Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Today
  2. The left may still exist but is being dicredited edeverywhere and people laugh. The only left that earns my respect is the KKE. The KKE and its sister parties have as their ultimate purpose to create a dystopian world. But within the sphere of left wing logic the Stalinists are the only ones who merit respect and in any case possess a coherent ideology. This leaves the social democrats and the moderate conservatives who are however both losing ground towards the dangerous Trump like entities. The pointers indicate we are going to have stronger Trumpism in politics. Weaker left also but only somewhat. At the same time moderates seem incapable to think logically and stop this, other by giving in to some of the right wing demands which does n't do them any good. In reality are those right wingers less corrupt ? No they 're not. I know them. If they see a 50p coin on the floor they will jump like Banks-Bonetti-Olver Khan to catch it.
  3. fuck Biden, zio bootlick Report: Biden Admin Lobbying Against Sanders Push to Block Israel Arms Deal The administration claimed that blocking arms transfers would embolden Hamas — ignoring Israel’s genocidal slaughter. https://truthout.org/articles/report-biden-admin-lobbying-against-sanders-push-to-block-israel-arms-deal/ The Biden administration has levied a strong effort to lobby against a set of resolutions introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) to block several proposed arms sales to Israel ahead of a scheduled vote Wednesday, new reporting finds. In a memo circulated to the Senate by the White House, obtained by HuffPost, the administration urges senators to vote against the resolutions. The memo claims that voting to block certain weapons to Israel would only empower Hamas and other entities opposed by the U.S. — invoking several such arguments meant to distract from the fact that Israel is making extensive use of U.S.-provided weapons in its genocidal assault of Gaza. “Disapproving arms purchases for Israel at this moment would … put wind in the sails of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas at the worst possible moment,” the memo says, per HuffPost. “Now is the time to focus pressure on Hamas to release the hostages and stop the war,” the document goes on. “Cutting off arms from Israel would put this goal even further out of reach and prolong the war, not shorten it.” This line of reasoning is false. Israel is heavily dependent on U.S. weaponry to continue its genocide in Gaza, and Israeli officials have shown no indication that they would stop the assault if the remaining Israeli hostages are released. The memo also said that halting weapons transfers would jeopardize ceasefire talks between Israel and Hezbollah — despite the fact that Israeli leaders have categorically rejected the idea that they would stop their assault of Lebanon. The White House’s memo is yet another show of the White House’s insistence that it back Israel’s genocide no matter what — to the extent that it is lobbying “aggressively,” as HuffPost reports, to block a set of resolutions that are likely to fail anyway, given the strong support for Israel within Congress. Indeed, despite the administration’s insistence that officials are “tirelessly” working for a ceasefire, the U.S. also vetoed a resolution in the UN Security Council calling for a ceasefire on Wednesday. The Senate is slated to vote on three of Sanders’s joint resolutions of disapproval on Wednesday, regarding blocking sales of tank rounds, mortar rounds, and JDAMs to Israel. Together, the three sales represent just over $1 billion worth of the weapons in the Biden administration’s proposed $20 billion deal. Despite widespread evidence that Israel is using these weapons to kill civilians in Gaza and violate international humanitarian law — and strong support from the public to half weapons transfers — just seven senators have so far come out in favor of the resolutions. Experts have repeatedly said that stopping weapons sales to Israel is one of the only ways to stop Israel’s genocidal slaughter in Gaza. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) is also reportedly asking senators to vote against the legislation — a move that lines up with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s plea for colleagues to reject the bid. Though the resolutions are unlikely to advance to the House, roughly a dozen House Democrats so far have expressed their support for the legislation, saying they would vote for them if given the opportunity. This includes prominent advocates for Palestinian rights like Representatives Rashida Tlaib (Michigan) and Cori Bush (Missouri). “[President Joe Biden] has refused to enforce US law and stop sending weapons to the Israeli government as they commit genocide in Gaza and use starvation as a weapon of war. Today, every Senator will have to decide if they will vote to uphold our own laws and block arms sales to Israel,” said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) on social media on Wednesday. “We urge Senators to support these joint resolutions of disapproval to block specific offensive arms sales to Israel, upholding U.S. law that prohibits arms transfers to countries that engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or restrict the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance,” said a group of nine Democrats in a joint statement led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington).
  4. U.S. Plans to Propose Breakup of Google to Fix Search Monopoly In a landmark antitrust case, the government will ask a judge to force the company to sell its popular Chrome browser, people with knowledge of the matter said. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-search-remedies-doj.html The Justice Department and a group of states plan to ask a federal court late Wednesday to force Google to sell Chrome, its popular web browser, two people with knowledge of the decision said, a move that could fundamentally alter the $2 trillion company’s business and reshape competition on the internet. The request would follow a landmark ruling in August by Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that found Google had illegally maintained a monopoly in online search. Judge Mehta asked the Justice Department and the states that brought the antitrust case to submit solutions by the end of Wednesday to correct the search monopoly. Beyond the sale of Chrome, the government is set to ask Judge Mehta to bar Google from entering into paid agreements with Apple and others to be the automatic search engine on smartphones and in browsers, the people said. Google should also be required to share data with rivals, they said. The proposals would likely be the most significant remedies to be requested in a tech antitrust case since the Justice Department asked to break up Microsoft in 2000. If Judge Mehta adopts the proposals, they will set the tone for a string of other antitrust cases that challenge the dominance of tech behemoths including Apple, Amazon and Meta. Being forced to sell Chrome would be among the worst possible outcomes for Google. Chrome, which is free to use, is the most popular web browser in the world and part of an elaborate Google ecosystem that keeps people using the company’s products. Google’s search engine is bundled into Chrome. Google is set to file its own suggestions for fixing the search monopoly by Dec. 20. Both sides can modify their requests before Judge Mehta is expected to hear arguments on the remedies this spring. He is expected to rule by the end of the summer. “The D.O.J. continues to push a radical agenda that goes far beyond the legal issues in this case,” Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice president for regulatory affairs at Google, said in a statement this week after details of the government’s discussions were reported publicly. “The government putting its thumb on the scale in these ways would harm consumers, developers and American technological leadership at precisely the moment it is most needed.” A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment. Bloomberg earlier reported some details of the department’s planned request. Regulators have in recent years cracked down on the power of the biggest tech companies. The Justice Department has also sued Google over its dominance in advertising technology, and Apple for making it difficult for consumers to leave its tightly knit universe of devices and software. The Federal Trade Commission has separately sued Amazon and Meta, accusing them of anticompetitive behavior and stifling rivals. It is unclear if these efforts will continue under President-elect Donald J. Trump. Some of the antitrust lawsuits began during Mr. Trump’s first administration. The government’s victory in the Google search case followed a 10-week trial last year. Justice Department lawyers said Google had locked out rivals by signing deals with Apple, Mozilla, Samsung and others to be the default search engine that appears when users open a smartphone or a new tab in a web browser. In total, Google paid $26.3 billion as part of those deals in 2021, according to evidence presented at the trial. The government argued that those deals entrenched Google’s power, guaranteeing that its search traffic was robust. The company then used the data it gathered to make its search engine better, which kept customers coming back. Google argued that its deals had not broken the law. It said users chose Google because it was better than search engines like Microsoft’s Bing or DuckDuckGo at finding information. The states and the Justice Department were still deciding what to ask for right up to the Wednesday deadline to file their request, according to three people familiar with the talks. On Monday, a federal judge will hear closing arguments in the second major antitrust trial against Google — the one involving advertising technology — in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
  5. The differences are small. No one can speak of huge ideological shifts that have taken place. It's more of a rep thing, the Trump phenomenon. They did not want a moderate or quasi-moderate candidate (like Bush - Romney - Healey) but him. Then there were the six million or so absentees in the Harris camp, Now that the count of votes is almost complete this looks like being the number - enough to have given her the victory. But again were those people dems or 2020 dems now Trump leaning who decided not to turn up ? In the post Bin Laden world there is this phenomenon everywhere. I remember Hillary in the year 2000. Bill was lame duck president and she traveled somewhere for a good will visit (Europe, South America - I don't remember). Returning to New York airport she said "happy Ramazan everybody" as it was Ramazan in November 2000. You fancy anyone among the libs saying "happy ramazan" now ? Starmer - Macron - Harris - Angela Merkel ? The Dems were unlucky with the October 7 events, even though this was really by design to help Trump and Putin was behind it (n.b. he threw another one from a window last week). While many muslim voters would have voted Dem if things were n't so hot down there, now they did n't. Also the woke agenda and there was one played a more than significant role. Do you know that in Greece former prime minister Antonis Samaras just resigned from the government party and now there is the possibility of early elections if some more mps follow ? Samaras was the one who put the Golden Dawn leadership to prison back in 2013. Golden Dawn continued to exist for five more years but they had to stop their violent actions thanks to the resolute stance of Antonis Samaras. Now what does he want ? He wants to form a new party with the right wingers ! There seem to be about 20% of those and he wants to lead them - with the obvious exception of the ultras who remain faithful to the Dawn one should think. His opposition to the woke agenda of Mitsotakis is one of the reasons he wants to do that, The one he fancies as deputy is ms Latinopoulos, this debutant: Greece is supposed to be the 51st state by the way.
  6. Now I understand why people are linking us to him.
  7. Cormac McCarthy’s Secret Muse Breaks Her Silence After Half a Century: “I Loved Him. He Was My Safety.” When he was 42, Cormac McCarthy fell in love with a 16-year-old girl he met by a motel pool. Augusta Britt would go on to become one of the most significant—and secret—inspirations in literary history, giving life to many of McCarthy’s most iconic characters across his celebrated novels and Hollywood films. For 47 years, Britt closely guarded her identity and her story. Until now. https://www.vanityfair.com/style/story/cormac-mccarthy-secret-muse-exclusive Augusta Britt, photographed in Tucson with her horses, Jake and Scout, in October. Photograph by Norman Jean Roy. I’m about to tell you the craziest love story in literary history. And before you ransack the canon for a glamorous rebuttal, I must warn you: Its preeminence is conclusive. Dante and Beatrice, Scott and Zelda, Véra and Vladimir. All famous cases of literary love and inspiration, sure. But these romances lack the 47-year novelistic drama of the craziest story. They lack the stolen gun, the border crossings, the violation of federal law. They lack the forged birth certificate and clandestine love letters. But above all, they lack the leading lady: the secret muse. This love story may come as a shock, for Cormac McCarthy is one of the most famous American novelists we know the least about. In June 2023, when he died of complications from prostate cancer at the age of 89 surrounded by Cadillacs and Ferraris at his compound in Santa Fe, McCarthy’s hold on literary awareness was at a stage of maximum receptivity. (So was his bank account; sources say he died with tens of millions in assets.) He had just released a dyad of final novels, The Passenger and Stella Maris, turning his death half a year later into an eerie consonance. And yet, despite hours of posthumously released interviews with the likes of Werner Herzog and David Krakauer, we still know so little about the man behind the famous Olivetti Lettera 32 typewriter. There are the known years of drinking immortalized in his fourth novel, Suttree, and his efforts to reintroduce wolves into southern Arizona in the ’80s. In 1996, a neighbor pored through his trash in El Paso and found junk mail from the Republican National Committee. For most of his writing career, he was mythically poor, according to several accounts, on purpose. Then there was the light bulb for writing he supposedly carried as he traveled from motel to motel, a detail gleaned from the lone interview he granted in the ’90s, to Richard B. Woodward. In the 2000s he became a trustee and beloved fixture at the Santa Fe Institute, a renowned multidisciplinary research center. “I don’t pretend to understand women,” McCarthy told Oprah Winfrey in 2007, commenting on the lack of them in his novels—despite the fact that he was married three times. And for decades, readers took him at his word. Upon McCarthy’s death, however, the mystery of his personal life has drawn close enough for us to unravel assumptions into their opposites: Cormac McCarthy did not shirk womenkind in his novels. On the contrary, it turns out that many of his famous leading men were inspired by a single woman, a single secret muse revealed here for the first time: a five-foot-four badass Finnish American cowgirl named Augusta Britt. A cowgirl whose reality, McCarthy confessed in his early love letters to her, he had “trouble coming to grips with.” “I met Cormac in 1976, when I was 16,” Britt, now 64, tells me. “He was 42. I was in and out of foster care at the time, and I used to go to the pool at this motel off the freeway in the south side of Tucson called the Desert Inn. It was near an area of town called the Miracle Mile. It wasn’t very safe in the foster homes. They weren’t allowed to have locks on bedroom or bathroom doors, so the men would just follow me into all the rooms. But at the Desert Inn, I could use the showers by the pool to shower. Hey, ‘Use the shower to shower,’ that’s a great line, put that in the profile!” she laughs. This is the Augustal style: equipoise between the love of laughing at oneself and soliloquy. In fact, she’s been promising for days to recite the St. Crispin’s Day speech from Henry V, except she can’t recall where she left it in her memory palace. Though this morning she did stumble across King Henry’s tennis ball speech in a vestibule in the entry room and recited it to me, word for word: “We are glad the dauphin is so pleasant with us…” It’s August 2023, and Britt and I are driving in her Escalade—a gift from McCarthy, she tells me—from the Arizona horse barn, where she stables her two horses, to her home near Tucson, where she’s lived nearly her whole life. It’s monsoon season, and lightning bobs and weaves in the corner of your eyes all day like floaters. There are three separate storms to the south, delicately wind-tilted on the horizon. Lightning races them in a stitchless thread, and to the north rain shimmers through the sheerest rainbow, stamped perfectly horizontal against the mountains like the execution line on a document. “One day I was at the motel pool, and I saw Cormac, and I thought he looked familiar but couldn’t quite place him. So I went back to the home I was staying in and realized that the man at the swimming pool was the man in the author photo on the back of the book I was reading, The Orchard Keeper.” (McCarthy’s little-read debut, published in 1965 but already out of print along with the rest of his three-novel body of work.) “It was this beat-up old paperback. I think I paid a nickel for it in a bin outside a bookstore. So the next day I brought it to the motel, and he was still there. “I was wearing jeans and a work shirt and I had a holster with a Colt revolver in it, which I had taken to wearing. I had stolen it from the man who ran the foster home that I was in. And Cormac looked at me and he said, ‘Little lady, are you going to shoot me?’ And I said, ‘No,’ ” her voice sparkles in remembered laughter, “ ‘I was wondering if you would sign my book.’ “He was so shocked. He said he was surprised that anyone had read that book, let alone a 16-year-old girl. But he said he would be delighted to sign it. “Then he asked me why I carried a gun.” So she told him. Britt says she lived a normal life until the age of 11. That year, and for reasons she never quite understood, her family moved from the snowy plains of North Dakota to the border town desert of Tucson. This is where the muse’s novelistic question mark emerges. An origin story beginning on an ellipse. Something hideous happened to her in the desert. Something traumatically violent. Something that destroyed her family. Though the event—which she still can’t bear to talk about publicly—wasn’t perpetrated by anyone in her family, it set her father to violent alcoholism. In the ’70s, child services was more prone to split up families than keep them together. For five years, Britt says, she ping-ponged back and forth between foster care homes, brimming with wards and violent “parents,” and her real family, where her presence would inevitably send her father into binges, followed by beatings, sometimes hospitalizations. “I would not have been able to articulate it at the time,” she says now, “but it just seemed like I was the problem, because if I wasn’t around, then my parents didn’t have to be reminded of what had happened to us all. And I very much internalized everything because that’s what kids do. In the absence of an explanation, you look for an answer to why things happened. And the answer I kept coming up with was, I must have been bad. And if I could just find a way to be good again, then everything would be okay. “I never blamed him,” she says of her now deceased father. “He did the best he could. How are you supposed to know what to do in those situations?” Cormac McCarthy in Santa Fe, 2005 .Photograph by Kurt Markus. Every time she was hit, whether by her father or a foster parent, she would disappear inside herself. It could take weeks, months to reemerge. It got to the point where if it happened again, she didn’t know if she’d ever come out. And she could no longer live like that. “So I’ve decided I’m not going to be hit anymore,” she told McCarthy at that motel pool. Here she pauses, and you must imagine the sweetest voice you’ve ever heard—a sweetness that isn’t afraid to pull triggers first and ask questions later. “I’m just going to shoot anyone who tries.” “ ‘Well,’ ” McCarthy said, “ ‘That would explain the gun.’ ” “And that was so Cormac,” Britt laughs. “And I thought, Thank God this man gets it.” But McCarthy’s interest persisted beyond stolen revolvers, whose ownership readers will at once recognize as being transferred to Blevins from All the Pretty Horses. And how could it not? Just imagine for a moment: You’re an unappreciated literary genius who has not even hit your stride before going out of print. Your novels so far have circled around dark Southern characters who do dark Southern things. You’re stalled on the draft of a fourth novel, called Suttree, which features an indeterminately young side character named Harrogate, not yet written as a runaway. You’re sitting by a pool at a cheap motel when a beautiful 16-year-old runaway sidles up to you with a stolen gun in one hand and your debut novel in the other. She reads in her closet to stay out of violence’s earshot. To survive her lonely anguish, the wound she’s been carrying since age 11, this girl has only literature to turn to: Hemingway, Faulkner, you. She flickers with comic innocence yet tragic experience beyond her years and an atavistic insistence on survival on her own terms. She has suffered more childhood violence than you can imagine, and she holds your own prose up to you for autograph, dedication, proof of provenance. And just like that, with the impatient grandeur below accident, coincidence, you’re introduced to your muse, a moral hero, a girl with a stuffed kitten named John Grady Cole. But this was 1976. The era of McCarthy’s handlebar mustache. Years before he would name the hero of his first commercial breakthrough after Britt’s kitten. And years before he’d name the novel after the lullaby, “All the Pretty Little Horses,” she’d sing to John Grady before bed. McCarthy was then rewriting Suttree, researching Blood Meridian, and about to begin living All the Pretty Horses, a novel that follows three young runaways down to Mexico with a stolen Colt revolver. Having just sunk into Britt’s opening pages and their hypnotic intimations of scope, he insisted on staying in touch. “He wanted to hear more about my life.” Which was a relief to Britt. “It was the first time someone cared what I thought, asked me my opinions about things. And to have this adult man that actually seemed interested in talking to me, it was intensely soothing. For the first time in my life, I felt just a little spark of hope. That things might be okay.” Because McCarthy would be moving westward through motels with no consistent phone number, Britt says he arranged for her to ride her bike and wait at the phone booth at the Desert Inn for his first call later that week. And because he was worried about her physical safety, he gave her his legendary editor Albert Erskine’s number for emergencies. He began to send her letters and books as well (Sister Carrie, Jung’s Dreams, and Sartre’s Being and Nothingness: “ ‘Might be hard going,’ ” Britt recalls him saying, “ ‘But if you push through, I think you’ll find it rewarding’ ”) and started rewriting Suttree with an infatuate intensity, rejiggering the character of Harrogate, the slapstick young runaway sidekick of Cornelius Suttree, McCarthy’s own doppelgänger. In McCarthy’s body of work, Suttree marks the introduction of light comedy, most evident in Harrogate. It wasn’t until I met Britt in the flesh that I recognized her comic influence on the character. Within the span of 24 hours of my arrival in Tucson, Britt climbed onto the stove to get to a cabinet, accidentally turning the burner on and scorching her knees; a long hard sneeze nearly sent her airborne with flapping arms; and I walked in on her making my bed by lying on top of it and breaststroking the fitted sheet into the corner. Readers of Suttree will recognize the hapless young Harrogate flying down the Knoxville river on a skiff he made of two car hoods welded together or straggling through the woods with a pot of tar tied to his ankle. After learning Britt wanted to be a nurse, McCarthy also introduced a character named Wanda to Suttree, an underage love interest Suttree meets in the month of August. Wanda reads stories about nurses and steals away to Suttree’s tent in the small hours of the night. She is also Britt’s debut death, crushed under a rockslide. Whenever McCarthy was back in town, he’d see Britt, leaving cab or phone money for her between the third and fourth Wall Street Journal in the Denny’s on Miracle Mile, she says. For safekeeping, he sent some of his letters to a friend named Jimmy Anderson, the eccentric owner of the legendary Tucson bar Someplace Else, famous for branding patrons with his own likeness and owning a license plate that read “God.” He is in The Passenger, and you may hazard a guess who his young female bartender was in real life. In The Passenger, she goes by the name Alicia. Britt shows the Denny’s to me outside the Escalade window. “It always had to be the fourth Wall Street Journal. He loved the intrigue of it. For all I know, he was laughing behind some mailbox watching me go in,” she grins. This arrangement went on well into 1977, she says. Until one night Britt missed his call. She had been living at home and it happened: She’d been hit again. Worse, she’d been put in the hospital. By the time she finally emerged and managed to reconnect with McCarthy at the Desert Inn, he was in anguish. “ ‘I was worried sick about you,’ ” she recalls him saying. “ ‘If you stay here, they’re going to kill you. I’m going to Mexico, and I want you to come with me. At least then you’ll be safe. I want you to know I don’t want anything from you. If you want to come home at any point, I’ll put you right on a bus.’ ” “Okay,” she said. “ ‘But if you do come with me, you’ve got to say goodbye to this place. Even if you come back a week or a month from now, it will never be the same. You need to understand your life will change the minute you leave with me.’ ” “Okay,” she said again. “I’ll come.” “Horses are herd animals,” Britt tells me now back in Tucson, patting Scout, her gelding paint horse. Behind her is Jake, her brown reining quarter horse. In a barn of some 20 steeds, she quite rightly has all the pretty horses. So pretty, in fact, McCarthy made sure identical breeds appear in The Counselor, a 2013 film that sees Penélope Cruz play Britt for the second time in as many decades. “That’s why it’s not really right to own just one horse. They get real lonely all by themselves.” She pauses. “Cormac always wanted me to tell my story. He always encouraged me to write a book. He’d say, ‘Someone will do it eventually, and it might as well be you.’ But I just never could bring myself to.” Though if she ever does bring herself to write, it would be something. Considering the comment she left on my Substack review of McCarthy’s The Passenger a few months before he died, she’s already well on her way: “‘Well, you pretty much laid it all out, didn’t you?’ ” Britt recalls McCarthy saying when she read him her comment over the phone. The two had not lived together full-time for many decades, and McCarthy had become too frail to make his regular trips out to Tucson. Though as was their habit throughout life, they still spoke on the phone multiple times a week and exchanged letters, 47 of which Britt shared with me. In McCarthy’s final years, he lived in near isolation at his compound in Santa Fe, with luxury cars, spare seats, and car parts smattered across its acreage, like “a rich hillbilly,” Britt fondly recalls. The parts weren’t for nothing—McCarthy was an excellent mechanic. But in those last years, worth millions of dollars, the great American novelist had taken to comparing himself unfavorably to the principal in the proverb, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” “I’m going to delete it,” Britt told him of her comment. “ ‘Let’s see what happens,’ ” she remembers him counseling. “ ‘Maybe something good will come of it.’ ” And something good did come of it. I found her—or rather, she found me, and invited me out to Tucson to tell her story. And I’ve quickly learned she’s not a recluse so much as a closed book, her pages opening now with mesmerizing candor. Over the course of nine months, we will end up spending thousands of hours together. She’ll teach me to take care of horses, to shoot, to read McCarthy’s Cyrillic cursive. Others have not been so lucky. Two hopeful McCarthy biographers have been racing each other to get to her but she has decided to speak only to me. “It feels like fate, meeting each other,” she says. “When I read what you wrote, I knew I liked you. And Cormac liked your essay too, because you weren’t fawning over him. He couldn’t stand that. ‘That’s a fine turn of phrase, Baba, read it to me again,’ he kept saying.” I feel as though I’m going to throw up when she tells me this. Posting an essay on my favorite writer to Substack on April Fool’s Day, receiving a cryptic comment from his secret muse, and now driving with her to see her horses feels more miraculous than fate. And yet there is something so natural about spending time with Britt. There is a shimmer of recognition with her, an intimate equidistance. After all, I’ve been reading about her for half my life. And now here she is, in the flesh. Britt is a small woman but in no way slight. Her arms are thin yet taut, muscular, with large, defined hands, dignified by a lifetime of living by them: holding reins as a cowgirl, setting IVs as a trauma nurse, pulling triggers in self-defense, grappling with McCarthy’s painful, mirrory prose. When she blinks, her large blue eyes seem to tinkle in crystal delicacy. And her blond Finnish hair frames a youthful face that has slipped into a barely discernible older age. One sees her effortlessly—when she laughs, when she contemplates—in all her unvanished youth and beauty. The first thing you notice about her, leading Scout and Jake up a dormant streambed to their stalls, is how novelistic she is. She is a woman of compelling themes, tragic patterns, hooks, plot, question marks. She says things like “Cormac warned me I couldn’t hide forever” and “That was back when we had one eye out for the law.” Things happen to her that happen to characters in literature—McCarthyan things. For instance, a month ago, when a stream was carving itself out of an epic flash flood, Britt was saddling up at midnight to rescue more horses from the desert than her barn had even lost. Setting out for three runaways, she returned at daybreak flush with 12 horses and three spooked cows. “But,” she laughs, “they just wouldn’t stop joining up.” That evening after the flood, she says, she came home to a burglar shuffling through her house while McCarthy’s love letters lay strewn about her kitchen table, and she kneecapped him with the nonlethal bullet of a Byrna pistol she keeps in her purse for just such occasions. If, one morning, Britt woke up between the covers of a Cormac McCarthy novel, she’d find herself right at home: facing insurmountable odds with sustained courage. As previously mentioned, she has woken up between the covers of a Cormac McCarthy book—10 by my count, sometimes in two or three characters at once—and represented on the covers of two novels, The Passenger and Stella Maris, in Ophelial repose. She’s had the sustained courage to live each one of them down, no matter how many times McCarthy killed her off, no matter how many times the blindsiding novelizations of her life sent her spiraling. As McCarthy put it in his private dedication to Britt in her copy of The Passenger: The second thing you notice about Britt is how much her voice sounds like Cormac McCarthy. Particularly when she says the words “drinker” (“Cormac was a heavy drinker at the end. You could always tell when he was loaded because he’d be blasting Rahsaan Roland Kirk”), “shiner” (as in the one her farrier gave her over the left eye last week, unloading his anvil), and “statutory rape and the Mann Act” (the crimes they feared had the FBI hot on McCarthy’s tail at the start of their relationship, she says). And the last thing you notice—and this might really be the first thing—is how damn hot it is where she boards her horses. It’s high noon at the Catalina Foothills barn, and our shadows are hidden under our feet. Soon they will begin slipping out headfirst from the barn’s shade into the menacing 116-degree sun. It’s August in Tucson, the last month of the hottest summer on Arizonan record, and the daylight waits for us on the other side of the shadowline with the inevitability of a slow-rising tide. “There’s a rule in horsemanship,” Britt says, untying Scout’s purple halter hitch, “that if you control the feet, you control the horse. Horses are animals of prey, and prey animals tend to hang out in herds. The way horses establish social status in a herd is by moving each other’s feet. In the wild, the stallion and mare are responsible for moving the herd, and they do it by controlling the others’ feet. You can’t control a horse any other way. A human just isn’t strong enough.” That’s the muse for you, full of equine wisdom, horse sense. And while she certainly has a way with words, words also have a way with her, as McCarthy found out in 1976. As do landscapes. Behind her, framed between the posts of Scout’s stall, the Catalina Mountains loom burnt green, brushed upward with the impressionistic confidence of a child’s paint stroke. Britt stands poised at the picture’s edge like a foreground that has leaked out of its frame, at play between painting and outer world, portrait and subject. “Did Cormac ever ride?” I ask. “No, he never did,” she grins. She thinks awhile. Old memories, border imageries. The wind plays long, warped chords out of the sheet metal roof above her head. “But he liked to watch me.” “Down in Mexico.” “Down in Mexico.” Hightailing it down to Mexico in 1977 with a 17-year-old runaway wasn’t, apparently, as easy as it sounds. There was the matter of getting a Mexican travel visa and not being apprehended by authorities, which required leaving Arizona in McCarthy’s beat-up Chevy and tweaking Britt’s birth certificate. They were aided by one of McCarthy’s closest friends, Michael Cameron. Typical for the unconventional morals of McCarthy’s most trusted confidants, Cameron once broke his girlfriend out of jail—so helping the pair flee the Wild West was no problem. “I helped them blow town,” Cameron recalls when we speak this past September, referring to phone calls he took from friends of Britt’s mother and, he amusedly hints, “very possibly police.” He did what he could to obfuscate and delay—not knowing, in fairness, what exactly he was aiding and abetting until after the fact. “That was a harrowing escape. I remember Cormac being very nervous, looking over his shoulder.” But if McCarthy was nervous, he hid it from Britt. After driving to Lordsburg, New Mexico, with McCarthy silently reciting to himself the lines of Suttree he was to write and flourishing his hand like a herald (one of Britt’s favorite affectations to imitate), he booked adjoining rooms at the Hotel Hidalgo and wrote to the town of Virginia, Minnesota, requesting Britt’s birth certificate. When it came, she claims, he threw it into his typewriter and made his amendments. (“There’s nothing more romantic than watching a man forge your birth certificate,” she laughs.) “I loved him. He was my safety. I really feel that if I had not met him, I would have died young. What I had trouble with came later. When he started writing about me.” Britt had packed all she had, her stolen Colt revolver, John Grady Cole (“was a very merry soul, and a very merry soul was he,” she would sing), the shirt on her back, and pot shards McCarthy had pocketed for her from Canyon de Chelly National Monument, ancient Anasazi lands—pot shards Judge Holden crushes underfoot in Blood Meridian. There’s a sensation in which someone tells you something for the first time and yet it feels like you already knew it, like you are remembering it instead of hearing it. This is what it feels like to hear Britt talk: a priori. After all, her story’s always been there, below the surface, between the lines in the novels’ coy subconscious. For instance, that’s how it might feel reading this, with All the Pretty Horses open on your lap: “By the way, can you shoot that thing?” McCarthy asked, meaning her gun. “Yeah, a little.” “Let’s see it.” The two went out onto the playa behind the hotel in Lordsburg, Britt says, and McCarthy arranged bottles for target practice. Britt nailed them all. “Mother of God,” McCarthy said. Then he threw up a leather strop he carried. Britt shot it straight through the center. He stood in silent amazement, which Britt immediately mistook. She feared she’d done something wrong and panicked, thinking he was about to send her back to Tucson. “I’m very clean, you know.” “Oh?” “And I cook. And…” she thought deep, “and I know how to change the ribbon on a typewriter.” “Oh, well,” McCarthy laughed, “that settles it then.” And that afternoon, returning to their hotel room, she says, they made love for the first time. He was 43, she was 17. The image is startling, possibly illegal. At the very least, it raises questions about inappropriate power dynamics and the specter of premeditated grooming. But not to Britt—who had suffered unspeakable violence at the hands of many men in her young life—then or now. “I can’t imagine, after the childhood I had, making love for the first time with anyone but a man, anyone but Cormac. It all felt right. It felt good,” she tells me. “I loved him. He was my safety. I really feel that if I had not met him, I would have died young. What I had trouble with came later. When he started writing about me.” Though trouble also came immediately, according to Britt, in the form of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Nobody fucked with Cormac. He just gave off an aura that he was not to be fucked with. The only person I ever saw him be so deferential to was Albert [Erskine]. The day before we left for Mexico, I remember him making a call to Albert. And then Cormac’s whole demeanor changed. [He] got very serious and quiet and said, ‘I appreciate you telling me that. I guess it’s good we’re going to Mexico.’ They hung up and Cormac said, ‘Well, the FBI has paid a visit to Albert. The state of Arizona is looking for you.’ “Apparently the way they connected Cormac with me is my mom found the letters from Cormac in my room and gave them to the police. And then the police started questioning people at the motel. So they had his license plate, make of his car. And at that point he was wanted for statutory rape and the Mann Act. But he was undaunted. I think he kind of liked it, actually,” she grins. “I was terrified that they’d find us. I didn’t want to go back to Tucson. I didn’t want to go back to foster homes. I didn’t want to go back to that life. Nobody likes to get hit. Nobody. Every time somebody hit me, it made me feel like a wild animal. I can’t articulate it except to say that it made me feel so wild inside, like a wolf with its leg caught in a trap. If I could have chewed off my leg to escape the feelings, I would have, I would’ve done anything to make it stop. And so when I found out that the police were looking for us, I was pretty frantic. I asked Cormac what we’d do if they found us and he looked at me, and he said in this funny Southern drawl, sorta like Billy Bob Thornton’s future character in Sling Blade, ‘I will shoot them.’ “ ‘Well, what if there’s a lot of them?’ ” “ ‘I will kill them.’ ” “That calmed me down. And for as long as I knew him, 47 years, if I was having a bad day or I was really sad, he would try and cheer me up by telling me all the ways he would kill people.” “That’s so sweet,” I wryly offer. “I know,” she grins. “It’s so romantic.” The next day, she says, McCarthy and Britt traveled from El Paso to Juarez. One measure of fame is how suddenly cognizant one becomes of the looming biographer, archivist, or graduate student peering over posterity’s shoulder at your personal correspondence. But McCarthy began writing his love letters to Britt when he was out of print, and they brim with an unusual voice—that of Cormac McCarthy in true love’s perfect candor. They’re less like sketches for a painting and more like confessionals. They are written by a man infatuate. For the first few days of my stay in Tucson, the letters sit in the same Converse shoebox they’ve been stored in since the ’70s. I’ve been giving them a wide berth. To a McCarthy fan, they’re like the Holy Grail. It somehow doesn’t feel right reading the blue ink meant for her blue eyes. What will they be like? Joyce’s encrusted epistles to Nora? Nabokov’s letters to Véra? Or more like letters to a Lolita? “Well, just walk it off,” Britt says, “and get reading! That’s what you’re here to do. If the FBI can read them, why can’t you?” (“Walk it off,” or “Walk on,” was one of McCarthy’s private catchphrases: “The world’s a dark place, and there’s a cold wind blowing. So you’ve got to turn up your collar and walk on.”) Britt bids me goodnight, and I sit at the kitchen table under a gentle spotlight and begin to read McCarthy’s offstage soliloquies, billet-doux meant for an audience of one. There’s 47 of them—that Britt can find. With a tendency to stuff letters (and hundred-dollar bills) between the leaves of her books, she often comes across loose letters. Though McCarthy sent fewer and fewer letters to family, friends, and Britt when he felt the future presence of a biographer, she says he often implored her not to burn them and convinced her to get a shared safety deposit box to store them. He hoped one day that she’d use them to write her own story, which presents a poignant contrast to McCarthy’s own emphatic desire not to have a biography written about himself. Most of them are kept in their original envelopes, though they’re not arranged in any chronology. There’s loose-leaf notebook pages, blank sheets otherwise destined for a typewriter, napkins—tapestries really, of rugged thread and delicate weave, in which the words all shine through, don’t quite stick to the stitches. Other pages are equally thin to translucence. In fact, there are so many napkin letters, McCarthy begins one that reads, held up to the light: Undying devotion? This is an emotive Cormac McCarthy, a McCarthy who uses quotation marks when people speak and capitalizes words he otherwise leaves in his trademark lowercase. He even says, at one point, “humongously,” as in “I love you humongously.” The datable letters begin in 1977, when Britt was 17. They span 47 years. But as McCarthy says in one, when he has had too much of his own buildup, “Enough!” Let us begin: Thinking of Britt in the Grand Canyon: On the road researching Blood Meridian: Withdrawal continues unto dream: Which is best paired with this Wanda scene from Suttree: Here, McCarthy scholars are advised to open Suttree to its ninth section to spot similarities: And lastly: I’ve been asking myself if I am reading this right for most of my efforts with McCarthy’s penmanship. But at these passages—and many others—the question takes on a whole other meaning. For many of these letters were written to a teenage girl—before they had run off together, before they had consummated. McCarthy admits in one that these amorous spiralings (in which he begins to iridesce into a Suttree-esque breathlessness) are just, for the time being, “fantasies.” I ask Britt about it during a round of target practice. She’s insisted on getting me up to speed on the Byrna, a nonlethal self-defense firearm legal in every state without a permit. We’ve driven to a quiet park right off a bike trail, and Britt’s picked out a nice big sign across the trail above a wash, one of the many dried, ancient riverbeds in town that carry the runoff of rainstorms. She walks to the sign, checks for oncoming cyclists, and I aim for “Tucson.” “Dang, you’re a good shot!” “Hey, thanks. Did Cormac ever shoot?” “No, not that I ever saw. But he loved to buy them for me.” Which is true. Her gun safe includes a long-barreled Taurus Judge revolver (“Every girl should have one!”) and a 12-gauge shotgun (“The perfect gift for the suicidal girlfriend!”), to name just a few of his affectionate purchases. “So, those letters.” “Oh, yes, what did you make of them?” “Well, he writes of you so…erotically. But you hadn’t actually become intimate yet, right?” “Yeah, so…that’s hard to explain.” But before she can finish, we hear a booming voice. We look at each other quizzically, not sure where it’s coming from or what it’s saying. “Stand up and fucking show yourselves! Fuckin’ shootin’ at us! Show yourselves!” It’s coming from down in the wash. Our mouths drop into gaping, shocked smiles, and we hightail it to Britt’s Escalade. Mexico remains the romance’s period of paradise. As Michael Cameron describes it, “The two disappeared into love land.” In May 1977, she and McCarthy traveled along the path of Blood Meridian, the novel he was researching at the time and which, though it was published largely to silence in 1985, is now considered one of the greatest novels of the 20th century. They began in Juarez and made deep inroads into Chihuahua, Mexico City, Los Mochis, Baja. As they left each town, Britt sent her mother reassuring postcards. Realizing her daughter was okay, Britt claims, her mother stopped cooperating with the state police and FBI, which did not have enough conclusive evidence, let alone jurisdiction, to continue an investigation. (Beyond the recollection of a handful of sources, VF could find no evidence of any police or federal investigation, though there is no doubt that laws were broken.) McCarthy would work in the mornings while Britt attended a traditional Catholic Mass, replete with mantilla headdress, earning the affectionate nicknames “Babushka” and “Baba” from McCarthy. (Many post-Mexico letters open with “Dearest Baba.”) The country was idyllic and paradisiacally cheap, cheap enough for the self-impoverished McCarthy to live like a king and Britt, whose blond hair and pigtails some mesmerized Mexican children had never seen before, like a teenage queen. The two even tried peyote together in Baja, which sent McCarthy on a riff about time and the universe. As a raving McCarthyite with his own quantum thesis about Blood Meridian to corroborate, I asked Britt what he had said. “Well, we had been tripping for hours and the sun had started coming up and he kept going, ‘Time this…’ and ‘Time that…’ and I just turned to him and said, ‘I think it’s time to be quiet.’ And he just about died laughing. He would laugh like this, ‘Oh hoh hoh!’ ” But all trips must end and all paradises must be lost, and when Britt turned 18 that September 13—the same date on which the calendar stands still in the opening pages of All the Pretty Horses—they spent her birthday in Mexico City and in full legality flew the next day to El Paso. McCarthy would later write, in periods of heartbreak, “Remember that rainy day in Los Mochis?” or of her birthday in Mexico City. They will spend two more of her birthdays together in Los Alamos and Nashville before she will break his heart. “So, about those letters,” she says, running her hand along her necklace. “I haven’t read them in decades. They’re really hard for me. I have such a block about them. They did make me feel uncomfortable at the time. Because they were so different from how he talked on the phone, or in person. After living with these creepy men in foster homes, it was such a relief to be with Cormac. I felt safe and secure because he didn’t want anything. He was genuinely interested in me. But then he’d send these letters. And it would be very confusing.” We can expect a writer to be different in person than on the page, but Cormac was very different on the page to Augusta. He was clearly in love, clearly “gone on the subject” of her, from the start. He ends each letter with an “I love you” or something synonymous. (He ends the ones after their romance cooled the same way.) But what we appear to have with lines about pressing “my face between your thighs” is a writer with his nose pressed into the pure perfume between the open thighs of a book. When I ask Britt how she feels about the parental-age gap between them, if the relationship felt in any way like grooming, she acknowledges the age difference will probably come as a shock to many readers, but she never felt that there was anything inappropriate about their relationship. In fact, part of her 47-year reluctance to tell her story is a fear that her relationship with McCarthy, the most important in her life, will be misunderstood by the wider public. “One thing I’m scared about is that he’s not around to defend himself. He saved my life.” By the time they ran away, by the time they consummated, all traces of Britt’s discomfiture with the letters were gone. It was the later years, seeing herself in The Border Trilogy, seeing her depression in The Passenger, that made her half wish she’d cut herself off from him. But neither of them could. We’re outside, trying to puzzle the Catalina Mountains out from the sky. They pitch the lights down here in Tucson at night because of the Kitt Peak National Observatory, but there’s a full moon outfoxing the astronomers tonight, giving the Catalinas so much light to darkle under. “But the letters make me sad too,” she says between drags of the Camel Wides cigarettes we just impulsively bought, “because I have so much regret. Such wasted time when we could have been together. When we got back from Mexico in late ’77, when I was 18 and we were living in El Paso, that’s when I found out he was still married to Annie. And then about a year later, on a trip to Las Vegas, when I found out he had a son my age. It just shattered me. What I needed then, so badly, was security and safety and trust. Cormac was my life, my pattern. He was on a pedestal for me. And finding out he lied about those things, they became chinks in the trust.” The child Britt refers to is named Chase, originally Cullen, the son from McCarthy’s first marriage, in 1961, to Lee Holleman. McCarthy never spoke publicly about Chase, but Britt says he confided to her (and fictionalized in Suttree) that Holleman’s family detested McCarthy and actually forbade their being together after her pregnancy. Then, in 1966, McCarthy married an English singer named Annie De Lisle. The two never had children, and for the years in which they remained married, De Lisle reportedly referred to Britt as “the other woman.” His second son, John, the inspiration for The Road, would be born to his third wife, Jennifer Winkley, in 1998. “And then, when we were in Franklin, Tennessee, with the Kidwells.” This would have been around ’79 or ’80. Britt and McCarthy were much on the move in those post-Mexico years, moving to friend Bill Kidwell’s house in Tennessee when they couldn’t pay rent in El Paso anymore. “Cormac was out pouring concrete with Kidwell and some friends and was supposed to pick me up at a certain time. And when he didn’t show up, I was convinced that he was dead. And I froze. I shut down. And I realized if something ever happened to him, I could survive physically, but I wouldn’t be able to survive emotionally. I wouldn’t be able to survive on my own without him. And that’s not love. That’s not healthy, at least. “So when he won the MacArthur grant and had enough money for me to go home and see my family, I just never came back.” McCarthy won the grant, largely due to the patronage of Robert Coles, in 1981. In those pre-digital days, she says, McCarthy’s usual course of action had been to open up bank accounts and blow town when he and Britt had used up all their credit. In fact, a bank statement for “Augusta McCarthy” from 1980 shows a whopping $15 balance. (“That’s the kind of tall cotton we were in,” Britt jokes.) “It wasn’t a choice. I always wanted to be with him. But I had to learn to live by myself before I could be with him again.” So the heaps of money won by McCarthy set in motion a train of events that forever parted him romantically from Britt. McCarthy made several trips to Tucson to convince her to come back to El Paso, she says—but she couldn’t bring herself to. Though they would continue to stay in close touch—to varying degrees of intimacy—for the remainder of McCarthy’s life, and McCarthy would later propose marriage twice, according to Britt, they never came back together in full. If one wants to extend the influence of McCarthy’s relationship with Britt onto his fiction, look no further than No Country for Old Men, in which Llewelyn Moss chances upon a satchel full of money, setting in motion a train of events that forever parts him from Carla Jean, who is 16 at the time she marries Llewelyn—the same age as Britt when she met McCarthy—and 19 at the time of the novel. Starting with John Grady Cole and Alejandra in All the Pretty Horses, a love that is a few tragic degrees out of true, McCarthy would spend the last half of his career in equal intimacy with Britt on the page as in life. The letters during this period in the early ’80s are buoyant with pain and, McCarthy admits, resentment. “I have to confess that in a way I was hoping that I wouldn’t hear from you anymore,” one begins. “I have to confess too that there are times when I feel enormous resentment toward you […] Baby, there was nothing wrong with our love. You just threw it away […] I never hear that song I don’t start crying, ‘I never got over those blue eyes.’ I make lists of places in the world to go and things to do now that I have no responsibilities, but everything is just empty.” We head back into the house. The windows wear the translucent paint of our reflections. “Can I see some of the letters?” She reads through a few, twisting her necklace. “I hate to say it, but…I think Cormac really did love me.” We laugh. “I had no family stability, I was homeless, I was vulnerable, I was young. I mean,” she pauses and screws up her face, “who could blame him?” I know the muse well enough to identify one of her shock jokes. “What a groomer!” she says, thrusting her hand up into the air, and busts out laughing. There is a sense of heat ripple to the horizons of Britt’s life after the split, the kind of interstitial oblivions between novels in, say, a trilogy. In conversation we pass through gaps of haze and shimmer: She attends the University of Arizona. Plagued by her childhood trauma, she is interred in a psych ward where her uncle gifts her a Catholic medal of Stella Maris, a title for the Virgin Mary referring to her guidance and protection of seafarers. She works at bars, including Someplace Else. She becomes a nurse. She trains horses. She has a short marriage but never a love again like Cormac McCarthy. She deals, for the rest of her life, with severe depression and low self-esteem. She is, in her own words, “a lost soul.” “She was his muse, throughout. Throughout. She’s Alicia Western! When you saw them together, they were so in love, just so in love with each other. Their time in Mexico was absolutely the inspiration for All the Pretty Horses, that impossible-to-realize love. She was the truest witness of his life.” Throughout, she speaks to McCarthy multiple times a week and is visited by him regularly. Then, sometime in the ’80s, McCarthy sends her the manuscript for All the Pretty Horses. “The first thing I see, obviously, is the title. And I thought, Oh my gosh. I started reading it, and it’s just so full of me, and yet isn’t me. It was so confusing. Reading about Blevins getting killed was so sad. I cried for days. And I remember thinking to myself that being such a lover of books, I was surprised it didn’t feel romantic to be written about. I felt kind of violated. All these painful experiences regurgitated and rearranged into fiction. I didn’t know how to talk to Cormac about it because Cormac was the most important person in my life. I wondered, Is that all I was to him, a trainwreck to write about? “I was trying so hard to grow up and to fix what was broken about me. I still thought I could be fixed. And this felt the opposite of fixing me. “Cormac called me and said, ‘What did you think about it?’ And I said, ‘Well, I really liked the book. It’s beautiful. But my kitten, John Grady and everything. It feels weird.’ And he just laughed and said, ‘Well, baby, that’s what I do. I’m a writer.’ ” When she broached Blevins’s death and how it made her cry for days, he said, “ ‘I knew you would. And I’m sorry.’ And I said, ‘Well, you could have let him live.’ And he said, ‘No, I really couldn’t.’ And I felt like I was about two years old for asking him this, but I said, ‘Well, you’ll still kill people for me though, right?’ And he said, ‘Yes.’ And that was enough.” For the rest of his life, McCarthy would make visits every few months to Tucson and stay at the Arizona Inn. While the visits were made out of love and longing, they were always entangled with what felt to Britt like research. Like an artist visiting his subject for an extended portraiture. One year when she was depressed, McCarthy came out and taught her stonemasonry in northern Arizona. Later that year, he sent her a draft of his new play called The Stonemason. When Britt was taming a crazed purebred Babson Arabian at Bazy Tankersley’s horse farm in the ’80s, McCarthy visited to watch her tame it and called her each night on the phone after he’d left to ask her about the horse. McCarthy himself may never have ridden, but the novels of The Border Trilogy teem with intimate knowledge about horses. They teem, too, with other impossible-to-realize 16-year-old love interests, such as Magdalena, the beautiful Mexican prostitute who steals John Grady Cole’s heart in Cities of the Plain. The list goes on, most painfully culminating in her portrayal as Alicia Western in The Passenger, though Britt never suffered from her doppelgänger’s hallucinations. Sources close to McCarthy confirmed Britt’s role as his muse and love of his life. Michael Cameron is emphatic about Britt’s inspiration. “She was his muse, throughout. Throughout. She’s Alicia Western! There’s no doubt she was the love of his life and his muse. I mean, when you saw them together, they were so in love, just so in love with each other. Their time in Mexico was absolutely the inspiration for All the Pretty Horses, that impossible-to-realize love. I read one of the first typescripts of it, and I told Cormac it made me cry. There is no doubt about it. Cormac loved her and she was his muse. She was the truest witness of his life.” “Cormac felt he’d wasted the last years of his life. He felt slightly exploited by the Institute crowd, and I never saw him cry, but we spent a few nights up in Globe together, right before he got really sick, and it was snowing and he started to get teary-eyed, and he told me he regretted all the years not being together.” These fictional uses of her life, however, often led her into deeper depressions, punctuated, she says, by two marriage proposals by McCarthy. The first, at the Gardner Hotel in El Paso, was made several years before McCarthy’s marriage to Jennifer Winkley in 1998. The second, at the Arizona Inn, at the time of McCarthy’s work on the Counselor screenplay. Both times McCarthy got cold feet. The second time he reneged after finding out Britt’s Catholic church in Tucson would not permit a marriage unless McCarthy made a Catholic confession, which he refused to do. The dialogue of his proposal to Britt in the Arizona Inn, she says, is exactly recited by Michael Fassbender and Penélope Cruz in The Counselor, to her shock. “I intend to love you until I die,” Fassbender says. “Me first,” Cruz replies. Outside of her time with McCarthy, it is difficult for Britt to give her life artistic resolution. Starting with All the Pretty Horses, she would look to McCarthy for that. “I always looked to Cormac’s books to see how I was doing.” She takes a comedic beat. “Which was usually dead.” In chronological order we have, at the very least: Harrogate, Wanda, John Grady Cole, Blevins, Alejandra, Magdalena, Carla Jean, Laura, and Alicia—who is dead of suicide in the opening italics of The Passenger. Only Harrogate seemingly makes it out alive, with his face averted into his own pale reflection in the train window taking him out of the novel. That sheer, ghostly reflection—in a sense, it’s how Britt sees herself in McCarthy’s mirrory prose, a ghost rising from the characters, the situations, the deaths, a ghost gaining some momentary purchase on herself. Her mission from the age of 11 was to be good, to survive, and yet McCarthy kept killing her. “I thought he must not believe in me,” she says. “It’s taken me decades to realize that maybe what he was doing was killing off what had happened to me. Killing off the darkness.” A strange thing happens in McCarthy’s body of work after meeting Britt. It is visible at the tail end of Blood Meridian. Morality, not to mention commercial success, starts coming into focus. His worlds are still cruel and full of evil, but he begins writing about characters who display courage in the face of it, who, like Britt “try to be good.” Emulous characters, heroes even, who, beginning with the Kid in Blood Meridian, “had got onto terms with life beyond what his years could account for.” The person, the spirit he’s writing about, is Augusta Britt. Like Britt, his characters are “placed under an obligation. To survive and bear these trials with grace and dignity.” McCarthy would often tell his son John, when speaking of his own cold family and violently abusive father who would savagely beat him as a child, “ ‘The difference between you and me is that you were born a good person,’ ” John recounts to me. “ ‘I had to work hard to become one.’ ” If we take McCarthy’s fiction as a measure, being a good person seems much on his mind starting with All the Pretty Horses, the first of his works brimming in Augustal colors, created in that artistic wiggle room between frisson and fission. Being a good person seemed to be on his mind, too, when he took Britt, a victim of worse male violence than he was, away from the streets of Tucson. But as his characters started becoming better humans, in Britt’s view, McCarthy, whom she always thought of as a great man, did not. As he dined with celebrities and reinvented himself in Santa Fe as a formidable intellectual—and a very rare intellectual: one who can learnedly contemplate quantum physics and work it into art, with mixed success—Britt thought he turned his back on his oldest friends. “He felt he’d wasted the last years of his life,” Britt says. We’re up early enough to watch the sun unbraid the first permissive stars. Right before dawn the mountains look soft as dressfolds, and Britt is playing with the hem of her denim shirt. “He felt slightly exploited by the Institute crowd, and I never saw him cry, but we spent a few nights up in Globe together, right before he got really sick, and it was snowing and he started to get teary-eyed, and he told me he regretted all the years not being together.” McCarthy would go on to name Britt in his will, along with ex-wives Jennifer Winkley and Annie De Lisle, youngest son John McCarthy, and Chase McCarthy, whom he managed to fully reconcile with in his last years. John and his mother, Jennifer, cared for McCarthy in his final years and were there with Chase the day McCarthy died. The last words on his Olivetti Lettera typewriter read, “I don’t know, Frank, I say we just leave him hangin’ there.” There is no gentle summer rain in Arizona. No poised and delicate thunderheads. Storms come with the shock and awe of violent reprisals. By the time you hear the dramatic throat clear of thunder, hail the size of baseballs is upon you. Seeing as it’s supposed to rain later in the day, Britt and I are heading over to the stalls to do as much as we can. “All horses have two sides. Well, that’s a smart thing to say, of course they do,” she laughs, throwing her hands up in playful self-mockery. “But they have two sides to their brains, and they think and react differently on each side. The right side can spook at something that the left side walks by calmly every day. So that’s to say, you want to put the halter on on their left side. Here, you try.” Unless I’m unusually timid, waltzing up to a horse I’ve never met before with daring nonchalance strikes me as a great way to get my head stove in, so I’ve been giving Scout a courteous distance. But Britt holds the looped purple halter out to me, inviting me closer. “Oh, and don’t ever put your head above a horse’s. Horses have the quickest reaction time of any animal, faster than cats. They won’t ever mean to, but they can startle and raise their head so fast, it can knock you out or even kill you. So, no pressure.” To tie a halter hitch, you’ve got to hug a horse. So I do, standing in the same direction as Scout and pulling the halter over his Roman nose until my right arm is gently wrapped under his neck. Lightly flicking the rope over the top of his head, our eyes are momentarily twinned in the same direction. There is an immaculate, glistening precision in the reflection of a horse’s eye. The level of detail is startling and strikes one at first, brimming over the pupils, of artistic imprecision, creative license. I can see the muse in it—the woman who taught Cormac McCarthy everything he knew about horses—smiling at me with a child’s wise innocence, and I shyly try the hitch, looping and cinching the purple. “I’ve been so afraid to tell my story,” Britt tells me. “It feels like I’m being disloyal to Cormac. I’ve always wondered, too, who would believe me. I guess I’m just more private than him. But he would always warn me that at some point his archives would open up and people would find out about me.” Britt is correct; in the fall of 2025, the second half of McCarthy’s archives, likely containing her letters to him, will become public at Texas State University. “I know we joke around, calling Cormac a groomer,” she can’t help but crack a quick smile here before turning serious, “but that’s a defense mechanism of mine. I loved him more than anything. He kept me safe, gave me protection. He was everything to me. Everything. He was my anchor. He was my world. He was my home, even when we didn’t live together anymore. Those things that happen to you, that young and that awful, you don’t really heal. You just patch yourself up the best you can and move on. And Cormac gave me protection and safety when I had none. I would be dead if I didn’t meet him. He was the most important person in my life, the person I love the most. He was my anchor. And now that he’s gone,” she pauses, “I’m shiftless.” Two eyes are not sufficient for a sunset in the West. That’s because there is more than one sunset, more than can be seen in a single field of vision. After a monsoon, the sky is Sistine. To the west, lightning races the tousled embroidery of clouds in pink gilt. Turning on my heels, there are Iliads and Edens of violet cloudwork parted by the slimmest blue streamlets of sky. Soon the mountains will be darkened and skimmed of all their reddened lilac, and they will stand like glowing geometry against the sunset’s final yellow. It is all daubed in a nimbus around the muse, like a painting that is still wet, still open to being blended. I keep touching the Stella Maris medal in my pocket, which Augusta gave me earlier this morning, trying to keep track of all that loosened paint. She sidles up to me. “You know, I had a dream about Cormac last night.” “Tell me about it.” “So, the town I grew up in, in North Dakota, had these big dikes by the Red River. We used to play there as kids. Back in the late ’90s, the whole town flooded. A biblical kind of flood. The flood set off electrical fires, so whatever wasn’t underwater caught on fire. I was at those dikes in my dream. And it was right before dawn. And it was so dark, and it was so hard to keep going. I felt that the bad men were coming. I didn’t want to keep going anymore. And I decided I was just gonna sit down and die.” She laughs at herself. “It couldn’t be more simple, you just sit down and die! Isn’t that how everyone does it? “But anyways, as soon as I sat down, I noticed someone else was there. I looked up and it was Cormac. And he said, ‘What’re you doin’ over there, Baba?’ ” “And I told him. ‘I’m sitting down.’ ” “ ‘Why are you sitting down?’ ” “ ‘So I can die.’ ” “ ‘Well, don’t do that.’ ” “ ‘Why not?’ ” “And there were all these sections of color in the sky. Like stained glass. Dawn was coming. And he was standing on the other side of the dikes, under the color.” “ ‘Why don’t you come over here, where I am?’ ” he said. “And I didn’t know what to do. And then I woke up.” “Well, I think you do know what you have to do,” I said, turning up my collar. She took a moment, looking at me under that stained glass Western sky. “That’s right,” she smiled. And she thrust her hand out before her, the way McCarthy would have. “Walk on.”
  8. Yesterday
  9. https://prospect.org/politics/2024-11-20-ai-information-corrosion/ Lucky you: For the length of time it takes you to read this column, you don’t have to think about Donald Trump, Matt Gaetz, Mike Huckabee, Pete Hegseth, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis being “excited by the news that the President-Elect will appoint @RobertKennedyJr to @HHSGov,” the headline writers at The New York Times, or all those miscreants in the Democratic Party whose refusal to follow your preferred strategy for the Harris-Walz campaign delivered the nation into the bosom of fascism. Nothing strictly political at all. Enjoy! Or maybe not. Today’s object of ire is web searches using large language models, which marketers have cleverly designated “AI.” More precisely, my beef is with people who desperately want to believe in artificial intelligence’s merit as an information broker. It started when I read a social media post from a former editor of mine whom I deeply respect. He cited his favorite “AI-powered search engine,” then did one of those parlor tricks where you ask it to write a poem with a series of silly constraints. The results were, allegedly, splendid. As I argued on the same social media platform, it astonishes me that critical thinkers would promote the use of AI search engines. I offered two reasons. The first is that a basic feature of an AI “search,” in contrast to a conventional search, is that it renders invisible the source of the information; a meal that comes shrink-wrapped, so to speak, only without the ingredients on the label. A commenter pointed out to me that this isn’t right, at least when it comes to Perplexity.ai and Microsoft Copilot, which affix footnotes to their summaries. But that’s also unsatisfying. They can’t footnote all their sources. That’s the point of a large language model: It draws from millions of sources. (It’s precisely this largeness that is responsible for a demerit of large language models I won’t belabor: the colossal amounts of energy these “data vampires” consume.) My second complaint concerned what is colorfully referred to in the biz as “hallucinations”: when stuff they churn out is wrong. Enormous mischief ensues, with consequences that I find terrifying: not just for a writer like me, whose professional identity is bound up in words, but for anyone with a stake in there being more accurate information about the world rather than less. Which is to say, all of us. WE RECENTLY PASSED AN AI WATERSHED. Now, when you enter a Google search in the form of a question, it answers by placing AI-generated summaries, called “AI Overviews,” at the top of the results. Like this: “When did Google start putting AI at the top of its search answers?” Answer: “Google began prominently displaying AI-generated summaries, called ‘AI Overviews,’ at the top of search results, in May 2023 as part of their ‘Search Generative Experience’ (SGE) feature, initially rolling it out in the United States and then expanding to other countries; this essentially puts AI-powered answers directly at the top of the search page for certain queries.” And that’s a nifty Exhibit A of the problem right there. Dig one level deeper—or a few inches lower. The first offering in the “People also ask” feature is “when did Google AI overview start?” Answer: “Google launched AI Overviews in the U.S. on May 14, 2024.” Which is not, in case you missed it, “May 2023.” Two pieces of directly contradictory information answering the same question. Which do you believe: your lying eyes, or your lying eyes? A further complication greets those who make their way down to the list of conventional search results. The first is a post from the Google blog dated May 14, 2024, called “Generative AI in Search: Let Google do the searching for you.” (Even algorithms have to advertise, I suppose.) The second is a puffy story from The Verge dated over a year earlier, from May 10, 2023, called “The AI takeover of Google Search starts now.” Only if you make your way to the third result, a Washington Post article from May 30, 2024, does this farrago of confusion recede. It’s entitled “Google scales back AI search answers after it told users to eat glue.” A complex story—a public launch, an embarrassing recall, then a quiet relaunch with no fanfare—has been utterly obscured. Quite clarifying, for those of us who stubbornly think search engines are supposed to make it easier, not harder, to understand reality. You might remember that embarrassing moment for Google from six months ago. Everyone started to test things for themselves, and were served up-is-down information, like that the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision reaffirmed the right to choose an abortion. Others came across hallucinations by accident. One of my social media followers told the story of a pilot friend of hers who asked ChatGPT for ideas for hotels, food, and attractions for their refueling stops on a coast-to-coast trip. They learned of a legendary diner just a short walk from one of the airports, celebrated for decades for its scrumptious chicken-fried steak. There were citations from rave reviews. They landed with mouth watering, walked to the indicated spot, and found a field of soybeans. It was the kind of mirage a parched desert wayfarer might hallucinate in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. One supposes Google insists all of that has by now been fixed. But I still couldn’t figure out the basic question of when Google started up the AI Overviews again. Last week appears to be the answer; or at least that was when I first noticed it. Further research seems to be required, but not via Google; they are no longer any help at all. THOSE WERE THE RESULTS WHEN I TRIED IT last Friday; if I tried it Saturday, Sunday, or today, results were likely to be different. That is a problem; if the same question is answered differently, which answer is one to take as authoritative? This novel kind of memory hole made it hard for us to create links that illustrated my points. And if the wording of the question is changed slightly, the results can be a great deal different. Together, these issues open up onto another problem, perhaps the biggest of all. Answers rendered, to use the industry term of art, in “natural” language—in complete sentences resembling what a human would write—appear, well, natural. As the answer; as the Truth. With a capital T, which rhymes with D, which means definitive. A list of results in an old-fashioned search, on the other hand, reads as inherently provisional: as ingredients of an answer that one’s active intelligence has to shape. That shouldn’t matter to a sophisticated consumer of information, who can be expected to understand that anything a computer spits out is not necessarily the Truth. What’s depressing, however, as I learned when I criticized AI in that social media post I referred to above, is how unsophisticated some smart people showed themselves to be when it came to AI. This is especially so when the questions are not factual but interpretive. In the post, I offered an excruciating (to me) example: the first time I tried putting ChatGPT through its paces, not by asking it for a sonnet or a Keatsian ode, but “What does Rick Perlstein believe?” One of the things the confident listicle that came forth offered was actually the opposite of what Rick Perlstein believes: namely, the rank cliché that the biggest political problem America faces is “polarization.” No. Rick Perlstein actually believes the biggest political problem America faces is fascism, and that fighting it requires more polarization. And I should know. I’m Rick Perlstein! A lot of people responded, with evident irritation, that they hadn’t had problems with searches they’d carried out. Someone else destroyed that argument. They pointed out the time they asked an AI search engine to summarize one of their essays. The summary was about 85 percent correct. They pointed out that this, effectively, was almost as bad as it being zero percent correct. There’s an old saw in the advertising trade: Half of all ads will be ineffective, but you can never know in advance which half. That’s the same thing here: If you want to take an AI search result to the bank, as it were, “getting 15 percent wrong makes it 100 percent useless.” People get things 15 percent wrong all the time too, of course, even in peer-reviewed papers, one of my AI-defending followers pointed out. But we know that much of what people say is wrong; learning to judiciously distrust experts is one of the things that makes a well-educated person well educated. But a computer spitting out shrink-wrapped packages of fact: That is something that it is way too easy to fool ourselves into implicitly trusting—a stubborn sort of hallucination in itself. I love my most active followers on this particular social media platform, an intelligent, thoughtful, and humane bunch who have taught me a great deal. This time, many disappointed me. Some really, really want to trust AI. Even when it led them astray right in front of their eyes. The guy whose original post set me off suggested I was whining like a buggy whip manufacturer beefing on Henry Ford. People started showing the technology off, almost with pride of ownership, typing “What does Rick Perlstein believe?” into the search boxes and gloating over the results. And, yes, some were impressive. (“His work critiques the media’s tendency to avoid addressing the deep structural conflicts in American society featuring narratives of consensus over conflict.” Thank you!) But the longest and most elaborate result—352 words over seven numbered paragraphs—was so full of bad information that … well, it might take a book to fully explain how mistaken it was. Which raises another important point. It was mistaken in ways that were subtle and hard to summarize. Someone pointed out that the question was the problem, that AI is a tool, and that smart consumers know how to maximize its value. “Name some arguments Rick Perlstein has made” might be better, for example. But that still, to my mind, falls into a basket of questions upon which AI should follow the advice from Ludwig Wittgenstein. He advised philosophers that when it comes to certain kinds of ineffable questions, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Questions about anyone’s opinions fit that description. “Does Google have a vice president for epistemology?” one of my smart friends asked. Great question! Let’s start at the very beginning, and that little word “believe.” Ask ChatGPT “What does Rick Perlstein believe,” and it can only answer from Rick Perlstein’s published output. But if you write with a political goal, as I do, you might choose to hold back some sincerely held belief, the better to stick to your most persuasive points. The philosopher Leo Strauss built a career on the argument that great philosophers of the Western tradition hid their true beliefs in esoteric language inaccessible to ordinary readers, intended only for an elite class of readers. What’s more, almost everything you can read from me was edited, and sometimes my editors are so much more erudite and intelligent than I; sometimes (grrrrrr) not. [Editor’s note: This editor is among the former.] And does ChatGPT know writers don’t write headlines? The problem extends down to language’s subatomic levels. (That’s a metaphor, Mr. Robot. Please make sure everyone knows Rick Perlstein doesn’t believe language is actually made out of atoms.) Literary theorists refer to “textuality”: the way written words (spoken words, too) are not some pristine uncorrupted signal of inner beliefs but are subject to all sorts of corrupting noise built into the technology of writing itself. Heidegger called language “the house of being”; but sometimes we can’t access what’s inside it at all. And what is an “author” anyway? It was Freud, or maybe it was Shakespeare, who first systematically demonstrated how fundamentally a self can misunderstand even itself … Okay, my University of Chicago soul is showing. Let’s get down to the actual words on the screen. From ChatGPT, we learn that Rick Perlstein writes “books like Before the Storm (about Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign).” That’s an authoritative-sounding factual mistake right off the bat: Only 258 out of 660 pages are about Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign. And that this Perlstein fellow believes certain things about “Populist conservatism: He emphasizes how that the conservative movement’s success lies in its ability to channel grassroots populist anger.” Bzzzzzzz! ChatGPT must have missed my 2017 critique, presented at a conference on “Global Populisms: A Threat to Democracy?” about the dangerous distortions that come from the overuse of the word “populist” in describing right-wing authoritarianism. (He thinks variants of the word “demagogue” are far more useful than “populist,” but hasn’t published anything about that, so ChatGPT doesn’t know he believes that.) Other points in the answer, again, are impressive! Sophisticated! Which, again, makes things worse, because this raises the answer above the threshold of appearing authoritative, to those who know a little about the subject—but who can’t know which one-third of the words in the result are not, in fact, accurate (at least in my self-interested opinion), and which two-thirds are. Then all comes this, supposedly “based upon his public writings and commentary.” Including this final point: “Perlstein’s [work does] not advocate a political agenda …” Well, now. Turns out there exists some parallel ChatGPT planet where these pieces I so lovingly grind out for you each and every week, and before that for so many other left-wing publications, all with the fervent aim of advocating a political agenda, do not exist. A blunt, basic reality that does not exist. It’s all too easy to imagine the opposite case: a writer who dotes upon the non-agenda-driven nature of their writing, finding a search engine that says they’re in fact an ideologue, and wanting to sue for libel for the way this ginned-up “fact” degrades their integrity. But who would they sue? The lack of a responsible agent behind a falsehood is another part of what makes the whole thing so maddening. BY THE WAY, DID YOU READ MY COLUMN about the possibility of a future world war? No? Google it: “Everything You Wanted to Know About World War III but Were Afraid to Ask.” Two weeks ago, if you typed those words into the search engine, all you’d get is a link, which you would then have to read yourself, and decide on your own steam whether it had any value or not. Type them in this week—though that changed the next day, and you could only get this result by typing in the fragment “Everything You Wanted to Know About World War III”—and you’ll learn that it “refers to a hypothetical future global conflict that would involve major powers, potentially leading to large-scale destruction and casualties, with key concerns including potential triggers like escalating geopolitical tensions, nuclear weapons usage, and the devastating impacts such a war could have on the world, including widespread economic disruption and societal collapse; it’s often discussed in the context of historical analysis of past world wars, current international conflicts, and potential future threats like cyberwarfare and emerging military technologies.” That oh-so-authoritative-sounding summary seems to refer to nothing else besides my article, which is linked at the right, but where the title is followed, mysteriously, with the words “Russian Defense Ministry Pre…” The way it’s laid out on the screen makes it seem at first glance—which for most people will be the only glance—that those words seem to have some particular significance to the article. They’re from the photo credit: “Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP.” Garbage in, garbage out. An intelligence that was not artificial would know that these words are throwaways with no significance. The “AI Overview” then moves to a list of “Key Points About World War III.” Which is pretty disturbing, given that the key points all appear to come from my article and nowhere else, even though one of the main points of the article is that I don’t know very much about war. The person I interviewed for the article does, and I may have summarized his argument well, or maybe not. But neither of our names is attached to these “Key Points” for people to evaluate whether the source is trustworthy or not. Be that as it may: My interpretation of his points is now hanging out there on the internet as an authoritative representation on the most important subject imaginable. And this AI-generated block of text presenting itself as everything you need to know on the subject also happens to exclude the most important thing the article proposes we need to know. I had asked Matthew Gault if we needed to worry about AI making World War III more likely. He replied, “I am extremely skeptical that AI is or will become part of command-and-control systems—in America.” But “the guy I talk to about this, who is very smart and has the connections, said Russia is talking about using large language models to take over portions of the decision-making process, because they are worried that they will have someone in the chain that will say ‘no.’ So they want to automate that.” Ask the guy who had to eat granola bars for lunch instead of chicken-fried steak if that is a good idea. The last word in Google’s AI Overview of “Everything You Wanted to Know About World War III” is a consumer warning: “Generative AI is experimental,” then a link at which you can “Learn more.” Well, thanks for the warning and the suggestion. I’d love to learn more. I love learning. But I already know enough to know that at this perilous juncture, the last thing the world’s information infrastructure needs is “experiments,” with all of us serving as guinea pigs. End this experiment now, Google. Keep it up, and someone might lose an eye.
  10. EU business lobbying on sustainability exposed Ongoing debates about Europe’s Green Deal reveal new evidence of business lobbying’s hidden influence on environmental policies. https://www.socialeurope.eu/eu-business-lobbying-on-sustainability-exposed As debates continue over the future of Europe’s Green Deal and other environmental policies, new evidence sheds light on the often hidden role of business lobbying in shaping these regulations. The gap between companies that publicly promote their sustainability credentials while lobbying behind the scenes against environmental regulation has long been identified. However, solid evidence to support this assertion has been difficult to find—until now. A new report reveals how business lobbying contributed to excluding financial services companies from Europe’s responsible supply chain law, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights has strongly condemned the exclusion of investors from the EU law. The Italian stock exchange Borsa Italiana and the French association of insurers, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), are highlighted in the report for their strong opposition to the proposals. This is despite Borsa Italiana being a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative and AAM positioning itself as part of the ‘social and solidarity economy’ under French law. The ‘Social LobbyMap’ methodology was used to analyze company lobbying based on published information, freedom-of-information requests, and media reports in the two years leading up to the agreement that removed finance from the scope of the EU Directive. Detailed analysis of positions adopted by nine companies and ten trade associations in France, Italy, and Spain also reveals how companies often rely on their associations to deliver negative messages. Eight out of ten trade associations analyzed opposed including the finance sector in the regulation, with only France’s responsible investor association, l’Association AFR, speaking in favor. Although European-wide business associations are typically the most influential in lobbying, the report highlights disparities within France, where half of business responses favored the regulation, but six out of seven associations lobbied against it. None of the Italian companies studied supported the proposals, which sheds light on Italy’s dramatic but ultimately unsuccessful attempts to block the Directive in the European Council, alongside Germany. However, the research challenges the assumption that companies are always anti-regulation. Prominent Spanish firms, including insurer Seguros RGA, actively supported the regulation, not only through public statements but also through detailed lobbying. The ‘Social LobbyMap’ project encourages companies to align their sustainability and purpose statements with their public policy activities and those of their trade associations. Investors are seen as crucial to achieving this goal, holding a mirror up to businesses that are usually the ones scrutinizing the companies they invest in. The ‘Social LobbyMap’ methodology builds on the work of the ‘Influence Map’ project, which originated in the United States and prompted several US corporations to leave trade associations with regressive climate change positions. Whether this new research on social and human rights lobbying will have a similar impact in Europe remains to be seen. With a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, upcoming lobbying around the Directive’s transposition in member states, and a scheduled review within two years on whether finance might be brought back into its scope, companies will face immediate scrutiny for their positions on this legislation. A key tenet of responsible business is ensuring alignment between a company’s values and its actions—including its lobbying activities. The ‘Social LobbyMap’ aims to hold businesses accountable, ensuring their government relations and trade association memberships align with their stated commitments to sustainability. The new report “Financial Sector Lobbying of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive: a Social LobbyMap Analysis” is available on the Eiris Foundation website at: https://eirisfoundation.org/social-lobbymap/
  11. The High-Stakes Gamble of Doing Nothing: Why Business Must Act Now In a world teetering on the edge of chaos, disengagement is a dangerous delusion. Here’s why smart leaders know that stepping up is necessary. https://www.socialeurope.eu/the-high-stakes-gamble-of-doing-nothing-why-business-must-act-now Investors and business leaders know all about the relationship between risk and reward. While a “steady as she goes” approach may seem to reduce risk, in the short run at least, it could be that relative inaction exposes you to much greater risk over the longer term. Doing nothing in fact becomes the riskier thing to do. The world at the end of 2024 does not appear to be offering the business community a particularly appetising set of options. There is war raging in Ukraine and the Middle East. Energy prices remain high. And a familiar figure is about to return to the White House to pick up where he left off four years ago. Life is about to get even more complicated. The temptation for business leaders to disengage, to keep their heads down and focus on spreadsheets rather than news bulletins, may be high. But this would be a bad choice. Events will inevitably impinge on business plans. However unappealing it may seem, this is a time for business to step up and engage, not opt out. Sceptics may object that business’s track record on engagement is patchy or at least unconvincing. And the sceptics would have a point. Not so long ago – in 2019 in fact, during those last few happy pre-Covid days – the US Business Roundtable announced rather dramatically that the era of narrowly pursuing “shareholder value” was over. “Each of our stakeholders is essential”, declared a new statement on the purpose of a corporation, signed by 181 top chief executives. Employees mattered: “We foster diversity and inclusion, dignity and respect.” At the World Economic Forum in Davos the following January Klaus Schwab declared that a new era of stakeholder capitalism was being born. This was not merely premature; it was wrong. One investor wrote to the board of JP Morgan, whose CEO, Jamie Dimon, had been a leading force in the production of the Business Roundtable statement. Had JP Morgan’s commercial goals, and the fiduciary duties of the board’s directors, changed? Not at all, came the reply. Essentially it was business as usual. Research conducted by scholars at Harvard Law School revealed that very few of the 181 corporations had indeed altered their fundamental approach to business after signing this statement. In fact, it had rarely been discussed at board level at all. At least these CEOs were trying to move the conversation on from that destructive account of business inspired by the work of the economist Milton Friedman: that it is purely a matter of making profits without breaking the law (or without getting caught breaking the law, at least). But in terms of political economy the Business Roundtable were slow learners. The British commentator Will Hutton had written about the stakeholder economy in his book “The State We’re In” in the mid 1990s. Indeed, as far back as 1932, Adolf A Berle and Gardiner C Means had written “The Modern Corporation and Private Property”, which looked at the separation of ownership and control and called for greater shareholder democracy, transparency and accountability. Until recently, it had seemed that responsible business leaders might be able to make a positive contribution to society under the headings of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI – as referenced in the Business Roundtable statement), and that investors could support progressive (and sustainable) business activity with their ESG (environment, social, governance) funds. But these ostensibly non-political interventions have been politicised. Donald Trump’s return to power has been accompanied by a wave of hostility to so-called “woke capitalism”. So certain Republican-run states in the US have attacked pension funds for investing under the ESG heading. The cause of DEI has been smeared, as if greater fairness and equality of opportunity at work are a bad thing. Businesses that still want to make a positive difference in this area are having to rebrand or even camouflage their activities to avoid the hostility of their newly-emboldened critics. So what can a responsible business leader do? Luckily there is some good and practical advice available in a new book: Higher Ground – how business can do the right thing in a turbulent world, by Alison Taylor, who teaches at the Stern School of Business in New York City. Taylor is pragmatic and wise. “Being an ethical business is about undertaking a process of discovery about your real-world impact and then basing your values and supporting principles on what you find,” she writes. “What has your company been doing that generates negative and positive impacts? How do you affect the external environment? How does it impact you? How might you alter these results?” And in a footnote Taylor offers this telling insight: “During the course of this book I will cite examples of positive and negative practice, sometimes from the same company. I cannot provide a neat, holistic example of a company that gets everything right; I believe the expectation that this is possible is part of the problem.” The world is struggling, and is facing a tough moment. Engaged businesses, thoughtfully led, can improve this situation: providing good jobs, and selling useful goods and services. We should not expect profit-making businesses to act in a saintly manner. But they should be able to do as little harm as possible. And sometimes they can actually make things better.
  12. https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-but-harris-ran-as-a-moderate In the weeks since Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris, Democrats and their allies have begun the long process of trying to determine why they lost. Some of these conversations have been productive and have pointed to factors that we at The Liberal Patriot have been writing about for some time: the party’s governing woes, longstanding support for neoliberal economics, misperceptions about the electorate, ideological shift away from the median voter, and reluctance to pick fights with the left wing of the party, including interest groups and donors—all of which likely played some role in fracturing their coalition this year and allowing Republicans to win the popular vote for the first time since 2004. Some of the discourse, however, has taken a different track, specifically resisting the charge that Harris and the Democrats have veered too far left or idea that the party should moderate its stances on some social and cultural issues. This view was perhaps best summarized in a recent monologue by comedian-turned-pundit John Oliver: There’s a lot to unpack here, but the general idea that Oliver and several other prominent writers and pundits on the left are promulgating is that Harris took deliberate steps to appeal to the middle of the electorate and avoid discussions about identity, and yet she lost anyway. Thus, it’s silly to attribute her loss to a perception among voters that she was too liberal or too focused on identity politics. But this critique misses some key dynamics at play in this election. To be sure, Harris did sound like a moderate for much of the campaign. She touted the popular accomplishments of the Biden administration like caps on insulin prices, promoted policies to help lower housing costs, played up her career as a prosecutor, vowed to be tough on crime and the border, and mostly eschewed hot-button culture-war topics like race, gender, and the Israel-Hamas conflict. However, a mere five years ago ago, Harris adopted—or at least sympathized with—a host of objectively radical and unpopular positions, including decriminalizing border crossings, defunding the police, abolishing ICE, banning fracking, confiscating guns, allowing convicted felons to vote from prison, and requiring all new car sales by 2040 to be electric (to name just a few). As the party’s 2024 nominee, she was reluctant to disavow these past positions or fully account for her reversals on them, saying only, “My values haven’t changed.” This left many people unsure of her true beliefs. It also left a vacuum for Republicans to hit her repeatedly over those past views and claim that her attempt to cast herself as a “moderate” was a charade. One Trump campaign ad that memorably captured this argument highlighted comments Harris had previously made in support of using taxpayer funding for sex-reassignment surgeries in prisons, including for detained migrants. The spot concluded: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” Some understandably decried the ad for picking on transgender Americans, but it was clearly making a broader point that seemed to resonate with many voters—that Harris wasn’t the moderate that she purported to be and that she cared more about being on the right side of progressive interest groups than advocating for the vast majority of the country. And it turned out to be extraordinarily effective. According to the New York Times, pre-election focus group tests by the pro-Harris super PAC Future Forward found that the ad shifted the race 2.7 points toward Trump after viewers watched it, as it “cut to the core of the Trump argument: that Ms. Harris was ‘dangerously liberal.’” Similarly, in a post-election survey, Blueprint tested several reasons why voters may not have chosen to support Harris, including the claim that she was “focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues than helping the middle class.” Among all voters, this was the third-most-cited reason for not voting for her, but even more telling: it was the top reason cited by swing voters who broke for Trump. (Meanwhile, among the least compelling claims in the survey? “Kamala Harris is too conservative.”) A subsequent Blueprint survey confirmed Harris’s core problem was that many voters simply didn’t think she had genuinely changed her past positions.1 According to their findings, swing voters who chose Trump believed that Harris supported: Using taxpayer dollars for transgender surgeries for undocumented immigrants (83 percent) Requiring all cars to be electric by 2035 (82 percent) Decriminalizing border crossings (77 percent) Banning fracking (74 percent) Defunding the police (72 percent) The other argument Oliver made to support his contention that Harris ran a moderate campaign was that she made several public appearances with Liz Cheney, a Republican stalwart whose father was a Democratic bogeyman just two decades ago. Earning crossover support like that might normally signal a candidate is expanding their appeal to some nontraditional voters. And to be sure, early post-election data indicate that Harris may have won a slightly greater share of Republican voters (seven percent) than Trump won of Democratic voters (four percent). But Harris didn’t have to do anything meaningful to earn Cheney’s support, like make policy concessions, because Cheney’s dislike of Trump was strong enough that she was likely always going to side with Harris. This then prompts a question: how many Republican voters was Cheney actually able to bring along with her? Americans who shared her anti-Trump animus and whose votes were driven by it likely didn’t need any convincing to support Harris. So, if Cheney wasn’t forcing Harris’s hand on certain policies in exchange for her endorsement or bringing a new type of voter into Harris’s tent, it’s not clear that she boosted Harris’s “moderate” appeal at all. One final thing that hurt Harris’s attempt to fashion herself as a moderate was her refusal to distance herself from President Biden. Though Biden ran to the right of most of the 2020 Democratic primary field, he made a conscious decision at the beginning of his presidency to swing left. He demonstrated this early on by hiring staffers who had previously worked for Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders while shunning moderates like Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers, veterans of Obama’s White House—all in an effort to ingratiate himself with the party’s progressive faction. This was also evident in how he governed. Biden made a concerted effort to push policy ideas that thrilled the progressive wing of the party, such as the COVID stimulus package early in his administration, which has since been linked to the subsequently higher rate of inflation. He also acquiesced to their demands on a liberalized asylum policy and student debt forgiveness, neither of which went over well with the public. Biden additionally took controversial actions related to race and social justice. One of his first acts as president was signing several executive orders related to advancing “equity,” one of which called for “an ­ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda.” Perhaps all this is why polls in the early part of summer, just before Biden dropped out, showed that more voters saw Biden as “ideologically extreme” than said the same about Trump—and why Harris’s insistence on embracing him during the campaign may have hurt her. Indeed, Blueprint’s polling found that among the other main reasons voters chose not to support Harris was that they viewed her as too closely tied to Biden. There appear to be voices on the left that are reluctant to acknowledge some hard truths about the state of the Democratic Party and why it has struggled to consistently win or build an electorally dominant coalition. The reality is that although Americans are open to many of the economically populist ideas the party supports, they are also on average more culturally moderate or even conservative than the Democratic base. And the evidence is quickly becoming clear that unless the party adjusts to this—in both words and actions—it may continue to cost them votes.
  13. On Russia 1, the Russian state channel - war against the US. "To use their Storm Shadow, their SCALP and their ATACMS, you need a launcher, the missile itself and a satellite navigation system. For us, there is a simple answer, let's destroy NATO satellites and more specifically, the American satellites that fly above us. They could not prevent it, it would be a challenge for them, a real slap in the face because America has always declared that attacking its satellites is a declaration of war, by doing this, we would be getting back at them by saying, you want a Cuban missile crisis? You will have a Cuban missile crisis, with each strike (with American weapons), there will be a satellite on the ground."
  14. No, this is false at multiple levels. Starting with the entire premiss that 'truthers' have special, insider knowledge that makes them the only ones who know what is going on. They think they are the only ones who have it all sussed out, when in reality they are just dupes being played by a cottage industry lunatics, crackpots, grifters, pied pipers, disinformation agents, etc etc. Most 'truthers' exist within a massive, self-contained, self-perpetuating ecosphere of delusional paranoia, and far too often are milked like cows by the various and sundry malign actors (Alex Jones being the archetypal example) who keep the whole thing up and running.
  15. Not exactly heartbroken. Good servant of the club but meh goalie and clearly whatever he is teaching is not helping Sanchez. Same as with hilario, Sanchez weaknesses are his distribution and decision making. Things that are K believe at least something you can improve on at any age. The question is however how will lollichons legacy be passed on.
  16. Read he offered to job share but Chelsea said no
  17. Handed in his notice after 18 years Will now work with TT and England
  18. Champions League women at Stamford Bridge at 8:00 pm UK TONIGHT CFCW vs CELTIC W
  19. When discussing these topics on a internet forum it's hard to put it into text form plus the internet was created to track and trace any truther and get arrested for knowing what going on. Everything that is on TV and news is a psyop or coverup of a real reason to misplace people's thoughts and cause division by getting everyone stressed fear fighting and vonfusiin and not looking at the shadow secret underground government that runs puppet people with money to do their bidding. I've moved in from that airplane distraction EVENT, if the news breaks the info on tv, it's used to get everything paying attention to it so they cause division and wars between humanity while the elites get away with evil behind the scenes.
  20. You never responded to me, since you love a lot of conspiracy theory what was your thought on Ashton Forbes that USA had their hand in the disappearing of MH370?
  21. Look it up on Google maps. I live in Howick in Auckland, New Zealand. I moved from Johannesburg South Africa on Sunday 19 June 2005 and landed on Tuesday 21 June 2005 at Auckland airport from spending 8 hours inside hong Kong airport to flying over some parts of Australia to get to Auckland.
  22. It’s time to take a look at another round of international games last night with a Chelsea connection. Both Joao Felix and Renato Veiga started for Portugal in their 1-1 draw against Croatia in the Nations League. Felix started as part of two up top for Portugal alongside Raphael Leao, and Veiga started in the […]View the full article
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

talk chelse forums

We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Talk Chelsea relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online because over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this website and help us by switching your ad blocker off.

KTBFFH
Thank You