Video by Richa Naik and Sofia Barrett, CNN Business
Updated 2027 GMT (0427 HKT) October 18, 2020
One day in June 2019, Jitarth Jadeja went outside to smoke a cigarette. For two years he'd been in the virtual cult of QAnon. But now he'd watched a YouTube video that picked apart the last element of the theory he believed in. Standing there smoking, he would say later, he felt "shattered." He had gone down the QAnon rabbit hole; now, having emerged from it, he had no idea what to do next.
What is the internet doing to us? “Rabbit Hole,” a new narrative audio series from The New York Times, explores what happens when our lives move online. Follow the tech columnist Kevin Roose as he dives into stories of how the internet is changing, and how we’re changing along with it.
QAnonのスローガンに‘Where We Go One, We Go All’があるようですが、それは映画の1シーンからだとか。
Captain Christopher "Skipper" Sheldon : You know what's out there? Wind and rain, and some damn big waves, reefs and rocks, sandbars, and enough fog and night to hide it all.
Dean Preston : So why the hell do it?
Captain Christopher "Skipper" Sheldon : It builds character Mr. Preston of which you are in desperately short supply. The kind you only find on mountaintops, and deserts, and battlefields, and across oceans.
At first these seemed like minor details that had little bearing on the story that I knew so well and had watched unfold from a front-row seat in the financial press. But answering one question only led to another, and soon I was down a rabbit hole that changed everything I thought I knew about Netflix.
『今際の国のアリス』を英語音声で見ました。心なしか日本を舞台にしたドラマの方が英語を理解しやすい気がします。英語のタイトルはAlice in BorderlandとAlice in Wonderlandにうまくかけています。
There is one rule to survive in the Borderland: you must win life-threatening GAMES.
Will Arisu, who has wasted away his days without any goals in life, and Usagi, who supports Arisu with her quiet strength and kindness, survive in the Borderland?
The Netflix Original Series "Alice in Borderland" starts Thursday, December 10th, only on Netflix.
Alice in Wonderlandはイメージの宝庫ですが、今日はrabbit holeを取り上げたいと思います。英語の辞書は大変役立つのですが、オックスフォードやロングマンの見出し語やイディオムに掲載していないと日本の英和辞書は途端に手薄になります。rabbit holeも英和辞書の扱いが少ない例の一つです。もちろん「うさぎの巣穴」という意味はありますが。。。
Alice in Wonderland and Ready Player One meet Lord of the Flies and Cube.
JENNIFER OUELLETTE - 12/21/2020, 4:51 AM
ジャパンタイムズのレビューでも非日常世界の入り口がrabbit holeであるという英語の共通理解があるからthe adventure starts not with a trip down the rabbit hole, but into a toilet cubicle in Shibuya Stationという表現が使われているのでしょう。このレビューのタイトルの方はアリス２作目のThrough the looking glass（鏡の国のアリス）をうまくタイトルに盛り込んでいます。
Anyone who ventured into central Tokyo while the state of emergency was in effect earlier this year may feel a twinge of recognition watching “Alice in Borderland.” The producers of this splashy Netflix drama must be ruing the effort spent on achieving its signature effect — a city devoid of people — when they could have captured the same thing for free in April.
It isn’t a pandemic that’s caused everyone to vanish in this sci-fi suspense series, directed by Shinsuke Sato. Even readers who’ve made it to the end of the Haro Aso manga on which it’s based may struggle to explain exactly what’s going on.
For Ryohei Arisu (Kento Yamazaki) — the “Alice” of the story’s title — the adventure starts not with a trip down the rabbit hole, but into a toilet cubicle in Shibuya Station. When he emerges, alongside friends Daikichi Karube (Keita Machida) and Chota Segawa (Yuki Morinaga), they find the place suddenly deserted, and all the lights have gone out.
Alice was beginning to get very tired of sitting by her sister on the bank, and of having nothing to do: once or twice she had peeped into the book her sister was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, `and what is the use of a book,' thought Alice `without pictures or conversation?'
So she was considering in her own mind (as well as she could, for the hot day made her feel very sleepy and stupid), whether the pleasure of making a daisy-chain would be worth the trouble of getting up and picking the daisies, when suddenly a White Rabbit with pink eyes ran close by her.
There was nothing so very remarkable in that; nor did Alice think it so very much out of the way to hear the Rabbit say to itself, `Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be late!' (when she thought it over afterwards, it occurred to her that she ought to have wondered at this, but at the time it all seemed quite natural); but when the Rabbit actually took a watch out of its waistcoat-pocket, and looked at it, and then hurried on, Alice started to her feet, for it flashed across her mind that she had never before seen a rabbit with either a waistcoat-pocket, or a watch to take out of it, and burning with curiosity, she ran across the field after it, and fortunately was just in time to see it pop down a large rabbit-hole under the hedge.
The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not a moment to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling down a very deep well.
Either the well was very deep, or she fell very slowly, for she had plenty of time as she went down to look about her and to wonder what was going to happen next. First, she tried to look down and make out what she was coming to, but it was too dark to see anything; then she looked at the sides of the well, and noticed that they were filled with cupboards and book-shelves; here and there she saw maps and pictures hung upon pegs. She took down a jar from one of the shelves as she passed; it was labelled `ORANGE MARMALADE', but to her great disappointment it was empty: she did not like to drop the jar for fear of killing somebody, so managed to put it into one of the cupboards as she fell past it.
`Well!' thought Alice to herself, `after such a fall as this, I shall think nothing of tumbling down stairs! How brave they'll all think me at home! Why, I wouldn't say anything about it, even if I fell off the top of the house!' (Which was very likely true.)
Down, down, down. Would the fall never come to an end! `I wonder how many miles I've fallen by this time?' she said aloud. `I must be getting somewhere near the centre of the earth. Let me see: that would be four thousand miles down, I think--' (for, you see, Alice had learnt several things of this sort in her lessons in the schoolroom, and though this was not a very good opportunity for showing off her knowledge, as there was no one to listen to her, still it was good practice to say it over) `--yes, that's about the right distance--but then I wonder what Latitude or Longitude I've got to?' (Alice had no idea what Latitude was, or Longitude either, but thought they were nice grand words to say.)
Presently she began again. `I wonder if I shall fall right through the earth! How funny it'll seem to come out among the people that walk with their heads downward! The Antipathies, I think--' (she was rather glad there was no one listening, this time, as it didn't sound at all the right word) `--but I shall have to ask them what the name of the country is, you know. Please, Ma'am, is this New Zealand or Australia?' (and she tried to curtsey as she spoke--fancy curtseying as you're falling through the air! Do you think you could manage it?) `And what an ignorant little girl she'll think me for asking! No, it'll never do to ask: perhaps I shall see it written up somewhere.'
Down, down, down. There was nothing else to do, so Alice soon began talking again. `Dinah'll miss me very much to-night, I should think!' (Dinah was the cat.) `I hope they'll remember her saucer of milk at tea-time. Dinah my dear! I wish you were down here with me! There are no mice in the air, I'm afraid, but you might catch a bat, and that's very like a mouse, you know. But do cats eat bats, I wonder?' And here Alice began to get rather sleepy, and went on saying to herself, in a dreamy sort of way, `Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?' and sometimes, `Do bats eat cats?' for, you see, as she couldn't answer either question, it didn't much matter which way she put it. She felt that she was dozing off, and had just begun to dream that she was walking hand in hand with Dinah, and saying to her very earnestly, `Now, Dinah, tell me the truth: did you ever eat a bat?' when suddenly, thump! thump! down she came upon a heap of sticks and dry leaves, and the fall was over.
Alice was not a bit hurt, and she jumped up on to her feet in a moment: she looked up, but it was all dark overhead; before her was another long passage, and the White Rabbit was still in sight, hurrying down it. There was not a moment to be lost: away went Alice like the wind, and was just in time to hear it say, as it turned a corner, `Oh my ears and whiskers, how late it's getting!' She was close behind it when she turned the corner, but the Rabbit was no longer to be seen: she found herself in a long, low hall, which was lit up by a row of lamps hanging from the roof.
By: matthew costello Vice President of the Rubenstein Center for White House History, Senior Historian
Nearly two decades after his election to the presidency, Thomas Jefferson elaborated on the significance of this triumph to his friend Spencer Roane. The “revolution of 1800,” he wrote, “was as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 76.” This transformation was “not effected indeed by the sword…but by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people.”
During his retirement Jefferson frequently reflected on his legacy and the partisanship that forged the two-party system of the early Republic. Perhaps it was these shared political experiences that permitted him and John Adams to revive their friendship after Jefferson left the presidency. In their later years these revolutionaries corresponded regularly, exchanging opinions and warm memories of their past deeds, making it difficult to imagine that they had once been rivals and bitter enemies.
****
Jefferson sat in the presiding chair of the Senate and waited for the crowd of attendees to quiet themselves. After several moments of silence he gave a brief speech that lasted less than ten minutes. Jefferson regretted the divisiveness of the election but welcomed its disagreements and debate, as these dialogues encouraged citizens “to think freely, and to speak and to write what they think.” He laid out over a dozen principles that would guide his administration: first, equal justice and treatment of all men; last, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, habeas corpus, and the right to a trial by jury. These individual liberties, secured by the government, were the only true means to “peace, liberty, and safety.” Calling for national unity and healing, he reminded those present that “[w]e are all Republicans: we are all Federalists.”7
We are all Republicans: we are all Federalistsと呼びかけないといけなかったとは、この頃も、党派的な争いは激しいものだったことが伺えます。
The country having just emerged from a great rebellion, many questions will come before it for settlement in the next four years which preceding Administrations have never had to deal with. In meeting these, it is desirable that they should be approached calmly, without prejudice, hate, or sectional pride, remembering that the greatest good to the greatest number is the object to be attained.
This requires security of person, property, and free religious and political opinion in every part of our common country, without regard to local prejudice.All laws to secure these ends will receive my best efforts for their enforcement.
Ron Chernowによる伝記Grantからこの就任演説について語っている該当部分を引用します。
The speech lacked soaring cadences or memorable lines, yet it touched on two explosive issues at the finale. He advised Native Americans that their days as a hunting, gathering people were numbered and that he favored "civilization, christianization and ultimate citizenship" for them. Then, in sharp contrast to his predecessor, Grant championed black suffrage. "It seems to me very desirable that the question should be settled now, and I entertain the hope... that it may be by the ratification of the fifteenth article of amendment to the Constitution."
*******
Grant's speech was derided as flat and platitudinous. It didn't announce a transformative presidency, nor did it articulate a sweeping vision or enlist followers in a grand social movement. Still Republicans thought it true and honest, a reflection of Grant's pragmatic authenticity. "I think it the most remarkable document ever issued under such circumstances," said James Wilson. "The beauty of it is, that every word of the address is Grant's." Grant would prove a far more assertive president than his modest inaugural address had suggested.
演説の最後に先住民と黒人の参政権について語っている部分です。本当に淡々と語っています。
The proper treatment of the original occupants of this land, the Indians, one deserving of careful study. I will favor any course toward them which tends to their civilization and ultimate citizenship.
The question of suffrage is one which is likely to agitate the public so long as a portion of the citizens of the nation are excluded from its privileges in any State. It seems to me very desirable that this question should be settled now, and I entertain the hope and express the desire that it may be by the ratification of the fifteenth article of amendment to the Constitution.
President Biden used his Inaugural Address to urge Americans to come together to take on the challenges ahead.
By Glenn Thrush Jan. 20, 2021
Through the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War, 9/11, through struggle, sacrifice, and setbacks, our “better angels” have always prevailed. In each of these moments, enough of us came together to carry all of us forward. And, we can do so now. History, faith and reason show the way, the way of unity.
GLENN THRUSH:
To move past Mr. Trump, Mr. Biden explicitly invokes more distant historical parallels to the current time. He refers to Lincoln’s invocation of the “better angels of our nature” — the 16th president’s unsuccessful plea for national unity at his first inauguration, in 1861 — but his overall message owed more to Lincoln’s second address, in 1865, when he called for the nation to heal “with malice toward none, with charity for all.”
合衆国憲法修正13条と言えば「奴隷制廃止」。ロングマンは見出し語になっていました。
（ロングマン）
Thirteenth Amendment, the
an addition to the US Constitution which ended slavery in the US. It was passed by Congress in 1865, after the Civil War.
In another January in Washington, on New Year’s Day 1863, Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. When he put pen to paper, the president said, “If my name ever goes down into history it will be for this act and my whole soul is in it.”
My whole soul is in it.
Today, on this January day, my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together. Uniting our people. And uniting our nation. I ask every American to join me in this cause. Uniting to fight the common foes we face: Anger, resentment, hatred. Extremism, lawlessness, violence. Disease, joblessness, hopelessness.
The invocation of America’s soul is at the heart of nearly every major Biden speech. (He called the racist riot in Charlottesville in 2017 “a battle for the soul of this nation.”) His definition of “soul” is rhetorically elastic, but most often, as here, it comprises unity, respect for democracy and personal empathy.
The former vice president calls on Americans to do what President Trump has not.
JOE BIDEN AUGUST 27, 2017
If it wasn’t clear before, it’s clear now: We are living through a battle for the soul of this nation.
*****:
You, me, and the citizens of this country carry a special burden in 2017. We have to do what our president has not. We have to uphold America’s values. We have to do what he will not. We have to defend our Constitution. We have to remember our kids are watching. We have to show the world America is still a beacon of light.
Joined together, we are more than 300 million strong. Joined together, we will win this battle for our soul. Because if there’s one thing I know about the American people, it’s this: When it has mattered most, they have never let this nation down.
But the answer is not to turn inward, to retreat into competing factions, distrusting those who don’t look like you do, or worship the way you do, or don’t get their news from the same sources you do.
We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal.
We can do this if we open our souls instead of hardening our hearts.
If we show a little tolerance and humility.
If we’re willing to stand in the other person’s shoes just for a moment.
Because here is the thing about life: There is no accounting for what fate will deal you.
Already popularised by school textbooks, This Land Is Your Land regained its political bite in the 1960s through the folk revival and the civil rights movement. While recordings by Bing Crosby and Peter, Paul and Mary were abbreviated, Pete Seeger and Guthrie’s son Arlo always performed the radical verses, lest they be forgotten. It helped that Guthrie, no nightingale himself, had written a song that anyone could sing. The robustly cheerful melody (taken from the gospel hymn When the World’s on Fire) was perfect for a protest march, picket line, festival or classroom.
This Land Is Your Land has since become immeasurably famous, woven deep into the fabric of US culture. Bruce Springsteen and Pete Seeger sang it, radical verses and all, at the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2009. Lady Gaga pointedly combined it with God Bless America in her 2017 Super Bowl performance, while Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine sang it at the Occupy Wall Street protest camp in 2011. It was sung during the presidential campaigns of Democrats George McGovern in 1972 and Walter Mondale in 1984, as well as that of Mondale’s opponent Ronald Reagan. Bernie Sanders, who recorded his own bewildering reggae version in 1987, made it a mainstay of both his runs for president. It has been parodied in The Simpsons and Tim Robbins’ 1992 satire Bob Roberts, and used to advertise cars and airlines.
Clearly, it’s a song that anybody can adopt but are there limits to the inclusiveness of “you and me”? Does it exclude anyone? Consider the line of the Declaration of Independence, “All men are created equal,” and what is meant by “all men”. Not women. Not black people, some of whom were held as slaves by the men who wrote that document. Certainly not Native Americans. Does This Land Is Your Land’s democratic message also sin by omission?
Last year, the Native American folk singer Mali Obomsawin argued in Folklife magazine that the left should retire a song that evokes “Manifest Destiny and expansionism” and therefore “anti-Nativism”. “In the context of America, a nation-state built by settler colonialism, Woody Guthrie’s protest anthem exemplifies the particular blind spot that Americans have in regard to Natives: American patriotism erases us, even if it comes in the form of a leftist protest song. Why? Because this land ‘was’ our land.”
Pop star Jennifer Lopez’s performance during U.S. president Joe Biden’s inauguration on Wednesday delighted those who noticed her playful ad-lib and appreciated her Latina presence at the historic event, but the song she sang left much to be desired for many Indigenous viewers.
The New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Flyers both recently announced they would stop using their traditional recorded versions of Kate Smith singing “God Bless America” during games.
In a particularly totalitarian touch, the Flyers removed a statue of Smith from the Philadelphia sports complex and destroyed the statue’s base thereby assuring the specter of Kate Smith will no more haunt the City of Brotherly Love. The ostensible reason for all of this is to assure moral clarity — that being the coin of the realm these days when we disappear people and destroy statues while confronting our past.
At Wednesday’s inauguration, on the spot where insurrectionists barreled over Capitol Police officers and broke into the seat of representative government two weeks ago, superstar Jennifer Lopez at one point in her musical performance lifted a finger and proclaimed: “Una nación, bajo Dios, indivisible, con libertad y justicia para todos!”
That was the final phrase of the Pledge of Allegiance, folks: “One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” (In the distance of the shot behind Lopez, a masked guest of the inauguration can be seen leaning into the person next to her with a questioning expression.)
この構成って、レディーガガの2017年のスーパーボールと似ているなと思ったら、ガガの選曲はGod Bless Americaと This Land Is Your Landでした。最後にPledge of Allegianceを言うのは同じでしたが。。。
ジェニファーロペスが最後に自分の曲のLet's Get Loudに触れたのがmixed reactionを引き起こしていましたが、移民問題を意識した昨年のスーパーボールの文脈で捉えればしっくりくるかもしれません。
Many centuries ago, Saint Augustine, a saint of my church, wrote that a people was a multitude defined by the common objects of their love. What are the common objects we love that define us as Americans? I think I know. Opportunity. Security. Liberty. Dignity. Respect. Honor. And, yes, the truth.
GLENN THRUSH:
Mr. Biden, a Catholic who attended a Mass in Washington before his inauguration, has been known to invoke his faith not only in speeches but in day-to-day planning and policy conversations with staff. This quote, from an early church philosopher, has often been used to rally people to address the needs of the poor — and is not infrequently invoked by Mr. Biden’s adviser Jon Meacham, a historian and speechwriter.
ASSOCIATED PRESSFollow us on Twitter Find us on Facebook
At 2,552 words, Biden's speech was about average in length when compared to the 58 other inaugural speeches delivered by U.S. presidents.
The shortest inaugural speech was delivered by George Washington in 1793.
William Henry Harrison -- who also served as Indiana territorial governor -- holds the record for the longest speech, delivering 8,460 words during his 1841 inaugural ceremony. A month later Harrison developed pneumonia and became the first president to die while in office. His illness had been attributed to prolonged exposure to the bad weather on Inauguration Day, but modern historians and public health experts believe it was caused by a contaminated water supply at the White House.
PUBLISHED WED, JAN 20 20215:49 PM ESTUPDATED THU, JAN 21 20218:12 AM EST
Nate Rattner @NATERATTNER
President Joe Biden delivered an inaugural address that used the word “democracy” more times than any other inauguration speech, according to a CNBC analysis of speeches from the American Presidency Project.
That ranks ahead of addresses from Harry Truman, who said “democracy” nine times in his 1949 address, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who did the same during his third swearing-in ceremony in 1941.
In an inauguration unlike any other, President Biden’s words made history in two ways.
As he surveyed the challenges the nation faces, Biden used words such as inequity, pandemic and extremism, downbeat words never said before in any previous inaugural address going back to George Washington’s in 1789.
And yet the new president also repeated, more than any predecessor, hopeful words, referring to America and love as he shared his vision for the country and pleaded for unity. More than a quarter of all inaugural mentions of unity came on Wednesday from Biden.
Instead, Biden’s focus was on home-grown issues. He showed no reticence in naming white supremacy as a threat to the country’s democracy – the first time the term has ever been used in an inaugural address. In addition, the New Statesman’s analysis found that Biden’s was the angriest inaugural address of those surveyed, based on his use of words such as “lawlessness” and “extremism” to describe the state of the country.
Though anger was far from the over-riding emotion in Biden’s speech, the president was unusually forthright in his criticisms of the current state of US politics compared to the far more abstract focus of most prior addresses.
At the same time, no president has ever made so many appeals to unity during their inauguration. “To overcome these challenges, to restore the soul and secure the future of America, requires so much more than words,” Biden said. “It requires the most elusive of all things in a democracy: unity.”
Will we master this rare and difficult hour? Will we meet our obligations and pass along a new and better world to our children? I believe we must. I’m sure you do as well. I believe we will.
And when we do, we’ll write the next great chapter in the history of the United States of America, the American story, a story that might sound something like a song that means a lot to me.
It’s called “American Anthem.”
There’s one verse that stands out, at least for me, and it goes like this.
“The work and prayers of century have brought us to this day. What shall be our legacy, what will our children say. Let me know in my heart when my days are through. America, America, I gave my best to you. Let’s add, let’s us add our own work and prayers to the unfolding story of our great nation. If we do this, then when our days were through, our children and our children’s children will say of us, they gave their best. They did their duty. They healed a broken land.”
オバマ的な融和した未来のアメリカの希望を描くのではなく、Unityを示した最高の例として第二次世界大戦の頃のアメリカに希望を託したバイデン。これはこれで右派も文句を言えないでしょう。演説冒頭のA day of history and hope.を体現した曲として選ばれたのかもしれません。NYTの注釈記事の引用です。
A day of history and hope. Of renewal and resolve.
GLENN THRUSH:
Mr. Biden’s commingling of “history and hope” was noteworthy — a nod to his partnership with President Barack Obama, who ran on a hope-and-change platform with Mr. Biden, an aging senator who was thought to be washed up when Mr. Obama enlisted him as his running mate in 2008. The “renewal” is a shift back to Obama-era governance.
最後に個人的な感想を。ちょっと前に焚き火のイメージに重ねてアメリカの状況をYutaは書いたのですが、バイデン大統領もそのあたりを心配していました。Politics doesn't have to be a raging fire destroying everything in its pathの部分を読み解いているCNNの記事。
(CNN)About halfway through his inauguration speech, President Joe Biden said something very important about the work of Washington -- and how he envisions his presidency.
"Politics doesn't have to be a raging fire destroying everything in its path," Biden insisted. "Every disagreement doesn't have to be a cause for total war."
Excerpted from his recently published book, Underland: A Deep Time Journey, “The Understory” is an examination of the life beneath the forest floor. Encountering the depth and complexity of communication that happens underground, Robert returns to the entangled mutualism at the root of language.
自然というと「弱肉強食」の世界を連想しますが、もっと協力的な世界も存在するようです。
The fungi and the trees had “forged their duality into a oneness, thereby making a forest,” wrote Simard in a bold summary of her findings. Instead of seeing trees as individual agents competing for resources, she proposed the forest as a “cooperative system,” in which trees “talk” to one another, producing a collaborative intelligence she described as “forest wisdom.” Some older trees even “nurture” smaller trees that they recognize as their “kin,” acting as “mothers.” Seen in the light of Simard’s research, the whole vision of a forest ecology shimmered and shifted—from a fierce free market to something more like a community with a socialist system of resource redistribution.
Simard’s first major paper on the subject was published in Nature in 1997, and it was from there that the subterranean network of tree–fungus mutualism gained its durable nickname of “the wood wide web.” Her Nature paper was a groundbreaking publication, the implications of which were so significant that an entire research field subsequently formed to pursue them. Since then the scientific study of belowground ecology has boomed. New technologies of detection and mapping have illuminated fresh details of this “social network” of trees and plants. “The wood wide web has been mapped, traced, monitored and coaxed,” as Simard puts it, “to reveal the beautiful structures and finely adapted languages of the forest network.”
“I’m tired of both of these stories,” Merlin says as we leave the lake. “The forest is always more complicated than we can ever dream of. Trees make meaning as well as oxygen. To me, walking through a wood is like taking a tiny part in a mystery play run across multiple timescales.”
“Maybe, then, what we need to understand the forest’s underland,” I say, “is a new language altogether—one that doesn’t automatically convert it to our own use values. Our present grammar militates against animacy; our metaphors by habit and reflex subordinate and anthropomorphize the more-than-human world. Perhaps we need an entirely new language system to talk about fungi … We need to speak in spores.”
“Yes,” says Merlin with an urgency that surprises me, smacking his fist into the palm of his hand. “That’s exactly what we need to be doing—and that’s your job,” he says. “That’s the job of writers and artists and poets and all the rest of you.”
Dissonance is produced by any landscape that enchants in the present but has been a site of violence in the past. But to read such a place only for its dark histories is to disallow its possibilities for future life, to deny reparation or hope - and this is another kind of oppression. If there is a way of seeing such landscapes, it might be thought of as 'occulting': the nautical term for a light that flashes on and off, and in which the periods of illumination are longer than the periods of darkness. The Slovenian karst is an ʻocculting' landscape in this sense, defined by the complex interplay of light and dark, of past pain and present beauty. I have walked through numerous occulting landscapes over the years: from the cleared valleys of northern Scotland, where the scattered stones of abandoned houses are oversung by skylarks; to the Guadarrama mountains north of Madrid, where a savage partisan war was fought among ancient pines, under the gaze of vultures; and to the disputed valleys of the Palestinian West Bank, where dog foxes slip through barbed wire. All of these landscapes offer the reassurance of nature's return; all incite the discord of profound suffering coexisting with generous life.
“How did we get here, when we have essentially a mob Insurrection on our capital, and our lawmakers have to use furniture to secure the doors? And we find that the most meaningful action or what we find the next day is that we're begging 30-something-year-old CEOs of companies to block their account. So you sort of have to wonder, how did we get here?”
“I'd like to think that this is the beginning of the end of Big Tech as we know it. I think this is another example that when you have algorithms that are profit-driven, and these algorithms are different, and figure out the tribalism, and dividing us, is very profitable. And it ends up in an overrun or a seizure of the U.S. Capitol,” he said.
彼の問題意識はSection230よりも力を持ち過ぎたGAFAの解体の方にあるようです。You don't break me up. And I'd like you to continue to weaponize and spread misinformation.と、トランプの暴言を野放しにしたのは解体を免れるためだったと語ったりしていて手厳しいです。
But Galloway argues there needs to be more antitrust regulation beyond Section 230 reform. Indeed, regulators began to take unprecedented action against Big Tech last year.
In October, the Justice Department accused Google of maintaining an illegal monopoly in search and advertising. Two months later, FTC accused Facebook of engaging in anti-competitive practices — specifically, buying its key competitors to maintain its dominance in social networking. The FTC suit went farther than the Justice Department by seeking to actually break up Facebook, a solution that Galloway agrees with.
“I think the place to start is with breaking these guys up. I think that it's telling that we seem to be always begging the same one or two firms,” he said. “I think increased competition would be good.”
彼は秋にPost Corona: From Crisis to Opportunityという本を出していました。コロナで庶民の窮状の中、トップは在宅勤務で家族との時間が増え、株価上昇で資産も増えていると指摘し、トップへの増税を提案しています。
Scott Galloway is a bestselling author and professor of marketing at NYU Stern.
The following is a recent blog post, republished with permission, that originally ran on his blog, "No Mercy / No Malice."
In it, he says the US is experiencing two pandemics: one for a quarter of Americans who are food insecure and behind on rent, and another for the shareholder class who's enjoying an explosion in net worth and working from home.
Galloway says we should impose a one-time 2% wealth tax on the richest 5% of households (many of whom benefited from $3 trillion in stimulus aid), which he estimates would raise up to $1 trillion to support low-income families.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects internet platforms from liability for what users post on their sites. Scott Pelley reports on the ramifications of the legislation and why it could be repealed in the near future.
2021 Jan 03 CORRESPONDENT Scott Pelley
以下の記事を読んでいてまさに自分のことを言われているような文がありました。it feels like we had a year of 230 debate, and now, a bunch of other people are showing up and saying, “What should content moderation be?”と言っています（苦笑）ここでは米国でも色々話し合われているが、ヨーロッパの法律が参考になるのではとのこと。
Regulation expert Daphne Keller on where moderation goes after banning Trump
By Nilay Patel@reckless Jan 12, 2021, 9:12am EST
One of the things that I’m curious about is, it feels like we had a year of 230 debate, and now, a bunch of other people are showing up and saying, “What should content moderation be?” But there is actually a pretty sophisticated existing framework and debate in industry and in academia. Can you help me understand what the existing frameworks in the debate look like?
I actually think there’s a big gap between the debate in DC, the debate globally, and the debate among experts in academia. DC has been a circus, with lawmakers just making things up and throwing spaghetti at the wall. There were over 20 legislative proposals to change CDA 230 last year, and a lot of them were just theater. By contrast, globally, and especially in Europe, there’s work on a huge legislative package, the Digital Services Act. There’s a lot of attention where I think it should be placed on just the logistics of content moderation. How do you moderate that much speech at once? How do you define rules that even can be imposed on that much speech at once?
The proposals in Europe include things like getting courts involved in deciding what speech is illegal, instead of putting that in the hands of private companies. Having processes so that when users have their speech taken down, they get notified, and they have an opportunity to respond and say if they think they’ve been falsely accused. And then, if what we’re talking about is the platforms’ own power to take things down, the European proposal and some of the US proposals, also involve things like making sure platforms are really as clear as they can be about what their rules are, telling users how the rules have been enforced, and letting users appeal those discretionary takedown decisions. And just trying to make it so that users understand what they’re getting, and ideally so that there is also enough competition that they can migrate somewhere else if they don’t like the rules that are being imposed.
BY OUMOU LY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/19/20 03:00 PM EST
Disinformation as political strategy
Our research at the Berkman Klein Center finds that disinformation is increasingly being used by political leaders as a calculated strategy to shape public narratives and manipulate voters. A recent study by my colleagues, led by Yochai Benkler, found that the myth of mail-in voting fraud was disseminated from the top down, starting with President Trump and GOP leaders and trickling through established media outlets.
The study’s analysis of media stories and social media posts on mail-in voting revealed that “Fox News and Donald Trump’s own campaign were far more influential in spreading false beliefs than Russian trolls or Facebook clickbait artists.” These efforts were among a wave of disinformation pushed by legitimate political actors during this election, from fake ballot drop boxes to false reports of ballot tampering.
Conservative opinion website American Thinker on Friday issued a statement apologizing for printing false claims about Dominion Voting Systems after the voting machine company’s lawyers accused the blog of defamation.
American Thinker editor and publisher Thomas Lifson posted an online statement saying that the website had received a “lengthy letter from Dominion's defamation lawyers explaining why they believe that their client has been the victim of defamatory statements.”
We received a lengthy letter from Dominion's defamation lawyers explaining why they believe that their client has been the victim of defamatory statements. Having considered the full import of the letter, we have agreed to their request that we publish the following statement:
（中略）
These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims.
It was wrong for us to publish these false statements. We apologize to Dominion for all of the harm this caused them and their employees. We also apologize to our readers for abandoning 9 journalistic principles and misrepresenting Dominion’s track record and its limited role in tabulating votes for the November 2020 election. We regret this grave error.
We also apologize to our readers for abandoning 9 journalistic principlesといっているので、9 journalistic principlesというのを調べてみました。そもそもまともなジャーナリズムでもないくせに9 journalistic principlesなんて笑わせるなと「お前が言うな」状態ですが、以下のようなものみたいで、10条については後から付け加えられたとか。
Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can and must pursue it in a practical sense. This “journalistic truth” is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation. Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods, so audiences can make their own assessment of the information. Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built: context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. As citizens encounter an ever-greater flow of data, they have more need not less for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying that information and putting it in context.
“A year ago, the word Covid didn’t even exist, and now it has come to define our lives in 2020,” Zimmer said. “The selection recognizes how ubiquitous the term has become, from the time that the name for the disease caused by novel coronavirus was dubbed Covid-19 by the World Health Organization back in February. That was quickly clipped to Covid, which then appeared in phrases like Covid crisis, Covid relief, and Covid vaccine – and even Covid baking, Covid hair, and covidiot. It has become a stand-in for the entire pandemic and the societal impacts that we’ll be experiencing for years to come.”
When someone (most often Caucasian male of Southern upbringing) insists on doing something dumb that could cause harm to himself or to others siting his reasoning for doing so has protecting his freedumbs. This could also include deliberately NOT following an advice or order from the government that would otherwise protect them from harm because they think it obstructs their freedumbs.
1.The man was arguing with the flight attendant about his refusal to wear a mask on the flight because it restricted his freedumbs to breathe air. 2. The woman was surprised when her kids were not admitted to school because she was exercising her freedumbs not to vaccinate them.
by powertothesheeple September 28, 2020
**********
Freedumb
A watered down version of freedom spouted by psudeo patriots in American who claim to love freedom, justice and constitutional rights for all but are in fact only in favor for a select few having them. Freedom supporters hide their agenda by wrapping it up in a false sense of patriotism to cover up their lack of willingness to share it with everyone in the country. Usually cutting off others right to freedom when it prevents a privileged group from having their way with a particular politcal/social/Religious issue they want to have dictated in their personal favor.
Freedom is for the everyone, while Freedumb is for the few...
この記事でもしっかりとコンテクストの中で理解すべきで“peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”ともっともらしい逃げ口上の部分を引用するだけの危険性を指摘しています。
The speech must also be viewed in the context of a president who has often alluded to the idea that his supporters might one day get violent. And while he said those who would march to the Capitol after his speech should “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” his speech was also littered with allusions to the protesters having the power to stop what Congress was doing — and indeed, that he was counting on them to do so.
その“peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”のところを以下のように分析しています。扇動に問われないようの弁明にすぎないと捉えています。
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.13 Today, we will see whether Republicans stand strong for the integrity of our elections. But whether or not they stand strong for our country — our country, our country has been under siege for a long time. Far longer than this four-year period.
13 This is the line that Trump's allies — including Giuliani — have regularly used to defend him against allegations that his speech incited the violence. It is worth noting that Trump directly urged people to "peacefully" make their voices heard at the Capitol. As is often the case, though, Trump co-mingled that with far different messages: The idea that this couldn't be allowed to happen, the idea that it would lead to disaster, and the idea that Democrats wouldn't respond so peacefully. And many of Trump's supporters seemed to internalize that message more than this one.
I want to thank the more than 140 members of the House. Those are warriors.15 They’re over there working like you’ve never seen before, studying, talking, actually going all the way back studying the roots of the Constitution because they know we have the right to send a bad vote that was illegally gotten.
15 Trump is hardly the only politician to use battle metaphors while whipping up his supporters, but he's certainly taken it to another level. Most notably, he has referred to his supporters as an "Army for Trump."
こちらはトランプの行いは国家反逆罪だと責めているOpEdですが、“peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”と白々しいことをCYAと呼んで一蹴していました。
The elder Trump worked the crowd into a frenzy with his claim that victory had been stolen from him by “explosions of bullshit.”
“Bullshit! Bullshit!” the mob chanted.
Trump instructed his supporters to march to the Capitol — “and I’ll be there with you” — to “demand that Congress do the right thing” and not count the electoral votes of swing states he lost. “You’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength and you have to be strong,” he admonished them, with CYA instructions to make themselves heard “peacefully and patriotically.”
Cover your ass (British: arse), abbreviated CYA, is an activity done by an individual to protect themselves from possible subsequent criticism, legal penalties, or other repercussions, usually in a work-related or bureaucratic context. In one sense, it may be rightful steps to protect oneself properly while in a difficult situation, such as what steps to take to protect oneself after being fired.[1] But, in a different sense, according to The New York Times' language expert William Safire, it describes "the bureaucratic technique of averting future accusations of policy error or wrongdoing by deflecting responsibility in advance".[2] It often involves diffusing responsibility for one's actions as a form of insurance against possible future negative repercussions.[2] It can denote a type of institutional risk-averse mentality which works against accountability and responsibility, often characterized by excessive paperwork and documentation,[3] which can be harmful to the institution's overall effectiveness.[4] The activity, sometimes seen as instinctive,[5] is generally unnecessary towards accomplishing the goals of the organization, but helpful to protect a particular individual's career within it, and it can be seen as a type of institutional corruption working against individual initiative.[6]
a part of the Constitution of the United States which gives US citizens the right of freedom of speech, freedom of the press (=newspapers, radio, and television), freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly (=the right of any group to meet together). Many cases concerning these rights have been taken to the Supreme Court, and people in the US usually have strong opinions about the questions involved in these cases.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.
何よりもショックなのは暴徒たちが“heads on pikes!”のような生々しい暴力表現を口にしていたことです。ペンスやペロシを殺害することというのは比喩表現ではなかったと思うとゾッとします。
An armed rioter, arrested, was found with texts on his phone of alleged plans to execute Pelosi. Cleveland Grover Meredith Jr. He arrived in the capital with several firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, according to the information document filed by investigators. The texts assert that he was considering “putting a bullet in (Pelosi’s) noggin on live TV,” and that he had a “s--- ton of armor-piercing ammo.” Further, he allegedly wanted to run the Speaker over. Agents who searched his hotel room, as well as his truck and trailer outside, found three guns, including an assault rifle and a Glock.
A Reuters photographer who was on scene tweeted he’d overheard at least three people saying they hoped to find Pence — now viewed as a traitor to Trump for refusing to overturn the election outcome in Wednesday’s confirmation of the electoral votes — and hang him from a Capitol Hill tree. In new footage released over the weekend, rioters can be heard chanting: “Where’s Mike Pence?” as they rushed through the building, while others demanded “heads on pikes!”
この記事では、SNSでは20日の就任式でも暴動が企てられていることに触れて記事を締めています。
Social media is replete with call-outs for more shows of insurrection force in the days leading up to the inauguration of president-elect Joe Biden next week.
“Round Two on January 20th.”
“I don’t even care about keeping Trump in power, I care about war.”
“It’s our last chance.”
暴徒たちの動画も目にしたのですが“heads on pikes!”というおじさんのいっちゃった顔がこびりついてしまっています。「表現の自由が〜〜」と批判しにくい立場が一歩も出ずに訴えている人たちはこのような現状を知っても尚且つ言っているのでしょうか。
Opinion by Hillary Rodham Clinton Jan. 12, 2021 at 12:32 a.m. GMT+9
In Isabel Wilkerson’s new book “Caste,” she cites a question from historian Taylor Branch: “If people were given the choice between democracy and whiteness, how many would choose whiteness?” Wednesday reminded us of an ugly truth: There are some Americans, more than many want to admit, who would choose whiteness.
読んでみて背筋がゾッとしました。議会の暴動について反省しているどころか、最新の彼のツイートでも依然としてGlorification of Violence（暴力の賛美）をしていると読めるなんて想像できませんでした。よく日本のトランプ支持者に対する批判としてアメリカの政治状況を理解していないオメデタイ人と言われることがありますが、Yutaはコンテクストが大事だと常々言っているくせに、その深刻な状況を分かっていないその一人だったんだと思い知りました。
また、支持者をAmerican Patriotsと読んでいることは、議会での暴徒を支持しているとも読み取れ、“GIANT VOICE long into the future”や“They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” の部分は、トランプにはorderly transition（秩序ある政権移行）の意図はなくトランプの勝利を今でも信じている人々を擁護しているとも取れるというのです。
How else can one write but of those things which one doesn’t know, or knows badly? It is precisely there that we imagine having something to say. We write only at the frontiers of our knowledge, at the border which separates our knowledge from our ignorance and transforms the one into the other. Only in this manner are we resolved to write. To satisfy ignorance is to put off writing until tomorrow – or rather, to make it impossible.
However, communication using "translation" is not restricted to languages. There are translations where visual or auditory sensations, or bodily expressions, play the role of bridge to transmit and receive communication. The diverse interpretations, conversions and expressions that are generated by all these processes can be said to have much in common with art and design. This exhibition is based on Dominique Chen's idea that "translation is designing communication." We define translation as "the trial processes linking mutually non-comprehending parties from different backgrounds" and use this to explore the possibilities of translation from multiple perspectives.
The venue includes experiential exhibits employing AI-based automatic translation and video work by creole speakers with multiple native languages. There are also instances finding translations by through the body expression, such as sign languages or gestures and communication between humans and other species, even with microorganisms. All the works enquire into the possibility of translation. We hope that through the notion of translation, this exhibition encourages visitors to realize the joy of finding emotions and cultures in "others," and of discovering a world beyond.
