12 December 2018

The New Yorker: Bullying Iran will not work

The delay accentuates the sensation that Brexit, and British politics, is now entering a black hole, in which anything is possible. May is not an enthralling figure. Her flaws are plain to see. But her strategy for steering the nation through its deepest and most complex political crisis of the past half-century has functioned until this moment. May took office in 2016, shortly after the U.K. unexpectedly voted to leave the E.U. Earlier this year, she began to reveal a series of messy compromises that would achieve Brexit but allow Britain to stay more or less entwined with its largest trading partner. Several ministers, including Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, and David Davis, the Brexit negotiator, resigned. But May’s plan, and her leadership, remained intact. Her Conservative government, which does not have a majority in Parliament, won every vote that it needed to, sometimes by a slim margin, and the mighty business progressed. That changed with the publication of May’s final deal, the result of eighteen months of agonizing negotiations with the E.U., on November 14th. Since then, the authority has been whooshing out of Downing Street like air from a balloon. In eleven years in office, Margaret Thatcher lost four votes in the House of Commons. Last Wednesday, in a prelude to the main event this week, May suffered three Brexit-related defeats in sixty-three minutes. [...]

The thing that pro-Brexit M.P.s really loathe about May’s deal is a protocol, known as “the Irish backstop,” that deals with the U.K.’s border with Ireland. The backstop, an insurance policy in case future negotiations break down, could leave Britain inside the E.U.’s customs union, theoretically forever. Although neither side wants this, Brexiteers have come to regard the backstop as inevitable, like millenarians contemplating an ill sign. “It will precede the breakup of the Union,” Dorries said in Parliament. She was followed by Angus MacNeil, of the Scottish National Party, who compared Brexit to a piece of Laurel and Hardy slapstick. “Crazy, silly, nuts, wacky, cuckoo, potty, daft, cracked, dippy, bonkers—the list goes on,” MacNeil said. “In Gaelic, I could say that it is gòrach, faoin, amaideach, caoicheil, air bhoil—the list again goes on.” Damian Green, a former Conservative minister who in 2017 briefly served as May’s de-facto deputy, was one of the few voices to support the Prime Minister. Green warned of the risks that would follow if Parliament voted down May’s agreement, including the danger of Britain leaving the E.U. next spring with no deal at all, a calamity that would threaten food supplies, crash the pound and bring about a prolonged recession. “I am afraid,” Green said. “I am afraid for my constituents and my country if no deal is where we find ourselves in March.” [...]

If May can’t change her deal, then something else will have to give. In recent weeks, as the Prime Minister’s problems have mounted, talk has increased of a general election or—more breathlessly—a second referendum on leaving the E.U. Both would come with their own complications, and both would require the support of the House of Commons, which is in short supply for anything at the moment. As things stand, the only part of Brexit written into Britain’s statute books is a time and a date: 11 p.m., March 29, 2019. Unless a plan is agreed to, the U.K. will crash out of the E.U. without a formal economic or diplomatic relationship of any kind—a previously unthinkable scenario that becomes more thinkable with each passing day. “The problem is that Brexit is everything but rationality,” the E.U. official told me. This afternoon, the pound fell to a twenty-month low against the dollar. May said that she would step up contingency planning for a no-deal Brexit as she plots her final, desperate negotiation. “If we will the ends, we must also will the means,” she told M.P.s. But Britain is a country that only knows what it doesn’t want. Without an end, there are no means. And there is no safety in sight.

Politico: Belgium’s identity crisis isn’t about migration

The gamble Michel is making, therefore, isn’t so much about domestic policy as it is about Belgium’s credibility in Europe. It’s about choosing its camp: either among the cheerleaders of Europe and liberalism, like Emmanuel Macron, or among the populist opportunists, like Viktor Orbán and Sebastian Kurz. [...]

The road ahead is still uncertain. For now, he still holds the keys to Rue de la Loi 16, the official seat of the Belgian government. A new minority Cabinet will replace his old team. He’ll take his jet to Marrakech, where he’ll join other leaders in signing the U.N.’s Global Compact for Migration — the non-binding text that proved to be a bridge too far for his biggest coalition partner. [...]

It was a bold move, in 2014, for Michel, a Francophone liberal and part of a younger generation of Belgian politicians, to team up with the conservative Flemish nationalists. Their leader, Antwerp mayor Bart De Wever, who dreams about Flemish independence, was never an ideal partner for the federal government. [...]

In his four years as prime minister, Michel has made a show of his unconditional support for the European cause, for multilateralism, the U.N. and, of course, his close friendships with young leaders like Macron or Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Theirs is a club Michel wants to belong to.

Politico: A weakened Merkel still gets her way

The scale of Kramp-Karrenbauer’s challenge in uniting the CDU is clear from the margin of her victory — she squeaked home with less than 52 percent of the vote in a run-off against Friedrich Merz, a veteran Merkel critic who wanted to shift the party to the right. Another right-winger, Health Minister Jens Spahn, was eliminated in the first round of voting but, at the age of 38, his influence is likely to grow in the years ahead. [...]

AKK has been portrayed as a mini-Merkel. But she is much more of a traditional CDU politician than the chancellor. A Catholic, she joined the party in her late teens and worked her way up through local and regional politics to become premier of Saarland, in Germany’s far west. She is socially conservative, opposed to gay marriage, and has taken a tougher line than Merkel on migration — the issue that has become a lightning rod for the chancellor’s critics.

She also advocates bringing back military service as part of a plan for young people to spend a year working for the benefit of society. Merkel abolished conscription — a decision she defended in Hamburg, to only a smattering of applause. [...]

Not only did the party choose Kramp-Karrenbauer as its leader, delegates also supported the new U.N. pact on migration — an accord that has been attacked by right-wingers across Europe.

Vox: Leaving Baltimore behind

It’s called the Baltimore Housing Mobility Program (BRHP). It started in 2002, and has since moved more than 4,000 people out of the city. Some see it as a way to give low-income Baltimore residents new opportunities in neighborhoods that would otherwise be out of reach. [...]

Baltimore gets a lot of attention for its problems. In addition to its crime rate, nearly a quarter of its residents live in poverty. Baltimore and its surrounding suburbs are starkly segregated by race and class — a pattern set in motion by policymakers in the early 20th century that continues to this day.[...]

The vast majority of BRHP participants live in Baltimore, often in public housing, and always in neighborhoods with a great deal of poverty. Nearly all of them are black. They’re moving to “Opportunity Areas,” determined by the program through a mix of census data and other metrics. These areas have a lot more wealth, including job opportunities and resource-rich schools. Residents tend to be white.

Quartz: Amazon and Microsoft claim AI can read human emotions. Experts say the science is shaky

“The problem is now AI is being applied in a lot of social contexts. Anthropology, psychology, and philosophy are all incredibly relevant, but this is not the training of people who come from a technical [computer science] background.” says Kate Crawford, co-founder of AI Now, distinguished research professor at NYU and principal researcher at Microsoft Research. “Essentially the narrowing of AI has produced a kind of guileless acceptance of particular strands of psychological literature that have been shown to be suspect.”

Crawford and the AI Now report refer to the system commonly used to codify facial expressions into seven core emotions, originating with psychologist Paul Ekman. His work studying facial expressions in communities separated from modern society suggests that facial expressions are universal. The idea of universal facial expressions is convenient for AI researchers, since much the artificial intelligence in use today must categorizes complex images or sounds. [...]

But the way emotions are expressed on the face could be much more contextual than previously believed—calling the validity of Ekman’s categories into question. ”A knitted brow may mean someone is angry, but in other contexts it means they are thinking, or squinting in bright light,” wrote psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett Barrett (paywall) in the Financial Times in 2017. “A hypothetical emotion-reading robot would need tremendous knowledge and context to guess someone’s emotional experiences.”