Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 940

The great Atlantic comeback of the great white shark

Beachgoers in Cape Cod made headlines this year by taking action that would have been unthinkable just a few decades ago and rushing to the aid of several stranded great white sharks. Their efforts, which saved one of the three sharks that washed ashore this year, indicate not only that the species has made a dramatic comeback in the Northern Atlantic, but also that popular attitudes toward these predators have changed drastically in recent years.  Once seen as mindless killing machines, great white sharks are now increasingly understood as a key facet of the ocean's ecosystem. In the late 1970s, great white sharks experienced an unprecedented onslaught of negative publicity. With the 1976 release of the film Jaws, the public became terrified of entering the water, lest they encounter a "rogue" great white that would habitually target humans. Both the Jaws novel, released in 1974, and the film were inspired by Victor Coppleson’s 1958 book Shark Attack, which advanced the theory that once a predatory animal like a great white shark tasted human blood, it would be inclined to strike at the same prey again. This theory has since been widely discredited. The myth of the blood-thirsty great white proved dangerous for the sharks. Already in demand for their fins and jaws, anglers also began to target white sharks as trophies, which further decimated the species in the Northern Atlantic. Though research on great whites is scarce, by the 1980s the Atlantic population had declined to an estimated 27 percent of its 1961 size. In 1997 the great white shark became a federally protected species in the Atlantic, which meant commercial and recreational harvest were prohibited in the region. This marked a turnaround for the species. According to NOAA, the number of great whites in the Atlantic is now at 69 percent of its 1961 population size, a significant increase from the 1980s. Thanks to one of the world's largest seal colonies, located at Monomoy Island, a global great white hotspot has also developed around Cape Cod. The growth of the Atlantic population has stimulated shark research in the region, as well as education and outreach efforts to improve public perception of great whites. The Atlantic White Shark Conservancy, established in Cape Cod in 2012, has played a critical role in both of these efforts. This volunteer-based nonprofit group works with the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries to document and tag white sharks in the region, identifying each shark by its distinctive markings and coloration patterns. In 2014, the conservancy identified 68 individual great whites swimming off the cape. As this year's season drew to a close, conservancy researchers had cataloged more than 120 white sharks, 80 of which were new visitors. The efforts of the conservancy have also extended to public outreach, including marine biology focused summer camps and educational programs for children. For example, the Gills Club for young girls connects students with female marine biologists. The conservancy also offers lectures and public presentations for adults, works with public safety officials to produce advisory signs and educational materials, and manages a joint fundraising and outreach campaign that has placed great white sharks on license plates across the state of Massachusetts. Additionally, the conservancy has been instrumental in the development of regulations enacted this past summer that establish permit requirements for cage diving, baiting, and feeding sharks and are intended to safeguard both local swimmers and shark populations. Social media outreach has also been central to the conservancy’s efforts. Wayne Davis, a spotter pilot who sights sharks from the air and helps direct the conservancy's research boat towards them, has produced a number of stunning images of the cape’s white sharks, including photos of predation events. Staff have also captured footage from the research vessel, including a video of the first great white shark breach attack filmed off Cape Cod, recorded earlier this year. These photos and videos have provided the fuel for a robust social media outreach campaign that helps reveal great white sharks in their natural habitat to the public at large. Outreach efforts paid off in a major way earlier this year when beachgoers rushed to the aid of the stranded white sharks. Their reaction highlighted a distinct shift in perception regarding great whites. “It’s a wonderful testament to how attitudes are changing toward sharks,” Dr. Greg Skomal, a senior fisheries biologist with Massachusetts Marine Fisheries who is also heavily involved in work at the Atlantic White Shark Conservancy, told the Washington Post . “I think they’re morphing away from animals to be feared to animals to be fascinated about.” OCEARCH, another nonprofit focused on innovative shark research and social media outreach, has also been instrumental in changing public perception regarding great white sharks. Founded by Chris Fischer in 2011, OCEARCH produced the widely popular TV show Shark Wranglers, which aired on the History Channel and reached an audience of over 1.4 million viewers. OCEARCH primarily engages in shark research and global tagging efforts, and has developed a website and phone app that allow users to track their favorite tagged sharks in near-real time. OCEARCH gives sharks names rather than numbers for the app, allowing users to connect more personally with the apex predators. Some of the sharks tagged by the group have gone on to become marine superstars. Katharine, a great white tagged in Cape Cod in 2013, made international headlines the following year as she traveled along the East Coast of the United States between the Gulf of Mexico and Massachusetts. Katharine's exploits were documented by numerous media outlets, while over 16,000 people followed a Twitter account in her name. Katharine's following now exceeds 35,000 users. Fischer described her dramatic coastal pattern, which often brought her close to populated beaches, as unique, and a driving factor in her popularity. “She is so coastal, almost living on the beaches, as well. It makes her somewhat of a media darling as she passes by," he told Space Coast Daily . "At the same time, she is giving us the most comprehensive look at her life.” This year, Katharine’s celebrity status was surpassed by another star, 16-foot Mary Lee. Early in 2015, Mary Lee began moving up the coast from her winter home near Georgia. A large female white shark weighing some 3,456 pounds, Mary Lee was tagged by OCEARCH in 2012 off Cape Cod. When she began swimming northward toward New York, she became a living ambassador for great whites. By the time Mary Lee turned south once again in early June, she had amassed more than 80,000 followers on Twitter, making her one of the most popular representatives of her species in a generation. The Twitter account is run by an East Coast reporter who has declined to be identified in the media. Though public perception of sharks has changed on the Atlantic coast, work remains to be done worldwide. In Australia, for example, a string of fatal and near-fatal attacks have led to intensified calls for a shark cull. Additionally, a controversial early-warning policy in Western Australia, used to protect beachgoers, has been utilized in at least one attempt to preemptively kill a white shark, prompting scientists to threaten to withhold shark tracking data. The great white shark may still be a target in some regions, but rebounding populations in the Atlantic demonstrate the power of regulation, research, and outreach to change the tide of public perception and to facilitate species recovery.Beachgoers in Cape Cod made headlines this year by taking action that would have been unthinkable just a few decades ago and rushing to the aid of several stranded great white sharks. Their efforts, which saved one of the three sharks that washed ashore this year, indicate not only that the species has made a dramatic comeback in the Northern Atlantic, but also that popular attitudes toward these predators have changed drastically in recent years.  Once seen as mindless killing machines, great white sharks are now increasingly understood as a key facet of the ocean's ecosystem. In the late 1970s, great white sharks experienced an unprecedented onslaught of negative publicity. With the 1976 release of the film Jaws, the public became terrified of entering the water, lest they encounter a "rogue" great white that would habitually target humans. Both the Jaws novel, released in 1974, and the film were inspired by Victor Coppleson’s 1958 book Shark Attack, which advanced the theory that once a predatory animal like a great white shark tasted human blood, it would be inclined to strike at the same prey again. This theory has since been widely discredited. The myth of the blood-thirsty great white proved dangerous for the sharks. Already in demand for their fins and jaws, anglers also began to target white sharks as trophies, which further decimated the species in the Northern Atlantic. Though research on great whites is scarce, by the 1980s the Atlantic population had declined to an estimated 27 percent of its 1961 size. In 1997 the great white shark became a federally protected species in the Atlantic, which meant commercial and recreational harvest were prohibited in the region. This marked a turnaround for the species. According to NOAA, the number of great whites in the Atlantic is now at 69 percent of its 1961 population size, a significant increase from the 1980s. Thanks to one of the world's largest seal colonies, located at Monomoy Island, a global great white hotspot has also developed around Cape Cod. The growth of the Atlantic population has stimulated shark research in the region, as well as education and outreach efforts to improve public perception of great whites. The Atlantic White Shark Conservancy, established in Cape Cod in 2012, has played a critical role in both of these efforts. This volunteer-based nonprofit group works with the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries to document and tag white sharks in the region, identifying each shark by its distinctive markings and coloration patterns. In 2014, the conservancy identified 68 individual great whites swimming off the cape. As this year's season drew to a close, conservancy researchers had cataloged more than 120 white sharks, 80 of which were new visitors. The efforts of the conservancy have also extended to public outreach, including marine biology focused summer camps and educational programs for children. For example, the Gills Club for young girls connects students with female marine biologists. The conservancy also offers lectures and public presentations for adults, works with public safety officials to produce advisory signs and educational materials, and manages a joint fundraising and outreach campaign that has placed great white sharks on license plates across the state of Massachusetts. Additionally, the conservancy has been instrumental in the development of regulations enacted this past summer that establish permit requirements for cage diving, baiting, and feeding sharks and are intended to safeguard both local swimmers and shark populations. Social media outreach has also been central to the conservancy’s efforts. Wayne Davis, a spotter pilot who sights sharks from the air and helps direct the conservancy's research boat towards them, has produced a number of stunning images of the cape’s white sharks, including photos of predation events. Staff have also captured footage from the research vessel, including a video of the first great white shark breach attack filmed off Cape Cod, recorded earlier this year. These photos and videos have provided the fuel for a robust social media outreach campaign that helps reveal great white sharks in their natural habitat to the public at large. Outreach efforts paid off in a major way earlier this year when beachgoers rushed to the aid of the stranded white sharks. Their reaction highlighted a distinct shift in perception regarding great whites. “It’s a wonderful testament to how attitudes are changing toward sharks,” Dr. Greg Skomal, a senior fisheries biologist with Massachusetts Marine Fisheries who is also heavily involved in work at the Atlantic White Shark Conservancy, told the Washington Post . “I think they’re morphing away from animals to be feared to animals to be fascinated about.” OCEARCH, another nonprofit focused on innovative shark research and social media outreach, has also been instrumental in changing public perception regarding great white sharks. Founded by Chris Fischer in 2011, OCEARCH produced the widely popular TV show Shark Wranglers, which aired on the History Channel and reached an audience of over 1.4 million viewers. OCEARCH primarily engages in shark research and global tagging efforts, and has developed a website and phone app that allow users to track their favorite tagged sharks in near-real time. OCEARCH gives sharks names rather than numbers for the app, allowing users to connect more personally with the apex predators. Some of the sharks tagged by the group have gone on to become marine superstars. Katharine, a great white tagged in Cape Cod in 2013, made international headlines the following year as she traveled along the East Coast of the United States between the Gulf of Mexico and Massachusetts. Katharine's exploits were documented by numerous media outlets, while over 16,000 people followed a Twitter account in her name. Katharine's following now exceeds 35,000 users. Fischer described her dramatic coastal pattern, which often brought her close to populated beaches, as unique, and a driving factor in her popularity. “She is so coastal, almost living on the beaches, as well. It makes her somewhat of a media darling as she passes by," he told Space Coast Daily . "At the same time, she is giving us the most comprehensive look at her life.” This year, Katharine’s celebrity status was surpassed by another star, 16-foot Mary Lee. Early in 2015, Mary Lee began moving up the coast from her winter home near Georgia. A large female white shark weighing some 3,456 pounds, Mary Lee was tagged by OCEARCH in 2012 off Cape Cod. When she began swimming northward toward New York, she became a living ambassador for great whites. By the time Mary Lee turned south once again in early June, she had amassed more than 80,000 followers on Twitter, making her one of the most popular representatives of her species in a generation. The Twitter account is run by an East Coast reporter who has declined to be identified in the media. Though public perception of sharks has changed on the Atlantic coast, work remains to be done worldwide. In Australia, for example, a string of fatal and near-fatal attacks have led to intensified calls for a shark cull. Additionally, a controversial early-warning policy in Western Australia, used to protect beachgoers, has been utilized in at least one attempt to preemptively kill a white shark, prompting scientists to threaten to withhold shark tracking data. The great white shark may still be a target in some regions, but rebounding populations in the Atlantic demonstrate the power of regulation, research, and outreach to change the tide of public perception and to facilitate species recovery.

Continue Reading...

Gunman opens fire, barricades himself inside Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood

Police are responding to a call of an active shooter at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The Denver Post reports that a gunman opened fire at 3480 Centennial Boulevard, the address of a Planned Parenthood branch. The first reports of gunshots came in at 11:45 a.m. local time: https://twitter.com/KodyFisherFOX21/s... https://twitter.com/KodyFisherFOX21/s... https://twitter.com/bystephenhobbs/st... The Colorado Springs police department has tweeted that the area around the Planned Parenthood is still not secure: https://twitter.com/CSPDPIO/status/67... https://twitter.com/CSPDPIO/status/67... Local NBC affiliate KOAA reports that at least two officers have been shot and that the suspect is still shooting. Mike Violette, Executive Director of the Colorado Fraternal Order of Police, tweeted that the shooter is barricaded inside the Planned Parenthood: https://twitter.com/fopviolette/statu... https://twitter.com/ColoradoFOP/statu... https://twitter.com/KodyFisherFOX21/s... Watch live coverage of the Colorado Springs active shooter, via KKTV 11 News: Police are responding to a call of an active shooter at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The Denver Post reports that a gunman opened fire at 3480 Centennial Boulevard, the address of a Planned Parenthood branch. The first reports of gunshots came in at 11:45 a.m. local time: https://twitter.com/KodyFisherFOX21/s... https://twitter.com/KodyFisherFOX21/s... https://twitter.com/bystephenhobbs/st... The Colorado Springs police department has tweeted that the area around the Planned Parenthood is still not secure: https://twitter.com/CSPDPIO/status/67... https://twitter.com/CSPDPIO/status/67... Local NBC affiliate KOAA reports that at least two officers have been shot and that the suspect is still shooting. Mike Violette, Executive Director of the Colorado Fraternal Order of Police, tweeted that the shooter is barricaded inside the Planned Parenthood: https://twitter.com/fopviolette/statu... https://twitter.com/ColoradoFOP/statu... https://twitter.com/KodyFisherFOX21/s... Watch live coverage of the Colorado Springs active shooter, via KKTV 11 News:

Continue Reading...

This is the entire GOP plan: Credibility destroyed after Bush debacle, their only strategy is to scare us

Under the presidency of George W. Bush, the so-called “Daddy Party” failed spectacularly on all major adult-male-gender-stereotyped fronts. On the economic front, its record was terrible, even before it brought us the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression; on the military/national security front, its failure to prevent 9/11—the worst foreign attack on American soil since the War of 1812—was only compounded by its fighting-fire-with-gasoline response, turning both Iraq and Afghanistan into incubators for new generations of jihadists. On the science front, it presided over a widening war on science. In short, the entire framework of the "Daddy Party" construct fell into disrepute by the time Bush left office in 2008. But now—thanks to the terrorist attacks in Paris—there's a full-on rush to try to resurrect it. Only of course it's an incoherent mess, with more focus on spreading fear than countering it. Donald Trump has benefited most on the GOP side, with his quick-draw tough talk, but it was similarly mindless, fact-free tough talk that made such a mess of things post-9/11 in the first place, and this time there's not even a hint of an actual plan—it's all just heated bluster, and denouncing Democrats for not frothing at the mouth just like them. The panic over Syrian refugees is particularly revealing in this regard. Not one American has died at the hands of a refugee either during or since 9/11, although there have been 745,000 of them. Yet, irrational fear of these refugees has defined the only “coherent” policy response the GOP has come up with—both among myth-driven governors and in the shutdown-happy Congress. But when it comes to actually confronting ISIS, they've got nothing unified except a PC rampage against Democrats not using the phrase "radical Islam;" aside from that it's a smorgasbord of proposals ranging from basically endorsing Hillary Clinton's position (John Kasich) to cutting off their money (Paul and Fiorina) to grandstanding in Congress (Cruz), to reinvading Iraq, with a side of Syria (Bush, Graham and Santorum), to total war ("destroy them"—Carson) or multi-front bellicosity (Trump). Overall, it skews heavily toward an amped-up front-line war, which is exactly what the terrorists want. It's what they wanted from the 9/11 attacks, and it's just what we gave them, and we only got a vastly stronger terrorist enemy as a result. So the "Daddy Party" script is already a proven failure. It's done. It has no foundation in the adult world of facts, only in infantile, fear-filled imaginations, which is why there's been so much GOP focus on circulating discredited scare stories. In fact, the only time that such an all-out-war strategy genuinely has worked in modern American history was World War II—in part because our enemies were ruled by the same kind of flawed hypermasculine ideology, and in part because we made a just peace afterwards with the surviving populations, so that the enmities that led to war in the first place were not reborn. It's the remarkable post-war peacemaking process we need to pay far more attention to—and a truly adult attitude, male and/or female, would clearly recognize that. But what stands in our way most dramatically now, like an 800-pound gorilla, is the GOP's wild-eyed phantasy of omnipotent male power. And if we want to understand that, we need to dig deep into early childhood psychology, exemplified by the work of Melanie Klein, who used that spelling—'phantasy' with a 'ph' to distinguish unconscious cognition from conscious daydreams. That phantasy world is profoundly dichotomous—me/not-me, omnipotence/powerlessness, bliss/despair, or even terror—and ruled by its own internal logic, confused and contradictory as it may appear to us, that has nothing to do with the outside world, and everything to do with managing imaginary hopes and fears. As Kleinian therapist Chris Minnick writes, “It is often said that if Freud discovered the 'child' in the adult human personality, then Klein discovered the 'baby' in Freud’s child.” The tendency for fearful conservatives to posture as strong and attack liberals as weak is sometimes seen as an example of projection, a Freudian defense mechanism where an unwanted feeling or quality is defended against by projecting it onto another. But Klein—discovering the "baby" in Freud’s child—uncovered something more primitive, what she called “projective identification,” which is not directed onto another, but into them, opening the doorway to a much deeper, richer, more complex world of psychodynamic relationships. Minnick's website contains a wealth of information about Klein's approach, but before delving into it, it's helpful to review some other findings first. I've written before about advances in understanding liberal/conservative differences in terms of conservatives' higher levels of threat sensitivity or “negativity bias” at the physiological level, summarized in the paper “Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology,” by lead author John R. Hibbing of the University of Nebraska. According to this line of research, liberal/conservative differences represent a normal range of human cognition, which has proven itself through evolution. I quoted part of the paper which advanced the notion that population mixtures of different sensitivity levels had a group adaptive purpose, similar to how “groups of spiders benefit from having a mix of social and asocial members and virtually all species benefit from having individuals with different immune systems.” Consequently, “If this were true, the polarization that afflicts many modern democracies may be a vestige of the mixes of the behaviorally relevant, biological predispositions that worked well in small-scale societies.” But that doesn't mean that ideological polarization today is similarly benign, much less helpful. Threat level responses that may be in a normal range when surrounded by a diverse mix of people can quickly become pathologically abnormal if a group is surrounded by others who are equally sensitive to threat, and who feed off of each other's fears, creating a dynamic based on shared phantasy, rather than any actual real-world threat. Something akin to this is clearly at play in societies where racial or ethnic hysteria breaks out into sustained episodes of mass violence, ethnic cleansing, or genocide, and while political leaders in such situations doubtless posture as strong protectors, their actual base of support is wildly out-of-control fear, fear of a sort that is normally only found in helpless infants who have no ability at all to provide for their own needs. In America today, this is where “Daddy Party” politics now stands. Which is why Kleinian insights need to be drawn into our discussions in order to fully grasp what's going on. Gone are the days of actual policies, however deeply flawed they might have been, and we only further confuse ourselves by insisting on trying to understand things in policy terms, when something much darker and more primitive is actually going on. Minnick's website is called “Minnick's Klein Academy: Melanie Klein's Models for Understanding the BabyCore of Personality,” and a subsection, “The ‘Baby Core’ of the Personality,” takes us right to the heart of what all the “Daddy Party” posturing desperately tries to avoid: “Although most adults behave much of the time in a 'mature and rational manner,' ALMOST NOTHING WE ADULTS THINK, FEEL, OR DO IN THE COURSE OF OUR DAILY LIFE IS LEFT UNTOUCHED BY 'BABY' STATES OF MIND.” Minnick isn't normally given to the use of all caps. He really wants to drive that point home. So what are "baby" states of mind? For one thing, they're something we'd rather not think about:

Being helpless, understanding almost nothing, being utterly dependent on of others for one's very survival (which depends on these “others'” willingness and capacity to “sacrifice” on behalf of an infant) hardly represents a state of affairs that anyone would stand in line for a chance to experience again.

As a result of this painful state, Minnick notes, there is “a need in early infancy to bring order to the chaos of life outside the womb. This order is achieved by trying to hold 'good' experience (i.e. pleasurable) separate and apart from 'bad' experience (i.e. painful).” This is where the most basic psychological processes emerge: “This separation leads to a division or partitioning of 'self' and 'objects' (in psychoanalytic parlance, 'objects' refers to people, not things), in which self and object are quite literally divided into 'good' and 'bad' aspects or 'parts'.” This process, commonly referred to as “splitting,” is one of two terms often associated with Klein—along with projective identification. Minnick goes on to say:

This division into 'parts' that are generally held separately in the mind, will usually include the evacuation of the 'bad' versions of self and object, into the outside world, on a semi-permanent basis, via projective processes, and this whole process will continue to be active throughout the lifespan.

“Projective processes” is Minnick's preferred alternative for projective identification, which he calls “simultaneously the single most important concept in all of psychoanalysis and simultaneously the most confusing and misunderstood.” In fact, “projective processes” include introjection (imagining another—or aspects of another—inside oneself) as well as projection—or even both, simultaneously. As Minnick points out, the first example Klein herself ever gave of projective identification was precisely along these lines, in a case of “envious reversal.” Elsewhere he explains:

In this envy driven “role reversal” (or ‘envious reversal’ for shorthand), two processes take place instantaneously and simultaneously. The first is that the projector rids himself of the unwanted baby state, by projecting it into the ‘container’ [the recipient of the projection]. Simultaneously, the projector steals the desirable state of affairs (i.e. some aspect of the “container’s” identity) from the container and takes it in for himself.

Situations like this, in which “the projector’s unconscious motive has a large component of a desire to exchange positions in life with the container,” are “also so common in infancy with mom,” Minnick notes—an indication of their primal power. Now let's consider the situation of the “Daddy Party” post-Bush. Everything they once pretended to be had gone bust. The first time since Herbert Hoover that they controlled the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court had ended in utter disaster—disaster so bad that they no longer even knew what conservatism was. On the theory that “conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed,” many conservatives simply stopped counting Bush as one of their own. And yet, although they adopted that conscious dodge, a deeper part of them, subconsciously, could not escape the sting. Which is part of why there was so much animosity toward Obama, and such eagerness to lay blame on him for things that were actually Bush's responsibility, or the fault of conservatism more broadly, such as rising debt/GDP ratios, a trend dating back to Ronald Reagan. The fact that Obama tried to reach out and work with conservatives only made matters worse for them at this deeper level of subconscious animosity, intensifying the driving need for an envious reversal. Projecting blame for conservatism's failures into Obama as the liberal “other” was a move made more difficult by every act he took to try to court cooperation—by including tax cuts as more than one-third of the stimulus, for example. Such actions by Obama, clashing with their original projections, required more follow-on phantasies to rearticulate the envious reversal. The simplest involved flat-out negating what Obama had done, the more imaginative reinterpreted his actions as deceptive—"setting up Republicans" or conservatives, one way or another. Of course, there was already a phantasy template at hand to help generate these as needed—the birther phantasy, which held that Obama himself was entirely a fraud. Conservatives had always been comfortable with blacks as other, as containers for their most unwanted projections. But before blacks were demonized, the pattern was initiated with Native Americans. Another Kleinian theorist, Robert Young, has written about racism and projective identification (here and here, for example), noting that “the price of admission into a culture is the acquiring of its projective identifications.” Young cites the example of a 1503 decree by Queen Isabella citing Native Americans' purported “hard habits of idolatry and cannibalism” as justification for authorizing slavery:

The European charge of cannibalism was unfounded. Harmless and helpful natives were bad-mouthed as wild and bestial, thus legitimating the activities of a master race. The savagery of the conquistadors was projected onto their victims, who could then be seen as subhuman and could be treated in subhuman ways -- which they extravagantly were.

A similar dynamic applied to enslaved blacks, regardless of the colonizing power involved. The savagery of conquest was projected into the conquered. However, when situations allowed, there was often a place for a few “respectable” tokens who served a variety of different functions for white slaveholders, and later white leaders who followed them—to endorse their views, make them seem more reasonable, provide pacifying “leadership” for the masses, etc. Obama was threatening for a number of reasons, not least that he adopted a form of respectability politics, while remaining relatively loyal to the black base, and running as a Democrat, whose policies were anathema to movement conservatives. Hence, at the overt level, he disarmed the demonizing projective processes, particularly in courting conservatives outright—praising Ronald Reagan, inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration, reaching out to conservative opinion writers, dining with them within weeks of taking office, etc.—but he would not validate the projection of otherness onto other blacks as a whole, which is a core purpose of the “respectable black” figure. And thus the need to otherize him (and project white evil acts, impulses, phantasies, etc. into him), as blacks had always been otherized, needed to find a new form, a new rationale. Which is precisely what the birther phantasy did. It said that everything about him was a lie, so nothing he did could make any difference. It invalidated any action he might take, leaving it to be reinterpreted by those who most despised him, without any regard to the facts. Once established, the core birther phantasy could be applied in any situation. It took the place of a totalizing ideology to unify the conservative base, even as they remained adrift with the wreckage of the “Daddy Party” legacy. But in a sense, this move only made matters worse, deeping the hold of negative partisanship on the GOP. Defeating the monster Obama effectively took over the space where some semblance of a positive policy agenda ought to have been—if only conservatives had a clue what that might be. “Repeal and replace Obamacare”... with what, exactly? Romneycare? Really? The more obviously hollow the the GOP's policy side became, while Obama's wonkish side was increasingly on display, the more compelling the projective dynamic became—all the conservatives' incoherence, cluelessness and destructive rage were repeatedly projected into their image of him, and the more reasonable he acted, the more adult he tried to be, the more intense their infantile rage became. Nothing made them feel more like helpless infants than seeing Obama act presidential—especially when he reached out to them, inviting a mature response, which they were utterly incapable of, boxed in by their own intricate structure of lies about him, prisoners of their own dark projections. In 2011, Donald Trump made his first serious play for a presidential run, using birtherism as his calling card. It ended disastrously, when Obama released his long-form birth certificate, and then teased Trump in public at the White House Correspondents dinner, while secretly preparing the raid that killed bin Laden. And yet, some nine months later, more of the GOP base than ever believed in the birther phantasy. It had absolutely nothing to do with empirical evidence. Fast-forward to this year, when Trump almost accidentally stumbled onto his new ticket to the top—demonizing immigrants—just one of several topics he vaguely rambled on about, but the one that immediately caught fire, and the one that's really still dominant in a very real sense, since anti-immigrant policies—this time directed against Syrian refugees—are the only consistent form that GOP anti-ISIS politics has taken since the Paris attacks. This is yet another sign of the “Daddy Party” decay: anti-immigrant phantasies run wild, driving actions by Congress and dozens of governors, but there's no sign of any coherent anti-terrorist strategy aimed at actually defeating ISIS. The driving force of anti-immigrant animus is racism, of course. But it's intensified by the size of the demographics trends involved. After losing the 2012 election, GOP elites saw the need for a work-around, a way to blunt the inevitable political impact, give themselves space and time for repositioning. But the phantasy life of their base simply left no room for that. Once again, the “Daddy Party” had no actual policies to offer, and it fell back onto phantasy-based fearmongering instead. Also, once again, Obama had played the role of adult, bending over backwards to meet Republicans halfway. Deportations even reached record highs under him—causing a fair amount of anger from his base. And so, once again, Republicans responded with an envious reversal, painting Obama as eagerly flooding the country with “illegal immigrants,” and utterly denying their own lack of responsible action. That was the field on which Trump built his phantasy-fueled racist campaign, propped up by his ludicrous claim to be a builder, rather than someone who hires builders, and his equally ludicrous claim that building a 95-story building (there are more than 30) is more difficult than building a 2,000-mile wall (there's just one). The situation with fighting ISIS that erupted after the Paris attacks was strikingly similar in several ways. The envious reversal to place blame on Obama moved on two main levels. First, the problem was created by Bush's invasion of Iraq, but Obama is evil, so he had to be blamed for that. Ergo, erase the fact that Obama was only following Bush's blueprint when he withdrew forces from Iraq, the thread that's used to try to shift the blame to him. Second, last year, after the explosive spread of ISIS, Obama began trying to craft an adult response, balancing the need for military action with the realization that deploying substantial U.S. ground forces was both counterproductive and politically unsustainable. There are problems with Obama's plan, to be sure. But it is an adult plan, and can be debated as such. In February, after months of delay, Obama asked Congress for authorization of military force to support his plan. Two months later, GOP leaders said forget about it! They didn't come up with their own counter-plan. They didn't do anything adult at all. They just—as almost always—did a big fat incoherent nothing. Here, then, is the substance of the second envious reversal: Obama has a plan, the GOP does not; Obama cares a great deal, and has put a lot of thought and effort into it, the GOP has not. Suddenly, the Paris attacks happen, and it's envious reversal time: Obama's the one with no plan, and no interest, no effort fighting ISIS, the GOP—heck, they're the “Daddy Party,” remember? Every day it seems there's a new wave of over-the-top GOP claims, mostly inflating fears and attacking others who won't do the same. This is not a matter that's open to debate. It's not a matter of “opinions may differ.” It's not even a matter of fact-checking individual fact-claims. It's not a case-by-case kind of situation. Their entire framework of thinking is grounded in deeply-buried phantasies of helplessness and omniscience; it has no relationship whatever to the real world. At the Washington Post recently, Daniel Drezner wrote a piece, “

Who said it — Donald Trump or Spencer Pratt? “If you want to throw missiles, I’m throwing a nuke. This is how I operate”

In August of 2006, Spencer Pratt made his first appearance on MTV's “The Hills,” and reality television was never the same. Pratt, both outrageously offensive and aggressively thin-skinned, waged full-on war over every perceived slight. His girlfriend-turned-wife Heidi Montag, who stayed fiercely loyal to Pratt no matter how obsessive and bizarre his behavior, seemed willing to follow further and further away from reality. Until the schtick grew tired, it all made for incredibly compelling television. Pratt thrived on his public conflicts, using them to raise his own profile. “Mercenaries is pretty much what we are,” he said of he and his wife. “Call us in when you are ready for some action. That keeps the bills paid.” Sound familiar? See if you can identify which five of these quotes belong to reality television's most notorious villain, and which five were public statements made by Donald Trump, current frontrunner for the Republican nomination, during his campaign for president of the United States. “People can bring me down all they want, but try to get on a cover. Try to get in a magazine. Good luck.” “You know, look, I'm on a lot of covers. I think maybe more than almost any supermodel. I think more than any supermodel. But in a way that is a sign of respect, people are respecting what you are doing.” “If you want to throw missiles, I’m throwing a nuke. This is how I operate.” “I thought these people were all fine and they came after me and then I had to go after them and perhaps I did a better job than they did. But they all went down.” “Sometimes I do go a little bit far. Heidi Klum. Sadly, she's no longer a 10.” “I forgive her, though. She's had to go through life as the less cute twin, which must be tough.” (on Mary Kate Olsen) “Presidents of networks would be like, ‘Come in,’ and I would be like, ‘Come to me.’ All those people are still right where they were.” “You're never at war when you get great ratings with a network, okay? And nobody gets ratings like me.” “They wanted to give me 28 shows. I said I can’t commit.” “If you don’t have your own show, as far as I’m concerned, you are not famous.” How did you do? Answers: “People can bring me down all they want, but try to get on a cover. Try to get in a magazine. Good luck.” —  Spencer Pratt “You know, look, I'm on a lot of covers. I think maybe more than almost any supermodel. I think more than any supermodel. But in a way that is a sign of respect, people are respecting what you are doing.” — Donald Trump on “60 Minutes,” September 2015 “If you want to throw missiles, I’m throwing a nuke. This is how I operate.” — Pratt “I thought these people were all fine and they came after me and then I had to go after them and perhaps I did a better job than they did. But they all went down.” — Trump on “CNN Tonight,” September 2015 “Sometimes I do go a little bit far. Heidi Klum. Sadly, she's no longer a 10.” — Trump in a New York Times interview, August 2015 “I forgive her, though. She's had to go through life as the less cute twin, which must be tough.” (on Mary Kate Olsen) — Pratt “Presidents of networks would be like, ‘Come in,’ and I would be like, ‘Come to me.’ All those people are still right where they were.” — Pratt “You're never at war when you get great ratings with a network, okay? And nobody gets ratings like me.” — Trump on “CNN's New Day,” November 2015 “They wanted to give me 28 shows. I said I can’t commit.” — Trump in a New York Post interview, October 2015 “If you don’t have your own show, as far as I’m concerned, you are not famous.” — Pratt In August of 2006, Spencer Pratt made his first appearance on MTV's “The Hills,” and reality television was never the same. Pratt, both outrageously offensive and aggressively thin-skinned, waged full-on war over every perceived slight. His girlfriend-turned-wife Heidi Montag, who stayed fiercely loyal to Pratt no matter how obsessive and bizarre his behavior, seemed willing to follow further and further away from reality. Until the schtick grew tired, it all made for incredibly compelling television. Pratt thrived on his public conflicts, using them to raise his own profile. “Mercenaries is pretty much what we are,” he said of he and his wife. “Call us in when you are ready for some action. That keeps the bills paid.” Sound familiar? See if you can identify which five of these quotes belong to reality television's most notorious villain, and which five were public statements made by Donald Trump, current frontrunner for the Republican nomination, during his campaign for president of the United States. “People can bring me down all they want, but try to get on a cover. Try to get in a magazine. Good luck.” “You know, look, I'm on a lot of covers. I think maybe more than almost any supermodel. I think more than any supermodel. But in a way that is a sign of respect, people are respecting what you are doing.” “If you want to throw missiles, I’m throwing a nuke. This is how I operate.” “I thought these people were all fine and they came after me and then I had to go after them and perhaps I did a better job than they did. But they all went down.” “Sometimes I do go a little bit far. Heidi Klum. Sadly, she's no longer a 10.” “I forgive her, though. She's had to go through life as the less cute twin, which must be tough.” (on Mary Kate Olsen) “Presidents of networks would be like, ‘Come in,’ and I would be like, ‘Come to me.’ All those people are still right where they were.” “You're never at war when you get great ratings with a network, okay? And nobody gets ratings like me.” “They wanted to give me 28 shows. I said I can’t commit.” “If you don’t have your own show, as far as I’m concerned, you are not famous.” How did you do? Answers: “People can bring me down all they want, but try to get on a cover. Try to get in a magazine. Good luck.” —  Spencer Pratt “You know, look, I'm on a lot of covers. I think maybe more than almost any supermodel. I think more than any supermodel. But in a way that is a sign of respect, people are respecting what you are doing.” — Donald Trump on “60 Minutes,” September 2015 “If you want to throw missiles, I’m throwing a nuke. This is how I operate.” — Pratt “I thought these people were all fine and they came after me and then I had to go after them and perhaps I did a better job than they did. But they all went down.” — Trump on “CNN Tonight,” September 2015 “Sometimes I do go a little bit far. Heidi Klum. Sadly, she's no longer a 10.” — Trump in a New York Times interview, August 2015 “I forgive her, though. She's had to go through life as the less cute twin, which must be tough.” (on Mary Kate Olsen) — Pratt “Presidents of networks would be like, ‘Come in,’ and I would be like, ‘Come to me.’ All those people are still right where they were.” — Pratt “You're never at war when you get great ratings with a network, okay? And nobody gets ratings like me.” — Trump on “CNN's New Day,” November 2015 “They wanted to give me 28 shows. I said I can’t commit.” — Trump in a New York Post interview, October 2015 “If you don’t have your own show, as far as I’m concerned, you are not famous.” — Pratt

Continue Reading...

Apple, Amazon and Microsoft’s mega-million con: How titans of the new economy screw us all on taxes

Offshore tax havens enable not only individuals to dodge taxes—they also enable multinational corporations to do so. Often this tax avoidance is done within the letter of the law: multinational groups exploit the loopholes of current legislation. The fundamental problem is that the corporate tax is not adapted anymore to today’s globalized world and must be reinvented. The spiral is profound, but here, too, solutions exist. From Mountain View to Bermuda The reason for the current failure is that the corporate tax is based on a fiction, the idea that one can establish the profits earned by each multinational subsidiary by subsidiary. But this fiction is no longer tenable today, because multinational groups, advised by great auditing and consulting firms, are in practice free to move their profits wherever they want, which is usually wherever it is taxed the least; and large countries have themselves mostly given up taxing the profits booked outside of their territory. How do companies make their profits appear in tax havens? There are two main techniques. The first, that of intra-group loans, consists of loading with debt branches located in countries that tax profits heavily, such as France and the United States.The goal is to reduce the profits where they are taxed and have them appear in Luxembourg or in Bermuda, where they are taxed very little or not at all. This popular manipulation nevertheless comes up against a sizable problem: it is rather easy to detect. The second optimization technique, the manipulation of transfer prices, plays a more important role. Transfer prices are the prices at which branches of a given group buy their own products from one another. Within a single company, the branches in Bermuda sell services at a high price to entities located in the United States. Profits thus appear again in the tax havens and losses in the United States, in the large economies of continental Europe, and in Japan. In principle, intragroup transactions should be conducted using as a reference the market price of the goods and services traded, as if the subsidiaries were unrelated, what is known as “arm’s-length pricing.” But arm’s-length pricing faces severe limitations. First, with billions of intragroup transactions every year, tax authorities cannot conceivably check that they are all correctly priced. And indeed there is compelling evidence of transfer mispricing by U.S. firms. More fundamentally, in many cases the relevant reference prices simply do not exist. In 2003, less than a year before its initial public offering in August 2004, Google US transferred its search and advertisement technologies to “Google Holdings,” a subsidiary incorporated in Ireland, but which for Irish tax purposes is a resident of Bermuda. What was the fair-market value of Google’s technologies at the time of transfer, before the Mountain View firm was even listed as a public company? Google US had an incentive to charge as little as possible for this transfer. We do not know whether it was able to do so: the transfer price is not public information. But journalistic leaks in the fall of 2014, “LuxLeaks,” revealed that in many similar cases, the transfer prices that IT companies are able to charge when they send their intangibles to Bermuda is negligible, sometimes zero. Once that capital has arrived in Bermuda, all the profits that it generates are taxable there, where the corporate income tax rate is a modest 0%. The issue is growing, as a rising number of international transactions within international divisions of a single company—such as the sale of proprietary trademarks, logos, and algorithms—are not replicated between third parties, hence have no reference price. Firms can sell themselves bananas or shovels at exorbitant prices—we’ve seen this—but the risk is high for companies that engage in such obvious fraud, as they can find themselves caught by the tax authorities. There is nothing less risky, by contrast, than manipulating the prices of patents, logos, labels, or algorithms, because the value of these assets is intrinsically difficult to establish. This is why the giants of tax avoidance are companies of the new economy: Google, Apple and Microsoft. Taxing companies wanes to the same extent as immaterial capital gains in importance. Tax Avoidance by U.S. Firms: $130 Billion a Year Quantifying the government revenue losses caused by profit shifting to lower-tax jurisdictions is not straightforward and, as with personal wealth, involves some margin of error. My approach relies on national accounts and balance-of-payments statistics, focusing on U.S. firms. Consider the basic macroeconomic aggregates of the U.S. economy in 2013. Corporate profits (net of capital depreciation and interest payments) account for 14.5% of U.S. national income, or $2.1 trillion. This figure includes $1.7 trillion of domestic profits, plus $650 billion of profits made by foreign firms owned by U.S. residents (mostly subsidiaries of U.S. corporations), minus $250 billion made by domestic firms owned by foreigners. Close to a third of U.S. corporate profits (650/2,100), therefore, are made abroad. Where do the $650 billion of foreign profits come from? The balance of payments provides a country-by-country decomposition of this total: according to the latest available figures, 55% is made in six low- or zero-tax countries: the Netherlands, Bermuda, Luxembourg, Ireland, Singapore, and Switzerland. Not much production or sale occurs in these offshore centers; very few workers are employed there—profits appear in Bermuda by sheer accounting manipulations. Since foreign profits account for a third of all U.S. corporate profits, and tax havens for 55% of their foreign profits, the share of tax havens in total U.S. corporate profits reaches 18% (55% of a third) in 2013. The use of tax havens by U.S. firms has steadily increased since the 1980s and continues to rise. By my estimate, the artificial shifting of profits to low-tax locales enables U.S. companies to reduce their tax liabilities, in total, by about $130 billion a year. Surveys of U.S. multinationals conducted by the Bureau of Economic Analysis show that U.S. firms pay a negligible 3% in taxes to foreign governments on the profits booked in the main low-tax jurisdictions. In the United States, contrary to what happens in most other countries, profits become taxable at a rate of 35% when they are repatriated (with a credit for all foreign corporate taxes previously paid). But in practice, there are few incentives to repatriate. The funds retained offshore can be used to purchase foreign companies, secure loans, pay foreign workers, and finance foreign investments, all of this without incurring U.S. taxes. An even more extreme scenario is possible: firms that would like to use their accumulated earnings trapped offshore as they so wish can merge with foreign companies, in order to change their tax residence and avoid the U.S. law, or what is known as a “tax inversion.” In 2004 Congress granted a repatriation tax holiday, letting multinationals bring their foreign profits back home if they paid a rate of 5.25%. The holiday failed to increase domestic employment, investment, or R&D; it also boosted the foreign profits retained by U.S. firms in tax havens. Today only a tiny fraction of the profits recorded by US firms in Bermuda and similar havens are brought back to the United States, and this share is falling with expectations of new holidays. In the end, not only do the profits made in the main havens bear negligible foreign taxes; they also mostly go untaxed by the Internal Revenue Service. Since they account for almost 20% of all U.S. corporate profits, profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions reduces the tax bill of U.S. companies by close to 20%—or $130 billion annually. The Decline in the Effective Corporate Tax Rate of US Firms A direct consequence of the increased use of tax havens is that the effective tax rate paid by US firms is declining fast. The effective corporate tax rate is the ratio of all the corporate taxes paid by U.S. firms (to U.S. and foreign governments) by U.S. corporate profits. Despite the fact that the nominal income tax rate in the United States has remained constant at 35%, the effective rate has fallen from 30% in the late 1990s to barely 20% today. Granted, not all that decline should be attributed to increased tax avoidance. Some changes in U.S. laws have narrowed the tax base, like the introduction of a deduction of manufacturing income, or “bonus depreciation” during and in the aftermath of recessions; there is also a growing number of businesses in the United States, known as S-corporations, which are legally exempt from paying any corporate tax at all. But after factoring in all these changes, about two-thirds of the decline in the effective corporate tax rate since 1998 can be attributed to increased tax avoidance through low-tax jurisdictions. The cost of tax avoidance by U.S. firms is borne by both the United States and other countries’ governments. Much of Google’s profit that is shifted to Bermuda is earned in Europe; absent tax havens, Google would pay more taxes in France and Germany. On the other hand, some U.S. corporations also use tax havens to avoid taxes on their U.S.-source income. With national accounts data, it is hard to know which government loses most. In both cases, U.S. shareholders win. Since equity ownership is very concentrated, even after including the equities owned by broad-based pension funds, so too are the benefits. Accounting manipulations do not just cost governments a lot. They also cause basic macroeconomic statistics to lose significance, with adverse consequences for financial regulation and stability. The national accounts of Ireland, for example, are seriously contaminated by the trickery of multinationals. First, in the balance of payments: to shift their profits to the island, where they are taxed at only 12.5%, companies have their Irish branches import at low prices and export at artificially elevated prices—which results in an amazing trade surplus for Ireland of 25% of GDP! This surplus has nothing to do with any sort of competitive advantage; it doesn’t benefit the Irish population at all: it is entirely paid back to the foreign owners of the firms that operate in Ireland, so that Irish national income is only 80% of Irish GDP. Manipulations of transfer prices then massively distort the share of each factor of production (capital and labor) in corporate value added: the artificially elevated profits booked by foreign-owned firms make the capital share rise to more than 50% in sectors where immaterial capital is large, as in the pharmaceutical industry. A Twenty-First-Century Tax on Companies What is to be done? The current approach of the OECD and G20 countries consists of trying to reform the existing system by strengthening transfer-pricing regulations. The first efforts began in the second half of the 1990s, and yet the trend toward more widespread use of tax havens by U.S. multinational companies has shown no particular sign of slowing down since then. The current approach, therefore, does not seem very promising. When it comes to manipulating transfer prices, companies will always be far ahead of the controllers, because their means are greater: the tax department of General Electric alone employs close to a thousand individuals. More resources granted to tax authorities might help curb tax avoidance. But in the United States, IRS funding is actually on a downward trend, and, besides, there is a real risk that increased spending by tax authorities would trigger even bigger corporate expenses, leading to no extra revenue and a true loss for the collectivity. We need a radical reform of corporate taxation. A promising solution consists in starting from the global, consolidated profits of firms, which cannot be manipulated.

Continue Reading...

Stop selling me gratitude: Jane Austen called BS on this tyranny of the status quo 200 years ago

Go to any store that sells home décor and you’ll be bombarded by them: the wall decals, the geometric cubes, the tablecloths, the hand towels—all imploring you to be grateful, feel thankful or display your gratitude. “BE GRATEFUL” or “THANKFUL,” blare these decorations, which stores now feature throughout the year rather than, as one might assume, just during the Thanksgiving holidays. Nowadays, if you can afford the often not-so-humble sticker price of these furnishings, you can decorate your entire home with entreaties to be grateful or expressions of your gratitude. As I’ve noticed this décor creeping into the corners of friends’ homes and seemingly every aisle of Homegoods, I’ve wondered why such a market for these items exists, since, from my irascible perspective, these decorations solely arouse anger—a far cry from gratitude. When observing the word “thankful” plastered on a wall, I see only the owner pompously proclaiming that he/she is a thankful person (perhaps when I’d like to object). And when I read the command “Be Thankful,” I instinctively resist—rebel against, even—this demand of my gratitude. Not that I prefer to be ungrateful or surrounded by ingrates; far from it. In fact, having spent the last decade of my life at two expensive private universities, I have often reminded myself to be grateful for my privileges (and sometimes wished others would consider the same). But the difference between gratitude decorations and my college experiences is that I am grateful for specific reasons, while the thankful décor blandly requires gratitude at all times, irrespective of one’s current emotional, bodily or financial state. Not just inconsiderate, these decorations also, crucially, instruct viewers to disregard the conditions that might make them feel ungrateful, even indignant. Oblivious of context, these decorations sing a constant refrain: when wrongly persecuted or victimized, Be Grateful; when failed morally or ethically, Be Thankful. If we truly followed their advice, we would become mere automatons, disregarding our complex emotions—and, not to mention, reason and common sense—to express an invariable and unquestioned feeling of gratitude. Of course, gratitude is an important aspect of our social interactions: We tend to like people who display it (and conversely dislike the consistently ungrateful), and a Harvard study has even found a greater happiness rate among people who consistently express thankfulness than among those who don’t. Yet gratitude’s opposite, the harsher sounding and less marketable “ungratefulness,” can be as meaningful of a social expression, for it announces one’s dissatisfaction with a current circumstance and may lead one to enact meaningful change—to produce something or some situation for which one will be grateful. But these decorations call exclusively for gratitude, thereby renouncing ungratefulness. In so doing, they persuade viewers both to disavow their feelings of ingratitude, along with its accompanying emotions (anger, frustration or indignation), and to appreciate, or be grateful for, the status quo. To understand the consequences of this contemporary plea for thankfulness, we might consider a novel just a year over 200: Jane Austen’s "Mansfield Park," a work fundamentally about these very politics of gratitude. In that novel, Austen’s characters insistently importune the novel’s protagonist, Fanny Price, to feel grateful for her opportunity to live with her wealthy aunt and uncle. While in transit from her lower-class home to the wealthy Mansfield estate, Fanny quickly learns of the expectations of her gratitude from her aunt, as the narrator notes: “Mrs. Norris had been talking to her the whole way from Northampton of [Fanny’s] wonderful good fortune, and the extraordinary degree of gratitude and good behaviour which it ought to produce.” When instructing Fanny to feel grateful, Mrs. Norris conspicuously overlooks that the young girl has just been removed from her family and home—sent, without ever agreeing, to a foreign place inhabited by unknown people. Willingly blind to Fanny’s evident discomfort and isolation, Mrs. Norris persistently monitors only her niece’s gratitude, ensuring that Fanny shows thankfulness for, ironically, changes that she detests. In this way, Mrs. Norris recalls the modern gratitude décor: painfully negligent of context, she has only one feeling to inculcate—thankfulness. As Austen scholars like Claudia L. Johnson and Susan Greenfield have emphasized, "Mansfield’s" characters repeatedly insist upon Fanny’s gratitude, often compelling her not only to feel but also to act against her will. When Fanny rejects a marriage proposal from a wealthy man she neither loves nor trusts, Fanny’s uncle accuses her of not appreciating her privileged upbringing and the opportunities it provided her to advance socially: “You do not owe me the duty of a child. But, Fanny, if your heart can acquit you of ingratitude—,” he sharply remarks. Similarly, when Fanny’s family mistreats, neglects and excludes her, they require that she nevertheless show gratitude for the mere opportunity to live among their rank. Indeed, any resistance to her family’s unkind and often unjust demands is perceived as an act of insubordination, or a display of ingratitude, as Mrs. Norris explains: “but I shall think her a very obstinate, ungrateful girl, if she does not do what her aunt and cousins wish her—very ungrateful, indeed, considering who and what she is.” Gratitude, Austen shows, requires Fanny’s unquestioned obedience to her family, whereas any resistance—or any time she listens to her own feelings—reveals her “obstinate, ungrateful” nature. Here we see Austen acknowledging the problems with gratitude (which forces Fanny to accept and appreciate her family’s corruption and tyranny) while applauding Fanny’s “ungrateful” but honest assessment of her own happiness and inner moral code. Despite these occasional moments of resistance, though, Fanny largely internalizes her family’s decrees to feel thankful, as seen in Austen’s recurring use of the words “gratitude” or “thankful” to describe Fanny’s reactions. Yet while Fanny fails as an ideal ingrate, Austen nevertheless emphasizes the problems with Mansfield Park that Fanny should have noticed and repudiated: Fanny’s family not only physically exploits and emotionally neglects her but also sustains itself economically through slave labor in Antigua. Rather than rejecting the injustices made manifest in the novel, Fanny learns to accept and feel grateful for them; Austen’s thankful protagonist acquiesces to Mansfield’s corrupt status quo, suppressing her own moments of anger or indignation and instead heeding the call to feel constant gratitude. "Mansfield Park" by no means endorses its protagonist’s acquiescence; rather, the novel encourages readers to denounce both Fanny’s uncaring and demeaning relatives, who maintain their lifestyle through the suffering of others, and the skewed sense of gratitude that they instill in her. Far from a grateful endorsement of the status quo, "Mansfield Park" ardently promotes a politics of ingratitude: It insists that we interrogate our feelings and not feel compelled to express or, worse, internalize a persistent sense of gratitude, particularly in the face of injustice. Question your world critically, "Mansfield Park" tells us, and, when necessary, be “obstinate, ungrateful.” Perhaps that decoration I’d buy.Go to any store that sells home décor and you’ll be bombarded by them: the wall decals, the geometric cubes, the tablecloths, the hand towels—all imploring you to be grateful, feel thankful or display your gratitude. “BE GRATEFUL” or “THANKFUL,” blare these decorations, which stores now feature throughout the year rather than, as one might assume, just during the Thanksgiving holidays. Nowadays, if you can afford the often not-so-humble sticker price of these furnishings, you can decorate your entire home with entreaties to be grateful or expressions of your gratitude. As I’ve noticed this décor creeping into the corners of friends’ homes and seemingly every aisle of Homegoods, I’ve wondered why such a market for these items exists, since, from my irascible perspective, these decorations solely arouse anger—a far cry from gratitude. When observing the word “thankful” plastered on a wall, I see only the owner pompously proclaiming that he/she is a thankful person (perhaps when I’d like to object). And when I read the command “Be Thankful,” I instinctively resist—rebel against, even—this demand of my gratitude. Not that I prefer to be ungrateful or surrounded by ingrates; far from it. In fact, having spent the last decade of my life at two expensive private universities, I have often reminded myself to be grateful for my privileges (and sometimes wished others would consider the same). But the difference between gratitude decorations and my college experiences is that I am grateful for specific reasons, while the thankful décor blandly requires gratitude at all times, irrespective of one’s current emotional, bodily or financial state. Not just inconsiderate, these decorations also, crucially, instruct viewers to disregard the conditions that might make them feel ungrateful, even indignant. Oblivious of context, these decorations sing a constant refrain: when wrongly persecuted or victimized, Be Grateful; when failed morally or ethically, Be Thankful. If we truly followed their advice, we would become mere automatons, disregarding our complex emotions—and, not to mention, reason and common sense—to express an invariable and unquestioned feeling of gratitude. Of course, gratitude is an important aspect of our social interactions: We tend to like people who display it (and conversely dislike the consistently ungrateful), and a Harvard study has even found a greater happiness rate among people who consistently express thankfulness than among those who don’t. Yet gratitude’s opposite, the harsher sounding and less marketable “ungratefulness,” can be as meaningful of a social expression, for it announces one’s dissatisfaction with a current circumstance and may lead one to enact meaningful change—to produce something or some situation for which one will be grateful. But these decorations call exclusively for gratitude, thereby renouncing ungratefulness. In so doing, they persuade viewers both to disavow their feelings of ingratitude, along with its accompanying emotions (anger, frustration or indignation), and to appreciate, or be grateful for, the status quo. To understand the consequences of this contemporary plea for thankfulness, we might consider a novel just a year over 200: Jane Austen’s "Mansfield Park," a work fundamentally about these very politics of gratitude. In that novel, Austen’s characters insistently importune the novel’s protagonist, Fanny Price, to feel grateful for her opportunity to live with her wealthy aunt and uncle. While in transit from her lower-class home to the wealthy Mansfield estate, Fanny quickly learns of the expectations of her gratitude from her aunt, as the narrator notes: “Mrs. Norris had been talking to her the whole way from Northampton of [Fanny’s] wonderful good fortune, and the extraordinary degree of gratitude and good behaviour which it ought to produce.” When instructing Fanny to feel grateful, Mrs. Norris conspicuously overlooks that the young girl has just been removed from her family and home—sent, without ever agreeing, to a foreign place inhabited by unknown people. Willingly blind to Fanny’s evident discomfort and isolation, Mrs. Norris persistently monitors only her niece’s gratitude, ensuring that Fanny shows thankfulness for, ironically, changes that she detests. In this way, Mrs. Norris recalls the modern gratitude décor: painfully negligent of context, she has only one feeling to inculcate—thankfulness. As Austen scholars like Claudia L. Johnson and Susan Greenfield have emphasized, "Mansfield’s" characters repeatedly insist upon Fanny’s gratitude, often compelling her not only to feel but also to act against her will. When Fanny rejects a marriage proposal from a wealthy man she neither loves nor trusts, Fanny’s uncle accuses her of not appreciating her privileged upbringing and the opportunities it provided her to advance socially: “You do not owe me the duty of a child. But, Fanny, if your heart can acquit you of ingratitude—,” he sharply remarks. Similarly, when Fanny’s family mistreats, neglects and excludes her, they require that she nevertheless show gratitude for the mere opportunity to live among their rank. Indeed, any resistance to her family’s unkind and often unjust demands is perceived as an act of insubordination, or a display of ingratitude, as Mrs. Norris explains: “but I shall think her a very obstinate, ungrateful girl, if she does not do what her aunt and cousins wish her—very ungrateful, indeed, considering who and what she is.” Gratitude, Austen shows, requires Fanny’s unquestioned obedience to her family, whereas any resistance—or any time she listens to her own feelings—reveals her “obstinate, ungrateful” nature. Here we see Austen acknowledging the problems with gratitude (which forces Fanny to accept and appreciate her family’s corruption and tyranny) while applauding Fanny’s “ungrateful” but honest assessment of her own happiness and inner moral code. Despite these occasional moments of resistance, though, Fanny largely internalizes her family’s decrees to feel thankful, as seen in Austen’s recurring use of the words “gratitude” or “thankful” to describe Fanny’s reactions. Yet while Fanny fails as an ideal ingrate, Austen nevertheless emphasizes the problems with Mansfield Park that Fanny should have noticed and repudiated: Fanny’s family not only physically exploits and emotionally neglects her but also sustains itself economically through slave labor in Antigua. Rather than rejecting the injustices made manifest in the novel, Fanny learns to accept and feel grateful for them; Austen’s thankful protagonist acquiesces to Mansfield’s corrupt status quo, suppressing her own moments of anger or indignation and instead heeding the call to feel constant gratitude. "Mansfield Park" by no means endorses its protagonist’s acquiescence; rather, the novel encourages readers to denounce both Fanny’s uncaring and demeaning relatives, who maintain their lifestyle through the suffering of others, and the skewed sense of gratitude that they instill in her. Far from a grateful endorsement of the status quo, "Mansfield Park" ardently promotes a politics of ingratitude: It insists that we interrogate our feelings and not feel compelled to express or, worse, internalize a persistent sense of gratitude, particularly in the face of injustice. Question your world critically, "Mansfield Park" tells us, and, when necessary, be “obstinate, ungrateful.” Perhaps that decoration I’d buy.

Continue Reading...

Big Tobacco’s big race play: Philip Morris, the NAACP and the future of menthol cigarettes

Lorillard Tobacco donated nearly four times as much to Republican candidates as to Democrats in the 2014 congressional elections. No surprise there — most businesses count on Republicans to hold the line on regulations and taxes. But Lorillard made a striking exception for one set of Democrats: African Americans. It gave campaign cash to half of all black members of Congress, as opposed to just one in 38 non-black Democrats, according to an analysis by FairWarning of records from the Center for Responsive Politics. To put it another way, black lawmakers, all but one of whom are Democrats, were 19 times as likely as their Democratic peers to get a donation. It’s not hard to see why. The election campaign overlapped a debate crucial to Lorillard: Whether to add menthol, the minty, throat-numbing additive, to a list of flavorings banned from use in cigarettes in 2009 on public health grounds. Lorillard’s Newport cigarettes have been the top-selling menthol brand, accounting for billions of dollars in annual sales. And who most favors menthols? Black smokers, by a wide margin. For decades, the tobacco industry has maintained what amounts to an informal mutual aid pact with some black organizations. Over the years, cigarette makers have donated generously to members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and to its affiliate, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation; to major groups like the National Urban League, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the United Negro College Fund; and to a host of smaller African American organizations. In return, some of the groups have helped the industry fight anti-smoking measures. Other times, critics say, they have simply turned a blind eye to the harmful impact of tobacco on the black community. Menthol cigarettes, once a niche product, now account for about 30 percent of U.S. cigarette sales. But a study cited by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that menthols were the choice of 88 percent of black smokers and 57 percent of smokers under 18. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the landmark 2009 law that authorized the FDA to regulate tobacco products, included a ban on candy, fruit and spice flavorings because of their appeal to young smokers. But in negotiations that led to adoption of the law, menthol was given a pass. In July 2013, after complaints from public health groups, the FDA put out a call for public comments on whether menthol, too, should be restricted or banned. Several other countries have banned menthol or imposed deadlines for eliminating it. But not a peep has been heard from the FDA since it asked the public to weigh in more than two years ago. This past June, in a display of confidence, Reynolds American Inc., which includes R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., completed a merger with Lorillard, paying more than $27 billion for a company that depended on menthols for about 85 percent of sales. The menthol limbo fits a pattern, according to public health advocates, who say the FDA has been all but paralyzed by excessive caution and, when it has tried to act, by successful legal challenges from the industry. In November 2011, the agency was blocked in court when it tried to require graphic warning labels on cigarette packs like those in at least 75 countries. And it has yet to complete the rulemaking process that would extend its oversight to cigars and e-cigarettes, which are increasingly popular among teens. The failure to act is “inexcusable.” said Joelle Lester, a staff attorney with the Public Health Law Center in St. Paul, Minn. “Prohibiting menthol in tobacco products should be a very high priority.” Agency officials declined to be interviewed. A spokesman said in an email that the FDA “is continuing to consider regulatory options related to menthol.’’ Banning menthol would be politically difficult under any circumstances, but observers say it will be impossible without strong support from African American leadership groups. And despite support for a ban from some black public health advocates, African American politicians and organizations have been largely silent. Some of the smaller groups that have received tobacco money over the years–the National Black Police Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, or NOBLE, the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the Congress of Racial Equality — have opposed a ban, claiming it would trigger illicit trade in menthol cigarettes. This, they say, would result in lost tax revenues, rising law enforcement costs and widespread arrests in the black community. The NBPA launched a write-in campaign that brought more than 36,000 comments opposing a ban, according to an FDA document. That group did not respond to interview requests. But John Dixon, a past president of NOBLE and the police chief in Petersburg, Va., said he thought banning menthol would harm “the minority community, because the majority of menthol smokers are minorities.” He added that “prohibitions cause a whole other host of problems,” including an added “burden on law enforcement.” NOBLE lists RAI Services Co., part of Reynolds American, as a current donor. But Dixon said this “would not have any influence, one way or another,’’ on the group’s positions. A complicated relationship The relationship between tobacco companies and black groups “is complicated,’’ said Delmonte Jefferson, executive director of the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, a CDC-funded nonprofit. In recent years, minority groups have attracted a wider range of corporate sponsors, making tobacco funding less important. But “there was a long time that it was only the tobacco industry that would support” some of them, Jefferson said. “To do an abrupt turn against the same companies—that’s kind of hard for them to do.” While smoking rates for black and white adults are comparable, blacks suffer higher death rates from tobacco-related ailments, including some types of cancer and cardiovascular disease. According to the CDC, about 47,000 African Americans die annually from smoking-related illnesses, making tobacco use the largest preventable cause of death for black Americans. Menthols do not appear to be any more toxic than other brands. “A menthol cigarette is just another cigarette and should be regulated no differently,” said David Howard, a spokesman for Reynolds American, in an email to FairWarning. But health authorities view menthols as a starter product, saying that menthol’s anesthetizing effect helps beginners tolerate the harshness of tobacco smoke, making them more likely to become addicted to nicotine. “Menthol has no redeeming value other than to make the poison go down more easily,’’ said a report in the American Journal of Public Health. Some research also suggests that menthol smokers are more nicotine dependent and have more trouble quitting. For these reasons, said a 2013 FDA report, it is “likely that menthol cigarettes pose a public health risk above that seen with non-menthol cigarettes.” The industry disputes this. According to Reynolds’ spokesman Howard, “The best available scientific evidence demonstrates that menthol cigarettes do not cause people to start smoking earlier, smoke more cigarettes … or make smokers more addicted than non-menthol cigarette smokers.” “African Americanization” of menthols In any case, the industry has worked hard to befriend the black community. Early on, cigarette makers touted menthols as good for smokers with a cough or cold, and “African Americans became attached to the notion” that menthols were safer, according to public health activist and researcher Phillip S. Gardiner. The companies reinforced the popularity of Kool and other brands by sponsoring cultural events and pouring marketing dollars into black media and neighborhoods–all part of what Gardiner called the

We could black out Black Friday: I dream of a national boycott that demands black lives matter as much as black money

There’s nothing like a good, ol’ fashioned consolation prize. For years, I thought mine was Sarah Lawrence College. At about $50,000 yearly tuition, I would never have been able to attend, had my mother lived to help me fill out the FAFSA during senior year in high school. As a professor and mother of one, she likely would have made too much for me to receive a significant amount of aid. But she didn’t live to see me graduate and, since she was a single woman when she adopted me, I was considered an independent when I applied for grants. Over the years I still wracked up quite a bit in loans, but ultimately, I attended one of the nation’s most expensive colleges at quite a steal. It was like Black Friday for higher ed. But I wasn’t always grateful, because it felt like a trade-off, an apology from the world, or the system — sorry about that whole cancer thing, here’s a cheap ride to your dream school because, legally and financially, you’re alone in this world. I know what I would have chosen to have, if it had been up to me, but that choice only exists in my fantasies. In reality, sometimes we must accept the consolation prizes we are given. But other times, we should reject them wholeheartedly. Black Friday, Cyber Monday and every sale that you will see advertised from today until the new year are, in many ways, consolation prizes. The people who have not been able to afford certain material things for most of the year will (instead of having their wages increased, their rent lowered or their medical expenses covered) get a chance to buy some things they may or may not need. Those things will at least, most likely, make them feel good, if only for a moment or until next year when there will be more things. This consolation prize is especially useful for those many members of black communities who have borne witness to or experienced things like brutality from those sworn to protect and serve them, failing educational systems from which they cannot afford to remove their children and/or the unjust incarceration of a loved one. For these people, especially, material things they typically cannot afford are a temporary salve for deep and intricate wounds. In other words, retail therapy remains a hell of a drug. But in seeking such therapy on this weekend in particular (or, in the case of those who feel they are truly just shopping out of holiday tradition, or in the name of giving—in giving this great boost to the American economy) what are black people, and others who believe that black lives and minds matter, really saying with their dollars? What are we—whether we want to admit or not—accepting from a society that asks us to keep spending our money, but doesn’t make the most basic human rights a priority? The recent protests on college campuses have given us more proof (as if we needed it) that money, and not necessarily justice, talks. Even if you disagree with the message or method, it has to be acknowledged that the Mizzou protest was incredibly effective. Are the students now free to learn in an environment without any racial bias? No, and indeed the “now what” question is already being posed. But, initially, one of the main goals was to remove President Timothy Wolfe, and in that they were successful. They were not successful because student protestors were suddenly being taken seriously by the administration, or because Jonathan Butler’s hunger strike made them aware of how important the issues were. While all of these elements were necessary and not without their own powerful effects, demands were only met when money was on the line, in the form of the school’s football team strike. And as Steve Almond explains in a recent Salon piece on why all football players should strike, it speaks to the incredible political leverage athletes have—though whether or not more of them will go on to risk their careers for social justice is another matter altogether. Taking such risk is no small thing. Much has been written about the systems set in place to make it difficult or impossible for black Americans to obtain financial stability, let alone wealth. The school-to-prison pipeline is becoming a bigger part of the conversation, with writers like Ta-Nehisi Coates taking on the history behind mass incarceration, VICE’s “Fixing the System” special with President Obama and Bernie Sanders openly (and consistently) declaring war on the prison industrial complex. But it’s equally important to consider the unique psychological effects on those who have “made it,” because those effects determine how black Americans spend their money, and how they do or do not use it as a means of protest. ESPN’s “30 for 30: Broke” documentary offered an excellent analysis of how this psychology affects (and often destroys) athletes when they first come into money. Otherwise, practically every popular rapper ever has a catalogue full of lyrics that make it easy to understand how the shock of going from nothing to something, or from nothing to millions can cause irreversible damage. “Mo Money, Mo Problems” is especially true for those new to money, and to those who might have suffered a great deal before seeing it. Simply telling people, “Save your money, and invest in your community,” is not a solution, especially when Jacob the Jeweler makes house calls. And traces of these same effects can be found in people with far less money; people who go from not being able to afford a flat screen or good winter boots, to suddenly being able to get them—but for one weekend only! I’d hoped to write an article that would, in essence, call for every person who has used the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag this year, or any of the hashtags of slain unarmed men, women and children to boycott Black Friday. I wanted to highlight the campaign #NotOneDime, a coalition headed by social activist and writer Rahiel Tesfamariam, which calls for a cease on all non-essential shopping from Black Friday through Cyber Monday, and even offers holiday shopping alternatives with a directory of black-owned businesses. They have a platform and a list of specific demands for corporations. Another group, Blackout for Human Rights is, once again, calling for a #BlackOutBlackFriday national boycott. Last year’s initiative raised awareness, in part due to participation from Jesse Williams and Russell Simmons, but they are naturally hoping to make a greater impact this year. But this is easier said than done. For some of us, boycotting Black Friday and/or Cyber Monday does not require a major sacrifice. But there’s a reason people wake up at 4 a.m. to buy things; the reason is, for many, poverty. Again, these sales are not for the wealthy or the well-off, or even those who exist in some state of financial stability. If you can, throughout the year, take your kids to the movies and buy them the clothes they need and the toys that they ask for—to a reasonable degree, and without going completely broke—Black Friday might be something in which you participate, but your entire holiday season isn’t dependent on it. But if you can’t do those things consistently, it weighs on you. And huge sales at the end of the year prey on the very real emotions of people in these situations. In other words, a Gap, Target or Walmart ad for 50 percent off is not just about the money; it signifies a mythical redemption for many parents—some sort of second chance to do right by the people they love, as if their inability to buy these things throughout the year is due to their own failings, and nothing else. If you are going to ask black people to stand behind Black Out Black Friday or Campaign Zero or other movements demanding, among other things, that the routine, casual and state-sanctioned killings of black people by police be stopped, through boycotting the biggest shopping days of the year, there must be an acknowledgement that this may, at first, sound more like a punishment, another struggle they must endure. A 2015 Nielsen report places black Americans on trend to have a buying power of $1.4 trillion by 2019. It’s difficult, and not in my scope, to say what a longterm plan for that power would look like. But what such power would look like—were it to be wielded collectively, as opposed to by a few individuals here and there—for this upcoming weekend is exciting. I fantasize about black people using that buying power to say, if nothing else, our money matters. And if our money matters to the American economy, then so should our lives, and so should our minds. But like Almond’s vision of football players-turned-activists, it’s a longshot. Why should the people who have had to work so hard to get where they are make more sacrifices because—to quote Claudine Rankine—“white men cannot police their imaginations?” Why should people who live paycheck-to-paycheck all year, who look forward to finally getting a slice of this alleged American pie (if only for one weekend a year) put aside their desires, for a movement whose successes are difficult to measure? Right now, we consider it some sort of win that video of Laquan McDonald being murdered was finally released, after 400 days and multiple attempts to block that release from the likes of State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez and Mayor Rahm Emanuel. It’s beyond disheartening that part of the “win” means we must have his death played on a loop (even turned into a GIF by one media outlet, which later apologized), and to know that his murderers will most likely serve no time—and still, we believe something has been achieved. How do we ask people to delay a certain, immediate satisfaction for a future, but also partly imagined, freedom or agency? These are not the days of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Every single black person is not convinced of the current movement, and that’s partly because, like Black Friday shoppers, they have been pacified by various pleasantries or feelings of accomplishment. But we cannot continue to accept these consolation prizes without interrogating the ultimate costs if, as activist DeRay Mckesson often declares on Twitter—we will win. Consolation prizes can come in the form of Black Friday Sales (which people go broke trying to take advantage of), or as black women on TV and winning Emmys (while the film industry ignores them) or black Presidents (whose very existence seems indicative of miraculous political strides, but who still must function within a system of rules that were written long ago). Unlike a young woman losing her mom to cancer, and benefiting academically and perhaps professionally in some strange way, a person with money — however short or long that money may be — who believes black lives and minds matter has a choice in accepting consolation prizes or material pacifiers from those in power. And if we take nothing else away from Mizzou, we should know by now that power is just as relative as any other notion. Those who appear to have it will yield, when those assumed to have the least agency (i.e. football players or holiday shoppers) start to make their money talk.

Continue Reading...

Rudeness spreads like a disease: The science that explains our misanthropy

Flu season is nearly upon us, and in an effort to limit contagion and spare ourselves misery, many of us will get vaccinated. The work of Jonas Salk and Thomas Francis has helped restrict the spread of the nasty bug for generations, and the influenza vaccine is credited with saving tens of thousands of lives. But before the vaccine could be developed, scientists first had to identify the cause of influenza — and, importantly, recognize that it was contagious. New research by Trevor Foulk, Andrew Woolum, and Amir Erez at the University of Florida takes that same first step in identifying a different kind of contagious menace: rudeness. In a series of studies, Foulk and colleagues demonstrate that being the target of rude behavior, or even simply witnessing rude behavior, induces rudeness. People exposed to rude behavior tend to have concepts associated with rudeness activated in their minds, and consequently may interpret ambiguous but benign behaviors as rude. More significantly, they themselves are more likely to behave rudely toward others, and to evoke hostility, negative affect, and even revenge from others. The finding that negative behavior can beget negative behavior is not exactly new, as researchers demonstrated decades ago that individuals learn vicariously and will repeat destructive actions.  In the now infamous Bobo doll experiment, for example, children who watched an adult strike a Bobo doll with a mallet or yell at it were themselves abusive toward the doll.  Similarly, supervisors who believe they are mistreated by managers tend to pass on this mistreatment to their employees. Previous work on the negative contagion effect, however, has focused primarily on high-intensity behaviors like hitting or abusive supervision that are (thankfully) relatively infrequent in everyday life.  In addition, in most previous studies the destructive behavior was modeled by someone with a higher status than the observer. These extreme negative behaviors may thus get repeated because (a) they are quite salient and (b) the observer is consciously and intentionally trying to emulate the behavior of someone with an elevated social status. Foulk and colleagues wondered about low-intensity negative behaviors, the kind you are likely to encounter in your everyday interactions with coworkers, clients, customers, and peers. We spend far more of our time with coworkers and clients than we do with supervisors, and so their actions, if contagious, are likely to have a much broader effect on us. Evidence for negative contagion among peers and customers might also suggest that there is more than one mode of infection. We are far less likely to intentionally base our behavior on our customers than we are on our bosses, and thus any behavioral contagion observed in these settings is likely driven by unconscious, unintentional processes rather than by purposeful imitation. Perhaps we can “catch” behaviors without even trying. Foulk’s team first explored whether low-intensity behaviors like rudeness are contagious. In one study, they examined whether observing rude behavior activates concepts related to rudeness. Participants first completed a brief 15 minute survey, and when they were finished, a confederate playing the part of a late participant arrived at the study and asked to be included in the study. In the control condition, the experimenter politely told the late participant that the experiment had already begun and offered to schedule her for another session. In the negative condition, the experimenter rudely berated the late participant and told her to leave. All participants then completed a lexical decision task (LDT) in which they decided as quickly as possible whether strings of letters (e.g., CHIKHEN) formed a word.  Critically, some of the LDT words were friendly (e.g., helpful), some were aggressive (e.g., savage), and some were rude (e.g., tactless). Response times to the friendly and aggressive items were similar across conditions, but response times to the rude items were significantly faster for participants in the negative condition relative to the control condition.  People who watched a rude interaction had concepts about rudeness active in their mind, and thus were faster to respond to those concepts in the LDT. These findings suggest that exposure to rudeness seems to sensitize us to rude concepts in a way that is not intentional or purposeful, but instead happens automatically. To examine whether this sensitivity impacts social behavior, Foulk’s team conducted another study in which participants were asked to play the part of an employee at a local bookstore.  Participants first observed a video showing either a polite or a rude interaction among coworkers.  They were then asked to respond to an email from a customer.  The email was either neutral (e.g., “I am writing to check on an order I placed a few weeks ago.”), highly aggressive (e.g., “I guess you or one of your incompetent staff must have lost my order.”), or moderately rude (I’m really surprised by this as EVERYBODY said you guys give really good customer service???). Foulk and colleagues again found that prior exposure to rude behavior creates a specific sensitivity to rudeness. Notably, the type of video participants observed did not affect their responses to the neutral or aggressive emails; instead, the nature of those emails drove the response.  That is, all participants were more likely to send a hostile response to the aggressive email than to neutral email, regardless of whether they had previously observed a polite or rude employee interaction.  However, the type of video participants observed early in the study did affect their interpretation of and response to the rude email.  Those who had seen the polite video adopted a benign interpretation of the moderately rude email and delivered a neutral response, while those who had seen the rude video adopted a malevolent interpretation and delivered a hostile response.  Thus, observing rude behaviors, even those committed by coworkers or peers, resulted in greater sensitivity and heightened response to rudeness. Exposure to rude behavior clearly affects our mindset and the way we respond to rudeness, but Foulk’s final study revealed an even more unpleasant side effect of the contagion: watching rude behaviors leads us to be rude to others, and those others may then be rude (or worse) to us. Participants in the study engaged in a series of negotiation exercises with other participants. The key question centered on the behavior of participants who encountered a rude partner. How did they behave in a subsequent negotiation?  How did their next negotiation partners feel about them and treat them? As you might guess, participants who negotiated with a rude partner were in turn perceived as rude in their subsequent interaction with a new partner.  These “carriers” evoked feelings of anger and hostility in their new partners, and even incited vindictive behaviors. After the negotiation between the carrier and the new partner was complete, the new partner was privately given the opportunity to decide how to distribute additional resources with the carrier.  The new partner could make a prosocial choice and split the resources evenly, could make an individualistic choice and take more of the resources for herself (leaving some for the carrier), or could make a hostile choice by destroying all resources, thus ensuring that the carrier received nothing (but also losing out on any resources herself).  The hostile option was selected significantly more often after interactions with a carrier, suggesting that people were willing to suffer personally in order to exact revenge on the carrier.  Moreover, these effects of negative contagion were evident in negotiations that took place up to a week after the initial exposure, suggesting a fairly long infectious period for negative behaviors. Collectively, the data from Foulk and colleagues highlight the dangers of low-intensity negative behaviors, even those that are merely witnessed rather than personally experienced. With negative behaviors, the witness becomes the perpetrator, just as the person who touches a doorknob recently handled by a flu sufferer can themselves get sick and infect others. No conscious intent in necessary, and the contagion may last for days. Unfortunately, unlike the flu, there currently is no known inoculation for this contagion. Where is Jonas Salk when you need him?

Continue Reading...

Crimes against Thanksgiving: The Food Network’s 10 biggest holiday atrocities

Food Network is the guiding hand for many through the stress of the Thanksgiving meal, but what happens when our trusted culinary guardian angels lead us astray? Let’s take a look back at some of the more perplexing recipes that the network has suggested we make room for on the holiday table. 1. Pumpkin Pie Smoothie Ever reach the point when you are so strung out on tryptophan that you don’t have the energy required to lift a forkful of pie to your mouth? No fear -- Ree Drummond (aka “The Pioneer Woman”) has the perfect solution. Just toss the pie in a blender with milk and yogurt and pulse until it can be sucked through a straw. 2. Turkey and Cranberry Ravioli I’m all for fusion cuisine, but I never thought I’d hear the instructions:  “Drain the ravioli into the gravy and stir to coat.” Giada’s take on the holiday meal seems more like the day after the day after Thanksgiving when you make a sad grab for whatever leftovers are still good and combine them with the pre-Turkey Day remnants stashed in the back in the fridge. It tastes fine, but then you decide to stop kidding yourself and smother it all with gravy because you know you’ve already sized out of your jeans and there’s no way to stop the cycle now. In short, Giada’s Turkey and Cranberry Ravioli recipe is self-loathing on a plate. To make it even more depressing, this is for her special “Thanksgiving for Two” episode; but I suppose that just means there’s more gravy to go around. 3. Marbled Mashed Sweet Potatoes For the holiday table that could use a little tye-dyed flair, simply take two of the most common potato side dishes -- mashed and sweet -- and swirl them in a bowl. The result is simultaneously noncommittal and underwhelming (just what your parents say about your partner, right?)  and it’s the antithesis of Bobby’s labor-intensive potatoes below. 4. Grilled Hassleback Sweet Potatoes with Molasses-Nutmeg Butter Now, don’t get me wrong. These potatoes look beautiful, and they taste delicious as well, but only Bobby Flay would suggest a sweet potato side dish that has to be boiled, charcoal grilled and flambé finished, all wrapped with the suggestion to “serve immediately,” as if sweet potatoes are your only holiday meal responsibility. Don’t worry, though. If you spend too much time ensuring that you don’t singe the potatoes (and your eyebrows) and end up turkey-less, Food Network Magazine has you covered. One of their tips for decor includes a $12 inflatable bird complete with this calming sentiment: “No matter how your Thanksgiving dinner turns out, you’re guaranteed to get ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs’ when you walk out of the kitchen with this 16-inch, golden inflatable turkey. Everyone can have a laugh -- and play toss with the imposter -- while you [hopefully] carve the real thing.” 5. Turketta Happy Thanksgiving from Flavortown! No list would be complete without Guy Fieri. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Guy talked about his Thanksgiving menu: “This year I’m stuffing a pork tenderloin inside of a de-boned turkey. So I’ve got a turkey here, I’m taking all the bones out of it and then hitting it with some sausage, fennel, sage, garlic, red chili flakes, and then I’m rolling it up and tying it off and roasting that whole thing. So that should be interesting. I’m calling it a ‘Turketta.’” 6. Cranberry Molds Sandra Lee is basically your perpetually drunk aunt who attempts to mask her crippling alcohol problem by giving her cocktails cutesy little names like the Mayflower Martini and then hides vodka in the cranberry sauce, like in this recipe. 7. Cheddar Soup With Crispy Tortilla Crunch You know how there is always that one person at holiday gatherings who you can’t quite place, and frankly aren’t even sure why they’re in attendance? Rachael Ray’s Cheddar Soup With Crispy Tortilla Crunch recipe, which was featured in her “Thanksgiving in 60 -- 2”  special, is that rando’s culinary equivalent. 8. Mrs. Hoggle’s Stuffed Cranberry Sauce This is a quintessentially Paula Deen recipe from back in the day. Take chilled, jellied cranberry slices and slap a mixture of cream cheese and “good quality mayonnaise” between layers. Delicately garnish with toasted pecans, and enjoy until your your blood sugar spikes and arteries clot in tandem. 9. Deep Fried Cranberry Sauce Fritters What does Paula have against normal cranberry sauce? In this version, instead of slathering the chilled slices with white goo, you dredge them in flour and deep fry them until golden brown. Someone please pass the Lipitor. 10. Not Your Mama’s Green Bean Casserole Do you remember “Party Line With the Hearty Boys,” the show pitched by The Next Food Network Star Season 1 winners Dan Smith and Steve McDonagh? I doubt it; and it’s recipes like this -- featuring a slick of off-gray mushroom sauce and a bird’s nest of “frizzled leeks” -- that probably led to the show’s eventual cancellation.Food Network is the guiding hand for many through the stress of the Thanksgiving meal, but what happens when our trusted culinary guardian angels lead us astray? Let’s take a look back at some of the more perplexing recipes that the network has suggested we make room for on the holiday table. 1. Pumpkin Pie Smoothie Ever reach the point when you are so strung out on tryptophan that you don’t have the energy required to lift a forkful of pie to your mouth? No fear -- Ree Drummond (aka “The Pioneer Woman”) has the perfect solution. Just toss the pie in a blender with milk and yogurt and pulse until it can be sucked through a straw. 2. Turkey and Cranberry Ravioli I’m all for fusion cuisine, but I never thought I’d hear the instructions:  “Drain the ravioli into the gravy and stir to coat.” Giada’s take on the holiday meal seems more like the day after the day after Thanksgiving when you make a sad grab for whatever leftovers are still good and combine them with the pre-Turkey Day remnants stashed in the back in the fridge. It tastes fine, but then you decide to stop kidding yourself and smother it all with gravy because you know you’ve already sized out of your jeans and there’s no way to stop the cycle now. In short, Giada’s Turkey and Cranberry Ravioli recipe is self-loathing on a plate. To make it even more depressing, this is for her special “Thanksgiving for Two” episode; but I suppose that just means there’s more gravy to go around. 3. Marbled Mashed Sweet Potatoes For the holiday table that could use a little tye-dyed flair, simply take two of the most common potato side dishes -- mashed and sweet -- and swirl them in a bowl. The result is simultaneously noncommittal and underwhelming (just what your parents say about your partner, right?)  and it’s the antithesis of Bobby’s labor-intensive potatoes below. 4. Grilled Hassleback Sweet Potatoes with Molasses-Nutmeg Butter Now, don’t get me wrong. These potatoes look beautiful, and they taste delicious as well, but only Bobby Flay would suggest a sweet potato side dish that has to be boiled, charcoal grilled and flambé finished, all wrapped with the suggestion to “serve immediately,” as if sweet potatoes are your only holiday meal responsibility. Don’t worry, though. If you spend too much time ensuring that you don’t singe the potatoes (and your eyebrows) and end up turkey-less, Food Network Magazine has you covered. One of their tips for decor includes a $12 inflatable bird complete with this calming sentiment: “No matter how your Thanksgiving dinner turns out, you’re guaranteed to get ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs’ when you walk out of the kitchen with this 16-inch, golden inflatable turkey. Everyone can have a laugh -- and play toss with the imposter -- while you [hopefully] carve the real thing.” 5. Turketta Happy Thanksgiving from Flavortown! No list would be complete without Guy Fieri. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Guy talked about his Thanksgiving menu: “This year I’m stuffing a pork tenderloin inside of a de-boned turkey. So I’ve got a turkey here, I’m taking all the bones out of it and then hitting it with some sausage, fennel, sage, garlic, red chili flakes, and then I’m rolling it up and tying it off and roasting that whole thing. So that should be interesting. I’m calling it a ‘Turketta.’” 6. Cranberry Molds Sandra Lee is basically your perpetually drunk aunt who attempts to mask her crippling alcohol problem by giving her cocktails cutesy little names like the Mayflower Martini and then hides vodka in the cranberry sauce, like in this recipe. 7. Cheddar Soup With Crispy Tortilla Crunch You know how there is always that one person at holiday gatherings who you can’t quite place, and frankly aren’t even sure why they’re in attendance? Rachael Ray’s Cheddar Soup With Crispy Tortilla Crunch recipe, which was featured in her “Thanksgiving in 60 -- 2”  special, is that rando’s culinary equivalent. 8. Mrs. Hoggle’s Stuffed Cranberry Sauce This is a quintessentially Paula Deen recipe from back in the day. Take chilled, jellied cranberry slices and slap a mixture of cream cheese and “good quality mayonnaise” between layers. Delicately garnish with toasted pecans, and enjoy until your your blood sugar spikes and arteries clot in tandem. 9. Deep Fried Cranberry Sauce Fritters What does Paula have against normal cranberry sauce? In this version, instead of slathering the chilled slices with white goo, you dredge them in flour and deep fry them until golden brown. Someone please pass the Lipitor. 10. Not Your Mama’s Green Bean Casserole Do you remember “Party Line With the Hearty Boys,” the show pitched by The Next Food Network Star Season 1 winners Dan Smith and Steve McDonagh? I doubt it; and it’s recipes like this -- featuring a slick of off-gray mushroom sauce and a bird’s nest of “frizzled leeks” -- that probably led to the show’s eventual cancellation.Food Network is the guiding hand for many through the stress of the Thanksgiving meal, but what happens when our trusted culinary guardian angels lead us astray? Let’s take a look back at some of the more perplexing recipes that the network has suggested we make room for on the holiday table. 1. Pumpkin Pie Smoothie Ever reach the point when you are so strung out on tryptophan that you don’t have the energy required to lift a forkful of pie to your mouth? No fear -- Ree Drummond (aka “The Pioneer Woman”) has the perfect solution. Just toss the pie in a blender with milk and yogurt and pulse until it can be sucked through a straw. 2. Turkey and Cranberry Ravioli I’m all for fusion cuisine, but I never thought I’d hear the instructions:  “Drain the ravioli into the gravy and stir to coat.” Giada’s take on the holiday meal seems more like the day after the day after Thanksgiving when you make a sad grab for whatever leftovers are still good and combine them with the pre-Turkey Day remnants stashed in the back in the fridge. It tastes fine, but then you decide to stop kidding yourself and smother it all with gravy because you know you’ve already sized out of your jeans and there’s no way to stop the cycle now. In short, Giada’s Turkey and Cranberry Ravioli recipe is self-loathing on a plate. To make it even more depressing, this is for her special “Thanksgiving for Two” episode; but I suppose that just means there’s more gravy to go around. 3. Marbled Mashed Sweet Potatoes For the holiday table that could use a little tye-dyed flair, simply take two of the most common potato side dishes -- mashed and sweet -- and swirl them in a bowl. The result is simultaneously noncommittal and underwhelming (just what your parents say about your partner, right?)  and it’s the antithesis of Bobby’s labor-intensive potatoes below. 4. Grilled Hassleback Sweet Potatoes with Molasses-Nutmeg Butter Now, don’t get me wrong. These potatoes look beautiful, and they taste delicious as well, but only Bobby Flay would suggest a sweet potato side dish that has to be boiled, charcoal grilled and flambé finished, all wrapped with the suggestion to “serve immediately,” as if sweet potatoes are your only holiday meal responsibility. Don’t worry, though. If you spend too much time ensuring that you don’t singe the potatoes (and your eyebrows) and end up turkey-less, Food Network Magazine has you covered. One of their tips for decor includes a $12 inflatable bird complete with this calming sentiment: “No matter how your Thanksgiving dinner turns out, you’re guaranteed to get ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs’ when you walk out of the kitchen with this 16-inch, golden inflatable turkey. Everyone can have a laugh -- and play toss with the imposter -- while you [hopefully] carve the real thing.” 5. Turketta Happy Thanksgiving from Flavortown! No list would be complete without Guy Fieri. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Guy talked about his Thanksgiving menu: “This year I’m stuffing a pork tenderloin inside of a de-boned turkey. So I’ve got a turkey here, I’m taking all the bones out of it and then hitting it with some sausage, fennel, sage, garlic, red chili flakes, and then I’m rolling it up and tying it off and roasting that whole thing. So that should be interesting. I’m calling it a ‘Turketta.’” 6. Cranberry Molds Sandra Lee is basically your perpetually drunk aunt who attempts to mask her crippling alcohol problem by giving her cocktails cutesy little names like the Mayflower Martini and then hides vodka in the cranberry sauce, like in this recipe. 7. Cheddar Soup With Crispy Tortilla Crunch You know how there is always that one person at holiday gatherings who you can’t quite place, and frankly aren’t even sure why they’re in attendance? Rachael Ray’s Cheddar Soup With Crispy Tortilla Crunch recipe, which was featured in her “Thanksgiving in 60 -- 2”  special, is that rando’s culinary equivalent. 8. Mrs. Hoggle’s Stuffed Cranberry Sauce This is a quintessentially Paula Deen recipe from back in the day. Take chilled, jellied cranberry slices and slap a mixture of cream cheese and “good quality mayonnaise” between layers. Delicately garnish with toasted pecans, and enjoy until your your blood sugar spikes and arteries clot in tandem. 9. Deep Fried Cranberry Sauce Fritters What does Paula have against normal cranberry sauce? In this version, instead of slathering the chilled slices with white goo, you dredge them in flour and deep fry them until golden brown. Someone please pass the Lipitor. 10. Not Your Mama’s Green Bean Casserole Do you remember “Party Line With the Hearty Boys,” the show pitched by The Next Food Network Star Season 1 winners Dan Smith and Steve McDonagh? I doubt it; and it’s recipes like this -- featuring a slick of off-gray mushroom sauce and a bird’s nest of “frizzled leeks” -- that probably led to the show’s eventual cancellation.Food Network is the guiding hand for many through the stress of the Thanksgiving meal, but what happens when our trusted culinary guardian angels lead us astray? Let’s take a look back at some of the more perplexing recipes that the network has suggested we make room for on the holiday table. 1. Pumpkin Pie Smoothie Ever reach the point when you are so strung out on tryptophan that you don’t have the energy required to lift a forkful of pie to your mouth? No fear -- Ree Drummond (aka “The Pioneer Woman”) has the perfect solution. Just toss the pie in a blender with milk and yogurt and pulse until it can be sucked through a straw. 2. Turkey and Cranberry Ravioli I’m all for fusion cuisine, but I never thought I’d hear the instructions:  “Drain the ravioli into the gravy and stir to coat.” Giada’s take on the holiday meal seems more like the day after the day after Thanksgiving when you make a sad grab for whatever leftovers are still good and combine them with the pre-Turkey Day remnants stashed in the back in the fridge. It tastes fine, but then you decide to stop kidding yourself and smother it all with gravy because you know you’ve already sized out of your jeans and there’s no way to stop the cycle now. In short, Giada’s Turkey and Cranberry Ravioli recipe is self-loathing on a plate. To make it even more depressing, this is for her special “Thanksgiving for Two” episode; but I suppose that just means there’s more gravy to go around. 3. Marbled Mashed Sweet Potatoes For the holiday table that could use a little tye-dyed flair, simply take two of the most common potato side dishes -- mashed and sweet -- and swirl them in a bowl. The result is simultaneously noncommittal and underwhelming (just what your parents say about your partner, right?)  and it’s the antithesis of Bobby’s labor-intensive potatoes below. 4. Grilled Hassleback Sweet Potatoes with Molasses-Nutmeg Butter Now, don’t get me wrong. These potatoes look beautiful, and they taste delicious as well, but only Bobby Flay would suggest a sweet potato side dish that has to be boiled, charcoal grilled and flambé finished, all wrapped with the suggestion to “serve immediately,” as if sweet potatoes are your only holiday meal responsibility. Don’t worry, though. If you spend too much time ensuring that you don’t singe the potatoes (and your eyebrows) and end up turkey-less, Food Network Magazine has you covered. One of their tips for decor includes a $12 inflatable bird complete with this calming sentiment: “No matter how your Thanksgiving dinner turns out, you’re guaranteed to get ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs’ when you walk out of the kitchen with this 16-inch, golden inflatable turkey. Everyone can have a laugh -- and play toss with the imposter -- while you [hopefully] carve the real thing.” 5. Turketta Happy Thanksgiving from Flavortown! No list would be complete without Guy Fieri. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Guy talked about his Thanksgiving menu: “This year I’m stuffing a pork tenderloin inside of a de-boned turkey. So I’ve got a turkey here, I’m taking all the bones out of it and then hitting it with some sausage, fennel, sage, garlic, red chili flakes, and then I’m rolling it up and tying it off and roasting that whole thing. So that should be interesting. I’m calling it a ‘Turketta.’” 6. Cranberry Molds Sandra Lee is basically your perpetually drunk aunt who attempts to mask her crippling alcohol problem by giving her cocktails cutesy little names like the Mayflower Martini and then hides vodka in the cranberry sauce, like in this recipe. 7. Cheddar Soup With Crispy Tortilla Crunch You know how there is always that one person at holiday gatherings who you can’t quite place, and frankly aren’t even sure why they’re in attendance? Rachael Ray’s Cheddar Soup With Crispy Tortilla Crunch recipe, which was featured in her “Thanksgiving in 60 -- 2”  special, is that rando’s culinary equivalent. 8. Mrs. Hoggle’s Stuffed Cranberry Sauce This is a quintessentially Paula Deen recipe from back in the day. Take chilled, jellied cranberry slices and slap a mixture of cream cheese and “good quality mayonnaise” between layers. Delicately garnish with toasted pecans, and enjoy until your your blood sugar spikes and arteries clot in tandem. 9. Deep Fried Cranberry Sauce Fritters What does Paula have against normal cranberry sauce? In this version, instead of slathering the chilled slices with white goo, you dredge them in flour and deep fry them until golden brown. Someone please pass the Lipitor. 10. Not Your Mama’s Green Bean Casserole Do you remember “Party Line With the Hearty Boys,” the show pitched by The Next Food Network Star Season 1 winners Dan Smith and Steve McDonagh? I doubt it; and it’s recipes like this -- featuring a slick of off-gray mushroom sauce and a bird’s nest of “frizzled leeks” -- that probably led to the show’s eventual cancellation.

Continue Reading...