Wednesday, December 04, 2024

Surveillance Is Intimidation: Ronan Farrow Reveals Secrets of High-Tech Spyware


Farrow warns that a growing number of democratic nations are using and abusing surveillance technology.
December 4, 2024

We look at the world of high-tech surveillance with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ronan Farrow and filmmaker Matthew O’Neill. Their new HBO documentary Surveilled is now available for streaming. Farrow says he became interested in the topic after he was tracked by the Israeli private intelligence firm Black Cube during his reporting on Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse. Although Black Cube used a “relatively low-tech approach,” Farrow says the experience started him on a path to investigate more sophisticated methods of surveillance, including the powerful spyware Pegasus, which has been used against journalists and dissidents around the world. As part of the reporting for the documentary, Farrow traveled to Israel for a rare interview with a former employee of NSO Group, the Israeli software company that makes Pegasus. He warns that it’s not just “repressive governments” that abuse Pegasus and other surveillance technology, but also a growing number of democratic states like Greece, Poland and Spain. U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies under both the Biden and Trump administrations have also considered such spyware, although the extent to which these tools have been used is not fully known. “Surveillance technology has historically always been abused. Now the technology is more advanced and more frightening than ever, and more available than ever, so abuse is more possible,” says Farrow.


TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

We turn now to a film that looks at the increasing use of spyware targeting journalists, human rights advocates, dissidents across Western democracies and around the world. The HBO original documentary Surveilled, which is airing tonight on HBO at 9 p.m., follows Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ronan Farrow, who uncovers how Pegasus and other surveillance programs are threatening democracy across the globe. This is the film’s trailer.

RONAN FARROW: Why should people around the world care about the hacking that you’re documenting here?

ELIES CAMPO: These cases affect 450 million people. It’s a violation of their rights.

CLAUDIU DAN GHEORGHE: What we ended up finding was actually the tip of the iceberg.

RONAN FARROW: Spyware is this powerful surveillance tool. Big spyware companies say they sell this tech only to governments. But this multibillion-dollar industry is mostly unregulated. The most advanced spyware can turn your smartphone into a spy in your pocket. It can copy everything and record you without you ever knowing, and then just disappear without a trace.

This company, NSO Group, makes Pegasus, advanced spyware reportedly deployed in at least 45 countries, with allegations it’s being used to target journalists, human rights activists and political dissidents.

What’s the most objectionable thing that you saw in your time at the company?

NSO GROUP WHISTLEBLOWER: One of the moral problems that I had was the journalist murder.

RONAN FARROW: Should people be concerned?

NSO GROUP WHISTLEBLOWER: Definitely, yes.

RONAN FARROW: Does NSO know that some of its customers are abusing this technology?

REP. JIM HIMES: This tool could fall into the hands of the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Chinese. We need our experts to know what is out there.

ELIES CAMPO: They targeted my family. My mom, she worked at the hospitals, so they had access to hundreds of data of patients all around the world.

RONAN FARROW: Do you think it’s headed down a path of more domestic impact?

NATHANIEL FICK: These technologies, any nefarious use that we can imagine, we’re probably going to see.

AMY GOODMAN: The trailer to the new HBO original film Surveilled, now streaming on Max, the film directed by Perri Peltz and Matthew O’Neill.

On Tuesday, Democracy Now!’s Juan González and I spoke with Matt O’Neill and Ronan Farrow, who produced the film. Ronan is a contributing writer at The New Yorker, his latest article headlined “The Technology the Trump Administration Could Use to Hack Your Phone.”

I began by reading to Ronan from a recent article in The Guardian that notes, “In 2017, while reporting on a story on Harvey Weinstein that would, along with a New York Times report, kick off the #MeToo movement, the investigative journalist Ronan Farrow found himself the target of covert surveillance. The efforts to suppress investigations into Weinstein’s history of sexual abuse, for which the Hollywood mogul paid the Israeli private intelligence firm Black Cube, were mostly old-school,” unquote.

I asked Ronan Farrow to lay out what happened.


RONAN FARROW: Well, I got a firsthand view of the toolkit that powerful institutions and individuals can deploy when they’re trying to suppress reporting. And I saw it on a miniature scale, where one mogul did this, frankly, insane maneuver of retaining a private intelligence company that literally hired actors, former military and intelligence people from Israel, to play roles and insinuate themselves into individuals’ lives who were around the story. That included sources that I was working with, women who, as it turns out, had allegations of assault against Weinstein. It included journalists working on the story, including me.

And so, there was a two-pronged approach. There were people posing as people who wanted to talk to us, wanted to get close to us, and then there were also subcontractors who were hired to just do the traditional gumshoe work of staking people like me out. I had two guys outside of my apartment. And eventually I was able to get the contracts and all the signatures of the lawyers and prove that this operation was happening, and get sources inside this company, Black Cube, to describe what they were doing. And actually, one of the subcontractors that was following me around all the time, sometimes using some high-tech approaches, too — pinging my phone, getting my geolocation data so they could follow me to meetings — one of them became a source in the end. So, I wrote a book about this, Catch and Kill, and there’s a documentary series on that, if people are interested in more.

But I did, through that experience, through this relatively low-tech approach to surveillance, get a little picture of how personally devastating it can be to have your private interactions monitored in that way. In this case, there were real stakes, because I was talking to whistleblowers around this story who were risking everything and couldn’t be uncovered, if I wanted the story to go forward. And I also saw how unsafe it makes you feel. Surveillance of journalists — and, you know, this goes for surveillance of dissidents, it goes for surveillance of political opposition members that we see in the film and in the world now so often — is not just information gathering. Surveillance of this type is intimidation, and it shrinks the space for all kinds of expression in democracies.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, Ronan, from that relatively low-tech type of surveillance to what we’re confronting today and in recent years, how did then you decide to cover this aspect of the high-tech surveillance?

RONAN FARROW: Well, through that reporting, I developed sources in the Israeli private intelligence world. And I spent some time in Tel Aviv. I spent some years getting close to people in this industry, in this world. And I clocked, through my own experiences, just how pivotal a challenge this is.

For anyone who cares about maintaining people’s basic rights and maintaining the free flow of information in democracies in order to protect those rights, surveillance, I realized, was a linchpin. It wasn’t some sidebar issue. It was one of the tools that people use to try to suppress democracy, to suppress the free flow of information. It is part of the authoritarian playbook that we see historically again and again, that police states emerge where there are oversteps into privacy violations.

And I realized, as I was looking at this issue and experiencing these dynamics as a journalist myself, that the bleeding edge of this kind of surveillance, and the thing that was transforming it and making it more available and more intrusive and scarier, was this modern spyware that can take control of phones, at a time when we’re more and more enmeshed with our phones. And I realized that this was one of the foremost challenges confronting journalists around the world, and also one of the challenges that anyone, even if you don’t think of yourself as being in a vulnerable category — you’re not an activist, you’re not a dissident — should care about and should understand, because phones are increasingly not private spaces.

I dealt with, in addition to being followed around, dynamics where personal information was leaked around stories. I worked on stories about Trump’s collaboration with the National Enquirer that ultimately helped catalyze that indictment around Trump and the hush payments. And during that reporting, I also had intimate texts leaked. There were all sorts of efforts to use private information as a lever. So, I was just seeing how, again and again, if you want to expose the truth, if you want to be a voice of opposition to power, you’re inevitably dealing with this kind of surveillance. And I was seeing how the highest-tech version of it was the scariest, was the most secretive, was the most poorly understood.

AMY GOODMAN: So, tell us about Pegasus. And this amazing film, Surveilled, takes us to Israel, takes us to your investigation of the company and who the company is selling to.

RONAN FARROW: So, the biggest players in the spyware market, which is now a multibillion-dollar industry — and it mostly is comprised of companies that want to stay secretive. So, there’s not a lot of reporting on this. There’s not a ton of public-facing websites. Companies that do have a kind of public-facing presence, they don’t actually talk about what they do or who their clients are. This is one reason why the reporting was necessary.

Now, in this multibillion-dollar industry, the big players claim, in a bid for legitimacy, that they only sell to government offices, mostly government intelligence agencies, government defense offices. But the technology that’s privately available for purchase by those offices is now cheaper, more efficient, more intrusive. So what you’re seeing is two categories of change. You’re seeing governments that previously didn’t have the size and the resources to have a CIA-style high-tech surveillance operation just buy a kind of CIA in a box. You know, we talk in the film to officials in small Western democracies who love this technology — and, by the way, I should point out, small Western democracies where the populations of those countries don’t yet know that this technology is being used against them. And we hear from those officials how they think it’s great that they can, ostensibly, in some of these cases with warrants, but much more freely and cheaply, just hack into people’s phones as needed in law enforcement operations.

There are legitimate arguments for the use of this technology, like with any surveillance technology. And theoretically, in those Western democracies where there’s a process to get a warrant, this is something that shouldn’t have to be scary. But what we see over and over again is that it just gets abused — I would argue, inevitably. Surveillance technology has historically always been abused. Now the technology is more advanced and more frightening than ever, and more available than ever, so abuse is more possible and more ready than ever.

What we’ve seen in the last few years is not only that repressive regimes with a poor human rights record are using this technology against journalists and against dissidents, against political opposition members, and sometimes, by the way, with dangerous and even deadly results. There have been studies that have linked hundreds of cases of violence to spyware technology. A lot of the players involved, including NSO Group, deny this, but NSO Group’s flagship technology, Pegasus, was allegedly found on the phone of at least one associate close to Jamal Khashoggi in the time frame when he was murdered by the Saudi regime. We see this over and over again. Javier Valdez in Mexico, great reporter who was working on cartel stories, was killed. People around him had had Pegasus on their phones. So, that’s the pattern under repressive regimes.

But we’re seeing not only that, but also one Western democracy with an ostensible commitment to human rights after another see scandals in which this technology is purchased and then overused. We’ve seen it in Greece. We’ve seen it in Poland, where just this week a former spy chief in that country was actually arrested as part of inquiries into a massive spyware dragnet that happened under the previous administration there. And we’ve seen it in Spain, where some of this film is set, and where we helped document this massive cluster of hacks where the Spanish government, which you wouldn’t think would be a player that would be responsible for this kind of a breach, they just hacked one civil society member after another associated with a separatist movement, but a peaceful one, in Catalonia.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Matthew O’Neill, you’re the director of the film. And specifically the focus of the film on Spain and the independence movement in Catalonia, what most surprised you in doing that work in Spain?

MATTHEW O’NEILL: Well, I think when Perri Peltz and I first sat down with Ronan — and Perri’s the other director of the film — when he started talking about the way his reporting was leading to Spain. We had heard of Pegasus. We think it’s a really important subject, this cyberespionage. We associate it with autocracies, Saudi Arabia, the — imagine the capabilities of a Russia or a China. But that this was happening in Spain, and that Ronan was sitting on the cusp of exposing what at that point was the largest cluster of Pegasus infections inside any one place, in one group — I think it started with 67, now it’s in the hundreds — our eyes were opened, because it felt like this story, what was unfolding in a democracy, in a U.S. ally, was something that people needed to know about.

And our idea, as we talked about how to tell this story, because Ronan’s reporting was already so extensive, was: What could we do to give the audience access to Ronan’s process and see the reporting and the discoveries unfold? And that’s part of what makes Surveilled, I think, really interesting. Perri and I have been longtime admirers of Ronan as a journalist and a reporter, and this gave not only us, but all of you at home, the opportunity to ride along shotgun with him.


AMY GOODMAN: So, this is a clip from the HBO documentary Surveilled, in which our guest, Ronan Farrow, speaks with the Citizen Lab’s Elies Campo in Catalonia.


RONAN FARROW: Why should people around the world care about the hacking that you’re documenting here in Catalonia?

ELIES CAMPO: This is going to be one of the first cases where there is such a large and vast number of affected people and from a vast and different type of categories of society. So, we’ve had the Parliament of Catalonia targeted. We’ve had the government of Catalonia targeted. We’ve had lawyers targeted. We’ve had civil leaders of cultural organizations of Catalonia targeted.

RONAN FARROW: This is not some future Orwellian scenario. It really — it happened here. It’s happening here.

ELIES CAMPO: It’s happening here.


AMY GOODMAN: And this is another clip of the HBO documentary Surveilled, featuring Jordi Solé, a Catalan politician, former member of the European Parliament.


ELIES CAMPO: [translated] The iPhone will generate a diagnostic file which won’t include personal data. We just received confirmation that your phone was hacked twice: once on the 11th of June and then again on the 27th of June.

JORDI SOLÉ: 2020?

ELIES CAMPO: 2020.

RONAN FARROW: When does it look like you were infected?

JORDI SOLÉ: I have to check its date, but around the day I was appointed member of the European Parliament.

RONAN FARROW: How do you feel, knowing that you may have been compromised in this way?

JORDI SOLÉ: Well, I feel surprised and angry at the same — at the same time.


AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s the Catalan politician, former member of the European Parliament, Jordi Solé, and, before that, Elies Campo, who is the investor. He lives in Barcelona. His sister and parents were also — their phones were infected with Pegasus. Ronan Farrow, if you can talk about the significance of this? And it goes to the whole issue of you’ve got a spy in your pocket. Exactly what are the authorities, those who are paying for this, the information they’re getting from your phone?

RONAN FARROW: Well, everything, potentially. People have to start realizing that their phones are now public spaces in so many ways, even if you’re just a person using your phone in a run-of-the-mill way and you don’t think you’re in one of these vulnerable categories. Anyone with the resources can hack your phone if they want to. Any country, even places where there are supposed protections of privacy rights, are now battlegrounds over this technology, where we are seeing people like the sister and parents of Elies Campo, who you mentioned, who are apolitical, getting caught up in surveillance dragnets.

I’ve been, in my ongoing reporting in recent weeks, talking to privacy law experts who really stress at this point that one should know about this and care about this and exercise good digital hygiene and get the protections that you can, maybe even get your phone tested, whether you are, again, in a vulnerable category or not. And so, in this case in Spain, you saw people like Elies’s parents, who are just doctors, have all of their patients’ sensitive records and photos and scans just divulged to whoever wants to use them. All they know is the government now potentially has all of this information.

AMY GOODMAN: And the phone becomes a microphone?

RONAN FARROW: Pegasus and other similar competing technologies can turn on your microphone without you knowing, can turn on your camera and record video without you knowing, and send all of that information back to whoever has purchased and is working with NSO, or whatever the spyware company is, to operate the technology.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Ronan, if a person did want to disinfect their phone if they suspected that they were being surveilled, is there a new industry arising now to basically check phones? And are we seeing sort of an arms race between the surveillance folks and the anti-surveillance folks in terms of these smartphones, that almost virtually everyone has in their pocket?

RONAN FARROW: Well, when I talk about the world now being a battlefield over this technology, one of the fights, one of the fronts in that battle, is between the technology companies, the platform holders that operate your operating system on your phone, like Apple, that operate your messaging applications, like WhatsApp, and on the other side of the battlefield, the spyware companies.

So, in the film and in my print reporting, I talked to both the programmers at, for instance, WhatsApp, who every day there’s a team within that company, within Meta — now owns it — looking at: What are the attempts to intrude on this technology? What are these, at times, astonishingly creative technical solutions that allow this technology to worm its way into your phone through little vulnerabilities in the code? And then I also talked to the programmers at, for instance, NSO Group, who are really proud of that daily fight where they find creative solutions to get into the phones, and who have to exercise a lot of rationalization, frankly, is my view, in the face of all this evidence that those efforts are being misused and abused to target vulnerable people.


AMY GOODMAN: So, in the film Surveilled, you interview a whistleblower — right? — at NSO. Ronan Farrow interviews an NSO whistleblower who’s asked for anonymity.


RONAN FARROW: So, you’re hacking these phones. What kinds of reactions did you get?

NSO GROUP WHISTLEBLOWER: It’s jaw-dropping. It’s very impressive the first time that you see it.

RONAN FARROW: What was the pitch that you were offering these governments?

NSO GROUP WHISTLEBLOWER: Usually, we had like one iPhone, one Android device, we used to demonstrate how we can exfiltrate the data from those devices, actively take snapshots of the screen or pictures from the camera, actively record through the microphones.

RONAN FARROW: What should the average citizen in any country in the world know about this company and this technology?

NSO GROUP WHISTLEBLOWER: It’s very powerful. It’s very intrusive.

RONAN FARROW: Should people be concerned?

NSO GROUP WHISTLEBLOWER: Yeah, yeah.



AMY GOODMAN: “We’re telling these governments how to exfiltrate the data,” he says, and his voice is disguised as you talk to him, an NSO Group whistleblower. And they make Pegasus. So, if you can talk about the U.S. buying this technology, from Trump to Biden?

RONAN FARROW: Under multiple administrations of both parties, we have seen overreaches of surveillance technology. Under the first Trump administration — The New York Times has reported extensively on this — there was actually a purchase of this very technology, Pegasus, which, again, can seize control of a phone, turn it into a listening device, disgorge all of your private data, by the FBI. So, the FBI purchased — later, Christopher Wray, the FBI director, told Congress — just for testing purposes, a Pegasus account. And they did it through a subcontractor. Later, The New York Times sued for more information, that showed pretty clearly that this was not clearly delineated just for testing purposes. There was a whole conversation within the FBI where they wanted to deploy this, potentially on American soil, in an operational, very real way. Now, as far as we know, that didn’t happen. That stopped.

And under the Biden administration, there have been halting efforts, at least of a limited quality, to curtail the use of this technology. There’s often dissensus and tension across the government on this. I know of cases that have not yet been made public, where Department of Justice offices, where Department of Defense offices have purchased foreign private spyware technology to help in their efforts, because not all of these offices have the resources of the CIA. Now, the Biden administration, in response to my reporting calls, did announce — and we disclosed this for the first time publicly in one of my New Yorker stories — an executive order where they essentially said foreign spyware that has a record of being abused can’t be, shouldn’t be purchased by the U.S. government. But the standards for what meets that criterion are really amorphous. And what we’ve seen since then is that the U.S. government has gone right on purchasing more spyware.

Just this past fall, we saw the Department of Homeland Security — and there’s been reporting that this is specifically ICE, the immigration office under the Department of Homeland Security — purchase another really powerful Israeli spyware technology called — it’s a company called Paragon, and the technology is called Graphite. And, you know, I have sources within that company. They do bill themselves as a more ethically clean alternative. And one of the things that they promised the U.S. government in the vetting process that led up to this multimillion-dollar contract was that they would put restraints on how other clients, other foreign governments that use their technology, can use it to hack American citizens. But we don’t know how exact those restraints are. And more to the point, there are no restraints on hacking people in America, including Americans, by ICE itself, by the Department of Homeland Security itself. And privacy law experts have been in a state of high alarm about this, partly because they point out that the Department of Homeland Security is often the U.S. government office that purchases ethically and legally questionable technology and is able to circumvent a lot of scrutiny by arguing that they have a law enforcement, national security basis for using it.

So, you now have a perfect storm, Amy, of technology of this type, that’s really powerful and really easily abused, in the hands of the U.S. government, again, under the Biden administration. The Biden administration has, in response to reporting on this, just recently, paused that contract. They say they’re reviewing it. But the thing is, right around the corner, the Trump administration is coming in. And we can talk about this, but obviously the Trump administration is bringing in a raft of officials, and Trump himself, who have made explicit threats against the groups that, again and again in Western democracies, have been most vulnerable to this kind of espionage.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ronan Farrow and Matthew O’Neill talking about their new documentary Surveilled. It airs tonight at 9:00 on HBO, is streaming at Max. We’ll link to Ronan’s New Yorker article, “The Technology the Trump Administration Could Use to Hack Your Phone.” We’ll talk more about that with him tomorrow. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Thanks so much for joining us.


Amy Goodman
Amy Goodman is the host and executive producer of Democracy Now!, a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on more than 1,100 public television and radio stations worldwide. Time Magazine named Democracy Now! its “Pick of the Podcasts,” along with NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Juan González
Juan González co-hosts Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman. González has been a professional journalist for more than 30 years and a staff columnist at the New York Daily News since 1987. He is a two-time recipient of the George Polk Award.


NC Town Files US’s First Climate “Deception” Lawsuit Against an Electric Utility

The Town Council of Carrboro accuses Duke Energy of denying and covering up the dangers of fossil fuel emissions.
December 4, 2024

A Duke Energy lineman works in the Biltmore Village in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene on September 28, 2024, in Asheville, North Carolina.
Sean Rayford / Getty Images


Honest, paywall-free news is rare. Please support our boldly independent journalism with a donation of any size.

This story was originally published by Floodlight. This is a breaking story and will be updated later today.

Asmall town in North Carolina has taken a bold step, filing the first climate “deception” lawsuit against an electric utility in the United States.

In a civil lawsuit, the Town Council of Carrboro accuses Duke Energy, one of the largest power companies in the United States, of orchestrating a decades-long campaign of denialism and cover up over the dangers of fossil fuel emissions. The lawsuit claims Duke’s actions stalled the transition to clean energy and exacerbated the climate crisis.

Over the past decade, similar suits have been filed by states and communities against large oil companies and — in at least one instance — a gas utility. But Carrboro, N.C., is the first municipality to ever file such a suit against an electric utility.

“We’re a very bold group,” Carrboro Mayor Barbara Foushee told Floodlight. “And we know how urgent this climate crisis is.”

Duke Energy did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the lawsuit.

Related Story

As North Carolina Flooded, My Home State Turned From Climate Haven to Calamity
Without aggressive climate action, these catastrophes will hit increasingly close to home.By  Schuyler Mitchell , Truthout  October 2, 2024


The suit, filed in Orange County, North Carolina, accuses Duke Energy of intentionally spreading false information about the negative effects of fossil fuels for decades, despite knowing since the late 1960s about planet-warming properties of carbon dioxide emissions. It claims the power company funded trade organizations and climate skeptic scientists who created doubts about the greenhouse effect and obstructed policy and public action on climate change.

“Duke misled the public concerning the causes and consequences of climate change and thereby materially slowed the transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy. Duke’s deception campaign served to protect its fossil fuel-based business model.” the lawsuit reads.

It accuses the power company, which in 2019 was the third largest emitter of C02 in the United States, of falsely marketing itself as a leader in clean energy while continuing to rely heavily on fossil fuels.

Between 2005 and 2023, the company reported reducing its CO2 emissions from electricity generation by 44%. But in 2023, at least 45% of the electricity Duke produced was still generated by burning coal or methane gas.

“(Duke) was one of the ringleaders behind deceiving the public and municipalities and governments about the causes and consequences of manmade climate change,” said Raleigh attorney Matthew Quinn, who is representing the town.

Carrboro is a town of about 20,000 with an annual budget of $81 million, Foushee said. Quinn, the attorney, estimates the town will incur some $60 million in costs in adapting to climate change impacts, including repairs to roads, upgrades to stormwater systems and increased heating and cooling costs.

“Really, what this case is about is that Carrboro has been a victim of the climate deception campaign by Duke Energy, (and) as a result of Duke’s conduct, Carrboro has suffered a lot of damages and injustice,” Quinn said.

Quinn’s fees are being paid by NC Warn, a climate nonprofit, the mayor said.

“People that run local governments and others and people that run corporations, they all better get heavily serious about the climate crisis,” said Jim Warren, executive director of NC Warn. “It’s already harming so many across this state.”

Although this is the first climate deception lawsuit ever filed against an electric utility, it is not the first time that electric utilities have found themselves in legal trouble for the climate warming pollution their power plants spew as they burn fossil fuels to generate electricity.

In 2004, electric companies faced federal litigation brought by eight U.S. states, New York City and several land trusts seeking to cap the companies’ CO2 emissions. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the plaintiffs.

Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action.

Mario Alejandro Ariza
Mario is an investigative reporter and a Dominican immigrant. His byline has appeared in the South Florida Sun Sentinel, The New Republic and NPR. mario@floodlightnews.org
AMERIKA FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE

In chronic pain, this teenager 'could barely do anything.' Insurer wouldn’t cover surgery

Photo by Road Trip with Raj on Unsplash

Lauren Sausser, 
December 02, 2024

When Preston Nafz was 12, he asked his dad for permission to play lacrosse.

“First practice, he came back, he said, ‘Dad, I love it,’” recalled his father, Lothar Nafz, of Hoover, Alabama. “He lives for lacrosse.”

But years of youth sports took a toll on Preston’s body. By the time the teenager limped off the field during a lacrosse tournament last year, the pain in his left hip had become so intense that he had trouble with simple activities, such as getting out of a car or turning over in bed. Months of physical therapy and anti-inflammatory drugs didn’t help.

Not only did he have to give up sports, but “I could barely do anything,” said Preston, now 17.

The Medical Procedure

A doctor recommended Preston undergo a procedure called a sports hernia repair to mend damaged tissue in his pelvis, believed to be causing his pain.

The sports medicine clinic treating Preston told Lothar that the procedure had no medical billing code — an identifier that providers use to charge insurers and other payers. It likely would be a struggle to persuade their insurer to cover it, Lothar was told, which is why he needed to pay upfront.

With his son suffering, Lothar said, the surgery “needed to be done.” He paid more than $7,000 to the clinic and the surgery center with a personal credit card and a medical credit card with a zero-interest rate.

Preston underwent surgery in November, and his father filed a claim with their insurer, hoping for a full reimbursement. It didn’t come.


The Final Bill


$7,105, which broke down as $480 for anesthesia, a $625 facility fee, and $6,000 for the surgery.


The Billing Problem: No CPT Code


Before the surgery, Lothar said, he called Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama and was encouraged to learn that his policy typically covers most medical, non-cosmetic procedures.

But during follow-up phone calls, he said, insurance representatives were “deflecting, trying to wiggle out.” He said he called several times, getting a denial just before the surgery.

Lothar said he trusted his son’s doctor, who showed him research indicating the surgery works. The clinic, Andrews Sports Medicine and Orthopaedic Center, has a good reputation in Alabama, he said.

Other medical providers not involved in the case called the surgery a legitimate treatment.

A sports hernia — also known as an “athletic pubalgia” — is a catchall phrase to describe pain that athletes may experience in the lower groin or upper thigh area, said David Geier, an orthopedic surgeon and sports medicine specialist in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.

“There’s a number of underlying things that can cause it,” Geier said. Because of that, there isn’t “one accepted surgery for that problem. That’s why I suspect there’s not a uniform CPT.”

CPT stands for “Current Procedural Terminology” and refers to the numerical or alphanumeric codes for procedures and services performed in a clinical or outpatient setting. There’s a CPT code for a rapid strep test, for example, and different codes for various X-rays.


The lack of a CPT code can cause reimbursement headaches, since insurers determine how much to pay based on the CPT codes providers use on claims forms.

More than 10,000 CPT codes exist. Several hundred are added each year by a special committee of the American Medical Association, explained Leonta Williams, director of education at AAPC, previously known as the American Academy of Professional Coders.

Codes are more likely to be proposed if the procedure in question is highly utilized, she said.

Not many orthopedic surgeons in the U.S. perform sports hernia repairs, Geier said. He said some insurers consider the surgery experimental.

Preston said his pain improved since his surgery, though recovery was much longer and more painful than he expected.

By the end of April, Lothar said, he’d finished paying off the surgery.

The Resolution: A billing statement from the surgery center shows that the CPT code assigned to Preston’s sports hernia repair was “27299,” which stands for “a pelvis or hip joint procedure that does not have a specific code.”

After submitting more documentation to appeal the insurance denial, Lothar received a check from the insurer for $620.26. Blue Cross and Blue Shield didn’t say how it came up with that number or which costs it was reimbursing.

Lothar said he has continued to receive confusing messages from the insurer about his claim.

Both the insurer and the sports medicine clinic declined to comment.

The Takeaway


Before you undergo a medical procedure, try to check whether your insurer will cover the cost and confirm it has a billing code.

Williams of the AAPC suggests asking your insurer: “Do you reimburse this code? What types of services fall under this code? What is the likelihood of this being reimbursed?”

Persuading an insurer to pay for care that doesn’t have its own billing code is difficult but not impossible, Williams said. Your doctor can bill insurance using an “unlisted code” along with documentation explaining what procedure was performed.

“Anytime you’re dealing with an unlisted code, there’s additional work needed to explain what service was rendered and why it was needed,” she said.

Some patients undergoing procedures without CPT codes may be asked to pay upfront. You can also offer a partial upfront payment, which may motivate your provider to team up to get insurance to pay.

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KFF Health News and The Washington Post’s Well+Being that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.


This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.




What does a human life cost — and is it ethical to price it?


Photo by Sander Sammy on Unsplash

The Conversation
December 03, 2024

What is your life worth, in dollar terms? The answers may surprise you. The asking price for murder, for example, is disconcertingly low. The average price of hiring a hitman is A$30,000, estimates British journalist Jenny Kleeman in her intriguing and thought-provoking book, The Price of Life. But the cost to the public purse is very high.

Here are some more striking figures (all converted into Australian dollars). The average price of a ransom: $560,000. The payout to families if one of their loved ones dies in an act of terrorism (in Australia) $75,000. The average price of saving a life through strategic philanthropy: $6,000. And the price of buying a cadaver: $7,600.

Kleeman’s book investigates the many ways decision-makers find themselves putting a price on the priceless.

In her quest to discover how our modern world fixes a price to human life in a wide variety of contexts, she also investigates the costs and consequences of life insurance, the sale of body parts, and the inside details of government policy-making, compensation for murder and more.

As an ethicist, I enjoyed wrestling with the many surprising questions Kleeman’s fascinating book opens, even when I disagreed with some of her answers.
Who decides?

Of course, the amusing variations between the numbers Kleeman uncovers aren’t wholly unexpected: the prices affixed to human life in these contexts provide answers to very different questions. The hitman, for example, isn’t pricing that $30,000 based on how much they think a human life is worth. (Being the type of person who genuinely asks that question of themselves probably precludes that career path.) Instead, they are pricing the personal risks to them of committing the crime.

As this suggests, Kleeman’s book is not just concerned with how and why a human life is priced, but on who decides that price. Kleeman’s question encourages her to look in strange places and talk to interesting people, opening the readers’ eyes to decisions and calculations often hidden – sometimes deliberately so – from public view.

It spills over with fascinating characters: contract killers, police detectives, military jet pilots, philanthropists, life insurance investigators and government policy-makers. This is one of the book’s most delightful features. Her conversations with these varied characters are always engaging – because pricing life requires wading through deep ethical waters.

Ironically, Kleeman began work on the book in 2019. Back then, she – like so many of us – could comfortably avoid thinking about putting a price on human life and health. But that was pre-COVID. By early 2021, the question of what we are willing to pay to save lives was pressed onto us and our political leaders, in urgent and public ways.
‘Quality adjusted life years’

Confronting questions about what we will pay to save a life makes Kleeman’s subject especially vivid and urgent. Here, she meets strange ideas and stranger people: QALYs and effective altruists.

QALYs” refers to Quality Adjusted Life Years – roughly, a year of human life lived in good health.

If pricing a life is to be done in any meaningful way, the QALY (or something like it) is a vital step in that direction. It lets decision-makers have a measure of consistency in allocating scarce resources.

For example, she discovers that the United Kingdom’s National Health Service will cover drugs that run to £30,000 (A$60,000) per QALY. More expensive treatments don’t present enough value per dollar invested. With a limited amount of funds to spend, it makes a kind of sense to spend them in the way that will do the most good possible, even if it involves making hard decisions.

It’s not just governments that try to carefully quantify the impacts of their dollars on human wellbeing.

Inspired by the writings of utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer, effective altruism is a philosophy that focuses on doing the most good possible with the available resources.

It made headlines last year, when (now disgraced) crypto king and loud-and-proud effective atruist Sam Bankman-Fried claimed he needed “infinite dollars” because he planned to address existential risks facing humanity.

The philosophy has been particularly influential with Silicon Valley philanthropists like Bankman-Fried, and Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, a major funder of the charity Open Philanthropy. Kleeman interviews the latter “OpenPhil” team, who explain how they try to direct the charity’s billions of dollars towards the most cost-effective ways of saving human lives.

Organisations like OpenPhil and GiveWell estimate it takes around A$6,000 to save a life.
A reluctant journey?

At the start of her journey, Kleeman was profoundly disquieted about pricing human life. She raises this concern consistently.

She notes that the effective altruists she interviews in San Francisco, for example, ignore the homeless people living on nearby streets. Instead, they maximise the life impact of their philanthropy by dispassionately directing their charity to far-off Africans.

By the book’s end, though, Kleeman finds herself more open to some of the ways a price is put on human life. Is this moral progress? Or – she wonders – has she simply become used to talking and thinking in these ways?

Kleeman writes best when she is struggling with these difficult questions. When she is cocksure, sneering at the cost of weapons systems as she claims the money could be better spent addressing climate change, her sweeping ethical statements seemed – to this ethicist at least – glib and unserious.

But when she wrestles squarely with the seeming need for pricing life, and the simultaneous horror of doing so, she brings the reader along on her challenging but illuminating journey.
Putting a price on life

To get to a price on life, two conceptual steps need to be made.

The first step is to judge that – in some ways at least – human lives are commensurable. That is, we can add up the value (the goodness, or happiness, or worthwhileness) of one life and numerically compare it to another.

This is controversial – but many would argue it can, or even must, be done. This is what QALYs aim to do. The ethical theory of utilitarianism, which tells us to maximise the sum total of happiness in the world, also urges us to do it.

Indeed, we all do something like this in our everyday lives. Whenever we decide to make the world a better place by helping other people, we are implicitly judging that the good we do for them will outweigh the possible risks or costs we impose on them.

The second step in pricing a life is fully converting those “commensurable” numbers, which represent the value of people’s lives, into monetary terms. This seems self-evidently morally awful. Humanity can’t be reduced to a fungible resource that allows it to be weighed alongside – and traded with – other market goods.

To me, what Kleeman’s book demonstrates – despite its title – is that almost no one actually does this. For almost all the people she interviews, the question is not: “what is the overall objective worth of a person, expressed in dollars?”

Instead, the questions they confront are more like: how much do I as an individual owe this person? How much should we as a community support this person? Given the extent of resources available, how do we save as many lives as possible? How much will my family need to be supported if I die?

None of those questions are morally objectionable. Sometimes they might need to be answered in dollar terms.
Sometimes, the money is symbolic

Kleeman suggests people will be morally outraged at the difference in numbers between, say, the payouts given to the families of victims of the 2017 London Bridge terrorist attack. In this horrifying tragedy, terrorists used a van to mount the London Bridge kerb and mow down pedestrians (including many tourists), before leaving the vehicle to murder other civilians, using knives they had strapped to their wrists.

In the aftermath, the families of victims struck by the vehicle were able to sue the deep pockets of the rental company’s insurer. The families of those stabbed on the street had only the highly variable payouts their native countries give to victims of terrorism.

But is this really a moral affront? There is no infinite slush fund to compensate for the bad things that happen to people. We can’t judge policy as if there were. This inevitably means the extent of compensation available to victims will depend on how they were harmed, who is legally responsible, and – yes – how deep their pockets are.

Even the variability between nations in payouts for victims of terrorism is understandable. Most of these payments are not designed to compensate for life lost. How could they be? Instead, they aim to show community concern and offer some basic support. These are factors that might reasonably lead to different outcomes.
Do dollars deny humanity?

Kleeman’s abiding question remains. What is gained, and what is lost, from answering difficult moral questions in quantified monetary terms?

Kleeman has strong views on the costs of doing so. Too easily, decision-makers can forget the human being represented by the numbers they work with. This can empower them to make hard, dispassionate judgements they likely would never make – could never make – to a person in front of them. Dollar amounts can be traded off easily, in ways human beings should never be.

Kleeman worries this dispassionate application of dollar sums to human problems requires a denial of humanity.

There are reasonable worries here, but Kleeman seems unduly cynical about moral perspectives that don’t match her own. (To the point where she wonders if San Francisco’s tech philanthropists actually prefer giving to Africans rather than homeless locals, because the former seem less blameworthy for their condition.)

But my own research shows we have good reason to think there is actually an astounding variety of reliable and fulfilling ways of being moral. Rather than deplore the diverse psychological motives that can drive people to philanthropic giving, we should simply celebrate the fact of their doing so.
Justice in numbers?

But enough on the costs. The really intriguing question is: are there moral goods to these numbers?

Kleeman seems unwilling to grant that the numbers might improve efficiency and effectiveness in morally important ways.

The effective altruists might seem to be perversely applying a mathematical and engineering perspective to matters of conscience. However, it is hard to deny they are literally saving more lives than they would using other approaches. On any ethical reckoning, it must matter that those abstract numbers eventually culminate in real human beings, who are living today because of these calculations.

Perhaps more surprisingly, there is also a sense of justice in these bare numbers.

As Kleeman’s thinking evolves, she occasionally gestures towards this possibility. There is a reason the statue of “Lady Justice” used to embody justice is often presented as blindfolded. It illustrates there are things that should not be taken into account in fair decision-making. Sometimes, personal, humanising details are morally inappropriate.
A good place to start

Kleeman recounts the heartwarming story of a child who was marginally ineligible for a lifesaving medical treatment to be funded by the UK health system. By going public with his story, his mother humanised her child and pushed the National Health Service to extend coverage for the treatment to her child, and more widely.

Yet equally, we all must know in our hearts that a similar story could be told – perhaps should be told – for all dying children, including the ones whose parents are unable to mount campaigns on their behalf.

At some point, the sterility of numbers seems not just expedient, but right. It reminds us that in important ways, we are all of equal moral worth, no matter whose stories seize national attention.

Ultimately, for those wondering how much numbers should be part of the solution to the moral problems we confront, Kleeman’s book presents a great place to start looking for answers.

Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.



Five ways to predict the future from around the world – from spider divination to bibliomancy


December 03, 2024

Some questions are hard to answer and always have been. Does my beloved love me back? Should my country go to war? Who stole my goats?

Questions like these have been asked of diviners around the world throughout history – and still are today. From astrology and tarot to reading entrails, divination comes in a wide variety of forms.

Yet they all address the same human needs. They promise to tame uncertainty, help us make decisions or simply satisfy our desire to understand.

Anthropologists and historians like us study divination because it sheds light on the fears and anxieties of particular cultures, many of which are universal. Our new exhibition at Oxford’s Bodleian Library, Oracles, Omens & Answers, explores these issues by showcasing divination techniques from around the world.

Here are five examples of divination techniques different cultures have developed to cope with life’s uncertainties.


1. Spider divination


A Cameroonian man interprets the changes in position of various objects as caused by a crab through the practice of ŋgam dù. Amcaja, CC BY-SA

In Cameroon, Mambila spider divination (ŋgam dù) addresses difficult questions to spiders or land crabs that live in holes in the ground.

Asking the spiders a question involves covering their hole with a broken pot and placing a stick, a stone and cards made from leaves around it. The diviner then asks a question in a yes or no format while tapping the enclosure to encourage the spider or crab to emerge. The stick and stone represent yes or no, while the leaf cards, which are specially incised with certain meanings, offer further clarification.

The movements of the spider or crab rearrange these objects, so that if a leaf card is moved to the stone or the stick, the answer emerges.

The answer is not always clear, however. If neither the stick nor the stone are selected (or both are chosen), interpretive work is required. The diviner and client must resolve the ambiguity, or decide that in this case the spider wasn’t saying anything at all.

2. Palmistry

Reading people’s palms (palmistry) is well known as a fairground amusement, but serious forms of this divination technique exist in many cultures. The practice of reading the hands to gather insights into a person’s character and future was used in many ancient cultures across Asia and Europe.

In some traditions, the shape and depth of the lines on the palm are richest in meaning. In others, the size of the hands and fingers are also considered. In some Indian traditions, special marks and symbols appearing on the palm also provide insights.


The palms of Oscar Wilde. Houghton Library, MS ENG 1624., CC BY-SA

Palmistry experienced a huge resurgence in 19th-century England and America, just as the science of fingerprints was being developed. If you could identify someone from their fingerprints, it seemed plausible to read their personality from their hands.

One person who had their palm read at this time was Oscar Wilde. His reader, Edward Heron-Allen, published a sketch of Wilde’s hands, explaining that his palms indicated “extraordinary brain power” and a “great power of expression”.

3. Bibliomancy

If you want a quick answer to a difficult question, you could try bibliomancy. Historically, this DIY divining technique was performed with whatever important books were on hand

.
A 16th-century copy of the Divan of Hafiz. Bodleian Library, CC BY

Throughout Europe, the works of Homer or Virgil were used. In Iran, it was often the Divan of Hafiz, a collection of Persian poetry. In Christian, Muslim and Jewish traditions, holy texts have often been used, though not without controversy.

There are a few ways to do it. In south-east Asia, you might push a sharp object through the pages of the book to see where its tip reaches.

Alternatively, you could open a page at random and see where your gaze falls. Although it might need some careful interpretation, the passage is thought to hold an answer to your dilemma.

4. Astrology


Astrology exists in almost every culture around the world. As far back as ancient Babylon, astrologers have interpreted the heavens to discover hidden truths and predict the future

.
The sign of Pisces in a 14th-century Arabic text. Bodleian Library, CC BY-SA


To cast horoscopes – essentially maps of the planets and stars as seen from a particular place and time on earth – astrologers need access to accurate astronomical observations. For this reason, pre-modern astrology was closely connected to astronomy.

Astrologers might cast horoscopes for a person’s birth, for the moment at which a client asks a query, or even a date in the future to determine whether it was good timing for a particular event.

The planets and zodiac signs each carry meanings, which are augmented by their relations to each other on a horoscope. Astrologers’ readings of these charts have long helped people seeking guidance, providing answers to pressing questions and aiding decision making.

In many historical cultures, astrologers also held prominent positions in royal courts and governments, making forecasts about the health and prosperity of their realm and the likelihood of impending disasters.















5. Calendrical divination

Calendars have long been used to divine the future and establish the best times to perform certain activities. In many countries, almanacs still advise auspicious and inauspicious days for tasks ranging from getting a haircut to starting a new business deal.

In Indonesia, Hindu almanacs called pawukon explain how different weeks are ruled by different local deities. The characteristics of the deities mean that some weeks are better than others for activities like marriage ceremonies.

In pre-conquest Mesoamerica (which roughly covered modern day central Mexico south to the north-western border of Costa Rica) your nature, fate and even your name were determined by the day on which you were born. Calendar priests in Mexico could forecast the success of a marriage by using a sacred, 260-day divination calendar. Interpreting the signs, the priest could tell whether a partnership would be happy, challenging or doomed – as well as how many children would result.

Oracles, Omens & Answers is at Oxford’s Bodleian Library at Oxford until April 27 2025.

David Zeitlyn, Professor of Social Anthropology, University of Oxford and Michelle Aroney, Research Fellow in Early Modern History, University of Oxford

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.



'Posturing': Trump’s labor secretary pick only backed pro-worker bills 10% of the time


Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.) on June 12, 2024

December 04, 2024
ALTERNET


Former Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.), who President-elect Donald Trump picked to head the U.S. Department of Labor, has been viewed by Democrats as one of his least offensive Cabinet appointments. But her reportedly pro-labor record is being scrutinized in a new report.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters President Sean O'Brien has endorsed Trump's nomination of the Oregon Republican (the daughter of a Teamsters member). More Perfect Union founder Faiz Shakir — who was Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) presidential campaign manager in 2020 — called her a "pro-labor pick" in an interview with MSNBC's Alex Wagner. But according to a Wednesday article by the American Prospect's Hassan Ali Kanu, Chavez-DeRemer's supposedly pro-worker bona fides don't hold up.

Chavez-DeRemer is known for being one of the few Republican sponsors of the PRO (Protecting the Right to Organize) Act, which makes it easier for workers to organize unions in the workplace. However, Kanu noted that Trump's labor secretary-designate didn't add her name to the list of cosponsors until July, approximately four months after its two other House Republican supporters — Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Christopher Smith (R-N.J.) — backed it, and well after its failure to pass the House was assured. She notably declined to co-sponsor the bill in 2023.

University of Calfornia-Los Angeles labor historian Trevor Griffey told the Prospect that Chavez-DeRemer's support of the PRO Act could be more accurately described as "posturing in a swing district." He added that "political support for the PRO Act or any other labor rights should be measured by votes and not declarations of intent."

Kanu found that the one-term lawmaker (she lost to Democrat Janelle Bynum in November) only supported pro-worker legislation 10% of the time according to her AFL-CIO scorecard. While that's slightly higher than the Republican average of 6%, the average House Democrat's score is 99%.

"She voted in favor of a bill that would undermine the unemployment insurance program, for example, including by penalizing recipients for inadvertent errors; and for legislation that would loosen regulation of health benefits and allow employers to offer plans that aren’t backed by adequate reserves," Kanu wrote. "Chavez-DeRemer has also voted against one of the biggest labor priorities of the past decade—a 'joint employer' rule to restrict companies’ ability to effectively outsource certain legal, pay, and benefits obligations to third parties, like contractors and franchisees."

According to the Prospect, Chavez-DeRemer has also "staked out a slate of now-standard Republican positions" that make her more palatable to Trump. This includes "skirting the question" when the Oregonian asked her directly in 2022 if she believed President Joe Biden was the true winner of the 2020 election. In her 2022 bid for Congress, Chavez-DeRemer also ran on red meat "culture war" issues popular with the GOP base, like opposition to transgender rights and climate change denial.
'Get in the trenches': Labor strategist debunks claim of 'long-term conservative shift' among unions


An AFL-CIO booth at the Minnesota State Fair in August 2019 
(Wikimedia Commons)

December 03, 2024
ALTERNET

When Teamsters President Sean O'Brien spoke at the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, some right-wing media outlets painted the speech as an example of unions moving from the Democratic Party to the GOP.

But O'Brien didn't endorse Donald Trump during his speech. The Teamsters president, rather, kept his speech nonpartisan, making general comments about the struggles of the American working class.

In an interview with Capitol & Maine's Kalena Thomhave, former AFL-CIO Political Director Steve Rosenthal debunked the claim that unions are abandoning the Democratic Party for the GOP in huge numbers. This "long-term conservative shift," according to Rosenthal, is a myth.

Rosenthal, during the interview, stressed that Vice President Kamala Harris received more union support than Trump.

"First off, union members voted for Harris in pretty strong numbers," Rosenthal told Capitol & Maine. "Across the three Blue Wall states, (there was a) significant performance by union members. In Pennsylvania, union members made up 18 percent of the electorate. So, almost one out of five votes cast came from union households, and they voted 52 to 47 for Harris, which is better than the (Joe) Biden vote was in 2020, (when) Biden lost union households to Trump 49 to 50 in Pennsylvania. So, she actually did better."

Rosenthal elaborated, "In Wisconsin, Kamala Harris won union voters 53 to 46 — better than (Hillary) Clinton did in 2016 and not quite as good as Biden did in 2020, but still a nine-point margin among union voters in the state. In Michigan, Harris won (union voters) 55 to 44 — not quite as good as Biden did in 2020, but much better than Clinton in 2016."

According to Rosenthal, Trump has "eroded the union vote a little bit" but "not in substantial numbers."

However, the former AFL-CIO political director emphasized that Democrats will need to articulate a strong economic message in future elections.

Rosenthal told Capitol & Maine, "There's an element there about the message and the messenger. It's not that the (Democratic) Party doesn't stand for workers anymore; it's that the party leadership is not getting in the trenches with workers anymore. Their accomplishments are partially paid short shrift because there's a huge degree of cynicism overall about both parties and politics in general…. There's a distinction between what the party is doing and fighting for and what people feel and see and understand."

Rosenthal continued, "Biden was, by all accounts, the most pro-union president in our lifetimes. It must be incredibly insulting to President Biden, Vice President Harris (and others in the administration), who have done so much over the last few years for unions and workers, to be hearing that the party has abandoned them."

Read Capitol & Maine's full interview with Steve Rosenthal at this link.
Chomsky at 96: The linguist, educator and philosopher's massive intellectual and moral influence


Noam Chomsky has lectured and debated in many forums on numerous topics throughout his long career. Neilson Barnard/Getty Images

The Conversation
December 04, 2024

Noam Chomsky, one of the world’s most famous and respected intellectuals, will be 96 years old on Dec. 7, 2024. For more than half a century, multitudes of people have read his works in a variety of languages, and many people have relied on his commentaries and interviews for insights about intellectual debates and current events.


Chomsky suffered a stroke in June 2023 that has severely limited his movement, impaired his speech and impeded his ability to travel. His birthday provides an occasion to consider the tremendous corpus of works that he created over the years and to reflect on the many ways that his texts and recordings still critically engage with contemporary discussions all across disciplines and realms.

Chomsky’s vast body of work includes scientific research focused on language, human nature and the mind, and political writings about U.S. imperialism, Israel and Palestine, Central America, the Vietnam War, coercive institutions, the media and the many ways in which people’s needs are subjugated in the interest of profit and control.

As a scholar of humanities and law, I’ve engaged with Chomsky’s work from an array of perspectives and authored a biography called “Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent” and a book on Chomsky’s influence called “The Chomsky Effect: A Radical Works Beyond the Ivory Tower.” One important theme in his broad corpus is his lifelong fascination with human creativity, which helps explain his vociferous attacks on those who seek to keep the rabble in line.

Early days

Avram Noam Chomsky was born on Dec. 7, 1928, in Philadelphia. He and his younger brother, David Chomsky, were raised in a lively household by Elsie Simonofsky and William (Zev) Chomsky, progressive educators who were deeply immersed in wide-ranging Jewish and Zionist cultural activities.

Chomsky often dates his own interest in teaching and learning to his close readings of Hebrew works with his parents and to the lively educational experiences he enjoyed at the Oak Lane County Day School, an experimental school that subscribed to John Dewey’s approach to immersive learning and promoted individual creativity over competition with other students.

A precocious learner, Chomsky at 12 years old read the proofs for his father’s book about a 13th-century Hebrew grammarian named David Kimhi. It was an auspicious beginning to a life immersed in philology, philosophy and the study of language and the mind. From very early on, he sought to understand innate human propensities for freedom, dignity and creativity, which inspired his interest in fostering those properties of human nature.

While Chomsky’s parents were what he called normal Roosevelt Democrats, he was drawn to more radical approaches to society and to the promotion of noncoercive social structures. At age 10, he read about the Spanish Civil War, which inspired him to write an editorial about the fall of Barcelona for his school’s newspaper. This was an early harbinger of his public intellectual work and his vociferous challenges to systems of oppression and illegitimate authority.

As a young man, Chomsky joined a socialist wing of the Zionist youth movement that opposed a Jewish state, and from his readings and discussions he came to favor Arab-Jewish class cooperation in a socialist Palestine. His deep knowledge of Palestine and Israel, bolstered by his ability to read and speak Arabic and Hebrew, helped inform his many vehement critiques of Israeli state power. Chomsky on John Dewey’s approach to education: how to produce free, creative, independent human beings.



Radical pedagogy


After an early education focused on self-discovery and free-ranging exploration, Chomsky was introduced in high school to rote learning, competition with other students and a mainstream system of values. In reaction, he began to make regular trips to New York City, where he explored bookstores. He also made regular visits with a relative who ran a newsstand on 72nd Street that served as a lively intellectual center for emigrés interested in more radical approaches to society.

In 1944, Chomsky completed high school and enrolled in the University of Pennsylvania. Although he has expressed some dismay about the structures of conformity and status quo thinking he encountered there, he did find inspiration in courses with philosopher C. West Churchman, linguist Giorgio Levi Della Vida and, moreover, linguist Zellig Harris. Chomsky knew members of the Harris family because Zellig Harris’ father hosted Jewish services in the Harris home that the Chomsky family occasionally attended.

Chomsky’s father’s approach to the study of language bore similarities to Zellig Harris’ work in Semitics, the study of Arabic, Hebrew and other Semitic languages. Harris invited Noam to read the proofs of his “Methods in Structural Linguistics.” This highly anticipated book was rooted in the idea that the function and the meaning of linguistic elements are determined by their their relationship to other components that make up sentences. After working hard to understand Harris’ linguistics paradigm, Chomsky eventually abandoned it, but he remained fascinated by Harris’ political views and by the unstructured, lively and creative debates that he promoted.

Chomsky met Carol Doris Schatz at the Hebrew School where her mother taught and Chomsky’s father was principal. Years later, when they were both students at the University of Pennsylvania, they started dating. They were married in 1949, and four years later they decided to move to an Israeli kibbutz, or communal agricultural settlement. They had expected to find a culture of creative free thinking there. Instead, they were deeply disappointed to find what Chomsky described as ideological conformity to Stalinist ideology. They returned to the U.S. after only six weeks.

The young couple settled in Boston and started a family. Noam pursued graduate work, while Carol paused her own studies to raise the children. She later returned to research on language acquisition, which she eventually taught and researched at MIT and Harvard. Carol Chomsky died in 2008. Noam remarried in 2014, to the Brazilian translator Valeria Wasserman Chomsky.



Chomskian revolution

When Chomsky was a student, most academic psychologists described human language as a system of habits, skills or dispositions to act that are acquired through extensive training, induction, generalization and association. By this account, language grows incrementally with experience, reinforced by a system of rewards and punishments.

This framework was at the heart of a structuralist paradigm, which analyzed the form and meaning of texts as different parts of the same thing. Any language, from this standpoint, restricts how phonemes and morphemes – the smallest units of sound and meaning in language – and other constituents are assembled and distributed. By this view, humans have the capacity to learn language in ways akin to how they acquire other kinds of knowledge.

Chomsky’s Ph.D. work, the resulting 1957 book “Syntactic Structures” and his New York Review of Books review of B.F. Skinner’s “Verbal Behaviour” challenged this paradigm and heralded the Chomskian linguistics revolution. Chomsky’s theory of universal grammar in the history of how philosophers have viewed the human mind and language acquisition.

Chomsky’s starting point was that humans are endowed with universal grammar, which is activated by exposure to natural language. Children gain proficiency in a language by building on innate knowledge. This means that the capacity for language quite literally grows in the mind in a manner akin to how organs develop in the body.

Chomsky’s interest in innate human abilities draws in part from a range of philosophical treatises penned in the 17th and 18th centuries and associated with the Port Royal system of logic and Enlightenment philosophy, which emphasized science, individual liberty and the rule of law. He developed these ideas in a book called “Cartesian Linguistics,” which outlined his intellectual debt to the writings of, among others, Descartes, Kant, Rousseau and Wilhelm von Humboldt.

By the early 1960s, Chomsky’s work had gained him recognition in linguistics, philosophy and psychology. His own research, and that conducted by the growing number of linguists who adopted his approach, led to significant advances in the study of syntax, generative grammar, language and the mind, semantics, form and the interpretation of language.

His political engagement was documented in what I believe is a remarkable collection of interviews and books about U.S. imperialism, the Cold War, the Middle East, Central America and Southeast Asia, including “Problems of Knowledge and Freedom” and “For Reasons of State.” Puzzled by Americans’ spirit of resigned consensus, he began to collaborate with Edward S. Herman on books including “Counter-Revolutionary Violence,” “The Political Economy of Human Rights” and “Manufacturing Consent,” which was turned into a popular film by the same name.

Common thread

The common thread connecting Chomsky’s many intellectual projects are four “problems” that were the focus of much of his life’s work. One is Plato’s problem, which considers why it is that humans, whose contact with the world is brief and limited, can come to know so much. The second is Orwell’s complementary problem, which asks how is it that human beings know so little given the amount of information to which they have access. The third is Descartes’ problem, which pertains to the human capacity to freely express thoughts in constantly novel ways over an infinite range by means that are appropriate to circumstances but not caused by them. Finally, there’s Humboldt’s problem, which focuses on what constitutes language.

These problems are connected in different ways to how people learn, what impedes human development, and to speculations about the initial state of the language faculty, which he outlined in a range of texts, including “Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use,” “Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures,” “The Minimalist Program” and “Why Only Us? Language and Evolution,” with Robert C. Berwick.


Chomsky’s legacy



‘Manufacturing Consent’ is one of Noam Chomsky’s best-known political works. courtesy Penguin Random House

Remarkably tenacious and active, Chomsky continued to publish and to speak out on contemporary issues into his mid-90s. His ideas evolved but were rooted in a series of deeply seated ideas about the nature of the human mind. He is one of the most cited intellectuals in history, and he was voted the leading living public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll. Millions of people have watched his debates and discussions with William F. Buckley, Angela Davis, Alan Dershowitz, Michel Foucault, Howard Gardner, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Perle, Jean Piaget, Briahna Joy Gray and even Ali G.

As the figure widely viewed as the founder of cognitive sciences, Chomsky has been critical of the hype surrounding big data, artificial intelligence and ChatGPT.

As a voice for the downtrodden and the oppressed, he has spoken from the perspective of human rights, intellectual self-defense and the popular struggle through independent thinking against structures of power and subjugation.

Chomsky’s extraordinary achievements resonate far and wide – and are likely to continue to do so into the future.

Robert F. Barsky, Professor of Humanities and Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.