Category Archives: Transhuman News

No one seemed to be paying attention. No one seemed to realize that as advances in automotive technology took over more of the safety functions, driver inattention would escalate [Page 9, Jan. 25, New vehicles to be rated on how alert they keep drivers]. From driver perspective, the reasoning goes like this: With the car doing most of the driving, driver attention can be redirected to more productive ends. Imagine what one can do with hands-free driving? Card games are not out of the question. Airlines have long faced the problem that increased automation is robbing pilots of hands-on skills. And pilots are highly trained. The motoring public is not. Its too much to expect drivers to snap out of their technology-induced comas in time to correct serious situations. Corporate arrogance shipped our manufacturing base overseas, creating the present supply-chain debacle. Technological arrogance now threatens the safety on the highways.

Read the original post:
Readers Speak: We have to keep fentanyl out of the country - Hartford Courant

Among people who work on Myanmar, there is a politically incorrect but popular saying: When there are three Burmese, there are four opinions. Terrible as it may sound, it gives a flavor of the profound diversity, and therefore division of interests and views, that has long marked the norm in the country. Despite the urgent and unprecedented need for unity after the February coup last year, the old and the new resistance to the military government have not yet been able to find a common path despite the presence of a common cause. Instead, the factionalization within the oppositions that had plagued the national reconciliation process for decades before the coup continues to affect the modality and the effectiveness of the opposition today.

Following the February 1 coup last year, a group of members of parliament elected in 2020 formed the National Unity Government (NUG) on April 16. The ruling military juntas State Administration Council (SAC) promptly declared the NUG illegal and a terrorist organization. The NUG announced the establishment of the Peoples Defense Force (PDF) in May and declared a peoples defensive war against the military government in September. Internationally, the NUG has self-claimed to be the sole legitimate government representing Myanmar and has demanded diplomatic recognition from sovereign governments without success.

By the last quarter of 2021, all members of the NUG had left Myanmar and gone into exile. The Peoples Defense Force, however, has become a grassroots-level insurgency, with organized local branches operating in small pockets of territories across the nation, especially in the ethnic states (Burma is divided into seven regions dominated by the Bamar ethnic majority and seven states inhabited primarily by ethnic minorities). Despite the broad representation the NUG and the PDF claim, the caveat is that not all local armed groups are part of the PDF they might share the PDFs aspirations but are unwilling to accept its command. And not all branches nominally under the PDF are under the control of NUG despite the nominal command structure, they enjoy de facto independence and autonomy in their operations.

This evidently creates many questions about the insurgency, especially its decisionmaking authorities and the representativeness of any declaratory policy. For example, in November, three former peace negotiators known for their proximity to the Myanmar military claimed that they had been put on a hit list created by the NUG and PDF. Experts and policy practitioners who work on the matter know that such a list indeed exists, especially considering that urban campaigns of assassination against junta members and bombings have been taking place in Myanmars cities. But regarding the assassination plan for the trio, the question is who created it the NUG, the PDF, or people associated with either or both of them. The NUG has denied that it has such a list, but the hydra-headed nature of the resistance force has complicated the determination. The proliferation of actors might offer the NUG and the PDF deniability, but it undermines their authority and reputation at the same time.

The resistance campaign is further complicated by the ethnic factors of the country. During the pseudo-democratic period under the presidency of Thein Sein (2011-2016), the ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) in Myanmar roughly self-divided into two camps: signatories and non-signatories of the Nationwide Ceasefire Accord (NCA) negotiated in 2015 by the central government. The non-signatories are from the north, especially those along the Chinese border. These groups, especially the United Wa State Army (UWSA) and its proxies, as well as the Kachin Independence Army, boast larger forces and financial resources and chose to hold out for a better deal later. The signatories are smaller EAOs located further south, in lower Myanmar. They accepted the NCA because it was seen as the best deal that they could get given their weaker material and military position.

These factors also affect the two camps attitude toward the military junta after the coup. Key NCA signatories, such as the Restoration Council of Shan State and the Karen National Union, moved quickly to condemn the military coup. The truce was quickly broken and fighting reignited. But the non-signatories have been much less committal. Key players such as the UWSA have been sitting on the wall without either accepting or condemning the military coup. This is understandable given that these groups have enjoyed higher level of autonomy and operating outside the authority of the Burmese central government regardless of who is in control. For them, as long as the cease-fire is maintained, the chaos in Myanmar on the national level only creates more breathing room for them.

Outside the signatories and non-signatories, there are also three organizations the Arakan Army, the Taang National Liberation Army, and the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army that have been engaged in active fighting with the Burmese military for the past decades. They were denied a seat at the negotiation table because they were seen as having formed after the peace process started in 2011. As a third category, they naturally align more with the non-signatories.

While the diversity of views among EAOs has been complicated enough, the relationship between NUG/PDF and the EAOs further complicate the picture. The EAOs have been engaged in armed insurgency against the Burmese central government for seven decades. In comparison, the democratic opposition, represented by the National League for Democracy led by Aung San Suu Kyi, had historically adopted a nonviolent political rather than military approach to the struggle with the junta. Now the NUG/PDF has embarked on the path of armed resistance, it is only natural for them to seek alliance and assistance from the EAOs, especially arms, shelter, and training. In fact, many PDF militias have received such assistance from the ethnic organizations.

However, the ethnic groups views of the NUG and PDF also vary. Needless to say, some EAOs have been inspired by the resistance campaign after the coup and have provided training and weapons as well as coordinated operations with the PDF. However, that is only part of the story. In the views of some ethnic groups, the military coup is essentially an intra-Bamar civil-military contest for power, as the Burmese military and National League for Democracy are both predominantly ethnic Bamar, and the ethnic groups have been denied power sharing under the reigns of both. The argument is strengthened by the reality that the NUG is also Bamar-centric. Although it has included some ethnic representatives in its Cabinet, none are ethnic Shan even though Shan make up 9% of the countrys population and predominate in a fifth of its territory. Furthermore, some EAOs are aggrieved by the NUG/PDF refusal to accommodate their political aspirations despite the NUG and the PDFs need for assistance from the ethnic groups, they have rejected a new constitution or constitutional framework proposed by the ethnic groups to better include them in the future government of Myanmar.

The consequence of all the profound divisions and self-serving calculus is the undermining of the unity required for an effective resistance campaign against the military junta. Yet the rifts are a reflection of the diverse historical background and ethnic composition of the nation, as well as the different aspirations and negotiating positions of various resistance groups. There is no easy solution to the factionalization of the resistance, as none of the groups appear strong enough politically, morally, or financially to absorb and unify other groups under its wing.

This is bad news for the resistance. While the oppositions are divided, the Burmese military is a highly unitary, monolithic, and hierarchical organization. The military has tried to keep the resistance divided by keeping the dialogues open with the EAOs in the north in order to prevent them from aligning with the PDF. On the battlefield, the military has run a counterinsurgency campaign against the PDF, including specialized units, scorched earth tactics, militarized police, and mass surveillance. This does not mean that the military can easily conquer the resistance and defeat the insurgency. The past seven decades show the low likelihood of that happening. But it does mean that the resistance has a long way to go before it could effectively match and counter, let alone defeat, the military.

Read the original here:
One year after Myanmars coup, old and new resistance is undermined by divisions - Brookings Institution

One reason the New York Times has become insufferable for readers outside of the activist left is that the former newspaper of record demands an increasingly costly and unrealistic agenda for managing American lifestyles and livelihoods. Two stories today suggest the Times cant bear it any more easily than most readers can.

Times food coverage is often served with a generous portion of anti-business rage. The effect is to shame consumers into forgoing enjoyable meals and searching for items they can consume without leaving an economic or environmental trace. Take todays unappetizing offering, Were Cooked, an opinion video series introduced in an email to Times readers by Adam Ellick. Mr. Ellick at first confesses to his own politically incorrect indulgences, writing that despite years of reading about our malignant food system and the harm that its doing to animals, the natural ecosystem and us, I have been unable to change my wide-ranging diet. He then attempts to make the case for an ideological menu:

Read this article:
New York Times Loves UnionsExcept at the New York Times - The Wall Street Journal

Its Groundhog Day! OK, technically this uniquely American holiday is observed tomorrow the day when Punxsutawney Phil grabs the groundhog spotlight back from TVs annoying lottery hawker, Gus. But with COVID-19, Donald Trumps non-stop blather, and an endlessly frigid winter, Im feel like Im hearing Sonny and Chers I Got You, Babe on the clock radio every day at 6 a.m. How about you?

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up to receive this newsletter weekly at inquirer.com/bunch, and we promise you a different tune every Tuesday morning.

Referring to the vast rural and industrial American Heartland as flyover country has become politically incorrect reeking of coastal elite condescension yet the phrase aptly describes the life journey of Philadelphia-area native Ro Khanna.

Raised by his Indian immigrant parents in suburban Bucks County, the Council Rock High School grad got his precocious teen political letters published in the Courier Times before flying west as a young man to make a career in Silicon Valley as a lawyer. Then, he flew back over Middle America for Washington when his Northern California district sent the progressive Democrat to Congress in 2016, where he still serves.

Khanna, a 2020 presidential campaign adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders, is arguably the last member of Congress youd expect to become an advocate for the economic revival of the rust-bitten Midwest or the rural South. But he experienced a lightbulb moment when he joined a GOP colleague on a fact-finding trip to the rolling hills of Kentucky during his first term. He saw how the giants of Big Tech many of them his constituents or campaign donors back in Silicon Valley could power job growth in Americas forgotten counties. And this sparked an even bigger idea about how rural and Rust Belt development could save democracy.

Khanna has turned his Big Idea into a book Dignity in a Digital Age: Making Tech Work For All of Us, officially out today that seeks to flip todays big debates the growing power of tech giants like Amazon or Meta/Facebook and address the political resentment held by rural voters who feel disrespected by coastal elites. Speaking to me Monday by phone from New York where he was about to tape Late Night With Stephen Colbert, this congressman for one of Americas most affluent and educated districts in America, explained his ideas for growth in the regions where access to learning and wealth have lagged.

READ MORE: From Council Rock to Congress: Philly-born Ro Khanna is saving U.S. foreign policy from itself | Will Bunch

Khanna explained that most Americans crave what he calls pride of place. Its what he felt in his close-knit and striving middle-class neighborhood growing up in Holland, Pa. but has been robbed from communities with shuttered factories, empty church pews, and rising deaths of despair. Its not just lost jobs, Khanna said, talking about the resentment in these counties that voted heavily for Donald Trump in the last two elections. And its not just telling their kids to move to where the jobs are, but that its done in the most condescending and insulting way.

Not surprisingly for Silicon Valleys man in D.C., Khanna calls himself a progressive capitalist, and the path he envisions in Dignity in a Digital Age not only for the stereotypical Trump Country but also for nonwhite blue-collar swaths of the South and Southwest involves a partnership of tech firms, government, and higher ed. That means he supports ideas such as the federal government requiring its tech contractors to guarantee new jobs in rural areas, and colleges and universities inventing new kinds of programs that target todays labor market yet may not require the massive expense of a four-year diploma.

This is not some charade of, Lets turn everybody into a coder, Khanna said, even as his book notes that new technologies and the work-from-home-ethos thats arisen during the long pandemic has made it possible for software engineers to now thrive in places like the Kentucky areas that he visited (which bills itself, only half-jokingly, as Silicon Holler). He sees last months announcement by Intel of a $20 billion investment to build two large silicon plants in central Ohio with 3,000 permanent jobs and 7,000 more in construction as an example of what can be done if tech CEOs take a broader view of economic development.

In writing about Big Techs role in modern America, Khanna dances close to an overheated third rail, at a fraught moment when politicians on all sides talk about breaking up, regulating, or somehow clamping down on these too-powerful platforms. Khanna told me there needs to be more competition and more rights for consumers. But he also thinks a smarter, more egalitarian vision from the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world could draw the internet back to its original dream of connecting communities and peoples best ideas, rather than spreading misinformation and political venom.

For Khanna, the real goal of both a World Wide Web working for citizens and creating good jobs outside of elite coastal enclaves is the same: a renewed sense of community. That, he believes, can in turn can fulfill the deferred U.S. promise of the worlds first true multi-racial and multi-ethnic democracy where a child of Indian migrants can thrive, but so can a deep-rooted Kentuckian.

We have to have an aspirational, patriotic vision for America, Khanna said. It cant all be doomer-ish. The question, of course, is whether those bleak views of an ever-deteriorating culture war in which many in so-called Trump Country are well past the point of trusting educated outsiders like Khanna can supersede the once-universal faith in the power of economic development. His new book seems an incredibly timely read. Hopefully its not too late.

Do you want to know even more about Rep. Ro Khanna and his new book, Dignity In a Digital Age? Then I have good news for you: You can participate in a special Inquirer LIVE online forum with Khanna moderated by The Inquirers ace political reporter Jonathan Tamari exactly one week from today, on February 8 at 4:15 p.m. You can register in advance at this link.

Is there another Beatles: Get Back-style documentary out there, hiding in plain sight? Yes and no. In 1968, the Rolling Stones hooked up with legendary filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard (Breathless) to record for posterity the making of one of their greatest numbers, Sympathy for the Devil. Yet Godard was high on Maoist agitprop in the wake of Frances May 1968 uprisings. The remarkable studio scenes the Stones last with doomed founder Brian Jones are interspersed with some bizarre-yet-banal revolutionary theatre. But if youre a 1960s completist like me, Sympathy for the Devil is still worth the $4.99 rental on Amazon Prime.

Question: Why isnt the media freaking out over Trumps statement last night about overturning the election? Why arent lawmakers? Via Heather Cox Richardson (@HC_Richardson) on Twitter

Answer: Its not every week I get a question from such a luminary Richardson, the Boston College historian and author, writes the uber-popular Letters from an American newsletter. Shes referring to the 45th presidents own news release in which he confessed to asking his veep Mike Pence to overturn the election at the January 6, 2021 certification, which Pence refused to do. Its the latest in a series of overt acts that sure seem criminal in nature whether confessing his role in a January 6 conspiracy, obstructing justice, or trying to intimidate prosecutors that Trump carries out in broad daylight. He seeks to numb journalists or lawmakers into complacency how could it be a crime if he admits it in public? and its worked his entire life. Its past time for our milquetoast Attorney General Merrick Garland to act, and prove our presidents are not above the law.

They say its lonely at the top, but President Biden must have been a tad taken aback last week with the icy welcome he almost received from Pennsylvania Democrats on his infrastructure-plan-boosting trip to Pittsburgh. With the 46th presidents approval numbers taking a big hit over everything from inflation to lingering COVID-19 to general malaise two of the Keystone States best-known Democrats with big 2022 ambitions initially claimed scheduling conflicts prevented them from being seen with Biden. While attorney general and lone Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Josh Shapiro stayed away Friday (although he did release a tweet of shooting a basketball called by retired 76ers voice Marc Zumoff), lieutenant governor and Senate hopeful John Fetterman had an abrupt change of plans. When a major bridge over Pittsburghs Frick Park collapsed, Fetterman raced to the scene in his trademark winter shorts, where he met Biden who also diverted to the scene and exchanged some kind words with POTUS.

READ MORE: If Dems want to save American democracy, they need to do these 4 things ASAP | Will Bunch

And thats what Fetterman should have been doing all along! The reality is that there are two competing narratives about both Biden and the Democratic Party right now. The first embraced not just by the presidents Republican foes but also by much of the mainstream media eager to prove its toughness toward a president not named Trump is the glass half-empty storyline. The glass-half-full saga is the booming job market and overall economy aided by Bidens $1.9 trillion on COVID-19 relief as well as the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the restoration of decency and ethics to the Oval Office after The Former Guy. When fearful, deer-in-the-headlines Dems like Shapiro or pre-bridge-collapse Fetterman make headlines for avoiding Biden, they are confirming the Biden is a failure narrative, and making it likely that they will lose in November in a GOP tidal wave. It may be the dumbest political strategy Ive ever seen.

Something horrible has been unleashed in the American Heartland: a flurry of bills in red-state legislatures around gag orders about what teachers can or cannot say in the classroom, especially on the subjects of race or sexuality. Great books like Maus or The Bluest Eye are getting yanked from library shelves. In my latest Sunday column, I looked at whats behind the new McCarthyism a frenzy of book banning and classroom interference that undermines our kids from learning American historical truths.

Over the weekend, I poured my shock and outrage into the news that Donald Trump has dangerously escalated his rhetoric on the road to a 2024 comeback. In a big rally with his cult members in Conroe, Texas, on Saturday night, Trump first promised pardons for the criminals of the January 6 insurrection and then all but threatened a new civil war if prosecutors indict him for his past crimes. Then he tossed the gasoline of racism onto this fire. History shows that lovers of American democracy must act quickly to contain Trump, before his insurrection is too far gone.

Nothing stops The Inquirers indefatigable foreign affairs columnist, Trudy Rubin. With her passport already stamped everywhere from Iraq to Afghanistan, Trudy left late last week for the only country that matters right now: Ukraine. With her nose for behind-the-scenes policy voices and everyday folks caught in the crossfire sometimes literally Trudys columns (twice a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize) will offer her readers in Philadelphia insights that others simply wont get. Her curtain-raiser on her Ukraine adventure is a great overview of the crisis. Theres only one way to read every new dispatch from Trudy and from me, for that matter. Subscribe to The Inquirer today.

See original here:
Can Rep. Ro Khanna child of the Philly 'burbs rescue rural America, with tech? | Will Bunch - The Philadelphia Inquirer

The Gallagher character played by five different actors was little Liam, the youngest of the rambunctious South Side clan. And if you're wondering why the character was played by so many different actors, it's not because of poor acting or any behind the scenes kerfuffles with producers. Rather, the character was aged-up at different points in the series' run for narrative purposes. This is, of course, a regular occurrence in television, particularly on a long-running series where a character is introduced as an infant or younger.

Such was the case with Liam Gallagherwho, as Vulture explains, was but a toddler of questionable paternity when "Shameless" premiered back in 2011. During the early days of "Shameless," the series' casting team wisely did what many shows have done before with young characters. They gave the gig to twins Brennan Kane Johnson and Blake Alexander Johnson. Those two actors traded turns as Liam for the first two seasons of "Shameless' before ceding the role to another pair of twins in Brenden and Brandon Sims, who would go on to play Liam for the next five seasons of "Shameless."

As any fan can tell you, Liam did some serious growing up in those five seasons too. Apparently not quite enough, as the slightly olderChristian Isiah was brought in to handle Liam's significantly beefed-up role in the show's final four seasons. And yes, kudos are clearly due to the "Shameless" casting team for making those Liam transitions all but unnoticeable even to diehard fans.

Originally posted here:
The Shameless Character You Probably Didn't Realize Was Played By Five Different Actors - Looper

Obviously, incarceration affects ones mental health for several reasons, namely, they are no longer said to be a productive members of society, their sense of self is stripped, and theyre no longer with loved ones. In addition, the physical environment could add to their stress, and they may see or experience violence. Thats the consequence of being convicted of a crime. And, based upon the lawyers motion before the court, the fact that his client has been placed in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day for his own safety (as being a former police officer and sheriff), can also take a serious toll on a persons well-being. Put aside the fact that his client had choices, and his bad choices placed him where he currently resides.

Read more from the original source:
Letters for Feb. 2: Virginia schools are in the top 5 of the U.S. What is Youngkin doing? - The Virginian-Pilot

I am a sophomore in high school, and my generation is a key part of "woke" activism. Collectively, our social actions are digitally combustible and their reach instantly global. Call us arrogant and narrow-minded, I think that we are the symptom of a deeper problem.

In the past year, we have seen the country gripped by cancel culture, which seeks to diminish a person's public standing for something that they did or said. While some targets of cancel culture are at fault, many are guilty simply of being politically incorrect. When public discourse is debased, it isn't just political values that are twisted beyond recognition. Moral principles can be, too.

Let's look at Kyrie Irving, the Brooklyn Nets star who refuses to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Many have taken their disagreement with Irving's political decisions as a license to attack his moral integrity. Disagree with him all you like on vaccinations, but you won't change the fact that Irving secretly bought a house for George Floyd's family.

Judging and canceling a person based on a single decision is unreasonable. But it's becoming increasingly prevalent. An emotionally charged mode of conveying information has created a generation unaccustomed to critical thinking. Our loss of logic gives way to a mob mentality.

How do we fix this? I'm not calling for social media platforms to restrict political speech. Instead, we should all take active steps to resist the temptation to indulge in "woke" activism.

As we begin the new year, reason should guide us. We must resist the urge to make quick judgments on important issues. If we don't, how will we ever make constructive decisions later in life?

Winston Chu

Glenview

Read the original:
Calling out my generation on the cancel culture - Chicago Daily Herald

For a while now the generation gap has been making a comeback in politics in a way not seen since the youthquake of the 1960s. Dont trust anyone over 30 has become OK Boomer. Oldsters have been demonised for everything from Brexit to Covid. Personally, at 62, looking at the lives todays teenagers can expect, I thank my lucky stars that I was young in the 1970s and 80s, when you could say what you liked and go where you wanted. But this dwindling of fun and freedom has as much to do with the stifling nature of woke culture as it does with the other virus.

So I wouldnt blame teenagers if they were cross. But those doing the most to promote the alienation of young and old arent hot-blooded bright young things. They are old men who appear to identify as young, despite sharing the same unsavoury grey whiskers. Of course, if someone with a penis can be a woman, a greybeard can be a teenager. Theyre the Grumpy Old Woke Bros.

We can trace this unhappy breed from the then 68-years-young Ian McEwan spluttering at an anti-Brexit rally in 2017: A gang of angry old men, irritable even in victory, are shaping the future of the country against the inclinations of its youth. By 2019 the country could be in a receptive mood: 2.5million over-18-year-olds, freshly franchised and mostly Remainers; 1.5 million oldsters, mostly Brexiters, freshly in their graves. Since then the likes of Alexei Sayle, Billy Bragg and Stewart Lee have joined in from the monstrous regiment of woke entertainers, adding Damon Albarn (a youthful 53 and an OBE, the rebel!) to their rankled ranks last week when he said of Taylor Swift She doesnt write her own songs. (This isnt the first time Albarn has had beef with young female pop stars. He said of Adele in 2015: Shes very insecure, to which she replied It ended up being one of those Dont meet your idol moments I was such a big Blur fan growing up. But it was sad, and I regret hanging out with him.)

Though we think of grumpiness as being an English trait, lets not forget Neil Young (76) who spat his dummy out last week over sharing Spotify with Joe Rogan. Young is a latecomer to the wonderful world of wokeness, whose welcome to the spotless ranks was somewhat marred by the emergence of a 1985 interview in which he backed Ronald Reagans gun control policy and added for good measure, AIDS having recently been discovered, You go to a supermarket and you see a faggot behind the cash register you dont want him to handle your potatoes.

But enough of our American cousins this is largely a domestic problem, featuring Englishmen of a certain age who are highly indignant about basically everything, from the masses giving Brussels the boot to those nasty old feminists being dinosaurs who want to hoard rights (David Lammy) just like their lost leader Jeremy Pronouns Corbyn (The Absolute Boy cringe!). But the more they chase the youth market by identifying as young (that isnt an exaggeration I had a social-media scrap with a Remoaner who told me that my generation was done and his was about to take over, and when I checked his age he was a year older than me), the older and grumpier they seem; more Victor Meldrew than Venceremos!. Sulking in children is unattractive; in males approaching pensionable age, its pathetic. Theres an actual online dictionary crediting me for my phrase (The) Big Sulk (La Grande Bouderie): A phrase originated by Julie Burchill used to describe those who refused to accept the result of the 2016 UK Brexit referendum and who have refused to engage with its outcome in any constructive way.

The joke is that regular old people many of whom were Brexiteers arent at all the angry, irritable mopers McEwan derided. Theyre more likely to be what I coined YOLOAPs those pensioners showing up at A&E after overdoing the coke or driving up the STD rate while the young generation is more likely to abstain. They benefit from the much-documented Happiness Curve which sees sexagenarians find a new joy in life that starts waning in ones thirties. They might have had some dodgy views, but those archetypal Grumpy Old Men of the right, Kingsley Amis and Philip Larkin, had a whale of a time, boozing and womanising. No, from where Im standing it appears that extreme grumpiness now affects more old, left-wing men than any other cohort.

Getting old is hard for men. Though they have an actual physical menopause to deal with, women frequently come out the other side feeling a new sense of freedom from male approval. As females find it easy to get sex, theyll have had as much as they wanted, if not more, having been pestered by men since they were schoolgirls. But ageing brings no benefits for men, who will see a drastic drop in their virility and will probably not have had as many offers of sex as they hoped. Once, they might have gone in for the male mid-life crisis clichs the flash car, the flashy young girlfriend and now they use the culture wars to make them feel young again. But a bitter old man is a bitter old man, no matter if he does see a young stud when he looks into his Magic Mirror.

And as if the Grumpy Old Woke Bros dont have enough reasons to be fearful, theres a new dance craze coming over the horizon, one they might well be too stiff in all the wrong places to learn. An American survey last year inspired a piece by Daniel Roman entitled, Has the woke wave peaked? Shock poll reveals Generation Z rejects cancel culture.

When it came to cancel culture the breakdown was staggering. Overall, no one liked it. The only group for whom more respondents viewed it positively (19 per cent) or neutrally (22 per cent) than negatively (36 per cent) was millennials. Predictably, more members of Gen X (1965-1980) and Boomers (1946-64) viewed it negatively (46 per cent for Gen X, 50 per cent for Boomers) than positively or neutrally (29 per cent for Gen X, 27 per cent for Boomers). The real shock [in] the Morning Consult poll came from those born between 1997 and 2008. Only eight per cent viewed cancel culture favourably, while 55 per cent had a negative view. That was higher than for Gen X or Boomers.

Looks like us ancient libertarian reprobates may have the last politically incorrect laugh after all.

Julie Burchill is a spiked columnist. Her book, Welcome To The Woke Trials: How #Identity Killed Progressive Politics, is published Academica Press.

View original post here:
Meet the Grumpy Old Woke Bros - Spiked

When Louise Richardson announced last November that she will step down as University of Oxford vice-chancellor at the end of this year, senior managers tempted by the hallowed cloisters of Oxbridge could have been forgiven for feeling a little giddy. Richardsons announcement came just two months after University of Cambridge vice-chancellor Stephen Toope announced that he, too, will depart in September. Hence, in a rare alignment, both of the star jobs in UKacademia are up for grabs at the same time.

Or are they? Is the opportunity to lead either of these world-leading institutions, first and equal fifth in Times Higher Educations latest World University Rankings, really as alluring as it seems? With powerful collegiate systems and internal governance acting as a brake on institutional change, is the honour of Oxbridge leadership outweighed by the considerable difficulties of actually getting anything done in the job? And does the unparalleled media scrutiny that comes with heading institutions of such mystique make it an impossible job in such febrile times?

Richardsons seven-year tenure as Oxfords first female vice-chancellor arguably shows that the job can be done successfully. When the Irish-born political scientist flies to the US next January to become president of the Carnegie Corporation, a New York-based philanthropic association, she is likely to leave on a high thanks to Oxfords Covid-19 vaccine development, in addition to significant achievements on charitable fundraising and student access.

Toopes time at Cambridge has been less smooth in recent years, marked by rows over free speech and accusations of kowtowing to China. He will leave after only five years in the role (his past four predecessors each served seven), stating that pandemic-era restrictions on travel had made him reassess my own years ahead from a personal perspective and his need to be closer to family and friends.

Behind the scenes, the cogs are turning to replace both figures. Oxfords search for Richardsons successor is said to be well advanced and its nominating committee is expected to submit a sole candidate for approval by the academic-led Congregation in the summer term. Cambridge appointed its advisory committee for nominations lastOctober, which includes a student and a postdoctoral researcher for the first time, alongside external members. It is expecting to submit a name to a vote of its academic assembly, the Regent House, by the end of September.

Given the power of such bodies, one question likely to preoccupy selection panels is whether recruiting someone more acquainted with Oxbridge practices might be a safer bet than reaching for a heavy-hitter from a big international university. Indeed, for centuries, the vice-chancellorships rotated between college heads every few years. That practice only ended at Cambridge in 1992, when external candidates became eligible to apply. At Oxford, the change didnt occur until 2004.

In theory, outsiders bring a greater readiness to challenge institutional complacency and present new perspectives, but their arrival can be problematic, says Laurence Brockliss, who wrote the official history of the University of Oxford, published in 2014. In the eyes of many dons, the externally appointed v-c is no longer one of us, says Brockliss, emeritus fellow at Magdalen College, Oxford.

Before Oxford, Richardson spent nearly 30 years at Harvard University, rising to executive dean of theRadcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, before heading back across the Atlantic to become principal and vice-chancellorof theUniversity of St Andrews. Toope spent all of his previous career in his native Canada, having been president and vice-chancellorof theUniversity of British Columbiaand thendirector of theUniversity of TorontosMunk School of Global Affairs, before becoming the first non-Briton to lead Cambridge. His appointment could be seen aspart of a trend for importing seasoned international university leaders to top posts, but some observers sense that the tide may be turning: Theres a bit of a sense in some of the higher echelons of UK higher education that if youre a homegrown talent, its been very hard to get one of the very top jobs, reflects Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute.

Whoever is appointed will need to be comfortable with levels of media scrutiny faced by no other university leader. Coverage of Oxford and Cambridge dwarfs that of all other universities combined in the UK national press.Dame Alison Richard, who led Cambridge from 2003 to 2010, tellsTimes Higher Educationthat she could wake up in the morning and read the headlines and grimace.

Every time someone blows their nose in Cambridge, its headline news, she says. But Oxfords Richardson has not shied away from media controversy. For instance, in 2017 she hit backat mendacious media and tawdry politicians who criticised her 350,000 salary by arguing thather pay was a very high salary compared to our academics, but compared to a footballer, it looks very different.By contrast, Toope has been less voluble, with an anonymous source telling The Times that he was very rattled by the reporting of his clashes with academics in particular, a skirmish over his introduction of software to allow students anonymously to accuse faculty members of racism, discrimination and microaggressions, which was swiftly dropped.

Toope also faced criticism in 2019 for backing a university decision to rescind a research fellowship to Jordan Peterson after the controversial University of Toronto psychology professor was pictured next to a man wearing an anti-Islam T-shirt on a speaking tour. That cancellation, dubbed a disgraceful chapter in the history of this university by one Cambridge academic, was widely condemned as signalling Cambridges unwillingness to defend scholars who hold contentious or politically incorrect opinions, pulling it centre-stage into the national debate on free speech.

Toope also faced national controversy when academics decried the implications for academic freedom of a proposal from the university council, which Toope chairs, to introduce guidelinesrequiring opinions to be respectful of others. Academics eventually voted, in a December 2020 Regent House meeting, to tolerate other views.

Indeed, several Oxbridge academics who spoke to THE about what they would like from a new vice-chancellor put commitment to academic freedom at the top of the list. Selina Todd, professor of modern history at Oxford, who was provided with security protection in 2020 after facing threats from transgender activists, says she hopes a new vice-chancellor will be someone whos really committed to democracy and academic freedom, freedom of debate, at all levels.

This unflinching commitment to academic freedom would send an important message to the scholarly community, says Todd, who explains that she has been frustrated by the panic and fear among academics and university managers alike when she and others have intervened in the debate about sex and gender. Its not even that they disagree with me its just that they absolutely panic about their public image, about what students will think instead of thinking...what are the principles that make us a world-class institution? or what do we want to uphold here?

Another challenge for Oxford and Cambridges new vice-chancellors will be to maintain their global standing.Brexit, Covid-19 and the rapid rise of Chinese universities could see revenue from international students and funders diminish, while the ongoing freeze on domestic tuition fees is also damaging the universities attempts to build up endowments comparable to those of their US competitors.

Indeed, rumours that the government might adopt theAugar reviews proposalto cut annual tuition fees to 7,500 may even push Oxford and Cambridge to sever ties with the student loans system altogether, some observers predict, allowing them to charge closer to the reported 18,000-a-head cost of undergraduate tuition at both institutions. Peter Mandler, professor of modern cultural history at Cambridge, suspects that the issue of both universities going private will rear its head again if the measure is adopted though, in practice, going private would not be as easy as it sounds.

Access to domestic research funding could also be a problem. Although the UK has committed to near-doubling research spending to 20 billion a year by 2024, there are clear signals that extra cash may go outside the so-called golden triangle of Oxbridge and London into northern universities or research centres, as part of the governments levelling-up agenda.

But Brexit is likely to present a far bigger problem, with roughly 10 per cent of Oxbridges combined annual 1.2 billion funding for research coming from the EU (Oxford took 62 million in EU-related funds in 2019-20, while the sum was 52 million for Cambridge in 2020-21). Even if the UK is allowed to join Horizon Europe, international academics have already distanced themselves from joint projects with UK scholars, while many universities have found it harder to recruit postdocs (Cambridge has more than 4,200) from Europe post-Brexit.

Research projects done by people in more than one country are more influential and more impactful. But its now getting harder to do this because of Brexit, says Hillman, who believes that any spanners thrown into those works by Brexit may damage Oxford and Cambridges ability to compete with Ivy League institutions. Unless were very careful indeed, we could be at the start of a gradual decline, he says.

However, the task that may tax any new Oxbridge vice-chancellor more than dealing with the government or the media is negotiating with their own academics. Indeed, Oxfords job advert specifically calls for someone who can bring judgement and sensitivity to the leadership of the universitys governance and decision-making structures.

Oxbridge vice-chancellors are not the CEO-type figures found leading other universities in the UK and around the world. Instead, they are not only accountable to their respective congregations of scholars,who ultimately have a power of veto, but mustalso negotiate with the constituent colleges, which are independent and self-governing, with their own sources of income.

The autonomy of the colleges means that its really difficult to exercise central, steering, strategic capacity, one Oxford insider says. Youve got 30 or so colleges, each of which has some assets, have their own finances, have their own strategies, have their own alumni stakeholders, student body and governing bodies. Its really difficult to steer that compared with other universities, where there is much more of a pyramidical structure, he adds.

Arif Ahmed, a reader in philosophy at Gonville and Caius College who led the opposition to the universitys proposed respect guidelines, says that the next vice-chancellor should be someone who is prepared to give ground because the vice-chancellor doesnt run the university. They must recognise that the Regent House is the supreme body, and not treat that body as an inconvenience to be got out of the way, but rather as an essential and precious part of our governance. Ahmed hopes for someone who doesnt mind a fight: who is willing to take on people on matters of principle and wont take the path of least resistance.

Respecting the college system will also be crucial, says David Abulafia, a professor of Mediterranean history at Cambridge, who describes Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, Toopes predecessor, as a remarkably successful v-c because he respected the opinions of the wider community and the place of the colleges within the structure of the university.

That decentralised system can be frustrating for academics who want to get things done, says Oxfords Mandler, who hopes for a leader whos very good at managing that essential tension talking, consulting, sharing, but also providing some sense of direction.

Keeping dons happy is, however, only part of the job. The global status of Oxford and Cambridge means that the role of leading them is more outward- than inward-facing. Your job is to represent the institution and fundraising is unbelievably important, according to one Oxbridge academic. Its not so much about managing an institution because the management is done really significantly at the college level.

The difficulties of negotiating the decentralised system loomed large during Richards tenure at Cambridge, she admits. However, she still saw her role as keeping everybody marching more or less under the same flagreminding people of that from time to time, and keeping everybody feeling part of this larger endeavour. Its a mighty task.There are layers of consultation and collaboration that are even more extensive than in a university that is without a collegiate system. That said, she adds, any university worth the name, in my view, is a place of deep anarchy.

Gill Evans, emeritus professor of medieval theology and intellectual history at Cambridge, who also has close ties with Oxford, says many new vice-chancellors are not fully aware of the impact of the decentralised systems. An awful lot of these highly famous, senior people whove been top of all sorts of things have found that they have no power they dont know how to run a democracy of argumentative people with strong opinions who can always vote them down, she says.

Is there a case for governance reform, then? Several vice-chancellors have tried and been frustrated. Sir John Hood, the first appointed external candidate at Oxford, who served from 2004 to 2009, sought to introduce a board of directors with a majority of externally appointed members to approve the budget and oversee the running of the university. His proposals were defeated, however. Evans describes Hoods tenure as an absolute disaster. Within weeks of taking up the role, the New Zealander was demanding to reform the governance and was voted down after 18 months of fighting and debate and then left after five years, she says.

Similarly, Alec Broers, in post at Cambridge from 1996 to 2003, tried to reform governance and was broadly defeated. Broers wanted the vice-chancellor to be Cambridges principal academic and administrative officer, responsible for the overall direction and management of the university and its finances, The Timesreported in 2003. But the only reform he managed to push through was to increase the number of pro vice-chancellors at Cambridge from two to five.

Nevertheless, many at Cambridge and Oxford insist that non-academics have gained power over recent decades. Economist Peter Oppenheimer wrote in a recent issue of Oxford Magazine that reforms carried out in 1999 unwittingly abolished the academic communitys control over the size and activities of the central administration. The administration responded by grossly over-expanding its own staff numbers and by proceeding largely to eliminate participation of the academic body in the universitys governance, he claims.

For her part, Richard, who took office after Broers, describes her predecessors attempts at reform as heroic. But reforming governance structures alone is not enough, she insists. The truth of the matter is that the best governance arrangements dont save you if you dont have a group of people across the face of the university who are working and collaborating together, she says, adding: Good governance is not trivial or irrelevant, but it is far from the only key to being able to forge your way towards the future.

Looking back, Richard described the job of leading Cambridge as intensely interesting and wonderful, and intensely hard work. It also requires a high level of physical resilience, she adds. Being able to get off the plane in Hong Kong after a night on the plane and function intelligently after almost no sleepthese are things that require a certain robustness.

No doubt there is no shortage of candidates to take over from Toope and Richardson. But it is equally clear that whoever ultimately get the academics nod is in for an eventful and gruelling few years.

rosa.ellis@timeshighereducation.com

Excerpt from:
Heavy lies the Oxbridge crown - Times Higher Education (THE)