#endless exploitation and violence no matter the costs

[thestonemask]

It's crazy growing up how some things really change about you, but how little other things do. I'm almost 30 believe it or not and I feel like I've been searching for meaning the last four years of my life. Wild how one day you wake up and you become so painfully aware of the context of the world around you... how days can feel eternal and short winded in the same breath. How things that were once so familiar become distant and unrecognizable. How highs the highs can be vs. the low-lows. In particular, the last four years I think I've questioned almost everything about myself-- what I believe, what I hold important, where I want to be. And yet, none of those questions really matter when people are getting bombed in their homes. It feels like a privilege just to be able to grow up.

[aardvark-123]

Gensokyo Festival Day 9: Eiki Shiki’s Personalised Guide to Self-Improvement

Too busy for an endless string of spell-card duels, our beloved yama has decided to put some of her wisdom into writing. I suggest you read it closely; even if you aren’t the person each section is targeting, you could learn something useful.

...No, she’s not standing over me with “Disrespecting a divine being” written on her Rod of Remorse. Why do you ask?

Reimu:

Stop pestering people for donations. A polite request is acceptable, but prolonged begging is obnoxious and discomforting.

Remember to ask questions before shooting. You are the natural rival of youkai, it is true, but that is no excuse to bully them without reason. With humans and other beings, take extra care that you do not attack them unless you truly must, since they can be more fragile than youkai.

On the other hand, try to avoid forming close friendships with youkai. Remember that you are a shrine maiden, not an aspiring jinyou.

Good work with that fortune teller, by the way.

Most importantly, please at least try to commune with the gods on a daily basis, and keep looking after the one who resides in your shrine. I will not hide the truth from you: If a high-ranking god is sufficiently fond of you, they might order me to allow you into Heaven or place you in their service as a Celestial. That is an unreliable and manipulative strategy, however, so I do not recommend it.

Marisa:

Stop lying. You lie so much that it has become a habit, your automatic first line of defence in almost any situation. Deception will ultimately do nothing but drive your friends away and destroy your reputation.

Stop stealing as well. Patchouli's books are her own, and nobody is going to take your claims of 'long-term borrowing' seriously. Give her back her books.

You must try to think about how your actions affect other people. The world does not resolve around you, and all the people you have burgled, assaulted, lied to, humiliated and sexually exploited deserved better. They are living people, not just your playthings.

Look, just... Just try harder, will you?

Sakuya:

Try to be a better friend to your fellow humans. Although far from ideal, the witch and the two shrine-maidens are decent people who have at least a vague fondness for you. Politeness costs nothing and can always brighten somebody's day.

Put some thought into your future. Although your power over time is impressive, it will not save you from the ultimate fate of all things. You can save yourself from a long sentence in Hell, but only if you are willing to apply yourself.

Try to become a positive influence on your employer. Remilia's sins are almost beyond measure, and even the many millenia she could live will barely be enough time for her to redeem herself.

Youmu:

Avoid spending too much time in the Land of the Dead.

At least try to take your role in life seriously. Your nature as a half-phantom is a gift, but it can very easily become a curse if you do not strive to balance the life and death inside you. Use the powers of your swords sparingly, your own power even sparinglier more carefully, and heed the wisdom of your mistress.

(I will ask her to make her advice easier to understand.)

Perhaps most importantly, have some faith in yourself. You are not perfect, but nobody is. You are a strong warrior and a talented gardener capable of great things. Do not lose yourself in a mire of self-doubt.

Reisen:

Apart from one large sin, you have lived a largely wholesome life, so keep it up. Be dutiful in your work. Be kind to your friends and colleagues, stand by them in times of hardship and war, and make the time to relax and have fun with them.

While carrots may be incredibly delicious to a rabbit, you must not allow yourself to become dependent. Carrot addiction has destroyed lives before, and no matter how certain you are that you can handle it, you probably cannot. Try to limit yourself to two carrots a day.

I probably do not need to remind you, but in the interest of thoroughness I shall. Do not desert a second time.

Cirno:

You would do well to learn some humility. Powerful you are, but there are many beings greater than you, and even a weaker fairy or youkai could defeat you with skill, determination and a small helping of good fortune. Do not let your strength become an obsession. In the end, what matter are the deeds you do, the friendships you make and the marks you leave on the world.

It is not a sin for a fairy to become a youkai, but I urge you to have caution. As a youkai, you will have a duty to scare humans, but you will also be able to die at their hands (and the hands of others). You must be willing to accept your own vulnerability and your need to cooperate with others, or else your career as a youkai will be brief.

If you remain a fairy, stop picking fights with everybody.

The Prismriver Sisters:

This is absolutely crucial: BELIEVE IN YOURSELVES. Each of you must find yourself a purpose for existing and then live out that purpose with all of your heart. Make that purpose a part of the very core of your being and become She who "Insert Purpose Here". Um, so to speak.

(Mainly for Merlin) In general, please try to act with kindness and dignity each day of your life. Being a good person costs nothing.

Mystia:

Concentrate on your surroundings and be mindful of other people. With the power you possess, it is vital that you avoid singing unless you know nobody will be harmed.

Your friend Kyouko is a practicing Budhhist, so please do not expose her to meat, alcohol, foul language and glorified violence. If you lead an innocent soul to Hell, you will almost certainly find yourself suffering alongside her.

Try to offer a range of vegetarian food in addition to lamprey. While you are unlikely to be punished for selling only fish-based meals, it would be courteous to allow your customers a choice.

Tewi:

Your attitude urgently needs to improve. Whether you admit it or not, you are a devious little madam who delights in causing chaos and misery. Your actions once led Reisen to contemplate suicide. If you cannot accept the consequences of your behaviour in this world, the consequences will most definitely be done to you in the next, and nobody will skimp on the lemon juice when they prepare your cactus bed after your week-long shift in the salt mines. So, seriously, put an end to the "harmless" pranks and start helping your fellows.

Also, flattering those who have authority over you will only make things worse.

Aya:

As a journalist, you have two of the greatest and most terrible powers of all: The power to create history and to manipulate the truth. It is best if you use the former only to tell the truth and never use the latter at all. Lying is not harmless fun, it is a terrible sin.

Try to exercise restraint while you investigate things. I have watched you win spell-card duels without once looking up from your notepad, and you are bound to cause a catastrophic accident sooner or later.

Frighten more humans as well.

Medicine:

You must let go of hatred and learn to embrace those around you. (Although, hopefully, not literally.) Your heart has been closed for too long. There are many good people in the world, many kind-hearted children who truly adore their dolls even if they do not recognise their personhood. Do not begrudge humans for what is in their nature. I, too, am trying to change that, and I know that anger will accomplish little.

Consider getting to know some of the stronger youkai and those immune to your poison. Do not approach them with fear or aggression and do not mask your true personality; instead, let them see the true Medicine Melancholy within. You will find that most strangers are merely friends who have not yet made you.

Yuuka:

Your pride and anger are both far too great. To the humans, you are almost a goddess of destruction; to the youkai, you are the foul-tempered older sister whom nobody really likes. The only true friend you have is the firefly youkai who pollinates your sunflowers. No matter how powerful you are, attacking everyone in your path is an act of pure evil which cannot easily be forgiven.

Remember that, no matter how much fun you may be having right now, violence and cruelty are never worth it. If you bring suffering to innocent people, you will suffer far worse treatment in time.

Also, contrary to your belief, I am not your rival. The only rival I have is sin itself.

Please, PLEASE do not try to become an embodiment of purest sin just so you can call yourself my rival.

Komachi:

Stop sleeping when there are departed souls in need of transportation. As inconvenient as it may be for you, people can die at any moment, and as a ferrywoman you must be ready to take to the water at any moment. The fate of the world rests on our actions, and there will be terrible consequences for every being if you do not pull your weight.

Laziness is a sin, and I will not let my inexplicable fondness for you stand in the way of an accurate judgement. Even you will die eventually, Komachi, and I have borne witness to many sins on your part. Just something to bear in mind when you go drinking tonight.

Speaking of which, there are many herbal teas for sale in the Human Village which will help you sleep soundly. Have you tried sleeping at night rather than through the afternoon, Komachi? Research has shown that diurnal shinigami are among the happiest and most productive.

Lies and flattery are not the way of an honourable shinigami; they are the way of a sinner. If you are to speak to me with respect (which I would strongly encourage), do it all the time, not only when you wish to curry favour. Lies and excuses will only make you look bad and erode my already-minimal trust in you.

A healthy, balanced diet is also important. Your great strength and stamina will not last if you continue to gorge yourself on beer and tempura, to say nothing of the marshmallows which you so endlessly devour.

I only have a large, warm chocolate pudding with a delicious molten centre every OTHER day, so please do not embarrass yourself by trying to shame me.

I have also seen you picking your nose. Do not try to deny it, you will only insult my intelligence and make yourself more likely to receive a harsh sentence when you die. It is disgusting and unhygenic. STOP IT.

Your love of erotic manga is more forgiveable, but I will confiscate any such volumes I find about your person while you are on duty. At least try to be professional.

One last thing, Komachi: When you are next in the Human Village, could you pick up some more parchment and a small barrel of rice? We seem to be running short. Tell them to charge it to the Ministry as usual.

[sinrau]

It seems so clear now.

In June 2016—roughly seven weeks before Donald Trump formally received the Republican nomination for president—I wrote an extended essay in the Huffington Post assessing his behaviors. The title was self-explanatory: “ Too Sick to Lead: The Lethal Personality Disorder of Donald Trump.”

By then, Trump had supplied us with overwhelming evidence of an ineradicable pathology which utterly disqualified him for the presidency. But few political observers wanted to touch such a volatile subject.

His party feared him. The media put him in their customary analytical boxes, parsing his every move as if he were something grander, yet more normal, than a mentally disordered demagogue bereft of principles and starved for adulation. And those mental health professionals who dared address the obvious were chided by their peers for psychoanalyzing a man they had never met.

But we had met him—ceaselessly, for decades, and never more than in the year before June 2016, when cable news frequently broadcast his appearances in their entirety. His character disorder was klieg-lit; central to Trump’s pathology was his uncontrollable need to flaunt it.

Most remarkable about his psychological illness is the utter consistency of his behaviors. My descriptions of his pathology, and how it would operate in office, are as applicable today as they were four years ago. Save for factual references specific to 2016, I need not change a word. This owes nothing to my special insight, and everything to Trump’s inability to be anything other than what he was and always will be: a man far too disturbed to occupy the White House.

That he does underscores the core issue in 2020: Will a critical swath of voters, despite all we’ve learned about his unfitness for the presidency, return this man to power?

No longer can we rationalize away his disabling instability—not for tax cuts, or judges, or ideology writ large. By deliberately averting their eyes from the incessant manifestations of his feral inner landscape, the GOP and much of the news media became complicit in his Electoral College victory—and the damage he has inflicted on our democracy and society.

To capture Trump’s singular abnormality, I opened my June 2016 article by describing a telling example from his past: his disturbingly bizarre and infantile practice of pretending to be someone else while calling a reporter to brag about his own romantic life. After describing an audiotape of Trump’s pseudonymous 1991 phone call to People magazine boasting about his supposed romantic involvement with several ultra-famous women—made despite the fact that he was living with his future wife Marla Maples—I pointed out that this behavior was not merely “self-aggrandizing” but also “gratuitously cruel, heedless of all but self, reckless in his lust for attention” and, therefore, that it reflected on Trump’s “psychological fitness to be president.”

With this indubitably aberrant practice as preface, I argued that there is “only one organizing principle” that can make sense of Trump’s “wildly oscillating utterances and behavior—the clinical definition of narcissistic personality disorder.”

The Mayo Clinic describes it as “a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others.” This is bad enough in selecting a spouse or a friend. But when applied to a prospective president, the symptoms are disqualifying.

With Trump ever in mind, try these. An exaggerated sense of self-importance. An unwarranted belief in your own superiority. A preoccupation with fantasies of your own success, power and brilliance. A craving for constant admiration. A consuming sense of entitlement. An expectation of special favors and unquestioning compliance.

A penchant for exploiting or disparaging others. A total inability to recognize the needs of anyone else. An incapacity to see those you meet as separate human beings. An unreasoning fury at people you perceive as thwarting your wishes or desires. A tendency to act on impulse. A superficial charm deployed to disguise a gift for manipulation.

A need to always be right. A refusal to acknowledge error. An inability to tolerate criticism or critics. A compulsion to conform your ever—shifting sense of “reality” to satisfy your inner requirements. A tendency to lie so frequently and routinely that objective truth loses all meaning.

A belief that you are above the rules. An array of inconsistent statements and behaviors driven by your needs in the moment. An inability to assess the consequences of your actions in new or complex situations. In sum, a total incapacity to separate the world from your own psychodrama.

Recognize anyone? . . .

The annals of business are filled with such people, some of whom wind up in jail, others of whom die rich. But however puissant they become in their chosen realm, their sickness of mind and spirit cannot ruin a country. That power is reserved for presidents.

Indeed, Trump’s rise simply swells his unwarranted belief that he can stride the world like a colossus—naked of judgment, knowledge, temperament or preparation. This reflects a fatal deficit in those who suffer this disorder—they cannot see themselves as they are.

To the contrary, their grandiosity is a defense against feelings of inadequacy too deep and painful to acknowledge. By the consensus of mental health experts, this emotional impairment has a last fatal ingredient—there is no cure. For a man like Donald Trump, life offers no lessons, no path forward save to continue as you have until, like Icarus, you fly too close to the sun.

This disability involves far more than a set of discrete character flaws, however grave, including those which suggest a lack of trustworthiness. We survived the dishonesty and paranoia of Richard Nixon, after all, albeit at considerable cost and only after forcing him from office.

But in many ways Nixon was well-equipped for the presidency, capable of navigating the larger world and understanding complex situations and people—as in China and its leaders. He did not reflexively substitute a grossly inflated sense of self for knowledge, strategy or preparation. His tragedy, and ours, was that his crippling inner wounds outstripped his proven strengths.

Donald Trump is altogether different—and infinitely more dangerous. He is afflicted with a comprehensive and profound character disorder which leaves no corner of his psyche whole. And this dictates—and explains—every aspect of his behavior.

Take his recourse to bullying and slander. “I’m a counterpuncher,” he rationalizes. “[I]’ve been responding to what they did to me.” Now we understand, Donald—your enemies made you do it.

Really? So Heidi Cruz made him ridicule her looks on Twitter? That handicapped reporter made him imitate his disabilities at a rally? . . . And on and on—the list of enemies he must demean is infinite.

A recent example typifies his psychological imbalance. Speaking at a rally in San Diego, he tried to shame an otherwise obscure federal judge in the city, who is presiding over a lawsuit against Trump University. Trump called the Indiana-born judge a “Mexican,” a “hater of Donald Trump” and a “very hostile person” who had “railroaded” him. Heedless of his position or his audience, Trump wallowed in his personal grievances so long that his listeners grew restive. And so, yet again, the campaign for president descended into the poisonous murk of Trump’s inner world.

This astoundingly graceless and unpresidential behavior is far too pointless and indiscriminate to qualify as strategy or tactics. The common thread in all this lashing out—often at those who can’t fight back—is that it has nothing to do with issues, or anything else one would expect from a normal candidate. It is another symptom of Trump’s pathology—the visceral reflex to humiliate and degrade anyone who displeases him, no matter the context or situation.

Take the media. Where, one might ask, would Trump be without its constant and credulous attentions? But, like everyone else, the media can never do enough to feed his needs. He threatens the owners of newspapers with reprisals by the federal government, talks of changing libel laws to facilitate lawsuits for statements which affront him, proposes revoking FCC licenses for media which ruffle him. CNN is “very unprofessional”; like so many others, Fox has treated him “very unfairly.”

He refers to the media which cover him as “scum.” He singles out by name reporters who dare to challenge him. . . . After all, Trump says, he’s “fighting for survival”—ever victimized by hostile forces who fail to recognize his innate superiority.

Opposition of any kind enrages him. He incites reprisals against protesters. He threatened violence in Cleveland as payback for the GOP’s “unfairness.” He fuels anger against Hispanics, Muslims, and other minorities whom he perceives as inimical. And never—not once—does he take any responsibility for stirring these toxic pots. For one of the symptoms of his disability is an absence of conscience or accountability.

So what did women do to him, one wonders? The offense was obviously grave, for his misogyny is endless and, it seems, uncontrollable. One can but identify the same symptoms which drive his comprehensive impulse to demean—the need to dominate, displeasure at feeling thwarted and, of course, a profound lack of empathy for anyone but himself.

But for “Trump,” ever beset, his empathy is boundless. His view of others vacillates wildly based solely on their deference—or lack of it. . . .

Which brings us to a central problem of Trump’s warped psychology—he believes that filling the presidency requires nothing but the wonder of himself. This gives the lie to GOP’s most craven rationalization of its own capitulation: that a suddenly docile Trump will, as president, defer to a cadre of wise and experienced advisers drawn from the party establishment.

This is pernicious nonsense. Consistent with his character disorder, Trump proudly insists that his chief adviser is himself. Even were he so inclined, in order to learn from others he must know enough to discern good advice from bad. But such is his pathology that he feels no need to learn much of anything from anyone. And so, from the beginning, he has plunged us down the bottomless rabbit hole of his intellectual emptiness.

His ignorance and grandiosity form a lethal compound. He disowns NATO, unaware that he is playing into Putin’s hands . . . and imagines negotiating one-on-one with North Korea’s psychotic leader. . . . Oblivious to the appalled reaction around the globe, he promises to compel the respect of world leaders through “the aura of personality.”

His equally spurious domestic “proposals,” such as they may be, reflect nothing but the unreality of his own self-concept. . .

But to talk of Trump in terms of issues is to flatter him. Most of what he says is provisional, ever subject to change, and based on nothing but his needs at the moment. . . .

One can forecast the inevitable day-to-day damage to our country—the lashings out, the abuses of power, the mercurial and confidence-destroying lies and changes of mind, the havoc his distorted lens would wreak upon our institutions and our spirit. But most dangerous of all is the collision between a volatile world, a leader unable to perceive external reality, and the often-unbearable pressures of the presidency. That Trump’s judgment would crack time and again is certain—the only question is how dangerous the moment.

So how have we fallen prey to a man who, by the damning evidence of his own behavior, is psychologically unfit to be president? When did boasting top coherence; mindless posturing become strength; a talent for ridicule supplant experience or judgement; a gift for scapegoating surpass wisdom or generosity? Why must we even contemplate someone with this stunted inner landscape as the world’s most powerful man?

Why, indeed? But that was then—2016. In 2020 America’s electorate has experienced three and a half years of the most aberrant presidency in our history. We have no excuses left.

Our president’s sickness is ever on display. According to the Washington Post, as of May 29 Trump had made more than 19,000 false or misleading claims in a little over 1,200 days in office. During this time, we have witnessed his manipulation of the Justice Department, attacks on the rule of law, refusal to honor congressional subpoenas, fascination with authoritarian leaders, assertions of unlimited power, and attempts to solicit or compel electoral assistance from foreign governments.

Hungry for attention, he subjects us to a constant stream of scurrilous tweets, false accusations, rank divisiveness, unhinged conspiracy theories, blatant racial innuendos, shameless denials of reality, reflexive self-pity, unbounded grandiosity, puerile insults to real or imagined enemies, and claims of superior expertise in a multitude of areas where his abysmal ignorance is manifest. His sole concern is for himself.

This confluence of anti-social behaviors would be shocking in a relative or coworker; in a president, they are frightening and disorienting. Since his inauguration, Trump has debased the coinage of the presidency, eroded the boundaries on presidential misconduct, and poisoned the well of civic decency. His crippling dysfunction is now ours.

These behaviors have caused an increasing number of mental health professional to issue warnings about Trump’s psychological condition. In 2017, forensic psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee edited a book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, that included essays from dozens of psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health professionals. And last December, two weeks before Trump’s impeachment, Dr. Lee submitted to Congress a petition, with 650 other psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health professionals as co-signatories, which included this disturbing admonition:

What makes Donald Trump so dangerous is the brittleness of his sense of worth. Any slight or criticism is experienced as a humiliation and degradation. To cope with the resultant hollow and empty feeling, he reacts with what is referred to as narcissistic rage. He is unable to take responsibility for any error, mistake, or failing. His default in that situation is to blame others and to attack the perceived source of his humiliation. These attacks of narcissistic rage can be brutal and destructive.”

Further, Lee explained to the London Independent, Trump was “doubling and . . . tripling down on his delusions”; “ramping up his conspiracy theories”; and “showing a great deal of cruelty and vindictiveness” in his “accelerated, repetitive tweets.”

Recent examples include his vicious allegations that, twenty years ago, Joe Scarborough murdered a woman who worked in his Florida congressional office. In reality, she died of a heart attack when Scarborough was 500 miles away. But Trump’s cruelty caused her anguished widower to implore Twitter to delete his sadistic tweets.

A related sign of emotional instability is Trump’s obsession with projecting dominance and strength—the underside of which is a debilitating admixture of neediness and insecurity.

Recent examples abound. Some would be seriocomic were he not America’s president:

As reported by Ashley Parker and Josh Dawsey in the Washington Post, Trump sidetracked a cabinet meeting with a lengthy re-enactment of his supposedly stellar performance—three years prior—on a cognitive screening test.

After taking refuge in an underground bunker when protesters ringed the White House, he furiously denied it—claiming to have been conducting a snap inspection tour.

When a videotape captured his halting descent down a ramp after speaking at West Point, Trump delivered a rambling fifteen-minute revisionist history at his rally in Tulsa—blaming, among other things, slippery shoes.

Other examples are alarming, indeed ominous. His constant calls to “dominate” the streets during protests following the death of George Floyd. His threats to deploy active duty troops on American soil. His misuse of military personnel to clear peaceful protesters near Lafayette Square—all so that he could hold a borrowed Bible aloft in front of a damaged church, a videotaped piece of authoritarian theater.

The gnawing hunger of Trump’s misshapen psyche dominates Carl Bernstein’s appalling new account for CNN of the president’s conversations with foreign leaders, detailing in the starkest terms the consequences of investing someone of his pathology with the power of the American presidency.

Writes Bernstein:

Trump was so consistently unprepared for discussion of serious issues, so often outplayed in his conversations with powerful leaders like . . . Vladimir Putin and Turkish president Recep Erdoğan, and so abusive to leaders of America’s principal allies, that the calls helped convince some senior U.S. officials—including his former secretaries of state and defense, two national security advisers and his longest-serving chief of staff—that the president himself posed a danger to the national security of the United States . . . [and] to conclude that the president was often “delusional,” as two sources put it, in his dealings with foreign leaders.

Central to these conversations was Trump’s disabling absorption with himself: “Trump incessantly boasted to his fellow heads of state, including . . . North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, about his own wealth, genius, ‘great’ accomplishments as president, and the ‘idiocy’ of his Oval Office predecessors. . . . In his phone exchanges with Putin . . . the president talked mostly about himself . . . [while] obsequiously courting Putin’s admiration and approval.” Adds Bernstein: “The common, overwhelming dynamic that characterizes Trump’s conversations with both authoritarian dictators and leaders of the world’s greatest democracies is his consistent assertion of himself as the defining subject and subtext of the calls.”

But for allies, Trump’s manner was the opposite of his pandering to the authoritarians: bullying, abusive, and riven with grievances. “Everything was always personalized,” a source told Bernstein, “with everybody doing terrible things to rip us off—which meant ripping ‘me’—Trump—off.” With females, Trump added a withering misogyny. “His most vicious attacks,” Bernstein relates, “were aimed at women heads of state. In conversations with both [Theresa] May and [Angela] Merkel, the president demeaned and denigrated them in diatribes described as ‘near-sadistic.’”

Other consistent features of these phone calls were Trump’s ignorance and dissociation from reality. “Two sources,” Bernstein reports, “compared many of the president’s conversations with foreign leaders to Trump’s recent press ‘briefings’ on the coronavirus pandemic: free form, fact-deficient stream-of-consciousness ramblings, full of fantasy and off-the-wall pronouncements based on his intuitions, guesswork, the opinions of Fox News TV hosts and social media misinformation.”

Bernstein concludes by quoting a senior official who summarizes the grip of Trump’s personality disorder on his conduct of foreign affairs: “There was no sense of ‘Team America’ or of . . . certain democratic principles and leadership of the free world. . . . The opposite. It was like the United States had disappeared. It was always ‘Just me.’”

But, for now, all else is overshadowed by Trump’s catastrophic mishandling of COVID-19—a case study in the literally lethal consequences of his hydra-headed disorder. This is precisely what I meant when, in 2016, I wrote about the dangerous collision between “volatile world, a leader unable to perceive external reality, and the often – unbearable pressures of the presidency.” Trump need not precipitate a nuclear exchange for his warped psychology to cause tens of thousands of needless American deaths.

It has. Last month disease modelers at Columbia estimated that we would have incurred roughly 36,000 fewer fatalities had Trump initiated social distancing one week earlier, and 54,000 deaths had it started two weeks earlier. Instead, fearful that acknowledging the seriousness of the coronavirus would have adverse political consequences, Trump chose misleading the public over protecting lives.

Inexorably, the deadly pandemic overwhelmed Trump’s self-created alternate reality—in which denying its lethality substituted for action. So he substituted yet another fantasy: that his proactive leadership in fighting the virus had saved countless lives and defeated the pandemic.

Even as the death toll mounted, he urged state governments to reopen the economy—dismissing life-saving public health measures recommended by his own government. COVID-19, he told Sean Hannity, is “fading away.” A week later, we suffered the greatest number of new cases since the pandemic began.

Events in the real world provide a roadmap of Trump’s delusions. The coronavirus spiked in the states that were the swiftest to reopen. The European Union has banned Americans as threats to public health. Contradicting Trump, Anthony Fauci warned Congress that “the virus is not going to disappear,” adding that “we are still in the middle of a serious outbreak.”

No matter to Trump. In his imaginary America, the real problem became that we were testing too much, thereby increasing the count of new cases.

By then, as his pathology dictates, Trump had put blame for the pandemic on China, the World Health Organization, the media, Barack Obama, the intelligence community, and the CDC. And he had discovered the real victim of COVID-19: himself. In Vanity Fair, Gabriel Sherman reported Trump telling a confidant: “This is so unfair to me! Everything was going great. We were cruising to reelection!”

Instead, the pandemic has underscored Trump’s complete indifference to other human beings. And not just the vulnerable, the sick, and the dead. He insisted that West Point graduates return to hear his commencement speech in the middle of a pandemic. He scheduled large indoor rallies in Tulsa and Phoenix, surefire super-spreaders, so that he could bask in adoring crowds.

When public health officials in Charlotte inquired about health measures for the GOP convention, Trump moved it to Jacksonville—simply to ensure himself a jam-packed arena filled with unmasked faces, risk be damned. Over a three-week period of public statements amid the pandemic back in April, the Washington Post reported, Trump spoke for some thirteen hours—of which he spent two hours attacking others, forty-five minutes praising himself and his administration, but just four-and-a-half minutes expressing rote sympathy for coronavirus victims and front-line workers.

Further, the Post related in late May, “The coronavirus pandemic has spawned a whole new genre of Trump’s falsehoods. The category in just a few months has reached 800 claims, with his advocacy for hydroxychloroquine as a possible cure, based on minimal and flimsy evidence, already reaching Bottomless Pinocchio status.” As Trump’s confidant told Sherman: “He lives in his own fucking world.”

In that world, Trump is free from the constraints of constitutional democracy.

To stave off defeat, he and his party are striving to prevent the universal voting by mail necessitated by the pandemic, while groundlessly asserting that the mail-in balloting currently available guarantees massive voter fraud by the Democratic Party. Already, Trump is claiming that the 2020 election “will be, in my opinion, the most corrupt election in the history of our country, and we cannot let this happen.”

This is insane. But an increasingly serious body of opinion anticipates that Trump will try to maintain power by denying the legitimacy of the November election. This captures how completely Trump’s sickness has consumed us—expecting our president to subvert American democracy is becoming our new normal.

The problem of Trump transcends party or ideology, and so does our need to be rid of him. For there is no constitutional guarantee against a president too mentally ill to respect its terms—and a party too craven to stop him.

Until further notice, we have both.

How Has Donald Trump’s Mental State Affected His Presidency?

web #website #copied #to read #highlight #link #news #read #blog #wordpress #post

[lcohen35]

Assignment 8 First Draft: How has invasive crap muddied our waters and food system?

Figure 1. Tweet about Coronavirus by Sunny Randhawa. (@SunnyRandhawa, March 17, 2020).

“With every drop of water you drink, with every breath you take, you are connected to the sea, no matter where on Earth you live.” -Sylvia Earl (Miller and Spoolman 2016, 253).

#WhatAreTheMajorThreatsToAquaticBiodiversityAndEcosystemServices?

Major threats to aquatic species and their economic and ecosystem services include loss of habitat, invasive species, pollution, climate change, and overexploitation (HIPPCO). These threats are only exacerbated by the seemingly endless growth of the human population. Basically, humans are the major threat to aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem services. Most of our planet is water, and we have explored less than 5% of the earth’s oceans; we know very little about aquatic biodiversity.

Three general patterns occur within aquatic biodiversity (from what we do know). 

The largest amount of biodiversity exists around coral reefs, in estuaries and on the deep-ocean floor. 

Biodiversity is greater near the coasts than in the open sea due to the larger variety of coastal producers and habitats.

Biodiversity is higher in the lower regions of the ocean due to more habitats and food sources from the ocean floor. 

As mentioned above, and many times before, humans tend to only make things worse. We have destroyed much of earth’s aquatic ecosystems, degraded coastal sea-grass beds through coastal development, and built dams in freshwater zones. Some scientists believe we have entered the sixth mass extinction, as fossil records have shown than coral reefs were lost in the past five mass extinctions, and they are being degraded and lost now as well. Humans also produce unnaturally high CO2 emissions which are absorbed by the ocean, and result in ocean acidification. We also transport invasive species (purposely and accidentally) on cargo ships through globalized trade. These species can destroy entire ecosystems. In addition, 80% of the world’s people live along or near coastal areas, which puts massive pressure on the coastal zones. This pressure is seen in the form of runoff from pesticides on our lawns, and from toxic pollutants from industrial and urban areas. Not to mention the plastic we rely on never breaks down and often ends up in our oceans, breaking down incompletely to small particles, which fish and other organisms mistake for food. We then eat these fish, and therefore what they have eaten ends up in our systems too. We eat so much fish, in fact, that 87% of the world’s commercial fisheries have been exploited and overfished. 

#HowCanWeProtectAndSustainMarineBiodiversity?

We can protect and sustain marine biodiversity through laws and economic incentives, marine reserves and community-based integrated coastal management. Easier said than done. Protecting marine biodiversity is difficult due to the expanding human ecological footprint and fishprint, the existing damage to earth’s bodies of water, the human outlook on the oceans as an inexhaustible resource, and the tragedy of the commons. These obstacles outline how difficult it can be to get the entire world on board with enforcing and complying with sustainability. Even when nations do support it, their punishment for sustainability violations are often inadequate.

To protect and sustain marine biodiversity, we must restore degraded areas but also prevent the degradation from happening in the first place. Prevention is less expensive and more effective than restoration. Part of the restoration and prevention efforts will come from coastal communities and their everyday choices of waste generation and chemicals they put on their lawns. One strategy coming to light in coastal communities is integrated coastal management, in which “fishers, business owners, developers, scientists, citizens, and politicians” … “identify shared problems and goals in their use of marine resources” (Miller and Spoolman 2016, 271). This idea engages different sectors of society in assigning responsibility for the protection and sustainability of natural resources.

#HowShouldWeManageAndSustainMarineFisheries?

We should manage and sustain marine fisheries through monitoring populations, cooperative fisheries management, reduction of fishing subsidies and conscious consumer choices in buying sustainable seafood. 

These methods prove yet again easier said than done. Monitoring populations of fish is difficult because the growth rate estimations are not consistent or accurate. Additionally, harvesting a species at a certain so-called “sustainable level” can affect the populations of other marine species. As with biodiversity, it is difficult to get groups of nations to cooperate in planning and managing marine fisheries, so there is a large reliance on communities to cooperate. Current subsidies encourage overfishing because they support a high output economy, but subsidies should be provided to responsible fisheries who focus on quality over quantity. Finally, consumer choice is a powerful tool that each of us holds. We should look for Marine Stewardship Council certified fish in order to make sustainable choices. 

Figure 2. Ways to Manage Fisheries More Sustainably and Protect Marine Biodiversity (Miller and Spoolman 2016, 272).

#HowShouldWeProtectAndSustainWetlands?

We should protect and sustain wetlands by restoring those that have been degraded while focusing on efforts to protect those untouched. Wetlands provide many irreplaceable ecosystem and economic services. For too long, people have drained, filled in or covered over wetlands for agriculture to adapt to expanding populations. Some laws exist to protect wetlands, however there are constant efforts by land developers to weaken these protections. Solutions such as mitigation banking–which allows for the destruction of existing wetlands at the cost of restoration, creation or enhancement of another wetland–have proven to be ineffective, and ecologists suggest it only be used as a “last resort” (Miller and Spoolman 2016, 273). 

#HowShouldWeProtectAndSustainFreshwaterLakesRiversAndFisheries?

We should protect and sustain freshwater lakes, rivers and fisheries by protecting their watersheds and halting harmful human activity. Lakes and streams get many key nutrients from their neighboring ecosystems, generated into bodies of water by rain storms or melting snow. These bodies of water, or watersheds, must be protected to avoid contamination of the larger bodies of water. This can and should happen through laws, economic incentives and restoration efforts.

#WhatShouldBeOurPrioritiesForSustainingAquaticBiodiversity?

Our priorities for sustaining aquatic biodiversity should be mapping and protecting hotspots, creating large, protected marine reserves, protecting freshwater ecosystems, and restoring degraded wetlands. These priorities will be possible through the cooperation of scientists, engineers, businesses, government leaders and consumers.

#WhyIsGoodNutritionImportant?

Good nutrition is important because it prevents people from problems of malnutrition or even heart disease and high cholesterol. In less-developed countries, people suffer from a lack of food, while people in more-developed countries suffer from too much food. Either way, both suffer, since the nutrients aren’t present. This lack of nutrients can weaken people, making them more susceptible to disease and hinder their normal physical and mental capacities and development. The United States is one of the most overweight and obese countries, and as a result our healthcare and lost productivity costs are about $2 trillion per year–”more than the combined annual global costs of war, terrorism and armed violence” (Miller and Spoolman 2016, 287). 

The greatest obstacles to providing adequate, nutritious food to the world’s population are poverty, war, bad weather and climate change. Poverty prevents people from being able to afford the foods that meet their basic nutritional needs; they lack food security. Bad weather and climate change make these foods less available and more expensive.

Figure 3. The poor cannot afford to eat meat and in order to survive, eat further down the food chain on a diet of grain (Miller and Spoolman 2016, 285).

#HowIsFoodProduced?

Food is produced through both high and low input agriculture to accommodate the increasing global demand for food. Only a few of natures’ mammals and fish provide a large majority of the world’s sources of protein. This food specialization puts croplands in a vulnerable position of depletion of certain crops which feed these populations. If those certain crops become depleted by natural disasters or climate change, we’re essentially screwed. 

Three major technological advancements have led to the increase in global food production:

The development of irrigation

Synthetic fertilizers

Synthetic pesticides

High-input agriculture uses large amounts of financial and natural capital, along with pesticides. The goal of such agriculture is to increase the yield of each crop. In contrast, low-input agriculture focuses on human capital and produces only enough crops to feed the families of the farms, and maybe some left over to sell for profit. Traditional low-input farmers capitalize on polyculture, in which various crops are planted in the same plot of land and mature at different times. This method provides food year-round and protects the topsoil from erosion and weeds. 

Figure 4. Major differences between industrialized and organic agriculture (Miller and Spoolman 2016, 289).

Recently, organic agriculture has been on the rise. By law, a label of 100% organic (or USDA certified) means that a product has been produced only by organic methods with all organic ingredients. Those without certification but still labeled organic must contain at least 95% organic ingredients. Those labeled “made with organic ingredients” must have at least 70% organic ingredients. Anything else, such as “natural,” is likely a greenwashing marketing ploy. 

Two green revolutions have taken place to provide the food production system we rely on now. The first green revolution occurred between 1950 and 1970 and dramatically raised crop yields in more-developed countries. In the second green revolution, beginning in 1967, fast growing crops were introduced in less-developed countries. This allowed more food to be produced with less land to protect biodiversity. An important factor of these revolutions has been farm subsidies, most of which have gone to corporate farming operations for corn, wheat, soybeans and cotton on an industrial scale. On such farms, an average US farmer now feeds 129 people on the same land they could one only feed 19. As a result, Americans spend the lowest percentage of their disposable income on food. However, the cheap price at the grocery store does not include the hidden environmental costs of such industrial agriculture. 

Along with the green revolutions came the gene revolutions. The first gene revolution improved varieties of crops, but crossbreeding took a long time to cultivate. The second gene revolution is currently using faster genetic engineering to develop genetically modified strains of crops and livestock animals. They use gene splicing to alter the genetic material of an organism, resulting in genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Though there are potential benefits to GMOs, scientists believe that there is not enough information about the long term environmental and health effects of them. 

Food is produced based on demand. As a country’s income grows, so does their demand for meat, which is fed by grain. This combination of increased demands put a strain on the land, as it is fought for by agriculture and urban development. This struggle can lead a country to rely heavily on crop imports, like we do now. Fisheries and aquaculture are also major food producing systems. The farming of carnivorous species, such as salmon and shrimp, are growing rapidly, and are unnaturally fed on the oils and meals produced from other fish and their wastes (gross). The industrialization of food production has been made possible by fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are used to “run farm machinery and fishing vessels, to pump irrigation water for crops, and to produce synthetic pesticides and synthetic inorganic fertilizers. Fossil fuels are also used to process food and transport it long distances within and between countries” (Miller and Spoolman 2016, 294). 

#WhatAreTheEnvironmentalEffectsOfIndustrializedFoodProduction?

The environmental effects of industrialized food production include, but are not limited to, soil erosion, degradation, desertification, irrigation water shortage, air and water pollution, climate change and loss of biodiversity.

Figure 5. Food production has a number of harmful environmental effects (Miller and Spoolman 2016, 294). 

#HowCanWeProtectCropsFromPestsMoreSustainably?

We can protect crops from pests more sustainably but cutting our pesticide use and using a mix of cultivation techniques, biological pest controls and small amounts of selected pesticides if necessary. 

Our current method of layering natural land with chemicals and pesticides that kill pests upsets the natural balance of the populations and ecosystems. Some plants actually naturally produce chemicals to ward off predators. Scientists have mimicked nature in creating biopesticides similar to the natural ones to kill pests. 

The pest control revolution began with DDT in 1939, the first second-generation pesticide. However, Rachel Carson sounded the alarm on DDT in 1962, which led to stricter controls on pesticides. 

Figure 6. Use of synthetic pesticides: advantages and disadvantages (Miller and Spoolman 2016, 304). 

By existing, pesticides disrupt the laws of nature. This was seen in 1955, when the WHO sprayed the island of Sabah with Dieldrin (similar to DDT) in order to kill malaria-carrying mosquitos. Though it almost completely eliminated the disease, the pesticide killed other insects as well, and their predators, lizards, died after bingeing on dieldrin-contaminated insects. Then cats began to die from feeding on the lizards. Without cats, the rat population skyrocketed, threatening the population with sylvatic plague. WHO flew in healthy cats to control the rats, but then the villager’s roofs began caving in, because a specific caterpillar species also began to thrive on the leaves that made up the roofs, as it’s insect predators were also killed by Dieldrin. These types of unintended consequences are important to consider when using pesticides; the whole ecosystem can be unnaturally affected. 

Alternatives to pesticides are important, and the EPA found in 2014 that such dangerous pesticides actually failed to “provide negligible benefits” to crop production in most situations (Miller and Spoolman 2016, 306). These findings are disputed by the pesticide industry. One alternative that can be used is biological controls, which involves using natural predators, parasites, bacteria and viruses to control pests. This option is difficult to mass-produce and can be slow-acting. Additionally, farmers can use ecological controls by practicing polyculture to provide habitats for the predators of pests in their fields. Another option is cultivation controls, in which farmers plant different crops in the same plots in intervals to starve pests or cause them to be eaten by natural predators. Finally, integrated pest management (IPM) is a program wherein each crop and its pests are evaluated as parts of an ecosystem. The goal of IPM is to reduce crop damage to an economically tolerable level with a low use of pesticides. However, it takes a lot of time and knowledge to implement. 

The EPA, the FDA and the USDA regulate the use of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Again, it has not been well enforced, and congress has not provided sufficient funds to evaluate pesticides for toxicity. 

#HowCanWeProduceFoodMoreSustainably?

We can produce food more sustainably by using resources more efficiently, decreasing the harmful effects of industrialized food production, and eliminating harmful government subsidies. Step one is to conserve topsoil, because once it is depleted, it is an extremely costly resource to restore. Naturally, it takes hundreds of years to form. We must also restore the soil that has been damaged. Farmers can do this by using organic fertilizer. Additionally, we must reduce soil salinization and desertification, which is costly. This is done on a large scale through reduction of population growth, overgrazing, deforestation and destructive forms of planting and irrigation in dryland areas. We also should work toward decreasing the human contribution to climate change. This includes producing and consuming meat and dairy more sustainably, as meat consumption is the largest factor in the growing ecological footprints of more-developed nations. Farms should begin making the shift to completely organic, which will provide 30% more jobs than the current nonorganic system (Miller and Spoolman 2016, 313). With sustainable agriculture comes sustainable aquaculture, which will require fundamental changes for both producers and consumers. Consumers must use their power of choice to purchase fish that feed on vegetation (tilapia, carp, catfish), and then producers will increasingly produce those fish, rather than feeding carnivorous fish for a high yield. 

Figure 7. More sustainable, low-input food production (Miller and Spoolman 2016, 314). 

Figure 8. Ways to promote more sustainable food production (Miller and Spoolman 2016, 316). 

#HowCanWeImproveFoodSecurity?

“We can improve food security by reducing poverty and chronic malnutrition, producing food more sustainably, relying on locally grown food and cutting food waste” (Miller and Spoolman 2016, 316). Governments can control food prices by setting a limit on price, which would benefit consumers. They also can provide subsidies to farmers, which support organic and sustainable farming practices. Since the government rarely does this however, private corporations step in to provide microloans to impoverished communities, and use other methods to develop local food production and distribution systems. By buying local, consumers can support local economies and farmers. This reduces fossil fuel energy costs for producers, as well as the emissions from transporting and storing food over long distances. We also could grow our own food, which has been successful as urban schools and universities. Students have access to fresh produce and also learn about where their food comes from and how to grow more sustainably. 

Overall, humans are the problem, and we certainly have a responsibility to forge the solutions through slowing our population growth, stopping our wasteful use of food and resources and implementing ecological solutions in all sectors of society. 

Word Count: 2815 Words

Question: How can we help people understand how dire the issues int he most constructive way to drive habit change?

Works Cited

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott E. Spoolman. 2016. Living in the Environment: Nineteenth Edition, 253-318. Canada: Cengage Learning. 

[pope-francis-quotes]

24th November >> Pope Francis’ message for 2018 World Day of Peace is released (Photo ~ Refugees holding their belongings wait to enter a bus after their arrival at the port of Piraeus, near Athens, Greece. - EPA (Vatican Radio) Pope Francis’ message for the celebration of the 2018 World Day of Peace was released on Friday during a press conference at the Holy See Press Office. The message entitled Migrants and Refugees: Men and Women in search of Peace is divided into six sections with the first offering heartfelt good wishes for peace and inviting people of good will to embrace those fleeing war, hunger and persecution. The message also poses the question, why so many migrants and refugees? Pope Francis answers this by considering the many conflicts forcing people to leave their homelands, but he notes also the desire for a better life. The Holy Father points out that some people consider the growth in migration as a threat.. But, “for my part, he says, I ask you to view it with confidence, as an opportunity to build peace.” Peace points Contained in the 4th section of the message under the theme, “four mileposts for action”, the Pope points out what is needed in order for migrants and refugees to find the peace they seek is a strategy combining four actions: welcoming, protecting, promoting and integrating. Looking at the situation from an international perspective, Pope Francis expresses the hope that this spirit of welcome and integration, “will guide the process that in the course of 2018 will lead the United Nations to draft and approve two Global Compacts, one for safe, orderly and regular migration and the other for refugees.” Common Home Finally, the Holy Father draws inspiration from Saint John Paul II with these words. “Let us draw inspiration from the words of Saint John Paul II: “If the ‘dream’ of a peaceful world is shared by all, if the refugees’ and migrants’ contribution is properly evaluated, then humanity can become more and more a universal family and our earth a true ‘common home’.” Please find below the message of Pope Francis for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace 1 January 2018 MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES: MEN AND WOMEN IN SEARCH OF PEACE 1. Heartfelt good wishes for peace Peace to all people and to all nations on earth! Peace, which the angels proclaimed to the shepherds on Christmas night,[1] is a profound aspiration for everyone, for each individual and all peoples, and especially for those who most keenly suffer its absence. Among these whom I constantly keep in my thoughts and prayers, I would once again mention the over 250 million migrants worldwide, of whom 22.5 million are refugees. Pope Benedict XVI, my beloved predecessor, spoke of them as “men and women, children, young and elderly people, who are searching for somewhere to live in peace.”[2] In order to find that peace, they are willing to risk their lives on a journey that is often long and perilous, to endure hardships and suffering, and to encounter fences and walls built to keep them far from their goal. In a spirit of compassion, let us embrace all those fleeing from war and hunger, or forced by discrimination, persecution, poverty and environmental degradation to leave their homelands. We know that it is not enough to open our hearts to the suffering of others. Much more remains to be done before our brothers and sisters can once again live peacefully in a safe home. Welcoming others requires concrete commitment, a network of assistance and goodwill, vigilant and sympathetic attention, the responsible management of new and complex situations that at times compound numerous existing problems, to say nothing of resources, which are always limited. By practising the virtue of prudence, government leaders should take practical measures to welcome, promote, protect, integrate and, “within the limits allowed by a correct understanding of the common good, to permit [them] to become part of a new society.”[3] Leaders have a clear responsibility towards their own communities, whose legitimate rights and harmonious development they must ensure, lest they become like the rash builder who miscalculated and failed to complete the tower he had begun to construct.[4] 2. Why so many refugees and migrants? As he looked to the Great Jubilee marking the passage of two thousand years since the proclamation of peace by the angels in Bethlehem, Saint John Paul II pointed to the increased numbers of displaced persons as one of the consequences of the “endless and horrifying sequence of wars, conflicts, genocides and ethnic cleansings”[5] that had characterized the twentieth century. To this date, the new century has registered no real breakthrough: armed conflicts and other forms of organized violence continue to trigger the movement of peoples within national borders and beyond. Yet people migrate for other reasons as well, principally because they “desire a better life, and not infrequently try to leave behind the ‘hopelessness’ of an unpromising future.”[6] They set out to join their families or to seek professional or educational opportunities, for those who cannot enjoy these rights do not live in peace. Furthermore, as I noted in the Encyclical Laudato Si’, there has been “a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation”.[7] Most people migrate through regular channels. Some, however, take different routes, mainly out of desperation, when their own countries offer neither safety nor opportunity, and every legal pathway appears impractical, blocked or too slow. Many destination countries have seen the spread of rhetoric decrying the risks posed to national security or the high cost of welcoming new arrivals, and by doing so demeans the human dignity due to all as sons and daughters of God. Those who, for what may be political reasons, foment fear of migrants instead of building peace are sowing violence, racial discrimination and xenophobia, which are matters of great concern for all those concerned for the safety of every human being.[8] All indicators available to the international community suggest that global migration will continue for the future. Some consider this a threat. For my part, I ask you to view it with confidence as an opportunity to build peace. 3. With a contemplative gaze The wisdom of faith fosters a contemplative gaze that recognizes that all of us “belong to one family, migrants and the local populations that welcome them, and all have the same right to enjoy the goods of the earth, whose destination is universal, as the social doctrine of the Church teaches. It is here that solidarity and sharing are founded.”[9] These words evoke the biblical image of the new Jerusalem. The book of the prophet Isaiah (chapter 60) and that of Revelation (chapter 21) describe the city with its gates always open to people of every nation, who marvel at it and fill it with riches. Peace is the sovereign that guides it and justice the principle that governs coexistence within it. We must also turn this contemplative gaze to the cities where we live, “a gaze of faith which sees God dwelling in their houses, in their streets and squares, […] fostering solidarity, fraternity, and the desire for goodness, truth and justice”[10] – in other words, fulfilling the promise of peace. When we turn that gaze to migrants and refugees, we discover that they do not arrive empty-handed. They bring their courage, skills, energy and aspirations, as well as the treasures of their own cultures; and in this way, they enrich the lives of the nations that receive them. We also come to see the creativity, tenacity and spirit of sacrifice of the countless individuals, families and communities around the world who open their doors and hearts to migrants and refugees, even where resources are scarce. A contemplative gaze should also guide the discernment of those responsible for the public good, and encourage them to pursue policies of welcome, “within the limits allowed by a correct understanding of the common good”[11] – bearing in mind, that is, the needs of all members of the human family and the welfare of each. Those who see things in this way will be able to recognize the seeds of peace that are already sprouting and nurture their growth. Our cities, often divided and polarized by conflicts regarding the presence of migrants and refugees, will thus turn into workshops of peace. 4. Four mileposts for action Offering asylum seekers, refugees, migrants and victims of human trafficking an opportunity to find the peace they seek requires a strategy combining four actions: welcoming, protecting, promoting and integrating.[12] “Welcoming” calls for expanding legal pathways for entry and no longer pushing migrants and displaced people towards countries where they face persecution and violence. It also demands balancing our concerns about national security with concern for fundamental human rights. Scripture reminds us: “Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.”[13] “Protecting” has to do with our duty to recognize and defend the inviolable dignity of those who flee real dangers in search of asylum and security, and to prevent their being exploited. I think in particular of women and children who find themselves in situations that expose them to risks and abuses that can even amount to enslavement. God does not discriminate: “The Lord watches over the foreigner and sustains the orphan and the widow.”[14] “Promoting” entails supporting the integral human development of migrants and refugees. Among many possible means of doing so, I would stress the importance of ensuring access to all levels of education for children and young people. This will enable them not only to cultivate and realize their potential, but also better equip them to encounter others and to foster a spirit of dialogue rather than rejection or confrontation. The Bible teaches that God “loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.”[15] “Integrating”, lastly, means allowing refugees and migrants to participate fully in the life of the society that welcomes them, as part of a process of mutual enrichment and fruitful cooperation in service of the integral human development of the local community. Saint Paul expresses it in these words: “You are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people.”[16] 5. A proposal for two international compacts It is my heartfelt hope this spirit will guide the process that in the course of 2018 will lead the United Nations to draft and approve two Global Compacts, one for safe, orderly and regular migration and the other for refugees. As shared agreements at a global level, these compacts will provide a framework for policy proposals and practical measures. For this reason, they need to be inspired by compassion, foresight and courage, so as to take advantage of every opportunity to advance the peace-building process. Only in this way can the realism required of international politics avoid surrendering to cynicism and to the globalization of indifference. Dialogue and coordination are a necessity and a specific duty for the international community. Beyond national borders, higher numbers of refugees may be welcomed – or better welcomed – also by less wealthy countries, if international cooperation guarantees them the necessary funding. The Migrants and Refugees Section of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development has published a set of twenty action points that provide concrete leads for implementing these four verbs in public policy and in the attitudes and activities of Christian communities.[17] The aim of this and other contributions is to express the interest of the Catholic Church in the process leading to the adoption of the two U.N. Global Compacts. This interest is the sign of a more general pastoral concern that goes back to very origins of Church and has continued in her many works up to the present time. 6. For our common home Let us draw inspiration from the words of Saint John Paul II: “If the ‘dream’ of a peaceful world is shared by all, if the refugees’ and migrants’ contribution is properly evaluated, then humanity can become more and more a universal family and our earth a true ‘common home’.”[18] Throughout history, many have believed in this “dream”, and their achievements are a testament to the fact that it is no mere utopia. Among these, we remember Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini in this year that marks the hundredth anniversary of her death. On this thirteenth day of November, many ecclesial communities celebrate her memory. This remarkable woman, who devoted her life to the service of migrants and became their patron saint, taught us to welcome, protect, promote and integrate our brothers and sisters. Through her intercession, may the Lord enable all of us to experience that “a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.”[19] From the Vatican, 13 November 2017 Memorial of Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, Patroness of Migrants

[knifeonmars]

Comics that mattered to me in 2017

2017 has been a pretty rough year. I’ve spent a lot of the last year feeling increasingly burnt out on comics, wondering why I bother with something that frequent leaves me exhausted and disillusioned. Between Marvel’s endless train wreck of a year and the galloping moral outrage of DC digging up the corpse of Watchmen for a gobsmackingly stupid “sequel”, I’ve been profoundly put off this past year. . Despite my general sickness with the often flavourless slurry of corporate comics though, I still read a lot of really good comics, and some of them even managed to brighten my day.

Here’s a few of those comics, in no particular order. I would note that I’m talking specifically about stuff that I personally read this year, not stuff which was first published this year, so there’s some old stuff in there.

OMAC -

OMAC is one of those comics that I’d seen critics and writers talking about for years and which had always interested me conceptually, but I’d never had the time to pick it up. I finally did a few weeks ago and I couldn’t be happier with the decision. OMAC is buckwild; imaginative, energetic, and oddly prescient, and also angry as all hell. The thing that I really like about OMAC is that it present us with this somewhat horrific future and then actually pushes back against it, which contrasts it with the great but shortlived recent Prez series. The cliffhanger ending, which I really should have seen coming since this book is several decades old and I’ve had ample opportunity to find out about, is a bit of a bummer, but by no means spoils the energy and dynamism of the whole. What OMAC gets is that I don’t want to see a horrifically corrupt world reformed through optimism and cooperation, I want to see the whole fucking thing torn down, and while OMAC isn’t quite the rage fueled dance of destruction that I want, it’s pretty damn close.

Batman: Superheavy -

I was skeptical of the whole Superheavy angle back during the unfortunately short lived DCYou initiative, but this finally clicked for me at some point: Superheavy is Batman as a mech anime. It’s gorgeous and action packed and cool, and I’m disappointed that there’s not more of it. Commissioner Gordon as a hardluck everyman hero trying to live up to the impossible legacy of Batman was a suprisingly solid concept, and one which I’m disappointed to see dispensed with and forgotten so quickly. The ending to this all too brief era in Bloom is unfortunately somewhat rushed in my opinion and defaults to having the glorious return of Bruce Wayne solve everything in a way that I didn’t find particularly satisfying, but the initial Superheavy arc remains stylish and fun. On a personal level, I came to Superheavy at a time when I was beyond sick of the corporate superhero paradigm and it managed to make me feel that not everything was trash.

Deathstroke -

DC Comics has long been determined to make Deathstroke “happen” despite little real appeal or interest, and my own opinions on the character have generally trended towards “he’s like a really cool action figure” and “Hideo Kojima could make this interesting”. But Christopher Priest is an industry legend and so I’ve been following this series in trades. It’s great. It’s incredibly dense and at times a little confusing, but as someone who tends to tear through their reading material, it’s nice to have a series that makes me slow down once in a while. A killer redesign of the character and a willingness to embrace his role as a villain rather than some sort of tedious antihero have made this series genuinely one of the best the DC is putting out these days.

Secret Identities -

The thing about indie superhero comics is that the majority of them deal in analogues and standins. That’s not to say that the can’t still be good, but often times its extremely obvious which characters a writer was basing their own off of. Secret Identities doesn’t read like that at all. What I like about Secret Identities is that the characters do actually all feel fresh and original, and the idea that all of them are hiding dark secrets is a pretty great hook. Couple that with some great art, cool character designs, and solid writing, and Secret Identities is one of the better pure superhero books which I’ve read this year.

The Goddamned -

I mentioned that this year has been rough, and The Goddamned is a great comic for a rough year. It’s dirty, grimy, cynical, and brutal. It’s Mad Max in Bible Times, and it is absolutely great. Gorgeous art and designs which make the Neolithic technology and clothes of the characters look interesting and even appealing, and a spectacularly dark revisionist take on the setting of the biblical Old Testament make this a really unique and interesting book. It’s a good book to read if you find yourself looking at the past year and wondering if humanity deserves to live.

Extremity -

Daniel Warren Johnson deserves to a breakout star in the coming year. Extremity is his first monthly solo series, and it’s a delight. Johnson brings his incredible art to an original story that’s a lot more grounded and emotional that you might expect from a writer who’s been making his name as an artist, though the quality should be no surprise to anyone who’s read Johnson’s earlier work. Extremity is about the lengths that people go to for revenge, the death of the soul and the corruption of noble causes, and the cost of violence. It’s about an artist who loses her hand and becomes a warrior, and watches her father become a vengeance fueled and amoral murderer. It’s about a war machine deciding it wants to be something else. It’s gorgeous too. It’s Mad Max in the Valley of the Wind, and I highly recommend checking it out.

Apollo and Midnighter

The Midnighter series of DCYou was a favorite of mine, I just love a wrecking ball of a character tearing through things with style and panache, so I was extremely excited to see this sequel miniseries come out to complete the story and more fully flesh out Apollo, who tends not to be given as much spotlight as Midnighter. It’s great, and a suitable send off for versions of these characters who we’re unlikely to see again now that DC is cordoning the Wildstorm characters off in Ellis’ hit or miss imprint.

Hawkeye: Kate Bishop -

Despite a general predilection for ultraviolence and trauma, I do actually enjoy a lighthearted series every once in a while, and the first volume of the newest Hawkeye: Kate Bishop series is just what I needed at a point when I’m no longer sure if Marvel as a whole is something that I’m interested in. It’s fun, the art is gorgeous, and it balances comedy with a sense of gravity and consequence. It finally lives up to the promise of the LA Woman premise offered way back in the Fraction/Aja/Wu/Hollingsworth run on Hawkeye that never seemed to get off the ground, and I’m glad to have it.

BPRD -

I ended up reading a lot of emotionally exhausting books this year, and BPRD certainly ranks among them. It’s also one of the best. I poured through the entirety of the Hell on Earth mega arc after seeing it on a digital sale, and it was immensely rewarding. It’s a story about the grinding horrors of conflict and keeping hope alive, that always managed to balance being emotionally serious with the kind of world where its totally plausible and enjoyable to have an arc that features giant kaiju fights.

Hobtown Mysteries: The Case of the Missing Men -

I spotted this number is a book store one day, and had to return to pick it up when I realized that the creators were local to Halifax. It’s a really cool and unique read, drawing on a Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys teen detective influence combined with Twin Peaks, in a way that doesn’t feel derivative or like it’s trying too hard. While I didn’t grow up in the kind of small town that’s at the focus of this story, I certainly spent enough time in and around them growing up to have a nostalgic appreciation of the setting. It’s totally unlike anything else on this list, and absolutely worth a look.

Virgil -

One last book, an angry, raw exploitation action comic about a gay cop on a tear through Jamaica. It’s my jam, and JD Faith is a wonderful artist.

[fabiofernandes]

Literature on Liberalism

Liberalism has been presented as being identical to conservatism, yet more reactionary, like a mask for exploitation. Furthermore, there has been a lot of confusion as to what liberalism truly is. To help you navigate thru the values I believe are the base for more freedom, wealth and happiness in our society, I compiled this list with the classic literature that created the classic Liberalism.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

Main work: “Leviathan”, 1651 Known for: Among the earliest of a handful of writers to set out principles for liberalism. Because the natural state of man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short,” liberty for an individual is tied to the power of a sovereign, administering through laws, within a commonwealth. His detailed construction became the foundation for numerous other works examining the proper role and structure of government.

John Locke (1632-1704)

Main works: “A Letter Concerning Toleration”, 1689, and “The Second Treatise of Government”, 1689 Known for: Expanded on Hobbes to provide the architecture for a modern liberal state. In “A Letter” Locke argues, contrary to Hobbes, for the state to tolerate different religious beliefs. In his “Second Treatise”, he echoes Hobbes’s view of the need for strong government, writing: “where there is no law, there is no freedom”. But, rather than endorse Hobbes’s all-powerful Leviathan, Locke thought that the system should separate those who make laws from those who execute them.

Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755)

Main work: “The Spirit of the Laws”, 1748  Known for: Montesquieu devised the tripartite structure of government adopted by America. His monumental work provides guidance on how governments should be structured “by fallible human beings” to serve “the people for whom they are framed” with the most liberty that would be feasible. To accomplish this requires limits: “Liberty is a right of doing whatever the laws permit, and if a citizen could do what they forbid he would no longer be possessed of liberty.”

Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

Main work: “Common Sense”, 1776 Known for: In just a few dozen pages of argument, Paine creates the intellectual catalyst for the American Revolution. The work received immediate, widespread circulation in America and then in other countries. “Government,” Paine argues, “is a necessary evil”, inevitably restricting liberty. He attacked both hereditary rule and monarchy, proposing instead a government of elected representatives and a limited, rotating presidency.

Adam Smith (1723-1790)

Main work: “The Wealth of Nations”, 1776 Known for: Smith laid the intellectual foundation of modern economics, markets and free trade. His assertion that an “invisible hand” is at the heart of the market is among the most cited phrases in economics. But he also explored the division of labour, the benefits of trade, the mobility of capital, the rigging of markets by businesses and government, and public goods (notably universal education).

Olympe de Gouges (1748-1793)

Main Work: “Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen”, 1791 Known for: Gouges is often heralded as a founder of modern feminism. Her “Declaration” is a response to “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen”, drafted by the Marquis de Lafayette, Thomas Jefferson, and Honoré Mirabeau, which did not extend the natural rights of the citizen to women as well as men. Gouges was a prolific defender of free speech, women’s rights and political dialogue, as well as an abolitionist and pacifist. She was executed by guillotine for her support of constitutional monarchy at the beginning of Maximilien Robespierre’s “reign of terror” in 1793.

Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797)

Main Work: “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman”, 1792 Known for: Wollstonecraft’s treatise is considered by many to be the first feminist manifesto. Others grapple over whether her writings, which critique excessive emotion and female sexuality, are indeed feminist. “A Vindication” contains endless references to the paragon of rational thought, and a vehement defence of the importance of equal educational opportunities for men and women.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

Main Work: “On Liberty”, 1859 Known for: Mill has become a reference point for liberalism. “On Liberty” is a defence of individual freedom with a caveat: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Mill views even a society under representative government to threaten liberty, notably, in a term he popularised, the “tyranny of the majority”. 

James Wilson (1805-1860)

Known for: Founding The Economist Magazine Our name originally included the phrase: “Free Trade Journal”. The Economist was an impassioned defender of laissez-faire while Wilson was editor, from 1843-59. In 1849 we wrote: “all the great branches of human industry are found replete with order, which, growing from the selfish exertions of individuals, pervades the whole. Experience has proved that this order is invariably deranged when it is forcibly interfered with by the state.”

Thomas Hodgskin (1787-1869)

Main work: “Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital”, 1825  Known for: One of Wilson’s deputies, Hodgskin had a far-ranging suspicion of intervention. “All law making,” he wrote, “except gradually and quietly to repeal all existing laws, is arrant humbug.” He argued that property rights are antithetical to individual liberty. Writing about capital, he said, “the weight of its chains are felt, though the hand may not yet be clearly seen which imposes them.” The book was praised as “admirable” by none other than Karl Marx—who used the chains metaphor rather more memorably in the “Communist Manifesto”.

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

Main work: “The Man verses the State”,1884 Known for: A lowly editor in the early years of The Economist, Spencer went on to become an intellectual rival of Marx. He is perhaps best known for coining the phrase "survival of the fittest." An influential thinker in many fields, Spencer writes: "The degree of [man’s] slavery varies according to the ratio between that which he is forced to yield up and that which he is allowed to retain; and it matters not whether his master is a single person or society."

Baruch (Benedict) de Spinoza (1632-1677)

Main political work: “Theological-Political Treatise”, 1670 Known for: A polymath beloved today but often reviled in his own time, Spinoza earned his living grinding lenses and his fame by changing how people saw the world. While accepting the existence of an absolute sovereign, he argued that freedom of thought, speech and academic inquiry should not only be permitted by the state, but were essential for its survival.

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)

Main work: “Democracy in America”, 1835 Known for: His study of America remains at the heart of ongoing debates over questions with vast importance, including how to ensure democracy and individual liberty coexist. His conclusion was that America’s success stemmed from devolving responsibility to the most local of all organisations, often voluntary, an approach now threatened by the centralisation of resources and authority in Washington, DC. See our briefing for more on the gloomiest of the great liberals.

Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

Main work: “The Law”, 1850 Known for: “Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state,” Bastiat wrote. “They forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone.” He was an incisive debunker of flawed reasoning in support of government policies that come at the cost of individual freedom. His definition of “legal plunder” (if the law takes from one to give to another) remains a living sentiment for those who resist state expansion, as does his definition of what comprises good economic policy: it must be judged on not only what would be produced but what would be lost—the innovations and activities that do not occur.

Harriet Taylor Mill (1807-1858)

Main work: “The Enfranchisement of Women”, 1851 Known for: Though little was published under Taylor Mill’s own name, her second husband, John Stuart Mill, readily admitted the influence she had on him and his work. They were an intellectual duo to be reckoned with. Taylor Mill wrote anonymously or under a pseudonym on the nature of marriage, sex and domestic violence. She was a fierce advocate of women’s suffrage, writing along with her husband, “It is neither necessary nor just to make imperative on women, that they shall be either mothers or nothing.”

Salvador de Madariaga y Rojo (1886-1978)

Main work: A principal author of the Oxford Manifesto, 1947 Known for: Madariaga led a group of representatives from 19 countries in drawing up a charter laying out the fundamental principles of liberalism, as they defined it: a commitment to individual liberty, economic freedom, the free exchange of ideas and international coalition-building. Madariaga and his contemporaries worried that the death and destruction of the world wars were caused largely by the abandonment of these ideals. But he believed equality and liberty did not necessarily go hand in hard, writing in 1937 that “inequality is the inevitable consequence of liberty,” which may explain why “security” and “opportunity” were written into the manifesto as “fundamental rights”. 

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Main works: “Critique of Pure Reason”, 1781; “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch”, 1795 Known for: Kant favoured republican governments over majoritarian ones. He worried that rule by majority could undermine the freedom of individuals, and called direct democracy a kind of “despotism” of the masses. He argued that lasting international peace could only be realised through a “political community” of countries committed to what came to be known as “Rechtsstaat”, or the constitutional state. Kant’s faith in the supremacy of law and the social contract seems to be derived from his thinking on moral philosophy. Kant says that free will requires individuals to “self-legislate”, or police themselves, so that they act morally. If we scale up that idea, then having political freedom means entire societies must do the same, preferably—if it were up to Kant—with a constitution.

Harriet Martineau (1802-1876)

Main works: “Illustrations of Political Economy”, 1832-1834; “Society in America”, 1837 Known for: Half-way between a novel and a political treatise, Martineau’s “Illustrations” argued that economics was the least understood science and the one most integral to the wellbeing of society. Initially a non-interventionist, Martineau came to believe that governments should intervene in the interest of curbing inequality—unsurprising conclusions if one considers her reputation as a feminist and abolitionist. Like Tocqueville, she made one of the first sociological studies of America.

John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)

Main political work: “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money”, 1936 Known for: The father of the economic theory that bears his name, Keynes belonged to a new breed of 20th-century liberal that believed in accomplishing collectively what could not be achieved individually. In his “General Theory”, Keynes lays the case for heavily guided capitalism and comprehensive economic planning by government. In a turn away from laissez-faire liberalism, Keynesianism became a central organising principle of developed economies following the Great Depression.

Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

Main works: “The Fountainhead”, 1943; “Atlas Shrugged”, 1957 Known for: Rand launched a brutal attack on the morality of a Western liberalism that criticises self-interest. “Atlas Shrugged”, a political screed presented as a romance, remains a staple of best-seller lists and perhaps the single most influential clarion call for anti-state individualism. Her uncharitable view of human frailty and the trials imposed by the unfairness of life makes her an incendiary figure on the left. But echoes of her writing are heard in the endless political obfuscation about causes and solutions. Her thesis, that a cynical pursuit of altruism undermines self-esteem, innovation, evolution and broad prosperity, resonates as—or perhaps because—public support for socialism grows.

Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992)

Main works: “The Road to Serfdom”, 1944; “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism”, 1988; “The Constitution of Liberty”, 1960 Known for: Hayek was the person most cited by readers after the publication of our initial bibliography. This reflects how powerfully he continues to resonate in the political debate about government. Hayek was not an absolute libertarian, and he allowed for government to provide some assistance, but he remains a controversial figure on the left because of how marginal those concessions were. He argued that the expanded presence of the state created a corrosive force that ended in the loss of individual freedom and prosperity. The strongest antipathy to his views, however, may be found among his fellow economists, because he argued that information was too scattered for either a state or an individual to make realistic assumptions or centralised plans. Read more about Hayek in our series on great liberal thinkers

Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997)

Main political work: Two Concepts of Liberty, 1958 Known for: Berlin defined a crucial faultline in liberal thinking when it came to individual freedom. He recognised that the gulf between “positive” and “negative” liberty would lead to divergent definitions of liberalism—and indeed it has. Negative liberty is best defined as freedom not to be interfered with. Positive liberty empowers individuals to live fulfilling lives, even if that requires interference from government; for example, in the form of education provided by the state. But positive liberty is ripe for exploitation, Berlin reasoned, and may allow government to force its goals upon citizens in the name of freedom—enabling totalitarianism. 

John Rawls (1921-2002)

Main work: A Theory of Justice, 1971 Known for: One of the most influential political philosophers of the 20th century, Rawls used a thought experiment, “the veil of ignorance”, to make the case for a philosophy he dubbed “justice as fairness”. If you were dreaming up an ideal society, Rawls argued, but didn’t know what lot you would be dealt, it would be in everyone’s self-interest to ensure equality of opportunity and shared wealth. Today, the veil of ignorance is commonly used to argue for more redistribution, but Rawls noted an important caveat: that inequality in distribution was permissible if it benefited the least well off in society. That sentiment would be shared by many who resist the growth of redistributive policies that undermine economic vitality, and hence the opportunities of the most vulnerable.

Robert Nozick (1938-2002)

Main work: “Anarchy, State and Utopia”, 1974 Known for: Though they are both considered liberals, Nozick was the anti-Rawls. He found much to dislike in Rawls’s theory of redistributive justice, arguing that people owned their talents. Successes belonged only to the individuals to whom they were attributed, not to society writ large. Nozick’s small-government liberalism was echoed in the policies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Liberty, Nozick said, disrupts patterns. Justice cannot demand some preferred distribution of wealth. Read more on Berlin, Rawls and Nozick in our series of philosophy briefs.

Judith Shklar (1928-1992)

Main work: The Liberalism of Fear, 1989 Known for: Shklar viewed limited, democratic government as a necessary defence that shields people, especially the poor and weak, from the abuses of the state and its agents—such as the armed forces and the police. She saw freedom from cruelty and the division of powers as the twin pillars of her “liberalism of fear”. In her attempts to define this slippery ideology, she argued that a “liberal era” that truly upheld the notion of equal rights did not really exist in America until after the civil war. Liberalism, Shklar wrote, “was powerful in the United States only if black people are not counted as members of its society.” As a rebuke to critics who called her theory reductionist, Shklar asked why, in discussions of political philosophy, emotions must always play second fiddle to “causes”.

[sheminecrafts]

The real threat to Facebook is the Kool-Aid turning sour

These kinds of leaks didn’t happen when I started reporting on Facebook eight years ago. It was a tight-knit cult convinced of its mission to connect everyone, but with the discipline of a military unit where everyone knew loose lips sink ships. Motivational posters with bold corporate slogans dotted its offices, rallying the troops. Employees were happy to be evangelists.

But then came the fake news, News Feed addiction, violence on Facebook Live, cyberbullying, abusive ad targeting, election interference and, most recently, the Cambridge Analytica app data privacy scandals. All the while, Facebook either willfully believed the worst case scenarios could never come true, was naive to their existence or calculated the benefits and growth outweighed the risks. And when finally confronted, Facebook often dragged its feet before admitting the extent of the issues.

Inside the social network’s offices, the bonds began to fray. An ethics problem metastisized into a morale problem. Slogans took on sinister second meanings. The Kool-Aid tasted different.

Some hoped they could right the ship but couldn’t. Some craved the influence and intellectual thrill of running one of humanity’s most popular inventions, but now question if that influence and their work is positive. Others surely just wanted to collect salaries, stock and resumé highlights, but lost the stomach for it.

Now the convergence of scandals has come to a head in the form of constant leaks.

The trouble tipping point

The more benign leaks merely cost Facebook a bit of competitive advantage. We’ve learned it’s building a smart speaker, a standalone VR headset and a Houseparty split-screen video chat clone.

Yet policy-focused leaks have exacerbated the backlash against Facebook, putting more pressure on the conscience of employees. As blame fell to Facebook for Trump’s election, word of Facebook prototyping a censorship tool for operating in China escaped, triggering questions about its respect for human rights and free speech. Facebook’s content rulebook got out alongside disturbing tales of the filth the company’s contracted moderators have to sift through. Its ad targeting was revealed to be able to pinpoint emotionally vulnerable teens.

In recent weeks, the leaks have accelerated to a maddening pace in the wake of Facebook’s soggy apologies regarding the Cambridge Analytica debacle. Its weak policy enforcement left the door open to exploitation of data users gave third-party apps, deepening the perception that Facebook doesn’t care about privacy.

And it all culminated with BuzzFeed publishing a leaked “growth at all costs” internal post from Facebook VP Andrew “Boz” Bosworth that substantiated people’s worst fears about the company’s disregard for user safety in pursuit of world domination. Even the ensuing internal discussion about the damage caused by leaks and how to prevent them…leaked.

But the leaks are not the disease, just the symptom. Sunken morale is the cause, and it’s dragging down the company. Former Facebook employee and Wired writer Antonio Garcia Martinez sums it up, saying this kind of vindictive, intentionally destructive leak fills Facebook’s leadership with “horror”:

The fact that some Facebooker would place their personal grudge and views above the interests of the company fills anyone on the home team with horror (in the same way that the current administration colluding with foreigners to secure a domestic victory does Americans).

— Antonio García Martínez (@antoniogm) March 30, 2018

And that sentiment was confirmed by Facebook’s VP of News Feed Adam Mosseri, who tweeted that leaks “create strong incentives to be less transparent internally and they certainly slow us down,” and will make it tougher to deal with the big problems.

I’m really worried about this. I worry it’ll make it much more difficult to step up to the challenges we face.

— Adam Mosseri (@mosseri) March 30, 2018

Those thoughts weigh heavy on Facebook’s team. A source close to several Facebook executives tells us they feel “embarrassed to work there” and are increasingly open to other job opportunities. One current employee told us to assume anything certain execs tell the media is “100% false.”

If Facebook can’t internally discuss the problems it faces without being exposed, how can it solve them?

Implosion

The consequences of Facebook’s failures are typically pegged as external hazards.

You might assume the government will finally step in and regulate Facebook. But the Honest Ads Act and other rules about ads transparency and data privacy could end up protecting Facebook by being simply a paperwork speed bump for it while making it tough for competitors to build a rival database of personal info. In our corporation-loving society, it seems unlikely that the administration would go so far as to split up Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — one of the few feasible ways to limit the company’s power.

Users have watched Facebook make misstep after misstep over the years, but can’t help but stay glued to its feed. Even those who don’t scroll rely on it as a fundamental utility for messaging and login on other sites. Privacy and transparency are too abstract for most people to care about. Hence, first-time Facebook downloads held steady and its App Store rank actually rose in the week after the Cambridge Analytica fiasco broke. In regards to the #DeleteFacebook movement, Mark Zuckerberg himself said “I don’t think we’ve seen a meaningful number of people act on that.” And as long as they’re browsing, advertisers will keep paying Facebook to reach them.

That’s why the greatest threat of the scandal convergence comes from inside. The leaks are the canary in the noxious blue coal mine.

Can Facebook survive slowing down?

If employees wake up each day unsure whether Facebook’s mission is actually harming the world, they won’t stay. Facebook doesn’t have the same internal work culture problems as some giants like Uber. But there are plenty of other tech companies with less questionable impacts. Some are still private and offer the chance to win big on an IPO or acquisition. At the very least, those in the Bay could find somewhere to work without a spending hours a day on the traffic-snarled 101 freeway.

If they do stay, they won’t work as hard. It’s tough to build if you think you’re building a weapon. Especially if you thought you were going to be making helpful tools. The melancholy and malaise set in. People go into rest-and-vest mode, living out their days at Facebook as a sentence not an opportunity. The next killer product Facebook needs a year or two from now might never coalesce.

And if they do work hard, a culture of anxiety and paralysis will work against them. No one wants to code with their hands tied, and some would prefer a less scrutinized environment. Every decision will require endless philosophizing and risk-reduction. Product changes will be reduced to the lowest common denominator, designed not to offend or appear too tyrannical.

Source: Volkan Furuncu/Anadolu Agency + David Ramos/Getty Images

In fact, that’s partly how Facebook got into this whole mess. A leak by an anonymous former contractor led Gizmodo to report Facebook was suppressing conservative news in its Trending section. Terrified of appearing liberally biased, Facebook reportedly hesitated to take decisive action against fake news. That hands-off approach led to the post-election criticism that degraded morale and pushed the growing snowball of leaks down the mountain.

It’s still rolling.

How to stop morale’s downward momentum will be one of Facebook’s greatest tests of leadership. This isn’t a bug to be squashed. It can’t just roll back a feature update. And an apology won’t suffice. It will have to expel or reeducate the leakers and those disloyal without instilling a witch hunt’s sense of dread. Compensation may have to jump upwards to keep talent aboard like Twitter did when it was floundering. Its top brass will need to show candor and accountability without fueling more indiscretion. And it may need to make a shocking, landmark act of contrition to convince employees its capable of change.

When asked how Facebook could address the morale problem, Mosseri told me “it starts with owning our mistakes and being very clear about what we’re doing now” and noted that “it took a while to get into this place and I think it’ll take a while to work our way out.”

I think it starts with owning our mistakes and being very clear about what we’re doing now. For much of the company November 2016 was their first negative cycle, so it’s also good to share old stories. And then you have to deliver, you have to make real progress on the issues.

— Adam Mosseri (@mosseri) March 30, 2018

This isn’t about whether Facebook will disappear tomorrow, but whether it will remain unconquerable for the forseeable future.

Growth has been the driving mantra for Facebook since its inception. No matter how employees are evaluated, it’s still the underlying ethos. Facebook has poised itself as a mission-driven company. The implication was always that connecting people is good so connecting more people is better. The only question was how to grow faster.

Now Zuckerberg will have to figure out how to get Facebook to cautiously foresee the consequences of what it says and does while remaining an appealing place to work. “Move slow and think things through” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

from iraidajzsmmwtv https://ift.tt/2J9fTjg via IFTTT

[technicalsolutions88]

These kinds of leaks didn’t happen when I started reporting on Facebook eight years ago. It was a tight-knit cult convinced of its mission to connect everyone, but with the discipline of a military unit where everyone knew loose lips sink ships. Motivational posters with bold corporate slogans dotted its offices, rallying the troops. Employees were happy to be evangelists.

But then came the fake news, News Feed addiction, violence on Facebook Live, cyberbullying, abusive ad targeting, election interference, and most recently the Cambridge Analytica app data privacy scandals. All the while, Facebook either willfully believed the worst case scenarios could never come true, was naive to their existence, or calculated the benefits and growth outweighed the risks. And when finally confronted, Facebook often dragged its feet before admitting the extent of the problems.

Inside the social network’s offices, the bonds began to fray. Slogans took on sinister second meanings. The kool-aid tasted different.

Some hoped they could right the ship but couldn’t. Some craved the influence and intellectual thrill of running one of humanity’s most popular inventions, but now question if that influence and their work is positive. Others surely just wanted to collect salaries, stock, and resume highlights but lost the stomach for it.

Now the convergence of scandals has come to a head in the form of constant leaks.

The Trouble Tipping Point

The more benign leaks merely cost Facebook a bit of competitive advantage. We’ve learned it’s building a smart speaker, a standalone VR headset, and a Houseparty split-screen video chat clone.

Yet policy-focused leaks have exacerbated the backlash against Facebook, putting more pressure on the conscience of employees. As blame fell to Facebook for Trump’s election, word of Facebook prototyping a censorship tool for operating in China escaped, triggering questions about its respect for human rights and free speech. Facebook’s content rulebook got out alongside disturbing tales of the filth the company’s contracted moderators have to sift through. Its ad targeting was revealed to be able to pinpoint emotionally vulnerable teens.

In recent weeks, the leaks have accelerated to a maddening pace in the wake of Facebook’s soggy apologies regarding the Cambridge Analytica debacle. Its weak policy enforcement left the door open to exploitation of data users gave third-party apps, deepening the perception that Facebook doesn’t care about privacy.

And it all culminated with BuzzFeed publishing a leaked “growth at all costs” internal post from Facebook VP Andrew “Boz” Bosworth that substantiated people’s worst fears about the company’s disregard for user safety in pursuit of world domination. Even the ensuing internal discussion about the damage caused by leaks and how to prevent them…leaked.

But the leaks are not the disease, just the symptom. Sunken morale is the cause, and it’s dragging down the company. Former Facebook employee and Wired writer Antonio Garcia Martinez sums it up, saying this kind of vindictive, intentionally destructive leak fills Facebook’s leadership with “horror”:

The fact that some Facebooker would place their personal grudge and views above the interests of the company fills anyone on the home team with horror (in the same way that the current administration colluding with foreigners to secure a domestic victory does Americans).

— Antonio García Martínez (@antoniogm) March 30, 2018

And that sentiment was confirmed by Facebook’s VP of News Feed Adam Mosseri, who tweeted that leaks “create strong incentives to be less transparent internally and they certainly slow us down”, and will make it tougher to deal with the big problems.

I’m really worried about this. I worry it’ll make it much more difficult to step up to the challenges we face.

— Adam Mosseri (@mosseri) March 30, 2018

Those thoughts weigh heavy on Facebook’s team. A source close to several Facebook executives tells us they feel “embarrassed to work there” and are increasingly open to other job opportunities. One current employee told us to assume anything certain execs tell the media is “100% false”.

If Facebook can’t internally discuss the problems it faces without being exposed, how can it solve them?

Implosion

The consequences of Facebook’s failures are typically pegged as external hazards.

You might assume the government will finally step in and regulate Facebook. But the Honest Ads Act and other rules about ads transparency and data privacy could end up protecting Facebook by being simply a paperwork speed bump for it while making it tough for competitors to build a rival database of personal info. In our corporation-loving society, it seems unlikely that the administration would go so far as to split up Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp — one of the few feasible ways to limit the company’s power.

Users have watched Facebook go make misstep after misstep over the years, but can’t help but stay glued to its feed. Even those who don’t scroll rely on it as fundamental utility for messaging and login on other sites. Privacy and transparency are too abstract for most people to care about. Hence, first-time Facebook downloads held steady and its App Store rank actually rose in the week after the Cambridge Analytica fiasco broke. In regards to the #DeleteFacebook movement, Mark Zuckerberg himself said “I don’t think we’ve seen a meaningful number of people act on that.” And as long as they’re browsing, advertisers will keep paying Facebook to reach them.

That’s why the greatest threat of the scandal convergence comes from inside. The leaks are the canary in the noxious blue coal mine.

Can Facebook Survive Slowing Down?

If employees wake up each day unsure whether Facebook’s mission is actually harming the world, they won’t stay. Facebook doesn’t have the same internal work culture problems as some giants like Uber. But there are plenty of other tech companies with less questionable impacts. Some are still private and offer the chance to win big on an IPO or acquisition. At the very least, those in the Bay could find somewhere to work without a spending hours a day on the traffic-snarled 101 freeway.

If they do stay, they won’t work as hard. It’s tough to build if you think you’re building a weapon. Especially if you thought you were going to be making helpful tools. The melancholy and malaise set in. People go into rest-and-vest mode, living out their days at Facebook as a sentence not an opportunity. The next killer product Facebook needs a year or two from now might never coalesce.

And if they do work hard, a culture of anxiety and paralysis will work against them. No one wants to code with their hands tied, and some would prefer a less scrutinized environment. Every decision will require endless philosophizing and risk-reduction. Product changes will be reduced to the lowest common denominator, designed not to offend or appear too tyrannical.

Source: Volkan Furuncu/Anadolu Agency + David Ramos/Getty Images

In fact, that’s partly how Facebook got into this whole mess. A leak by an anonymous former contractor led Gizmodo to report Facebook was suppressing conservative news in its Trending section. Terrified of appearing liberally biased, Facebook reportedly hesitated to take decisive action against fake news. That hands-off approach led to the post-election criticism that degraded morale and pushed the growing snowball of leaks down the mountain.

It’s still rolling.

How to stop morale’s downward momentum will be one of Facebook’s greatest tests of leadership. This isn’t a bug to be squashed. It can’t just roll back a feature update. And an apology won’t suffice. It will have to expel or reeducate the leakers and disloyal without instilling a witchunt’s sense of dread. Compensation may have to jump upwards to keep talent aboard like Twitter did when it was floundering. Its top brass will need to show candor and accountability without fueling more indiscretion. And it may need to make a shocking, landmark act of humility to convince employees its capable of change.

This isn’t about whether Facebook will disappear tomorrow, but whether it will remain unconquerable for the forseeable future.

Growth has been the driving mantra for Facebook since its inception. No matter how employees are evaluated, it’s still the underlying ethos. Facebook has poised itself as a mission-driven company. The implication was always that connecting people is good so connecting more people is better. The only question was how to grow faster.

Now Zuckerberg will have to figure out how to get Facebook to cautiously foresee the consequences of what it says and does while remaining an appealing place to work. “Move slow and think things through” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

from Social – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2J9fTjg Original Content From: https://techcrunch.com

[abckidstvyara]

These kinds of leaks didn’t happen when I started reporting on Facebook eight years ago. It was a kool-aid cult convinced of its mission to connect everyone, but with the discipline of a military unit where everyone knew loose lips sink ships. Motivational posters with bold corporate slogans dotted its offices, rallying the troops. Employees were happy to be evangelists.

But then came the fake news, News Feed addiction, violence on Facebook Live, cyberbullying, abusive ad targeting, election interference, and most recently the Cambridge Analytica app data privacy scandals. All the while, Facebook either willfully believed the worst case scenarios could never come true, was naive to their existence, or calculated the benefits and growth outweighed the risks. And when finally confronted, Facebook often dragged its feet before admitting the extent of the problems.

Inside the social network’s offices, the bonds began to fray. Slogans took on sinister second meanings. The kool-aid tasted different.

Some hoped they could right the ship but couldn’t. Some craved the influence and intellectual thrill of running one of humanity’s most popular inventions, but now question if that influence and their work is positive. Others surely just wanted to collect salaries, stock, and resume highlights but lost the stomach for it.

Now the convergence of scandals has come to a head in the form of constant leaks.

The Trouble Tipping Point

The more benign leaks merely cost Facebook a bit of competitive advantage. We’ve learned it’s building a smart speaker, a standalone VR headset, and a Houseparty split-screen video chat clone.

Yet policy-focused leaks have exacerbated the backlash against Facebook, putting more pressure on the conscience of employees. As blame fell to Facebook for Trump’s election, word of Facebook prototyping a censorship tool for operating in China escaped, triggering questions about its respect for human rights and free speech. Facebook’s content rulebook got out alongside disturbing tales of the filth the company’s contracted moderators have to sift through. Its ad targeting was revealed to be able to pinpoint emotionally vulnerable teens.

In recent weeks, the leaks have accelerated to a maddening pace in the wake of Facebook’s soggy apologies regarding the Cambridge Analytica debacle. Its weak policy enforcement left the door open to exploitation of data users gave third-party apps, deepening the perception that Facebook doesn’t care about privacy.

And it all culminated with BuzzFeed publishing a leaked “growth at all costs” internal post from Facebook VP Andrew “Boz” Bosworth that substantiated people’s worst fears about the company’s disregard for user safety in pursuit of world domination. Even the ensuing internal discussion about the damage caused by leaks and how to prevent them…leaked.

But the leaks are not the disease, just the symptom. Sunken morale is the cause, and it’s dragging down the company. Former Facebook employee and Wired writer Antonio Garcia Martinez sums it up, saying this kind of vindictive, intentionally destructive leak fills Facebook’s leadership with “horror”:

The fact that some Facebooker would place their personal grudge and views above the interests of the company fills anyone on the home team with horror (in the same way that the current administration colluding with foreigners to secure a domestic victory does Americans).

— Antonio García Martínez (@antoniogm) March 30, 2018

And that sentiment was confirmed by Facebook’s VP of News Feed Adam Mosseri, who tweeted that leaks “create strong incentives to be less transparent internally and they certainly slow us down”, and will make it tougher to deal with the big problems.

I’m really worried about this. I worry it’ll make it much more difficult to step up to the challenges we face.

— Adam Mosseri (@mosseri) March 30, 2018

Those thoughts weigh heavy on Facebook’s team. A source close to several Facebook executives tells us they feel “embarrassed to work there” and are increasingly open to other job opportunities. One current employee told us to assume anything certain execs tell the media is “100% false”.

If Facebook can’t internally discuss the problems it faces without being exposed, how can it solve them?

Implosion

The consequences of Facebook’s failures are typically pegged as external hazards.

You might assume the government will finally step in and regulate Facebook. But the Honest Ads Act and other rules about ads transparency and data privacy could end up protecting Facebook by being simply a paperwork speed bump for it while making it tough for competitors to build a rival database of personal info. In our corporation-loving society, it seems unlikely that the administration would go so far as to split up Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp — one of the few feasible ways to limit the company’s power.

Users have watched Facebook go make misstep after misstep over the years, but can’t help but stay glued to its feed. Even those who don’t scroll rely on it as fundamental utility for messaging and login on other sites. Privacy and transparency are too abstract for most people to care about. Hence, first-time Facebook downloads held steady and its App Store rank actually rose in the week after the Cambridge Analytica fiasco broke. In regards to the #DeleteFacebook movement, Mark Zuckerberg himself said “I don’t think we’ve seen a meaningful number of people act on that.” And as long as they’re browsing, advertisers will keep paying Facebook to reach them.

That’s why the greatest threat of the scandal convergence comes from inside. The leaks are the canary in the noxious blue coal mine.

Can Facebook Survive Slowing Down?

If employees wake up each day unsure whether Facebook’s mission is actually harming the world, they won’t stay. Facebook doesn’t have the same internal work culture problems as some giants like Uber. But there are plenty of other tech companies with less questionable impacts. Some are still private and offer the chance to win big on an IPO or acquisition. At the very least, those in the Bay could find somewhere to work without a spending hours a day on the traffic-snarled 101 freeway.

If they do stay, they won’t work as hard. It’s tough to build if you think you’re building a weapon. Especially if you thought you were going to be making helpful tools. The melancholy and malaise set in. People go into rest-and-vest mode, living out their days at Facebook as a sentence not an opportunity. The next killer product Facebook needs a year or two from now might never coalesce.

And if they do work hard, a culture of anxiety and paralysis will work against them. No one wants to code with their hands tied, and some would prefer a less scrutinized environment. Every decision will require endless philosophizing and risk-reduction. Product changes will be reduced to the lowest common denominator, designed not to offend or appear too tyrannical.

Source: Volkan Furuncu/Anadolu Agency + David Ramos/Getty Images

In fact, that’s partly how Facebook got into this whole mess. A leak by an anonymous former contractor led Gizmodo to report Facebook was suppressing conservative news in its Trending section. Terrified of appearing liberally biased, Facebook reportedly hesitated to take decisive action against fake news. That hands-off approach led to the post-election criticism that degraded morale and pushed the growing snowball of leaks down the mountain.

It’s still rolling.

How to stop morale’s downward momentum will be one of Facebook’s greatest tests of leadership. This isn’t a bug to be squashed. It can’t just roll back a feature update. And an apology won’t suffice. It will have to expel or reeducate the leakers and disloyal without instilling a witchunt’s sense of dread. Compensation may have to jump upwards to keep talent aboard like Twitter did when it was floundering. Its top brass will need to show candor and accountability without fueling more indiscretion. And it may need to make a shocking, landmark act of humility to convince employees its capable of change.

This isn’t about whether Facebook will disappear tomorrow, but whether it will remain unconquerable for the forseeable future.

Growth has been the driving mantra for Facebook since its inception. No matter how employees are evaluated, it’s still the underlying ethos. Facebook has poised itself as a mission-driven company. The implication was always that connecting people is good so connecting more people is better. The only question was how to grow faster.

Now Zuckerberg will have to figure out how to get Facebook to cautiously foresee the consequences of what it says and does while remaining an appealing place to work. “Move slow and think things through” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

[catholicwatertown]

Pope's message for 2018 World Day of Peace is released

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis’ message for the celebration of the 2018 World Day of Peace was released on Friday during a press conference at the Holy See Press Office.

The message entitled Migrants and Refugees: Men and Women in search of Peace is divided into six sections with the first offering heartfelt good wishes for peace and inviting people of good will to embrace those fleeing war, hunger and persecution.

The message also poses the question, why so many migrants and refugees? Pope Francis answers this by considering the many conflicts forcing people to leave their homelands, but he notes also the desire for a better life.

The Holy Father notes that some people consider the growth in migration as a threat..  But, “for my part, he says, I ask you to view it with confidence, as an opportunity to build peace.”

Peace points

Contained in the 4th section of the message under the theme, “four mileposts for action”, the Pope points out what is needed in order for migrants and refugees to find the peace they seek is a strategy combining four actions: welcoming, protecting, promoting and integrating.

Looking at the situation from an international perspective, Pope Francis expresses the hope that this spirit of welcome and integration, “will guide the process that in the course of 2018 will lead the United Nations to draft and approve two Global Compacts, one for safe, orderly and regular migration and the other for refugees.”

Common Home

Finally, the Holy Father draws inspiration from Saint John Paul II  with these words. “If the ‘dream’ of a peaceful world is shared by all, if the refugees’ and migrants’ contribution is properly evaluated, then humanity can become more and more a universal family and our earth a true ‘common home’.”

Please find below the message of  Pope Francis for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 2018

MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES: MEN AND WOMEN IN SEARCH OF PEACE

1.      Heartfelt good wishes for peace

         Peace to all people and to all nations on earth!  Peace, which the angels proclaimed to the shepherds on Christmas night,[1] is a profound aspiration for everyone, for each individual and all peoples, and especially for those who most keenly suffer its absence.  Among these whom I constantly keep in my thoughts and prayers, I would once again mention the over 250 million migrants worldwide, of whom 22.5 million are refugees.  Pope Benedict XVI, my beloved predecessor, spoke of them as “men and women, children, young and elderly people, who are searching for somewhere to live in peace.”[2]  In order to find that peace, they are willing to risk their lives on a journey that is often long and perilous, to endure hardships and suffering, and to encounter fences and walls built to keep them far from their goal.

         In a spirit of compassion, let us embrace all those fleeing from war and hunger, or forced by discrimination, persecution, poverty and environmental degradation to leave their homelands.

         We know that it is not enough to open our hearts to the suffering of others.  Much more remains to be done before our brothers and sisters can once again live peacefully in a safe home.  Welcoming others requires concrete commitment, a network of assistance and goodwill, vigilant and sympathetic attention, the responsible management of new and complex situations that at times compound numerous existing problems, to say nothing of resources, which are always limited.  By practising the virtue of prudence, government leaders should take practical measures to welcome, promote, protect, integrate and, “within the limits allowed by a correct understanding of the common good, to permit [them] to become part of a new society.”[3]  Leaders have a clear responsibility towards their own communities, whose legitimate rights and harmonious development they must ensure, lest they become like the rash builder who miscalculated and failed to complete the tower he had begun to construct.[4]

2.      Why so many refugees and migrants?

         As he looked to the Great Jubilee marking the passage of two thousand years since the proclamation of peace by the angels in Bethlehem, Saint John Paul II pointed to the increased numbers of displaced persons as one of the consequences of the “endless and horrifying sequence of wars, conflicts, genocides and ethnic cleansings”[5] that had characterized the twentieth century.  To this date, the new century has registered no real breakthrough: armed conflicts and other forms of organized violence continue to trigger the movement of peoples within national borders and beyond.

         Yet people migrate for other reasons as well, principally because they “desire a better life, and not infrequently try to leave behind the ‘hopelessness’ of an unpromising future.”[6]  They set out to join their families or to seek professional or educational opportunities, for those who cannot enjoy these rights do not live in peace. Furthermore, as I noted in the Encyclical Laudato Si’, there has been “a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation”.[7]

         Most people migrate through regular channels.  Some, however, take different routes, mainly out of desperation, when their own countries offer neither safety nor opportunity, and every legal pathway appears impractical, blocked or too slow.

         Many destination countries have seen the spread of rhetoric decrying the risks posed to national security or the high cost of welcoming new arrivals, and by doing so demeans the human dignity due to all as sons and daughters of God.  Those who, for what may be political reasons, foment fear of migrants instead of building peace are sowing violence, racial discrimination and xenophobia, which are matters of great concern for all those concerned for the safety of every human being.[8]

         All indicators available to the international community suggest that global migration will continue for the future.  Some consider this a threat.  For my part, I ask you to view it with confidence as an opportunity to build peace.

3.      With a contemplative gaze

         The wisdom of faith fosters a contemplative gaze that recognizes that all of us “belong to one family, migrants and the local populations that welcome them, and all have the same right to enjoy the goods of the earth, whose destination is universal, as the social doctrine of the Church teaches.  It is here that solidarity and sharing are founded.”[9]  These words evoke the biblical image of the new Jerusalem.  The book of the prophet Isaiah (chapter 60) and that of Revelation (chapter 21) describe the city with its gates always open to people of every nation, who marvel at it and fill it with riches.  Peace is the sovereign that guides it and justice the principle that governs coexistence within it.

         We must also turn this contemplative gaze to the cities where we live, “a gaze of faith which sees God dwelling in their houses, in their streets and squares, […] fostering solidarity, fraternity, and the desire for goodness, truth and justice”[10] – in other words, fulfilling the promise of peace.

         When we turn that gaze to migrants and refugees, we discover that they do not arrive empty-handed.  They bring their courage, skills, energy and aspirations, as well as the treasures of their own cultures; and in this way, they enrich the lives of the nations that receive them.  We also come to see the creativity, tenacity and spirit of sacrifice of the countless individuals, families and communities around the world who open their doors and hearts to migrants and refugees, even where resources are scarce.

         A contemplative gaze should also guide the discernment of those responsible for the public good, and encourage them to pursue policies of welcome, “within the limits allowed by a correct understanding of the common good”[11] – bearing in mind, that is, the needs of all members of the human family and the welfare of each.

         Those who see things in this way will be able to recognize the seeds of peace that are already sprouting and nurture their growth.  Our cities, often divided and polarized by conflicts regarding the presence of migrants and refugees, will thus turn into workshops of peace.

4.      Four mileposts for action

         Offering asylum seekers, refugees, migrants and victims of human trafficking an opportunity to find the peace they seek requires a strategy combining four actions: welcoming, protecting, promoting and integrating.[12]

         “Welcoming” calls for expanding legal pathways for entry and no longer pushing migrants and displaced people towards countries where they face persecution and violence.  It also demands balancing our concerns about national security with concern for fundamental human rights.  Scripture reminds us: “Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.”[13]

         “Protecting” has to do with our duty to recognize and defend the inviolable dignity of those who flee real dangers in search of asylum and security, and to prevent their being exploited.  I think in particular of women and children who find themselves in situations that expose them to risks and abuses that can even amount to enslavement.  God does not discriminate: “The Lord watches over the foreigner and sustains the orphan and the widow.”[14]

         “Promoting” entails supporting the integral human development of migrants and refugees.  Among many possible means of doing so, I would stress the importance of ensuring access to all levels of education for children and young people.  This will enable them not only to cultivate and realize their potential, but also better equip them to encounter others and to foster a spirit of dialogue rather than rejection or confrontation.  The Bible teaches that God “loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing.  And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.”[15]

         “Integrating”, lastly, means allowing refugees and migrants to participate fully in the life of the society that welcomes them, as part of a process of mutual enrichment and fruitful cooperation in service of the integral human development of the local community.  Saint Paul expresses it in these words: “You are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people.”[16]

5.      A proposal for two international compacts

         It is my heartfelt hope this spirit will guide the process that in the course of 2018 will lead the United Nations to draft and approve two Global Compacts, one for safe, orderly and regular migration and the other for refugees.  As shared agreements at a global level, these compacts will provide a framework for policy proposals and practical measures.  For this reason, they need to be inspired by compassion, foresight and courage, so as to take advantage of every opportunity to advance the peace-building process.  Only in this way can the realism required of international politics avoid surrendering to cynicism and to the globalization of indifference.

         Dialogue and coordination are a necessity and a specific duty for the international community.  Beyond national borders, higher numbers of refugees may be welcomed – or better welcomed – also by less wealthy countries, if international cooperation guarantees them the necessary funding.

         The Migrants and Refugees Section of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development has published a set of twenty action points that provide concrete leads for implementing these four verbs in public policy and in the attitudes and activities of Christian communities.[17]  The aim of this and other contributions is to express the interest of the Catholic Church in the process leading to the adoption of the two U.N. Global Compacts.  This interest is the sign of a more general pastoral concern that goes back to very origins of Church and has continued in her many works up to the present time.

6.      For our common home

         Let us draw inspiration from the words of Saint John Paul II: “If the ‘dream’ of a peaceful world is shared by all, if the refugees’ and migrants’ contribution is properly evaluated, then humanity can become more and more a universal family and our earth a true ‘common home’.”[18]  Throughout history, many have believed in this “dream”, and their achievements are a testament to the fact that it is no mere utopia.

         Among these, we remember Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini in this year that marks the hundredth anniversary of her death.  On this thirteenth day of November, many ecclesial communities celebrate her memory.  This remarkable woman, who devoted her life to the service of migrants and became their patron saint, taught us to welcome, protect, promote and integrate our brothers and sisters.  Through her intercession, may the Lord enable all of us to experience that “a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.”[19]

From the Vatican, 13 November 2017

Memorial of Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, Patroness of Migrants

                                                                  (from Vatican Radio)

from News.va http://ift.tt/2znWia5 via IFTTT from Blogger http://ift.tt/2zBlNsl

[96thdayofrage]

Their System, Our Lives: A Political Obituary in Service of Revolutionary Emancipation

The class conflict remains the central contradiction among human beings – a fact that too many “movement” leaders seem eager to forget. As a result, they attempt to shore up “a crumbling imperialist system and the ideas that sustain it.” The longer this system is allowed to prevail, the worse the human condition becomes. “By 2021, only 1 percent of the population will own 70 percent of all wealth in the US.”

“The desperate need for organization among the various exploited and oppressed sectors of society, from the unemployed worker to the incarcerated Black prisoner, cannot be understated.”

There are times when personal life intersects with the broad struggle of the masses in profound ways. The majority of people find it far easier to separate the struggle for emancipation from day to day life as a form of protection. Not only is such an action futile, but it also reinforces alienation. Alienation is a staple of imperialist social relations predicated upon the separation of labor from the ownership of the means of subsistence and production. Yet it is precisely when this phenomenon is experienced on a mass basis that the conditions for revolutionary emancipation become ripe. The dialectic reaches an even more acute stage after losing a loved one due to the conditions of the ruling system.

The US imperialist system is sustained by the profit driven interests of a small number of capitalists who wield the means of production in their interests. Capitalists own the means of production and force the working class and oppressed majority to sell their labor to them or perish. The drive for endless profit on the part of the capitalist produces endless misery. The Boston Consulting Group reports that by 2021, only 1 percent of the population will own 70 percent of all wealth in the US. A US-led war on Syria continues to bring the world on the brink of World War III in the aftermath of the US coalition’s takedown of a Syrian jet. AP reports that the US remains a torture overseer in the Southern parts of Yemen. Black Americans in the US are the target of a ceaseless war of occupation waged by the state, with the recent acquittal of the police officer that murdered Philando Castile only adding insult to an almost daily injury,

“The drive for endless profit on the part of the capitalist produces endless misery.”

These conditions have been subject to resistance on a mass basis. The movement for Black Lives sits at the forefront of resistance to state terror against Black America. On the international stage, Houthi rebels and independent governments in Syria, Iran, China, and Russia make up just some of the forces fighting against US and Western imperialist aggression worldwide. Many debased "liberal" thinkers promote the notion that the struggle for justice cannot be reduced to an "us vs. them" dichotomy. However, such narrow thinking is contradicted by the ways in which the conditions of imperialism pits the very lives of millions, if not billions, of ordinary workers and oppressed people in an antagonistic relationship with the ruling elite.

My late father is a quintessential example. A working class white American born three years after the Second World War, my father spent his entire life fighting for the needs of his family and loved ones. His mother struggled with addiction and his father worked long hours as a machinist during the Depression era. My father spent much of childhood with his sister and his dog trying to survive rural New Hampshire life. Before he had a family of his own, my father joined the military only to be deployed to Vietnam in the waning years of the Johnson Administration. This would give him preferential treatment for hiring in the public sector. He moved to Massachusetts shortly after his military stint to work as an agricultural inspector for the US government.

“Imperialism pits the very lives of millions, if not billions, of ordinary workers and oppressed people in an antagonistic relationship with the ruling elite.”

Like his father, my father worked grueling hours as a federal worker in the Department of Agriculture. The long hours (sometimes upwards of 70 hours per week) helped pay a mortgage that had to be refinanced multiple times so his children could attend college. He worked so much in part because of his loyalty to my mother, a Vietnamese woman whose mental instability led her to spend all of his savings and accumulate massive amounts of debt. The impact of Agent Orange on my mother’s decision has yet to be medically determined. However, symptoms of the toxin are evident across her side of the family.

My father’s care-taking role in marriage took a toll on his mind while his job took a toll on his body. A solid union kept him economically afloat, but it was not enough to keep his children safe from economic hardship after thirty-eight years of employment. No documented evidence exists to link these conditions with the heart attack that took his life just a few weeks ago. The illness happened to run on his side of the family. However, the many ills of capitalism definitely played a part in the process. This is the lens from which I view my father’s struggle. The experience helped guide me toward the path of revolutionary political thought and action. There may be no more important of a task in the United States than to unite the oppressed and exploited along the lines of common experience. Common experience helps create a guide that informs political activity. Solidarity is the strongest weapon in the arsenal of the oppressed. However, it has gone largely untapped because the oppressed have yet to meet a movement armed with the correct ideology to channel their experiences into action.

“The energy emanated from a fracture in the Democratic Party left and Republican right that allowed genuine demands for living-wage employment, affordable healthcare, and accessible education to seep into the debate in Washington.”

The 2016 elections put the backwardness of the US political situation on full display. Working people of various stripes took interest in the Sanders/Trump phenomenon. The energy emanated from a fracture in the Democratic Party left and Republican right that allowed genuine demands for living-wage employment, affordable healthcare, and accessible education to seep into the debate in Washington. My father, a staunch Democrat, supported Sanders but couldn't quite grasp the significance of his pro-imperialist policies. His military deployment to Vietnam comprised much of his early education about foreign affairs, even if he did begin to develop significant anti-war sentiments later in his life during the Bush II years.

Many leftists were too busy getting sucked into the corporate media's obsession with Donald Trump or Russia to muster a strong enough movement that could reach people like my father. The Black Lives Matter movement and the Sanders base have received little support as a result. As if selling your labor to a capitalist society rife with permanent unemployment, war, and racism wasn't alienating enough, millions of working class and oppressed people also have the US and Western left to contend with. It isn't just the elite’s lack of political engagement with the legitimate conditions of the oppressed that holds US politics in a backward state. This is intentional and should be expected. The bigger problem is that far too many "movement leaders" themselves are actively devoted to the preservation of a crumbling imperialist system and the ideas that sustain it.

“There may be no more important of a task in the United States than to unite the oppressed and exploited along the lines of common experience.”

To reverse this trend, revolutionaries need to walk the difficult line of learning from the people and teaching them new ways to conceptualize a reality kept in perpetual fog by the ruling classes and their allies in the “movement.” They must study history and theory with the intention of applying it to the challenges of the current moment. Assumptions should be dropped at a moment's notice, but well-tested conclusions should be upheld without waver. The desperate need for organization among the various exploited and oppressed sectors of society, from the unemployed worker to the incarcerated Black prisoner, cannot be understated. Anything that supports the organization of the masses toward their genuine interests should be pursued. And anything that holds back their political development should be rejected, regardless of the perceived short-term political cost.

A good start would be for revolutionaries to work toward a total rejection of old, ruling class ideas that fester among the advanced thinkers and organizers in the US and Western world. Trusted relationships with the masses are dependent upon the presentation of new ideas that demonstrate both a grasp of existing reality and the willingness to change it. Revolutionary emancipation becomes that much more remote when relationships with the masses are soiled by dogma. Endless war, economic atrophy, and the relentless violence of racism will continue to resign millions to an early grave by way of the bomb or the imposition of economic deprivation. However remote it may seem, a way out does exist. And it is our duty to find it.

[sheminecrafts]

The real threat to Facebook is the Kool-Aid turning sour

These kinds of leaks didn’t happen when I started reporting on Facebook eight years ago. It was a tight-knit cult convinced of its mission to connect everyone, but with the discipline of a military unit where everyone knew loose lips sink ships. Motivational posters with bold corporate slogans dotted its offices, rallying the troops. Employees were happy to be evangelists.

But then came the fake news, News Feed addiction, violence on Facebook Live, cyberbullying, abusive ad targeting, election interference and, most recently, the Cambridge Analytica app data privacy scandals. All the while, Facebook either willfully believed the worst case scenarios could never come true, was naive to their existence or calculated the benefits and growth outweighed the risks. And when finally confronted, Facebook often dragged its feet before admitting the extent of the issues.

Inside the social network’s offices, the bonds began to fray. An ethics problem metastisized into a morale problem. Slogans took on sinister second meanings. The Kool-Aid tasted different.

Some hoped they could right the ship but couldn’t. Some craved the influence and intellectual thrill of running one of humanity’s most popular inventions, but now question if that influence and their work is positive. Others surely just wanted to collect salaries, stock and resumé highlights, but lost the stomach for it.

Now the convergence of scandals has come to a head in the form of constant leaks.

The trouble tipping point

The more benign leaks merely cost Facebook a bit of competitive advantage. We’ve learned it’s building a smart speaker, a standalone VR headset and a Houseparty split-screen video chat clone.

Yet policy-focused leaks have exacerbated the backlash against Facebook, putting more pressure on the conscience of employees. As blame fell to Facebook for Trump’s election, word of Facebook prototyping a censorship tool for operating in China escaped, triggering questions about its respect for human rights and free speech. Facebook’s content rulebook got out alongside disturbing tales of the filth the company’s contracted moderators have to sift through. Its ad targeting was revealed to be able to pinpoint emotionally vulnerable teens.

In recent weeks, the leaks have accelerated to a maddening pace in the wake of Facebook’s soggy apologies regarding the Cambridge Analytica debacle. Its weak policy enforcement left the door open to exploitation of data users gave third-party apps, deepening the perception that Facebook doesn’t care about privacy.

And it all culminated with BuzzFeed publishing a leaked “growth at all costs” internal post from Facebook VP Andrew “Boz” Bosworth that substantiated people’s worst fears about the company’s disregard for user safety in pursuit of world domination. Even the ensuing internal discussion about the damage caused by leaks and how to prevent them…leaked.

But the leaks are not the disease, just the symptom. Sunken morale is the cause, and it’s dragging down the company. Former Facebook employee and Wired writer Antonio Garcia Martinez sums it up, saying this kind of vindictive, intentionally destructive leak fills Facebook’s leadership with “horror”:

The fact that some Facebooker would place their personal grudge and views above the interests of the company fills anyone on the home team with horror (in the same way that the current administration colluding with foreigners to secure a domestic victory does Americans).

— Antonio García Martínez (@antoniogm) March 30, 2018

And that sentiment was confirmed by Facebook’s VP of News Feed Adam Mosseri, who tweeted that leaks “create strong incentives to be less transparent internally and they certainly slow us down,” and will make it tougher to deal with the big problems.

I’m really worried about this. I worry it’ll make it much more difficult to step up to the challenges we face.

— Adam Mosseri (@mosseri) March 30, 2018

Those thoughts weigh heavy on Facebook’s team. A source close to several Facebook executives tells us they feel “embarrassed to work there” and are increasingly open to other job opportunities. One current employee told us to assume anything certain execs tell the media is “100% false.”

If Facebook can’t internally discuss the problems it faces without being exposed, how can it solve them?

Implosion

The consequences of Facebook’s failures are typically pegged as external hazards.

You might assume the government will finally step in and regulate Facebook. But the Honest Ads Act and other rules about ads transparency and data privacy could end up protecting Facebook by being simply a paperwork speed bump for it while making it tough for competitors to build a rival database of personal info. In our corporation-loving society, it seems unlikely that the administration would go so far as to split up Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — one of the few feasible ways to limit the company’s power.

Users have watched Facebook make misstep after misstep over the years, but can’t help but stay glued to its feed. Even those who don’t scroll rely on it as a fundamental utility for messaging and login on other sites. Privacy and transparency are too abstract for most people to care about. Hence, first-time Facebook downloads held steady and its App Store rank actually rose in the week after the Cambridge Analytica fiasco broke. In regards to the #DeleteFacebook movement, Mark Zuckerberg himself said “I don’t think we’ve seen a meaningful number of people act on that.” And as long as they’re browsing, advertisers will keep paying Facebook to reach them.

That’s why the greatest threat of the scandal convergence comes from inside. The leaks are the canary in the noxious blue coal mine.

Can Facebook survive slowing down?

If employees wake up each day unsure whether Facebook’s mission is actually harming the world, they won’t stay. Facebook doesn’t have the same internal work culture problems as some giants like Uber. But there are plenty of other tech companies with less questionable impacts. Some are still private and offer the chance to win big on an IPO or acquisition. At the very least, those in the Bay could find somewhere to work without a spending hours a day on the traffic-snarled 101 freeway.

If they do stay, they won’t work as hard. It’s tough to build if you think you’re building a weapon. Especially if you thought you were going to be making helpful tools. The melancholy and malaise set in. People go into rest-and-vest mode, living out their days at Facebook as a sentence not an opportunity. The next killer product Facebook needs a year or two from now might never coalesce.

And if they do work hard, a culture of anxiety and paralysis will work against them. No one wants to code with their hands tied, and some would prefer a less scrutinized environment. Every decision will require endless philosophizing and risk-reduction. Product changes will be reduced to the lowest common denominator, designed not to offend or appear too tyrannical.

Source: Volkan Furuncu/Anadolu Agency + David Ramos/Getty Images

In fact, that’s partly how Facebook got into this whole mess. A leak by an anonymous former contractor led Gizmodo to report Facebook was suppressing conservative news in its Trending section. Terrified of appearing liberally biased, Facebook reportedly hesitated to take decisive action against fake news. That hands-off approach led to the post-election criticism that degraded morale and pushed the growing snowball of leaks down the mountain.

It’s still rolling.

How to stop morale’s downward momentum will be one of Facebook’s greatest tests of leadership. This isn’t a bug to be squashed. It can’t just roll back a feature update. And an apology won’t suffice. It will have to expel or reeducate the leakers and those disloyal without instilling a witch hunt’s sense of dread. Compensation may have to jump upwards to keep talent aboard like Twitter did when it was floundering. Its top brass will need to show candor and accountability without fueling more indiscretion. And it may need to make a shocking, landmark act of contrition to convince employees its capable of change.

When asked how Facebook could address the morale problem, Mosseri told me “it starts with owning our mistakes and being very clear about what we’re doing now” and noted that “it took a while to get into this place and I think it’ll take a while to work our way out.”

I think it starts with owning our mistakes and being very clear about what we’re doing now. For much of the company November 2016 was their first negative cycle, so it’s also good to share old stories. And then you have to deliver, you have to make real progress on the issues.

— Adam Mosseri (@mosseri) March 30, 2018

This isn’t about whether Facebook will disappear tomorrow, but whether it will remain unconquerable for the forseeable future.

Growth has been the driving mantra for Facebook since its inception. No matter how employees are evaluated, it’s still the underlying ethos. Facebook has poised itself as a mission-driven company. The implication was always that connecting people is good so connecting more people is better. The only question was how to grow faster.

Now Zuckerberg will have to figure out how to get Facebook to cautiously foresee the consequences of what it says and does while remaining an appealing place to work. “Move slow and think things through” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

from iraidajzsmmwtv https://ift.tt/2Gq9oXR via IFTTT

[technicalsolutions88]

These kinds of leaks didn’t happen when I started reporting on Facebook eight years ago. It was a kool-aid cult convinced of its mission to connect everyone, but with the discipline of a military unit where everyone knew loose lips sink ships. Motivational posters with bold corporate slogans dotted its offices, rallying the troops. Employees were happy to be evangelists.

But then came the fake news, News Feed addiction, violence on Facebook Live, cyberbullying, abusive ad targeting, election interference, and most recently the Cambridge Analytica app data privacy scandals. All the while, Facebook either willfully believed the worst case scenarios could never come true, was naive to their existence, or calculated the benefits and growth outweighed the risks. And when finally confronted, Facebook often dragged its feet before admitting the extent of the problems.

Inside the social network’s offices, the bonds began to fray. Slogans took on sinister second meanings. The kool-aid tasted different.

Some hoped they could right the ship but couldn’t. Some craved the influence and intellectual thrill of running one of humanity’s most popular inventions, but now question if that influence and their work is positive. Others surely just wanted to collect salaries, stock, and resume highlights but lost the stomach for it.

Now the convergence of scandals has come to a head in the form of constant leaks.

The Trouble Tipping Point

The more benign leaks merely cost Facebook a bit of competitive advantage. We’ve learned it’s building a smart speaker, a standalone VR headset, and a Houseparty split-screen video chat clone.

Yet policy-focused leaks have exacerbated the backlash against Facebook, putting more pressure on the conscience of employees. As blame fell to Facebook for Trump’s election, word of Facebook prototyping a censorship tool for operating in China escaped, triggering questions about its respect for human rights and free speech. Facebook’s content rulebook got out alongside disturbing tales of the filth the company’s contracted moderators have to sift through. Its ad targeting was revealed to be able to pinpoint emotionally vulnerable teens.

In recent weeks, the leaks have accelerated to a maddening pace in the wake of Facebook’s soggy apologies regarding the Cambridge Analytica debacle. Its weak policy enforcement left the door open to exploitation of data users gave third-party apps, deepening the perception that Facebook doesn’t care about privacy.

And it all culminated with BuzzFeed publishing a leaked “growth at all costs” internal post from Facebook VP Andrew “Boz” Bosworth that substantiated people’s worst fears about the company’s disregard for user safety in pursuit of world domination. Even the ensuing internal discussion about the damage caused by leaks and how to prevent them…leaked.

But the leaks are not the disease, just the symptom. Sunken morale is the cause, and it’s dragging down the company. Former Facebook employee and Wired writer Antonio Garcia Martinez sums it up, saying this kind of vindictive, intentionally destructive leak fills Facebook’s leadership with “horror”:

The fact that some Facebooker would place their personal grudge and views above the interests of the company fills anyone on the home team with horror (in the same way that the current administration colluding with foreigners to secure a domestic victory does Americans).

— Antonio García Martínez (@antoniogm) March 30, 2018

And that sentiment was confirmed by Facebook’s VP of News Feed Adam Mosseri, who tweeted that leaks “create strong incentives to be less transparent internally and they certainly slow us down”, and will make it tougher to deal with the big problems.

I’m really worried about this. I worry it’ll make it much more difficult to step up to the challenges we face.

— Adam Mosseri (@mosseri) March 30, 2018

Those thoughts weigh heavy on Facebook’s team. A source close to several Facebook executives tells us they feel “embarrassed to work there” and are increasingly open to other job opportunities. One current employee told us to assume anything certain execs tell the media is “100% false”.

If Facebook can’t internally discuss the problems it faces without being exposed, how can it solve them?

Implosion

The consequences of Facebook’s failures are typically pegged as external hazards.

You might assume the government will finally step in and regulate Facebook. But the Honest Ads Act and other rules about ads transparency and data privacy could end up protecting Facebook by being simply a paperwork speed bump for it while making it tough for competitors to build a rival database of personal info. In our corporation-loving society, it seems unlikely that the administration would go so far as to split up Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp — one of the few feasible ways to limit the company’s power.

Users have watched Facebook go make misstep after misstep over the years, but can’t help but stay glued to its feed. Even those who don’t scroll rely on it as fundamental utility for messaging and login on other sites. Privacy and transparency are too abstract for most people to care about. Hence, first-time Facebook downloads held steady and its App Store rank actually rose in the week after the Cambridge Analytica fiasco broke. In regards to the #DeleteFacebook movement, Mark Zuckerberg himself said “I don’t think we’ve seen a meaningful number of people act on that.” And as long as they’re browsing, advertisers will keep paying Facebook to reach them.

That’s why the greatest threat of the scandal convergence comes from inside. The leaks are the canary in the noxious blue coal mine.

Can Facebook Survive Slowing Down?

If employees wake up each day unsure whether Facebook’s mission is actually harming the world, they won’t stay. Facebook doesn’t have the same internal work culture problems as some giants like Uber. But there are plenty of other tech companies with less questionable impacts. Some are still private and offer the chance to win big on an IPO or acquisition. At the very least, those in the Bay could find somewhere to work without a spending hours a day on the traffic-snarled 101 freeway.

If they do stay, they won’t work as hard. It’s tough to build if you think you’re building a weapon. Especially if you thought you were going to be making helpful tools. The melancholy and malaise set in. People go into rest-and-vest mode, living out their days at Facebook as a sentence not an opportunity. The next killer product Facebook needs a year or two from now might never coalesce.

And if they do work hard, a culture of anxiety and paralysis will work against them. No one wants to code with their hands tied, and some would prefer a less scrutinized environment. Every decision will require endless philosophizing and risk-reduction. Product changes will be reduced to the lowest common denominator, designed not to offend or appear too tyrannical.

Source: Volkan Furuncu/Anadolu Agency + David Ramos/Getty Images

In fact, that’s partly how Facebook got into this whole mess. A leak by an anonymous former contractor led Gizmodo to report Facebook was suppressing conservative news in its Trending section. Terrified of appearing liberally biased, Facebook reportedly hesitated to take decisive action against fake news. That hands-off approach led to the post-election criticism that degraded morale and pushed the growing snowball of leaks down the mountain.

It’s still rolling.

How to stop morale’s downward momentum will be one of Facebook’s greatest tests of leadership. This isn’t a bug to be squashed. It can’t just roll back a feature update. And an apology won’t suffice. It will have to expel or reeducate the leakers and disloyal without instilling a witchunt’s sense of dread. Compensation may have to jump upwards to keep talent aboard like Twitter did when it was floundering. Its top brass will need to show candor and accountability without fueling more indiscretion. And it may need to make a shocking, landmark act of humility to convince employees its capable of change.

This isn’t about whether Facebook will disappear tomorrow, but whether it will remain unconquerable for the forseeable future.

Growth has been the driving mantra for Facebook since its inception. No matter how employees are evaluated, it’s still the underlying ethos. Facebook has poised itself as a mission-driven company. The implication was always that connecting people is good so connecting more people is better. The only question was how to grow faster.

Now Zuckerberg will have to figure out how to get Facebook to cautiously foresee the consequences of what it says and does while remaining an appealing place to work. “Move slow and think things through” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

from Mobile – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2J9fTjg ORIGINAL CONTENT FROM: https://techcrunch.com/