Author: Tony Wikrent Page 1 of 39

By Tony Wikrent

 

How Much Do I Need to Change My Face to Avoid Facial Recognition? 

[Gizmodo, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 12-09-2024]

An aggregation of quotes from experts in the field. Here’s the most optimistic one: Even the best neural networks struggle with low-quality photos that lack information-rich pixels of the human face, especially when matching against a large list of potential identities. Thus the first step is to deny the algorithm those pixels by occluding the face. Cover the face in cases where that isn’t suspicious, e.g., wear a scarf in the wintertime, sun glasses on a bright day. Hats with wide brims are also a confound, as they can hide the forehead and hair, and cast a shadow on the face. Holding a hand over the face is also good for this. The second step is to look down while in motion so any camera in the vicinity will not capture a good frontal image of the face. Third, if one can move quickly, that might cause motion blur in the captured photo—consider jogging or riding a bike. My best practical advice for evasion: know where facial recognition is being deployed and simply avoid those areas. How long this advice remains useful though depends on how widespread the technology becomes in the coming years.”

 

Strategic Political Economy

The early American rejection of John Locke

[TW: I want to begin with this, because you will see echoes of the argument over masses versus elites in almost all the subsequent stories. USA is stumbling and faltering because so much of what we are taught and believe is based on lies. One of the biggest lies is that the founding of the republic was based on the ideas of John Locke. It is true that Locke’s ideas later came to predominate American political economy, but it was after a period of ideological combat. Unfortunately, the opponents of Locke lost.

[In the 1820s and 1830s, the Transcendentalist movement in USA, which included Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Ellen Sturgis Hooper, Louisa May Alcott, and Walt Whitman quite explicitly rejected the ideas of John Locke. Universalist minister Orestes Brownson, wrote in The Boston Quarterly Review, in January 1839,

Locke was a great and good man, but his philosophy was defective… Locke reduces man to the capacity of receiving sensations, and the faculty of of reflecting on what passes within us. According to him we have no ideas which do not enter through the senses, or which are not formed by the operations of the mind on ideas received by means of sensation.

[Locke’s] system of philosophy… is no less fatal to political liberty than to religion and morality… This philosophy necessarily disinherits the mass. It denies to man all inherent power of attaining to truth. In religion, if religion it admits, it refers us not to what we feel and know in ourselves [such a sense of fairness and justice], but was said and done in some remote age, by some special messenger from God; it refers us to some authorized teacher, and commands us to receive our faith on his word, and to adhere to it on peril of damnation. It therefore destroys all free action of the mind, all independent thought, all progress, and all living faith. In politics it must do the same. It cannot found the state on the inherent rights of man; the most it can do, is to organize the state for the preservation of such conditions, privileges, and prescriptions, as it can historically verify….

The doctrine, that truth comes to us from abroad, cannot coexist with true liberty… The democrat is not he who believes in the people’s capacity of being taught, and therefore graciously condescends to be their instructor; but he who believes that Reason, the light which shines out from God’s throne, shines into the heart of every man, and that truth lights her torch in the inner temple of every man’s soul, whether patrician or plebian, a shepherd or a philosopher, a Croesus or a beggar. It is only on the reality of that inner light, and on the fact that it is universal, in all men, and in every man, that you can found a democracy, which shall have a firm basis, and which shall be able to survive the storms of human passions.

But the disciple of Locke denies the reality of this light, he denies the teachings and the authority of the universal Reason…. It is folly, therefore, to repose confidence in the people, to entertain any respect for popular decisions. The disciple of Locke may compassionate the people, but he cannot trust them; he may patronize the masses, but he must scout universal suffrage, and labor to concentrate all power in the hands of those he looks upon as the enlightened and respectable few.

[Merriam-Webster offers this definition of “scout”: “to reject scornfully.”]

[ — The Transcendentalists – An Anthology, edited by Perry Miller. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1950, pp. 207-208. ]

Read More

By Tony Wikrent

 

How to give a good speech

Tim Harford [via The Big Picture 12-02-2024]

The art of good public speaking is often to say less, giving each idea time to breathe, and time to be absorbed by the audience. But the anxiety of the speaker pushes in the other direction, more facts, more notes, more words, all in the service of ensuring they don’t dry up on stage. It’s true that speaking in public is difficult, even risky. But the best way to view it is as an opportunity to define yourself and your ideas. If you are being handed a microphone and placed at the centre of an audience’s attention for 20 minutes, you’re much more likely to flourish if you aim to seize that opportunity. Everyone is watching; you’re there for a reason. So . . . what is it that you really want to say?

[TW: The ability to speak well in public is a skill that will probably become more and more important as we try to resist the Trump’s regime’s policies and actions. I have often regretted I have not learned public speaking while in high school and college.]

 

Strategic Political Economy

The Great Grocery Squeeze: How a federal policy change in the 1980s created the modern food desert.  

[The Atlantic, via The Big Picture 12-07-2024]

…The structure of the grocery industry has been a matter of national concern since the rise of large retail chains in the early 20th century. The largest was A&P, which, by the 1930s, was rapidly supplanting local grocery stores and edging toward market dominance. Congressional hearings and a federal investigation found that A&P possessed an advantage that had nothing to do with greater efficiency, better service, or other legitimate ways of competing. Instead, A&P used its sheer size to pressure suppliers into giving it preferential treatment over smaller retailers. Fearful of losing their biggest customer, food manufacturers had no choice but to sell to A&P at substantially lower prices than they charged independent grocers—allowing A&P to further entrench its dominance.

Congress responded in 1936 by passing the Robinson-Patman Act. The law essentially bans price discrimination, making it illegal for suppliers to offer preferential deals and for retailers to demand them….

For the next four decades, Robinson-Patman was a staple of the Federal Trade Commission’s enforcement agenda. From 1952 to 1964, for example, the agency issued 81 formal complaints to block grocery suppliers from giving large supermarket chains better prices on milk, oatmeal, pasta, cookies, and other items than they offered to smaller grocers. Most of these complaints were resolved when suppliers agreed to eliminate the price discrimination. Occasionally a case went to court.

During the decades when Robinson-Patman was enforced—part of the broader mid-century regime of vigorous antitrust—the grocery sector was highly competitive, with a wide range of stores vying for shoppers and a roughly equal balance of chains and independents. In 1954, the eight largest supermarket chains captured 25 percent of grocery sales. That statistic was virtually identical in 1982, although the specific companies on top had changed. As they had for decades, Americans in the early 1980s did more than half their grocery shopping at independent stores, including both single-location businesses and small, locally owned chains. Local grocers thrived alongside large, publicly traded companies such as Kroger and Safeway….

Then it was abandoned. In the 1980s, convinced that tough antitrust enforcement was holding back American business, the Reagan administration set about dismantling it. The Robinson-Patman Act remained on the books, but the new regime saw it as an economically illiterate handout to inefficient small businesses. And so the government simply stopped enforcing it….

Why did Silicon Valley turn right? The “pounded progressive ally” thesis has limits

Henry Farrell, December 04, 2024 [Programmable Mutter, via The Big Picture 12-07-2024]

…The shifting relationship between the two involves- as far as I can see – ideas, interests and political coalitions. The best broad framework I know for talking about how these relate to each other is laid out in Mark Blyth’s book, Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century.

Mark wants to know how big institutional transformations come about. How, for example, did we move from a world in which markets were fundamentally limited by institutional frameworks created by national governments, to one in which markets dominated and remade those frameworks?….

As Mark puts it in more academic language:

“Economic ideas therefore serve as the basis of political coalitions. They enable agents to overcome free-rider problems by specifying the ends of collective action. In moments of uncertainty and crisis, such coalitions attempt to establish specific configurations of distributionary institutions in a given state, in line with the economic ideas agents use to organize and give meaning to their collective endeavors. If successful, these institutions, once established, maintain and reconstitute the coalition over time by making possible and legitimating those distributive arrangements that enshrine and support its members. Seen in this way, economic ideas enable us to understand both the creation and maintenance of a stable institutionalized political coalition and the institutions that support it.”

Thus, in Mark’s story, economists like Milton Friedman, George Stigler and Art Laffer played a crucial role in the transition from old style liberalism to neoliberalism. At the moment when the old institutional system was in crisis, and no-one knew quite what to do, they provided a diagnosis of what was wrong. Whether that diagnosis was correct in some universal sense is a question for God rather than ordinary mortals. The more immediate question is whether that diagnosis was influential: politically efficacious in justifying alternative policies, breaking up old political coalitions and conjuring new ones into being. As it turned out, it was.

[TW: “The Great Grocery Squeeze” that resulted from Reagan’s decision to stop enforcing the Robinson-Patman Act, proves the accuracy of Farrell’s and Blyth’s work. So also Stoller’s discussion of federal judge Carl Nicholsm below. This is all a reflection of civic republicanism being supplanted by liberalism as capitalism developed, allowing “sanctity of private property” to become a more powerful “economic idea” than “promote the General Welfare.”]

Read More

by Tony Wikrent

 

Strategic Political Economy

The Elephant in the Room–No, the Other Elephant 

Charles Hugh Smith [Of Two Minds, via Naked Capitalism 11-15-2024]

…The reason why it’s so easy to ignore extreme wealth inequality (EWI) is that we don’t experience EWI as a thing, we experience a decline in our standard of living as wealth is siphoned up into the top 10%….

The RAND study Trends in Income From 1975 to 2018 concluded that capital skimmed $50 trillion from labor from 1975 to 2018.

Using data from the Federal Reserve’s FRED database (series A4102E1A156NBEA), correspondent Alain M. calculated the actual sum for the period 1970 to 2022 (2022 being the most recent data available) was a staggering $149 trillion: his spreadsheet is available here as a PDF: Employees Share of Gross Domestic Income 1970-2022.

If wage earners’ share of Gross Domestic Income had remained at 51% instead of declining to 43%, wage earners would have received an additional $149 trillion over those 52 years. That’s roughly $3 trillion a year, which works out to an additional $22,000 annually for America’s 134 million full-time workers or an additional $18,000 annually for the nation’s entire work force (full-time, part-time, self-employed, gig workers) of 163 million….

In my view, there should be zero taxes on all earnings up to the median wage of $60,000 annually–no Social Security taxes, nothing–and progressively steeper taxes on all income / capital gains from capital/finance above some modest amount, say half of the median wage ($30,000 annually), along with a transaction tax for every financial trade submitted, whether it executes or not. Shifting the tax burden from labor to capital/finance would at least start the overdue rebalancing….

Crypto industry accounts for half of corporate donations in 2024 election

GRAPH: Top 10 corporate campaign funders in the 2024 US election

[Public Citizen, via The Big Picture 11-17-2024]

• In 2024, crypto corporations have poured over $119 million directly into influencing federal elections, primarily into a non-partisan super PAC dedicated to electing pro-crypto candidates and defeating crypto skeptics.
• Crypto corporations are by far the dominant corporate political spenders in 2024 as nearly half (44%) of all corporate money contributed during this year’s elections ($274 million so far) came from crypto backers.
• Koch Industries is a distant second place in 2024. The privately held conglomerate owned by Charles and, formerly, the late David Koch, contributed $25 million to its Koch-controlled Americans for Prosperity Action and $3.25 million toward electing Republicans to Congress.

[TW: cryptocurrencies were created and promoted by libertarians in line with their dream of total freedom from government regulation and oversight. In the Federalist Number 10, Madison wrote “The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation.” In the Federalist Number 15, Hamilton poses one simple question to test the worth of any national financial scheme: “Is private credit the friend and patron of industry?” Which has contributed more to the advance of the human condition? Libertarianism, or the civic republicanism embodied by Madison and Hamilton? It is exactly because they are unable or unwilling to contemplate such questions that USA and western elites have so little support among their publics. ]

 

Welcome To The United States of Crypto (podcast)

Jared Jacang Maher, November 15, 2024 [The Lever]

After spending hundreds of millions to influence politicians in both parties, the industry defeated some of its fiercest critics and scored bipartisan support, particularly from President-elect Donald Trump, despite crypto’s potential risks for consumers and the financial system. Today on Lever Time, Lever reporter Freddy Brewster discusses crypto’s emergence as a political power broker and what industry insiders are hoping for in return for their massive donations….

For a transcript of this episode, click here.

Read More

by Tony Wikrent

 

Global power shift

Biden ‘rushing’ billions in aid to Ukraine as Trump win fuels uncertainty 

[Al Jazeera, via Naked Capitalism 11-07-2024]

Gaza / Palestine / Israel

We are witnessing the final stage of genocide in Gaza 

[Guardian, via Naked Capitalism 11-07-2024]

Israel, Blackmail & the Presidents 

[Consortium News, via Naked Capitalism 11-07-2024]

From Iron Dome to F-15s: US provides 70% of Israel’s war costs 

[CTech, via Naked Capitalism 10-29-2024]

The World According To Trump (by Col. Wilkerson) 

Chris Hedges

[TW: At 34:40 Wilkerson begins an explanation that, because of modern battlefield surgery, killed in action is no longer as important a metric of combat as is wounded in action, and by the metric of wounded, the IDF is clearly losing against Hezbollah in Lebanon.]

Oligarchy

Trump Win Fulfills Oligarchy’s 50-Year Plan for Right-Wing Takeover

Thom Hartmann, November 06, 2024 [Common Dreams]

The billionaires have won. They have successfully killed the American Dream. And now we have to fight back.

Two Plutocrats Shifted Harris’ Earned Media Message. It Didn’t End Well.

The Revolving Door Project, November 07 2024 [Common Dreams]

“In October, billionaire Mark Cuban bragged about his role in exiling a Harris surrogate and former Elizabeth Warren staffer for the sin of supporting a wealth tax during a television appearance. This claim was bolstered this month by reporting in The Atlantic that suggests that Uber General Counsel (and VP Harris’ brother-in-law) Tony West convinced Vice President Harris to ratchet down her populist messaging lest it upset the Silicon Valley and Wall Street elites he was courting on her behalf.

Fiona Hill on America’s Emerging Oligarchy

[Politico, via The Big Picture 11-03-2024]

The longtime Russia expert explains why Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are all talking to each other.

What Elon Musk Really Wants

[The Atlantic, via The Big Picture 09-27-2024]

The Tesla and X mogul has long dreamed of redesigning the world in his own extreme image. Trump may be his Trojan horse.

What Does Mark Cuban Want? 

[Sludge, via Naked Capitalism 10-29-2024]

Monopoly Round-Up: Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post Teach Democrats About Billionaires

Matt Stoller [BIG, via Naked Capitalism 10-28-2024]

What It’s Like Being a Billionaire’s Personal Assistant

[The Cut, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 10-30-2024]

“Another reason these people get stingy is that there’s some kind of psychological distortion that happens when everyone fawns over you all the time. The VIP’s mentality is, “Hey, this person should be paying me, because they get to be around greatness.” They’re used to having people want a piece of them. So they think that the job is such an amazing opportunity that they shouldn’t have to pay the person what they’re actually worth. They live in a bubble and their reality is warped.” And: “You have to have thick skin. You’re like a rhinoceros or an armadillo. And you have to have incredible patience. The way you word things is so important. Your intonation and speed of delivery — I mean, it’s an art. You’re working for people who are not used to hearing no.” And: “The Hollywood publicity machine creates a certain image, and it’s very rare to meet a celebrity who is genuinely an amazing, brilliant, kind, humane person to everyone all the time. Once you’ve been around it enough, those butterflies start to go away.”

The carnage of mainstream neoliberal economics

Read More

by Tony Wikrent

 

Strategic Political Economy

The Right Believes It Has the Supreme Court Votes to Overturn Labor Law

[In These Times, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 10-22-2024]

 “The foundational 1935 labor law protecting workers is unconstitutional, according to major corporations and right-wing zealots who believe they have enough votes on the Supreme Court to overturn it. In the latest sign that anti-union forces will doggedly press the matter, a federal judge for the Northern District of Texas enjoined the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from processing any allegations of employer violations of workers’ rights. The National Review hailed the decision as ​’A Welcome Blow to the NLRB.’ This is after Elon Musk’s SpaceX won a similar injunction against the NLRB before the Western District of Texas in July. Both cases will work their way up to the Fifth Circuit Court, which has served as an expressway to steer anti-regulatory legal appeals to the Supreme Court ever since Trump packed it with right-wing ideologues. ‘I don’t think a lot of labor folks are focused on this right now,’ says Stephen Lerner, a fellow at Georgetown University’s Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor. … ‘This is the culmination of a 50-year anti-union agenda.’… But, in trying to repeal all the rights and protections workers gained during the New Deal, including the limited protections that workers currently enjoy for organizing and engaging in collective bargaining, killing the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (also known as the Wagner Act) would also mean the lifting of a host of restrictions on unions’ ability to carry out solidarity activism and effective economic sanctions. Are unions prepared for a return to ​’the law of the jungle?’”

MASTER PLAN Bonus: How Democrats Lost The Courts

[The Lever, October 22, 2024]

In this exclusive Master Plan bonus episode, David Sirota interviews former Senate Leader Tom Daschle, who led Democrats’ fight against George W. Bush’s plan to pack the federal courts with conservative judges — and paid the ultimate political price.

Daschle’s success stalling Republicans’ judicial picks in the Senate made him a prime target of the master planners — so they had him ousted from Congress and filled his South Dakota Senate seat with their own corporate candidate.

Sirota and Daschle discuss the Federalist Society’s influence in transforming the judicial nomination process into an ideological purity test. They also weigh in on the last major campaign finance legislation — the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 — and whether similar reforms could even be possible in post-Citizens United America.

 

MASTER PLAN Bonus: The Federalist Society’s “Pipeline For Power”

[The Lever, October 22, 2024]

DAVID SIROTA: …To understand the roots of the Federalist Society, we spoke with Lisa Graves. She worked in the Department of Justice and on the Senate Judiciary committee and is now the founder of True North Research, a dark money watchdog organization. We heard from Graves briefly in Episode 7, but wanted to share the extended interview she did with producer Laura Krantz. Their conversation began with an overview of the four men who have been integral to the success of the Federalist Society: Ed Meese, C. Boyden Gray, Jay Sekulow, and Leonard Leo.

LISA GRAVES: Ed Meese was there near the beginning of the Federalist Society when it was created in 1981 as I mentioned, and Meese had served as Attorney General under Ronald Reagan. And he is certainly considered one of the fathers, or, you know, godfathers, in essence, of The Federalist Society from that period, and has been active in it throughout this, you know, these past 40 years, in a variety of ways. C. Boyden Gray, the highest role that he had in government was as White House Counsel for George Herbert Walker Bush. He helped select Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court to replace the great civil rights leader, Thurgood Marshall — he was someone who had an active opposition to civil rights or, you know, core civil rights laws.

Thomas had served in the Reagan administration in the EEOC in a way that many people in civil rights community consider to be destructive, not supportive of that institution. And C. Boyden Gray had a had a key role in that as White House Counsel, but he also had a role in the selection of David Souter to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that is the nomination and confirmation of a judge who, you know, is considered to be a Republican or having Republican roots, but he was not sufficiently doctrinaire.

When George W. Bush became president, C. Boyden Gray was not White House Counsel during that period, but he was operating on the outside, and he was seemingly determined to help make sure that, you know, ideologues were put on the bench. And so from the outside of the administration, he launched a thing called the Committee for Justice, CFJ, which was an attack machine to attack the Democrats for opposing any of these Bush nominees who were at the circuit court level, largely drawn from the ranks of The Federalist Society….

… in many ways, this so-called movement that The Federalist Society has been at the helm of was in part in reaction to Brown v. Board of Education, and whether they were going to try to justify it or not, along with opposition to the Roe v. Wade decision, which was built on a really important case called Griswold v. Connecticut, which recognized a right to autonomy in reproductive decisions that states could not limit, for example, women from accessing contraception. And so there’s a whole host of decisions by the court in the 20th century, including decisions affirming major public policies like social security and programs to, you know, protect labor rights and more, and the Federalist Society and Leo and these men have you know worked for years to try to undo those precedents by, in part, by this appointment process of personnel being policy….

LISA GRAVES: The Powell Memo expressly targets the courts as a lever of power… Lewis Powell [was] a lawyer for the tobacco industry, he had been instrumental in trying to prevent the federal government from regulating tobacco, despite the fact that the tobacco industry knew full well that its products caused cancer… He also had been a lawyer advising the city of Richmond, as it was contending with Brown v. Board of Education. And though he wasn’t the most outspoken of the white segregationists at that time, he helped put forward policies to pave the way for white kids to attend, you know, private institutions in order to not be subject to racial integration.

And in Powell’s memo, of the things he wrote was that businesses needed to play a more active role in influencing Congress, in influencing universities and influencing the courts. And he singled out the courts as a particularly important lever of power. And then just 10 years later, The Federalist Society was created. A number of institutions or entities were created in the aftermath of the Powell Memo — the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council … there was a concerted effort over the next 10 years to implement the Powell Memo through creating these entities … and infusing them with cash from sort of proto-billionaires … to advance an alternate vision for our constitution….

… one of the things that happened was that Leonard Leo became actively involved in trying to destroy the role of the American Bar Association in evaluating potential judicial nominees for the federal bench….

…the Bush administration basically outsourced the pre-selection process to the Federalist Society to Leonard Leo, and they were involved. I know for a fact that they were involved in 2001 in contacting potential circuit court nominees and asking them how they voted. Did they vote for George W. Bush or not? As a precondition, for the Federalist Society recommending them for circuit judgeship….

Read More

by Tony Wikrent

 

Strategic Political Economy

MASTER PLAN, Ep 10: The Master Planners’ Heist Of The Century

[The Lever, October 15, 2024]

By 2010, the master planners had firmly gained the upper hand. Their victory in Citizens United allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, giving business interests unprecedented power in politics. But the master planners’ onslaught wasn’t quite over. In this episode, we show how they embarked on a bold heist to crack the vault protecting democracy itself. It’s the heist story of the century, in three acts.

First, the schemers needed to take out the security cameras: The disclosure laws that in some instances still required the names of big-money donors to be reported. In a perverse act of mental gymnastics, petrochemical tycoon Charles Koch’s Americans for Prosperity sought to eliminate these laws by weaponizing a 1950s ruling that had protected civil rights activists in the Jim Crow South.

In the second part of the heist, the schemers went after the last remaining cops on the beat. They manufactured a scandal at the IRS, the country’s last remaining campaign finance regulators, over the targeting of so-called “social welfare” nonprofits — many of which were fronts for dark money groups.

Finally, the master planners needed a getaway plan, a way to prevent prosecutors from coming after them as they made off with the loot. They found their opportunity with the appointments of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

As high-profile bribery and corruption convictions fell, the message was clear: The system is rigged, and political officials are ready to play for pay.

Key findings referenced in this episode include:

• See the evidence from the case in which a Virginia jury convicted former Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife Maureen for accepting $175,000 in gifts and loans from a businessman — including a $10,000 white leather coat, shopping sprees, use of a Ferrari, and a $6,500 Rolex.
• In the 2016 case McDonnell v. United States, a wave of amicus briefs flooded the Supreme Court attacking the legality of the anti-bribery laws used to convict the former Virginia governor. Chief Justice John Roberts cited these briefs as evidence of “bipartisanship,” but they mostly came from influential figures in the money and politics sphere, including corporate lobbyists and Federalist Society members like John Ashcroft and Ted Olson. Other notable supporters filing briefs included Christian Right attorney Jay Sekulow and Citizens United mastermind James Bopp Jr. Even Justice Lewis F. Powell’s former corporate law firm joined in, representing a coalition of elite business owners.
• Indicted New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ lawyers recently filed their first motion to dismiss the bribery and fraud charges lodged against him, heavily relying on Supreme Court rulings that have weakened anti-corruption laws. The motion points to overturned convictions in corruption cases discussed in this episode, including those of McDonnell, former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, small-town mayor James Snyder, and New York power broker Sheldon Silver.
• Read law professor Zephyr Teachout’s article on how both liberal and conservative justices on the Supreme Court have expressed skepticism about anti-corruption law, narrowing the definition of corruption and limiting public power.

Read More