Tuesday, 7 July 2020

Old, Weird Tech: Fascist Italy's Mechanized Horse (May 22, 2011)

irondobbin.png

Little is known about the origins of the Iron Dobbin, the product of an Italian inventor which first appeared in the April 1933 issue of Popular Science as "the mechanical horse that trots and gallops on steel piped legs, under the impulse of a gasoline engine."

With this horse, he declares, children may be trained to ride. The iron Dobbin is said to canter along a road or across a rough field with equal ease. Its design recalls the attempts of inventors, before the day of the automobile, to imitate nature and produce a mechanical steed capable of drawing a wagon.

The Italian military considered putting the vehicle into limited production to train the children of the Gioventù Italiana Littorio (Italian Fascist Youth Movement) to ride, but the military deemed it impractical. The Iron Dobbin was also rejected as a replacement for mountain troop donkeys. After seeing the above image in Popular Science, the German military drew up plans for their version to be named the Panzerpferd (Tank Horse) for their Gebirgsjaeger troops, who equally rejected that idea.

This amateur animation by Margarita Angel envisions the Iron Dobbin in action:


Image: Popular Science
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, 27 June 2020

Der Triumph von der Stürmer (June 28, 2020)

Dennis Frank12
28 June 2020 at 10:32 am
The triumph of reason has happened within Labour in the UK.  Apparently…
I don’t want to rub salt into the wound, because that would sterilise it and help it heal, but the sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey was one of those rare moments of shocking leadership. For those of us who think a broad-based egalitarian government would be a good idea, it has been a long time since a Labour leader has surprised us with such moral clarity.
It does not diminish Keir Starmer’s decisiveness that Long-Bailey brought it on herself. By refusing to delete her tweet praising Maxine Peake’s interview, with its antisemitic implication that Israel was to blame for the death of George Floyd, she made Starmer’s choice clear. Indeed, it makes the triumph of reason all the sweeter that the other side contributed to its own defeat with such a misjudgement.  https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/keir-starmer-rebecca-long-bailey-tony-blair-corbyn-defeated-blairite-triumph-a9588896.html
So the long arm of Mossad thesis, eh?  I doubt she really implied that, but when UK politics persists in a morass of paranoia, conspiracy theories will inevitably whirl around in the vortex of competing perceptions.  And yes, moral clarity in a Labour leader is indeed shocking.  As a suggestion.  Not sure if the reality has been validated.
Reply
  • Ad12.1
    28 June 2020 at 12:55 pm
    An alternative action for Keir Starmer would be to keep following the foolish and fractious Jeremy Corbyn into a defeat so deep it will take years to get Labour out:
    Reply
  • Morrissey12.2
    28 June 2020 at 1:43 pm
    … with its antisemitic implication that Israel was to blame for the death of George Floyd…
    That was not the implication at all. What was at issue here was whether or not this murderous chokehold technique being used by U.S. police against peaceful and unarmed civilians was taught to them by Israeli police. You probably are aware that Israeli “policing” of the Occupied Territories is even more oppressive and lethal than what is being inflicted on the citizens of the United States by another vicious police culture.
    The wild allegation that "Israel was to blame" is entirely the fabrication of Jeremy Rentoul, the Indescribablyboring hack you have ill-advisedly chosen to quote. Rentoul is a shameless backer of the right wing Blairite faction which has managed to grab control of the Party again after its democratic deviation. It would have been hard for you to choose a more devious and dishonorable source; in 2015 he was forced to publicly apologise after another of his outrageous canards aimed at Corbyn.
    I wrote a post on Twitter last night that I regret, and for which I apologise. I suggested that Jeremy Corbyn might say that France had brought the Paris attacks on itself. I ought to know the danger of spending too much time on Twitter, and I make no excuses.
    I apologise without reservation to Mr Corbyn, to my colleagues and to readers. It was a stupid and offensive thing to say, especially at that time, and I am mortified by it.
    My sympathy goes to the families and friends of all those killed and injured in the attacks.
    Shame on you for quoting such a callous and calculated liar, Dennis. 
    Reply
Posted by at No comments:

"Academic heavyweights" for Kamala Harris and Susan Rice?!!?? (June 28, 2020)

Dennis Frank1
28 June 2020 at 7:06 am
Two academic heavyweights give Biden public advice:  " Robert Alexander is a professor of political science and founding director of the Institute for Civics and Public Policy at Ohio Northern University. He is also the author of "Representation and the Electoral College."  David B. Cohen is a professor of political science and assistant director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at The University of Akron." https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/26/opinions/three-women-who-should-be-at-the-top-of-bidens-vp-list-alexander-cohen/index.html
Biden already made history by committing to choose a female running mate. Fortunately for him, there are a number of talented and experienced women who are legitimate contenders for the spot. We believe California Sen. Kamala Harris, Florida Rep. Val Demings and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice should be at the top of Biden's list.
An emerging consensus is that Biden should select a woman of color. University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball ranks all five of Biden's top vice presidential choices as women of color, with Harris, Demings, and Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth leading the way. USA Today's Jill Lawrence argues that Biden should choose either Harris or Demings.
We concur with 538's Perry Bacon's assessment that choosing a Black woman is an important acknowledgment of both descriptive (how much a candidate looks like the electorate) and symbolic representation (how a candidate exemplifies an idea that resonates with the electorate). Such a choice would likely shore up positive perceptions of Biden among the Democratic base — a base riled by racial unrest and protests across the country. Failing to do so may dampen turnout among marginal voters that could prove costly in a close contest.
Given the likelihood of Biden dying in office if elected president, the choice is critical.  The one chosen must be able to retain public support via mana and competence.  Healing the racial divide will take at least that, but the prospects of rebuilding goodwill on the basis of a renewal of ethos compel the right choice.  
Reply
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, 11 June 2020

Julian Assange prompts ridicule with tweet about policeman 'making gun sign' at him (June 27, 2017)

Julian Assange prompts ridicule with tweet about policeman 'making gun sign' at him 

Photograph of a police officer making what Julian Assange claims was a gun sign outside the Ecuadorian Embassy, where the Wikileaks founder has been in hiding since 2012 
by Patrick Sawer, senior reporter, Daily Telegraph 
27 JUNE 2017 • 6:01PM 

There is a danger when you lock yourself away from the world for more than five years that you begin to lose your grip on reality. 

So it appears with Julian Assange, who appears to have become rather overheated by the sight of a policeman gnawing on his finger. 

Assange, the Wikileaks founder who took refuge inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in June 2012 rather than face questioning in Sweden over alleged sex offences, appeared to be under the impression the office was making a gun sign, possibly aimed at him in a threatening manner. 

The Australian-born campaigner - who claims he would eventually be extradited to the United States if he left the Embassy - wrote on his Twitter page: 

“At 13:48 yesterday police surveillance looks at me and makes a gun sign. Whether threatening to shoot me or shoot himself isn't clear.” 

Given that it appears fairly clear from the photograph that the policeman in question was simply bored and chewing his finger, the response was all-too predictable. 

“I think you may have been stuck in the embassy for too long, Julian,” said on Twitter user, with another chortling: “We must stop nail biters from terrifying recluses!” 

Wait, i've got this... pic.twitter.com/IkMCfByozr 

— Randomhal (@Randomhal) June 27, 2017 
Before long social media users began posting pictures of celebrities in similarly ‘threatening’ poses, such as John Travolta, in his classic finger in the air dance move from Saturday Night Fever, and David Miliband brandishing a dangerous looking banana. 

Someone else posted a video of the Spice Girls, with Victoria Beckham pointing her finger at the camera in an, erm, dangerous manner. 

Don’t worry Julian, everyone is right behind you. 

Or as one wag suggested, “why don’t you pop outside and ask him?”

 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/27/julian-assange-prompts-ridicule-tweet-policeman-making-gun-sign/
Posted by at 1 comment:

Friday, 5 June 2020

Bret Stephens: Donald Trump Is Our National Catastrophe (June 5, 2020)

Donald Trump Is Our National Catastrophe

With malice toward all; with charity for none.
Opinion Columnist
  • June 5, 2020 

    This spring I taught a seminar (via Zoom, of course) at the University of Chicago on the art of political persuasion. We read Lincoln, Pericles, King, Orwell, Havel and Churchill, among other great practitioners of the art. We ended with a study of Donald Trump’s tweets, as part of a class on demagogy. 

    If the closing subject was depressing, at least the timing was appropriate. 

    We are in the midst of an unprecedented national catastrophe. The catastrophe is not the pandemic, or an economic depression, or killer cops, or looted cities, or racial inequities. These are all too precedented. What’s unprecedented is that never before have we been led by a man who so completely inverts the spirit of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. 

    With malice toward all; with charity for none: eight words that encapsulate everything this president is, does and stands for. 

    What does one learn when reading great political speeches and writings? That well-chosen words are the way by which past deeds acquire meaning and future deeds acquire purpose. “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,” are the only false notes in the Gettysburg Address. The Battle of Gettysburg is etched in national memory less for its military significance than because Lincoln reinvented the goals of the Civil War in that speech — and, in doing so, reimagined the possibilities of America. 

    Political writing doesn’t just provide meaning and purpose. It also offers determination, hope and instruction. 

    In “The Power of the Powerless,” written at one of the grimmer moments of Communist tyranny, Václav Havel laid out why the system was so much weaker, and the individual so much stronger, than either side knew. In his “Fight on the beaches” speech after Dunkirk, Winston Churchill told Britons of “a victory inside this deliverance” — a reason, however remote, for resolve and optimism. In “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King Jr., explained why patience was no answer to injustice: “When you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, brutalize, and even kill your black brothers and sisters with impunity … then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.” 

    In a word, great political writing aims to elevate. What, by contrast, does one learn by studying Trump’s utterances? 

    The purpose of Trump’s presidency is to debase, first by debasing the currency of speech. It’s why he refuses to hire reasonably competent speechwriters to craft reasonably competent speeches. It’s why his communication team has been filled by people like Dan Scavino and Stephanie Grisham and Sarah Sanders. 

    And it’s why Twitter is his preferred medium of communication. It is speech designed for provocations and put-downs; for making supporters feel smug; for making opponents seethe; for reducing national discourse to the level of grunts and counter-grunts. 

    That’s a level that suits Trump because it’s the level at which he excels. Anyone who studies Trump’s tweets carefully must come away impressed by the way he has mastered the demagogic arts. He doesn’t lead his base, as most politicians do. He personifies it. He speaks to his followers as if he were them. He cultivates their resentments, demonizes their opponents, validates their hatreds. He glorifies himself so they may bask in the reflection. 

    Whatever this has achieved for him, or them, it’s a calamity for us. At a moment when disease has left more than 100,000 American families bereft, we have a president incapable of expressing the nation’s heartbreak. At a moment of the most bitter racial grief since the 1960s, we have a president who has bankrupted the moral capital of the office he holds. 

    And at a moment when many Americans, particularly conservatives, are aghast at the outbursts of looting and rioting that have come in the wake of peaceful protests, we have a president who wants to replace rule of law with rule by the gun. If Trump now faces a revolt by the Pentagon’s civilian and military leadership (both current and former) against his desire to deploy active-duty troops in American cities, it’s because his words continue to drain whatever is left of his credibility as commander in chief. 

    I write this as someone who doesn’t lay every national problem at Trump’s feet and tries to give him credit when I think it’s due. 

    Trump is no more responsible for the policing in Minneapolis than Barack Obama was responsible for policing in Ferguson. I doubt the pandemic would have been handled much better by a Hillary Clinton administration, especially considering the catastrophic errors of judgment by people like Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo. And our economic woes are largely the result of a lockdown strategy most avidly embraced by the president’s critics. 

    But the point here isn’t that Trump is responsible for the nation’s wounds. It’s that he is the reason some of those wounds have festered and why none of them can heal, at least for as long as he remains in office. Until we have a president who can say, as Lincoln did in his first inaugural, “We are not enemies, but friends” — and be believed in the bargain — our national agony will only grow worse. 

    The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com. 

    Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. 
    Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post. Facebook 

    A version of this article appears in print on June 6, 2020, Section A, Page 20 of the New York edition with the headline: Donald Trump Is Our National Catastrophe. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe 

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)