Perhaps, like many, I found all-too-familiar reflections in the descriptions of the modern phenomenon of jobs that don't quite make sense in a modern workplace that itself doesn't quite make sense. I felt this so strongly while reading, I could hardly put it down and finished this in less than two weeks, which is likely a record for me, a fairly slow reader.
Throughout my working life, I've been asking myself, "What happened to the pre-WWII predictions that we'd all be working less and less as technological advances increase productivity with less human labor"; yet we all seem to be working longer and harder on inane tasks. Many of us ask ourselves why our jobs seem to be focused on meaningless and perhaps often harmful activities. Graeber believes we really could be working 15-20 hours per week, but we don't because of some weird idiosyncrasies built into our current corporate-capitalist system.
Graeber explains this much better than I can in a short review, but I like to think of it this way: in a world where the top 1% call the shots on what items to produce and activities to perform, we are conditioned to work on activities that maintains their lifestyles and this system. Why would we labor to teach or take care of children, convert our infrastructure to green energy sources, or do other utilitarian things for the good of society at large when these don't directly benefit the most wealthy? The 1% rarely care about public health care, climate change, or other peoples' lives, so we worker bees focus instead on extracting resources and finding loopholes in laws so that the rich don't pay taxes and can buy more yachts.
Besides the capitalist vs socialist angle, parts of which I don't wholly agree with, Graeber lists other interesting effects. For example, some high-level employees estimate each other's importance by how many lower-level employees they oversee, so they hire team members more as a status symbol than out of necessity. Also, even President Obama admitted that over-staffing and redundancy in companies like HMOs help keep people employed, so they can pay taxes. Interesting stuff...
The anecdotes collected by Graeber from hundreds of disaffected employees, really resounded with me. I think most of us would find familiar shades of our working life described in this book....more
Woe to that nation whose literature is disturbed by the intervention of power. Because that is not just a
A good quote by Solzhenitsyn sets the theme:
Woe to that nation whose literature is disturbed by the intervention of power. Because that is not just a violation against freedom of print, it is a closing down of the heart of the nation, a slashing to pieces of its memory. The nation ceases to be mindful of itself, it is deprived of its spiritual unity, and despite a supposedly common language, compatriots suddenly cease to understand one another.
David McGraw has been a lawyer for the New York times for almost 20 years, a time in which he has been involved in several high-profile legal cases where he fought to defend the famous American newspaper over various court challenges that tried to suppress press freedom, a cause that seemed to come under attack in the recent era of Trumpism and "fake news".
McGraw starts and ends his account with the letter with which he responded to Trump's lawyers, shortly before the 2016 election, who threatened legal action over a report of two women's claims that Trump touched them inappropriately, arguing that it would hurt their client's reputation. McGraw argued publically that Mr Trump had himself already built up his "reputation" as someone who bragged often about "pussy-grabbing", intruding on beauty pageant dressing rooms, his "piece of ass" daughter, and much more. McGraw further defended the women's rights to speak up about sexual assault, as well as the responsibility of journalists to cover such claims in the pursuit of truth. It was a letter that resounded with many who were becoming fed up with the constant attacks on American journalists as "enemies of the people", which was something that was noticeably spreading in other more authoritarian regimes, as it was such an easy play to get populations to ignore stories troubling to the powers that be...
In the rest of the book, McGraw recounts how he and the journalists he has worked with have always had running battles with the courts in an effort to walk a fine line between getting an important story right so that the public can be properly informed, and the need to handle both personal information and state secrets carefully. He touches on many such subjects, in which the rich and powerful try to silence news that will cause them headaches, but I believe that the quote from Solzhenitsyn above truly shows us why this is an important subject: when the citizens of a state cannot inform themselves accurately but get sidetracked into falsehoods both accidental and purposeful, they cannot make decisions and choices based on facts. I certainly fear what the consequences of the "fake news" mentality, where everything that is negative about a special interest's values is automatically labeled "fake" or "wrong", as well as out of control social media, now in conjunction with the latest AI technology, we have already slipped down the slope of being unable to discern what is real and what is not, and that is the death knell for civic society....more
This is a book that is a little hard to describe. In one sense, it is almost like non-fiction history paradoxically about the future. In another senseThis is a book that is a little hard to describe. In one sense, it is almost like non-fiction history paradoxically about the future. In another sense, it is a science fiction novel. Kim Stanley Robinson tries to craft something in between these two, and it probably works for some people and not for others.
Robinson's attempt is noble. He throws viable solution after viable solution at the problem of climate change into his story, which is the actual purpose of the UN-backed "Ministry of the Future" reflected in the book title. These solutions are quite good and well-researched; however, I think many people find, as I did at first, that it makes the storyline of the multiple characters somewhat difficult to follow. It helped to focus my reading in longer and more frequent sessions. If you are like me, with multiple books on the go, it gets difficult coming in and out of the story of such a large work. The book also seems to span about 10-20 years, although this is only inferred, and it tells the extensive chronology from the point of view from multiple characters, some of whom we are only introduced to briefly for a chapter and may play the role of inanimate objects such as stars or carbon atoms! On the whole, the story is mostly told from the point of view of the chairperson of the Min of F, Mary Murphy and the lone survivor of a terrible heat wave, Frank May.
If the plot and character development can be a bit hard to follow, I found that the scientific and technical explanations of the solutions used to abate climate change were brilliant. I believe that many of these ideas come out of actual current scientific papers on possible geo-engineering. Perhaps even more impressive is Robinson's focus on the societal and economic changes that need to take place. As is becoming more and more obvious, the planet's ecological stability, and hence human society's sustainability, can no longer continue on a path of unbridled capitalism when there is no adherence to a social contract.
This is definitely not a book that presents an entertaining plot populated with complex characters. It definitely is a book that makes us stop, ponder our future, consider new ways of doing things, and ask ourselves: what if we tried this!?...more
My three stars probably don't fairly reflect the thought and scholarship that Niall Ferguson put into this work. It was good, but I essentially felt tMy three stars probably don't fairly reflect the thought and scholarship that Niall Ferguson put into this work. It was good, but I essentially felt that he throws so many facts, figures and historical examples, his thesis tends to be somewhat clouded.
As far as I can tell, this was basically a book that says: life is complicated, we are not that great at predicting the future because it is complicated, and societal solutions to these complex disasters suck because they themselves are complicated. No arguments on the thesis (if I'm reflecting it accurately), but Ferguson doesn't really give us much new to chew upon.
Indeed, history is full of examples where some sort of disaster comes along and sets human civilization back a step of so. Some, like the black death of the middle ages, have large-scale, long-term and wide-ranging effects, while others, like a localized earthquake, are somewhat contained and practically forgotten in a generation. Ferguson gives us many historical examples and classifications of various disaster scenarios, and does readily show us how our human responses, i.e. political responses, can either mitigate and exacerbate outcomes.
Many reviewers have criticized Ferguson for trying to write a book that uses the Covid-19 pandemic as a prime example. Since he was writing mostly in 2020, they argue it was a bit too early to draw any valid conclusions. I don't really see this as a fair criticism, as, although he uses the recent pandemic as a key example, he uses it because it is timely and not necessarily because we had learned the results of our approaches. He was comparing the response to past responses of the body politic, and the trends are indeed similar. If anything, I think Ferguson was relatively far-sighted with his analysis of the political response and its shortcomings in some areas and its strengths in others. He also glimpsed some of the fallout that we are now encountering with rampant inflation and the ratched-up intensity of global politics, especially between the West and China and Russia.
In short, this is a decent book but perhaps targeted at the more academic reader. For magnitude of footnoted facts tends to obscure the message for the rest of us....more
I really enjoy Ezra Klein's podcasts, and his book did not disappoint. In both media, he skillfully takes you through complex issues with rational argI really enjoy Ezra Klein's podcasts, and his book did not disappoint. In both media, he skillfully takes you through complex issues with rational arguments, some facts and figures to back them up, a smattering of possible solutions, and a wry sense of humour percolating in the background.
At first, I must admit I found the facts and figures that Ezra throws at the reader a little overwhelming. I also got a bit lost in the intricacies of US politics, and the book is very US-centric. This second "drawback" turned out in the book's favor though, as Ezra infers there is much about the American political system that was never really formerly legislated within the constitution but was instead based on conventions of political behavior, which admittedly have gone a bit haywire in the last several years.
Ezra points out many factors leading to the current climate of polarization in politics, and although, as I mentioned, there were some very specific Americanisms on display, many of these factors are broadly evident in other countries too. Obviously, social media and the press media have sadly become amplifiers of our political differences. The algorithms of social media ensure we can safely live in an echo chamber of our cherished opinions, while the press media highlights and expounds our differences, because conflict is a big seller and improves their ratings. Fox News anyone?
Ezra emphasizes the idea of identity politics throughout the book. Perhaps 80 years ago, at the end of WWII, Americans had a fierce pride, rightly deserved, of being a key player in the fight against Nazi tyranny. Of course, folks had different political preferences, but there was a general consensus in the US of what living the American Dream meant. Folks were truly American first and Democrat vs Republican probably factored even further behind local, regional identities of state and county. With the heavy use of identity politics in US campuses from the 1960s to present, we have generally sorted ourselves more distinctly into niches such as white, straight, white-collar working Presbyterian vs indigenous, LGBTQ, atheistic punk artist for example. Interestingly, Ezra notes that the Democrats struggle a little in their appeal to a wider range of identities, while the GOP can focus their message to a fairly narrow audience.
At the end of the book, Ezra has some interesting ideas. A key one for me harkens back to the idea of identity. He posits that we should all perhaps look closely at what aspects of our identity we really most want to express through politics. Doing so may actually help us focus on the policies of the political parties in play, especially at the local, regional level, where we all can affect things more easily. Perhaps such an act forces us to align our deepest values with policies that actually affects us, rather than getting sucked into the demographic identity sausage-maker that the polarizers force us into to simplify their messaging and just capture our votes.
If you've ever felt that there is one set of laws for the wealthiest 1% and another set for the rest of us, your hunch is correct, and Bullough shows If you've ever felt that there is one set of laws for the wealthiest 1% and another set for the rest of us, your hunch is correct, and Bullough shows us how this came to pass and how it works. In short, it comes down to a simple fact in our era of globalization: money is international while laws are not. The top 1% don't follow the normal rules of the country in which they nominally reside. They especially don't like paying taxes on large fortunes. Instead they have, with the help of highly paid lawyers and financial wizards, constructed a utopia called Moneyland, where their money is safely out of sight and untouchable. This is especially useful if they came by their wealth questionably, which seems to be quite common amongst the highest of the elite.
Bullough provides countless examples to show how corrupt officials, especially in Eurasian and South American countries, use money laundering schemes, off-shore accounts, and other legal loopholes to store their ill-gotten gains out of reach of the populations they scammed. I found it interesting that many of the examples centered around Russia and the Ukraine. Even though the book was written before the outbreak of the 2022 war, these examples are telling. The pre-2014 president of Ukraine was a kleptocrat of the Moscow-model, with all sorts of kick-back money filling both his domestic and London-based coffers. Isn't it interesting how when the Ukrainian people rose up against this guy in 2014, kicked him out, and began various anti-corruption campaigns, Russia suddenly felt "threatened".
Although western democracies are less corrupt and have some laws, which at least pay lip-service to trying to stop this fraud, they often find the benefits of aiding and abetting these practices too lucrative to shun. For example, the US and Canada both have laws where the wealthy can pay an "investment fee" to buy their way into a more convenient passport and citizenship through special visa programs. The deregulated banking industry, doesn't hesitate to turn a blind eye when developing laws to create trusts in which assets can go undeclared and untaxed for generations.
Perhaps a very simple example where we all seem to be okay with helping plutocrats, and one which we in Vancouver see played out every day, Bullough summarizes as:
...it may be true that few Brits or Americans [or Canadians] can afford a house in large sections of their own cities, but that doesn't matter because real estate agents and lawyers and accountants make a good living assisting the people who can.
I do find it odd how average people seem to have a sense of this happening around them but seem apathetic that they can change anything about it. Moneyland is a serious effect, eroding not only the purchasing power of the middle-class, and it is a threat to democracy and the rule of law itself.
So what do we need to do? We need to know who owns what; we need to put crooks in jail; we need to support any politicians prepared to build the coalitions required to do this patient, taxing, technical and unglamorous work. Only by doing this can we truly take back control of our economies and our societies, and halt the wholesale looting of the world that threatens us all.
Although written in the year 2000 just after the key Holocaust denial cases of Ernst Zundel and David Irving, this book seems as crucial and timely asAlthough written in the year 2000 just after the key Holocaust denial cases of Ernst Zundel and David Irving, this book seems as crucial and timely as ever, not only because of the continuing rise of antisemitism but also due to rampant false news and our social-media driven tendencies to distort actual current and historical events for some sort of agenda.
What I really liked about the approach of the authors, Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, was how they didn't just lapse into calling the deniers fringe fanatics and Jew haters, but instead they presented some well-structured arguments and actual tenets about what makes some historical research valid and other research weak or invalid. They probed the various actors within the "revisionist history" camp and pulled apart some of the weaker arguments, often pointing to another agenda aside from getting at the "historical truth". The authors admit, also, that there is often legitimate historical revisionism. As new evidence comes to light, a scientific approach to history can revise past assumptions to a more accurate accounting of events. They key word being a "scientific" approach to history.
In any field of study, I find time and time again the validity of research hinges on the scientific method: a hypothesis becomes the best viable model of the truth until it is disproven by multiple counter examples. The problem the authors point out with the Holocaust deniers is that they find tend to find pieces of evidence that support their hypothesis that the Holocaust did not happen or has been exaggerated. They don't look at or for the counter evidence that disproves or invalidates their pieces of evidence. A case in point is one denier who "scientifically" showed that the brick ruins of a certain purported gas chamber only contained the slightest minute traces of cyanide gas. The problem is that he doesn't account for the counter arguments against his evidence: the ruins he sampled had been exposed to the air and rain for over 50 years, cyanide gas doesn't really penetrate very deeply into brickwork, and last but not least, he only had 2-3 brick samples.
Lastly, when it comes to the crux of Holocaust denier arguments, one almost always finds evidence of an unwillingness that something so terrible could have happened in the the civilized Europe of the 2oth century. Germany was indeed a great country filled with brilliant minds in its past: Goethe, Beethoven, Kant, Schiller...Understanding the cruel monstrosity of Hitler is indeed difficult.
However, once you look even deeper you do often see damning language of the deniers, as in "exposing the lies of the traditional enemy", where it is obvious that the Jews are the traditional enemy. So sadly, it ultimately often does come down to some degree of antisemitism at the root of the matter.
Indeed a very good book, for which the authors' analyses apply not only to Holocaust deniers, but I would propose, for "false news" promoters everywhere....more
Although somewhat similar to other recent books about the current problems in western, North Atlantic democracies, Jonathan Manthorpe's offering proviAlthough somewhat similar to other recent books about the current problems in western, North Atlantic democracies, Jonathan Manthorpe's offering provides a unique Canadian perspective, which, as a Canadian, I really appreciated.
Manthorpe's clear, brisk prose was a refreshing surprise, but perhaps it should not have been given that he is an established journalist who wrote for Southam news, the Toronto Star, and the Globe and Mail. I shall definitely look up his other recent book, Claws of the Panda: Beijing's Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada to learn more about the recent problematic relationship between China and Canada.
Like many of these recent books on the erosion of democracy and its shift towards authoritarian populists, Manthorpe covers similar ground and gives excellent overviews of the situations in the US (Trump) and Europe (Erdogan, Orban, Johnson). He outlines several different causes and symptoms of these shifts, such as the wealth gap, the rise of unaccountable social media players, the resurgence of nationalism, and the overall sense of public bewilderment in a rapidly changing world.
The timing of the book adds the unique perspective from the first months of the Covid-19 crisis, an effect that Manthorpe believes both plays right into the hands of many erstwhile authoritarians and may also be a catalyst for positive change. Indeed, one of my criticisms of these books with titles purportedly about "restoring" or "taking back" democracy is how little time the author spends on outlining their prescription for change. Manthorpe falls into this trap a little himself, spending only the end chapter and his epilogue focused on ideas for hope. One area in which I do agree with him is that the worldwide pandemic has brought us a magnificent opportunity to re-align our priorities to enhance democracy and turn back from the path of electorate apathy and our propensity to vote for populists who will turn back the clock to some non-existent time when everything will be great again like it once was.
With Covid-19, we have found it is those workers with the least pay and perks that actually keep our economy running. CEO's and stock analysts can take a break and work part time from home, but the bakers, store clerks, healthcare workers, and municipal garbage collectors had to work to keep our society from literally collapsing. Many of us have found that we don't need to stay in the same crummy jobs, and that this period of upheaval is a great time to change work to something more fulfilling, especially if the government is providing more equitable salary replacements than typical unemployment insurance. Perhaps we need to re-examine the Universal Basic Income concept, which has numerous successful examples that nervous politicians have quashed in the past. We also have found that, perhaps, our lack of trust in government experts, economists, and scientists is misguided. Maybe, just maybe, some folks with expertise in the field know more about healthcare and running it efficiently than a failed real-estate tycoon flogging red baseball caps and his own brand name....more
Perhaps I am being overly harsh with just 3 stars.
I agree with Anthea Butler's points. The United States evangelical movement has been riddled with rPerhaps I am being overly harsh with just 3 stars.
I agree with Anthea Butler's points. The United States evangelical movement has been riddled with racism for a long time. That seems apparent on the face of things. To me, it seems to have become especially evident in the Trump years in which so many "evangelical Christians" in the US wrapped themselves in the American flag and Republican/Tea Party political ideals. And how on earth do Christians turn a blind eye towards the former president's numerous marital infidelities, his dog-whistle racism and misogyny? Oh?! He conveniently says he is pro life, so everything else he does is OK then??
However, I often was unsure how Butler came to some of her conclusions. She seemed to skip a few steps or made assumptions of the reader's understanding, mostly about American politics and cultural norms, which may be missed by a wider international audience. Even as a Canadian, I felt that some of the names and events to which she referred to as common knowledge and not needing further contextual explanation were obscure, but perhaps I am not as conversant in US history and politics as I thought. This is a pity because I believe her message and warnings are important. I think that the book evolved out of an original editorial piece, and I wonder, given it is only 148 pages, if it could have used more supporting evidence and analysis.
On the whole, her conclusions make sense on the surface, but for such a highly rated book, it seemed like a slightly enlarged magazine article that skips the hard evidence and analysis I would have liked....more
I liked this book more than I thought I would. I was slightly disappointed in the NYT review of this book last year but intrigued enough to put it on I liked this book more than I thought I would. I was slightly disappointed in the NYT review of this book last year but intrigued enough to put it on my TBR list. I'm glad I did.
Admittedly, Applebaum sometimes falls prey to her own ideas of restorative nostalgia, which is described in her book as a trap populists fall into where they believe that the glorified past of their nation needs to be restored, at all costs. The problem is often that the vision of the glorified past is flawed: were we really that free and democratic? Were we actually making progress with those challenging social aspects of our national history? Were things really that good for everyone? Although I suspect that Applebaum, a once self-described neo-conservative, may reflect a little too fondly on the days of Reagan and GHW Bush, she has a point. Firstly, in comparison with the last four years of Trumpism, I must admit even GW Bush now looks like a progressive! At least he didn't ask the DOJ to lie and tell the American people that their election processes are riddled with corruption and illegal voting. (It still amazes me how far and fast the standards of political decency descended...)
Applebaum uses her experiences in eastern European countries, like her second home in Poland, to outline how the lure of authoritarianism has become a very large and overt threat to our ideals of western democracy. Like most people, I don't follow politics in Poland, Hungary, or even Spain very closely, so it was useful to see the similar shifts and the underlying reasons as to why leanings to authoritarianism have happened elsewhere besides the USA and Britain. Applebaum describes how many older politicos (on both right and left) became frustrated by the slow change of pace through the 1990s and 2000s. It has become easier and more expedient to use emotion, especially anger, to rile people up in the name of change. Lies and falsehoods are now OK, and easy to deploy in a world of 140 sound-bites that bombard us via social media. It is very hard to disprove what is often unfalsifiable information for most people. It also doesn't matter, as the point is really just to sow confusion and discontent. You can then provide a "strong man" to say things like "only I know how to solve all this". The political enablers hold their noses and buy into the strongman's program. At least this way they can retain power, as they know that more of the status quo will just have the electorate throw them out next time.
The scary thing is, now that large swathes of otherwise reasonable people (i.e. GOP in the US) have thrown their lot in with Trumpism, it is awfully hard to back out. It would have been helpful if Applebaum could have suggested some solutions to this problem. Nonetheless, I found the book another great explanation of the dangers facing rational, democracy-minded people going into a 21st century full of dire problems our institutions need to solve sooner rather than later....more
This was somewhat of a departure from other Chomsky books that I've read, perhaps as it was meant as a readers' guide for the documentary movie of theThis was somewhat of a departure from other Chomsky books that I've read, perhaps as it was meant as a readers' guide for the documentary movie of the same name. Gone are the long-winded arguments supplemented by copious footnotes from a plethora of journalistic sources.
And this is not necessarily a bad thing, as this newer, slicker format may introduce a whole new generation of progressively-minded readers to this paragon of late 20th century American dissidents.
For readers who know the work of Chomsky relatively well, there is nothing really new here, but as I mention above, the book is a great introduction for younger readers who may be unfamiliar with Chomsky's arguments: * America is not a democracy in the true sense of the word, rather it is essentially an oligarchy focused on maintaining the wealth and privilege of the small proportion of the high-priests of big-business corporatocracy. * There is a "manufacturing of consent" in which the general population buys into the idea that large corporations, big business, and the leaders thereof know what's best for all of us. This is largely done by marginalizing or distracting the population so that they cannot easily form groups to participate directly in democracy.
The book is designed to discuss Chomsky's major tenets in about 10 principles, and each tenet is also covered with some specific examples and excerpts of legal rulings, news reports, hisrorical writings and whitepapers from business that try to illustrate the ideas. I felt some of these were not always completely accurate representations of the ideas, but it was a nice change from Chomsky's deep and involved footnotes of the past.
I imagine with Chomsky's advanced age that this could very well be his last major book. If so, this is a fine legacy of all the work he has done reminding us how much better the world's resources could work to the advantage of all and not just the top 1%. I hope a new generation of readers (and writers) will be inspired by this voice for social and economic justice....more
I saw this sitting on the shelf in my local library and thought to grab it. I'm definitely sympathetic to anyone who is against Fascism, and I hoped tI saw this sitting on the shelf in my local library and thought to grab it. I'm definitely sympathetic to anyone who is against Fascism, and I hoped to learn more about the Antifa movement and perhaps what all the controversy is about.
The book started off with the author making an attempt at defining Fascism, which I felt could have used some filling out. If we are going to define something to fight against, we had better do a very thorough and precise job. The general framework and some basic historical facts from European history in the lead up to WWII were reviewed, but I felt I didn't come away with a solid understanding of the definition. It seemed unfinished...
Mark Bray then launches into a somewhat detailed, perhaps close to arcane, overview of the groups involved in protesting Fascism before, during and after WWII, but the narrative just did not hold me. Perhaps I was just not in the "right mood" for this book, but I had difficulty keeping track of the various individuals, groups, and dates of action as Bray swung from country to country from the 1920s to 1990s in a chapter or so.
I might try reading this book again later, because I definitely think standing up to Fascism is as important now as ever, especially when it seems to be creeping back into Western politics with Trumpism and the corruption of the US Republican Party. However, I came away from the first third of the book just feeling confused and none the wiser about properly recognizing Fascism and the approaches for a democratic society to deal with it. If this is how activists within Antifa explain their actions, it is no wonder the general public is somewhat confused....more
Megan Phelps-Roper's narrative of her transition from her early life as a die-hard, bible-thumping, sign-carrying member of the Westboro Baptist ChurcMegan Phelps-Roper's narrative of her transition from her early life as a die-hard, bible-thumping, sign-carrying member of the Westboro Baptist Church to her departure from the church and even her family (who make up the majority of members) is a tale of hope for rational and compassionate thought in America today!
The book somewhat reminded me of Eli Saslow's Rising Out of Hatred: The Awakening of a Former White Nationalist, which I thought was very well-written. Phelps-Roper's is perhaps not quite as well written, but she may be excused as a novice writer. Her book is a much more personal, first-person account, loaded with emotion, which may hinder the clarity in some areas. Stories in which the protagonist has a huge change in their perspective are very important in current times. There is so much despair with the dichotomy and knee-jerk antipathy when we try to discuss differing points of view.
Megan's grandfather, who was a young lawyer actively involved in civil-rights cases founded The Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas back in the 1960s. The entire family became involved in both the church and in the family law company; however, the church doctrines, although not racist, became very dogmatic in interpreting America's late 20th and early 21st century woes as punishment from God for not following the bible literally, especially in matters of moral degradation and homosexuality. A key mantra of the church was literally, "God Hates Fags!" coupled with a belief that the LGBTQ community was sent by Satan to destroy America. All family members, including the children, were expected to picket parks, schools, and even military funerals with signs calling attention to the moral failings afoot in the USA. This is the environment Megan grew up in. Totally enveloped in an ostensibly close-knit and loving family, she bought into the ideas that it was her church and family (who were chosen by God himself) to fulfill the Lord's mission, and she felt somewhat at ease with the extreme doctrines, at least until she grew older and the logical fallicies and inconsistencies in the church's biblical interpretations overwhelmed her sense of rationality.
Interestingly, her mother and aunts, being members of the family law firm, had taught Megan to think critically and pursue outstanding questions. This was so she could rebuke the erroneous claims of "unbelievers" who accosted the picketing church members. However, as church doctrine hardened, and noticeably morphed the male "elders" control of the female members, Megan had an epiphany and confided with a younger sister, with whom she eventually left the church and Topeka. The open-minded Megan was also gradually influenced by people she faithfully and honestly debated on Twitter. In these online discussions, she started to learn that outsiders were not all evil Satanists, but often had valid points she could appreciate. She often felt empathy and compassion that they were not going to "saved" like her.
The great news about this story, is that it shows how people who can, with the right environment, eventually use their own critical-thinking skills and "see the light" to break out of the dogmatic thinking that holds them prisoner. Megan is somewhat of a unique case, in that she grew up open-minded, loved to question and to think independently for herself. Obviously, this is not always the case for most members of fringe groups.
Encouragingly, Megan Phelps-Roper didn't just ride off into anonymity but wrote about her experiences. She hopes to convince others who remain caught up in cultlike thinking to trust their own thoughts and sense of justice, rather than soley rely on a group of "elders" that thinks for them and controls their lives. I think and hope we hear more from her, as she is well-poised to help breakthrough our culture's logjam, where two sides cannot hear each other over their own spite and venom, stuck in the thought that they must be the only group who can be "right". She believes that free-speech is important. Even poorly thought-out and dogmatic ideas can be entertained, as long as we are able to rationally debate them on the marketplace of ideas and truthfully evaluate them....more
Well, I have finally completed the entire "Seasonal Quartet" all in one go from Autumn to Summer. Although I'm not entirely sure I fully understood alWell, I have finally completed the entire "Seasonal Quartet" all in one go from Autumn to Summer. Although I'm not entirely sure I fully understood all the Ali Smith was going for here, I definitely came away with something. Perhaps that something is a bit jumbled and confused, just as world events have been jumbled and confused since the autumn of Brexit in 2016 to the summer of Covid in 2020--the span essentially covered in the quartet.
Smith introduces several characters throughout the quartet, and it is difficult to see the connections between them until "Summer" sorts things out fairly nicely. If you are a reader in the middle of Spring and wondering what Autumn's Daniel Gluck has to do with SA4 and ostracized immigrants in the post-Brexit era, do not despair!
Ali Smith comes back to several themes throughout this series: the cheap, self-serving lies of the current crass political class trying to cash-in on the broken post WWII order (think Boris' Brexit and Trump's MAGA); the immigration crisis caused by our current socio-political upheavals; the confusion of the average (British) citizen who isn't sure what the true truth is anymore; and behind it all, the intricate web of interconnections between us all, comprising our relationship histories, both personal and communal.
***PARTIAL SPOILER ALERT*** In Summer, we find out much more about Daniel Gluck's Jewish familial past, especially about his sister who was stuck in occupied France in WWII. We find out how she gave her life in the resistance, trying to smuggle persecuted persons out of the reach of the Nazis. We see how Daniel and his father were persecuted in Britain as German refugees, rounded up and placed in internment camps as potential enemy aliens. We find out more about Daniel's unknown child and his sister's unknown child. And, ultimately, one hopes we start to see reflections of that tumultuous period of social displacement in the first half of the 20th century with those in the first half of our 21st and the effect it had on families and lives of the displaced.
Alas, some of us will undoubtedly still be shaking our heads in confusion and wondering why today's displaced are "just shopping around for the best country to take them in". What's that old saying about folks who don't study history...?
I don't read a lot of modern fiction, but this quartet by Ali Smith was worth it....more
Perhaps my biggest complaint about the book, to get that out of the way, is its length. I wonder if Andersen could have trimmed a few sections here anPerhaps my biggest complaint about the book, to get that out of the way, is its length. I wonder if Andersen could have trimmed a few sections here and there, as I felt I had his main points down within the first half of the book. However, the author really delves into the subject matter and, as the subtitle says, does literally provide a 500-year overview of the history of how American society left much of its rational, secular, and scientific aspects in the dust in a strange lust of the fantastical.
Simply put, Andersen provides a convincing and well-organized argument that Americans seem prone to some lazy corner of the human psyche prone to fantasy, day-dreams, superstitions, conspiracies, and the idea that "if I feel it is true, then it must be true". Why listen to big-shot experts when I can listen to my heart and find the truth-- at least my truth, which is just as valid, if not more so, as your truth...
The historical outline provides the context and road-map, almost step-by-step, of how America got there: starting with a curious mix of founders that included religious reformers and land speculators, growing an economy through the use of slave labor, forming the first and biggest entertainment industry on the planet, educating an entire generation that everything is relative, and populating with a ferociously independent population. Years of mixing ingredients for the perfect storm of insanity.
I would not say I agree with every last one of Kurt Andersen's points, but I definitely agree with his overall conclusions. Why? Because they have become overwhelmingly self-evident during the Trump presidency. Whatever was not part of the ruling group's mind-map was declared "fake news". Practically everywhere I look these days, but especially prevalent in American society, I see that there is no longer consensus on reality. Climate change? That's a Chinese hoax to ruin the western economy. 2020 Presidential Election Results? Invalid, because my preferred candidate, who I assume is the greatest ever because he says so, did not win, and he says he couldn't have lost if it was fair. Covid-19 vaccines? They are a dangerous experiment on the population to ensure that the "New World Order", led by Bill Gates, can inject us with radio transmitters that will turn us into automaton-slaves under the latest 5G networks. Well, maybe that's crazy, but my sister-in-law's aunt read a great Internet article on how they can cause autism....
When a society can no longer mutually agree on basic facts and truths, it is doomed. There is no way for that society to agree upon problem definitions, let alone the solutions to those problems....more
Perhaps it is too easy to sum up Mary Trump's inside look into the family, which literally created the "world's most dangerous man" in Sickening. Sad.
Perhaps it is too easy to sum up Mary Trump's inside look into the family, which literally created the "world's most dangerous man" in two Trump-like soundbites, but those were essentially the two key emotions I came away with. Sad, because we realize Donald grew up (or failed to grow up) as he did due to the harsh, sociopathic character of his father, and the illnesses and lost empathy of his mother. He grew up without the love every child needs. Sickening, because he evolved a character and modes of unscrupulous behavior that were never addressed by anyone with the power to do so, but only enabled, just like it is now by the Republican party.
Unlike other Trump exposés, his niece's book brings us the intimate backstory, the ultimate reasons why this man behaves the way he does and why he always gets away with that behavior. At times I felt that the book was a bit more of a biography of Fred Trump Jr, Donald's older brother and the heir-apparent of Frederick Trump's empire, but I guess that is the lens in which Mary Trump (Freddy's bereaved daughter) saw the unfolding of this saga. I had hoped, perhaps, that she would have put a bit more of a professional psychologist's analysis into the book, but then again, others have done so over the last several years, and Mary had the most unique of vantage points in addition to such expertise.
Again it is both sickening and sad to see how sociopathic behavior in the rich and powerful is given a pass by those who should know better. They are too afraid to risk their own comfy positions to oppose the insanity and/or too busy seeing how they can exploit the same techniques themselves. It is no wonder that Hitler, once he rose to power, so easily led an entire nation down a path set by his own ego. For the US, let us hope that such a path has been averted in the short term and keep watch for its retreading. But I still fear the situation is dire with so many weak-willed enablers. No one can say we have not been warned!...more
This is a well-written, well-articulated treatise on the Utopian ideals of a shorter work week, a Universal Basic Income, and other rights for workingThis is a well-written, well-articulated treatise on the Utopian ideals of a shorter work week, a Universal Basic Income, and other rights for working class people.
Unfortunately, although the author wrote well and supported the ideas with a wealth of statistics, there isn't really much new here. Social progressives have held these ideals for years--as Bregman himself demonstrates in his historical references to earlier experiments for the UBI--but society never seems to get any closer to realizing them. I had hoped the author would review these concepts and then explain in detail how to go about attaining them in practice, given that governments continually see overwhelming data of their merit but consistently fail to act.
Bregman does briefly look at this stumbling-block near the end of the book in the chapter of How Ideas Change the World. As he states,
The question is not CAN new ideas defeat old ones; the question is HOW.
Other than reminding us that crises can often drive larger changes than small tentative, rational steps, Bregman disappointing has little to offer. This is a shame, especially given the current world crisis with Covid, where there do seem to be some current openings to such ideas. But without some strong leaders pointing the way, we instead seem destined to return to a (perhaps slightly newer) normal that may prove to be negligibly different than the recent status quo. Sadly, it seems built into human nature to be unable to change our minds and behaviours, even when the best evidence is staring us directly in the face. I deeply wish Bregman had a better answer and could have prescribed some more proactive steps forward.
That said, the book is an important read, especially for those unfamiliar with the progressive Utopian concepts, such as a Universal Basic Income that historically has good hard data supporting its implementation. It is sad that Bregman somewhat infers in his own text that those who need to read and absorb the information will never do so....more
Since the Trump presidency started in 2016, many books have been written about the threat to democracy and the possibility of autocracy eroding westerSince the Trump presidency started in 2016, many books have been written about the threat to democracy and the possibility of autocracy eroding western democracies such as the US. Masha Gessen's book is one of the best I've read on this topic, perhaps as she has had good practice in writing about Putin's Russia, the origin of much of the latest autocratic and oligarchic practices that Trump seems to cherish so heartily.
Other authors have also have drawn such comparisons, but Gessen goes deeper with some unique perspectives on methods and praxis. One area in which the Trump presidency became quite skilled was the debasement of language. It reminded me of Victor Klemperer's Language of the Third Reich, in which he documented how the Nazis used language to twist meaning or, even better, remove it altogether. For example, the Trump administration avoided using the more accurate terms of immigrant or asylum seeker when discussing the large crowds coming up from Central and South America, instead using terms such as "migrants" travelling in large "caravans". Migrants is really just a term for people moving from one place to another, obscuring the actual reasons, such as poverty and political instability for their move. The Trump administration wanted Americans to forget about the reasons people were coming. It is easier just to paint them all as "rapists and drug dealers". Also, the term "caravan" has a bit of a wandering nomad and Arabic ring to it, which is handy for getting the American population riled up after two decades with Islamic terrorism on their minds.
It is quite sad how the likes of Trump--he is definitely not the only one--lie to deceive and thereby enrich themselves with direct monetary gain or sheer power or both. It is even sadder how so many people were taken in by such a well-documented con man.
This book was very clear and well-argued with good examples to clarify the author's points. We would all do well to heed them and learn how to identify the signs of politicians with autocratic tendencies. I don't think we are clear of such scammers yet. The gains to be made are just too enticing, which is why I believe we are seeing the slide of the US Republican party over the abyss into self-serving autocrat wannabes. The truth is too inconvenient when it stands in their way....more
Loading...
