I’ve written about The Bitter Southerner before and the wonderful apparel they sell. The t shirts I mentioned then were mostly about food. While I love those shirts, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention their political apparel line too. You can find it, here.
While I may disagree on the idea that everything is political — I wrote about that, here — I do support the message on most of their shirts. Go check them out (and the rest of their merchandise as well).
Remember:
It is easy to forget the poor. When you have enough of your own problems, or when other world problems loom large, the problem of the homeless and destitute tend to fall out of focus. So it’s understandable that people’a attention goes elsewhere. I’d like to bring your attention back to it for a moment with this post with links to stories on it. Thanks for taking the time to do so.
Around a decade ago, I put a marker on my blog regarding Peter Thiel, because I thought it worthwhile to track his decline. Last week the pattern of Nazi related activities in the American right got to the point where I thought: I need to start noting these.
First off, Peter Thiel is giving a lecture on “The Antichrist: A Four-Part Lecture Series” of all things. One thing that stood out for me was the reference to Carl Schmitt. In case you don’t know much about Schmitt and his relationship with the Nazis, you can read this.
Next up, JD Vance (who is also aware of Schmitt), said, “I don’t know why we accepted that it was reasonable to have crazy people yelling at our kids. You should not have to cross the street in downtown Atlanta to avoid a crazy person yelling at your family. Those are your streets.” Read that, I thought, I wonder if we should be prepared for someone in the Trump administration to propose Aktion T4. This is a marker to see if they are going to go down that road.
None of this Nazi infused thinking is new. Mike Godwin in 2023 said comparing Trump to Hitler was not wrong, in light of Trump “calling people vermin” and “talking about blood poisoning”.
Godwin’s Law — “As an online discussion continues, the probability of a reference or comparison to Hitler or to Nazis approaches 1.” — is good to keep in mind. It’s easy to reach for comparison of the American right wing to the Nazis, and that comparison should be resisted. Many authoritarian actions that the Trump administration has been doing are terrible but such actions are not strictly limited to Hitler and company. But as these actions pile up, and as right wing thought and action echo behaviors of Germany after 1933, it’s worthwhile keeping track. Actions like the formation of a secret police, the use of concentration camps, the attacks on the museums and the arts, or the takeover of cities by the military.
(Photo of Miller, Hegseth and Vance with the National Guard in Washington D.C.)
P.S. For people who say, Americans would never do anything terrible, I would simply start by by pointing out CIA Black Sites, where Americans would “detain, interrogate, and often torture suspected enemy combatants” in extrajudical locations outside the U.S.
I was thinking about what makes good political art after reviewing the work of Mike Monteiro. One of his encaustic works takes a traditional image seen on Portuguese tiles and underlines it with the message: All Portuguese ships are slave ships. While I like all of his work (seen here), that one especially resonated with me. Possibly because in Toronto (with a large Portuguese speaking community) you can see such art in many places, including the subway. I had always taken a benign view to the representation of such ships before. But this work got me to read up more on the leading role of Portugal in the Altantic Slave Trade. This work had me admiring it aesthetically as well as appreciating it for its political statement.
I think for political art to be good it has to strike such a balance between the aesthetic value of the work and the political value of the work. The work of Barbara Kruger or General Idea or Picasso’s Guernica all strike that important balance. Art where the political message is obscure or art that is merely an illustrated political message is out of balance and comes up short. It’s not that the work is bad: it’s that the work that strikes that balance is better.
For more and better thought on the power of political art, read this. For more great political art, see this. Also much of the work of General Idea and Kruger is political and worth seeking out.
(Image above from the art group General Idea. For more on it, refer to this.)
Over on Timothy Snyder’s web site is a resources page where you can find free resources (posters, postcards, etc.) for you to use. Highly recommended. Also highly recommended is the book it came from: On Tyranny. That page also has links to web sites selling his book. It’s a very smart, very readable, and very useful book to own in these trying times. Get yourself a copy.
P.S. I think a resources page is a great idea. More sites should have one.
When it comes to demonizing your opponents, I was really struck by how strong an example the Heritage Foundation demonstrates here: Project Esther: A National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism. Start with the first paragraph:
“America’s virulently anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti-American “pro-Palestinian movement” is part of a global Hamas Support Network (HSN) that is trying to compel the U.S. government to abandon its long-standing support for Israel. Supported by activists and funders dedicated to the destruction of capitalism and democracy, the HSN benefits from the support and training of America’s overseas enemies and seeks to achieve its goals by taking advantage of our open society, corrupting our education system, leveraging the American media, coopting the federal government, and relying on the American Jewish community’s complacency. The National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism intends to enlist all willing and able partners in a coordinated effort to combat the scourge of antisemitism in the United States.”
Let’s unpack that paragraph. Do you find any room there for someone like me who opposes the actions of the Israeli government, never mind those who may be supportive of the Palestinians who are bearing the brunt of the Israeli army against the Hamas organization? I don’t. As far as Heritage is concerned, I am “anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti-American”. Furthermore, you cannot consider yourself “pro-Palestinian”: you are considered instead part of “a global Hamas Support Network (HSN)”. Not only that, but by being part of the HSN, you and I are caught up with those “dedicated to the destruction of capitalism and democracy”. If that’s not bad enough, Heritage states that we are hurting America by “taking advantage of our open society, corrupting our education system, leveraging the American media, coopting the federal government”. The only way you could be any worse is if you were Jewish and adding to “the American Jewish community’s complacency”.
To generalize, the formula Heritage seems to be using to demonize their opponents is:
This particular example revolves around the conflict in the Gaza Strip. But it could easily apply to any situation. For example, during the October Crisis in Canada, all those wishing for more autonomy for Quebec and opposing the Canadian government in various forms could have been lumped into the FLQ Support Network (FSN) and the Canadian establishment could have said anyone in this new FSN bucket was an enemy of Canada and democracy and more. As you can see, it’s an easy formula to apply.
Of course it is not just enough to demonize your opponent. Once you do that, you need to use that demonization to justify your future goals. For Heritage, some of their goals for Project Esther are listed below:
Basically, any thing they don’t like in schools and universities they can label as coming from HSO (Hamas Support Organizations) and work to have it removed under the guise of attacking antisemitism. Attacks on free speech by right wing organizations is not new, and that is part of the point of Project Esther. First demonize your opponent, then use the demonization to ban them or strike them in some way while claiming it’s for a good cause.
Whenever a person or group use the formula to demonize their opponent, you can assume some follow on extreme action is being lined up by them. Don’t be that person or a part of that group, and don’t participate in that form of thinking.
Even if you don’t normally watch Star Wars movies, consider watching Andor. Like the movie it arises from, Rogue One, it stands apart from much that is Star Wars. There’s no light sabre battles, no Force, none of the things you may associate with the franchise. It is still in the Star Wars universe, which is why you will see Storm Troopers in their white uniforms, as well as other such things. But it really is a good dramatic series that’s well written and well acted. For fans of Star Wars, it’s good TV. But people indifferent to Star Wars will find it is good TV too.
I could go on, but Don Moynihan is miles ahead in terms of making a strong and thoughtful case for it, here. Don writes about governance, so he sees the series from that lens. And quite the lens it is. I highly recommend you read his piece.
One thing I noticed that wasn’t in his piece is the colonialism that comes through in the series. The Empire has taken over planets in a way not unlike earthly empires take over countries, and the series explores what that does to both those loyal to the Empire and those fed up with it.
Andor starts up season 2 this month. Go watch season one on Disney+ now. Check out Rogue One too (though you can watch Andor independently of it and the rest of the Star Wars films). Hopefully season 2 will be worthwhile TV too.
I am still a supporter of strategic voting in Canada. My thoughts on it haven’t changed much since I wrote this in 2019: Strategic Voting in Canada – some thoughts.
What has changed is the site you should go to if you also want to vote that way. It doesn’t look like this site, strategicvoting.ca, is working any more. However this site SmartVoting.ca, seems up to date, at least for the Ontario election this week. And it looks like they are preparing to work on the soon to come Federal election.
It’s good to check out regardless of how you plan to vote.
Since the inauguration it’s been difficult to avoid thinking about Donald Trump. Even if you avoid social media or the news, if you care about the world at all you are forced to consider what he and the people in his administration are up to.
With the flurry of actions his team has taken, many people I follow have been trying to make sense of it all. I’m no exception. So I wrote out this list of what I think are the things that motivate him or are in his comfort zone:
That list hasn’t changed much since Trump 1.0 and his first term in office. What is different is the intensity.
Unlike other presidents, he is not motivated to work hard, to give back to others, to be virtuous in any way, or to stay current with the culture. He may appear to concede some of these (e.g., letting Elon be the center of attention) if he thinks it will help him with something else (making money, not having to work hard).
The next time you see him doing something, you can look to this list and at least one if not more of these items for an explanation. Getting into crypto? #1. Taking over the Kennedy Center? #2. Running for president? #3. Appointing people like Kristi Noem for anything? #4. You get the idea.
I’m sure there will be things you might add to that list. But if you see Trump doing something and ask yourself “what possessed him to do that”, it’s likely one of the items on this list.
Rule #1: accurately assess the strength of your opponent. When you are in control, your opponent is going to try and stop you from doing things, and when then are in control, it is your job to stop them. If you underestimate the strength of your opponent, you will get overrun by them. If you overestimate their strength, you will retreat or surrender too easily. (Seeing a lot of that right now.)
Rule #2: know the difference between an opponent and an enemy. You can work with your opponent on things you have in common, despite having other things you disagree with. You cannot work with your enemy: they must be defeated. If you don’t defeat them, they will defeat you.
If you believe in democracy and freedom and the person on the other side is a nazi or a fascist, they are your enemy, not your opponent. It’s foolish to think otherwise.
Not too long ago Danielle Smith in Alberta had a leadership review in which she won with 91.5% approval. 91.5 certainly sounds like a win. But what if she got 80%? Or 70%? Is that still a win? What about 55%?
If you are wondering that, then I highly recommend this piece by Jason Markusoff: Danielle Smith’s UCP leadership test: here’s what history says about how safe she is. He analyzes her win in the context of other leadership reviews where leaders scored that result or less and then summarizes what happened next.
Something to keep in mind in Canadian politics for 2025 and years to come.
After an election, people may wonder: how could people vote for that candidate? Many people believe a vote is for a candidate, and someone’s vote means they favor that candidate.
I don’t believe that. I believe that for many voters, the logic they employ is this:
I believe this is why many incumbents hold on to power for a long period of time. Voters feel they are doing the job well enough and they don’t want to fire them from and take the risk of bringing in someone who can’t do the job.
It also explains why people can vote for someone who others think is a bad candidate. They are voting for the bad candidate because they want to vote against someone they consider a worse candidate. To them, the best way to defeat the worse candidate is to vote for the bad candidate.
The assessment of who is a good, bad or worse candidate will depend on how much information you bring into the equation. For low information voters, they might think candidate A has done a bad job managing the economy, so they will vote against candidate A by voting for a candidate who can cause the defeat of candidate A. If candidate B has the best chance of beating candidate A, they will vote for candidate B. They may dislike candidate B in numerous ways, but that is the candidate most likely to prevent candidate A from remaining in office.
Many high information voters will look at an election results and say most voters voted for candidates running on issues X, Y, and Z. That may be the case for a percentage of voters. Many voters, though, are not voting for a candidate, they are voting against a candidate, and they will vote for someone who can defeat that candidate, regardless of many of the issues.
P.S. I thought of this when I read many such posts like this on social media:
jamelle @jamellebouie.net (on Bluesky -b):
Also, if anyone is looking for someone to blame, it should be focused on the people who looked exactly at what Trump was selling and said “yes.”
No doubt there were some percentage of voters who voted for Trump because they wanted to see him in office. Those voters said “yes”. But I think there were many more voters who wanted to vote against Biden/Harris and thought the best way to remove them from office was to vote for Trump. To them, Harris was the worst candidate to vote for, even if Trump was a bad candidate. I don’t agree with that at all, but I am trying to understand how some voters could vote for Trump without assuming they are simply terrible people.
High information voters believe that voters should understand many of the issues of an election and the stances of the candidates on those issues before they vote for someone. High information voters also believe that most voters should be like that.
I am a high information voter who believes something different. I believe that most voters are not like that and never will be. I believe most information are low information voters.
Low information voters vote for or against a candidate based on one or two pieces of information. This limited information could be:
Once a low information voter has this information, they will make their choice.
As a high information voter, you might have a hard time understanding why someone chooses to be a low information voter. But there are many reasons why someone chooses to be this way, such as:
Of course there are a number of invalid reasons that low information voters vote, too, such as:
Regardless of what their reasoning is, this is how many voters vote and they will not be persuaded by a flurry of facts from a high information voter. Either they will not have the ability to weigh the facts provided, or they don’t think those additional facts matter to them.
It should be noted that low information voters are not uneducated or stupid. A single issue voter may be highly educated and decide that only candidates that support better healthcare. An intelligent voter may vote against a candidate because of a major scandal, even if they voted for the candidate repeatedly in the past. A vote is a limited instrument: what the meaning is of the vote is only known to the voter.
In the future, when you read a piece about the election (or rejection) or a candidate who stood for A, B, C, D, E, F and G on the issues, don’t assume that most voters voted for or against him/her because of the sum of A to G. Assume many voters voted for or against the candidates based on just one of those.
P.S. This was inspired by many things I’ve seen on social media that read like this:
Michael Hobbes @michaelhobbes.bsky.social
This is the whole ballgame for me: You cannot run a functioning democracy in a media environment where voters do not know basic facts about what candidates do and believe.
Voters are living in a post-internet world and legacy institutions have not kept up.
If anyone wants to know what happened in the last 200 days or what will happen in the next four years, then this is a good place to start: Donald Trump wins presidential election, defeating Harris to retake White House (The Washington Post). Specifically, when it comes to the economy, he promises this.
Trump did everything wrong in the campaign and Biden and Harris did everything right and none of it mattered. The economy is doing great now but the economy has also been terrible for the last few years because of a pandemic. Beyond that, housing is simply unaffordable for many people, so having a job doesn’t necessarily make you feel good about your place, economically speaking. For those voters, the hope is Trump will fix that.
While Trump will have the Senate to make changes, he may not have the House. In terms of passing laws, that could provide him with difficulties. Difficult or not, it may not make much difference to him personally. He will likely continue to use the office to get richer. And few if any of the charges against Trump will remain, so he will likely spend his time at the White House rather than a cell.
If anything, Trump will delegate governing to others, like Musk and RFK Jr and the Heritage Foundation. He’s not much interested in the job of the presidency, while others around him are. He’s content to be the Boss of the country and use it to get wealthy.
I suspect this is the end of Ukraine as a free country, though the rest of Europe may decide otherwise. I imagine things will only heat up in the Middle East as Netanyahu feels more impowered, but it is risky to make predictions in that part of the world.
It’s also risky to make any sorts of predictions about what will happen in the US, but unlike 2016, there’s more to base any prediction on. Generally, if you are a fan of Trump, you’re going to predict things will be great again. If you are a foe of the man, your predictions will be full of darkness and difficulty.
No Presidential endorsements were provided by the LA Times or the Washington Post this year. This caught people by surprise, since it was expected these two papers would endorse a candidate and that candidate would be Harris. Soon it was revealed the endorsements were held up by the owners of both papers.
One way to assess the choices of the owners of the Times and the Post is to use a payoff matrix found in game theory and apply it to the moves available to them:
| Action vs impact | Harris Wins | Trump Wins |
|---|---|---|
| Endorse Harris | No Loss | Huge Loss |
| Endorse No one | Small loss | Small Loss |
My payoff assessment is based on an estimate of how much each paper has to lose by endorsing/not endorsing a candidate. If Harris wins, there is very little downside regardless of what they do. Likewise, if Trump wins and they don’t endorse, I suspect they will also lose subscriptions and staff, but overall they can manage that.
The wrinkle in all this is if Trump wins and they endorse Harris. I think the owners of both papers see a huge loss for them — either personal or financial — if that happens.
Both men have different things at stake. We already know that the team from Bezos’s other project, Blue Horizon, has been talking to Trump. No doubt Bezos would not want Trump to come into power and ban Blue Horizon from any future space exploration with NASA. That would explain why Bezos did not want the Post to endore Harris. As for Soon-Shiong, the owner of the LA Times, he tried to get a post in Trump’s first administration. Perhaps he hopes he will be successful the second time around.
If the above payoff matrix had a bigger payoff or a bigger loss regarding Harris, then they might have chosen differently. As it is, they decided to minimize their risk by endorsing no one. They are guaranteed to suffer losses, but not big ones for them personally. It’s a rational choice, but a disappointing one.
I wouldn’t be surprised if both of them got out of the newspaper business in the next four years. They clearly don’t have the appetite for the risk of running such publications.
Here’s two ways to predict who will win the presidential election:
First: look at the 13 keys of Allan Lichtman, Presidential Predictions Guru. According to Lichtman, there are 13 keys to determine who will win the next election:
Of the first 11, Lichtman says Trump comes out ahead on 1, 2, and 10 (in italics) while Harris comes out ahead on the rest (e.g. there was no primary contest, no third party, the economy is doing well, no policy issues, no major social unrest, and no scandals for her.) That’s enough to assume she will win the election, regardless of foreign policy (which he skipped over).
Mind you, based on this, Biden was set to win the election, but I am not alone in thinking that was not going to happen.
Still, I think there is alot to agree with in the 13 keys. As people go to vote one or more of these keys will be on their minds as they cast their ballot. Check out the link above to get more insights from the man saying Harris is the next US President.
Second: look at the Electoral College map and the swing states. That’s certainly what the candidates are doing on their campaigns. Two states in particular could make all the difference as to who is the next US President: Georgia and Pennsylvania. The Washington Post takes a closer look at the two states that loom largest in 2024 election.
If you are curious about Project 2025 — and if you are an American, you should be — there are at least three ways you can learn more about it.
The first way is to go to a web site set up to describe it, Project 2025: Presidential Transition Project.
Personally, and as a progressive person, I found this the best way to understand the effects it could have, 25and.me: How Does Project 2025 Affect Me?
However, if all that is hard to get a handle on, or if you want something more neutral, you can also check out: Project 2025 in Wikipedia.
Chances are if Donald Trump is reelected president, many of the things proposed in Project 2025 will come to fruition in the four years he is in office. So before you vote, read up on Project 2025 and know what you might be in store for.
It is interesting to see the wheels of Justice turning in America. For a time they did not seem to turn at all. As Josh Marshall illustrates in this piece on January 6th, for some time there was a perception that right wing militant groups could act out the way they wanted to and no one could stop them. That changed on January 6th, as groups like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys are discovering. No doubt these groups may continue to exist in some form, despite their head being cut off. But it is something to see these groups finally being brought to justice after some time of being able to engage in riots and more with impunity.
After crushing some of the right wing militia, the wheel of Justice seems to be bearing down on members of Donald Trump’s inner circle, from Ron Navarro to Rudy Giuliani. Trump himself is under so many investigations that the New York Times had to build a special tracker so people can keep up with them all.
(If you thought this would change his behavior, you would be wrong. He continues to be a fountain of lies: the only difference now is how the news media covers him, as you can see here. He also continues to stiff people, as this story on Rudy Giuliani’s legal finance woes show.)
The wheels of Justice don’t just go right, they go left too, as the protestors of “Cop City” in Atlanta are about to discover via this indictment. Is it a bad use of RICO? Possibly. No doubt Trump and people would say the same thing. Regardless, it will be interesting to see if the Georgian prosecutors can make the cases, left or right.
P.S. Other American things I found noteworthy: Some school in Florida put restrictions on Shakespeare in their classrooms, which lead to this really good essay on how Shakespeare is ribald and great. This story of disputes between left and right business in a small town of Virginia says more about America than a dozen essays can. Finally, the image below is of “the Byrna Mission 4. This pneumatic rifle shoots non-lethal rounds, incapacitating intruders without causing permanent harm.” Like the story of the business dispute, it too says alot about the America.
Canadians can fool themselves into thinking they understand America and Americans. I certainly can. But America is different and there are many things I don’t really understand, try as I might.
The Supreme Court, SCOTUS, is one of those things. In Canada, the Supreme Court acts like a supreme court should, I believe. It barely gets any notice in Canada, and when it does, it’s usually for a very good reason. No one thinks of it in a politicized way.
That’s very different than SCOTUS, it seems to me. That court comes across as highly political. Which is why people talk all the time about their political leanings. Which is also why I find this feature in the New York Times so fascinating: major supreme court cases for 2023. For certain cases, the court lines up the way you’d expect. But for a majority of the cases, that isn’t true. Take a look: you’ll see the court is more complex than you think.
That said, SCOTUS has many problems. The corruption of Alito and Thomas, for one. This fact that many of decisions are based on errors which are not hard to find, is another.
Finally, I don’t agree with everything in this, but I think that what Josh Barro wrote on the recent supreme court moves worthwhile. Likewise these pieces by Jamelle Bouie, and Steve Vladeck and Adam Liptak.
RFK Jr is in the news a lot recently. One obvious reason is that he is trying to run for President. The other reason is because some of the worst of people are jumping on his bandwagon and amplifying his campaign.
If you are unsure about him, then I recommend this piece on RFK Jr for several reasons. First, it sums up how I think I now think about RFK Jr:
His noxious views on vaccines, the origin of AIDS, the alleged dangers of wi-fi and other forms of junk science deserve no wide hearing. Polls showing he’s favored by 20 percent of likely Democratic voters over President Biden are almost as laughable as Kennedy’s views. It’s early; he’s got iconic American name recognition; and there’s almost always an appetite, among Democrats anyway, for anybody but the incumbent.
Second, it also has a list of articles at the beginning that debunk RFK Jr’s ridiculous claims. And if that’s not enough, here’s more on RFK Jr from the New York Times and People Magazine.
As for the people jumping on his bandwagon and amplifying him, here’s a break down on the horrible harassment of Dr Peter Hotez by Joe Rogen, Elon Musk and others. As for why you don’t want to debate science on a podcast, here’s a good piece on what it’s like to go on Joe Rogan and debate anything
Here’s hoping RFK Jr and the cranks he attracts fade into the background soon.
Many times I find things I would like to write about but never do. I think people should check out these links though. So I am including them all in this Sunday post to read at your leisure.
Start with this one on mapping data visualisations from Victorian London to today. Or this, on the film Unforgiven and the line, “deserves got nothing to do with it”. I am fascinating by ex-Royals haunting Europe, like Ferdinand Habsburg, who occupies his time racecar driving, so I recommend that. I also loved the story of Jenny Nguyen and the sports bar she opened just for women’s sports, The Sports Bra.
This is good: how to help your kids find happiness.
Are these the best movies ever made? Possibly. Do I know why old man Robert de Niro is having a 7th kid? Nope.
I wanted to say something/something more about Ted Lasso, The_Blues_Brothers, bad artists, David_Shrigley, or ska, but I could not. I don’t even have anything clever to say about the Wakefield amazonian love god statue, other than you should check it out. (Seen above.)
I recommend you also check out this amazing Maine home, this Manual Coffeemaker (seen below) and this piece on the Amazon Halo Rise. Even this desk lamp, which is the visual motivation youll need to start your day. Or this cool utility shelf , or this Concept TV, or even these linen sheets.
If you need some advice, read about the move out method of organizing or read this for anxiety reduction. I do believe writing make you healthier. This can tell you how to retire when you have basically nothing saved. Consider this more radical and practical than stoicism (shugendo).
When it comes to health and fitness, here’s a good piece on Kipchoge’s boston marathon pace. It’s VERY Fast. This guy is not fast but he is a cheat: Joasia Zakrzewski at the ultramarathon. A different form of cheating: how one man ate cheat meals which helped him lose weight. I was going to write about the mediterranean diet and Kettlebell exercises and how kettlebell workouts burn 20 calories / minute, but didn’t. I didn’t know what to say about this article that was a grim reflection on a life of drinking. Nor did I know what to write on how depression rates are reaching new highs.
This is an interesting story about Carmelite nuns abandoning their nest in Brooklyn. A good piece on riding the New York subway in the 70s. Speaking of the craziness of the 70s, here’s a story on cocaine and cooking at Chez Panisse. All worthy of a post some day.
I once wanted to write about the red shoes of Pope Benedict XVI and their many hidden meanings but I passed. Related in a fashion sense, here’s something on GQ’s outfit of the week. And from a religious POV, I’ve always been fascinated by the story of France’s eminence grise. Not to mention forgotten masses like Childermas!
Here’s some LISS links I never could make anything of: What Makes Fascism Fascist? – by John Ganz, how Nazis are not socialists, and Why Paul Ehrlich got everything wrong. Then this is this piece on who will sell the books. Plus Horizontal History on Wait But Why this? A cautionary tale: The Dangerous Decline of the Historical Profession. Quasi-historical: on Raiders of the Lost Ark. Strangely historical: It’s not a darning tool it’s a very naughty toy – Roman dildo found.
Some clippings from out east where I come from: on the East Coast Kitchen. Here’s 2 things on the international student housing crisis in Cape Breton, including how medical residents moving to cape breton are struggling to find housing. The famous nscad university is moving to the Halifax seaport. Also worthy of fame, Kate Beaton’s affecting ducks dives into the lonely life of labour in Alberta’s oil sands. Lastly, Food truck diner experience helped relaunch Zellers brand.
I didn’t know what to do about Linda McCartney’s photos, or why art installations make people angry, or this piece on Vermont and the law and art and slavery, but they are all interesting. Go check them out.
For some time I was going to write a defence on consultants after reading this and this and this and this and this. Even this and this. Most of them insinuating that consultants are all powerful and manipulative and evil, like this: Opinion: The Trudeau government seems awfully cozy with McKinsey. In the end I didn’t have the energy or the interest.
I thought this piece, you can’t say that in the 1930s which relates to this, Agatha Christie novels reworked to remove potentially offensive language was worthwhile. Likewise, this, on Black Panther 2’s Namor casting and how it opens up a Latino colorism debate.
I found these social media leaks disturbing and a caution as to what to share and not share: alcohol counseling patient data leak and discord document leak tiktok.
Here’s two things on Samuel Alito, whom I find especially terrible: here and here. Also terrible, those doing child labor lobbying in the USA.
Last, I was going to write something on the bystander effect, on some blogging myths, on happy warriors, on Maiden Lane Transactions, on the CBC Massey lectures archives, on driving a Lyft, and on college and students and success. Someday, perhaps.
As always, thanks for reading this blog. I deeply appreciate it. I hope you found a link or two above worthwhile.
There is a serial killer quality about Isaac Chotiner and his interviews. He finds someone who likes to talk and who is in the wrong and he proceeds to eviscerate them through a series of questions in the New Yorker. He’s done it so often that people like Dan Drezner wrote this: Why Do People Talk to Isaac Chotiner?
Barney Frank was the one person who I saw stand up to him in an old interview and avoid being sliced up. I was impressed then. I was less impressed recently when Chotiner interviewed him about working for Signature Bank. Frank comes across as pugnacious still, but clearly he is wounded and on the defensive. Here’s some excerpts.
On Frank’s own actions to weaken Dodd-Frank:
Do you see any connection between the weakening of Dodd-Frank a few years ago and the collapse? I came to the conclusion shortly after we passed the bill that fifty billion dollars was too low. I decided that by 2012, and, in fact, said it publicly. The reason I say that is that I didn’t go on the board of Signature until later. In fact, I had never heard of Signature Bank at the time when I began to advocate raising the limit. This is relevant, obviously, because Signature was a beneficiary of that.
On why it was on the regulators to choose to go after banks like Signature Bank, here is what Frank had to say:
The power to look at liquidity, to increase liquidity and to say, You have too little—they had every power they needed to do that. [The bill allowed regulators to keep liquidity and capital requirements on banks with total assets between a hundred billion and two hundred and fifty billion, but no longer mandated they do so.] I will tell you, as a member of the board of Signature, we underwent some discussions about liquidity, and the need to increase liquidity or maintain it.
On the limits of stress tests (The bold part is Chotiner: the part in italics is Frank):
But isn’t the point of stress tests to see how a bank will do under different scenarios, like the one we saw? Yeah, that is what a stress test does. It’s an artificial but valid test. I do not think that a stress test would have helped in this situation. Because? Well, this all came up very suddenly. I don’t know what a stress test would have shown. A stress test might have been helpful, but part of it was that stress tests were for institutions large enough that it wouldn’t just be about them failing—it would be that their failing could cause great waves. I think that the impact of this failure has been contained, which it wouldn’t have been if it were JPMorgan.
On why he went to work for Signature Bank:
No, that’s the answer to, “Why are you doing this? It’s inconsistent.” No, I went on it, frankly, for two reasons. One: it paid well. I don’t have a pension and, having quit, I wanted to make some money. [Frank declined to participate in the congressional pension system.]
In short: weakening Dodd-Frank was a good thing and removing mandatory liquidity requirements from banks like Signature Bank was a good thing and also the stress tests are not that good. Also its fine for political leaders to go work the people they used to regulate and make lots of money.
The whole interview is worth reading. Unless you were a fan of Barney Frank, they way I once was. Now he just sounds like an character from The Big Short.
There’s a great quote in this piece on how the Republicans demand spending cuts to lift the debt limit. They won’t say what to cut. It’s this:
“If you exempted defense, veterans, Social Security and Medicare spending, you’d have to cut everything else by 85%,” said Marc Goldwein, an expert at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a think tank that advocates for reducing red ink. “It’s possible as a mathematical proposition. But the question is: Is it possible as a policy proposition? And the answer is no.”
The crucial fact is this: the US government is an Insurance Company with an Army. (From Paul Krugman’s blog of over 11 years ago,) That leave any one governing with really two choices: cut the insurance or cut military spending if you want to make significant reductions in the budget. If you cut the insurance, good luck getting reelected. And while I think they could easily still dominate the world with a much smaller military, good luck as well persuading many American voters of that.
Some Republican politicians love to imagine they can reduce government spending significantly during these Debt Ceiling discussions. All the best with that. (Even Mitch McConnell is moving on this time.)
There have been lots of pieces explaining Dark Brandon. (Too many!) If you want to read what I thought was the best one, I think it was this: Dark Brandon, explained – by Matthew Yglesias.
As for my two cents….part of me likes the Dark Brandon meme. It a political jiu-jitsu move, taking the use of memes and shitposting that comes from trolls, the alt-right, and basic straight up Nazis, and using it effectively against them. That part I am good with.
But I think the warning that comes from this piece is worth considering:
… experts warn there are risks to embracing this type of political iconography. “You don’t want to take a trend that is precipitated by fascists and Nazis and then sort that into your arsenal. That’s just not great,” says extremist researcher Daniel Grober, who co-authored with Hampton Stall a definitive report on the Dark MAGA trend in far-right online networks. “What it does is it normalises the aesthetic, and it gives kind of a platform for it to be solidified into the general media.”
I agree with that. Essentially the use of memes like Dark Brandon risks getting into the mud with the worst of the Internet and wrestling with them. As G.B. Shaw(?) once warned:
“Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”
As an example of this, one of the Democrats grabbed a Dark Brandon meme that contained some Dark Knight/Batman imagery and tweeted it, only to have to pull it when someone pointed out the Nazi Eagle in the background. See? The mud gets on you even as you fling it.
America is great in many ways, but when it’s bad, it’s terrible. Much of this has to do with the Republican party and the people who support it. That support means that people in Republican Counties Have Higher Death Rates Than Those in Democratic Counties. People are stupid, but it doesn’t help when those that lead them are evil or incompetent. Speaking of evil, here’s a piece on Tucker Carlson and why it is pointless to interview him. It’s not all evil though, some of it is just incompetent, like the Texas power grid. Also dumb are Republicans thinking they should have the right to spam people. Back to evil, this piece on Citizen Bopp, explains how much toxic legislation gets drafted. Now back to freedumb and how Americans will sooner metaphorically shoot themselves in the foot for freedom than to act reasonably.
Besides the GOP, much of the badness of the US rises out of political Christians, which has lead to the rise of Christian nationalism . Evil. As for dumb? What Happens To Christian Influencers When They Get Married?
All that helps explain why the American right falls over terrible world leaders like the bigot Victor Orban from Hungary. (Not that we Canadians should be smug: our ex PM Harper is apparently a fan.)
America still reserves the right go assassinate people around the world, and because the weapons are getting better and the targets are awful, no one blinks an eye at stories like this: Little-known modified Hellfire missiles likely killed al Qaeda’s Zawahiri.
Anyway, those are just some of the links I’ve saved over the last while on the badness of America. Never mind their Supreme Court and how evil and incompetent they are. It’s one thing to be right wing, but they had a chance to limit Roe v Wade in a way that would be less damaging and they refused to take it.
Maybe next week I’ll be in a better mood and I will write about why American is great. Often times they are great because of their enemies and the challenges they pose. Some of those enemies are foreign, but many of them are domestic.
With all the news concerning the US Supreme Court, I did some digging to see how the current court measures up against its predecessors. Here some pieces I found on the worst decisions ever made:
And here are two articles on the worst members of that court:
Judge for yourself. 🙂
Like many people, I am riveted to what is happening in the USA lately. It seems to be coming undone as right wingers try and pull the country to a place that will be bad for Americans and in some cases bad for the world. To support that opinion, here’s some links I’ve recently collected. (As well as other links related to politics in general.)
Jan 6th: First up, there is the January 6th committee investigating the insurrection that happened on that day. Mike Pence featured prominently in the beginning, leading to pieces like this, Why Democrats Should Honor Mike Pence, and this and this. Then there were others, like Rusty Bowers in Arizona. More on the role of the GOP in the hearings. I respect all those who did their job/duty and pushed back on Trump and those who tried to subvert democracy. I don’t think we need to make them all into heroes, but we should respect their courage and determination. And who knows, but here’s how Merrick Garland might play into this.
Trump: On the other side, here’s a piece on Trump’s legal defence. A key player, Rudy Giuliani used to be looked up to. Hard to believe now. This piece explores his decline. Here’s a piece on the Congresswoman Nancy Mace and limits of Trump’s influence. Here’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein comparing Nixon and Trump in terms of corruption.
Media: As an aside, this was good: Bob Woodward explains key scenes in All the President’s Men. This was not so good: The Washington Post’s social media meltdown. Finally, people who are political junkies might like this: The Rise and Fall of the Star White House Reporter.
The right, SCOTUS, and Roe: To understand what is happening in the US, you need to understand the Religious Right. This helps with that: The Real Origins of the Religious Right. But it helps to know what other players are up to as well, such as Peter Thiel. Or this $%&*, Tucker Carlson.
Which leads to the overturning of Roe vs Wade by the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS). Two pieces on that: the Roe opinion and the case against the Supreme Court of the United States and SCOTUS’s argument for overturning Roe v Wade and Casey. Relatedly, this piece was wrong: The leaked draft Roe opinion is a disaster for the Supreme Court. They lived.
Other things worth reading: More on SCOTUS and how they are dishonest in their judgments; this oped, A Requiem for the Supreme Court After Roe’s Demise; and this, Decades Ago Alito Laid Out Methodical Strategy to Eventually Overrule Roe.
To get more of a handle on this, I read these pieces trying to understand what happens next in the US by these studies of Oklahoma and Ireland. Here’s a piece on how legislatures play into this. Here’s how right wing extremists will be collecting data potentially to go after women seeking abortion. Finally, this on the doctrine of potential life and what’s wrong with it.
Politics and Tech: here’s four pieces on how tech intersects with politics: 1) On period trackers, 2) Microsoft reportedly censors searches for politically sensitive Chinese data, and 3) Canada and how Russian hackers come after it and 4) The Surreal Case of a C.I.A. Hacker’s Revenge.
Generally: the war is still ongoing in Ukraine. Here’s two pieces on it: here and here. Elsewhere in Europe: Hungary: where replacement theory reigns supreme. And to wrap up: How Asian Civilizations Will Change The World Order….nope; The Meaning of Machiavelli.…Yep; For Tens of Millions of Americans the Good Times Are Right Now….maybe?
If you’ve read this far, thanks. All comments are moderated and any I deem thoughtful I’ll approve. The rest go in the trash.
I read these two tweets from someone recently and they struck me as a form of progressive writing that bothers me and I was trying to figure out why. Because I agree with parts of them.
In the first one about Alberta politics:
Shock doctrine 101. Exploiting a burnt out & disoriented populace to ram through commodification of public goods. Expanding duplication of programming via private operators using public funds furthers competition model of education which ultimately fragments society.
I disagree with the idea that the shock doctrine applies to Alberta’s current state or that the Premier needs it in order to pursue such goals. Kenney doesn’t need a pandemic to do this. If anything, the pandemic has slowed down conservative premiers from doing anything like this. Conservative politicians have been forced to act compassionately during the pandemic, because no one wants to lead a province with dead people filling hospital hallways.
In the second one:
One year ago today, hate rooted in white supremacy + misogyny took the lives of 6 Asian women and 2 bystanders. This was a fatal act stemming from long standing erasure, objectification, and entitlement to Asian women’s bodies. Know their names. May they rest in power.
This was a terrible event that should be remembered. But this tweet is a left wing laundry list of issues: white supremacy, misogyny, erasure, objectification, know their names, rest in power. I know that there are limits with what you can tweet: it’s just that tweets like this limit the effectiveness of what you are trying to communicate.
I wish progressive thinkers knew how to preach to others outside the choir. I wish progressive writers could talk to people other than hectoring them. I wish they were more doubtful about it all. It leaves me in the back pew, wishing for a better sermon and looking for a reason to step outside.
I don’t mean to pick on the person who wrote these tweets. These are just two examples. There are thousands of such tweets like this out there every week. Plus websites, like The Jacobin, are full of such writing.
Thanks for reading this. I am just trying to work out why such writing bothers me and how I can think of it better. Maybe my thinking is woolly and wrong headed. It wouldn’t be the first time.
Two good pieces on left wing politics I thought worth reading:
So yesterday was Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the US. I think it is great Americans celebrate the life and work of Dr. King, and I hope all Americans take the day to reflect and work towards a more perfect union inspired by his ideals and vision.
It’s always a weird day on Twitter, though. I think this Wesley Yang quote hits the nail on the head:
MLK said some stuff that radicals like to quote and other stuff that conservatives and moderates like to quote, and of course what made him what he was is the ability to hold these contrasting impulses in balance
— Wesley Yang (@wesyang) January 18, 2022
It’s true: MLK did say some radical things and he also said some moderate things. Moderate people want to claim him for his own and ignore the radical things, and radicals do the reverse. He was trying to bring people together and to move civil rights forward. There was no one way to do that. So was he moderate or radical? It depended on the context.
It’s also a weird thing when someone or some organization references Dr. King and someone quote tweets that and says “oh by the way, they are hypocritical to says that for reasons A, B, and C”. It’s the nature of people to dunk on others on twitter: I feel it just feels like petty squabbling on a day we should aspire to better.
The other thing that seems to happen on twitter every year on MLK day are tweets stating how unpopular he was at one point. As Gallup states:
in 1966 — the last Gallup measure of King using this scalometer procedure — it was 32% positive and 63% negative.
Which is not false. It’s also not the whole picture. As CNNPolitics shows, “Black Americans” saw things differently:
The vast majority in 1963 thought his work for equal rights was moving at the right speed (71%) or not fast enough (21%) compared to 8% who believed it was happening too fast. In 1966, 84% of Black adults had a favorable view of him, while 4% had an unfavorable view.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was an active political figure trying to effect major change. It is not surprising that his popularity was not high like it is now. That’s fairly common of political figures. For additional context, he was listed as one of the top ten admired men in the nation in 1964 and 1965 but not 1966, according to that Gallup piece.
Popularity is a complex thing to measure. People trying to say King was unpopular back in his time are being highly selective in their selection of data, to say the least.
Anyway, I hope people’s tweets are aspirational versus petty when the holiday arrives. I think Dr. King would want that.
FW de Klerk died last week. While there were many reactions to his death, I thought this one was best. His legacy is complicated. But he has a legacy that is complicated and not one that is simply horrible because of the bold actions he took. I had thoughts on de Klerk, but that piece is better than anything I could have written.
I’d argue that almost everyone’s legacy is complicated. I especially thought that after reading about how David Hume’s tower was renamed last year. I suspect that eventually the only things that will be named after people will be for people whose lives we no longer care about. But who knows? As I wrote earlier, the naming of things (and the removal of names) is about power and eventually those newly in power want to name their things so they become their own.
Perhaps we should not erect memorials at all. Perhaps we all need to be iconoclastic. If we do cast new ones, then the memorials we erect of people need to include the “warts and all” aspects of them. Make the memorials a lesson instead of an icon to worship.
One thing I want to add on de Klerk is that when I was younger, I never thought that the Soviet Union, Apartheid, or the Troubles in Ireland would end in my lifetime. For every de Klerk there was a Paisley in Northern Ireland who would fight tooth and nail to prevent change from happening. But it did happen, because of people like Gorbachev, de Klerk and Mandela, Trimble and Hume. They should be acknowledged for the good they did.
(Image from a story on the painter who painted Cromwell, warts and all: Samuel Cooper)
I was reading this analysis of a recent speech by George W. Bush (‘The Nation I Know,’ by George W. Bush – by James Fallows – Breaking the News) and it got me thinking about him again.
It’s easy to forget about Bush. Most Republicans act like they have. Many Democrats too. While reviled towards the end of his presidency — so much so that he was shunned by his party at their conventions — there are people who still think positively of him (For example, Michelle Obama Explains Her and George W. Bush’s Candy Exchange and Friendship).
But no one should forget about Bush and all the terrible things done during his presidency, from torture to war. To see what I mean, read this: The Legacy of America’s Post-9/11 Turn to Torture – The New York Times. While some in America would like to forget all that and think better of him, much of the world likely thinks like this: George W Bush should shut up and go away | US & Canada | Al Jazeera. Even there, the idea is to dismiss him and forget about him.
Perhaps Bush is a genial and charming man. But he will also be the man that brought the United States and the World to a worse place. That should not be forgotten.
(Image above: Official White House photo by Pete Souza – https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4291602492/ (direct link))
Here is Jason Kenney on twitter in July, 2021, celebrating removal of health restrictions:
Congratulations to my friend @PremierScottMoe and all of our neighbours in Saskatchewan on lifting their pandemic health restrictions and kicking off a #GreatSKSummer.
Once again, the prairies are showing the rest of Canada how it’s done! pic.twitter.com/kGRvVK1IEA
— Jason Kenney (@jkenney) July 12, 2021
Here is a tweet from Robson Fletcher of the CBC on Kenney’s province and Scott Moe’s province in September of the same year:
People in Alberta and Saskatchewan are dying from COVID-19 at about quadruple the rate as people in the rest of Canada. (Data source: https://t.co/YE16bv8AtH) pic.twitter.com/U7GRmbFkkT — Robson Fletcher (@CBCFletch) September 27, 2021
I mean, if people in your province are dying at 4X the rate of the other provinces because of direct policy changes you made, you are essentially killing people in your province under your leadership. I don’t know how else to put it.
Also, Jason Kenney should not speak for the Prairies or the West. Both Manitoba and British Columbia are doing better than Alberta and Saskatchewan. It’s not just right wing leaders either. Other right wing provincial parties have been much better stewards of their regions. Kenney and Moe and their leadership are to blame here.
It is terrible when leaders fail their provinces. But this is way beyond typical failure. I feel great sympathy for the people of this province who have died unnecessarily on their watch.
Well that was an odd election. If anyone came out ahead, I can’t see who it was. The Liberals did not get their majority, yet none of the other parties made any significant gains at their expense. Canadians voted to maintain the status quo and maintain it they did.
The one significant thing I noticed was line ups on Election Day. I’ve been voting for decades and I’ve never seen anything like it. As for me, I voted in the advanced poll and while I saw lots of good measures in place to limit the spread of COVID-19 the whole process was still pretty quick. I imagine those good measures slowed things down on Election Day.
It will be interesting to see if there is more voting via mail and via advanced voting in the next election. I expect we will have another one in a few years from now, though I would be surprised if the Liberals will be the ones to bring it on.
The next thing to pay attention to is what happens to the leaders of the various parties. I expect the Greens are going to have to make some difficult decisions. As for the other parties, I have no idea. I thought the leaders all performed well, but members of their parties might think differently. Let’s see.
After that, I’ll be very curious to see what Trudeau and his team do next. I hope they focus on the pandemic and what is needed to get to end of job in that with an eye on the economy and other promises they made.
I tend not to touch on politics on social media: it’s tends to be all downside with little upside. But this election was so odd I had to comment.
The best thing written on AOC and the Met Gala was written here: Activism Is Now In Fashion – The Atlantic.
I had planned to write something, but that piece is so good I can’t possibly express my meh feelings to the empty activism and her presence there better than that piece does. For example, this is just one sliver of goodness from the Atlantic piece:
Ocasio-Cortez has fired up her base, raised her profile, and reminded everyone that she is the standard-bearer for today’s activist left.
At the same time, the Met Gala is essentially a costume ball, which removes the potential for actual subversion…the Met Gala red carpet is now an arena where people go to make statements, which inevitably robs those statements of their power. No one here is rebelling against the Man. The Man loves the extra publicity; it helps sell more $35,000 tickets to socialites who love a frisson of revolution as long as it’s safely divorced from the threat of actual tumbrels. … The Met Ball is … a safe space for political statements that all attendees will applaud, regardless of whether they truly believe them. … no one gets booed, or thrown out, or shunned by their peers for wearing an ensemble supporting any progressive cause to the Met Gala. … So what is the risk of wearing a sloganeering outfit to the Met Gala…? For Ocasio-Cortez, that’s just a day ending in a Y. (Emphasis is mine)
I like AOC for her intelligence and her seriousness and I like the Met Ball for it’s vapid ridiculousness. The two don’t mix. I am glad she got to enjoy the party and wear a great dress and support a good designer, but either go and acknowledge you are part of the ridiculousness, or stay serious and avoid it.
Image from the New York Times. Their piece on it is worthwhile too.
In my case, the Church is the Catholic Church, which I have been estranged from since my teenage years. There are a great many good Catholics that I know, doing great acts of charity and service, such as paying off medical debt. And when I read pieces like this one, I think: yes, Catholicism can be a force for good.
But then there are the many terrible actions by the church and those within it that remind me of why my estrangement still exists. Like how Catholics who promised residential school survivors $25M instead spent $300M on a new church. or the political actions of Bishops in the United States. Or finally, laicized cardinal Theodore McCarrick.
McCarrick is being charged with a fraction of the things he got away with for a very long time. Things everyone knew about. And just so you know, McCarrick is not the end of it. If you can bare it, here’s more about it.
Finally here’s an editorial in a Catholic Church publication talking about just how messed up the church is.
That’s all I have to say for now.
P.S. April 4, 2025: The New York Times has McCarrick’s obituary here. The Times seems to struggle, in their obit, to deal with the two sides of McCarrick, the good and the bad. But the bad parts prevent me from appreciating any of the good parts. No RIP for him.
(Image: Damon Winter/The New York Times)
People like to think outcomes, especially political or social outcomes, are monocausal. They’ll say: Y happened because X occurred.
I think that is rarely true. At best, X could be the main contributor as to why Y occurred. But it is never the only contributor. Often it is not even possible to determine which cause made the most difference. Most outcomes are not monocausal.
A good case study for this can be found in this essay on Haiti vs. the Dominican Republic – by Noah Smith.People will often say the main contributor to Haiti’s poverty was French colonialism or American intervention. Smith makes the case there are many factors that contributed to the significant differences between the two nations and it is not easy or even possible to single out one cause.
The next time someone tries to argue for single causes, look deeper. You’ll like find at least a half different other factors that contributed. People who can highlight multiple causes for an event understand the event better.
(Photo by Tamara Gak on Unsplash )
I agree with this assessment by Noah Smith: it is not powerful at all. It can seem powerful at times, like a very high wind. But like a very high wind, it either subsides or moves on. Sometimes there is damage, but mainly not.
If you disagree, I recommend you read his piece. It’s a pretty strong argument for why twitter as a social force is limited.
P.S. I have felt that for some time. I mainly post things that are either positive or amusing. If I want to take social action, there are concrete ways to do that.
P.S.S. Tweets are like straw, blowing this way and that way, yet not moving and not affecting things, besides making a nice noise.
(Photo by seth schwiet on Unsplash )
If you come across this article, How Trump Steered Supporters Into Unwitting Donations – The New York Times, you might initially think a) well yeah Trump is a crook so no surprise b) his supporters are dumb so also no surprise. You can think that.
However, consider it from the point of view of people working on campaigns. Some of them on both sides might be thinking: this is a good way to bring in money. It’s hard to raise money, they might think, and this is a way to make it easier. These campaign workers might be working on campaigns for people you support. They might think the ends justifies the means.
So if you do contribute to political campaigns, consider doing it from an account that has a limited amount of funds in it. That way even if they trick you into overdonating, you won’t run into some of the trouble that Trump’s supporters did.
(Image comes from a link to an image in the New York Times piece)
Have you been following what is happening with Google and Facebook in Australia? I found it interesting for a number of reasons. One, it seems Facebook and Google have taken very different approaches, with Google coming to an agreement with the Australian government while Facebook has not. (At least not as of Feb 20, 2021.) Two, I believe whatever happens in Australia will have an effect on what is happening in Europe and the United States when it comes to the big digital giants.
I’ve read a number of pieces on it, but I found this one especially detailed: Australia’s Proposed “Fox News Tax” | by James Allworth | Jan, 2021 | Medium
If you want to get a deeper dive into what is driving things with regards to Facebook and Google in Australia, start there.
(Photo by Joey Csunyo on Unsplash)
Smart People I Know 