Sunday, May 11, 2025

I urge everyone to read this: How to Lose Democracy: A Brilliant Journalist’s Guide By Ece Temelkuran

 



I urge everyone to read this:

How to Lose Democracy: A Brilliant Journalist’s Guide What must Canadians and their new government fight to prevent? Ece Temelkuran explains in seven steps.

Andrew Nikiforuk 2 May 2025 The Tyee

In 2019, the Turkish journalist Ece Temelkuran described how citizens can forfeit a democracy to the charms of an authoritarian populist in just seven easy steps.

In her book How to Lose a Country, she compellingly compared the process of democratic disintegration to the shedding of icebergs the size of Delaware off the coast of Antarctica.

But few with powers to do something about it in Europe and North America paid attention.

They should have.

As a political columnist, Temelkuran occupied a front-row seat to the future as she watched Turkey’s strongman Recep Tayyip Erdoğan rise to power in 2002. He then systematically poisoned public discourse and weakened her own country’s institutions over two decades.

The same forces of right-wing populism then started to rip apart Hungary, Israel, Britain, France, South Korea, Canada and the United States — all following a distinct pattern.

Every democracy believes it is exceptional, Temelkuran wrote, until it isn’t.

Fascism, she added, was not a historical artifact but a living organism. Moreover, it was gaining strong appeal in an increasingly chaotic world that too often treated democracy as an empty spectator’s sport with abundant popcorn.

So, you ask, what are the steps?

Just how does a revolutionary populist transform from “a ridiculous figure to a seriously terrifying dictator, while corrupting a country’s entire society to its bones”?

The short version is that, first, an aspiring autocrat must create a movement of “real people.” This movement then erodes truth and reason with infantile, terrorist or plastic language that shreds facts and civic discourse. In the process the populist removes shame and mercy from all public discourse and reduces democracy to bad reality TV.

Then, once the autocrat achieves a narrow electoral victory, he or she undermines a democracy’s checks and balances with judicial and political reforms that centralize power and enrich oligarchs. The autocrat then disorients citizens with an ever-changing platform of change (Donald Trump calls it “flooding the zone”) while progressives laugh at the political circus. But no matter, the clown wins. And so the autocrat builds a postmodern state where people in the shadows come to lament, “This is not my country.”

That’s it. And we’ve seen some of this playbook tried in Canada.

MAGA maple syrup populist John Rustad nearly toppled B.C.’s NDP government by judiciously applying the beginning steps. The United Conservative Party led by Premier Danielle Smith has proven itself “an authoritarian force in Alberta,” carefully detailed by political scientist Jared Wesley. And demagogue Pierre Poilievre came within a few seats of making Canada over in ways that reflect Donald Trump’s United States.

There, it may be too late. Trump has completed the chaos machine and is now building a revolutionary society.

Before delving more deeply into some of Temelkuran’s observations, it’s important to note the essential preconditions for failure.

Certain historical forces predispose a democracy to walking the seven steps into the embrace of strongmen rule. They include a political class that has grown dangerously aloof and ignores rampant economic inequality. Add to that explosive mix a citizenry rattled by the wild horses of history: inflation, mass migration, pandemics and technological disruption.

Finally, a revolutionary tribe of counter-elites must emerge to inflame and channel the discontent. Fascism does not erupt in vigorous democracies; it can succeed only in debased ones where habits of self-reliance, responsibility, community, competence, initiative and social equality have been allowed to atrophy.

So once a nation’s smug elites have abandoned working people, divided the nation with culture wars and reduced the idea of democracy to a performance art without consequences, the ground is laid.

As Canada emerges from a close-fought federal election that turned on threats against the nation’s very sovereignty, the stakes are quite clear. So let’s walk through Temelkuran’s seven-step program for replacing democracy with autocracy.

1. Create a movement of ‘the real people’

The crusade begins with pissed-off ordinary folk. Burdened by grievances and indignities — such as those imposed by the COVID pandemic, inflation or an opioid crisis — the people clamour for respect.

From this base of real loss or suffering, the leader of the movement then manufactures extra-strength victimhood. Mexicans are overrunning the United States. Christians aren’t getting a fair shake. Immigrants have debased Germany. Muslims are oppressed in Turkey. No province has been ignored by Ottawa more than Alberta. Jewish George Soros has betrayed Hungary. And so on. Not surprisingly, the status quo dismisses embracers of these tropes to be deplorably weird emanations.

Notably, almost all these movements start in the hinterland where urban elites have typically shrugged at the casualties of progress.

The illiberal ruler of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, built his base on festering economic, social and energy issues in the countryside, where 40 per cent of the population still lives.

Erdoğan, Turkey’s powerful leader of 20 years, harvested his initial political support from the small towns of rural Anatolia.

Take Back Alberta, which catapulted Smith to power, fermented in the evangelical watering holes of central Alberta.

The extreme right-wing Alternative for Germany party emerged from rural areas with disposable incomes lower than the national average.

2. Throw away rational discourse and spank the naughty child

Once a populist has created a movement, the leader must disrupt reasonable discourse and charm followers with infantile language. This reduces citizens to the state of needy children and elevates the movement’s leaders into all-knowing mothers or fathers. With soothing and simple slogans (Axe the Tax, Vote for Change, Drain the Swamp) leaders can take a movement anywhere with the promises of fairy tales.

In Trump’s second presidential campaign, the Vladimir Putin apologist Tucker Carlson even compared Trump to an angry father who was going to discipline his children. “When Dad gets home, you know what he says? ‘You’ve been a bad girl, you’ve been a bad little girl, and you’re getting a vigorous spanking right now.’”

Because fascism arises from human emotions of loss and despair, it has no patience for rational debate. Revolutionary populist leaders attack, attack and attack. They disparage the character of their adversary, appeal to ignorance, argue that something is true because people believe it, and openly celebrate absurdity. The historian Hannah Arendt noted that constant lying in political discourse is not about making people believe a lie but about “ensuring that no one believes anything anymore.”

The abandonment of reason shouldn’t surprise members of highly polarized societies, adds Temelkuran. It is but “a coherent consequence of the times we live in, and something that contaminates all of us, albeit in different ways.”

To own the narrative, populist leaders must also attack or denigrate the press while cultivating their own regime-friendly outlets. If a populist is not offending the mainstream media, then he or she is missing an opportunity to establish good communications with “the real people.”

A largely urban and well-educated media really hasn’t got a clue about how to deal with this unreason. Fact checking and correcting misinformation can’t really stop a tsunami of irrational waves of anger, warns Temelkuran. She compares such tactics to playing chess with a pigeon:

“The pigeon will just knock over all the pieces and shit on the board, then depart, proudly claiming victory and leaving the mess behind for you to clean up.”

Germany’s mighty press in the 1930s had no idea how to handle Hitler or the Nazis. “There is no law to prevent right-wing populist political language invading and destroying the public sphere,” writes Temelkuran.

3. Banish shame and mercy

Temelkuran argues that acceptance of highly organized, large-scale lies in a democracy simply requires “the normalization of shamelessness.”

She points her finger at the selling of the Iraq War and the emergence of reality TV. Programs like The Simple Life, The Apprentice and Survivor idolized shameless power mongers and banished mercy. Donald Trump, a convicted felon, rapist and snake oil salesman, epitomizes this coarse normalization.

Every so-called populist leader now breathes this odium like air. When Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, a former talk show host, recently shared the stage with right-wing influencer Ben Shapiro to raise funds for an NGO that supports Donald Trump, she shamelessly pretended that she was practising some kind of tariff diplomacy. Instead, she was actively undermining and betraying her own country.

4. Weaponize judicial and electoral reform

Once a revolutionary populist has achieved power, he or she tampers with the system to extend their power and crush their opponents. In Hungary Orbán rerigged the judiciary and electoral mechanisms to guarantee free but unfair elections. Smith is now doing the same in Alberta by rewriting laws that politicize municipal politics, curtail freedom of information rights and allow the wealthy to pour more dark money into elections.

5. Reshape the citizen

The illiberal state breeds the illiberal citizen drowned by a flood of ever-changing causes. A populist leader asks only three things: obedience, submission and rage. And so the illiberal citizen must not question the powerful one when he or she replaces civil servants and honest officials with quacks, party members and rent-seeking individuals. But the illiberal citizen must, on command, express rage against targets of the regime, whether they be Ottawa, transgender people or environmentalists. “People’s desire for a cause is satisfied by the authoritarian leader’s confidently told story,” writes Temelkuran.

6. Laugh away the horror

Here Temelkuran offers what may be a counterintuitive insight. Ever since Trump became a political force in 2016, much of the United States’ political class responded by treating Trumpism as an entertaining joke. Many progressives turned to the satirists Bill Maher and Jon Stewart to ease their anxiety and laugh at the orange dunce. (Hitler was dismissed as a grand buffoon and crank by the press too.)

In Canada, Danielle Smith has been characterized as a wackadoodle posing as someone serious. That seemed to be the main theme of the NDP’s failed election campaign against her.

But joking about the horror is a big mistake, writes Temelkuran. She calculates that the left wasted crucially valuable time in Turkey “by reacting to right-wing populism with humour and sarcasm” and “trying to laugh away our fears.” The problem is that laughter can expose the ridiculous character of the throne holder but it cannot tip over the throne. Instead of laughing, citizens must respond with concerted actions that address the real roots of the malaise.

7. Build a different nation

As the laughter evaporates, every autocrat uses their power to build what they vow will be a new and great nation if not the greatest nation. In Hungary Orbán called his creation “an illiberal democracy.” In reality it operates as a mafia state enriching Orbán’s friends and relatives. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu fostered an illiberal apartheid state now guilty of genocide. In the United States Trump has refashioned a tired republic into a kleptocracy by ignoring the rule of law, giving more power to oligarchs and starting a global trade war.

Smith is now working on “freeing” Alberta from Confederation with a made-in-Alberta pension fund and an international border defended by her own police. She is even threatening secession. The electoral reform package she introduced this week is Trumpian in tone and impact.

In a 2024 TVO interview Temelkuran offered some pointed updates with humility. She said: Don’t be afraid to use the word “fascism.” This ever-evolving condition has re-emerged in our politics in truly modern and elastic clothes. Beware as the new fashion of fascism sometimes masquerades as merely another form of highly seductive political entertainment.

The brilliant Turkish journalist also said that she understands why privileged citizens might think they can ignore such nasty political developments and escape the natural disaster unfolding at their doorsteps.

But that would be a grave mistake, she warned, paraphrasing Pericles, the ancient general and politician who lived during the golden age of Athens. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean the fascists and revolutionary nationalists will not take an interest in you.

Once the seven steps have been completed and your democracy looks like a melting ice sheet, “your individual life will become a difficult place to live.”

Temelkuran lived the tragedy. She now writes in exile from Germany, where populists have followed the same seven steps and now threaten to unravel that country’s democracy, too.

An updated version of ‘How to Lose a Country: The Seven Steps from Democracy to Dictatorship’ will be published in 2026.

Tuesday, May 6, 2025

BBC Radio 3 - Sunday Feature, Tango Goes East

Tango Goes East

Juliette Bretan traces the musical adventure of the tango and its interwar explosion eastwards in colder climes like Warsaw. A rich, unexpected history, encountering some of those who have brought it back to life. 

Tango was created by Argentina's immigrant communities in Buenos Aires & Montevideo to incite passion and musical obsession. But you could argue it got a compelling, if brief, makeover in the far less sunnier climes of Warsaw, Krakow, Berlin and Moscow. Immigrant music remade by a multi-ethnic community on the cusp of seismic change and unforeseen destruction.

With Poland's independence after 1918, a wildly talented group of mostly Jewish Polish musicians and lyricists took the Tango and made it their own. They even created global hits with Oh Donna Clara, originally Tango Milonga & The Last Sunday, both still performed around the world. Tango's eastern journey took it to Odessa, Moscow, Kaunas, Riga & way beyond, but it was in Poland that it enjoyed it's most sustained creative dance - in less than two decades 1000s of ineffably Polish tangos were created. Polish/Jewish/Polish-a möbius strip of identity. But this was never one way traffic as Juliette discovers, tango's song & dance has moved between South & East since its earliest days. 

With the voices of: Olga Avigail, Piotr Flatau, Beth Holmgren, Michael Lavocah, Marcin Masecki, Jan Emil Mlynarski, Dmitry Pruss, Amalia Ran, Noam Sylberberg, Bret Werb, Katarzyna Zimek

Producer: Mark Burman

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002b65w

Sent from my iPad

Thursday, December 19, 2024

THIS DOCTOR SAYS HE KNOWS HOW THE BRAIN CREATES CONSCIOUSNESS

THIS DOCTOR SAYS HE KNOWS HOW THE BRAIN CREATES CONSCIOUSNESS. NEW EVIDENCE SUGGESTS HE'S ON TO SOMETHING

BY DARREN ORF DEC 18, 2024

For nearly his entire life, Dr. Stuart Hameroff has been fascinated with the bedeviling question of consciousness. But instead of studying neurology or another field commonly associated with the inner workings of the brain, it was Hameroff's familiarity with anesthetics, a family of drugs that famously induces the opposite of consciousness, that fueled his curiosity.

"I thought about neurology, psychology, and neurosurgery, but none of those . . . seemed to be dealing with the problem of consciousness," says Hameroff, a now-retired professor of anesthesiology from the University of Arizona. Hameroff recalls a particularly eye-opening moment when he first arrived at the university and met the chairman of the anesthesia department. "He says 'hey, if you want to understand consciousness, figure out how anesthesia works because we don't have a clue.'"

Hameroff's work in anesthesia showed that unconsciousness occurred due to some effect on microtubules and wondered if perhaps these structures somehow played a role in forming consciousness. So instead of using the neuron, or the brain's nerve cells, as the "base unit" of consciousness, Hameroff's ideas delved deeper and looked at the billions of individual tubulins inside microtubules themselves. He quickly became obsessed.

Found in a cell's cytoskeleton—the structure that helps a cell keep its shape and undergo mitosis—microtubules are made up of tubulin proteins and can be found in cells throughout the body. Hameroff describes the overall shape of microtubules as a "hollow ear of corn" where the kernels represent the alpha- and beta-tubulin proteins. Hameroff first found out about these structures in medical school in the 1970s, learning how microtubules duplicate chromosomes during cell division. If the spindles of the microtubules don't pull this dance off perfectly (a process known as missegregation), you get cancerous cells or other forms of maldevelopment.

While Hameroff knew that anesthetics impacted these structures, he couldn't explain how microtubules might produce consciousness. "How would all that information processing explain consciousness? How could it explain envy, greed, pain, love, joy, emotion, the color green," Hameroff says. "I had no idea."

That is, until he had a chance encounter with an influential book by Nobel Prize laureate Sir Roger Penrose, Ph.D.

Within the pages of 1989's The Emperor's New Mind, Penrose argued that consciousness is actually quantum in nature—not computational as many theories of the mind had so far put forth. However, the famous physicist didn't have any biological mechanism for the possible collapse of the quantum wave function—when a multi-state quantum superposition collapses to a definitive classical state—that induces conscious experiences.


"Damn straight, Roger. It's freaking microtubules," Hameroff remembers saying. Soon after, Hameroff struck up a partnership with Penrose, and together they set off to create one of the most fascinating—and controversial—ideas in the field of consciousness study. This idea became known as Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory, or Orch OR, and it states that microtubules in neurons cause the quantum wave function to collapse, a process known as objective reduction, which gives rise to consciousness.
Hameroff readily admits that since its inception in the mid-90s, it's became a popular pastime in the field to bash his idea. But in recent years, a growing body of research has reported some evidence of quantum processes being possible in the brain. And while this in itself isn't confirmation of the Orch OR theory Hameroff and Penrose came up with, it's leading some scientists to reconsider the possibility that consciousness could be quantum in nature. Not only would this be a huge breakthrough in the understanding of human consciousness, it would mean that purely algorithmic—or computer-based—artificial intelligence could never truly be conscious.

● ● ●

In 1989, Roger Penrose was already a superstar in the world of mathematics and physics. By this time, he was already years removed from his groundbreaking work describing black hole formations (which eventually earned him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2020), as well as his discovery of mathematical tilings, known as Penrose tilings, that are crucial to the study of quasicrystals—structures that are ordered but not periodic. With the publication of The Emperor's New Mind, Penrose dove headfirst into the theoretical realm of human consciousness.

In the book, Penrose leveraged Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which (in very simplified terms) argued that because the human mind can exceed existing systems to make new discoveries, then consciousness must be non-algorithmic. Instead, Penrose argues that human consciousness is fundamentally quantum in nature, and in The Emperor's New Mind, he lays out his case over hundreds of pages, detailing how the collapse of the wave function creates a moment of consciousness. However, similar to Hameroff's dilemma, Penrose admits in the closing pages that profound pieces of this quantum consciousness puzzle were still unknown:

When Hammeroff first read the book in 1991, he believed he knew what Penrose was missing.

Hameroff dashed off a letter that included some of his research and offered to visit Penrose at Oxford during one of his conferences in England. Penrose agreed, and the two soon began probing the non-algorithmic problem of human consciousness. While the duo developed their quantum consciousness theory, Hameroff also brought together minds from across disciplines—including philosophy, neuroscience, cognitive science, math, and physics—to explore ideas surrounding consciousness in the form of a biannual Science of Consciousness Conference.

And from its very inception, the conference broke new ground. In 1994, philosopher David Chalmers described how neuroscience was well-suited for figuring out how the brain controlled physical processes, but the "hard problem" was figuring out why humans (and all other living things) had subjective experiences.

Roughly two years after Chalmers gave this famous talk in a hospital auditorium in Tucson, Penrose and Hameroff revealed their own possible answer to this famous hard problem.
It wasn't well-received.

● ● ●

Penrose and Hameroff revealed their Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory in the April 1996 issue of Mathematics and Computers in Simulation. It detailed how microtubules orchestrate consciousness from "objective reduction," which describes (with complicated physics) Penrose's thoughts on quantum gravity interaction and how the collapse of the wave function produces consciousness.

The idea has since faced nearly 30 years of criticism.
Famous theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking once wrote that Penrose fell for a kind of Holmsian fallacy, stating that "his argument seemed to be that consciousness is a mystery and quantum gravity is another mystery so they must be related." Another main criticism is that the brain's warm and noisy environment is ill-suited for the existence of any kind of quantum interaction. Read any scientific literature about quantum computers, and lab conditions are always extra pristine and approaching-absolute-zero cold (−273.15 degrees Celsius).
"You know how long I've been hearing the brain is warm and noisy?" Hameroff says, dismissing the criticism of the brain as too warm and wet for quantum processes to flourish.

"I think our theory is sound from the physics, biology, and anesthesia standpoint."

In a 2022 interview with New Scientist, Penrose admitted that the original Orch OR theory was "rough around the edges," but maintains all these decades later that consciousness lies beyond computation and perhaps even beyond our current understanding of quantum mechanics. "People used to say it is completely crazy," Penrose told New Scientist, "but I think people take it seriously now."

A lot of that slow acceptance comes from a steady tide of research showing that biological systems contain evidence of quantum interactions. Since the publication of Orch OR, scientists have found evidence of quantum mechanics at work during photosynthesis, for example, and just this year, a study from researchers at Howard University detailed quantum effects involving microtubules. This research doesn't prove Orch OR directly; that'd be like discovering water on an exoplanet and declaring it's home to intelligent life—not an impossibility, but very far from a certainty. The findings at least have some critics reconsidering the role quantum mechanics plays, if not in consciousness, then at least the inner workings of the brain more broadly.

However, the rise of quantum biology in the past few decades also coincided with the explosion of AI and large language models (LLMs), which has brought new urgency to the question of consciousness—both human and artificial. Hameroff believes that an influx of money for consciousness research involving AI has only biased the field further into the "consciousness is a computation" camp.

"People have thrown in the towel on the 'hard problem' in my view and sold out to AI," Hameroff says. "These LLMs . . . haven't reached their limit yet but that doesn't mean they'll be conscious."

● ● ●

As the years—and eventually decades—passed, Hameroff relentlessly defended Orch OR in scientific papers, at consciousness conferences, and perhaps most energetically on his X (formerly Twitter) feed, where he regularly participates in microtubule-related debates. But when asked if he likes the arguments, he answers pretty bluntly.

"Apparently I do because I keep doing it," Hameroff says. "I've always been the contrarian but it's not on purpose—I just follow my nose."

And that scientific sense has led Hameroff to explore potentially profound implications when you consider that consciousness doesn't necessarily rely on the brain or even neurons. Earlier this year, Hameroff, along with colleagues at the University of Arizona and Japan's National Institute for Materials Science, co-authored an non-peer-reviewed article asking the question of whether consciousness could possibly predate life itself.

"It never made sense to me that life started and evolved for millions of years without genes—why would organisms develop cognitive machinery? What's their motivation?" Hameroff says, admitting that theory traipses beyond the typical confines of science. "It's kind of spiritual—my spiritual friends like this alot."

Hameroff admits that some of his ideas are "out there," and even stops himself short when describing some ideas involving UFOs, saying "I'm already out on enough limbs." While most of his ideas may have taken up residence in the fringes of mainstream science, it's a place where he seems comfortable—at least for now. "I don't think everybody's going to agree . . . but I think [Orch OR] is going to be considered seriously," Hameroff says.

Hameroff retired from his decades-long career as an anesthesiologist at the University of Arizona, and now he has even more time to dedicate to his lifelong fascination.

"I had a great career, and now I have another great career," he says. "Plus I don't have to get up so damn early."

Tuesday, December 3, 2024

Tiny houses, vs. big houses, rambling stream of consciousness

https://www.facebook.com/1207733829/posts/pfbid0hpP6a4jEa38SPPHQotZJuF19uprnw6MASZqSi9zt7nSdXyHL9QXWTgNYw6MFJ4Scl/?d=n

A comment I left for a young lady in the Tiny House People group asking for help on a paper... In eight (double spaced?) pages you'll barely be able to touch the top ice cube on the tip of the iceberg on the evolution/revolution of the unfolding tiny house movement/culture.

Everything everyone else has said obviously, and what comes to mind for me are the shared values based on the disenchantment and disenfranchisement of both people and social constructs/systems brought about by mass suburbanization, globalization, gentrification, materialism/ization, over-population, economic inequality, more-is-not-enough-ism, affluenza and the generally vacuous/meaningless/superficial American life/lifestyle/culture.

We are all looking for not just minimalist, low impact, low carbon footprint, economies of scale/frugal lifestyles, but a more meaningful, intentional way of life on this planet and in this country. One not bounded by nor constrained by nor inhibited by being trapped by the cheap-oil-dependent "American Dream" - the 3/2/2 with a white picket fence and a 30 year conventional mortgage and everything that goes along with it - materially, functionally, and dysfunctionally. One with more creativity, more vision, more creation, more art/music/dance/storytelling, more neighborly cooperation, more being nice, more functional relationships and growth, more love. Less TV. Less BS.

As far as how the tiny house movement relates to "construction culture -
basically — how construction impacts folks with the same values", that seems to be a somewhat nebulous/abstract concept. Obviously, in this brief exchange, we're not able to better/completely understand the premise/thesis of your paper - and perhaps it's still evolving. I'm guessing your professor gave you something fairly specific as a guideline.

I built very big, very expensive houses in Aspen, Colorado for a number of years before the downturn. Basically nothing under $5,000,000, and nothing under 5,000 sqft. My clients, all no doubt 1%'ers or 5 or 10%'ers, all probably share the same values, generally. Money, and lots of it, being No. 1 most likely. I'm sure some were Left and some were Right. I'm sure some were Christians, I know of a few who were Muslim, with some Atheists thrown in. All would have had some appreciation for art - investing large sums of money to hang large art on their large walls. All would have had an appreciation for nature and the outdoors - being in the mountains of Colorado surrounded by National Forest and Wilderness areas. But I wonder how many, if even one, ever gave any consideration to the environmental impacts their mega-big mega-energy hog gargantuan-carbon-footprint houses were going to have on the planet? Sure, a few did solar thermal heating of their hot tubs, a few did solar panels, more paid a premium for "green" electricity (solar or wind) purchased from Holy Cross Energy. But that's about the extent of it. Oh, and the Town of Snowmass Village limiting house size to 5,000sf. Still way too big, especially since these are second or third or fourth or fifth or sixth houses.

I'm not sure where I thought I was going with that, if only to shine some light on the other end of the spectrum from Tiny. How did "construction" impact them? Collectively, as a group, with "shared values"? Construction culture? Honestly, and I'm not intending to sound mean, because I'm very intrigued by your premise/paper - but I don't really know how to define that nor venture a guess on how they - my clients and the architects and designers and all of the tradesmen and craftsmen and suppliers and truck drivers and on and on were impacted by those projects.

Even down to the hillbilly in Arkansas who sold mossy stones off of his land to be applied as stone veneer on a monumental/monolithic $50,000 fireplace. And his wife. And his kids. For money to eat and have heat in the winter. What about all the folks in China and Vietnam and Pakistan and India and other countries? The ones manufacturing and crafting and quarrying and sawing so many of the materials and products that go into all of our houses here in the U.S.? It's a huge part of the world economy and millions upon millions of people are dependent on it for their very existence. There's your construction culture impacting people with shared values. Just dial it back to Tiny now.

Anyway, I hope my ramblings might have helped you in some way. Maybe a concept/premise/conclusion or two might gel and be useful for your paper.

I'll post some links in reply to my comment...a few other things that have bubbled up in my primordial soup. Best of luck to you! Maybe come back and share your paper with us?

Sent from my iPad

Tuesday, October 8, 2024

Gustavo Naveira Apology Statement

Following an incident (perpetrated against his wife, Giselle Anne) while performing at the Gavito Tango Festival at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles on Saturday, October 5, 2024. (Issued in the wee hours of Tuesday, October 8, 2024.)



From Gustavo Naveira: "First of all, I want to apologize a million times to Giselle Anne for my behavior last Saturday at the Gavito Tango Festival in Los Angeles. Giselle, my partner in life and in dance for almost thirty years, mother of two of my children, the best tango teacher and the best tango dancer I have ever danced with, has had to endure behavior on my part that was absolutely reprehensible and lacking in all professionalism. Giselle, an extraordinary woman, a reference of Argentine Tango, who has been part of the greatest shows in the history of tango, received mistreatment from me, of which I feel deeply ashamed, which I should never have carried out, and for which I apologize, knowing that simply there are no excuses. At a certain point I began to rebuke Giselle in front of everyone present in an uncontrolled way, I know it was embarrassing, and I also know that there will be no more opportunity for reparation. Giselle, of course, knew how to cope with the situation with calm and natural grace, once again demonstrating her high level of professionalism. Gis I ask you for forgiveness again, I didn't know how to live up to your artistic presence.

I also want to apologize to the group of professionals who made up the team of teachers of the event. All of them, in the days before and on that same Saturday before us, gave impeccable displays of talent, ability and mettle, all conditions that I lacked that night so I could not join that team. I want to apologize to them for creating a moment of unpleasant tension and tarnishing a night that should have been brilliant, especially for the expectations they had placed on us.

I also apologize to the audience present that night who had to endure a sad and painful spectacle on my part, which caused, at least at that moment, confusion and uneasiness among the people, since they did not understand what was happening.

Very especially I want to also address the organizers of this event, Dennis and Tanya, excellent people who work very hard for the achievement of this excellently well organized Festival that is undoubtedly among the best in the world, a thousand apologies to them for having caused this very negative disturbance.

I also accept the countless criticisms I have received on social networks and I fully assume my responsibility for the fact. My nerves failed, I didn't know how to control myself, and despite many years of experience, I behaved like a rookie exposing my inability and weakness of character. My frustration didn't allow me to see that this was the woman I loved and admired the most in my life.... A thousand apologies to everyone for this.

Throughout my years (decades) as a tango teacher I have always taught about the need for communication between the members of the dance couple to achieve quality in the dance. That teaching tells the truth, but I did not know how to put into practice as a dancer what I teach as a teacher. That is why I want to apologize to all my students, both those present and those who reacted to the video, for having soiled that undeniable truth of the theory, with a number of reactions that had nothing to do with the quality of the dance, and that led me to an intolerable behavior towards my partner.
I know that my schedule has now changed abruptly, and maybe it will change forever, I accept it, it is a great sadness but I accept it, it is absolutely my responsibility. And it hurts me very deeply that Giselle's future as a dancer is affected because of me, which in no way deserves it.

Finally, I want to apologize to my family, especially to my children, two of whom are professional tango dancers, and have had to see their father's bad behavior on social media. Someone on the networks referred negatively to "Los" Naveira. I want to express that the only Naveira who behaved badly was me, my children are excellent people, excellent dancers who have nothing to do with this fact. As I said before, I accept all criticism, but that "los" (plural) is superfluous."

Again, I apologize. 

Gustavo Naveira
________________________________________

Quiero en primerísimo lugar pedirle un millón de disculpas a Giselle Anne, por mi comportamiento del sábado pasado en el Gavito Tango Festival, en Los Ángeles. Giselle, mi compañera en la vida y en el baile por casi treinta años, madre de dos de mis hijos, la mejor maestra de tango y la mejor bailarina de tango con la que yo haya bailado jamás, ha tenido que soportar un comportamiento de mi parte absolutamente reprochable y falto de toda profesionalidad. Giselle, una mujer extraordinaria, referente del Tango Argentino, que ha sido parte de los más grandes espectáculos de la historia del tango, recibió un maltrato de mi parte, del que me siento profundamente avergonzado, que jamás debí haber llevado a cabo, y por el que pido disculpas, sabiendo que sencillamente no tiene excusas. Giselle y yo, en el tango hemos creado juntos cosas que yo firmemente creo sean muy valiosas. Pero en un momento determinado de la exhibición comencé a increpar a Giselle frente a todos los presentes de manera descontrolada, haciendo añicos justamente todo ello que somos en el tango. Sé que fue bochornoso, y también sé que ya no habrá oportunidad de reparación. Giselle, por supuesto, supo sobrellevar la situación con calma y gracia natural, demostrando una vez más su alto nivel de profesionalismo. Gis te pido perdón nuevamente, no supe estar a tu altura.

También quiero pedirle disculpas al grupo de profesionales que conformaban el equipo de maestros del evento. Todos ellos, en los días anteriores y en ese mismo sábado antes que nosotros, dieron impecables muestra de talento, capacidad y temple, todas condiciones que me faltaron esa noche por lo que no pude unirme a ese equipo. Quiero disculparme con ellos por haber creado un momento de tensión desagradable y empañar una noche que debió haber sido brillante, especialmente por las expectativas que habían puesto en nosotros.

Le pido disculpas también al público presente de esa noche que tuvo que soportar de mi parte un espectáculo triste y penoso, que provocó al menos en ese momento, confusión y desazón entre la gente, ya que no se entendía lo que sucedía.

Muy especialmente quiero dirigirme también a los organizadores de este evento, Dennis y Tanya, excelentísimas personas que trabajan durísimo para la consecución de este Festival excelentemente bien organizado que se encuentra sin dudas entre los mejores del mundo, mil disculpas a ellos por haber ocasionado este disturbio tan negativo.

También acepto la innumerable cantidad de críticas que he recibido en las redes sociales y asumo totalmente mi responsabilidad en el hecho. Mis nervios fallaron, no supe controlarme, y a pesar de los muchos años de experiencia, me comporté como un novato dejando a la vista mi incapacidad y mi debilidad de carácter. Mi frustración no me permitió ver que se trataba de la mujer que más amé y admiré en mi vida…. Mil disculpas a todos por ello.

A lo largo de mis años (décadas) de maestro del tango he enseñado siempre, sobre la necesidad de comunicación entre los integrantes de la pareja de baile para alcanzar la calidad en el baile. Esa enseñanza dice la verdad, pero yo no supe llevar a la práctica como bailarín lo que enseño como maestro. Por eso quiero pedirles disculpas a todos mis alumnos, tanto a los presentes como a los que reaccionaron frente al video, por haber ensuciado esa verdad incontrastable de la teoría, con una cantidad de reacciones que nada tenían que ver con la calidad en el baile, y que me llevaron a un comportamiento intolerable hacia mi compañera.

Sé que mi agenda ahora ha cambiado abruptamente, y quizá cambie para siempre, lo acepto, es una gran tristeza, pero lo acepto, es absolutamente mi responsabilidad. Y me duele muy profundamente que por mi culpa se vea afectado el futuro de Giselle como bailarina, que de ninguna manera lo merece. 

Por último, quiero pedirle disculpas a mi familia, especialmente a mis hijos, dos de los cuales son bailarines profesionales del tango, y han tenido que ver en las redes el mal comportamiento de su padre. Alguien en las redes se refirió negativamente a "Los" Naveira. Quiero expresar que el único Naveira que se comportó mal fui yo, mis hijos son excelentísimas personas, bailarines excelsos que nada tienen que ver con este hecho. Como dije antes, acepto todas las críticas, pero ese "los" está de más.
Nuevamente me disculpo. 

Gustavo Naveira

Sent from my iPad