Tuesday, November 22, 2022

REST IN POWER
Staughton Lynd, Historian and Activist Turned Labor Lawyer, Dies at 92


After being blacklisted from academia for his antiwar activity, he became an organizer among steel workers in the industrial Midwest.


The activist and historian Staughton Lynd in 2019. “At age 16 and 17, I wanted to find a way to change the world,” he said in 2010. “Just as I do at age 79.”Credit...Dustin Franz for The New York Times


By Clay Risen
Published Nov. 18, 2022
Updated Nov. 20, 2022

Staughton Lynd, a historian and lawyer who over a long and varied career organized schools for Black children in Mississippi, led antiwar protests in Washington and fought for labor rights in the industrial Midwest, died on Thursday in the town of Warren, in northeast Ohio. He was 92.

His wife and frequent collaborator, Alice Lynd, said his death, at a hospital, was caused by multiple organ failure.

Mr. Lynd was one of the last of a generation of radical academics — including his friend and colleague Howard Zinn — who in the 1960s overthrew their predecessors’ obsession with detached, objective scholarship in favor of political engagement.

Many of his colleagues stayed within the bounds of academia, but Mr. Lynd burst beyond them. As a young professor at Spelman College in Atlanta, he led students in marches against nuclear weapons. In 1964 he was one of the main organizers behind Freedom Summer, which brought Northern college students to Mississippi to teach and organize in Black communities.

When the Vietnam War was still relatively new and most Americans still supported it, he organized antiwar protests in Washington. He was among the first of about 350 people arrested during one demonstration — though not before neo-Nazis, staging a counter protest, dumped paint on him and two other marchers, David Dellinger and Bob Moses. A photo of the three bespattered men appeared in Life magazine.


Mr. Lynd was spattered with paint during an antiwar protest in Washington in 1965. He was among the first of about 350 people arrested during the demonstration. 
Credit...Nat Finkelstein Estate

In 1965 Mr. Lynd joined another radical historian, Herbert Aptheker, and a founder of Students for a Democratic Society, Tom Hayden, on a trip to North Vietnam. There they met with Communist leaders and made global headlines, but also numerous enemies back home. The trip effectively ended Mr. Lynd’s career at Yale, where he had moved just a year before.

Mr. Lynd was not a communist, though he was often mistaken for one. Instead he made his own way on the left, drawing equal inspiration from Marxism, American abolitionism and Quaker pacifism — a diversity that helped explain his involvement with so many different movements.

“Staughton was very unusual,” Gar Alperovitz, a historian who wrote several books with Mr. Lynd, said in a phone interview. “He walked a path that was his own. And when it intersected with the activist groups on the progressive left, he would be involved. But he was a very moral political figure rather than a tactical one.”

In age he fell between the Old Left, which cut its teeth in the 1930s and ’40s, and the New, which was coming up in the ’60s. There was no question where his loyalty lay: He reveled in the impassioned spontaneity he encountered as a professor on college campuses, and students flocked to him in turn.

At Yale they would cram into his office or gather on his living room floor to hear him take on all comers, staking positions to the left even of outspoken liberals like the Yale chaplain William Sloane Coffin, a frequent verbal sparring partner.


Even as he developed a following as an agitator, he built a reputation as a pathbreaking historian. His best-known book, “The Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism” (1968), opened new ground by identifying members of the Revolutionary War generation who embraced abolition and equality, and it won praise even from establishment historians.

“Of all the New Left historians, only Staughton Lynd appears able to combine the techniques of historical scholarship with the commitment to social reform,” David Herbert Donald wrote in a 1968 review in Commentary.

But his academic star soon fizzled out. By the end of the 1960s, his outspoken activism had drawn the attention of the F.B.I. and gotten him blacklisted from higher education, even from small urban colleges in Chicago, where he and his family had moved in 1968.

From left, the historian Herbert Aptheker, the activist Tom Hayden, the Rev. A.J. Muste and Mr. Lynd in January 1966 discussing the trip that Mr. Aptheker, Mr. Hayden and Mr. Lynd took to North Vietnam the previous year.
Credit...Patrick Burns/The New York Times

He pivoted, involving himself in labor organizing among the factories that lined the southern shores of Lake Michigan. He received a law degree from the University of Chicago in 1976, after which he and his wife moved to Youngstown, Ohio, where workers, union leaders and owners were fighting over the impending closure of the city’s steel mills.

To the frustration of both the union bosses and the mill owners, he sided with the rank and file, writing a handbook for workers trying to navigate the legal system. In the early 1980s he helped lead a high-profile effort to turn the mills over to a worker-owned cooperative. Though the effort failed, it brought him renewed acclaim on the left.

He did much of his later work alongside his wife. She wrote several books with him and, after getting her own law degree, joined him as a partner. They officially retired in 1996 but continued taking pro bono cases, this time with a focus on the death penalty and prison reform.

“Whether in his pathbreaking historical work on the roots of American radicalism, his active participation in campaigns for civil rights, his crucial role in steps toward democratization of the economy, Staughton Lynd was always in the forefront of struggle, a model of integrity, courage, and farsighted understanding of what must be done if there is to be a livable world,” the linguist and left-wing scholar Noam Chomsky wrote in an email.

Staughton Craig Lynd was born on Nov. 22, 1929, the same year that his parents, the sociologists Robert and Helen Lynd, published their book “Middletown,” based on their research in Muncie, Ind. It was one of the first books to offer a comprehensive study of an American community, and it established them as two of the country’s best-known academics.


The Lynds lived in New York City — Robert Lynd taught at Columbia, while Helen Lynd taught at Sarah Lawrence College — but Staughton was born in a hospital in Philadelphia because his mother preferred the doctors there.

He grew up among the New York intellectual set, attending the Ethical Culture School and the Fieldston School, and entered Harvard in 1946.


He studied social relations, a popular but now defunct major. In his free time he dabbled in radical politics, joining the Communist Party-aligned John Reed Club and briefly participating in two Trotskyist organizations on campus.

During the 1950 summer school session he met Alice Niles, a student at Radcliffe. They married the next year.

Along with his wife, he is survived by his son, Lee Lynd; his daughters Barbara Bond and Marta Lynd-Altan; seven grandchildren, and six great-grandchildren.

After graduating in 1951, he spent time studying urban planning before being drafted into the Army in 1953. As a conscientious objector, he was given a noncombat role, despite the continuing Korean War.

A year later, though, he received a dishonorable discharge after Army investigators dug up his Communist affiliations in college; they also highlighted his mother’s career as a “modern” professional woman.

He and others with similar disqualifications appealed, and the Supreme Court eventually ordered the Army to give them honorable discharges instead. The change in status allowed Mr. Lynd to take advantage of the G.I. Bill, which he used to pay for graduate school.

But first, he and Alice spent three years living on a Quaker commune in northern Georgia. They then spent six months in a similar community in New Jersey, where he first met Mr. Dellinger, a like-minded pacifist who brought him on as an editor at his magazine, Liberation.

The Lynds finally returned to New York City, where Mr. Lynd worked for a tenants’ rights organization on the Lower East Side and pursued a history doctorate at Columbia.

He received his degree, with a dissertation on New York State during the Revolutionary War, in 1962. By then he and Alice were already in Atlanta, where he got a job teaching at Spelman (and where Mrs. Lynd babysat the children of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a neighbor).

Among his colleagues was Mr. Zinn, who would be fired for his activism in 1963, and among his students was Alice Walker, who would go on to write “The Color Purple.”

Mr. Lynd became actively involved with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and grew particularly close to one of its leaders, Bob Moses, a similarly cerebral activist. In 1964 Mr. Lynd was chosen to oversee the educational component of Freedom Summer, instituting curriculums and training teachers for the many schools that were to open across Mississippi.

He was in Oxford, Ohio, where organizers gathered before heading to Mississippi, when he first heard about the kidnapping and murder of the civil rights workers James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman.

“I’ll never forget Mickey Schwerner’s wife, Rita, pacing one of the rooms all night long, waiting for word of some kind,” he wrote in The Bill of Rights Journal in 1988.

That fall Mr. Lynd joined the Yale history department, though by then he was spending more and more of his time as an activist.

In June 1965 he joined another antiwar protester in a lonely demonstration outside the Pentagon. Almost immediately, dozens of military police officers had surrounded them.

“What in the cotton-picking world do you think you’re doing?” he recalled one of them asking.

He straightened himself up, looked at the officer, and replied: “You don’t understand. We’re the first of thousands.”

His trip later that year to North Vietnam, and a 1966 trip to London, where he blasted American foreign policy on the BBC, persuaded the State Department to revoke his passport.



Mr. Lynd leaving a State Department hearing in 1966 at which he asked to have his passport reinstated. It had been revoked after his trip to North Vietnam and a trip to London during which he criticized U.S. foreign policy.
Credit...Bettmann, via Getty Images

Mr. Lynd’s activism brought waves of criticism from alumni and pressure on Yale’s president, Kingman Brewster, to fire him. Mr. Brewster resisted, but he let it be known, quietly, that Mr. Lynd was unlikely to receive tenure.

In 1968 the Lynds moved again, to Chicago, where Mr. Lynd was eager to get involved with the labor movement. He taught briefly at two local schools, Roosevelt University and Columbia College, and applied unsuccessfully to others. But he failed to find a permanent contract — the result, he insisted, of a concerted effort to blacklist him from teaching.

He then worked briefly for the social activist Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, and he and Alice Lynd wrote an oral history of Chicago labor, “Rank and File: Personal Histories by Working-Class Organizers” (1973).

Mr. Lynd wrote more than 20 more books and extended pamphlets, mostly about labor organizing and prison reform. An exception was “Stepping Stones: Memoir of a Life Together” (2009), written with his wife.


A year later, an interviewer for Harvard Magazine asked him why, after such a long career, he was still so active.

“At age 16 and 17, I wanted to find a way to change the world,” he said. “Just as I do at age 79.”

Clay Risen is an obituaries reporter for The Times. Previously, he was a senior editor on the Politics desk and a deputy op-ed editor on the Opinion desk. He is the author, most recently, of “Bourbon: The Story of Kentucky Whiskey.” @risenc
REST IN POWER
Activist Carol Leigh, who coined term 'sex work', dies at 71

Carol Leigh, a San Francisco activist who is credited with coining the term "sex work" and who sought for decades to improve conditions for prostitutes and others in the adult entertainment business, has died. She was 71.

Carol Leigh PTI

PTI
UPDATED: 18 NOV 2022 

Carol Leigh, a San Francisco activist who is credited with coining the term "sex work" and who sought for decades to improve conditions for prostitutes and others in the adult entertainment business, has died. She was 71.

Kate Marquez, the executor of her estate, said Leigh died on Wednesday of cancer, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on Thursday.

A former prostitute, Leigh devoted herself to campaigning on behalf of those in the "sex work industry", a term she coined as the title for a panel discussion she attended at a feminist anti-pornography conference in 1978, according to an essay she wrote.

The term has become generally used by public health officials, academic researchers, and others.

"Carol defined sex work as a labor issue, not a crime, not a sin," Marquez said. "It is a job done by a million people in this country who are stigmatized and criminalized by working to support their families."

"Ultimately, Leigh argued that until sex workers are included in the conversations about feminism, sexuality and legality -- conversations from which they have historically been excluded -- sex workers will remain fragmented rather than collective, and stigmatization will abound," said a tweet on Thursday from SWARM (Sex Worker Advocacy and Resistance Movement), which describes itself as a sex worker-led collective founded in the United Kingdom in 2009.

Leigh co-founded BAYSWAN, also known as Bay Area Sex Worker Advocacy Network, which according to its website works with human rights activists to address problems such as human trafficking in the industry as well as labor and civil rights violations.

Leigh was deeply involved in advocacy for and aid to sex workers both in the United States and overseas and her concerns ranged from decriminalization to poverty, drug use, and HIV. She also was a video artist and produced award-winning documentaries on "women's issues and gay/lesbian issues", according to her BAYSWAN biography.

She wrote and frequently performed a one-woman political satire play called "The Adventures of Scarlot Harlot", and wrote a 2004 book titled "Unrepentant Whore: The Collected Work of Scarlot Harlot." She also helped produce the San Francisco Sex Worker Film and Arts Festival.

Born in New York City, Leigh had a bachelor's degree in creative writing when she moved to San Francisco in 1977. She began working as a prostitute to earn money but her focus changed after she was raped by two men at a sex studio in 1979, she told SFGate in a 1996 interview.

She could not file a crime report because her workplace would have been closed.

"The fact that I could not go to the police to report the rape meant that I was not going to be able to protect other women from these rapists," she said. "And I vowed to do something to change that."

Leigh's papers will be archived at Harvard University's Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America, Marquez said.

(Inputs from PTI)



COP27
What the greens learned from Big Oil

A former Greenpeace boss now leads critical talks for Germany. But power comes with compromise.


Former Greenpeace head Jennifer Morgan is Germany’s top climate envoy at COP27 
| Sean Gallup/Getty Images

BY KARL MATHIESEN
POLITICO
NOVEMBER 17, 2022

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt — Fossil fuel lobbyists can only dream of the kind of access the green movement has at this year’s U.N. climate conference.

Take, for example, Jennifer Morgan. Until February she was head of Greenpeace International. Now she is Germany’s top climate envoy and has been handed the job of finding agreement between almost 200 countries on the most explosive issue at the COP27 talks: Who pays for the damage caused by climate change?

More and more climate activists are treading this path, from being on the outside making demands to working inside some of the most powerful governments in the world. It’s a shift that affords them unmatched power to shape global affairs and guide the planet to a safer climate. But it comes at the price of moral purity.

Morgan's job switch attracted criticism from environmentalists that view the German government as opponents, said Fridays for Future activist Luisa Neubauer, a youth activist who counts Morgan as a friend and mentor. "People have to sort of change sides and I think we are really hard on them."

But Neubauer sees it as necessary for the movement to achieve its broader goals.

“I think she’s a pioneer," she said. "Just like the fossil fuel industries put people everywhere, we need to put people in powerful positions and then not it take personally when that means they have to say yes to some things that we just don't like.”

Morgan insists the most important things haven't changed. “I am in a different role, but I am working for the exact same goals I have been fighting for my whole life: bringing down emissions, accelerating the global energy transition and more solidarity with the most vulnerable," she told POLITICO.

In Germany, environmentalists have never had more power. But in the face of the energy crisis, Greens co-leaders, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (who is Morgan’s boss) and Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck have had to swallow huge ideological gobstoppers in the form of extending the life of nuclear plants and Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s push for African gas.

Environmentalist and former French minister Nicolas Hulot, who quit Emmanuel Macron's team in 2018 citing an “accumulation of disappointments” on climate policy, serves as a cautionary tale for those who grab the scepter.

The reparations issue that Morgan is steering at COP27, known as loss and damage, exposes how far her public position has had to stretch.

On Tuesday evening, Morgan was huddled with her advisers in a brightly lit tent on the conference grounds. A pack of negotiators from the world’s developing countries were marching toward the room, carrying with them an uncompromising demand for a new fund that would transfer reparations from the rich countries that cause climate change to the poor.

Just one year ago at COP26 in Glasgow, in the height of her Greenpeace pomp, Morgan was standing shoulder to shoulder with Pacific islanders and other extremely vulnerable nations against the wealthy polluters that have caused climate change.

Greenpeace this year is backing the poor countries' call for a new fund. But Morgan's new employers in the German government — along with the EU and U.S. — had resisted creating a reparations fund at these talks, if ever. Late on Thursday, the EU, backed by Berlin, finally did make an offer to vulnerable countries to set up the fund.

It’s “one of the most controversial issues ever,” Morgan told POLITICO. With the talks scheduled to end on Friday, she was straining to find a compromise that would satisfy her country, the countries she once championed single-mindedly, and the holdouts.

Morgan has traded bomb-throwing for bomb-catching. In two interviews and various off-record briefings to the press during COP27, she often checked herself, looking vaguely pained and said: “I don’t think I want to go on the record on that.”

"As an activist, my public voice was all I had to bring about change. This position gives me a different set of tools. My job now is not to demand action from others but to act and achieve results," she said.

This self-censorship in public is the most obvious trade-off she has to make. “When you're an NGO, no one has to listen to anything that you say. But you have a lot more control over what it is you can say,” said Kalee Kreider, a former environmental adviser and spokesperson for Al Gore who met Morgan at COP3, back in 1997. In government, it’s the opposite.

Yet more and more of Morgan’s fellow activists are also making the jump and governments in need of climate expertise are willing employers.

In the lead up to COP27, Morgan was asked by the British government to prepare a key report on climate finance. Her co-author was Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, also a former director of Greenpeace.

At a lower level, the U.K. government stacked the unit that worked on COP26 with around 20 staff seconded or hired from green think tanks or NGOs. A senior U.K. official, who was not authorized to speak to the press, said it gave the government access to decades of expertise, connections and — crucially — helped bring the green movement on board.

It’s a calculation that’s changing as some governments get more proactive. When Morgan was unveiled by Baerbock as the “face” of German climate diplomacy, she said the newly elected government was now where she could “make the biggest difference.”

For her part, Baerbock nabbed someone who has long been a player at U.N. climate talks. Even as Greenpeace boss, Morgan was one of the few Westerners with the ear of China’s climate envoy Xie Zhenhua. No matter the job, said Kreider, “she's not a person that changes or blows with the wind … a lot of trust and respect comes from that.”

Still, Morgan’s move into power poses a challenge to the activists who count her as a friend. Her public backing for a German-led disaster risk insurance scheme is seen by many green activists as a “tactic” to wriggle away from direct payments to communities that have been devastated by climate change, said Neubauer. That is a charge Baerbock forcefully rejected in Egypt on Thursday, saying the initiative was a "building block."

While the power is needed, finding the right trade-off between ideals and deals will take work. “I think on the other side, we haven't figured out yet how to play this inside-outside game without eventually all compromising way too much,” Neubauer said.

This story has been updated.
To the far right: Bella Ciao

Will Europe manage to survive the attacks on democracy from within?


Italy's prime minister, Giorgia Meloni was leaving hundreds of refugees and migrants in peril at sea, refusing to allow vulnerable people to disembark safely in Italy | Filippo Monteforte/AFP via Getty images

BY PEDRO MARQUES
NOVEMBER 18, 2022 
Pedro Marques is a member of the European Parliament and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats’ vice-president for social and external Affairs, political planning and communications.

After becoming Italy’s prime minister just a few weeks ago, Giorgia Meloni arrived in Brussels for her introductory tour of the European institutions.

But at the very same time leaders were rolling out the red carpet to welcome her with open arms, even extending an early invitation to speak at an upcoming plenary session of the European Parliament, Meloni was leaving hundreds of refugees and migrants in peril at sea, refusing to allow vulnerable people to disembark safely in Italy.


Hailing from a party with fascist roots, the Italian leader became prime minister in a coalition comprised of friends of Russian President Vladimir Putin and another far-right party. Yet, European presidents and commissioners have made every effort to make Meloni feel welcome. “She has changed,” they say.

So, while fascists are still unacceptable, post-fascists are now apparently welcome to join the club, so long as they watch their tone and target their hatred toward migrants or those who are “different” — just not the European Union.

From Hungary and Poland all the way to Italy, the coalition of right-wing populists keeps growing. Apparently, for a good number of European leaders it seems too hard to imagine Europe working against such a coalition. And while we are witnessing the normalization of the far right, the European project is at risk of saying goodbye to its identity.

As Europe, we are — or were — a project that wanted to integrate everyone, a project united in diversity for peace and progress.

We are a prosperous but ageing continent, which will wither and wane if we fail to share the European dream with those who seek it. Demographic change means there will be fewer and fewer individuals of working age in relation to our inactive population — and this trend will continue for decades. We are in desperate need of those who want to contribute to our societies.

Of course, we have the right to build a family any way we want, with as many children as we see fit. We have the right to healthcare, which allows us to live longer. However, we also have a responsibility to share this well-being and support the European social model with an integration policy based on equal rights and obligations. Otherwise, our well-being won’t be long lasting.

Are the pro-European left and center-left capable of saying this, though?

As union representation has dwindled, our capacity to speak directly to many millions of workers has eroded. Can we win back these millions who have defected to populists due to successive crises and enduring inequalities?

It’s up to progressives to rebuild the coalition of workers in low- and middle-income households, to put forward policies for social justice, to stop pollution and climate change, to regulate globalization, to integrate those who help us to prosper and to stand up against fear and hate. We have to take these arguments directly to citizens, and use all the communication tools and channels available to us that can close the gap between people and policymaking. This is also how we counter fake news and hate speech.

Interestingly, it seems the center right certainly hasn’t learned any lessons from history.

While the conservatives’ need to cling to power was more important than standing up to dangerous fringe parties — hence their successive coalitions and accommodations with the far right — at the very least, they could have learned from the mistakes of the left when, at the turn of the century, it copied the liberal deregulation policies of the right, only to disappear from power for years.

Lacking an institutional solution for the current tension between democrats and those who repeatedly violate the rule of law and use blackmail on a daily basis, how will Europe finally deal with the rise of the far right? Still plagued by inward looking national selfishness, will it manage to survive the attacks on democracy from within?

The list of those complicit in the damage to Europe’s identity is growing by the day. Every time we concede, our values take another blow. And it looks like we will be stuck discussing how to act against violations of the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, or the rights of minorities and migrants for years to come.


Jamie Raskin: Trump thought he could enter the Capitol on January 6 'like Mussolini being carried on the shoulders of his supporters'

Cheryl Teh
Nov 17, 2022, 


A January 6 panel member spoke to MSNBC after interviewing Secret Service agent Robert Engel.

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin said the panel learned how Trump was "incensed" about not being able to "join the mob."

He said Trump likely thought he would enter "like Mussolini being carried on the shoulders of his supporters."

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, a member of the House panel investigating the January 6 riot, told MSNBC on Thursday that former President Donald Trump likely thought he would get a hero's welcome from his supporters at the Capitol.

"Everything that we've heard tells me that the former president was incensed," Raskin replied. "He was enraged and there was conflict about whether or not he would go to the Capitol, and he was adamant that he be able to do that."

"I imagine that he thought that he would enter like Mussolini being carried on the shoulders of his supporters and enter the Capitol," Raskin said, likening Trump to the Italian fascist dictator.

Raskin was speaking after Secret Service agent Robert Engel — who was with Trump during the riot — testified to the House panel on Thursday.

The agent's testimony comes after he was mentioned by former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows' aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, during her interview with the January 6 panel in June. Hutchinson testified that Trump lunged at Engel and tried to grab the steering wheel of his SUV while demanding to be brought to the Capitol.

Raskin said he could not reveal specific details about Engel's testimony at this juncture. However, he did say that the panel had learned how Trump was "incensed and enraged" about not being allowed to go to Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021. Raskin added that Trump was "adamant that he be able to join the mob and approach and enter the Capitol with them."

"Donald Trump really went to bed the night before on the evening of January 5 believing that he was going to be staying in office for another four years," Raskin added. "And he believed that through the day."

The House panel in October unanimously voted to subpoena Trump, following several hearings chock-full of damning testimony about the former president's conduct on January 6, 2021. Trump's refusal to comply with this subpoena could lead to him being held in contempt of Congress and be prosecuted.

In response to the subpoena, Trump sent a 14-page document to the January 6 panel that started with the sentence, "THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2020 WAS RIGGED AND STOLEN!" The document also contained multiple baseless claims of election fraud.

Trump this month also filed a lawsuit against the January 6 committee in an attempt to block its subpoena. Lawyers for the former president are arguing that Congress does not have the authority to subpoena him, a former president.

Trump's lawsuit, however, means that the former president could potentially delay testifying until well after the panel is slated to dissolve along with the 117th Congress on January 3, 2023.

A representative at Trump's post-presidential press office did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.
Trump Is No Longer Enjoying Himself — And It Shows

The 2022 version of Trump is less fun and less interesting than the person who rode the golden escalator seven years ago.



Former President Donald Trump announces he will run for president again in the grand ballroom at Mar-a-Lago, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2022.
| Mark Peterson/Redux 

POLITICO
11/17/2022
John Harris is founding editor of Politico. His Altitude column offers a regular perspective on politics in a moment of radical disruption


People have long predicted that Donald Trump would lose currency as a politician when he lost his capacity to outrage.

It is true enough that, like an overused narcotic, the effect of did-he-really-go-there rhetoric and norm-shattering behavior wears off after a while. It is true also that Trump has been more innovative than many imagined possible in forever finding new lines to cross.

There is another way that is less appreciated — perhaps even by the candidate himself — of how Trump and his movement will lose steam. It is when Trump loses his capacity for delight.

It used to be that even people who found his politics and character repellent could still find something enlivening in his performance. Trump in earlier days was often funny. He knew it, and he used it. At a minimum, there was never a doubt that he was vastly entertaining himself.

On the week that he announced his third presidential campaign, there is ample reason to doubt. Trump is a master of demagogic arts. But in his long, numbing speech at Mar-a-Lago this week, something in the potion was off. What was it?

One place to search for an answer is in the original speech that got the whole thing started — now seven years and five months ago. People often invoke his iconic ride down the gold escalator at Trump Tower when launching his first presidential campaign in June 2015. But they may not remember much about what he actually said.

I watched the speech in full again this week, testing several hypotheses, and fully expecting that some or all would prove true.

Has the 76-year-old Trump aged in startling ways? Not really. If anything, he seemed a trifle trimmer this week and not notably more infirm.

Has his message become more scattered and less coherent? To the contrary, it was the 2015 speech that was more marked by random riffs and narrative excursions as different thoughts popped into his head. This week, he was reading from a teleprompter much of the time, which plainly sapped his energy. But it also meant that large parts of the speech (certainly not all of it) made an identifiable argument that could be followed in a linear way from one paragraph to the next.

Has his message markedly changed, in ways that show he does not actually care about any issues but is purely an opportunist who grabs at whatever fits his purposes? No, or at least no more so than the average politician. There was ample consistency between the two speeches: The competitive threat posed by China, the claim that other nations are laughing at American decline, the swampiness of the Washington lobbying culture.

The most significant change — it is dramatic — was that in 2015 Trump was self-evidently having fun and good-naturedly inviting his audience to have fun with him.

Yes, there were lines in 2015 that stirred outrage — his assertion that a flood of undocumented immigrants included many “rapists” — but the dominant tone was one of almost adolescent ebullience.

“I’m really rich!” he exclaimed, adding that his purpose was not to boast but to say he couldn’t be bought. Then he boasted: ”I’m really proud of my success.”

Rather than the scathing insults we now associate with Trump, he claimed of his Republican candidates, “I like them,” even as he mocked them as ineffectual and clueless at deal-making. He talked about how much he hoped then-President Barack Obama would play golf at one of his country clubs (“I have the best courses in the world”).

He described America as “a brand” that needed to be marketed and promised to be upbeat national “cheerleader.”

He talked about winning at Manhattan real estate even though the father he idolized was skeptical. “I gotta build these big buildings, I gotta do it, Dad.” Of his reputation for brutal professional combat, Trump commented, “I think I am a nice person.”

In short, for all the raucous braggadocio, there was a human dimension to Trump in 2015 that was barely evident in the heavy, heaving, hectoring tone of this week’s announcement.

The contrast is not incidental to calculations about whether Trump could return to the presidency after leaving the presidency, as only Grover Cleveland has done previously in American history.

No one would get rich (least of all me) off my Trump predictions over the years. Even so, I’m staying on the limb I climbed out on two years ago, after Trump lost the 2020 election but before the Jan. 6 riot: Trump is quite unlikely to reclaim the White House.

When he first sprang on the presidential stage, Trump was not actually quite as exotic a figure he seemed. The noisy, flamboyant outsider — shooting to prominence by condemning elites as effete and disconnected from the real concerns of hardworking average citizens and promising to demolish a corrupt establishment — is a familiar type in American politics. A benign example is Ross Perot. More malignant manifestations would include George Wallace, Joe McCarthy or Huey Long. Trump is unique only in that he reached the White House. These figures typically streak across the sky, cause conventional politicians in both parties to quake, but do not have staying power.

In his 2022 incarnation, Trump is no longer a familiar American type. He is instead proposing to import a kind of Juan Peronism onto soil that has never in 240 years supported that kind of thing. The poor showing of election deniers in the midterm elections suggests the United States remains hostile ground to true authoritarianism.

“Every hero,” Emerson wrote some 170 years ago of Napoleon, “becomes a bore at last.”

Perhaps every villain, too. At least that’s the case for CNN, where for years journalists took pride in opposing and exposing Trump even as, on programming grounds, the network was in a symbiotic relationship with him. On Tuesday, anchors cut away from his speech in the middle for roundtable analysis. No doubt they were responding to scolding from journalistic priests who warn about illegitimately amplifying Trump’s bombast and deceptions. But the real reason was that listening to Trump’s speech was a bit of a slog. Unfortunately, listening to analysts describe it as low-energy and full of falsehoods was also a bit of a slog.

Deep down, Trump is too much of a natural performer not to know the truth. He is no longer having fun. When he is boring even to himself, it’s going to be very hard to keep his audience.

Players risk suffering heat stroke in Qatar during World Cup, says physiologist

The FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 logo is pictured as sprinklers water the pitch in Al Sadd SC, Doha, Qatar on Nov 12, 2022.
Reuters

      DOHA — Players are at risk of suffering heat stroke and could make poor decisions when playing or training in high temperatures at the World Cup in Qatar, physiologist Mike Tipton told Reuters on Thursday (Nov 17).

      With the temperature hovering above 30 degrees Celsius (86 Fahrenheit) in Doha, Wales rescheduled their training session on Thursday, moving it from the afternoon to evening when the weather is cooler.

      Qatar is unusually hot and humid for this time of the year, but the weather is likely to cool down as the Nov 20 — Dec 18 World Cup progresses into late autumn.

      This year's World Cup marks the first time the global showpiece event has been moved from its regular slot of June and July.

      "We were sweating just walking around the hotel," Wales forward Mark Harris told reporters. "We went out for a walk this morning at about 11 and it was very warm."

      According to Tipton, a professor of human and applied physiology at Britain's University of Portsmouth, playing in extreme heat can not just affect the players' physiological function but psychological too.

      "They (the effects) range from feeling faint due to being unable to exercise to a heat stroke, which is a serious medical condition," Tipton said.

      "There's another aspect, which is when people get hot, they tend to make poor decisions... They may decide to exercise even harder, which can accelerate their problems with heat."

      Read Also
      World Cup 2022: Full list of 26-man squads playing in Fifa tournament
      World Cup 2022: Full list of 26-man squads playing in Fifa tournament

      In order to cope with the heat, managers could be forced to change the playing style of their teams, opting to play at a much slower pace, Tipton added.

      "You don't need to worry about overheating if you're playing football in Manchester or Liverpool," he said.

      "But if you're playing in southern Europe or South America, then the style of play has to change because you have to accommodate the fact that you cannot run around for 90 minutes at a level that's going to cause you to overwhelm your temperature regulation system."

      Players could however get some relief during match days with all eight host stadiums set to have air conditioning.

      "It's better to be playing football in 20-degree air than in 30-degree air. There's no doubt about that," Tipton said.

      Indonesia's GoTo to cut 1,300 jobs to step up cost cutting

      Story by Reuters • Friday, 11/18/22

      JAKARTA (Reuters) -Indonesia's biggest tech firm PT GoTo Gojek Tokopedia Tbk said on Friday it was laying off 1,300 workers, or 12% of its workforce, joining a wave of technology firms retrenching after years of rapid hiring due to an uncertain economic outlook.

      "Challenging global macroeconomic conditions are having a significant impact on businesses around the world and GoTo, like other prudent companies, is making adjustments to ensure it can navigate the uncertain road that lies ahead," it said in a statement.

      GoTo said it has achieved around 800 billion rupiah ($51 million) in cost savings in the first half of this year through efficiency measures in technology, marketing and outsourcing.

      "However, the company has determined that further measures must be taken to ensure it is equipped to navigate the challenges ahead," it said about the job cuts.

      GoTo, which offers ride-hailing and financial services, went public in April with a $1.1 billion stock sale.

      Its shares are trading 44% below its initial public offering price, as investor sentiment on the tech sector sours amid soaring inflation and interest rates.

      Shares in GoTo rose 2.8% on Friday after announcing the job cuts.

      The company, backed by SoftBank Group Corp, Alibaba Group and Singapore sovereign wealth fund GIC, is exploring a coordinated secondary offering of shares held by pre-IPO shareholders after a lock-up period ends on November 30.

      It reported in August that its half-year net loss more than doubled to nearly $1 billion.

      In recent months, Southeast Asia's largest-ecommerce firm Shopee cut jobs in various countries and shut some overseas operations as parent Sea struggle with losses.

      ($1 = 15,690.0000 rupiah)

      (Reporting by Stefanno Sulaiman and Bernadette Christina Munthe; Editing by Clarence Fernandez and Lincoln Feast.)
      UK
      Did austerity work?

      BY AILBHE REA
      NOVEMBER 18, 2022

      As U.K. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt unveils huge spending cuts and tax hikes in his Autumn Statement, host Ailbhe Rea looks back at the economic program still haunting the current debate: the austerity of the early 2010s. David Gauke, one of former Chancellor George Osborne’s must trusted lieutenants, opens up about how the big decisions were taken and reflects on how he’d do things differently if he had his time again. Torsten Bell, head of the Resolution Foundation think tank and formerly head of policy for Labour leader Ed Miliband, considers the effects of the spending cuts and the differences between the Labour and the Conservative positions, while Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader, talks about what he thinks his party got wrong. Carys Roberts, executive director at the IPPR think tank, discusses the way the public debate played out, while Professor Michael Marmot considers the impact of austerity on life expectancy and health inequalities across the U.K.

      CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M BUSINESS AS USUAL

      Musk Says He Made Some Tesla Decisions Without Board Nod, Defends $56 Billion Pay


      By Reuters
      November 17, 2022
      Tesla Inc. founder Elon Musk speaks at the unveiling event by "The Boring Company" for the test tunnel of a proposed underground transportation network across Los Angeles County, in Hawthorne, Calif., on Dec. 18, 2018. (Robyn Beck/Pool via Reuters)

      WILMINGTON, Del—Elon Musk said in court on Wednesday that he made some Tesla Inc. decisions without the approval of the company’s directors, as he defended his $56 billion pay package against claims that he dictated its terms to a compliant board.

      Tesla shareholder Richard Tornetta sued Musk and the board in 2018 and hopes to prove that Musk used his dominance over Tesla’s board to obtain an outsized compensation package that did not require him to work at the electric car maker full-time.

      Questioned by Tornetta’s lawyer, Greg Varallo, Musk rejected claims that his pay package goals were easy to achieve.

      “The amount of pain, no words can express,” Musk said, describing the effort required to get the company from brink of failure in 2017 to explosive growth. “It’s pain I would not wish to inflict upon anyone.”

      Varallo repeatedly sought to portray Tesla as a company under the grip of Musk, the world’s richest person, and tried to show that Musk bypassed Tesla’s board on several occasions.

      For example, Musk said he made a unilateral call on ending Tesla’s acceptance of Bitcoin cryptocurrency and acknowledged that the board was not informed before he told analysts in October that Tesla’s board was considering buying back up to $10 billion of stock.

      But the testimony did not definitely prove who developed Musk’s 2018 pay package or establish whether it was a product of his demands rather than negotiations with the board.

      The five-day trial comes as Musk is trying to oversee an overhaul of Twitter Inc., which he was forced to buy for $44 billion in a separate legal battle before the same judge, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick, after trying to back out of that deal.

      Musk wrote on Twitter this week that he was remaining at Twitter’s San Francisco headquarters around the clock until he fixed that company’s problems, and said on Wednesday he had come to Delaware on an overnight flight from the social media company.

      Musk said his focus on restructuring Twitter would soon wind down and he would find someone else to lead it. He was dismissive of the argument that his pay deal should have obligated him to spend a set number of hours at Tesla.

      “I pretty much work all the time,” he said. “I don’t know what a punch clock would achieve.”

      A ‘Product Genius’

      Tornetta has asked the court to rescind the 2018 package, which his attorney said was $20 billion larger than the annual gross domestic product of the state of Delaware.

      The legal team for Musk and the Tesla directors have cast the pay package as a set of audacious goals that worked by driving 10-fold growth in Tesla’s stock value, to more than $600 billion from around $50 billion.

      They have argued the plan was developed by independent board members, advised by outside professionals and with input from large shareholders.

      Tornetta’s attorney tried to show Musk was involved from the start. An email from May 2017 appeared to establish that Musk was pushing for the pay plan months before the board negotiated it with him.

      “I’m planning something really crazy, but also high risk,” he wrote.

      Antonio Gracias, a venture capital investor and longtime friend of Musk who was also a Tesla board member from 2007 to 2021, took the stand after Musk testified.

      Gracias said he was prepared to push back on Musk if necessary. “I don’t pull punches with any of my CEOs,” he told the court.

      The disputed Tesla package allows Musk to buy 1 percent of Tesla’s stock at a deep discount each time escalating performance and financial targets are met. Otherwise, Musk gets nothing.

      Tesla has hit 11 of the 12 targets, according to court papers.

      Shareholders generally cannot challenge executive compensation because courts typically defer to the judgment of directors. The Musk case survived a motion to dismiss because it was determined he might be considered a controlling shareholder, which means stricter rules apply.

      Gracias described Musk as essential to the company’s success in his testimony, calling him “extraordinary” and a “product genius.”