Matt Clibanoff is a writer and editor based in New York City who covers music, politics, sports and pop culture. He currently serves as Lead Editor for Gramercy Media. His editorial work can be found in Inked Magazine, Pop Dust, The Liberty Project, and All Things Go. His fiction has been published in Forth Magazine. -- Find Matt at his website and on Twitter: @mattclibanoff
Norman Lear’s work was an integral part of American life in the second half of the 20th Century. Television programs like Maude, Sanford and Son, and The Jeffersons dragged television out of the 1950s and into the real world. As Variety states: “Lear’s shows were the first to address the serious political, cultural and social flashpoints of the day – racism, abortion, feminism, homosexuality, the Vietnam war – by working pointed new wrinkles into the standard domestic comedy formula. No subject was taboo: Two 1977 episodes of All in the Family revolved around the attempted rape of lead character Archie Bunker’s wife Edith.”
All in the Family, which ran on CBS from 1971 to 1979, typified the clash of generations. Middle-aged bigot Archie Bunker – played by Carrol O’Connor – was a right-wing King Lear in Queens, raging at the radical changes in society. Archie didn’t let ignorance get in the way of his opinions; once he argued that people who lived in communes were communists. The thing is, the old dog was actually capable of learning new tricks. Archie never evolved into any kind of saint. But over the nine seasons "Family" aired, experience taught Archie the benefits of listening to (and respecting) viewpoints far different from his own.
All in the Family was the jewel in Lear’s crown, but don’t forget the highly popular shows One Day at a Time (which featured Bonnie Franklin as a divorcee raising two daughters in the Midwest) and Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman (with Louise Lasser as the titular figure in a parody of soap opera conventions). Good or bad, Lear’s work was never indifferent.
More recently, you may have heard about Lear’s lively activism. His TV shows were themselves arguments for free and unfettered speech, and Lear supported a slate of liberal causes. In 1981 he founded People for the American Way. The organization’s website describes the ways that PFAW has “engaged cultural and community leaders and individual activists in campaigns promoting freedom of expression, civic engagement, fair courts, and legal and lived equality for LGBTQ people.”
Lear’s life was a long and fulfilling one. In 1978 he was given the first of two Peabody Awards, the most prestigious award in television. “To Norman Lear,” it reads, “...for giving us comedy with a social conscience. He uses humor to give us a better understanding of social issues. He lets us laugh at our own shortcomings and prejudices, and while doing this, maintains the highest entertainment standards.”
A pioneer, a gadfly of the state, a mensch. To paraphrase a lyric from All in the Family’s theme song, “Mister, we could use a guy like Norman Lear again.”
Contextless Nostalgia and the Neo-Fascist Urge
In the wake of the Tree of Life shooting we're left wondering: how did we get here?
Is Robert Bowers a Fascist?
Pittsburgh Gazette
If Umberto Eco is to be taken at face value when he describes his Ur-fascist as "impatient for death,"¹ the question we're left with in the wake of the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting is this: Why now, in 21st century America, has this distinctly 20th century urge, this death drive, suddenly rematerialized? The other questions–ones concerning motive, logistics, and cultural response–while meaningful in their own right, only explain the symptoms, not the disease.
Fascism in its truest sense is a type of suicide, one committed not by an individual but by an entire society. Still, the important conversation (as with an individual suicide) doesn't concern method. When a man takes his own life, the why is a far more incisive question than the how. If we're to extrapolate this metaphor, to argue about gun control, anti-semitism, and President Trump's brusque response to this tragedy is tantamount to debating the meaning of using rope over a straight razor. In the interest of being thorough, however, let's briefly explore these symptoms:
Immediately following the attack, Robert Bowers' social media posts went loud, his comments regarding Jewish conspiracies sitting somewhere between Alex Jones' InfoWars and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. "Jews are the children of satan," he shouted into the Internet void. What the public was given were echoes, reverberations after the fact. The shooter's motive was never in question.
The issue then splintered, its fragments taking familiar trajectories. Pragmatists argued for tighter gun control, in this case perhaps an antihistamine, but one that could at least theoretically prevent another maniac from gunning down a room full of unarmed civilians. Others blamed the increasingly volatile rhetoric of the Trump regime for galvanizing a new generation of angry white men. When looking at the recent rise of extremist provocateurs,² this second point can feel the more crucial (though it goes without saying that these views are far from mutually exclusive), but in reality, it's closer to a half truth. Barack Obama's assessment of Trump (and by extension his rhetoric and the hate it inspires) as the "symptom not cause" of our present spiritual crisis mirrors this opinion, whether he meant it to or not. Still, we're left wondering: if Trump, Bowers, Cesar Sayoc, Richard Spencer, the alt-right, et al. are symptoms, what's the cause?
Contextless Nostalgia
It's been stated time and time again that we're becoming increasingly obsessed with nostalgia, cripplingly so. Whether or not it's true, again, is not so important. The why, however, remains.
Nostalgia, in the classic sense, is a wistful remembrance, a pained recalling of a time where things were better. It's a belief, however erroneous, that the past contains more happiness than the present. A fitting example of nostalgic art is Richard Linklater's Dazed and Confused, a film so nostalgic it feels documental, produced for the former rebels/present yuppies of Gen X as a glimmering look at their past, a reassurance that they were indeed once cool. Saccharine or not (depends on who you ask), the film certainly comports to this traditional definition.
Today's televisual/cinematic nostalgia, if one can really call it that, has a distinctly different flavor. Instead of being a monument to the past, a shared generational experience, nostalgia has been co-opted as an aesthetic, a mood. Stranger Things, a show decidedly millennial in both content and attitude, is a perfect example of this. The outfits, the lingo, the references, and the sets all feel nostalgic, but a look at the show's viewership demographics quickly reveal this feeling doesn't fit nostalgia's true definition. 18-39 year-olds aren't old enough to have memories from the early 80s.
The television producer's argument that Stranger Things and other period dramas give a younger audience access to the past (which is new to them) while also capturing an older demographic who experienced the events on the show first hand doesn't hold water, especially when you consider that the Duffer Brothers are only 34-years-old. The nostalgia they're capturing isn't genuine. It's a fractal cobbling of present day ideals and past aesthetics–not nostalgia, but mutation, a rehashing and reliving of history with no frame of reference. It's time travel to a non-existent past.
One look around–bell bottom jeans, Mad Men, 90s-inspired music videos, Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin songs playing on truck commercials–and it's impossible not to see this frantic pawing as the defining mark of our culture. It's not the end of history; it's a fraught and dizzying attempt to reimagine it and a cultural impetus to live in the mangled architecture of this imagined past.
Nostalgia for Stakes
To return to Eco for a moment, the Ur-Fascist is also marked by the fact that he's "deprived of a clear social identity." Eco goes on to say that fascism takes this lack of identity and fills the void with nationalism. While this is certainly true, from average Trump supporters all the way down to Cesar Sayoc and Robert Bowers, Eco never identifies the cause of this deprivation.³ The contextless nostalgia of our present offers an entrée into diagnosis–Bowers and others like him, while certainly insane, aren't so far removed from society as to be immune to its mores.
This new form of nostalgia, this amalgam of distorted realities, functions as both an escape hatch from our present existential void–a void of unmeaning, a loss of stakes–and one of its root causes. This new, fundamentally false, cultural memory is a product of our present zeitgeist. It's born of an influx of information and static confusion, one created by a society so materially comfortable that it's primarily concerned with artistic and aesthetic trends, with manufacturing meaning. The loss of stakes, however, can be traced back to the 1970s.
Following the Vietnam War and the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), the U.S. found itself in a peculiar position. After nearly 40 years of perpetual war, we lacked an enemy to align ourselves against. A malaise set in, one that would typify the 1970s. Then, in 1983, Ronald Reagan offered the American people a respite from having to define themselves by anything other than what they are not. He declared the Soviet Union an "evil empire," rekindling Cold War rhetoric which had long since burnt out. Announcing this a few years after signing a non-proliferation treaty with the Soviets probably felt strange to anyone paying attention, but it didn't matter. We had an enemy again.
But was the Soviet Union truly our enemy or one recreated by spiritual necessity? Manufactured animosity and organic threats converged at a single point. For Reagan's part, all he did was stir up past resentments, but his demagoguery wasn't feeding some Weimar-esque yearning for a return to greatness, but a nostalgia for dire consequences. Because the method and end result are similar—a monolith enemy is created onto which a society can project its fears—this distinction can feel unimportant. But, this marked a significant change.
America's enemies were no longer an existential threat. They were created as convenient scapegoats for economic and political turmoil. The recession of 1973, the OPEC oil embargo, and the 1979 energy crisis, while not unserious, paled in comparison to the socio-economic climates that spawned the original iterations of fascism. The U.S. economy was down, sure, but there was no question as to where the seat of global power resided. Still, at the quotidian level, lines at the pump and the rapid decrease in factory jobs were panic-inducing. If we take this moment to be the birth of American fascism, the moment in which we became "constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of [our enemies],"⁴ then it represents a reversal of what happened in the Weimar Republic. Instead of a fascism born out of economic powerlessness and spiritual fervor, ours is the result of a spiritual drought created by material excess.
Convergence
On an individual level, it's hard to even differentiate Robert Bowers from the likes of Steven Paddock. Sure, Bowers is racist and anti-Semitic, but this is just a variation on the theme of the deranged lone gunman. If one steps back and looks at the furor in the stands at Donald Trump's rallies or at the violence in Charlottesville last year, however, it becomes impossible to miss this creeping trend, conservatism fading in the rearview as our society pushes ever rightward. But why?
If an individual suicide is an escape from life, an assertion that death is preferable to the anguish of everyday existence, then fascism, the societal suicide, must be an escape of the same order. At this point, it's clear that our sprint towards authoritarianism comes from our society's collective yearning for stakes, for meaning. There's no great existential threat, so we look to our leaders to manufacture one. But fascism is European. Its great figures have been dead for nearly a century. It's foreign, an anachronism. It doesn't make sense until one considers our present infatuation with nostalgia. Not nostalgia as feeling but as concept, as aesthetic. American neo-fascism is the point at which nostalgia for stakes and loss of context converge. Today's fascist is one who rifles through an ephemeral past, one he never really experienced, searching for an enemy that he's not only ill-equipped to assess, but that doesn't exist in any meaningful sense.
For those who feel disenfranchised by the end of history (or late capitalism or neoliberalism, whichever buzzword one assigns it), the options are limited. For reasonable people, it's a choice between participating in society or being forced to its margins. The neo-fascist avoids both options entirely, shirking nihilism and resignation. Instead, he dives head first into the shallow pool of contextless nostalgia, attempting to plumb the depths of history without realizing he's splashing around in a puddle. It's a frenetic and palsied search for a transgressive idea with which to define his world and by extension, himself. Robert Bowers is insane, yes. But the massacre he committed is simply a fringe response to a mainstream problem.
Donald Trump and the Fascist Urge
Axios
If Robert Bowers is a fascist, then what do we make of Donald Trump, whose rallies and policies embolden Bowers and those like him? This question has been on the tip of the media's tongue for three years, a veritable op-ed monsoon raging on both sides of the political aisle. It's here where Jean Baudrillard's idea of media as Möbius strip⁵ becomes relevant. Is Donald Trump a fascist? In this age of constant transmission, of signs and symbols ad infinitum, the answer and question morph into one. The answer is yes because we're asking. The harder pill to swallow is that we're asking because we want it to be true.
If a contextless nostalgia for stakes is the spiritual issue of our time, then it's preposterous to assume that it only affects the 42% of Americans who support Donald Trump. The other 58%, (liberals, socialists, some civility-obsessed conservatives) just manifest their yearning in a different way. The media frenzy surrounding Trump's campaign–the comparisons to Hitler, the endless, dizzying video coverage of his rallies and speeches–serves this latent desire. The mainstream media's posturing against Trump, their denouncing him as fascist, served only to legitimize him as such.
The #Resistance, the anti-fascists, the op-eds from supposed Trump staffers quietly opposing him from inside the White House, all work in service of the neo-fascistic lunge. The liberal outrage at Trump simply fulfills the desire for stakes in reverse. Instead of supporting Trump and accepting a manufactured enemy (immigrants, Jews, whomever), the anti-fascist (even linguistically the term anti-fascist, by virtue of its existence, seeks to build Trump into that enemy) wills him into being that thing by virtue of the anti-fascist's constitutional need for something to define himself against. Thus, simultaneity is achieved. Trump is a fascist not because of his racism or demonstrative hand gestures, but because both his supporters and detractors alike have willed him into the role.
Unfortunately, we're rapidly approaching a time in which the hows and whys lose their importance. Acts of terror, like Robert Bowers' attack, cut through the mediated blur and give us an honest glimpse at the stakes we're clamoring for, that we claim, by virtue of our actions, to need. In those moments the romance of crisis fades. With the rise of a Neo-American Bund, the regularity of racist and xenophobic sentiments and policy decisions, and the attempted suppression of the press, this once contextless urge is transformed into a frightening reality. Still, considering the The Tree of Life massacre already feels old, tired, like a relic of the past, it seems unlikely that this, or any one moment, will be enough to snap us from our nostalgic impulse and back into the present. It feels as though we're stuck in circumlocution, doomed to grasp for stakes until we conjure them in some perverse alchemical procedure.
Footnotes:
1. While a more accurate representation of Eco's point would include in it the idea of "heroic death," it feels safe to call this a death drive nonetheless. Suicidal ideation, however sublimated, is still suicidal ideation.
2. One that immediately comes to mind is Gavin McInnes, the leader of the Proud Boys, a far right group that was recently videotaped mercilessly beating protesters on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
3. He also never attempts to. His piece on Ur fascism was written in 1995 and would have had to have been incredibly prescient to stay entirely relevant today.
4. Ur-Fascism, Umberto Eco, 1995
5. The Möbius strip, while constantly turning over itself, only has one side. In Baudrillard's view it's a perfect metaphor for binary or dichotomy (of ideals, information what have you), of which he believes(ed) no longer exist in modern society. It's a means of illustrating how information is constantly conflated.
Matt Clibanoff is a writer and editor based in New York City who covers music, politics, sports and pop culture. He currently serves as Lead Editor for Gramercy Media. His editorial work can be found in Inked Magazine, Pop Dust, The Liberty Project, and All Things Go. His fiction has been published in Forth Magazine. -- Find Matt at his website and on Twitter: @mattclibanoff
Here's a List of the People Who Made This Happen
Brett Kavanaugh is now a Supreme Court Justice.
Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed by a margin of 50-48.
If you're like me and thought Brett Kavanaugh's alleged presence at a gang rape back in the 80s was going be the final nail in the coffin regarding his nomination, sorry, you were wrong. As of this afternoon, Kavanaugh has been nominated to the Supreme Court, replacing retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, with a final vote of 50-48. Key swing voters, like Joe Manchin III, Susan Collins, and Jeff Flake all voted yes, with the rest of the Senate, save for Lisa Murkowski, voting along party lines.
With this confirmation, the American people can put the myth of the "principled" Republican to bed. Liberals tend to fetishize Susan Collins' bipartisan record because she's pro-choice, but during the votes that have shaped American history *cough* Iraq War *cough* she's always voted with her party. Her decision on Kavanaugh was par for the course. Joe Manchin III and Jeff Flake's votes weren't particularly surprising either. The former, while technically a Democrat, votes with Trump over 60% of the time. The latter, who asked for an FBI investigation but didn't seem to care that the alleged victim was never questioned, was just pleased he got to pretend he had integrity for a few minutes before voting yes. Rather than go on a lengthy diatribe however, I've decide to publish a list of all 50 Senators who voted to confirm the newest member of the Supreme Court. The midterms are on November 6th.
Joe Manchin III D-W.Va
Lamar Alexander R-Tenn.
John Barrasso R-Wyo.
Roy Blunt R-Mo.
John Boozman R-Ark.
Richard M. Burr R-N.C.
Shelley Moore Capito R-W.Va.
Bill Cassidy R-La.
Susan Collins R-Me.
Bob Corker R-Tenn.
John Cornyn R-Tex.
Tom Cotton R-Ark.
Michael D. Crapo R-Idaho
Ted Cruz R-Tex.
Steve Daines R-Mont.
Michael B. Enzi R-Wyo.
Joni Ernst R-Iowa
Deb Fischer R-Neb.
Jeff Flake R-Ariz.
Cory Gardner R-Colo.
Lindsey Graham R-S.C.
Chuck Grassley R-Iowa
Orrin Hatch R-Utah
Dean Heller R-Nev.
John Hoeven R-N.D.
Cindy Hyde-Smith R-Miss.
James M. Inhofe R-Okla.
Johnny Isakson R-Ga.
Ron Johnson R-WIs.
John Kennedy R-La.
Jon Kyl R-Ariz.
James Lankford R-Okla.
Mike Lee R-Utah
Mitch McConnell R-Ky.
Jerry Moran R-Kan.
Rand Paul R-Ky.
David Perdue R-Ga.
Rob Portman R-Ohio
Jim Risch R-Idaho
Pat Roberts R-Kan.
Michael Rounds R-S.D.
Marco Rubio R-Fla.
Ben Sasse R-Neb.
Tim Scott R-S.C.
Richard C. Shelby R-Ala.
Dan Sullivan R-Alaska
John Thune R-S.D.
Thom Tills R-N.C.
Pat Toomey R-PA
Roger Wicker R-Miss.
Todd Young R-Ind.
Matt Clibanoff is a writer and editor based in New York City who covers music, politics, sports and pop culture. He currently serves as Lead Editor for Gramercy Media. His editorial work can be found in Inked Magazine, Pop Dust, The Liberty Project, and All Things Go. His fiction has been published in Forth Magazine. -- Find Matt at his website and on Twitter: @mattclibanoff
The Presidential Alert System: Why Donald Trump is Texting You
At approximately 2:18 PM today, every cellphone in America received a message testing this new system.
The current chapter of American history feels like a piece of speculative fiction, something resembling a joke we collectively forgot the punchline to. In the past two months alone, we've watched our Commander-in-Chief demolish a foreign economy via Twitter, fall in love with a voluptuous beauty, and nominate a gang rapist to the Supreme Court. Donald Trump, by virtue of his absurdity, has sent the news into a state of quantum flux in which the country's more prominent newsrooms have been forced to hire full-time staffers to monitor social media, patiently waiting for the tweet that abolishes the SEC or makes it legal to kill your dog. Now, with the help of FEMA, the president has the power to send alerts directly to your cellphone, whether you want him to or not. At approximately 2:18 PM today, every cellphone in America received a message testing this system.
And no, you can't opt out of the messaging service. In 2006, Congress passed a law called the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act preventing this. There's now a satellite uplink that telegraphs Trump's dementia-addled ramblings straight to your iPhone, and there's nothing you can do about it. This is kind of like having Bill O'Reilly's cirrhotic liver on speed dial. We live in hell.
Okay, so the above paragraph isn't exactly true. While the emergency texting program will light up your phone whenever there's "a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster or threat to public safety," Trump (probably) won't use this system as a means of continuing his many Twitter rants. That said, the question of what exactly constitutes a "natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster or threat to public safety" might provide the president with just enough leeway to use the system as a means of communicating his private thoughts.
Irwin Redlener, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, is worried that Trump will abuse this system, saying, "I'm not sure that the system would protect us from rogue announcements by a president who has exhibited the kind of behavior President Trump has over the last two years."
Also, it's not as if the government's never made an honest mistake with its emergency broadcast system. Remember in January when this happened:
HAWAII - THIS IS A FALSE ALARM. THERE IS NO INCOMING MISSILE TO HAWAII. I HAVE CONFIRMED WITH OFFICIALS THERE IS NO INCOMING MISSILE. pic.twitter.com/DxfTXIDOQs
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) January 13, 2018
Trump's steadily erratic Twitter posts and penchant for mocking the disabled have people worried that their phones are going to be inundated with a constant stream of presidential alerts. The fear is that if we get too many false alarms (or pointless rants), the text system will be rendered useless. Whether or not this happens remains to be seen, but the chances that this is the one function of his office that Trump uses responsibly seems unlikely.
Matt Clibanoff is a writer and editor based in New York City who covers music, politics, sports and pop culture. He currently serves as Lead Editor for Gramercy Media. His editorial work can be found in Inked Magazine, Pop Dust, The Liberty Project, and All Things Go. His fiction has been published in Forth Magazine. -- Find Matt at his website and on Twitter: @mattclibanoff
Seven NYPD Officers and 40 Others Arrested in Prostitution Bust
Earlier today, seven members of the NYPD were arrested, one of whom is a retired vice detective. The vice detective, who is married to a prostitute, teamed up with his wife to start two brothels, one in Sunset Park, Brooklyn and one on Roosevelt Avenue in Queens. As a result, there are 30 other officers currently under investigation by the Department of Internal Affairs.
The investigation began over three years ago as an FBI probe and started "after a member of the department suspected illegal activity by other members of the department and reported to Internal Affairs" according the New York Post. During today's busts, Internal Affairs raided the NYPD's 72nd precinct in Sunset Park and confiscated the electronic devices of the entire staff in search of additional evidence. They also stormed the precinct's locker room, clipping the lock on Det. Manuel Rodriguez's locker and going through his possessions. Despite his only having been in the 72nd precinct for about 5 months, Internal Affairs placed Rodriguez on modified duty.
While most of the action went down in Sunset Park, other arrested officers came from 109th and 84th precincts, as well as Transit Bureau Investigation and Evidence Collection. "Today, those who swore an oath and then betrayed it have felt the consequences of that infidelity. The people of this Department are rightly held to the highest standard, and should they fail to meet it, the penalty will be swift and severe," said NYPD Commissioner James O'Neill in a press conference. Details regarding who was involved in what portion of the illegal activity and to what extent, have yet to be released.
Those arrested include:
Sgt. Carlos Cruz, 69th Precinct Det. Squad
Sgt. Louis Failla, Queens Evidence Collection Team
Sgt. Cliff Nieves, Transit Bureau Investigation
PO Steven Nieves, 84th Precinct
PO Giancarlo Raspanti, 109th Precinct
Det. Gionanny Rojas-Acosta, Criminal Investigation Division Training
Det. Rene Samiego, Brooklyn South Vice.
The two detectives placed on leave were:
Det. Rafael Vega, of the Criminal Enterprise Investigative Section
Det. Manuel Rodriguez, of the 72nd Precinct
AI and the Hiring Process
Are games and algorithms the future of the interview process?
Even if you're qualified for the position you're applying for, many feel the interview process is a nerve-wracking experience, one that forces the interviewee to answer a series of exacting questions that have no real relevance to her ability to perform the job. From the employer side, things aren't much easier. HR reps and middle managers alike often find themselves with employees who look good on paper and talk a big game during their interview, but don't deliver once they've been hired. On top of this, there's nothing really stopping a potential employee from flat out lying during the hiring process. If an interviewee gets caught in a lie, she won't get hired, but she didn't have a job to begin with, so she's no worse for wear. In order to mitigate these and the myriad other difficulties associated with the hiring process, employers have started using (in a somewhat ironic twist) artificial intelligence to aid with recruiting.
Outside of the difficulties discussed above, one of the primary motivators for companies' move towards automated recruiting processes is money. It can cost nearly a quarter million dollars to recruit, hire, and onboard a new employee, and when someone turns out to be a dud, the effects can reverberate throughout the entire company. That said, it's not as if corporations have HAL from 2001 a Space Odyssey hand picking the optimal candidate, not yet at least. Different AI developers offer different things. For example, x.ai specializes in scheduling interviews, Filtered automatically generates coding challenges for aspiring programmers looking for work, and Clearfit has a tool that can rank potential candidates.
These programs, however useful, only free employers from having to do the low-level clerical work hiring. The bulk of the sorting and selecting of candidates still falls squarely on the shoulders of the hiring manager. Cue Pymetrics, a company built on the idea of replacing the way in which we conduct interviews and hire new employees. Pymetrics' AI uses a series of algorithms and cognitive science-based games to help pair employees and companies. The latter though, is what differentiates Pymetrics from the competition.
The idea is simple: when an employer gives an applicant a test or asks her a series of questions, the applicant answers in a way that comports with what she thinks the interviewer wants to hear. With an objective-based game where a clear goal is outlined, a candidate has a much harder time masking her methodology. The games Pymetrics develops reportedly measure 90 "cognitive, social and personality traits" and are used to gather data on a company's top performers. After enough data is collected, Pymetrics can then create the perfect composite employee. Every applicant is then measured against this composite, giving employers an objective look at who is best for the job.
The use of games is far from a passing trend however, and is not unique to Pymetrics. A Deloitte report recently revealed that nearly 30% of all business leaders use games and simulations in their hiring process. Unfortunately for companies hoping AI and algorithmic programs are the cure all for their (the companies') hiring woes, this report also concluded that over 70% of these business leaders found cognitive games to be a "weak" indicator of employee success. Still, to throw another wrench into the equation, there is a significant amount of evidence to support the idea that algorithms do outperform humans when it comes to hiring ideal candidates. In reality though, humans and AI systems are actually just better at different things. For example, a person, with only so much time in their day, can't accurately or quickly read through thousands of resumes and cover letters. But while algorithms are good at narrowing down selections and denying clear wrong fits, they aren't particularly well suited for sussing out passion or work ethic. There's also another, unforeseen issue attached to AI hiring.
AI and algorithmically-based hiring are supposedly unbiased and don't allow for pettiness, racism, or sexism to factor into their selection process. That said, today's leaders in AI technology are far from working out all the kinks. A crime-predicting algorithm in Florida recently labeled black people as potential criminals twice as often as it did white people. It also isn't an unrealistic jump in logic to suggest that an algorithm could see a demographic inconsistency, such as the best salesman at a particular firm happening to be male, and conclude that it should rank female job applicants lower. Pyretics, in particular, claims that its algorithms are rigorously designed to avoid this type of bias, but this issue not only calls AI's efficacy into question but its ethics as well. According to Sandra Wachter, a researcher at the Alan Turing Institute and the University of Oxford, "Algorithms force us to look into a mirror on society as it is," and that relying too heavily on data can make it seem as though our cultural biases are actually just inscrutable facts. This is what Arvind Narayanan, a professor of computer science at Princeton calls the "accuracy fetish," a fetish that's all too prevalent in Silicon Valley, a place in which AI is consistently touted as objective.
In a lot of ways, it's hard to argue against algorithmic hiring procedures. They save both time and money, and have been proven to work in several cases. The danger is not in this technology supplanting HR reps. People will continue to be a part of the interview process, if only for the reason that liking the people you work with is one of the most important facets of productivity. Algorithms only become a problem when they're treated as infallible oracles, capable of answering questions inaccessible to the human mind, rather than pieces of machinery. It's important to remember, the algorithm is a tool, an electric drill to the interview process's hand crank. AI isn't meant to replace human judgement, but to narrow the gap between rote tasks and decisions that require said judgement. In this metaphor, people aren't the hand crank or the electric drill; we're the screw.
That said, it's human nature to appeal to authority and the question that lies at the heart of the luddite's fear, is whether or not we can demystify this technology enough to continue trusting our guts over an algorithm's calculations. Arthur C. Clarke once said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." We'll find out soon enough whether or not he was right.The Grey Wolf Makes a Triumphant Return to Southern France
After years of living wolf-free, sheep herders are being forced to deal with their old enemy once again.
The battle between wolves and farmers has been going on since the beginning of time, and has been largely uninterrupted over the course of American history. Unlike the U.S., Western Europe, over the course of the twentieth century, has hunted these predators to the point of near-extinction. In the past few years however, grey wolves have started mounting a comeback, particularly in the Aveyron region of France where shepherds have had to start dealing with the problem of wolves attacking their flocks once again. There are now estimated to be about 360 wolves in France spread over 42 different packs, up by about 20% since last year. Today's packs have reportedly crossed through the Italian Alps, but why the sudden migration?
In the ninth century, France created an organization of wolf hunters called the Luparii to help protect its farming community from grey wolves. The group finished its work in the 1930s, hunting the wolf to extinction. The prevailing belief is that the current lupine advance is due to rapid urbanization and that large scale movement out of rural areas has allowed southern France's forests to expand. There's also been a nearly 50% decline in hunting since the mid-twentieth century, giving wolves the ability to spread out into patches of land that once thundered with sound of hunting rifles.
This reemergence has sparked a minor political battle in France between ecologists, who believe the introduction of wolves to the region is good for the environment, and farmers whose sheep are being attacked. In response to the issue, Emmanuel Macron's government has decided to allow the wolf population to grow by 40% over the next five years, much to the chagrin of the sheep herders in the Pyrenees and the Alps. In order to curtail a massive jump in the wolf population however, hunters will be allowed to kill up to 10% of the wolf population every year (12% if attacks persist).
This may seem like a diplomatic solution on paper, but many farmers feel it to be a decidedly pro-wolf decision, voted for by city-dwellers who don't understand the full ramifications of allowing grey wolves to prowl around France's farmlands. Considering close to 10,000 sheep were killed over the course of 2016, these concerns seem to be legitimate. That said, farmers haven't taken this slight lying down, and have organized protests to demonstrate how damaging wolves are to their livelihoods. One such protest occurred in Lyon last year, when farmers took to the street with thousands of animals, each animal representing one that was killed by a wolf in 2017.
As it is, these farmers still have cause to be upset, as a small amount of culling authorities have permitted hasn't been enough to stem the tide of wolf attacks. In fact, certain local government officials have even suggested that children shouldn't walk outside alone because of the danger. It's tough to disagree with the farmers on principle–especially when one considers their farms, financial stability, and personal safety are all at risk–but there have been isolated incidents in which they've let their ire get the best of them. Manoel Atman, an activist who supports the reintroduction of wolves has had "rifles fired near his house" and has been "threatened with having [his] legs broken."
Unfortunately, getting the numbers right regarding just how many wolves to cull isn't exactly a science. Environmentalists in France are often mortified by the thought of controlled hunting while farmers would rather see the grey wolf completely eradicated. Though they've gone too far in certain cases, France's livestock raisers haven't been presented with many tenable solutions to this growing issue. Despite the French government giving financial aid to farmers so they can purchase sheep herding dogs and electric fences, attacks persist. Farmers have derided the idea of purchasing fences. As one sheep herder named Hugues Fanouillère put it, "Farming is not like running a wildlife park; we cannot keep our animals caged up like you might in a house or a zoo." Still, with the government committed to rehabilitating France's wolf population, it's unlikely that farmers will be presented with another option.
While the United States does have thousands of grey wolves, most of them live in Alaska and a few northern states, such as Minnesota and Michigan. Because of this, the problem of wolves being dangerous to the livestock business, while not unheard of in the U.S., is a uniquely European issue. Due to the United States' relative size, most of our livestock production occurs in states where there are little-to-no grey wolves. States like Minnesota cull their wolf populations on a need-to basis, but when one considers that France is only about the size of Texas, it becomes easier to see why authorities and farmers alike see the introduction of grey wolves into the French ecosystem as a hot button issue.Daniel Ortega: From Revolutionary to Oppressor
Ortega's found it difficult to live up to his revolutionary ideals now that he's in charge.
Following years of occupation under Napoleon's armies during the Peninsular War, the Spanish Empire was severely crippled. In the decades that followed, many of Spain's colonies, emboldened by their years of self-governance during the Napoleonic wars, began splitting off and declaring independence. For Spain, the 19th century was marked by a decline in influence in the geopolitical sphere and the end of their status as a colonial power. The culmination of this decline was the Spanish-American war, in which Spain lost Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Philippines, and Guam to the United States. More importantly however, the end of the 19th century transformed the Western Hemisphere. The United States, not Spain, was now the leader on this side of the Atlantic, and while the U.S. didn't outright conquer the Central American nations (all of which were Spanish possessions until the mid 19th century) U.S. presence in the region was definitely felt.
Almost immediately following the Spanish American war, the United States found itself embroiled in conflicts all over Central America and the Caribbean, in what was later dubbed the Banana Wars. Perhaps more so than any other country, Nicaragua faced the full force of American intervention, being occupied virtually uninterrupted from 1898 to 1934, when the Great Depression forced the U.S. to pull its troops. This period of occupation saw U.S. soldiers clashing with the rebel forces of Augusto C. Sandino, also known as the Sandinistas. Following the withdrawal of the U.S. marines, Sandino was assassinated by Anastasio Somoza García, and the Somoza dynasty, a dictatorial regime that would rule Nicaragua until 1979, was born.
Like most dictatorships, the Somoza regime was rife with corruption and ultimately unsustainable. Starting in the early 1960s, the Sandinista National Liberation Front, named after Sandino's 1930s Sandinistas began openly opposing the Somozas. As these new Sandinistas began fighting a guerrilla war against the American-backed Somoza government, Daniel Ortega and his brother Humberto worked to consolidate the various anti-Somoza factions. Ultimately the revolution was successful, and the socialist Sandinistas took power in 1979.
Many businesses left Nicaragua for greener pastures, sensing that their profit margins were about to shrink. In response to their declining influence in the region, the U.S. government backed a conservative guerrilla group known as the Contras, who waged open war on the Sandinista government, murdering civilians and committing terrorist attacks throughout the country. The conflict reached a climax during the elections of 1990, when the U.S. government donated millions to Daniel Ortega's political opponent Violeta Chamorro. This was the first free election since the Sandinistas gained power, but ironically it was plagued by foreign intervention and assassinations. Violeta Chamorro went on to win the presidency, ending the Sandinista regime. Many political commentators speculate that the Sandinistas failed because Nicaragua's civilian population feared the Contra War wouldn't end until the Sandinistas were ousted from power.
Still, many of the socialist reforms put in place during the 80s were already in effect, and despite the gripes of wealthy industrialists, many people in Nicaragua were happier with their new lives. Some formerly wealthy people, like Luis Montoya Carrion, had even embraced the socialist cause. Before the revolution in 1979, Carrion had servants and chauffeurs. After, he began to "accept the fact [he] has to put [his] own case of Coke in the car." Carrion states that while there are still rich people and large businesses in Nicaragua, "the freedom to do whatever you want to your workers" is thankfully gone. Before the election in 1990, the culture of Nicaragua was shifting towards egalitarianism.
In recent years however, it's been a different story. The idealism of the Sandinistas has been all but drained from Nicaraguan society. When running in the 2006 presidential election, Daniel Ortega partnered with former Contra leader Jaime Morales Carazo in a move which Ortega claimed was designed to heal the divide. He also, in a complete reversal of his staunch leftist views, sought foreign investment to spur economic growth. Ortega is now in his third consecutive term as president after amending the constitution to eliminate term limits. Back in April of this year, Ortega's government violently suppressed student protestors using rubber bullets and in the months of unrest that have followed, hundreds of people have been killed. For many Nicaraguans, there's a cognitive dissonance attached to Daniel Ortega; a communist revolutionary repressing youth demonstrations now that he's the president. There is still a large portion of the population that sees Ortega as a hero and a patriot, but others believe him to be corrupt and that his government is exactly like that of the Somozas.
He's also drawn ire from many of Nicaragua's progressives for his very public turn to Catholicism. Instead of featuring the black and red Sandinista flags and overtly marxist taglines, Ortega's 2006 campaign feature pink posters that spoke about "Christianity, Socialism, and solidarity." He also, to the chagrin of liberal and leftist voters, refused to overturn the complete ban on abortion, a law that's still in place. It's extremely tempting to speculate what's caused Ortega to do a complete 180˚. Some believe his wife, who is also the Vice President of Nicaragua, has pushed him towards religion and the far right. Others look at Ortega's $50 million net worth and his newfound penchant for business and believe he's a man who has been thoroughly corrupted by money. There are even some reports that his campaign was financed via the drug trade and that his ties to criminal activity prove him incapable of being the leader Nicaragua needs as the 2nd poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Perhaps it's a combination of the three, or something else entirely.
What's clear, is that Daniel Ortega no longer represents the revolutionary Sandinistas– the ones who simultaneously inspired the poor to rise up and fight for their rights and rich men like Luis Montoya Carrion to embrace civic responsibility. As the civil unrest grows, Ortega points fingers at American interventionism in the press and flat out denies any responsibilities for his government's recent crimes, blaming a "satanic sect" for the protests. The recent uprisings have seemingly confirmed people's worst fears about Ortega, and leave many wondering about Nicaragua's immediate future. It seems as though it's hard to stay true to the ideals of a revolution after you've won it. That said, Ortega isn't the first to change his political stance after seizing power and more likely than not, he won't be the last.The Magnetic Poles Might Reverse: Please Don't Panic
It's not the end of the world, but there could be some changes.
According to NASA, the Earth's magnetic poles are due for a shakeup, one that could prompt them to flip 180˚. I know, this sounds bad. First things first–and this may sound supremely obvious or very reassuring based on your level of knowledge on the subject–the flipping of the magnetic poles will not result in any of the following:
A. A chain eruption of the world's volcanoes
B. Massive earthquakes and tsunamis
C. A complete technological breakdown a la Y2K
Okay, now that we've gone through our Day After Tomorrow doomsday checklist, it's time to examine what actually might happen. In order to do this however, we have to look back in time. Based on geological studies, we know that for the past 20 million years, Earth's magnetic poles have flipped roughly every 200,000-300,000 years. It's been close to 800,000 years since the last reversal, so we're definitely overdue. That said, this flip probably won't happen overnight. In fact, there are estimates that indicate changes in the past have occurred slowly, taking a few thousand years to fully develop. This is both a good and a bad thing. It's good, because if the poles shift slowly, we'll be able to address any unforeseen consequences as they occur, rather than having a bunch of problems dropped into our lap all at once. The problem is, this slow rate of change may leave our atmosphere vulnerable.
Luckily for us, Earth is surrounded by a powerful magnetic field that protects the surface from cosmic radiation. During a geomagnetic reversal however, this field is temporarily weakened, providing less protection against solar flares. If a magnetic reversal occurs, holes in the ozone, like the one in Antarctica, could become the norm. On a positive note, these holes wouldn't be permanent, but their presence would almost certainly correspond with an increase in skin cancer diagnoses due to the abundance of ultraviolet rays that would penetrate our atmosphere. Thankfully though, the amount cosmic radiation that gets through wasn't enough to cause widespread genetic mutations in the past, and claims that magnetic pole reversal is related to mass extinction are spurious at best. While a complete thinning of the Earth's magnetic field would have some serious side effects, it's nearly impossible to predict the degree to which it would be weakened if the poles do flip, if being the operative word.
That's right, despite the fact that Earth's magnetic field's strength has been decreasing for at least the last 160 years, there's a chance that the poles won't flip at all, that the process will be aborted. There is a precedence for this, as a similar phenomenon occurred about 40,000 years ago.
Still, if our poles do flip completely, there will be some consequences. For one, campers and wilderness experts will probably have to buy new compasses. According to Nadia Drake, north will be in Antarctica and south will be somewhere in Canada. The true victims in the event of geomagnetic reversal however, will be migratory animals such as birds and sea turtles. There's a significant chance they'll have a hard time resetting their migration patterns. That said, if the fossil record is to be believed, animals have been able to sort themselves out in the past. There's no reason to believe that today's birds wouldn't eventually adjust to the new polarity.
In the end, the flipping of our magnetic poles sounds much more frightening than it actually is. The worst case scenario is one in which we all wear a little more sunscreen and sales of UV-resistant windows go way up, and there's no telling whether or not this will actually happen. There is one extremely cool benefit of a geomagnetic shift: the Auroras Borealis–a reaction between the sun's particles and our atmosphere– will be visible all over the planet. Whether they'll retain the name "Northern Lights" is a matter of speculation however.
A New Type of Mannequin: The Rise of the CGI Influencer
Clothing companies have found a brand new way to market their wares.
In the years since Instagram's founding, the site has slowly transformed from a forum where users post pictures instead of status updates into a whirlwind of native advertising. Influencers jostle for space on cluttered timelines, repping the newest clothing or gadgets, showing off luxurious lifestyles to their many followers. While celebrity endorsements aren't anything new, the way in which advertisers and PR wonks have found an avenue through which to manufacture celebrity definitely is. It's a new spin on direct marketing, giving consumers a glimpse into the interior lives of the well-manicured and put together characters one might see in a commercial. It's also incredibly effective, and has that magical effect which used to be a monopoly held by Super Bowl sponsors; people actually look at the native advertising on influencers' pages voluntarily.
Still, there are certain associated costs that go along with giving influencers free merchandise. Sending products out is never a guarantee either, since influencers are inundated with packages from various marketing teams. Worst of all however, if this person is a reviewer, there's always the chance they publicly criticize the very thing they were meant to advertise. Recently, a Los Angeles-based startup called Brud came up with an innovative solution, simultaneously eliminating every problem one might associate with dealing with influencers. They built one in house using CGI technology. They even gave it a name. She's called Lil Miquela.
While it's relatively clear how advertisers benefit from CGI influencers, a reasonable question for someone unacquainted with Lil Miquela's account is: what's the appeal for the audience?
Lil Miquela
Brud was careful in their cultivation of Lil Miquela's "interests" and use the account to voice support for various social causes such as Black Lives Matter and LGBT rights, gathering followers through the use of popular hashtags and social movements. They also spend a lot of time writing convincing copy that accurately mimics the style of many Instagram photo captions. That said, for all of her realistic qualities, Lil Miquela is distinctly not human, and from a consumer standpoint this presents certain issues. For one, it's fairly difficult for some to trust a computer generated image's testimonials on fabric softness or style. There's something decidedly inauthentic about taking fashion advice from something that's never really worn clothing. That said, this hasn't stopped brands such as Fenty, Diesel, and Moncler from allowing various CGI influencers to rep their wares.
Secondly, CGI influencers, by virtue of not actually existing, occupy a nebulous legal space. Last year, the Federal Trade Commissions updated their guidelines surrounding influencers, requiring Instagrammers and other social media users to indicate whether or not their posts have been paid for, typically with the hashtags #sponsored or #ad. It's still unclear whether or not CGI influencers will be bound by these same rules.
As companies begin to catch onto this growing trend, many are expecting this niche to explode, with individual influencers being crafted to tout certain brands. If this happens however, advertisers risk over-saturating social media with manufactured accounts. CGI influencers could turn into glorified wrapping paper for what would essentially be very expensive and carefully designed banner ads.
That said, improvements in CGI technology offer companies a different means of advertising their products: licensing the CGI rights to various celebrities for use in online marketing. While Morgan Young, CEO of Quantum Capture, thinks certain questions regarding rights management will have to be answered before this occurs, it could be only a matter of time before a cartoon version of Reese Witherspoon appears on your Instagram feed and discusses the various merits of buying a Fossil™ watch. This technology is still in its infancy, but the development of CGI in the advertising space is certainly interesting. Depending on how the FTC chooses to regulate CGI influencers and whether these influencers are accepted into the mainstream, we could be witnessing the birth of an entirely new industry.Global Alliances and America's Rise to Prominence
America didn't come to rule the world over night.
Henry Kissinger is often thought of as the originator of realpolitik–political action dictated by circumstance and pragmatism rather than ideologies or ethics–but this couldn't be further from the truth. From Sun Tzu to Machiavelli to Thomas Hobbes, philosophers and political theorists alike have been advocating for a more practical politics for thousands of years, and their edicts have had profound effects on the way in which global alliances have shifted throughout history. Inasmuch as it takes a powerful nation to create powerful enemies, it's worth examining America's rise to alliance breaker/maker, a rise that's rooted in the 19th and early 20th centuries. A story:
Just after the American civil war, one of the best known practitioners of realpolitik, Otto Von Bismarck was consolidating power in Prussia and slowly, through a series of small wars, unifying Germany. Later, in 1873, Von Bismarck helped create the Three Emperors League between Russia, Austria-Hungary, and newly-unified Germany (formed following the Franco-Prussian war). Eventually, revolts and civil disorder in the Balkans eroded Russian involvement with the League, and upon its dissolution, Germany and Austria-Hungary formed the Dual Alliance, which was later expanded to include the newly formed Kingdom of Italy. It was then appropriately renamed The Triple Alliance.
Otto Von Bismarck
As the power vacuum in Europe was being filled by Germany, late 19th century America was still smarting from the Civil War, and it can be assumed, because of French and British involvement, the U.S. was a bit weary of the Western European powers. During this time, the largely amiable relations between Germany and the United States also started to decline. Imperial ambitions and Germany's decision to to build a large fleet of battleships in the 1890s ruined much of the cordiality the two nations shared throughout the previous decades. Coincidentally, this is when the United States and the United Kingdom started becoming chummy, partly due to the fact that Britain sided with the U.S. towards the latter half of the Spanish-American War– once it was clear the Americans were going to win.
A decade later, in 1907, the UK, France, and Russia signed The Triple Entente. This served a few purposes. It rebuilt Anglo-Russian and Franco-Russian relations following the Crimean war, but it also created an alliance by proxy, as the Russian Empire and the United States were on very good standing following the Alaska purchase and the Alliance they formed when suppressing the Boxer Rebellion in China. Seven years later, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia after Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Russia then mobilized to aid Serbia, and slowly but surely the rest of the European powers were drawn in. The Triple Entente and The Triple Alliance were at war. WWI had begun. Unlike their more pugnacious allies, the United States was not interested in getting involved, and avoided joining the war until 1917, when the British intercepted a German message to Mexico, called the Zimmerman Telegram, calling for a German-Mexican military alliance.
Woodrow Wilson and King George V
After the war ended, the victors signed the Treaty of Versailles, and Germany was turned into the Weimar Republic. Around the same time, Benito Mussolini's fascist party took control of Italy. The Treaty of Versailles' harsh conditions combined with the Great Depression, plunged Germany into a period of hyperinflation and civil unrest that eventually gave birth to National Socialism. Italy and Germany, being the two major European fascist states, were natural allies, and together began rapidly developing their militaries to spur economic growth. On the other side of the world, Japan was preparing to invade China, and by the mid-1930s, war looked inevitable to anyone who was paying attention. The U.S. leveled sanctions against their once-ally Japan once Japan's invasion of China began, and within two years the world was in the midst of another World War, this one even more disastrous than the first. With over 80 million war-related deaths, and the devastation of most European nations due to bombing and mass extermination, America was the only country left with enough infrastructure necessary to run the world economy. The economy that was left to America however, wasn't one based on trade or the manufacturing of luxury goods, but war. The old alliances between the U.S., France, and the United Kingdom, stayed in place, but new alliances were only created with countries that could help the U.S. in their chess match with the Soviet Union over control over the new, non-eurocentric world.
Hitler and Mussolini
The Cold War, between the United States and its NATO allies and the Soviet Union, was marketed as a battle of ideas–capitalism vs communism–but was really just a new type of economy, one in which Soviets and Americans sold mass amounts of weapons to opposing armies throughout the 20th century. Some examples include the Soviet Union arming North Korea during the Korean War and the United States arming the Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan war. More interesting than the boilerplate on-the-record facts about the Cold War however, is what happened immediately following WWII.
The Nazis, for all the atrocities they committed, were nothing if not efficient. Germany under Hitler was a cult-like, militaristic machine and had the most technologically advanced and well-trained army during WWII. The Germans had rockets capable of reaching space and jet aircraft, technologies that were incredibly valuable to both the Soviet Union and the United States. During Operation: Paperclip, hundreds of Nazi scientists were brought to the United States by the CIA, most famously rocket scientist Wernher Von Braun. But, there was another section of the CIA more interested in Nazi commanders, namely ones in charge of intelligence. Reinhard Gehlen, Nazi Germany's head of intel ligence on the Eastern Front was recruited, along with hundreds of other Nazi officers, to set up a spy network in Germany to keep an eye on the Soviet Union. It was called the Gehlen organization.
Reinhard Gehlen
Stranger however, is the case of Otto Skorzeny, an SS lieutenant colonel, who escaped an allied prison camp and hid in Bavaria, all the while in contact with Gehlen. At Gehlen's and by extension the CIA's behest, Skorzeny was sent to Egypt in 1952 to train the Egyptian army under General Mohamed Naguib. Skorzeny, specializing in commando tactics, also trained Arab and Palestinian volunteers and helped them plan raids into Israel and Gaza. One of the people he trained was none other than Yasser Arafat, the future leader of the PLO. The question that remains is: why would a United States' intelligence organization would be interested in training soldiers in an army that recently declared war on Israel, one of their allies?
Matt Clibanoff is a writer and editor based in New York City who covers music, politics, sports and pop culture. His editorial work can be found in Inked Magazine, Pop Dust, The Liberty Project, and All Things Go. His fiction has been published in Forth Magazine. -- Find Matt at his website and on Twitter: @mattclibanoff