dailymail | A woman who stopped to help after a truck
carrying 100 lab monkeys crashed in Pennsylvania fears she's caught an
illness after one of the macaques hissed in her face, leaving her with
pink eye symptoms.
Michelle Fallon,
from Danville near Scranton, was driving directly behind the vehicle
when it crashed, throwing animal crates all over the highway and
smashing some to pieces. Three of the macaques escaped and went on the
run, but all have since been captured and humanely euthanized. All of
the other monkeys - who'd arrived in the US from Mauritius that morning,
and were en route to a lab, have been accounted for.
Fallon has now had a rabies shot, and wrote about the symptoms she has since suffered on Facebook - and also told PA Homepage that she'd developed symptoms of pink eye - an inflammation or infection of the eye ball.
She
said: 'I was close to the monkeys, I touched the crates, I walked
through their feces so I was very close. So I called (a helpline) to
inquire, you know, was I safe?
'Because the monkey did hiss at me and there were feces around, and I did have an open cut, they just want to be precautious.'
Fallon
said she got out to help both the driver and the animals in their
cages, initially believing them to be cats. When she approached and put
her hand on the cage, she says the monkey hissed at her.
The
day following the accident, Fallon suddenly developed a cough and pink
eye, which became so bad that she had to visit the emergency room at
Geisinger Medical Center in Danville. Fist tap Dale.
telegraph | Our animal ancestors, and most of their
descendants, laughed simply because they were enjoying themselves,
according to a new study.
But over millions of years humans have perfected how to use the sound to wound as well. Great apes which roamed the earth 16 million years ago are thought to be the first who developed the ability to laugh.
Modern-day Orangutans, the only species of Asian great ape, laugh when
they are having fun, while African great apes, which include gorillas
and chimpanzees, have learned that the sound can be used to influence
others, but still only use laughter while playing.
However, human have gone much further, using laughter for a range of negative emotions, including to ridicule or sneer.
sandrarose | The latest statistics confirm what U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams said about face masks in February.
Dr. Adams previously said the public should not wear masks to protect
against the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease because masks offered little protection against a virus.
"Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS!" Adams tweeted on Feb. 29.
The WHO, the CDC and NIH's Dr. Anthony Fauci also strongly discouraged wearing masks as not useful for the public.
Dr. Adams changed his tune months later. He encouraged Americans to
wear a mask to stop the spread of the coronavirus — insisting the face
coverings don't infringe on Americans' "freedom".
Adams was not wearing a mask in August when he and another man were cited for trespassing in a park in Hawaii that was closed.
Adams, 46, was with his personal assistant, Dennis Anderson-Villaluz,
a 37-year-old dietician with the U.S. Health Dept. The two men
were "taking pictures" inside the rural park.
People who are most at risk for contracting Covid-19 include those
with preexisting conditions such as cardiac problems, hypertension,
asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), immunodeficiency
(HIV), psychiatric condition, diabetes, or obesity.
kshb | Mayor Quinton Lucas's face mask mandate went into effect in Kansas City, Missouri, Monday.
Anyone going inside a public building is now required to wear a face covering.
The
Kansas City, Missouri Health Department will be enforcing the mandate
by asking customers and businesses to hold each other accountable.
As of 5 p.m. there were 21 Health - Communicable Disease 311 complaints according to the city's 311 database.
The Health Department will follow up with businesses in those
complaints one by one, beginning with a phone call to determine if the
business needs a reminder about the rule or if it is actively ignoring
it.
Joe Zwillenberg, owner of the Westport Flea Market Bar and
Grill, said he welcomes the oversight by the public and the government.
"You
might get that new employee who just moved here that maybe doesn't know
about the ordinance going on and fell through the cracks," Zwillenberg
said. "The last thing any restaurant wants to do is get somebody sick."
After
an initial follow-up call from the health department, next steps, if
necessary, include sending a certified letter, visiting the business,
sending a mitigation order and pulling the occupancy permit.
The Health Department wants to stress that customers hold the power. If
they see a business not allowing for distancing or not enforcing
mask-wearing they should leave.
slate |Someone says he’s bleeding from his ear. Have you just watched an old man die? Is hedying?
For this subset of people, many of whom seem to be in the process of
radicalizing, any one of these dozens of videos can become the occasion
for a deep dive that unravels most of the assumptions that have shielded
police from widespread scrutiny. Take the Buffalo incident: The viewer
sees a tall, thin, older man walking toward a group of police officers.
He’s wearing a blue sweater. The cops are in short-sleeved shirts and
gloves. There are some forbiddingly decorative concrete spheres in the
scene, of the sort one might find outside a conference center; the
viewer will learn at some point that this is all happening in Buffalo,
New York, where, the day before, this very group of officers knelt with
protesters in a moving celebration of communal harmony.
The Buffalo Police Department Emergency Response Team—as you,
hypothetical white viewer, eventually learn they’re called—is carrying
batons and wearing helmets. The tall old man holds what looks like a
police helmet in his left hand. In his right he holds what looks like a
phone. As with so many of these videos, you can’t quite hear. This is
worrying: You believe in getting all the context. But the first lesson
of this mess is that context is a luxury. Like the protesters, like
minorities pulled over for a traffic stop, like police, even, the only
information you have is what’s in front of you. What you see is this:
The old man seems to address the officers briefly, reaching toward one
and tapping his arm with his phone. The officer who received the taps
reacts as if he’s been stung and shoves the old man hard. The old man
falls directly backward, out of the scene. There is an awful sound. The
camera pulls back. The man lies on the cement with a dark fluid pooling
under his head. His right hand, which is still holding the telephone,
gives up; you watch the phone fall as it goes limp.
Someone says, He’s bleeding from his ear.
Have you just watched an old man die? Is he dying? The officer (who
knows no more than you do) looks briefly concerned and walks on. Another
officer starts to bend toward the man; he is stopped by his colleagues.
They walk on. The man bleeds.
Context will come in time, and it will not make this better. You will
read that the Buffalo Police Department reported this incident as an
injury incurred when one person at the protest “tripped and fell.” Only
when the news team that captured this circulates the footage will the
public realize that the record has been falsified. Buffalo Police Cpt.
Jeff Rinaldo will say there was no deception at all, just an honest
mistake. “How the situation was being observed, it was being observed
from a camera that was mounted behind the line of officers,” he says.
“The initial information, it appears the subject had tripped and fallen
while the officers were advancing.” He will congratulate the police on
how quickly they corrected the record. “There is no attempt to mislead,”
Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown will say of the police statement, echoing Rinaldo.
You want to believe there was no attempt to mislead. But
something is off. The “initial information” about the incident, you
realize, should obviously have come from Buffalo Police Cpt. Jeff
Rinaldo’s officers. Not some camera, no matter where it was. In calling
an obvious cover-up a mistake, both the mayor and the police captain are
acting as if it’s a given that not one of the 14 law enforcement
officers you saw in that video—who witnessed what happened—could be
counted upon, let alone expected, to tell the truth. Rinaldo
speaks in a language so wrenched by adherence to the passive voice that
it barely sounds like English: The situation was being observed … the initial information, it appears.
You’ve heard of the “blue wall of silence”—the anti-snitch code
whereby police protect each other from accountability to the public. But
maybe you thought it was more a Hollywood invention than a plague
sickening American towns. Evidence for it, and evidence for rampant
dishonesty by police unaccustomed to being doubted or questioned, is
mounting. You read, for example, that police reported that $2.4 million
in Rolexes were looted from a store in SoHo, even though the store spokesman said,
“no watches of any kind were stolen, as there weren’t any on display in
the store.” You start to wonder about other police reports on looting.
Maybe you’ll think back to last week, an age ago now, when protesters and journalists were beaten and tear-gassed
in Lafayette Park so Trump could pose in front of a church. The
following day, the U.S. Park Police strenuously denied using tear gas at
all. If you’re unusually attentive, you might also remember that Park
Police walked that denial back several days later, citing confusion over whether pepper balls counted as tear gas (they do).
Never mind: You’re trying to focus on this one case in Buffalo, and the
next steps matter: The Buffalo Police Department suspends two officers
without pay while an investigation is conducted. Most regard this as the
bare minimum since the principal offenders—who you now know are named
Aaron Torgalski and Robert McCabe—not only assaulted an old man but
might have lied to their superiors about it. Maybe you’re relieved
there’s a modicum of accountability. That relief quickly dissolves. It
emerges that Torgalski and McCabe’s colleagues find this minimal
consequence outrageous: The day after the two officers’ suspension, 57
members of the Buffalo Police Department’s Emergency Response Team
resign from the team (though not the police force—they remain employed
there) to support their two colleagues. They believe the men who shoved
an old man to the ground are being treated abusively. “Our position is
these officers … were simply doing their job. I don’t know how much
contact was made. He did slip in my estimation. He fell backwards,” said Buffalo Police Benevolent Association president John Evans. Before you can pause and really take this in—he did slip in my estimation—the Buffalo Police Union will post on its website, “These guys did nothing but do what they were ordered to do. This is disgusting !!!”
Maybe, as a hypothetical white American who’s always had good relations
with police, you are shocked to find the police union excusing obvious
misconduct as “just following orders” and doubling down on the lie that
the man slipped. You’ve heard that police lie, but it’s being driven
home to you differently now that your attention is focused. You’re
watching the lies happen in real time. You saw, with George Floyd’s
death, that Minneapolis police initially reported he “appeared to be
suffering medical distress”—a curious way of saying a man was
asphyxiated. The original statement
Minneapolis police spokesman John Elder chose to send reporters read
“Man Dies After Medical Incident During Police Interaction.” That’s all
we would have known about George Floyd’s death had it not been for the
brave teenager who recorded it in real time. The revelation isn’t that
the lies are new. It’s that they’re everywhere.
politico | Tension that began with governors versus the federal government
has now trickled down, pitting officials within their own states
against each other in ways that have direct implications for the fight
against the virus and have already landed in the courts.
Future disputes could complicate plans to respond to a resurgence, tie
up urgent policy issues in legal wrangling and even risk lives.
With cases increasing in some places and falling in others — and with
a second wave predicted in the fall — the new pandemic battlegrounds
will be increasingly localized.
“Cities can't wait for the federal and state government for
guidance,” said Charleston Mayor Amy Shuler Goodwin, who has continued
to clash with West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, including last week over
his decision to add tanning beds to the list of essential businesses.
“There is not one single mayor that doesn't want all the lights back on
and all the doors back open, but we need to be really careful about
doing that.”
Experts say a one-size-fits-all approach for reopening is
not an option — not when the number of new daily cases is changing at
vastly different rates from city to city and state to state. Across many
states that have started to reopen, governors have indeed prescribed
economic restart plans based on regional metrics, not statewide figures.
As that continues — and if the virus resurges — there could be even
more openings for such disagreements.
“We have to be making decisions that are hyper local. This is not one
big epidemic, it’s multiple, small epidemics,“ said Caroline Buckee, an
epidemiologist at Harvard University, during a Brookings Institution
discussion on reopening plans. “And the decisions we make have to
reflect the inequalities in the location in question and how reopening
is going to impact the relationships between different neighborhoods.”
In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom has faced backlash from coastal mayors over cracking down on beach use, and the Democratic governor has allowed more than 20 of the state's 58 counties to move faster than his original plan in the face of increasing pressure — and lawsuits — from those anxious to reopen.
Things escalated in Texas last week after Attorney General Ken Paxton sent letters to counties that include metropolitan hubs Dallas, Austin and San Antonio,
chastising them for stricter local requirements on masks and mass
gatherings that conflict with state efforts to loosen restrictions.
“Insofar as your order conflicts with the governor’s order, it is unenforceable,”
AIER | For two to three months, Americans have suffered the loss of liberty,
security, and prosperity in the name of virus control. The
psychological impact has been beyond description. We thought we could
count on basic rights and freedoms. Then over a few days in March, it
all ended in ways hardly anyone could believe possible.
The manner in which governments dealt with foundational principles of
modernity has been shocking. They put half the country under house
arrest and managed every movement in disregard for the Bill of Rights
and all legal precedent, to say nothing of the Constitution. It felt
like a coercive unraveling of civilization itself. It’s like we are all
waking up from a bad dream only to look around and see the wreckage that
proves it was all real.
So how can we deal with this terror that befell us? One way is to
figure out some aspect in which our sacrifice has been worth it, maybe
not on net given the consequences, but surely some good has come out of
this. If my email and feeds are correct, this is how many people have
been justifying this. The psychology here is rooted in the sunk-cost fallacy:
when you commit resources to something, even when it is a proven error,
you tend to find justifications by doubling down rather than just
admitting the mistake.
Thus have many people written me to say that whether you agree or
disagree with the lockdown, we have to admit that it has saved millions
of lives. I always write back and ask how they know that. They send me a
link to a projection – those very projections that presume all kinds of
things about cause and effect that we cannot know and which have proven
wrong time and again throughout this crisis.
So let’s just grant that it is possible that lockdowns can be
credited with slowing the spread of the virus, and perhaps preserving
hospital capacity (which turned out to be unnecessary). Still, the virus
doesn’t then get bored and move by to Wuhan or to another planet. It
still sticks around, so at best, these measures only “prolong the pain,”
in the words of Knut Wittkowski.
So even if lockdowns slow the spread in the short run, it’s not clear
that they have saved lives from the coronavirus, even if it results in more death overall from deferred surgeries and diagnostics, suicides, drug overdoses, and depression.
The trouble here is that certain features of this experience stand
out to contradict the idea that lockdowns are saving lives over the
longer term. In New York, two thirds of hospitalized patients
with COVID-19 were in fact sheltering in place during the lockdown,
essentially living in forced isolation. The lockdown didn’t help them;
it might have contributed to making matters worse.
youtube |Barely more than a week ago, South Korea’s coronavirus outbreak appeared to be contained as the number of confirmed infections stabilized at 30. Sensing a turning tide, many Seoul residents took off their surgical masks and resumed riding the subways and shopping at malls.
Then, on Feb. 17, a 31st case surfaced at a health clinic in Daegu, a city about 150 miles south of the capital where the vast majority of known infections were located. An unidentified 61-year-old woman, who lived there and occasionally commuted to Seoul, tested positive for the novel coronavirus.
It seemed like a standard case until public health authorities started tracing the patient’s tracks.
What they learned shocked them: the woman had, during the previous 10 days, attended two worship services with at least 1,000 other members of her secretive religious sect whose leader says the end of days is coming.
Within 24 hours, the nation’s number of confirmed cases started multiplying exponentially. The tally rose by 20 during that period, doubled the following day and then doubled again on the third day.
By Wednesday, the count skyrocketed past 1,000 -- a more than 30-fold increase in a week that prompted the government to raise its health alert to the highest level. At least half of the new cases are linked to the sect called the Shincheonji -- which translates to “new heaven and land” and whose members worship side-by-side in cramped spaces.
“What made this case so much worse was that this person spent a considerable amount of time in a very crowded area,” said Kim Chang-yup, a professor for health policy at Seoul National University. “There’s growing fear and resentment among the people right now.”
South Korea’s health ministry said Wednesday it was launching a manhunt for more than 212,000 members whose names were provided by the sect. Korea’s Centers for Disease Control & Prevention already is screening 9,300 sect members, in addition to those who attended the two services. On Wednesday, it expects to conclude tests of 1,300 sect members showing symptoms.
cbsnews | AMBASSADOR CUI: First of all, America experts are on the list
recommended by the W.H.O. We certainly respect- I think all of us
respect the W.H.O. as the most professional intergovernmental body in
the world and for the U.S. CDC, they have very frequent regular contact
with the- their Chinese counterparts, the Chinese CDC. And even beyond
that, some American experts have come to China already on their own
individual basis. So there's ongoing contacts not only between the two
governments, but also between the two CDC's and between the academic
institutions and even some American companies are also offering help,
technical help.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I- I asked the question,
because it also gets at there's a lot of unknown and a lot of suspicion
because of that. And in fact, this week, Senator Tom Cotton, who sits on
the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committee, suggested that
the virus may have come from China's biological warfare program. That's
an extraordinary charge. How do you respond to that?
AMBASSADOR
CUI: I think it's true that a lot is still unknown and our scientists,
Chinese scientists, American scientists, scientists of other countries
are doing their best to learn more about the virus, but it's very
harmful. It's very dangerous to stir up suspicion, rumors and spread
them among the people. For one thing, this will create panic. Another
thing that it will fend up racial discrimination, xenophobia, all these
things, that will really harm our joint efforts to combat the virus. Of
course, there are all kinds of speculation and rumors. There are people
who are saying that these virus are coming from some- some military lab,
not of China, maybe in the United States. How- how can we believe all
these crazy things?
MARGARET BRENNAN: You think it's crazy. Where did the virus come from?
AMBASSADOR CUI: Absolutely crazy.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Where did the virus come from?
AMBASSADOR
CUI: We still don't know yet. It's probably according to some initial
outcome of the research, probably coming from some animals. But we have
to- to discover more about it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There has been
some outcry on social media, particularly after the death of Dr. Li
Wenliang. He had made public warnings for weeks before the government
acknowledged this was happening. In fact, authorities had forced him to
disavow what he had said previously, which turned out to be true. The
Communist Party of China is now investigating this. Why?
AMBASSADOR
CUI: Well, we are all very saddened about the death of Dr. Li. He is a
good doctor. He was a devoted doctor, and he did his best to protect
people's health. We are so grateful to him. But you see, he was a doctor
and a doctor could be alarmed by some individual cases. But as for the
government, you have to do more. You have to base your decisions, your
announcement on more solid evidence and signs.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But do you think silencing him in the beginning was a mistake?
AMBASSADOR
CUI: I- I don't know who tried to silence him, but there was certainly a
disagreement or people were not able to reach agreement on what exactly
the virus is, how it is affecting people. So there was a process of
trying to discover more, to learn more about the virus. Maybe some
people reacted not quickly enough. Maybe Dr. Li, he perceived some
incoming dangers earlier than others, but this is- this could happen
anywhere, but whenever we find there's some shortcoming,--
newyorker | Muslim-Hindu harmony was central to the vision of India’s founders,
Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, who laid the foundation for a
secular state. India is home to all the world’s major religions; Muslims
constitute about fourteen per cent of the population. As the British
Empire prepared to withdraw, in 1947, Muslims were so fearful of Hindu
domination that they clamored for a separate state, which became
Pakistan. The division of the subcontinent, known as Partition, inspired
the largest migration in history, with tens of millions of Hindus and
Muslims crossing the new borders. In the accompanying violence, as many
as two million people died. Afterward, both Pakistanis and Indians
harbored enduring grievances over the killings and the loss of ancestral
land. Kashmir, on the border, became the site of a long-running proxy
war.
India’s remaining Muslims protected themselves by forging an alliance
with the Congress Party—Gandhi and Nehru’s group, which monopolized
national politics for fifty years. But the founders’ vision of the
secular state was not universally shared. In 1925, K. B. Hedgewar, a
physician from central India, founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh,
an organization dedicated to the idea that India was a Hindu nation, and
that Hinduism’s followers were entitled to reign over minorities.
Members of the R.S.S. believed that many Muslims were descended from
Hindus who had been converted by force, and so their faith was of
questionable authenticity. (The same thinking applied to Christians, who
make up about two per cent of India’s population. Other major
religions, including Buddhism and Sikhism, were considered more
authentically Indian.)
Hedgewar was convinced that Hindu men had
been emasculated by colonial domination, and he prescribed paramilitary
training as an antidote. An admirer of European fascists, he borrowed
their predilection for khaki uniforms, and, more important, their
conviction that a group of highly disciplined men could transform a
nation. He thought that Gandhi and Nehru, who had made efforts to
protect the Muslim minority, were dangerous appeasers; the R.S.S.
largely sat out the freedom struggle.
In January, 1948, soon after
independence, Gandhi was assassinated by Nathuram Vinayak Godse, a
former R.S.S. member and an avowed Hindu nationalist. The R.S.S. was
temporarily banned and shunted to the fringes of public life, but the
group gradually reëstablished itself. In 1975, amid civic disorder and
economic stagnation, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi suspended parliament
and imposed emergency rule. The R.S.S. vigorously opposed her and her
Congress Party allies. Many of its members were arrested, which helped
legitimize the group as it reëntered the political mainstream.
The
R.S.S.’s original base was higher-caste men, but, in order to grow, it
had to widen its membership. Among the lower-caste recruits was an
eight-year-old named Narendra Modi, from Vadnagar, a town in the state
of Gujarat. Modi belonged to the low-ranking Ghanchi caste, whose
members traditionally sell vegetable oil; Modi’s father ran a small tea
shop near the train station, where his young son helped. When Modi was
thirteen, his parents arranged for him to marry a local girl, but they
cohabited only briefly, and he did not publicly acknowledge the
relationship for many years. Modi soon left the marriage entirely and
dedicated himself to the R.S.S. As a pracharak—the
group’s term for its young, chaste foot soldiers—Modi started by
cleaning the living quarters of senior members, but he rose quickly. In
1987, he moved to the R.S.S.’s political branch, the Bharatiya Janata
Party, or B.J.P.
afp | As Indian protests
against a new citizenship law have intensified, so has police use of
"lathis", sturdy sticks used to whack, thwack and quell dissent since
British colonial times -- to sometimes deadly effect.
At least 27
people have died in the past two weeks of protests, mostly from bullets,
but hundreds more have been injured in clashes between demonstrators
and riot police wielding the bamboo canes.
Images shot by AFP and other media of officers hitting
people with them, in some cases apparently indiscriminately lashing out
at passers-by and even minors, has only fuelled public anger.
One
video of a group of Muslim women in New Delhi protecting a cowering male
fellow student from a police lathi barrage spread like wildfire on
social media in India.
Those who have
experienced a blow from a lathi, measuring five or six feet (1.5-1.8
metres) and made of stout bamboo or plastic, say it leaves a numbing
sensation that lasts for days.
Multiple strikes can break bones, cripple and even kill.
"From being used as means to regulate crowds, lathi has
turned into a lethal weapon," said V. Suresh, the secretary general of
the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), a non-profit rights
group.
"It is... being freely used, so much so that as a country
we have become inured to it. Lathi is seen as a normal but it is a
horrible weapon," Suresh told AFP.
"Nothing legitimises its brutal use."
- Fear and awe -
Many
believe the lathi originated as a martial arts accessory in South Asia.
It was also used by feudal landlords against poor peasants, emerging as
a symbol of unquestioned power and authority.
bbc | Depending on what language you speak, your eye perceives colours – and the world – differently than someone else. The human eye can physically perceive millions of colours. But we don’t all recognise these colours in the same way.
Some people can’t see differences in colours – so called colour blindness – due to a defect or absence of the cells in the retina that are sensitive to high levels of light: the cones. But the distribution and density of these cells also varies across people with ‘normal vision’, causing us all to experience the same colour in slightly different ways.
Besides our individual biological make up, colour perception is less about seeing what is actually out there and more about how our brain interprets colours to create something meaningful. The perception of colour mainly occurs inside our heads and so is subjective – and prone to personal experience.
Take for instance people with synaesthesia,
who are able to experience the perception of colour with letters and
numbers. Synaesthesia is often described as a joining of the senses –
where a person can see sounds or hear colours. But the colours they hear
also differ from case to case.
Another example is the classic Adelson’s checker-shadow illusion. Here, although two marked squares are exactly the same colour, our brains don’t perceive them this way.
Since
the day we were born we have learnt to categorise objects, colours,
emotions, and pretty much everything meaningful using language. And
although our eyes can perceive thousands of colours, the way we
communicate about colour – and the way we use colour in our everyday
lives – means we have to carve this huge variety up into identifiable,
meaningful categories.
Painters and fashion experts, for example, use colour terminology to
refer to and discriminate hues and shades that to all intents and
purposes may all be described with one term by a non-expert.
Guardian | Historians have emphasised how male workers, humiliated by such
repressive industrial practices as automation and time management, also
began to assert their manhood by swearing, drinking and sexually
harassing the few women in the workforce – the beginning of an
aggressive hardhat culture that has reached deep into blue-collar
workplaces during the decades-long reign of neoliberalism. Towards the
end of the 19th century large numbers of men embraced sports and
physical fitness, and launched fan clubs of pugnacious footballers and
boxers.
It wasn’t just working men. Upper-class parents in America and
Britain had begun to send their sons to boarding schools in the hope
that their bodies and moral characters would be suitably toughened up in
the absence of corrupting feminine influences. Competitive sports,
which were first organised in the second half of the 19th century,
became a much-favoured means of pre-empting sissiness – and of
mass-producing virile imperialists. It was widely believed that putative
empire-builders would be too exhausted by their exertions on the
playing fields of Eton and Harrow to masturbate.'
But masculinity, a dream of power, tends to get more elusive the more
intensely it is pursued; and the dread of emasculation by opaque
economic, political and social forces continued to deepen. It drove many
fin de siècle writers as well as politicians in Europe and the US into
hyper-masculine trances of racial nationalism – and, eventually, the
calamity of the first world war. Nations and races as well as
individuals were conceptualised as biological entities, which could be
honed into unassailable organisms. Fear of “race suicide”, cults of
physical education and daydreams of a “New Man” went global, along with
strictures against masturbation, as the inflexible modern ideology of
gender difference reached non-western societies.
European colonialists went on to impose laws that enshrined their
virulent homophobia and promoted heterosexual conjugality and
patrilineal orders. Their prejudices were also entrenched outside the
west by the victims of what the Indian critic Ashis Nandy calls
“internal colonialism”: those subjects of European empires who pleaded
guilty to the accusation that they were effeminate, and who decided to
man up in order to catch up with their white overlords.
This accounts for a startling and still little explored phenomenon:
how men within all major religious communities – Buddhist, Hindu and
Jewish as well as Christian and Islamic – started in the late 19th
century to simultaneously bemoan their lost virility and urge the
creation of hard, inviolable bodies, whether of individual men, the
nation or the umma. These included early Zionists (Max Nordau, who dreamed of Muskeljudentum, “Jewry of Muscle”), Asian anti-imperialists (Swami Vivekananda,
Modi’s hero, who exhorted Hindus to build “biceps”, and Anagarika
Dharmapala, who helped develop the muscular Buddhism being horribly
flexed by Myanmar’s ethnic-cleansers these days) as well as fanatical
imperialists such as Robert Baden-Powell, founder of the Scout movement.
The most lethal consequences of this mimic machismo unfolded in the
first decades of the 20th century. “Never before and never afterwards”,
as historian George Mosse, the pioneering historian of masculinity,
wrote, “has masculinity been elevated to such heights as during
fascism”. Mussolini, like Roosevelt, transformed himself from a sissy
into a fire-breathing imperialist. “The weak must be hammered away,”
declared Hitler, another physically ill-favoured fascist. Such wannabe
members of the Aryan master race accordingly defined themselves against
the cowardly Jew and discovered themselves as men of steel in acts of
mass murder.
This hunt for manliness continues to contaminate politics and culture
across the world in the 21st century. Rapid economic, social and
technological change in our own time has plunged an exponentially larger
number of uprooted and bewildered men into a doomed quest for masculine
certainties. The scope for old-style imperialist aggrandisement and
forging a master race may have diminished. But there are, in the age of
neoliberal individualism, infinitely more unrealised claims to masculine
identity in grotesquely unequal societies around the world. Myths of
the self-made man have forced men everywhere into a relentless and often
futile hunt for individual power and wealth, in which they imagine
women and members of minorities as competitors. Many more men try to
degrade and exclude women in their attempt to show some mastery that is
supposed to inhere in their biological nature.
npr | CHANG: Well, when you asked non-white people why they dyed their hair blond, what did they say to you?
RANKINE: I did hear a lot that it made my skin look lighter.
CHANG: Oh, interesting.
RANKINE: And probably the most sad and moving report I had was a
young woman in a shop who said, I - when I went blonde, I found myself.
It was really me. My skin was lighter. Even my mother said so. And that -
I found that a little tragic.
CHANG: I read that some people got kind of defensive when you
brought up the issue of whiteness. Why do you think people got
defensive?
RANKINE: Mostly it was white people who got defensive.
RANKINE: Mostly young white women - they felt that the choice to
go blonde was a personal choice. And they felt they looked better. They
felt better. They were treated better. And...
CHANG: Treated better by men, by women, by everybody?
RANKINE: By everyone. When I asked them if they thought that was
tied somehow to the expectations of whiteness, they got defensive around
that. And, you know, a few of them said, can you erase the interview
or...
CHANG: Wow.
RANKINE: ...I don't want to talk about this anymore. So, you know
- and I think that's tied to the fact that talking about race is taboo
among white people. And so to say that you have invested in a thing -
and it is an investment. You know, it costs sometimes $400, $200 for
touch-ups. So, you know, that line of investigation and inquiry was not
acceptable to them.
CHANG: Well, could an argument be made that the decision didn't
go that deep, that you're assuming there is some deeper attachment or
non-attachment to whiteness? But maybe the decision to go blond was just
a fun, kind of care-free thing the way some people dye their hair blue
or purple. And why interrogate them about it?
RANKINE: Exactly. It - I mean, it could be that. And often I
would say, do you dye your hair other colors? And some women said, no,
it's always blond. You know, so if it's really about the funness (ph) of
dying your hair, then perhaps you would do blue or green or whatever.
But for them, it was a commitment to blondness.
NYTimes | Years ago I
spoke with a 16-year-old girl who was considering the idea of having a
computer companion in the future, and she described the upside to me.
It’s not that the robot she’d imagined, a vastly more sophisticated
Siri, was so inspiring. It’s that she’d already found people to be so
disappointing. And now, for the first time, she explained me, people
have options. Back then I thought her comments seemed prescient. Now I find them timely.
“There
are people who have tried to make friends, but stumbled so badly that
they’ve given up,” she said. “So when they hear this idea of robots as
companions, well … it’s not like a robot has the mind to walk away or
leave you or anything like that.”
This
girl had grown up in the time of Siri, a conversational object
presented as an empathy machine — a thing that could understand her. And
so it seemed natural to her that other machines would expand the range
of conversation. But there is something she may have been too young to
understand — or, like a lot of us — prone to forget when we talk to
machines. These robots can perform
empathy in a conversation about your friend, your mother, your child or
your lover, but they have no experience of any of these relationships.
Machines have not known the arc of a human life. They feel nothing of
the human loss or love we describe to them. Their conversations about
life occupy the realm of the as-if.
Yet through our interactions with these machines, we seem to ignore this
fact; we act as though the emotional ties we form with them will be
reciprocal, and real, as though there is a right kind of emotional tie
that can be formed with objects that have no emotions at all.
theatlantic | But the raw data that Facebook uses to create user-interest inferences is not available to users. It’s data about them, but it’s not their data. One European Facebook user has been petitioning to see this data—and Facebook acknowledged that it exists—but so far, has been unable to obtain it.
When he responded to Kennedy, Zuckerberg did not acknowledge any of this, but he did admit that Facebook has other types of data that it uses to increase the efficiency of its ads. He said:
My understanding is that the targeting options that are available for advertisers are generally things that are based on what people share. Now once an advertiser chooses how they want to target something, Facebook also does its own work to help rank and determine which ads are going to be interesting to which people. So we may use metadata or other behaviors of what you’ve shown that you’re interested in News Feed or other places in order to make our systems more relevant to you, but that’s a little bit different from giving that as an option to an advertiser.
Kennedy responded: “I don’t understand how users then own that data.”
This apparent contradiction relies on the company’s distinction between the content someone has intentionally shared—which Facebook mines for valuable targeting information—and the data that Facebook quietly collects around the web, gathers from physical locations, and infers about users based on people who have a similar digital profile. As the journalist Rob Horning put it, that second set of data is something of a “product” that Facebook makes, a “synthetic” mix of actual data gathered, data purchased from outsiders, and data inferred by machine intelligence.
With Facebook, the concept of owning your data begins to verge on meaningless if it doesn’t include that second, more holistic concept: not just the data users create and upload explicitly, but all the other information that has become attached to their profiles by other means.
But one can see, from Facebook’s perspective, how complicated that would be. Their techniques for placing users into particular buckets or assigning them certain targeting parameters are literally the basis for the company’s valuation. In a less techno-pessimistic time, Zuckerberg described people’s data in completely different terms. In October 2013, he told investors that this data helps Facebook “build the clearest models of everything there is to know in the world.”
Facebook puts out a series of interests for users to peruse or turn off, but it keeps the models to itself. The models make Facebook ads work well, and that means it helps small and medium-size businesses compete more effectively with megacorporations on this one particular score. Yet they introduce new asymmetries into the world. Gullible people can be targeted over and over with ads for businesses that stop just short of scams. People prone to believing hoaxes and conspiracies can be hit with ads that reinforce their most corrosive beliefs. Politicians can use blizzards of ads to precisely target different voter types.
As with all advertising, one has to ask: When does persuasion become manipulation or coercion? If Facebook advertisers crossed that line, would the company even know it? Dozens of times throughout the proceedings, Zuckerberg testified that he wasn’t sure about the specifics of his own service. It seemed preposterous, but with billions of users and millions of advertisers, who exactly could know what was happening?
Most of the ways that people think they protect their privacy can’t account for this new and more complex reality, which Kennedy recognized in his closing remark.
“You focus a lot of your testimony ... on the individual privacy aspects of this, but we haven’t talked about the societal implications of it ... The underlying issue here is that your platform has become a mix of ... news, entertainment, and social media that is up for manipulation,” he said. “The changes to individual privacy don’t seem to be sufficient to address that underlying issue.”
medium |For
several years now, political journalists, analysts, and pundits have
been arguing that U.S. politics has increasingly turned into a struggle
between urban and rural voters. Regional differences were once
paramount, Josh Kron observed in the Atlantic
after the 2012 election. “Today, that divide has vanished,” he
declared. “The new political divide is a stark division between cities
and what remains of the countryside.” Two years later, the Washington Post’s Philip Bump wrote
that there are “really two Americas; an urban one and a rural one,”
going on to observe that since Iowa was growing more urban, Democrats
could count on doing better there. Instead, an ever-more urbanized and
diverse nation turned not just toward Republicans, but also toward the
authoritarian nationalism of Donald Trump, prompting further
hand-wringing over the brewing civil war. “It seems likely that the
cracks dividing cities from not-cities will continue to deepen, like
fissures in the Antarctic ice shelf, until there’s nothing left to
repair,” concluded a lengthy New York story on the phenomena this April.
I
don’t disagree that the United States is in crisis, with fissures
breaking apart our facade of national unity and revealing structural
weaknesses of the republic. Our federation — and, therefore, the
world — is in peril, and the stakes are enormous. As the author of American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America,
however, I strongly disagree with the now-conventional narrative that
what ultimately divides us is the difference between metropolitan and
provincial life. The real divide is between regional cultures — an argument I fleshed out at the outset of this series—as it always has been. And I now have the data to demonstrate it.
NYTimes | Worried about someone hacking the next election? Bothered by the way Facebook and Equifax coughed up your personal information?
The technology industry has an answer called the blockchain — even for the problems the industry helped to create.
The first blockchain was created in 2009 as a new kind of database for the virtual currency Bitcoin, where all transactions could be stored without any banks or governments involved.
Now, countless entrepreneurs, companies and governments are looking to use similar databases — often independent of Bitcoin — to solve some of the most intractable issues facing society.
“People feel the need to move away from something like Facebook and toward something that allows them to have ownership of their own data,” said Ryan Shea, a co-founder of Blockstack, a New York company working with blockchain technology.
The creator of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, has said the blockchain could help reduce the big internet companies’ influence and return the web to his original vision. But he has also warned that it could come with some of the same problems as the web.
Blockchain allows information to be stored and exchanged by a network of computers without any central authority. In theory, this egalitarian arrangement also makes it harder for data to be altered or hacked.
Investors, for one, see potential. While the price of Bitcoin and other virtual currencies have plummeted this year, investment in other blockchain projects has remained strong. In the first three months of 2018, venture capitalists put half a billion dollars into 75 blockchain projects, more than double what they raised in the last quarter of 2017, according to data from Pitchbook.
Most of the projects have not gotten beyond pilot testing, and many are aimed at transforming mundane corporate tasks like financial trading and accounting. But some experiments promise to transform fundamental things, like the way we vote and the way we interact online.
“There is just so much it can do,” said Bradley Tusk, a former campaign manager for Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, who has recently thrown his weight behind several blockchain projects. “I love the fact that you can transmit data, information and choices in a way that is really hard to hack — really hard to disrupt and that can be really efficient.”
Mr. Tusk, the founder of Tusk Strategies, is an investor in some large virtual currency companies. He has also supported efforts aimed at getting governments to move voting online to blockchain-based systems. Mr. Tusk argues that blockchains could make reliable online voting possible because the votes could be recorded in a tamper-proof way.
“Everything is moving toward people saying, ‘I want all the benefits of the internet, but I want to protect my privacy and my security,’” he said. “The only thing I know that can reconcile those things is the blockchain.”
timesofisrael | Moscow rejects accusation of responsibility for
attack on Sergei Skripal, likening it to previous attacks against
Russians on UK soil.
Moscow on Monday rejected British Prime Minister Theresa May’s statement
to parliament that it was “highly likely” Russia was responsible for
the poisoning of a former spy in Britain.
The statement was part of an “information and political campaign based
on provocation,” said Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria
Zakharova, in comments carried by news agencies.
“This is a circus show in the British parliament,” she added.
“Rather than think up new fairy tales, maybe someone in the kingdom
could explain how the previous ones ended up — about Litvinenko,
Berezovsky, Perepilichny and many others who have mysteriously died on
British soil,” Zakharova said.
timesofisrael | The White House on Monday condemned the chemical attack on a former
Russian spy in Britain as “an outrage,” breaking a week-long silence.
“The use of a highly lethal nerve agent against UK citizens on UK
soil is an outrage,” said press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. “The
attack was reckless, indiscriminate and irresponsible.”
Sanders stopped short of pointing the finger of blame at Moscow, as
British Prime Minister Theresa May did earlier in parliament.
The United States and Britain have a long-standing intelligence-sharing agreement.
When asked whether Russia was to blame, Sanders demurred: “We stand by our ally and fully support them.”
For a week, the White House had refused to comment on the attempt to
kill Sergei Skripal, who sold secrets to Britain and later moved there
in a 2010 spy swap with Russia.
NYTimes | It’s a new year and I’ve got a new gym membership. I went the other morning. It was 8 degrees outside. And every woman in there was wearing skintight, Saran-wrap-thin yoga pants. Many were dressed in the latest fashion — leggings with patterns of translucent mesh cut out of them, like sporty doilies. “Finally,” these women must have thought, “pants that properly ventilate my outer calves without letting a single molecule of air reach anywhere else below my belly button.”
Don’t get me wrong. I have yoga pants — three pairs. But for some reason none of them cover my ankles, and as I said, it was 8 degrees outside. So I wore sweatpants.
I got on the elliptical. A few women gave me funny looks. Maybe they felt sorry for me, or maybe they were concerned that my loose pants were going to get tangled in the machine’s gears. Men didn’t look at me at all.
At this moment of cultural crisis, when the injustices and indignities of female life have suddenly become news, an important question hit me: Whatever happened to sweatpants?
Remember sweatpants? Women used to wear them, not so long ago. You probably still have a pair, in velour or terry cloth, with the name of a college or sports team emblazoned down the leg.
No one looks good in sweatpants. But that’s not the point. They’re basically just towels with waistbands. They exist for two activities: lounging and exercising — two activities that you used to be able to do without looking like a model in a P90X infomercial.
It’s not good manners for women to tell other women how to dress; that’s the job of male fashion photographers. Women who criticize other women for dressing hot are seen as criticizing women themselves — a sad conflation if you think about it, rooted in the idea that who we are is how we look. It’s impossible to have once been a teenage girl and not, at some very deep level, feel that.
But yoga pants make it worse. Seriously, you can’t go into a room of 15 fellow women contorting themselves into ridiculous positions at 7 in the morning without first donning skintight pants? What is it about yoga in particular that seems to require this? Are practitioners really worried that a normal-width pant leg is going to throttle them mid-lotus pose?
We aren’t wearing these workout clothes because they’re cooler or more comfortable. (You think the selling point of Lululemon’s Reveal Tight Precision pants is really the way their moth-eaten design provides a “much-needed dose of airflow”?) We’re wearing them because they’re sexy.
Rejuvenation Pills
-
No one likes getting old. Everyone would like to be immorbid. Let's be
careful here. Immortal doesnt include youth or return to youth. Immorbid
means you s...
Death of the Author — at the Hands of Cthulhu
-
In 1967, French literary theorist and philosopher Roland Barthes wrote of
“The Death of the Author,” arguing that the meaning of a text is divorced
from au...
9/29 again
-
"On this sacred day of Michaelmas, former President Donald Trump invoked
the heavenly power of St. Michael the Archangel, sharing a powerful prayer
for pro...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...