A discovery found in Germany’s ‘Unicorn Cave’ hints at Neanderthal art

The 51,000-year-old carved bone suggests Neanderthals not only made simple tools, but art, too.

BY HANNAH SEO 

JULY 06, 2021

POPSCI
SCIENCE

New Neanderthal bone art was discovered in the Germany's Unicorn Cave. Unicorncave/Wikimedia 

Neanderthals are often portrayed as Homo sapiens’s crude, primitive relatives, incapable of sophisticated culture, but new archaeological findings are subverting that narrative. In the latest example of Neanderthal art, archaeologists found a 51,000 year old bone carving in the mountain caves of Germany.

The carved foot bone of a giant deer, which shows a chevron-like pattern. V. Minkus, © NLD

Archaeologists were excavating materials from the prehistoric entrance to Einhornhöhle, or the “Unicorn Cave,” in the Harz Mountains in Germany when they found the 2.2 inch-long bone. Scientists identified it as a phalanx, or toe bone, of a giant deer, and radiocarbon dating suggested that it is at least 51,000 years old.


But what was most remarkable about this bone was how it had been modified: Etched into its surface were a series of lines creating a chevron-like pattern. The cuts were clean and uniform, and also served no obvious purpose, which led scientists to conclude that they must have been both intentional and symbolic. They published their findings in Nature Ecology & Evolution.

It’s clear that whoever made the bone carving took time and care. Microscopic analysis of the phalanx shows that the lines are etched pretty deeply, which suggests that the bone was boiled before carving to soften the surface. Giant deer were also not very common in the area at the time. All this evidence points to the idea that the phalanx art had some weighty significance, and was thoughtfully planned and executed.

“We were convinced this must be intentional and probably bears symbolic meaning,” Dirk Leder told VICE. Leder is an archaeologist at the Lower Saxony State Office for Heritage and led the research. But the exact meaning or function of that symbolism is a question that’s “difficult to answer,” he added.

[Related: Neanderthal genes are still helping humans today]

While it is most likely that the bony token is indeed a work of Neanderthals, scientists can’t rule out that it might have been done by Homo sapiens. Uncovered symbolic trinkets and small art pieces are artifacts typically attributed to early humans. But the age of the carved phalanx, 51,000 years old, predates the earliest evidence for humans in the area (about 45,000 years ago).

The paper therefore concludes that “an independent Neanderthal authorship for the engraved bone is thus the most plausible scenario.” This puts more weight behind the idea that Neanderthals might have developed symbolic behavior independently from Homo sapiens—a theory that’s been controversial in the field.


But evidence shows that Neanderthals partook in plenty of other activities that were meaningful if not functional—like burying their dead and decorating themselves with bird feathers. Perhaps now we can add bone talismans to the list.

What does Haiti President Moïse’s assassination mean for Haitians?

With no clear succession of power, it is up to the people of Haiti to navigate this new power vacuum and the international community to support and uplift them

Wen-kuni Ceant |
Jul 7, 2021
THE GRIO

A coup is typically described as the removal or seizure of a government and its powers — technically an illegal and unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, military or dictator. But in Haiti’s case, many are unsure of the circumstances that resulted in President Jovenel Moïse’s untimely death.

 

Haiti’s President Jovenel Moise speaks during an interview at his home in Petion-Ville, a suburb of Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Sources say Moise was assassinated at home, first lady hospitalized amid political instability. (AP Photo/Dieu Nalio Chery, File)

Around 2:45 Wednesday morning in Pelerin 5, President Moïse was assassinated and First Lady Martine Moïse severely wounded. Looking from the outside in, this may seem like an unprecedented attack, but for those who have been following the politics of the Moïse regime, this demise is not shocking.

For the last 12 months but certainly, since Feb. 7, (the date that his alleged term ended) there have been outcries for the removal of President Moïse, as many alleged he had overstayed his presidential term. Moïse had been coincidently running the country via presidential decree as both parliament and senate had been disbanded under his authoritarian rule.

His latest attempt at governance came in the form of his referendum agenda in an effort to effectively dismantle the Haitian constitution. Amongst these referendums included immunity for himself and any Haitian president while in office while doing away with the prime minister position in its entirety — opting instead to replace it with a vice president position.

Perhaps Moïse’s interest in doing away with the prime minister position is a reflection of his unlucky fortune with them —ultimately going through seven prime ministers before today’s assassination. His 7th appointee was tapped as recently as two days ago (July 5) and was not properly installed before the late president’s death.


Also Read:
Haitian leader’s killing draws condemnation, calls for calm

Ariel Henry, a neurosurgeon and former minister of interior was set to replace interim Prime Minister Claude Joseph — who has overnight become the most powerful man in the country as acting prime minister.

The chaos and unclear succession of power have left Haitians and the diaspora alike grasping for straws on what the future of Haiti will look like. The president of Haiti’s Cour de Cassation (Supreme Court) would naturally be the next in power — but the recent death of the last Supreme Court president, Rene Sylvestre, from COVID-19 complications makes matters even more perilous. No Supreme Court president, no senate and no parliament. Not to mention, the neighboring Dominican Republic has closed its borders and all flights in and out of the country have been immediately suspended until further notice.

But who is responsible?

Although not much is known about the attacks, there are allegations of an unidentified group of mercenaries taking the home — commando style. The language of the killers is unknown; some allege the group was communicating in Spanish, and others claim American English was the language of choice. Some allege the DEA’s (Drug Enforcement Agency) involvement while others implicate Latin America (this allegation has been staunchly denied by the DEA).

Haiti’s President Jovenel Moise, center, leaves the museum during a ceremony marking the 215th anniversary of revolutionary hero Toussaint Louverture’s death, at the National Pantheon museum in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. (AP Photo/Dieu Nalio Chery, File)

What is clear is that a trained paramilitary group carried out the attack, and the last time Haiti witnessed an assassination in office it resulted in the infamous occupation of Haiti by the United States Marines. This occurred after President Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam was murdered on July 28, 1915, and resulted in a 19-year marine occupation sanctioned by President Woodrow Wilson.

But what would happen if history repeated itself? One must only look to the past to see the detrimental effects that the U.S. Marine Occupation had on Haiti. After removing half a million dollars from the Haitian National Bank for “safe-keeping” in New York, they created the Haitian Gendarmerie — a military amalgamation of Haitian and American citizens controlled strictly by the U.S. Marine Corps. In this way, the United States controlled both the military and finances of the country. It wasn’t until President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor Policy,” that military forces officially withdrew from the country nearly 20 years later.

With no clear succession of power, it is up to the people of Haiti to navigate this new power vacuum and the job of the international community (UN, OAS, and individual nations) to support and uplift them as they navigate their way through troubled waters.



Wen-kuni Ceant is the CEO and Co-Founder of Politicking. She is a Fulbright Scholar and through the fellowship she studied health infrastructure in Senegal during the last year. She received her Masters in Public Health in Health Management and Policy in 2016 from Drexel University. Before Drexel, she attended Howard University, in Washington, D.C. where she graduated Phi Beta Kappa and with honors with a Bachelors of Science in Biology.

US Job Openings Rise to Record High, Layoffs Hit Record Low

A 'Now Hiring' sign is displayed at a fast food chain in Los Angeles, Calif., on June 23, 2021. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

The Associated Press Jul 7, 2021

WASHINGTON—U.S. employers posted a record-high number of open jobs for the second straight month as a rapidly rebounding economy generates intense demand for workers.

The number of available jobs on the last day of May rose slightly to 9.21 million, from 9.19 million in April, the Labor Department said Wednesday. That is the highest since records began in December 2000. The previously reported figure for April of 9.3 million was revised lower.

The number of people quitting their jobs slipped in May from a record high in April, but remains elevated. And the percentage of workers getting laid off hit a record low in May, the report said.

The figures point to a tight job market, with employers forced to pay more to attract workers yet still struggling to fill open jobs. And many workers are leaving jobs for better-paying positions at other companies. It’s unusual for such dynamics to have kicked in with the unemployment rate still elevated at 5.9 percent in June, as the government reported last week.

In May, there was essentially one open job for every unemployed American, a situation that is far more typical of an economy with a much lower unemployment rate.

But the lingering effects of COVID-19 are keeping many potential workers on the sidelines. Some of those out of work are worried about the risk of getting the disease from large crowds, while many older Americans have retired early. And an extra $300 in weekly unemployment aid has allowed Americans to seek out higher-paying jobs rather than return 

Jennifer Lee, an economist at BMO Capital Markets, noted that job openings appear to have leveled off, with total postings jumping more than 10 percent in March and April, but barely rising in May.

“There are jobs … and there is an urgent need to fill them,” she said in a note to clients.

Open jobs rose in restaurants and hotels, education, and health care. They fell in construction, finance, and transportation and warehousing.

Employers have stepped up hiring, in part by offering higher pay. Job gains picked up in June, the government said last week, as employers added 850,000 jobs, the largest monthly increase since last August. The unemployment rate ticked up to 5.9 percent from 5.8 percent, though that was partly because some people started looking for work that month.

By Christopher Rugaber

Opinion: If you want to fix climate change, you need to fix this flaw in conventional economic thought

Thinking along the margins does no good when what’s needed is wholesale change


A thermometer at the visitors' center at Death Valley National Park in June.

 AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

Published: July 7, 2021 
By Tom Brookes, an Gernot Wagner

BRUSSELS, Belgium (Project Syndicate)—Nowhere are the limitations of neoclassical economic thinking—the DNA of economics as it is currently taught and practiced—more apparent than in the face of the climate crisis. While there are fresh ideas and models emerging, the old orthodoxy remains deeply entrenched. Change cannot come fast enough.

The economics discipline has failed to understand the climate crisis—let alone provide effective policy solutions for it—because most economists tend to divide problems into small, manageable pieces. Rational people, they are wont to say, think at the margin. What matters is not the average or totality of one’s actions but rather the very next step, weighed against the immediate alternatives.


The most effective way to introduce new ideas into the peer-reviewed academic literature is to follow something akin to an 80/20-rule: stick to the established script for the most part; but try to push the envelope by probing one dubious assumption at a time.

Such thinking is indeed rational for small discrete problems. Compartmentalization is necessary for managing competing demands on one’s time and attention. But marginal thinking is inadequate for an all-consuming problem touching every aspect of society.
Economics’ power over public discourse

Economists also tend to equate rationality with precision. The discipline’s power over public discourse and policy-making lies in its implicit claim that those who cannot compute precise benefits and costs are somehow irrational. This allows economists—and their models—to ignore pervasive climate risks and uncertainties, including the possibility of climatic tipping points and societal responses to them.

A return to equilibrium—getting “back to normal”—is an all-too-human preference. But it is precisely the opposite of what is needed—rapidly phasing out fossil fuels—to stabilize the world’s climate.

And when one considers economists’ fixation with equilibrium models, the mismatch between the climate challenge and the discipline’s current tools becomes too glaring to ignore.

Yes, a return to equilibrium—getting “back to normal”—is an all-too-human preference. But it is precisely the opposite of what is needed—rapidly phasing out fossil fuels—to stabilize the world’s climate.

These limitations are reflected in benefit-cost analyses of cutting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The traditional thinking suggests a go-slow path for cutting CO2. The logic seems compelling: the cost of damage caused by climate change, after all, is incurred in the future, while the costs of climate action occur today. The Nobel Prize-winning verdict is that we should delay necessary investment in a low-carbon economy to avoid hurting the current high-carbon economy.

To be clear, a lot of new thinking has gone into showing that even this conventional logic would call for significantly more climate action now, because the costs are often overestimated while the potential (even if uncertain) benefits are underestimated.
Marginalized ideas

The young researchers advancing this work must walk a near-impossible tightrope, because they cannot publish what they believe to be their best work (based on the most defensible assumptions) without invoking the outmoded neoclassical model to demonstrate the validity of new ideas.

The very structure of academic economics all but guarantees that marginal thinking continues to dominate. The most effective way to introduce new ideas into the peer-reviewed academic literature is to follow something akin to an 80/20-rule: stick to the established script for the most part; but try to push the envelope by probing one dubious assumption at a time.

Needless to say, this makes it extremely difficult to change the overall frame of reference, even when those who helped establish the standard view are looking well beyond it themselves.

Against the backdrop of this traditional view, recent pronouncements by the International Monetary Fund and the International Energy Agency are nothing short of revolutionary. Both institutions have now concluded that ambitious climate action leads to higher growth and more jobs even in the near term.

Consider the case of Kenneth J. Arrow, who shared a Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 1972 for showing how marginal actions taken by self-interested individuals can improve societal welfare. That pioneering work cemented economists’ equilibrium thinking.

But Arrow lived for another 45 years, and he spent that time moving past his earlier work. In the 1980s, for example, he was instrumental in founding the Santa Fe Institute, which is dedicated to what has since become known as complexity science—an attempt to move beyond the equilibrium mind-set he had helped establish.

Because equilibrium thinking underpins the traditional climate-economic models that were developed in the 1990s, these models assume that there are trade-offs between climate action and economic growth. They imagine a world where the economy simply glides along a Panglossian path of progress. Climate policy might still be worthwhile, but only if we are willing to accept costs that will throw the economy off its chosen path.
Climate investments create jobs

Against the backdrop of this traditional view, recent pronouncements by the International Monetary Fund and the International Energy Agency are nothing short of revolutionary. Both institutions have now concluded that ambitious climate action leads to higher growth and more jobs even in the near term.

The logic is straightforward: climate policies create many more jobs in clean-energy sectors than are lost in fossil-fuel sectors, reminding us that investment is the flip side of cost. That is why the proposal for a $2 trillion infrastructure package in the United States could be expected to spur higher net economic activity and employment. Perhaps more surprising is the finding that carbon pricing alone appears to reduce emissions without hurting jobs or overall economic growth. The problem with carbon taxes or emissions trading is that real-world policies are not reducing emissions fast enough and therefore will need to be buttressed by regulation.

There is no excuse for continuing to adhere to an intellectual paradigm that has served us so badly for so long. The standard models have been used to reject policies that would have helped turn the tide many years ago, back when the climate crisis still could have been addressed with marginal changes to the existing economic system. Now, we no longer have the luxury of being able to settle for incremental change.

The good news is that rapid change is happening on the political front, owing not least to the shrinking cost of climate action. The bad news is that the framework of neoclassical economics is still blocking progress. The discipline is long overdue for its own tipping point toward new modes of thinking commensurate with the climate challenge.

Tom Brookes is executive director of strategic communications at the European Climate Foundation. Gernot Wagner is clinical associate professor of environmental studies at New York University.

This commentary was published with permission of Project Syndicate — Economics Needs a Climate Revolution

Deadly Northwest heat wave: ‘Without climate change this event would not have happened,’ study finds

‘This study is telling us climate change is killing people,’ environmental scientist says


The sun shines near the Space Needle in Seattle in June 28, as temperatures soared well above 100 degrees. ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: July 7, 2021
By Associated Press

The deadly heat wave that roasted the Pacific Northwest and western Canada was virtually impossible without human-caused climate change that added a few extra degrees to the record-smashing temperatures, a new quick scientific analysis found.

An international team of 27 scientists calculated that climate change increased chances of the extreme heat occurring by at least 150 times, but likely much more.


The study, not yet peer reviewed, said that before the industrial era, the region’s late June triple-digit heat was the type that would not have happened in human civilization. And even in today’s warming world, it said, the heat was a once-in-a-millennium event.

But that once-in-a-millennium event would likely occur every five to 10 years once the world warms another 1.4 degrees, said Wednesday’s study from World Weather Attribution. That much warming could be 40 or 50 years away if carbon pollution continues at its current pace, one study author said.

This type of extreme heat “would go from essentially virtually impossible to relatively commonplace,” said study co-author Gabriel Vecchi, a Princeton University climate scientist. “That is a huge change.”

The study also found that in the Pacific Northwest and Canada climate change was responsible for about 3.6 degrees of the heat shock. Those few degrees make a big difference in human health, said study co-author Kristie Ebi, a professor at the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the University of Washington.

“This study is telling us climate change is killing people,” said Ebi, who endured the blistering heat in Seattle. She said it will be many months before a death toll can be calculated from June’s blast of heat but it’s likely to be hundreds or thousands. “Heat is the No. 1 weather-related killer of Americans.”

In Oregon alone, the state medical examiner on Wednesday reported 116 deaths related to the heat wave.

The team of scientists used a well-established and credible method to search for climate change’s role in extreme weather, according to the National Academy of Sciences. They logged observations of what happened and fed them into 21 computer models and ran numerous simulations. They then simulated a world without greenhouse gases from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. The difference between the two scenarios is the climate change portion.

“Without climate change this event would not have happened,” said study senior author Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford.

Investing Insights with Global Context

Understand how today’s global business practices, market dynamics, economic policies and more impact you with real-time news and analysis from MarketWatch.

What made the Northwest heat wave so remarkable is how much hotter it was than old records and what climate models had predicted. Scientists say this hints that some kind of larger climate shift could be in play — and in places that they didn’t expect.

“Everybody is really worried about the implications of this event,” said study co-author Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, a Dutch climate scientist. “This is something that nobody saw coming, that nobody thought possible. And we feel that we do not understand heat waves as well as we thought we did. The big question for many people is: Could this also happen in a lot of places?”

The World Weather Attribution team does these quick analyses, which later get published in peer-reviewed journals. In the past, they have found similar large climate change effects in many heat waves, including ones in Europe and Siberia. But sometimes the team finds climate change wasn’t a factor, as they did in a Brazilian drought and a heat wave in India.

Six outside scientists said the quick study made sense and probably underestimated the extent of climate change’s role in the heat wave.

That’s because climate models used in the simulations usually underestimate how climate change alters the jet stream that parks “heat domes” over regions and causes some heat waves, said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann.

The models also underestimate how dry soil worsens heat because there is less water to evaporate, which feeds a vicious cycle of drought, said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA and the Nature Conservancy.

The study hit home for University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who wasn’t part of the research team.

“Victoria, which is known for its mild climate, felt more like Death Valley last week,” Weaver said. “I’ve been in a lot of hot places in the world, and this was the worst I’ve ever been in.

“But you ain’t seen nothing yet,” he added. “It’s going to get a lot worse.”

Microsoft’s shadowy presence in antitrust push is angering the rest of Big TechLast 

Software giant has avoided scrutiny while openly supporting actions against Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google, and reportedly ducked rules being established in new antitrust bills

MARKETWATCH PHOTO ILLUSTRATION/ISTOCKPHOTO

By Jon Swartz
Updated: June 29, 2021 

For more than a year, Microsoft Corp. avoided Congress’ antitrust scrutiny with a deft strategy, but the software giant now finds itself the target of rivals’ anger for its finger-pointing tactics.

Much to the exasperation of Apple Inc. AAPL and Google parent Alphabet Inc. GOOGL GOOG, Microsoft MSFT and its president, Brad Smith, has publicly supported antitrust actions against them to gain a competitive advantage, sources close to both companies told MarketWatch. This prompted Apple’s vocal criticism of Microsoft during the Epic Games Inc.’s antitrust trial against the iPhone maker.


Now, insiders at Google, Amazon.com Inc. AMZN, +0.57%, and Facebook Inc. FB, -0.65% are increasingly claiming Microsoft has hypocritically presented itself as the White Knight of tech, unsullied by the anticompetitive behavior of Big Tech. All four companies under federal investigation — Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook — declined to speak on the record. But representatives from all four emphatically made it clear to MarketWatch that Microsoft is overplaying the antitrust card to make up ground in key technology areas such as mobile and gaming where Microsoft has lagged behind its rivals.

The strategy has worked swimmingly: Microsoft topped $2 trillion in market value last week, joining Apple in the exclusive club while generally dodging the attention of antitrust investigations, a new package of Congressional bills, and lawsuits.

“Microsoft is the original bad actor,” civil liberties attorney Shahid Buttar told MarketWatch, echoing the gripes of Microsoft’s rivals. “It’s pretty laughable, considering what they’ve said about antitrust the past year. This is beyond cynical.”

Don’t miss: Big Tech was built by the same type of antitrust actions that could now tear it down

Microsoft’s diversionary tactics were called into question last week during markup of a package of sweeping antitrust bills designed to rein in Big Tech. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., claimed on the House floor that an early draft of the bills that would have covered Microsoft was rewritten to have the company carved out. Original versions of the draft bills, he pointed out, defined “online platform” as including “operating systems” while the amended versions that were introduced and approved define “online platform” to only include “mobile operating systems.”

This would mean Windows is not a covered platform under the bills. Earlier drafts also included a much lower total of monthly active users (500,000) to be a target of the bill, but it was raised to 50 million, which would exclude Microsoft’s Xbox videogame console. (The bills target companies based on the definition of a “covered platform” with 50 million MAUs or 100,000 monthly active business users run by a company with a market cap of more than $600 billion.)

“I’m trying to figure out why one of the big offenders of Big Tech has mysteriously evaded the scrutiny of this committee,” Massie said. “I’m talking about Microsoft… How is it not covered by these bills?”

A spokesman for Massie declined to comment further.

Investing Insights with Global Context
Understand how today’s global business practices, market dynamics, economic policies and more impact you with real-time news and analysis from MarketWatch.

On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee passed the final piece of its Big Tech antitrust package. The six bills include one that severely limits acquisitions of competitors, and another that could force Facebook to cleave Instagram and WhatsApp from its holdings.

For more: Judge dismisses Facebook antitrust suit brought by FTC

Reaction from the other four members of Big Tech was quick and furious. The prevailing theme is that Microsoft — the focus of a major Justice Department investigation in the 1990s and early 2000s — is presenting itself as a “good monopolist,” in the words of one executive.

Learning from history, Microsoft — pilloried by rivals during its antitrust battle with the Justice Department in the 1990s and early 2000s — has weaponized the same issue this time around as part of a “master chess strategy,” as one former Microsoft exec now working at a Big Tech rival told MarketWatch.

Rep. David Cicilline, chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees antitrust, emphatically denied any bill was changed to exclude Microsoft and that the company did not have access to early copies.

“We shared drafts of bills throughout the investigation with people who participated in the investigation to get their feedback,” Cicilline said last week. “That happened all throughout the investigation and the drafting. So, they were shared with all of the people participating investigation.” (“I don’t know whether Microsoft would meet the test that is set forth in these five bills,” Cicilline told Axios on its Re:cap podcast on June 17.)

Cicilline did not respond to email messages seeking additional comments on the changes, and on his political contributions of more than $5,000 from Microsoft President Brad Smith. Cicilline said he has “sworn off” tech donations since his subcommittee first began its investigation in 2019. He took $1,000 this year from Glover Park Group, which counts Apple as one of its major clients. Apple does not have a corporate PAC.

See: Tech giants mount defense against House antitrust bills

Smith is a key strategist and frontman in Microsoft’s concerted campaign, and has effectively put the other four tech giants on their heels. For more than a year, Smith has publicly pointed figures at them, while making the case that the software giant is a good corporate citizen.

“When you create technology that changes the world, you have to assume a responsibility for the world that you’ve helped to create,” Smith told Nikkei in December 2020.

In April 2021, Smith renewed his attacks on Google over web content after urging antitrust bodies to review Apple’s App Store a year ago.

Shortly after the bills were introduced on June 11, Smith told Bloomberg three days later: “I think in many ways where this is going is a particular focus on technology platforms that serve as gatekeepers. In other words, they not only serve as a platform like an operating system, but people need to go through them to sell their commerce whether it’s a product that’s on Amazon or an app say in the Apple App Store or through a service like Google search. And I think that’s where we’re going to see more and more government focus.”

“Well, there are aspects of the legislation that was introduced in the house last week that absolutely applies to Microsoft and many other companies,” he later acknowledged to Bloomberg. “I think for all of us, it’s the time to step back, try to think broadly, look beyond ourselves and ask, what’s the right role of technology to serve the economy, our customers, the country, and the world?”

Additionally, Microsoft supports the European Union’s Digital Markets Act, which would require companies like Amazon, Apple, and Google with large numbers of customers to open their platforms to competitors such as Microsoft. Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook has argued the law would force Apple to permit side-loading apps on the iPhone, which is manually installing software from the internet or a file instead of through an app store. This, in turn, would wreak havoc on the privacy and security of consumers — not to mention expose them to ransomware and malware, he said.

At least one defender of Microsoft — Gus Rossi, who leads tech policy and advocacy at Omidyar Network — said the criticisms conveniently overlook that Microsoft was subject to the “last relevant antitrust investigation” 30 years ago.

“Its rivals have never been exposed to the scrutiny that Microsoft experienced years ago, and now they are trying to adapt,” Rossi told MarketWatch. “They are reacting as Microsoft did in the ’90s. It not only survived, but is a smarter company, policy-wise.”

For its part, Microsoft insists it did not lobby to be excluded from the new antitrust package. “The bills as proposed extends to all operating systems. While this may encompass Windows, which has more than 50 million daily active users, it already operates as an open platform that provides broad choice and opportunity to developers and consumers today,” a Microsoft spokesperson told MarketWatch.

The Smith-led antitrust offensive has earned behind-the-scenes rebukes from the other four members of the Big Tech pantheon, prompting one Apple exec to observe deep antagonisms that now fester between the two companies. Microsoft is also at loggerheads with Amazon, whom it beat out in a bid for a $10 billion cloud-computing contract with the Pentagon in 2019. Amazon is fighting the awarded contract in court.

For more: Big Tech is turning on one another amid antitrust probes and litigation

Microsoft’s antitrust crusade has drawn incredulous responses from those who closely follow antitrust developments in the corridors of tech.

Microsoft hovered on the periphery of the Epic Games’ antitrust lawsuit against Apple last month, with at least five witnesses with links to Microsoft testifying on behalf of Epic. That was as many witnesses as from Epic itself. What is more, Microsoft shielded itself from discovery in litigation by not appearing as a party or sending a corporate representative to testify. Lori Wright, vice president of business development at Microsoft, testified in a personal capacity.

Microsoft is not entirely free of antitrust concerns. In July 2020, Slack Technologies WORK, -0.02%, a provider of chat software for businesses, filed a complaint against Microsoft in the European Union, alleging that the company’s bundling of rival product Microsoft Teams with the widely used Office suite of business software was an anticompetitive abuse of its market power. Slack has agreed to be acquired by Salesforce.com Inc. CRM for $27.7 billion.

This article has been updated.

Opinion: The JEDI reboot allows U.S. to correct its mistake

By Therese Poletti
Published: July 7, 2021 

In the years it took to name Microsoft as cloud-computing partner for Defense Department, the multi-cloud approach became popular, and Pentagon now appears to aim in that direction after canceling previous award


The Defense Department on Tuesday canceled a large cloud contract previously awarded to Microsoft Corp. GETTY IMAGES/ISTOCKPHOTO

The abrupt cancellation of a large and important cloud-computing defense contract that took years to complete is actually good news for the country.

Since the earliest requests for proposal years ago for the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure contract, or JEDI, the Defense Department’s approach was criticized by analysts and tech companies. The biggest concerns were that the contract called for a single-source provider and spanned more than a decade, a deal that would have locked the Pentagon in with one company and without redundancy plans as the tech ecosystem sprinted toward so-called multi-cloud deals.


So when the Pentagon canceled the 10-year, $10 billion contract in a surprise announcement Tuesday, only Microsoft Corp. MSFT, +0.82% really had a reason to complain. Microsoft’s victory in October 2019 was immediately clouded by a prolonged political battle and accusations by Amazon.com Inc. AMZN, +0.57% of favoritism by former President Donald Trump, who made it obvious on Twitter that he was no fan of then-CEO Jeff Bezos. The JEDI process was rife with lawsuits early on, as companies such as Oracle Corp. ORCL, +3.62% and IBM Corp. IBM, +0.75% complained about the lack of redundancy, and that the JEDI contract was going against standard industry practices.

For more: Therese on The early JEDI War and Amazon’s lawsuit

The Defense Department seems prepared to correct those issues, stating Tuesday that the new contract process will seek to create a cloud would be multi-vendor. It plans to solicit proposals from Amazon Web Services, or AWS, and Microsoft, because they are the only cloud providers that can meet its criteria.

“In the end, the government’s best interests are served by at least having some competition for service, innovation, redundancy, compliance, regulatory and security enhancements,” said Daniel Newman, principal analyst, Futurum Research. “I have long felt that the JEDI contract would be subject to intense post-award scrutiny and the most likely outcome would be a shared contract where the federal government would wind up utilizing the services of both AWS and Microsoft.”

Newman said he does not see the new contract as a 50/50 split, but that the new, shorter-term contract could be split approximately 30/70 between Amazon and Microsoft, respectively.

“If Microsoft gets more, it will be tied to the more comprehensive software suite,” he predicted.

From 2016: Tech is king of Wall Street, thanks to the cloud

While fast advances in technology can be impossible to meld with government procurement processes that take years, there are other benefits from calling a do-over on the past few years of work. Bernstein Research analyst Mark Moerdler said in a note that he believed Microsoft had benefited from the long delays.

Investing Insights with Global Context
Understand how today’s global business practices, market dynamics, economic policies and more impact you with real-time news and analysis from MarketWatch.

“During complex contracting processes (especially ones that are delayed many times), time does not stand still and government agencies have been moving along adding cloud capabilities,” he wrote. Microsoft has been expanding products it supports and its own partnerships with companies like Oracle and VMware Inc. VMW, +0.80%, and added functionality and capabilities to its own products, he said. “They have also likely been capturing cloud contacts and increasing utilization within the U.S. government.”

While the name of the new multi-vendor contract, Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability, may not be as cool as the former JEDI acronym, the new plans are more appropriate for a modern cloud-computing scenario. And that will actually be a good thing for everyone involved.

Man quits his film industry job and makes a business out of posting conspiracy theories online

Sky Palma
July 07, 2021

Shutterstock


Sean G. Turnbull, 53, is a former film producer and marketing manager for one of the country's largest retail corporations who lives in Minneapolis. For more than a decade, he has anonymously promoted conspiracy theories about "dark forces" in American politics on websites and social media accounts.

"Turnbull has identified himself online for 11 years only as 'Sean from SGT Reports.'" The Washington Post reports. "He has amassed a substantial following while producing videos and podcasts claiming that the 9/11 attacks were a 'false flag' event, a 'Zionist banker international cabal' is plotting to destroy Western nations, the coronavirus vaccine is an 'experimental, biological kill shot' and that the 2020 election was 'rigged' against former president Donald Trump, according to a Washington Post review."

According to Turnbull, his online operation is profitable enough for him to quit his job in film production.

While his accounts have been terminated by seven tech companies, including Twitter, YouTube and Vimeo, he's kept his business going by turning to new traffic sources. He also has generated revenue through subscriptions and donations and by advertising survival products and "precious metals," according to the Post, which found that his earnings were between $50,000 and $250,000 annually in 2019

Turnbull's website was cited in evidence presented against an Alabama man who was charged after he drove to Washington ahead of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6 with an arsenal of weapons and Molotov cocktails in his truck. Court documents included a handwritten note found in Lonnie Coffman's vehicle that referred to SGTReport.com as the "good guys."

Read his full interview with The Washington Post.

Amy Coney Barrett ruled in favor of one of her major backers without explaining her ties

Travis Gettys
July 07, 2021

Amy Coney Barrett (AFP)

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett ruled in favor of a major donor to her confirmation battle without explaining her ties to the plaintiff.

The Americans for Prosperity Foundation sued over a California law requiring charitable organizations to disclose the identities of their major donors to the state attorney general's office, but Barrett not only declined to recuse herself from the case -- she also vigorously took part in oral arguments and joined the majority opinion without addressing questions about her involvement, reported The American Prospect.

"There is no mechanism to force a justice to adhere to the Court's own prior rulings in their ethical conduct, or to hold them accountable for failing to do so," wrote columnist Steven Lubet. "Self-regulation, in other words, does not work. In fact, it creates an essential imbalance, as those justices who conscientiously follow recusal practices take themselves out of cases, while those with no such concerns do not."

The Koch-funded advocacy group publicly committed more than $1 million promoting Barrett's confirmation weeks before Donald Trump lost his re-election bid, and the newly minted justice was personally alerted to that backing in a letter from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) calling on her to recuse herself from the case.

The senators detailed efforts by Americans for Prosperity to secure Barrett's confirmation and pointed out that federal law provides that a Supreme Court justice is disqualified in any case where her "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

The test outlined in the statute does not require evidence of bias, but only the showing of circumstances where a judge's "impartiality could reasonably be doubted," but Barrett never responded to the senators' letter or acknowledged their question about her involvement in the case, which the court found 6-3 in her donor's favor.

"It has been the Supreme Court's 'historic practice' to leave recusal questions to the determination of each individual justice, rather than submit them to the full court," Lubet wrote. "The unfortunate consequence of that approach is fully evident in this instance, where Justice Barrett has seemingly disregarded both a federal statute and a previous SCOTUS decision."

America is 'on the brink of collapse': Historian breaks down the post-conservative right's most glaring contradiction
Alex Henderson, AlterNet
July 07, 2021

White supremacists protesting (Screen cap via the David Pakman Show on YouTube)

Historian Joshua Tait is known for focusing on the history of conservatism in the United States. Ask Tait about the influence of the late William F. Buckley or the platform of President Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign, and he can recite chapter and verse. But Tait has major issues with Trumpism, and in an article published by The Bulwark on July 6, he addresses one of Trumpism's glaring contradictions: claiming to have an "unapologetic" love of the United States while expressing an intense hatred of half of its populace.

"How is it that we hear the loudest jingoistic yelps from dismal patriots who cannot stand the state of the nation and half the people in it?," Tait argues. "Traditionally, the conservative right has prided itself on its heightened patriotism in contrast to the 'cosmopolitan' left…. An influential set of Trumpist intellectuals shows such disdain for progressives and 'elites,' and the country they supposedly corrupted, that their grandiose professions of love for country ring hollow."

In his article, Tait uses the term "post-conservative" to describe these liberal-hating Trumpistas — implying that they fall outside of traditional conservatism by failing to recognize Americans they disagree with as the loyal opposition.
Chris Matthews talks to Raw Story: Who would you bet on in 2024, Trump or Kamala?

"In a shift from earlier conservatives, key writers and publications from the pro-Trump and self-professedly post-conservative right have begun to see the United States not just at a critical point in its history, but in many ways, as past the point of no return," Tait explains. "They envisage America as under assault by disciplined and united leftists."

Tait cites Michael Anton and Glenn Ellmers, both with the Clairemont Institute, as examples of Trumpistas who view liberals and progressives not as the loyal opposition, but as haters of the United States. Anton, Tait notes, has said, "One side loves America, the other hates it — or can tolerate it only for what it might someday become." And in an article published by American Mind on March 24, Ellmers wrote, "Most people living in the United States today — certainly more than half — are not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term…. (They) may technically be citizens of the United States but are no longer, if they ever were, Americans."

Tait points out while it is nothing new for conservatives to argue that liberal and progressive ideas have been bad for the United States, the "post-conservative" Trump supporters go way beyond that.

"The narratives of decline identify various points at which the fatal misstep was taken — where everything started to go wrong," Tait explains. "Sometimes, it's (President Abraham) Lincoln, sometimes (President Woodrow) Wilson — often FDR or the 1960s. What's unusual about the Trumpist right is the extent to which they think that America is not just on the brink of collapse, but that it has already toppled. This may just be post-electoral defeat malaise, but increasingly, these American-greatness patriots appear to actively hate America and their fellow citizens."

President Joe Biden has emphasized that he considers himself president of all 50 states, including all the red states that Trump won in 2020. But Trump obviously doesn't see blue states as anything other than his enemies.

"In his public addresses," Tait observes, "President Biden has made a conscious effort to speak to all Americans. Donald Trump, by contrast, typically reverts to the language of us-versus-them — his people, the ones who want to make America great again, against their various enemies."

Trumpistas like to think that they represent "the real America," but Tait concludes his article by stressing that their "post-conservative" view is decidedly unamerican.

"Fundamentally at odds with modernity, the Trumpist intellectuals are at odds with the real America, but remain committed to the rhetoric of patriotism," Tait notes. "They are strangers in their own country, all the while professing to love it."