ThinkProgress Logo

Alyssa

Perdido Street Station Book Club, Part IV:

Folks, is this turning out to be too fast? I get the sense that I’m running a bit ahead of people here, so if folks want a week off to catch up, or have requests for things you’d like me to discuss, let me know in comments. Of course, if we’re all on track, that’s fine too.

Part I here, part II here, part III here. Spoilers through Part IV of the book below, but please try not to spoil beyond that for folks who have only read through Part IV and not beyond.

I won’t deny that I’m finding Perdido Street Station sometimes quite frustrating. I think it’s more a matter of style than anything else. I don’t mind maximalism, but I often feel that Mieville’s flooding me with unilluminating words, rather than fresh and extraordinary details. I’m much more a baseball-game-in-Underworld kinda girl.

But I thought this section of the book was unusually strong. As a tremendous menace is unleashed across the city, putting increasing numbers of its citizens beyond communication altogether, Mieville’s put together this masterful section about how information flows across communities, between lovers, to men in terrible imprisonment across New Crobuzon. And that theme of communication situates New Crobuzon, too, as the city’s Mayor reaches literally across dimensions in search of help.

It makes sense that we reach this point in our understanding of our players and their stage at a moment when Yagharek decides he needs to abandon his self-imposed solitude after one of Isaac’s colleagues has been destroyed, at least mentally, by the creatures we’ll come to understand are slake-moths.

“I need Grimnebulin, Grimnebulin needs his friend, his friend needs succour from us all,” he says. “It is simple mathematics to cancel common terms and discover that I need succour, too. I must offer it to others, to safe myself. I am stumbling. I must not fall.”

But much of what happens in this section is a precursor to actual compassion and mutual aid. Before that can happen, people have to know what’s going on. And they get information in a number of ways. The news of the strange plague spreads, as news in cities will, through rumors, innuendo, and misjudged journalism.

The wyrmen were cowed. They told stories of monsters in the sky. They sat at night around their rubbish-fires in the city’s great dumps and cuffed their children to quiet them. They took turns telling of sudden squalls of disturbed air and glimpses of terrible things….Wyrmen were being taken. At first they were just stories…The elders of the Riverskin Glasshouse would not say if any cactus had been afflicted. The Quarrel  ran a story on its second page, entitled “Mystery Epidemic of Imbecility.”

There are also, as it turns out, informants, who may be working under blackmail for exotic sexual tastes but fairly mundane motivations. Lovers send letters: even in New Crobuzon, there is special delivery and there are couriers.

But information doesn’t simply travel in conventional ways through New Crobuzon. Newspapers are good for reporting out the basic news, even if they get it wrong sometimes, as even the heroes of Runagate Rampart did when they misunderstood the importance of the scientific misconduct story they were chasing. And as Derkhan Blueday discovers, though, when she reaches out to a woman who communicates by magic, her friend Benjamin’s newspaper and writing has a powerful connection to his essence. It’s only the first of several exercises in unusual communication in the section.

An even more extraordinary one actually occurs in Part III when Mayor Rudgutter reaches out to the Ambassador from Hell for help with the slake-moths, a call made by magic, a “peering through a little window” that summons a rather disconcerting gentleman in a nice suit doing paperwork at a rather conventional desk, who happens to speak in a chorus of the damned. However difficult it is to reach the Hellkin, they turn out to be much like the residents of New Crobuzon, at least when it comes to dealing with the slake-moths: they’re sentient, and they’d prefer to stay out of matters. Even a difference of dimensions doesn’t make a difference in that.

Their refusal and that similarity leads Rudgutter, in Part IV, to reach out to perhaps my favorite entity in the novel, the Weaver. This large inter-dimensional spider speaks in koans and has a propensity for scissors:

“Right, said Rudgutter. “You’ve both got the scissors?” Stem-Fulcher and Rescue nodded. “Four years ago it was chess sets,’ Rudgutter mused. ‘I remember when when the Weaver changed its tastes, it took about three deaths before we worked out what it wanted.”

Rudgutter brought the razor edges together. The room reverberated with the unmistakable sound of blade sliding along sharpened blade, and snapping shut with inexorable division….The echoes of the scissors came back. As they returned and crept up from below the threshold of hearing, they metamorphosed, becoming words, a voice, melodious and melancholy, that first whispered and then grew more bold, spinning itself into existence out of the scissor-echoes. It was not quite describable, heartbreaking and frightening, it tugged the listener close; and it sounded not in the ears but deeper inside, in the blood and bone, in the nerve-clusters.

I do think there’s a conceptual problem with the Weaver. The damn thing may be strange, and its motivations may be opaque to Rudgutter and his associates, who feel far closer to the Hellkin than they do to a giant mysterious spider, which might be reasonable even if it didn’t speak in riddles.

“The Hellkin were appalling and awesome, monstrous powers for which Rudgutter had the most profound respect. And yet, and yet…he understood them. They were tortured and torturing, calculating and capricious. Shrewd. Comprehensible. They were political. The Weaver was utterly alien. There could be no bargaining and no games. It had been tried.

But that doesn’t mean that the Weaver is non-sentient, and therefore vulnerable to the slake-moths. I don’t know how Mieville either missed this as a part of his conception of the Weaver, or plans to deal with it, but I’ll be quite vexed if it isn’t.

Still, it’s a welcome jolt of anarchy into the story, something far better as a force of plot and art than I ever could have expected when I wrote about chaos last week. It doesn’t hurt that it shows up to save our protagonists from a militia force armed with what sound like even nastier tasers than we’ve ever invented. It’s also rather nice to see a man who is walking around wearing other people’s eyes find out he hasn’t seen things so clearly:

Rudgutter had thought that the great spider and he had something of an arrangement. As much, at least, as it was possible to maintain with a Weaver…Textorology was a tentative field, but it had borne some fruit. There were proven means of communication, and Rudgutter had been using them to interact with the Weaver. Messages carved into the blades of scissors and melted. Apparently random sculptures, lit from below, whose shadows wrote messages across the ceiling. The Weaver’s responses were prompt and delivered even more bizarrely. 

But no matter how strange and impenetrable the Weaver is, no matter how far away Hell lies, at least the Mayor can communicate with the residents of all those planes. The victims of the slake-moths are, though they remain in New Crobuzon, far more distant. They’ve been removed from the possibility of communication. There is in them, as Isaac’s former mentor-turned-betrayer explains “nothing left to save.” That’s a far more frightening prospect than something you can talk to, and reach, even if it turns you down, even if it kills someone else to explain something to you. The absence of thought in a package of sentience is a hideous possibility, worse than giant spiders if only because of the awfulness of the surprise.

Yglesias

IMF Governance: Do We Want You To Care?

File-International_Monetary_Fund_logo

One subject you’re probably not even slightly interested in is the governance structure of the International Monetary Fund. But they’re having a big meeting coming up and they invited a bunch of bloggers to come in for a briefing about it*, and some important discussions about IMF governance will be happening so I might as well explain it.

The way things currently work is that the IMF is structured around an idea of “shares”—money that member countries have put up. The more shares you have, then roughly speaking the more influence you have within the institution. And as a general matter, the shares are supposed to be weighted according to economic significance. So since some large developing nations are now a lot richer than they were 10-14 years ago, there’s basically a need to give them more say. Which everyone more-or-less agrees on, but to get specific about it would require giving less influence to someone else and that’s where things get dicey. But the general shape of things is that small European countries are likely to lose out in any kind of reasonable settlement. Which is fine by me except that I happen to be a big fan of small European countries, so this kind of makes me sad**.

The issue that actually might make a huge difference in the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world, however, is not the allocation of shares but the total amount of funds raised through the quota system. As the financial crisis hit in 2008, it became clear that the resources available to the IMF were not sufficient to meet the kind of emergencies that arise in the modern world of securitized finance. So at G-20 meeting, the leaders of the world’s biggest economies made a kind of ad hoc deal to boost IMF resources via loans from governments to the Fund. But a question remains as to what should be done on a permanent basis.

My view is that more IMF funding via higher quotas is an excellent idea. But one of my questions to the briefers was whether they thought it was actually a good thing that everyone finds this issue dull and nobody is paying attention. After all, the public wrongly thinks bailouts are horrible and the proposal here really is to have the world’s taxpayers put together a big bailout fund. Which is exactly what we ought to do, in my opinion. But I bet the voters would disagree. Disappointingly, though, I couldn’t get anyone to say on the record that I was either right or wrong about that.

Read more

Politics

Fiorina Called For Imprisoning ‘Employers Who Knowingly Hired Illegal Immigrants’ — Including Meg Whitman?

This week, California Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman had a “gran problema” arise from her past when her former housekeeper revealed that Whitman had employed her for several years, despite knowing she was undocumented. Whitman flatly denied the charge, saying she stopped employing Nicky Diaz Santillan as soon as she learned of her immigration status. But, Santillan’s lawyer produced a letter from the Social Security Administration stating Santillan’s name didn’t match her Social Security number, which included a handwritten note from Whitman’s husband, suggesting the family knew of Santillan’s status.

As ThinkProress has noted, Whitman has taken a harsh stance on immigration. So has her fellow ex-CEO and GOP nominee Carly Fiorina, who is running for Senate in California. In a local TV interview earlier this year, Fiorina said she “absolutely” supports sending people to prison for knowingly employ undocumented immigrants:

ANCHOR: There was one viewer who asked the question, ‘Would you imprison employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants?’

FIORINA: Well, sure. If an employer is knowingly breaking the law, of course, they need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Absolutely.

Watch it:

Would Fiorina be willing to apply her standard to Whitman, or at least her husband?

Hardcore anti-immigrant group Americans for Legal Immigration is demanding Whitman’s arrest. The group’s president William Gheen said Whitman should stand trial, saying, “To accept her mere claim of innocence without a trial would be similar to advocating that OJ Simpson not be charged with murder because he came out and told the press he did not do it after evidence suggested he did.”

Health

HealthCare.gov Now Has Pricing Information, Head-To-Head Comparision Capabilities

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has unveiled a new series of tools to help Americans find affordable coverage options through HealthCare.gov, a web portal first unveiled on July 1st. Starting today, applicants will be able to compare plan benefits, prices, and application denial rates. Currently the site includes information for 4,400 family and individual policies, a list that will grow more insurers submit plans in the coming months.

Here are some of the new features:

- Provides price estimates.

- Expands benefit detail for private insurance plans.

- Offers metrics on the percent of applications denied and percentage of applicants that were charged more than the advertised rate.

- More information about Medicaid and CHIP programs.

Watch Todd Park, Chief Technology Officer at HHS, demonstrate the new features:

Responding to a question from Politico’s Sarah Kliff about insurer criticism of the accuracy of the denial rate — which the industry warns may be inflated — Karen Pollitz, Deputy Director of the Office of Consumer Support, said that the data came directly from the industry. “We asked insurers to report to us on actual denials. So an application is submitted and the insurer does not issue the coverage or refuses to issue the coverage,” Pollitz said, explaining that insurers deny coverage for a number of reasons ranging from an applicant’s pre-existing condition to an illegitimate application from another state. Issuers also informally deny coverage by simply sizing up the applicant without embarking on a formal application process. “I think what we have is a pretty good measure, it’s not perfect, but it gives you a pretty good idea of what to expect in the marketplace today.”

“And in 2014, we’ll be able to take that down from the website because insurers won’t be able to do that anymore,” she concluded.

In 2011, the website will include pricing and comparison information for small businesses. It will also hopefully serve as a guide to states that are looking establish their own exchanges and develop similar web portals.

Yglesias

So You Say You Want a New Price Index

As you may or may not be aware, there’s a debate flying around the blogosphere on the subject of whether or not it makes sense to calculate separate price indices for the rich and the poor. I don’t really have a strong view on this issue, but I do think it’s worth noting that there’s something a little bit fishy about the whole debate.

Read more

Politics

Brewer Still Won’t Debate — Unless Her Poll Numbers Drop

Jan-BrewerArizona Governor Jan Brewer has had only one debate against Terry Goddard, her Democratic challenger in the gubernatorial election, and she didn’t have a choice: since she took public funds for her campaign, she had to agree to one debate under Arizona election law. Given the option, Brewer prefers not to debate again — and she admitted to a local reporter yesterday that she would only debate the issues again if it was politically advantageous:

“Maybe there would be a possibility that we would debate if my numbers starting dropping dramatically,’’ she said. “And, of course, I’m working hard to see that they don’t.’’ [...]

She said her reticence to meet with Goddard again should come as no surprise.

“We made that decision long ago,’’ the governor said, saying the single debate was part of the game plan all along.“So far, we’ve been right on the game,’’ Brewer said, adding, “And I’m winning.’’

Brewer brushed aside a question of whether Goddard will be disappointed with her stand. “And you think I care?’’ she quipped.

It’s not surprising Brewer doesn’t want to have another debate. In her first one, she struggled to name her accomplishments and subjected the audience to a long, awkward pause; she also advanced a falsehood about beheadings in the Arizona desert and was unable to justify it after the debate. She quietly retracted her claim a few days later.

Security

U.S. Apologizes For Intentionally Infecting Guatemalans With Syphilis

guatemalaToday, the U.S. delivered what was described as an “unusual apology” to Guatemala for conducting an experiment in the 1940s in which prisoners, soldiers and mental patients were deliberately infected with syphilis. The news came to light while Wellesley College Professor Susan M. Reverby was researching the Tuskegee episode in the U.S. Reverby immediately shared her discovery with U.S. government officials. The apology was issued within 24 hours of the posting of Reverby’s article:

[P]hysicians chose men in the Guatemala National Penitentiary, then in an army barracks, and men and women in the National Mental Health Hospital for a total of 696 subjects. Permissions were gained from the authorities but not individuals, not an uncommon practice at the time, and supplies were offered to the institutions in exchange for access.

The doctors used prostitutes with the disease to pass it to the prisoners (since sexual visits were allowed by law in Guatemalan prisons) and then did direct inoculations made from syphilis bacteria poured onto the men’s penises or on forearms and faces that were slightly abraded when the “normal exposure” produced little disease, or in a few cases through spinal punctures. Unlike in Alabama, the subjects were then given penicillin after they contracted the illness.

However, whether everyone was then cured is not clear and not everyone received what was even then considered adequate treatment.

Reverby explains that the doctors were well aware that their study was ethically questionable. Surgeon General Thomas Parran himself stated, “You know, we couldn’t do such an experiment in this country [U.S.].” Reverby also writes that much of the study was “kept hushed even from some of the Guatemalan officials and information about the project only circulated in selected syphilology circles.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called the studies “clearly unethical.” “We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices,” say Clinton and Sebelius in a press release issued today. Despite the apology, no offer of compensation has been made — though an investigation is being launched “into the specifics of the study.”

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) echoed the government’s apology, stating “Ours is the greatest nation on Earth, but this activity in the 1940s constitutes one of our deeply darkest moments.”

Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health claims he is aware of more than 40 other studies “where intentional infection took place with ‘completely inadequate informed consent.’”

Alyssa

Dear Asher Roth,

If you really want to do something meaningful, why don’t you take your facial hair and sincerity to Teach for America? You’ll accomplish more good than you will with this:

Just a bit of friendly advice.

Cheers,
Alyssa

Politics

Thune Tries To Wiggle Out Of His TARP Vote As The Program Comes To An End, Possibly Earning Profits

Thune6 On Sunday, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), enacted late in the Bush administration to prop up the financial system, will expire, having cost taxpayers a fraction of its original $700 billion. The program is now projected to cost less than $50 billion, and could even end up earning a profit as the government sells off assets.

Regardless of its successes, the TARP is extremely unpopular, especially among conservatives and tea party activists. But despite their opposition to the program today, several leading Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), voted for the “reviled mother of all” bailouts. Indeed, “yea” votes helped bring down incumbent Republicans like Sens. Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Bob Bennett (UT) in primaries against tea party-backed right wingers.

One person who might especially wish he could change his vote on TARP is Sen. John Thune (R-SD). Thune is openly considering a White House bid in 2012, and will likely be the only GOP candidate to have voted for TARP — a serious liability when courting conservative primary voters. Recognizing this danger, Thune has tried to wriggle his way out of the vote. In an interview that will air Sunday on C-Span, Thune claims the Bush administration misled him, and accuses the Obama administration of turning the program into a “political slush fund“:

“Pronouncements were made [by the Bush administration] about how it was going to be used. It wasn’t used that way. The Obama administration expanded it and turned it into more of what I would characterize as a political slush fund in terms of the many uses of it.” [...]

“It was wrong philosophically,” Thune said. “How it was used and, in my view, misused is what I take issue with. ”

At the time, Thune said, the arguments for TARP were economically “compelling.”

But in retrospect, it might be a different view.”

Of course, Thune offers no evidence to support his claim that the program has become a “slush fund,” because there is none. His claim that Obama “expanded” the program is equally false. When Obama took office, the program was estimated to cost taxpayers $350 billion. That amount has steadily declined since, and is now projected to cost far less, if it ends up costing anything at all. And the philosophy behind the TARP hasn’t changed, so if it’s “wrong philosophically” today, why wasn’t it then?

As for being misled, Thune sang a different tune as recently as May of this year. In an interview with Slate’s Dave Weigel, Thune gave an enthusiastic defense of TARP, calling it “necessary” and noting that it had “tremendous, broad support”:

There was a tremendous, broad support in South Dakota among the small business community, the financial community, the South Dakota pension funds, the governor — there was a tremendous amount of support at the time for taking the steps that we took. I think a lot of people would dispute or take issue with how it was used. But people felt like, even though many disagreed with it, we took the steps necessary to prevent the economy from a complete meltdown.

While there are certainly legitimate concerns about TARP, Thune’s isn’t one of them. As Matt Yglesias notes, the TARP “looks set to go down in history as one of the most unfairly maligned policy initiatives of all time.” A recent study by two leading economists concluded that without the program, the economy would have 8.5 million fewer jobs than there are now, and that the unemployment rate would exceed 15 percent. But apparently Thune is more interested in appeasing the rabid right-wing base than defending his own vote.

Update

Erick Erickson, editor of the tea party friendly blog Red State, came out swinging against Thune today, calling his potential 2012 bid “toast.” “Let’s be honest…the only reason people talk about him for President is because he’s a good looking guy,” Erickson wrote, but “other than that his greatest accomplishments are doing nothing.” Erickson slammed Thune for not backing tea party Senate candidates, and called the hype surrounding his candidacy a product of the “vapid nature of inside the beltway punditry.”

Yglesias

The Global Rich List

richlist 1

James Fallows reminds me of a site I’d seen before and forgotten about—Global Rich List. What you do is you plug your income in and it tells you where you fall on the international distribution of income.

This is pretty much impossible to do in a really methodologically rigorous way. But the broad message it sends is clear enough. Pretty much everyone in the United States of America is doing pretty damn well by international standards. An income of $50,000 per year, for example, puts you in the top one percent internationally.

Now, again, there are a lot of obvious flaws and limits to this calculation. But I do think it’s one useful way of trying to get people to think a little more globally and a little less myopically about what really matters on the planet. In particular, once I started trying to think more globally on a personal basis it really changed my attitude toward American politics. You start to see that the most important thing isn’t who wins what in the midterms, or how many of the Bush tax cuts we extend. The key issue is how can we push the public and the political system to take a broader view of what matters and whose interests count over the long-term. Right now the interests of foreigners are basically absent from our political debates, even over issues like trade, climate, migration, and war where the relevance is obvious. It’s also obvious why that might be. But few people are prepared to explicitly defend the proposition that foreigners’ interests don’t count. And that gives me hope that better thinking can emerge over time.

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up