21 September 2016

The New York Times: Isle of Man, Flourishing in Britain’s Shadow, Faces Pivotal Vote

These days, disputes are settled peaceably at the ballot box, and there is no real party system in the Tynwald, which some citizens see as a modern form of Athenian democracy. But much is at stake in elections on Thursday.

Located in the Irish Sea, the Isle of Man is a geopolitical oddity: It is not technically part of the United Kingdom but is instead a crown dependency. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state, but the island is self-governing and reliant on Britain for its defense. It is not a member of the European Union, but its close ties to Britain mean that it effectively trades under Europe’s system of tariffs and customs duties. [...]

The Isle of Man may look and feel like coastal Britain, but it guards its independence, and it values symbols of nationhood. It issues its own bank notes; flies a flag with a distinctive, three-legged symbol; and takes pride in its world-famous TT motorbike races. The island has seen a revival of Manx, its indigenous language of Celtic origin, and people here bristle at mention of Britain as the mainland, referring to visits there as going “across.” [...]

Interest in the elections is high, judging from the crowded meeting, which lasted more than two hours. But aside from a direct democracy campaigner, James Hampton, who described himself as the “alternative candidate,” there were few ideological dividing lines among the five candidates there, who are campaigning for two seats. Apart from abortion, election issues included topics such as plans for the main bus terminal and the finances of the meat plant and local ferry company.

Alternet: Why Donald Trump Might Be the Most Anti-Catholic Presidential Candidate in Modern History

Why have Catholic voters rejected Trump? All year Catholic commentators and media outlets have provided their thoughts, but they have largely been overlooked by a mainstream media more fascinated by the story of evangelicals and Trump. As early as August 2015, the independent Catholic news site Crux noted that Trump’s aggressive anti-immigration stance put him at odds with Catholic bishops who were lobbying Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Writing in National Review earlier this summer, the political scientist Michael J. New commented that Trump’s “Catholic problem” likely stemmed from Trump’s harsh rhetoric on Latino immigrants who many American Catholics see positively as the future of their church, but also because ofTrump’s attacks on Pope Francis. [...]

Trump’s poor standing with Catholic voters resembles his “Mormon problem,” as I have written about. Taken together, the Catholic and Mormon rejection of Trump also further spotlights the embarrassment of evangelical support for the Donald.

The news that some 80 percent of white evangelicals plan to vote for Trump seemed astounding enough when the latest polls were released. But now compared with Catholics and Mormons rebuffing Trump, evangelicals’ overwhelming support for Trump offers damning evidence that they care more about political power than principles in this election cycle. [...]

Still, as I’ve argued in my recent book We Gather Together, the evangelical-Catholic political alliance remained a fragile one, even when results from the ballot box made it appear more solid. Even as conservative Catholics drew to evangelicals on social issues, like abortion, their church often took political stances on matters like welfare and nuclear armament that put them in opposition to the Republican Party. With strong Catholic Church teachings that seemed to support both Republican and Democratic positions, Catholic voters have tended to evenly divide between the two parties in most recent elections.

Vox: Critics say Bayer’s deal to buy Monsanto will stifle innovation. Are they right?

Currently, there are six companies that dominate the biotech seed and agrochemical industries: Bayer, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta, and BASF. But in recent months, DuPont has proposed merging with Dow, Bayer has struck a deal to buy up Monsanto, and Chinese giant ChemChina is buying Syngenta. If these mergers all go through, the three biggest agribusinesses would sell 59 percent of the world’s patented seeds and 64 percent of all pesticides.

As I detailed earlier, the biggest worry here is that a lack of competition could stifle the innovation needed to help farmers grow enough food to support a population that’s soaring past 7 billion. These giant oligopolies could also, potentially, raise prices on farmers who have already been battered by falling incomes in recent years. [...]

The basic thread running through these five points is that competition is crucial for fostering innovation, as farmers have more choices and companies have more incentive to create the most appealing seeds and pesticides for them. Reducing this competitive dynamic is likely to swamp any benefits from increased synergies from mergers.

By the way, Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, raised a related concern. Right now, there are so many regulatory hurdles to bring new biotech products to market that it’s hard for any but the largest firms to compete. “The unpredictable and lengthy regulatory review process, particularly in the biotechnology space, encourages greater consolidation in the sector,” he noted. So that’s another piece to consider here.

The New Yorker: Making Sense of Modern Pornography

Pornography has changed unrecognizably from its so-called golden age—the period, in the sixties and seventies, when adult movies had theatrical releases and seemed in step with the wider moment of sexual liberation, and before V.H.S. drove down production quality, in the eighties. Today’s films are often short and nearly always hard-core; that is, they show penetrative sex. Among the most popular search terms in 2015 were “anal,” “amateur,” “teen,” and—one that would surely have made Freud smile—“mom and son.” Viewing figures are on a scale that golden-age moguls never dreamed of: in 2014, Pornhub alone had seventy-eight billion page views, and XVideos is the fifty-sixth most popular Web site in the world. Some porn sites get more traffic than news sites like CNN, and less only than platforms such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, and PayPal. The twenty-first-century porn kings aren’t flamboyant magazine owners like Larry Flynt, whose taboo-breaking Hustler first published labial “pink shots,” in the mid-seventies, but faceless tech executives. The majority of the world’s tube sites are effectively a monopoly—owned by a company called MindGeek, whose bandwidth use exceeds that of Amazon or Facebook. Its C.E.O. until recently was a German named Fabian Thylmann, who earned a reported annual income of a hundred million dollars; he sold the company while being investigated for tax evasion. [...]

Jameson and Wicked found each other at the right time. There had, of course, been stars before her. Linda Lovelace’s performance in “Deep Throat,” in 1972, made porn mainstream; later, her denunciation of the movie, which she characterized as filmed rape, made the idea of the porn star as victim mainstream, too. In the mid-eighties, the revelation that Traci Lords had been underage in her most famous films led to the prosecution of producers, agents, and distributors under child-pornography statutes, and new legislation resulted in stricter age-verification requirements for porn actors. But by the time Jameson arrived on the scene the industry had become an efficient star-making machine. It had distributors and advertisers, production teams and industry magazines, shoots requiring permits, agents who sold the talent and trade associations who represented them. Jameson quickly achieved her ambition, becoming the industry’s biggest star and most reliable brand. By 2005, her company, ClubJenna, had an annual revenue of thirty million dollars. [...]

Tarrant’s book sheds useful light on the bargain-basement world of contemporary porn. In 2012, one agent claimed that the actresses he represented received eight hundred dollars for lesbian scenes, a thousand for ones with a man, twelve hundred or more for anal sex, and four thousand for double penetration, but there’s reason to think that these figures are inflated. Stoya, a well-known performer who has written about her life in the industry, has cited a rate of just twelve to fourteen hundred dollars for double penetration. Wages have declined across the board. Tarrant estimates that a female performer filming three anal scenes a month would make forty thousand dollars a year. [...]

The anti-pornography arguments often described women as victims, without agency, but “pro-sex” feminists argued that women should be able to use, and make, porn. So long as it was consensual, it might also be empowering. Some saw porn as part of an emancipatory project to reclaim female pleasure and to assert a sexuality that had been denied them. Lesbian, gay, and queer defenders saw porn as an opportunity to challenge sexual norms and taboos. For them, the definition of porn as female subordination by men mirrored conservative puritanism. It ignored the medium’s radical potential—how consensual B.D.S.M. could subvert power structures, or how erotic displays of imperfect or disgusting bodies could be a Rabelaisian weapon in a war against élite prudery.

Salon: Congressman seeks to block arms sale to Saudi Arabia, citing U.S.-backed war crimes in Yemen

The bipartisan campaign to block U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia is growing, both within and outside the government.

Rep. Ted Lieu, D-California, introduced a new bill on Tuesday morning that would block a $1.15 billion U.S. weapons deal with Saudi Arabia.

“The reason we’re doing this is because there is now overwhelming evidence that war crimes are being committed in Yemen and that most of them appear to be done by Saudi Arabia-led air strikes,” Lieu told Salon in an interview on Monday.

He noted that U.S.-backed, Saudi-led coalition attacks on civilians have been thoroughly documented in an array of independent reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, the United Nations and other organizations. [...]

Explaining the motivation behind their joint resolution, all four senators cited the atrocities committed by the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led coalition in Yemen and how the destructive campaign there has strengthened extremist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS. [...]

Despite the enormous civilian casualties and destruction, the U.S. has stood behind the war in Yemen. The Pentagon is still refueling coalition planes and providing intelligence to the Saudi-led coalition. The State Department has stressed that Saudi Arabia, a repressive theocratic monarchy that has exported radical Islamist ideology throughout the Arab and Muslim world, “remains a key ally and partner” and that the “United States continues to support a strong defense and security relationship with Saudi Arabia.”

Salon: Hate crimes against Muslims have risen, even as hate crimes against everyone else have declined

While many well-meaning Americans would like to believe that Islamophobia is limited to certain less tolerant parts of the country or certain hateful presidential candidates, anti-Muslim hate crimes have not only increased all over the country, but are at their highest levels since the aftermath of 9/11, according to a new report. Analyzing crime data from researchers at the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernadino found that hate crimes against American Muslims were up 78 percent in 2015. Attacks against those perceived as Arab rose even more.

“The rise,” the report’s authors observe, “came even as hate crimes against almost all other groups — including blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays and whites — either declined or increased only slightly.” Using police data from 20 states, researchers found 260 instances of reported hate crimes against Muslims, which is the most since 481 were reported in the months after 9/11. As a New York Times article on the report points out, “victims are often reluctant to report attacks for fear of inflaming community tensions, and because it is sometimes difficult for investigators to establish that religious, ethnic or racial hatred was a cause.” [...]

The report found that said rhetoric has a tangible impact on crime data: “Our analysis of daily data following terrorist attacks found a tolerant statement about Muslims by a political leader was accompanied by a sharp decline in hate crime, while a less tolerant announcement was followed by a precipitous increase in both the severity and number of anti-Muslim hate crimes.”

The Guardian: Hillary Clinton 'dropped climate change from speeches after Bernie Sanders endorsement'

Hillary Clinton has dropped the words “climate change” from most of her public addresses since winning the endorsement of her party rival Bernie Sanders, according to Climate Home analysis.

While the presidential candidate talks regularly about her plan for the US to become a “clean energy superpower”, in recent months she has rarely made reference to the planetary crisis that necessitates it. [...]

Research from Yale released in July indicates that even during the hottest year ever recorded, only the 17% of voters who describe themselves as “alarmed” about climate change rank it as a top tier election issue. Meanwhile, Trump has framed Clinton’s climate change response as a “poverty-expansion agenda”. The economy ranks in the top two defining policy areas for all other voters.

The Democratic primary season was altogether different. Clinton, the overwhelming favourite for the nomination, was ambushed on the left by her socialist rival. To tackle climate change, Sanders had promised to declare legislative war on fossil fuel companies. For her part, Clinton announced a plan to increase US solar capacity seven-fold by 2020. In the spring, she rolled out a wider platform on environmental justice and protection. [...]

Obama has since emerged as something of a climate warrior, but even in the election campaign for his second term he barely spoke about climate change, said Roberts. “I think he’s careful to not whack the hornets nest of the ideological and fossil fuel interests on the right.”

Vox: Why Putin might be trying to recreate the Soviet-era KGB — and why he might regret it

A well-connected Russian newspaper is reporting that Vladimir Putin plans to unite his domestic security, foreign espionage, and counterintelligence agencies into one superagency, in effect recreating the old Soviet KGB. If true, it suggests Putin is seriously worried about his future — and that he dramatically misunderstands the risks in this maneuver. [...]

It brings all the security agencies under one man. In the past, Putin governed through a kind of royal court, with multiple organizations with overlapping responsibilities constantly in competition. Increasingly, though, he is now relying on a handful of his closest allies instead.

This is because he simply doesn’t seem to trust the elite as a whole and instead is elevating a handful of people he does trust. The MGB would also be a powerful tool to control them and head off any political coups or conspiracies. In particular, it would gain lead responsibility for investigating allegations of corruption and economic crimes, and these have become to main weapon the Kremlin uses to intimidate and eliminate its enemies these days. [...]

Putin is clearly concerned about the possibility of a conspiracy within the elite to oust him: This is a perennial topic of discussion in Moscow. He appears to see agencies like the National Guard and MGB as the guarantors of his power. However, the old model did at least mean any coup would have to involve many different groups. Ironically, Putin might be creating for the first time a single agency with enough power to topple him.

While that is unlikely, there is another way this agency will limit Putin’s power. Already, the intelligence he receives is dangerously politicized, slanted in ways designed to please him. There is no Russian equivalent of congressional oversight, not even an independent national security adviser to warn him when he is being fed slanted and partial data.

Deutsche Welle: Mainstream parties suffering losses - an international comparison

Professor Uwe Jun from the University of Trier says "that society has become much more strongly diversified." Other values, opinions, and lifestyles have emerged, "and they are not resonating with the big parties anymore, because the big parties are far too broad, and don't stand for specific interests." That is challenging the very existence of mainstream parties. Professor Oskar Niedermayer of the Free University in Berlin adds that the big parties have had to "bundle very different interests" in order to remain big. The refugee question has shown how divided society is, and how tough that's been for the mainstream parties to address. [...]

Up until the 1980s, Austria was also in this group, with the special case that the Social Democrats and the conservative Austrian People's Party formed grand coalitions for almost two-thirds of the period following World War II. It was precisely this "eternal grand coalition" aimed at consensus building that led to the rise of the Freedom Party, or FPÖ. [...]

Niedermayer also doesn't see any "danger that Germany will develop the kind of circumstances common in Italy." Should a complicated coalition building process fail, the "two mainstream parties could shoulder the impact." Niedermayer is critical of introducing a majority electoral system like in Britain. He says the primary goal of such a system is forming a government that's capable of acting. In the worst case, a defeated minority goes without representation, "because the majority is the majority." He says proportional representation is much better at reflecting various interests in parliament. "We should keep [the current German] system, even if government formation were to become more difficult as a result of stronger fragmentation of our party system," he said.