Wednesday, November 23, 2022

PICTURE PERFECT/Not a place for Culture War...A Yellowstone National Park Historian has something to say

Kevin Costner’s Yellowstone Doc for Fox Has a Lot of Wrong Ideas About History

Americans of all political affiliations could come together in a place like Yellowstone. That's maybe if everyone understood the park’s actual history, our collective experience there would be enriched. But Fox, true to form, has brought the culture wars to Yellowstone. And I’m not sure that even the cutest of river otters can extricate us from it. . .Costner and John Dutton seem to share a conviction that the fictional and actual West, and all of the pioneers living in it, in the past and the present, are “the little guys,” enraged and beset by Big Capital, Big Government, and, as Costner puts it, other “powerful people who wanted the land for themselves.” It’s a bit shocking to hear these words come out of the actor’s mouth; it felt like John Dutton had taken over the role as host.



Kevin Costner’s Yellowstone Doc for Fox Has a Lot of Wrong Ideas About History

The federal government created this beautiful park. Guess who doesn’t want to admit it?

BY MEGAN KATE NELSON

NOV 22, 20226:00 PM

Kevin Costner in front of some beautiful mountains. 

Fox Nation

Kevin Costner’s new four-part docuseries, Yellowstone: One-Fifty (now streaming on Fox’s paid service, Fox Nation) has the best qualities of nature documentaries: a charismatic host, adorable animals, and lush landscapes. Yellowstone: One-Fifty, made in celebration of Yellowstone National Park’s 150th anniversary this year, claims to be rooted in the park’s history. “I started to look into it,” Costner intones in the first episode. “It’s just an amazing story.”


After watching all four episodes of the series, I (a historian of Yellowstone) am also amazed, but not in a good way.

Yellowstone: One-Fifty’s narrative about the founding of the park focuses on the scientist Ferdinand Hayden’s exploration of Yellowstone in the summer of 1871. This attention is sustained throughout the series, and is rooted in historical research. Viewers know this because Costner mentions two journals and ten letters—out of the many more sources the expedition left behind—several times, and quotes from them often.

Despite this use of documents, the historical story the series tells is almost entirely untrue. Yellowstone: One-Fifty creates a “David and Goliath” narrative of the founding of Yellowstone National Park, perfect for people who pay Fox for a premium streaming service that also offers extra Tucker Carlson, a whole bunch of Cops, and history shows anchored by Brian Kilmeade and Mark Fuhrman.

Costner is not just a narrator. He takes an active role in each episode, driving into the park to snowshoe, hike, and cook over a campfire. He wants to “walk in the shadow of the pioneers, following the trail they blazed.” If you watch Paramount’s smash hit series Yellowstone, it won’t be strange for you to see Costner out in the Rocky Mountains in his boots and puffy jackets, stepping out of trucks and waxing contemplative about the landscape. That show, now in its fifth season, tells the story of John Dutton (Costner) and his family, ranchers who have lived in Montana for many generations, running cattle in a ridiculously beautiful valley and defending their land and the Dutton legacy against all comers.

Yellowstone (the show)’s relationship to Yellowstone (the park) is merely geographical—the fictional ranch abuts the park. A developing Season 5 conflict with the park’s wolves aside, the Duttons’ enemies tend to be much more powerful entities than the National Park Service. Despite this, Costner’s appeal as a narrator-host of the docuseries is intimately connected to his role as the conservative reactionary John Dutton.


Costner is much more affable and relaxed, as a screen presence in Yellowstone: One-Fifty, than the permanently miserable Dutton. He makes jokes and tells stories about his childhood in California. Sometimes he turns and makes comments to a cameraman. And while the actor has been open about his more-liberal-than-the-Duttons political beliefs (he says he votes Independent), Costner and John Dutton seem to share a conviction that the fictional and actual West, and all of the pioneers living in it, in the past and the present, are “the little guys,” enraged and beset by Big Capital, Big Government, and, as Costner puts it, other “powerful people who wanted the land for themselves.” It’s a bit shocking to hear these words come out of the actor’s mouth; it felt like John Dutton had taken over the role as host.


Viewers of Yellowstone: One-Fifty will see all of Yellowstone’s iconic sites: the Lower Falls, Grand Prismatic Spring, Old Faithful, the Lamar Valley. The natural and animal footage throughout the series is gorgeous: colorful and vivid. You get to see wolves running in packs, bison snuffling around for grass to eat, and river otters cavorting, because that is what river otters do. The music is melodramatic, full of swelling violins and crashing cymbals.


All episodes contain these traditional nature documentary scenes intercut with segments in which Costner fishes or hikes or sits by a cabin’s roaring fire in a black sweater. Any time the camera comes back to him, you know it’s time for some history. It is the series’ central contention that the U.S. Congress initially sent Hayden’s team to Yellowstone to “tear it to shreds in the name of progress.” But during the expedition, Costner argues, Yellowstone changed Hayden. So he began to lobby for the creation of a national park. “And that’s why it’s still here,” Costner says, staring pensively at glorious, snow-packed mountains.


Like much of the historical content in Yellowstone: One-Fifty, this story has some truth to it. Costner is right that Hayden was not, initially, an environmentalist. He was in the U.S. West, as all federal surveyors were at this time, to determine if white Americans could farm, ranch, or mine the land. But the truth is that Hayden never really became an environmentalist at all. His Yellowstone expedition did convince him that its geothermal region was unique in all the world, and that he needed to return to conduct more scientific studies of it. But he and his team members never indicated in his communications from the field that he believed Yellowstone should become a national park. That idea did not come from him, but from Big Capital.


Jay Cooke, a wealthy investment banker who was heading up the financing of the Northern Pacific Railroad, had his PR man write to Hayden just as the scientist was returning home from Yellowstone. Cooke had been discussing the Hayden expedition with a political ally and had a suggestion: “Let Congress pass a bill reserving the Great Geyser Basin as a public park forever.” If Hayden agreed this was a good idea, the letter said, perhaps it would be appropriate for the scientist to mention it in his official report of the survey.


America’s “best idea,” therefore, was not, as Costner says in Episode 3 (“Rebirth”), “a battle between the regular guy against the impossibly huge behemoth that is the United States Government.” The idea came from a businessman who wanted to bring tourists to the region. And Hayden was more than happy to lobby for it; a preserved Yellowstone would provide him with a scientific laboratory in perpetuity.


Yellowstone: One-Fifty sidesteps the truth, which is that Hayden’s survey was an unabashedly federal project. He had Congressional funding and orders from the Department of the Interior. He and his team took the transcontinental railroad (the existence of which was the end result of another federal project) to Utah to begin the survey. He had a 2nd Cavalry protective detail out of Fort Ellis (a federal installation). His Yellowstone survey report was printed and distributed by the Government Printing Office.


And then there was the passage of the Yellowstone Act itself. The legislators who voted against it were conservatives, long-standing Democrats (the parties were flipped back then, remember) who objected to the Act’s federal overreach, and to what they saw as its violation of white settler land rights. Costner doesn’t mention the vote at all, or why Hayden was able to lobby Congress so successfully for the passage of the Act. Most liberal Republicans were already in favor of it. They had voted to give Hayden money to explore Yellowstone, and some of them had sent their sons along to work as expedition assistants.


This is not a narrative that would appeal to a Fox Nation audience, of course. Viewers who pay for Fox’s streaming channel want to gaze in wonder at the Lower Falls and Mammoth Hot Springs, but they don’t want to admit that they are able to do so because the American federal government has actually done some amazing, world-changing things in its long history. They would much rather believe the fictitious story that Yellowstone: One-Fifty sells, about Hayden single-handedly fighting the powers that be and winning one for the common man.


Although Taylor Sheridan, Yellowstone’s creator, had nothing to do with this project, this docuseries, along with the Sheridan shows 1883 and the forthcoming 1923, belong in something my friend Ben Railton has called the “Yellowstone Cinematic Universe.” They are modern westerns, shows that present people in the market for such a thing with a comforting view of a valiant white settler past in the U.S. West. Although these shows often give voice to Indigenous characters, they nonetheless allow people with a conservative bent to claim the pioneer myth (and its related historical uber-narratives, the American Dream and Westward Expansion) for themselves.


As a historian, I have come to expect that shady history undergirds many (most?) TV shows and films. But for a docuseries like Yellowstone: One-Fifty to make such bold historical claims while mixing them with a few actually true facts is insidious. I’m not the first to hope that perhaps Americans of all political affiliations could come together in a place like Yellowstone. That maybe if everyone understood the park’s actual history, our collective experience there would be enriched. But Fox, true to form, has brought the culture wars to Yellowstone. And I’m not sure that even the cutest of river otters can extricate us from it.


TWEET

SHARE

COMMENT

Fox News

Western

Montana

Wyoming

Tuesday, November 22, 2022

NO TRAUMA DUMP HERE

 

arstechnica.com

When diplomacy fails: After gifts, Teotihuacan turned on Maya cities

by Kiona N. Smith - Nov 22, 2022 5:26 pm UTC
3 - 4 minutes

The monkey is the oldest known captive, exported primate in Mesoamerica.

Spider monkeys don’t live anywhere near the central Mexican highlands, including the area around what’s now Mexico City, once the home of Teotihuacan. So when University of California, Riverside, archaeologist Nawa Sugiyama and her colleagues found the 1,700-year-old skeleton of one buried alongside other offerings in a pyramid in the city’s ceremonial center, they knew it must have come from far afield—such as somewhere in the territory of what was then a neighboring political power, the Maya. And the little primate hints at a previously unsuspected history of diplomatic links between Teotihuacan’s rulers and Maya kingdoms further south.

A diplomatic gift

Sugiyama and her colleagues found the skeleton interred as part of a ritual offering deep inside one of the three pyramids that make up the Plaza of the Columns complex in the ceremonial district of ancient Teotihuacan. It was found alongside a trove of jade figurines that were traced by their chemical makeup to the Motagua Valley in what’s now central Guatemala. There were also finely worked obsidian blades and shell ornaments, along with the remains of other animal sacrifices, including an eagle, a puma, and several rattlesnakes.

No primates (other than humans) live in the region around what’s now Mexico City, and a spider monkey would have been “an exotic curiosity, alien to the high elevations of Teotihuacan,” as Sugiyama and her colleagues describe it in their paper.

Sugiyama and her colleagues say the ill-fated monkey was probably part of a gift to the Teotihuacan’s rulers from a neighboring Maya kingdom. And although the monkey was captured and brought to Teotihuacan as a sacrifice, evidence in its bones and teeth suggests that it spent at least a couple of years in the city first. Sugiyama and her colleagues suggest it was likely on public display—allowing Teotihuacan’s rulers to show off how their prestige and power had brought the city such a rare gift.

It was, more or less, the ancient version of China’s gift of two pandas, Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing, to the US in 1972, say Sugiyama and her colleagues.

“As millions of tourists celebrated the life of Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing at the National Zoo, the gift of the spider monkey who likely resided, and thus was observed by the public, at the Plaza of the Columns complex held important sociopolitical implications,” they wrote. Of course, Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing didn’t get buried alive in a pyramid at the end of their tenure at the National Zoo—but, well, cultural differences.

Bones from the monkey and the other sacrifices radiocarbon dated to between 250 and 300 CE. That makes the spider monkey the oldest evidence of diplomatic ties between the Teotihuacan and the Maya, and it could upend what historians know about relations between the two powers.

Kiona N. Smith / Kiona is a freelance science journalist and resident archaeology nerd at Ars Technica.

arstechnica.com

When diplomacy fails: After gifts, Teotihuacan turned on Maya cities

by Kiona N. Smith - Nov 22, 2022 5:26 pm UTC
3 - 4 minutes

The monkey is the oldest known captive, exported primate in Mesoamerica.

Spider monkeys don’t live anywhere near the central Mexican highlands, including the area around what’s now Mexico City, once the home of Teotihuacan. So when University of California, Riverside, archaeologist Nawa Sugiyama and her colleagues found the 1,700-year-old skeleton of one buried alongside other offerings in a pyramid in the city’s ceremonial center, they knew it must have come from far afield—such as somewhere in the territory of what was then a neighboring political power, the Maya. And the little primate hints at a previously unsuspected history of diplomatic links between Teotihuacan’s rulers and Maya kingdoms further south.

A diplomatic gift

Sugiyama and her colleagues found the skeleton interred as part of a ritual offering deep inside one of the three pyramids that make up the Plaza of the Columns complex in the ceremonial district of ancient Teotihuacan. It was found alongside a trove of jade figurines that were traced by their chemical makeup to the Motagua Valley in what’s now central Guatemala. There were also finely worked obsidian blades and shell ornaments, along with the remains of other animal sacrifices, including an eagle, a puma, and several rattlesnakes.

No primates (other than humans) live in the region around what’s now Mexico City, and a spider monkey would have been “an exotic curiosity, alien to the high elevations of Teotihuacan,” as Sugiyama and her colleagues describe it in their paper.

Sugiyama and her colleagues say the ill-fated monkey was probably part of a gift to the Teotihuacan’s rulers from a neighboring Maya kingdom. And although the monkey was captured and brought to Teotihuacan as a sacrifice, evidence in its bones and teeth suggests that it spent at least a couple of years in the city first. Sugiyama and her colleagues suggest it was likely on public display—allowing Teotihuacan’s rulers to show off how their prestige and power had brought the city such a rare gift.

It was, more or less, the ancient version of China’s gift of two pandas, Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing, to the US in 1972, say Sugiyama and her colleagues.

“As millions of tourists celebrated the life of Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing at the National Zoo, the gift of the spider monkey who likely resided, and thus was observed by the public, at the Plaza of the Columns complex held important sociopolitical implications,” they wrote. Of course, Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing didn’t get buried alive in a pyramid at the end of their tenure at the National Zoo—but, well, cultural differences.

Bones from the monkey and the other sacrifices radiocarbon dated to between 250 and 300 CE. That makes the spider monkey the oldest evidence of diplomatic ties between the Teotihuacan and the Maya, and it could upend what historians know about relations between the two powers.

Kiona N. Smith / Kiona is a freelance science journalist and resident archaeology nerd at Ars Technica.

arstechnica.com

When diplomacy fails: After gifts, Teotihuacan turned on Maya cities

by Kiona N. Smith - Nov 22, 2022 5:26 pm UTC
3 - 4 minutes

The monkey is the oldest known captive, exported primate in Mesoamerica.

Spider monkeys don’t live anywhere near the central Mexican highlands, including the area around what’s now Mexico City, once the home of Teotihuacan. So when University of California, Riverside, archaeologist Nawa Sugiyama and her colleagues found the 1,700-year-old skeleton of one buried alongside other offerings in a pyramid in the city’s ceremonial center, they knew it must have come from far afield—such as somewhere in the territory of what was then a neighboring political power, the Maya. And the little primate hints at a previously unsuspected history of diplomatic links between Teotihuacan’s rulers and Maya kingdoms further south.

A diplomatic gift

Sugiyama and her colleagues found the skeleton interred as part of a ritual offering deep inside one of the three pyramids that make up the Plaza of the Columns complex in the ceremonial district of ancient Teotihuacan. It was found alongside a trove of jade figurines that were traced by their chemical makeup to the Motagua Valley in what’s now central Guatemala. There were also finely worked obsidian blades and shell ornaments, along with the remains of other animal sacrifices, including an eagle, a puma, and several rattlesnakes.


No primates (other than humans) live in the region around what’s now Mexico City, and a spider monkey would have been “an exotic curiosity, alien to the high elevations of Teotihuacan,” as Sugiyama and her colleagues describe it in their paper.

Sugiyama and her colleagues say the ill-fated monkey was probably part of a gift to the Teotihuacan’s rulers from a neighboring Maya kingdom. And although the monkey was captured and brought to Teotihuacan as a sacrifice, evidence in its bones and teeth suggests that it spent at least a couple of years in the city first. Sugiyama and her colleagues suggest it was likely on public display—allowing Teotihuacan’s rulers to show off how their prestige and power had brought the city such a rare gift.

It was, more or less, the ancient version of China’s gift of two pandas, Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing, to the US in 1972, say Sugiyama and her colleagues.

“As millions of tourists celebrated the life of Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing at the National Zoo, the gift of the spider monkey who likely resided, and thus was observed by the public, at the Plaza of the Columns complex held important sociopolitical implications,” they wrote. Of course, Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing didn’t get buried alive in a pyramid at the end of their tenure at the National Zoo—but, well, cultural differences.

Bones from the monkey and the other sacrifices radiocarbon dated to between 250 and 300 CE. That makes the spider monkey the oldest evidence of diplomatic ties between the Teotihuacan and the Maya, and it could upend what historians know about relations between the two powers.

 READ MORE

Kiona N. Smith / Kiona is a freelance science journalist and resident archaeology nerd at Ars Technica.

How Common is Infidelity? [lots of space left open. . . . . . . . . . . . . that's for sure!]

 There's cheating - and then there's. . . Micro cheating is the term used to describe behaviors that aren't traditionally considered true infidelity, but that have some features of infidelity, like dishonesty and secrecy while in a committed relationship.

 

People also search for

Psychological facts about cheating woman

bigthink.com

1 in 3 people cheat. Here’s what to do if you’re the 1.

2 minutes

Who's in the Video 

Video for 1 in 3 people cheat. Here’s what to do if you’re the 1.
Duration: 4:37
Posted: Nov 13, 2022

 

Michael Slepian is the Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Associate Professor of Leadership and Ethics at Columbia University. A recipient of the Rising Star Award from the Association for Psychological[…]

Should you confess to cheating? A Columbia ethics professor explains.

About one-third of people have committed infidelity at some point in their lives. If you’re one of them, should you confess it to your romantic partner?

One way to answer the question is to consider whether you would want to know if your partner had cheated on you. Surveys show that 77% of people would want to know, but that still leaves about a quarter of us who would prefer ignorance. It’s also worth questioning your own motives: Maybe you only want to get the secret off your chest to make yourself feel better.

It’s a difficult dilemma with no one-size-fits-all solution. But fortunately, as psychologist Michael Slepian explained to Big Think, recent research has revealed insights into the nature of secrets, what happens when we harbor them, and how and when we should consider revealing them.

 bigthink.com 1 in 3 people cheat. Here’s what to do if you’re the 1. 2 minutes  Who's in the Video  Michael Slepian is the Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Associate Professor of Leadership and Ethics at Columbia University. A recipient of the Rising Star Award from the Association for Psychological[…]  Should you confess to cheating? A Columbia ethics professor explains.  About one-third of people have committed infidelity at some point in their lives. If you’re one of them, should you confess it to your romantic partner?  One way to answer the question is to consider whether you would want to know if your partner had cheated on you. Surveys show that 77% of people would want to know, but that still leaves about a quarter of us who would prefer ignorance. It’s also worth questioning your own motives: Maybe you only want to get the secret off your chest to make yourself feel better.  It’s a difficult dilemma with no one-size-fits-all solution. But fortunately, as psychologist Michael Slepian explained to Big Think, recent research has revealed insights into the nature of secrets, what happens when we harbor them, and how and when we should consider revealing them.

El-Erian: Long and Variable Lags, Fast Hikes + Things Out-of-Balance

". . . The longer households, companies, and governments fail to recognize and respond to the structural shifts taking place in the global economic and financial system, the harder it will be to mitigate the risks and to seize the opportunities associated with these changes. The world isn’t just teetering on the brink of another recession. It is in midst of a profound economic and financial shift...



 

 

Mohamed A. El-Erian ... is Chief Economic Advisor at Allianz, the corporate parent of PIMCO where he formerly served as chief executive and co-chief investment ...

www.foreignaffairs.com

Not Just Another Recession


 

By Mohamed A. El-Erian November 22, 2022
14 - 18 minutes

"To say that the last few years have been economically turbulent would be a colossal understatement. Inflation has surged to its highest level in decades, and a combination of geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions, and rising interest rates now threatens to plunge the global economy into recession. Yet for the most part, economists and financial analysts have treated these developments as outgrowths of the normal business cycle. From the U.S. Federal Reserve’s initial misjudgment that inflation would be “transitory” to the current consensus that a probable U.S. recession will be “short and shallow,” there has been a strong tendency to see economic challenges as both temporary and quickly reversible.


But rather than one more turn of the economic wheel, the world may be experiencing major structural and secular changes that will outlast the current business cycle. Three new trends in particular hint at such a transformation and are likely to play an important role in shaping economic outcomes over the next few years: the shift from insufficient demand to insufficient supply as a major multi-year drag on growth, the end of boundless liquidity from central banks, and the increasing fragility of financial markets. 

 

These shifts help to explain many of the unusual economic developments of the last few years, and they are likely to drive even more uncertainty in the future as shocks grow more frequent and more violent. These changes will affect individuals, companies, and governments—economically, socially, and politically. And until analysts wake up to the probability that these trends will outlast the next business cycle, the economic hardship they cause is likely to significantly outweigh the opportunities they create.


DOWN IS UP

Recessions and bouts of inflation come and go, but the last few years have seen a series of highly unlikely, if not unthinkable, global economic and financial developments. The United States, once a champion of free trade, became the most protectionist advanced economy. The United Kingdom suddenly devolved into something resembling a struggling developing country after an ill-fated mini-budget weakened the currency, pushed bond yields skyward, triggered a “negative watch” designation from ratings agencies, and forced Prime Minister Liz Truss to resign. Borrowing costs increased sharply as interest rates on more than a third of global bonds went negative (creating an abnormal situation in which creditors pay debtors). Russia’s war in Ukraine paralyzed the G20, accelerating what had previously been a gradual weakening of the institution. And some Western nations have weaponized the international payments system that is the backbone of the global economy in an effort to punish Moscow.

Add to this list of low-probability events China’s rapid recentralization under Xi Jinping and its decoupling from the United States, the strengthening of autocracies around the world, and the polarization and even fragmentation of many liberal democracies. Climate change, demographic shifts, and the gradual migration of economic power from west to east were more foreseeable but have nonetheless complicated the global economic environment.

The inclination of many analysts has been to seek bespoke explanations for each surprising development. But there are important common threads, especially among the economic and financial events, including the failure to generate rapid, inclusive, and sustainable growth; the overreliance of policymakers on a narrow toolkit that over time has created more problems than it has solved; and the absence of common action to address shared global problems. These commonalities, in turn, mostly (although not entirely) boil down to the three transformational changes occurring in the global economy and finance.


WORLD REWIRED

Coming out of the 2007–8 global financial crisis, most economists blamed sluggish economic growth on lack of demand. The U.S. government sought to rectify this problem through stimulus spending (although polarization in Congress constrained this approach from 2011 to 2017) and, more importantly, through the Fed’s decision to floor interest rates and inject a massive amount of liquidity into the markets. The approach was put on steroids, first by the Trump administration’s spending and tax cuts and then by the emergency support doled out by both the Trump and Biden administrations to households and companies during the COVID-19 pandemic—all while the Federal Reserve flooded the system with cash.

But unbeknown to many, the global economy was undergoing a major structural change that was making supply rather than demand the real problem. At first, this change was driven by the effects of COVID-19. It is not easy to jump-start a global economy that has been forced to a sudden halt. Shipping containers are in the wrong place, as are the ships themselves. Not all production comes back online in a coordinated manner. Supply chains are disrupted. And thanks to enormous handouts from governments and abundant central bank liquidity, demand surges well ahead of supply.

Already-challenged growth models are coming under even greater stress.

As time passed, however, it became clear that the supply constraints stemmed from more than just the pandemic. Certain segments of the population exited the labor force at unusually high rates, either by choice or necessity, making it harder for companies to find workers. This problem was compounded by disruptions in global labor flows as fewer foreign workers received visas or were willing to migrate. Faced with these and other constraints, companies began to prioritize making their operations more resilient, not just more efficient. Meanwhile, governments intensified their weaponization of trade, investment, and payment sanctions—a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and worsening tensions between the United States and China. Such changes accelerated the post-pandemic rewiring of global supply chains to aim for more “friend-shoring” and “near-shoring.”

This is not the only rewiring underway. Climate change is finally forcing companies, households, and governments to alter their behavior. Given the dangers facing the planet, there is no choice but to evolve away from destructive practices. The unsustainability of the present path is clear, as is the desirability of a green economy. But the transition will be complicated, not least because the interests of countries and companies are not yet sufficiently aligned on this issue and the necessary international cooperation has been lacking.

The bottom line is that changes in the nature of globalization, widespread labor shortages, and the imperatives of climate change have created supply difficulties and put already-challenged growth models under even more stress.


SCRAMBLING CENTRAL BANKS

Making matters worse, these changes in the global economic landscape come at the same time that central banks are fundamentally altering their approach. For years, central banks in major economies have responded to virtually any sign of economic weakness or market volatility by throwing more money at the problem. After all, by necessity more than by choice, they had been forced to use their admittedly imperfect tools to maintain economic stability until governments could overcome political polarization and step in to do their jobs.

But the longer central banks extended what was meant to be a time-limited intervention—buying bonds for cash and keeping interest rates artificially low—the more collateral damage they caused. Liquidity-charged financial markets decoupled from the real economy, which reaped only limited benefits from these policies. The rich, who own the vast majority of assets, became richer, and markets became conditioned to think of central banks as their best friends, always there to curtail market volatility. Eventually, markets started to react negatively to even hints of a reduction in central bank support, effectively holding central banks hostage and preventing them from ensuring the health of the economy as a whole.

All this changed with the surge in inflation that began in the first half of 2021. Initially misdiagnosing the problem as transitory, the Fed made the mistake of enabling mainly energy and food price hikes to explode into a broad-based cost-of-living phenomenon. Despite mounting evidence that inflation would not go away on its own, the Fed continued to pump liquidity into the economy until March 2022, when it finally began raising interest rates—and only modestly at first.

But by then inflation had surged above 7 percent and the Fed had backed itself into a corner. As a result, it was forced to pivot to a series of much steeper rate hikes, including a record four successive increases of 0.75 percentage points between June and November. Markets recognized that that the Fed was scrambling make up for lost time and started worrying that it would keep rates higher for longer than would be good for the economy. The result was financial market volatility that, if sustained, could threaten the functioning of global financial markets and further damage the economy.

RISKY BUSINESS

The conditioning of markets to always expect easy money had another perverse effect, encouraging a significant chunk of global financial activity to migrate from highly regulated banks to less well understood and regulated entities such as asset managers, private equity funds, and hedge funds. These entities did what they are paid to do: take advantage of prevailing financial conditions to turn a profit. That meant taking on more debt and leverage, venturing further from their areas of expertise, and running ever greater risks on the assumption that easy money and reliable central bank support would persist well into the future.

Few of these firms planned for a sudden change in the cost of borrowing or access to funding. An extreme example of the kind of shock that ensued was the October 2022 near financial meltdown in the United Kingdom. After Truss announced a plan for large unfunded tax cuts, government bond yields surged, catching some of the country’s highly levered pension funds by surprise. If it weren’t for an emergency intervention by the Bank of England, a U-turn by the Truss government, and the prime minister’s eventual ouster, the bond selloff could have spiraled into a major financial crisis and ultimately an even more painful recession.

The fragility of the financial system also complicates the job of central banks. Instead of facing their normal dilemma—how to reduce inflation without harming economic growth and employment—the Fed now faces a trilemma: how to reduce inflation, protect growth and jobs, and ensure financial stability. There is no easy way to do all three, especially with inflation so high.

BUMPY ROAD, BETTER DESTINATION

These major structural changes go a long way toward explaining why growth is slowing in most of the world, inflation remains high, financial markets are unstable, and a surging dollar and interest rates have caused headaches in so many countries. Unfortunately, these changes also mean that global economic and financial outcomes are becoming harder to predict with a high degree of confidence. Instead of planning for one likely outcome—a baseline—companies and governments now have to plan for many possible outcomes. And some of these outcomes are likely to have a cascading effect, so that one bad event has a high probability of being followed by another. In such a world, good decision-making is difficult and mistakes are easily made.  

Fortunately, what it takes to navigate such a world is not a secret. Resilience, optionality, and agility are all vital. Resilience, or the ability to bounce back from setbacks, is often dependent on strong balance sheets and stamina, endurance, and integrity. Optionality, which enables a change in course at a low cost, is underpinned by the open-mindedness that comes from diversity in gender, race, culture, or experience. And agility, or the ability to react quickly to changing conditions, depends on leadership and governance that allow for bold moves in moments of greater clarity.

This trifecta of resilience, optionality, and agility will not insulate companies and households from all the economic and financial bumps that lie ahead. But it will significantly enhance their ability to navigate those bumps and increase the probability that they will wind up at a better destination—one that is more inclusive, climate-friendly, and collaborative and a lot less reliant on a distorted and precarious finance.

For national governments and central banks, the goal should be to minimize accidents along this journey and improve the odds that everyone winds up in a better place. Policy priorities should include modernizing infrastructure to help increase supply, improving labor training and retooling programs, and launching public-private partnerships to meet pressing needs such as vaccine development. At the same time, governments and central banks should keep fighting inflation and improve the coordination of fiscal policy, monetary policy, and structural reforms that enhance productivity and growth.

Economic and financial outcomes are becoming harder to predict.

Governments should also improve supervision and regulation of non-bank financial entities, which will require gaining a much better understanding of the technical linkages between them, the implicit leverage that lurks off their balance sheets, and the channels through which risk can spread to the broader financial system. Finally, governments should put in place stronger safety nets to protect the most vulnerable segments of society, which time and again have been the most exposed to economic and financial shocks.

Such efforts will need to extend to the multilateral level. Governments will need to work together to reform international financial institutions, pool insurance against common shocks, enhance early warning systems, preemptively restructure the debts of countries laboring under heavy debt overhangs that starve their social sectors and inhibit capacity-building, and improve the functioning of the G20.

This is a tall order, but a feasible one. The longer households, companies, and governments fail to recognize and respond to the structural shifts taking place in the global economic and financial system, the harder it will be to mitigate the risks and to seize the opportunities associated with these changes. The world isn’t just teetering on the brink of another recession. It is in midst of a profound economic and financial shift. Recognizing this shift and learning to navigate it will be essential if the world is to arrive at a better destination."

 

Data Protection WatchDog: Europol Ordered to Delete Mass Surveillance Data

Intro: Data protection advocates say the volume of information held on Europol’s systems amounts to mass surveillance and is a step on its road to becoming a European counterpart to the US National Security Agency (NSA), the organisation whose clandestine online spying was revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.


 

The unprecedented finding from the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) targets what privacy experts are calling a “big data ark” containing billions of points of information. The watchdog ordered Europol to erase data held for more than six months and gave it a year to sort out what could be lawfully kept.

✓ Reporting for this investigation was supported by a grant from the IJ4EU fund and in collaboration with Lighthouse Reports

The confrontation pits the EU data protection watchdog against a powerful security agency being primed to become the centre of machine learning and AI in policing.

 

A data ‘black hole’: Europol ordered to delete vast store of personal data 



Apostolis Fotiadis
15 - 19 minutes

The EU’s police agency, Europol, will be forced to delete much of a vast store of personal data that it has been found to have amassed unlawfully by the bloc’s data protection watchdog. The unprecedented finding from the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) targets what privacy experts are calling a “big data ark” containing billions of points of information. Sensitive data in the ark has been drawn from crime reports, hacked from encrypted phone services and sampled from asylum seekers never involved in any crime.

According to internal documents seen by the Guardian, Europol’s cache contains at least 4 petabytes – equivalent to 3m CD-Roms or a fifth of the entire contents of the US Library of Congress. Data protection advocates say the volume of information held on Europol’s systems amounts to mass surveillance. . .



✓ In theory, Europol is subject to tight regulation over what kinds of personal data it can store and for how long. Incoming records are meant to be strictly categorised and only processed or retained when they have potential relevance to high-value work such as counter-terrorism. But the full contents of what it holds are unknown, in part because of the haphazard way that EDPS found Europol to be treating data.


Only a handful of Europeans have become aware that their own data is being stored and none is known to have been able to force disclosure. . .

The tussle that followed is captured in a series of internal documents obtained under freedom of information laws. They show Europol stalling for time and the watchdog telling them that they have failed to resolve “the legal breach”. The police agency appears to be holding out for new EU legislation to provide retrospective cover for what it has been doing without a legal basis for six years.

The European Commission’s nervousness over a public clash was enough to pull Monique Pariat, the EU’s director general for home affairs, into a meeting between the two agencies in December 2021. Sources said the watchdog had been encouraged to “tone down” its public criticism of Europol.

But the head of EDPS, Wojciech Wiewiórowski, told the Guardian that the meeting was “the last moment for Europol to add some information that wasn’t added in their last replies to our letter”.

As the meeting did nothing to answer Wiewiórowski’s concerns on lawful retention of data “there was no other way to solve the problem, for us” he said, “than to issue a decision to erase the data which is over six months”.

Niovi Vavoula, a legal expert at Queen Mary University of London, said: “The new legislation is actually an effort to game the system. Europol and the commission have been attempting an ex-post rectification of illegally retaining data for years. But putting new rules in place does not legally resolve previously illegal conduct. This is not how the rule of law works.”

Experts’ concerns are not confined to Europol’s flouting of rules on data retention. They also see a law enforcement agency that aspires to conduct mass surveillance operations.

Members of the civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee of the European parliament during a hearing in June 2021 compared the agency to the NSA. Wiewiórowski surprised attenders by endorsing the comparison in relation to Europol’s practice of retaining data. He pointed out that Europol was using similar arguments to those used by the NSA to defend bulk data collection operations and mass surveillance as revealed by Snowden.

“What the NSA said to Europeans after the Prism scandal started was that they are not processing the data, they are just collecting it and they will process it only in case it is necessary for the investigation they are doing,” Wiewiórowski told MEPs. “This is something that doesn’t comply with the European approach to processing personal data.”

Eric Topfer, a surveillance expert at the German Institute for Human Rights, has studied the proposed new Europol regulation and said it foresees the agency pulling in data directly from banks, airlines, private companies and emails. “If Europol will only have to ask for certain kinds of information to have them served on a silver platter, then we are moving closer to having an NSA-like agency.”


The struggle with EDPS over data storage is the latest evidence of Europol favouring technosolutions to security concerns over privacy rights. Europol’s boss, previously Belgium’s top cop, co-wrote an op-ed in July 2021 which argued that the needs of law enforcement agencies to extract evidence from smartphones should trump privacy considerations. The article argues for a legal right to the keys to all encryption services.

No mention was made of Pegasus spyware revelations that showed that many governments, including some in Europe, were actively attempting to intercept the communications of human rights defenders, journalists and lawyers for whom encryption offers their only protection.

Europol’s boss, Catherine de Bolle
Europol’s boss, Catherine de Bolle, has argued that the needs of law enforcement agencies to extract evidence from smart phones should trump privacy considerations. Photograph: Sem van der Wal/ANP/AFP/Getty Images

In 2020, Europol trumpeted its involvement together with French and Dutch police in hacking the encrypted phone service EncroChat, unleashing a torrent of personal data into the ark. When the secret operation was revealed by Europol and its judicial counterpart, Eurojust, it was hailed as one of the biggest successes in battling organised crime in Europe’s history. In the UK alone, about 2,600 people were taken into custody by August 2021 and Nikki Holland, the director of investigations at the UK National Crime Agency, compared the hack to “having an inside person in every top organised crime group in the country”.

Europol copied the data extracted from 120m EncroChat messages and tens of millions of call recordings, pictures and notes, then parcelled it out to national police forces. The flood of evidence of drug trafficking and other offences drowned out qualms about the implications of the operation. The hacking operation that turned EncroChat phones into mobile spies acting against their users has important similarities with surveillance malware such as Pegasus.

Lawyers from Germany, France, Sweden, Ireland, the UK, Norway and the Netherlands, all representing clients caught up in the aftermath, met in Utrecht in November 2021. They found that cases were being built across Europe based on evidence of which authorities were unwilling to reveal the provenance. “Investigators and prosecutors were hiding or deforming the facts,” said the German attorney Christian Lödden. “We all agree that these are not the best people in the world, but what are we ready to sacrifice in order to convict one more person?”

 


French lawyer Robin Binsard is convinced that the whole operation amounts to mass surveillance. He said: “Dismantling a whole communication system is like the police searching all the apartments in a block to find the proof of a crime: it violates privacy and it’s simply illegal.”

Since 2016, Europol has also been running a mass screening programme in refugee camps in Italy and Greece, sweeping up data from tens of thousands of asylum seekers in search of alleged foreign fighters and terrorists. According to a partially declassified EDPS inspection report obtained under freedom of information laws, “routine checks” by Europol of migrants crossing EU borders “are not allowed” as there is “no legal basis” for such a programme. The screening may have resulted in migrants’ personal data being stored on a criminal database regardless of any links being found to crime or terrorism. Europol has declined to reveal any operational details.


Internal documents make clear that by spring 2020 Europol was developing its own machine learning and AI programme, even as the EU data watchdog was snapping at its heels. Finding itself with a growing cache of data, the agency turned to algorithms to make sense of it all. A month after the data supervisor publicly admonished Europol, the agency came back with a question: if it wanted to train algorithms on the data it had already been admonished for retaining, could it start the data protection impact assessment process for this without EDPS oversight?



The request makes it clear that the algorithms, which included facial recognition tools, would not be designed nor used to retrieve sensitive data such as health status, ethnic background, sexual or political orientation, even though, as Europol admitted, such data would inevitably be processed by the tools: “We recognise that the produced results will contain sensitive data and its processing will be in line with Europol Regulation.”

When the watchdog did not provide the green light, Europol decided in effect to sideline the EDPS and go ahead regardless, confirming as much in a January 2021 letter.

(L-R) European commissioner for home affairs, Ylva Johansson, executive director of Europol, Catherine De Bolle, the French minister of interior, Gérald Darmanin, German MP Stephan Mayer, and the Belgian minister of interior, Annelies Verlinden, on the sidelines of their meeting to discuss ways of preventing migrants crossing the Channel, in Calais, France, 28 November 2021.
(L-R) European commissioner for home affairs, Ylva Johansson, executive director of Europol, Catherine de Bolle, the French minister of interior, Gérald Darmanin, German MP Stephan Mayer, and the Belgian minister of the interior, Annelies Verlinden, on the sidelines of their meeting to discuss ways of preventing migrants crossing the Channel, in Calais, France on 28 November. Photograph: François Lo Presti/EPA


The watchdog responded by saying it would open a formal monitoring procedure. By the end of February 2021, Europol pulled the brake on its machine learning programme. Europol told the Guardian that, to date, it “has not made use of own machine learning models for operational analysis and has also not carried out ‘training’ of machine learning.”

But there are clear signs that the brake will be released soon. Europol has already started a recruitment round for experts to help with the development of AI and data mining.

The emerging shape of Europol is alarming some MEPs such as Belgium’s Saskia Bricmont. “In the name of the fight against criminality and terrorism we have an evolution of an agency, which performs very important missions, but they are not executed in the right manner. This will lead to problems,” she said.


 

Chloé Berthélémy, an expert with the European Digital Rights network of NGOs, said that while Europol lags behind the US in terms of technological capacity, it is on the same path as the NSA.

“Europol’s capacity to hoover up huge amounts of data and accumulate it, in what could be called a big data ark, after which it is almost impossible to know what they are used for, makes it a black hole.”

  • Reporting for this investigation was supported by a grant from the IJ4EU fund and in collaboration with Lighthouse Reports

 

THAT 360-DEGREE DILEMMA: Whose FB HomePage needs an image update real Bad??

 


Mayor John Giles

4,234 Tweets
Opens profile photo
Mayor John Giles
@MayorGiles
John Giles. 40th Mayor of Mesa, Arizona
Mesa, AZmesaaz.gov/government/may…Joined August 2010

REPORT FROM THE INDEPENDENT IN THE UK: Suspect shot and critically wounded by Border Patrol in Arizona had assaulted federal officer, FBI claims

  Suspect shot and critically wounded by Border Patrol in Arizona had assaulted federal officer, FBI claims The unidentified person was take...