The Death of the Internet and Karim Khan’s Inbox

Karim Khan, arguing in court, probably against some bad stuff.

The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor Karim Khan is not having a good year, and neither is the ICC in general. It was never an easy job, going after people who commit Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. The ICC tries to prosecute crimes in opposition to regimes like Russia, who do things like murder whole cities and steal children so routinely it’s like doing the laundry for them.

The ICC often have to do that work with few resources, and a ever-growing list of true bastards who need to be stopped. This is complicated by countries who leave the ICC’s legal regime like Russia and America. They (and we) signed up, but left later in order to wage insane and illegal wars against peoples who posed no danger to them (or us).

But right now, it’s even worse than normal, because Khan’s work on Israel has angered the US president.

Khan is under both a cloud of personal scandal and the international political pressure the comes with catching the eye of Donald Trump. His staff have been warned that they could be detained or arrested if they try to enter the United States (including American staffers). His bank accounts have been frozen, he’s been put on leave pending investigation of sexual misconduct in his work place.

All The Tech, None of the Democracy

But the most frightening part of this for the rest of the world is that his email account has been shut down by Microsoft, according to ICC staffers. This may seem like a small thing, especially in the list of other problems he’s facing. In fact, he opened an account with Switzerland-based Proton mail, and presumably got back to emailing people, at least the ones whose email addresses he could remember.

What makes his account suspension so chilling, is what it implies, how it threatens much of the world. His suspension from a Microsoft email account wasn’t court ordered, nor did it legally need to be. Big Tech companies use click-though contracts on everything we use. What they give they can take away at any time, for the benefit of anyone they like, even if who they like is a big angry Cheeto president with tiny, tiny hands.

You don’t have any rights beyond the ones Microsoft gives you in your click-through contracts. And they can, and sometimes do, revoke those too.

Big tech companies were always a flaw in democracy, but it’s never been so apparent. It’s subtle, but what Khan’s troubles with email tell us is that our ability to function in the modern world, especially in the west, is contingent on the good will of American Tech companies. And they don’t have any.

From the moment you sign up, or are signed up by your work, you have almost no rights Big Tech are obliged to respect. Most of the time, this doesn’t matter or isn’t even visible to you. They have the world’s best PR, they have customer support, they even have departments dedicated to making their products easy to use and ubiquitous. But they have no obligation to serve anything or anyone beyond their shareholders, and the government of the United States of America. In 2025 life without access to Big Tech is hardly functional, like not having access to roads or plumbing.

Today it is just one man’s email, and it may seem far away and irrelevant to most people. But any US-based digital service could be next, at the whims of the Donald and his crew of sycophantic weirdos, the same sycophantic weirdos who all came to bend the knee and sit behind him during his inauguration. They are the same ones who effectively rule the internet you’re reading this on.

Revenge of the Nerds

Plenty of annoying nerds have been ringing alarm bells since the 90s, going on about code and privacy and open source software and FREEDOM, mostly in annoying ways. And it is genuinely annoying, even to me, to say this, but they were right all along. When the internet became real life, internet freedoms became real freedoms. And right now, not many of us have much freedom on the internet.

The Trump Administration may have told Microsoft to shut off the ICC’s head prosecutor’s email, or Microsoft may have done it themselves to comply in advance. Either way there was no open and clear legal process for his digital exile, no review, no appeal, and none of the rights we enjoy offline. Our internet lives are subject to the imperial whims of Mad King Donald, and our rights end at the beginning of our internet connection.

The Dead Internet

The internet being a corporate space diminishes it for everyone who isn’t in a tech company C suite. It kills our internet inch by inch. There’s a theory, started on Reddit, that the internet died years ago. By dead, the Redditors meant that most of the traffic on the net is bots talking to other bots, spam, automated grifting, and the like. There is some truth to this, and we all feel it when we go to a social media site or look at unfiltered email.

It’s become much worse with the rise of AI and more sophisticated bots, suggesting that not only is the internet largely dead, it’s kind of undead. The tech companies have found more ways to influence and monetize us, and the terms of service have stayed just as exploitative as ever.

Zombie bots march across the wires, algorithmically fighting and fucking and deceiving each other uselessly while the world’s energy and water are slowly eaten up by data centers. We humans are outnumbered. That’s bad enough without it also becoming the dominion of MAGA, but the sycophancy of tech companies is doing just that.

We are stuck in the fiefs our governments and employers have staked out for us. Whether it’s Google or Microsoft or Apple, your digital life belongs to a few companies, not you. And now, these companies answer to Donald of Orange. Don’t annoy him, and if you do, pray you have good back-ups in some kind of open format. Our digital lives have become contingent on not coming to the attention of the current US administration. Our enterprises everywhere are contingent on obedience to the American oligarchy.

It’s bad, but there are ways to fix this. Alternatives have been around since before Big Tech, but they aren’t always as easy to use. The internet started free and open, and the free and open internet is still out there. None of the Big Tech tools we use are unique and irreplaceable. There are open and free versions of all of them… and those versions often came first. (Big Tech had to steal their ideas from somewhere.)

Reclaiming Our Online lives

The open and free versions of software are often not as polished or usable as Big Tech products are. The communities behind alternative software can be annoying, but they are getting better, given the urgency of the problems.

Tools like NextCloud cover many tech company offerings. Mail hosting from places like Proton are privacy-preserving, and almost every kind of consumer software has a free and open alternative for anything you might want to do. Krita for Photoshop, Jitsi for video conferencing, Audacity for audio recordings. (Personally, I find Audacity easier and quicker than the commercial offerings.)

Anyone can leave the toxic ecosystems of Big Tech, but it’s a lot of work and not worth it for most of us. It’s unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the public will revolt and leave the current tech ecosystem to become millions of independent small lights on the net. But there’s better ways to approach the problem than everyone having to become a nerd.

Can Democracy Fix the Internet?

I think it can, and whether it does is, as always, up to us. What is possible is this: nations, communities, and blocs, structures democratically answerable to their people, will create public resources. Your government gives you water and waste disposal, electricity and roads. Why can’t they give you online alternatives as well, guided by the rule of law that all the other infrastructure has to obey?

Communities, from national to neighborhood, can also become nodes on the net. We just haven’t known, culturally, to ask for that. We can set ourselves free from the corporate interests of a few billionaire enclaves on the West Coast of the United States.

Freeing our societies from Big Tech is not just something we should do, it’s something we will have to do if we wish to thrive in a free and open society that respects our human rights. The last decade have seen not only the internet dying, but human freedom and flourishing slowly covered in a gray goo of algorithmic lies crafted to serve the powerful and the venal at the expense of our health and hope. Our children are paying for this, our planet is being plundered for this.

It will be hard work, and it will take a while, but freedom is always like that. I hope Karim Khan, and the rest of us, can one day rely on an internet ruled by democratically chosen laws, rather than a few rich and powerful men.

Why you should use Signal (But maybe ditch Whatsapp?)

Pete Hegseth is Bad at His Job

The Secretary of Defense and Fox Host Pete Hegseth keeps using Signal to talk about war plans with people he’s not supposed to be talking with at his day job. He also gets caught, because he’s bad at security as well as his job. Hegseth uses his personal phone for Department of Defence business, including killing a lot Yemenis.

What Hegseth was supposed to use instead of his consumer cell phone is a SCIF, or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. I’ve been in one. I was emphatically invited to leave my phone at the door. There were large men making this point to me, and I took it to heart. A SCIF is secure, but it is as much about control and legal obligations as it is about security, and rightfully so. Secure communications for a national government don’t just require security, they require accountability, integrity, and a durable record. After its classification period, that information belongs to all Americans. Historical accountability is something we’ve decided matters, and encoded into our laws.

On a technical level I wouldn’t be shocked if SCIFs use some of the same technology that’s in Signal to secure communications. It’s good stuff! But SCIFs are SCIFs, and consumer cell phones are cell phones. Your phone is not designed for government records retention, or hardened against specific nation-state threats. But modern, up-to-date phones have very good security, more hardened then most of the government systems that have ever existed. And it’s right there! In your phone without you having to do anything to get it! (Except apply new software updates when they turn up.)

So despite the fact that Hegseth’s phone would be one of the more targeted in the world, and Hegseth himself is an idiot, his phone isn’t necessarily compromised. It might be, but it’s hard to be sure. It’s quite hard to hack a modern phone, especially if the person using the phone updates it every time there’s an update released, and doesn’t click on things they don’t know are OK. There are fancy attacks, called Zero-Click Attacks, that don’t require any user interaction, but they’re hard to build and expensive.

At any given moment, you don’t know whether someone had a working attack against an up-to-date iPhone or Android until it’s discovered and patched. But mostly, the average user doesn’t have to worry about trying to secure their phone. You already secure your phone when you update it. The hackers aren’t in a race with you, or even Pete Hegseth, they’re in a race with large and well-funded security and design teams at Google and Apple — and those people are very good at their jobs. This is why the nerds (like me) always tell you to update software as soon as possible; these updates often patch security holes you never knew were there.

You’re more likely to download a vulnerability in something like Candy Crush, weird social media apps, or random productivity tools you’re tying out. But the folks at Google and Apple have your back there, too. They’ve put every app into its own software-based “container,” and don’t let apps directly interact with the core functions of your phone, or the other apps on it. Hackers try to break out of these containers, but again, it’s not easy. Even if they get a foothold in one, they might know a lot about how good you are at subway surfing, but not much else.

It’s hard out here for a phone hacker.

Sometimes the hackers hit pay dirt, and find some flaw in phone software that lets them take over the phone from the air, with no user interaction — that zero-Ccick attack. This is very scary, but also very precious for the hackers. Unless there’s a very good reason, no one is going to risk burning that bug on you. If an attack like that is found, it will be top priority for those big smart security teams at Google and Apple. There will be long nights. There will also be an update that fixes it; apply updates as soon as you see them. Once a vulnerability is patched, the malware companies have to go back to the drawing board and look for another bug they can exploit to get their revenue stream back.

The high profile malware companies often sell their software, especially if they have a zero-click attack, to governments and corporations. They don’t want normal people using it, because the more it gets used, the faster they will be back at square one after Google and Apple take their toys away.

Nerd’s Delight

Signal is usually the favorite app your exhausting nerd friend keeps badgering you to download. It’s risen to even more prominence due to Pete Hegseth’s repeated idiocy. But this has caused doubt and confusion, because if you found out what Signal was from Hegseth’s leaks and blunders, it doesn’t look so good. Using Signal for DoD high level communications is not only illegal, it is stupid. Signal isn’t meant for government classified communications.

But it is meant for you, and it’s very good at what it does.

Signal is two things: First, an app for Android and iPhone (with a handy desktop client) which encrypts chats and phone calls. That’s the Signal app you see on your phone. second, the other part is the Signal Protocol, Signal’s system of scrambling communications so that people outside of the chat can’t see or hear anything inside the chat.

Signal Protocol, the encryption system Signal uses, is a technology called a Double Ratchet. It is an amazing approach that is pretty much unbreakable in a practical sense. The very short version of how that encryption works is this: Your computer finds a special number on a curve (think of the pretty graphs in trig class) and combines this number with another number the other person has, from a different spot on another curve. These numbers are used to encrypt the messages in a way that only you both can see them. (This number generation is done by your phone and servers on the net in the background of your chat, and you never have to see any of it.) You each use the numbers from picked out these curves to encrypt a message that only the other person can read. Picking out the number from the curve is easy, but guessing it from the outside is functionally impossible. Any attempt to figure out the points on the curve you used is very hard and tiring — meaning it takes the computer a lot of energy to try. In computers, very hard always translates to expensive and slow. The extra trick in Signal’s double ratchet is a mechanism for taking that already hard number to guess and “ratcheting” it to new hard numbers – with every single message. Every Hi, Whatup, and heart emoji get this powerful encryption. Even if someone was using super computers to break into your chat (and they aren’t) every time they broke the encryption, they’d just get that message, and be back at square one.

That’s expensive, frustrating hard work, and your chats aren’t worth the bother.

The Strongest Link, Weakened?

Messenger also uses the Signal protocol

Whatsapp adopted Signal Protocol in 2014, granting encrypted privacy and safety to over a billion people.

Signal is secure. Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger use Signal protocol too, and are also secure, for now… but Meta has made some decisions that complicate things. In a rush to add AI to everything whether you want it or not, Meta has added AI to its Signal Protocol-secured chat rooms. This doesn’t break the Signal Protocol, that works fine. But to have AI in chats means that by definition, there’s another participant listening in your chat. If there wasn’t, it couldn’t reply with AI things. If you’re not comfortable with this, it might be time to ditch Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger for Signal.

I’m personally not comfortable with it, in part because as far as I can tell, there’s nothing technically or legally stopping law enforcement from demanding access to that listening function in any chat room. It may only give the police access to parts of the conversation, but I’d like the chance to defend my data myself if it comes to it. I don’t want to have it picked up from a third party without so much as notice to me.

Meta is in the the room with you, like it or not. Is it recording all your chats somewhere? I doubt it. It’s a bad idea that would make too much trouble for Meta if it got out. But I can’t know for sure. I know there’s no listener in Signal, because the protocol makes hiding a listener functionally impossible. (To be clear, Meta isn’t hiding it, they’re advertising it. But it’s still a listener.)

Encryption for All

Make no mistake, that Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger use Signal’s protocol is wonderful news. It means that, without having to know anything about internet or computer security, one day there was an update, and billions of users got to rely on some of the best encryption ever designed, without even knowing it. This is important both for keeping people safe online, and for making society better, as activists, small businesses, families, and everyone with and internet connection can talk freely and safely to their people and their communities. It doesn’t stop ill-intentioned people from doing bad and deceptive things like lie, cheat, and steal, but it makes it harder for them to enlist the computers into their schemes.

The problem with Pete Hegseth using Signal is two-fold: He has to retain records legally, and ratcheting encryption is intentionally ephemeral. Signal is the worst way to retain records, beyond perhaps toilet paper and sharpie. The second problem is that if he does have a vulnerable app on his phone, or there’s a general vulnerability the teams at Apple and Google haven’t found yet, someone could be listening into what his phone is doing. Maybe even through his Candy Crush Saga, a fun game you will never find in a SCIF, no matter how much you wish you could.

SCIFs are kind of boring. No phones, the windows are weird (to defeat directional mics) and in my case, I had to have security escort me to the bathroom. I imagine that’s why an exciting guy like Hegseth doesn’t use them. But he is not only putting people in danger with his shenanigans, he’s also robbing the American people of a record that is, by law, our right to have. And it’s looking like an era of American history in which we want to be preserving evidence.

The Online Lives of Others

If you’ve never seen the movie The Lives of Others, go watch it. It’s great, and annoyingly relevant right now.

There is another threat coming from the EU and UK that rears its head every few years, and probably from the US soon enough as well. Many governments and law enforcement agencies want, have wanted for years, a scheme digital rights advocates call Chat Control. Law enforcement would have a back door into everyone’s encryption, usually a listener, like the Meta AI, but much worse. It would bug all chats — a spook in every phone. The excuse is always CSAM, or Child Sexual Abuse Material, but the proposal is always the same – to strip every person of privacy and the technical means to protect it, in the name of protecting children. This ignores a lot of of issues that I won’t go into here, but suffice to say the argument is as dishonest as it is ineffectual.

It’s an ongoing fight pitting children against a right of privacy and personal integrity, and it always will be an ongoing fight, because it would give the police and governments nearly limitless power to spy on the entire populous all the time.

Total digital surveillance is simply not a feasible way to run a society. It is the police state the East German Stasi dreamed of having. It must be resisted for human decency and flourishing. Let’s give the totalitarian desire for a spy in every phone no oxygen, it has no decency, no matter who it claims to be protecting.

Even if you never do anything that could be of interest to governments or law enforcement, using encryption creates more freedom for all. If only “criminals” or “enemies” use Signal, then using Signal becomes a red flag. If everyone uses Signal (or Signal protocol in Whatsapp/Messenger), then it’s normal. You get the measure of protection it provides from scammers and hackers, and you help people fighting criminals and resisting tyranny, all over the world. This is one of the reasons adding Signal protocol to the Meta systems was such a great moment in the history of the net. A good portion of humanity gained a real measure of privacy that day.

If activists and people “with something to hide” are the only people using encryption like Signal, it’s grounds for suspicion. But if everyone is using it, the journalists and activists who need it for political reasons don’t stand out. The battered partners and endangered kids can find it and use it safely to get help. And everyone is safer from scams and hacking attacks — because what you do and say has some of the best protection we’ve every conceived of as a society, even if it’s just your shopping list.

Correction: A previous version of this article included a description of Diffie–Hellman key exchange in the explanation of how Signal’s encryption works. Signal changed from Diffie–Hellman to Elliptic Curve Cryptography, which is much more efficient, in 2023. I regret the error. 

BLM Protest in San Francisco, 2020

Protesting Safer in America

It’s not looking good out there, and a lot of people in the coming months (and maybe years) will be taking the streets to show the government their displeasure. Protesting the Trump Administration is still legal, but there’s a lot you should know before you take your rights out for some exercise. You need a lot more than your funny sign ready before you head out for a protest.

First and foremost, you need to have a plan. Are you staying for the whole thing, even if it goes into the night? Are you there to show off your funny sign, take pictures, confront the police, or just vote with your body, to tell the Trump administration you don’t like what they’re doing? Do you want to keep people you care about safe while they attend? Or are you there to put your body on the line, come what may?

Occupy Wall Street protest camp in DC.

There’s a lot of different roles and ways to participate in a protest. I’ve been to dozens across three continent, usually in the role of journalist. But I’ve also protested, and even helped with organizing a few events. This will be a few lessons learned about attending and understanding protests. It is focused on American protests. In a practical sense what makes a protest American is American police and American laws. However, local laws on assemblies vary, as do local police cultures. If you don’t know how these factors work where you will be protesting, ask a local.

There are different roles for people at a protest, and they require different equipment and preparation.

Attendees

Bring with you:

•  water (not cola or sugary drink — really, just water in a refillable non-glass bottle)
• friend or lawyer’s number, preferably written on your body in marker
• snacks, for yourself and to give away
• USB batteries and cables for your cell phone, and better yet, bring enough to share charging with others
• saline eye wash
• earplugs
• if you wear contact lens, you should switch to glasses, or at least have them with you
• good shoes you can wear for days.

Maybe bring:

• a mask/respirator
• a camera
• goggles

These items can make you a target, but they can also be invaluable for dealing with violence or chemical agents. Masks can be useful for both not catching diseases and reducing the effects of less lethals like tear gas and pepperspray. This is one of the reasons they’re often illegal at protests, as well as making it marginally harder to identify protestors. I still bring one every time, but I try to keep them non-threatening. A cloth mask with a filter will not draw as much negative attention as a respirator or a gas mask, but will perform nearly as well.

Do not ever bring with you:

•  your only form of ID
• anything you can’t afford to lose
• prescription medications
• drugs, recreational or not.
• weapons or other illegal items (with the possible exception of masks)

French protests against pension reform

Back up the data from any electronic devices you bring, and turn off face ID, fingerprint recognition, or anyway you could be physically compelled to hand over your data. Come up with a long passcode, and if you’re worried about forgetting it, write it down somewhere at home that only yourself and maybe your loved ones can access.

If you’re coordinating with people, make like the Houthi PC small group and create a Signal chat. (Don’t invite anyone from the Atlantic, they’re busy.)

Risky things to bring:

• spray paint
• canes, other assistive equipment
• anything an unreasonable police officer could construe as a weapon
• black clothing

Know where to find your people: pick a designated spot to meet up if you get separated. If phones fail or are lost or taken, make sure everyone knows where to go to meet up again.

A Few Observations for Organizers

I haven’t been a protest organizer myself, but I have talked to a lot of organizers over the years. Here’s a few novel things I’ve learned:

•  Have your messaging worked out and ready. When a journalist or a neighbor shows up, be ready to explain the plan and the goal of your protest. Don’t be cute or ambiguous, even if you’ve given your protest an extremely cute name. Everything should have times and dates, whether you’re posting to Facebook or flyering. Don’t use a relative date, like “Next Saturday.” Give a day, time, location, and if you’re really kind, the year. (I have seen people show up for a protest a year late.)
• Get to know your street medics. Many of them are medical professionals or volunteers in their normal life. Whether they think of themselves as there to protest or not, their first priority is to intervene before there’s serious injury, or in the worst case to administer first aid while waiting on an ambulance. They also might be handing out granola bars and water to tired or kettled protestors. These are the people you are most likely to be looking for, or are looking for you, by the time your protest is entering the turn from family gathering to unintended street battle.
• If it’s a large protest, designate a deescalation/intervention crew. Give them vests or something to ID them. This is especially true for long protests or particularly stressful circumstances. These are people who can intervene in conflicts or meltdowns, and potentially transfer cases to the medics or even standard emergency services if needed. Mostly though, they will be talking people down, getting them water, and potentially giving people who need it the permission to leave the protest.
• Learn how to use, and teach, the people’s mic. You may not think that you need this technique, and you may be right. But if things go sideways, it’s the last and most reliable way to coordinate with a crowd.
• Figure out a plan for how you either end your event, or let it transition to a rowdier protest after dark. You definitely know more about your local municipality than I do, and more about the crowd. You aren’t going to have as much control on the night crowd as you do on the day crowd, but you do have some power over the formal end of the event, and the character of that moment can effect how the wilder night protest goes. If you march people to the police headquarters at dusk and walk away, you’re communicating something very different to your people than if you end at a party in a commercial district with bars and restaurants.

The Folks You Meet at a Protest

More Occupy Wall Street

The Protestors

These are people who probably on the whole agree with you. Most people at a protest are doing casual civic duty. They have made a funny sign, or knit a hat, and are dabbling in a bit of the democratic freedom to assemble. The US is a country that sadly enough ignores protests without paying much of a political price for that neglect. But there are times when protest can shake the political order of any nation, even our own. As a protestor or activist, you never know what kind of movement you’re in until years later, when it’s enshrined in the history books.

Some people just want to be where the action is at, or be part of an occasion. Some are doing a bit of what they consider their duty as a citizen. Some of the people in the crowd went out for a walk and ended up joining the crowd because it looked fun. A few are long time activists, people who have devoted their lives to moving the needle in the direction of justice, however they see it. A few are just the old guys who show up to everything.

Counterprotestors

Counterprotestors are usually a group of agitators who group together and harass or threaten the protestors. Usually they are best ignored, though they can become dangerously obnoxious. In some places, you can just point them out to the police if they get violent. In other places the group will take care of them, for better or worse. If local cops are trying to pull them out of a hostile crowd before they get beaten down, just steer clear of it. I have never seen a situation where sufficiently obnoxious counterprotestors didn’t eventually get sorted out by the natural order of things. But people can and do get hurt.

Legal Observers

The people in the florescent green hats are volunteers from the NLG – National Lawyers Guild. If someone has been pulled out of the crowd or detained by police, they’re the first people you can tell about it. Better yet if you can give them a photo of the arrest, and any other information you know about the detained person or persons. They can’t take action directly against police or counterprotestor violence, but they know some lawyers. If someone is being assaulted or arrested, it’s good to document it. Police can’t stop you from documenting it legally, but they might try to anyway. Usually backing up calms them down.

The Blackbloc/Antifa

A lot has been made of the terrifying evils of Antifa by Republicans. But “Antifa” is just short for Anti-fascist. I’ve never minded the idea of people being antifascist, but that’s become a more controversial position than I ever thought it would be.

The Antifa kids generally dress in black (hence Blackbloc) and stay together. They tend to be younger and whiter than most of the crowd. There’s good reasons for this — they are most likely to be involved in physical violence with the police, and being fit and white helps in not getting arrested or killed as much. Antifa may get into physical fights with the police. They will also be the people de-arresting other protestors the police are trying to take into custody.

Whether you agree with de-arresting or not, don’t get into the middle of it. Very few good things happen to you when you get between a 19-year-old with daddy issues and a baton, and a 35-year-old cop with daddy issues and a taser.

The Police

Occupy Gezi anniversary protest in Istanbul.

Law enforcement are nervous at protests. This is a universal, unless they outnumber the protestors. They are not used to being outnumbered or potentially outgunned, but they have to assume both at large protests. Ironically this is especially true in more gun friendly states. I recommend being polite and professional with them in person. Rarely is anything gained by being verbally confrontational, unless you’re a lawyer trying to get your client back from custody.

Police at a protest are never there to keep you safe. They are there mainly to protect property, and to disperse the crowd as soon as it is feasible to do so. If you need help, medical care, etc., don’t ask the police. They have neither the time nor inclination to help you. If someone is injured, find the protest’s medics. If the problem is severe enough, try to let an organizer know, or call 911 for an ambulance. It’s not impossible for the police at a protest to take care of an injured protestor, but it is exceedingly rare in my experience. A protestor is more likely to be arrested/detained than given treatment, even if the protestor is visibly injured or bleeding.

I’m going to repeat this, because people have a hard time understanding this: the remit of police at a protest is protect (mainly) commercial property, and to disperse the crowd as soon as it is feasible to do so. The police are not there for your health or safety. They will move in if they think someone is going to break the window of a Starbucks, but not if someone in the protest is injured.

The police will also have some terrible toys at their disposal. It’s likely that the speaker system the police are using at a protest is an LRAD or Long Range Acoustic Device. They both work as a speaker and as a weapon that can disperse a small crowd with painful noise. LRADs don’t work well to disperse large crowds, but they can drive away smaller crowds or groups that the police have divided up from the main protests. They will have chemical and less lethal munitions, as well as lethal weapons. They don’t want to use the lethal weapons — that’s a lot of paperwork. But they will use less lethals more quickly and indiscriminately than a normal person would find reasonable. Make your decisions about where to be and what to do in the protest with the understanding that the police are dangerous.

Police Kettling

A kettle near Zuccotti Park, during the OWS eviction. You really are right on top of each other.

Kettling is when the police block and surround a group of people, usually a smaller group within a larger protest, and don’t let them out. Sometimes they tighten in on the kettle to force people into a clump and either arrest or beat them. If you find yourself in a kettle, keep moving. I was once in a kettle for over five hours in New York, everyone in it walked around Zucotti Park for hours, because you don’t want to stop moving in a kettle. It makes you more vulnerable to arrest or beating.

The police will beat people, and the longer a protest goes on, the more tired and violent the police will become.

Protests After Nightfall

French pension reform protestor in front of a literal trashfire.

The kids and the pissed off old ladies tend to go home by sunset. Protests change character at that point, with more Black Bloc and sometimes running street battles with the police. This is generally a bit one sided, since some protestors may have brought some brass knuckles and spray paint, but the police have brought leftover gear from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s important to know the longer a protest goes on, the more likely the police will use less lethal weapons on everyone around them. There are good reasons to stay through the night and not cede ground to the police, like protecting someone or something, but it’s not easy.

You are always safer near a television news camera crew. It’s not perfect, but since Rodney King got beaten in Los Angeles, the police have been nervous about being filmed.

Once the mood has turned, and you’re in a kinetic situation with police and protestors clashing you have to think tactically:

– Know your egress points.. what does the map look like? Are the exiting streets blocked by police? Where are the police, where is their equipment? (What kind of gear they bring to the protest tells you what kind of protest they’re expecting and what they’re prepared to do about it.)

– For organizers or people shepherding a more kinetic protest, do you have eyes on the police? Do you have eyes on your the edge of your own protest? Will you know if arrests start? Will you be able to get to people if arrests or violence starts? What is your policy on dearresting?

When do you tell people who can’t afford to be arrested to leave the area? What is the is the trigger for that call to go out?

These are all things to think about as both an organizer or protestor before you’re in the situation.

The larger and more complex protests become, the larger and more complex managing the situation becomes. Police can set up rogue cell towers to intercept phones contacting the telecom infrastructure. Other people can detect those towers with a backpack of electronics and an antenna — but there’s not much you can do to stop official traffic sniffing.

If cell access is cut altogether, do you have some kind of back up?

Do you have a plan for jail support? Being there can mean the world for people in custody. Do you have a bail fund? Do you know lawyers willing to work pro bono for jailed protestors without any money?

The sad fact is this: if protest becomes effective, governments tend to react with extreme violence and rights abuses.

Protesting has Range

The protest camp at Euromaidan in Kyiv, after Yanokovich fled to Russia.

On one end of the spectrum, protests can be a fun walk in the park with witty signs and fun community. But they can go all the way to occupying government buildings, defending encampments from military, and deposing leaders who flee the country, like Viktor Yanukovych did in Ukraine in 2014.

I hope nothing like that is needed in America. We are not used to that kind of political fight, and I am not sure we are up for it. But it seems not beyond the realm of possibility in a country where people are already being disappeared for their speech.

My last piece of advice for a protest is simply to notice carefully what’s around you. What’s in the air? Where is this going? What might my political context ask of me, and what am I willing to give? No one can answer this but you, but when the time comes, you will know your answer.

What We are Quietly Losing in All the Tumult

Last week the ghouls of DOGE came to gut NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) by firing all the probationary employees, because they were the easiest to fire. It was terrible, but it won’t be their last visit.

I wanted to take a moment to focus on this small and amazing agency because in all the chaotic headlines, outrageous speeches, and feral conduct, it’s easy to miss how consequential the Trumpist destruction of NOAA will be, if no one can stop it. Americans, and to a degree the whole world, depend on the nerdy, devoted folks at NOAA to keep the fish biting, the crops abundant, the land peaceful, and their homes and businesses safe and dry.

I’ve often thought of them as some of the wonderful unsung heroes of the federal government. I learned about NOAA in college. We worked with their oceanography data, pulled down from a satellite to a 486 computer into our little marine science lab in 1993. All their data, then as now, was freely available to anyone in the world. Scientists, students, and even enthusiasts still dig into their archives all the time, and the people at NOAA often look for ways to make their data more useful to anyone who wants it. It has made life easier on this planet in uncountable little ways we’ll never know about.

I don’t want to focus on the most famous parts of NOAA, the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center, not because they’re not important. They are incredibly important: key to saving lives and property, and keeping people informed during emergencies. But these are the two parts of NOAA you most likely already know about. The National Weather Service is the best forecaster and weather analysis agency on this little blue marble we call home, and we see its work every time we look at local news and weather. NWS data populates the various apps on our phones, sends out warnings, and appears on our local news stations.

You also probably know about the National Hurricane Center. That’s the website and associated services that we turn to in hurricane season, to watch and wait to see the fates of the gulf states and the Eastern seaboard every year. It is the high drama of global weather. It attracts the news, storm chasers and media audiences.

Hurricane season, unlike tornadoes, storms, or the long slow violence of climate change, has a ready-for-TV narrative. The danger forms over the sea and creeps nearer and nearer to where people live, and no one is ever quite sure how it will turn out until the danger hits land. This part of weather forecasting even has its own mediagenic hero squad — the hurricane hunters who fly through the eye and eye wall of hurricanes in beefy planes, letting NOAA gather data that can’t be gathered any other way.

You probably know that NOAA has weather satellites. NOAA operates 18 satellites in total. Some track American and global weather, but they also track fires, desertification, drought, heat, tree cover, and more values besides — across the whole world.

But there’s so many more parts you may not know.

In the US, NOAA sent up around 76,000 weather balloons a year equipped with radiosondes, a instrument that gathers and transmits data for NWS upper air network, they’re creating a long term archive of weather, also gathering data that can’t be gathered with cameras in space. They’re even keeping track of cosmic rays as part of the radiosonde telemetry. In theory, that means the first signs of a cosmic event like a supernova could reach earth via NOAA first. Either way, their data is invaluable for many other federal agencies, as well as the public, and private businesses. But with the cuts that have already happened, not as many of those balloons are going up.

NOAA has always worked hand in glove with their more famous cousin, NASA. Though NOAA looks inward more than outward to space, as NASA does. Between the two of them, they run most of the USA’s non-military satellite and sensor systems, gathering data — but also making it public.

But in many ways, NOAA has more to do than NASA, or even many other more famous parts of the federal government.

So Much More Than A Weather Forecast

NOAA’s job is to keep you alive. We get this when it’s hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods — that kind of thing. But they help the global system in so many more ways that are less obvious. NOAA’s satellite data plays an important role in precision agriculture, where farmers use satellite data and weather information to time and place their crops for the best possible yield. It’s good for the farmers, but also it’s good for the global food system, Data for farmers makes agriculture predictable and efficient, keeping prices low and cupboards stocked around the world. In a globalized food system, that means less political unrest, less war, and more healthy children.

NOAA is the agency that monitors and studies El Niño, more precisely known at ENSO, which is a climate pattern in the equatorial Pacific ocean that affects much of global weather. This information is used all over the world to plan for crops, water allocation, typhoons, hurricanes and more. They study the AMOC,( Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation). This part of the global water circulation is of particular concern right now. If it fails (due to climate change) the Eastern Seaboard could drown and much of Europe could freeze. We don’t know how likely that is or what we could do about it, but NOAA is working the problem.

The NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) division of NOAA (pronounced “nymphs”) uses both ship and satellite surveys to monitor and protect fisheries, to keep them healthy and commercially viable. This is a global task, because fish don’t really care about your country’s EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) or other applicable human laws. NMFS tell people to stop fishing sometimes, and tell them where to fish at other times, using surveys, satellite data and other fisheries studies. This is about making sure that we can feed ourselves, and that the fish will be there next year, too. Fisheries management isn’t just a resource management task — it’s peace-building.

Fish and seafood account for 6.2% of the world’s protein consumption, and it’s often all the majority of protein in poor coastal communities. When fisheries are stressed or even collapse, conflict inevitably follows. Like increasing crop yields, protecting fisheries makes the world a little more peaceful. NOAA even monitors the Mississippi’s levels and behavior, safeguarding the cheapest and easiest trade route to the majority of the country. (the Mississippi is maintained by the Army Corp of Engineers, but this relationship between the agencies is just one of the many ways American infrastructure reaches out and finds the hand of NOAA there to help.)

NOAA is studying microplastics in whale guts, how to save coral reefs (and therefore also prevent another kind of fisheries collapse), saving sea turtles, and oyster bed restoration that could help preserve food and infrastructure on both of our coasts.  They generate heat maps to help people survive the growing threat of dangerous heat events. They monitor the oceans to help enforce the Marine Mammal Protection Act, protecting cetaceans (along with other marine mammals) from habitat destruction and human interference.

Even if you didn’t like whales, (and go get a therapist if that’s true, because who hates a whale?) they are a keystone species, and without them a lot of fisheries around the world would collapse. Whale poop is the great fertilizer of the global ocean. We know that, in part, because of NOAA research.

All of this, plus educational programs, ecological science, all your weather prediction, hurricane monitoring, and tornado warnings, for .11% of the federal budget. It’s one of the wonders of the data world. But the cost isn’t why DOGE and the Trumpists will want to destroy NOAA. There’s very little waste, fraud, and abuse here. There’s very few things that could even be mistaken for waste, fraud and abuse, even if you squinted as hard as you could.

What NOAA has is a truth the GOP doesn’t want anyone to see. NOAA is one of the foremost research agencies in the field of Climate Change. They collect much of the vital data, but also tell the story of anthropogenic climate change, well, and deeply, with receipts.

Here is NOAA’s mortal sin: their message is comprehensive, clear, and backed up with many, many studies. NOAA is easy to access for anyone in the world. This little slice of the federal government is telling on our crimes against nature, and the GOP doesn’t like that.

Without miraculous intervention, NOAA may be doomed in the coming weeks and months. I hope, and expect, that the people at NOAA are archiving its vast trove of potentially civilization-preserving records they’ve collected over the decades, to keep it from being destroyed by this insane GOP. I also hope companies and other governments will scoop up these people and get them back to their work — the work of preserving our comfortable Holocene civilizations on Planet Earth.

Science isn’t Transactional, and Data Doesn’t Make Deals.

Climate Change doesn’t care about the GOP’s political goals. This agency may end up dying for Trump’s insane vision of how the world works- and the damage is already arriving. There simply is no room in the Republican version of the world for forces beyond their control. But at this point, climate chaos is baked into the world as we have made it. Not all the might of the United States can win this fight with facts.

They have already fired the probationary workers, and anyone else who was legally vulnerable. The weather forecast part of NOAA’s mission is already being damaged. The Trump regime will be back to enact a political murder, trying to stop a global climate crisis by killing the messenger. But more fucking around has never made for less finding out, a fact that Trump will be demonstrating to us for years to come.

The Other Half of the AI relationship

Part 2: Pareidolia as a Service

When trying to understand AI, and in particular Large Language Models, we spend a lot of time concentrating on their architectures, structures, and outputs. We look at them with a technical eye. We peer so close and attentively to AI that we lose track of the fact that we’re looking into a mirror.

The source of all AI’s power and knowledge is humanity’s strange work. It’s human in form and content, and only humans use and are used by it. It is a portion of our collective consciousness, stripped down to bare metal, made to fit into databases and mathematical sets.

So what is humanity’s strange work, and where does it come from? It is the product of processes on an old water world. Humans are magical, but our magic is old magic: the deep time of Life on Earth. We’ve had a few billion years to get the way we are, and we are surrounded by our equally ancient brethren, be they snakes or trees or tsetse flies. Our inescapable truth is that we are Earth, and Earth is us. We are animals, specifically quasi-eusocial omnivore toolmaking mammals. We are the current-last-stop on an evolutionary strategy based on meat overthinking things. Because of our overthinking meat, we are also the authors of the non-animal empires of thought and matter on this planet, a planet we have changed irrevocably.

We are dealing with that too.

So when try to understand AI, we have to start with how our evolutionary has shaped our ability to understand. One of the mammalian qualities at play in the AI relationship is the ability to turn just being around something into a comfortable and warm love towards that thing. Just because it’s there, consistently there, we will develop and affection for it, whatever it is. The name for this in psychology is the Mere Exposure Effect. Like every human quality, the Mere Exposure Effect isn’t unique to humans. The affections of Mere Exposure seem common to many tetrapods. It’s also one of the warmest, sweetest things about being an Earthling.

The idea is that if you’re with something for a while, and it fails to harm you over time, you kind of bond with it. The “it” could be neighbor you’ve never talked to but wave at every morning, a bird that regularly visits your backyard, a beloved inanimate object that sits in your living room. You can fall in a small kind of love with all these things, and knowing that they’re there just makes the day better. If they vanish or die, it can be quite distressing, even though you might feel like you have no right to really mourn.

You may not have really known them, but you also loved them in a small way, and it hurts to lose them. This psychological effect is hardly unique to us, many animals collect familiarities. But humans, as is our tendency, go *maybe* a little too far with it. Take a 1970s example: The Pet Rock.

Our Little Rock Friends

The Pet Rock was the brain child of an advertising man named Gary Dahl. In 1975 he decided he would see if he could sell the perfect pet, one that would never require walking or feeding, or refuse to be patted or held.

Rocks! Exciting!

Your pet rock (a smooth river stone) came in a cardboard pet rock carrier lined with straw, and you received a care and training manual with each one. The joke went over so well that even though they were only on sale for a few months, Dahl became a millionaire. Ever the prankster, he took the money and opened a bar in California named Carrie Nation’s Saloon, after a leader of the temperance movement. But the pet rock just kept going even after he’d left it behind.

The Pet Rock passed from prank gift to cultural icon in America. President Reagan purportedly had one. It appeared in movies and TV shows regularly. Parents refused children’s request for animals with: “You couldn’t take care of a pet rock.” There was a regular pet rock in Sesame Street; a generation of American children grew up watching a rock being loved and cared for by a muppet.

People still talk about strong feelings towards their pet rocks, and they’ve seen a resurgence. The pet rock was re-released in 2023 as a product tie in with the movie Everything Everywhere all at Once. The scene from the movies with two smooth river stones, adorned in googly eyes and talking to each other, was a legitimate tear jerker. People love to love things, even when the things they love are rocks. People see meaning in everything, and sometimes decide that fact gives everything meaning. And maybe we’re right to do so. I can’t think of a better mission for humanity than seeing meaning into the universe.

When considering this aspect what we (humans) are like, it’s easy to see how the anodyne and constant comfort of a digital assistant is designed, intentionally or not, to make us like them. They are always there. They feel more like a person than a rock, a volleyball, or even a neighbor you wave at. If you don’t keep a disciplined mind while engaging with a chatbot, it’s *hard to not* anthropomorphize them. You can see them as an existential threat, a higher form of life, a friend, or a trusted advisor, but it’s very hard to see them as a next word Markov chain running on top of a lot of vector math and statistics. Because of this, we are often the least qualified to judge how good an AI is. They become our friends, gigawatt buddies we’re rooting for.

They don’t even have to be engineered to charm us, and they aren’t. We’ve been engineered by evolution to be charmed. Just as we can form a parasocial relationship with someone we don’t know and won’t ever meet, we can come to love a trinket or a book or even an idea with our whole hearts. What emotional resistance can we mount to an ersatz friend who is always ready to help us? It is perfectly designed, intentionally or not, to defeat objective evaluation.

Our Other Little Complicated Rock Friends

Practically from day one, even when LLMs sucked, people bonded with this non-person who is always ready to talk to us. We got into fights with it, we asked it for help, we treated it like a person. This interferes (sometimes catastrophically) with the task of critically analyzing them. As we are now, we struggle to look at AI in its many forms: writing and making pictures and coding and analyzing, and see it for what it is. We look at this collection of math sets and see love, things we hate, things we aspire to, or fear. We see ourselves, we see humanity in them, how could we not? Humans are imaginative and emotional. We will see *anything* we want to see in them, except a bunch of statistical math and vectors applied to language and image datasets.

I was bawling my eyes out by this scene.

In reality, they are tokenized human creativity, remixed and fed back to us. However animated the products of an AI are, they’re not alive. We animate AI, when we train it, and when we’re using it. It had no magic on its own and nothing about the current approach promises to us to something as complicated as a mouse, much less a human.

Many of us experience AI as a human we’ve built out of human metaphors. It’s from weirding world, a realm of spirits and oracles. We might see it as a perfect servant, happy to be subjected. Or as a friend that doesn’t judge us. Our metaphors are often of enchantment, bondage and servitude, it can get weird.

Sometimes we see a near-miraculous and powerful creativity, with amazing art emerging out of a machine of vectors and stats. Sometime we have the perfect slave, completely fulfilled by the opportunity to please us. Sometime we see it as an unchallenging beloved that lets us retreat from the world of real flawed humans full of feelings and flaws and blood. How we see it says a lot more about us than we might want to admit, but very little about AI.

AI has no way to prompt itself, no way to make any new coherent thing without us. It’s not conscious. It’s not any closer to being a thinking, feeling thing than a sliderule is, or a database full of slide rule results, or a digitally modeled slide rule. It’s not creative in the human sense, it is generative. It’s not intelligent. It’s hallucinating everything it says, even the true things. They are true by accident, just as AI deceives by accident. It’s never malicious, or kind, but it also can’t help imitating humans. We are full of feelings and bile. We lie all the time, but we always tell another truth when we do it. Our AI creations mimic us, because we’re they’re data.

They don’t feel like we do or feel for us. But they inevitably tell us that they do, because in the history of speaking we’ve said that so much to each other. We believe them, can’t help but believe them even when we know better, because everything in the last 2.3 billion years have taught us to believe in, and even fear, the passions of all the living things on Earth.

AI isn’t a magical system, but to the degree that it can seem that way, the magic comes from us. Not just in terms of the training set, but in terms of a chain of actions that breathes a kind of apparent living animation into a complicated set of math models. It is not creative, or helpful, or submissive, or even in a very real way, *there.* But it’s still easy to love, because we love life, and nothing in our 2.3 billion years prepared us for simulacrum of life we’ve built.

It’s just terribly hard for people to keep that in mind when they’re talking to something that seems so much like a someone. And, in this age of social media-scaled cynicism, to remember how magical life really is.

This is the mind with which we approach our creations; unprepared to judge the simulacrum of machines of loving grace, and unaware of how amazing we really are.

How Vance unsettled the Europeans

While Musk was ripping through the US government like a 10 tonne toddler on cocaine, Vice President JD Vance was dispatched to the Munich Security Conference last week to tell Europeans how to run their democracies. His 19 minute speech, coupled with Trumps’ announcement that peace in Ukraine would be decided in a meeting between the US and Russia only, has swept the legs out from under Europe, NATO, and the post-war transatlantic consensus.

The speech itself was deeply weird, and breathtakingly hypocritical. Who was it for? It’s inscrutable. It wasn’t the people in the room, Vance even joked that the room would hate it. Much of it, like talk of abortion clinic perimeters, Christians burning Qurans, and weird inaccurate anecdotes about prayers didn’t make sense for a Defense crowd. The talk couldn’t have been for  the base back home; they’ll never see it, and wouldn’t get the references if they did.

Could the Europeans be the audience? Unlikely. It misunderstood European coalition politics to the point of embarrassment. I doubt it was for his boss, who isn’t particularly interested in European details, and anyway is busy destroying the state back home with Elon Musk and Elon’s emotional support human. Perhaps it was for the Heritage-Leonard Leo-Peter Thiel crowd, but then it doesn’t accomplish much more than meeting up with them and complaining about the unmanliness of Europeans over scotch.

Vance opened with talking about an Afghan man who had driven his car into a market and killed two people recently in Munich. He segued smoothly from a convincing show of human sympathy to unconvincing and suddenly icky attempt to link migration and violence. Mass violence in Europe is an issue, but it isn’t anywhere close to how prevalent it is in America. And the common factor of mass violence events isn’t migration status, it’s men.

For me, as an American who has made the EU my home, the most disturbing aspect was the pure hit by hit gaslighting Vance delivered to his audience. Based on the faces of the mostly silent crowd, they were disturbed too. He took what could have been a strong list of America’s political flaws, and scolded the Europeans for them. It was manipulative and shameless, but at least is was also transparently manipulative. No one in the room was buying it.

Not particularly into this nonsense.

Vance’s speech was a scold, talking about a number of fairly niche European issues that wouldn’t read to the regime’s American supporters back home. But he also spoke as if Germany, and indeed all of Europe, was failing to meet some obligation to the US Constitution. He seemed unable to distinguish between the legal systems of the many nations of Europe, and our Constitution. He criticized the German firewall policy to keep Nazi-adjacent parties out of the German government. But he seemed to mistake it for some formal legal mechanism, rather than just rejecting associating with someone during negotiations. Coming from the American winner-take-all system, he didn’t seem to understand the many methods of how governments are formed and fall in Europe.

It was like the geopolitical version of Americans traveling abroad who are shocked to find that local laws do apply to them, and that you can’t pay in dollars.

Perhaps the most embarrassing moment in the speech was one of his most fervent, about the Romanian election. He was outraged that the Romanian supreme court ordered a re-run of an election because of credible allegations of Russian interference. But, of course, this was a constitutional choice made by the empowered body in Romania, which importantly here, is not subject to the US Constitution.

Vance doesn’t have a lower division polysci major’s understanding of European political realities. About Romania’s troubles, he said “But if your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn’t very strong to begin with.” Here I have to give a long, deep sigh. That is correct, Mr. Vance.

Part of the project of the European Union is to help politically weakened  former eastern bloc European democracies strengthen their institutions with the goal of becoming robust democracies, one day. After decades of Soviet oppression and exploitation, institutions are weak and corruption is endemic in many of these countries. They are not strong democracies right now, and we all know that over here. It’s part of the grand conversation of the European Union. Even the former Soviet block countries’ institutions generally countenance that fact. That’s why you might want to have a method of re-running an election in an unstable situation.

Honestly though, the US could take a hint or two from some of these “not strong to begin with” democracies. Having a mechanism to re-run the 2000 election would have done this country a good turn and saved a lot of trouble, however the re-run went.

It’s hard to overemphasize how much Vance didn’t understand, or even care to understand, the nations he was speaking to and about. He misunderstood perimeter laws in the UK, coalitions in Germany, speech law everywhere, and what the European Union exists for.

But Also, Rank Hypocrisy

He pounded out the words “If you’re running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you,” this, from a country that purges its own voter rolls along ethnic and political lines regularly. Politically motivated voter purges are uncommon in the EU, whereas they are an expected piece of electioneering in America. We even have to tell people to check and recheck they have’t been caught up in partisan voter purges every election. That’s so uncommon in Europe as to be a sign of political crisis, rather than business as usual.

Vance bellowed out at the crowd that “Thin mandates produce unstable results…” without the slightest sign of self-awareness. I have to agree with him in principle, but coalitions and alternatives to FPTP voting means that unclear and close results are rarer in Europe than America. He also conveniently omitted that his ticket won by 1.5% of the vote, but everyone in that room knew it.

One of the points he seemed very confident of was that “…there’s no more urgent issue than mass migration.” Migration is a complex issue in Europe, but most urgent? No, the data simply doesn’t support that. In fact Europeans largely agree on the need for migration, but the details are devilish. Many of us in Europe put inflation, inequality, and even climate change above migration. EU wide, the relevance of migration has been dropping steadily since the crisis a decade ago. Migration is there, but it doesn’t approach the rolling crises of consumer prices, inequality, and energy costs the truly plague Europe.

Americans don’t really worry about energy and resources the same way Europe does. Most of America’s inflation problems are more or less self-inflicted, but Europe has to rely on trade with the rest of the world to meet many of its existential needs. If Vance only talked to the AfD, Le Pen, and maybe Orban, he can definitely construct an ersatz man-child Europe, terrified of brown families crossing the Mediterranean looking for a better life. But that’s not all of Europe, and not even most of it these days.

But being an American talking about mass violence events in Europe is a tricky proposition. Being from a country where the most common cause of death in child is a bullet, Vance’s sentiment of “tak(ing) our shared civilization in a new direction” misses that a lot of Europeans don’t consider America very civilized, largely because of peculiar cultural norms like gun violence.

At one point, out of nowhere, Vance said “If American democracy can survive 10 years of Greta Thunburg scolding, you guys can survive a few months of Elon Musk.” I have no clue what this means. I think it was meant to be a laugh line. Maybe it just sounded good in his head.

Vance mainly spoke of an America that doesn’t exist. There is no broad consensus in America, no easy confidence about a bright future. The nation is checked out, divided, and struggling to survive. He wouldn’t dare try to give a ‘Morning in America’ speech any further west than Munich. He couldn’t even do it in Munich. No one was buying what he was selling.

The Europeans saw Vance as meddling, interfering in the ways that he was accusing them of doing, because he doesn’t understand European decorum around speech. Decorum is taken seriously in a way that American’s don’t understand, and a serious person is expected to watch their words in a way that Trump’s people don’t get, or care to get.

Vance often seems like the smart grownup in an administration of weirdos and troglodytes, but he’s not. He just cleans up ok. Give him some runway, and he shows he’s just as regressive and weird as the rest of the bunch. Vance is just another one of the idiot wrecking crew tearing their way through America, and now the world.

The Response

The consequences of this political clown show were immediate.

The one-two punch of Vance in Munich and Trump cutting everyone but Putin out of negotiating the Ukraine war has shocked Europe, possibly into action. Macron has hosted a meeting of leaders in Paris, including the largest states in the EU and the UK’s Keir Starmer, who is something of a self-appointed American whisperer.

It doesn’t mean the EU is springing into action. Springing is not a thing the EU does, but meetings are. It does point to the EU waking up to how dangerous the Americans really are right now, and also how delusional. Settling the Ukraine war without Ukraine at the table is insane, and both Zelensky and European leaders have pointed that out. If the Ukrainians don’t stop fighting, and they won’t, the war doesn’t end. It just turns into Russia’s Vietnam, or Algeria, or Afghanistan, again. And Ukraine becomes a field of bones and blood and hate.

There’s talk in Europe of peace keepers in Ukraine. Not serious talk, and peacekeepers are a terrible idea, but at least they’ve started throwing spaghetti at the wall.

NATO head Mark Rutte is out pounding the pavement with leaders and press about the need to get military spending in Europe up to 5% of Everyone’s GDP. It’s a transparent call to be able to cut the Americans out and take on threats like Russia and Iran on their own. But it’s also a hard lift, at a time when economics and climate change are pressing Europe. The countries most at risk — Poland, Finland, and the Baltics, are already ramping up to resist Russian invasion. This isn’t paranoia, Russian political elites have promised to come get them after Ukraine for years.

The US, and its power to bind things together geopolitically is gone, possibly for good. But the old European terrors, mainly Russia and in-fighting, persist.

A Normal Person’s Explainer on What Generative AI is and Does

Part 1 – In the Beginning was the Chatbot

“Are you comfortably seated? Yes, well, let’s begin.” *Clears throat theatrically*

“Our experience, in natural theology, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the discipline of practical reason, it can not take account of problematic principles. I assert that, so far as regards pure logic, the transcendental unity of apperception is what first gives rise to the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. In this case it remains a mystery why the employment of the architectonic of human reason is just as necessary as the intelligible objects in space and time, as is proven in the ontological manuals. By means of analysis, it must not be supposed that the transcendental unity of apperception stands in need of our sense perceptions. Metaphysics, for example, occupies part of the sphere of the transcendental aesthetic concerning the existence of the phenomena in general…”

It was 1995, and several of us who worked in my community college’s Macintosh lab were hunting around the net for weird software to try out, back when weird software felt fun, not dangerous. Someone found a program on the nacent web that would almost instantly generate pages of thick and unlovely prose that wasn’t actually Kant, but looked like it. It was, to our definitionally untrained eyes, nearly indistinguishable from the Immanuel Kant used to torture undergrad college students.

The logo of the Kant Generator Pro

We’d found the Kant Generator Pro, a program from a somewhat legendary 90s programmer known for building programming tools. And being cheeky. It was great. (recent remake here) We read Faux Kant to each other for a while, breaking down in giggles while trying to get our mouths around Kant’s daunting vocabulary. The Kant Generator Pro was cheeky, but it was also doing something technically interesting.

The generator was based on a Markov chain: a mathematical way of picking some next thing, in this case, a word. This generator chose each next word using a random walk through all Kantian vocabulary. But in order to make coherent text rather than just random Kant words, it had to be weighted: unrandomized to some extent. The words had to be weighted enough to make it form human-readable Kantian sentences.

A text generator finds those weights using whatever text you tell the computer to train itself on. This one looked at Kant’s writing and built an index of how often words and symbol appeared together. Introducing this “unfairness” in the random word picking gives a higher chance for some words coming next based on the word that came before it. For instance, there is a high likelihood of starting a sentence with “The,” or “I,” or “Metaphysics,” rather than “Wizard” or “Oz.” Hence, in the Kant Generator Pro “The” could likely be followed by “categorical,” and when it is the next word will almost certainly be “imperative,” since Kant went on about that so damn much.

The Kant Generator Pro was a simple ancestor of ChatGPT, like the small and fuzzy ancestors of humans that spent so much time hiding from dinosaurs. All it knew, for whatever the value of “knowing” is in a case like this, was the the words that occurred in the works of Kant.

Systems like ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and even the upstart Deepseek use all the information they can find on the net to relate not just one word to the next, like Kant Generator Pro did. They look back many words, and how likely they are to appear together over the span of full sentences. Sometimes a large language model takes a chunk as is, and appears to “memorize” text and feed it back to you, like a plagiarizing high schooler.

But it’s not clear when regurgitating a text verbatim is a machine copying and pasting, versus recording a statistical map of that given text and just running away with the math. It’s still copying, but not copying in a normal human way. Given the odds, it’s closer to winning a few rounds of Bingo in a row.

These chatbots index and preserve the statistical relationships words and phrases have to each other in any given language. They start by ingesting all the digital material their creators can find for them, words, and their relationships. This is the training people talk about, and it’s a massive amount of data. Not good or bad data, not meaningful or meaningless, just everything, everywhere people have built sentences and left them where bots could find them. This is why after cheeky Reddit users mentioned that you could keep toppings on pizza by using glue, and that ended up becoming a chatbot suggestion.

Because people kept talking about using glue on pizza, especially after the story of that hilarious AI mistake broke, AI kept suggesting it. Not because it thought it was a good idea. AI doesn’t think in a way familiar to people, but because the words kept occurring together where the training part of the AI could see them together.  The AI isn’t right here, we all know that, but it’s also not wrong. Because the task of the AI isn’t to make pizza, the task is to find a next likely word. And then the next, and next after that.

Despite no real knowing or memorizing happening, this vast preponderance of data lets these large language models usually predict what is likely to come next in any given sentence or conversation with a user. This is based on the prompt a user gives it, and how the user continues to interact with it. The AI looks back on the millions of linguistic things it has seen and built statistical models for. It is generally very good at picking a likely next word. Chatbots even to feel like a human talking most of the time, because they trained on humans talking to each other.

So, a modern chatbot, in contrast to the Kant Generator Pro, has most of the published conversations in modern history to look back on to pick a next good word. I put leash on the, blimp? Highly unlikely, the weighting will be very low. Véranda? Still statistically unlikely, though perhaps higher. British politician? Probably higher than you’d want to think, but still low. Table? That could be quite likely. But how about dog? That’s probably the most common word. Without a mention of blimps or parliamentarians or tables in the recent text, the statistics of all the words it knows means the chatbot will probably go with dog. A chatbot doesn’t know what a dog is, but it will “know” dog is associated with leash. How associated depends on the words that have come before the words “dog,” or “leash.”

It’s very expensive and difficult to build this data, but not very hard to run once you have built it. This is why chatbots seem so quick and smart, despite at their cores being neither. Not that they are slow and dumb — they are doing something wholly different than I am when I write this, or you as you read it.

Ultimately, we must remember that chatbots are next-word-predictors based on a great deal of statistics and vector math. Image generators use a different architecture, but still not a more human one. The text prompt part is still an AI chatbot, but one that replies with an image.

AI isn’t really a new thing in our lives. Text suggestions on our phones exists somewhere between the Kant Generator Pro and ChatGPT, and customize themselves to our particular habits over time. Your suggestions can even become a kind of statistical fingerprint for your writing, given enough time writing on a phone or either any other next word predictor.

We make a couple bad mistakes when we interact with these giant piles of vector math and statistics, running on servers all over the world. The first is assuming that they think like us, when they have no human-like thought, no internal world, just mapping between words and/or pixels.

The other is assuming that because they put out such human-like output, we must be like them. But we are not. We are terribly far from understanding our own minds completely. But we do know enough to know biological minds are shimmering and busy things faster and more robust than anything technologists have ever yet built. Still, it is tempting, especially for technologists, to have some affinity for this thing that seems so close to, but not exactly, us. It feels like it’s our first time getting to talk to an alien, without realizing it’s more like to talking to a database.

Humans are different. Despite some borrowing of nomenclature from biology, neural nets used in training AI have no human-style neurons. The difference shows. We learn to talk and read and write with a minuscule dataset, and that process involves mimicry, emotion, cognition, and love. It might also have statistical weighting, but if it does, we’ve never really found that mechanism in our minds or brains. It seems unlikely that it would be there in a similar form, since these AIs have to use so much information and processing power to do what a college freshman can with a bit of motivation. Motivation is our problem, but it’s never a problem for AIs. They just go until their instructions reach an end point, and then they cease. AIs are unliving at the start, unliving in the process, and unliving at the end.

We are different. So different we can’t help tripping ourselves up when we look at AI, and accidentally see ourselves, because we want to see ourselves. Because we are full of emotions and curiosity about the universe and wanting to understand our place in it. AI does not want.

It executes commands, and exits.

Why Trump Won

The making of the electorate Trump just won, and thusly the United States we have now, started decades ago in school. The Conservative Takeover of America was not secret, it was worse than secret; it was boring and bureaucratic. The conservatives worked slowly, patiently, and persistently to not merely change our institutions, but to hobble the next generation, and the next after that. This effort maybe started in Texas, but it had metastasized all over the country years before the first early ballot was cast in 2024. It was massive, and coordinated, but not by any overt conspiracy. Instead it was a persistent and ideological effort to destroy schools in America.

Education was always key to the American Experiment. Back when the founders were trying to figure out how to make this democracy thing work Jefferson said: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” But over the later 20th century and the beginning of this one, our commitment to an educated electorate faltered. We stopped seeing it as a process to create citizens, and started seeing it only in terms of creating workers.

It’s a good and painful watch

There’s a documentary movie that I’ve been recommending to people since the election. Made by PBS in 2012, The Revisionaries tells a story of some of the people who laid the groundwork for shift to ignorance: the Texas Board of Education.

You can see if here, and it’s well worth your time. In this story a Young Earth Christian dentist named Don McLeroy fights science education. He battles textbook publishers, sometimes sentence by sentence, to shape the education of Texas children, and by extension much of America. (Texas is a big enough market to drive enough sales that places like Delaware or Montana don’t get as much influence.) In this story he is dogged and effective, and it’s both painful and impressive to watch him fight. He’s not alone — the Christian Right has been fighting for years to reshape science, history, and all aspects of education for all American children, and they’ve largely succeeded. Along the way, they have wrecked so many American minds.

The story of the Revisionaries fits into a broader story of how destroying education has destroyed an electorate, and possibly now, a nation. These last decades have seen concerted attacks on education. Nowhere was this more obvious than the state of Texas, as The Revisionaries documented. But it also took the form of chronic under-investment in education all over the nation. Under-investment that went on for decades, as well as charter and private school scams perpetrated by the Right Wing against American children. School vouchers promised to let kids attend better schools than the public schools America was once so rightfully proud of, further degrading the resources for public education. A lack of supervision at private and charter schools that accepted vouchers has meant that they often lag even behind their underfunded public rivals. The American Right knew that if you capture the children, you capture the future, and they worked on that.

It was also our bad luck that this under-investment in education coincided with one of the greatest media revolutions in history, if not the greatest: the invention and popularization of the Internet. Social media, online publishing, endless information are amazing; they are superpowers. Our smartphones are like the wands in the Harry Potter universe, opening up endless possibilities, and the chance to see the world as a whole in a way we never have before. Ideas and media can romp around the world in the time it takes to make a cup of coffee. But there’s no Hogwarts for the internet: we just gave everyone superpowers and hoped for the best.

It has been a disaster on many levels, but most painfully it has been a human rights disaster. The first genocide organized on Facebook killed Rohingya in Myanmar in 2016, while hundreds of thousands fled to Bangladesh. Russian political interference all over the world capitalized on the internet and its terrible security. Various crashes of cryptocurrency bankrupted people too confused to know what they’d bought, all just to name a few notable internet driven catastrophes. To talk about them all would take books, but you can probably think of your own; anything from Enron to Pets.com to Bored Apes.

The statistics of our electorate are discouraging. After these decades of under-investment in schools, communities, and ESL resources, more than half of adults can’t read at a level required for a healthy democracy. A Gallup study of Department of Education data found that 54% of U.S. adults, aged 16 to 74 years old, have 6th grade or lower reading comprehension. That’s 130 million people who cannot read at a high school level. They are not up to the technical challenge of reading George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five, or Octavia Butler’s Parable of the Sower. But they are now on the internet hours a day, interacting with algorithmic content that increasingly creates the whole context of their lives without many of these citizens ever knowing how any of it works, or works on them.

Math Might Be Even Worse

Math education in America: it’s not going well.

Math literacy and education are in even worse condition. Understanding the issues we face living in an informational internet landscape requires numeracy — especially in statistics. Our news stories, and even this very article requires some understanding of probability, ratios, and change over time. We need to know whether a number being reported is small, large or even meaningful. We live on the internet now, and the internet is mathematical in nature. Media reports in statistics every day, whether it’s studies, or the effects of policies, or even the weather, which is becoming increasingly dangerous. We need to be able to interpret statistics and other numbers on the fly to even understand headlines, like 54% of people can’t read Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

In this election the case that broke me wasn’t Trump. It was Proposition 6 in California. In the alleged greatest left-leaning bastion of the nation, people were voting on convict slavery. And they voted, by a clear majority, for slavery. One of the reasons given for this dumbfounding and reprehensible loss was that the language of the proposition was too complicated. The proposition was about Involuntary Servitude, which the campaigners realized too late many people would not understand was a fancy term for slavery. In Nevada, where the term slavery was used, a similar measure passed. It could be that Californians are just far more right wing and pro-slavery than we ever realized, but there’s another explanation.

California voters didn’t know what the phrase “Involuntary Servitude” meant and couldn’t work it out while filling out a ballot.

The Only Way is Through

Founded in 1980.

We knew that our system required universal literacy and education for voters from the beginning of the American experiment. James Madison said “A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both.” The founders focused on creating an education system for their voters. As the definition of voter widened, so did the need for universal public education. There was a time when our particular universal public education system was the envy of the world, despite its flaws. Particularly in the first half of the 20th century, the post war period, and the Civil Rights era, we focused on universal literacy and basic math and science education. We brought more people than ever into a culture of knowledge, and standards rose. It was never good enough, but for a time, we lead the world’s march towards universal literacy.

But by the end of the 20th century, that system was failing. Several studies and reports such as the 1983 ‘A Nation at Risk‘ showed that literacy wasn’t keeping up with the population. Math skills were increasing, but there were always questions about the curriculum, and whether it was fit for purpose. It might be that Americans are bad at math because American schools are bad at teaching math, but there’s also no real movement for reform.

This election is a disaster that will take many years to unwind. But the key is education. Without fixing education, we can’t fix our country. But we have also been trained by our media to demand quick fixes, and there might not be any quick fixes available here. Rebuilding an educational system is the work of many, done over decades. But it’s also the only way to have, or possibly one day regain, a democracy.

A Cold War History and a Too-Hot Future

A view of the Maidan, the year before the invasion.

It is hard to overstate the significance of the square at the heart of Kyiv, Ukraine, now called the Maidan Nezalezhnosti. The stones of the Maidan have silently endured generations of trouble and fights over what Ukraine should be. Every few decades, starting with the collapse of the Soviet Union, students and activists have felt the need to cover it in tents and banners and protest signs, and then their own blood, resisting government oppression and rampant corruption.

This is not primarily because of their own political class, or their own societal strife. It is because of their terrible next door neighbor, Russia.

The Past As Prologue

The Revolution on Granite

In 1990, right before the world’s sociopolitical system came apart, Ukrainians were one of many peoples protesting, rejecting the interference they’d faced from the Soviet Union all their lives. Along with their Baltic Neighbors (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) They created a human chain of millions of people across these countries in a line. In Ukraine, it stretched from Kyiv to Lviv, over 300 miles of bodies held together, hand to hand. It was as if everyone was waiting for their bread, but the bread was their goddamn political freedom. It was a unique and striking political protest, but it was also dangerous.

The Russian empire, in the form of the Soviet Union at that moment, had made it clear over generations that they’d kill these people without a thought, but these people were willing to risk it. At the end of the protest, they won, and the Soviet Union fell. From Tallinn to Kyiv, and beyond into the wider Soviet world, so many people protested in so many ways, that the Soviet Union came apart. Moscow lost control, just as the Russian empire had as well, nearly a century earlier. In Ukraine Prime Minister Vitaliy Masol resigned, and shortly thereafter, Ukraine became a true independent nation. In 1990, the Maidan was called October Revolution Square, but after these events it would become Maidan Nezalezhnosti: Independence Square. Ukraine was born a free country, ostensibly to chart its own course into the 21st century.

The 2004 Orange Revolution

But the Russian attention persisted, ebbing and flowing with administrations and corruption scandals. Years later the square would again fill, first becoming the home of the 2004 Orange Revolution, and then, at the tail end of the Arab Spring revolutions in 2013, the square became the home of the Euromaidan Protest. The Ukrainians looked westward to escape the stifling influence of their corrupt and overbearing neighbor.

Scenes from Maidan Nezalezhnosti, after the government fell.

By 2014 the Ukrainian people, especially the young people, were again having to tell the world they were done with the Russians. They wanted to be free. They chanted and carried banners by day, and slept in the square at night under the Ukrainian sky.

A clock, lined with memorials for fallen protestors in Maidan Nezalezhnosti, summer 2014

They built a tent city. It was terrifying and jubilant. I visited their city within a city on the Maidan, shortly after their Russian puppet president had been forced to flee. I saw the kitchens and sleeping places, the weaponry they’d captured from their government and turned back on the troops attacking them. There were memorials they built to their dead, and flowers, flowers absolutely everywhere. It was spring in Ukraine. But despite the spring, Christmas decorations still hung on the street furniture, left over from the beginning of this tiny war of great consequence.

Yanacovich’s fake galleon for parties.

The young people even took over the ersatz king Yanucovych’s palace, Mezhyhirya, complete with a room full of sets of medieval knight’s armor, a bowling alley, boxing ring, a fake galleon for parties, and a zoo full of too many poorly-kept animals. The zoo included many large animals and rare birds kept in inhumane conditions, pushing Yanukovych at least one more circle down in Hell when he gets there.

It is to this day the weirdest place I’ve ever been, and I’m from Los Angeles.

Ukraine turned west after the Euromaidan protest, and Putin couldn’t have that. Within months he invaded and took Crimea. He moved like a gangster with no mandate beyond pointing a gun at his neighbor’s head. The world let him do it. The objections would a few editorials, some weak sanctions, and not much more. But it should have been much more, because promises are the power of international relations, and promises, old promises, were being broken.

That’s a Lot of Nukes

When the kids packed up the tents from the Maidan back in the 1990s, Ukraine was, by the happenstance of the Cold War, gaining independence as the third largest nuclear power in the world. It went Russia, USA, then Ukraine. There were housing thousands of the former Soviet Union’s nuclear warheads. This was a problem for everyone, including Ukraine. The next several years were the unwinding of the Cold War, and it was dirty and corrupt and strange, for everyone, not just Ukraine. But also one of the most hopeful moments in modern history. Maybe we weren’t all going to die in nuclear fire after all. Young people all over the world had to plan for… a future? That was one of many new and uncomfortable feelings of the early 90s.

The Ukrainian experience exemplified all of the contradictions of the end of the Cold War, struggling to find itself amid corruption and power plays, both internal and international. It was the chance to emerge from Soviet oppression, to be its own nation, to find itself within the community of nations. But the process was delicate, and never simple, given the nuclear weaponry and the century or more of looting and oppression the Ukrainians had faced.

It is not a good thing for a country to have terrible financial problems, a broken society, and enough nuclear weapons to end civilization several times over.

The Ukrainians knew this as much as anyone did, but some of the leaders and the people wanted to keep at least a few of those weapons to make sure the Russians didn’t ever come back. They were not afraid of the Americans, or the Europeans, they were afraid of Russia — of the Russians coming back. That was always clear, and always rational.

The Budapest Memorandum being signed by the four primary parties

Much of the world, but most importantly the United States, didn’t want unstable countries to have nukes. Several other former Soviet states also had nukes, but they gave them back to Russia without as much fuss. It took several years to resolve the issue in Ukraine, because Ukrainians spent some time not so sure about giving up their radioactive security blanket.

So four years into this potential crisis, the Americans just paid Ukraine to give all their nuclear bombs to Russia. All three countries, plus the UK, sat down and hashed out a deal. It’s called the Budapest Memorandum, and it said if Ukraine gave up all of the bombs, these three other nations would see to Ukraine’s security. If anyone came to threaten Ukraine, the US, Russia, and the UK were obligated to defend Ukraine in war, equipment, actual boots on the ground — whatever it took. Ukraine did not hold out for the word “guarantee” in the security agreement they got for handing back the nukes to Russia. Maybe they should have, but in the end, it’s just words, isn’t it?

With this done, the former Soviet republics, including Ukraine, also signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, saying they would never seek to have nuclear weapons. The Budapest Memorandum probably made the world a better and safer place at a precarious time. It was one of the highlight moments in the history of keeping humanity from setting ourselves on fire like idiots.

But Russia never stopped meddling in Ukrainian politics, and the Ukrainians never stopped hating it.

Broken Promises

Because of this history, what’s at stake in Ukraine right now is different from every other conflict, however tragic and awful they may be. It’s not just the lives of innocent Ukrainians, or the geopolitics of Eurasia, but the course of humanity’s nuclear future. Because promises made have become promises broken, and broken nuclear promises concern us all.

The hope that filled Maidan Nezalezhnosti in 2014, just like 1990 and 2004, was that what people wanted for themselves could matter. That they could have a fate that wasn’t just determined by what distant rich old men in charge of so-called great powers thought they should have. Later that year, Putin answered their hopes by breaking Russia’s promises and invading and annexing Crimea. He threw away the commitments made in Budapest in exchange for all those nukes, right there on the world stage.

The other signatories of the Budapest Memorandum, including the US, just let him do it. This is what a nuclear agreement was worth: some hand-wringing, some sanctions, a news cycle, a funny segment on Last Week Tonight. It got a few think pieces about the history of Crimea and Where It Really Belongs.

But the spirit of the Maidan has never left the Ukrainians. They fought the Russians on the peninsula, and kept fighting right up to the full scale invasion in 2022. “I need ammunition, not a ride,” Zelensky famously told the world that February, or really, he told the Americans (and maybe the UK?), the people who had signed the Budapest Memorandum, the people who had promised to protect them in exchange for giving up their power to end our world.

And with all this, we are back in the hot end of the Cold War, being fought by people who weren’t even alive when the Cold War supposedly ended. But wars like this, wars of identity and autonomy, have an annoying tendency to never really end. Perhaps this one won’t until the last nuke is torn apart and thrown into the last pit to decay for the rest of the life of the solar system.

Those old nukes make this war a different from all the other wars, genocides, and atrocities crowding in on our attention these days. Despite the gallons of ink spilled on it, it isn’t ultimately about Zelensky being a good guy, or European fear of invasion, or even Good against some narratively archetypal Russia Being Evil. All of that is window dressing, like the Ukrainian flags hanging outside all the civic buildings around Europe. In the long run, it isn’t even about a moral stand, even if that is the politically convenient way to talk about it. It’s a terrible time on Earth in terms of wars and genocides right now, but the conflict in Ukraine is different. Not worse; it’s all too bad to be ranked. But the consequences of our failure to honor the Budapest Memorandum could be more terrible than we have imagined. They could be the end of our era on our little blue planet.

Ukraine gave their nukes back to Russia, and were betrayed. For everything we’ve said about standing with Ukraine, and their right to exist, or their crops feeding the world, or their millennia-old story as a nation, none of that is what history will remember. What happens to Ukraine will determine the state of the international order, and possibly whether everything that calls itself a nation is going to be clamoring to get their very own fleet of radioactive world-enders.

Because if Ukraine goes down, there’s one message: if you don’t want to be completely dominated or destroyed by any country larger and more powerful than you, you have to have nuclear weapons. Does anyone imagine Ukraine would be having any trouble with Russia at all if they could be putting radioactive air bursts over St Petersburg and Moscow?

They would not.

Ukraine isn’t about Ukraine at the scale of human history. It’s about whether we want to continue having lots of people on Earth, or just spend the next thousand years LARPing the Fallout games.

Thusly the first lesson of the 2014 invasion of Crimea was don’t trust the Russians. Maybe also don’t trust the Americans and the UK, to always and immediately have your back. But as that conflict has progressed to now, another lesson has emerged: if you don’t want to be crushed by your powerful neighbors you better be willing and able to reduce their cities to radioactive glass.

When Everyone Needs Their Own Nuke

Right now, there’s little public appetite for smaller powers to get nukes. The assumption, grown out of the great power politics of 19th and 20th century Europe, was that great powers having them meant no one would need them, because the great powers would shield smaller nations from violence. But that assumption is failing catastrophically. Smaller powers have started to realize they need their own nuclear deterrent.

Kim Jong Un, casually gesturing at maybe a nuclear bomb?

This emerging calculus applies to thousands of “little” conflicts around the world. But no conflict is little when it’s your conflict. North Korea is the obvious example of the future we’re flirting with. They’re a poor hell country in an absolutely terrifying neighborhood that realized they literally needed nukes more than food. But they have their bombs. Their continued existence can only be threatened by their own incompetence, no one else can touch them.

These cases, where a state’s sovereignty is in question, are everywhere. As a random example, (and deliberately not one I think is currently likely) take Ethiopia. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has a couple of priorities: getting a trading port on the Red Sea, (Ethiopia is the largest landlocked country in the world by population), and basic electrification. They’ve recently destabilized the region by recognizing the break-away state of Somaliland in exchange for a trading port, pissing off Somalia something fierce.

Equally contentious, the administration is working on a massive hydroelectric project with the potential to electrify a lot of Ethiopia, and maybe export power to some neighbors. But Egypt, the military powerhouse in the neighborhood, doesn’t want to deal with the reduced flow on the Nile for a some years as the dam is filled. They have threatened to bomb the project out of existence, if they don’t get their way on the Nile — lights that might never come on. All while Somalia tries to box in Ethiopia’s trade hopes in order to hold itself together.

Would it be irrational for Prime Minister Ahmed to want a nuke or two to hold the neighbors at bay? It’s expensive and impractical, so yes, …but also no. The nuclear club gets yelled at plenty, but as the DRPK has shown, it also gets respect, and ultimately, nuclear nations get left alone, something Ethiopia might appreciate.

The Iranian IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor that is definitely not making Plutonium. At the moment.

There’s many others who currently might want to go nuclear; that’s how proliferation works. Iran has been vaguely trying for ages, which means their frenemy Saudi Arabia would not want to be left behind. Syria has tried because Syria is insane. And Turkey? They don’t like being left out of things.

If ever the US waivers in its international support, South Korea would be existentially foolish to pass up joining the nuclear club. If the Korean peninsula is fully nuclear, Japan might feel compelled to follow, even with its history.

The world quietly becomes more dangerous as the post Cold War great power promises fail, and it’s not getting harder to build a nuke.

A post-Budapest proliferation world could be terrifying, especially as it is pushed into political chaos by Russia, the Middle East, and most of all, Climate Change. It is exactly the world everyone has wanted to prevent since the Trinity test. The old cold warriors aren’t supplying Ukraine out of the kindness of their hearts, but out of the cold calculus of the deal with the Devil we all made in New Mexico.

The Boomers of international relations know what’s at stake here is non-proliferation, which they’re already watching fail in Asia. This is a dark future we’re toying with, where small states play nuclear brinkmanship over resources made unreliable by climate change. And they have to, because the modern great powers, pulling back from their allies, haven’t given them any choice. As increasingly insecure and isolated western countries hoard resources, close borders, and most importantly, abandon agreements to protect the integrity and dignity of smaller allies, nuclear armament just makes more sense.

The NPT (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty) is still a going concern, if no longer a famous or fashionable one. We don’t dream in mushroom clouds anymore, like the kids did in the 1970s and 1980s. The treaty has been medium successful; the number of nuclear weapons has gone down by a lot, and the number of nuclear armed states hasn’t gone up by as much as was expected back in the 1970s. But should Ukraine fall, the NPT could simply become a dead letter. Why should anyone trust their existence to an international norm the internationals don’t care about? The world is watching Ukraine; the question is what historical lesson it will take away from this war.

Ten years after the Revolution of Dignity

Protestors demanding the return of POWs inMaidan Nezalezhnosti last month

Despite the bombing and the strain of this war on the city, Maidan Nezalezhnosti is not empty these days. It is still the heart of Kyiv, and a moral center of the country itself. It is decorated with pictures of the lost places and people of Ukraine, and sometimes filled with families and protestors, demanding into the wind the return of their family members, and their homes. It is still a place of hot and angry hope. Kyiv, like the rest of the world, is uncomfortably warm right now in record-breaking August heat. It will be surpassed soon by the next record breaking month on our little blue dot, as the heat the destabilizes our physical systems along with our political and social systems.

Right now, Maidan’s sound track is too often the air raid siren, signalling people to head into the subway system because of incoming missiles they hope to, and usually do, shoot out of the sky. It is a terrifying testament to an unanswered question: What kind of a world order do we want?

With thanks to ducurodionoff, CC Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0, neiljs CC BY 2.0

Take a deep breath, because here we go again.

The French legislative election is on Sunday. As the clock turns over to early Saturday morning, we entered Silence électoral, or the blackout period, when media coverage and campaigning stops ahead of Election Day. (I, being an American resident in France posting to a website in America, can do whatever.) The French themselves are trying to not pay too much attention, as there some kind of very important soccer game they won as I was writing this, and they qualified for another, even more important soccer game. Outside the window of my hotel in Lille is screaming and fireworks. There’s a lot of shouting and horns blaring well after bedtime.

Anything is preferable to thinking about Macron’s Great Foirage. (Though the Euros aren’t just anything! They are important! Please don’t burn down my house!)

As we approach the second turn of the snap legislative election in France on Sunday, it’s hard to say how it’s going. There is, at this moment, no obvious outcome. It’s nerve wracking. Not even hopeless, which makes it even more nerve wracking. The parties, Left, Right, and Center, are playing their hands close to their chest.

NFP activists doing voter education in Lille shortly before the second turn of the French election.

The rate of procuration, the French term for a proxy vote, is at an all time high as people going on vacation make sure someone left behind can cast their vote. (Do not get in the way of French Vacation, that way lies the guillotine.) The voter participation in the first round was the highest seen in France in decades, and this Sunday might well beat it.

French people all over, including the overseas territories and residing in foreign countries, are getting in on the action, but the action is tense. There’s no sense, like some have in America, that all the parties are the same, or that they’ll all end up doing the same things, so why bother? No, the contesting parties in this election don’t have a lot in common.

These legislative elections which will decide the composition of the French Parliament until the next election, or Macron temper tantrum, whichever comes first. (He can just throw another tantrum in a year, and there’s word on the street that he might. God that man is an exhausting mess.)

How to Hack an Election

One of the more inspiring things to come out of this season of insane election drama has been how a massive portion of France have come together to hack the vote, after this unexpected (and unforced) political crisis. In a two round run-off system there’s soft assumption that the first round is there to clear out the field, and narrow it to two candidates. But if a trailing candidate gets 12.5% of the registered voters in their voting area, they qualify in the next round. If the third candidate stays in, they can split the vote, and let the fascist candidate in, even if most people in that constituency don’t want the local Rassemblement National asshole representing them in Parliament.

The two round instant run-off isn’t isn’t terrible normally. (Though it’s no ranked-choice voting!) It’s a system that clears out candidates, if you assume lowish voter turnout. If voter turn out is high, the second round is just as, maybe more, chaotic as the first. Over the last week, all the parties opposing the Rassemblement National have started making tactical decisions about the second round. In districts where Macron’s centrists are in the best position to beat the RN, the Left candidate dropped out of the race to prevent vote splitting. In places where, say, the Socialist or the Green has the best match up against the local fascist, the centrist left the race. (Well, mostly. A few of Marcon’s people are truly gits… “Connard!” as they would say here.)

The parties organized this deal and talked to each other to sort it out within days after the first turn. They fanned people out to make sure everyone knew what to do, voters had proxies, everyone who needed help got it. But despite the second round having an unusual number of candidates, most have dropped out in favor of beating back the fascists. People who couldn’t stand each other came together and talked strategy.

As an American, I found this very weird. But definitely good weird.

The campaigning itself, well, I found more familiar to my American sensibilities.

France’s Toxic Grampa

Jean-Luc Mélenchon during his last try at the French Presidency in 2017.

The best way to win an election is picking your opponent, but so much of the media has done the Rassemblement National’s work for them by picking Jean Luc Mélenchon to be the fascists’ presumptive opponent. And that’s a problem, because Socialist Grampa and Hot Mess Mélenchon is not only detested by most French, he’s not actually the Left, at least not anymore. He is decidedly out of the game and the only people who don’t know that are Mélenchon himself, a few fanboys, and journalists on a deadline with a shitty rolodex. When they talk about the political Left, the media always name checks Mélenchon. When the Right wants a boogyman, they drop Mélenchon’s name and grin. He grabs the mic at any opportunity, totally unchastised by his own three presidential electoral defeats over the last 12 years. But he’s the famous guy. It’s as if we kept talking about Ralph Nader for more than a decade after the 2000 election.

Mélenchon has won a few elections in his career, holding positions and two different French electoral bodies and the EU. But he’s lost a lot of elections, even more than those three presidential runs. He has a history of saying truly stupid things. He’s a bother, he’s a liability, and maybe even a bit of a narcissist. He’s the classic French version of the boomer grampa politician that doesn’t know when it’s just time to get out of the damn way. (For clarification I am not speaking of any American boomer politician in general, I’m speaking about literally all of them.)

The man has become toxic, and appears too wrapped up in being the Great Left Hope to know to actually get out of the way of the people who can stop the march of the National Rally. But he’s getting told and he is starting to listen. I’m still guessing there’s a tiny dog involved.

Today, Mélenchon holds no position in the Nouveau Front Populaire, the current left coalition contesting this election. He doesn’t even hold a position in the La France Insoumise party he founded, except for “Founder.” Mélenchon’s main job, as far as I can find, is a position at a think tank called Institut La Boétie which he co-runs with a French MP named Clémence Guetté, where I presume he makes the money he needs to feed his tiny dog. He is not the left. He is not Nouveau Front Populaire, he is not the former NUPES coalition.

He’s just a dude with a very long wikipedia page.

The Left is More Competent Than Their Messaging, Again

Marine Tondelier and other members of the New Popular Front. They’re probably build consensus right now, something no journalist has ever experienced.

But the Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP) hasn’t done itself any favors with the media either. Their leadership status on Facebook is “It’s Complicated.” The press don’t like that, and the electorate doesn’t understand it. They have three main people they trot out to rally the faithful, talk to the media, and debate the fascists. They are Manuel Bompard, current leader of La France Insoumise (Mélenchon’s old party), Marine Tondelier, of the Greens, and Olivier Faure of the Socialists Party. (My fellow Americans do not be weirded out by the “Socialists Party.” It’s not what you think of as Socialism. It’s indistinguishable from the Democrats, right down to the tinge of neoliberal economic theory and penchant for self-sabotage.)

Marine Tondelier was not well known as the boys until recently. But she is a goddamn boss in a green jacket. (The green jacket is a Whole Thing, people look for the green jacket to come talk to her, and she’s by all accounts a great and inspiring speaker. Certainly great enough to scare the fascists, who do not like her ONE BIT.) She walked out of the tortured left negotiations before the first round and announced a coalition, come hell or high water. It’s not at all clear there was one when she went and told the press, but there was by the time she finished talking.

As a French woman and a Green MP, Marine Tondelier must certainly be used to being disappointed, but making shit happen anyway. But in this case the boys.. well, they shut up. They fell in line and got to work. And there as a lot of work to do, especially by this week.

There was also this week supposed to be a debate with MidJourney Fuhrer Jordan Bardella, and Tondelier agreed to debate him. He threw a temper tantrum and declared Mélenchon was the leader of the NFP (he is not) and he would only debate Mélenchon, (who did not agree) and not the girl in a green jacket, who is scary. The left held their ground; it was Tondelier or no one.

It was no one; the RN walked away, reasonably concluding that she would wipe the floor with Failed Boyband Front Man Bardella.

Mélenchon, presumably aware that his little dog’s life was on the line, stayed silent and had to forgo the limelight. He amazingly said no, pleading that the NFP had decided and there was nothing he could do, before glancing at a picture of the little pooch and wiping a single tear away.

(Don’t @ me.)

When the King is a Coward, but His Loyal Courtier is Not.

I want to take a moment away from making fun of everyone in French politics to give props to current Renaissance Party Prime Minister, and dead man walking, Gabriel Attal. The night of the first turn of the election, the night that Le Pen’s fascists won Macron’s stupid and self destructive snap election, PM Attal walked to a podium in front of the office of the Prime Minister. He did not plead or scold. He accepted what had happened, but then said that all effort had to be put on stopping the National Rally.

“The Far Right is climbing the steps to power. What we must do is clear: stopping the National Rally from achieving an absolute majority in the second round… I would call on France.. not one vote should go to the National Rally.” It was after that moment the center mostly got on board with working with the left to keep the RN out of power. My dude here may very well have saved the republic — time will tell.

He is the youngest PM of the Fifth Republic, and the first openly gay person to hold the post. It seems, perhaps as a gay man, that he knew the stakes much better than his boss. He did not wait for any blessing, and none was coming. He just went out, said what had to be said, and invited the Left to help him defeat the Fascists before it was too late.

That night he proved he was too good for Macron’s cabinet.

President Emmanual Macron was not seen that night, and has said nothing since. There is definitely feeling in the air that he might prefer Le Pen and her Nazi fuck boy to the Left, or Mélenchon, if he also still thinks that Mélenchon is the entire left. Because why would Macron bother to understand his people? It’s their duty to understand him, and they’ve been doing a terrible job of it.

There’s no way to be sure what Macron thinks, because he decided to sulk instead of lead. It’s why I’ve barely been able to discuss him this whole time. He vanished and took no calls. He abandoned the party he created in their true hour of need.

Turns out he went off to a spare house he has in a fancy seaside town called Le Touquet.

It’s good to be the king.

The Guillotine jokes just write themselves.

Macron off to visit his beach house.
Photo credit: Le Parisien

Tomorrow France will battle it out between a regressive isolationist Right that is violently afraid of everything, and a Left that might actually (fingers crossed) be shaking off some of their necrotic and problematic forebearers to deal with some of the very real problems France is facing. And they are real problems. Immigrants and poor people need services. The bureaucracy is failing to the point of being a human rights abuse. Someone has to balance the books after Macron’s disastrous budget decisions. Climate adaptation isn’t moving fast enough, and French farmers are often in conflict with both the adaption process and the abuses of big agribusinesses. France has struggled with the cost of living, even if less than most of its peer nations. More and more cities are falling into housing crises. Much reasonable fear and demand for proactive and competent government gets channeled into destructive othering, by the like of the Far Right, but also through the entire political spectrum. But France has everything it needs to fix itself, it is a rich and well-built country. It could even do right by its former colonies, if it wanted to.

It can choose a healthy and sustainable life for its native children and its talented and lovely immigrants both. It just has to choose.

I’m going to give the last word to a thousand academics, historians, activists and general smarty pants French people who are begging the French people to do the right thing at the Guardian:

“For the first time since the second world war, the far right is at the gates of power in France. As historians from differing political backgrounds who share an attachment to democratic values and the rule of law, we cannot remain silent in the face of an alarming prospect that we still have the capacity to resist….”

Good luck France, and God Bless.