. And adversaries are modernizing and innovating faster than we are, putting Americas technological advantage in air and space at risk.

Air Force in demand

Looking forward, Wilson and Goldfein do not envision the demand for air and space power diminishing in the coming decade.

Today, the Air Force is manned with 660,000 active, guard, reserve and civilian Airmen, a 30 percent decline since Operation Desert Storm 26 years ago.

We have the same level of taskings today as we did during Desert Storm, Wilson said. But we have 55 squadrons rather than 134.

The Air Force leaders said while the fiscal 18 budget request focuses on restoring readiness and increasing lethality, future budgets must focus on modernization and continued readiness recovery.

Restoring readiness

The two testified that maintaining superiority starts with people.

For an Airman, its nothing short of a moral obligation to gain and maintain air superiority, Goldfein said. This budget request begins to set the table for recovering and rebuilding our force.

The fiscal 18 budget will bring the active duty force to 325,100 while also adding 800 reservists, 600guardsman, and 3,000 civilians, bringing the total force to approximately 669,000. The increased manpower will focus primarily on increasing remotely piloted aircraft crews, maintainers, and pilot training capacity by adding two additional F-16 training squadrons and maximizing flying hours to the highest executable levels.

Wilson said next to people, the most obvious readiness need is munitions. In the fight against ISIS, the Air Force has delivered approximately 56,000 direct-attack munitions, more than it used in all of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The fiscal 18 budget funds maximum factory production of the most critical munitions.

Modernization

The fiscal 18 budget focuses on the Air Forces top three modernization programs:

Purchasing 46 F-35A fighters and modernizing other fighters; Buying 15 KC-46 tankers; Funding the B-21 bomber development.

The proposed budget also supports the continuation and modernization of the nuclear triad with funds dedicated to both air- and ground-based capabilities.

Our nuclear enterprise is getting old and we must begin modernizing now to ensure a credible deterrent, Wilson said.

Side-by-side with the United States Navy, we are responsible for two of the three legs of the nuclear Triad, Goldfein said. On our worst day as a nation, our responsibility is to ensure the president is where he needs tobe,when he needs to be there, and he stays connected through command and control to the nuclear enterprise and for an Airman, that remains jobs one.

Space

The Air Force has been the leading military service responsible for space for 54 years. Over the last several years, the service has been developing concepts for space control, changing the way it trains its space force and integrating space operations into the joint fight.

Weve provided GPS for the world. Weve transformed not only the way we fight but the way all of you probably navigate around the city, Wilson said. We must expect that war, of any kind, will extend into space in any future conflict and we have to change the way we think and prepare for that eventuality.

The proposed budget increases space funding by 20 percent, including a 27 percent increase in research, development,testingand evaluation for space systems, and a 12 percent increase for space procurement.

Innovation for the future

Research, development,testingand evaluation are critically important for the Air Force, Wilson and Goldfein said.

To prevail against rapidly innovating adversaries, the Air Force must accelerate procurement. The service will take advantage of authorities like the FY17 Defense Authorization Act to help get capabilities operational faster than ever before, Wilson said.

The request for funding for long-term research in air dominance increased significantly in the fiscal 18 budget. The Air Force will seek to increase basic and applied research in areas where it must maintain the competitive advantage over adversaries. This includes hypersonic vehicles,directed-energy, unmanned and autonomous systems, and nanotechnology.

Its going to take us approximately eight years to be able to get to full spectrum readiness with stable budgets, Goldfein said. We will be unable to execute the defense strategic guidance undersequester.

If the Budget Control Act limit isnt fixed and we have to go throughsequester, that will be equivalent to a $15 billion cut, Wilson said. Were too small for what the nation expects of us now, sequestration would make the situation worse.

According to Wilson and Goldfein, by supporting the budget request, Congress can provide fiscal predictability to the Air Force so it can continue to own the high ground, defend the homeland, and project power in conjunction with allies.

More here:

Air Force Leaders Discuss The Future Of Air And Space Power - ECNmag.com

States needs freedom to improve health for Medicaid recipients … – The Hill (blog)

As Congress continues its work on replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Ohio leaders like Governor John Kasich and Senator Robert Portman are rightly concerned about the impact these changes will have on Medicaid recipients, especially those who received Medicaid through the ACA expansion. However, two critical facts are missing from the current debate.

First, Medicaid is a substandard health care system and we have to find a way to transition people into insurance that offers them better care. Second, Medicaid is not fiscally sustainable at either the state or federal level. No one, on either side of the political divide, wants people to be uninsured, but glossing over these two critical facts wont help solve the real problems Medicaid faces and it wont provide people with quality healthcare.

There are numerous reasons for this. One problem is, Medicaid reimburses doctors and hospitals at a lower rate than private coverage, so recipients have trouble finding doctors who take Medicaid. Doctors who do take Medicaid often have less autonomy in deciding how to treat their patients. Medicaid recipients are more likely to visit emergency rooms rather than seeking more effect care with a primary care physician.

Given the poor quality of care, why would we want to put more people on Medicaid? The focus shouldnt be on protecting a system that has a mixed record of providing healthcare, but instead on finding solutions that offer better care to enrollees. We need to change Medicaid overall and think of how to deliver the best care, to the most patients for the best price.

Here in Ohio, the Ohio Department of Medicaid recognizes the need to offer quality healthcare and is actively piloting programs to deliver better care to Medicaid recipients. The problem is, there is only so much improvement that can be made without Washington lifting some of its burdensome regulations.

Fortunately, federal officials want to make it easier to grant Medicaid waivers that would allow states more flexibility to innovate in their Medicaid programs. Current proposals from the Ohio House would have Ohio seek a waiver to help Medicaid recipients save more for healthcare and transition to real health insurance. This Healthy Ohio plan is based on Healthy Indiana, which is working well for our westerly neighbor.

Now back to the sustainability of Medicaid. As with all taxpayer funded programs, government officials must ensure that money is being spent wisely and efficiently, and that the program achieves its goals. Medicaid fails in all three of these.

In Ohio, we spend a quarter of our state budget on Medicaid, and it is only growing. That means less money for education, roads, prisons, and a host of other government services. The good news is, the reforms I have mentioned will go a long way to improving healthcare delivery and will help reign in the unsustainable costs of Medicaid.

Modern day presidents from Ronald Reagan to Barack ObamaBarack ObamaOvernight Energy: Trump seeks Dems' help on infrastructure Comey's dramatic account rocks Washington Overnight Regulation: Labor chief defends handling of financial adviser rule | EPA ozone rule delayed | Panel approves bill on FDA user fees MORE have proposed budgets that reduce federal funding to Medicaid and increase the states share. Medicaid costs are only growing, and the federal government has made clear they will pay less in the future. If Medicaid is not reformed, the only other option is spiraling tax increases on Ohioans. That isnt good for Ohios families and wont improve the quality of care people get through Medicaid.

Ignoring the problems in the current Medicaid system will only continue to relegate people to poor quality healthcare at unsustainable costs. But we have a real opportunity to actively create a new Medicaid program. In doing so, Ohio can balance fiscal responsibility and offer better care to those most in need.

Rea S. Hederman Jr. is executive vice president and chief operating officer of The Buckeye Institute, a think tank promoting free market principles, and is an expert in healthcare policy.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

See original here:

States needs freedom to improve health for Medicaid recipients ... - The Hill (blog)

How to become financially independent in 5 years – Jun. 6, 2017 – CNNMoney

Those who are on track to be "financially independent and retiring early" -- or "FIRE" -- are.

You'd need to be fired up to sock away enough money to quit your job and retire in just five years. But it's not impossible.

Some people, like Claudia and Garrett Pennington take extreme measures like saving 67% of their income and making big lifestyle choices. They almost never eat out, have no cable subscriptions and even dramatically downsized their home.

While that's probably too much sacrifice for most people, see if you're on track to make it to financial freedom in 10, 15 or 20 years.

This couple is on track to retire -- before they turn 40

Being financially independent means that income from your investments alone is enough to cover all your expenses.

So how do you get there?

The sunshine that makes most retirement funds grow is compound interest. And it takes time to grow. But if you plan to retire early, you might not have as much time as someone targeting a traditional retirement.

As a result, the most important accelerant when working to be on "FIRE" is your savings rate. Most people targeting FIRE are living well below their means and saving more than half their income.

Identifying the percentage of your after-tax income that you're saving to get to your retirement target is key. Finding the right savings rate will get you to financial independence whether you're earning $50,000, $100,000 or $200,000 a year.

In order to make simplified calculation, we'll start with your after-tax income. We'll also assume you have nothing saved right now. You're starting from zero. And we'll assume that your investments earn a rate of return of 5%, and that you'll take 4% a year from your investments to cover your expenses.

You can also use an early retirement calculator like the one at Networthify to fill in your own numbers.

But given our assumptions, here are your target savings rates and a simplified financial picture of what it would take to retire in 5, 10, 15 and 20 years.

To retire 5 years from now

In order to be financially independent in five years, you're going to need to ratchet your savings rate all the way up to 82% of your income.

It's a pretty spartan life if you're earning $50,000 after taxes. Your annual expenses will need to squeeze in under $9,000. Yes, that's for the whole year. It is the sacrifice you'd need to make so that you can bank the other $41,000. Out of your monthly income, about $3,500 will go to savings. You'll need to have a sharp plan to get by on just $750 a month.

Even if you earn closer to $100,000 after taxes, you'll still be living a fairly basic existence on $18,000 a year while pocketing $82,000. Start thinking of creative living arrangements to stretch that monthly living budget of $1,500.

No matter your income, this savings rate is going to be possible only for those people with virtually no debts. That's why many people working toward FIRE start by paying off their mortgage first, or live a car-free life.

To retire 10 years from now

If you want to give yourself a little more breathing room and still become financially independent 10 years from now, you're going to need to boost your savings rate to 66.5% of your income.

That means if you're earning $50,000, your annual expenses will need to clock in under $16,750 a year so that you can sock away the other $33,250.

Out of your monthly income, $2,771 will go to savings and you'll have $1,396 to live on.

Again, housing costs will cut significantly into that money. But if you have incredibly low-cost or subsidized housing, you may be able make this work.

If you make $100,000 it gets a little easier. You'll have $33,500 for living expenses because the remaining $66,500 is going toward your future. You'll need to manage your expenses so you can live on $2,800 month.

To retire 15 years from now

You're up for saving hard to be financially independent, but maybe you have other debts you're carrying or aren't willing to make the extreme adjustments needed to save at a higher rate. Financial independence 15 years from now may be a reasonable goal. You're still saving over half your income, but only just. Your savings rate is 53.7%.

For those earning $50,000, your annual expenses will need to be under $23,150 a year so that you can save the other $26,850.

Out of your monthly income, $2,200 will go to savings. You'll have $2,000 to live on.

If you're earning closer to $100,000, you'll be living on $46,300 a year. You're saving a slightly larger portion: $53,700.

That means you're living on $3,858 a month and pocketing $4,475.

To retire 20 years from now

If you've got a little more time and want to set your sights at being financially independent 20 years from now, you can drop your savings rate to under half of your income and land at 43%.

If you're earning around $50,000, you're going to need to live on $28,500 a year. You'll pocket the other $21,500.

Out of your monthly income, $1,792 will go to savings and you'll keep the larger portion, $2,375, to live on.

For people earning closer to $100,000, this savings rate will leave you with $57,000 for living expenses annually, while you put $43,000 away for later. You'll have $4,750 for monthly living expenses.

This may be the most manageable savings rate of these options, but even this plan, if started early enough will put you on FIRE.

Are you working toward FIRE? Already there? Tell us about it and share your monthly budget, and you could be featured in an upcoming story on CNNMoney.

CNNMoney (New York) First published June 6, 2017: 11:50 AM ET

Go here to read the rest:

How to become financially independent in 5 years - Jun. 6, 2017 - CNNMoney

About Sealand

In the early 60's, Roy Bates, a Major in the British army, established a radio station, situated offshore on an abandoned ex naval fort named "Knock John". The theory behind this location was an attempt to bypass the draconian broadcasting restrictions of the time, which permitted little more than formal broadcasting by the BBC. Roy's station, "Radio Essex", and others like it, were known affectionately by the media as Pirate radio stations, and were much loved by the British public, as they supplied everything that the BBC did not at the time, Pop music and amusing presenters.

In the years than ensued, Roy fought an unsuccessful legal battle with the UK government, which questioned the legality of his occupation of said fort. It was ruled that "Knock John" fell under UK jurisdiction. Smarting from his setback, Roy weighed his options. Another abandoned fortress, Roughs Tower, identical in construction to the Knock John existed further offshore, and crucially, outside of the three mile limit to which the UK jurisdiction extended. Roy proceeded to occupy Roughs Tower, on Christmas eve 1966, with the intention of revitalising his dormant radio station. This was until he conjured a different plan entirely. After consulting his lawyers, Roy decided to declare this fortress island the independent state of Sealand, Claiming Jus Gentium (Law of Nations") over a part of the globe that was "Terra Nullius (Nobody's Land).

On the 2nd of September 1967, accompanied by his wife Joan on her birthday, his son Michael (14), daughter Penelope (16) and several friends and followers, Roy declared the Principality of Sealand. The founding of this country was marked by the raising a newly designed flag, and in an extremely romantic birthday gesture, the bestowing of a new title on his beloved wife, to be know from that moment on as Princess Joan.

Here is the original post:

About Sealand

Malawi govt over paid farm input suppliers by K61billion – Nyasa Times

Government paid out a whooping K72 billion to four firms that were identified to supply fertiliser in the K11.1 billion Farm input Loan Programme (Filp) which was instituted by the government of Peoples Party (PP) of former president Joyce Banda.

One of the senior managers in the four firms that include Export Trading Company, Sealand Investments Limited, Midima Produce Limited and Bosveld Phosphates confirmed of the payment.

The treasury had indicated that they will pay us K72billion with an accumulation of profit but through promissory notes, said the manager who was equally in bewilderment that they were getting so much.

Managing Director Sealand Investments Limited Dipak Jevant also confirmed of the agreement Government has struck with the two firms.

They [Government] are going to pay us through promissory notes but up to now we have not received it, said Jevant in an interview when the payment agreements were being made.

Operations Manager for Export Trading Company Paresh Kiri could not come out clearly on their agreement with Government in an interview on Wednesday.

A highly placed source in the treasury has said officials and some company officials cannot justify the additional payment.

At the time of the transactions, spokesperson for the Reserve Bank of Malawi Mbane Ngwira was noncommittal when asked if the central bank had issued the promissory notes.

He said he could not shed light on the matter as this was amongst many items on his desk.

I have to follow the queue, insisted Ngwira when he was pressed for the central banks comment.

Ben Botolo, who replaced Ronald Mangani as Secretary to the treasury in February this year conceded that the transaction was a total confusion but dismissed information that Government overpaid the suppliers.

It was a total mess, said Botolo through a phone interview .

He explained that after taking over office from Mangani who struck the deals, it took him two months just to understand what was going on.

He said the complication came in because there were companies which were underwritten by African Trade Insurance (ATI) and one of them was ETG, said Botolo who explained further that there were other companies that were underwritten by another insurance firm Lloyds in London.

In his recollections, they had to pay US$6m to ATI and the there were other amounts they owed to the Lloyds.

We have been battling with these payments but we eventually had to find a formula to pay because then our credit ratings would have gone down and it would have affected our international market standing, he said.

At the time that the transactions had been made the treasury could not explicitly state when Government was going to issue the promissory notes. The then treasury spokesperson Nations Msowoya could also not state whether or not treasury consulted the Attorney General on the payment arrangement that has included the interest.

The matter of FILP is still under discussion with suppliers therefore the issue of interest rates is not concluded yet, said Msowoya in a written response at the time.

In an interview with Attorney General Kalekeni Kaphale he said since he had not been consulted, he was not willing to make any comments at all on the correctness of facts.

I know no law which says every time treasury has to settle a liability the AG has to be consulted? stated the learned Senior Counsel. On another note, I have not been consulted and would only be consulted if there are legal issues to advice on.

He said in the event that the firms had sued Government thenthat would have brought it within my province, as per the provisions of the Civil Procedure (suits by or against the Government or Public Officer).

The four suppliers provided 75,000 Metric Tonnes that government secured and according communication from the then OPC Principal Secretary for Administration Clement Chinthu-Phiri to the then Secretary to the treasury Ronald Mangani on supply and delivery of the 2013-2014 Filp which is indicate that the companies were yet to be paid.

The communication indicates that on November 6, 2014 the treasury called for a meeting that was attended by the Attorney General Kalekeni Kaphale, Chinthu-Phiri, the then secretary to the Vice President Luckie Sikwese, budget director where Mangani asked Sikwese and Chinthu Phiri to confirm if the fertilisers were procedurally procured.

The two principal secretaries confirmed that the transaction followed procurement guidelines, said Chinthu-Phiri.

The process started when former President Banda said in her May 17, 2013 State of the Nation address that Government had introduced a special loan scheme called Filp to run side by side with the farm Input Subsidy Programme (Fisp).

The facility was a public private partnership programme where the private sector would offer loan facilities for inputs to deserving and qualifying farmers, explains Chinthu-Phiri.

Five months later, on October 1, 2013 the Centre for Investigative Journalism Malawi (CIJM)understands that the then minister of agriculture and food security presented to cabinet a brief on status of Filp where it directed the minister to implement the Filp activity plan.

Between August 2013 and September 2013 Chinthu-Phiri communicates in the letter that procurement processes began following Government determination to use the restricted tender method of procurement.

He says seven companies were identified to provide bids and these included Export Trading Company, Sealand Investments Limited, Compestre, Lyambai DMCC, Afri Ventures FZE, Midima Produce Limited and Bosveld Phosphates. Out of the seven only four were picked.

The principal secretary of the public sector reforms management unit of OPC, at that time now Secretary to the Vice President, was tasked to set up a team which had to negotiate with the identified companies, the terms of contracts, writes Chinthu-Phiri.

Among the terms, the companies were to use their resources to import the fertiliser and that payment would be made in the 2014/2015 financial year in four instalments in the months of July, August, September and October in 2014.

The International Procurement Committee of the OPC chaired by Chinthu-Phiri was assigned to process the procurement as required by law after negotiations with various possible suppliers were done one volumes of fertiliser requires and terms of supply.

Although the treasury wrote Sikwese that Government had agreed that payments to fertilizer suppliers would be completed by end of October 2014 the situation on the ground is contrary to what was stipulated in the contract agreement.

Chinthu-Phiri also explains that governments finance company, Malawi Enterprise Development Fund (Medf) formerly Mardef was engaged to ensure that the suppliers deliver the fertilisers and that suitable warehousing facilities and transport were available.

Mardef was further tasked to create a loan facility for farmers to access the fertilizers, he says.

Chinthu-Phiri also concedes in his communication reference number 16/07/4 dated November 7, 2014 that Government had at this time not paid any supplier for the fertilisers that were supplied and delivered.

Almost all of them had to get bank loans to finance the import of the fertilizers, which are now accumulating interests, he said.

Another communication that CIJM has seen from the Office of the Director of Public Procurement (ODPP), signed by its Director of Public Procurement Manuel Mphinga, gives approval to Mardef to use single sourcing for procurement of fertiliser distribution services to four companies.

The letter dated October 23, 2013 further advised Mardef to negotiate with the firms on all contract terms and conditions including price.

The then treasury Spokesperson Nations Msowoya said in an earlier interview that Government had made part payment to the suppliers and government will be finalising these payments in the 2015/2016 financial year.

According to a presentation former Mardef CEO Joseph Mononga made at a media workshop in Blantyre on October 31, 2014 the firms were supposed to submit monthly invoices for payment.

Mardef was supposed to claim operational funding from Government which was to be used to pay distributors but at that time government was not availing any funds.

As of October 2014 when the distributors were paid, they nevertheless still continued charging for warehousing.

Delays in payment of distributors resulted in escalation of the distribution costs due to continued charges on warehousing which resulted in a total bill of K2.3 billion, according to the presentation that CIJM has seen.

Since the program was not included in the 2013/2014 budget, Mardef says this made it difficult to have funding for major activities including payment of distributors.

Newly hired MEDF CEO Mervis Mangukenje insisted that the contract for supply of fertilizer was between Government of Malawi and the four fertilizer suppliers and not MARDEF and the fertilizer suppliers when called to explain the payment.

OPC and Treasury is in a better position to give you updates on the matter, she insisted before adding in a response to a questionnaire:

However be advised that Government instituted a special audit through the National Audit Office on MEDF Ltd to verify if the 75,000Mt fertilizer was indeed delivered.

She also stressed the fact that MEDFs only involvement was to manage the distribution to the beneficiaries since it was a fertilizer loan.

Mangulenje also said all fertilizer distributors were paid in full using loan recovery funds as directed by the Treasury.

MEDF paid a total of K2.4 billion to the fertilizer distributors and the said amount was audited by external auditors KPMG, she said maintaining that they do not have any information regarding the Promissory Notes as the Contracts were between Government of Malawi and the Suppliers.

See original here:

Malawi govt over paid farm input suppliers by K61billion - Nyasa Times

Introduction: Open Utopia | The Open Utopia

Download this Section

Today we are people who know better, and thats both a wonderful and terrible thing.

Sam Green, Utopia in Four Movements,

Utopia is a hard sell in the twenty-first century. Today we are people who know better, and what we know are the horrors of actually existing Utopias of the previous century: Nazi Germany, Stalins Soviet Union, Maoist China, and so on in depressing repetition. In each case there was a radical break with the present and a bold leap toward an imagined future; in every case the result was disastrous in terms of human cost. Thankfully, what seems to be equally consistent is that these Utopias were relatively short-lived. History, therefore, appears to prove two things: one, Utopias, once politically realized, are staggering in their brutality; and two, they are destined to fail. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Yet we need Utopia more than ever. We live in a time without alternatives, at the end of history as Frances Fukuyama would have it, when neoliberal capitalism reins triumphant and uncontested. There are still aberrations: radical Islam in the East, neo-fascist xenophobia in the West, and a smattering of socialist societies struggling around the globe, but by and large the only game in town is the global free market. In itself this might not be so bad, except for the increasingly obvious fact that the system is not working, not for most people and not most of the time. Income inequality has increased dramatically both between and within nations. National autonomy has become subservient to the imperatives of global economic institutions, and federal, state, and local governance are undermined by the protected power of money. Profit-driven industrialization and the headlong rush toward universal consumerism is hastening the ecological destruction of the planet. In short: the world is a mess. Opinion polls, street protests, and volatile voting patterns demonstrate widespread dissatisfaction with the current system, but the popular response so far has largely been limited to the angry outcry of No! No to dictators, No to corruption, No to finance capital, No to the one percent who control everything. But negation, by itself, affects nothing. The dominant system dominates not because people agree with it; it rules because we are convinced there is no alternative.

Utopia offers us a glimpse of an alternative. Utopia, broadly conceived, is an image of a world not yet in existence that is different from and better than the world we inhabit now. For the revolutionary, Utopia offers a goal to reach and a vision to be realized. For the reformer, it provides a compass point to determine what direction to move toward and a measuring stick to determine how far one has come. Utopia is politically necessary even for those who do not desire an alternative society at all. Thoughtful politics depend upon debate and without someone or something to disagree with there is no meaningful dialogue, only an echo chamber. Utopia offers this other, an interlocutor with which to argue, thereby clarifying and strengthening your own ideas and ideals (even if they lead to the conclusion that Utopia is undesirable). Without a vision of an alternative future, we can only look backwards nostalgically to the past, or unthinkingly maintain what we have, mired in the unholy apocalypse that is now. Politically, we need Utopia.

Yet there are theoretical as well as practical problems with the project. Even before the disastrous realizations of Utopia in the twentieth century, the notion of an idealized society was attacked by both radicals and conservatives. From the Left, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels famously criticized Utopians for ignoring the material conditions of the present in favor of fantasies of a futurean approach, in their estimation, that was bound to result in ungrounded and ineffectual political programs, a reactionary retreat to an idealized past, and to inevitable failure and political disenchantment. Ultimately, they wrote in The Communist Manifesto, when stubborn facts had dispersed all intoxicating effects of self-deception, this form of socialism end[s] in a miserable fit of the blues. That is to say, the high of Utopia leads, inevitably, to the crushing low of a hangover. From the Right, Edmund Burke disparaged the Utopianism of the French Revolution for refusing to take into account the realities of human nature and the accumulated wisdom of long-seated traditions. With some justification, Burke felt that such leaps into the unknown could only lead to chaos and barbarism. Diametrically opposed in nearly every other facet of political ideology, these lions of the Left and Right could agree on one thing: Utopia was a bad idea.

Between the two poles of the political spectrum, for those in the center who simply hold on to the ideal of democracy, Utopia can also be problematic. Democracy is a system in which ordinary people determine, directly or through representation, the system that governs the society they live within. Utopias, however, are usually the products of singular imaginations or, at best, the plans of a small group: a political vanguard or artistic avant-garde. Utopians too often consider people as organic material to be shaped, not as willful agents who do the shaping; the role of the populace is, at best, to conform to a plan of a world already delivered complete. Considered a different way, Utopia is a closed program in which action is circumscribed by an algorithm coded by the master programmer. In this program there is no space for the citizen hacker. This is one reason why large-scale Utopias, made manifest, are so horrific and short-lived: short-lived because people tend not to be so pliable, and therefore insist on upsetting the perfect plans for living; horrific because people are made pliable and forced to fit the plans made for them. In Utopia the demos is designed, not consulted.

It is precisely the imaginative quality of Utopiathat is, the singular dream of a phantasmagorical alternativethat seems to damn the project to nave impracticality as an ideal and megalomaniac brutality in its realization. But without political illusions, with what are we left? Disillusion, and its attendant discursive practice: criticism. Earnest, ironic, sly or bombastic; analytic, artistic, textual, or performative; criticism has become the predominant political practice of intellectuals, artists, and even activists who are dissatisfied with the world of the present, and ostensibly desire something new. Criticism is also Utopias antithesis. If Utopianism is the act of imagining what is new, criticism, derived from the Greek words kritikos (to judge) and perhaps more revealing, krinein (to separate or divide), is the practice of pulling apart, examining, and judging that which already exists.

One of the political advantages of criticismand one of the reasons why it has become the preferred mode of political discourse in the wake of twentieth-century Utopian totalitarianismis that it guards against the monstrous horrors of political idealism put into practice. If Utopianism is about sweeping plans, criticism is about pointed objections. The act of criticism continually undermines any attempt to project a perfect system. Indeed, the very act of criticism is a strike against perfection: implicitly, it insists that there is always more to be done. Criticism also asks for input from others. It presupposes a dialogue between the critic and who or what they are criticizingor,ideally, a conversation amongst many people, each with their own opinion. And because the need to criticize is never-ending (one can always criticize the criticism itself), politics remains fluid and open: a permanent revolution. This idea and ideal of an endless critical conversation is at the center of democratic politics, for once the conversation stops we are left with a monolithic ideal, and the only politics that is left is policing: ensuring obedience and drawing the lines between those who are part of the brave new world and those who are not. This policing is the essence of totalitarianism, and over the last century the good fight against systems of oppression, be they fascist, communist or capitalist, has been waged with ruthless criticism.

But criticism has run its political course. What was once a potent weapon against totalitarianism has become an empty ritual, ineffectual at best and self-delusional at worst. What happened? History. The power of criticism is based on two assumptions: first, that there is an intrinsic power and worth in knowing or revealing the Truth; and second, that in order to reveal the Truth, beliefoften based in superstition, propaganda, and liesmust be debunked. Both these assumptions, however, have been undermined by recent material and ideological changes.

The idea that there is a power in knowing the Truth is an old one. As the Bible tells us in the Gospel of John (8:31-33) And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. What constituted the truth at that time was hardly the empirical fact of todayit was what we might call the supreme imaginary of the Word of God, communicated through the teachings of Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, these are the seeds of an idea and ideal that knowing the answer to lifes mysteries is an intrinsic good. As I have argued elsewhere, this faith in the power of the Truth is integral to all modern political thought and liberal-democratic politics, but it is given one of its purest popular expressions in Hans Christian Andersons 1837 tale The Emperors New Clothes. The story, as you may recall from your childhood, is about an emperor who is tricked into buying a spectacular suit of non-existent clothing by a pair of charlatans posing as tailors. Eager to show it off, the Emperor parades through town in the buff as the crowd admires his imaginary attire. Then, from the sidelines, a young boy cries out: But he has nothing on, and, upon hearing this undeniable fact, the people whisper it mouth to ear, awaken from their illusion, and live happily ever after. Is this not the primal fantasy of all criticsthat if they just revealed the Truth, the scales will fall from peoples eyes and all will see the world as it really is? (Which, of course, is the world as the critic sees it.)

There was once a certain logic to this faith in the power of the possession of Truthor, through criticism, the revealing of a lie. Within an information economy where there is a scarcity of knowledge, and often a monopoly on its production and distribution, knowledge does equal power. To criticize the official Truth was to strike a blow at the church or states monopoly over meaning. Critique was a decidedly political act, and the amount of effort spent by church and state in acts of censorship suggests its political efficacy. But we do not exist in this world anymore. We live in what philosopher Jean-Franois Lyotard named the postmodern condition, marked by the death of the master narrative in which Truth (or the not so Noble Lie) no longer speaks in one voice or resides in one location.

The postmodern condition, once merely an academic hypothesis pondered by an intellectual elite, is now, in the Internet age, the lived experience of the multitude. On any social or political issue there are hundreds, thousands and even millions of truths being claimed. There are currently 1 trillion unique URLs on the World Wide Web, accessed by 2 billion Google searches a day. There are more than 70 million videos posted on YouTube, and about 30 billion tweets have been sent. The worldwide count of blogs alone exceeds 130 million, each with a personalized perspective and most making idiosyncratic claims. Even the great modern gatekeepers of the TruthBBC, CNN and other objective news outletshave been forced to include user-generated content and comment boards on their sites, with the result that no singular fact or opinion stands alone or remains unchallenged.

It was the great Enlightenment invention of the Encyclopedia that democratized Truthbut only in relation to its reception. Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia with its 3.5 million-and-counting entries in English alone has democratized the production of truths. This process is not something hidden, but part of the presentation itself. Each Wikipedia page is headed by a series of tabs that, when clicked, display the encyclopedia entry, public discussion about the definition provided, the history of the entrys production, and a final tab: edit this page, where a reader has the chance to become a (co)producer of knowledge by editing and rewriting the original entry. In Wikipedia the Truth is transformed from something that is into something that is becoming: built, transformed, and revised; never stable and always fluid: truth with a small t.

Todays informational economy is no longer one of monopoly or scarcityit is an abundance of truthand of critique. When power is wielded through a monopoly on Truth, then a critical assault makes a certain political sense, but singularity has now been replaced by plurality. There is no longer a communications citadel to be attacked and silenced, only an endless plain of chatter, and the idea of criticizing a solitary Truth, or swapping one for the otherthe Emperor wears clothes/the Emperor wears no clotheshas become increasingly meaningless. As the objects of criticism multiply, criticisms power and effect directly diminishes.

Criticism is also contingent upon belief. We often think of belief as that which is immune to critique. It is the individual or group that is absolutely confidentreligious fundamentalists in todays world, or totalitarian communists or fascists of the last century; that is, those who possess what we call blind belief, which criticism can not touch. This is not so, for it is only for those who truly believe that criticism still matters. Criticism threatens to undermine the very foundation of existence for those who build their lives on the edifice of belief. To question, and thus entertain doubt, undermines the certainty necessary for thoroughgoing belief. This is why those with such fervent beliefs are so hell-bent on suppressing their critics.

But can one say, in most of the world today, that anyone consciously believes in the system? Look, for instance, at the citizens of the United States and their opinions about their economic system. In 2009, the major US pollster Rasmussen Reports stated that only a marginal majority of Americans 53 percent believe that capitalism is a better system than Socialism. This finding was mirrored by a poll conducted a year later by the widely respected Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, in which only 52 percent of Americans expressed a favorable opinion of capitalism. Just a reminder: these polls were taken after the fall of the Soviet Union and the capitalist transformation of China, in a country with no anti-capitalist party, where the mass media lauds the free market and suggests no alternatives, and where anti-communism was raised to an art form. This lack of faith in the dominant system of capitalism is mirrored worldwide. A BBC World Service poll, also from 2009, found that across twenty-seven (capitalist) countries, only 11 percent of the public thought free-market capitalism was working well. Asked if they thought that capitalism is fatally flawed and a different economic system is needed, 23 percent of the 29,000 people surveyed answered in the affirmative, with the proportion of discontents growing to 35 percent in Brazil, 38 percent in Mexico and 43 percent in France.

My anti-capitalist friends are thrilled with these reports. Surely were waiting for the Great Leap Forward. I hate to remind them, however, that if the system is firmly in control, it no longer needs belief: it functions on routineand the absence of imagination. That is to say, when ideology becomes truly hegemonic, you no longer need to believe. The reigning ideology is everything: the sun, the moon, the stars; there is simply nothing outsideno alternativeto imagine. Citizens no longer need to believe in or desire capitalism in order to go along with it, and dissatisfaction with the system, as long as it is leveled as a critique of the system rather than providing an alternative, matters little. Indeed, criticism of neoliberal capitalism is a part of the system itselfnot as healthy check on power as many critics might like to believe, but as a demonstration of the sort of plurality necessary in a democratic age for complete hegemonic control.

I am reminded of the massive protests that flooded the streets before the US invasion of Iraq. On February 15, 2003 more than a million people marched in New York City, while nearly 10 million demonstrated worldwide. What was the response of then president George W. Bush? He calmly and publicly acknowledged the mass demonstration as a sign that the system was working, saying, Democracys a beautiful thing people are allowed to express their opinion, and I welcome peoples right to say what they believe. This was spin and reframing, but it got at a fundamental truth. Bush needed the protest to make his case for a war of (Western) freedom and liberty vesus (Arab) repression and intolerance. Ironically, he also needed the protest to legitimize the war itself. In the modern imagination real wars always have dissent; now that Bush had a protest he had a genuine war. Although it pains me to admit this, especially as I helped organize the demonstration in New York, anti-war protest and critique has become an integral part of war.

When a system no longer needs to base its legitimacy on the conscious belief of its subjects indeed, no longer has to legitimize itself at allthe critical move to debunk belief by revealing it as something based on lies no longer retains its intended political effect. This perspective is not universally recognized, as is confirmed by a quick perusal of oppositional periodicals, be they liberal or conservative. In each venue there will be criticisms of official truth and the positing of counter-truths. In each there exist a thousand young boys yelling out: But he has no clothes! To no avail. The de-bunking of belief may continue for eternity as a tired and impotent ritual of political subjectivitysomething to make us think and feel as if we are really challenging powerbut its importance and efficacy is nil.

Dystopia, Utopias doppelganger, speaks directly to the crisis in belief, for dystopias conjure up a world in which no one wants to believe. Like Utopias, dystopias are an image of an alternative world, but here the similarities end. Dystopian imaginaries, while positing a scenario set in the future, always return to the present with a critical impulsesuggesting what must be curtailed if the world is not to end up the way it is portrayed. Dystopia is therefore less an imagination of what might be than a revealing of the hidden logic of what already is. Confronted with a vision of our horrific future, dystopias audience is supposed to see the Truththat our present course is leading us to the rocks of disasterand, having woken up, now act. Dystopic faith in revelation and the power of the (hidden) truth makes common cause with traditional criticism and suffers the same liabilities.

Furthermore, the political response generated by dystopia is always is a conservative one: stop the so-called progress of civilization in its course and and what? Where do we go from here? We do not know because we have neither been offered a vision of a world to hope for nor encouraged to believe that things could get better. In this way dystopias, even as they are often products of fertile imagination, deter imagination in others. The two options presented to the audience are either to accept the dystopic future as it is represented, or turn back to the present and keep this future from happening. In neither case is there a place for imagining a desirable alternative.

Finally, the desire encouraged through dystopic spectatorship is perverse. We seem to derive great satisfaction from vicariously experiencing our world destroyed by totalitarian politics, rapacious capitalism, runaway technology or ecological disaster, and dystopic scenarios1984, Brave New World, Blade Runner, The Day After Tomorrow, The Matrix, 2012have proved far more popular in our times than any comparable Utopic text. Contemplating the haunting beauty of dystopic art, like Robert Graves and Didier Madoc-Joness recent London Futures show at the Museum of London in which the capital of England lies serenely under seven meters of water, brings to mind the famous phrase of Walter Benjamin, that our self-alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order.While such dystopic visions are, no doubt, sincerely created to instigate collective action, I suspect what they really inspire is a sort of solitary satisfaction in hopelessness. In recent years a new word has entered our vocabulary to describe this very effect: disasterbation.

So here we are, stuck between the Devil and the deep blue sea, with a decision to make. Either we drift about, leveling critiques with no critical effect and reveling in images of our impending destructionliving a life of political bad faith as we desire to make a difference yet dontor we approach the Devil. It is not much of a choice. If we want to change the world we need to abandon the political project of pure criticism and strike out in a new direction. That is, we need to make our peace with Utopia. This cannot happen by pretending that Utopias demons do not existcreating a Utopia of Utopia; instead it means candidly acknowledging the problems with Utopia, and then deciding whether the ideal is still salvageable. This revaluation is essential, as it is one thing to conclude that criticism is politically impotent, but quite another to suggest that, in the long shadow of its horrors, we resurrect the project of Utopianism.

Today we are people who know better, and thats both a wonderful and terrible thing. When Sam Green presents this line in his performance of Utopia in Four Movements it is meant as a sort of a lament that our knowledge of Utopias horrors cannot allow us ever again to have such grand dreams. This knowledge is wonderful in that there will be no large-scale atrocities in the name of idealism; it is terrible in that we no longer have the capacity to envision an alternative. But we neednt be so pessimistic; perhaps knowing better offers us a perspective from which we can re-examine and re-approach the idea and ideal of Utopia. Knowing better allows us to ask questions that are essential if Utopia is to be a viable political project.

The paramount question, I believe, is whether or not Utopia can be opened upto criticism, to participation, to modification, and to re-creation. It is only a Utopia like this that will be resistant to the ills that have plagued the project: its elite envisioning, its single-minded execution, and its unyielding manifestation. An Open Utopia that is democratic in its conception and protean in its realization gives us a chance to escape the nightmare of history and start imagining anew.

Another question must also be addressed: How is Utopia to come about? Utopia as a philosophical ideal or a literary text entails no input other than that of its author, and no commitment other than time and interest on the part of its readers; but Utopia as the basis of an alternative society requires the participation of its population. In the past people were forced to accept plans for an alternative society, but this is the past we are trying to escape. If we reject the anti-democratic, politics-from-above model that has haunted past Utopias, can the public be persuaded to ponder such radical alternatives themselves? In short, now that we are people who know better, can we be convinced to give Utopia another chance?

These are vexing questions. Their answers, however, have been there all along, from the very beginning, in Thomas Mores Utopia.

When More wrote Utopia in the early sixteenth century he was not the first writer to have imagined a better world. The author owed a heavy literary debt to Platos Republic wherein Socrates lays out his blueprint for a just society. But he was also influenced by the political and social imaginings of classic authors like Plutarch, Sallust, Tacitus, Cicero and Seneca, with all of whom an erudite Renaissance Humanist like More would have been on intimate terms. The ideal of a far-off land operating according to foreign, and often alluring, principles was also a stock-in-trade in the tales of travel popular at the time. The travelogues of Sir John Mandeville were bestsellers (albeit amongst a limited literate class) in the fourteenth century, and adventurers tales, like those of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth-century explorer Amerigo Vespucci, were familiar to More. Most important, the Biblethe master-text of Mores European homeprovided images of mythical-historical lands flowing with milk and honey, and glimpses of a world beyond where the lion lays down with the lamb.

By the time More sat down to write his book, envisioning alternative worlds was a well-worn literary tradition, nut Utopia literally named the practice. One need not have read his book, nor even know that such a book exists, to be familiar with the word, and Utopia has entered the popular lexicon to represent almost any positive ideal of a society. But, given how commonly the word is used and how widely it is applied, Utopia is an exceedingly curious book, and much less straightforward than one might think.

Utopia is actually two books, written separately and published together in 1516 (along with a great deal of ancillary material: maps, marginalia, and dedications contributed by members of the Renaissance Europes literary establishment). Book I is the story of More meeting and entering into a discussion with the traveler Raphael Hythloday; Book II is Hythlodays description of the land to which he has traveledthe Isle of Utopia. Scholars disagree about exactly how much of Book I was in Mores mind when he wrote Book II, but all agree that Book II was written first in 1515 while the author was waiting around on a futile diplomatic mission in the Netherlands, and Book I was written a year later in his home in London. Chronology of creation aside, the reader of Utopia encounters Book I before Book II, so this is how we too shall start.

Book I of Utopia opens with More introducing himself as a character and taking on the role of narrator. He tells the reader that he has been sent to Flanders on a diplomatic mission for the king of England, and introduces us to his friend Peter Giles, who is living in Antwerp. All this is based in fact: More was sent on such a mission by Henry VIII in 1515 and Peter Giles, in addition to being the authors friend, was a well-known Flemish literary figure. Soon, however, More mixes fiction into his facts by describing a meeting with Raphael Hythloday, a stranger, who seemed past the flower of his age; his face was tanned, he had a long beard, and his cloak was hanging carelessly about him, so that, by his looks and habit, I concluded he was a seaman. While the description is vivid and matter-of-fact, there are hints that this might not be the type of voyager who solely navigates the material plane. Giles explains to More that Hythloday has not sailed as a seaman, but as a traveler, or rather a philosopher. Yet it is revealed a few lines later that the (fictional) traveler has been in the company of the (factual) explorer Amerigo Vespucci, whose party he left to venture off and discover the (fictional) Island of Utopia. This promiscuous mix of reality and fantasy sets the tone for Utopia. From the beginning we, the readers, are thrown off balance: Who and what should we take seriously?

Returning to the story: introductions are made, and the three men strike up a conversation. The discussion turns to Mores native country, and Hythloday describes a (fictional) dinner conversation at the home of (the factual) John Morton, Catholic Cardinal, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord Chancellor of England, on the harsh laws of England which, at the time, condemned persons to death for the most minor of crimes. At the dinner party Hythloday assumes the role of critic, arguing against such laws in particular and the death penalty in general. He begins by insisting that crime must be understood and addressed at a societal level. Inheritance laws, for instance, leave all heirs but the first son property-less, and thus financially desperate. Standing armies and frequent wars result in the presence of violent and restless soldiers, who move easily into crime; and the enclosure of once common lands forces commoners to criminal measures to supplement their livelihood. Hythloday then finds a fault in juridical logic. Enforcing the death penalty for minor crimes, he points out, only encourages major ones, as the petty thief might as well kill their victim as have them survive as a possible witness. Turning his attention upward, Hythloday then claims that capital punishment is hubris against the Divine, for only God has the right to take a human life. Having thus argued for a sense of justice grounded on earth as well as in the heavens, he concludes: If you do not find a remedy to these evils it is a vain thing to boast of the severity in punishing theft, which, though it might have the appearance of justice, yet in itself is neither just nor convenient. It is a blistering critique and a persuasive performance.

The crowd around the archbishops dinner table, however, is not persuaded. A lawyer present immediately replies with a pedantic non-reply that merely sums up Hythlodays arguments. A fool makes a foolish suggestion, trolling only for laughs. And a Friar, the butt of the fools jokes, becomes indignant and begins quoting scripture willy-nilly to justify his outrage, engaging in tit-for-tat with the fool and thus derailing the discussion entirely. The only person Hythloday seems to reach is Morton, who adds his own ideas about the proper treatment of vagabonds. But this thoughtful contribution, too, is devalued when the company assembledmotivated not by logic but by sycophancyslavishly agree with the archbishop. As a Socratic dialogue, a model More no doubt had in mind, the dinner party discussion bombs. Hythloday convinces no one with his logic, fails to engage all but one of his interlocutors, and moves us no closer to the Platonic ideal of Justice. In short, Hythloday, as a critic, is ineffectual.

And not for the only time. Hythloday makes another critical intervention later in Book I, this time making his case directly to More and Giles. Here the topic is private property, which Hythloday believes to be at the root of all societys ills, crime included. I must freely own, he reasons, that as long as there is any property, and while money is the standard of all other things, I cannot think that a nation can be governed either justly or happily Alas, while Hythloday has convinced himself, he is the only one, for there are no ears for his thoughts. More immediately counters with the oft-heard argument that without property to gain and inequality as a spur, humans will become lazy, and Giles responds with a proto-Burkean defense of tradition. Again, Hythlodays attempts at critical persuasion fail.

Hythloday concludes that critical engagement is pointless. And when More suggests that he, with his broad experience and strong opinions, become a court counselor, Hythloday dismisses the idea. Europeans, he argues, are resistant to new ideas. Princes are deaf to philosophy and are more concerned with making war than hearing ideals for peace. And courts are filled with men who admire only their own ideas and are envious of others. More, himself unconvinced by Hythloday up until now, finally agrees with him. One is never to offer propositions or advice that we are certain will not be entertained, he concurs, adding that, Discourses so much out of the road could not avail anything, nor have any effect on men whose minds were prepossessed with different sentiments.

But More does not counsel despair and disengagementhe suggests an alternative strategy of persuasion. The problem is not with Hythlodays arguments themselves, but with the form in which he presents them. One cannot simply present radical ideas that challenge peoples basic assumptions about the world in the form of a reasoned argument, for no one wants to be told they are wrong. There is another philosophy, More explains, that is more pliable, that knows its proper scene, [and] accommodates itself to it. He goes on to use the example of drama, explaining how an actor must adapt to the language and the setting of the play if his lines are to make sense to the audience. If the drama is a light comedy, More explains, then it makes little sense to play ones part as if it were a serious tragedy, For you spoil and corrupt the play that is in hand when you mix with it things of an opposite nature, even though they are much better. Therefore, he continues, go through the play that is acting the best you can, and do not confound it because another that is pleasanter comes into your thoughts.

More makes it clear that his dramaturgical advice is meant to be taken politically. He tells Hythloday: You are not obliged to assault people with discourses that are out of their road when you see that their received notions must prevent your making an impression on them. Instead, he counsels, you ought rather to cast about and to manage things with all the dexterity in your power. This time, however, it is Hythlodays turn to be unswayed by argument. He interprets Mores proposal as an invitation to dissemble and rejects it forthwith: as for lying, whether a philosopher can do it or not I cannot tell: I am sure I cannot do it.

This revealing exchange may be understood in several ways. The most common reading among Utopiascholars is that Mores advice to Hythloday is an argument for working within the system, to go through with the play that is acting the best you can, and to abandon a confrontational style of criticism in favor of another philosophy that is more pliable, that knows its proper scene, [and] accommodates itself. To be successful, More seems to counsel, one must cast oneself within the play that is acting, that is, the status quo, and accommodate ones ideas to the dominant discourse. Shortly before writing Utopia, More had been asked by Henry VIII to enter his service as a counselor and he was still contemplating the offer while at work on the book. It is thus easy to imagine this whole discussion as a debate of sorts within his own head. Mores conclusionthat to be effective one needs to put aside the high-minded posturing of the critic and embrace the pliability of politicscan be understood as an early rationalization for his own decision to join the Kings council two years later, in 1518. (A decision that was literally to cost the man his head in 1535, when hehigh-mindedlyrefused to bless Henry VIIIs divorce and split from the Catholic Church). Another popular interpretation of this passage proposes that More is merely trotting out the standard classical arguments in defense of the practice of rhetoric: know your audience, cater to their preferences, and so forth. Hythloday, in turn, gives the classic rebuttal: the Truth is fixed and eternal. It is the debate between Aristotle in the Rhetoric and Plato in Gorgias, retold.

While not discounting either of these interpretations, I want to suggest another: that Morethe character and the authoris making a case for the political futility of direct criticism. What he calls for in its place is a technique of persuasion that circumvents the obstacles that Hythloday describes: tradition, narrow-mindedness, and a simple resistance on the part of the interlocutor to being told what to think. More knows that, while the critic may be correct, their criticism can often fall on deaf earsas it did in all of Hythlodays attempts. What is needed is another model of political discourse; not rhetoric with its moral relativity, nor simply altering ones opinions so they are acceptable to those in power, but something else entirely. Where is this alternative to be found? Answering this question entails taking Mores dramatic metaphor seriously.

The plays the thing. What drama doesis create a counter-world to the here and now. Plays fashion a space and place which can look and feel like reality yet is not beholden to its limitations, it is, literally, a stage on which imagination becomes reality. A successful play, according to the Aristotelian logic with which More would have been familiar, is one in which the audience loses themselves in the drama: its world becomes theirs. The world of the play is experienced and internalized and thus, to a certain degree and for a limited amount of time, naturalized. The alternative becomes the norm. Whereas alternatives presented through criticism are often experienced by the audience as external to the dominant logic, as discourses that are out of their road, the same arguments advanced within the alternative reality of the play become the dominant logic. Importantly, this logic is not merely approached cognitively, as set of abstract precepts, but experienced viscerally, albeit vicariously, as a set of principles put into practice.

What works on the stage might also serve in the stateroom. By presenting views at odds with the norm the critic begins at a disadvantage; he or she is the perpetual outsider, always operating from the margins, trying to convince people that what they know as the Truth might be false, and what they hold to be reality is just one perspective among many. This marginal position not only renders persuasion more difficult but, paradoxically, reinforces the centrality of the norm. The margins, by very definition, are bound to the center, and the critic, in their act of criticism, re-inscribes the importance of the world they take issue with. Compared to the critic, the courtier has an easier time of it. The courtier, as a yes man, operates within the boundaries of accepted reality. They neednt make reasoned appeals to the intellect at all, they merely restate the obvious: what is already felt, known and experienced. The courtier has no interest in offering an alternative or even providing genuine advice; their function is merely to reinforce the status quo.

Casting about, or the indirect approach as it is elsewhere translated, provides More with a third position that transcends critic and courtierone that allows an individual to offer critical advice without being confined to the margins. Instead of countering reality as the critic does, or accepting a reality already given like the courtier, this person creates their own reality. This individuallet us call them an artistconjures up a full-blown lifeworld that operates according to a different axioms. Like Hamlet staging the murder of his father before an audience of the court and the eyes of his treacherous uncle, the artist maneuvers the spectator into a position where they see their world in a new light. The persuasive advantages of this strategy should be obvious. Instead of being the outsider convincing people that what they know to be right is wrong, the artist creates a new context for what is right and lets people experience it for themselves. Instead of negating reality, they create a new one. No longer an outsider, this artist occupies the center stage in their own creation, imagining and then describing a place where their ideals already exist, and then inviting their audience to experience it with them. Book I a damning critique of direct criticismends with this more hopeful hint at an alternative model of persuasion. Book II is Mores demonstration of this technique; his political artistry in practice.

The second book of Utopia begins with Raphael Hythloday taking over the role of narrator and, like the first book, opens with a detailed description of the setting in order to situate the reader. Unlike the real Flanders described by More in Book I, however, the location that Hythloday depicts is a purely imaginary space:

The island of Utopia is in the middle two hundred miles broad, and holds almost at the same breadth over a great part of it, but it grows narrower towards both ends. Its figure is not unlike a crescent. Between its horns the sea comes in eleven miles broad, and spreads itself into a great bay, which is environed with land to the compass of about five hundred miles, and is well secured from winds. In this bay there is no great current; the whole coast is, as it were, one continued harbor, which gives all that live in the island great convenience for mutual commerce.

Like the coordinates of the Garden of Edenlocated at the mythical juncture of the real rivers of Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel and the Euphratesthis description lends a physical veracity to what is a fantasy, a technique that More will employ throughout. After this physical description of the island, Hythloday begins his almost encyclopedic account of the customs and constitution of Utopia. Highlights include: an elected government and priesthood, freedom of speech and religion, public health and education, an economy planned for the good of all, compassionate justice and little crime, and perhaps most Utopian of all, no lawyers: a sort of people whose profession it is to disguise matters and wrest the laws.

The people who populate Utopia are kind and generous, and shoulder their responsibility for the general welfare as the natural order of things. They always have work, yet also enjoy a great deal of leisure which they spend in discussion, music, or attending public lectures (alas, gambling, beer halls, and wine bars are unknown in Utopia). There is ideological indoctrination, to be sure, but even this is idealized: the Utopians begin each communal meal with a reading on a moral topic, but it is so short that it is not tedious. The various cities of Utopia function in harmony with one another, and if one district has a surplus of crops or other goods, these are redirected towards cities which have a deficit, so that indeed the whole island is, as it were, one family.

At the root of Utopia, the source from which everything grows, is the community of property. The quality of this society is best described thus:

[E]very house has both a door to the street and a back door to the garden. Their doors have all two leaves, which, as they are easily opened, so they shut of their own accord; and, there being no property among them, every man may freely enter into any house whatsoever.

For though no man has any thing, yet they are all rich.

Utopia is Mores sixteenth-century Europe turned upside-down. This inversion of the real is best illustrated in one of the few anecdotes that Hythloday narratesa visit to the island by a group of foreign ambassadors. The Anemolians, as they are called, had never traveled to Utopia before, and were unfamiliar with the local customs. [T]hey, being a vainglorious rather than a wise people, resolved to set themselves out with so much pomp that they should look like gods, and strike the eyes of the poor Utopians with their splendor. Dressed for success, the Anemolian ambassadors wear cloth made from gold and drape heavy gold chains around their necks, while gold rings adorn their fingers and strings of gems and pearls hang from their caps. But in Utopia, Hythloday tells us, such wealth and finery signify differently. Gold is what the chains and shackles of slaves are made from, and jewels are considered childrens playthings: pretty to look at, but valued much as marbles or dolls are by us. Utopians craft their dinnerware from everyday clay and glass, saving their gold and silver to fashion implements for another part of the nutritional process: chamber pots. (O magnificent debasement of gold! is written in the marginalia at this point in the text. ) Ignorant of the Utopians as they are, the Anemolian ambassadors make their public appearance bedecked in their finery. The Utopians, confused, bow to the humblest and most simply dressed of the Anemolian party and ignore the leaders, who they believe to be slaves. In a moment anticipating The Emperors New Clothes, a child, spying the ambassadors, calls out to his mother: See that great fool, that wears pearls and gems as if he were yet a child! To which the mother answers: Hold your peace! This, I believe, is one of the ambassadors fools.

This anecdote, along with the rest of Hythlodays description of Utopia in Book II, does what Hythloday in Book I cannot: it presents the world of the Utopians in such a way that the reader confronts these radical ideas as the norm to which their own world is an aberration. More, through Hythloday, thereby moves the margins into the center, and forces skeptics into the margins; the alternative occupies center stage. In a word, More naturalizes his imagined Utopia.

At various points throughout Book II, Hythloday comments upon the contextuality of the natural. The Utopians share the same days, months and years as the books audience, as these are rooted in physical laws of the universe, but man is a changeable creature, as Hythloday asserts, and the behavior of the Utopians is the result of their societys beliefs and institutions. Indeed, the idea that the social can shape the natural extends even to animals: at one point Hythloday explains how the Utopians use artificial incubation to hatch their chicks, and they are no sooner out of the shell, and able to stir about, but they seem to consider those [humans] that feed them as their mothers, and follow them as other chickens do the hen that hatched them.

If there is little crime in Utopia, it is not because the Utopians are inherently more law-abiding, but because there is a rational criminal justice system at work and no private property to be gained or lost in theft. Hythloday makes the same argument about crime and private property as he does in Book I, but in Book II he is more persuasive (at least, no one interrupts to tell him he is wrong) because he shows the world as it might be instead of telling people what is wrong with the world as it is. Through the imaginative space of Utopia, More has assembled a new context for his readers to approach old, seemingly intractable social problems and imagine new solutions.

But what sort of a space is this? As many know, Utopia is a made-up word composed by More from the Greek words ou (not) and topos (place). It is a space which is, literally, no place. Furthermore, the storyteller of this magic land is named Raphael Hythloday, or Hythlodaeus in the Latin in which More wrote. The root of this surname is the Greek huthlos, a word used frequently by Plato, meaning nonsense or idle talk. So here we are, being told the story of a place which is named out of existence, by a narrator who is named as unreliable. And these are just two of the countless paradoxes, enigmas and jokes scattered throughout the text. And so begins the big debate among Utopia scholars: Is the entirety of Mores Utopia a satire, an exercise demonstrating the absurdity of proposing political, social and economic alternatives to the status quo? Or is this story of an idyllic society an earnest effort to suggest and promote such ideals?

There is suggestive evidence for Mores sincerity. More is at pains to lend a sense of veracity to the story. He very clearly situates it within the context of his ownverifiabletrip to Flanders in 1515, and scatters the names of well-known contemporaries throughout the book: Peter Giles, Archbishop Morton, Amerigo Vespucci, an others. As you will remember, More provides painstakingly detailed descriptions of Utopia, beginning with Hythlodays description of the landscape of the island. The first printings of Utopia contained an illustrated map of the nation, and Giles, Mores friend and fellow witness to Hythlodays tale, supplied an Utopian alphabet.

Again and again More goes out of his way to try to persuade his readers that Utopia is a real place. In a prefatory letter from More to Giles, also included in the first editions, More asks his friend for help in remembering the exact length of a bridge that Hythloday mentions in his description, for while his job as author was a simple oneonly to rehearse those things which you and I together heard Master Raphael tell and declareand there remained no other thing for me to do but only write plainly the matter as I heard it spoken, he humbly admits his memory may be in doubt. More remembers hearing that the bridge was half a mile, or 500 paces long, but fears he might be in error, because he also recalls the river contains there not above three hundred paces in breadth. More wants to get his facts right. Yes, such suggestions of facticity were a common literary device at the time, yet they also add a veneer of veracity to the entire account. Mores memory might be faulty, but the place which he is remembering is undeniably real. As More comments to Giles in the same letter, I shall take good heed that there be in my book nothing false, so if there be anything in doubt I will rather tell a lie than make a lie, because I had rather be good than wise [wily]. Why would More expend so much effort making a case for the actual existence of a place like Utopia if he did not want it to be taken seriously by his audience?

While it stretches credulity to suggest that More expected his audience to fully to believe that Utopia is real, it is reasonable to argue that he uses fantasy to articulate political, economic and religious alternatives he really believes in. For instance, Hythloday mentions in Book II that the Utopians, when told about Christianity, approved of the religion as it seemed so favorable to that community of goods, which is an opinion so particular as was well as so dear to them; since they perceived that Christ and His followers lived by that rule. More, a devout Christian who once studied for the priesthood and would later give his life to honor his beliefs, had every reason to be sincere about the community of goods described in Utopia. Given who he was and what he believed, it is exceedingly difficult to imagine More satirizing Jesus and his followers.

The surname of the narrator of Utopia, Hythloday, may translate out as speaker of nonsense, but his Christian name, Raphael, finds its genesis in the Archangel Raphael, who gives sight to the blind. As such, Raphael Hythloday might therefore be recognized as a guide to help the reader see a greater truth. What obvious absurdities Utopia does containchamber pots made of precious metals, for examplecould be understood as a way to throw into sharp relief the corruptions of contemporary Christendom. Less charitably, such silliness could be seen as a sort of political cover for airing heretical political and religious views. By salting his tale with absurdities More can suggest these radical ideas yet at the same time politically distance himself from them. He has his cake and eats it too.

To sum up this perspective: More was serious about Utopia. He was earnest in his appreciation of the manners, customs, and laws of the Utopians, and used realism in order to convey a sense of genuine possibility. Just as the number of cities in Utopia matches the number of counties in England and Wales in Mores time, Utopia was meant to be experienced by the reader as a valid alternative to the real world in which they lived.

On the other hand, there is also evidence that More meant his Utopia to be read as a satire. In recent years, revisionist Utopiascholars have claimed that. far from being a sincere vision of the society we ought to have, the author used his imagined island as an extended argument for why such utopian visions are, literally, a joke. In addition to the destabilizing names given to the place and the narrator, More, in his description of the island of Utopia, makes attractive possibilities that hegiven his personal, economic, political, and religious position in lifewould be expected to be dead set against. He was a man, lawyer, property holder, future kings councilor, Lord Chancellor, and dogmatic defender of the faith, yet the island he describes has female equality, communal property, democratic governance, religious freedom, and no lawyers. This seems quite a contradiction. Indeed, in his later life More penned works attacking the very religious tolerance extolled in Utopia, and as Lord Chancellor, a position he attained in 1529, he investigated religious dissenters and presided over the burning at the stake of a half-dozen prominent Protestant heretics. In this light, Mores conscious use of the absurd in Utopia can be interpreted as undercutting the radical ideas advanced in his book, and the silliness of many of the customs and characteristics of Utopia taint any such idea of an ideal society. By inserting a political vision of an ideal world within a society that also uses chamber pots made of gold and silver, for instance, More effectively ridicules all political idealization.

More was a devout Christian, but (with his friend Erasmus) he was also a translator of the second-century Greek writer Lucian, a man known for his satirical and skeptical dialogues, and Utopia is stuffed with erudite irony that calls into question the sincerity of the story. For example, at one point Hythloday recalls how, in European and other Christian countries, political treaties and alliances are religiously observed as sacred and inviolable! Which is partly owing to the justice and goodness of the princes themselves, and partly to the reverence they pay to the popes. This sentence works in the book because Mores audience knows that the exact opposite is true: alliances and treaties were routinely broken by both church and state, and princes and popes were frequently neither just nor good. Given this, how are we to take anything that Hythloday says at face value?

The detailed descriptions of Utopian landmarks that give the account its sense of realism are likewise undermined by Mores use of humor. In the same prefatory letter to his friend Giles, in which he worries that he might not have his facts straight about the length of a bridge, More arrives at a solution to his dilemma: Wherefore, I most earnestly desire you, friend Peter, to talk with Hythloday, if you can face to face, or else write letters to him, and so to work in this matter that in this, my book, there may be neither anything be found that is untrue, neither anything be lacking which is true. The humor here comes in the realization that Hythloday will never contradict anything More writes, because Hythloday simply does not exist; there will be no fact-checking of Utopia because there is no one to contact to check the facts. An equally silly explanation for the impossibility of pinpointing Utopia on a world map is given by his friend Peter Giles who, in another letter appended to the early printings of Utopia, apologizes for the absence of coordinates by explaining that, at the exact moment that Hythloday was conveying the location to More and himself, someone nearby coughed loudly (!) and the travelers words were lost.

In his ancillary letters More takes issue with his contemporaries who claim that Utopia is just a farce, but his arguments are themselves farcical. In a letter attached to the 1517 edition, he defends the facticity of his account, explaining to his friend Giles that, if Utopia were merely fiction, he would have had the wit and sense to offer clues to tip off his learned audience. Thus, he states,

if I had put nothing but the names of prince, river, city and island such as might suggest to the learned that the island was nowhere, the city a phantom, the river without water, and the prince without a people, this would not have been hard to do, and would have been much wittier than what I did; for if the faithfulness of an historian had not been binding on me, I am not so stupid as to have preferred to use those barbarous and meaningless names, Utopia, Anyder, Amaurot and Ademus.

The irony here, which the knowing reader would certainly get, is that this is exactly what More has done: Utopia, the name of the island, means nowhere; Amaurot, the Utopian city described, means phantom, and so on. How are we to take More seriously?

Approaching Utopia ironically changes the meaning of Mores words, and what seemed sincere now appears sarcastic. When More comments to Giles that, I shall take good heed that there be in my book nothing false, so if there be anything in doubt I will rather tell a lie than make a lie, it is not an earnest declaration of his search for the truth, but a sly acknowledgement that he may be telling the reader a lie. The tokens of veracity I describe above the debate over the bridge, the Utopian alphabet, the maps and so forth far from being evidence for Mores sincerity, can be seen from this perspective as supporting materials for one big prank.

Further evidence that Utopia was meant to be understood as an erudite prank can be found in the ancillary material contributed by Mores friends. In a letter from Jerome de Busleyden to More, Busleyden praises Utopia, especially as it withholds itself from the many, and only imparts itself to the few. In other words, only the learned few will get the joke. This interpretation is reinforced by another letter included along with the text, this one from Utopia publisher Beatus Rhenanus to the wealthy humanist (and adviser to Emperor Maximillain on literary matters) Willibald Pirckheimer. After describing how one man, among a gathering of a number of serious men, argued that More deserved no credit for Utopia as he was no more than a paid scribe for Hythloday, Rhenanus switches from Latin to the even more rarefied Greek to write: Do you not, then, welcome this very cleverness of Moore, who leads such men as these astray?

Within the book, the character of More himself is not even convinced that what Hythloday has related is real. When, at the very end of Book II, More returns to the text as narrator, he tells the reader: When Raphael had thus made an end of speaking many things occurred to me, both concerning the manners and laws of that people, that seemed very absurd. More then lists a few of these absurdities: the Utopians manner of waging war, their religious practices, but chiefly, he states, what seemed the foundation of all the rest, their living in common, without the use of money, by which all nobility, magnificence, splendor, and majesty, which, according to the common opinion, are the true ornaments of a nation, would be quite taken away. In having More (the character) remain unconvinced at the end of Hythlodays story, More (the writer) seems to be rejecting not only the political vision of Utopia, but also the mode of persuasion that he suggested to Raphael in Book I. Utopia is indeed No-Place.

But there are more than two sides to the story of Utopia. While good arguments for both the satirical and sincere interpretations of the text can be made, I believe this binary debate obfuscates rather than clarifies the meaning of Mores work, and actually misses the political genius of Utopia entirely. The brilliance of Mores Utopia is that is it simultaneously satirical and sincere, absurd and earnest, and it is through the combination of these seemingly opposite ways of presenting ideals that a more fruitful way of thinking about political imagination can start to take shape. It is the presentation of Utopia as no place, and its narrator as nonsense, that creates a space for the readers imagination to wonder what an alternative someplace might be, and what a radically different sensibility might be like. In enabling this dialectical operation, Utopia opens up Utopia, encouraging the reader to imagine for themselves.

Mores second letter to his co-conspirator Peter Giles, which appears only in the 1517 edition, hints that this open reading of Utopia is what he hoped to provoke. The letter begins with More writing about an anonymous (and possibly invented) clever person who has read his text and offers the following criticism: [I]f the facts are reported as true, I see some absurdities in them; but if fictitious, I find Mores finished judgment in some respects wanting. More then goes on to write about this sharp-eyed critic that by his frank criticism he has obliged me more than anyone else since the appearance of the book. What to make of this curious criticism and Mores appreciation of it?

I believe it is this ideal readers refusal to wholly to accept Utopia as fact, yet also his dissatisfaction with the story as a good fiction, that obliges More. It is exactly because this reader positions Utopia between fact and fiction, and is not satisfied with either reading, that he is such a clever person. Yet this person, clever as he may be, is an accidental good reader; he wants Utopia to be one or the other, either fact or fiction, a sincere rendering of an actual land or a satirical send-up of an imaginary place. Now, when he questions whether Utopia is real or fictitious, More complains, I find his finished judgment wanting. It is the or in the first clause that is the problem here. Written in the tradition of serio ludere, or serious play that More admired so much in classic authors, the story is both fact and fiction, sincere and satirical. Utopia is someplace and no-place.

Utopia cannot be realized, because it is unrealistic. It is, after all, no place. Yet Utopias presentationnot only its copious claims towards facticity, but the very realism of the descriptionsgives the reader a world to imagine; that is, it is also some-place. It this works as springboard for imagination. More is not telling us simply to think about a different social order (Hythloday, as you will remember, tries this in Book I and fails) but instead conjures up a vision for us, drawing us into the alternative through characters, scenes, and settings in this phantasmagoric far-off land. We do not imagine an alternative abstractly, but inhabit it concretely, albeit vicariously. Upon their meeting, More (the character) begs Hythloday to describe in detail the wonderful world to which he has traveled, and asks him to set out in order all things relating to their soil, their rivers, their towns, their people, their manners, constitution laws, and, in a word, all that you can imagine we desire to know. More (the author/artist) then complies to his own request. Through Utopia we are presented with a world wholly formed, like an architects model or a designers prototype. We experience a sense of radical alterity as we step inside of it and try it on for size. For the time of the tales telling, we live in Utopia, its landscape seeming familiar and its customs becoming normal. This re-orients our perspective. More provides us with a vision of another, better worldand then destabilizes it.

This destabilization is the key. More imagines an alternative to his sixteenth-century Europe, which he then reveals to be a work of imagination. (It is, after all, no-place.) But the reader has been infected; another option has been shown. They cannot safely return to the assurances of their own present as the naturalness of their world has been disrupted. As the opening lines of a brief poem attached to the first printings of Utopia read:

Will thou know what wonders strange be,

in the land that late was found?

Will thou learn thy life to lead,

by divers ways that godly be?

Once an alternativedivers ways that godly behas been imagined, staying where one is or trying something else become options that demand attention and decision.

Yet the choice More offers is not an easy one. By disabling his own vision he keeps us from short-circuiting this imaginative moment into a fixed imaginary: a simple swapping of one image for another, one reality for another, the Emperor with clothes versus the Emperor without clothes. More will not let us accept (or reject) his vision of the ideal society as the final destination. In another poem attached to the early editions, this one printed in the Utopian language and in the voice of the island itself, Utopia explains:

I one of all other without philosophy

Have shaped for many a philosophical city.

In other words, Utopia does not have, nor does it provide the reader, a wholly satisfactory philosophy; its systems of logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology are constantly undercut by More. But it is because the reader cannot satisfy themselves within the confines of Utopia that it can become for many a philosophical city, a place that many can ponder and a space that makes room for all to think.

The problem with asking people to imagine outside the box is that, unaided, they usually will not. We may bend and shape the box, reveal its walls and pound against them, but our imagination is constrained by the tyranny of the possible. Computer programs demonstrate these limitations well. A good programbe it word processing software, a video game, or a simple desktop layoutenables immense possibilities for action (you can even personalize your preferences), but all this action is circumscribed by the programs code, and if you try to do something outside the given algorithms your action will not compute. Use the program long enough and you will forget that there is an outside. With Utopia, however, More provides a peculiar structure, a box that refuses to contain anything for long, a program that repeatedly crashes, yet a structure that succeeds in providing an alternative platform from which to imagine.

The problem with many social imaginaries is that they posit themselves as a realizable possibility. Their authors imagine a future or an alternative and present it as the future or the alternative. If accepted as a genuine social possibility, this claim leads to a number of, not mutually exclusive, results:

1. Brutalizing the present to bring it into line with the imagined futurewitness the Nazi genocide, communist forced collectivization or, in this century, the apocalyptic terrorism of radical Islam.

2. Disenchantment as the future never arrives, and the alternative is never realizedfor example, the descent and consequent depression of the New Left after 1968 or the ideological collapse of neoconservatism in the US after 2008.

3. A vain search for a new imaginary when the promised one fails to appear such as the failed promises of advertising that lead to an endless, and ultimately unsatisfying, cycle of consumption.

4. Living a lieas in The American Dream or Stalins Socialism achieved.

5. Rejecting possibility altogetherdismissing Utopia, with a heartfelt conservative distrust or an ironic liberal wink, as a nave impossibility.

But what if impossibility is incorporated into the social imaginary in the first place? This is exactly what More does. By positioning his imaginary someplace as no-place, he escapes the problems that typically haunt political imaginaries. Yes, the alternatives he describes are sometimes absurd (gold and silver chamber pots? a place called no-place?), but this conscious absurdity is what keeps Utopia from being a singular and authoritative narrative that is, a closed act of imagination to be either accepted or rejected.

In his second letter to Peter Giles, More mounts a defense of absurdity, writing that he cannot fathom how such a clever person, who has criticized Utopia for containing absurdities, can carry on as if there were nothing absurd in the world, or as if any philosopher had ever ordered the state, or even his own house, without instituting something that had better be changed. In this striking passage More links the absurd with a call for revision, seamlessly transitioning from a recognition that the world contains many absurdities to making the point that philosophers creations are never perfect. In the last clause he even suggests that all philosophical plans and orders, whether public or private, are incomplete; they always contain things which ought to be altered. More is, no doubt, referring to his own Utopia here. In creating a philosophical order himself, then salting it with absurdities and ironies, More is making sure the reader will not accept the plan he has described as perfect, complete, or finished, thus, he leaves the door open for reflection and criticism.

Think back to Mores advice to Hythloday in Book I regarding social criticism. Instead of confronting people directly with ones alternative opinion, it is far more effective, More says, to cast about and employ an indirect approach that meets people where they are. To make this point, More draws from the stage, a telling metaphor that implies a means of persuasion in which the audience is drawn into an alternative reality. But recall as well Hythlodays response: Mores method is nothing more than a creative means for lying. For all its limitations, the advantage of direct criticism is that its very negation sets in motion a constant questioning whereby any claims are subjected to rigorous interrogation. It is an open system of thought. But what sorts of checks are there on the phantasmagoric alternatives generated by the dramatic artist or social philosopher? An open Utopia is Mores answer. By creating an alternative reality and simultaneously undermining it, he encourages the reader not be taken in by the fantasy. In other words, it is hard to fool someone with a lie if they already know it is one. The absurd fact, or the faulty fiction, that the clever person initially objected to is precisely what leaves Utopia open to being challenged and, more important, approached as something that had better be changed.

This openness can be problematic. If an advantage of a Utopia open to criticism, participation, modification, and re-creation is that it never hardens into a fixed state that then closes down popular engagement, the possible disadvantage is that such an open Utopia functions poorly as a political ideal. It could be argued that in the process of continual destabilization, Utopia never attains the presence, imaginal or otherwise, necessary to function as a prompt for action. Utopia is therefore not a motivating vision of the promised land, but more like a hallucination in the desert: nothing we should walk toward or work for. To continue with the Biblical analogies: Utopia is the Jewish Messiah who never arrives. But the value of the Jewish Messiah, as Walter Benjamin points out, is not that he or she never arrives, but that their arrival is imminent, every second of time [is] the straight gate through which the Messiah might arrive. Similarly, Utopia gives us something to imagine, anticipate and prepare for. Utopia is not present, as that would preclude the work of popular imagination and action (It has already arrived, so what more is there to do?); nor, however, is it absent, since that would deny us the stimulus with which to imagine an alternative (There is only what we have always known!). Utopia is imminent possibility.

Utopia, however, occupies a different position. It is present. Utopia as an ideal may forever be on the horizon, but Mores Utopia is an ink and paper book that one can behold (and read) in the here and now. It like the Messiah who arrives and announces their plan for the world. However, as was the case with the Christian Messiah, the presence embodied within Mores text exists only for a moment, its power, glory and permanence undermined by its inevitable destruction. This curious state of being and not being, a place that is also no-place, is what gives Utopia its power to stimulate imagination, for between these poles an opening is created for the reader of Utopia to imagine, What if? for themselves.

What if? is the Utopian question. It is a question that functions both negatively and positively. The question throws us into an alternative future: What if there were only common property? But because we still inhabit the present, we also are forced to look back and ask: How come we have private property here and now? Utopia insists that we contrast its image with the realities of our own society, comparing one to the other, stimulating judgment and reflection. This is its critical moment. But this critical reflection is not entirely negating. That is, it is not caught in the parasitical dependency of being wed to the very system it calls into question, for its interlocutor is not only a society that one wants to tear down but also a vision of a world that one would like to build. (This is what distinguishes the What if? of Utopia from the same question posed by dystopias.) Utopian criticism functions not as an end in itself, but as a break with what is for a departure towards something new. By asking What if? we can simultaneously criticize and imagine, imagine and criticize, and thereby begin to escape the binary politics of impotent critique on the one hand and closed imagination on the other.

When teaching or speaking on Utopia, I often find that the ensuing discussion becomes a debate about the content of the bookthat is, whether the characteristics of the alternative society described by More are something to be admired or condemned. There is certainly much to admire about Mores Utopia: the island nations communalism and its inhabitants consideration for one another, for example; or the rational planning of a society that provides labor, leisure, education, and healthcare for all; or a system of justice that seems truly just, as well as a level of religious and intellectual tolerance that today, in our times, seems to be in retreat. And then, of course, there is the blissful lack of lawyers. But there is also much to condemn about Mores alternative society: the formal and casual patriarchy that leaves women subservient to men; the colonization of nearby lands and the Utopians forced removal of those foreign populations deemed not properly productive; the societys system of slavery which, though relatively benign by sixteenth-century standards, still leaves some people the property of others. And while Utopia may be just as a society, Utopians, as individuals, have little freedom to determine their own lives. Finally, like so many Utopias, Mores Utopia, with its virtuous customs and wholesome amusements seems, well, a bit boring.

Such a conversation about the characteristics of Mores imaginary island has a certain value, but to get hung up on the details of Utopia, as with the debate over whether the author is sincere or satirical, is to miss the greater point. The details of the society artfully sketched by More do matter, but only in so far as they provides a vivid place to which the reader might journey, and vicariously inhabit for a time. As More tried to convince Hythloday back in Book I, dramatic immersion is a far more effective means of persuasion than combative criticism. But to defend or attack this or that law or custom of Utopia is to mistake the value of the text, for it is not the specific details conveyed in its content that are truly radical but rather the transformative work the content does. This is where Mores (political) artistry is most effective.

Toward the end of his account of the fanciful Island, Raphael Hythloday, leader of the blind and speaker of nonsense, tells More (and us) that Utopia, because of the plans adopted and the structural foundations laid, is like to be of great continuance. Indeed it will continue, for the very plan and structure of Mores Utopia makes it a generative textone that guarantees that imagination does not stop when the author has finished writing and the book is published. All texts are realized and continuously re-realized by those who experience them and in this way they are forever rewritten, but More went to special pains to ensure that his imaginative act would not be the last word. Lest the reader find themselves too comfortable in this other world he has created, the author goes about unsettling his alternative society, building with one hand while disassembling with the other, fashioning a Utopia that must be engaged dialectically.

More:

Introduction: Open Utopia | The Open Utopia

Wonder Woman’s dueling origin stories, and their effect on the hero’s feminism, explained – Vox

Spoiler warning: There are spoilers including discussion of the plot of the Wonder Woman movie here in this post.

One of the biggest revelations in Wonder Woman is tucked into the end of the film. Diana confronts Ares, the god of war, about the nature of man and mankinds goodness. The two mythic beings have the character-defining philosophical battle of the movie, and then he slips in a declaration that makes Diana question everything she was ever taught: She is the daughter of Zeus, the king of the gods.

Up until this point, Diana believed what her mother had told her that she was made out of clay and Zeus had given her life. By way of magic and myth, Zeus has symbolically been a father to her. But Ares implies something a bit more sordid: that Zeus had a relationship with her mother, Hippolyta, and created a child. And if thats the case, then its not clear what else the Amazons lied to Diana about.

The movie leaves the final interpretation of Dianas origin to its audience, and in doing so reflects a debate over Dianas origin thats been going on in Wonder Woman comic books over the past several years.

The original creator of Wonder Woman is a man named William Moulton Marston, who was, among other things, credited with inventing the lie-detector machine (which brings to light why Diana uses a lasso that compels people to tell the truth). He also had progressive, complex, and intertwining views about gender, relationships, and sex. Marston wrote about women being to be superior to men in some aspects, but was also intrigued by the dynamic between the dominant and submissive hence why so many Wonder Woman comics portrayed the heroine bound and blindfolded.

Marstons origin story reflected these ideas. In his version, Diana was born on a paradise island that was home to Amazons, women who were enslaved by mankind they were kept in chains but eventually broke free. On their island, they developed physical and mental strength and raised Diana, who was born out of clay and did not need a father. Diana, in Marstons eyes, was raised in this perfect world, on this perfect island, inhabited solely by women a deliberate decision.

Marston borrowed Wonder Womans origin story from feminist utopian fiction, which always involved women living on an island, and what happens when a man or a group of men is shipwrecked there, Jill Lepore, a Harvard professor and author of The Secret History of Wonder Woman, told me over email. It was a thought experiment, designed to ask readers to think about how all political orders are man-made. The point was that there werent men. Marston hitched this tale to the legend of the Amazons.

There is no Zeus in Marstons story, and its strictly a world without men. Men were the source of pain and evil for the Amazons, and Marston wanted to explore what it would be like to have a hero like Diana, a woman raised solely by women, completely aware of what men are capable of at their worst. Philosophically, Marston believed that women were capable of showing humanity a different way of life, a peaceful and loving one, in contrast to the ways of man and the patriarchy. Diana was the embodiment of this philosophy.

Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power, Marston wrote in a 1943 issue of The American Scholar. Womens strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.

Marstons story was tweaked in 1959 in Wonder Woman No. 105 (written by Robert Kanigher and drawn by Ross Andru), where Diana is given gifts from the gods and goddesses, like Athenas wisdom, Aphrodites beauty, strength from Demeter that rivals Herculess, and Hermess speed.

This wasnt the first tweak to Dianas origin, or the last: Some stories rewrote and reinterpreted the reason Diana came to the world of man, or how she got her name, or why she carries a sword. But its really the change that came to the comics in 2011, the Zeus-you-are-the-father reveal we see in the movie, that fundamentally redefines Wonder Woman.

In 2011, DC Comics instituted a relaunch of 52 of its titles called the The New 52, which essentially undid those titles previous storylines and reset them at a new starting point; it was characterized at the time as a way to make the comics more accessible to new readers. In writer Brian Azzarello and artist Cliff Chiangs New 52 run, Wonder Womans origin is changed: Diana learns she was never made out of clay, and like what the movie implies with Ares the clay story was used as a cover by Wonder Womans mother to hide that she and Zeus had had a relationship. Further, Ares teaches Diana how to fight.

Along with all this, the new origin credits men with how powerful and formidable Diana is, Alan Kistler wrote for the Mary Sue in 2014. Whereas before she had learned all her training from the Amazon women, her greatest teacher is now Ares.

The Azzarello-Chiang run also includes a story in which the Amazons reproduce by finding sailors, raping them, killing them, and then selling male babies into Hephaestuss slavery in exchange for weapons (this editorial decision was critically maligned, despite general praise for the book).

Adding Zeus to the story, and in particular adding Zeus as Dianas father, undermines the basic plot, Lepore told me. It turns the story of Wonder Woman into something much closer to the story of Thor it makes her story less distinctive.

Essentially, the New 52 reboot inserts men into Marstons story and significantly alters the territory Marston wanted to explore by having Diana raised in a female utopia. In the new telling, Wonder Womans powers dont come from goddesses or other Amazons, but rather from Zeus and Ares. Her mother, the woman who loves her most in life and the epitome of Amazon glory, is refashioned as a betrayer and deceiver. Paradise Island, instead of being a place that lives separately and peacefully from the world of man, now becomes a place where men like Zeus wield power and Amazons are vindictive.

Its hard to reconcile this new origin story with Marstons vision and intent for the character. It also changes the way one might interpret the origin story presented in the movie.

To be clear, Im not here to bury the Azzarello-Chiang run there have been plenty of articles written about how good their story was. Im a fan of how the two explored Dianas psychology and interiority, and how the comic really felt like her own. Furthermore, Marstons view of women and feminism wasnt entirely pristine: As Lepore wrote in her book, Marstons portrayal often veers into feminism as fetish territory.

Marston, as near as I can tell, from reading his letters and diaries, wanted kids to see her as a hero, a very strong woman, who would do whatever she set her mind to do, Lepore told me. He liked that adult men might find her especially alluring, and the scenes of her emancipation (from bondage) thrilling. He didnt think there was a contradiction there.

Essentially, Wonder Woman is a figure of feminism that has been historically written and drawn by men (like a lot of the characters who exist in the comic book universe). So perhaps its better to think of the character as someone who, throughout the years, has reflected what men believe powerful women to be.

The Wonder Woman film made me want to reread Azzarello and Chiangs issues again, and explore the relationships they portray between love and violence, between physical strength and gender, and between Diana and her family. It doesnt feel like a search for answers, but more of an appreciation for where authors, writers, and artists have taken the character in both the comic books and the movie.

To its credit, Wonder Woman slyly doesnt pick one view of Dianas origin, and what it means for the character, over the other. Ares is an unreliable character, and he could be deceiving Diana, but its also clear that Hippolyta kept secrets from her daughter in an attempt to protect her.

The finales portrayal of Wonder Woman finding strength in love seems closer to Marstons ideal, while the annihilation of Ares seems more in line with her New 52 characterization. But the film, and those who worked on it, seems to understand that perhaps the greatest thing you can do for a character like Diana and those mighty Amazons isnt to choose Marston over Azzarello, but rather to inspire fans to form their own ideas about what strong women mean to them.

Read more:

Wonder Woman's dueling origin stories, and their effect on the hero's feminism, explained - Vox