from the world's big
Cynicism Is Killing Our Democracy. Only Political Participation Can Save It.
"Hope" and "change" works both ways, says a former Obama campaign leader. It's time to inspire people who believe their voice doesn't matter before it's too late.
Michael Slaby is a global leader in digital and social media strategy, technology and data analytics, and explores how together they can elevate mission-driven organizations. For Michael, it is not only about developing the necessary technological platform, but understanding what it is that brings people together to take action online, as well as offline. Currently, he is Managing Partner of Timshel—a new company working to help solve social, civic, and humanitarian problems via better technology, engagement capabilities development, and creative capital. Previously he was a Fellow at Shorenstein Center at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
In 2012, when the Obama administration began gearing up for re-election, one of the first calls went to Michael Slaby, who was chief technology officer in 2008—when the historical campaign leveraged the internet and social media to raise funds and organize volunteers in ways that had never been seen before.
Michael helped lead Obama for America as Chief Integration and Innovation Officer in 2012, overseeing the CTO, CIO, and CAO, in order to ensure effective implementation and integration of technology across the entire campaign.
Michael Slaby: I think the 2016 election has been eye-opening for me personally, and there's been a lot of personal reflection around “what does it mean to be involved?” for a lot of people. I think—and I hope—that we take President Trump's victory as a warning of what disengagement can cost us.
And I think our leaders have failed to lead on a lot of different dimensions. I think government has lost a productive culture of public service that makes it hard to participate, it makes it hard to understand the value of engaging in politics. Our first associations with the word “politician” is like, corruption/dishonesty. Public service should be about our highest ideals, it should be about our collective success, it should be about what is best and most ambitious for a group of people working together around a shared sense of purpose.
So I think as people wake up to “Wait a second, how is this possible here?” I think there's a couple of things at work there.
One is: as the country becomes more urban, and urban centers are decidedly more liberal, we have a sense that the country is much more liberal than it actually is. Turns out it's a really big country. It turns out there's a lot of people who still don't live in cities.
It turns out there are a lot of sort of frustrated people who live in cities who believed in Obama because of the promises he made about changing the system that Trump was a much more natural successor to than Secretary Clinton was.
And so I think the concept of someone who is frustrated and anxious seeing President Obama fail to largely change the culture of politics, see Trump as the bull for the china shop and there's a pretty straight line, and this is a lot easier to see in retrospect. I thought Secretary Clinton was going to win, so this is all with the benefit of hindsight and a lot of thought, and a lot of talking to a lot of people in a lot of places that aren't Chicago and aren't downtown New York.
But what I think this has awakened in people is the reality that people have to participate. There's this saying that “history is decided by the people that show up,” there's like nine different versions of that aphorism that are largely true in a participatory democracy. And I think we've gotten a little lazy, and I think President Trump scares a lot of people... and in a way that has been amazing to watch new people engage in politics.
And I think the question, to get back to where the question started, which is: “Okay, where do people begin?” This is where the increased access that technology provides to low barriers to participation are really, really great.
So you can start participating in politics just by being more aware, being more educated, being more plugged in to what is actually happening with leaders, with leadership, with campaigns at a level of just access to that process is so much greater than it's ever been.
But there's a choice and a desire on our side that we have to go and seek out those answers to those questions. And then there are so many ways to start to engage in simple ways: calling congressmen, writing letters, like everything from 5 Calls to Resistbot, and these are all progressive-oriented things but all of the same tactics apply for conservatives, and a lot of what we see with progresses really embracing the power of being face-to-face with elected officials in town halls was something that the Tea Party used to incredible effect ten years ago in the 2010 midterms in terms of particular just post the Obama election.
And so these tools themselves are not particularly partisan, but they've reduced the barrier to participation sufficiently that it makes it easier for sort of first-time activists to get started. And what I would say is that there's a couple of sort of lies at the heart of progressive politics that are super problematic.
One of them is that all politics is local. I would say that when Tip O'Neill said that in the '80s, “local” was meant to be an analog for what matters most to you. The true statement is: all politics is personal, what matters to you is what matters to you and that might be local, or it might not be.
And the thing that I always say to people is to start. Don't wait for... there is no magic way to participate. We live in a republic. We have to win elections to gain power. We don't live in a direct democracy. So like large scale open-source policymaking is interesting as a listening exercise and for understanding communities and for surfacing ideas that we haven't thought of, but we don't live in a direct democracy where open-source policy actually creates policy directly, so we have to participate in all kinds of ways.
I think one of the places where we need more attention is converting this sort of generic resistance participation we see on the left right now into political power.
So in L.A., in the city elections back in March, fewer people voted than turned out for the Women's March on inauguration day. That's maybe just a function of the fact that it wasn't a contested mayoral election and it's sort of off-cycle and not competitive, but an 11-and-a-half percent voter participation turn-out rate should scare all of us.
That's a problem because we do live in a republic, we do need to believe in the value of participating in this process. And this is where leadership matters a lot. This is where reclaiming the sort of joy and optimism and public service about politics and government is something that has to be a coherent priority of the party, of our leaders, of people running for office on both sides, or we're going to be in a place where democracy is a system of faith; and cynicism is extremely dangerous and long-term corrosive.
There's been a lot of talk about the normalization of propaganda and lying since President Trump took office and I think those things are super problematic because the institutions of the system matter a lot more than the personalities. And when personalities start trumping institutions, no pun intended, or pun intended I guess, you start leaning toward autocracy pretty fast and that's nowhere we want to go.
The net neutrality argument usually gets wrapped around things like Netflix and cable television and sort of commercial content distribution, that kind of thing.
I think the place where net neutrality is particularly important is around activism and around governments.
If companies can change the way they route packets and prioritize content based on financial decisions they can also do it based on ideological decisions. And you start inching your way toward government-run media, it's not a long jump between that question and government-managed suppression of participation from insurgent or counter opinion ideas. That's not a long leap. I worry less about the commercial problems because I think, look, if Netflix has to pay more for faster pipes they'll figure it out—like they'll figure out how to make money, they'll figure out how to get more episodes of House of Cards. It will work out for them. They will make money.
Activists not being able to use services like Twilio effectively to call Congress because net neutrality has changed the way that people have access to information is potentially catastrophic for people understanding that their participation is valuable.
And one of the things that these tools, like I said when we were thinking about this question of new activism and giving more access to more participation, if people don't believe that that participation will work or it literally won't work, now we're starting to create barriers to participation, and in a participatory democracy no barriers to participation are good.
Whether they're voting, whether it's content, whether it's listening, whether it's being able to hold leaders to account, limits on any of those things are bad.
"History is decided by the people that show up," and about 60 million people — about 1/5th of the country — showed up to vote for a boorish reality TV star with no experience in politics. It shocked just about everyone, namely the news media and coastal liberals who thought that Hilary Clinton was a shoe-in for the presidency. Michael Slaby—who worked for Obama in the crucial 2012 elections—shows that Trump is part of a direct line from the "hope / change" motif of Barack Obama, albeit on a much darker and aggressive tone. So how do we get back to a level of normality? We engage the majority of America—the 65% of Americans that believe Trump is doing a terrible job—and try and get them to actively participate in politics and show that their voice matters.
Emotional intelligence is a skill sought by many employers. Here's how to raise yours.
- Daniel Goleman's 1995 book Emotional Intelligence catapulted the term into widespread use in the business world.
- One study found that EQ (emotional intelligence) is the top predictor of performance and accounts for 58% of success across all job types.
- EQ has been found to increase annual pay by around $29,000 and be present in 90% of top performers.
Starting and running a business takes more than a good idea and the desire to not have a boss.
- Anyone can start a business and be an entrepreneur, but the reality is that most businesses will fail. Building something successful from the ground up takes hard work, passion, intelligence, and a network of people who are equally as smart and passionate as you are. It also requires the ability to accept and learn from your failures.
- In this video, entrepreneurs in various industries including 3D printing, fashion, hygiene, capital investments, aerospace, and biotechnology share what they've learned over the years about relationships, setting and attaining goals, growth, and what happens when things don't go according to plan.
- "People who start businesses for the exit, most of them will fail because there's just no true passion behind it," says Miki Agrawal, co-founder of THINX and TUSHY. A key point of Agrawal's advice is that if you can't see yourself in something for 10 years, you shouldn't do it.
After a decade of failed attempts, scientists successfully bounced photons off of a reflector aboard the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, some 240,000 miles from Earth.
- Laser experiments can reveal precisely how far away an object is from Earth.
- For years scientists have been bouncing light off of reflectors on the lunar surface that were installed during the Apollo era, but these reflectors have become less efficient over time.
- The recent success could reveal the cause of the degradation, and also lead to new discoveries about the Moon's evolution.
A close-up photograph of the laser reflecting panel deployed by Apollo 14 astronauts on the Moon in 1971.
NASA<p>The technology isn't quite new. During the Apollo era, astronauts installed on the lunar surface five reflecting panels, each containing at least 100 mirrors that reflect back to whichever direction it's coming from. By bouncing light off these panels, scientists have been able to learn, for example, that the Moon is drifting away from Earth at a rate of about 1.5 inches per year.<br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Now that we've been collecting data for 50 years, we can see trends that we wouldn't have been able to see otherwise," Erwan Mazarico, a planetary scientist from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/laser-beams-reflected-between-earth-and-moon-boost-science" target="_blank" rel="dofollow">said</a>. "Laser-ranging science is a long game."</p>
NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)
NASA<p>But the long game poses a problem: Over time, the panels on the Moon have become less efficient at bouncing light back to Earth. Some scientists suspect it's because dust, kicked up by micrometeorites, has settled on the surface of the panels, causing them to overheat. And if that's the case, scientists need to know for sure.</p><p>That's where the recent LRO laser experiment comes in. If scientists find discrepancies between the data sent back by the LRO reflector and those on the lunar surface, it could reveal what's causing the lunar reflectors to become less efficient. They could then account for these discrepancies in their models.</p>
Studying the Moon's core<p>More precise laser experiments could also help scientists learn more about the moon's core. By measuring tiny wobbles as the Moon rotates, past laser experiments revealed that the satellite has a fluid core. But inside of that fluid could lie a solid core — one that might've helped to generate the Moon's now-extinct magnetic field.</p><p>However, confirming that hypothesis will require more precise measurements — and the continued success of laser experiments involving the LRO, or reflecting panels installed on the Moon during future missions.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The precision of this one measurement has the potential to refine our understanding of gravity and the evolution of the solar system," <a href="https://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/bio/xiaoli.sun-1" target="_blank">Xiaoli Sun</a>, a Goddard planetary scientist who helped design LRO's reflector, told NASA.</p>
Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.
- Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
- They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
- The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.
What's dead may never die, it seems<p>The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called Brain<em>Ex</em>. Brain<em>Ex </em>is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.</p><p>Brain<em>Ex</em> pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.</p><p>The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if Brain<em>Ex</em> can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.</p><p>As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.</p><p>The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.</p><p>"This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told <em><a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/pig-brains-partially-revived-what-it-means-for-medicine-death-ethics/" target="_blank">National Geographic</a>.</em></p>
An ethical gray matter<p>Before anyone gets an <em>Island of Dr. Moreau</em> vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.</p><p>The Brain<em>Ex</em> solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness. </p><p>Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death. </p><p>Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?</p><p>"This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/science/brain-dead-pigs.html" target="_blank">the <em>New York Times</em></a>. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."</p><p>One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.</p><p>The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01216-4#ref-CR2" target="_blank">told <em>Nature</em></a> that if Brain<em>Ex</em> were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.</p><p>"There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.</p><p>It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.</p><p>Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? <a href="https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/after-death-youre-aware-that-youve-died-scientists-claim" target="_blank">The distress of a partially alive brain</a>? </p><p>The dilemma is unprecedented.</p>
Setting new boundaries<p>Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, <em>Frankenstein</em>. As Farahany told <em>National Geographic</em>: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have <em>Frankenstein</em>, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."</p><p>She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.</p>
Ever wonder how soft hair can dull a steel razor? So did scientists at MIT.
- Steel is fifty times harder than hair, yet shaving razors dull in a hurry.
- A new study finds much of this is caused by hair cracking razors at points of imperfection.
- The findings may lead to new ways of making razors that last longer.
An extremely magnified image of a razor blade cutting hair.
G. Roscioli<p>Lead author Gianluca Roscioli grew his facial hair out for three days before <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-razors-are-dull-within-weeks-according-science-180975534/" target="_blank">shaving</a>. He then brought his razors into the lab to examine them under an electron microscope. While the team expected to see even dulling on the blade edge, they instead noticed strange C-shaped chips missing. Intrigued, they attached a camera to the microscope so they could record the blade cutting the <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/your-hair-can-crack-steel-when-it-hits-right-spot" target="_blank">hair</a>. At the same time, they investigated the properties of the razors at the microscopic level.</p><p>This apparatus revealed that, when the razor blade hit the hairs at non-perpendicular angles, small cracks formed. These tended to develop in boundary areas between where the steel was harder and where it was softer due to differences in the properties at each location caused by the manufacturing <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2251202-we-just-figured-out-why-shaving-soft-hair-blunts-steel-razor-blades/" target="_blank">process</a>. Over time, these cracks grew into chips. While these chips are too small to see with the naked eye, they were large enough to reduce the blade's effectiveness.</p><p>Roscioli told <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-razors-are-dull-within-weeks-according-science-180975534/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">NPR</a>, "The size of the chips are about 1/10 of the diameter of a human hair."</p><p>The chips can be caused by hair of any thickness and appear to be unavoidable in blades with standard imperfections. </p><p>The finding surprised other scientists, who also quickly accepted the explanation. Professor Suveen Mathaudhu of UC Riverside explained to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/898577234/cutting-edge-research-shows-how-hair-dulls-razor-blades" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">NPR</a> that he had expected a larger role in the dulling process to be played by corrosion but that the findings made a great deal of sense. Other scientists expressed how impressed they were by the quality of the images and the difficulty of the study. </p>