RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Donald Trump's White House Counsel Is Proud "Architect" of America's Corrupt Big Money Politics Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35798"><span class="small">Jon Schwarz, The Intercept</span></a>   
Sunday, 04 December 2016 14:21

Schwarz writes: "Don McGahn, soon to be Donald Trump's White House counsel, bears as much responsibility as any single person for turning America's campaign finance system into something akin to a gigantic, clogged septic tank."

Don McGahn. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Don McGahn. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


Donald Trump's White House Counsel Is Proud "Architect" of America's Corrupt Big Money Politics

By Jon Schwarz, The Intercept

04 December 16

 

on McGahn, soon to be Donald Trump’s White House counsel, bears as much responsibility as any single person for turning America’s campaign finance system into something akin to a gigantic, clogged septic tank.

From 2008 to 2013, McGahn was one of the six members of the Federal Election Commission, the government agency in charge of civil enforcement of campaign finance laws. While there, he led a GOP campaign that essentially ground enforcement of election laws to a halt.

“I’ve always thought of McGahn’s appointment as an FEC commissioner as analogous to appointing an anarchist to be chief of police,” said Paul S. Ryan, vice president at Common Cause. “He’s largely responsible for destroying the FEC as a functioning law enforcement agency, and seemingly takes great pride in this fact. McGahn has demonstrated a much stronger interest in expanding the money-in-politics swamp than draining it.”

Elaine Weintraub, a current FEC commissioner, overlapped with McGahn’s entire tenure. McGahn and his two fellow GOP appointees, she recalled, possessed a “very strong ideological opposition to campaign finance laws in general.”

This ideology — that essentially all limits on campaign contributions and spending are unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment — was developed by a loose affiliation of conservative lawyers including McGahn, beginning in the late 1990s. It started bearing fruit a decade later with a series of court decisions, including the Citizens United ruling in 2010. McGahn’s page on his law firm’s website describes him as one of the “architects of the campaign finance revolution.”

McGahn’s perspective manifested itself consistently at the FEC. Previously, when the agency received outside complaints alleging violations of the law, its general counsel’s office was responsible for conducting a preliminary examination of the issues and then making a recommendation to the commission members about the legal issues involved and whether to proceed with a full investigation.

McGahn was so extreme that he attempted to block the general counsel’s staff from reading news reports, using Google or looking at a campaign’s web site without prior authorization from a majority of the FEC commissioners. Had the measure passed, because the FEC has six members at full capacity and no more than three can be from one political party, Republicans would effectively have controlled what FEC lawyers were allowed to read.

McGahn also attempted to prevent the FEC’s staff from doing something it had done as a matter of course in the past: respond to requests for internal records from the Justice Department, which is responsible for criminal prosecution of campaign finance crimes, without formal approval from the commissioners. “He just did not want us to have a more cooperative relationship with the Justice Department,” Weintraub said.

McGahn’s losing battle nevertheless led the agency’s general counsel at the time to resign in frustration.

Now, as Trump’s White House lawyer, McGahn will provide crucial advice on the nomination of judges, including to the Supreme Court. While Trump has criticized Citizens United, and called the Super PACs that sprang up in its wake “horrible” and a “total phony deal,” McGahn is a vociferous defender of the ruling.

Trump praised McGahn as possessing “a deep understanding of constitutional law.”

A White House’s lawyer essentially serves as the president’s conscience, and is in charge of the ethics rules. “I was hoping that the sea of conflicts of interest that surround Donald Trump and many of his appointees would convince Trump that he needs to pursue sweeping ethics reforms, especially for incoming administration officials,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen. “The selection of McGahn to be the chief ethics cop strongly suggests the new administration is likely to be scandal-ridden and eventually perceived by the public as business as usual.”

Ryan considers McGahn to be “a very skilled lawyer who knows campaign finance and ethics laws like the back of his hand” and hence will give Trump accurate advice. Therefore, says Ryan, “when President-elect Trump engages in any questionable ethics practices, we’ll know he’s doing so with full knowledge of ethics standards. President-elect Trump has no excuses.”

McGahn began his career at Squire Patton Boggs, a famed D.C. law firm and lobby shop. The late Tommy Boggs, one of its cheerfully mercenary name partners, said that the firm’s moral code was “We pick our clients by taking the first one who comes in the door.”

In 1999, McGahn became chief counsel of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which coordinates campaigns for GOP members of the House of Representatives. While there he also represented House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas in investigations into some of DeLay’s incredibly labyrinthian fundraising schemes.

One of these schemes led to DeLay being convicted of money laundering and sentenced to prison. (The conviction was later overturned.) But McGahn helped DeLay escape any consequences for another, in which the U.S. Family Network, a dark money nonprofit close to DeLay, received $1 million that DeLay’s former chief of staff told others came from Russian oil and gas executives. According to the president of U.S. Family Network, DeLay’s chief of staff said this money was specifically intended to buy his support for a 1998 International Monetary Fund bailout of the Russian economy. DeLay voted for the bill but later claimed the U.S. Family Network donation had nothing to do with it.

There’s no question that Americans loathe the way big money controls the U.S. political system. Many Trump supporters presumably believed they were voting to halt it in its tracks. Instead, all evidence suggests that Don McGahn will now be stomping on the accelerator.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How Polls Are a Threat to US Democracy Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=43124"><span class="small">Mona Chalabi, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Sunday, 04 December 2016 14:16

Chalabi writes: "The US media and public's shared obsession with polling fueled an entire election season that virtually ignored policy - and perhaps helped Trump win."

Citizens vote in the US general election in Greenville, North Carolina, November 8, 2016. (photo: Jonathan Drake/Reuters)
Citizens vote in the US general election in Greenville, North Carolina, November 8, 2016. (photo: Jonathan Drake/Reuters)


How Polls Are a Threat to US Democracy

By Mona Chalabi, Guardian UK

04 December 16

 

The US media and public’s shared obsession with polling fuelled an entire election season that virtually ignored policy – and perhaps helped Trump win

ix days before the US election, Donald Trump gave a crowd in Miami some unusual instructions:

The polls are all saying we’re going to win Florida. Don’t believe it, don’t believe it … Pretend we’re slightly behind … OK, ready, we’re going to pretend we’re down. We’re down! Pretend, right?

Maybe the then Republican nominee had been reading up on political science research. In the fall of 2014, two academics published a study asking a question that seems very relevant now: could believing that one candidate is going to lose increase their chances of winning?

The paper, by Todd Rogers and Don A Moore, looked at emails sent during the 2012 US presidential campaign. Based on their analysis of more than a million observations, the researchers concluded that messages emphasizing that a candidate was “barely losing” raised 55% more money than emails emphasizing that a candidate was “barely winning”. The phenomenon has been studied before in political science – it is known as the underdog effect.

In the lead-up to the 2016 election, polls and political forecasts repeatedly told US voters that Trump was losing to Hillary Clinton, albeit barely. The Real Clear Politics average of polls showed Trump’s support careening in the final months of the election, at times being less than one percentage point behind Clinton, at times being as much as seven percentage points behind. But rarely was he shown to be ahead.

Journalism’s contribution to democracy was never about predicting public behavior; it was about informing it. But forecasting sites such as Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight and the New York Times’ Upshot used polling data to give readers probabilities of a Trump win. Again, the numbers fluctuated over the course of the election, but by voting day, Silver claimed Trump had a 28% chance of becoming the next US president and the Times put his chances at 15%.

The audience reading those numbers was trying to understand who was the underdog and who was the favorite – and it was a large audience. According to ESPN, 16.5 million unique users visited FiveThirtyEight on 8 November alone, and millions more would have read those probabilities when they were quoted by countless other publications in the weeks up to voting day.

Andrew Therriault was certainly one of those readers. Therriault was director of data science for the Democratic National Committee for two years before leaving in June 2016. Speaking on the phone, he said those forecasts might have helped Trump win: “When it’s this close, anything that could even plausibly have an effect could be a reason why the outcome happened. I don’t think it had a sizable effect. But there’s a possibility that a not-so sizable effect was sizable enough.”

Therriault’s reluctance to endorse the underdog effect theory as the only explanation makes sense. There are other equally compelling explanations – like bandwagon effect theory, which would argue that forecasts showing Clinton would win helped voters rally around her rather than Trump.

Seeming to hedge his bets, Trump’s rhetoric during the election made use of both appeals to voters; the candidate would routinely claim that he was worth supporting because he was a winner and because he could lose.

Trump’s strategy could be understood using a cruder political science theory: “ass-covering”. A similar theory could be used to understand Silver’s final election prediction, in which he said that Clinton would probably win – but that she could also lose to Trump, or win by a landslide. Similarly, once Trump’s victory was confirmed, Silver described the result as shocking, but not surprising.

After 8 November, Silver seems very, very unwilling to say that FiveThirtyEight was wrong, insisting instead that the site’s forecast was more accurate than others. There’s some truth to that claim. In predicting the popular vote, Silver had projected that Clinton would win 49% and Trump 45% (in the end, Hillary Clinton won 48% and Trump won 46%). And, when looking at state-level results, Silver’s model guessed better than eight other forecasts.

But many readers weren’t interested in those statistical nuances – they simply had a question: “Who will be the next US president?” and believed, based on forecasts, that the answer was Hillary Clinton.

But polling is inaccurate, and it’s getting worse – something even political forecasters admit.

Speaking on WNYC days after the result, Silver told the host: “To me, it’s a miracle that the polls aren’t off by more.” The Upshot had a similar line in its postmortem, writing: “It was the biggest polling miss in a presidential election in decades. Yet in many ways, it wasn’t wholly out of the ordinary.”

The Americans who did cast a ballot on election day were not simply black or white, male or female, wealthy or poor. They included middle-class Native American women and low-income college-educated black men – it is very hard to capture that demographic complexity in the 1,000 respondents you are contacting in a poll. American society is only becoming more diverse, and fewer Americans today are willing to talk to a pollster for up to 30 minutes for nothing in return.

In the 1980s, around 60% of those contacted to take part in a poll would do so. By 2012, response rates had fallen to 9%, and by 2016, Therriault told me that when he was with the DNC, “I would have killed to get 9%.” Those falling response rates are problematic. They make conducting polls an expensive business because more slammed phones mean more people are needed to make those calls.

Some elections pollsters used a panel instead, contacting the same thousand or so individuals every week to reduce those costs and get a more accurate picture of how their opinion was changing over the course of the election.

But pollsters also found that after a candidate had received negative media coverage (eg for having a private email server or for being accused of sexual assault for the 12th time), respondents simply wouldn’t pick up the phone to avoid being questioned about the scandals and whether they would continue to support their candidates. That made it hard for pollsters to know what those people would do in voting booths.

Forecasts rely heavily on those polls, but they also use historical data about factors such as turnout and voter behavior. In the past, they have been a good guide. The 2012 presidential election wasn’t so dramatically inconsistent with the 2008 election – which is one reason why Silver and others correctly predicted the outcome. But, to state the obvious, 2016 is no ordinary year. And, in the absence of using the past as a guide, it’s important to look around at the present. And the present can look very different depending on who you are in America.

In that same WNYC interview, aired on 11 November, Silver said of Trump:

I, I think naively, thought that a candidate who made those sorts of appeals that were often based on populism, nationalism and racial appeals, you know, I thought that was not something that a sophisticated country like ours would go for in large enough numbers for him to win the primary, let alone become president.

That view may not have been shared by non-white polling analysts, of which there are few in the American media. In the year and a half that I worked at FiveThirtyEight, I was the only non-white staff writer there. Unlike for Silver, the fact that racism was alive and well in America was no surprise to me. That affected my skepticism when reading polling numbersI was convinced that they were off and underestimated Trump’s support (although exit polling data suggests that the poorest Americans might not have voted for Trump, as I thought at the time).

The inaccurate polling numbers did not just affect what forecasters wrote. Based on her campaign’s own internal data, Clinton decided not to visit Maine, Wisconsin or Minnesota, and it was only in the last week of the race that she campaigned in Michigan. In the end, she lost Wisconsin and Michigan, and only narrowly won Maine and Minnesota.

Political polling has repeatedly proved unreliable recently – in Britain’s Brexit vote, the 2015 UK election and the Israeli election the same year. But even when the numbers are correct, are polling calculations healthy for democracy? In the US, the media and the public’s shared obsession with polling fuelled an entire election season, including three televised candidate debates, that virtually ignored policy. Headlines focused instead on scandals and their potential effect on the horserace numbers.

Midterms are two years away, so there might be a pause before forecasting dominates the US media again in quite the same way. But polling isn’t going anywhere – if Trump’s candidacy is any guide, Trump as president will obsessively quote his approval ratings and use polling numbers to craft populist policies.

It will take months to gather the voter file data necessary to accurately understand the inaccuracy of the polls in 2016. But it’s not too early to question whether polls threaten democracy.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Our Trojan Horse's Ass: Beware of Trumps Bearing Gifts Print
Sunday, 04 December 2016 12:44

Rosenblum writes: "A president-elect who communicates by one-way 140-character brain farts is assembling a cast of characters no one from Aeschylus to Orwell ever imagined. The dress circle and the cheap seats love it. The rest of us watch in stupefied silence."

The cover of 'TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald' by Timothy O'Brien. (photo: Warner Books)
The cover of 'TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald' by Timothy O'Brien. (photo: Warner Books)


Our Trojan Horse's Ass: Beware of Trumps Bearing Gifts

By Mort Rosenblum, Mort Unplugged

04 December 16

 

onight at bedtime, reflect on the scariest tragicomedies since Antiquity and then eat a large sausage pizza before falling asleep. Your worst nightmare, I humbly submit, won't approach the reality our world now faces.

If this sounds like demented raving, do your own analysis. Look at classic cases of megalomania over three millennia. Consider what Donald Trump is already doing, and who is helping him do it. If you're not terrified, you've already dozed off.

A president-elect who communicates by one-way 140-character brain farts is assembling a cast of characters no one from Aeschylus to Orwell ever imagined. The dress circle and the cheap seats love it. The rest of us watch in stupefied silence.

Sensible people bang alarms loud enough to wake the dead. Temperatures and oceans inexorably rise. Desperate human tides besiege borders. Tyrants shrug off Geneva accords on civilized behavior. Greedheads plunder. And nothing happens.

Of course, the mess we are in accrued over time, and all presidents, including the lame-duck incumbent, bear varying degrees of blame. Now we need to make things better, not destroy them beyond any repair.

Trump is already throwing his working-class faithful to Wall Street wolves. He infuriated China and embraced the mass-murderer Philippine leader who called our sitting president a son of a whore. His secret octopus holdings remain intact.

Soon we may not even be able to watch. "Journalist" Sean Hannity, among others, wants Trump to ban real reporters from the White House. He claims "they" backed Hillary Clinton. Take a long look at Steve Bannon.

In 2009, I co-edited Dispatches, a quarterly that won praise but collapsed because each issue was prohibitively expensive: $25, the price of a crap bottle of Beaujolais at Sardi's. Our fifth and last issue, on the environment, was titled Endgame.

"As legend goes," I wrote in the intro, "Paul Revere galloped all night from Boston to Lexington shouting, "The British are coming!" Men grabbed their muskets, and now Americans don't have to drink tea every day at 4."

Then I imagined a modern-day Revere ride:

"Television ignores it because, late and impromptu as it is, no one gets it on tape. Accounts of it flash around the Internet, some accurate, many skewed. Then the interactive crowd weighs in: The British are coming- what's your opinion? Talk show clowns impugn the motives of an insomniac silversmith; cable news commentators hold forth (What does he mean by 'The British are coming?). Before long, Minutemen are too busy negotiating book contracts to worry about Redcoats.

"Profit would be part of it. Hey, I'd love to fight, but later. My shop just got a shipment of Union Jacks and portraits of King George."

That seems awfully quaint in retrospect. Today, Trump's dissemblers with unlimited resources and unbound by conscience define their own twisted "post-truth" reality like the porkers on Orwell's Farm that believe some animals are more equal than others.

No one who cares about what America is supposed to be can sit this one out. Three branches of government, a docile press, and over-enthusiastic law enforcement can in four years corrupt functioning democracy beyond repair.

China, unfettered by democratic niceties, is fast scooping up dwindling global resources. Russia is exploiting its Trump windfall, cementing Bashar al-Assad in place while Europe is destabilized with refugees. And so on.

Protests at home, without broad public support, only enforce the authoritarians' push toward tougher, meaner policing. Pissing and moaning on Facebook is futile if a critical mass cannot coalesce into action.

If we don't react when a president-elect suggests revoking citizenship for burning the flag, you know we are at the edge. Even the late hidebound Antonin Scalia acknowledged that as protected speech under the First Amendment.

So what can we do?

--Above all, give a shit. This is for real, and if we cannot box the crazies headed toward the White House it will be permanent. Read, discuss, call, write, organize, demonstrate, boycott, prosecute, recall.

--Look beyond personal interest. Those 1,000 Carrier workers in Indiana are happy Trump saved their jobs. But there are 320 million of us. One-off giveaways undermine tax bases and set bad precedents. Those who benefit pay later.

--Pick your own cause. Far too much is at stake for anyone to weigh in against it all. Educators and parents can fight for better schools. Editors and reporters know what they have to do. It all matters.

--Support others' causes. Those guys freezing their asses off in Dakota focus light on a national scourge: big-oil encroachment backed by law enforcement. It's not about "native Americans." That defines Indians but also most of the rest of us.

--Study the Constitution, with its Bill of Rights and all amendments. Linger a while on the key words: "We, the people." We get the government we deserve. If it's corrupt, we're corrupt. If we don't fix it, that's our failing. Start thinking about 2018 and 2020.

--And take heart. With all her negatives, Hillary won the popular vote by 2.5 million ballots; another 7 million went to others. Trump, no neo-con, is just an ordinary conman seeking maximum adulation. If he senses ignominious failure, he can be moved.

This is not as hard as it might seem. Just reread Shakespeare and tape another picture of your kids to the refrigerator.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Rise Up, Our Day Is Coming Print
Sunday, 04 December 2016 11:19

Galindez writes: "It will not be pretty in the next few months and years. The right wing has control of all of the branches of government, and the corporate takeover of our lives will accelerate."

Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)
Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)


Rise Up, Our Day Is Coming

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

04 December 16

 

t will not be pretty in the next few months and years. The right wing has control of all of the branches of government, and the corporate takeover of our lives will accelerate. Donald Trump will not deliver on most of the populist promises he made in the campaign. He was pandering to the pain being felt by millions of Americans who watched their good-paying jobs move overseas as a result of “free trade.”

He may deliver a major infrastructure package and will not resurrect the TPP. That is the good news. When Barack Obama became president, the Republican Party vowed to do everything it could to make sure he didn’t succeed. Their strategy was to say no to everything. They put politics ahead of country.

It would be easy to follow that same strategy now. The Republicans do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The Democratic Party could decide to just say no to everything to make sure that Trump doesn’t succeed. That would be a huge mistake. We must put our principles ahead of political gain.

When Donald Trump sends his infrastructure spending package to Congress, we need to support it. Rebuilding our infrastructure will provide good jobs for the people who need them. Our job will be to point out that it has been the right wing that has prevented that much-needed spending in the past.

I can hear some of you saying, “But Trump will get credit and the GOP will become even stronger.” Maybe a healthy populist streak in the GOP isn’t such a bad thing. Let’s remember our principles, and if some of the things we want can be delivered by a Trump presidency, we should welcome them. There will be enough that we will disagree on to provide a better alternative in 2018 and beyond.

I also hear many of you pointing to past progressive movements and saying they are examples of why the Democratic Party is not redeemable. I believe this time is different. I believe establishment politics has been repudiated. It’s not the path I would have chosen, but the pain that Trump and the GOP will inflict on the 99% over the next few years will cause a counter-reaction. Obama’s election created the Tea Party and resulted in Donald Trump winning the White House. I believe Trump’s victory will create a massive progressive movement that will reshape the country for decades to come.

Remember, one of the reasons that young people supported Bernie Sanders was that he had a plan for dealing with student debt. Donald Trump’s solution is to ask dad for a loan. We must rise up and demand free tuition at public colleges and universities.

Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese. As severe weather cripples the planet we must lead. We must rise up and demand drastic changes to reverse climate change.

Donald Trump will side with authoritarian police tactics likes those proposed by Joe Arpaio. In my opinion, we have already crossed the line to a police state. We must face the reality that many Americans support public safety over civil liberties and want an even more authoritarian approach. There will be a line that even those people will think shouldn’t be crossed, so we must rise up and fight for criminal justice reform.

We know that Trump and the GOP are about to throw millions of Americans off their healthcare. They will gut Medicare and the Affordable Care Act. The geniuses say they will keep some parts, like covering pre-existing conditions. How will they pay for it if they remove the mandate to purchase healthcare? Healthy people are paying for those with pre-existing conditions. If they no longer have to buy in, who is going to make up for the lost revenue? We should fight against a repeal of Obamacare and continue to rise up and demand single payer. If they repeal Obamacare they will pay at the ballot box in the future.

We all know that when Donald Trump says he wants to make America great again, he is pandering to racists and bigots who want a return to the time when white men ruled the country. They don’t want diversity. Well, it doesn’t matter what they want – our day is coming. They will only have power a few more years. Donald Trump’s coalition can’t survive much longer. The numbers are not there. Our day is coming.

So let’s help Trump rebuild the infrastructure. If Donald Trump wants to stop the government from profiting off student loans and forgive some student debt, let’s help him. If Donald Trump wants to bring jobs back from overseas with fair trade instead of free trade, let’s not stand in the way.

We have enough issues on which to rise up and resist the Republicans. If they want to do some of our work before we return to power, let it be. Our day will come, and if we seize the momentum of the Political Revolution it will be a Progressive Democratic Party that helps America achieve its true potential. What is that? It’s the America that Bernie talked about. A future to believe in.



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Late Is Enough: On Thomas Friedman's New Book Print
Sunday, 04 December 2016 09:02

Taibbi writes: "With apologies to Mr. Micklethwait, the hands that typed these lines implying Thomas Friedman is a Mick Jagger of letters should be chopped off and mailed to the singer's doorstep in penance. Mick Jagger could excite the world in one note, while Thomas Friedman needs 461 pages to say, 'Shit happens.'"

Thomas Friedman's latest book is titled, 'Thank You for Being Late.' (photo: Li Muzi/Xinhua/ZUMA)
Thomas Friedman's latest book is titled, 'Thank You for Being Late.' (photo: Li Muzi/Xinhua/ZUMA)


Late Is Enough: On Thomas Friedman's New Book

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

04 December 16

 

In his new book, 'Thank You for Being Late,' Thomas Friedman makes a short story long

he folksiness will irk some critics ... But criticizing Friedman for humanizing and boiling down big topics is like complaining that Mick Jagger used sex to sell songs: It is what he does well." –John Micklethwait, review of Thank You for Being Late, in The New York Times

With apologies to Mr. Micklethwait, the hands that typed these lines implying Thomas Friedman is a Mick Jagger of letters should be chopped off and mailed to the singer's doorstep in penance. Mick Jagger could excite the world in one note, while Thomas Friedman needs 461 pages to say, "Shit happens." Joan of Arc and Charles Manson had more in common.

Thomas Friedman was once a man of great influence. His columns were must-reads for every senator and congressperson. He helped spread the globalization gospel and push us into war in Iraq. But he's destined now to be more famous as a literary figure.

No modern writer has been lampooned more. Hundreds if not thousands of man-hours have been spent teaching robots to produce automated Friedman-prose, in what collectively is a half-vicious, half-loving tribute to a man who raised bad writing to the level of an art form.

We will remember Friedman for interviewing 76 percent of the world's taxi drivers, for predicting "the next six months will be critical" on 14 occasions over two and a half years (birthing the neologism, "the Friedman unit"), and for his unmatched, God-given ability to write nonsensical metaphors, like his classic "rule of holes": "When you're in one, stop digging. When you're in three, bring a lot of shovels."

Friedman's great anti-gift is his ability to use many words when only a few are necessary. He became famous as a newspaper columnist for taking simple one-sentence observations like, "Wow, everyone has a cell phone these days," and blowing them out into furious 850-word trash-fires of mismatched imagery and circular argument.

The double-axel version of this feat was to then rewrite that same column over and over again, in the same newspaper, only piling on more incongruous imagery and skewing rhetoric to further stoke that one thought into an even higher and angrier fire.

For nearly two decades now, Friedman has been telling us that something big is happening, technology is growing at a rate beyond the ability of humans to adapt (this is where the part about noticing everyone has a cell phone comes in), and that we have to stop doing things the old way and take a brave step into the future.

He wrote this column so many times that even four years ago – eight Friedman units – Hamilton Nolan wrote a piece in Gawker titled "Thomas Friedman writes his only column again" (Friedman's "only column" has by now outlived hundreds of media outlets, Gawker and my own New York Press among them). Nolan cited a piece in the Times called "The Rise of Popularism," in which Friedman argued, again, that technology was racing past humanity's ability to govern itself wisely.

A very conservative guess is that Friedman has written this column at least a hundred times. Maybe 200. Maybe more. If you're rolling your eyes at this, check yourself. Think about what an awesome accomplishment that is. It takes an extraordinary discipline to turn one sentence of thought into hundreds of thousands of words.

We all repeat ourselves in the punditry business. Most of us only have a few ideas. Friedman has fewer than most – it's really just one, technology future derp! – but he's attacked that one idea with such relentless evangelical energy that he is leaving behind as a monument to it the literary equivalent of the Giza pyramid complex.

This decades-long gigantic art project is based upon a vast architecture of needless complication, a process he describes in this new book of his, Thank You for Being Late, as "translating English into English."

Build a sentence into a column; build a column into many columns; build many columns into a book; build one book into many books. Then start over!

Eleven years ago, when Friedman wrote his seminal explainer book, The World is Flat – a book whose title metaphor was hilariously based on the wrong premise that people are more interconnected on a flat earth than on a round one – he combined two giant sets of metaphors to describe that same idea that technology was outpacing our ability to govern ourselves.

He said rapid changes in the world were being fueled by 10 "flatteners" (things like the end of communism, Netscape, outsourcing, etc.) which in turn were amplified by he said were four "steroids": Digital, Mobile, Personal and Virtual.

Those four steroids actually turned out to be six – changing or extending the terms of his imagery midstream is a classic Friedmanism – and the sixth "steroid," new wireless devices, was actually a new group of steroids he called "uber-steroids."

This was confusing because the tenth item in Friedman’s list of "flatteners" was the group of four steroids. So his last flattener was a new group of steroids and his last steroid was a new group of uber-steroids.

Which meant we had uber-steroids amplifying steroids amplifying flatteners, with each list comprising items that belonged to other lists. He mashed all of that together for 470 pages or so.

Eleven years and countless columns later, the new book Thank You for Being Late takes that same structure and boldly complicates it. This book is built, again, around the idea that technological change is advancing beyond our ability to adapt. The culprits this time are three great "Accelerations": Moore's Law (microchip processing power doubles every 18 to 24 months), the market (globalization) and Mother Nature, which is his English-language term for the English-language term, "climate change and biodiversity loss."

These Three Accelerations in turn are transforming five key "realms," which he lists as "the workplace, politics, geopolitics, ethics, and the community."

If you're wondering what's left over when you subtract, from the subset of all things, "the workplace, politics, geopolitics, ethics, and the community," you're on to something. Because it turns out that the book is about how something is happening to – everything! "In short," Friedman says, in the opening chapter of Late, "this book is one giant column about the world today."

Incidentally, whenever Friedman uses the phrase, "In short..." he's about to take the short form of an idea and make it longer, e.g. "In short, the only way for Mexico to thrive is with a strategy of reform retail that will enable it to beat China to the top, not the bottom, because China is not focused on beating Mexico as much as it is on beating America."

To his credit, in Thank You for Being Late, Friedman debuts the use of, "To make a short story long," which isn't exactly fixing the problem. But it is funnier.

So how giant is this new giant column? Really giant. There aren't enough drugs in the world to get anyone through Thank You for Being Late in one sitting.

Take the chapter about Mother Nature, which opens with a story about a day in July, 2015 when the heat index in southern Iran reached 163 degrees. That news item gives the author an opening to introduce the concept of a "black elephant," an ominous (if you know Friedman) term apparently explained to him by environmentalist Adam Sweidan:

"[It is] a cross between a 'black swan' – a rare, low-probability, unanticipated event with enormous ramifications – and 'the elephant in the room': a problem that is widely visible to everyone, yet that no one wants to address, even though we absolutely know that one day it will have vast, black-swan-like consequences."

You would think he could just say, "The climate change problem is a cross between a black swan and the elephant in the room – or, as I like to call it, a Black Elephant."

Instead he leads audiences through drawn-out explanations of two everyday terms. Moreover his unnecessary definition of "the elephant in the room" contains the phrase "black swan," making what was originally a relatively simple idea now a kind of circular movie-within-a-movie image that is more than a little hard to follow: "A black elephant is a cross between a black swan event and the elephant in the room, which is an ignored but visibly obvious problem that will inevitably become a black swan event."

You're still grappling with that when you learn "there are a herd of environmental black elephants out there." Friedman names at least four: global warming, deforestation, ocean acidification and mass biodiversity extinction. He quotes Sweidan as saying of these: "When they hit, we'll claim they were black swans that no one could have predicted, but in fact they were black elephants, very visible right now."

Friedman just got finished telling us that a black elephant is half black swan, and half elephant in the room that will inevitably become a black swan. But now that half-swan, half swan-within-an-elephant is being contrasted with a black swan: in the near future, things that are really black elephants will be misidentified as black swans.

So that's weird. While you're sorting that out, Friedman tells you that the you that a 163-degree heat index in Iran is another black elephant, because "you can see it sitting in a room, you can feel it, and you can read about it in the newspaper." He adds:

"Like any black elephant, you also know that it is so far outside the norm that it has all the characteristics of a black swan – that it is the harbinger of some very big, unpredictable changes in our climate system we may be unable to control."

The next thing he says is that we spend tons of money preparing for the relatively unlikely event of nuclear war, but virtually nothing to prevent a very likely climate change catastrophe. He could have just led the chapter with that. But that would defeat the purpose of translating English into English.

You're still wondering what happened to that elephant reading a newspaper about a black swan roasting in the desert when Friedman moves on to the next space-devouring exercise, telling us about the four phrases we need to master to learn "climate-speak."

All four sound like the same idea and are immediately forgettable:

"Just a few years ago... but then something changed."

"Wow, I’ve never seen that before."

"Well, usually, but now I don’t know anymore."

"We haven’t seen anything like that since."

Quick, name any of those phrases you just read. You can't! But you "have to master" all of them to grasp the rapidity of climate disturbances, which Friedman now describes as Mother Nature moving into the "second half of the chessboard."

This is a reference to a metaphor from an earlier chapter recalling the ancient tale of the mathematician who asked a king for a reward. The master asked to have one grain of rice put on one corner of a chessboard, and then to have twice as many put on the next square, and to keep going, on and on to the end. The punchline is that after doubling down 64 times, you end up with 18 quintillion grains of rice or something – more than you'd have guessed!

Which is a metaphor for how much faster than we think is the pace of change all around us, be it in technology, economic displacement or, in this case, the environment. Did you know that "megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans" the last time the CO2 concentration in the earth’s atmosphere was as high as it was in Hawaii on May 3rd, 2013, an astonishing four hundred parts per million? You probably didn't, because things that prowl usually have feet – but anyway, back to the elephants:

"And sometimes the records being broken as Mother Nature enters the second half of the chessboard are so numerous and profound, government agencies tracking them seem to run out of even climate-speak to describe the black elephants they are seeing."

This must be that talent for "boiling things down" that Mr. Micklethwait talked about!

God bless this man. May he never stop writing books. Let's grow this pie as big as we can.

P.S. winners of the extraordinary #friedmangraphs contest to be announced soon. One lucky winner already got his shirt:


Courtesy of John Clevenger


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 Next > End >>

Page 1807 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN