Media Search:



Bill Clinton talks aliens and Area 51 with James Corden – Marca English

Former President Bill Clinton revealed this week that during his presidency, he sent his national security adviser to inspect Area 51 in Nevada for aliens.

Clinton said he and his former chief of staff, John Podesta "made every effort to find out everything about Roswell" during an appearance on "The Late Late Show with James Corden" on Thursday.

We also sent people to Area 51 to make sure there were no aliens," he said. James Corden then asked more about the subject. "Oh, if I told you that..." Clinton joked before revealing that he sent Sandy Berger, his national security adviser, who died of cancer in 2015.

"I said, 'We gotta find out how we're gonna deal with this because that's where we do a lot of our invisibility research, in terms of technology, like how do we fly airplanes that aren't picked up by radar and all that,'" Clinton discussed excitedly. "So that's why they're so secretive. But there's no aliens, as I know."

Clinton went on to recall a trip to Hawaii in 2018 with his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during which they visited the W. M. Keck Observatory.

He said he met with scientists after touring the mountain's telescopes and asked them if they disagreed about "the likelihood of life in outer space." The scientists, Clinton told the audience, have "huge disagreements" on the subject.

"He said, 'There are those of us who think it's 85% likely and those of us who think it's 95% likely,'" Clinton said. "These are people who spend their lives doing this.

Congress held its first hearing on UFOs in over 50 years in May. While it did not confirm the existence of extraterrestrial life, it did state that sightings of unknown craft are taken seriously as a national security threat by the US military.

Last week, NASA announced the formation of a team to investigate the mysterious sightings. From a scientific standpoint, researchers will collect data on "events in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena."

See more here:
Bill Clinton talks aliens and Area 51 with James Corden - Marca English

Biden’s Putin obsession batters global growth – The Sunday Guardian Live – The Sunday Guardian

An early conclusion to the Ukraine war may seem unjust. Yet that sacrifice is needed to prevent global turmoil.

Poll numbers are helping President Joe Biden to slowly comprehend the reality. Which is that it is his transformational $2 trillion Societal Stimulus package getting passed that ought to be the White House priority. Instead, this year he has been acting as Sir Joe, riding forth to avenge the electoral defeat of Lady Hillary in 2016. According to the Clintonistas (including those now masquerading as Bidenistas), the defeat of Hillary Clinton at the hands of Don Trump was due to the machinations of Vladimir Putin. Much of the election-related received wisdom in the ranks of the Democratic Party is clearly the content of nursery tales or morality fables rather than fact. To seriously claim that the current occupant of the Kremlin has the capability to overturn a presidential election in the US implies that todays Russia (at least under Putin) is way more powerful than the USSR was in its heyday. The Clinton fable that Russia stole the 2016 election created the momentum required for the next nursery tale, which was the Trumpian view that Biden somehow stole the 2020 election although it was Trump who was the President. There were indeed US presidential elections that were unusual in the causes of the final outcome, as for example the victory of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000, which was decided not by the voters or the electors but by that faithful associate of the Republican Party, the US Supreme Court. Loser Al Gore accepted the verdict of the court with grace, while President Bush went on to rescue Al Qaeda and their ISI friends through the Kunduz airlift in Afghanistan. Not to mention rewarding Iran by ensuring that Iraq moved into Tehrans sphere of influence in two years later, whereas the former regime had been virulently against Iran since the Khomeinist takeover in 1979. Joe Biden would have been able to defeat Trump in 2016, but his innate generosity of spirit towards the Clintons made the then Vice-President step aside and allow Hillary to be the Democratic nominee.From the moment Hillary became her partys candidate, Donald Trump had the edge, and he retained it by promising change, which was in a way delivered. Tossing aside the Lincoln dictum, the Trump White House was of, for and run by billionaires, no questions asked. As President Biden reminded voters some days ago, billionaires in the US each pay less than 10% of their incomes as federal taxes. What was Biden doing about such a scandalous state of affairs during his tenure as a Senator, or has done since heading the executive branch of the US? Biden soon lost interest in taxing billionaires fairly or in getting passed his Social Stimulus plan, focussing instead on getting bipartisan support for his mission of punishing Putin for what he believed was responsibility for the defeat of Hillary Clinton at the hands of Trump, the (in the restrained and measured language typical of her) a puppet of Putin. President Biden was joined by Boris Johnson and other European leaders in what they advertised as a Righteous War against Putin-led Russia. Four months on, even cheerleaders of the war such as CNN and BBC are having difficulties in claiming that Saint Volodymyr and his no-longer-merry men are having the advantage over the Russian military. The US-UK-EU stream of economic sanctions against the Russian Federation have not prevented Ukraine from losing more territory to the Russians. Instead, they have created global supply and logistics difficulties that are pulling the world into a recession that will develop into a depression unless the war in Ukraine is swiftly brought to a close. Bidens shift of focus from domestic priorities to the Russia-Ukraine war are on track to ensure the wipe-out of the Democratic Party in the November midterms. Such a catastrophe would thereby render President Biden not a lame duck but a legless duck during the balance of his Presidential term.President Zelenskyy is undergoing the pain of watching his country slowly drown in a morass of blood and treasure as a consequence of his lack of understanding of the imperative of good relations with Moscow in creating stability in Ukraine. Being a maestro in comedy may not always be the best training for a grasp of the realities of realpolitik. Even as Ukraine sinks, Zelenskyy is calling out for and getting more weapons, so that a conflict. The effect of this would be to ensure a catastrophic global impact. What is needed is not to continue the war but Ukraine cutting its losses and ending hostilities with its much stronger foe. Across both sides of the Atlantic, disregarding their own and their countries interests, the message is the same: the war must go on, no matter what the price, including to countries that have zero role in the escalating fiasco. Still fixated on vanquishing Putin rather than fending off the Republican challenge to the Democrats in the midterms so as to get passed his $2 trillion stimulus package, President Biden is leading the NATO charge against Russia. The 2020 election was won by Biden on his promise to focus on a domestic agenda designed to rectify several of the injustices that have long plagued US society. Getting passed by the US Congress his $2 trillion social justice stimulus is essential for the US President to achieve this. That priority appears to have been forgotten in the White House obsession with Putin. The USSR-US Cold War 1.0 may have ended in 1991 but its ghosts still haunt much of the thinking in Washington. Wall Streeter and economist Larry Summers ignores the havoc the Ukraine war is causing and repeats that the need is to double down on prolonging the conflict. This despite the fact that the war is causing the very inflation that Summers incessantly warns about. Meanwhile, NSA Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken are busying themselves in trying to win over Beijing. Defense Secretary Llyod Austin in contrast talks about standing up to China in a way his own colleagues fail to do. Commander-in-Chief Biden is seeking a personal meeting with Xi Jinping in the belief that the latter will help the White House rein in Putin from prosecuting a war that is boosting the strategic interests of the PRC. What is obvious to those not in thrall to nursery tales and fables is that Biden needs to ensure that the war in Ukraine ends soonest, which is what Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been seeking for over three months and counting. What is lost by Ukraine is lost, and the longer the war carries on, the more will be lost to Russia, the more will be the cost to the globe. An early conclusion to the war, by removal of the life support provided by NATO to Ukraine may seem unjust. Yet that sacrifice is needed to prevent the world from going in for economic and societal turmoil that would be inevitable should the conflict continue. An end to the war and the attendant US-UK-EU sanctions would immediately send oil and gas prices down, damp down inflation and boost economic prospects as well as food security. In a choice between evils, such an option is the lesser evil. If done in time, its effects may even ensure that the US House and Senate after the 2022 midterms is such as to pass the legislation on the $ 2 trillion stimulus that is essential for stability in the US. Getting that passed after his party wins in the midterms ought to be President Bidens obsession rather than his quixotic quest for securing the defeat of Russia in Ukraine, and the removal from the Kremlin of Vladimir Putin.

Originally posted here:
Biden's Putin obsession batters global growth - The Sunday Guardian Live - The Sunday Guardian

Why a Rhodes Scholars Ambition Led Her to a Job at Starbucks – The New York Times

Most weekend mornings, Jaz Brisack gets up around 5, wills her semiconscious body into a Toyota Prius and winds her way through Buffalo, to the Starbucks on Elmwood Avenue. After a supervisor unlocks the door, she clocks in, checks herself for Covid symptoms and helps get the store ready for customers.

Im almost always on bar if I open, said Ms. Brisack, who has a thrift-store aesthetic and long reddish-brown hair that she parts down the middle. I like steaming milk, pouring lattes.

The Starbucks door is not the only one that has been opened for her. As a University of Mississippi senior in 2018, Ms. Brisack was one of 32 Americans who won Rhodes scholarships, which fund study in Oxford, England.

Many students seek the scholarship because it can pave the way to a career in the top ranks of law, academia, government or business. They are motivated by a mix of ambition and idealism.

Ms. Brisack became a barista for similar reasons: She believed it was simply the most urgent claim on her time and her many talents.

When she joined Starbucks in late 2020, not a single one of the companys 9,000 U.S. locations had a union. Ms. Brisack hoped to change that by helping to unionize its stores in Buffalo.

Improbably, she and her co-workers have far exceeded their goal. Since December, when her store became the only corporate-owned Starbucks in the United States with a certified union, more than 150 other stores have voted to unionize, and more than 275 have filed paperwork to hold elections. Their actions come amid an increase in public support for unions, which last year reached its highest point since the mid-1960s, and a growing consensus among center-left experts that rising union membership could move millions of workers into the middle class.

Ms. Brisacks weekend shift represents all these trends, as well as one more: a change in the views of the most privileged Americans. According to Gallup, approval of unions among college graduates grew from 55 percent in the late 1990s to 70 percent last year.

I have seen this first hand in more than seven years of reporting on unions, as a growing interest among white-collar workers has coincided with a broader enthusiasm for the labor movement.

In talking with Ms. Brisack and her fellow Rhodes scholars, it became clear that the change had even reached that rarefied group. The American Rhodes scholars I encountered from a generation earlier typically said that, while at Oxford, they had been middle-of-the-road types who believed in a modest role for government. They did not spend much time thinking about unions as students, and what they did think was likely to be skeptical.

I was a child of the 1980s and 1990s, steeped in the centrist politics of the era, wrote Jake Sullivan, a 1998 Rhodes scholar who is President Bidens national security adviser and was a top aide to Hillary Clinton.

By contrast, many of Ms. Brisacks Rhodes classmates express reservations about the market-oriented policies of the 80s and 90s and strong support for unions. Several told me that they were enthusiastic about Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who made reviving the labor movement a priority of their 2020 presidential campaigns.

Even more so than other indicators, such a shift could foretell a comeback for unions, whose membership in the United States stands at its lowest percentage in roughly a century. Thats because the kinds of people who win prestigious scholarships are the kinds who later hold positions of power who make decisions about whether to fight unions or negotiate with them, about whether the law should make it easier or harder for workers to organize.

As the recent union campaigns at companies like Starbucks, Amazon and Apple show, the terms of the fight are still largely set by corporate leaders. If these people are increasingly sympathetic to labor, then some of the key obstacles to unions may be dissolving.

Then again, Jaz Brisack isnt waiting to find out.

Ms. Brisack moved to Buffalo after Oxford for another job, as an organizer with the union Workers United, where a mentor she had met in college also worked. Once there, she decided to take a second gig at Starbucks.

Her philosophy was get on the job and organize. She wanted to learn the industry, said Gary Bonadonna Jr., the top Workers United official in upstate New York. I said, OK.

In its pushback against the campaign, Starbucks has often blamed outside union forces intent on harming the company, as its chief executive, Howard Schultz, suggested in April. The company has identified Ms. Brisack as one of these interlopers, noting that she draws a salary from Workers United. (Mr. Bonadonna said she was the only Starbucks employee on the unions payroll.)

But the impression that Ms. Brisack and her fellow employee-organizers give off is one of fondness for the company. Even as they point out flaws understaffing, insufficient training, low seniority pay, all of which they want to improve they embrace Starbucks and its distinctive culture.

They talk up their sense of camaraderie and community many count regular customers among their friends and delight in their coffee expertise. On mornings when Ms. Brisacks store isnt busy, employees often hold tastings.

A Starbucks spokesman said that Mr. Schultz believes employees dont need a union if they have faith in him and his motives, and the company has said that seniority-based pay increases will take effect this summer.

One Friday in late February, Ms. Brisack and another barista, Casey Moore, met at the two-bedroom rental that Ms. Brisack shares with three cats, to talk union strategy over breakfast. Naturally, the conversation turned to coffee.

Jaz has a very barista drink, Ms. Moore said.

Ms. Brisack elaborated: Its four blonde ristretto shots thats a lighter roast of espresso with oat milk. Its basically an iced latte with oat milk. If we had sugar-cookie syrup, I would get that. Now that thats no more, its usually plain.

That afternoon, Ms. Brisack held a Zoom call from her living room with a group of Starbucks employees who were interested in unionizing. It is an exercise that she and other organizers in Buffalo have repeated hundreds of times since last fall, as workers around the country sought to follow their lead. But in almost every case, the Starbucks workers outside Buffalo have reached out to the organizers, rather than vice versa.

This particular group of workers, in Ms. Brisacks college town of Oxford, Miss., seemed to require even less of a hard sell than most. When Ms. Brisack said she, too, had attended the University of Mississippi, one of the workers waved her off, as if her celebrity preceded her. Oh, yeah, we know Jaz, the worker gushed.

A few hours later, Ms. Brisack, Ms. Moore and Michelle Eisen, a longtime Starbucks employee also involved in the organizing, gathered with two union lawyers at the union office in a onetime auto plant. The National Labor Relations Board was counting ballots for an election at a Starbucks in Mesa, Ariz. the first real test of whether the campaign was taking root nationally, and not just in a union stronghold like New York. The room was tense as the first results trickled in.

Can you feel my heart beating? Ms. Moore asked her colleagues.

Within a few minutes, however, it became clear that the union would win in a rout the final count was 25 to 3. Everyone turned slightly punchy, as if they had all suddenly entered a dream world where unions were far more popular than they had ever imagined. One of the lawyers let out an expletive before musing, Whoever organized down there

Ms. Brisack seemed to capture the mood when she read a text from a co-worker to the group: Im so happy Im crying and eating a week-old ice cream cake.

Ms. Brisack once appeared to be on a different path. As a child, she idolized Lyndon Johnson and imagined running for office. At the University of Mississippi, she was elected president of the college Democrats.

She had developed an interest in labor history as a teenager, when money was sometimes tight, but it was largely an academic interest. She had read Eugene Debs, said Tim Dolan, the universitys national scholarship adviser at the time. It was like, Oh, gosh. Wow.

When Richard Bensinger, a former organizing director with the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the United Automobile Workers, came to speak on campus, she realized that union organizing was more than a historical curiosity. She talked her way into an internship on a union campaign he was involved with at a nearby Nissan plant. It did not go well. The union accused the company of running a racially divisive campaign, and Ms. Brisack was disillusioned by the loss.

Nissan never paid a consequence for what it did, she said. (In response to charges of scare tactics, the company said at the time that it had sought to provide information to workers and clear up misperceptions.)

Mr. Dolan noticed that she was becoming jaded about mainstream politics. There were times between her sophomore and junior year when Id steer her toward something and shed say, Oh, theyre way too conservative. Id send her a New York Times article and shed say, Neoliberalism is dead.

In England, where she arrived during the fall of 2019 at age 22, Ms. Brisack was a regular at a solidarity film club that screened movies about labor struggles worldwide, and wore a sweatshirt that featured a head shot of Karl Marx. She liberally reinterpreted the term black tie at an annual Rhodes dinner, wearing a black dress-coat over a black antifa T-shirt.

I went and got gowns and everything I wanted to fit in, said a friend and fellow Rhodes scholar, Leah Crowder. I always loved how she never tried to fit into Oxford.

But Ms. Brisacks politics didnt stand out the way her formal wear did. In talking with eight other American Rhodes scholars from her year, I got the sense that progressive politics were generally in the ether. Almost all expressed some skepticism of markets and agreed that workers should have more power. The only one who questioned aspects of collective bargaining told me that few of his classmates would have agreed, and that he might have been loudly jeered for expressing reservations.

Some in the group even said they had incorporated pro-labor views into their career aspirations.

Claire Wang has focused on helping fossil fuel workers find family-sustaining jobs as the world transitions to green energy. Unions are a critical partner in this work, she told me. Rayan Semery-Palumbo, who is finishing a dissertation on inequality and meritocracy while working for a climate technology start-up, lamented that workers had too little leverage. Labor unions may be the most effective way of implementing change going forward for a lot of people, including myself, he told me. I might find myself in labor organizing work.

This is not what talking to Rhodes scholars used to sound like. At least not in my experience.

I was a Rhodes scholar in 1998, when centrist politicians like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were ascendant, and before neoliberalism became such a dirty word. Though we were dimly aware of a time, decades earlier, when radicalism and pro-labor views were more common among American elites and when, not coincidentally, the U.S. labor movement was much more powerful those views were far less in evidence by the time I got to Oxford.

Some of my classmates were interested in issues like race and poverty, as they reminded me in interviews for this article. A few had nuanced views of labor they had worked a blue-collar job, or had parents who belonged to a union, or had studied their Marx. Still, most of my classmates would have regarded people who talked at length about unions and class the way they would have regarded religious fundamentalists: probably earnest but slightly preachy, and clearly stuck in the past.

Kris Abrams, one of the few U.S. Rhodes Scholars in our cohort who thought a lot about the working class and labor organizing, told me recently that she felt isolated at Oxford, at least among other Americans. Honestly, I didnt feel like there was much room for discussion, Ms. Abrams said.

By contrast, it was common within our cohort to revere business and markets and globalization. As an undergraduate, my friend and Rhodes classmate Roy Bahat led a large public-service organization that periodically worked with unions. But as the new economy boomed in 1999, he interned at a large corporation. It dawned on him that a career in business might be more desirable a way to make a larger impact on the world.

There was a major shift in my own mentality, Roy told me. I became more open to business. It didnt hurt that the pay was good, too.

Roy would go on to work for McKinsey & Company, the City of New York and the executive ranks of News Corp, then start a venture capital fund focused on technologies that change how business operates. More recently, in a sign of the times, his investment portfolio has included companies that make it easier for workers to organize.

On some level, Roy Bahat and Jaz Brisack are not so different: Both are chronic overachievers; both are ambitious about changing society for the better; both are sympathetic to the underdog by way of intellect and disposition. But the world was telling Roy in the late 1990s to go into business if he wanted to influence events. The world was telling Ms. Brisack in 2020 to move to Buffalo and organize workers.

The first time I met Ms. Brisack was in October, at a Starbucks near the Buffalo airport.

I was there to cover the union election. She was there, unsolicited, to brief me. I dont think we can lose, she said of the vote at her store. At the time, not a single corporate-owned Starbucks in the country was unionized. The union would go on to win there by more than a two-to-one ratio.

Its hard to overstate the challenge of unionizing a major corporation that doesnt want to be unionized. Employers are allowed to inundate workers with anti-union messaging, whereas unions have no protected access to workers on the job. And while it is officially illegal to threaten, discipline or fire workers who seek to unionize, the consequences for doing so are typically minor and long in coming.

At Starbucks, the National Labor Relations Board has issued complaints finding merit in such accusations. Yet the union continues to win elections over 80 percent of the more than 175 votes in which the board has declared a winner. (Starbucks denies that it has broken the law, and a federal judge recently rejected a request to reinstate pro-union workers whom the labor board said Starbucks had forced out illegally.)

Though Ms. Brisack was one of dozens of early leaders of the union campaign, the imprint of her personality is visible. In store after store around the country, workers who support the union give no ground in meetings with company officials.

Even prospective allies are not spared. In May, after Time ran a favorable piece, Ms. Brisacks response on Twitter was: We appreciate TIME magazines coverage of our union campaign. TIME should make sure theyre giving the same union rights and protections that were fighting for to the amazing journalists, photographers, and staff who make this coverage possible!

The tweet reminded me of a story that Mr. Dolan, her scholarship adviser, had told about a reception that the University of Mississippi held in her honor in 2018. Ms. Brisack had just won a Truman scholarship, another prestigious award. She took the opportunity to urge the universitys chancellor to remove a Confederate monument from campus. The chancellor looked pained, according to several attendees.

My boss was like, Wow, you couldnt have talked her out of doing that? Mr. Dolan said. I was like, Thats what made her win. If she wasnt that person, you all wouldnt have a Truman now.

(Mr. Dolans boss at the time did not recall this conversation, and the former chancellor did not recall any drama at the event.)

The challenge for Ms. Brisack and her colleagues is that while younger people, even younger elites, are increasingly pro-union, the shift has not yet reached many of the countrys most powerful leaders. Or, more to the point, the shift has not yet reached Mr. Schultz, the 68-year-old now in his third tour as Starbuckss chief executive.

She recently spoke at an Aspen Institute panel on workers rights. She has even mused about using her Rhodes connections to make a personal appeal to Mr. Schultz, something that Mr. Bensinger has pooh-poohed but that other organizers believe she just may pull off.

Richard has been making fun of me for thinking of asking one of the Rhodes people to broker a meeting with Howard Schultz, Ms. Brisack said in February.

Im sure if you met Howard Schultz, hed be like, Shes so nice, responded Ms. Moore, her co-worker. Hed be like, I get it. I would want to be in a union with you, too.

More here:
Why a Rhodes Scholars Ambition Led Her to a Job at Starbucks - The New York Times

Inside Krakens Culture War Stoked by Its C.E.O. – The New York Times

Jesse Powell, a founder and the chief executive of Kraken, one of the worlds largest cryptocurrency exchanges, recently asked his employees, If you can identify as a sex, can you identify as a race or ethnicity?

He also questioned their use of preferred pronouns and led a discussion about who can refer to another person as the N word.

And he told workers that questions about womens intelligence and risk appetite compared with mens were not as settled as one might have initially thought.

In the process, Mr. Powell, a 41-year-old Bitcoin pioneer, ignited a culture war among his more than 3,000 workers, according to interviews with five Kraken employees, as well as internal documents, videos and chat logs reviewed by The New York Times. Some workers have openly challenged the chief executive for what they see as his hurtful comments. Others have accused him of fostering a hateful workplace and damaging their mental health. Dozens are considering quitting, said the employees, who did not want to speak publicly for fear of retaliation.

Corporate culture wars have abounded during the coronavirus pandemic as remote work, inequity and diversity have become central issues at workplaces. At Meta, which owns Facebook, restive employees have agitated over racial justice. At Netflix, employees protested the companys support for the comedian Dave Chappelle after he aired a special that was criticized as transphobic.

But rarely has such angst been actively stoked by the top boss. And even in the male-dominated cryptocurrency industry, which is known for a libertarian philosophy that promotes freewheeling speech, Mr. Powell has taken that ethos to an extreme.

His boundary pushing comes amid a deepening crypto downturn. On Tuesday, Coinbase, one of Krakens main competitors, said it was laying off 18 percent of its employees, following job cuts at Gemini and Crypto.com, two other crypto exchanges. Kraken which is valued at $11 billion, according to PitchBook is also grappling with the turbulence in the crypto market, as the price of Bitcoin has plunged to its lowest point since 2020.

Mr. Powells culture crusade, which has largely played out on Krakens Slack channels, may be part of a wider effort to push out workers who dont believe in the same values as the crypto industry is retrenching, the employees said.

This month, Mr. Powell unveiled a 31-page culture document outlining Krakens libertarian philosophical values and commitment to diversity of thought, and told employees in a meeting that he did not believe they should choose their own pronouns. The document and a recording of the meeting were obtained by The Times.

Those who disagreed could quit, Mr. Powell said, and opt into a program that would provide four months of pay if they affirmed that they would never work at Kraken again. Employees have until Monday to decide if they want to take part.

On Monday, Christina Yee, a Kraken executive, gave those on the fence a nudge, writing in a Slack post that the C.E.O., company, and culture are not going to change in a meaningful way.

If someone strongly dislikes or hates working here or thinks those here are hateful or have poor character, she said, work somewhere that doesnt disgust you.

After The Times contacted Kraken about its internal conversations, the company publicly posted an edited version of its culture document on Tuesday. In a statement, Alex Rapoport, a spokeswoman, said Kraken does not tolerate inappropriate discussions. She added that as the company more than doubled its work force in recent years, we felt the time was right to reinforce our mission and our values.

Mr. Powell and Ms. Yee did not respond to requests for comment. In a Twitter thread on Wednesday in anticipation of this article, Mr. Powell said that about 20 people were not on board with Krakens culture and that even though teams should have more input, he was way more studied on policy topics.

People get triggered by everything and cant conform to basic rules of honest debate, he wrote. Back to dictatorship.

The conflict at Kraken shows the difficulty of translating cryptos political ideologies to a modern workplace, said Finn Brunton, a technology studies professor at the University of California, Davis, who wrote a book in 2019 about the history of digital currencies. Many early Bitcoin proponents championed freedom of ideas and disdained government intrusion; more recently, some have rejected identity politics and calls for political correctness.

A lot of the big whales and big representatives now theyre trying to bury that history, Mr. Brunton said. The people who are left who really hold to that are feeling more embattled.

Mr. Powell, who attended California State University, Sacramento, started an online store in 2001 called Lewt, which sold virtual amulets and potions to gamers. A decade later, he embraced Bitcoin as an alternative to government-backed money.

In 2011, Mr. Powell worked on Mt. Gox, one of the first crypto exchanges, helping the company navigate a security issue. (Mt. Gox collapsed in 2014.)

Mr. Powell founded Kraken later in 2011 with Thanh Luu, who sits on the companys board. The start-up operates a crypto exchange where investors can trade digital assets. Kraken had its headquarters in San Francisco but is now a largely remote operation. It has raised funds from investors like Hummingbird Ventures and Tribe Capital.

As cryptocurrency prices skyrocketed in recent years, Kraken became the second-largest crypto exchange in the United States behind Coinbase, according to CoinMarketCap, an industry data tracker. Mr. Powell said last year that he was planning to take the company public.

He also insisted that some workers subscribe to Bitcoins philosophical underpinnings. We have this ideological purity test, Mr. Powell said about the companys hiring process on a 2018 crypto podcast. A test of whether youre kind of aligned with the vision of Bitcoin and crypto.

In 2019, former Kraken employees posted scathing comments about the company on Glassdoor, a website where workers write anonymous reviews of their employers.

Kraken is the perfect allegory for any utopian government ideal, one reviewer wrote. Great ideas in theory but in practice they end up very controlling, negative and mistrustful.

In response, Krakens parent company sued the anonymous reviewers and tried to force Glassdoor to reveal their identities. A court ordered Glassdoor to turn over some names.

On Glassdoor, Mr. Powell has a 96 percent approval rating. The site adds, This employer has taken legal action against reviewers.

At Kraken, Mr. Powell is part of a Slack group called trolling-999plus, according to messages viewed by The Times. The group is labeled and you thought 4chan was full of trolls, referring to the anonymous online message board known for hate speech and radicalizing some of the gunmen behind mass shootings.

In April, a Kraken employee posted a video internally on a different Slack group that set off the latest fracas. The video featured two women who said they preferred $100 in cash over a Bitcoin, which at the time cost more than $40,000. But this is how female brain works, the employee commented.

Mr. Powell chimed in. He said the debate over womens mental abilities was unsettled. Most American ladies have been brainwashed in modern times, he added on Slack, in an exchange viewed by The Times.

His comments fueled a furor.

For the person we look to for leadership and advocacy to joke about us being brainwashed in this context or make light of this situation is hurtful, wrote one female employee.

It isnt heartening to see your genders minds, capabilities, and preferences discussed like this, another wrote. Its incredibly othering and harmful to women.

Being offended is not being harmed, Mr. Powell responded. A discussion about science, biology, attempting to determine facts of the world cannot be harmful.

At a companywide meeting on June 1, Mr. Powell was discussing Krakens global footprint, with workers in 70 countries, when he veered to the topic of preferred pronouns. It was time for Kraken to control the language, he said on the video call.

Its just not practical to allow 3,000 people to customize their pronouns, he said.

That same day, he invited employees to join him in a Slack channel called debate-pronouns where he suggested that people use pronouns based not on their gender identity but their sex at birth, according to conversations seen by The Times. He shut down replies to the thread after it became contentious.

Mr. Powell reopened discussion on Slack the next day to ask why people couldnt choose their race or ethnicity. He later said the conversation was about who could use the N-word, which he noted wasnt a slur when used affectionately.

Mr. Powell also circulated the culture document, titled Kraken Culture Explained.

We Dont Forbid Offensiveness, read one section. Another said employees should show tolerance for diverse thinking; refrain from labeling comments as toxic, hateful, racist, x-phobic, unhelpful, etc.; and avoid censoring others.

It also explained that the company had eschewed vaccine requirements in the name of Krakenite bodily autonomy. In a section titled self-defense, it said that law-abiding citizens should be able to arm themselves.

You may need to regularly consider these crypto and libertarian values when making work decisions, it said.

In the edited version of the document that Kraken publicly posted, mentions of Covid-19 vaccinations and the companys belief in letting people arm themselves were omitted.

Those who disagreed with the document were encouraged to depart. At the June 1 meeting, Mr. Powell unveiled the Jet Ski Program, which the company has labeled a recommitment to its core values. Anyone who felt uncomfortable had two weeks to leave, with four months pay.

If you want to leave Kraken, read a memo about the program, we want it to feel like you are hopping on a jet ski and heading happily to your next adventure!

Kitty Bennett and Aimee Ortiz contributed research.

Read more:
Inside Krakens Culture War Stoked by Its C.E.O. - The New York Times

What responsibility do journalists have when covering incendiary wars about religion and culture? – GetReligion

Im referring to India, a constitutionally secular nation wracked by inter-religious conflict between majority Hindus and minority Muslims (Christians have been caught in this imbroglio, too, but put that aside for the duration of this post).

Heres a recent overview of Indias situation from The Washington Post. And heres the top of that report::

NEW DELHI After a spokeswoman for Indias ruling party made disparaging remarks about the prophet Muhammad during a recent televised debate, rioters took to the streets in the northern city of Kanpur, throwing rocks and clashing with police.

It was only the beginning of a controversy that would have global repercussions.

Indian products were soon taken off shelves in the Persian Gulf after a high-ranking Muslim cleric called for boycotts. Hashtags expressing anger at Prime Minister Narendra Modi began trending on Arabic-language Twitter. Three Muslim-majority countries Qatar, Kuwait and Iran summoned their Indian ambassadors to convey their displeasure. The governments of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Afghanistan on Monday condemned the spokeswoman, Nupur Sharma, as did the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

Inflammatory comments by right-wing activists and political leaders in India often make headlines and spark outrage on social media. But rarely do they elicit the kind of attention that Sharma drew in [early June], which sent her political party and Indias diplomats scrambling to contain an international public relations crisis.

Lets step back from the news coverage for a moment to consider some underlying dynamics and their impact on journalism.

Culture wars, to my mind, are, in essence, political struggles in which one group seeks to impose its values, structures, and narrative its world view, in short on another. At least, this is the way the term is used in most mainstream coverage, as opposed to the actual work of the sociologist James Davison Hunter who wrote the most influential book on this topic.

Individual and societal values drawn from religious sources provide the ammunition for clashes over gender and sexuality issues, religious tolerance and intolerance, acceptable speech, immigration and other hot-button topics spurred by todays unprecedented rate of social change.

Americans have seen how ugly culture wars can become when electoral politics are caught in its talons. Witness the vitriol that dominates the news out of Washington and various state capitals these days.

Witness the level of culture wars manipulation that occurred under ex-President Donald Trump (of course pro-MAGA conservatives will argue that progressive Democrats the problem). And witness what happened in Idaho, where 31 anti-gay demonstrators were arrested for allegedly planning to riot at a gay pride parade last Saturday. The Coeur dAlene incident underscored how dangerous Americas culture war has become and what we might expect more of.

The situation in India the worlds largest Hindu-majority nation with the third largest Muslim population after Indonesia and Pakistan is arguably even worse. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have long been accused of rallying their Hindu nationalist base by sowing, for example, Hindu fears about Muslim men seducing Hindu women.

(In truth, many Muslims seem no more accepting of Hindu-Muslim unions than are Hindus. This Hindustan Times story from May underscores this reality.)

Heres a bit more explanation from the Post piece to which I linked above.

The [insult] controversy highlights one of the challenges to Indian foreign policy at a time when Modi is seeking a greater role on the world stage: Although his government has cultivated strong diplomatic ties with many Muslim nations, including both Saudi Arabia and Iran, his party has come under growing criticism for its treatment of Indias Muslim minority. It is accused by rights groups of stoking Hindu nationalist sentiment and turning a blind eye to religious violence.

India under Modi has been quite deft in dealing with the Muslim world, but this was almost inevitable, said Sumit Ganguly, a professor of political science at Indiana University. At home, a lynching takes place and Modi remains deafeningly silent. Now, he feels compelled to act because he realizes the damage abroad could be extensive. When it comes to foreign policy, the stakes are high.

The Indian government has sought to downplay a string of local religious controversies in recent months, including a ban on headscarves for female students, the razing of Muslim neighborhoods after communal clashes, and efforts by Hindu nationalists to reclaim high-profile mosques [that were once Hindu temple sites].

To better understand Indias complicated religious landscape read these two partisan pieces. The first is from an Indian Hindu perspective. The second is from a Muslim viewpoint, featured at Religion News Service.

Whats my bottom line? Governments and groups that stir conflict by focusing on religion and culture, for their own preservationist desires, are playing with fire.

Examples abound: From the American Civil War to Nazi Germany, from Israel and Palestine to Northern Irelands Protestant-Catholic troubles, to Myanmars treatment of its Rohingya Muslims and Chinas claim that its minority Muslim groups all represent a terrorist threat.

The reality is political leaders have long perhaps always used so-called culture war tactics to harden their support. Is it worse today? I cant really say.

What I can say, however, is that the deadliness of modern weaponry a category that includes the internet as well as tactical nuclear weapons raises the specter of culture wars becoming bloodier than ever. That includes the United States of America. Because were no smarter about these incessant problems than are Indians or any other of the other nationalities mentioned here.

That, dear readers, should worry you. It should also make you wonder about the responsibility journalists have in this issue.

My take is that its not enough to just regurgitate manipulative comments from leaders on both sides and then call it fair and objective journalism. I think we need context and the courage to challenge those who care more about careers than country.

Walking that path is, of course, far from easy. It has its own set of problems that are far too complex for me to detail here. But if you simply give additional serious thought to this issue, Ill consider my work here done.

FIRST IMAGE: Social-media image of protests against remarks by Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson Nupur Sharma, featured at the OpIndia commentary website.

Excerpt from:
What responsibility do journalists have when covering incendiary wars about religion and culture? - GetReligion