csmonitor--2020-07-29--No detail spared: ‘Warhol’ expands on the life of the Pop Art icon

Pop artist Andy Warhol could be called a poet of excess .
As a painter , he was drawn to mass-produced goods such as cans of Campbell ’ s soup ( from which sprang a series of 32 silk-screen paintings ) or haunting images of Marilyn Monroe ( which he rendered in a combination of artificially saturated colors and stark black-and-white in another silk-screen series ) .
As a filmmaker , Warhol was no less immoderate , creating , for example , both an eight-hour reverie on the Empire State Building , “ Empire ” ( 1964 ) , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his orbit in “ Chelsea Girls ” ( 1966 ) .
Even Warhol ’ s diaries , which were published in 1989 , burst at the seams with details , trivia , and extreme self-centeredness .
Blake Gopnik ’ s staggeringly thorough biography “ Warhol ” examines the artist in granular detail without losing the sweep of his story .
Gopnik relates Warhol ’ s advancement from the child of a working-class family in Pittsburgh to a successful commercial artist in New York to an avant-garde icon and entrepreneur – but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the record .
For example , in writing about the boy born as Andrew Warhola in 1928 , Gopnik emphasizes that the products he would later memorialize in his art were likely absent from his household .
“ His actual childhood didn ’ t involve supermarket tuna , cans of Campbell ’ s Soup or any of the other shiny brands of Eisenhower America that Warhol later showed in his art – before World War II , those were still products targeted at the elites , ” Gopnik writes .
Gopnik claims that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his “ superstars , ” but was parodying a society that used such accolades .
Warhol was “ reveling in the absurdity of the mismatch between who his followers really were and the title he gave them , ” Gopnik writes .
He also contradicts the notion of the artist ’ s apparent apathy when it came to politics .
Warhol contributed “ quiet but consistent support ” to left-wing causes .
Gopnik , an art critic , explains that by reproducing the “ Mona Lisa , ” the artist was “ demonstrating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through ubiquity.
” Gopnik perceives that Warhol was standing aloof from the people and things he depicted .
“ For Pop to do important work , as art , it had to have a decent distance from the popular culture it was riffing on , ” he writes .
Admittedly , some readers will tire of descriptions of seemingly every endeavor Warhol lent his name to , and agree with the statement that “ the primary creation of Andy Warhol is Andy Warhol himself.
” Admirers of Warhol will rejoice at this book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calamities in his personal life – including an attempted murder by Valerie Solanas that brought him close to death in 1968 – and which celebrates the legacy of Warhol ’ s art .
Even those with a casual interest in the artist are likely to find themselves enthralled .

Pop artist Andy Warhol could be called a poet of excess. As a painter, he was drawn to mass-produced goods such as cans of Campbell’s soup (from which sprang a series of 32 silk-screen paintings) or haunting images of Marilyn Monroe (which he rendered in a combination of artificially saturated colors and stark black-and-white in another silk-screen series).
As a filmmaker, Warhol was no less immoderate, creating, for example, both an eight-hour reverie on the Empire State Building, “Empire” (1964), and a split-screen extravaganza depicting the assorted nonconformists in his orbit in “Chelsea Girls” (1966). Even Warhol’s diaries, which were published in 1989, burst at the seams with details, trivia, and extreme self-centeredness.
Blake Gopnik’s staggeringly thorough biography “Warhol” examines the artist in granular detail without losing the sweep of his story. Gopnik relates Warhol’s advancement from the child of a working-class family in Pittsburgh to a successful commercial artist in New York to an avant-garde icon and entrepreneur – but also adds to, and frequently corrects, the record.
For example, in writing about the boy born as Andrew Warhola in 1928, Gopnik emphasizes that the products he would later memorialize in his art were likely absent from his household. “His actual childhood didn’t involve supermarket tuna, cans of Campbell’s Soup or any of the other shiny brands of Eisenhower America that Warhol later showed in his art – before World War II, those were still products targeted at the elites,” Gopnik writes.
Gopnik claims that Warhol was not a true believer in his “superstars,” but was parodying a society that used such accolades. Warhol was “reveling in the absurdity of the mismatch between who his followers really were and the title he gave them,” Gopnik writes. He also contradicts the notion of the artist’s apparent apathy when it came to politics. Warhol contributed “quiet but consistent support” to left-wing causes.
Gopnik, an art critic, explains that by reproducing the “Mona Lisa,” the artist was “demonstrating how emptied out she’d become through ubiquity.” Gopnik perceives that Warhol was standing aloof from the people and things he depicted. “For Pop to do important work, as art, it had to have a decent distance from the popular culture it was riffing on,” he writes.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Admittedly, some readers will tire of descriptions of seemingly every endeavor Warhol lent his name to, and agree with the statement that “the primary creation of Andy Warhol is Andy Warhol himself.”
Admirers of Warhol will rejoice at this book, which does not gloss over the calamities in his personal life – including an attempted murder by Valerie Solanas that brought him close to death in 1968 – and which celebrates the legacy of Warhol’s art. Even those with a casual interest in the artist are likely to find themselves enthralled.


csmonitor--2020-07-29--The ultimate high ground: Russia and US try to set rules for space weapons

Weaponizing space “ can lead to a hugely expensive and destabilizing arms race , ” says Vladimir Dvorkin of the Center for International Security at the Russian research institution IMEMO .
“ Right now there are no laws against the deployment of conventional weapons in Earth orbit .
... We really need to sit down and come to an agreement.
” Both sides clearly agree that it ’ s high time to sit down and at least begin a conversation about it .
Russian and U.S. negotiators met in Vienna this week to discuss the issue .
The United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year about Russia ’ s use of a maneuverable new breed of “ inspector ” satellites that can spy on U.S. satellites and might be employed as weapons .
The Russians , for their part , argue that the U.S. has developed elaborate Earth-based weaponry capable of attacking an adversary ’ s satellite network in war .
Last week the U.S. Space Force accused Russia of deploying a “ projectile weapon ” in near-Earth orbit close to a U.S. spy satellite .
Though nothing was destroyed , the militarization of space has become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and U.S. negotiators met in Vienna this week to discuss a danger that has become increasingly urgent in recent years : how to curb the militarization of space .
Unless a new treaty , or at least a general understanding , is soon established , experts say , the future of human activity on “ the final frontier ” is going to look more like Star Wars than Star Trek .
There ’ s a lot to talk about .
Last week the newly-minted U.S. Space Force accused Russia of deploying a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a U.S. spy satellite .
Though nothing was destroyed , the United States has been complaining for over a year about Russia ’ s use of a maneuverable new breed of “ inspector ” satellites that can spy on U.S. satellites and might be employed as weapons .
The Russians , for their part , argue that the U.S. has developed elaborate Earth-based weaponry capable of attacking an adversary ’ s satellite network in war .
Both sides clearly agree that it ’ s high time to sit down and at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If this process of weaponizing space gets going , it can lead to a hugely expensive and destabilizing arms race , ” says Vladimir Dvorkin , an expert with the Center for International Security at IMEMO , a major Russian research institution under the Russian Academy of Sciences .
“ Right now there are no laws against the deployment of conventional weapons in Earth orbit , either the kind that can hit other objects in space or the kind that can hit the Earth .
We really need to sit down and come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international treaty that regulates the militarization of space , the Outer Space Treaty , was signed at the dawn of the space age in 1967 .
It bans the stationing of weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit , but does nothing to limit the multitude of military and dual-purpose technologies that have since proliferated or are under active development .
They include spy satellites , electronic warfare platforms , global positioning and targeting systems , missile interceptors , and laser weapons .
The U.S. accuses Russia of fielding a new type of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around under its own power , spying on other satellites and potentially destroying them .
Specifically , the discussion is about Kosmos 2543 , which was launched from a larger Russian satellite , Kosmos 2542 , in December 2019 .
The Russians insist that the new vehicle , which has snuggled up to both Russian and U.S. satellites since appearing , is just an “ inspector ” satellite whose job is basic reconnaissance .
But earlier this month Kosmos 2543 itself disgorged a new object from its body that the U.S. Space Force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapon which , firing under its own tiny engine power , could easily be used to destroy another satellite .
“ This is further evidence of Russia ’ s continuing efforts to develop and test space-based systems , ” said Gen. John Raymond , U.S. Space Force chief of space operations , in an official statement , “ and consistent with the Kremlin ’ s published military doctrine to employ weapons that hold U.S. and allied space assets at risk.
” The Russians say it ’ s just a probe , intended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vehicle .
But it ’ s a whole new situation , and it raises a host of questions , says Andrei Baklitsky , a security expert with Moscow State University .
“ This issue is pretty fuzzy , ” he says .
“ Once you have something in space that can maneuver with its own engine power , you effectively have a weapon .
It doesn ’ t take much to knock out a satellite .
But , of course , for it to be an actual war-fighting threat you would need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positioned in Earth orbit , not just one.
” The Russian satellite-killer test – if it was that – was far from unprecedented .
During the Cold War both the U.S. and the Soviet Union experimented with ways to destroy enemy space infrastructure , sometimes involving nuclear weapons .
After signing the Outer Space Treaty , efforts switched to more targeted methods .
In 1985 , the U.S. successfully destroyed an American target satellite using an anti-satellite ( ASAT ) missile fired from a high-flying F-15 fighter .
In 2008 , the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shoot down a huge U.S. reconnaissance satellite with hazardous fuel compounds on board , in an operation billed as intended to ensure public safety but criticized for its military implications .
A year earlier China destroyed one of its own satellites using an ASAT missile , an operation that left large amounts of hazardous debris floating in orbit .
India conducted a similar test last year .
Russian analysts say that Moscow is deeply worried about the secretive U.S. military program in space , which now has an official face in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new branch of the U.S. military .
Among its missions is the operation of the mysterious X-37B , an unmanned version of the old Space Shuttle .
The two ships in the U.S. squadron have already had five secret space flights , logging a total of nearly eight years in orbit .
The Russians claim that the X-37B does much the same tasks that their Kosmos satellites do , including positioning maneuverable “ inspector ” satellites in Earth orbit .
The Space Force is reportedly due to reveal an official doctrine for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month , something that Russian analysts warn might lead inexorably into a new space arms race .
“ Russia ’ s concern isn ’ t so much about any particular U.S. weapons or activity in space at present , ” says Mr. Baklitsky .
“ But we do worry that now there is a permanent U.S. Space Force , and it is producing its own war-fighting doctrine , that we could have an unstoppable process .
This renders any effort to find strategic stability on Earth much more complicated.
” At the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the collapse of U.S.-Russian space cooperation , whose heyday was in Cold War times , but which continued until recently in connection with the International Space Station .
But Russia has declined to join NASA ’ s Artemis program , which plans to put people back on the moon by 2024 .
Recently the Russian space agency Roscosmos reacted angrily to President Donald Trump ’ s April order to allow mining on the moon , even in the absence of any international treaties to regulate it .
Russia has since announced that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research station on the moon , a move that will do little to resolve Earthly tensions .
“ Whatever else happened , space cooperation was always a shining light , evidence that countries could cooperate for the common good , ” says Andrei Ionin , an independent Russian expert .
“ Such projects always played a stabilizing role .
But now it seems everyone will go their separate ways when it comes to exploring the moon .
Every man for himself is hardly the way to improve international cooperation .
”

Weaponizing space “can lead to a hugely expensive and destabilizing arms race,” says Vladimir Dvorkin of the Center for International Security at the Russian research institution IMEMO. “Right now there are no laws against the deployment of conventional weapons in Earth orbit. ... We really need to sit down and come to an agreement.”
Both sides clearly agree that it’s high time to sit down and at least begin a conversation about it. Russian and U.S. negotiators met in Vienna this week to discuss the issue.
When it comes to combat in space, there are no agreed-upon rules. Last week’s alleged anti-satellite weapon test by Russia highlights the need for space-going nations to reach an understanding on orbital militarization.
The United States has been complaining for more than a year about Russia’s use of a maneuverable new breed of “inspector” satellites that can spy on U.S. satellites and might be employed as weapons. The Russians, for their part, argue that the U.S. has developed elaborate Earth-based weaponry capable of attacking an adversary’s satellite network in war.
Last week the U.S. Space Force accused Russia of deploying a “projectile weapon” in near-Earth orbit close to a U.S. spy satellite. Though nothing was destroyed, the militarization of space has become increasingly urgent in recent years.
Russian and U.S. negotiators met in Vienna this week to discuss a danger that has become increasingly urgent in recent years: how to curb the militarization of space.
Unless a new treaty, or at least a general understanding, is soon established, experts say, the future of human activity on “the final frontier” is going to look more like Star Wars than Star Trek.
There’s a lot to talk about. Last week the newly-minted U.S. Space Force accused Russia of deploying a “projectile weapon” in near-Earth orbit close to a U.S. spy satellite. Though nothing was destroyed, the United States has been complaining for over a year about Russia’s use of a maneuverable new breed of “inspector” satellites that can spy on U.S. satellites and might be employed as weapons.
Why We Wrote This When it comes to combat in space, there are no agreed-upon rules. Last week’s alleged anti-satellite weapon test by Russia highlights the need for space-going nations to reach an understanding on orbital militarization.
The Russians, for their part, argue that the U.S. has developed elaborate Earth-based weaponry capable of attacking an adversary’s satellite network in war. Both sides clearly agree that it’s high time to sit down and at least begin a conversation about it.
“If this process of weaponizing space gets going, it can lead to a hugely expensive and destabilizing arms race,” says Vladimir Dvorkin, an expert with the Center for International Security at IMEMO, a major Russian research institution under the Russian Academy of Sciences. “Right now there are no laws against the deployment of conventional weapons in Earth orbit, either the kind that can hit other objects in space or the kind that can hit the Earth. We really need to sit down and come to an agreement.”
Satellite strategy
The only major international treaty that regulates the militarization of space, the Outer Space Treaty, was signed at the dawn of the space age in 1967. It bans the stationing of weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, but does nothing to limit the multitude of military and dual-purpose technologies that have since proliferated or are under active development. They include spy satellites, electronic warfare platforms, global positioning and targeting systems, missile interceptors, and laser weapons.
The U.S. accuses Russia of fielding a new type of vehicle, which is able to scoot around under its own power, spying on other satellites and potentially destroying them. Specifically, the discussion is about Kosmos 2543, which was launched from a larger Russian satellite, Kosmos 2542, in December 2019. The Russians insist that the new vehicle, which has snuggled up to both Russian and U.S. satellites since appearing, is just an “inspector” satellite whose job is basic reconnaissance. But earlier this month Kosmos 2543 itself disgorged a new object from its body that the U.S. Space Force judged to be some sort of projectile weapon which, firing under its own tiny engine power, could easily be used to destroy another satellite.
“This is further evidence of Russia’s continuing efforts to develop and test space-based systems,” said Gen. John Raymond, U.S. Space Force chief of space operations, in an official statement, “and consistent with the Kremlin’s published military doctrine to employ weapons that hold U.S. and allied space assets at risk.”
The Russians say it’s just a probe, intended to help the inspection work of the larger vehicle. But it’s a whole new situation, and it raises a host of questions, says Andrei Baklitsky, a security expert with MGIMO, the Moscow State Institute of International Relations.
“This issue is pretty fuzzy,” he says. “Once you have something in space that can maneuver with its own engine power, you effectively have a weapon. It doesn’t take much to knock out a satellite. But, of course, for it to be an actual war-fighting threat you would need to have an awful lot of them already positioned in Earth orbit, not just one.”
The Russian satellite-killer test – if it was that – was far from unprecedented. During the Cold War both the U.S. and the Soviet Union experimented with ways to destroy enemy space infrastructure, sometimes involving nuclear weapons. After signing the Outer Space Treaty, efforts switched to more targeted methods. In 1985, the U.S. successfully destroyed an American target satellite using an anti-satellite (ASAT) missile fired from a high-flying F-15 fighter. In 2008, the U.S. employed a sea-based Aegis missile defense weapon to shoot down a huge U.S. reconnaissance satellite with hazardous fuel compounds on board, in an operation billed as intended to ensure public safety but criticized for its military implications.
A year earlier China destroyed one of its own satellites using an ASAT missile, an operation that left large amounts of hazardous debris floating in orbit. India conducted a similar test last year.
The rise of Space Force
Russian analysts say that Moscow is deeply worried about the secretive U.S. military program in space, which now has an official face in the form of the U.S. Space Force, a new branch of the U.S. military. Among its missions is the operation of the mysterious X-37B, an unmanned version of the old Space Shuttle. The two ships in the U.S. squadron have already had five secret space flights, logging a total of nearly eight years in orbit. The Russians claim that the X-37B does much the same tasks that their Kosmos satellites do, including positioning maneuverable “inspector” satellites in Earth orbit.
The Space Force is reportedly due to reveal an official doctrine for fighting war in space in the next month, something that Russian analysts warn might lead inexorably into a new space arms race.
“Russia’s concern isn’t so much about any particular U.S. weapons or activity in space at present,” says Mr. Baklitsky. “But we do worry that now there is a permanent U.S. Space Force, and it is producing its own war-fighting doctrine, that we could have an unstoppable process. This renders any effort to find strategic stability on Earth much more complicated.”
At the same time, some Russian analysts fret about the collapse of U.S.-Russian space cooperation, whose heyday was in Cold War times, but which continued until recently in connection with the International Space Station. But Russia has declined to join NASA’s Artemis program, which plans to put people back on the moon by 2024. Recently the Russian space agency Roscosmos reacted angrily to President Donald Trump’s April order to allow mining on the moon, even in the absence of any international treaties to regulate it.
Russia has since announced that it will partner with China to build a research station on the moon, a move that will do little to resolve Earthly tensions.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
“Whatever else happened, space cooperation was always a shining light, evidence that countries could cooperate for the common good,” says Andrei Ionin, an independent Russian expert. “Such projects always played a stabilizing role. But now it seems everyone will go their separate ways when it comes to exploring the moon. Every man for himself is hardly the way to improve international cooperation.”
Editor's note: The original version misidentified the institution at which Andrei Baklitsky works.


csmonitor--2020-07-29--Whither the White House in coronavirus negotiations?

Republican senators can read polls as well as anyone .
Right now , they ’ re staring at the numbers , and seeing a future where the GOP caucus is diminished – and the White House is occupied by President Joe Biden .
You can see this in the way they ’ re handling the new $ 1 trillion Senate version of the coronavirus relief bill .
Yes , it ’ s still early , there ’ s plenty of time for President Donald Trump to recover .
All he needs to do is get his job approval rating up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points off Mr. Biden ’ s poll lead .
Then he ’ d be within the margin of error .
Another 2016-like surprise victory would become a possibility .
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his party colleagues don ’ t seem to be betting on that .
For one thing , they ’ re dismissing stuff the White House wants in the bill out of hand .
President Trump pushed for the Senate to include a payroll tax cut , for instance .
At one point he indicated he ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have one .
It didn ’ t even make it into the first draft .
GOP Senators are also balking at a White House request for $ 1.75 billion for a new FBI headquarters building .
It ’ s not related to COVID relief , they say .
“ I don ’ t know – that makes no sense to me .
I ’ d be fine with stripping it out , ” said Sen. Lindsey Graham , normally a staunch Trump ally , on Tuesday .
Then there ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the tranche of deficit spending the new bill represents .
“ There is significant resistance to yet another trillion dollars , ” said GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas on Monday .
“ The White House is trying to solve bad polling by agreeing to indefensibly bad debt , ” said Sen. Ben Sasse , Republican of Nebraska , in a statement released Tuesday evening .
It ’ s more likely than not that Republicans and Democrats will come to agreement on a new relief bill eventually , given the dire state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But still , for many in the GOP , it ’ s as if they ’ re looking past the current president and practicing the way they ’ ll oppose anticipated big-spending Democratic presidential proposals to come .
Let us know what you ’ re thinking at csmpolitics @ csmonitor.com .

Dear reader:
Republican senators can read polls as well as anyone. Right now, they’re staring at the numbers, and seeing a future where the GOP caucus is diminished – and the White House is occupied by President Joe Biden.
You can see this in the way they’re handling the new $1 trillion Senate version of the coronavirus relief bill.
Yes, it’s still early, there’s plenty of time for President Donald Trump to recover. All he needs to do is get his job approval rating up into the mid-40s and trim a few points off Mr. Biden’s poll lead. Then he’d be within the margin of error. Another 2016-like surprise victory would become a possibility.
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his party colleagues don’t seem to be betting on that. For one thing, they’re dismissing stuff the White House wants in the bill out of hand.
President Trump pushed for the Senate to include a payroll tax cut, for instance. At one point he indicated he’d veto a relief bill that didn’t have one. It didn’t even make it into the first draft.
GOP Senators are also balking at a White House request for $1.75 billion for a new FBI headquarters building. It’s not related to COVID relief, they say.
“I don’t know – that makes no sense to me. I’d be fine with stripping it out,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, normally a staunch Trump ally, on Tuesday.
Then there’s the negative things some Republican Senators are saying about the tranche of deficit spending the new bill represents.
“There is significant resistance to yet another trillion dollars,” said GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas on Monday.
“The White House is trying to solve bad polling by agreeing to indefensibly bad debt,” said Sen. Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska, in a statement released Tuesday evening.
It’s more likely than not that Republicans and Democrats will come to agreement on a new relief bill eventually, given the dire state of the pandemic and US economy.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
But still, for many in the GOP, it’s as if they’re looking past the current president and practicing the way they’ll oppose anticipated big-spending Democratic presidential proposals to come.
Let us know what you’re thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.


csmonitor--2020-07-29--Democracy is under fire, but also underrated

International democracy watchers say that autocracy is on the rise , from India to Hungary , and that the majority of the world ’ s governments are now autocratic .
But at the same time , ordinary citizens support democracy by large margins , even if they are disappointed by the way it works in practice .
That raises questions about the rule of law , but it also suggests that the underpinnings of democracy , based on common assumptions of what behavior is acceptable , are weaker than they once were , both at home and abroad .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But they don ’ t always wear unit insignia , they don ’ t identify themselves , and some of them are clearly disregarding the usual standards of identification , accountability , and redress that apply to civilian police .
Video from Portland , Oregon , showing federal paramilitary forces detaining protesters and driving them away in unmarked cars has aroused some disturbing memories from my past as a foreign correspondent in places such as South Africa , Lebanon , and Iran .
Of all the scenes of anger and confrontation from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one video in particular has hit home for me : footage of a pair of federal agents in full camouflage gear detaining a solitary , unresistant protester , bundling him into an unmarked minivan and taking him away .
It aroused almost visceral echoes from my years as a foreign correspondent : memories of marauding Syrian “ peacekeeping ” troops on the streets of Beirut , South African forces in the sprawling black township of Soweto under apartheid , or the pasdaran , Iran ’ s Revolutionary Guard , in the early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Islamic Republic .
The circumstances in Portland are different .
Nobody has disappeared , and the paramilitaries in Portland are not death squads .
The myriad issues their behavior has raised since they were deployed under an executive order by President Donald Trump to protect federal buildings are still being debated and litigated .
But this much is clear from the minivan scene and other videos that are , for me , eerily reminiscent .
It ’ s that the men in camouflage , whatever their other role or duties , have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that some of them are disregarding the usual standards of identification , accountability , and redress that apply to civilian police .
Their unit insignia are often unclear and sometimes , it seems , nonexistent .
They wear no body cameras .
They answer no questions .
Such personal interaction as they ’ ve had with the citizens they ’ re policing seems to have been overwhelmingly nonverbal .
In another viral video from Portland , a middle-aged U.S. Navy veteran can be seen trying to engage several of the troops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a baton and pepper-sprayed .
There are those who see all this as a departure from a fundamental tenet of American democracy : the rule of law .
One of the millions who viewed the video of the protester being taken away in the van was Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley .
He tweeted : “ Authoritarian governments , not democratic republics , send unmarked authorities after protesters.
” But the events in Portland have highlighted another issue , one that has echoed recently in dozens of countries around the world .
It goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. and other democracies circumscribe policing and the maintenance of public order .
It is that democracy ultimately depends on more than just rules and regulations .
Equally important is the web of accepted norms built up and embedded in people ’ s minds over time .
They define , by political and popular consensus , what is accepted as proper or seen as simply not done .
That ’ s the lens that may best clarify the events in Portland and beyond .
Because this unwritten underpinning of democratic government is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development explored in a new book by journalist and historian Anne Applebaum .
Called “ Twilight of Democracy : The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism , ” it ’ s a personal reflection on how some of her fellow center-right conservative thinkers have come to accept and support the erosion of democratic principles , whether in Poland or Hungary , Spain or the United States .
A range of explanations has been suggested for why populism , and specifically the recent authoritarian strain of populism , has erupted now .
Among them : the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waning trust in established political parties and institutions ; the relentlessly , angrily adversarial use of social media .
Ms. Applebaum observes , darkly , “ given the right conditions , any society can turn against democracy .
Indeed , if history is anything to go by , all of our societies eventually will.
” In my experience , very few of the people I ’ ve met in the countries I ’ ve reported from would voluntarily choose to live under authoritarian rule rather than enjoy individual freedoms .
But I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book is getting at is this : Democracy is not the natural political order of things .
It can be messy .
It involves give and take .
It rarely delivers quick fixes .
It is incremental .
Also , it is often frustrating .
What is undeniable is that the recent trend has been toward norm-busting populist leaders .
Two measures of democracy around the world – taken by the Economist Intelligence Unit and the Swedish-based V-Dem organization – have discerned a global shift toward more autocratic government .
The EIU report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for democracy in 2019 was the lowest since the group began its surveys in 2006 .
V-Dem ’ s Democracy Report 2020 rated a majority of countries as autocracies for the first time since 2001 .
It listed its first European Union state – Hungary – as nondemocratic , terming it an “ electoral authoritarian regime.
” V-Dem still defines the U.S. as a democracy , but groups it with countries experiencing “ significant and substantial autocratization.
” The EIU has dropped the U.S. from its list of full democracies , downgrading it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around 60 other countries , to a “ flawed democracy.
” The EIU report , however , does make a telling observation : People may be unhappy with the way democracy works in practice , but they have not lost faith in the ideal .
Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center , the EIU notes that “ global attitudes toward democracy have … revealed a disjuncture between still-high levels of public support for democracy across the globe and deep popular disappointment with the functioning of democracy.
” And V-Dem points out that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on independent media and academic freedoms are all on the rise , so is the global number of pro-democracy demonstrations .
“ The share of countries with substantial pro-democracy mass protests rose from 27 percent in 2009 to 44 percent in 2019 , ” it reports .
Indeed , like so much else in the increasingly fluid tide of contemporary world politics , the two democracy studies , Ms. Applebaum ’ s book , and even the confrontations in Portland suggest that the final word on democracy has not yet been spoken .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that reports of its death may prove to be exaggerated .

International democracy watchers say that autocracy is on the rise, from India to Hungary, and that the majority of the world’s governments are now autocratic. But at the same time, ordinary citizens support democracy by large margins, even if they are disappointed by the way it works in practice.
That raises questions about the rule of law, but it also suggests that the underpinnings of democracy, based on common assumptions of what behavior is acceptable, are weaker than they once were, both at home and abroad.
The behavior of federal paramilitary forces in Portland has raised rule-of-law questions that go to the heart of democracy. They also point to another issue: that democracy ultimately depends on more than just rules and regulations.
The U.S. agents are not death squads. But they don’t always wear unit insignia, they don’t identify themselves, and some of them are clearly disregarding the usual standards of identification, accountability, and redress that apply to civilian police.
Video from Portland, Oregon, showing federal paramilitary forces detaining protesters and driving them away in unmarked cars has aroused some disturbing memories from my past as a foreign correspondent in places such as South Africa, Lebanon, and Iran.
Of all the scenes of anger and confrontation from the ongoing street battles in Portland, Oregon, one video in particular has hit home for me: footage of a pair of federal agents in full camouflage gear detaining a solitary, unresistant protester, bundling him into an unmarked minivan and taking him away.
It aroused almost visceral echoes from my years as a foreign correspondent: memories of marauding Syrian “peacekeeping” troops on the streets of Beirut, South African forces in the sprawling black township of Soweto under apartheid, or the pasdaran, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, in the early years of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s Islamic Republic.
The circumstances in Portland are different. Nobody has disappeared, and the paramilitaries in Portland are not death squads. The myriad issues their behavior has raised since they were deployed under an executive order by President Donald Trump to protect federal buildings are still being debated and litigated.
Why We Wrote This The behavior of federal paramilitary forces in Portland has raised rule-of-law questions that go to the heart of democracy. They also point to another issue: that democracy ultimately depends on more than just rules and regulations.
But this much is clear from the minivan scene and other videos that are, for me, eerily reminiscent. It’s that the men in camouflage, whatever their other role or duties, have been acting as a de facto police force, and that some of them are disregarding the usual standards of identification, accountability, and redress that apply to civilian police.
Their unit insignia are often unclear and sometimes, it seems, nonexistent. They wear no body cameras. They answer no questions. Such personal interaction as they’ve had with the citizens they’re policing seems to have been overwhelmingly nonverbal. In another viral video from Portland, a middle-aged U.S. Navy veteran can be seen trying to engage several of the troops in conversation. He is beaten with a baton and pepper-sprayed.
There are those who see all this as a departure from a fundamental tenet of American democracy: the rule of law. One of the millions who viewed the video of the protester being taken away in the van was Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley. He tweeted: “Authoritarian governments, not democratic republics, send unmarked authorities after protesters.”
Twilight of democracy?
But the events in Portland have highlighted another issue, one that has echoed recently in dozens of countries around the world. It goes beyond the specific legal framework with which the U.S. and other democracies circumscribe policing and the maintenance of public order.
It is that democracy ultimately depends on more than just rules and regulations. Equally important is the web of accepted norms built up and embedded in people’s minds over time. They define, by political and popular consensus, what is accepted as proper or seen as simply not done.
That’s the lens that may best clarify the events in Portland and beyond. Because this unwritten underpinning of democratic government is proving increasingly fragile.
This is a development explored in a new book by journalist and historian Anne Applebaum. Called “Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism,” it’s a personal reflection on how some of her fellow center-right conservative thinkers have come to accept and support the erosion of democratic principles, whether in Poland or Hungary, Spain or the United States.
A range of explanations has been suggested for why populism, and specifically the recent authoritarian strain of populism, has erupted now. Among them: the economic strains and dislocations of globalization; waning trust in established political parties and institutions; the relentlessly, angrily adversarial use of social media.
Ms. Applebaum observes, darkly, “given the right conditions, any society can turn against democracy. Indeed, if history is anything to go by, all of our societies eventually will.”
In my experience, very few of the people I’ve met in the countries I’ve reported from would voluntarily choose to live under authoritarian rule rather than enjoy individual freedoms. But I think part of what Ms. Applebaum’s book is getting at is this: Democracy is not the natural political order of things. It can be messy. It involves give and take. It rarely delivers quick fixes. It is incremental. Also, it is often frustrating.
Autocrats rise, democrats fight back
What is undeniable is that the recent trend has been toward norm-busting populist leaders. Two measures of democracy around the world – taken by the Economist Intelligence Unit and the Swedish-based V-Dem organization – have discerned a global shift toward more autocratic government.
The EIU report’s “average global score” for democracy in 2019 was the lowest since the group began its surveys in 2006. V-Dem’s Democracy Report 2020 rated a majority of countries as autocracies for the first time since 2001. It listed its first European Union state – Hungary – as nondemocratic, terming it an “electoral authoritarian regime.”
V-Dem still defines the U.S. as a democracy, but groups it with countries experiencing “significant and substantial autocratization.” The EIU has dropped the U.S. from its list of full democracies, downgrading it, along with Hungary and Poland and around 60 other countries, to a “flawed democracy.”
The EIU report, however, does make a telling observation: People may be unhappy with the way democracy works in practice, but they have not lost faith in the ideal.
Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the EIU notes that “global attitudes toward democracy have … revealed a disjuncture between still-high levels of public support for democracy across the globe and deep popular disappointment with the functioning of democracy.”
And V-Dem points out that while authoritarianism, autocracy, and assaults on independent media and academic freedoms are all on the rise, so is the global number of pro-democracy demonstrations. “The share of countries with substantial pro-democracy mass protests rose from 27 percent in 2009 to 44 percent in 2019,” it reports.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Indeed, like so much else in the increasingly fluid tide of contemporary world politics, the two democracy studies, Ms. Applebaum’s book, and even the confrontations in Portland suggest that the final word on democracy has not yet been spoken.
Or, to misquote Mark Twain, that reports of its death may prove to be exaggerated.


csmonitor--2020-07-29--A moment in the US for deep listening

A moment in the US for deep listening

In early April , a minor earthquake rattled the Mexican town of Petatlán .
In pre-pandemic times , the seismic signals would have been difficult to pick out from all the vibrations of human activity that ground-monitoring instruments can also detect .
But shutdowns from COVID-19 have produced a long period of reduced seismic noise from people , enabling geologists to identify natural tremors as seldom before .
These scientists are not alone in taking advantage of the new quiet .
With fewer ships at sea , marine biologists have noted changes in the way humpback whales communicate with each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of deep listening may lead to advances in earthquake detection or reshape strategies to protect whales .
Could the same idea be applied to today ’ s politics ?
Have both the pandemic and the racial justice movement opened up an unsettling moment in the U.S. to enable broader listening ?
Joint research by the University of California , Berkeley and Yale University has found that listening during a political discussion is more persuasive than debating .
It is also the secret to finding common ground on divisive issues .
A first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a learning experience for all sides .
Otherwise each person ’ s initial views may only harden .
A study published in May engaged nearly 7,000 U.S. voters in conversations about immigration and transgender rights .
Those framed as arguments about policy choices tended to reinforce views already held .
When participants were exposed to personal narratives on the same issues , gaps narrowed .
Arguments generate counterarguments , researchers found .
“ When we talk about persuasion , we talk so much about how to make the most effective arguments , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor who led the study , in an interview with Berkeley News .
“ But we don ’ t talk so much about how to be a good listener .
... We might have more in common than we think.
” In particularly divisive elections , voters often cast ballots against candidates they oppose rather than for candidates they support .
Just before the 2016 presidential election , for example , a Pew poll found that 53 % of Republican voters were motivated to vote against Hillary Clinton while 44 % said they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For the coming election , a Democracy Fund poll looked at the “ net enthusiasm ” – the share of voters who find a candidate “ very unfavorable ” minus those who find the candidate “ very favorable.
” It showed that Americans have low expectations .
Both presidential candidates have a negative net enthusiasm among likely voters : Joe Biden at minus 3 % , President Trump at minus 23 % .
There is still time to change the nature of the national discussion .
While the outward responses to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a restive summer , they have also opened quieter spaces for dialogue .
In recognizing this , the heightened empathy can elevate the tone of the campaign .
A robust contest of ideas involves more than speaking .
Deeper listening can strengthen democracy , too .

In early April, a minor earthquake rattled the Mexican town of Petatlán. In pre-pandemic times, the seismic signals would have been difficult to pick out from all the vibrations of human activity that ground-monitoring instruments can also detect. But shutdowns from COVID-19 have produced a long period of reduced seismic noise from people, enabling geologists to identify natural tremors as seldom before.
These scientists are not alone in taking advantage of the new quiet. With fewer ships at sea, marine biologists have noted changes in the way humpback whales communicate with each other.
In both cases, this kind of deep listening may lead to advances in earthquake detection or reshape strategies to protect whales.
Could the same idea be applied to today’s politics? Have both the pandemic and the racial justice movement opened up an unsettling moment in the U.S. to enable broader listening?
Joint research by the University of California, Berkeley and Yale University has found that listening during a political discussion is more persuasive than debating. It is also the secret to finding common ground on divisive issues.
A first step is to frame a dialogue as a learning experience for all sides. Otherwise each person’s initial views may only harden. A study published in May engaged nearly 7,000 U.S. voters in conversations about immigration and transgender rights. Those framed as arguments about policy choices tended to reinforce views already held. When participants were exposed to personal narratives on the same issues, gaps narrowed.
Arguments generate counterarguments, researchers found. “When we talk about persuasion, we talk so much about how to make the most effective arguments,” said David Broockman, a UC Berkeley professor who led the study, in an interview with Berkeley News. “But we don’t talk so much about how to be a good listener. ... We might have more in common than we think.”
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
In particularly divisive elections, voters often cast ballots against candidates they oppose rather than for candidates they support. Just before the 2016 presidential election, for example, a Pew poll found that 53% of Republican voters were motivated to vote against Hillary Clinton while 44% said they were motivated to vote for Donald Trump. For the coming election, a Democracy Fund poll looked at the “net enthusiasm” – the share of voters who find a candidate “very unfavorable” minus those who find the candidate “very favorable.” It showed that Americans have low expectations. Both presidential candidates have a negative net enthusiasm among likely voters: Joe Biden at minus 3%, President Trump at minus 23%.
There is still time to change the nature of the national discussion. While the outward responses to the pandemic and racial injustice have made for a restive summer, they have also opened quieter spaces for dialogue. In recognizing this, the heightened empathy can elevate the tone of the campaign. A robust contest of ideas involves more than speaking. Deeper listening can strengthen democracy, too.


csmonitor--2020-07-29--Anti-Semitism on Facebook? #NoDenyingIt, say Holocaust survivors.

Holocaust survivors around the world are lending their voices to a campaign launched Wednesday targeting Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg , urging him to take action to remove denial of the Nazi genocide from the social media site .
Coordinated by the New York-based Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany , the # NoDenyingIt campaign uses Facebook itself to make the survivors ’ entreaties to Mr. Zuckerberg heard , posting one video per day urging him to remove Holocaust-denying groups , pages , and posts as hate speech .
Videos will also be posted on Facebook-owned Instagram , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ire of the Claims Conference and others with comments in 2018 to the tech website Recode that posts denying the Nazi annihilation of 6 million Jews would not necessarily be removed .
He said he did not think Holocaust deniers were “ intentionally ” getting it wrong , and that as long as posts were not calling for harm or violence , even offensive content should be protected .
After an outcry , Mr. Zuckerberg , who is Jewish himself , clarified that while he personally found “ Holocaust denial deeply offensive ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech.
” Since then , Facebook representatives have met with the Claims Conference but the group , which negotiates compensation payments from Germany for Holocaust victims , says Mr. Zuckerberg himself has refused to .
The goal of the campaign is to get him to sit down with Holocaust survivors so that they can personally tell him their stories and make their case that denial violates Facebook ’ s hate speech standards and should be removed .
“ In Germany or in Austria people go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they know it ’ s a lie , it ’ s libel , ” said Eva Schloss , an Auschwitz survivor who today lives in London and has recorded a message for Mr. Zuckerberg .
“ How can somebody really doubt it ?
Where are the 6 million people ?
There are tens of thousands of photos taken by the Nazis themselves .
They were proud of what they were doing .
They don ’ t deny it , they know they did it.
” Ms. Schloss ’ family escaped before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where she became friends with Anne Frank , who lived nearby in Amsterdam and was the same age .
After the German army overran the country , the Schloss and Frank families went into hiding but were discovered by the Nazis separately in 1944 , the Schloss family betrayed by a Dutch woman .
Ms. Schloss and her mother survived Auschwitz , but her father and brother were killed , while Otto Frank , Anne ’ s father , was the only survivor of his immediate family and married Ms. Schloss ’ mother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his daughter ’ s now-famous diary so that the world could hear her story .
Ms. Schloss has written about her own story , is a frequent speaker , and would like to tell Mr. Zuckerberg of her own experience .
“ It was just every day , the chimneys were smoking , the smell of burning flesh , ” she told The Associated Press , adding that she had been separated from her mother and assumed she had been gassed .
“ Can you imagine that feeling ?
I was 15 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world and it was terrible.
” Facebook said in a statement that it takes down Holocaust denial posts in countries where it is illegal , like Germany , France , and Poland , while in countries where it is not an offense , like the United States and Britain , it is carefully monitored to determine whether it crosses the line into what is allowed .
“ We take down any post that celebrates , defends , or attempts to justify the Holocaust , ” Facebook told the AP .
“ The same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victims , accuses victims of lying about the atrocities , spews hate , or advocates for violence against Jewish people in any way .
Posts and articles that deny the Holocaust often violate one or more of these standards and are removed from Facebook.
” Earlier this month , a two-year audit of Facebook ’ s civil rights record found “ serious setbacks ” that have marred the social network ’ s progress on matters such as hate speech , misinformation , and bias .
Mr. Zuckerberg is one of four CEOs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the U.S. Congress on Wednesday over the way they dominate the market .
More than 500 companies on July 1 began an advertising boycott intended to pressure Facebook into taking a stronger stand against hate speech .
The Claims Conference decided to launch its own campaign after concluding the boycott “ doesn ’ t seem to be making a dent , ” said Greg Schneider , the Claims Conference ’ s executive vice president .
Several Holocaust denial groups have been identified on Facebook by the New York-based Anti-Defamation League , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Real World War 2 History , ” administrators are clearly aware of the fine line between what is and is n't allowed , listing among its rules that members must “ avoid posts that feature grotesque cartoons that FB censors can construe as racist or hateful.
” Another page , the “ Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust , ” features regular posts of revisionist videos , including one from February in which the commentator says the Zyklon B gas used to kill Jews in Nazi death camps was actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typhus , claiming “ this chemical was used to improve the inmates ’ health and reduce , not increase , camp mortality.
” Though not overtly advocating attacks , such postings are meant to “ perpetuate a myth , anti-Semitic tropes that somehow Jews made this up in order to gain sympathy or political advantage ” and could easily incite violence , Mr. Schneider said .
“ The United Nations has acknowledged that Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism , and of course anti-Semitism is hate speech , ” he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jewish leader who survived the Holocaust in hiding as a young girl and is participating in the campaign , it is particularly important for social media platforms to be vigilant about preventing denial because many in younger generations rely on them for information .
“ They have a particular responsibility , ” the survivor told the AP .
This story was reported by The Associated Press .
Editor ’ s note : As a public service , the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage .
It ’ s free @

Holocaust survivors around the world are lending their voices to a campaign launched Wednesday targeting Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg, urging him to take action to remove denial of the Nazi genocide from the social media site.
Coordinated by the New York-based Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, the #NoDenyingIt campaign uses Facebook itself to make the survivors’ entreaties to Mr. Zuckerberg heard, posting one video per day urging him to remove Holocaust-denying groups, pages, and posts as hate speech. Videos will also be posted on Facebook-owned Instagram, as well as Twitter.
Mr. Zuckerberg raised the ire of the Claims Conference and others with comments in 2018 to the tech website Recode that posts denying the Nazi annihilation of 6 million Jews would not necessarily be removed. He said he did not think Holocaust deniers were “intentionally” getting it wrong, and that as long as posts were not calling for harm or violence, even offensive content should be protected.
After an outcry, Mr. Zuckerberg, who is Jewish himself, clarified that while he personally found “Holocaust denial deeply offensive” he believed that “the best way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech.”
Since then, Facebook representatives have met with the Claims Conference but the group, which negotiates compensation payments from Germany for Holocaust victims, says Mr. Zuckerberg himself has refused to. The goal of the campaign is to get him to sit down with Holocaust survivors so that they can personally tell him their stories and make their case that denial violates Facebook’s hate speech standards and should be removed.
“In Germany or in Austria people go to prison if they deny the Holocaust because they know it’s a lie, it’s libel,” said Eva Schloss, an Auschwitz survivor who today lives in London and has recorded a message for Mr. Zuckerberg.
“How can somebody really doubt it? Where are the 6 million people? There are tens of thousands of photos taken by the Nazis themselves. They were proud of what they were doing. They don’t deny it, they know they did it.”
Ms. Schloss’ family escaped before the war from Vienna to the Netherlands, where she became friends with Anne Frank, who lived nearby in Amsterdam and was the same age. After the German army overran the country, the Schloss and Frank families went into hiding but were discovered by the Nazis separately in 1944, the Schloss family betrayed by a Dutch woman.
Ms. Schloss and her mother survived Auschwitz, but her father and brother were killed, while Otto Frank, Anne’s father, was the only survivor of his immediate family and married Ms. Schloss’ mother after the war. Otto Frank published his daughter’s now-famous diary so that the world could hear her story. Ms. Schloss has written about her own story, is a frequent speaker, and would like to tell Mr. Zuckerberg of her own experience.
“It was just every day, the chimneys were smoking, the smell of burning flesh,” she told The Associated Press, adding that she had been separated from her mother and assumed she had been gassed.
“Can you imagine that feeling? I was 15 years old and I felt alone in the world and it was terrible.”
Facebook said in a statement that it takes down Holocaust denial posts in countries where it is illegal, like Germany, France, and Poland, while in countries where it is not an offense, like the United States and Britain, it is carefully monitored to determine whether it crosses the line into what is allowed.
“We take down any post that celebrates, defends, or attempts to justify the Holocaust,” Facebook told the AP. “The same goes for any content that mocks Holocaust victims, accuses victims of lying about the atrocities, spews hate, or advocates for violence against Jewish people in any way. Posts and articles that deny the Holocaust often violate one or more of these standards and are removed from Facebook.”
Earlier this month, a two-year audit of Facebook’s civil rights record found “serious setbacks” that have marred the social network’s progress on matters such as hate speech, misinformation, and bias. Mr. Zuckerberg is one of four CEOs of big tech firms who face a grilling by the U.S. Congress on Wednesday over the way they dominate the market.
More than 500 companies on July 1 began an advertising boycott intended to pressure Facebook into taking a stronger stand against hate speech. The Claims Conference decided to launch its own campaign after concluding the boycott “doesn’t seem to be making a dent,” said Greg Schneider, the Claims Conference’s executive vice president.
Several Holocaust denial groups have been identified on Facebook by the New York-based Anti-Defamation League, some hidden and most private.
On one, “Real World War 2 History,” administrators are clearly aware of the fine line between what is and isn't allowed, listing among its rules that members must “avoid posts that feature grotesque cartoons that FB censors can construe as racist or hateful.”
Another page, the “Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust,” features regular posts of revisionist videos, including one from February in which the commentator says the Zyklon B gas used to kill Jews in Nazi death camps was actually employed to kill the lice that spread typhus, claiming “this chemical was used to improve the inmates’ health and reduce, not increase, camp mortality.”
Though not overtly advocating attacks, such postings are meant to “perpetuate a myth, anti-Semitic tropes that somehow Jews made this up in order to gain sympathy or political advantage” and could easily incite violence, Mr. Schneider said.
“The United Nations has acknowledged that Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism, and of course anti-Semitism is hate speech,” he said.
For Charlotte Knobloch, a prominent German Jewish leader who survived the Holocaust in hiding as a young girl and is participating in the campaign, it is particularly important for social media platforms to be vigilant about preventing denial because many in younger generations rely on them for information.
“They have a particular responsibility,” the survivor told the AP.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
This story was reported by The Associated Press.
Editor’s note: As a public service, the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.


csmonitor--2020-07-29--'Defund the police' activists want your input on budget planning

As protests over racial inequality continue to sweep across America , many demonstrators have settled on one goal : redirecting portions of policing budgets toward mental health services , job creation , housing , and more .
In turn , attention has increasingly focused on how exactly this process , commonly referred to as `` defunding '' the police , could happen – and particularly , who would drive it .
`` We are deeply invested in ensuring that the people who suffer the worst brutalities by police decide where the resources go , '' said Kayla Reed , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Movement for Black Lives , a national network .
Following the death of George Floyd in police custody that sparked nationwide protests and the deployment of federal agents to some cities , officials in two dozen cities are already mulling rejigging their police budgets , according to advocacy group Local Progress .
Now activists are increasingly creating alternative budgets that reflect social aims and pushing for `` participatory budgeting , '' under which funding priorities are gathered from residents , shaped into proposals voted upon by the public – and then implemented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are made without anyone impacted by those decisions in the room , '' Ms. Reed told the Thomson Reuters Foundation .
The approach has been used in a growing number of United States cities over the past decade but is suddenly seeing an explosion of interest , said Kristania De Leon of the Participatory Budgeting Project , a national nonprofit .
`` We 're seeing a conversation that we have n't seen before , '' she said , pointing to sudden attention from both activists and city officials .
Several cities are seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ De Leon said , pointing to Seattle , Sacramento , and the Phoenix school system , among others .
Portland , Oregon , is reaching out to the city 's homeless to notify them of $ 1 million allocated for an upcoming participatory budgeting process , according to a city councilor 's office .
The coronavirus pandemic – which is escalating in southern and western U.S. states – has also driven the surge in interest , Ms. De Leon said .
`` In this moment , people really want to understand where government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being made , '' she said .
As a formal strategy , participatory budgeting is typically traced back to late-1980s neighborhood action in Porto Alegre , Brazil , but it was not instituted in the United States until 2009 in Chicago , said Ms. De Leon .
Over the past decade , about $ 300 million has been allocated through such processes in the United States , according to the Participatory Budgeting Project , with 173 votes taking place last year and at least 233 scheduled for this year .
But the exact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ varies significantly .
Some cities set aside a portion of their budgets for regular participatory processes , or council members use them to decide on discretionary funds they control , according to Local Progress .
Many cities use participatory budgeting for specific purposes : allocating money for schools , for instance , or public housing .
The approach strives to be equitable : In New York City , participatory processes have involved more than 50 % more low-income residents than local elections , as well as more people of color , says Local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urges participatory budgeting at all levels of government .
One of its policy documents points to `` a lack of community control over budget and revenue decisions . ''
As a result , it says , `` revenue measures are often inequitable , placing greater burdens on Black people , and public spending fails to meet the fundamental needs of Black communities . ''
Rashawn Ray , a governance studies fellow at the Brookings Institution , said the approach is particularly important in the context of police budgets .
`` First , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
`` With policing , the payoff is supposed to be less crime , but part of the problem is that research does n't actually support that more funding for police leads to a decrease in crime . ''
Mr. Ray said 90 % of calls made to the police by the public have nothing to do with violent crime .
`` So people who are calling for defunding of the police are [ on firm ground ] in saying that mental health and addiction specialists should be much more involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Fraternal Order of Police , a national union , has reacted strongly to calls to defund or even dismantle municipal departments : last month the union 's vice president , Joe Gamaldi , called such proposals `` crazy '' and suggested they would hurt public safety .
But a Gallup survey released this month found that 58 % of Americans – and 88 % of Black Americans – say major changes are needed in policing , and nearly half supported reducing such funding , including 70 % of Black respondents .
Neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Justice responded to requests for comment .
In St. Louis , Ms. Reed and the nonprofit she leads , Action St. Louis , were able to use public anger over George Floyd 's death to push through legislation this month that had been three years in the making .
The bill will now see the closure of a local jail and the creation of a fund that will be paid out through a participatory budgeting process , `` to guarantee resources are spent in communities that are experiencing high levels of violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming months , Action St. Louis will start gathering community priorities , she said – with votes and funding expected by mid-2021 .
`` If people want a ceasefire program , or we often hear that there 's not a lot of activities for young folks to get into , or if they need streetlights , or if there 's a [ derelict ] house and folks want to demolish it . ''
Ms. Reed said many saw the jail campaign as an important learning process for a larger focus on policing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ police , we have to cut our teeth on this campaign and learn about budget processes ... and how we can sharpen our analysis on how to get more resources into the community , '' she said .
`` That is self-determination .
That is power – that is how it is manifest . ''
Elsewhere , Mr. Floyd 's death left little time for activists to organize ahead of budget deadlines : In Nashville , the city budget was due to be finalized by mid-June , leaving activists just two weeks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Nashville People 's Budget Coalition eventually called for greater funding for education , housing , and healthcare , and less for criminal justice .
`` There 's a huge push to divest from all the funds that are being funneled into law enforcement ... and reinvesting in things that directly impact and build up communities of color , '' said Jackie Sims of the People 's Alliance for Transit , Housing and Employment .
Similar `` people 's budget '' efforts have been created in Los Angeles , New York , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coalition was unable to affect the city budget this year , Ms. Sims said the effort drew the attention of the mayor , city council and broader public – and is set to continue .
The coalition has since held a `` people 's assembly , '' with more scheduled in the months to come and the aim of offering another budget proposal well ahead of next year 's deadline , Ms. Sims said .
`` We 're serious about citizen participation in the governance process , especially when it comes to our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` The money always goes to the same people , the same organizations , and that has to change . ''
This story was reported by the Thomson Reuters Foundation .
Editor ’ s note : As a public service , the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage .
It ’ s free .

As protests over racial inequality continue to sweep across America, many demonstrators have settled on one goal: redirecting portions of policing budgets toward mental health services, job creation, housing, and more.
In turn, attention has increasingly focused on how exactly this process, commonly referred to as "defunding" the police, could happen – and particularly, who would drive it.
"We are deeply invested in ensuring that the people who suffer the worst brutalities by police decide where the resources go," said Kayla Reed, a St. Louis activist and a leader with the Movement for Black Lives, a national network.
Following the death of George Floyd in police custody that sparked nationwide protests and the deployment of federal agents to some cities, officials in two dozen cities are already mulling rejigging their police budgets, according to advocacy group Local Progress.
Now activists are increasingly creating alternative budgets that reflect social aims and pushing for "participatory budgeting," under which funding priorities are gathered from residents, shaped into proposals voted upon by the public – and then implemented.
"Too often too many decisions are made without anyone impacted by those decisions in the room," Ms. Reed told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
The approach has been used in a growing number of United States cities over the past decade but is suddenly seeing an explosion of interest, said Kristania De Leon of the Participatory Budgeting Project, a national nonprofit.
"We're seeing a conversation that we haven't seen before," she said, pointing to sudden attention from both activists and city officials.
Several cities are seeking to establish new budgeting processes, Ms. De Leon said, pointing to Seattle, Sacramento, and the Phoenix school system, among others.
Portland, Oregon, is reaching out to the city's homeless to notify them of $1 million allocated for an upcoming participatory budgeting process, according to a city councilor's office.
The coronavirus pandemic – which is escalating in southern and western U.S. states – has also driven the surge in interest, Ms. De Leon said.
"In this moment, people really want to understand where government investments are going, where cuts are being made," she said.
Equitable approach
As a formal strategy, participatory budgeting is typically traced back to late-1980s neighborhood action in Porto Alegre, Brazil, but it was not instituted in the United States until 2009 in Chicago, said Ms. De Leon.
Over the past decade, about $300 million has been allocated through such processes in the United States, according to the Participatory Budgeting Project, with 173 votes taking place last year and at least 233 scheduled for this year.
But the exact approach and aim of any given process varies significantly.
Some cities set aside a portion of their budgets for regular participatory processes, or council members use them to decide on discretionary funds they control, according to Local Progress.
Many cities use participatory budgeting for specific purposes: allocating money for schools, for instance, or public housing.
The approach strives to be equitable: In New York City, participatory processes have involved more than 50% more low-income residents than local elections, as well as more people of color, says Local Progress.
The Movement for Black Lives urges participatory budgeting at all levels of government.
One of its policy documents points to "a lack of community control over budget and revenue decisions."
As a result, it says, "revenue measures are often inequitable, placing greater burdens on Black people, and public spending fails to meet the fundamental needs of Black communities."
Rashawn Ray, a governance studies fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the approach is particularly important in the context of police budgets.
"First, because it's taxpayer money," he said. "With policing, the payoff is supposed to be less crime, but part of the problem is that research doesn't actually support that more funding for police leads to a decrease in crime."
Mr. Ray said 90% of calls made to the police by the public have nothing to do with violent crime.
"So people who are calling for defunding of the police are [on firm ground] in saying that mental health and addiction specialists should be much more involved in response calls,” he said.
The Fraternal Order of Police, a national union, has reacted strongly to calls to defund or even dismantle municipal departments: last month the union's vice president, Joe Gamaldi, called such proposals "crazy" and suggested they would hurt public safety.
But a Gallup survey released this month found that 58% of Americans – and 88% of Black Americans – say major changes are needed in policing, and nearly half supported reducing such funding, including 70% of Black respondents.
Neither the police union nor the U.S. Department of Justice responded to requests for comment.
'Self-determination'
In St. Louis, Ms. Reed and the nonprofit she leads, Action St. Louis, were able to use public anger over George Floyd's death to push through legislation this month that had been three years in the making.
The bill will now see the closure of a local jail and the creation of a fund that will be paid out through a participatory budgeting process, "to guarantee resources are spent in communities that are experiencing high levels of violence," Ms. Reed said.
In coming months, Action St. Louis will start gathering community priorities, she said – with votes and funding expected by mid-2021.
"If people want a ceasefire program, or we often hear that there's not a lot of activities for young folks to get into, or if they need streetlights, or if there's a [derelict] house and folks want to demolish it."
Ms. Reed said many saw the jail campaign as an important learning process for a larger focus on policing.
"To have a conversation about the police, we have to cut our teeth on this campaign and learn about budget processes ... and how we can sharpen our analysis on how to get more resources into the community," she said.
"That is self-determination. That is power – that is how it is manifest."
Elsewhere, Mr. Floyd's death left little time for activists to organize ahead of budget deadlines: In Nashville, the city budget was due to be finalized by mid-June, leaving activists just two weeks to seek to create their own budget proposal.
The Nashville People's Budget Coalition eventually called for greater funding for education, housing, and healthcare, and less for criminal justice.
"There's a huge push to divest from all the funds that are being funneled into law enforcement ... and reinvesting in things that directly impact and build up communities of color," said Jackie Sims of the People's Alliance for Transit, Housing and Employment.
Similar "people's budget" efforts have been created in Los Angeles, New York, and other cities.
While the Nashville coalition was unable to affect the city budget this year, Ms. Sims said the effort drew the attention of the mayor, city council and broader public – and is set to continue.
The coalition has since held a "people's assembly," with more scheduled in the months to come and the aim of offering another budget proposal well ahead of next year's deadline, Ms. Sims said.
"We're serious about citizen participation in the governance process, especially when it comes to our tax dollars," she said.
"The money always goes to the same people, the same organizations, and that has to change."
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
This story was reported by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Editor’s note: As a public service, the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.


csmonitor--2020-07-29--Congress asks: Do Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple play fair?

Four Big Tech CEOs – Facebook 's Mark Zuckerberg , Amazon 's Jeff Bezos , Sundar Pichai of Google , and Tim Cook of Apple – are set to answer for their companies ' practices before Congress as a House panel caps its yearlong investigation of market dominance in the industry .
The four command corporations with gold-plated brands , millions or even billions of customers , and a combined value greater than the entire German economy .
One of them is the world 's richest individual ( Mr. Bezos ) ; another is the fourth-ranked billionaire ( Mr. Zuckerberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , linked people around the globe , mined , and commercialized users ' personal data , and infuriated critics on both the left and right over speech .
Critics question whether the companies , grown increasingly powerful after gobbling up scores of rivals , stifle competition and innovation , raise prices for consumers , and pose a danger to society .
The four CEOs are testifying remotely for a hearing Wednesday by the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust .
In its bipartisan investigation , the panel collected testimony from mid-level executives of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts , and pored over more than a million internal documents from the companies .
A key question : whether existing competition policies and century-old antitrust laws are adequate for overseeing the tech giants , or if new legislation and enforcement funding is needed .
Subcommittee chairman Rep. David Cicilline , a Rhode Island Democrat , has called the four companies monopolies , although he says breaking them up should be a last resort .
While forced breakups may appear unlikely , the wide scrutiny of Big Tech points toward possible new restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal and political offensives on multiplying fronts , from Congress , the Trump administration , federal and state regulators , and European watchdogs .
The Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission have been investigating the four companies ' practices .
Each company has a distinct profile and sets its widening footprint in specific markets , and each tech titan has his own approach and story to tell .
For Mr. Bezos , who presides over an e-commerce empire and ventures in cloud computing , personal `` smart '' tech , and beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before Congress .
Mr. Bezos is introducing himself , in a way , in his hearing testimony , unusual for the occasion .
He lays out his challenging life story growing up in New Mexico as the son of a single mother in high school , and later with an adoptive father who emigrated from Cuba at 16 .
Previewing his written testimony in a blog post Tuesday , Mr. Bezos traces his origins as a `` garage inventor '' who came up with the concept of an online bookstore in 1994 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ power in what he describes as a huge and competitive global retail market .
The company accounts for less than 4 % of retail in the United States , Mr. Bezos maintains .
He affirms his rebuff to critics who call for the company to be broken up : Walmart is more than twice Amazon 's size , he says .
Mr. Bezos initially declined to testify unless he could appear with the other CEOs .
He 'll likely face questioning over a Wall Street Journal report that found Amazon employees used confidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marketplace to develop competing products .
At a previous hearing , an Amazon executive denied such accusation .
In the wake of George Floyd 's death and protests against racial injustice , Facebook 's handling of hate speech has recently drawn more fire than issues of competition and privacy , especially after Facebook 's refusal to take action on inflammatory Trump posts that spread misinformation about voting by mail and , critics said , encouraged violence against protesters .
Mr. Zuckerberg has said the company aims to allow as much free expression as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific harms or damage .
`` We believe in values – democracy , competition , inclusion , and free expression – that the American economy was built on , '' he says in his testimony prepared for the hearing .
`` I understand that people have concerns about the size and perceived power that tech companies have , '' Mr. Zuckerberg 's statement says .
`` Ultimately , I believe companies should n't be making so many judgments about important issues like harmful content , privacy , and election integrity on their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a more active role for governments and regulators , and updated rules for the internet . ''
European regulators have concluded that Google manipulated its search engine to gain an unfair advantage over other online shopping sites in the e-commerce market , and fined Google , whose parent is Alphabet Inc. , a record $ 2.7 billion .
Google has disputed the findings and is appealing .
Attorneys general from both parties in 50 states and territories , led by Texas , launched an antitrust investigation of Google in September , focused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Google operates in highly competitive and dynamic global markets , in which prices are free or falling , and products are constantly improving , '' Mr. Pichai says in his written testimony .
`` Competition in ads – from Twitter , Instagram , Pinterest , Comcast , and others – has helped lower online advertising costs by 40 % over the last 10 years , with these savings passed down to consumers through lower prices . ''
Apple , whose iPhone is the third-largest seller in the world , faces EU investigations over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and technical limitations that allegedly shut out competitors to Apple Pay .
`` Apple does not have a dominant market share in any market where we do business , '' Mr. Cook says .
He is making the case that the fees Apple charges apps to sell services and other goods are reasonable , especially compared with what other tech companies collect .
In over a decade since the App Store launched , `` we have never raised the commission or added a single fee , '' Mr. Cook says in his testimony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Associated Press .
Editor ’ s note : As a public service , the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage .
It ’ s free .

Four Big Tech CEOs – Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai of Google, and Tim Cook of Apple – are set to answer for their companies' practices before Congress as a House panel caps its yearlong investigation of market dominance in the industry.
The four command corporations with gold-plated brands, millions or even billions of customers, and a combined value greater than the entire German economy. One of them is the world's richest individual (Mr. Bezos); another is the fourth-ranked billionaire (Mr. Zuckerberg). Their industry has transformed society, linked people around the globe, mined, and commercialized users' personal data, and infuriated critics on both the left and right over speech.
Critics question whether the companies, grown increasingly powerful after gobbling up scores of rivals, stifle competition and innovation, raise prices for consumers, and pose a danger to society.
The four CEOs are testifying remotely for a hearing Wednesday by the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.
In its bipartisan investigation, the panel collected testimony from mid-level executives of the four firms, competitors, and legal experts, and pored over more than a million internal documents from the companies. A key question: whether existing competition policies and century-old antitrust laws are adequate for overseeing the tech giants, or if new legislation and enforcement funding is needed.
Subcommittee chairman Rep. David Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat, has called the four companies monopolies, although he says breaking them up should be a last resort. While forced breakups may appear unlikely, the wide scrutiny of Big Tech points toward possible new restrictions on its power.
The companies face legal and political offensives on multiplying fronts, from Congress, the Trump administration, federal and state regulators, and European watchdogs. The Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission have been investigating the four companies' practices.
Each company has a distinct profile and sets its widening footprint in specific markets, and each tech titan has his own approach and story to tell.
For Mr. Bezos, who presides over an e-commerce empire and ventures in cloud computing, personal "smart" tech, and beyond, it will be his first-ever appearance before Congress.
Mr. Bezos is introducing himself, in a way, in his hearing testimony, unusual for the occasion. He lays out his challenging life story growing up in New Mexico as the son of a single mother in high school, and later with an adoptive father who emigrated from Cuba at 16. Previewing his written testimony in a blog post Tuesday, Mr. Bezos traces his origins as a "garage inventor" who came up with the concept of an online bookstore in 1994.
He addresses the issue of Amazon's power in what he describes as a huge and competitive global retail market. The company accounts for less than 4% of retail in the United States, Mr. Bezos maintains. He affirms his rebuff to critics who call for the company to be broken up: Walmart is more than twice Amazon's size, he says.
Mr. Bezos initially declined to testify unless he could appear with the other CEOs. He'll likely face questioning over a Wall Street Journal report that found Amazon employees used confidential data collected from sellers on its online marketplace to develop competing products. At a previous hearing, an Amazon executive denied such accusation.
In the wake of George Floyd's death and protests against racial injustice, Facebook's handling of hate speech has recently drawn more fire than issues of competition and privacy, especially after Facebook's refusal to take action on inflammatory Trump posts that spread misinformation about voting by mail and, critics said, encouraged violence against protesters.
Mr. Zuckerberg has said the company aims to allow as much free expression as possible unless it causes imminent risk of specific harms or damage. "We believe in values – democracy, competition, inclusion, and free expression – that the American economy was built on," he says in his testimony prepared for the hearing.
"I understand that people have concerns about the size and perceived power that tech companies have," Mr. Zuckerberg's statement says. "Ultimately, I believe companies shouldn't be making so many judgments about important issues like harmful content, privacy, and election integrity on their own. That's why I've called for a more active role for governments and regulators, and updated rules for the internet."
European regulators have concluded that Google manipulated its search engine to gain an unfair advantage over other online shopping sites in the e-commerce market, and fined Google, whose parent is Alphabet Inc., a record $2.7 billion. Google has disputed the findings and is appealing.
Attorneys general from both parties in 50 states and territories, led by Texas, launched an antitrust investigation of Google in September, focused on its online advertising business.
"Google operates in highly competitive and dynamic global markets, in which prices are free or falling, and products are constantly improving," Mr. Pichai says in his written testimony. "Competition in ads – from Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Comcast, and others – has helped lower online advertising costs by 40% over the last 10 years, with these savings passed down to consumers through lower prices."
Apple, whose iPhone is the third-largest seller in the world, faces EU investigations over the fees charged by its App Store and technical limitations that allegedly shut out competitors to Apple Pay.
"Apple does not have a dominant market share in any market where we do business," Mr. Cook says.
He is making the case that the fees Apple charges apps to sell services and other goods are reasonable, especially compared with what other tech companies collect. In over a decade since the App Store launched, "we have never raised the commission or added a single fee," Mr. Cook says in his testimony.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
This story was reported by The Associated Press.
Editor’s note: As a public service, the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.