You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain––so goes the old saying. 

Many of us remember when the “tech industry” was new––some of us even remember when it was a proto-version of itself. When Bill Gates launched Microsoft, he was hailed as the hero who would bring down the evil empire of IBM. The same was said of Steve Jobs––who can forget the epic Apple 1984 commercial?

But the tide quickly turned on Bill Gates and Microsoft. It took a little longer, but Apple is increasingly consider an “evil empire.” As the article just cited makes clear, Google––once the most exciting company on the planet, with it’s refreshing “Don’t Be Evil” motto––has long since slipped into the techno-authoritarian mode––and the public sees it. 

This past month marks a turning point in the nation’s relationship with tech. For one, Amnesty International has called on Google to cancel Project Dragonfly, which would create a censored search engine for China. Google Employees called on the company to do the same, saying that the company is putting profit over values. 

Additionally, the ACLU is concerned with how and why the federal government demanded Facebook build a backdoor into its Messenger app. Facebook has already taken major hits in its reputation, and the ACLU’s lawsuit reminds us that Facebook is not only capable of evil on its own, but it can be used for evil by other institutions. 

The king is dead. Long live the king. 

More tech.

Your preferred news channels are probably blowing up with news about a Trump Tower development in Moscow right about now. Here’s what’s going on, in a very brief nutshell: 

Michael Cohen just pled guilty to lying to Congress about a Trump real estate deal in Moscow. Basically, Cohen tried to obscure the links between Trump and the Moscow project and tried to imply that the project was dead before the Iowa caucuses. This is bad for Trump because it establishes a connection between Moscow and himself directly (Cohen said he briefed the Trump family on the deal).

It gets worse. The Trump organization allegedly planned to give Vladimir Putin the penthouse in that building. The goal was to woo Russian oligarchs to buy other units in the building to be close to Putin. Multiple sources confirmed this plan, though it is again based on Cohen’s word alone that we can assume Trump knew. 

The New York Times summarizes why this is a problem: 

Efforts to obtain Russian government approval for a Trump-branded development in Moscow went on until “approximately June 2016,” after Trump had effectively secured the Republican nomination for president.

This, in turn, raises questions about Trump’s continuing business with Russia.

Keep your eye on the news.

It should come as no surprise in this particularly partisan period that pretty much any slightly controversial event will get everyone at each others’ throats. The recent events at the Mexico / United States border are so controversial that even the Auschwitz Museum is weighing in. 

What happened? 

In short, some of the asylum-seekers rushed the U.S. border, hopping fences and allegedly throwing rocks at the border patrol agents. The border patrol fired tear gas to stop them. 

This has happened before. Sarah Huckabee Sanders noted that the Obama administration did this often. She was right––border patrol agents did use tear gas about once a month for much of his administration. 

So what’s the big deal? 

There are three things that make this tear-gassing different.

First, the tear gas was used against a group of asylum seekers and not immigrants per se. 

Second, there were women and children in the crowd. That’s a hard pill to swallow under any circumstances, and it’s right to challenge the border patrol’s use of tear gas on this point alone. 

And third, people just hate Trump and his administration. In this author’s opinion, that has clouded the discussion about the events at the border. Sinclair media has, despicably, forced its stations to air a defense of the tear-gassing.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has compared the event to the Holocaust. As a result, this has turned into an alarmist partisan issue.

This week, special prosecutor Robert Mueller accused Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, of lying. If true, this means that Manafort broke his plea deal. It’s a seemingly simple issue, but the effects are complicated and, potentially, profound. 

NPR has noted that Trump has stepped up his twitter attacks on Mueller in the wake of the Manafort news, particularly because of a New York Times report that Manafort’s lawyers briefed Trump’s lawyers on the special counsel’s investigation. Rudy Guiliani confirmed this. This is not illegal, so why is Trump stepping up his attacks? 

There is one startling possibility. Mueller intentionally made a plea deal with Manafort knowing that Manafort would share information with Trump. This would give Trump’s attorneys a chance to coordinate stories––potentially untruthful stories––with Manafort. Meanwhile, Mueller––who in this scenario has evidence of wrongdoing––waits for the two to come up with a false story. Recall that Trump is submitting his answers to Mueller in writing, meaning that Mueller could wind up with written evidence of lying. 

If that is true, then that begs the question of why Manafort would take a plea deal at all? Simply to be Trump’s “inside man”? That is possible, which raises a new question: can Trump pardon Manafort in return for his help? That’s up for debate. Some say Trump cannot pardon Manafort, because that would be both an impeachable and convictable offense. Others say that Trump can. 

So we shall have to wait and see what comes of this mess. 

More about politics. 

Despite the Democrat’s impressive gains in the House during this past midterm election, they failed to gain bring in any Senate seats. That indicates that, despite Donald Trump’s abysmal and worsening approval rating, a 2020 Trump victory is not only possible but also likely. That’s because, although Trump’s approval is low, significant voting blocs are simply unwilling to vote for the Democratic party because of party’s handling of race relations. 

Essentially, the problem is that Democrats have aligned themselves with a progressive ideology that, to many whites, seems anti-white. The Part’s far-left turn has raised some eyebrows. Note this New York Times point:

Take the issue of discrimination as a factor holding back African-American advancement. White liberals are to the left of black Democrats, placing a much stronger emphasis than African-Americans on the role of discrimination and much less emphasis on the importance of individual effort.

What this tells us is that the Democratic Party has gone so far left that it is alienating more moderate whites––to say nothing of conservative whites. Race is an important factor in U.S. elections, so alienating white voters is simply bad strategy. Rather than imply that whites are bad, for example, this Nation piece suggests that the issue of race be confronted head on, with historical facts and nuance.

Sixty percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of race relations, leaving a significant door open for Democrats who want to woo voters. It will be challenging, however, not to pander ot the extreme base given how social media preferences such binary language. 

More politics.

The Southern Poverty Law Center once did good work. They fought against domestic terrorists like the Ku Klux Klan and played a significant role in advancement of civil rights in the United States. Their reputation now, however, has changed dramatically. It’s clear that the organization has gone off the rails when the extremely liberal Washington Post writes: 

The SPLC is a once-storied organization that did important work filing civil rights lawsuits against the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s. But it has become a caricature of itself, labeling virtually anyone who does not fall in line with its left-wing ideology an “extremist” or “hate group.” 

And what happens when someone gets labeled a hate group? The article goes on: 

…this is not the first time the SPLC has done this. In 2010, it placed the Family Research Council (FRC) — a conservative Christian advocacy group that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage — on its “hate map.” Two years later, a gunman walked into the FRC headquarters with the intention to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces.” He told the FBI that he had used the SPLC website to pick his target.

Hate is cyclical, especially racially-motivated hate. That was the whole point of American History X. It’s actually pretty well known, but still the cycle is ramping up. In Mississippi, a political nominee said she would be in the front row of a lynching, and someone hung nooses on trees at the state capitol. In Los Angeles, a man tried to run over two men outside of a synagogue. These events will lead to counter protests, and those protests will lead to counter protests, and in the end there will be violence––we’re reminded of that this week especially because the Charlottesville man who rammed protestors with his car is going on trial. 

The point is not only that there’s blame on “both sides,” as Trump famously said at the worst possible time (there is blame on both sides, but the wake of such a horrible event is hardly time to apologize for the attacker). The point is more that we should be careful how easily we throw out the term “hate.” 

More news.

In the wake of every mass shooting committed by a white person, you’ll see a meme circulate on social media. The meme depicts three black or brown people who have been labeled terrorists or criminals. It juxtaposes those three people with one white person––generally James Holmes, the infamous Aurora shooter who looks like a certified maniac–who has been labeled “mentally ill.” The point of the meme is simple: non-whites are called criminals and terrorists when they commit violence, but whites are called mentally ill. 

The media has taken up this question. Vice News cites the Anti-Defamation League, which says that “[w]hite men are responsible for 71 percent of extremist-related deaths in America over the last 10 years.” Vox challenges altogether the notion the mentally ill commit mass murder. 

The question seems to be: why aren’t whites who commit mass murder called terrorist? But the real question is: Is the label “terrorist” racially biased? Let’s break down that question. 

First, what is a terrorist? A terrorist is a person who uses violence, especially against civilians, in order to achieve political aims. Generally a terrorist is part of a much smaller political group and attempting to influence a much large, more powerful group.

Second, what does racially biased mean? In short, it means that certain racial groups are more likely to be considered terrorist because of their race. 

The question means, then, are some race groups more likely to be called “terrorists” because their race is somehow, someway associated with terrorism? 

The answer to that question is a pretty clear yes. One scholar of race and religion has demonstrated clearly that the equation Arab = Muslim = Terrorist influences the American perception of all three. Even when you hear the word terrorist, you probably think of someone vaguely Muslim or Arabic.

Does that mean, however, that white people should be called terrorists? The answer is that it depends. Recall the definition of terrorist. Timothy McVeigh, for example, was clearly a terrorist since he was part of a very small group attempting to influence politically the United States. James Holmes, however, was not. 

That means that we have to be careful when label white people’s acts of extreme violence. Sometimes they are terror, sometimes they are just that––meaningless extreme violence. The latter is far scarier. 

According to a study published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, Americans are having less sex now than they did in the 1990s. The New York Times summarizes the study: 

From the early 1990s into the early 2000s, Americans generally had sex from about 60 to 65 times a year, according to the study. But after 2002, Americans appeared to lose interest. While the decline has been nearly across the board, one group seems to be pulling everyone else down: married couples.

Married couples generally have sex more often than single people, but that advantage is declining. Married couples had sex an average of 56 times a year in 2014, down from 67 in 1989. But more people are staying single — meaning there is less sex — and the couples who do walk down the aisle are making fewer trips into the bedroom.

The Atlantic tried to figure out why Americans are having less sex:

Over the course of many conversations with sex researchers, psychologists, economists, sociologists, therapists, sex educators, and young adults, I heard many other theories about what I have come to think of as the sex recession. I was told it might be a consequence of the hookup culture, of crushing economic pressures, of surging anxiety rates, of psychological frailty, of widespread antidepressant use, of streaming television, of environmental estrogens leaked by plastics, of dropping testosterone levels, of digital porn, of the vibrator’s golden age, of dating apps, of option paralysis, of helicopter parents, of careerism, of smartphones, of the news cycle, of information overload generally, of sleep deprivation, of obesity. Name a modern blight, and someone, somewhere, is ready to blame it for messing with the modern libido.

CNN and Politico have their own answers, but they’re more of the same: online dating, too much porn, and so on. 

What do you think? 

More on health.

There is a conspiracy theory that the moon landing never happened. That conspiracy theory is not limited to the United States––it is also popular in Russia. Recently, Dmitry Rogozin, the head of Russia’s Roscosmos space agency, said that his agency would investigate the moon landing. He said this with a smirk and a shrug, which many interpreters believe indicates he is joking. 

But here’s the problem––this is not a funny a joke. Investigating the moon landing––even as a joke––gives some credence to the conspiracy that the landing was faked, and given credence to conspiracy theories can have dangerous consequences. 

Russia has fueled conspiracy theories before. They participated in the #Pizzagate conspiracy, which helped discredit Hillary Clinton and led to election of Donald Trump. 

The question that we must ask is: Is Dmitry Rogozin’s little joke really a joke? Or is it part of Russia’s continuing new war campaign against the United States? It is unfortunate that such a question needs to be asked, and perhaps it is more unfortunate that the answer to this question and similar ones must always be the latter––at least for the foreseeable future. News readers must always assume that Russia is working to interfere with all aspects of U.S. life.

China attempting to wipe out an ethnic minority group called the Uighur. 

The Uighur are Chinese citizens, and the majority of them are Muslim. They are therefore both religiously and ethnically different from the (officially) atheist Han majority.  China has done this before––it has actively pursued policies that “Sinicize” Tibet, who are both ethnically and religious different from the Han majority.

According to the Chinese government, the Uighur––or at least some Uighur––are violent, anti-Chinese extremists. This is the same reason they gave for the Sinicization of Tibet. Recently, millions of Chinese citizens have forcibly moved into Uighur homes in order to “to report on whether they display Islamic or unpatriotic beliefs.” 

Beijing knows that it cannot outright attack the Uighur using physical violence––the violence they committed in Tibet led to severe international repercussions. As a result, it will attempt to force the Uighur to abandon any practices that separate them from the Chinese cultural norm, including abstaining from pork, alcohol, or cigarettes––all important religious abstentions for the Uighur. 

The United States has considered sanctions over the Chinese government’s treatment of the Uighur. Such sanctions will likely face severe opposition due to economic ties between the United States and China.  

More news.

The migrant caravan that President Donald Trump so fretted about before the election has arrived at the U.S. border. They are currently locked in Mexico, as the United States has closed the border on both sides. The U.S. closed the border in response to a migrant march in Mexico. The migrants planned to march peacefully, but they ended up rushing for the U.S. border. 

According to the New York Times:

Soon after the migrants began their midday march to the border in Tijuana, Mexico, they were met by Mexican federal police officers at a bridge that leads to the San Ysidro border crossing, through which millions of people and vehicles pass each year. At that point, many of the marchers bypassed the police by running across a dry riverbed…A smaller group of migrants then tried to make their way to a train border crossing some 10 minutes away, where they were stopped by tear gas released by officers of the United States Customs and Border Protection.

At other crossings, at least one migrant has allegedly thrown rocks at border patrol agents. 

Meanwhile the city of Tijuana has declared a humanitarian crisis as a result of the 5,000 migrants camped in the city. The Mexican government has refused to help the city, which has asked the United Nation for aide. 

Incidentally, Trump stopped talking about the migrant caravan after the election, indicating that he only using the migrant caravan as a political expedient.

More news.

Yes.

More about movies.

Ok, I guess I should explain in a bit more detail. And let me start with this: I love the Harry Potter universe. I’ve read or listened to the books probably a dozen times, and each time I fall deeper in love with the wizarding world. I am so deeply impressed with J.K. Rowling’s world-building. The internal consistency of the original seven novels (henceforth The Canon). There are clues for the final book buried in the first book, and the first book calls back to the seventh. There are so many threads woven through the stories that you have to wonder how a single human kept all of them organized in her head. In another time and another place, these books would be the foundations of religions, they’re so rich and compelling. When final book was published in 2007, the world stopped for a moment, simultaneously celebrating and mourning the end of this fantastic saga that gripped the world. That book was a perfect ending to a perfect series.

But, alas, that book turned out not to be the end. It started when Rowling told fans that Dumbledore was gay. There was extremely, extremely sparse evidence of it in the text––despite this frankly ridiculous LA Times piece that offers seven “clues” (read: stereotypes) that Dumbledore was gay.

Then, Rowling began using her characters to support or condemn political causes (that article, by the way, is my favorite explanation of why Rowling needs to stop messing with her creation). Now, she is attempting to explain The Canon through the Fantastic Beasts franchise and other materials. According to critics, this is exactly what George Lucas did to Star Wars. Harry Potter fans are literally begging her to stop messing with their favorite magical world. Some are walking away from the series altogether.

So what’s the problem? If you don’t like the additions, then just don’t watch or read them, right? Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.

I’m reminded of Harper Lee’s Go Set a Watchman, which was so bad that it made people question the brilliance of To Kill a Mockingbird. It’s partly that both books were penned by the same author, who was able to channel the characters she created and make them do things that we would have not imagined in our own heads. But it’s more that The Canon has become, for all intents and purposes, sacred text for fans. When an author, be in Lee or Rowling, modifies The Canon with either pre- or post-Canon information, it challenges The Canon’s sacrality.