I my back teeth chatter as I walked on a cold New York street when I noticed a softly lit apartment glowing above me, warm chandelier orbs floating in a minimal room that looked almost inviting from the outside. It felt cozy, like the kind of place you’d want to step into just to thaw out for a moment. I like cozy homes and nooks, especially with lamps.  But inside, the man under that golden light wasn’t relaxing. He was locked in, phone in hand, eyes scanning, jaw slightly tight, focused on something that carried weight. There were faint lines on his monitor that looked like stocks or metrics, and his movements weren’t frantic, just charged, like someone running scenarios in his head. What struck me was the contrast. From the sidewalk, the room looked like comfort. From inside, it might have been pressure. Same light, same space, completely different realities depending on which side of the glass you stood on. That’s the Fish Bowl effect.

https://youtube.com/shorts/-4UtgOCgSBo?si=7r1sKxcy30TNtUNN

 

Warning: Contains some spoilers

#books #fiction #feminism

Something is rotten in the Republic of Korea. Its shining reputation as a miracle of post-war economic development obscures deeply troubled gender relations. Misogyny is more prevalent and firmly entrenched than in most other parts of the developed world, fueled by a combination of strong patriarchal traditions and increased economic insecurity. This is the backdrop against which Han Kang’s The Vegetarian, winner of the 2016 Man Booker Prize and superbly translated by Debora Smith, emerges.

At under 200 pages and written in a minimalist style evoking the surrealism of Kafka and Murakami, The Vegetarian describes the events that take place after Yeong-hye, a young woman, stops eating meat. The seemingly simple decision to adopt a vegetarian diet is met with increasingly aggressive incomprehension by her family, and their attempts to ‘cure’ Yeong-hye of her deviation have calamitous consequences. The Vegetarian is a powerful story of a woman who refuses to be an object and against all odds tries to eke out some agency in a world that is set against her.

There are three parts to The Vegetarian, none of which are narrated by Yeong-hye herself. We see her evolution first through the eyes of her husband, then her brother-in-law, and finally her sister. All three respond in different ways to Yeong-hye’s actions, and can be read as representing different perspectives on South Korean gender dynamics.

The husband, ‘Mr. Cheong’, is a singularly unpleasant character, who takes objectification to a whole new level. He relates to his wife in the way one might relate to a toaster or a toothbrush, and so responds to Yeong-hye’s conversion with about as much tact, understanding and interest as one would show a malfunctioning household object. At no point does Mr. Cheong refer to Yeong-hye by name, instead only thinking of her as ‘her’ or ‘his wife’. Fully absorbed in his own petty ambitions, Mr Cheong inevitably simply discards Yeong-hye once she no longer serves his mundane needs.

Part two shows us Yeong-hye through the eyes of her sister In-hye’s artist husband, who is pathologically sexually obsessed with her. His fixation only intensifies after she converts to her deviationist vegetarianism. Possessed by a vision of himself and Yeong-hye having sex while covered in painted flowers, he feels compelled to turn his fantasy into a reality. The brother-in-law may despise Mr. Cheong for his callousness towards Yeong-hye, but is singularly blind to his own objectification of her. If Mr. Cheong represents men treating their wives as property, the brother-in-law personifies the male gaze.

In the third and final chapter we experience the novel’s conclusion through In-hye. For In-hye, relating to Yeong-hye’s refusal to conform challenges her own sense of self and the roles she has played for her family and society, and the harms she has suffered as a result. Positioning In-hye’s perspective after the two male parts is a brilliant move, and Han Kang very carefully and sympathetically evokes the sisterhood and comradeship that can blossom between two dissimilar women who may not fully comprehend one another, but nonetheless come to see that they share a bond forged from the same patriarchal oppression.

Weaving together its story from these three parts, The Vegetarian executes something like a reverse-Kafka manoeuvre. In Kafka’s novels, it is the protagonists who make sense, but find themselves fatally stranded in surreal worlds governed by ineffable logics of their own. The Vegetarian appears to do the opposite: it is the world that we recognise and Yeong-hye who is impelled by a irrational motives. But it is only an apparent opposition, because Han Kang’s superb writing shows us that it is actually Yeong-hye’s world that does not make sense, and against which her actions are undeniably logical. What alternative is there for a woman, crushed beneath stifling conformity and murderous objectification, but to drastically rebel, even if it means renouncing who and what she is? If there is no way out, the only escape is inwards, into an alien state where we might finally be free of the strictures placed on us by society.

Yeong-hye’s withdrawal from society and eventual incarceration in a psychiatric asylum are reminiscent of Mark Fisher’s argument that what we call ‘mental illness’ can be a logical reaction to the unbearable demands placed on us by a hostile world. A refusal or an inability to conform to the impositions of neoliberal capitalism or traditional patriarchy. Even prefigurative revolutionary praxis cannot save us from emotional exhaustion, as we saw in Hannah Proctor’s Burnout. There is no way to be whole in a sick world.

The Vegetarian is a magnificent and unflinching illustration of the harms inflicted on countless women. Similar to Kafka, Han Kang’s pared-down, detached and factual writing style enhances the surrealist atmosphere of her story, and is more merciless in its evisceration of its male characters than any overt outrage, albeit its existentialist view on the nigh impossibility of human communication will not appeal to readers seeking rounded psychological development. If one is willing to accept that the characters are archetypes, The Vegetarian is however utterly compelling, though it would be difficult to call it enjoyable, with its harrowing and visceral abuse and aggression against women, and the dismissive, uncaring banality of the men perpetrating them.

I wonder what the impact of The Vegetarian has been on debates on feminism and gender in South Korea. It is maybe not surprising that the book had a better reception in the Anglophone world than in South Korea itself, which remains riven by gender conflict and where accusations of feminist thought routinely result in violent backlash. How many Mr Cheong’s are still out there? We can only hope that some might dislike their reflection in Han Kang’s mirror enough to shake off their entitlement and learn to treat and respect women as equals.

Notes & Suggestions

• South Korea’s endemic misogyny has found some very specific expressions, not only in direct violence against women, but also for example the unconsensual and covert recording of women using spycams hidden in innocuous objects. In response, it has also given rise to specific forms of feminist organising, such as the 4B movement.
• In-hye’s struggles to keep her life together put me in mind of the excellent song ‘labour’ by Paris Paloma.
• Consider supporting or joining a feminist or women’s organisation. Alternatively, broader campaigning organisations such as Amnesty International or trade unions also have spaces for feminist organising.

Connie Caskett works in the library and is a death metal fan…

Connie Caskett stamped the return date on a copy of Introduction to Thermodynamics. She did it with a rhythmic, percussive thud that would have made the drummer of Rotting Corpse proud. Her Doc Martens tapped a syncopated beat against the leg of the issuing desk. Today’s ensemble featured a cropped tee. Decorated with a skull that spat snakes. Wearing a leather mini-skirt that broke the library’s dress code. And fishnets that had seen many mosh pits. Her septum piercing glinted under the fluorescent lights.

The double doors swung open. In marched Mrs Humber-Smithers, a woman made of tweed and exuding disapproval. She stopped. Her eyes scanned the desk, bypassing the “Librarian on Duty” sign to search for a cardigan or a pearl necklace. Finding only skulls and heavy eyeliner, her lips pursed into a thin, white line.

“I wish to speak with Mrs Higgins,” Mrs Humber-Smithers announced. “The proper librarian.”

Connie offered a smile that showed a surprising amount of genuine warmth. “Mrs Higgins is on holiday in Mallorca. I am running the desk this week.”

The older woman clutched her handbag. Her gaze drifted down to Connie’s fishnets, then up to the snakes on the t-shirt. She sniffed. “This is quite unusual.” A place of learning requires a certain… decorum. One expects professionalism, not a costume party.”

“I assure you, I know the Dewey Decimal System better than the fretboard of a Flying V guitar,” Connie said. “How may I assist?”

Mrs Humber-Smithers looked around the empty foyer. She leaned in, her voice dropping to a whisper. The haughty posture crumbled. “I have got a reservation.”

Connie tapped the keyboard. “Name?”

“Humber-Smithers. It should be under the counter.”

Connie reached below the desk. Her hand brushed past a leather-bound history of The Black Dahlia Murder. It landed on a pile of mass-market paperbacks. The covers showed shirtless men holding swooning women. She pulled them out: The Duke’s Forbidden Caress, Ravished by the Stable Boy, Passion in the Pantry.

The cover of the top book showed a Fabio-like figure. His shirt had given in to gravity. Connie slid the stack across the counter.

Mrs Humber-Smithers snatched them, her face flushing a deep, violent crimson.

“Excellent choices,” Connie said, her tone deadpan. “I hear the stable boy has a very compelling character arc in the third act.”

Mrs Humber-Smithers shoved the books into her tote bag. Burying them beneath a sensible wool scarf. She mumbled something about “research” and dashed for the exit. The squeak of her sensible shoes echoed in the quiet. Connie watched her go, then turned up the volume on her headphones. Slayer began to play. It was going to be a good shift.

The other day, I watched as a customer walked into a restaurant asking for his order. The restaurant hadn't received the order, however, and the man became upset. He admitted that he's not great with technology, and he complained that this always seems to happen with the restaurant's third-party ordering system. When it does happen, he gets no confirmation email and his card is not charged.

The next day, someone in an online class expressed confusion about how to meet their coach for a scheduled appointment, but the coach had no appointment on their calendar. Similarly, years earlier, a relative told me they had ordered an Uber, but it never showed up.

In all of these cases, I'm almost certain the users did not click the final button labeled Order, Confirm, Submit, or similar. (The restaurant owner blamed browser cookies, but that has nothing to do with it.)

I can hardly blame these users, though. I once showed up to a hotel, thinking I had booked a room with them, only to find that they had no reservation under my name. I looked for the confirmation email, and sure enough, it didn't exist! I needed to quickly book with some rinky-dink place across the street. I had made the same mistake!

This isn't about tech literacy or intelligence; it's about bad user interface design. A depressing amount of software ignores the basic rules of usable design. In this case, what looks like a confirmation screen (i.e., “your order has been placed”) may actually be a confirm screen (i.e., “tell us that you're sure”). When users are on those screens, their loci of attention may be on the order details rather than the user interface. They want to know that the flight time is correct. They want to know that the price is correct. They may not be paying attention to the Confirm button, which is probably offscreen anyway. They may not be looking at the tiny text at the top which reads, “Please review this information before booking your flight.” They are focused on something else, which may explain why they miss context clues in the periphery. Jef Raskin discusses this at length in his book, The Humane Interface.

So before leaving an app, website, or other ordering system, be sure to confirm, confirm, and confirm again. Slow down. Read carefully. Scroll. Zoom in and out. Make sure there's nothing else you need to do. A few seconds of prudence may prevent lots of frustration later.

#Life #SoftwareDevelopment #Tech #TechTips

I had already posted this once before but I lost my blog and hadn't run the back up where that post was located.

So! What is this? Awhile ago I realized that with the way the internet is, people being caught off guard by things, I realized that it would be important to have some sort of safety for those who use writefreely and may have NSFW images on their blog.

What this code does is allow you to add to an image a nsfw class that blurs the image and makes it visible if it clicked on.

NOTE: This only works on the website itself. If you post the link to your social media, it'll show the nsfw image if that is your primary image.

How do you do this? Try this out! There are two methods. One for the selfhosted instance and the other is if you have an account with write.as.

Self-host Method

This is going to be how you will add the NSFW image filter on your selfhosted writefreely instance. You'll need to edit the following files:

• collection.tmpl
• collection-post.tmpl
• chorus-collection.tmpl
• chorus-collection-post.tmpl

When you set it up, make sure you put the css in the header of the document and the javascript after </body>.

Too use either of these methods, you'll want to add the class="nsfw" to the image. For example, it would look like <img src="image.ext" alt="FileName" class="nsfw" />

Javascript

	<script>
		document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", () => {
			const nsfwImages = document.querySelectorAll("img.nsfw");

			nsfwImages.forEach(img => {
				// Create wrapper
				const wrapper = document.createElement("div");
				wrapper.classList.add("nsfw-wrapper");

				img.parentNode.insertBefore(wrapper, img);
				wrapper.appendChild(img);

				// Create overlay
				const overlay = document.createElement("div");
				overlay.classList.add("nsfw-overlay");
				overlay.textContent = "NSFW — Click to Reveal";
				wrapper.appendChild(overlay);

				wrapper.addEventListener("click", () => {
					wrapper.classList.toggle("revealed");
				});
			});
		});
	</script>

CSS

<!-- NSFW ADDITION --> 
	<style>
	.nsfw-wrapper {
		position: relative;
		display: inline-block;
	}

	.nsfw-wrapper img.nsfw {
		filter: blur(20px);
		transition: filter 0.3s ease;
		cursor: pointer;
	}

	.nsfw-wrapper.revealed img.nsfw {
		filter: blur(0);
	}

	.nsfw-overlay {
		position: absolute;
		inset: 0;
		background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.45);
		color: white;
		font-size: 1.1rem;
		font-weight: bold;
		display: flex;
		justify-content: center;
		align-items: center;
		pointer-events: none;
		border-radius: 4px;
		transition: opacity 0.2s ease;
	}

	.nsfw-wrapper.revealed .nsfw-overlay {
		opacity: 0;
	}
	</style>
	<!-- END OF NSFW -->

Write.as method

This is the easiest one to do as Write.as already has a place that you can put your javascript.

All you need to put in the javascript section is:

(function () {
  function initNSFW() {
    document.querySelectorAll("img.nsfw").forEach(img => {
      // Prevent double-wrapping
      if (img.parentElement.classList.contains("nsfw-wrapper")) return;

      const wrapper = document.createElement("span");
      wrapper.className = "nsfw-wrapper";

      const overlay = document.createElement("div");
      overlay.className = "nsfw-overlay";
      overlay.textContent = "NSFW. Please click to view";

      img.parentNode.insertBefore(wrapper, img);
      wrapper.appendChild(img);
      wrapper.appendChild(overlay);

      wrapper.addEventListener("click", () => {
        wrapper.classList.toggle("unblurred");
      });
    });
  }
  initNSFW();
  document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", initNSFW);
})();

And the CSS you want to add in the CSS section is:

/* ==============================
   NSFW Labels
============================== */
/* NSFW image blur system */

.nsfw-wrapper {
  position: relative;
  display: inline-block;
  cursor: pointer;
}

.nsfw-wrapper img {
  filter: blur(18px);
  transition: filter 0.25s ease;
  display: block;
}

.nsfw-wrapper.unblurred img {
  filter: none;
}

.nsfw-overlay {
  position: absolute;
  inset: 0;
  display: flex;
  align-items: center;
  justify-content: center;
  background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.6);
  color: #fff;
  font-family: sans-serif;
  font-size: 16px;
  font-weight: bold;
  text-align: center;
  padding: 0.5em;
  pointer-events: none;
}

.nsfw-wrapper.unblurred .nsfw-overlay {
  display: none;
}

Ending

There you go! Enjoy!

Tandis qu’ailleurs déferlent des torrents de violences ; Les pyromanes d’hier tentent de s’improviser pompiers. Lançant d’hypocrites appels à la tempérance ; Ils semblent craindre le feu qu’ils ont eux-mêmes allumé.

Les colères des peuples ne sont jamais sans fondement ; Mais elles empruntent des raccourcis surprenants. Malheur à ceux qui ont nourri le ressentiment ; Honte à ceux qui vivent s’en nourrissant.

Plongés avec effroi dans les turpitudes de l’histoire ; Nous qui rêvions de beauté, d’harmonie et de paix ; Sommes-nous les gardiens de la flamme ténue de l’espoir ? Ou les ultimes reliques d’un monde révolu désormais ?

My college basketball game of choice tonight will have the Syracuse Orange men's team playing the Duke Blue Devils. I'll happily listen to whatever streaming radio feed I can latch onto bringing me this game. And if I can't find one, there are lots of other college games tonight from which I can choose with the same early start time.

And the adventure continues.

When it comes to my writing schedule I have it set in stone (for the most part). One week I’ll post on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The next week I’ll post on Tuesday and Thursday. The weeks will cycle.

Sometimes, I’ll post a prayer related article on a Sunday. If a holiday falls on a posting day or if I’m sick, I’ll take the day off. Finally, I’ll let you know if I need a hiatus.

Thanks for your support and patience.

#writing #rest #schedule

Part one is here. Part two is here.

At this point, I suppose it’s worth asking why I continue to write about this. I should start by saying that I really had no resentment of Danny Hillis from my time as his employee. One of the things his company did that probably led to their downfall was to hire overqualified people for low-level jobs. Which was how I found employment during the Bush The Elder recession. I rarely interacted with Hillis—he played the part of the absent-minded professor who didn’t own any professional clothing and would slouch around the joint in old t-shirts. Even then I recognized this as a flex— “I’m so important I don’t have to dress as nicely as the people who answer my phone”—but while there were some horrible people at Thinking Machines, I never thought of Hillis as one of them.

So I’m not motivated by long-simmering resentment. I am of course motivated by anger at Epstein’s crimes and the fact that he and his associates seem to have committed atrocities with utter impunity for so long. But, as I’ve said, I don’t believe Hillis participated in the crimes.

He just didn’t care about them.

And this, ultimately, is what motivates me. That a guy who has built an entire life around being a Professional Smart Guy has such an obvious void where his conscience should be. I believe that Hillis’ disregard for what most of us consider centerpieces of morality—that children should be protected, not exploited, that people with power have a responsibility to look out for the less powerful, not prey on them—calls into question pretty much everything he’s ever done or said.

Not that Hillis’ life’s work should necessarily be thrown out, but it should be re-examined with the knowledge that his moral reasoning is deficient, if not absent.

Which can’t happen unless Hillis’ association with Epstein is widely known. If you were thinking about inviting Hillis to speak at your event, his association with Epstein won’t come up immediately unless you search the two names together.

Ultimately, I’m a guy with a blog that has extremely limited reach, and so there’s only so much I can do. About 600 people have read my first post. About 150 have read the second. At this rate I’ll be lucky to get 37 views on this one.

Fortunately, though, people with far greater reach than me have an opportunity here to correct the historical record. Hillis has been written about (and interviewed) for years in exclusively complimentary ways. I’m not saying the journalists invovled should have known better—there was no way for them to have access to Hillis’ emails, and he only started consorting with Epstein around 2010, as far as the emails I’ve found suggest.

Still, now that we know, I think if you wrote a puff piece about Hillis or hosted an interview with him that helped build his reputation, you now have an opportunity to correct the historical record.

So here are some people I’ve found who wrote very nice articles on Danny Hillis in the past or hosted them on their platform. I’d like to encourage any and all of them to add to our collective knowledge about this man in the light of new information.

Podcasters:

Tim Ferriss

Steve Mersky

Kevin Scott

Suze Kundu

Youtube:

Web of Stories

The Anyas Crypto

Norman Foster Foundation

Ross School

And of course, TED

Print, web, and broacast journalists (listed by where they worked when the article came out because I do not have time to chase down journalist job changes!):

Chris Jones, Esquire.

Scott Kirsner, Boston Globe.

Po Bronson, Wired.

Steve Mirsky, Scientific American.

Steve Inskeep, Morning Edition.

Cara Maines, NBC.

Hans Ulrich Obrist

Robert Matthews, New Scientist.

There was a reason I chose to work in IT and not in plumbing. I am honestly not that good with my hands or the logical side that comes with thinking through things like plumbing, carpentry, etc.

Friday, my youngest child came to me saying he is hearing the sound of a shower running in the hall closet but there is no one in the shower. Unfortunately, that closet also held our water heater. Upon opening the door, I was met by Lake Closet and a pin hole leak in the blue expansion tank and it was sending this nice stream of water into the wall and directly on my face. Of course, I had no clue what to do so I texted my father in law, and he told me how to locate the valve to shut it off but also how to relieve the pressure by turning on the hot water faucet.

With these done, I was met with a completely confusing thing. What do I do? How the hell am I supposed to fix this? If this was a server that had gone bad, I knew how to troubleshoot it and figure out what to do about it but not a water heater. All I could think was: “This is gonna be super expensive if I have to replace it.” Obviously, in hindsight, I rent so that would have been the responsibility of the landlord...who happens to also be my father in law. Thanks to him, I got sent a link to J-B Weld Water Expoxy Putty and a quick trip to Walmart, I was able to get some.

This should be easy, I told myself like a fool. Now, to point out a few things. When I was younger, I had the opportunity to work as a brick mason's apprentice for two years and also with a lot of epoxies while in the military. So, the basic concept on how to apply it was not unfamiliar to me. I actually thought it was pretty nifty how it was one chemical surrounded by another chemical that I could squish together, blend, and it would start working (not to mention I could feel the heat of the chemical reaction through my nitrile gloves).

So, here I got happily sticking putty to it, smearing it into the whole I just making sure that damn leak is covered up. I let it cure the time that it needed, and then turned off the faucet so the pressure would start to build again and what do you know. The water starts leaking quickly out of this little cure.

Goddammit, now I have to do that over again.

This turned out to be my entire weekend. I have literally had to place putty, let it cure, and then turn it on to see where the water was coming from next. Nice thing was that each damn time, there was a lot less. So I'm building on the previous dried putty making my own Olympus Mons, waiting for it to do the full cure hoping against hope that it would work. Yeah, the bottle was going to need to be replaced but:

• My father in law is already taking care of it.
• I don't have the money to get one on short notice let alone the skills to replace it myself. _(that would have been a disaster).

Now, I'm writing this up with the last bit of putty added, as the little hole was shooting water up but it's the tiniest amount. I hope to god that this isn't going to be leaking more because I have to go to work tomorrow and my father in law isn't going to be back from his trip for a few more days.

All I can do is laugh at my admittedly funny situation and meditate an extra ten minutes to keep my brain from lose it. Which reminds me, I gotta go take my meds.

I see a green plant, it almost died from the ruthless storage in car while we were grocery shopping in this dead winter!!

Indeed all of the green leaves were shed only one or two green umbrellas of life protruded from the once majestic plant

But with my strong love and careful act of putting it in the kitchen by the window and then watering it carefully, now new buds are sprouting!!!

I feel the same way myself!

What the Network Reveals About American Institutions

By Publius (of the 21st Century)

The release of millions of pages from the Jeffrey Epstein files presents Americans with an uncomfortable question that transcends the crimes at their center. While the sexual abuse of minors rightfully commands moral outrage, the documents reveal something perhaps more threatening to the Republic: a cross-ideological, cross-sectoral elite network that operated with remarkable impunity across our most trusted institutions. As we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 2026, these files force us to confront how far we have drifted from the Republic's founding principles—and whether those principles can be restored.

The question is not whether Jeffrey Epstein was a criminal. He was convicted in 2008 and died facing additional charges in 2019. The question is how such a figure could maintain intimate connections spanning Goldman Sachs and the Obama White House, Harvard and JPMorgan Chase, leading Democrats and prominent Republicans, for years after his conviction—and what this reveals about power in contemporary America.

A Network Without Ideology

What emerges from the files is not a partisan scandal but evidence of what journalist Anand Giridharadas calls a “deeper solidarity” beneath surface political divisions. Steve Bannon coordinating with Epstein to secure Augusta National Golf Club access for establishment lawyers. Former White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler—tasked under President Obama with ensuring procedural fidelity and identifying legal risks—seeking Epstein's advice on whether to become Attorney General, after his conviction, while joking about his crimes. Larry Summers describing Epstein's world as “lucrative and louche” and seeking his counsel on personal matters.

The network crossed every conventional boundary: progressive academics and right-wing provocateurs, tech billionaires and traditional financiers, media figures and government officials. This diversity masked functional unity. As Giridharadas observes, “if you're sitting at home, watching cable at the end of the day and you're seeing these two talking heads fight, that's the spectacle for you at home, to keep you entertained. What they're actually doing is revealed in these files—which is hanging out, breaking bread, colluding, sharing information.”

The complicity extends to the highest levels of government across administrations. In recent congressional testimony, Attorney General Pam Bondi pointedly noted that the Biden administration's Justice Department, under Attorney General Merrick Garland, had failed to release the Epstein files despite having authority to do so. Whatever one makes of Bondi's combative performance before the Judiciary Committee, the substantive point stands: the previous administration, which positioned itself as restoring democratic norms and institutional integrity, chose not to expose a network that implicated figures across the political spectrum. The files were released only after a change in administration—and even then, as Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie have documented, with millions of pages still withheld and extensive redactions protecting “six wealthy, powerful men.” The pattern suggests that protecting elite networks transcends party loyalty.

The founders anticipated faction and designed a system of checks and balances to contain it. They did not anticipate—could not have anticipated—a transpartisan elite operating through informal networks that transcend and effectively neutralize formal institutional boundaries.

The Vulnerability of Networked Power

Traditional sources of power in America were local and rooted: land ownership, family name, standing in one's community, position in church or civic organizations. These created multiple, independent bases of authority. A newspaper publisher in 1850 derived power from property, community respect, perhaps family lineage—sources that could sustain dissent against other power centers.

Contemporary elite power operates differently. It consists primarily of position within networks and the density and quality of one's connections. The Epstein files illuminate this transformation with unusual clarity. His power derived almost entirely from his network position—his ability to broker connections between otherwise disconnected high-value nodes. JPMorgan banker Jes Staley stated this explicitly: “Epstein relied on his network for his legitimacy. And I, as running the largest investment bank in the world, was part of that network for him.”

The self-reinforcing nature of such power explains much that appears inexplicable. How could JPMorgan continue doing business with Epstein after flagging over $1 billion in suspicious transactions? How could Harvard and MIT maintain relationships after his conviction? The answer lies in what network theorists call preferential attachment: those already well-connected gain disproportionate benefit from each new connection. Cutting ties with someone deeply embedded in valuable networks becomes professionally costly even when morally warranted.

This creates a profound problem for republican government. Courage—the willingness to stand against power on principle—becomes structurally more difficult when power itself consists of network position. To be courageous is to sever ties. When ties constitute the essence of power, courage threatens complete exclusion. As Giridharadas notes, “in an age of network power, courage becomes harder... the more exponentially valuable more ties become, the more exponentially expensive it is to cut off that tie.”

The founders built a system assuming that ambition would counteract ambition, that competing power centers would check each other. But what happens when elite ambition aligns across traditional boundaries? When the common interest lies not in principle but in maintaining network access?

The Atrophy of Institutional Independence

The Epstein phenomenon exposes the degradation of institutional independence. Consider the trajectory: Dalton School employment, Bear Stearns position (despite fabricated credentials), managing Les Wexner's fortune, cultivating relationships across academia, finance, media, and government. At each stage, institutional gatekeepers failed.

More troubling than individual failures is institutional capture. These were not isolated decisions by rogue actors but systemic patterns. Harvard and MIT accepted donations and provided intellectual legitimacy. JPMorgan maintained banking relationships despite internal warnings. Law firms managed his affairs. The Justice Department reached an extraordinarily lenient plea agreement in 2008. Each institution's decision was arguably rational from its narrow perspective—but collectively catastrophic for institutional integrity.

The founders understood that republican government requires virtue—not perfect virtue, but sufficient civic virtue that citizens and officials place public good above private interest often enough to sustain the system. They debated whether such virtue could be reliably maintained or whether institutional design alone could substitute for it. The Epstein files suggest the answer: institutional design cannot fully compensate for systematic moral failure across elites.

The Question Before Us

As we approach 2026 and the Republic's 250th anniversary, we face a question the founders would recognize: Can republican government survive when those who control key institutions pursue private advantage through informal networks that transcend and effectively nullify formal checks and balances?

This is not a question with obvious partisan valence. The network exposed in the Epstein files included committed progressives and movement conservatives, Trump associates and Clinton associates, advocates of globalization and economic nationalism. The common denominator was not ideology but elite status and a transactional approach to relationships and institutions.

The files reveal what Giridharadas terms “concentric circles of enablement.” At the center, criminal conduct. Surrounding that, those who knew and facilitated it. Further out, those aware but indifferent. Then institutions that accepted money and provided legitimacy. Finally, a broader elite culture in which such connections were normal, even valued. Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein's victims, died by suicide—the ultimate cost of speaking truth about power.

The Analytical Work Required

The path to republican renewal requires specific analytical work, not aspirational statements. Three concrete initiatives must begin immediately:

First, systematic network mapping. Academic institutions—particularly those with some independence from elite capture, such as state universities and historically Black colleges—should undertake comprehensive mapping of elite networks. This means identifying overlapping board memberships, advisory positions, philanthropic relationships, and social connections across finance, technology, media, academia, and government. The methodology exists: network analysis tools developed for understanding terrorist organizations and criminal enterprises can be applied to legal but problematic power structures. The work should be funded by foundations committed to democratic accountability and published in accessible formats, not merely academic journals. If state legislatures or Congress lack the will, state attorneys general investigating antitrust issues possess both the authority and tools to compel disclosure.

Second, forensic institutional analysis. Each institution that maintained relationships with Epstein after his 2008 conviction should face mandatory external review. Not criminal investigation—most behavior was legal—but systematic examination of decision-making processes. How did Harvard's administration justify continued association? What internal debates occurred at JPMorgan? Which Goldman Sachs partners objected to employing Ruemmler given her documented relationship with a convicted sex offender? These reviews should be conducted by independent panels with subpoena power, modeled on corporate special committees in litigation, and published in full. The goal is not punishment but understanding: what institutional mechanisms failed, and how?

Third, conflict-of-interest auditing. Federal agencies, beginning with those least captured by current networks, should develop comprehensive conflict-of-interest databases. Not just formal financial conflicts—those already require disclosure—but network conflicts. If a regulator's former law partner now represents the regulated entity, that's disclosed. If that regulator's spouse sits on a philanthropic board funded by the regulated entity's CEO, that should be disclosed. If they share memberships in the same invitation-only conferences, disclosed. Technology enables tracking these connections; political will determines whether we do so.

Who Initiates the Debate?

Credit belongs to journalists like Ezra Klein, whose decision to dedicate substantial airtime to Giridharadas's analysis demonstrates what institutional courage actually looks like in media. Klein operates within networks that include many figures discussed in the Epstein files. His willingness to platform systematic critique of elite power structures, rather than treating the story as mere scandal, exemplifies the editorial independence that makes democratic accountability possible. More such efforts are needed.

But journalism alone cannot drive institutional reform. The debate must be initiated by actors with specific institutional positions:

State attorneys general possess unique authority. They can investigate under state nonprofit laws (universities), banking regulations (financial institutions), and professional responsibility rules (law firms). They answer to state electorates, providing some insulation from national elite networks. A coalition of AGs from states with major universities or financial centers could initiate coordinated investigations that federal authorities might hesitate to pursue.

University faculties at institutions implicated should demand internal reviews. Faculty governance bodies—where they retain actual power—can compel administrations to answer questions about decision-making. The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences forced President Larry Summers to resign in 2006. Similar faculty action regarding institutional relationships with Epstein remains possible, though it requires professors willing to confront colleagues and administrators.

Institutional investors managing pension funds for teachers, public employees, and union members should demand governance reforms at corporations where they hold shares. CalPERS, the California public employees' pension fund managing $440 billion, and similar public pension funds have both fiduciary duty and political accountability to beneficiaries. They can require that corporations like Goldman Sachs explain their employment decisions and conflict-of-interest policies regarding network relationships.

State legislatures can act where Congress will not. They can require disclosure of elite network connections for anyone doing business with state government, serving on state boards, or receiving state funding. They can condition state pension fund investments on corporate governance reforms. They can fund the network mapping research that federal agencies decline to support.

Checking Current Networks: Mechanisms That Might Work

Network power cannot be eliminated—human organization requires networks. But it can be checked through counter-networks and structural reforms:

Mandatory cooling-off periods between positions in different sectors must be extended and enforced. Not the current revolving-door rules (one or two years), but meaningful periods—five to seven years—between serving in government and joining industries one regulated, or between academic positions and corporate boards in related fields. This reduces the value of maintaining cross-sector network ties for immediate personal benefit.

Structural separation within institutions can disrupt problematic network effects. Universities should separate fundraising from academic decision-making through institutional walls, not just policies. Those who solicit donations should not influence faculty hiring, research funding, or honorary degree decisions—ever. Investment banks should separate asset management from investment banking through structural subsidiaries with distinct leadership, not merely “Chinese walls” that senior executives routinely cross.

Counter-elite development requires deliberate effort. Public institutions—state universities, military service academies, labor unions, religious institutions with genuine autonomy—must consciously develop alternative leadership pipelines. This means funding and prestige flowing to institutions whose leaders do not participate in the same networks as Harvard/Yale/Stanford graduates. It means state governors appointing federal judges from state schools, not just elite law schools. It means corporate boards actively recruiting directors without Ivy League credentials or elite conference attendance.

Transparency through technology can expose network relationships faster than institutions can adapt. Open-source databases tracking board memberships, event attendance, philanthropic relationships, and professional connections—built and maintained by civil society organizations—can make elite network structures visible to journalists, prosecutors, and citizens. The technology exists; it requires only coordination and modest funding.

What Institutional Courage Actually Means

Institutional courage is not individual heroism. It is structural: building institutions that reward truth-telling over network maintenance. Specifically:

Economics departments showing courage would hire faculty studying elite capture and network power, even when that means offending donors. They would grant tenure to scholars whose work implicates powerful actors. MIT's economics department has not, to my knowledge, conducted any systematic internal research on how Epstein gained influence at MIT—despite obvious research opportunity. That would be institutional courage: directing scholarly attention to one's own institutional failures.

Law firms showing courage would decline lucrative clients whose business model depends on regulatory capture or whose principals maintain relationships that compromise the firm's integrity. This means sacrificing revenue. Skadden Arps or Kirkland & Ellis turning away clients worth tens of millions in fees because partnership with them undermines institutional integrity—that would be institutional courage. It has not happened.

News organizations showing courage would decline to hire commentators whose network relationships compromise journalistic independence, even when those figures attract audiences. They would investigate elite institutions including those their own executives attended or where they serve on boards. They would continue coverage of stories like Epstein's network even after initial clicks decline. The New York Times and Ezra Klein's decision to sustain focus on this story's implications, rather than treating it as scandal that fades, demonstrates what this looks like in practice.

Universities showing courage would return donations from compromised sources and investigate how those donations influenced institutional decisions. They would deny honorary degrees to the wealthy connected rather than the accomplished accomplished. They would tenure faculty who alienate donors by telling uncomfortable truths. None of the major institutions involved with Epstein has done this.

The mechanism for developing such courage is adversarial: institutions develop it when external pressure—from faculty, from journalists, from prosecutors, from pension funds, from competing institutions—makes network maintenance more costly than principle. This requires building alternative power centers with resources and authority to impose costs.

Beginning the Work

The 250th anniversary of the Declaration provides temporal focus. Congress should establish a Commission on Republican Government for the 21st Century, modeled on major historical commissions (the 9/11 Commission, the Warren Commission), but with analytical rather than investigative mandate. Its task: assess whether current institutional arrangements can sustain republican self-government given the transformation in how elite power operates.

But commission findings mean nothing without implementation. State-level action offers the most promising path. A coalition of state attorneys general, working with independent scholars and funded by foundations insulated from the networks under examination, could initiate the mapping and auditing work described above. State legislatures could enact transparency and cooling-off requirements. Public pension funds could demand governance reforms.

The work will be opposed by those whose power depends on current arrangements—which is to say, most powerful actors. Success requires building coalitions across traditional divides: progressives concerned about economic inequality and conservatives concerned about cultural elite capture, labor unions and small business organizations, state institutions and religious communities, all united by recognition that the current system serves networks rather than citizens.

The Epstein files are not merely evidence of one man's crimes and enablement. They are a window into how power operates when formal institutions decay into networks of mutual advantage. As Giridharadas notes in his conversation with Klein, “this outrage could be harvested for clickbait” or “could actually lead to transformative places.” The difference lies not in anger but in analysis, not in denunciation but in deliberate construction of institutional checks on network power.

The founders built a Republic for their time. They gave us tools—amendment processes, federalism, separation of powers—to adapt it. Whether we possess sufficient civic commitment to undertake that work will determine whether the American experiment continues or becomes a cautionary tale about republics that could not adapt to new forms of oligarchy.

Note: English & Serbian below.

19 февраля в 19:00 Адмирала Гепрата 10, Белград

В независимом культурном пространстве КП Радионица состоится презентация международного проекта Shared Visions — инициативы по созданию транснационального кооператива визуальных художников. Проект направлен на формирование демократической и солидарной структуры, способной изменить условия жизни, труда и самоорганизации художников на Балканах, в Восточной Европе и в более широком международном контексте.

Shared Visions объединяет художников, культурных операторов, исследователей гуманитарных наук, специалистов в области web3 и активистов в долгосрочном процессе, который продлится с января 2025 по октябрь 2028 года. Проект возник как ответ на растущую нестабильность художественного труда, сокращение пространства автономии и ограниченный доступ к рынкам, особенно в странах Восточной Европы.

В качестве альтернативы существующим институциональным и рыночным моделям предлагается создание международного кооператива со штаб-квартирой в Сербии. Кооператив будет находиться в коллективной собственности и демократическом управлении самих художников и культурных работников. Полученная прибыль будет направляться на общие нужды — мастерские, юридическую поддержку, пенсионные механизмы — а также на развитие форм сотрудничества, выходящих за пределы рыночной логики.

Проект реализуется при поддержке программы Креативная Европа под руководством Фонд B92 (Сербия) в партнерстве с организациями из Бельгии, Нидерландов, Италии, Черногории, Украины и Португалии.

КП Радионица есть независимом культурном пространстве в центре Белграда, ориентированном на междисциплинарные практики и коллективные формы взаимодействия. Пространство сочетает выставочную и рабочую функцию, уделяя особое внимание процессу создания искусства и открытому диалогу между художниками и публикой.

Shared Visions Project Presentation at KP Radionica

19 February at 19:00 Admirala Geprata 10, Belgrade

KP Radionica will host a presentation of Shared Visions, an international initiative dedicated to establishing a transnational cooperative for visual artists. The project aims to build a democratic, solidarity-based structure capable of reshaping how artists live, work, and organize, particularly in the Balkans and Eastern Europe, while remaining connected to broader international networks.

Shared Visions brings together visual artists, cultural operators, humanities scholars, web3 practitioners, and activists in a long-term process running from January 2025 until October 2028. It responds to the growing precarity of artistic labour, shrinking public support, fragmented infrastructures, and limited access to markets—especially for artists working outside dominant Western centers.

As an alternative to conventional institutional and profit-driven models, the project proposes the formation of an international cooperative headquartered in Serbia. The cooperative will be owned and democratically governed by its members—artists and cultural workers themselves. Rather than prioritizing profit maximization, revenues will be reinvested into collective needs such as studios, legal support, and pension systems, while also strengthening non-market forms of collaboration and mutual aid.

Supported by the Creative Europe Programme and led by Foundation Fund B92 (Serbia), the project is developed in partnership with organizations across Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Montenegro, Ukraine, and Portugal.

KP Radionica is an independent cultural space in the heart of Belgrade dedicated to interdisciplinary artistic practices and collective experimentation, where artistic processes are made visible and shared with the public.

Prezentacija projekta Shared Visions u prostoru KP Radionica

19. februar u 19h Admirala Geprata 10, Beograd

U nezavisnom kulturnom prostoru KP Radionica biće održana prezentacija međunarodnog projekta Shared Visions, inicijative usmerene na osnivanje transnacionalne zadruge vizuelnih umetnika. Projekat ima za cilj izgradnju demokratske i solidarne strukture koja može da promeni uslove života, rada i organizovanja umetnika na Balkanu i u Istočnoj Evropi, u povezivanju sa širim evropskim i međunarodnim kontekstom.

Shared Visions okuplja vizuelne umetnike, kulturne radnike, istraživače iz oblasti humanistike, web3 praktičare i aktiviste u dugoročnom procesu koji traje od januara 2025. do oktobra 2028. godine. Projekat nastaje kao odgovor na rastuću prekarizaciju umetničkog rada, smanjenje javne podrške i ograničen pristup tržištima, naročito u zemljama van dominantnih zapadnih centara.

Kao alternativu postojećim institucionalnim i profitno orijentisanim modelima, projekat predlaže formiranje međunarodne zadruge sa sedištem u Srbiji. Zadruga će biti u kolektivnom vlasništvu i pod demokratskim upravljanjem svojih članova – umetnika i kulturnih radnika. Ostvareni prihodi biće reinvestirani u zajedničke potrebe, poput ateljea, pravne podrške i penzijskih mehanizama, kao i u razvoj nemarketnih oblika saradnje i uzajamne podrške.

Projekat se realizuje uz podršku programa Creative Europe, pod vođstvom Fondacije B92, u partnerstvu sa organizacijama iz Belgije, Holandije, Italije, Crne Gore, Ukrajine i Portugala.

I see the sun shining to through the blinds, like slices of egg of sunlight on the walls of the apartment, indeed!

And behind my left eye, some sort of headache is lurking, (nothing compared to what this guy of game of thrones must feel (take a pick)).

But I’m feeling petty good all things considered

I just need to finish work for today and then I have grandiose dinner plans in the shape and form of fish fingers

I hope there will be no fingernails in there he he he

Fishes don’t even have fingers

But anyway

I’m really really exhausted