13 February 2017

Slate: Forging a Dictatorship in Spain

Earlier, Franco had been impressed by the idea of Catholic corporatism and in 1935 had carefully noted the updating of Carlist doctrine in Víctor Pradera’s El Estado Nuevo, which called for a new Spanish monarchy, but he concluded that these approaches were too right wing and lacked broad mass appeal. Something more dynamic and up-to-date was needed. By the time Serrano arrived in Salamanca, he found that Franco “already had the idea of reducing the various parties and ideologies of the movement to a common denominator. He showed me the statutes of the Falange on which he had made copious marginal notations. He had also made comparisons between the speeches of [late Falange leader] José Antonio and of Pradera."

Unlike Nicolás, Serrano had a plan of his own, which largely, though never entirely, coincided with Franco’s own ideas, and he proposed to create what can be most simply described as a sort of institutionalized equivalent of Italian fascism, though it would be more identified with Catholicism than fascism, whatever the contradictions such an identification entailed. This would mean building a state political party, based on the Falange. As Serrano later put it, traditionalist, monarchist Carlism “suffered from a certain lack of political modernity. On the other hand, much of its doctrine was included in the thought of the Falange, which furthermore had the popular and revolutionary content that could enable Nationalist Spain to absorb Red Spain ideologically, which was our great ambition and our great duty.”2 It is doubtful that either Franco or Serrano had ever read the early-19th-century theorist Joseph de Maistre, but they implicitly agreed with his conclusion that the counterrevolution was not the opposite of a revolution, but rather was an opposing revolution. The revolutionary dimension of their counterrevolution would be provided by a kind of fascism. [...]

The goal was to develop a partido único of a semifascist kind, though not as the mere imitation of the Italian or any other foreign model. In an interview in a pamphlet titled Ideario del Generalísimo, published soon afterward, Franco declared that “our system will be based on a Portuguese or Italian model, though we shall preserve our historic institutions.” Later, in an interview with the daily Spanish newspaper ABC on July 19, 1937, he reiterated that the objective was to achieve “a totalitarian state,” though the example he evoked was the institutional structure of the Catholic monarchs in the 15th century. As he put it rather ambiguously in an interview with the New York Times Magazine in December 1937, “Spain has its own tradition, and the majority of the modern formulas that are to be discovered in the totalitarian countries may be found already incorporated within our national past.”

Nautilus Magazine: The Key to Good Luck Is an Open Mind

Luck can seem synonymous with randomness. To call someone lucky is usually to deny the relevance of their hard work or talent. As Richard Wiseman, the Professor of Public Understanding of Psychology at the University of Hertfordshire, in the United Kingdom, puts it, lucky people “appear to have an uncanny ability to be in the right place at the right time and enjoy more than their fair share of lucky breaks.” [...]

Demystifying this luck skillset has been a personal project of Christine Carter, a sociologist and senior fellow at the Greater Good Science Center, at the University of California, Berkeley. A few years ago, she was putting together an online course for families on raising happier kids. She translates research findings on qualities such as gratitude, mindfulness, and happiness into quantifiable, teachable skills. Amidst her work, she stumbled upon a funny little concept that seemed to be entangled with all these things—luck. “On the academic side of things, I’ve always been sort of skeptical of any concept related to luck,” says Carter. “Because as a sociologist, it’s like, Oh, so all those children in Darfur are just not lucky? We know that there are other things there.” [...]

It makes sense. The more observant you are of your surroundings, the more likely you are to capture a valuable resource or avoid tragedy. Lucky people don’t magically attract new opportunities and good fortune. They stroll along with their eyes wide open, fully present in the moment (a problem for people glued to phone screens). This also means that anything that affects our physical or emotional ability to take in our environment also affects our so-called “luckiness”—anxiety, for one. Anxiety physically and emotionally closes us off to chance opportunities.

Politico: Why Trump’s love affair with Netanyahu won’t last

This is especially true on a highly emotive and political issue like Israel, where candidates can get carried away and tend to promise more than they can and may want to deliver. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, after all, both promised to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and they ultimately decided it wasn’t worth the risk. And even in Trumpland, that walkback is occurring: In a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Hayom—his first as president—Trump sounded like any of his predecessors: dodging the embassy issue and criticizing settlements as not good for peace. [...]

Other, more sober voices are also being heard— Jordan’s King Abdullah, who wasn’t scheduled to meet with the president but did before the settlements statement was issued, may have weighed in on the Jerusalem issue. Trump and his team have also held a series of calls with Gulf leaders who probably delivered the same message. We don’t know what role, if any, Secretaries of Defense and State James Mattis and Rex Tillerson have played. But in the case of Mattis, who has strongly opposed the settlements enterprise—even opining that it could lead to apartheid—we can expect red, not green lights on early moves that are gratuitously “pro-Israeli.” And as an oilman with long experience in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, Tillerson is also likely to urge restraint when it comes to adopting positions that might undermine U.S. equities with key Arab states. [...]

Netanyahu fears not a hollowed out and discredited Labor Party or some popular ex-general, but an emboldened and empowered Israeli right. To guard his right flank, in 2015 he assembled the most right-wing coalition in Israel’s history. In so doing, he solved a short-term political problem and created a governing problem: Far from leading it, let alone dictating to it, the prime minister finds himself at times a veritable hostage, the most moderate member of his own Likud Party and vulnerable to a challenge from the right. His current nemesis is Naftali Bennett, the education minister and leader of Jewish Home, an avowedly pro-settler party that rejects a two-state solution. Bennett, a charismatic tech executive who once served as Netanyahu’s chief of staff, aspires to lead the Israeli right, if not the country itself. And given the unpredictability of coalition politics, Netanyahu’s strategy has never been to confront the opposition’s hardline pro-settlement policies but to try to delay, coopt or simply endorse them.

Salon: An independent California isn’t that wacky of an Idea

With recent public opinion surveys indicating that a third of Californians support peacefully seceding from the United States, it’s time for the media to stop dismissing the idea as a zany left coast response to the newly elected Republican federal government. The statistic equates to nearly 13 million people. That’s a lot of people. It’s worth considering what would happen if this long shot became a reality. You know, kind of like our reality-TV president who was never going to win the White House. [...]

It would hardly be the progressive utopia with which the state is often associated, but it could yield breakthroughs in traditionally stagnant political squabbles. To those who argue that California is obligated to stay and fight for the country’s soul, perhaps free of restriction an independent California could actually demonstrate the success of progressive values in action and serve as a better model for the world than the United States. If being one of the stars and stripes means that the populace will be denying climate science and gerrymandering districts in the interests of preserving white nationalism for a few decades, it’s not unreasonable to want to provide California’s 40 million residents with a better life while we can.  [...]

California receives about 14 percent of its water from the Colorado River, and losing access would put a strain on Southern California municipal and agricultural water districts in places like the Imperial Valley. Alonga notes, however, that “California’s share of the Colorado River’s runoff already has declined considerably in recent decades, and is likely to decline further in the future regardless.” [...]

The states of the Deep South would lose the most if California left, Marinelli says, because “those are the states that have been benefiting for decades by Washington redistributing California’s taxes to subsidize their states.” He notes their lower or nonexistent sales taxes and ample fiscal support from the federal government.

Salon: Finding love in a hopeless place: Why Tinder is so “evilly satisfying”

While most online dating websites such as Match or eHarmony attempt to connect similar users based on carefully constructed algorithms, Tinder does nothing of the sort. Using geo-location, Tinder generates a stream of photos from potential mates who are in or around the user’s location. Users then “swipe right” on profiles that they like or “swipe left” on those they don’t. If two individuals both “swipe right” after viewing the other’s profile, they will be alerted that a “match” has been made, and they’ll be allowed to message one another. According to Tinder, the app boasts 1.4 billion “swipes” a day and is available in over 196 countries, from France to Burundi.

Tinder’s approach to romance is straightforward, yet brutally effective. Matches are made using sparse criteria: Looks, availability and location. Because people can gauge someone’s attractiveness after just a one-second glance, Tinder users often churn through profiles at astounding speeds. [...]

In a study on the brains of drug addicts, researchers found that the expectation of the drug caused more release of the feel-good neurotransmitter dopamine than the actual drug itself. Similarly, for those who may be expecting the next swipe on Tinder to lead to reward, serial swiping can start to look and feel a lot like addiction. Not surprisingly, in 2015 Tinder began to limit the amount of daily right swipes to around 100 for users who don’t buy into their premium service, TinderPlus. And yes, there have already been reports of Tinder withdrawal for those who have tried to break up with their Tinder account. [...]

As a result, women and gay men receive more matches than heterosexual men. In one of the first quantitative studies conducted on Tinder, researchers created an equally attractive fake male and fake female Tinder profile and then “swiped right” on everyone who appeared in the app. They then recorded the number of swipe matches and messages each of the fake profiles received in return. While the female profile had a matching rate of 10.5 percent, the match rate for the male profile was a minuscule 0.6 percent, with most matches coming from gay or bisexual men.

The Intercept: What Slobodan Milosevic Taught Me About Donald Trump

Trump’s message was a variation, directed at his largely white constituency, of the you-shall-not-be-beaten-again rhetoric used with malignant effect by Slobodan Milošević during the collapse of Yugoslavia. Trump is not Milošević and the United States is not Yugoslavia, of course, but the echoes between these paragons of national shamelessness reveal the underlying methods and weaknesses of what Trump is trying to pull off. [...]

We sat together for 90 minutes, with nobody else in the room. Though he didn’t have the bluster of Trump — Milošević was a quiet and controlled speaker, with just occasional flashes of anger that were tactical, not impulsive — he was a master of the alternative fact, even in the face of someone who knew they were lies, because I had reported from Bosnia on the crimes perpetrated by military forces under his control. When I later wrote a book about all this, I described Milošević’s relationship to the truth in a way that I now realize fits Trump, too. [...]

Karadžić’s performance was Trumpian in its audacious make-believe, and it conveyed a lesson that’s useful to us today. Tyrants don’t care if you believe them, they just want you to succumb to doubt. “His ideas were so grotesque,” I later wrote of Karadžić, “his version of reality so twisted, that I was tempted to conclude he was on drugs, or that I was. I knew Bosnia well, and I knew that the things Karadžić said were lies, and that these lies were being broadcast worldwide, every day, several times a day, and they were being taken seriously. I am not saying that his lies were accepted as the truth, but I sensed they were obscuring the truth, causing outsiders to stay on the sidelines, and this of course was a great triumph for Karadžić. He didn’t need to make outsiders believe his version of events; he just needed to make them doubt the truth and sit on their hands.”

Quartz: Modern philosophy shows that most atrocities are committed by normal people—not evil ones

In our age of complex bureaucracies, so much cruelty is simply the result of normal, everyday, “real” people doing what they think is most pragmatic. As the philosopher Bernard Williams said, “the modern world…has made evil, like other things, a collective enterprise.” Eichmann was not the personification of hatred. His motives were banal. Evil is often the result of small, procedural things. It is people doing their jobs and remaining loyal to their parties, regardless of evidence, arguments, or troubling historical parallels. [...]

Arendt finds thoughtlessness—which is different from stupidity—at the root of the banality of evil. It stems from a failure to think and empathize. “The longer one listened to [Eichmann], the more obvious it became that his inability to speak was closely connected with an inability to think, namely, to think from the standpoint of somebody else,” she said. When we examine the basic principles or arguments from which evil comes, we find nothing there. Instead we find mediocrity, myopic pragmatic concerns, and understandable intentions. [...]

We must take stock of our core commitments and be open to changing them. Group membership is convenient because it allows us to skip genuine critical thought. As the group drifts, we drift with it—maybe into a truly dark place. And when we wonder how it happened, we look inside to find countless decent people repeating banalities. We are simply lucky that, until now, the dominant governing groups have not drifted into those truly dark places. When they do, plenty of us will follow.

Politico: Trump impeached? You can bet on it

Ladbrokes, the British oddsmaking giant, has Trump’s chances of leaving office via resignation or impeachment and removal at just 11-to-10, or just a little worse than even money. The odds of Trump being impeached this year in the House of Representatives are only 4-to-1, according to the Irish bookmaker Paddy Power, despite GOP control of the chamber. You can win $180 on a $100 bet with Bovada, the online gaming site, that Trump won’t make it through a full term — though the bet is off if Trump passes away during the next four years.

All in all, Trump has meant big business for the international gambling industry. There’s always been betting on politics — mostly as a novelty around election season — but professional bookies say Trump’s unlikely victory and tumultuous transition mean that gamblers are jonesing to wager on his presidency. [...]

Any actual movement on impeachment wouldn’t come until Americans have turned on Trump en masse. And while Trump is the least-popular newly-elected president in modern history, he retains a core of support that has yet to abandon him. Trump’s approval rating is 45 percent, according to the most recent HuffPost Pollster average — slightly lower than his 50-percent disapproval rating. At the same point in his own presidency, Barack Obama’s approval rating was 63 percent, with 23 percent disapproving of his performance.

Motherboard: Cell Death Might Be Reversible, and Scientists Are Trying to Find Out Why

A mysterious cell process named anastasis (Greek for "rising to life") challenges our idea of life being a linear march towards death, and suggests that cell death can actually be reversed under certain conditions—essentially allowing cells to un-die. [...]

Every day, the billions of cells in our bodies actively decide whether they should continue to live, or die. Damaged cells must die—otherwise we might get cancer or other diseases—through programmed cell death processes, the most famous of which is apoptosis (from the Greek for "falling off").

"There are many cells that we don't want to die. This is particularly true for the neurons in our brain, which have to last our whole life, or the cells for our heart," Montell explained. A careful balance must be struck: if too many cells die we'd develop diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, a hallmark of which is neuronal cell death. [...]

If it turns out that anastasis is the process responsible for cancer coming back after remission, she said, it would be "an unfortunate byproduct" of a process the researchers assume evolved to heal tissues after severe but sublethal injury. "That's not a brand new idea: cancer as a wound that won't heal, or an ongoing, never-terminating wound-healing response."