ReportWire

Tag: socialism

  • Trump says Intel agreed to give the government 10% of the chipmaker. ‘We do a lot of deals like that. I’ll do more of them’

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump said Friday that American chipmaker Intel had agreed to give the U.S. government a 10% stake, worth roughly $10 billion.

    “They’ve had some bad management over the years, and they got lost. I said, ‘I think you should pay us 10% of your company,’ and they said yes. That’s about $10 billion. I don’t get it; this comes to the United States of America,” he said at a press conference with reporters in the Oval Office.

    Intel was previously allocated about $11 billion in grants to build out manufacturing in the U.S. under the CHIPS and Science Act passed by Congress during the Biden administration.

    Under the new agreement with Trump, the government will take equity in return for the grant money allocated to Intel through the CHIPS Act, the New York Times reported. The government will not be involved in company governance or claim a board seat, according to the Times.

    Intel shares jumped 5.5%.

    A spokesperson for Intel declined to comment to Fortune. The White House did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment.

    Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick previously outlined plans for the U.S. government to receive equity in return for the CHIPS Act cash grants Intel has received.

    “We should get an equity stake for our money, so we’ll deliver the money which was already committed under the Biden administration,” Lutnick told CNBC earlier this week.

    Trump claimed the agreement came after a conversation with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, whom he previously called on to resign in a post on his social media website, Truth Social.

    Trump said Friday he called for Tan’s ouster because of a letter Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) sent to Intel’s chairman, expressing concern about Tan’s ties to Chinese companies. Following Trump’s post, Tan traveled to Washington for a meeting with Trump last week.

    “He walked in wanting to keep his job, and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the American people,” Trump said Friday.

    The Intel agreement comes as the Trump administration has shown a recent willingness to take a more interventionist role with U.S. companies. As a condition of the merger between Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel, the administration demanded that it name a board member to the combined entity and secure a “golden share,” giving it veto power over company decisions. 

    The U.S. also recently reached a revenue-sharing agreement with chipmakers Nvidia and AMD, giving the government 15% of sales generated through AI chip sales in China as part of its terms for granting export licenses to the companies. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last week similar agreements could be expanded to other industries.

    Some Republicans, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), have criticized Trump’s plan for the U.S. government to take a stake in Intel. 

    “If socialism is government owning the means of production, wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism? Terrible idea,” Paul wrote Wednesday in a post on X.

    Still, Trump was undeterred by the criticism and noted Friday that the government will continue its interventionist path as long as the agreements don’t hurt the U.S. military or security.

    “We do a lot of deals like that. I’ll do more of them,” he said.

    Introducing the 2025 Fortune Global 500, the definitive ranking of the biggest companies in the world. Explore this year’s list.

    [ad_2]

    Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez

    Source link

  • Information Pollution: The Tragedy of the Commons and Well-Poisoning on the Internet

    Information Pollution: The Tragedy of the Commons and Well-Poisoning on the Internet

    [ad_1]

    Discover how the internet propagates “information pollution” and how it threatens our collective understanding of facts and truth. Here’s how to navigate the chaos and find clean water to drink.


    In a healthy and functional society, shared common resources are essential for the well-being and sustainability of the community.

    These resources can include natural goods such as land, water, and the environment, as well as man-made goods such as public schools, parks, and libraries.

    Generally, the ability to manage, sustain, and distribute these resources determines the success of a society, community, or nation as a whole.

    The Tragedy of the Commons

    The tragedy of the commons is a concept introduced by ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968, describing a scenario where individuals, acting in their own self-interest, overuse and deplete a shared resource, ultimately harming the entire community.

    Classic examples include overgrazing on common land, overfishing in shared waters, and pollution of air and water. The key issue is that while the benefits of exploitation are enjoyed by individuals, the costs are distributed among the entire community.

    Information as a Shared Resource

    One common resource that is often neglected is news and information.

    Over the last century, newspapers, radio, TV, and the internet have become the lifeblood of many nations, shaping public opinion and collective consciousness.

    Truth and reliable information function as shared resources critical for various societal functions, including governance, public health, and social interaction.

    Just as a community depends on clean water, society relies on accurate information to make decisions, build trust, and maintain peace and harmony.

    When these information resources are polluted, the consequences can be severe, leading to mistrust, division, and poor decision-making.

    Information Pollution

    Information is a shared resource that is susceptible to degradation through neglect or deliberate actions, leading to a type of “information pollution.”

    This phenomenon mirrors the “tragedy of the commons,” where the self-interested actions of individuals can spoil a common resource for everyone.

    Information pollution occurs when false, misleading, or harmful information is introduced into the public discourse. This can happen through:

    • Misinformation: Incorrect or misleading information spread unintentionally.
    • Disinformation: False information spread deliberately to deceive.
    • Malinformation: Information that is true but presented in a misleading context to cause harm.

    All three types of information pollution hurt people’s ability to discern truth from fiction.

    Well-Poisoning on the Internet

    The internet can be a wonderful place to learn new things, but it’s also littered with information pollution, especially on social media sites filled with bots, spammers, and grifters.

    When a water well is poisoned, everyone in the town ends up drinking dirty and contaminated water. The same is true for information pollution on the internet – and social media is dirty water.

    There are a lot of factors that drive information pollution on the internet, but key ones include:

    • Clickbait and engagement farming – For most people, the only measure of success on the internet is how much attention you get. An outrageous lie or falsehood will get a million impressions before anyone tries to confirm what’s been said. People rarely correct themselves if a lie is getting them a lot of impressions.
    • Grifting and easy money – Many people see the internet as an opportunity for a quick buck, so a lot of content you see is purely money-driven, including advertisements, sponsored content, or superficial merchandise (mugs, t-shirts, diet supplements, brain enhancement pills, etc.) If you see anyone selling these types of products on the internet, you can be certain that truth is not their main motivation.
    • Bots and algorithm-hacking – Artificial engagement on the internet is a huge problem. A lot of viral content you see these days is pushed by bot farms and clever algorithm manipulation. Organic growth by independent thinkers and creators used to be a genuine thing about a decade ago, but most big e-celebrities and influencers you see today are completely astroturfed.
    • Politics and propaganda – A lot of misinformation and disinformation is politically driven propaganda. Governments and corporations are known to create their own bots and internet campaigns to shape public opinion in one direction or another.
    • Echo chambers and groupthink – While it’s natural to associate with people who think like us and share the same beliefs, the internet tends to heighten this tendency. People only spend time on online spaces that confirm their existing beliefs and very rarely seek out different perspectives.

    All of these factors make the internet a less reliable place for seeking truth and information. These phenomenon have only increased over the past decade, making the internet increasingly harmful and stupid (to be frank).

    Filtering Dirty Water

    Now more than ever we need to find ways to filter the information we are being exposed to online. Effective strategies you can employ include:

    • Pay attention to your digital environment – Ideas and information can often seep into our brain without us even realizing it, especially when we are consistently exposed to the same information over and over again. What are the top five websites you visit? Where do you go for news and current events? What’s your social media feed look like? All of these make up a part of your digital environment which is having an influence on you whether you realize it or not, so pay close attention to the types of online spaces you’re spending time in.
    • High value vs. low value information – Not all information is created equal. A random social media post that goes viral doesn’t have the same level of rigor as a peer-reviewed study. The information pyramid is a helpful guideline for assessing what information sources tend to be more trustworthy, accurate, and high value. Please note that this doesn’t mean a social media post is always wrong, or a scientific study is always right, just that one source tends to have more substance than another and you should generally give it more weight.
    • Be your own fact-checker – Too many people take funny memes, shocking screenshots, and catchy headlines at face value without ever digging deeper. This causes a lot of misinformation and disinformation to go viral, and it can also lead to some comical and embarrassing errors (“You actually believed that?!”). While there are many professional “fact checkers” on various sites, even those can be misleading and ideologically motivated. Unfortunately, in our low trust information world, there’s only one fact-checker you can really count on and that’s yourself. Learn how to double-check sources, dig up original links, and read full articles so you understand the context before accepting something as true.
    • Learn basic statistical literacy – Numbers can be very persuasive on a purely psychological level; if someone can make a claim with a statistic to back it, we tend to automatically think it must be true. However, statistics and graphs can be easily manipulated and deceptive. Understanding basic statistical literacy (such as knowing “correlation doesn’t mean causation,” or checking the “y” and “x” axis before looking at a graph) can give you a clearer idea of what a number is really telling you, and what is just being speculated, guessed, or misunderstood.
    • Beware of personality-driven consumption – Many people get their news and information from famous personalities such as news commentators, celebrities, influencers, or podcasters. While it’s natural to listen to people we like and trust, this can backfire when we end up mindlessly accepting information rather than confirming it on its own merit. For many, there’s an entertainment factor too: it’s fun to root for your “leader/clan” and make fun of the other “leaders/clans,” some people even form parasocial relationships with their favorite personalities, seeing them as a type of best friend. However, what often happens in these hyper personality-driven spaces is that they devolve into petty drama and gossip. That may be “fun” to participate in for some people, but it’s not education.

    If you keep these guidelines in mind, you’ll be able to navigate the dirty waters of the internet more effectively and hopefully find some springs of fresh and clean water to drink from.

    Conclusion

    Truth and reliable information are vital commons that underpin a healthy and functional society. Just as communities must manage natural resources responsibly to avoid the tragedy of the commons, societies must actively protect and nurture the integrity of their information ecosystems. Each of us plays a role in managing the information commons and minimizing information pollution.


    Enter your email to stay updated on new articles in self improvement:

    [ad_2]

    Steven Handel

    Source link

  • CEO of Brazil’s oil and gas giant Petrobras steps down following dustup over dividends

    CEO of Brazil’s oil and gas giant Petrobras steps down following dustup over dividends

    [ad_1]

    RIO DE JANEIRO — The head of Brazil’s state-controlled oil and gas giant Petrobras has stepped down, the company said Wednesday, following months of tensions with the federal government.

    Petrobras opted not to pay extraordinary dividends to its shareholders earlier this year, souring relations between Petrobras CEO Jean Paul Prates and Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, head of the ruling leftist Workers’ Party.

    Lula had defended that move, calling the market a “voracious dinosaur” after Petrobras’ shares plunged following the decision regarding dividends.

    The company’s shares fell by as much as 9% after the announcement of Prates’ departure, before paring losses. They were down by 7% by Wednesday afternoon.

    Local newspaper O Globo reported that Lula himself informed Prates of his dismissal.

    Prates, a former senator for the Workers’ Party, will be replaced by engineer and former director of Brazil’s oil and gas regulator ANP, Magda Chambriard. Petrobras appointed the executive director of corporate affairs, Clarice Coppetti, as interim president.

    Brazil’s federal government has a controlling stake in Petrobras, while private investors also hold shares. That often creates a clash of interests between the government and minority shareholders.

    “Magda Chambriard appears to have a more nationalist vision, that is, of Petrobras serving national interests more than those of shareholders,” said Rafael Schiozer, a finance professor at the Getulio Vargas Foundation, a university and think tank.

    Prates “had a more pro-market vision — he was more concerned with the company’s value creation,” Schiozer added.

    Chief Financial Officer Sergio Caetano Leite will also step down from his role. Petrobras appointed the current finance executive manager, Carlos Alberto Rechelo Neto, as interim, until the election of a new chief financial officer by the board of directors.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rationed food kept Cubans fed during the Cold War. Today an economic crisis has them hungry

    Rationed food kept Cubans fed during the Cold War. Today an economic crisis has them hungry

    [ad_1]

    HAVANA — Like millions of other Cubans, María de los Ángeles Pozo thinks back fondly to when a government ration book fed her family everything from hamburgers, fish and milk to chocolate and beer. People would even get cakes for birthdays and weddings.

    The “libreta,” as Cubans know it, was launched in July 1963 and became one of the pillars of the island’s socialist system, helping people through crises including the cutbacks in Soviet aid that led to the 1990s deprivation known as the “Special Period.”

    That system is undergoing a deep economic crisis that has prompted the exodus of almost half a million Cubans to the U.S. over the last two years, with thousands more heading to Europe. It also has led to a dramatic reduction in the availability of rationed food for those who do not leave.

    Many Cubans feel ill-equipped to handle their new, more unequal country, a feeling that has worsened as small private markets have opened, charging prices similar to international ones in a country that hasn’t allowed non-state commerce in recent decades and where incomes remain between $16 and $23 monthly.

    “Everything comes in small portions and delayed,” said Pozo, 57, a school worker who retired to care for her disabled sister and father in the apartment they share in Old Havana. They earn $10 a month between the three.

    Basic goods like a kilo (2.2 pounds) of powdered milk can cost as much as $8.

    “We don’t have the goods that we were used to anymore,” Pozo said. “We’re suffering a lot of deprivation.”

    Protesters took to the streets in the eastern city of Santiago this month decrying power outages lasting up to eight hours and shortages of food. State media confirmed the protests in Santiago and videos showing people chanting “electricity and food” were quickly shared by Cubans on and off the island on platforms like X and Facebook. A nongovernmental human rights group that monitors Cuba said there had been at least three arrests.

    Pozo pays only $2 at the subsidized state stores at current exchange rates. In February she got a few pounds of rice, beans, some sugar and salt, oil, processed meat and soap for her family of three.

    Pozo said that she doesn’t receive money from relatives overseas, a major marker of class differences in 2024 Cuba, and one that about 70 percent of families do get.

    While there are no official figures, many experts estimate that Cubans overseas sent $3 billion home in 2019.

    Cuba has long struggled with a lack of production.

    The lack of hard currency and needed equipment is making the situation even worse without agricultural supplies like insecticides and fertilizers, said Ricardo Torres, an economist at American University in Washington.

    Without a functioning market economy, Cuban agriculture has long measured itself by socialist production goals that it has rarely been able to meet.

    Camaguey, one of Cuba’s main ranching hubs, only produced 42.8 million liters (11.3 million gallons) of milk last year, out of 81.3 million liters (21.5 million gallons) that producers had agreed to sell.

    Producers, for their part, complain that government prices don’t cover expenses.

    The Cuban government blames the economic damage wrought by COVID-19, along with U.S. sanctions and macroeconomic changes dating to recent years that have led to severe inflation.

    “You can see today private stores that have all the products that you want: milk, bread, sugar — whatever you want — at prices that are not accessible to the majority of the population,” Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío said in a interview with The Associated Press. “The government continues to be committed to provide an equal amount to all.”

    Official figures show Cuba’s average annual inflation of nearly 50% a year over the last three years and a 2% contraction in the Gross Domestic Product.

    Faced with that scenario, the government has been trying to reduce the number of people who receive subsidized food from an estimated four million libretas.

    For most Cubans, the government is failing to take on the most serious issue: low take-home pay as a result of low productivity and inflation.

    “Salaries must rise,” said maintenance main Hilmer Pagán, 53.

    ___

    Andrea Rodríguez on X: www.twitter.com/ARodriguezAP

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Argentina, Once One of the Richest Countries, Is Now One of the Poorest. Javier Milei Could Help Fix That.

    Argentina, Once One of the Richest Countries, Is Now One of the Poorest. Javier Milei Could Help Fix That.

    [ad_1]

    Argentina actually elected a libertarian president.

    Javier Milei campaigned with a chainsaw, promising to cut the size of government.

    Argentina’s leftists had so clogged the country’s economic arteries with regulations that what once was one of the world’s richest countries is now one of the poorest.

    Inflation is more than 200 percent.

    People save their whole lives—and then find their savings worth nearly nothing.

    They got so fed up they did something never done before in modern history: They elected a full-throated libertarian.

    Milei understands that government can’t create wealth.

    He surprised diplomats at the World Economic Forum this month by saying, “The state is the problem!”

    He spoke up for capitalism: “Do not be intimidated by the political caste or by parasites who live off the state…. If you make money, it’s because you offer a better product at a better price, thereby contributing to general well-being. Do not surrender to the advance of the state. The state is not the solution.”

    Go, Milei! I wish current American politicians talked that way.

    In the West, young people turn socialist. In Argentina, they live under socialist policies. They voted for Milei.

    Sixty-nine percent of voters under 25 voted for him. That helped him win by a whopping 3 million votes.

    He won promising to reverse “decades of decadence.” He told the Economic Forum, “If measures are adopted that hinder the free functioning of markets, competition, price systems, trade, and ownership of private property, the only possible fate is poverty.”

    Right.

    Poor countries demonstrate that again and again.

    The media say Milei will never pass his reforms, and leftists may yet stop him.

    But already, “He was able to repeal rent controls, price controls,” says economist Daniel Di Martino in my new video. He points out that Milei already “eliminated all restrictions on exports and imports, all with one sign of a pen.”

    “He can just do that without Congress?” I ask.

    “The president of Argentina has a lot more power than the president of the United States.”

    Milei also loosened rules limiting where airlines can fly.

    “Now [some] air fares are cheaper than bus fares!” says Di Martino.

    He scrapped laws that say, “Buy in Argentina.” I point out that America has “Buy America” rules.

    “It only makes poor people poorer because it increases costs!” Di Martino replies, “Why shouldn’t Argentinians be able to buy Brazilian pencils or Chilean grapes?”

    “To support Argentina,” I push back.

    “Guess what?” Says Di Martino, “Not every country is able to produce everything at the lowest cost. Imagine if you had to produce bananas in America.”

    Argentina’s leftist governments tried to control pretty much everything.

    “The regulations were such that everything not explicitly legal was illegal,” laughs Di Martino. “Now…everything not illegal is legal.”

    One government agency Milei demoted was a “Department for Women, Gender and Diversity.” DiMartino says that reminds him of Venezuela’s Vice Ministry for Supreme Social Happiness. “These agencies exist just so government officials can hire their cronies.”

    Cutting government jobs and subsidies for interest groups is risky for vote-seeking politicians. There are often riots in countries when politicians cut subsidies. Sometimes politicians get voted out. Or jailed.

    “What’s incredible about Milei,” notes Di Martino, “is that he was able to win on the promise of cutting subsidies.”

    That is remarkable. Why would Argentinians vote for cuts?

    “Argentinians are fed up with the status quo,” replies Di Martino.

    Milei is an economist. He named his dogs after Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Lucas, all libertarian economists.

    I point out that most Americans don’t know who those men were.

    “The fact that he’s naming his dogs after these famous economists,” replies Di Martino, “shows that he’s really a nerd. It’s a good thing to have an economics nerd president of a country.”

    “What can Americans learn from Argentina?”

    “Keep America prosperous. So we never are in the spot of Argentina in the first place. That requires free markets.”

    Yes.

    Actually, free markets plus rule of law. When people have those things, prosperity happens.

    It’s good that once again, a country may try it.

    COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

    [ad_2]

    John Stossel

    Source link

  • Trump wouldn't be the first non-Confederate barred from office by the 14th Amendment

    Trump wouldn't be the first non-Confederate barred from office by the 14th Amendment

    [ad_1]

    Last week’s ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to hold federal office under the terms of the 14th Amendment is a nearly unprecedented situation.

    Nearly.

    Per Section 3 of that constitutional amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War, former elected officials guilty of having engaged “in insurrection or rebellion against” the federal government are forbidden from holding office. It is obviously a provision meant to keep former Confederates from returning to Congress after the war, but the Colorado Supreme Court has determined that Trump’s role in instigating the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol meets the vague standards outlined set forth in the amendment. On Thursday, Maine Secretary of State Shanna Bellows announced that Trump would be removed from the state’s primary ballot because he is ineligible for office under the terms outlined in the 14th Amendment.

    Since the end of Reconstruction, Trump is just the second person ruled ineligible for federal office due to that provision.

    The first: Victor Berger, who is perhaps slightly more well known for being the first Socialist elected to Congress.

    Berger was born in Austria and immigrated to the United States as a young man. In 1910, he won a seat in Congress representing Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and served a single two-year term. After being defeated in 1912, Berger remained active in left-wing politics and opposed America’s entry into the First World War. In 1918, he was convicted (along with several other Socialist organizers) of having violated the Espionage Act of 1917, which effectively criminalized any criticism of the war effort.

    Officially, Berger was found guilty of 26 “disloyal acts” related to a series of editorials published by the Milwaukee Leader, a paper Berger helped run, arguing against America’s involvement in the war.

    Despite that conviction—or perhaps because of it—Berger was elected to Congress again in 1918. His campaign called for the country to respect free speech and freedom of the press, and he continued to push for an “early, general, lasting and democratic peace.” (Naturally, he also campaigned for a variety of typically terrible Socialist ideas too, like the nationalization of industries.)

    Here’s where Section 3 of the 14th Amendment popped up. Congress refused to seat Berger when he showed up to work in January 1919, on the grounds that his Espionage Act conviction was tantamount to engaging in insurrection against the country. The vote was nearly unanimous, 311-1, with the lone dissenting vote cast by a Wisconsin Republican.

    A special election was held in December 1919 to fill the still-vacant seat, and Berger won again—this time earning even more votes than he had a year earlier. Again, a majority in Congress voted to block Berger from taking his seat.

    There was yet another twist to come, and a final bit of trivia embedded in all this: The federal district judge who had overseen Berger’s Espionage Act trial was Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis.

    Baseball fans may recall Landis’ involvement in another (arguably more famous) decision. After leaving the federal bench in 1920, Landis was hired as the first commissioner of Major League Baseball and charged by the teams’ owners with investigating allegations of match-fixing in the 1919 World Series scandal. Though the players involved in the scandal were acquitted in court, Landis exercised his own discretion as commissioner to impose a lifetime ban on eight players—including Chicago White Sox superstar “Shoeless” Joe Jackson.

    Landis was known for being ill-tempered and prejudiced, particularly against German immigrants. According to a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn Berger’s conviction, Landis once said “If anybody has said anything worse about the Germans than I have, I would like to know it so I can use it.”

    During Berger’s trial, Landis was openly hostile. He declared that Germans “are reeking with disloyalty” and condemned all pacifists as having “the interests of the enemy at heart.” After reviewing the case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Landis should have recused himself from the case due to prejudice and threw out Berger’s conviction on the grounds that he did not receive a fair trial.

    Vindicated, Berger again ran for Congress in 1922 and won. This time he was seated without controversy, and he subsequently won reelection in 1924 and 1926.

    As a precedent for the current situation involving Trump and the 14th Amendment, Berger’s case probably has little value. For one, Berger plainly didn’t engage in an insurrection, and the First Amendment should have prevented any conviction for the supposed crime of writing anti-war editorials or publishing Socialist opinions in a newspaper. What happened to Berger says a lot about the awfulness of the Espionage Act and about how war encourages governments to stomp all over civil liberties. But it doesn’t say much about how the court should view the 14th Amendment, particularly since the Supreme Court never took up that issue in Berger’s case—as it likely will with Trump’s.

    Still, there’s one legal angle that Berger’s case demonstrates. Gerard Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University, told Milwaukee Magazine earlier this year that Berger’s case shows that a series of post-Civil War amnesty laws did not fully nullify the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause. That will likely be relevant when, or if, the U.S. Supreme Court or other state courts tackle the question of Trump’s eligibility to be president.

    Like it was in Berger’s day, the notion that banning certain candidates from office is necessary to protect the country from unpopular ideas seems misguided. And wielding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against political opponents seems certain to worsen the dangerous “will-to-power” politics infecting both major political parties at the moment.

    In any case, as we veer into what’s sure to be one of the most bonkers years in American political history, maybe there’s a small bit of comfort to be gleaned from the knowledge this situation isn’t entirely unprecedented.

    [ad_2]

    Eric Boehm

    Source link

  • Past, Present, and Future: Lessons from A Christmas Carol

    Past, Present, and Future: Lessons from A Christmas Carol

    [ad_1]

    From ‘Bah, humbug!’ to redemption: Charles Dickens’ ‘A Christmas Carol’ unfolds as more than just a festive fable, offering profound insights into self-discovery, kindness, and rewriting one’s life story.


    Charles Dickens’ timeless classic, “A Christmas Carol,” isn’t just a heartwarming tale of holiday spirit; it’s a profound exploration of human psychology and the power of personal transformation.

    Many of us have heard the story before through countless movie and TV adaptations, especially the infamous Scrooge, whose name has now become a common insult toward those who fight against the holiday spirit of joy, kindness, and charity.

    If you’re interested, you can read the original 1843 novella A Christmas Carol for free at Project Gutenberg. There are also many free audiobooks you can find and listen to.

    The story opens the day before Christmas with Ebenezer Scrooge at work, a strict businessman who is described as miserable, lonely, and greedy, without any close friends or companions. His nephew visits, wishes him a cheerily “Merry Christmas!” and invites him to spend dinner with his family, but Scrooge rudely brushes off the kind gesture and responds with his trademark phrase “Bah humbug!”

    Scrooge’s cynical and negative attitude is on full display in the opening chapter. “He carried his own low temperature always about with him.” In one instance where he is asked to donate money to help the poor, the wealthy Scrooge asks, “Aren’t there prisons? Aren’t there workhouses?” and then complains about the “surplus population.”

    It’s clear that Scrooge’s only concerns and core values in life are money and wealth. If it doesn’t help his profits or bottom line then he doesn’t care about it, especially the well-being of others which he claims is “none of his business.”

    The archetype of Scrooge is more relevant today than ever, especially in our corporatized world where rich elites isolate themselves from the rest of society while income inequality, crime, and economic woes continue to rise for the average person. Dickens observed early signs of increased materialism, narcissism, and greed almost two hundred years ago, but these unhealthy instincts have only grown rapidly since then. Social media has particularly warped people’s perceptions of wealth, status, and fame, which has in turn blinded us to many other important values in life.

    In many cases people like Scrooge live lonely and miserable lives until they die, clinging to their money as they are lowered into their graves. However the story of “A Christmas Carol” provides hope and inspiration that people can change their paths in life if they are given the necessary insight and wisdom.

    As the well-known tale goes, Scrooge is haunted by 3 benevolent spirits on consecutive nights (The Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future), each teaching him an essential lesson on what really matters in life.

    This breakdown of past, present, and future creates a complete picture of one’s life. It’s a powerful framework to spark self-growth in any person. Once we reevaluate where we’ve been, where we are, and where we want to go, we have a much clearer idea on what the right path forward is.

    Keep in mind you don’t need to be religious to reap the benefits of this story. Its lessons are universal. While there are supernatural and spiritual elements, the wisdom is real and tangible.

    Introduction: The Ghost of Marley

    Before Scrooge is visited by the three spirits, he encounters the ghost of his former business partner Marley who had died seven years ago.

    The ghost of Marley is shown to be in a type of purgatory, aimlessly roaming the town, entangled in many heavy chains with cash-boxes, keys, padlocks, ledgers, deeds, and heavy purses made out of steel, representing a lifetime of greed and selfishness:

      “I wear the chain I forged in life,” replied the Ghost. “I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it. Is its pattern strange to you?”

      “Or would you know,” pursued the Ghost, “the weight and length of the strong coil you bear yourself? It was full as heavy and as long as this, seven Christmas Eves ago. You have laboured on it, since. It is a ponderous chain!”

    The ghost lets Scrooge know that his actions have far-reaching consequences too. He will suffer a similar fate if he doesn’t change his ways, but there’s still hope for redemption! He then leaves, announcing to Scrooge that he will soon be visited by three spirits that will guide him to a better path.

    Marley’s ghost serves as a warning, but also a sign of hope.

    The Ghosts of the Past: Forgiving Your Former Self

    Scrooge’s first encounter is with the “Ghost of Christmas Past,” who serves as a poignant reminder that we must confront our history to understand our present.

    The Ghost of Christmas Past transports Scrooge through various memories he had as a child and young adult, showing his psychological development over time.

    The first scene brings Scrooge back to his childhood town, where he is immediately rushed with feelings of nostalgia, cheerfulness, and joy. These positive memories depict a very different Scrooge from present, revealing his once optimistic and hopeful disposition. What happened to him since?

    The memories begin to grow darker. Multiple scenes show Scrooge spending Christmas alone as a young child, one time being left by himself at boarding school while his friends were celebrating the holidays with family, and another time sitting solitarily by the fire reading. Scrooge begins to shed tears and show sympathy toward his former, abandoned self.

    One of the most pivotal memories is when young adult Scrooge is speaking with his past lover. She notices a fundamental change in him that has become a dealbreaker in their relationship.

      “You fear the world too much,” she answered, gently…”I have seen your nobler aspirations fall off one-by-one, until the master-passion, Gain, engrosses you…”

    She sees that money has become Scrooge’s God which he puts above all other values, including love. The young woman continues…

      “Our contract is an old one. It was made when we were both poor and content to be so, until, in good season, we could improve our worldly fortune by our patient industry. You are changed. When it was made, you were another man.”

    Here we begin to see Scrooge’s hardening into the man he is in the present.

    His pursuit of wealth as his main source of comfort and satisfaction has damaged his relationship beyond repair. The lover sees no other option but for them to go their separate ways. The memory deeply pains Scrooge and he cries out for the ghost to show him no more.

    In truth we are all a product of our past, including our environment and the choices we make in life. Scrooge has clearly gone through hardships and taken wrong turns that have influenced where he finds himself today; but it’s not too late.

    The Ghost of Christmas Past forced Scrooge to remember events that he had long forgotten, neglected, or ignored because they were too painful to think about. While these old memories cannot be altered, you have to accept your past, be honest with yourself, and forgive yourself if you want to learn, grow, and change for the better.

    One of the main lessons here is that you need to take responsibility for the past before you can take power over the future. Scrooge is suffering, but he’s learning.

    Making the Most of the Present: Opportunities for Joy and Kindness

    Scrooge’s next encounter is with the “Ghost of Christmas Present,” who teaches Scrooge all the opportunities for good that cross his path every single day.

    The spirit is colorfully dressed with holly, mistletoe, berries, turkeys, sausages, oysters, pies, puddings, fruit, and punch surrounding him, a representation of the simple pleasures in life we can all learn to appreciate, savor, and be grateful for.

    First, the Ghost of Christmas Present takes Scrooge for a walk outside in the town during Christmas Day, observing all the happiness, zest, and cheer overflowing through the streets. Everyone from all backgrounds is enjoying the festivities.

    When two people bump into each other and start a small fight, the ghost sprinkles a magical substance on them which instantly ends the argument and brings both back to a more joyful demeanor.

      “Once or twice when there were angry words between some dinner-carriers who had jostled each other, he shed a few drops of water on them, and their good humour was restored directly. For they said, it was a shame to quarrel upon Christmas Day. And so it was! God love it, so it was!”

    On Christmas, all fights are optional.

    The ghost then leads Scrooge to the home of Bob Cratchit, his current employee who he often treats poorly. Here Scrooge is introduced to Bob’s sick and disabled son Tiny Tim, who despite his illness is still excited to spend holiday time with the family. The poor family makes the most of the limited food and time they have together, including a fake “goose” dinner made out of apple sauce and mashed potatoes.

    Scrooge looks on in sympathy and wishes he could do more to help them. He asks the spirit about the current state of Tiny Tim’s health:

      “Spirit,” said Scrooge, with an interest he never felt before, “tell me if Tiny Tim will live.”

      “I see a vacant seat,” replied the Ghost, “in the poor chimney-corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved. If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, the child will die.”

    In another scene, Scrooge is transported to the home of his sister’s family, the same party his nephew invited him to the previous day. Everyone in the household is enjoying the Christmas holiday while singing, dancing, and playing games. Several times Scrooge is brought up in conversation and everyone can only laugh and shrug at Scrooge’s relentless misery and gloom.

      “A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to the old man, whatever he is!” said Scrooge’s nephew. “He wouldn’t take it from me, but may he have it nonetheless. Uncle Scrooge!”

    Scrooge knows that these events and perceptions by others are part of his own doing.

    At every turn, Scrooge denies taking advantage of daily opportunities for happiness, including rejecting a group of children singing carols, responding rudely to acquaintances (“Bah humbug!”), and refusing to give to charities or help others when it’s fully in his power.

    These events are small, but they build up over time. Whenever Scrooge is given a choice between kindness vs. coldness, he chooses to be cold. After enough tiny social interactions, Scrooge has cemented his reputation around town as being the miserable miser.

    Can he still change it?

    The Shadows of the Future: Shaping Tomorrow Today

    The final spirit Scrooge meets is the “Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come” or the “Ghost of Christmas Future.” This ghost blends in with the darkness of the night, wearing a long black robe that covers their entire face and body, except for a boney hand it uses to silently point.

    The ghost begins by showing men on the streets joking and laughing about someone who has just passed away. At a pawn shop, robbers are selling stolen property they recently seized from the dead man’s estate, saying it’s for the best since the items will no longer serve any use to him. Scrooge, perplexed by the meaning of these scenes, intently watches on. Another man jokes:

      “It’s likely to be a very cheap funeral, for upon my life I don’t know of anybody to go to it.”

    Scene by scene, people show ambivalence toward the death. Scrooge grows frustrated and asks:

      “If there is any person in the town who feels emotion caused by this man’s death, show that person to me. Spirit, I beseech you!”

    Now they see a family that was in debt to the dead man, and they are feeling humble gratitude and quiet glee that they no longer have to worry themselves about such an evil creditor:

      “Yes. Soften it as they would, their hearts were lighter. The children’s faces, hushed and clustered round to hear what they so little understood, were brighter; and it was a happier house for this man’s death! The only emotion that the Ghost could show him, caused by the event, was one of pleasure.”

    Already having suspicions on who this man is, Scrooge begs the ghost to finally reveal where his future lies. The ghost travels to a graveyard and points at a tombstone that upon inspection reads: Ebenezer Scrooge

    Scrooge’s heart sinks. Next it’s shown that Tiny Tim hasn’t recovered from his illness and has also passed away, and at such a young age. Feeling completely hopeless at this point, Scrooge desperately begs:

      “Answer me one question. Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be, only?”

      “Men’s courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead. But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me!”

    As long as you’re alive and breathing, you have the power to change.

    When we think about death, it puts everything about life into perspective. Our time is finite in this world and we must make the most of it without being distracted by trivialities and lesser values. If you were laying on your deathbed right now, what would your main regrets be?

    When Scrooge reflects on his own death and what influence he’d leave on the world, it shakes him at his core – but also transforms him.

    The Power of Redemption: Transforming Scrooge’s Tale into Our Own

    After the visitations of the three ghosts, Scrooge wakes up a changed man ready to start his new life. He rises from bed excited, hopeful, and giddy that he’s still alive and still has a chance to change his current course.

    Upon finding out it’s still Christmas Day, he buys a prize turkey to send to the Cratchit family and begins giving generous amounts of money to children and the poor. He continues to walk around the town square, giving everyone warm greetings and a hearty “Merry Christmas!”

    When he sees Bob Cratchit the next day at work, he immediately gives him a raise in salary and promises to take care of Tiny Tim and assist the family in anyway possible. He becomes a lifelong friend to the family.

    This sudden change in Scrooge’s behavior confused the townsfolk at first, including many who made fun of this rapid transformation that was so uncharacteristic of Scrooge. But these words and gossip didn’t bother him:

      “Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter[…] His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.”

    At its core, “A Christmas Carol” is a story of redemption and heroism. Scrooge’s journey from miserly recluse to benevolent samaritan exemplifies the human capacity for change.

    By reflecting on his past, present, and future self, Scrooge discovered the best path forward – a process that applies to all forms of self-improvement.

    This story has insightful lessons that can apply to anyone’s life, no matter what situation they find themselves in. We can’t change the past chapters, but we can change how our story ends.

    Never forget you have the power to rewrite your life story at any time.


    Enter your email to stay updated on new articles in self improvement:

    [ad_2]

    Steven Handel

    Source link

  • China defends bounties offered for Hong Kong dissidents abroad

    China defends bounties offered for Hong Kong dissidents abroad

    [ad_1]

    BEIJING — China on Friday defended controversial bounties offered for the capture of Hong Kong dissidents who have fled abroad that have been heavily criticized by foreign governments and human rights groups.

    Rewards of 1 million Hong Kong dollars ($128,000) have been offered for information leading to the capture of 13 opposition figures accused of violating the semi-autonomous Chinese city’s sweeping National Security Law.

    Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said China rejected the outside criticism, saying the arrest orders were “necessary and justified and … in line with international law and practice.”

    Without directly mentioning the bounties, Mao said other countries also have extraterritorial aspects to their laws on national security, adding that foreign governments’ support for those on the list was merely cover for their aim of destabilizing Hong Kong, an Asian financial center that was roiled by 2019 anti-government protests.

    “We strongly oppose and deplore the individual countries slandering Hong Kong’s national security law and interfering in the judicial system of (Hong Kong),” Mao told reporters at a daily briefing.

    A day earlier, Hong Kong police accused another five overseas-based activists of violating the National Security Law imposed by Beijing, and offered rewards for their arrests.

    Mao said the five “endangered national security by destabilizing Hong Kong under the guise of democracy and human rights. ”

    One of the five, Joey Siu, is a U.S. citizen who was born in North Carolina and moved to Hong Kong as a child.

    “This morning I, a U.S. citizen, woke up to the news that an arrest warrant & a HKD $1 million bounty have been placed on my head by the Hong Kong govt. for exercising my freedoms in my own country,” Siu posted on the social media site X, formerly known as Twitter.

    “More to say later but for now: I will never be silenced, I will never back down,” Siu wrote. The police notice listed her alleged crimes as “colluding with a foreign nation or overseas forces to endanger national security.”

    The bounties further intensify the Hong Kong government’s crackdown on dissidents following the 2019 demonstration that grew increasingly violent and were harshly suppressed by police.

    Many leading pro-democracy activists were arrested, silenced or forced into self-exile after the introduction of the security law in 2020, in a drastic erosion of the freedoms promised to the former British colony when it returned to China in 1997. Later legal changes effectively demolished any political opposition, with all seats on representative bodies either appointed by the government or reserved for those vetted and certified as “patriots.”

    The latest arrest warrants were issued for Johnny Fok and Tony Choi, who host a YouTube channel focusing on current affairs, and pro-democracy activists Simon Cheng, Hui Wing-ting and Joey Siu. Those on the wanted list are believed to be living in self-exile mainly in Britain, the U.S. and Australia.

    In July, Hong Kong warned eight other activists who now live abroad that they would be pursued for life with bounties put on them. It was the first such use of bounties under the security law, and the authorities’ announcement drew criticism from Western governments.

    Police have arrested people on suspicion of providing funds for some of those who have fled abroad.

    Both the U.S. and British governments have denounced the arrest warrants and bounties as flying in the face of human rights and democratic norms.

    Mao responded Friday, saying, “The U.S. and U.K.’s support to these anti-China elements exposed their sinister intention of messing up Hong Kong.”

    “China’s determination to safeguard its national sovereignty, security and development interests is unwavering. The countries concerned should respect China’s sovereignty and the rule of law in Hong Kong and stop interfering in China’s internal affairs,” Mao said.

    Amnesty International described the bounties as “absurd” and “designed to sow fear worldwide.”

    “This is further confirmation that the Hong Kong authorities’ systematic dismantling of human rights has officially gone global. The brazen tactic of placing ‘Wild West’-style bounties on activists’ heads seems to be emerging as a method of choice to silence dissent,” Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for Greater China, Sarah Brooks, said Thursday in an emailed statement.

    Meanwhile, pro-democracy activist Agnes Chow left Hong Kong for Canada earlier this month and doesn’t plan to return to fulfill her bail conditions.

    Chow is one of Hong Kong’s most prominent young activists and was arrested in 2020 under the National Security Law. While she has not been charged and was released on bail, police confiscated her passport before returning it to her this year under certain conditions, including a visit to mainland China with authorities.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kissinger's unwavering support for brutal regimes still haunts Latin America

    Kissinger's unwavering support for brutal regimes still haunts Latin America

    [ad_1]

    SANTIAGO, Chile — In Chile, leftists were tortured, tossed from helicopters and forced to watch relatives be raped. In Argentina, many were “disappeared” by members of the brutal military dictatorship that held detainees in concentration camps.

    It all happened with the endorsement of Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. secretary of state who died Wednesday at age 100.

    As tributes poured in for the towering figure who was the top U.S. diplomat under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, the mood was decidedly different in South America, where many countries were scarred deeply during the Cold War by human rights abuses inflicted in the name of anti-communism and where many continue to harbor a deep distrust of their powerful neighbor to the north.

    “I don’t know of any U.S. citizen who is more deplored, more disliked in Latin America than Henry Kissinger,” said Stephen Rabe, a retired University of Texas at Dallas history professor who wrote a book about Kissinger’s relationship with Latin America. “You know, the reality is, if he had traveled once democracy returned to Argentina, to Brazil, to Uruguay — if he had traveled to any of those countries he would have been immediately arrested.”

    There is likely no starker example of Kissinger’s meddling with democracy in the region and then supporting brutality in the name of anti-communism than Chile.

    In Chile, Kissinger played a key role in the efforts to do everything in the United States’ power to undermine and weaken the socialist government of Salvador Allende, who was elected president in 1970. Kissinger then used his sway to prop up the military dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who rose to power in a 1973 coup, repeatedly refusing to call attention to the numerous human rights violations of Pinochet’s regime, which murdered opponents, canceled elections, restricted the media, suppressed labor unions and disbanded political parties.

    Kissinger long alleged that he wasn’t aware of the human rights abuses that were committed in the region, but records show that this wasn’t the case, said Peter Kornbluh, a senior analyst at the National Security Archive that is in charge of its Chile project.

    “The declassified historical record, the documents that Kissinger wrote, read and said, leave no doubt that he was the chief architect of the U.S. policy to destabilize the Allende government and that he was also the chief enabler of helping the Pinochet regime consolidate what became a bloody, 17-year infamous dictatorship,” Kornbluh said.

    Kissinger was “somewhat obsessed” with Allende’s government, fearing that the rise of a socialist government through democratic means could have a contagion effect in the region, said Chilean Sen. José Miguel Insulza, a former secretary general of the Organization of American States who served as a foreign policy adviser in Allende’s government.

    “For him, any action that meant defending the national interest of the United States seemed justifiable,” Insulza said.

    Kissinger feared what Allende’s government could mean for the world.

    “In geopolitical terms, Kissinger considered the rise of a left-wing coalition to power through democratic means even more dangerous than the example set by Cuba. Indeed, this could be replicated in Western countries with powerful communist parties in terms of electoral influence, such as in Italy,” said Rolando Álvarez, a history professor at the University of Santiago, Chile.

    Kissinger was seemingly unaffected by tales of suffering at the hands of military officers, even though his own family arrived in the U.S. as refugees who had to flee Nazi Germany in his teens.

    “By the end of 1976, State Department aides were telling Henry Kissinger, a Jew, that Jews were being targeted in Argentina,” Rabe said. “And Kissinger just didn’t do anything.”

    In Chile’s neighbor, Argentina, a military junta rose to power in 1976 vowing to combat leftist “subversives.” Kissinger made clear he had no objections to their brutal tactics and repeatedly ignored calls from other State Department officials to raise more concerns about human rights violations.

    In a June 1976 meeting, Kissinger had a message for Argentina’s foreign minister, Admiral César Augusto Guzzetti: “If there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly.” He later reiterated that support during a meeting in October 1976 — a time when Argentine officials were worried the U.S. would raise human rights concerns amid increasing reports of torture and disappearances.

    Guzzetti was “overjoyed” at the meetings, and “had felt that Kissinger had given him the signal that the United States had no objection to wholesale slaughter,” Rabe said.

    Kissinger had a similar attitude toward other military dictatorships in the region, including in Uruguay and Brazil, and never raised objections to what was known as Operation Condor, a clandestine program that allowed military regimes in that part of the world to illegally pursue, detain, torture and assassinate political dissidents who fled their countries.

    That attitude made a lasting imprint on Latin Americans’ psyche.

    “At least here in Latin America, what I perceived in Henry Kissinger’s vision is very negative because it’s a kind of anything goes mentality. No matter how brutal the dictatorship is that must be supported, it doesn’t matter,” said Francisco Bustos, a human rights lawyer and professor at the University of Chile.

    Decades later, the effects of that policy are still being felt in a region that feels the U.S. would go to any lengths to support its interests.

    “There is a segment of political parties and movements in Latin America, including Chile, where the relationship with the United States is essentially marked by anti-imperialism. This perspective essentially sees any U.S. administration, whether Democratic or Republican, liberal, progressive, or ultraconservative, as more or less the same,” said Gilberto Aranda, an international relations professor at the University of Chile.

    Although U.S. intervention in a region that was often referred to as “America’s backyard” has a long history, Kissinger seemed to take that into overdrive.

    It’s no surprise then that one of the harshest reactions to Kissinger’s death came from a Chilean official.

    “A man has died whose historical brilliance never managed to conceal his profound moral misery,” Chile’s ambassador to the United States, Juan Gabriel Valdes, posted on the social media platform X. Chile’s leftist President Gabriel Boric then retweeted the message.

    ___

    Politi reported from Buenos Aires, Argentina.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Albania’s opposition disrupts a budget vote with flares and piled-up chairs in Parliament

    Albania’s opposition disrupts a budget vote with flares and piled-up chairs in Parliament

    [ad_1]

    TIRANA, Albania — Albanian opposition lawmakers disrupted the Parliament’s session again on Monday to protest what they say is increasingly authoritarian rule by the governing Socialists.

    Democratic lawmakers lit flares and piled chairs on top of each other in the middle of the hall the minute Prime Minister Edi Rama took his seat to vote on next year’s budget. A cordon of bodyguards stopped opposition lawmakers from getting near the seats of the Cabinet.

    The left-wing Socialists, who hold 73 seats in the 140-seat Parliament, made a quick vote in principle and closed the session in 5 minutes. A debate on each budget item is expected later this week.

    One of the flares sparked a small fire that was extinguished by opposition lawmakers.

    The opposition wants to create parliamentary investigative commissions to probe alleged cases of corruption involving Rama and other top government officials.

    The Socialists say the opposition’s requests are not in line with constitutional requirements.

    Gazmend Bardhi, one of the opposition lawmakers, said they would not allow the Parliament to carry out its normal work.

    “Our battle is to show to each citizen that this is not the Parliament representing them,” he said.

    But Bledi Cuci, head of the Socialists’ parliamentary grouping, urged Albanians to note that the Parliament was approving the largest budget ever, and twice the size of 2013 when the Socialists came to power.

    “In democracy, the opposition speaks with alternatives and not with flares,” he added.

    The disturbances first started last month, two days before prosecutors accused Sali Berisha, former prime minister and president for the Democratic Party, of corruption over of a land-buying scheme that’s now under legal investigation in the capital, Tirana.

    The prosecutors allege the 79-year-old Berisha granted financial favors to his son-in-law, who was arrested. Berisha has said that they are both innocent, and claims the case is politically motivated and that his opponent, Rama, is behind it.

    Bardhi said the opposition would radicalize its protests but did not elaborate.

    The opposition has been divided into at least three groupings since 2021 when Berisha and his family members were barred by the United States from entering the country, and later also the United Kingdom, because of alleged involvement in corruption. Berisha is the fourth top Albanian official to be barred from entering the U.S. on grounds of corruption.

    Post-communist Albania has struggled to fight corruption, which has impeded its democratic, economic and social development.

    ___

    Follow Llazar Semini at https://twitter.com/lsemini

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Can Milei still win in Argentina?

    Can Milei still win in Argentina?

    [ad_1]

    Javier Milei, the firebrand libertarian candidate for Argentina’s presidency, surprised the world with a first-place finish in the primaries this August. But in the presidential election this past weekend, he finished second behind Peronist candidate Sergio Massa, Argentina’s current economy minister. Neither candidate passed the threshold needed to become the next president, so they will have a head-to-head rematch on November 19.

    Does Milei still have a chance? Why did Argentina’s markets falter after Milei came out ahead this summer? And why are Massa’s allies in the government handing out money to voters?

    Join Reason‘s Zach Weissmueller and Liz Wolfe this Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern on Reason‘s YouTube channel or Facebook page to discuss these questions and more with Marcos Falcone, a political scientist, project manager at Argentina’s Fundación Libertad, and podcast host.

     

    Sources referenced in this conversation:

    Argentina’s 2023 presidential election results

    Argentina’s (Unexpected) Libertarian Moment,” by Marcos Falcone

    Argentina’s presidential election delivers a surprise result,” The Economist

    Support for Milei by party affiliation, Economist Intelligence Unit

    A man, a plan, a chainsaw,” by Daniel Politi and David Biller

    Is Javier Milei’s Movement in Argentina a Cult of Personality in the Name of Libertarianism?” by Antonella Marty and Jose Benegas

    What’s in Javier Milei’s head?” by Federico Rivas Molina

    [ad_2]

    Zach Weissmueller

    Source link

  • A Swiss populist party rebounds and the Greens sink in the election. That’s a big change from 2019

    A Swiss populist party rebounds and the Greens sink in the election. That’s a big change from 2019

    [ad_1]

    GENEVA — Switzerland’s anti-immigration Swiss People’s Party rebounded from searing losses four years ago to become the largest parliamentary faction after the election, official results showed, as two environmentally-minded parties lost ground despite record glacier melt in the Alpine country.

    Pre-election polls suggested that Swiss voters had three main concerns: Rising fees for the obligatory, free market-based health insurance system; climate change, which has eroded Switzerland’s many glaciers; and worries about migrants and immigration.

    The final tally late Sunday showed the people’s party, known as SVP by its German-language acronym, gained nine seats compared to the last vote in 2019, and climbed to 62 seats overall in parliament’s 200-member lower house. The Socialists, in second, added two seats to reach 41 in that chamber, known as the National Council.

    It marked the latest sign of a rightward turn in Europe, after victories or electoral gains by conservative parties in places like Greece, Sweden and Italy over the last year, even if voters in Poland rejected their national conservative government last week.

    A new political alliance calling itself The Center, born of the 2021 fusion of the center-right Christian Democrat and Bourgeois Democrat parties, made its parliamentary election debut and took third place — with 29 seats, eclipsing the free-market Liberal party, which lost a seat and now will have 27.

    Environmentally minded factions were the biggest losers: The Greens shed five seats and will now have 23, while the more centrist Liberal-Greens lost six, and now will have 10.

    Political analyst Pascal Sciarini of the University of Geneva said Monday that the result was largely a “swing of the pendulum” and that support for the Greens was diluted in part because many voters felt they had already taken a big step toward protecting the environment by overwhelmingly approving a climate bill in June that will curb Switzerland’s greenhouse gas emissions.

    “At first glance, it’s a bit surprising because the climate crisis is even more present than it was four years ago — when climate worries were the dominant issue among the population,” he said.

    He suggested that the bounce back for the SVP was a sign that rising insurance premiums and concerns about growing migration into Switzerland captured many voters’ minds this time.

    “It’s perhaps that there was a sort of competition among concerns — and that made the job harder for the Greens to make climate concerns the dominant theme in the media,” Sciarini said.

    Overall, the vote isn’t likely to have significant impact on Swiss foreign policy, he said. The country’s executive branch operates like a permanent government of national unity, where no single faction has total sway — what’s known among the Swiss as their “magic formula” of democracy to ensure balance and moderation, and ensure that personalities don’t dominate politics.

    Even with their electoral victory, the SVP only holds just over 30% of seats in the lower house. The composition of the legislature, which is elected every four years, ultimately shapes the composition of the executive branch, which is called the Federal Council and includes President Alain Berset, who plans to leave government at the end of the year.

    But the legislative vote result won’t significantly alter the composition of the Federal Council, where the SVP already has two seats — as do the Socialists, the free-market Liberals, while the Center has one.

    The Center party, by outscoring the Liberals, may make a bid to swipe one of their two seats, and the Socialists will have to choose a successor for Berset; Those are the only likely changes to the Federal Council.

    The Swiss president is essentially “first among equals” in the seven-member council, where each of the members hold portfolios as government ministers and take turns each year holding the top job — which is essentially a ceremonial one to represent Switzerland abroad. Berset will be succeeded next year by centrist Viola Amherd.

    In Switzerland, voters also participate directly in government decision making. Voters regularly go to the polls — usually four times a year — to vote on any number of policy decisions. Those referendum results require parliament to respond.

    More broadly, Switzerland has found itself straddling two core elements to its psyche: Western democratic principles like those in the European Union — which Switzerland has refused to join — and its much vaunted “neutrality” in world affairs.

    A long-running and intractable standoff over more than 100 bilateral Swiss-EU agreements on issues like police cooperation, trade, tax and farm policy, has soured relations between Brussels and Bern — key trading partners.

    The Swiss did line up with the EU in imposing sanctions against Russia over its war in Ukraine. The Federal Council is considering whether to join the EU and the United States in labeling Hamas a terror organization. Switzerland has joined the United Nations in labeling al-Qaida and Islamic State group as terrorists.

    Switzerland, with only about 8.5 million people, ranks 20th in world economic output, according to the International Monetary Fund, and it’s the global hub of wealth management: where the world’s rich park much of their money, to benefit from low taxes and a discreet environment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Triangle of Sadness Announcement: Having Money Is Not Actually A “Skill” or “Talent” That Will Serve the Rich Outside of Their Bubble When It Bursts

    Triangle of Sadness Announcement: Having Money Is Not Actually A “Skill” or “Talent” That Will Serve the Rich Outside of Their Bubble When It Bursts

    [ad_1]

    The “chic” emphasis of late on how much rich people fucking blow (see also: The White Lotus, Hellraiser, Bodies Bodies Bodies) has been crystallized at perhaps its finest in Ruben Östlund’s latest film, Triangle of Sadness (a lovely shape-oriented title to follow up The Square). Wasting no time in getting to the point, Östlund sets the stage in the world of fashion. Specifically, male modeling. Wherein, for once, it’s the men who are underpaid and harassed (by the largely gay male population that dominates this facet of the industry). Including Carl (Harris Dickinson), a rather standard-issue vacuous model who stands against the wall and subjects himself to a reporter making a mockery of high fashion’s elitism by telling Carl to pretend he’s modeling for an expensive brand by looking as serious as possible a.k.a. looking down on the consumer (which, yes, every ad campaign from a luxury brand seeks to do with its stoic, often famous models).

    Carl appears like a fish out of water as the casting directors tell him things such as, to paraphrase, “Models are expected to have a personality now” (a load of bullshit designed to make the art of being thin and hot seem more “meaningful” than it actually is). Something Madonna’s daughter, Lola, knows all about. In addition to nepotism being a key to one’s success in the business (see also: Kaia Gerber). Carl, in contrast, comes across like he never left the 90s school of “thought” on modeling as he walks vacantly up and down the room, eventually resulting in him being told to get rid of that “triangle of sadness” he’s sporting… better known as the furrowing of one’s brow that makes such a formation at the top of their nose. So yeah, not the best audition (yet probably not the worst either).

    Later on, it doesn’t look as though things are going much better for Carl in his personal life as he dines with fellow model and influencer, Yaya (Charlbi Dean, who tragically died just before Triangle of Sadness’ international release). As she stares at her phone (the scene many a dinner companion is familiar with), she absently thanks him for getting the check. To which he soon spotlights (after Yaya pries it out of him) that she never leaves him much choice with regard to paying the bill—even though she makes more money than he does. Yaya balks at his complaining as the argument continues in the car on the way to the hotel and then at the hotel as Carl insists that he wants them to be like best friends, prompting Yaya to reply that she doesn’t want to fuck her best friend (though we all know Joey Potter did). And also: talking about money isn’t “sexy”—which is part of why “poor people” are so grotesque to the rich, who never have to discuss or question the spending of every little nickel and dime.

    In irritation, Carl says what he means by “best friends” is that he wants them to be like equals. Yaya, perhaps not so naïve about gender roles, regardless of the century, later confesses to him in the hotel (after he’s derided under his breath that women of the present are “bullshit feminists”) very bluntly: she needs to be with a man who can take care of her. Because what if, say, she gets pregnant and can’t model anymore? Carl admits she doesn’t seem like the type who could work in a supermarket. As it also becomes clear that both are only in this “relationship” to grow their social media following, Carl vows to make Yaya fall in love with him for real—none of this “trophy [wife] bullshit.” With the establishment of looks as about the only way to secure money (“beauty as currency,” as Östlund refers to it) if you’re not born into it already, Östlund takes us into a new phase of the movie.

    Divided into three parts, “Carl & Yaya” ends so that we might enter “The Yacht” portion of the film. And oh, how pronounced class is during this second act, with the truth about Yaya and Carl managing to get onto this yacht filled with primarily middle-aged and elderly ilk being that Yaya used her “hotness” to assure plenty of pic posting to make the cruise look as (literally) attractive as possible. In short, to mislead people into believing that anyone youthful and beautiful actually goes on these types of excursions when, in fact, it’s mostly people such as Dimitry (Zlatko Burić), an aged Russian oligarch who likes to quip, “I sell shit” in reference to being the King of Fertilizer throughout Eastern Europe and beyond. In point of fact, any rich person can describe how they made their fortune as, “I sell shit.” A lot of fucking useless bric-a-brac no one really needs and that daily decimates the environment. The same goes for Winston (Oliver Ford Davies) and Clementine (Amanda Walker), an old British couple who informs Carl and Yaya that they finagled their wealth by “defending democracy”—better known as arms dealing.

    While someone as gross as Dimitry has managed to secure companionship in Vera (Sunnyi Melles, a real-life princess of Wittgenstein), as well as a daughter (?), Ludmilla (Carolina Gynning), who comes off more like a mistress (think: the Ivanka to Dimitry’s Donald), app creator/tech “titan” Jarmo (Henrik Dorsin) is too socially awkward/incel-like to have much game with women. And what use is money to a man if it can’t be used to treat “the ladies” more freely as objects? This is why, when Yaya and Vera, who have taken a shine to one another in their social media-obsessed affinity, offer to pose with Jarmo to make another woman who didn’t come on the cruise with him jealous, he tells them how much it means to him. And then offers to buy them some expensive watches. Costly, shiny things being the only way to show gratitude among the rich and rich-coveting.

    Behind the scenes of it all is Paula (Vicki Berlin), the head of staff doing her best to keep morale up by assuring her crew members that they might get a very big tip at the end of it all…so long as they agree to pander to every absurd demand from the guests. This prompts the crew to start chanting excitedly (and crudely), “Money, money, money, money!” reminding one of Molly Shannon as Kitty Patton chanting, “It’s all about the money, money, money” in The White Lotus. What it all proves is that even (and especially) the non-rich are motivated by money, despite it being the very thing that renders them so powerless in this life. By playing into its worship, the lower classes only end up further enslaving themselves to the rich. Meanwhile, even further down below, Abigail (Dolly de Leon), “Head of the Toilets,” is miffed by the bizarre shaking and rattling of the “middle-class” crew up above. In this particular scene, there is something very Parasite-esque about the filming, designed to accent that beneath every “low” class is still an even lower one doing far more grunt (read: bitch) work.

    What’s more, in every instance of a rich motherfucker presented, none of these people actually “make” or “do” anything tangible to secure their bag. Yet somehow what they “do” is considered more “valuable” (based on bank account) in our society than those who actually buttress the entire operation of day-to-day existence. And this is where “The Island” segment of Triangle of Sadness comes in—to remind the rich assholes who end up stranded on it that they ain’t shit without “the help.”

    Having arrived to this point through a series of “unfortunate” (a.k.a. entirely the fault of the wealthy’s whims in demanding that all the crew members take a swim for thirty minutes) events, the main escalating factor is the improper temperature of shellfish ultimately served at the captain’s dinner. The captain being a reclusive and drunken man named Thomas (Woody Harrelson) that Paula, with the help of Chief Officer Darius (Arvin Kananian), finally manages to coerce into coming out for this accursed obligation. Until this rare appearance, we only ever hear his voice from behind the door, just like Paula. But it’s clear Harrelson took the role so that he could shine during a very “this is the Titanic sinking” part of the movie, during which he goes mano a mano with Dimitry about capitalism versus socialism (Thomas being an American socialist and Dimitry being a Russian capitalist) by quoting a series of “thinkers” to one another and their stances on the subjects.

    The idea that rich people truly believe their shit (and vomit) doesn’t stink quickly becomes manifest during the now iconic segment featuring the non-stop bodily “elimination” processes of the uber-affluent (most especially Vera). Still subject, in the end, to the limitations of their own bodies, no matter how much money they have. So sure, maybe “we’re all equal” at the basest level of “being human,” with this “we’re all equal” lie serving as a running phrase—whether written or spoken—throughout the film. Yet, obviously, it’s something the rich only wish to tell themselves as a means to shirk any sense of guilt about what they have (which, again, is why Vera demands that the entire crew takes a swim break). More precisely, the excesses of what they have.

    This is a topic that arises heavily during the “quote competition” between Dimitry and Thomas as the boat devolves into total shit-and-vomit chaos. With Thomas reciting such Marx aphorisms as, “The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.” Dimitry ripostes with quotes from the likes of Reagan and Thatcher, the latter having once said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” As their warring ideologies play out in “good fun,” the passengers endure their own added element to the bodily fluid-filled hellscape in that most of the volleying is broadcast over the intercom.

    As the absurdity of it all mounts, the only thing that was still missing was the arrival of pirates onto the scene. Which is how we come to find a select few of the passengers washed up on the aforementioned island. Where Abigail, the so-called lowest of the low out in the “real world” is suddenly Top Dog (or “Captain,” as she calls herself) in this setting. All because she has basic skills for survival that the rich never had to learn in their position of “power” that has now rendered them powerless. In spite of this reversal of circumstances, it’s apparent that Östlund wants to ask the question: is life without the social constructs of “civilization” any less savage? Not really, as Lord of the Flies already taught many high school students long ago. Indeed, in the end, Carl himself is the “bullshit feminist.” He doesn’t care about equality, he just wants his fucking meals fed to him in exchange for offering up his body. Beauty as currency, even here.  

    With regard to managing to keep the tone comedic amid the brutal subject matter/mirror held up to the audience, Östlund invoked the names of two very specific filmmakers past who also had the same ability as he commented, “I felt I wanted to make movies like [Luis] Buñuel and Lina Wertmüller in the 70s, where there was no contradiction between being entertaining and dealing with something that they thought was important.” And, now more than ever, nothing is more important than keeping the spotlight on the ceaselessly-increasing divide between the haves and have-nots. Particularly as we embark upon a new era of climate change apocalypse.

    And, speaking of that, a tongue-in-cheek moment that addresses this very inevitability arrives during a fashion show that projects on a backdrop screen something to the effect of, “We’re entering an entirely new climate…” The viewer is briefly inclined to believe this is another attempt at greenwashing until the phrase concludes, “…in fashion.” In other words, the rich really don’t give a fuck if the world is burning so long as they can still “make” (i.e., siphon) money during the decline.

    Despite Triangle of Sadness coming across as endlessly “cynical” (that word used to write people off who speak the truth), Östlund portrays all of this precisely because he still has some faint glimmer of hope for humanity. If he didn’t, he likely wouldn’t explore these “uncomfortable” topics in his films at all. And as for being deemed another “guilt-racked liberal” by wealthy conservatives that might happen upon the movie, Östlund remarked, “To call someone a hypocrite, it comes very often from the right-wing perspective: ‘You shouldn’t talk about a better society, because you’re a hypocrite. Look at yourself.’ We can’t separate ourselves from the culture that we live in.” And the culture we live in is the very symptom of our sickness—vomit and all. To which government and big business at large has said, “Lick it up, baby, lick it up.”

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • MUSIC ACCOMPANIES PEACE – Violinist Creates Music App Free for Students in War-Torn Countries

    MUSIC ACCOMPANIES PEACE – Violinist Creates Music App Free for Students in War-Torn Countries

    [ad_1]

    ACCOMPANY app is the brainchild of violinist and writer Steven Maloney, a Juilliard graduated music teacher on a mission to share his love for both music and teaching, especially with the victims of war and poverty.

    Press Release


    Feb 18, 2016

    ACCOMPANY is the latest classical music education app set to launch in May at accompanymusic.com. The app is the brainchild of violinist and writer Steven Maloney, a music teacher on a mission to share his love for both music and teaching, especially with the victims of war and poverty. The owner of Accompany Music and violinlessonschicago.com, Steven comments: “The idea of practicing along with recorded accompaniment certainly isn’t new, but my setup is innovative. Now the user can employ any mobile device or computer to access thousands of pieces for violin, voice, and other instruments. They choose a piece to work on, they adjust the tempo or repeat difficult sections using loops, and they learn to phrase musically and traditionally–all without any distortion in pitch or sound quality when changing speed.”

    Part of Maloney’s zeal to create the ultimate mobile practice tool was his own experience growing up in a small, isolated Texas town.

    “The idea of practicing along with recorded accompaniment certainly isn’t new, but my setup is innovative.  Now the user can employ any mobile device or computer to access thousands of pieces for violin, voice, and other instruments. They choose a piece to work on, they adjust the tempo or repeat difficult sections using loops, and they learn to phrase musically and traditionally–all without any distortion in pitch or sound quality when changing speed.” 

    Steven Maloney, Founder, Accompany Music

    “Music instruction was frankly dismal and there were certainly no qualified accompanists to work with. You could mail order LP or CD recordings of karaoke-like background accompaniment tracks for a few things, but they were always too fast and you couldn’t adjust the tempo without changing the pitch or sound quality. It was like trying to learn to drive at 90 miles an hour. That was 25 years ago. Since then, digital changed everything and a few products have come out that semi-accurately slow down mp3 files, but the sound quality as a rule is not very good. Some of the newest apps even require “training” the app itself. Now theoretically, even if an app could actually follow–to the millisecond, like the most masterful human accompanist– (I’m talking about your every nuance and stylistic eccentricity warts and all), that might be useful for a very select population of extremely advanced and seasoned performers. For the remaining 99% – it’s best to learn to speed up and slow down in traditionally established places within the music the way a master musician like David Oistrakh or Pablo Casals or Maria Callas would. That requires listening to an accompaniment and following it; that itself takes discipline, not indulgence. In a nutshell: if you’re a kid or adult learning to play an instrument, you don’t need a toy; you need guidance and structure within a useful tool. That’s exactly what Accompany provides. Nothing in the app is automatic or metronomic, either; the piano sound is of the highest quality and sampled from a Steinway grand. The entire recording set up and app design was assisted by a former top-level Apple employee whom I consider a genius. In future we will have orchestral and ensemble accompaniments too. Finally, I’d also like to mention that unlike other apps where you’re paying a few dollars per piece, with Accompany, subscription is only a few pennies per day. Morever, for students in impoverished and war-torn nations, the app with all its content is absolutely free. For the moment, these countries with free service will include (among others) Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Honduras, Syria, Haiti, Sudan, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Bolivia, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and North Korea.”

    From a people perspective, such a concept is, as Bernie Sanders might pronounce, “Yuge“.

    To date, ACCOMPANY features music for concertos, sonatas, short pieces, and student works. The product is unique in that it also features complete scale systems in different tunings. etudes, and drones for intonation practice – an idea inspired by noted virtuoso Ruggiero Ricci.

    [ad_2]

    Source link