The Appeal Of Used Book Stores

by Jessie Roberts

Charles Simic contemplates it:

Years ago, in a store in New York that specialized in Alchemy, Eastern Religions, Theosophy, Mysticism, Magic, and Witchcraft, I remember coming across a book called How to Become Invisible that I realized would make a perfect birthday present for a friend who was on the run from a collection agency trying to repossess his car. It cost fifteen cents, which struck me as a pretty steep price considering the quality of the contents.

What made these stores, stocked with unwanted libraries of dead people, attractive to someone like me is that they were more indiscriminate and chaotic than public libraries and thus made browsing more of an adventure. Among the crowded shelves, one’s interest was aroused by the title or the appearance of a book. Then came the suspense of opening it, checking out the table of contents, and if it proved interesting, thumbing the pages, reading a bit here and there and looking for underlined passages and notes in the margins. How delightful to find some unknown reader commenting in pencil on a Victorian love poem: “Shit,” or coming across this inscription in a beautiful edition of one of the French classics:

For my daughter,
make beauty, humanity and wisdom
your lifelong objectives; and in all circumstances
you will know what to do. Happiness will be
the reward for your efforts.

This Is How Immigration Reform Dies

by Patrick Appel

Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, head of the committee that has jurisdiction over immigration, has come out against a pathway to citizenship. Brian Beutler thinks immigration reform’s chances just got slimmer:

How likely is immigration reform to become law if the Republican with the most immediate power to shape the legislation opposes citizenship for current immigrants? I’d say not very likely — not without him and the contingent in the party he speaks for getting tossed under the bus.

Ezra adds:

If you’re peering into the tea leaves, here’s what that means.

First, Goodlatte thinks the trends in the House Republican Conference support flat-out opposition. As head of the relevant committee, if he thought serious immigration reform had a chance, he’d hold a bit of fire in order to ensure he kept his role in the process. That was his strategy early in the debate.

Second, he’s fairly confident that House Republican leadership won’t roll him to get a bill done. Again, if that seemed like a possibility, he might be a bit more reticent in order to preserve his seat at the table and avoid any humiliation. But this suggests he doesn’t believe Boehner et al will fight him to pass something that the Senate could stomach and the president could sign.

Josh Marshall wants supporters of immigration reform to stop “pretending that this bill is going to pass and get about the business of explaining to voters who is stopping it from passing or in fact stopping it from even getting a vote”:

 This tends to be something center-left reformers never get. The bill is dead or near dying. Letting this drag on only demoralizes people who think that government can act in the common good because it makes it seem as though the bill is dying of natural causes or some hopeless terminal illness — something tied to the nature of the Congress or the ‘process’ itself.

But that’s deeply misleading and damaging to the prospects of reform ever succeeding. The bill didn’t die. It was killed. So forget the heroic measures to revive it and get about telling the public who killed it and holding them accountable for their actions.

How Best To Challenge Putin? Ctd

by Patrick Appel

Jamie Kirchick’s tactic:

Michael Scherer claps:

American reporter and pundit Jamie Kirchick did the cable news medium proud by ambushing a conversation about Bradley Manning on RT, the cable channel funded by the Russian government, to attack Russian President Vladamir Putin over his government’s anti-gay policies. Truly. Great. Cable. Television.

Zack Ford points out that, contra Kirchick, RT has covered Russia’s anti-gay laws – but “much of the coverage has been used to justify it.” Recent Dish on protesting Russia’s anti-gay policies here.

The Poor Door

A New York developer is under fire after proposing separate entryways for rich and less-rich tenants at a planned luxury condo:

A 33-story building slated to be built on Riverside Boulevard between 61st and 62nd street will have an entirely separate entrance for people of lower socioeconomic means: a door for the poor, or as we call it, a “Poor Door.” The affordable homes will be oriented towards the back of the building, while market-rate units will have a view of the Hudson.

Emily Badger calls the building, which will include 55 affordable-housing units, “a perfect metaphor for New York City’s gaping inequality”:

Of course, it’s easy to segregate affordable housing–and the people who live in it–into its own part of town, its own neighborhoods, even its own isolated blocks. But it takes some serious creativity to keep the haves and have-nots apart in the very same building.

Bill Bradley sees a case of tax incentives backfiring:

Floors two through six of the building will be available only to residents earning less than 60 percent of the area median income, putting them under the “affordable” umbrella. Those five floors are part of the exact same building as the luxury condos, but because of the separate entrance they could be legally designated as a separate entity. So technically, [the developer] would have an entire building consisting of affordable housing. On paper, this makes the project eligible for subsidies ostensibly meant to protect lower-income tenants, not move them out of sight.

Unsurprisingly, critics are out in force. Barro is one of the very few to defend the separate entrances:

We require and incent developers who build market-rate housing to also sell or rent some units in the same developments at cut-rate prices. The idea is that affordable housing shouldn’t just be affordable and livable; it should be substantially similar in location and character to new luxury housing. If rich people are getting brand new apartments overlooking the Hudson River, so should some lucky winners of affordable housing lotteries. … Getting mad about the “poor door” is absurd. The only real outrage is that Extell had to build affordable units at all.

How Gay Is Russia?

by Chris Bodenner

Berlin, East Side Gallery

A reader writes:

I’d like to comment on the “controversial” lip-kiss shared between two Russian athletes earlier in the week. It’s important to remember that other cultures have not eroticized same-sex kisses as Americans have. Here is a link about the history/culture of Russian lip-locking. And of course we can’t forget the iconic (fraternal) kiss of Eastern Bloc history, seen here [and a graffiti reproduction seen above].

We’re dealing with societies that, while deeply homophobic, still have a deep sense of same-sex friendship. I studied abroad in Moscow and Greece – both conservative Orthodox Christian countries – and was shocked to have a good Russian guy-friend, my age, put his head on my shoulder to take a nap during a long train ride. In Greece, men will drape their arms over each other in public and display physical affection that, unfortunately, will never fly among heterosexual men in this country and in much of the West. As the American media eroticizes this behavior, we run the risk of unintentionally unleashing a homophobia on same-sex (especially male) friendship that we in America experienced in the mid-20th century.

Another reader shares his first-hand perspective on Russian culture and homophobia:

As a gay man who lived in Moscow for 18 years (1989-2007), I consider myself and my dear Russian gay friends and lovers to be rather quite a bit more knowledgeable on the subject of gay life in that country than the usual parade of Cold War-trained “experts.”  I was there last September, and I’m in constant contact with a broad circle of Russian gay friends on Facebook. I would venture to say Russia has been in many ways less homophobic than the US, until very recently.  Russia has become suddenly more closed, and the US has become almost as suddenly more open.

People were absolutely fine with you being gay in Russia, with one big caveat:

like so many other things in Soviet society, you were not to speak of it. I lived with one of my lovers six blocks from the home he grew up in, we slept in one bed that his family helped us set up, and I was a constant guest at their city and country homes for any occasion, large or small.  But no one spoke of the nature of our relationship, keeping up the appearance that we were “just good friends.” He came out after we broke up, and their family is still as close as ever.  No religiously-motivated banishments, no condemnations, only a bit of mourning over the grandchild-not-to-be.  With other lovers we were out from the start, and I was treated with respect and usually with affection.

The current rise in homophobia is completely artificial, as evidenced by the unanimous vote in parliament, which included the gay clique in the clownish right-wing Liberal Democratic party, headed by the notorious bisexual Zhirinovsky (who was a habitué of some of the wildest Moscow sex clubs in the ’90s and whom I have personally seen make speeches about tolerance in a gay bar two blocks from my home there), and his deputy, the closeted gay (and up to now high profile gay-rights supporter) Mitrofanov.

The current campaign is part of intimidating the young professional class that began to rebel last year, and gays were very active participants in that movement. The rise of a money-driven brand of Orthodoxy has also fueled the fire, but it is a ridiculous farce.  It is being marketed to the broader public not as anti-gay, but as anti-pedophile, and while many are fooled for the time being, it is not the sort of thing that will hold up over the long term. Russians generally have a very healthy, sometimes even extreme mistrust of their government, and Putin’s chickens will come home to roost sooner rather than later.  Most Russian (and Russian gays) probably just say “just be quiet and everything will be OK,” which is exactly what Putin wants.

Moscow’s enormous gay bars and numerous others throughout the country are still partying all night long, the elaborate bath houses are still open 24/7. This campaign has more to do with crushing any issue-politics groups and providing an “us” vs. “them” cover for Putin’s dysfunctional structure and failings than it is about a national homophobic bias.

Previous Dish on gay-ish campy culture in Russia here. Update from a reader who sees things getting better in the US:

I’d like to provide an anecdotal rebuttal to this comment: “In Greece, men will drape their arms over each other in public and display physical affection that, unfortunately, will never fly among heterosexual men in this country and in much of the West.” It might please this reader to know that I do not believe that male/male affectionate behavior shall “never fly among heterosexual men in” the US.

My 19-year-old son played soccer for many years, and most of it on a “premier” travel team. One of the most interesting and amazing aspects of this all-male team’s group behavior was their: a) totally comfort with the concept of homosexuality; b) their often pretending to be in some way homosexual towards one another – and I’m not talking in an ugly and minimizing way but instead in a fun and I would dare say team-bonding manner; c) their complete immodesty with each other; and finally and most importantly to this discussion, d) their very affectionate behavior towards and among themselves. They would sit on each other’s laps, often drape arms around the guy next to them during relaxation periods; sit and lay very close to one another without any concern for appearances; lay around in beds together during team trips and generally have incredibly affectionate behaviors towards their team-mates.

These behaviors – and their apparent total lack of concern in terms of appearing gay – was often a topic of discussion amongst their Gen X (or older) parents. We all recognized that something has irrevocably changed in our sons’ generation.

How To Boost Artificial Intelligence’s IQ?

by Patrick Appel

Gary Marcus unpacks Hector Levesque’s paper (pdf) on artificial intelligence:

In Levesque’s view, the field of artificial intelligence has fallen into a trap of “serial silver bulletism,” always looking to the next big thing, whether it’s expert systems or Big Data, but never painstakingly analyzing all of the subtle and deep knowledge that ordinary human beings possess. That’s a gargantuan task— “more like scaling a mountain than shoveling a driveway,” as Levesque writes. But it’s what the field needs to do.

In short, Levesque has called on his colleagues to stop bluffing. As he puts it, “There is a lot to be gained by recognizing more fully what our own research does not address, and being willing to admit that other … approaches may be needed.” Or, to put it another way, trying to rival human intelligence, without thinking about all the intricacies of the human mind at its best, is like asking an alligator to run the hundred-metre hurdles.

How Nefarious Is The NSA?

by Patrick Appel

Ambinder rattles off reasons to be concerned about the NSA scandal. First on his list:

The NSA is the most powerful single institution in the world. It can collect more information, more quickly, and cause action from that information, more efficiently than any company, country or intelligence entity. Even if no one accused the NSA of doing anything wrong, it is the interest of a freedom-seeking society to layer in as much transparency as possible for no other reason than that there is really no historical precedent for an organization that large with that much power not abusing it, whether incidentally or deliberately.

In a separate post, he defends the NSA on various counts:

It is eye-raising to base one’s objection to NSA’s self-reporting on the idea that there is no way to independently check what the NSA says. Well, of course. There is a logical problem here because someone or some entity will be at the bottom of the chain. It has always been difficult to establish transparent legal and formal mechanisms to make sure that agencies that secretly collect secrets don’t abuse their power. But it is easier now than it has ever been. The evidence suggests that NSA has MORE checks on its power now than ever before.

The Bradley Manning Sentencing: Reax

by Brendan James

This morning he received a 35-year prison sentence. Michael Scherer sums up the news:

The sentence was considerably less than the lifetime sentence Manning faced under the original charges brought by the government, including aiding the enemy, for which he was acquitted. It was also nearly half of the 60 years recommended by the prosecutors after he was convicted in July of leaking information and six violations of the Espionage Act. Manning’s lawyer, David Coombs, had previously suggested that Manning face only 25 years in prison, given that the information he leaked would likely be declassified after that time.

Manning, 25, was dishonorably discharged and had his rank reduced to private and his pay forfeited. He will get credit for three and a half years already served in prison. If he serves his entire term, he would be a free man at the age of 58, but under military rules he could become eligible for parole after serving one third of his sentence.

Molly Redden suspects he could have faced much worse:

For their part, Manning’s defense team is probably relieved.

Earlier this week, his attorney David Coombs asked the judge, Col. Denise Lind, for a sentence that would allow Manning “to have a life,” while attorneys for the military asked her to make an example of him. Said Capt. Joe Morrow, “There is value in deterrence. … This court must send a message to any soldier contemplating stealing classified information. National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” Not visibly reacting to the verdict was Manning himself—who appeared stone faced as Lind read out his sentence, and as a military escort walked him out of the courtroom.

Marcy Wheeler walks throughs Manning’s chances for parole:

Bradley could be released after serving one third of his sentence. In light of the fact Judge Lind has imposed a term of 35 years, Mr. Manning, considering the time he has already served, could potentially be eligible for release in as little as 9 years from now. As painful as it is to admit, this sentence, and Bradley Manning’s prospects could have very easily looked far worse.

Ryan Evans declares good riddance:

Manning is lucky he did not receive life, which he should have. The sympathy for this “troubled young man” is emblematic of a post-accountability society. No one, it seems, is to be held responsible for their actions any longer. Instead, blame is shifted to a difficult childhood, bullying, loneliness, or—my personal favorite—“the system.” In Manning’s own words, he was “dealing with a lot of issues.” … Manning himself has admitted that he understood what he was getting into when he agreed to provide these documents to WikiLeaks. To those who argue that he should not be held accountable for that decision, I ask: Why not?

Charlie Savage notes that, in addition to time already served, Manning “will be credited with 112 days for the treatment he endured at a military jail that the judge ruled was unlawful.” Charles P. Pierce adds:

Manning was treated barbarically over those 112 days. This didn’t happen by accident. This wasn’t an oversight. It was a policy decision. He was treated that way deliberately by this government. He was treated that way because that is how this administration wanted him treated. This is an administration that simply does not want the people to know what is being done in its name. The last administration didn’t want that either, but C-Plus Augustus wasn’t a constitutional law professor promising the most open and transparent administration in history, either.) And that’s the part of the story that shouldn’t go away with Bradley Manning.

Scott Lemieux, who expected a gentler sentence, agrees:

I don’t object to Manning being charged with a crime. I certainly strongly object to the way he was treated in prison. And I think the idea that his leaks merit a 35-year sentence is absurd. And as I said before, it’s particularly appalling when you consider the Obama administration’s “look forward not back” approach on torture. It’s hard to square this life-ruining sentence with the fact that no torturer was even considered worthy of being charged. I’d also say that at this point that it’s pretty hard to the American government to complain when other countries refuse to extradite whistleblowers.