Sissel Tolaas: NOEA perfume (2004)
via:
[ed. Not at Walmart. Currently.]
Saturday, December 14, 2024
'Mirror Life'
‘Unprecedented risk’ to life on Earth: Scientists call for halt on ‘mirror life’ microbe research (The Guardian)
Image: Leigh Prather/Alamy
[ed. Great. Another existential threat. Is there some subset of psychopaths intent on killing off all humanity? Rhetorical question (beyond mad scientists, AI tech bros, Pentagon generals, Jihadists, your average camouflaged neighbor, etc.).]
***
"World-leading scientists have called for a halt on research to create “mirror life” microbes amid concerns that the synthetic organisms would present an “unprecedented risk” to life on Earth.
The international group of Nobel laureates and other experts warn that mirror bacteria, constructed from mirror images of molecules found in nature, could become established in the environment and slip past the immune defences of natural organisms, putting humans, animals and plants at risk of lethal infections.
Although a viable mirror microbe would probably take at least a decade to build, a new risk assessment raised such serious concerns about the organisms that the 38-strong group urged scientists to stop work towards the goal and asked funders to make clear they will no longer support the research.
“The threat we’re talking about is unprecedented,” said Prof Vaughn Cooper, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Pittsburgh. “Mirror bacteria would likely evade many human, animal and plant immune system responses and in each case would cause lethal infections that would spread without check.” (...)
The international group of Nobel laureates and other experts warn that mirror bacteria, constructed from mirror images of molecules found in nature, could become established in the environment and slip past the immune defences of natural organisms, putting humans, animals and plants at risk of lethal infections.
Although a viable mirror microbe would probably take at least a decade to build, a new risk assessment raised such serious concerns about the organisms that the 38-strong group urged scientists to stop work towards the goal and asked funders to make clear they will no longer support the research.
“The threat we’re talking about is unprecedented,” said Prof Vaughn Cooper, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Pittsburgh. “Mirror bacteria would likely evade many human, animal and plant immune system responses and in each case would cause lethal infections that would spread without check.” (...)
Many molecules for life can exist in two distinct forms, each the mirror image of the other. The DNA of all living organisms is made from “right-handed” nucleotides, while proteins, the building blocks of cells, are made from “left-handed” amino acids. Why nature works this way is unclear: life could have chosen left-handed DNA and right-handed proteins instead."
Friday, December 13, 2024
Sitting Ducks
[ed. Says basically everyone these days. Check out this recent email I got from YouTube. They don't care if you're outraged or not, whether you leave or not, whether you loathe the ads they've polluted their product with or not (enshittification). They know your options are limited (by design). I got the same thing from my insurance company - raising rates without any explanation or justification. They don't care enough to even play-act at being contrite these days.]
***
From YouTube:YouTube TV has always worked hard to offer you the content you love, delivered the way you want, with features that make it easy to enjoy the best of live TV.
To keep up with the rising cost of content and the investments we make in the quality of our service, we’re updating our monthly price from $72.99/month to $82.99/month starting January 13, 2025. [ed. $10 bucks/mo!]
We don’t make these decisions lightly, and we realize this has an impact on our members. We are committed to bringing you features that are changing the way we watch live TV, like unlimited DVR storage and multiview*, and supporting YouTube TV’s breadth of content and vast on-demand library of movies and shows.
The price of your YouTube TV Base Plan membership will change in your first billing cycle on or after January 13, 2025, and will be charged to your payment method on file going forward. (...)
We hope YouTube TV continues to be your service of choice, but we understand that some of our members may want to cancel their subscriptions. As always, family managers have the ability to pause or cancel anytime. You can find more information in our Help Center.
With lots of exciting shows and live events ahead in the new year, we’ll continue to strive to deliver the best of TV, all in one place. Thank you for being a loyal YouTube TV member.
Sincerely,
The YouTube TV team
[ed. FYI. Basically the same thing from my State Farm Insurance "team".]
via:
[ed. Ahh. Wasn't too long ago when cars and jets were cool. And phones were... attached to walls.]
Thursday, December 12, 2024
Peeling The Onion
The decision to overturn The Onion’s purchase of Infowars is a massive mistake that not only ignores the law but also profoundly misses the point of the nature of parody and satire, something we especially need in the serious and severe of times.
The ruling by Houston US Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez takes aim at a move that was bold, creative, and quintessentially satirical, framing it as frivolous when it’s actually rooted in some of the deepest traditions of free speech. By doing this, Judge Lopez not only misunderstands the purpose of satire but also sets a dangerous precedent that could have a chilling effect on how we critique and challenge power in today’s media landscape.
At its heart, satire is a tool for social commentary. It takes the absurdities, hypocrisies, or excesses of public life and magnifies them, showing us the truth in ways that are sharp, funny, and often painfully accurate. Think of it as holding up a funhouse mirror to reality—except what you see is a more honest reflection than what’s presented to us by those in power.
The Onion has built its entire reputation on this principle, skewering everything from politics to pop culture in ways that are both biting and hilarious. So when The Onion decided to buy Infowars, it wasn’t just a business transaction, it was a profound societal statement. It was saying, “Look how absurd this platform is, that we, as a satire outlet, can buy it and make it into what it always was – a complete and total joke.
But the judge didn’t seem to get this. Instead, the ruling dismissed the purchase as a stunt, implying that satire and business don’t mix.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how satire works in a modern context. Satire doesn’t stay confined to newspaper columns or stand-up routines. It can happen through art, performance, social media, and yes, even through corporate acquisitions.
So when The Onion bought Infowars, it wasn’t just poking fun but was rather leveraging the mechanics of capitalism to make a larger point about how misinformation spreads and how ridiculous it is that a platform like Infowars has managed to thrive in the first place.
This decision also fails to appreciate the First Amendment’s role in protecting satire, which has long been recognized as essential to free speech.
In landmark cases such as Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, the Supreme Court made it clear that satire—even or particularly when offensive or outrageous—is protected because it contributes to the robust exchange of ideas that democracy depends on.
By stepping into the middle of what should be a creative expression of that right, the court has undermined one of the most important tools we have for holding powerful entities accountable. And let’s face it—Infowars was and probably still is a powerful entity. Its influence on public discourse, despite being rooted in conspiracy theories and misinformation, is undeniable. The Onion’s ownership could have served as a brilliant counter-narrative, showing that satire has the power to dismantle even the loudest megaphones of disinformation.
What’s even more baffling is how the court ignored the legal basics of the case. The Onion followed all the necessary rules for acquiring a business. It wasn’t some rogue operation—they played their acquisition by the book. The judge, however, seemed to suggest that because the purchase had a satirical motive, it somehow wasn’t legitimate.
That’s a dangerous precedent. Businesses make acquisitions for all kinds of reasons—strategic, symbolic, even philanthropic. Why should satire be singled out as less valid? The judge is essentially saying that if you’re not in it purely for profit, your motives don’t count. That’s not how corporate law works, and it’s certainly not how it should.
by Aron Solomon, LitHub | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. Hmm. Lots of interesting arguments here. Would it have made a difference if a hedge fund had bought Infowars instead of The Onion (even if the intent was the same)? What about big boys buying out potential threats/competitors eg. Facebook/Snapchat, etc.?]
The ruling by Houston US Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez takes aim at a move that was bold, creative, and quintessentially satirical, framing it as frivolous when it’s actually rooted in some of the deepest traditions of free speech. By doing this, Judge Lopez not only misunderstands the purpose of satire but also sets a dangerous precedent that could have a chilling effect on how we critique and challenge power in today’s media landscape.
The Onion has built its entire reputation on this principle, skewering everything from politics to pop culture in ways that are both biting and hilarious. So when The Onion decided to buy Infowars, it wasn’t just a business transaction, it was a profound societal statement. It was saying, “Look how absurd this platform is, that we, as a satire outlet, can buy it and make it into what it always was – a complete and total joke.
But the judge didn’t seem to get this. Instead, the ruling dismissed the purchase as a stunt, implying that satire and business don’t mix.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how satire works in a modern context. Satire doesn’t stay confined to newspaper columns or stand-up routines. It can happen through art, performance, social media, and yes, even through corporate acquisitions.
So when The Onion bought Infowars, it wasn’t just poking fun but was rather leveraging the mechanics of capitalism to make a larger point about how misinformation spreads and how ridiculous it is that a platform like Infowars has managed to thrive in the first place.
This decision also fails to appreciate the First Amendment’s role in protecting satire, which has long been recognized as essential to free speech.
In landmark cases such as Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, the Supreme Court made it clear that satire—even or particularly when offensive or outrageous—is protected because it contributes to the robust exchange of ideas that democracy depends on.
By stepping into the middle of what should be a creative expression of that right, the court has undermined one of the most important tools we have for holding powerful entities accountable. And let’s face it—Infowars was and probably still is a powerful entity. Its influence on public discourse, despite being rooted in conspiracy theories and misinformation, is undeniable. The Onion’s ownership could have served as a brilliant counter-narrative, showing that satire has the power to dismantle even the loudest megaphones of disinformation.
What’s even more baffling is how the court ignored the legal basics of the case. The Onion followed all the necessary rules for acquiring a business. It wasn’t some rogue operation—they played their acquisition by the book. The judge, however, seemed to suggest that because the purchase had a satirical motive, it somehow wasn’t legitimate.
That’s a dangerous precedent. Businesses make acquisitions for all kinds of reasons—strategic, symbolic, even philanthropic. Why should satire be singled out as less valid? The judge is essentially saying that if you’re not in it purely for profit, your motives don’t count. That’s not how corporate law works, and it’s certainly not how it should.
by Aron Solomon, LitHub | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. Hmm. Lots of interesting arguments here. Would it have made a difference if a hedge fund had bought Infowars instead of The Onion (even if the intent was the same)? What about big boys buying out potential threats/competitors eg. Facebook/Snapchat, etc.?]
Frankenstein: Looking For Love
via:
[ed. I just finished reading Frankenstein, the actual book by Mary Shelly. Quite different than the movies (of course). Did you know the monster was really quite an erudite (self-taught), benevolent and sympathetic character who turned on society only after society turned on him? Maybe. But also how the story is mostly about him stalking and haunting his creator Dr. Frankenstein (who was only in his early 20s at the time) with just one request? To create a partner he could love and who could understand and share in his misery (living in purgatory, between life and death). The doctor (vascillating between admiration and disgust for his creation) initially agreed, but then, feeling the burden of bringing another monster into the world, went back on his word... to his everlasting misfortune. Which is to say, the Bride in this version was a Hollywood creation, not Shelly's.]
[ed. I just finished reading Frankenstein, the actual book by Mary Shelly. Quite different than the movies (of course). Did you know the monster was really quite an erudite (self-taught), benevolent and sympathetic character who turned on society only after society turned on him? Maybe. But also how the story is mostly about him stalking and haunting his creator Dr. Frankenstein (who was only in his early 20s at the time) with just one request? To create a partner he could love and who could understand and share in his misery (living in purgatory, between life and death). The doctor (vascillating between admiration and disgust for his creation) initially agreed, but then, feeling the burden of bringing another monster into the world, went back on his word... to his everlasting misfortune. Which is to say, the Bride in this version was a Hollywood creation, not Shelly's.]
"My vices are the children of a forced solitude that I abhor; and my virtues will necessarily arise when I live in communion with an equal. I shall feel the affections of a sensitive being, and become linked to the chain of existence and events to which I am now excluded."
"I was moved. I shuddered when I thought of the possible consequences of my consent; but I felt that there was some justice in his argument. His tale, and the feelings he now expressed, proved him to be a creature of fine sensations; and did I not, as his maker, owe him all the portion of happiness that it was in my power to bestow?"
Self-Defense For Women
Self-Defense for Women (anyone, actually)
[ed. I could watch these over and over and probably never think clearly in the moment. But you never know. More here.]
‘Accountable’ Capitalism
Elizabeth Warren introduces Senate bill to hold capitalism ‘accountable’ (The Guardian)
What concerns me about the framing in the Guardian, and it’s even more apparent in the Common Dream account below, is that it IMHO does not make it clear that the maximizing shareholder value is a made up economists’ creed, first promulgated by Milton Friedman in a New York Times op-ed. It is not a legal duty, as management touts regularly and falsely assert. Legally, equity is a residual claim. All other obligations, like payments to employees, suppliers, creditors, landlords, tax authorities, successful litigants, regulatory fines, come first.
Since this bad idea seems as resistant to extermination as cockroaches, let us hoist from a 2017 post, Why the “Maximize Shareholder Value” Theory Is Bogus:
Why The Shareholder Value Theory Has No Legal Foundation
Image: Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/Reuters
The bill would mandate corporations with over $1bn in annual revenue obtain a federal charter as a “United States Corporation” under the obligation to consider the interests of all stakeholders and corporations engaging in repeated and egregious illegal conduct can have their charters revoked.
The legislation would also mandate that at least 40% of a corporation’s board of directors be chosen directly by employees and would enact restrictions on corporate directors and officers from selling stocks within five years of receiving the shares or three years within a company stock buyback.
All political expenditures by corporations would also have to be approved by at least 75% of shareholders and directors.
Since this bad idea seems as resistant to extermination as cockroaches, let us hoist from a 2017 post, Why the “Maximize Shareholder Value” Theory Is Bogus:
From the early days of this website, we’ve written from time to time about why the “shareholder value” theory of corporate governance was made up by economists and has no legal foundation. It has also proven to be destructive in practice, save for CEO and compensation consultants who have gotten rich from it.
Further confirmation comes from a must-read article in American Prospect by Steven Pearlstein, When Shareholder Capitalism Came to Town. It recounts how until the early 1990s, corporations had a much broader set of concerns, most importantly, taking care of customers, as well as having a sense of responsibility for their employees and the communities in which they operated. Equity is a residual economic claim. As we wrote in 2013:
One of their big props to this campaign was the claim that companies existed to promote shareholder value. This had been a minority view in the academic literature in the 1940s and 1950s. Milton Friedman took it up an intellectually incoherent New York Times op-ed in 1970….Directors and officers, broadly speaking, have a duty of care and duty of loyalty to the corporation. From that flow more specific obligations under Federal and state law. But notice: those responsibilities are to the corporation, not to shareholders in particular…..Equity holders are at the bottom of the obligation chain. Directors do not have a legal foundation for given them preference over other parties that legitimately have stronger economic interests in the company than shareholders do….
Why The Shareholder Value Theory Has No Legal Foundation
Why do so many corporate boards treat the shareholder value theory as gospel? Aside from the power of ideology and constant repetition in the business press, Pearlstein, drawing on the research of Cornell law professor Lynn Stout, describes how a key decision has been widely misapplied:Now to the current post: Warren Bill Would Stop Companies From Placing Shareholder Paydays Over Worker Rights (Julia Conley, Common Dreams) via: (Yves Smith, Naked Capitalism)
Let’s start with the history. The earliest corporations, in fact, were generally chartered not for private but for public purposes, such as building canals or transit systems. Well into the 1960s, corporations were broadly viewed as owing something in return to the community that provided them with special legal protections and the economic ecosystem in which they could grow and thrive.
Legally, no statutes require that companies be run to maximize profits or share prices. In most states, corporations can be formed for any lawful purpose. Lynn Stout, a Cornell law professor, has been looking for years for a corporate charter that even mentions maximizing profits or share price. So far, she hasn’t found one. Companies that put shareholders at the top of their hierarchy do so by choice, Stout writes, not by law…
For many years, much of the jurisprudence coming out of the Delaware courts—where most big corporations have their legal home—was based around the “business judgment” rule, which held that corporate directors have wide discretion in determining a firm’s goals and strategies, even if their decisions reduce profits or share prices. But in 1986, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled that directors of the cosmetics company Revlon had to put the interests of shareholders first and accept the highest price offered for the company. As Lynn Stout has written, and the Delaware courts subsequently confirmed, the decision was a narrowly drawn exception to the business–judgment rule that only applies once a company has decided to put itself up for sale. But it has been widely—and mistakenly—used ever since as a legal rationale for the primacy of shareholder interests and the legitimacy of share-price maximization.
[ed. If we were truly a properly functioning democracy/meritocracy Elizabeth Warren would have been elected President years ago. Glad she's still a US Senator though.]
Bill Belichick Goes To College
Bill Belichick, the most successful coach in NFL history, is off to college.
The architect of six Super Bowl titles with the New England Patriots has agreed a deal with North Carolina to become the school’s new head coach. A year after his exit from the Patriots, he is leaving the pro game behind to dive into the wild west of college sports in the pay-for-play era.
When you first heard the news, you probably shrugged your shoulders. It looked like a vintage case of an out-of-work coach sending a message to NFL owners: I’m ready to work. But Belichick’s interest in the college game is sincere. He sat down with North Carolina’s decision-makers for multiple interviews last week, and confirmed his interest in the job on the Pat McAfee Show.
Belichick’s move is unprecedented. In his 49-year coaching career, he has never worked outside the NFL. But Belichick has spent the last year traveling around college campuses to understand the sport’s new landscape. He will become the first Super Bowl-winning coach to drop down to the college level without any college coaching experience.
The question is: Why? (...)
The architect of six Super Bowl titles with the New England Patriots has agreed a deal with North Carolina to become the school’s new head coach. A year after his exit from the Patriots, he is leaving the pro game behind to dive into the wild west of college sports in the pay-for-play era.
Belichick’s move is unprecedented. In his 49-year coaching career, he has never worked outside the NFL. But Belichick has spent the last year traveling around college campuses to understand the sport’s new landscape. He will become the first Super Bowl-winning coach to drop down to the college level without any college coaching experience.
The question is: Why? (...)
[ed. The NFL wasn't too hot on him (for various good reasons), and...]
Beyond just his age, there is another hangup for NFL teams: Belichick is no ordinary coach. Wherever he landed, he would require full autonomy over a team’s roster, salary cap and draft, the kind of singular power that ownership groups are shying away from – and the sort of power they would be unlikely to hand to someone approaching their mid-70s.
The dynastic Patriots were not built on the “Patriot Way”. It was the “Belichick Way”. That will carry over to North Carolina. But in the NFL, there are few overlords. The era of Bill Parcells, Bill Walsh or Belichick running every department is gone. In 2024, franchises are siloed. There is overlap between departments, but the coaching ranks have become so transitory that the head coach no longer controls huge swaths of the building. That is left to a team president or general manager. A coaching staff may come and go, but more often than not key members of the personnel and analytics departments, nutrition staff and back office remain the same.
That is not Belichick’s vision. In New England, he was the all-seeing, all-commanding emperor. He ran the front office, coaching staff and signed off on all football decisions. Only a handful of franchises would cede that control to one individual in the modern game, and they’re not handing those keys to a 73-year-old who may only stick around for four or five seasons. Those odds were even longer given Belichick’s recent poor track record as a general manager. After presiding over six Super Bowls with the Patriots, Belichick’s magic touch wore off once Tom Brady moved on to Tampa Bay. By the end of his time in New England, Belichick the general manager had essentially kneecapped Belichick the coach. The source of his contentious departure from the Patriots was New England’s owner, Robert Kraft, looking to wrestle back some power.
In college, Belichick will have free rein. The head coach remains omnipotent in college football, even as it inches toward a pro model. They are a CEO, general manager, head coach and play-caller wrapped into one. If Belichick was willing to relinquish control, then an NFL franchise may have come calling on Belichick the coach. But by prioritizing his authority over an organization, college was the only option.
Even at one of college football’s upper-tier institutions, it’s unlikely Belichick would have been able to amass total control. Alabama, Texas or Ohio State are not turning their programs over to a first-time college coach in his 70s. But North Carolina is a second-tier program in a second-tier conference. The school’s only shot at landing a coaching legend was to agree to Belichick’s demands, allowing him to an organization in his image.
by Oliver Connolly, The Guardian | Read more:
Image:David Butler II/USA Today Sports
Beyond just his age, there is another hangup for NFL teams: Belichick is no ordinary coach. Wherever he landed, he would require full autonomy over a team’s roster, salary cap and draft, the kind of singular power that ownership groups are shying away from – and the sort of power they would be unlikely to hand to someone approaching their mid-70s.
The dynastic Patriots were not built on the “Patriot Way”. It was the “Belichick Way”. That will carry over to North Carolina. But in the NFL, there are few overlords. The era of Bill Parcells, Bill Walsh or Belichick running every department is gone. In 2024, franchises are siloed. There is overlap between departments, but the coaching ranks have become so transitory that the head coach no longer controls huge swaths of the building. That is left to a team president or general manager. A coaching staff may come and go, but more often than not key members of the personnel and analytics departments, nutrition staff and back office remain the same.
That is not Belichick’s vision. In New England, he was the all-seeing, all-commanding emperor. He ran the front office, coaching staff and signed off on all football decisions. Only a handful of franchises would cede that control to one individual in the modern game, and they’re not handing those keys to a 73-year-old who may only stick around for four or five seasons. Those odds were even longer given Belichick’s recent poor track record as a general manager. After presiding over six Super Bowls with the Patriots, Belichick’s magic touch wore off once Tom Brady moved on to Tampa Bay. By the end of his time in New England, Belichick the general manager had essentially kneecapped Belichick the coach. The source of his contentious departure from the Patriots was New England’s owner, Robert Kraft, looking to wrestle back some power.
In college, Belichick will have free rein. The head coach remains omnipotent in college football, even as it inches toward a pro model. They are a CEO, general manager, head coach and play-caller wrapped into one. If Belichick was willing to relinquish control, then an NFL franchise may have come calling on Belichick the coach. But by prioritizing his authority over an organization, college was the only option.
Even at one of college football’s upper-tier institutions, it’s unlikely Belichick would have been able to amass total control. Alabama, Texas or Ohio State are not turning their programs over to a first-time college coach in his 70s. But North Carolina is a second-tier program in a second-tier conference. The school’s only shot at landing a coaching legend was to agree to Belichick’s demands, allowing him to an organization in his image.
by Oliver Connolly, The Guardian | Read more:
Image:David Butler II/USA Today Sports
Tuesday, December 10, 2024
Cosmic Threads
"In October of 1883, a paper in the nation’s capital reported under the heading “Current Gossip” that “an Iowa woman has spent seven years embroidering the solar system on a quilt” — a news item originally printed in Iowa and syndicated widely in newspapers across the country that autumn and winter. The New York Times reprinted the report as it appeared in the Iowa paper, dismissively qualifying it as a “somewhat comical statement.”
The woman in question, Ellen Harding Baker (June 8, 1847–March 30, 1886), was not a person to be dismissed with a patronizing chuckle. Baker taught science in rural Iowa, in an era when most institutions of higher education were still closed to women, all the whilst raising her five surviving children. She used her Solar System quilt to illustrate her astronomy lectures. To ensure the accuracy of her embroidered depiction, Baker traveled to the Chicago Observatory to view sunspots and a comet — most likely the Great Comet of 1882, which had become a national attraction — through the professional telescope there.
by Maria Popova, The Marginalian | Read more:
Image: Ellen Harding Baker/Smithsonian
The Claims Adjuster
Image: uncredited
"If I were in the employ of one of the organs of state security, what would I regard as the salient features of the case? And where would I seek more control than I already have? ABC News summarizes The Adjuster’s stay in Manhattan. I have underlined the relevant topics:
The gunman used a fake ID and paid cash during the 10 days he was in the city, NYPD Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny told reporters Friday. He also kept his face covered except while checking in at a hostel. He was captured on some of the thousands of surveillance cameras blanketing Manhattan, allowing police to build a timeline of his movements.Now I’ll present aggregations of these three topics — Cash, Masking, Fake IDs — showing that the discourse is already primed to regard them as problems to be solved, if future copy cat Adjusters are to be avoided.
***
[ed. I'd also add 3-D printed guns to the mix. I've learned a new term today: jury nullification.]
(From the comments): How are they ever going to get a jury through voix dire?
Question to potential juror – Have you, your family or friends ever had any issues with a medical claim from an insurance company? That would eliminate the entire country.
***
Healy: Mangione keeps getting called a “folk hero” — I understand it, but assassinations perpetuate a culture of violence and fear. Why are so many people still talking about this shooting as if it’s justifiable, which “folk hero” seems to imply? (...)Tufekci: Dealing with health insurance companies when you are vulnerable — facing illness, pain and loss — and knowing that such a company is profiting off you is a visceral, enraging experience. Some people want to be rescued, even by an outlaw. A recent Senate report says UnitedHealthcare more than doubled the rate of denials for post-acute care for the elderly as it pressured the company’s human reviewers to strictly hew to the algorithmic recommendation system that it had introduced. The sense that a cold, calculating, profit-making automaton can come at a person when they feel the most fragile, and without accountability and recourse, is the type of environment that can find people cheering on vigilantes.
Goldberg: Whenever I’ve had a health scare, or am waiting for the results of routine tests like mammograms, I tend to be as panicked about all the potential paperwork as about, you know, dying. And the thing is, these companies are purely extractive. Relative to a single-payer system, they create no value whatsoever. (...)
McMillan Cottom: I thought about how we have an economy with perverse incentives and impact. If billionaires and C.E.O.s want to enjoy the spoils of power, visibility and access in our celebrity culture, they have to understand that they are in essence a public entity — a stand-in for industry but also for politics. I make this point because the moralizing about the public response to the killing conflates a personal dimension of this story — a murder and the fallout for the victim’s family — with the public dimension, about industries that affect and control our lives, our futures, our pain. A family lost their kin and a community lost a member. That is a personal tragedy. At the same time, a public actor was presumably targeted because he had a tremendous amount of power over people’s well-being. The system has to make a profit and, in doing so, the system victimizes a lot of people.
Tufekci: I think we should also look at the stories we tell ourselves about how to solve systemic problems. In Hollywood, it’s the lone-wolf vigilante or rogue C.I.A. agent who breaks the rules, takes revenge and makes things better. People are naturally drawn to a character they can cheer for, rather than analyses of power and policy and prolonged slogs to change how the system works. People with wealth can hire people to do that work for them and use their money to change the system to their advantage, over time, while the public is left with some popcorn and the chance to cheer for the movie vigilante. (...)
McMillan Cottom: It goes much deeper. You call it populist rage, Patrick. I’m not against that description. But it doesn’t quite capture that the other side stokes that rage. The reaction is a defense of one public who is at odds with the interests of another public. Markets create moral economies. Whether you call it crony capitalism or just an unfair economy, the market sets the rules for which lives matter. We have set up a system of interlocking ninth circles of hell for all of our basic needs. Housing is a noose of landlord interests, developer exploitation and rising costs. Transportation is a Gordian knot of failing infrastructure and limited vision that traps us in neighborhoods and lifestyles that make us sicker and meaner. Our moral economy is trash.
Healy: And how does the health care industry fit in here, Tressie?
McMillan Cottom: Nowhere is the perverse nature of our moral economy more evident than health care. It is not just expensive. It is often tied to jobs people either cannot get or cannot afford to leave if they want to be able to see a doctor. Health care is one of the biggest reasons that Americans file for bankruptcy. The incentives are to put profit over people. We know this and yet we also gaslight millions of Americans. We tell them that the system is fair and meritocratic, that their quality of life is not deteriorating and, if it is, then they did not work hard enough. Scam culture makes everyone a mark. The moral economy of a scam culture says that everyone deserves to be a mark. That is dehumanizing.
[ed. See also: The obsession with the 'hot assassin' reveals a disturbing truth about celebrity culture (Guardian).]
Who Could've Known?
Agency Trump and Musk Want to 'Delete' Set to Deliver $1.8 Billion to Scammed US Consumers
In the coming weeks, as President-elect Donald Trump's second term approaches and his pledge to dismantle key agencies potentially comes closer to fruition, 4.3 million consumers are set to receive checks from one of the agencies the incoming administration wants to "delete."
[ed. See also: Musk calls for abolishing consumer finance watchdog targeted by Republicans (Reuters).]
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced Thursday that it will soon begin distributing a historic $1.8 billion to millions of people who were charged illegal junk fees or defrauded by credit repair companies including Lexington Law and CreditRepair.com.
The money will be distributed from the CFPB's victim relief fund, which was created by Congress and is financed entirely by civil penalties paid by companies and individuals who violate consumer financial protection laws.
The fund has distributed $3.3 billion to consumers since its inception, and the CFPB said the forthcoming payment will be its largest ever.
"Lexington Law and CreditRepair.com exploited vulnerable consumers who were trying to rebuild their credit, charging them illegal junk fees for results they hadn't delivered," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. "This historic distribution of $1.8 billion demonstrates the CFPB's commitment to making consumers whole." (...)
If the CFPB payments are divided equally among those who were wrongly charged fees by the two companies, each consumer would receive about $419.
The payments are being sent days after the CFPB proposed a rule aimed at reining in data brokers who sell people's personal information.
As Common Dreams reported, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has expressed concern about the practices of data brokers—but as Trump's nominee to co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a yet-to-be-created commission that would cut regulations and government spending, Musk has pledged to "delete" the CFPB.
Filmmaker and media activist Danny Ledonne said Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, another businessman nominated to lead DOGE, likely want to do away with the CFPB because the agency acts "in the interest of regular people."
Liz Zelnick, director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power Program at government watchdog Accountable.US, said the upcoming $1.8 billion payout shows why the CFPB should remain in operation.
"When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is allowed to fully do its job, Americans only stand to benefit," said Zelnick. "Between surprise fees and misleading business practices, today's victory affirms the importance of the CFPB for defending people across the country from shady industry actors."
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced Thursday that it will soon begin distributing a historic $1.8 billion to millions of people who were charged illegal junk fees or defrauded by credit repair companies including Lexington Law and CreditRepair.com.
The fund has distributed $3.3 billion to consumers since its inception, and the CFPB said the forthcoming payment will be its largest ever.
"Lexington Law and CreditRepair.com exploited vulnerable consumers who were trying to rebuild their credit, charging them illegal junk fees for results they hadn't delivered," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. "This historic distribution of $1.8 billion demonstrates the CFPB's commitment to making consumers whole." (...)
If the CFPB payments are divided equally among those who were wrongly charged fees by the two companies, each consumer would receive about $419.
The payments are being sent days after the CFPB proposed a rule aimed at reining in data brokers who sell people's personal information.
Filmmaker and media activist Danny Ledonne said Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, another businessman nominated to lead DOGE, likely want to do away with the CFPB because the agency acts "in the interest of regular people."
Liz Zelnick, director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power Program at government watchdog Accountable.US, said the upcoming $1.8 billion payout shows why the CFPB should remain in operation.
"When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is allowed to fully do its job, Americans only stand to benefit," said Zelnick. "Between surprise fees and misleading business practices, today's victory affirms the importance of the CFPB for defending people across the country from shady industry actors."
by Julia Conley, Common Dreams | Read more:
Image: Reuters/Andrew Kelly; CFPB
[ed. Speculation so far, but not without foundation. As noted here, Rohit Chopra and Lina Kahn have been spectacular advocates for consumer protection. If Musk/Trump want to 'delete" the CFPB they do so at their peril. I mean, it's called Consumer Protection for a reason. Smarter to just install some flunky to gum up the works. Which reminds me, you know one of the most infuriating things I always hear dumb people say? "Who could've known". Well, maybe anyone with half a brain, and everyone else screaming warnings forever? Like all that fake climate change stuff? And living in a trailer in hurricane alley. And that awful Biden economy? People getting played on and on and on (is there still a War on Christmas? I forget). Anyway. See also: ‘The mother of all bubbles’ in the U.S. is sucking money away from the rest of the world, market expert says (Fortune/Yahoo News). Also: Alarms Blaring That AI Bubble Could Collapse (Futurism/The Byte).]
Monday, December 9, 2024
How and When Humans First Moved into the Pacific
Image: Tristan Russell/Raja Ampat Archaeological Project
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)