The Coming Meltdown of Cyberspace?

After the American Century

The sun may be shining brightly in the real world, but there are cloudy skies in cyberspace. At least once a month one hears about vast amounts of personal data, including codes that get one into bank accounts, being stolen from a server, or about a laptop being lost containing lots of sensitive information. Security is becoming a major problem, with identity theft on the rise and a black market in stolen credit card numbers.

I know, because my information was stolen last year, and one of my credit cards was used by someone in Florida for about a week before the bank realized it. (The good news is that almost all the money went back into my account, eventually.) 

But there are other problems, too, as every institution rushes to go on-line with as much as possible. I wrote a 30-page report a month ago as part of my work at the university, and then lost control over it, and could not even see it. The final editing was to take place on a new platform that was supposed to make it easier to nail down a final draft, as it let several people work on it in a common space. But I never could manage to open the document again, much less edit it, and I no longer feel that the document is mine. I send in specific changes for someone else to put in, but that is not the same as editing.

The problems of cyber-security and of retaining some rights over what one is writing, seem, to me at least, similar. The report has now passed into the control of well- meaning (really!) administrators. The money on that credit card passed into the control of an unknown cyber-thief. Obviously I can go and speak to the former but have no contact with the latter. But soon the report will move on into other realms of cyberspace, to be read, and perhaps edited again without my involvement. In this case, I am not much worried, but in other cases I might begin to feel that I had been robbed of my intellectual property. 

These are just clouds on the digital horizon, for now. But there seem to be more problems with a digital world than when it was mostly just a place to exchange emails.

The Cultural Value of Choirs

After the American Century  

Since I was seven years old I have been singing in choirs. There have been a few gap years, when for one reason or another I was not singing, and that was always a mistake. Because a person gets much more from being in a choir than the music itself, though that is sufficient reward.

Consider the difference between singing in a choir and being an athlete or working in a business. In both of these, the high priorities are winning and advancing.  Individualism is the main value. All too many things in life seem to be about beating the other fellow, coming out ahead, proving that you are better.

Choral singing is not about any of these things. The point is not to stand out, but to blend in. Not to get to the end of a phrase ahead of the others, but to get there at the same time. In a choir, you have to learn to listen to others and make small adjustments in order to create a common sound. All the tenors have to agree not just on the notes, but the dynamics (loud/soft, vibrato? staccato? bright/dark, etc.), the pronunciation of the words, and the phrasing of the lines. Only with such adjustments comes harmony, indeed, sometimes more than harmony: on good days you get overtones and harmonics.

In a choir, your age does not matter, and it really is not important whether you have an impressive job title or not. Pensioners sit alongside students, natives beside immigrants. What brings the group together is the music, and often I do not even know what someone does for a living, even after singing with them for years. It just isn't important.

Choirs teach people how to work with a group; how to blend in; how to compromise; how to listen and harmonize. In a well-functioning choir, the rehearsals are not only fun, they blot out your worries and problems. For a couple of hours a week, at least, you are living in the immediate moment, working to make the sound right and having a good time. There are usually a few laughs, too. 

In a choir, you learn (or re-learn) the pleasures of working together for a common goal. 

Unfortunately, not so many people are having this experience. Choirs seem to be having trouble recruiting new members. For some, karaoke singing to a mechanical accompaniment has taken its place. For others, no doubt, choral singing may just seem old fashioned. I am pleased, however, by the phenomenal success of "Glee" - a TV show which suggests the pleasures of being in a choir. although it mistakenly over-emphasizes the importance of choral competitions. 

The choirs I have been in have occasionally been in musical festivals or other events involving several groups. But the best thing about these occasions is not a competition to be the "best." Every choir has its own style and repertoire. I once heard a Bulgarian choir perform some of their national folk songs that would have been hard for anyone else to do in the same way. Give the same music to that choir and to some Norwegians, and their performances would be quite different. The pleasure is in hearing these differences, especially when choirs from several countries sing for each other. 

Each choir is different precisely because it works to create a common sound. Each choir becomes distinctive because it blends the particular voices it has and the musical traditions that it knows. under the direction of a particular conductor. Good choral singing is not about winning but about learning to value the special sound only you can make together. Echoes and audiences tell you when it is all coming together.

Want to live in the moment? Combine discipline with pleasure? Reduce the tensions of race and social class? Appreciate cultural differences? Shut off your electronic equipment and live in the NOW? And do all that as a secondary result of having a good time? Then go make some music. Join a choir.

The Coming US Government Shutdown

After the American Century

In another triumph of ideology over practicality, the Republicans are refusing the compromise on the budget, and seem now almost certain to force the United States government into a shutdown. What does this mean, for ordinary people?

For government employees, it means a forced vacation, for which they will be paid later. They may suffer a little bit if they have little cash on hand, but long-term they will be OK, financially speaking. But they will be frustrated knowing that important services are not being provided to the public.

For it is the public that suffers most in such a situation. Anyone who planned to travel to or from the US may be affected, because the passport and visa operations come to a halt. Anyone without a valid passport will just have to stay home. Foreigners, who typically do not apply for a visa to the US until shortly before traveling there, might be able to get a visa, but do not count on it. So the travel industry will be affected.

Suppose, however, that you are a foreign traveler who does get to the US. What will a government shutdown mean? All the national parks will be closed, for one thing, so forget the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone, and all the others. You can still see Niagara Falls, however, as the best views are from the Canadian side. Virginia's Natural Bridge is privately owned, and therefore will be open. Quite likely all those Washington DC museums will be closed too, but you can still see dinosaurs wandering the halls of Congress, and various human oddities in federal office buildings. 

For a look at really strange evolutionary life forms, however, go by the headquarters of the Republican Party. There you may catch sight of such rarities as homo gingrichiensis, a grubby self-inflating hypocrite that almost became extinct in the 1990s, but has been reconstituted from DNA found in Georgia.

Another politically endangered species, once thought unable to survive in Washington is the candidatus mormonus. Once a polygamous rarity confined to Utah, this creature has been seen as far east as Massachusetts. Moreover, they are hard working and can be trained.

But perhaps the most interesting new life form on view at the Republican National Headquarters is a species of rodent that scientists have discovered subsists primarily on tea. These creatures are definitely worth seeing, but caution is advised as they can be extremely aggressive. Do not be deceived into assuming they are harmless by their careful grooming. A particularly venomous variety carries the Bachmann worm, which attacks the brain, and if not treated in time leads to imbecility.

Despite the possible shutdown of the US government, in short, there are still rare sights to be seen in Washington, even if the museums and parks will likely be closed.

How Much Will Denmark Punish Immigrants Economically?

After the American Century

Danish politicians in recent weeks have been suggesting that newly arrived immigrants from outside the EU should not receive health care and other benefits as soon as they arrive. Rather, they should pay for them for a period of time, for example one or two years, before becoming eligible. Many Danes like this idea, and since the immigrants themselves cannot vote, so the political parties lose nothing by attacking them. Increasingly, the image in the media of the immigrant is that of a parasite.

In fact, immigrants to Denmark with jobs automatically pay for their medical care and other benefits through taxes. It seems absurd to demand that they pay what amounts to an additional tax. Denmark has the world's highest taxes, with the average salaried person paying about 50%.

Consider a counter-argument. An adult immigrant has not cost Denmark anything in terms of schooling, medical care, or other social services. He or she immediately can go to work and contribute taxes to the state.  In contrast,  Danes themselves cost money for at least twenty years before they can begin to pay back the cost of their upbringing, education, and care.  Comparing the cost of the adult immigrant with any Dane of 20, an economist could only conclude that the immigrant is a better "buy."

In the case of someone like myself, arriving with a PhD and working from the day of arrival almost thirty years ago, the Danish state has made a huge profit. I have made tiny demands on the medical system. My costly education at excellent American universities was completed before arrival, and I have never needed unemployment payments, retraining programs, or any other transfer payments. Meanwhile, I have been paying more than 50% of my salary in taxes. Moreover, the Danish laws limit my state pension, and I will receive less than any native-born citizen, regardless of what they have done or not done. So my retirement will also cost Denmark less the retirement of a Dane.

Looking at this in purely economic terms, the Danish state could save lots of money if it stopped training PhDs, doctors, and engineers and hired foreigners instead. I am not advocating that policy. But I am pointing out that if economics really drove immigration policy, then one would not punish immigrants by asking them to pay an extra tax. Rather, one would find ways to lure them into the country rather than erecting new barriers to keep them away.

What then is really driving this demand that immigrants pay more taxes than the Danes themselves? Is it not xenophobia? Is it not the fear of others? The Minister in charge of immigration declares himself against integration, demanding nothing less than full assimilation of foreigners. His predecessor illegally denied citizenship to many people with foreign backgrounds, even though they have grown up in Denmark, speak the language as natives, and have jobs.

And what is the likely effect of such laws, if they are enacted? What is already the effect of such illegal actions and such pronouncements from Ministers? People like myself may no longer migrate to Denmark, or they will soon leave once they realize that they face tax discrimination, pension discrimination, and hostile remarks from elected officials.

Meanwhile, Denmark will still end up giving asylum to victims of torture, refugees, and others who have suffered injustice, many of whom will not be able to work. In short, the proposed policy will drive away those who would come ready to make a contribution at the highest level, but it will not excuse Denmark from its humanitarian responsibilities. Quite possibly, the proposed law will not put more money in the treasury. Instead, it may drive away potential educated immigrants who can work, and simply impoverish the country - and not only in economic terms.

Republicans in Wisconsin Attack Historian

After the American Century

One of the most articulate and distinguished American historians, William Cronon, is now under attack by the Republican Party because he opposes their attempts to take away union rights. This is more than just a sad spectacle, as the Republicans have demanded to see Professor Cronon's emails and other documents, under the freedom of information act, to see what he thinks more generally. As the New York Times reports, this fishing expedition was prompted by an article he wrote for the newspapers.

For those who do not know his work, Bill Cronon is one of the pioneers of environmental history, whose writings include a book in Colonial history on  the transformation of the landscape during settlement of New England  and a fine history of nineteenth century Chicago, for example linking that city to the vast hinterland it affected through its control of the grain market. In short, his scholarly work is at best tangential to contemporary politics. He is widely respected and currently is the President of the American Historical Association.

I do not recall the "Freedom of Information Act" being used to demand access to  a historian's private correspondence or other writings on the rather slender grounds that he or she is a state university employee. We are not talking about criminal or subversive activities, but expression of opinion in support of the Democrats as opposed to the Republicans. The Bill of Rights guards against "unreasonable searches and seizures" such as this.

The current Wisconsin Republicans begin to remind me of another Republican from Wisconsin. His name was Joe McCarthy, and he destroyed careers during his witch hunts for communists back in the 1950s.  Professor Cronon is one of the best environmental historians in the United States. Targeting him at the very least will waste a good deal of his time and interfere with his scholarly work. At worst, it could send a chill through academic life, undermining freedom of speech.

As one who has read most of Cronon's work and met him both in Denmark and the United States, I find this attack completely unacceptable,  and one more proof that the Republicans have lost sight of their founding principles. They should aspire to be the party of Lincoln, not Joe McCarthy.