David Feldman in The Ideas Letter:

Over the last 100 years, the struggle against antisemitism and the struggle against racism have at times appeared inextricably connected, firmly allied in a single fight against bigotry. Today, it is the disconnections that appear most visible.

The standoff is now stark, thanks to divergent responses to Oct. 7, 2023 and its aftermath — to Hamas’s attack on Israel and the killing of civilians and hostage-taking, and to Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza and the death, displacement, and privation it has brought. These events have not only had grievous consequences for Palestinians and Israelis; they have also been divisive globally. And they have accelerated and amplified a split between anti-racism and anti-antisemitism that was already advanced.

For some, the attack of October 7 was an act of specifically antisemitic terror. “What is this, some pogrom in Lithuania?” asked Amit Halevi, the chairman of Be’eri, a kibbutz that lost 10 percent of its civilian population in the massacre. Others have drawn connections between October 7 and the Holocaust, finding “the antisemitism of extermination” expressed by Hamas today, as it was by the Nazis before.

Yet much of the anti-racist Left presents these events in a different key. In Britain, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign reacted immediately, on Oct.7: “The offensive launched from Gaza today can only be understood in the context of Israel’s ongoing, decades long, military occupation and colonisation of Palestinian land and imposition of a system of oppression that meets the legal definition of apartheid.” Amnesty International denounced Hamas’s attacks on civilians, but it located the roots of the violence in Israel’s 16-year blockade of Gaza and the discriminatory system it imposes on all Palestinians.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Samuel Moyn in The Nation:

In the chilling speech he gives at the end of the film Margin Call, Jeremy Irons says that no one should say they believe in equality, because no one really thinks it exists: The very idea camouflages the endurance of hierarchy in an essentially unchanging form. “It’s certainly no different today than it’s ever been,” he explains to an underling. “There have always been and there always will be the same percentage of winners and losers….

Yeah, there may be more of us than there’s ever been, but the percentages? They stay exactly the same.”

For many others, the response to the 2008 financial crisis was very different from Irons’s cynical response. The crisis led to more consciousness and criticism of inequality than had been seen in the past 50 years. Starting with Occupy Wall Street in 2011, large numbers of Americans concerned about the ascendancy of the “1 percent” eventually consolidated around Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaigns in 2016 and 2020. During these years, the French economist Thomas Piketty provided the reading public with evidence that vindicated the movement: In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, published in English in 2014, he confirmed that economic inequality had been rising across the North Atlantic world. Piketty also showed that the situation was simultaneously worse and better than the way Irons had characterized it in Margin Call: Capitalism’s inherent dynamics generally increased inequality, he argued, but political mobilizations could bring about its reduction.

Capital in the Twenty-First Century became a surprise bestseller, and inequality became a signature concern of the new century, analyzed and complained about (and, more rarely, justified) in a deluge of articles, books, and tweets. But a decade later, historians, economists, and political theorists are pondering a different set of questions: not about the causes or continued existence of our age of inequality, but about where the moral imperative for its opposite—equality—came from in the first place.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Stephanie Zacharek in Time Magazine:

The pleasures of writer-director Jon Watts’ crime caper Wolfs are numerous: George Clooney and Brad Pitt play dueling fixers called in to clean up the accidental death of a young, adorable student—prior to his demise, occasioned by his jumping on a hotel bed, he’d been picked up by high-powered district attorney Amy Ryan in a bar. Clooney and Pitt have reached the age where they know it’s useless to pretend they’re something they’re not. Their faces look handsomely lived in; the whispers of gray in their artfully sculpted chin stubble feel honest and earned. Like Lucy and Ethel in the throes of a falling out, they’re fun to watch as they bicker and crab at one another, leaning heavily on their silver-fox charm. Still, what they’re offering feels as comfy as the worn-in leather jackets they wear. And in this late-2024 movie season, if you find yourself wishing for something more—for another view of what actors in the 50-to-60-ish age bracket can do—look to the women, who insist on pushing themselves out of the comfort zone rather than settling into it.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Anthony Cummins in The Guardian:

Isabella Hammad, 33, was born in London to a Palestinian father and British-Irish mother. Named last year as one of Granta’s best young British novelists, she is the author of The Parisian (2019) and Enter Ghost, which was shortlisted for this year’s Women’s prize. Her new book, Recognising the Stranger, began as a lecture last autumn at Columbia University to commemorate the Palestinian-American scholar Edward Said, an annual event whose previous speakers include Noam Chomsky and Daniel Barenboim. Hammad’s talk, given nine days before 7 October, explored “narrative turning points”, with a particular focus on the story of Palestine. She spoke to me from Manhattan, where she currently has a fellowship at the New York Public Library.

As a novelist, do you hesitate to write nonfiction?
I don’t think of myself as an essayist, and I haven’t written many essays; when I have, they’ve been like this lecture, a creative act involving literary criticism, not straight journalism. I’m a novelist and that’s how I feel comfortable in the world. But there have been times where, under the pressure of my rage, I’ve written because I just need to say something. You know, you work on a novel for years – it’s a different kind of speech act, it’s not making any arguments and you don’t have to inhabit your own opinions. Obviously, there’s a genocide right now: that’s why I’ve been moved to write [nonfiction], just as a person and a human in the world who has felt that need.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Samuel Johnson’s Other Life

Thirty years after his father had asked him
to watch the bookstall, his family’s only livelihood,
and Sam being seventeen, too in love with sneering,
had refused, the author of arguably the greatest
dictionary ever, returned to his native village and in
a downpour so heavy no one sensible even thought of
going outside, and with no covering for his head, stood
on the square in the exact site where his father’s
bookstall had been, and out of grief and penance,
language’s surest foundation, stared down the
townsfolk’s mockery, and let the rain teach him
a lesson as only it could.

by Walter R. Rawlings
from The First Inhabitants of Arcadia
The University of Arkansas Press, 2006

Samuel Johnson

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Leon Vlieger in The Inquisitive Biologist:

In 2016, scuba-diving philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith made a huge splash with his book Other Minds in which he explored the evolutionary origins of a mind quite unlike ours, that of the octopus. In 2020, he followed this up with the altogether more cerebral Metazoa in which he explored the evolution of animal minds more broadly. I reviewed both books favourably. Now, another four years later, Living on Earth is presented retrospectively as the conclusion to this trilogy exploring the origins of intelligence. In a book that is never less than thoughtful, Godfrey-Smith examines how life shapes, and has been shaped by, its environment.

Godfrey-Smith tackles the above theme in three parts. Before delving in, his first chapter provides an additional evocative angle on what he wants to examine: “The history of life is not just a series of new creatures appearing on the stage; the new arrivals change the stage itself” (pp. 6–7). Through their actions, organisms modify their environment and, in more formal terms, he considers “organisms as causes, rather than evolutionary products” (p. 7). To my surprise, despite the fascinating concept, Living on Earth did not impress me as much as the previous two books. In part, the bar has been put so high that I went in with elevated expectations; in part, it wanders quite widely into subjects that seem only tangentially related to its core theme.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Philip Graham in The Millions:

I opened the library’s glass door and placed a fresh copy of my latest novel, What the Dead Can Say, on the bottom shelf. Then I returned to the car. For months my wife and I had been driving around the country, dropping off free copies of What the Dead Can Say in hundreds of Little Free Libraries. Now, we turned back on to the main road and headed down to Colorado, in search of more.

What the Dead Can Say is my eighth book. Over the course of my career, I’ve published books with Random House and Scribner, and fiction in the New Yorker. But for this most recent novel, I was no longer interested in chasing the prestige that such literary icons confer, no longer wished to jump through traditional publishing’s increasingly narrowing hoops. Instead, I decided to privately print a 1,000-copy limited edition run—then undertake a 10,000-mile journey through 28 states to give away every copy.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Mary Ellen O’Connell in The Conversation:

The operation that used pagers and walkie-talkies to kill members of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah was ingenious – but was it legal?

Certainly, there are those who will argue that it was. That thinking goes like this: Hezbollah has been attacking Israel with rockets, and the pagers and radios purchased by Hezbollah could be expected to be used by the same people involved in decisions to send those missiles. As such, the killings, if carried out by Israel as is widely believed, would appear to be targeted and warranted. While some bystanders may die or be injured, they would likely be associated with Hezbollah, according to this line of thinking.

But that is not the right assessment, according to international law. Under law I have taught for over 40 years, hiding explosives in everyday objects makes them booby traps – and in almost every case, using a booby trap designed to kill is a crime.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

David Goldman in Tablet:

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Gemma Conroy in Nature:

An ideas generator powered by artificial intelligence (AI) came up with more original research ideas than did 50 scientists working independently, according to a preprint posted on arXiv this month¹.

The human and AI-generated ideas were evaluated by reviewers, who were not told who or what had created each idea. The reviewers scored AI-generated concepts as more exciting than those written by humans, although the AI’s suggestions scored slightly lower on feasibility. But scientists note the study, which has not been peer-reviewed, has limitations. It focused on one area of research and required human participants to come up with ideas on the fly, which probably hindered their ability to produce their best concepts.

There are burgeoning efforts to explore how LLMs can be used to automate research tasks, including writing papers, generating code and searching literature. But it’s been difficult to assess whether these AI tools can generate fresh research angles at a level similar to that of humans. That’s because evaluating ideas is highly subjective and requires gathering researchers who have the expertise to assess them carefully, says study co-author, Chenglei Si. “The best way for us to contextualise such capabilities is to have a head-to-head comparison,” says Si, a computer scientist at Stanford University in California.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Working the Stacks

Reach up for the light cord and tug through its little knot
of resistance, and there’s Samuel Johnson,
sharing the floor with Nietzsche,
Anthony Trollope, Franz Fanon, Isbert and Edith Sitwell,
German small-print dictionaries,
black bound insurance tables,
histories of 1920 trolly companies that failed.
Even before you locate a book,
you can feel its weight
in your hands, the self-sufficiency
of 1870s geographies, the erotics
of steam engines. You’re pushing the whole language
ahead of you, leaning your shoulder
into the cart and, when that doesn’t work,
falling against it
till, just when you’re certain that it won’t budge,
it starts to roll as if it’s considered the prospects
of staying in the same spot forever
and decided, instead,
to revel in the fact that it has wheels.
Hitler rides the same cart up with Marcus Aurelius,
Big Bill Haywood, the Marquis de Sade,
and Salvador Dali. Of course
you talk to yourself, but really it’s more a hum,
the kind one keeps up
moving among bodies slumbering so deeply
they could be dead, music
that doesn’t require the mouth to open,
as the mind sings to itself
day in and day out,
working alone,
on its way to words or on its way back.

by Christopher Bursk
from The First Inhabitants of Arcadia
University of Arkansas Press, 2006

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Danny Crichton in City Journal:

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Brian J. Chen in the Boston Review:

The United States doesn’t really make chips these days, instead relying on a complex process of design, production, assembly, and testing that spans the globe. The vast majority of fabrication is done in East Asia; Taiwan, in particular, produces 41 percent of all processor chips and more than 90 percent of the most powerful chips, essential to advanced computing and AI. The supply chain’s concentration in an island nation with which China expressly seeks to “reunify” gives the whole matter unusually weighty stakes. At a White House event to get the bill past the finish line in Congress, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks put it in terms bordering on thermonuclear: “Semiconductors—it’s not an overstatement to say—are the ground zero of our tech competition with China.”

While companies like Intel and Samsung are huge beneficiaries of the CHIPS Act, everyone understands that the major coup is getting the world’s number one chipmaker, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), to build its foundries on U.S. soil.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Seán Columb in The Guardian:

It is illegal to buy or sell an organ anywhere in the world, with the exception of Iran. Nevertheless, estimates suggest that around 10% of organs for transplantation come from illegal sources. Most cases, however, go unreported, so the true number is likely to be much higher.

Several countries, including Pakistan, Egypt, Bangladesh, India, Turkey, the Philippines and China, have been identified as centres of organ trafficking, but the trade in organs is a transnational operation. In its 2018 Global Report for Trafficking in Persons, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime identified more than 700 cases of organ trafficking, the majority in the Middle East and north Africa. A 2021 Interpol report claimed that organ trafficking was of particular concern in north and west Africa, “where impoverished communities and displaced populations are at greater risk of exploitation”.

According to the Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation (GODT), only 10% of the global demand for transplants is met each year.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Eileen Myles at the Paris Review:

I’ve been reading Nate Lippens for years. I think this is the third time I’ve read My Dead Book and I’m finally getting a grip on what kind of machine his writing is. I think it’s a poetic instrument and also some kind of natural phenomena. I went to Joshua Tree one night in the aughts with a gang of people to see the Perseids. I’ve been thinking about that. We had sleeping bags and some people had drinks and their drugs of choice and then we all laid down flat looking up the sky waiting for the show. There wasn’t much. Like almost nothing. There’s one. And then in maybe about seven minutes another. Then another one. And nothing for a while. Then wham and all of the sudden we were screaming, giddy as kids because we were getting inundated with meteors making the sky like this crazy vibing net and we were ancient people animals lying there looking up in naked awe. It was the best. Start to finish I think that’s what Nate Lippens has done. Let me lay it out here. My Dead Book starts off with a fairly sentimental recitation, a recollection of one of his dead friends from the past. And then another one. I mean of course I like the way he writes. It’s clean, it’s fairly direct, and conceptually I am reminded of how practical friendship is to a lost child which this narrator definitely is. If you don’t know who you are then you make yourself up with bits and pieces of your friends.

more here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.