#so russia's war is simultaneously personal and yet has nothing to do with me and i have no idea how to feel about this

[summeroffice]

Вадим Радионов for И грянул Грэм

Podolyak is annoyed.  

33:42 This is Evgeniy, from Zaporizhzhia. I'm about the duties of citizens. I would like to remind Mr Podolyak that all citizens of Ukraine have responsibilities. Absolutely everyone, not just the poor. And for some reason the poor are fighting. [Podolyak shakes head] I want to ask the question. Where is Bakanov [former head of the Security Service of Ukraine] now? Where is Yatsenyuk [former Prime Minister] now?  

These people are not doing their duty, they are in the military age. Why are you sending Zaluzhnyi to London, a military man? You let Arestovych, a military man, out of the country, and you collect mechanics, welders, guards, grab them and send to fight.  

36:42 There are a lot of questions. Well, it's clear, Arestovych was mentioned and it's predictable, we understand, that's how the information system works. With Arestovych, there's immediate reaction. I'll actually read a question from the chat. How did Arestovych manage to leave the country? 

[Podolyak shrugs. You can hear that he's fed up] 

He has three children. Look, people... I just want to point out, people don't even know. They just want to speculate; how did he leave the country. Please specify his social status. Another question, that Arestovych took a certain informational position, a very strange one when he left. This is another question. But the person left the country absolutely legally. That is, for this it is enough to make two clicks and get the information, not ask questions that are, you know, with such causticity, how smart I am, look, you are all stupid and I am smart. How did Arestovych leave the country? [He gives a toothy smile and shakes head] 

44:47 Now in the Russian-speaking segment of YouTube, Maria Pevchikh's film about the nineties [documentary series “Traitors”] sounded very powerful. Have you watched this film? 

I have seen the first part. The second part, not yet.  

Well, in your opinion, does it explain what happened to Russia and what led to the war? Since the reaction is very big, the resonance is very big, I'm interested in your opinion and how it is seen from Ukraine now. 

In my opinion, it doesn't explain, and doesn't even come close to explaining. The discussion itself, I like it, it is not bad that they are discussing their history and try to find the reasons that gave birth to such a monstrous image of Russia that we see today. Well, and that gave birth to such an absolutely, you know, not an intellectual at the head. Well, in principle, I would say that he is very similar to the same Stalin, also a poorly educated subject with hyper ideas, I mean Putin.  

Discussion, yes, but to be honest, it's a bit mysterious for me because today there is a fact of the concrete war and first you need to sort out the war as such. Well, by the way, Khodorkovsky also talks about it, he says, look, yes, you can blame me, you can blame any of the oligarchs from the members of the so-called seven bankers of those who ensured Yeltsin's passage in elections and so on and so forth, but first you need to solve the problem of how to stop the war as such, how to ensure the loss of Putin here and now. 

And then reflect on why in principle this arose. It is possible, for example, that the same FBK is considering that if we simultaneously reflect on how this all happened, this will lead to an understanding of how to stop it all. I think that this is a very long path. In my opinion, the path should be shorter. Look, as a cultural discussion or a discussion of cultural history, it's probably interesting. As a discussion that will somehow lead to the just finalisation of this war, no, it distracts attention. But people probably have nothing to do, they have the right. That is, it is their life. They see themselves this way. They see themselves in this type of discussion.

[mybrainproblems]

many many selfish and unintelligible and conflicting and angry thoughts. i'm sorry. please ignore.

[aro-is-gay-af]

Slavic Names in Twilight | Meta

This post is going to be long, so if you don’t have time, I advise you to come back here later (or not come back at all, up to you).

Honestly, I have no words for Smeyer anymore. I, probably like most of us, read the books while being an adolescent. When I was 12 I didn’t see a lot of things that happened to be in the books and were:  a) misogynistic  b) sexist c) abusive d) racist and that the story itself was bound to Mormons (sick!). 

If you want to read about it a little bit more I strongly recommend this post by @stregoni-benefici​ and @carlislesscarf​ 

This post isn’t going to be about how Smeyer treated The Quileute Tribe, indigenous people, people of color or women. This post is going to be about how lazy Smeyer exactly was while creating this story and how her prejudices influenced and created false image of yet another culture. 

Why am I making such a fuss because of this? A few days ago I was reading something about Garrett on Twilight Wiki page. By sheer luck, I clicked on Kate’s character and, what I saw there, outraged me to the point where I needed a little while to calm myself. 

I was 12 when I first read the books. I never bought official twilight guide, I only used Twilight Wiki to keep myself up to date. I clicked on Kate’s character and saw that she hails from Slovakia. Forgive my utter confusion, when I remembered other sisters’ names. Tanya and Irina. Also, Kate was created by Sasha, who also created Vasilli (an immortal child), which is why she was executed in the first place. 

While the story is charming, WHY THE FUCK DO THEY HAVE SUCH NAMES?! 

To understand my rage, I need to elucidate the matter a little bit for all of you. This will be the historical part. 

According to Twilight Wiki, Sasha was changed before 1000 AD. Then, she created Tanya, and not very long after, Kate and Irina. And now. What were the historical odds while it happened? 

Before 1000 AD, Slovakia wasn’t Slovakia but Great Moravia. Great Moravia lasted about a century - the time span here is approximately circa 820 AD to 906 AD. When Great Moravia no longer existed, territory was taken by Hungarians (Magyar tribes also referred to as Hungarian clans) and the development of future Kingdom of Hungary began. Then, around 1000-1001, King Stephan was crowned as the first King of Hungary. Some elements from the former Great Moravia were acquired by The Kingdom of Hungary. 

King Stephen managed to establish eight counties within his kingdom. Around 1015 some territories of today-Slovakia were acquired by Boleslav I of Poland (later king of Poland), however, King Stephen managed to recapture the territories in 1018. Wikipedia isn’t consistent here - while on History of Slovakia we have these information, the History of Poland during the Piast dynasty says: 

From 1003 to 1004, Bolesław intervened militarily in Czech dynastic conflicts. After his forces were removed from Bohemia in 1018, Bolesław retained Moravia. 

and:

[translation here is mine as the site is in Polish] Between 1003 and 1025/1031 the lands of today's Slovakia were part of the Kingdom of Poland after being conquered by Bolesław Chrobry. The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle described that "The Polish borders stretched as far as the banks of the Danube, to the town of Ostříhomia, then to the town of Eger, and further to the river called Ciepla [Topl'a] as far as the town of Salis, and there the borders between Hungarians, Ruthenians and Poles ended". 

Than, probably around 1031 AD the territories were acquired back. King Stephen died and his kingdom fell into internal conflicts. Soon, in 1042 AD emperor Henry III mingled to acquire some lands for himself (he was the Holy Roman Emperor). Anyway, then came 1048 AD and that’s what happened: 

In 1048, King Andrew I of Hungary conceded one-third of his kingdom (Tercia pars regni) in appanage to his brother, Duke Béla. [...] During the following 60 years, the Tercia pars regni were governed separately by members of the Árpád dynasty. [...] The dukes accepted the kings' supremacy, but some of them (Béla, Géza and Álmos) rebelled against the king in order to acquire the crown and allied themselves with the rulers of the neighbouring countries (e.g., the Holy Roman Empire, Bohemia).

The history of the Tercia pars regni ended in 1107, when King Coloman of Hungary occupied its territories taking advantage of the pilgrimage of Duke Álmos (his brother) to the Holy Land. Although, Duke Álmos, when returned to the kingdom, tried to reoccupy his former duchy with the military assistance of Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, but he failed and was obliged to accept the status quo. 

Source for the two quotes above. 

You may ask, why on Earth did I just present to you part of history of Slovakia, Poland and Hungary. Because I want you to understand how completely ridiculous and simultaneously offending are the names of characters that Smeyer gave within this coven.

History shows us that, even though, these times weren’t exactly peaceful, there wasn’t an ongoing war. We have Hungarian tribes and the part, when some territories were acquired by a Polish king. What I mean by that, is that probably names around 1000 AD varied as to where your family lived, what was your social status, and probably were influenced by newly adopted Christianity. It is more likely that people on this lands were named with names of Hungarian origin than Russian. And I still think the majority of names were of Slavic origin, only with some local variations going on. 

Now, a little bit of common knowledge. People who descend from Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Hungary are best buddies for life, even if they never saw each other. We have mutual respect for these countries and for ourselves, as our history brought us together multiple times (bad times and good ones). Russia IS NOT a part of this “mutual respect pact”. Mostly due to events that happened during both World Wars (i.e. Katyń Massacre), as well as other ones (Partitions of Poland, Eastern Bloc - communism). 

Most of the names used by Smeyer are of Russian (or Greek, or Hebrew) origin. Not Slavic origin. And while Russia is also the part of Slavic languages, there’s a significant distinction between West Slavic Languages (Slovakian, Czech, Polish language), East Slavic Languages (Belarusian, Russian, Ukainian) and South Slavic Languages (i.e. Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian). 

It makes difference to the point that if I go to Slovakia or Czech Republic I'm able to communicate with people in my native language (Polish) while they can answer me in their native language. Not everything is going to be the same but you're able to maintain a conversation mostly about every topic that you'd like to discuss. It isn't impossible to do so with Russian or Ukrainian but it's much harder and there are more differences, and sometimes you aren’t able to communicate this way. The same goes with i.e. Croatian or Bulgarian.

Don’t get me wrong, dear friends from Russia (if anyone from Russia will ever read this). I’m pissed off because even though Smeyer created not one, but four characters with SLOVAKIAN origin, she didn't use at least one name which fully originated in that territories (and probably was used) around 1000 AD. She went for Russian names because, sure, let's do that, there's no big difference anyway and it’s easier. To add to that, Smeyer used Russian names which are widely used NOWADAYS, not ones which were probably popular (or just used) thousand years ago. 

Now, quick briefing on very popular names from that time (c. 1000 AD) in Slovakia and Czech Republic. 

Here’s the full article on Slavic names.  

While some of these names are used today, some of them aren’t at all or are used in a different, more evolved form. 

Now, to the names of our characters. The most explainable and justified name here is Kate’s name. In Twilight Wiki we can find that her actual name was Katrina and that her preferable name now is Kate. Let’s see the origins of the name Kate. 

Full article here. 

While we can read that variations of that name in Czech are: “ Katka, Kateřina, Kačka, Káťa, Kačenka, Káča, Kačí, Kačena” and in Slovakian “Katka, Katarína” still the origins aren’t Slavic. 

Next, Irina. 

As Wikipedia says:

Irina is a feminine given name of Ancient Greek origin, commonly borne by followers of the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is derived from Eirene (Ancient Greek: Εἰρήνη), an ancient Greek goddess, personification of peace.

Diminutive forms in Slavic languages include Ira, Irinka, Irinushka, Irisha, Irka, Irochka, Irinochka.

Here, we also don’t have Slavic origin. While it’s better than with Kate’s name because origins here seem to hugely blend, the proper origin of Irina’s name is Ancient Greek. I will never believe that a peasant girl from around 1000 AD was named Irina.

Here’s the full article. 

Next, Vasilli. 

Wikipedia doesn’t say much, except it’s a RUSSIAN NAME with Greek origin.

Full article here. 

Now, finally, we’ve two names left. First, Sasha. 

Finally, first one, which has Slavic origin. And while this name has many variations in many languages, I don’t believe that anyone in Slovakia prior to 1000 AD would name their child Sasha. This name gained popularity in 1970s, and I believe that it would be used rather as diminutive of a name in 1000 AD than a name itself. 

Full article here. 

Last, but not least, Tanya. 

Here, also, it isn’t a full name. Full name is Tatiana, and Tanya, especially in Slavic it is used as a nickname implying intimacy with the person OR used for baby talk. 

Full article here. 

What’s my point here? Even though two of these five names are partially Slavic in origin, they sound like Russian names. Not Eastern Slavic in one fucking bit. Sure, Smeyer could do a simplification and say that, yeah, girls acquired other names as centuries passed. Agreed, even strongly. 

BUT

Smeyer never said anything like this. Also, I’m under the impression that this names were meant to sound Russian. And, people, don’t get me wrong, I really hold nothing against Russians, but because of doing such thing Smeyer has perpetuated certain patterns and beliefs that have become firmly established in US culture and West culture in general by now. 

No wonder why some people never distinguish between Russia, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Republic or Ukraine, or other countries from Easter Bloc. How can they, where in majority of mass media they’re taught that IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Why should they bother? 

I have many friends among Slovakian people. Slovakia is like a second home to me. I also have a few friends from Czech Republic. And before, I’ve never been bothered by this name thing because I was a child. Today I couldn’t be silent about it. 

It’s sad that another culture and fantastic history was just blended in with Russia because why not. I don’t understand why in Western movies or books all people from former Eastern Bloc need to be Russian. 

I am Polish and to me it’s just extremely sad. We (and I think I can count in here Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, but also Croatia or Serbia) have fantastic culture and very long, eventful history. People from these countries are welcoming and share great hospitality. 

I don’t know why Smeyer did something like this, but I suppose it’s just a thing she does to everyone. Rip away their culture and pretend she didn’t do it. 

I am grateful that this fandom is a lot wiser than the creator of the books. This is what I said in the beginning of this post. Smeyer could’ve gone to library and read a little about the history and the names. I mean, If she didn’t found it on the Internet, because it was 2006, I believe, so she could research it. If there was nothing on the Internet, I’m sure a library would do. 

She did a poor research or didn’t do it at all. And that’s what happened. Was it worth it? I don’t think so. 

***

Everyone, please, comment, but be kind to each other (and to me xd). I wrote what I felt. As I’ve told you already, I’m Polish and I really felt that I should write this meta/disclaimer from a point of view of a person who lives in Slavic-origined country and has many Slavic-origined friends.

I still feel triggered because of this. Reblog this so others could see and say what they think. 

[deathvsthemaiden]

ok wait after u sent me that ask i have to know ur top books!!! dw if u don't feel like it but i would love to hear them 🌷

This is so sweet and considerate! Thank you Eva, you gave me 5 so I’ll try to keep it to that # as well 💖🐰 off the top of my head:

🌷 The Stormlight Archive series, especially the second book, Words of Radiance. Stormlight is like 4 books + 2 novellas right now, and is projected to be 10 books and ???novellas eventually. And on top of that each main book is 1000+ pages and while you can read Stormlight on its own, most of the other books by the author, Brandon Sanderson, are part of this larger fictional universe called the cosmere. Each series takes place on a different planet, and if you are invested in the whole cosmere, there’s Easter egg references to other series in other series. So like! While I rec these books often, most people understandably don’t take me up on it wgshshh 🤭 Sanderson’s non-Stormlight books are all MUCH shorter but also much more flawed imo. Like I wouldn’t count him among my favorite authors were it not for Stormlight. anyway I’m a die hard fantasy fan so the length didn’t deter me, and I picked these up because a friend told me the world building in these books was genuinely unique instead of the typical very lazy maps composed of like. Fantasy Russia and its hostile mysterious neighbors Fantasy General East Asia and Fantasy Africa lol. and she was right! The world building is exquisite and refreshing and almost every character is canonically of color. They live in a society with an eye color based caste system and it’s.., so hard to sum up this massive series with four main characters and a ridiculous(ly fun) amount of plot lines, so I’ll cut this short and say 1) the first book, The Way of Kings, is highly expository but the ending is so so worth it, and if you enjoy the ending you’ll find merit in continuing with the series 2) Words of Radiance is my favorite book so far partially because I haven’t read the newest, Rhythm of War, yet, and also because it’s the book with the most scenes that solidified Kaladin Stormblessed (one of the main characters) as one of my favorites of all time. Another one of the best things about this series is how Brandon Sanderson portrays mental health in very natural ways, and it makes Kaladin’s growth so incredibly soothing to follow (I MEAN. He has low points that sometimes hit too close to home, but it makes you root for him harder) he really is just. Truly my definition of a hero, if we wanna get cheesy about it, and I had to pick one solid example. I love him so much this isn’t even the tip of the iceberg as to why 😭!

🌷Jane Eyre. Silly frivolous teenaged girl that I am this book swept me off my feet when I first read it and I condone every problematic aspect of it❤️ (I DONT ofc but like! I love drama and being played like a fiddle by narratives and the book delivered on both fronts! And it couldn’t have without its unsavory plot twist soooo 😙💖) (the hate this book and especially one specific character gets is funny to me just because like. Hate for the former (imo) usually stems from people taking the book too seriously while simultaneously missing the point (JE and du Maurier’s Rebecca (highly influenced by the former) are oft considered loose Bluebeard retellings for a reasonnnn!) and hate for the latter is usually just like. Warranted and then taken over the top like... he’s just a fake funny little man you guys :( and the book would’ve been boring if he wasn’t so twisted and out of touch and passionate ): not to mention I do personally in a mean ish way think it’s funny how for some people this character is one of the worst examples of men they can imagine. Like good for Them! I don’t want them to have lower standards for horribleness in people But also omg 🤭 it just reminds me of how... irony of all ironies, I’m semi frequently told I’m too harsh on real life men and then when I love twisted ones in books (for being funny and entertaining and good solid characters) I like. get the most interesting side eyes (whether figurative or literal) bwjswnhshe anyway I have nothing against Austen, I definitely enjoy her, but from what I’ve read so far, I prefer the Brontës a lot more... I need adventure! Show me horror show me rot etc etc❤️ also I’m. A stupid sucker so the fact that the book was Charlotte Brontë’s attempt to write a plain looking lady protagonist and to make her praiseworthy and virtuous and worthy of spellbinding romance makes me... 💗💓💕

🌷Keturah and Lord Death — Martine Leavitt. I haven’t seen it officially stated anywhere but to me it’s p clear this book is a retelling of/highly inspired by Godfather Death (the Grimm tale) Very simple, predictable but effective plot, and the characters are just. So much fun. From my url you can probably tell I love stories in which women (or anyone but you know. Death and the Maiden is its own trope for a reason) outsmart/face off against death. If they also k*ss, when done right, I think that’s swell as well.

🌷A Thousand Splendid Suns — Khalid Hosseini. By far the heaviest book I will mention in this ask, and I don’t rec it willy nilly for that and a few other reasons. It’s a forever fave to me because I read it at the exact right time in my life, where I was like... noticing a ton of things irl and things at home were tumultuous, and when I saw very similar things unfold in this book while I was being silenced and made to feel crazy by the adults around me, it meant so much to me to see reality as I was experiencing it in real time reflected back at me via this novel. The context of the story is wildly different from my own life and the stakes the characters face are far higher, and it is if I remember right mostly a novel about the horrors of war, which isn’t something I pretend to have any firsthand experience with, but! It was legitimately cathartic to read when I read it, and it especially meant a lot to me at the time that the author was a grown man. Not to mention how my mother is not and never has been a reader, and somehow the one and only book I ever managed to get her to read was this. Hilariously she got mad at me for only (“only”) reading depressing things (there’s... a grain of truth to that but she doesn’t need to know! 🤫) but also... she was hooked I could tell! (I got all tmi explaining this one gag I’m so sorry)

🌷A Slight Trick of the Mind — Mitch Cullin. Retirement-era Holmes! Holmes as an old man! A sad old man who keeps bees!! It’s the novel the movie Mr. Holmes was based off of (haven’t seen it yet) and I was not expecting it to get me all sentimental like it did 🤨😪 but anyway it’s like. A prolonged character study and explores some of the most interesting (to me, anyway) parts of Holmes that are only lightly touched upon in canon, like his occasionally huge follies when navigating his few close relationships and how he copes with them afterwards, his fatigue at the random injustice of the world, how he’s often mistaken both by characters that surround him and people irl as a man without feelings, etc etc. like there’s no Dr. Watson or Mrs. Hudson in this book, and the people he interacts with are almost entirely original characters, but as I listened to the audiobook it barely occurred to me to miss Watson and Hudson (I know! 😦) and the author’s original characters interacted with Holmes so believably that I sometimes forgot they weren’t ever Doyle’s. Def recommend to any flexible Holmes fan that’s not a total stickler for canon (though you don’t actually have to know much about Holmes to read this book and enjoy it! 🐝)

🌷Sleepless — Sarah Vaughn + Leila del Luca. I began with the longest book, so let me end with the shortest. It’s a 2 volume long graphic novel series and that it’s so short is the only long standing, legitimate complaint I have of it! Gorgeous art, really effectively written romance, a dark skinned girl who gets to be the proactive, lively protagonist and stunning, pined after love interest at the same time, a cast of characters that is majority of color, the perfect %-age of drama and angst etc etc. if you can find it via your library or online or smth, you can knock it out in one sitting and leave the experience eternally altered in the funnest way 👁👄👁

Honorable mentions: The Botany of Desire — Michael Pollan, Troubling Love — Elena Ferrante, The Girl from the Garden — Parnaz Foroutan

[hellyeahomeland]

“Prisoners of War”: an HYH recap

The finale of our last season opens just as the finale of our first season did: with Nicholas Brody’s suicide tape. Brody stands before us just as we remember him: uniform pressed, grainy black and white, defending his decisions to the masses. Carrie drives late at night, her face steely, as those familiar words echo in her ears: “People will say I was broken, I was brainwashed. People will say that I was turned into a terrorist, taught to hate my country. I love my country.”

She arrives home, again, to an empty house.

Back in New York, Linus is paying Saul a surprise visit.

Saul: Hey, man! Am I fired yet? Linus: Miraculously, no! But Jalal Haqqani is definitely not dead, did you have any idea? Saul: Yeah, it was my entire idea. I didn’t tell you so you’d have plausible deniability. Linus: WHERE IS THE ALLIGATOR? Look, Hayes is pissed and is saying he’s going to take out Pakistan’s nuclear facilities if they don’t stand down. Saul: Jesus. Ok, get in the car, I’ll explain why I’ve been acting so fishy on the way back.

The next morning, Carrie’s enjoying a nice cup of coffee while watching her former enemy Tasneem deliver an address at the UN. Tasneem explains that the US are basically a bunch of annoying bullies and they have no choice but to defend themselves with everything they have. After, Anna goes back to the Russian Federation’s office and into Director Mirov’s office, where she notices the red flight recorder. She recaps Tasneem’s speech and Mirov is delighted because they’re all about to get promotions. Anna is steely-faced and says he deserves it.

Carrie arrives at Charlotte Benson’s giant mansion. Two Russian hunks, one of whom looks EXACTLY LIKE Jonas but is not, escort her to Charlotte’s murder demo. Actually, Carrie’s not going to murder him. She’s just gonna mix a few chemicals and create a gel that she rubs on his skin to immobilize him, then the Russians hunks will murder him. According to Yevgeny, they’re the best, and Yevgeny wants nothing but the best for his girl. Carrie looks like she may actually vomit, even though I already completed that bingo square.

In the Oval Office, Saul arrives for his meeting with Hayes but instead it’s just Evil Spawn Zabel, who looks so totally delighted to be going one-on-one with Saul again. Saul shares that the flight recorder indicates the helicopter wasn’t shot down after all, it was just mechanical failure. Zabel seems intrigued initially, the wheels in his head probably spinning to figure out how he can play this to his advantage. But Saul doesn’t have the recording and in fact has no proof. Zabel says he’s full of shit. They basically talk past each other, neither side budging from the facts (or, as Zabel would say, “facts”). He pronounces Saddam in Saddam Hussein like it rhymes with “Goddamn” and then says the Iraq War was a good idea “for the record.” Hugh Dancy revels in the slime.

Saul’s relaying this shitshow to Linus when he arrives home to find St. Maggie. Mr. Bill “I’ve Had It” Mathison has a friend who swore he saw Carrie at Langley the other day, which makes no sense to me or to Maggie but Saul’s like “could have happened!” Wasn’t Carrie on trial for being involved in the president’s murder? Anyhoozles, Maggie is once again exasperated with Carrie, her sister whom she just can’t understand. Carrie hasn’t even stopped by to see Franny. Saul agrees it’s strange.

Ironically, while Maggie is paying a house visit to Saul, Carrie is paying a house visit to Maggie. Well, more specifically to Franny’s bedroom, where’s she’s hidden a go-bag filled with cash and a shitload of meds and a half dozen passports. On her way out, she pauses on a photo of Franny, her hair red as ever, in a bright yellow rain coat. She takes it with her.

Later that night, Carrie arrives back at Saul’s, looking again like she could hurl at any minute. She spots the Russian hunks in a nearby car lighting up a cigarette. She steps inside to find Saul, sitting in his library, listening to the Fleabag soundtrack. It’s very ominous. Dad is NOT happy!

He confronts her immediately. Why hasn’t she seen Franny? Actually, why the fuck is she even back here? Seems like she’s planning a quick escape. But why come back in the first place?

She deflects initially, but it’s Saul. She knows that he knows. He knows that she knows that he knows. There is a lot of knowing going on.

Carrie: You know the answers to all your questions. Saul: I still want to hear you say it. With my own ears. Carrie: I made a deal with Yevgeny. The flight recorder for your asset in Moscow. Saul: Asset? What asset? Carrie: Don’t bullshit a bullshitter. I know she exists. I know how you communicate. Saul: Good God, Carrie, tell me you haven’t. If you have, you’ve permanently crippled our position in Russia. She’s the last live source we have there. The rest were sent to the wall by Allison Carr, a thing that was 0% my fault. Carrie: We can rebuild the intelligence network. Saul: It’ll take a decades. Meanwhile they slowly strangle us. Carrie: Let’s worry about all that tomorrow. We’re on the brink of nuclear war today in case you forgot. Saul: Relax, I’m talking to some journalists tomorrow. Carrie: Lol, like that will make a flying fuck worth of a difference. Saul: Well, sometimes that’s the price of doing business. Carrie: Who even are you? Saul: What do you want from me? Carrie: GIVE ME HER NAME. Saul: I never will. God, get the fuck out of my house. You’re turning yourself in ASAP.

Carrie storms upstairs and starts to mix the not-murder potion. For some reason she forgets to close the door because Saul walks in a few moments later. She panics and smears the gel across his neck. He looks confused for a second and then collapses. Carrie looks in shock at her mentor sprawled out on the floor. She signals the Russian hunks on the street outside. Sara begins to have an actual panic attack thinking Carrie might murder Saul.

Saul can hear her, of course, but he can’t move. He can barely speak. She tells him to give her the name, now, or some Russian dudes are gonna murder him. She says it’s out of her hands when it’s entirely in her hands. She explains to him the legacy plan. The poor guy looks literally dumbstruck. She asks him to see reason. No one person can be worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It’s an interesting replay of his conversation with Zabel earlier.

The GRU team walks in then — she gives him one final chance, but he still won’t say her name. They take him into his bedroom, which is GIANT, and begin prepping for the murder.

Carrie tries again. She tries really hard, with everything she has.

“Everything you have ever asked of me, I have done.” In a single line, their whole relationship, eight seasons’ worth. He stares back up at her, simultaneously expressionless and filled with hurt and pain. Is there no fucking line?

Then: “Come here,” he mumbles, barely audible. She leans in close to him, expectant. “Go fuck yourself.” A fat tear rolls down her face and she shakes her head at the GRU team. She says something about a fallback plan and then turns toward Saul, every inch of herself sorry and lost and guilty. “I had to try,” she says quietly.

The fallback plan is to go see Saul’s sister Dorit (“Saul, what do you have?”) in the West Bank. And, once there, to tell Dorit that Saul’s died of a stroke and Dorit needs to go back to DC at once for funeral arrangements. Carrie plays somber yet dutiful surrogate daughter well. She’s disgusted with herself but, again, can’t hold back. Wherever the line is, if it existed, she’s lost it now.

While she’s helping Dorit pack, she makes her move and pokes around the legacy plan. Dorit, like Mira before her, sees her brother in this woman all too clearly. “Always an ulterior motive,” she says. But Dorit is kind-hearted and she does have an envelope for Carrie. There’s a thumb drive inside and Carrie looks so relieved she could cry. She sends Dorit on her way (but not before swiping her phone... I LOVE YOU CARRIE).

Back in Washington, Saul has full motor control again but he’s really late for his meeting with those journalists, and Linus, ever the mensch and detective, realizes something’s fishy pretty immediately. Nevertheless, Carrie’s just given word to Yevgeny that she has the name, so they peace out anyway.

Yevgeny arrives at Dorit’s house on cue and dressed for warm weather. Carrie’s not getting a needle to the neck this time. She’s on full alert, gun pointed straight at him before he even walks through the door. She makes a big show of patting every inch of his body down for a weapon that he actually doesn’t have, and then tosses him a piece of paper with Anna’s name. Then she shows him what’s on the flash drive.

Here’s what’s on the flash drive: a much darker-haired Saul, with different glasses, explaining who Anna is. Aside from Carrie, she is the most important professional relationship in his life. She’s an asset but she runs herself (sounds familiar!). She is extraordinary. And he never told her because he was protecting her. Carrie turns away — his soft, sure words are like daggers. Everything he’s talking about on that tape is destroyed. Carrie took a match to it all.

Anna’s now burned and Mirov knows. Saul rings up Resident Hottie Scott Ryan at the UN for an assist. Saul pleads with him to get Anna out of there ASAP. At the same time, Mirov’s men run in quick pursuit. Scott and Anna make their way to a dead-end room in the basement and barricade the door. Anna asks for a gun, not to shoot her way out… well, at least not out. Anna is determined, assured, confident. She won’t let them take her. You can tell how she’s been such an incredible, independent asset all these years and why Saul wants so desperately to save her. Scott refuses to hand over his gun and Anna asks to phone a friend.

On the phone, Saul reacts initially just like Scott. There’s got to be another way. We can get out of this, you don’t have to do this. But she is persistent, she’s determined. She wants to end this on her own terms. “I’ve never known anyone so brave,” Saul says, his eyes wide. He orders Scott to give her the gun. On the other end of the line, Saul hears the single shot. He winces in pain.

Shockingly, Russia followed through with their end of the deal and Mirov gets up at the UN with brand new evidence that Jalal Haqqani didn’t shoot down the president’s helicopter. It was an accident and now the whole world can hear the cockpit recording for themselves. Watching in Israel, Carrie’s disgusted. Yevgeny, ever the considerate boyfriend, asks if she’s ok.

Carrie: Just cut the bullshit, the game’s over. Also, why the fuck are you still here? Just leave already. Russia’s a frontrunner for the Nobel Peace Prize and a decent woman is going to be tortured and killed by your government. Yevgeny: That decent woman got two assets of mine killed in Cyprus. Carrie: Oh, I’m sure they were both good samaritans. Yevgeny: Fine, if you want to blame me, go ahead. Carrie: Good, I do blame you! Yevgeny: Look, sometimes it’s just the cost of doing business. I did what I had to do. Carrie: WHY DO ALL THE MEN IN MY LIFE SAY THE SAME THINGS? Yevgeny: He should have pulled Anna from the field the second he realized what you were doing. Carrie: You just don’t fucking get it. He didn’t pull her because he trusted me. He fucking loved me. I betrayed him. I broke that.  Do you even understand what that means? Yevgeny: You’ll survive. So will he. Carrie: I don’t know what it’s like on your side but it must be very lonely.

In the Oval Office, Hayes, Zabel, and Linus—still not eaten by an alligator—are huddled around the TV watching Mirov’s press conference. Mirov pleads with Hayes to stand down following the reveal of this big misunderstanding. Suddenly Zabel looks like he wants to get eaten by an alligator! Hayes asks Linus, who hasn’t been addressed directly by POTUS in 4-6 weeks, for a direct line with the military. They get Owens on the phone. Zabel’s plan to start a phony war to consolidate power and kill more brown people has been thwarted. Everything’s coming up Linus!

Back at Dorit’s house, Yevgeny tells Carrie that Anna’s killed herself. She’s about to make some quippy remark like “Sorry you missed out on some gulag fun” when Yevgeny connects the dots for her and says that Saul must have warned her. And then Carrie connects the dots for us: Israeli counter-intelligence knows too. Time to book it! They hop in their getaway car and head for Ramallah. Yevgeny has people there who can smuggle her into Syria. And then? And then…

Are you sitting down? We fast forward two years. We’re in Moscow. Carrie Mathison is in a large, spacious penthouse. She is applying MASCARA. TO HER EYELASHES. HER HAIR IS CURLED.

“You almost ready?” says a familiar, accented voice. IT’S YEVGENY. She turns and smiles. Y’ALL THEY ARE LIVING TOGETHER IN MOSCOW.

Sara: [head explodes]  

He asks if she’s excited. “Very.” Remember in season five when Claire’s like, “Carrie’s doing great, for five minutes.” This is like that only better.

Yevgeny gives her a gold necklace, for “finishing.” Do we all get one too? He tells her what she’s done is very, very important and it’s time to celebrate. It’s sort of surreal. The best way I can think of to describe it is the season of Lost where Jack and Kate are off the island and living together and in love and if you were, say, into that, it was paradise. If you were, say, not into that, it was bizarre as fuck.

Once ready, Carrie runs into her office to get her purse. It’s… about what you’d expect her office to look like. There are stacks of books everywhere, documents printed out and tacked to the wall, sticky notes all over the window. The picture of Franny in the yellow rain coat is still there. She turns to the wall and takes it in. It’s pages and pages of news articles about the CIA’s drone program, Abu Ghraib, the black sites, torture. Familiar figures—in real life and in-show—are visible. Snowden, Brody, Quinn, Keane. It’s her professional career—her entire life—arrayed in one final collage for us to take in. The familiar closing score from “The Star” begins playing as she shuts off the lights.

Cut to Saul, in his house, now much emptier. He and Dorit are packing boxes. He’s had a heart attack and is moving out, presumably to someplace where he’s not alone all the time. The phone begins to ring. It’s someone looking for a Professor Rabinow.

Then the jazz stars to play. Yevgeny’s big celebration for Carrie was a jazz concert by Kamasi Washington and crew. It’s electrifying. They’re both into it, bobbing their heads as much as one can bob their head to jazz. It’s a clever callback not only to the jazz musicians Carries spots in the pilot but also to this oft-parodied passion of hers. The cacophonous sounds, it’s bliss.

The song finishes and out of the corner of her eye Carrie spots a woman in the orchestra exit her seat. She absentmindedly rubs Yevgeny’s knee. It’s a subtle but specific detail with one purpose and that is to reveal that this relationship is real. It is comfortably intimate. It exists in the grey--in the duplicity--that Carrie’s relationships with men have always existed in. Maybe that’s her happiness. Maybe that’s how she’s not alone.

In DC, Saul pays a visit to his friend Claude, who calls him Professor repeatedly, even though Saul claims all that stuff is over with. Well, the package addressed to Professor Rabinow that was just delivered this morning begs to differ.

At the concert, Carrie excuses herself to go freshen up her makeup and ends up at the vanity right next to that woman she’d spotted. The other woman eyes Carrie, before casually taking off with Carrie’s purse. Carrie takes hers.

At his home, Saul has the Professor Rabinow package. He opens it. It’s Carrie’s book, the presumed result of all that research in her office. It’s called Tyranny of Secrets. A haunting black-and-white image of Carrie stares back at him from the cover. This is her work... and it’s his, too. He flips through the first few pages. He reads the subtitle, “Why I Had to Betray My Country.” And the dedication, “For my daughter, in the hope that one day she will understand.”  

He doesn’t get it until he does. He flips the book upside down into that familiar Y shape and then extracts a slim piece of paper from the spine. She reads: “Greetings from Moscow, Professor. The Russian S400 missile defense system sold to Iran and Turkey has a back door. It can be defeated. Specs to follow. Stay tuned.” He looks up in awe, a hint of a smile across his face.

At the concert, the saxophone blares in her ears, vocals ringing, strings, bass, piano, drums. Everything, all at once. She sighs, then smiles, bathed in blue light. Not noise. Music.

[theculturedmarxist]

My dad was born in 1917. Somehow, he survived the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-1919, but an outbreak of whooping cough in 1923 claimed his baby sister, Clementina. One of my dad’s first memories was seeing his sister’s tiny white casket. Another sister was permanently marked by scarlet fever. In 1923, my dad was hit by a car and spent two weeks in a hospital with a fractured skull as well as a lacerated thumb. His immigrant parents had no medical insurance, but the driver of the car gave his father $50 toward the medical bills. The only lasting effect was the scar my father carried for the rest of his life on his right thumb.

The year 1929 brought the Great Depression and lean times. My father’s father had left the family, so my dad, then 12, had to pitch in. He got a newspaper route, which he kept for four years, quitting high school after tenth grade so he could earn money for the family. In 1935, like millions of other young men of that era, he joined the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), a creation of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal that offered work on environmental projects of many kinds. He battled forest fires in Oregon for two years before returning to his family and factory work. In 1942, he was drafted into the Army, going back to a factory job when World War II ended. Times grew a little less lean in 1951 when he became a firefighter, after which he felt he could afford to buy a house and start a family.

I’m offering all this personal history as the context for a prediction of my dad’s that, for obvious reasons, came to my mind again recently. When I was a teenager, he liked to tell me: “I had it tough in the beginning and easy in the end. You, Willy, have had it easy in the beginning, but will likely have it tough in the end.” His prophecy stayed with me, perhaps because even then, somewhere deep down, I already suspected that my dad was right.

The COVID-19 pandemic is now grabbing the headlines, all of them, and a global recession, if not a depression, seems like a near-certainty. The stock market has been tanking and people’s lives are being disrupted in fundamental and scary ways. My dad knew the experience of losing a loved one to disease, of working hard to make ends meet during times of great scarcity, of sacrificing for the good of one’s family. Compared to him, it’s true that, so far, I’ve had an easier life as an officer in the Air Force and then a college teacher and historian. But at age 57, am I finally ready for the hard times to come? Are any of us?

And keep in mind that this is just the beginning. Climate change (recall Australia’s recent and massive wildfires) promises yet more upheavals, more chaos, more diseases. America’s wanton militarism and lying politicians promise more wars. What’s to be done to avert or at least attenuate the tough times to come, assuming my dad’s prediction is indeed now coming true? What can we do?

It’s Time to Reimagine America

Here’s the one thing about major disruptions to normalcy: they can create opportunities for dramatic change. (Disaster capitalists know this, too, unfortunately.) President Franklin Roosevelt recognized this in the 1930s and orchestrated his New Deal to revive the economy and put Americans like my dad back to work.

In 2001, the administration of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney capitalized on the shock-and-awe disruption of the 9/11 attacks to inflict on the world their vision of a Pax Americana, effectively a militarized imperium justified (falsely) as enabling greater freedom for all. The inherent contradiction in such a dreamscape was so absurd as to make future calamity inevitable. Recall what an aide to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld scribbled down, only hours after the attack on the Pentagon and the collapse of the Twin Towers, as his boss’s instructions (especially when it came to looking for evidence of Iraqi involvement): “Go massive — sweep it all up, things related and not.” And indeed they would do just that, with an emphasis on the “not,” including, of course, the calamitous invasion of Iraq in 2003.

To progressive-minded people thinking about this moment of crisis, what kind of opportunities might open to us when (or rather if) Donald Trump is gone from the White House? Perhaps this coronaviral moment is the perfect time to consider what it would mean for us to go truly big, but without the usual hubris or those disastrous invasions of foreign countries. To respond to COVID-19, climate change, and the staggering wealth inequities in this country that, when combined, will cause unbelievable levels of needless suffering, what’s needed is a drastic reordering of our national priorities.

Remember, the Fed’s first move was to inject $1.5 trillion into the stock market. (That would have been enough to forgive all current student debt.) The Trump administration has also promised to help airlines, hotels, and above all oil companies and the fracking industry, a perfect storm when it comes to trying to sustain and enrich those upholding a kleptocratic and amoral status quo.

This should be a time for a genuinely new approach, one fit for a world of rising disruption and disaster, one that would define a new, more democratic, less bellicose America. To that end, here are seven suggestions, focusing — since I’m a retired military officer — mainly on the U.S. military, a subject that continues to preoccupy me, especially since, at present, that military and the rest of the national security state swallow up roughly 60% of federal discretionary spending:

1. If ever there was a time to reduce our massive and wasteful military spending, this is it. There was never, for example, any sense in investing up to $1.7 trillion over the next 30 years to “modernize” America’s nuclear arsenal. (Why are new weapons needed to exterminate humanity when the “old” ones still work just fine?) Hundreds of stealth fighters and bombers — it’s estimated that Lockheed Martin’s disappointing F-35 jet fighter alone will cost $1.5 trillion over its life span — do nothing to secure us from pandemics, the devastating effects of climate change, or other all-too-pressing threats. Such weaponry only emboldens a militaristic and chauvinistic foreign policy that will facilitate yet more wars and blowback problems of every sort. And speaking of wars, isn’t it finally time to end U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? More than $6 trillion has already been wasted on those wars and, in this time of global peril, even more is being wasted on this country’s forever conflicts across the Greater Middle East and Africa. (Roughly $4 billion a month continues to be spent on Afghanistan alone, despite all the talk about “peace” there.)

2. Along with ending profligate weapons programs and quagmire wars, isn’t it time for the U.S. to begin dramatically reducing its military “footprint” on this planet? Roughly 800 U.S. military bases circle the globe in a historically unprecedented fashion at a yearly cost somewhere north of $100 billion. Cutting such numbers in half over the next decade would be a more than achievable goal. Permanently cutting provocative “war games” in South Korea, Europe, and elsewhere would be no less sensible. Are North Korea and Russia truly deterred by such dramatic displays of destructive military might?

3. Come to think of it, why does the U.S. need the immediate military capacity to fight two major foreign wars simultaneously, as the Pentagon continues to insist we do and plan for, in the name of “defending” our country? Here’s a radical proposal: if you add 70,000 Special Operations forces to 186,000 Marine Corps personnel, the U.S. already possesses a potent quick-strike force of roughly 250,000 troops. Now, add in the Army’s 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions and the 10th Mountain Division. What you have is more than enough military power to provide for America’s actual national security. All other Army divisions could be reduced to cadres, expandable only if our borders are directly threatened by war. Similarly, restructure the Air Force and Navy to de-emphasize the present “global strike” vision of those services, while getting rid of Donald Trump’s newest service, the Space Force, and the absurdist idea of taking war into low earth orbit. Doesn’t America already have enough war here on this small planet of ours?

4. Bring back the draft, just not for military purposes. Make it part of a national service program for improving America. It’s time for a new Civilian Conservation Corps focused on fostering a Green New Deal. It’s time for a new Works Progress Administration to rebuild America’s infrastructure and reinvigorate our culture, as that organization did in the Great Depression years. It’s time to engage young people in service to this country. Tackling COVID-19 or future pandemics would be far easier if there were quickly trained medical aides who could help free doctors and nurses to focus on the more difficult cases. Tackling climate change will likely require more young men and women fighting forest fires on the west coast, as my dad did while in the CCC — and in a climate-changing world there will be no shortage of other necessary projects to save our planet. Isn’t it time America’s youth answered a call to service? Better yet, isn’t it time we offered them the opportunity to truly put America, rather than themselves, first?

5. And speaking of “America First,” that eternal Trumpian catch-phrase, isn’t it time for all Americans to recognize that global pandemics and climate change make a mockery of walls and go-it-alone nationalism, not to speak of politics that divide, distract, and keep so many down? President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said that only Americans can truly hurt America, but there’s a corollary to that: only Americans can truly save America — by uniting, focusing on our common problems, and uplifting one another. To do so, it’s vitally necessary to put an end to fear-mongering (and warmongering). As President Roosevelt famously said in his first inaugural address in the depths of the Great Depression, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Fear inhibits our ability to think clearly, to cooperate fully, to change things radically as a community.

6. To cite Yoda, the Jedi master, we must unlearn what we have learned. For example, America’s real heroes shouldn’t be “warriors” who kill or sports stars who throw footballs and dunk basketballs. We’re witnessing our true heroes in action right now: our doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel, together with our first responders, and those workers who stay in grocery stores, pharmacies, and the like and continue to serve us all despite the danger of contracting the coronavirus from customers. They are all selflessly resisting a threat too many of us either didn’t foresee or refused to treat seriously, most notably, of course, President Donald Trump: a pandemic that transcends borders and boundaries. But can Americans transcend the increasingly harsh and divisive borders and boundaries of our own minds? Can we come to work selflessly to save and improve the lives of others? Can we become, in a sense, lovers of humanity?

7. Finally, we must extend our love to encompass nature, our planet. For if we keep treating our lands, our waters, and our skies like a set of trash cans and garbage bins, our children and their children will inherit far harder times than the present moment, hard as it may be.

What these seven suggestions really amount to is rejecting a militarized mindset of aggression and a corporate mindset of exploitation for one that sees humanity and this planet more holistically. Isn’t it time to regain that vision of the earth we shared collectively during the Apollo moon missions: a fragile blue sanctuary floating in the velvety darkness of space, an irreplaceable home to be cared for and respected since there’s no other place for us to go? Otherwise, I fear that my father’s prediction will come true not just for me, but for generations to come and in ways that even he couldn’t have imagined.

[drink-n-watch]

Hello everyone. Please bear with me this week. I am still in the midst of a huge cold and even watching Psycho Pass was a bit of a challenge. Matt, I’m going to have to rely on you for the deep insight even more than usual this week. Oh and if I say anything that makes no sense, please assume it’s the cold medicine talking.

Oh boy, this oughta be a fun one! Strap in guys and gals!

First let me say that to my eye, it seems as if last week was a blip. This week’s episode was largely back to normal regarding character model consistency and art quality. I really didn’t notice anything off. Of course there’s no way I trust myself in my current state to make that assertion so Matt, what did you think of the visuals?

Much improved, not sure if that was because they were a bit smarter with shot composition in this episode–favouring still frames and off-camera dialogue over low quality mid and long shots–but whatever it was worked well for the visual fidelity of the episode.

I thought the episode would have mostly concentrated on the undercover infiltration of Heaven’s Leap and I was excited about it. So it was a bit disappointing to me to have the narrative swing back to Arata and the rest of division one that quickly.

This episode was jumping around a lot, in spite of what people may have thought this episode would be, I’ll elaborate on that later though…

Although I was amused by how sly Kei is. He’s like an ogre, the boy has layers, and it’s slowly winning me over.

A ‘Shrek’ reference? In 2019? For shame, Irina…

The story does indeed seem to be continuing its exploration of the plight of immigrants in a Sybil controlled society and the plot is thickening on all sides. A deep conspiracy is going on with most of our key players missing for unknown reasons and still no explanation for the acts of terrorism all pointing back to the church.

It does appear that a powerful organization is using immigrants to reap chaos and perhaps in other ways as well but so far, I haven’t gotten a handle on why. I’m not sure if it hasn’t been revealed yet or I just missed it, but the end goal is still fuzzy as far as I’m concerned.

From what I can gather, Bifrost (the three people who talk cryptically in that extremely detailed 3D room) are all ‘congressmen’ who have power on par with the Sybil system and can drastically affect anything going on in Japan; from the allocation of public funds to different projects to the plotting of needlessly complicated conspiracies involving religions, kidnappings, and all manner of mischief. Basically, they are demi-gods, playing with pawns in the shadow of the absolute god that is the Sybil system.

Well yeah – I mean I got the basics down, I’m not that sick. I just don’t quite know yet the point of holding Roundrobin games. Is it a purge tactic, simple entertainment, modern day gladiator games? Bifrost is like an evil Sybil computer right? Why is it holding the games in the first place?

Because ambitious people will always want to have power over others and Bifrost is the end goal for such ambitions maybe?

One thing I would love to get more information about, is the larger context of Japan on the international level. I know I say that a lot simply because I think it’s really interesting to see how Psycho Pass’ specific version of authoritarianism would play out when confronted with other governments. However, in this particular case, I think it could help us appreciate the story more as well.

I’m sure they’d get along fine with the US in its current political state. Ohhh~ spicy!

Like I mentioned earlier this season, I was pretty surprised there even is enough immigration into Japan for the possibility of racial/cultural tensions to rise. I would have thought it would be too chaotic and unpredictable a situation for Sybil to allow.

Regardless of how Sybil feels about it, I’m also super curious why anyone would want to immigrate to Japan. It’s an island country so it’s not mere convenience. These people went through effort to go there specifically. That’s a bit unusual especially in the case of hue compromised immigrants which seem to be not uncommon.

What is happening in the rest of the world to make Japan that attractive?

It’s gotta be the secret porn doujin underground, right? I mean that’d be enough to make me risk a clouded hue to live in a Sybil-controlled Japan!

You may have chosen the wrong show to watch Matt…What I mean is considering the danger, why would someone chose Japan? I know Kei mentioned fighting in his home country but his home country is Russia. They aren’t exactly strangers to warfare in our world…. Do you know anything about this?

Do I know anything about what? About Russia, or about Kei being Russian? Or about Kei fighting in Russia? Or warfare in general? Because as far as I know, war… war never changes…

Did season 2 give us any glimpse about the state of international matters?

I try to block season 2 out of my memories… but no I don’t think it did.

Another aspect that would actually change things quite a bit is the emigration policy which I don’t think they’ve discussed yet. For instance, let’s say that Hue determination is based on some super secret set of calculations (like the google algorithm) and no one can know their own hues until Sybil assesses them. Can you show up in Japan, find out that your one quarter stuck in the bubblegum machine away from becoming a latent criminal and just decide to leave? Is there anything keeping you there outside the financial burden of travelling?

If Japan is letting so many people in you figure they would be letting some out as well to avoid overpopulation but we never really see that. In fact, most people don’t seem to have even travelled outside of Japan (which would make sense) so how does that work?

I think you’re trying to apply too much logic to a show (and by extension its writer) who just wanted to tack on some buzz-worthy topics like ‘immigrants’ and ‘housing crisis’, etc to the world of ‘Psycho Pass’ without you thinking too much about the nitty gritty details. Or maybe the writer is a genius and he’ll answer all your questions in time for the finale!

I don’t know. The writer is probably smarter than me. Besides what I do know of this franchise has always been very nicely constructed. None of these things are essential to understanding the story of course. I just think they’re interesting concepts and would add some nice world building to a season that’s been mostly plot driven.

As the episode came to a close, things were looking pretty dire for Kei. Just as I was starting to like the guy too. And I mean very dire. It strikes me that Psycho Pass may be the type of show that does not shy away from killing off main cast members and now I’m really worries. I will personally be bummed if anything happens to Kei. Maria will be devastated and I don’t know if Arata would even survive it….

Matt, tell me it’s going to be ok!

I mean, Maria got kidnapped to, things are going from bad to worse before our eyes, Irina!

Oh also, Bifrost is deeply involved with Heaven’s Leap. Of course. I don’t even know why I felt the need to throw in a spoiler like that…

Well I mean corrupt religions and corrupt politics go hand in hand, just look at the US… Oh! There I go again being ~spicy~!

So Matt, what did you think of this episode. Is last week still your least favourite?

This episode felt needlessly, almost combatively confusing, presenting itself in a fractured narrative that cut between story beats and flashbacks in such a way to keep itself ahead of the audience as if obfuscation passes for complexity. There was nothing specifically I disliked about this episode, there were some great scenes but they were presented so hurriedly and so disjointedly that on the whole it was hard to fully enjoy the experience. Even though this was a 45 minute episode, not only did it feel like a bunch of plots and subplots were simultaneously emerging, converging and diverting but it also felt like it was rushing for the sake of being compelling but instead ended up just confusing. This’ll be the new least favourite episode (so far). What about you Irina, can you blow past your cold and give us your verdict on it? 

I’m neutral on it. I found it less confusing than past episodes in that motivations were much clearer and I have no issues with intertwining narratives, in fact I often like them. However to me here are a lot of interesting themes being laid out but they are presented in a fairly dull way, in my opinion. So it evens out?

Psycho Pass s3 ep6 – Friends and Strangers Hello everyone. Please bear with me this week. I am still in the midst of a huge cold and even watching Psycho Pass was a bit of a challenge.

[the-firebird69]

As I said mentions there are trophies taken by people like Tommy f AKA Jeff Bridges and in facilities like those where it's top of the line you can imagine a lot of regents and generals of Mac in Japan China and Russia and other nations that are industrialized would have been brought there for competition to watch them die at his hand by his hand and for his viewing pleasure any plan to do similar things to our son over and over from venue to venue trying to attract ours as he did the Max and others simultaneously by the way and for 10 years or so at the same location. Rumors are seeping out of there of 15,000 heads that are on file and Frozen and they go on to say they look like they're hollow but they were probably with brain and they talked on the shelf just like they said our friend was saying he had it is him it's this guy and it's more rumors.... Some say 15 million in our son says that's more like it and I say more like 15 billion and our reports are saying that it is a huge huge collection of them... And Tommy f is trying to break in to say something stupid and we try and remind him people will find these atrocities and now all of the world and figure out it's you and your time is limited here and you're going to be in a lot of trouble shortly

Other atrocities that we found were a naked women that were headless and there are plenty of princesses meaning directors of Queen Elizabeth about 550,000 hanging in suspension just like in the movie and that's where the movie is from and Jeff Bridges this wanted internationally and by us he is a sick person and needs to be brought in and it's not allowed near a son nor is Trump those two are to be arrested or shot on site if they try and approach our son these things are vulgar even to us they are hanging there and in order to have babies no they're hanging there for blood so people can mutate into females and his clones are doing it and blaming us

..

There are other atrocities there and the numbers are staggering and the names are many it is a huge war between him and everybody else and yes his sons and daughters died by his hand he killed them all himself and he's a pig he has nothing to live for he says because he's done these things and his emotionally a basket case and that's what part of The sopranos is about she can't stand him and doesn't want him in the room and it's like our son to a degree get him away from me and her son can tolerate them more because he's conspiring to kill the guy.. Antonio has no idea which is good ..

There's a list of atrocities in the list of people who are dead their information is listed as well and those files on them and the international police are budding in an international community the United Nations once in now and they're coming in and they're coming in force

They are coming in it is a formal meeting and they are demanding access to the information there are many dead that were planned on us and he has to pay I'm going to take him to task this person is constantly abusing our son and has his money and killed off his family for Christ's sake does anybody want to wake up yet

Our son is suggesting a wall and he says it kind of neat but not really he says in a very dry manner he says you there's so many names you can't put them on a wall and people won't be able to see who they are and they you could list them alphabetically and by rank because people should be noted for their rank if someone was a sergeant or lieutenant and died they should be given that honor so in honor of how they died and where they died he suggesting a memorial near the other one where you at your glass or something is stronger than class their names in in micro format so you can use a magnifying glass it'll be handed out at the beginning and you put it back in when you're done to see the name and you can photograph it through the magnifying glass and there be billions of names of those who lost their lives there and they become martyrs when you put up this memorial and it's also a beacon for your people and he's suggesting I stay out of my business which he usually says but my people I don't know if we lost people but we would want something like this because he's a menace and that's why I'm saying it mostly.

Thor Freya

Okay my nephew okay we'll do that I wonder if we have you procure the glass since I don't know where to get that glass since we do we're going to take pieces of it once it are not irradiated I have his design idea and others May submit theirs but I think he's going to win he's seen one that's similar in Boston it is the idea that works for a lot of people he says there should not be one name that's left out even more like who are clowns who stumbled onto his whole so many times that people figured it out and I agree

Mac

Oh no this is the secret assignment that's why I'm in office and I figured it out and we're in trouble and went on fire he's doing it on purpose and it ruined him and everybody saw it just like you said they would Mac and Chris Dylan will and Ken and Garth and Jason is going missing maybe we're going to come help you too and Godspeed he said and we're on it now

Bja

[newstfionline]

A History of Idiocy

By Uri Avnery, Antiwar.com, November 18, 2017

I am going to write an article about a subject I have been thinking about for a long time.

The subject is idiocy. Particularly, the role of idiocy in history.

The older I get, the more convinced I am that sheer stupidity plays a major role in the history of nations.

Great Thinkers, compared to whom I am a mere intellectual dwarf, have pursued other factors to explain what has turned history into a mess. Karl Marx blamed the economy. Others blame God. Some accuse Race. Or geopolitics.

For many generations, Great Thinkers have been searching for some deep explanation for war. Great thinkers. Deep thoughts. I have read many thick volumes. But in the end, they left me unsatisfied.

In the end it hit me. There is indeed one factor common to all these historical events: foolishness.

I know that this sounds incredible. Foolishness? All these thousands of wars? All these hundreds of millions of casualties? All these emperors, kings, statesmen, strategists? All fools?

Recently I was asked for an example. “Show me how it works,” an incredulous listener demanded.

I mentioned the outbreak of World War I, an event that changed the face of Europe and the world forever, and which ended just five years before I was born, My earliest childhood was spent in the shadow of this cataclysm.

It happened like this:

An Austrian archduke was killed in the town of Sarajevo by a Serbian anarchist. It happened almost by accident: the planned attempt failed, but later the terrorist happened upon the duke and killed him.

So what? The duke was a quite unimportant person. Thousands of such acts have happened before and since. But this time the Austrian statesmen thought that this was a good opportunity to teach the Serbs a lesson. It took the form of an ultimatum.

No big deal. Such things happen all the time. But the powerful Russian empire was allied with Serbia, so the Czar issued a warning: he ordered the mobilization of his army, just to make his point.

In Germany, all the red lights went on. Germany is situated in the middle of Europe and has no impregnable natural borders, no oceans, no high mountains. It was trapped between two great military powers, Russia and France. For years the German generals had been pondering how to save the Fatherland if attacked from the two sides simultaneously.

A master-plan evolved. Russia was a huge country, and it would take several weeks to mobilize the Russian army. These weeks must be used to smash France, turn the army around and stop the Russians.

It was a brilliant plan, worked out to the finest detail by brilliant military minds. But the German army was stopped at the gates of Paris. The British intervened to help France. The result was a static war of four long years, where nothing really happened except that millions upon millions of human beings were slaughtered or maimed.

In the end a peace was made, a peace so stupid that it virtually made a Second World War inevitable. This broke out a mere 21 years later, with even larger numbers of casualties.

Many books have been written about “July 1914”, the crucial month in which World War I became inevitable.

How many people were involved in decision-making in Europe? How many emperors, kings, ministers, parliamentarians, generals; not to mention academicians, journalists, poets and what not?

Were they all stupid? Were they all blind to what was happening in their countries and throughout their continent?

Impossible, one is tempted to cry out. Many of them were highly competent, intelligent people, people versed in history. They knew everything about the earlier wars that had ravaged Europe throughout the centuries.

Yet there you are. All these people played their part in causing the most terrible war (up to then) in the annals of history. An act of sheer idiocy.

The human mind cannot accept such a truth. There must be other reasons. Profound reasons. So they wrote innumerable books explaining why this was logical, why it had to happen, what were the “underlying” causes.

Most of these theories are certainly plausible. But compared to the effects, they are puny. Millions of human beings marched out to be slaughtered, singing and almost dancing, trusting their emperor, king, president, commander-in-chief. Never to return.

Could all these leaders be idiots? They certainly could. And were.

I don’t need the examples of the thousands of foreign wars and conflicts, because I live in the middle of one right now.

Never mind how it came about, the present situation is that in the land that used to be called Palestine there live two peoples of different origin, culture, history, religion, language, standard of living and much more. They are now of more or less equal size.

Between these two peoples, a conflict has now been going on for more than a century.

In theory, there are only two reasonable solutions: either the two peoples shall live together as equal citizens in one state, or they shall live side by side in two states.

The third possibility is no solution--eternal conflict, eternal war.

This is so obvious, so simple, that denying it is sheer idiocy.

Living together in one state sounds logical, but is not. It is a recipe for constant conflict and internal war. So there remains only what is called “two states for two peoples”.

When I pointed this out, right after the 1948 war, the war in which Israel was founded, I was more or less alone. Now this is a worldwide consensus, everywhere except in Israel.

What is the alternative? There is none. Just going on with the present situation: a colonial state in which 7 million Israeli Jews oppress 7 million Palestinian Arabs. Logic says that this is a situation that cannot go on forever. Sooner or later it will break down.

So what do our leaders say? Nothing. They pretend to be oblivious to this truth.

At the top of the pyramid we have a leader who looks intelligent, who speaks well, who seems competent. In fact, Binyamin Netanyahu is a mediocre politician, without vision, without depth. He does not even pretend that he has another solution. Nor do his colleagues and possible heirs.

So what is this? I am sorry to have to say it, but there is no other definition than the rule of idiocy.

[bountyofbeads]

Do the Republicans Even Believe in Democracy Anymore? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/republicans-trump-democracy.html

Do the Republicans Even Believe in Democracy Anymore? (NO, THE ONLY WAY THEY WIN IS BY CHEATING, LYING 🤥, CORRUPTION, OBSTRUCTION, STACKING THE COURTS AND GERRYMANDERING) #VoteBlue2020 #VoteBlueToSaveAmerica

They pay lip service to it, but they actively try to undermine its institutions.

By Michael Tomasky, Contributing Opinion Writer | Published July 1, 2019| New York Times | Posted July 1, 2019 |

A number of observers, myself included, have written pieces in recent years arguing that the Republican Party is no longer simply trying to compete with and defeat the Democratic Party on a level playing field. Today, rather than simply playing the game, the Republicans are simultaneously trying to rig the game’s rules so that they never lose.

The aggressive gerrymandering, which the Supreme Court just declared to be a matter beyond its purview; the voter suppression schemes; the dubious proposals that haven’t gone anywhere — yet — like trying to award presidential electoral votes by congressional district rather than by state, a scheme that Republicans in five states considered after the 2012 election and that is still discussed: These are not ideas aimed at invigorating democracy. They are hatched and executed for the express purpose of essentially fixing elections.

We have been brought up to believe that American political parties are the same — that they are similar creatures with similar traits and similar ways of behaving. Political science spent decades teaching us this. The idea that one party has become so radically different from the other, despite mountains of evidence, is a tough sell.

It’s a hard sell to make for one very simple reason: It doesn’t have a name, this thing the Republicans are trying to do. It’s not true democracy that they want. But it’s also a bit much to call them outright authoritarians. And there’s nothing in between.

Or is there?

A couple of weekends ago, I tripped across a 2010 book called “Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War,” by Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way. If you pay close attention to such things, you will recognize Mr. Levitsky’s name — he was a co-author, with Daniel Ziblatt, of last year’s book “How Democracies Die,” which sparked much discussion. “Competitive Authoritarianism” deserves to do the same.

[Read this piece by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, on why autocrats love emergencies.]

What defines competitive authoritarian states? They are “civilian regimes in which formal democratic institutions exist and are widely viewed as the primary means of gaining power, but in which incumbents’ abuse of the state places them at a significant advantage vis-à-vis their opponents.” Sound like anyone you know?

I discovered the book somewhat by accident, ordered it and read it immediately. As the subtitle states, the authors, working in a field that Mr. Levitsky likes to call “comparative regime studies,” were looking at regimes in the developing world and the former Eastern Bloc in the years after Communism’s collapse — years, that is, when a number of countries were moving, however fitfully, toward democratization.

There are sections on Mozambique, Kenya and Cameroon; on Taiwan, Malaysia and Cambodia; and on Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. In the late 2000s, when the authors were assembling their research, these were the kinds of countries they had in mind when they conjured up the phrase “competitive authoritarianism.”

But today, incredibly, the phrase has begun to bring to mind the United States of America. I literally gasped as I read certain passages, notably the part about the important role of a strong party in winning elections and in controlling legislatures. “Legislative control is critical in competitive authoritarian regimes,” the authors write. They list four reasons. You can bet Mitch McConnell knows every one of them, and probably a couple more.

Now, I should say that I don’t think we’re there yet. Neither does Mr. Levitsky. “For all of its unfairness and growing dysfunction, American democracy has not slid into competitive authoritarianism,” he told me. “The playing field between Democrats and Republicans remains reasonably level.”

So we’re not there right now. But we may well be on the way, and it’s abundantly clear who wants to take us there.

For one, there’s President Trump. Think of his efforts to do things like politicize the institutions of the executive branch, to try to turn the Department of Justice into his personal law firm. Think of his threat in 2016 that he would honor the results of the election “if I win,” and his recent musings about staying beyond two terms. Think of his commerce secretary’s attempt to add a citizenship question to the census, which would benefit the Republicans electorally. These are all manifestations of competitive authoritarianism.

Second — and maybe even more so — there’s the Republican Party. The gerrymandering enabled them to maintain their House majority during the Obama years even as Democratic House candidates were winning more votes. But there’s much more. “Recent Republican behavior — from the 2016 stolen Supreme Court seat to the legislative shenanigans that followed gubernatorial defeats in North Carolina and Wisconsin to voter suppression efforts across numerous states — suggests a party whose commitment to democratic politics has weakened,” Mr. Levitsky said. “The fact that the Republican Party has grown increasingly authoritarian poses a greater threat to American democracy than Donald Trump.”

The United States still has strong institutions and traditions that did not exist in, say, post-Yeltsin Russia, and that may well save us. The principles of free speech and freedom of the press run deep in our DNA. So, too, does support for civil liberties, although that’s more contested. But in general, we enjoy certain safeguards against the authoritarian instinct that other nations don’t.

[technato]

Why You Shouldn’t Fear ‘Slaughterbots’

A dystopian future in which killer robots are massacring innocents is terrifying, but let’s be clear: It’s very much science fiction

Image: Slaughterbots/YouTube

A scene from “Slaughterbots,” a film that depicts a dystopian future in which autonomous lethal drones fall into the hands of terrorists.

This is a guest post. The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent positions of IEEE Spectrum or the IEEE.

Killer drones in the hands of terrorists massacring innocents. Robotic weapons of mass destruction breeding chaos and fear. A video created by advocates of a ban on autonomous weapons would have you believe this dystopian future is right around the corner if we don’t act now. The short video, called “Slaughterbots,” was released last month coinciding with United Nations meetings on autonomous weapons. The UN meetings ended inconclusively, but the video is getting traction. It’s gotten over 2 million views and has sparked dozens of news stories. As a piece of propaganda, it works great. As a substantive argument for a ban on autonomous weapons, the video fails miserably.

Obviously, a world in which terrorists can unleash swarms of killer drones on innocent civilians would be terrible, but is the future the video depicts realistic? The movie’s slick production quality helps to gloss over its leaps of logic. It immerses the viewer in a dystopian nightmare, but let’s be clear: It’s very much science fiction.

The central premise of “Slaughterbots” is that in the future militaries will build autonomous micro-drones with shaped charges that can fly up to someone’s head and detonate an explosive, killing the person. In the film, these “slaughterbots” quickly fall into the hands of terrorists, resulting in mass killings worldwide.

Image: Slaughterbots/YouTube

The lethal micro-drones depicted in “Slaughterbots” use face recognition to identify their targets and then fly up to them and detonate shaped explosives.

The basic concept is grounded in technical reality. In the real world, the Islamic State has used off-the-shelf quadcopters equipped with small explosives to attack Iraqi troops, killing or wounding dozens of Iraqi soldiers. Today’s terrorist drones are largely remotely controlled, but hobbyist drones are becoming increasingly autonomous. The latest models can navigate to a fixed target on their own, avoid obstacles, and autonomously track and follow moving objects. A small drone equipped with facial recognition technology could potentially be used to autonomously search for and kill specific individuals, as “ Slaughterbots ” envisions. It took me just a few minutes of searching online to find the resources necessary to download and train a free neural network to do facial recognition. So while no one has yet cobbled the technology together in the way the video depicts, all of the components are real.

I want to make something very clear: There is nothing we can do to keep that underlying technology out of the hands of would-be terrorists. This is upsetting, but it’s very important to understand. Just like how terrorists can and do use cars to ram crowds of civilians, the underlying technology to turn hobbyist drones into crude autonomous weapons is already too ubiquitous to stop. This is a genuine problem, and the best response is to focus on defensive measures to counter drones along with surveillance to catch would-be terrorists ahead of time. 

“There is nothing we can do to keep that underlying technology out of the hands of would-be terrorists. Just like how terrorists can and do use cars to ram crowds of civilians, the underlying technology to turn hobbyist drones into crude autonomous weapons is already too ubiquitous to stop.”

The “Slaughterbots” video takes this problem and blows it out of proportion, however, suggesting that drones would be used by terrorists as robotic weapons of mass destruction, killing thousands of people at a time. Fortunately, this nightmare scenario is about as likely to happen as HAL 9000 locking you out of the pod bay doors. The technology shown in the video is plausible, but basically everything else is a bunch of malarkey. The video assumes the following:

Governments will mass produce lethal micro-drones to use them as weapons of mass destruction;

There are no effective defenses against lethal micro-drones;

Governments are incapable of keeping military-grade weapons out of the hands of terrorists;

Terrorists are capable of launching large-scale coordinated attacks.

These assumptions range from questionable, at best, to completely fanciful.

Of course, the video is fictional, and defense planners do often used fictionalized scenarios to help policymakers think through plausible events that may occur. As a defense analyst at a think tank and in my prior job as a strategic planner at the Pentagon, I used fictional scenarios to help inform choices about what technologies the United States military should invest in. To be useful, however, these scenarios need to at least be plausible. They need to be something that could happen. The scenario depicted in the “Slaughterbots” video fails to account for political and strategic realities about how governments use military technology. 

First, there is no evidence that governments are planning to mass produce small drones to kill civilians in large numbers. In my forthcoming book, “Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War,” I examine next-generation weapons being built in defense labs around the world. Russia, China, and the United States are all racing ahead on autonomy and artificial intelligence. But the types of weapons they are building are generally aimed at fighting other militaries. They are “counter-force” weapons, not “counter-value” weapons that would target civilians. Counter-force autonomous weapons raise their own sets of concerns, but they aren’t designed for mass targeting of civilians, nor could they be easily repurposed to do so.

Second, in the video, we’re told the drones can defeat “any countermeasure.” TV pundits scream, “We can’t defend ourselves.” This isn’t fiction; it’s farce. Every military technology has a countermeasure, and countermeasures against small drones aren’t even hypothetical. The U.S. government is actively working on ways to shoot down, jam, fry, hack, ensnare, or otherwise defeat small drones. The micro-drones in the video could be defeated by something as simple as chicken wire. The video shows heavier-payload drones blasting holes through walls so that other drones can get inside, but the solution is simply layered defenses. Military analysts look at the cost-exchange ratio between offense and defense, and in this case, the costs heavily favor static defenders.

Video: Slaughterbots

The “Slaughterbots” video shows heavier-payload drones blasting holes through walls so that smaller drones can get inside.

In a world where terrorists launch occasional small-scale attacks using DIY drones, people are unlikely to absorb the inconveniences of building robust defenses, just like people don’t wear body armor to protect against the unlikely event of being caught in a mass shooting. But if an enemy country built hundreds of thousands of drones to wipe out a city, you bet there’d be a run on chicken wire. The video takes a plausible problem—terrorist attacks with drones—and scales it up without factoring in how others would respond. If lethal micro-drones were built en masse, defenses and countermeasures would be a national priority, and in this case the countermeasures are simple. Any weapon that can be defeated by a net isn’t a weapon of mass destruction.

Third, the video assumes that militaries are incapable of preventing terrorists from getting access to military-grade weapons. But we don’t give terrorists hand grenades, rocket launchers, or machine guns today. Terrorist attacks with drones are a concern precisely because they involve DIY explosives strapped to readily available technology. This is a genuine problem, but again the video scales this threat up in ways that are unrealistic. Even if militaries were to build lethal micro-drones, terrorists are no more likely to get their hands on large numbers of them than other military technologies. Weapons do proliferate over time to non-state actors in war zones, but just because anti-tank guided missiles are prevalent in Syria doesn’t mean they’re commonplace in New York. Terrorists use airplanes and trucks for attacks precisely because successfully smuggling military-grade weapons into a Western country isn’t that easy.

Image: Slaughterbots/YouTube

In “Slaughterbots,” AI-powered micro-drones are built en masse, and there seems to be no defenses and countermeasures to stop them.

Fourth, the video assumes terrorists can carry out coordinated attacks at a scale that is not plausible. In one scene, two men release a swarm of about 50 drones from the back of a van. This specific scene is fairly realistic; one of the challenges of autonomy is that a small group of people could launch a larger attack than might otherwise be possible. Something like a truck full of 50 drones is a reasonable possibility. Again, though, the video takes this scenario to the absurd. The video claims that 8,300 people are killed in simultaneous attacks. If the men in the van depict a typical attack, then this level of casualties would equate to over 160 coordinated attacks worldwide. Terrorist groups often launch coordinated attacks, but usually on the scale of single digit numbers of attacks. The video assumes not just super-weapons, but ones that are in the hands of supervillains.  

The movie uses hype and fear to skip past these crucial assumptions, and in doing so it undermines any rational debate about the risk of terrorists acquiring autonomous weapons. The video makes clear we’re supposed to be afraid. But what are we supposed to be afraid of? A weapon that chooses its own targets (which the video is actually ambiguous about)? A weapon with no countermeasure? The fact that terrorists can get ahold of the weapon? The ability of autonomy to scale up attacks? If you want to drum up fears of “killer robots,” the video is great. But as a substantive analysis of the issue, it falls apart under even the most casual scrutiny. The video doesn’t put forward an argument. It’s sensationalist fear-mongering.

“If you want to drum up fears of ‘killer robots,’ the video is great. But as a substantive analysis of the issue, it falls apart under even the most casual scrutiny. The video doesn’t put forward an argument. It’s sensationalist fear-mongering.”

Of course, the whole purpose of the video is to scare the viewer into action. The video concludes with UC Berkeley professor Stuart Russell warning of the dangers of autonomous weapons and imploring the viewer to act now to stop this nightmare from becoming a reality. I have tremendous respect for Stuart Russell, both as an artificial intelligence researcher and as a contributor to the debate on autonomous weapons. I’ve hosted Russell at events at the Center for a New American Security, where I run a research program on artificial intelligence and global security. I have no doubt Russell’s views are sincere. But in attempting to persuade the viewer, the video makes assumptions that are not supportable.

Even worse, the proposed solution—a legally binding treaty banning autonomous weapons—won’t solve the real problems humanity faces as autonomy advances in weapons. A ban won’t stop terrorists from fashioning crude DIY robotic weapons. Nor would a ban on the kinds of weapons the video imagines do anything to address the risks that arise from counter-force autonomous weapons. (In fact, it’s not even clear whether a ban would prohibit the weapons shown in the video, which are actually fairly discriminate.)

By focusing on extreme and implausible scenarios, the video actually undermines progress on real concerns about autonomous weapons. Nations who are leading developers of robotic weapons are likely to dismiss the fears raised in “Slaughterbots” out of hand. The video plays into the hands of those who argue that these fears of autonomous weapons are overhyped and irrational.

Autonomous weapons raise important questions about compliance with the laws of war, risk and controllability, and role of humans as moral agents in warfare. These are important issues that merit serious discussion. When Russell and others engage in spirited debate on these topics, I welcome the conversation. But that’s not what “Slaughterbots” is. The video has succeeded in grabbing media attention, but its sensationalism undercuts the kind of serious intellectual discourse that is actually needed on autonomous weapons. 

Paul Scharre (@paul_scharre) is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Technology and National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). From 2009-2012, he led the Defense Department’s working group that resulted in the DoD policy directive on autonomy in weapons. He is the author of  “Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War,” which will be available in April of 2018.

Why You Shouldn’t Fear ‘Slaughterbots’ syndicated from http://ift.tt/2Bq2FuP

[technato]

Why You Shouldn’t Fear ‘Slaughterbots’

A dystopian future in which killer robots are massacring innocents is terrifying, but let’s be clear: It’s very much science fiction

Image: Slaughterbots/YouTube

A scene from “Slaughterbots,” a film that depicts a dystopian future in which autonomous lethal drones fall into the hands of terrorists.

This is a guest post. The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent positions of IEEE Spectrum or the IEEE.

Killer drones in the hands of terrorists massacring innocents. Robotic weapons of mass destruction breeding chaos and fear. A video created by advocates of a ban on autonomous weapons would have you believe this dystopian future is right around the corner if we don’t act now. The short video, called “Slaughterbots,” was released last month coinciding with United Nations meetings on autonomous weapons. The UN meetings ended inconclusively, but the video is getting traction. It’s gotten over 2 million views and has sparked dozens of news stories. As a piece of propaganda, it works great. As a substantive argument for a ban on autonomous weapons, the video fails miserably.

Obviously, a world in which terrorists can unleash swarms of killer drones on innocent civilians would be terrible, but is the future the video depicts realistic? The movie’s slick production quality helps to gloss over its leaps of logic. It immerses the viewer in a dystopian nightmare, but let’s be clear: It’s very much science fiction.

The central premise of “Slaughterbots” is that in the future militaries will build autonomous micro-drones with shaped charges that can fly up to someone’s head and detonate an explosive, killing the person. In the film, these “slaughterbots” quickly fall into the hands of terrorists, resulting in mass killings worldwide.

Image: Slaughterbots/YouTube

The lethal micro-drones depicted in “Slaughterbots” use face recognition to identify their targets and then fly up to them and detonate shaped explosives.

The basic concept is grounded in technical reality. In the real world, the Islamic State has used off-the-shelf quadcopters equipped with small explosives to attack Iraqi troops, killing or wounding dozens of Iraqi soldiers. Today’s terrorist drones are largely remotely controlled, but hobbyist drones are becoming increasingly autonomous. The latest models can navigate to a fixed target on their own, avoid obstacles, and autonomously track and follow moving objects. A small drone equipped with facial recognition technology could potentially be used to autonomously search for and kill specific individuals, as “ Slaughterbots ” envisions. It took me just a few minutes of searching online to find the resources necessary to download and train a free neural network to do facial recognition. So while no one has yet cobbled the technology together in the way the video depicts, all of the components are real.

I want to make something very clear: There is nothing we can do to keep that underlying technology out of the hands of would-be terrorists. This is upsetting, but it’s very important to understand. Just like how terrorists can and do use cars to ram crowds of civilians, the underlying technology to turn hobbyist drones into crude autonomous weapons is already too ubiquitous to stop. This is a genuine problem, and the best response is to focus on defensive measures to counter drones along with surveillance to catch would-be terrorists ahead of time. 

“There is nothing we can do to keep that underlying technology out of the hands of would-be terrorists. Just like how terrorists can and do use cars to ram crowds of civilians, the underlying technology to turn hobbyist drones into crude autonomous weapons is already too ubiquitous to stop.”

The “Slaughterbots” video takes this problem and blows it out of proportion, however, suggesting that drones would be used by terrorists as robotic weapons of mass destruction, killing thousands of people at a time. Fortunately, this nightmare scenario is about as likely to happen as HAL 9000 locking you out of the pod bay doors. The technology shown in the video is plausible, but basically everything else is a bunch of malarkey. The video assumes the following:

Governments will mass produce lethal micro-drones to use them as weapons of mass destruction;

There are no effective defenses against lethal micro-drones;

Governments are incapable of keeping military-grade weapons out of the hands of terrorists;

Terrorists are capable of launching large-scale coordinated attacks.

These assumptions range from questionable, at best, to completely fanciful.

Of course, the video is fictional, and defense planners do often used fictionalized scenarios to help policymakers think through plausible events that may occur. As a defense analyst at a think tank and in my prior job as a strategic planner at the Pentagon, I used fictional scenarios to help inform choices about what technologies the United States military should invest in. To be useful, however, these scenarios need to at least be plausible. They need to be something that could happen. The scenario depicted in the “Slaughterbots” video fails to account for political and strategic realities about how governments use military technology. 

First, there is no evidence that governments are planning to mass produce small drones to kill civilians in large numbers. In my forthcoming book, “Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War,” I examine next-generation weapons being built in defense labs around the world. Russia, China, and the United States are all racing ahead on autonomy and artificial intelligence. But the types of weapons they are building are generally aimed at fighting other militaries. They are “counter-force” weapons, not “counter-value” weapons that would target civilians. Counter-force autonomous weapons raise their own sets of concerns, but they aren’t designed for mass targeting of civilians, nor could they be easily repurposed to do so.

Second, in the video, we’re told the drones can defeat “any countermeasure.” TV pundits scream, “We can’t defend ourselves.” This isn’t fiction; it’s farce. Every military technology has a countermeasure, and countermeasures against small drones aren’t even hypothetical. The U.S. government is actively working on ways to shoot down, jam, fry, hack, ensnare, or otherwise defeat small drones. The micro-drones in the video could be defeated by something as simple as chicken wire. The video shows heavier-payload drones blasting holes through walls so that other drones can get inside, but the solution is simply layered defenses. Military analysts look at the cost-exchange ratio between offense and defense, and in this case, the costs heavily favor static defenders.

Video: Slaughterbots

The “Slaughterbots” video shows heavier-payload drones blasting holes through walls so that smaller drones can get inside.

In a world where terrorists launch occasional small-scale attacks using DIY drones, people are unlikely to absorb the inconveniences of building robust defenses, just like people don’t wear body armor to protect against the unlikely event of being caught in a mass shooting. But if an enemy country built hundreds of thousands of drones to wipe out a city, you bet there’d be a run on chicken wire. The video takes a plausible problem—terrorist attacks with drones—and scales it up without factoring in how others would respond. If lethal micro-drones were built en masse, defenses and countermeasures would be a national priority, and in this case the countermeasures are simple. Any weapon that can be defeated by a net isn’t a weapon of mass destruction.

Third, the video assumes that militaries are incapable of preventing terrorists from getting access to military-grade weapons. But we don’t give terrorists hand grenades, rocket launchers, or machine guns today. Terrorist attacks with drones are a concern precisely because they involve DIY explosives strapped to readily available technology. This is a genuine problem, but again the video scales this threat up in ways that are unrealistic. Even if militaries were to build lethal micro-drones, terrorists are no more likely to get their hands on large numbers of them than other military technologies. Weapons do proliferate over time to non-state actors in war zones, but just because anti-tank guided missiles are prevalent in Syria doesn’t mean they’re commonplace in New York. Terrorists use airplanes and trucks for attacks precisely because successfully smuggling military-grade weapons into a Western country isn’t that easy.

Image: Slaughterbots/YouTube

In “Slaughterbots,” AI-powered micro-drones are built en masse, and there seems to be no defenses and countermeasures to stop them.

Fourth, the video assumes terrorists can carry out coordinated attacks at a scale that is not plausible. In one scene, two men release a swarm of about 50 drones from the back of a van. This specific scene is fairly realistic; one of the challenges of autonomy is that a small group of people could launch a larger attack than might otherwise be possible. Something like a truck full of 50 drones is a reasonable possibility. Again, though, the video takes this scenario to the absurd. The video claims that 8,300 people are killed in simultaneous attacks. If the men in the van depict a typical attack, then this level of casualties would equate to over 160 coordinated attacks worldwide. Terrorist groups often launch coordinated attacks, but usually on the scale of single digit numbers of attacks. The video assumes not just super-weapons, but ones that are in the hands of supervillains.  

The movie uses hype and fear to skip past these crucial assumptions, and in doing so it undermines any rational debate about the risk of terrorists acquiring autonomous weapons. The video makes clear we’re supposed to be afraid. But what are we supposed to be afraid of? A weapon that chooses its own targets (which the video is actually ambiguous about)? A weapon with no countermeasure? The fact that terrorists can get ahold of the weapon? The ability of autonomy to scale up attacks? If you want to drum up fears of “killer robots,” the video is great. But as a substantive analysis of the issue, it falls apart under even the most casual scrutiny. The video doesn’t put forward an argument. It’s sensationalist fear-mongering.

“If you want to drum up fears of ‘killer robots,’ the video is great. But as a substantive analysis of the issue, it falls apart under even the most casual scrutiny. The video doesn’t put forward an argument. It’s sensationalist fear-mongering.”

Of course, the whole purpose of the video is to scare the viewer into action. The video concludes with UC Berkeley professor Stuart Russell warning of the dangers of autonomous weapons and imploring the viewer to act now to stop this nightmare from becoming a reality. I have tremendous respect for Stuart Russell, both as an artificial intelligence researcher and as a contributor to the debate on autonomous weapons. I’ve hosted Russell at events at the Center for a New American Security, where I run a research program on artificial intelligence and global security. I have no doubt Russell’s views are sincere. But in attempting to persuade the viewer, the video makes assumptions that are not supportable.

Even worse, the proposed solution—a legally binding treaty banning autonomous weapons—won’t solve the real problems humanity faces as autonomy advances in weapons. A ban won’t stop terrorists from fashioning crude DIY robotic weapons. Nor would a ban on the kinds of weapons the video imagines do anything to address the risks that arise from counter-force autonomous weapons. (In fact, it’s not even clear whether a ban would prohibit the weapons shown in the video, which are actually fairly discriminate.)

By focusing on extreme and implausible scenarios, the video actually undermines progress on real concerns about autonomous weapons. Nations who are leading developers of robotic weapons are likely to dismiss the fears raised in “Slaughterbots” out of hand. The video plays into the hands of those who argue that these fears of autonomous weapons are overhyped and irrational.

Autonomous weapons raise important questions about compliance with the laws of war, risk and controllability, and role of humans as moral agents in warfare. These are important issues that merit serious discussion. When Russell and others engage in spirited debate on these topics, I welcome the conversation. But that’s not what “Slaughterbots” is. The video has succeeded in grabbing media attention, but its sensationalism undercuts the kind of serious intellectual discourse that is actually needed on autonomous weapons. 

Paul Scharre (@paul_scharre) is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Technology and National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). From 2009-2012, he led the Defense Department’s working group that resulted in the DoD policy directive on autonomy in weapons. He is the author of  “Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War,” which will be available in April of 2018.

Why You Shouldn’t Fear ‘Slaughterbots’ syndicated from http://ift.tt/2Bq2FuP