2020年7月24日 星期五

What goes around, goes around, goes around

Comes all the way back around.
Federal agents in Portland, Ore., on July 20.Noah Berger/Associated Press
Author Headshot

By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist

I wrote my Tuesday column on the federal government’s troubling actions in Portland, Ore., using a novel and largely unaccountable paramilitary force. It went through a few drafts before I sent it to my editor, and one passage I dropped was an observation on the relationship between events in Portland and those in Iraq and Afghanistan and on America’s southern border. Here’s what I wrote:

How should we understand the paramilitary garb and occupation tactics of federal law enforcement in Portland? Not as an innovation from the Trump administration, but as a recapitulation of those tactics and techniques the American security state has used on the border and abroad.

Because I was on a deadline — and it would have taken a few hundred words to unpack this statement — I dropped the paragraph from the piece. But I’ve been thinking about it all week and brainstorming a future piece that might try to make the argument at length. Unfortunately for me — but fortunately for you, — the author and history podcaster Patrick Wyman has written a long piece on exactly this dynamic.

When we see Border Patrol agents wearing camouflage and helmets, carrying M4s with optics, rigged up like they’re about to go on patrol in Ramadi or the Korengal Valley (or deal with a migrant caravan in the southwest), that’s empire coming home. The viciousness of their handling of immigration during the Trump era, complete with threats of gunfire, concentration camps, and consistent dehumanization, has been a preview of their handling of American citizens. So too have been the various misdeeds of American soldiers overseas.

I recommend you read the entire essay. What I’ll say, for now, is that the underlying processes at work in this phenomenon — the rapid expansion of the national security state, the militarization of the border, austerity and the long-term erosion of public services — transcend this administration. What we’re witnessing, what we’re living through, is the product of a generation of political choices, many made by people who currently stand against this administration. Should Trump lose in November, Americans will have far more to unravel than simply Trumpism.

ADVERTISEMENT

What I Wrote

I wrote about events in Portland and the creation of an internal security force, controlled by the president and his minions.

A secretive, nationwide police force — created without congressional input or authorization, formed from highly politicized agencies, tasked with rooting out vague threats and answerable only to the president — is a nightmare out of the fever dreams of the founding generation, federalists and antifederalists alike. It’s something Americans continue to fear and for good reason. It is a power that cannot and should not exist in a democracy, lest it undermine and destroy the entire project.

I also wrote about the real “silent majority” and how it is very different from the one imagined by President Trump:

There is a silent majority in this country, and it is arrayed against a radical, extremist minority. But it stands against Trump, not the other away around. He and his allies are and always have been in the minority, acting in ways that frighten and disturb the broad middle of the electorate. And as long as Trump cannot see this — as long as he holds to his belief in a secret, silent pro-Trump majority — he and his campaign will continue to act in ways that diminish his chance of any legitimate victory in the 2020 presidential election.

As far as other mediums go, I did a live Twitter Q. and A. and spoke with CBS News about anti-Semitism in the Black community and joined the Slate Political Gabfest as a guest host.

Now Reading

Vinson Cunningham on the philosopher Frank B. Wilderson III’s new book “Afropessimism” in The New Yorker.

Nikhil Pal Singh on the early-20th-century American gadfly Randolph Bourne in the New Statesman.

Soraya McDonald on being Black and Jewish in The Undefeated.

John Ganz on the free speech debate in The Guardian.

Priscilla Page on Martin Scorsese’s film “The Irishman” on her personal blog.

ADVERTISEMENT

Feedback

If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week’s newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at jamelle-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Photo of the Week

Doug Jones’s victory celebration in Birmingham, Ala.Jamelle Bouie

I have a memory card’s worth of photos to edit as well as several rolls and a few dozen sheets of film to scan, so instead of sharing anything new, I am going to pull from the archives again. I took this almost three years ago, in 2017, at the victory celebration for Senator Doug Jones of Alabama, who won, it suffices to say, unexpectedly.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now Eating: Cornmeal Poundcake

Now is the time for simple desserts involving fresh summer fruit. We have been eating this poundcake — which is incredibly easy to make — with fresh, ripe peaches and freshly whipped cream. It’s incredible. The recipe comes from The New York Times Cooking section.

Ingredients

  • 1 cup granulated sugar
  • An orange, lime or lemon (optional)
  • ½ cup liquid fat (olive oil, coconut oil, sunflower oil, melted butter, whatever you’ve got)
  • 2 eggs
  • ½ cup plain yogurt, buttermilk, sour cream, or ½ cup whole milk mixed with 1 tablespoon lemon juice
  • A dash of vanilla or almond extract, or brandy (optional)
  • ¼ teaspoon grated nutmeg (optional)
  • ¼ teaspoon salt
  • ¼ teaspoon baking soda
  • 1 teaspoon baking powder
  • ½ cup cornmeal
  • 1¼ cups all-purpose flour

Directions

Heat oven to 350 degrees, and grease and flour a 9-inch loaf pan. (Or grease and line it with parchment.)

In a big bowl, add the sugar and grate the zest from the orange, lemon or lime into the bowl. If you need a little aromatherapy, work the zest into the sugar with your fingers. (This technique is supposed to infuse the citrus into the sugar.)

Add the fat, eggs and yogurt to the bowl, along with the extract and nutmeg, if you like.

Whisk in the salt, baking soda, baking powder and cornmeal. Once smooth, whisk in flour.

Scrape the batter into the prepared pan and bake for 45 minutes to an hour. Let it cool in the pan. Slice and serve.

IN THE TIMES

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Jamelle Bouie from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

On Tech: Digital habits are hard to break

Technology was supposed to be all about welcoming newcomers. But is it?

Digital habits are hard to break

Ben Wiseman

Digital success can be as flimsy as tissue paper. Remember Groupon? BlackBerry went from the king of our pockets to nada in a hot minute. Heck, it seemed like we got bored of those internet cake videos in a week.

Even in technology, though, some habits can prove tenacious.

No one has been able to get large numbers of Americans to use something other than Google for all our burning questions. The world has settled into only two flavors of smartphones: iPhones and Androids. And in the United States, it’s tough to crack Amazon’s lock on online shopping.

It’s not necessarily because these products or services are better than the alternatives. They might be, but there are also strategic arts that explain why some companies endure. And there’s the power of inertia. Sometimes we do what we do because that’s what we do.

There’s nothing necessarily wrong with these habits. But we have long thought of technology as more dynamic and open to newcomers. And yet, is it?

Let’s focus on online shopping. In the United States, Amazon has at least seven times the online business of Walmart, Target, eBay or anyone else.

Amazon is really good at what it does. It sells just about every product imaginable — for good or for ill, buying is easy and stuff typically arrives reliably and fast. Prices often aren’t the cheapest, and Amazon’s website feels like it was made by 1990s robots rather than by humans with souls … but no matter.

ADVERTISEMENT

And also there’s the power of habit that Amazon cleverly reinforces. We’re on Amazon because we’re used to it, and it just works. Merchants focus their attention on Amazon because we’re all shopping there. And the Prime shopping club is essentially an incentive to never shop anywhere else.

My colleague Dai Wakabayashi chronicled this week Google’s repeated, mostly failed efforts to make it as easy as possible for merchants to sell us stuff through Google instead. Dai told me that Google is now letting merchants list many products without paying sales commissions, and it’s making it easy for them to port over information directly from their Amazon product listings. Google is trying so hard!

Google can be a scatterbrained mess, but it’s also rich and attracts billions of eyeballs every day. If it can’t persuade Americans to shop somewhere other than Amazon, that shows us something both about Amazon’s strengths and about how tough it can be to persuade us to try something different. (Worth noting: Amazon rules online but a vast majority of our consumer spending happens in stores.)

Everyone in Silicon Valley knows the history of technology winners becoming losers in a flash, so many successful tech companies live in fear of losing it all.

ADVERTISEMENT

One question for those of us who use technology, and for governments concerned about keeping competition healthy, is whether there’s something different that makes today’s tech powers more immovable than yesterday’s. This is at the heart of the upcoming congressional antitrust hearings involving four of America’s digital superpowers.

The bottom line is internet users like us benefit if lots of companies are afraid for their future and fighting hard for our attention and dollars. But in some corners of technology, that’s not really happening.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Every fight is about data

I’m constantly struck that lots of problems about our digital lives boil down to data: who has it, who doesn’t and how it’s interpreted and kept secret.

ADVERTISEMENT

Let me give you one example: The Wall Street Journal and NBC News had details this week about Facebook previously shelving internal studies of possible racial bias on its site — including research that dug into why Black people appeared far more likely to have their accounts disabled for perceived violations of hate speech rules.

Facebook said in part that it worried these research projects relied on faulty data. Facebook doesn’t know if you’re Black, but it makes inferences about race from the information you engage with. Those inferences can be wrong, and Facebook said it didn’t want to rely on bad data.

Mind you, Facebook uses this same data to target advertising for companies who want to sell to Black people. The data was good enough for Facebook’s paying customers. (And, a former Facebook researcher tweeted that those probing possible bias didn’t rely only on Facebook’s inferences on race.)

The reason we know about this fight inside Facebook is that the company’s employees see data that we never will, and some of them were uncomfortable with how their bosses used or suppressed the information. There are similar tales at YouTube and at just about every internet superpower.

There are two crucial lessons here: First, we often think data is somehow pure and untainted by human bias, but that’s wrong. Information is gathered and interpreted by humans — or by computers programmed by humans — and is therefore subject to our whims and bias.

And second, we are hopelessly incapable of understanding the inner workings of the world’s biggest information machines because they see every morsel of information happening inside their walls and we see only what they choose to tell us. Data is power, and we have little of both.

Before we go …

  • Trying to influence the influential: George Mason University’s Global Antitrust Institute has pushed a message of restraint in antitrust enforcement to hundreds of overseas regulators and judges at lavish all-expense paid conferences in Hawaii, Tokyo and Portugal. My colleague Dai found that Google, Amazon, Qualcomm and other big tech companies helped pay for these events, which critics said presented a one-sided view of corporate regulation intended to benefit the big companies.
  • Everything is data, part deux: Another way tech companies consolidate and keep power is by harnessing data to learn about competitors and countermove against them. The Wall Street Journal wrote about Amazon appearing to use its interactions with business partners or potential ones to help develop competing products. And the tech news publication the Information wrote about Google using data from Android phones to learn about how people use rival apps.
  • My new favorite couple: I loved this New York Times article about the owners of a laundry shop in Taiwan who have become Instagram stars for posing in garments that people abandoned. “I can tell they’re elated,” said the unofficial stylist and grandson of the couple, who are in their 80s. (Check out their account for yourself. These two have got style.)

Hugs to this

May we all have the calm and grace of this bear sitting on patio furniture. (Thanks to my colleague Charlie Warzel for spotting this gem.)

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018