Keen On

In a week dominated by the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk, Cynthia Miller-Idriss’ insights as the founding director of American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL) are particularly valuable. Her new book about what she identifies as “the new misogyny and the rise of violent extremism” is entitled Man Up. But its message might be summarized as Man Down in its attempt to temper the violent fringes of what she calls the manosphere. Miller-Idriss, one of America’s leading researchers on violent extremism, argues that misogyny is the cause of today’s troubling rise of political assassinations and mass shootings. Her research across seven countries reveals that hostile sexism ranks among the top three predictors of support for political violence. She traces a disturbing pipeline from seemingly innocuous self-help searches by lonely young men to radicalization by influencers who blend fitness advice with violent scapegoating of women and minorities. Miller-Idriss docume

Today’s $3 trillion investment in AI is not only rational and beyond inevitable - it’s “predestined”. At least according to That Was The Week newletter publisher and techno-determinist Keith Teare. Exuberance is not only required, Keith argues, but absolutely essential in today’s AI mad gold rush. And he’s particularly critical of all skeptics - from traditional tech naysayers (like myself) to mainstream publications like The Economist - which are all a touch questioning of today’s unprecedented boom. What if the $3 trillion AI investment tsunami goes wrong? The Economist asks. But for Keith, it can’t possibly go wrong. The investment has already been made, he argues, and the resultant technology will inevitably benefit humanity. He envisions a world where AI adds $20 trillion to global GDP by 2035, where a kid in rural Africa with an Android phone can access the world's best AI, and where economic growth hits an unprecedented 20% annually. I think this type of teleological argument adds up to about $3 trilli

David Lesch is a poster child for something. I’m just not sure what. On the one hand, given his personal reinvention from Los Angeles Dodgers first-round draft pick to official biographer of Bashar al Assad, some might consider him proof that the American Dream still exists. But others, including even himself , would argue that his incredible pivot from baseball protege to Harvard-educated Middle Eastern expert, reflects the privilege of his social class and perhaps even gender. In any event, the Lesch story is pretty amazing - which is why the San Antonio-based biographer Catherine Nixon Cooke has just published Dodgers to Damascus, the story of his journey from star pitcher to star diplomat. So it was intriguing to not only host Cooke but also David Lesch to discuss his highly unusual journey from the youthful potential of baseball to the grim reality of Bashar al Assad’s Syria. 1. Privilege complicates the reinvention narrative Lesch's transformation from baseball to diplomacy required significant advantag

Things aren’t quite as sunny on the environmental front as some recent guests suggest. According to the award winning science writer Peter Brannen, our planet is in an unprecedented crisis. We’re burning 500 million years of the earth's history in a few decades, Brannen warns, so we should all quit pretending that our recycling will miraculously save the planet. That said, though, his latest book, The Story of CO2 is the Story of Everything, is the complex narrative of how carbon dioxide (CO2) both made and might unmake our world. So CO2 is simultaneously the good guy and the villain in our environmental story. Without carbon dioxide, Brannen warns, Earth would freeze into an uninhabitable ice ball. But too much creates a Venus-like greenhouse hell in which all life would be quickly extinguished. We hang in a delicate sweet spot that took nature millions of years to manufacture —and we humans are now disrupting this ecological balance at breakneck speed. The result is what Brannen calls a terrifying planetary

If Geoffrey Hinton is the Godfather of AI, then Bruce Schneier might be described as the Godfather of Security. A celebrated cryptographer and computer security expert, Schneier’s latest co-authored (with Nathan Sanders) book is entitled Rewiring Democracy and speculates on how AI might transform our politics, government and citizenship. American democracy, Schneier notes, runs on archaic 1776 technology in today’s digital 2025 world. Rather than fighting against AI then, he suggests, Americans should adapt this new technology to update how they do politics in the 21st century. But Schneier offers the crucial caveats that AI can neither solve fundamental human problems nor transcend ideology. "A value is just a bias we like," he warns about the impossibility of a “valueless” AI system. While cautiously optimistic about AI's potential to democratize power—from helping local politicians without resources to enabling mass citizen assemblies—he warns that without fixing underlying political and economic structure

There are few more prolific Americans than the Harvard scholar, activist and athlete Cass Sunstein. The author of almost 30 books (including the best-selling Nudge) as well as an influential advisor in the Presidencies of Biden and Obama, Sunstein’s new book, On Liberalism, is an unambiguously full throated defense of freedom. Both Reagan and FDR are part of the same big tent liberal family, Sunstein argues, in this defiantly bipartisan reminder of foundations of modern American freedom. There’s not a lot of nudging On Liberalism. He warns that while liberalism faces "severe pressure" today, its core commitments to freedom, pluralism, and the rule of law must unite American citizens across political divides. The alternative, he says, is an unAmerican scenario of unfreedom. In a word: illiberalism. 1. The Liberal "Big Tent" Includes Both Reagan and FDRSunstein argues that liberalism isn't just for the left—it's a broad tradition unified by commitments to freedom, pluralism, rule of law, and security (freedom f

Can we humans make it to 2125? According to Gary F. Bengier, author of Journey to 2125, our species faces three existential threats over the next 100 years. His horsemen of the apocalypse are climate change, nuclear war and robots. No great surprises there. Where Bengier is more original is his stress on narrowing the manifold threats to humanity. Focus, focus, focus is Bengier’s species survival mantra. The ex-eBay technologist turned philosopher argues we're distracted by too many doomsday scenarios. His classic Silicon Valley solution: ignore the noise, solve these three core problems, and humanity might be able to "muddle through." But, as always in these cliffhanger narratives, there's a potential catch—nuclear war could destroy the resources needed to fight climate change, while robot factories in the business of building more robot factories could short circuit capitalism itself. Ooops. So there’s no guarantee that any of us - even (or especially) those Kurzweilian crazies who believe we can live fore

For anyone who has seen Michael B. Jordan’s excellent new movie Sinners, it’s clear that any sort of deal with the devil - what has become known as the Faustian Bargain - is still very much alive. So relevant, in fact, that cultural historian Ed Simon has a book, just out in paperback, about its enduring relevance entitled Devil’s Contract. From Shakespeare and Goethe to Thomas Mann and Donald Trump, Simon argues, the Faustian Bargain is more than just a literary trope. In fact, he suggests, it is as relevant today, in our social media age of the Mephistophelian Donald Trump as it was in the German Reformation of the equally populist Martin Luther. The Art of a Deal with the Devil. And we all know how it ends. Go and see Sinners. Spoiler warning: not without the spilling of a great deal of innocent blood. 1. The Faustian Bargain is Fundamentally About Irrationality Despite knowing the terrible consequences, Faust signs the contract anyway. As Simon explains, "if you know that the devil is real and that the De

How to bring peace to Gaza and Ukraine? Maybe the United Nations can help. Or, sadly, maybe not. But there really was a time, in the second half of the 20th century, when the United Nations could help bring peace to supposedly insoluble wars. The U.N.'s glory days were in the Sixties when it was run by a former Burmese school teacher called U Thant. His incredible story is told by his grandson, the Cambridge University historian Thant Myint-U, in a new book appropriately called Peacemaker. Thant Myint-U reminds us of a halcyon time when the UN Secretary-General could summon presidents at will, mediate between nuclear superpowers, and command respect from Castro to Kennedy. Today's forgotten history reveals how U Thant's intervention during the Cuban Missile Crisis helped prevent nuclear war—a role not-so-surprisingly airbrushed from most American and Soviet accounts. Yes, even in the glory years of the Sixties, the bureaucratized U.N. was far from perfect. But under a dedicated peacemaker like U-Thant it coul

Lead in gasoline powered cars have killed more people than those that died in World War Two. That’s the astonishing claim of David Obst who, in his new Saving Ourselves From Big Car, lays out a strategy to kick our self-destructive automobile addiction. The former investigative reporter, who worked with Seymour Hersh on the My Lai massacre story and represented Woodward and Bernstein for All the President's Men, argues that the auto industry suppressed knowledge about lead's deadly effects for 70 years. More controversially, Obst claims electric vehicles are no better due to the lead in batteries. The only safe future is one without cars, he insists, pointing to car-free communities like Tempe, Arizona and Taipei, Taiwan as models for breaking what he calls our addiction to automobiles.1. Lead in gasoline killed more people than World War II Obst claims that from 1927 to the 1990s, lead additives in gasoline caused more deaths globally than WWII, citing World Health Organization statistics - though interviewe

There is no more shakespearean parable of the tragic rise and fall of the postwar American meritocratic elite than Robert Strange McNamara. War hero, Harvard Business School, head of Ford, begged by JFK to take a role - any role - in Camelot. Then came the equally meteoric fall as JFK and then LBJ’s Secretary of Defense - Vietnam and all its death and deceit. With his brother William, Philip Taubman has written about what he calls McNamara’s “double life” in his new biography, McNamara At War. In this “new history”, they uncover new documents showing that McNamara was privately telling his aide John McNaughton in April 1966 - just nine months after advocating for massive escalation - that he "wanted to bring the boys home so bad I can hardly stand it." Yet this analytic whiz-kid, a poetry loving smart machine in a grey suit, continued prosecuting this unwinnable war for nearly two more years. The Taubmans suggest, therefore, that the catastrophic American defeat in Vietnam wasn’t simply a military failure. I

Dumb globalization: America’s worst bet. That, at least, is the view of the Washington Post financial writer David J Lynch and author of The World’s Worst Bet. From Clinton to Bush, Lynch argues, America has bet stupidly on globalization and, not surprisingly, has lost. It’s no coincidence, he suggests, that the American dream has also unraveled in this tumultuous period. While globalization lifted billions from poverty worldwide and enriched coastal elites, Lynch contends that America's failure to help displaced manufacturing workers created the resentment that ultimately put Trump in the White House. The promised assistance to globalization's losers never materialized, leaving entire communities devastated by both catastrophic job losses and the equal catastrophe to tens of million Americans of the 2008 financial crisis. So what to do? Lynch argues that both Trump's tariffs and Biden's industrial policy are fighting yesterday's battles. Instead, America needs robust labor market policies—wage insurance, pla

In our angry MAHA times, how can we get people trusting science and scientists again. According to MIT’s Alan Lightman, one of America’s greatest scientific writers, we need to both demystify science and humanize scientists. Lightman is the co-author, with Martin Rees, of The Shape of Wonder, a timely collection of essays about how scientists think, work, and live. We need to learn from scientists like Albert Einstein, Lightman - himself the author of the 1993 classic Einstein’s Dreams, suggests. He argues that Einstein's "naive" willingness to challenge millennia of thinking about time exemplifies the wonder that drives great science. Lightman discusses why scientists have become entangled with "elite establishments" in our populist moment, and argues that critical scientific thinking—from balancing checkbooks to diagnosing a child's fever—belongs to everyone, not just scientists. So make America smart again (MASA), by demystifying science and humanizing scientists.1. "Naive" questioning drives breakthrough

The human brain is so unbelievably complex that we barely understand its most basic functions. According to the British neuroscientist Daniel Yon, our brains - which some speculate are the most mysteriously complicated things in the universe - might even have minds of their own. In his latest book, A Trick of the Mind, Yon argues that our brains quite literally create our own realities. So is all reality entirely subjective, then? Not quite. Yon describes the brain as functioning like a scientist, constantly generating predictive models based on past experiences to interpret ambiguous sensory data. Rather than passively receiving information, we actively construct our perceptions through these mental frameworks. This isn't pure subjectivity, though—it's what he calls a "duet" between external stimuli and internal predictions. Our brains need these biases and preconceptions to make any sense of the world's overwhelming complexity. Without them, we'd be lost in what Yon calls "chaotic, volatile, unstable myster

According to former college president Beverly Daniel Tatum, Trump’s war on university admissions is deeply hypocritical. On the one hand, she argues, his attack on affirmative action admissions policy is made in the populist language of “anti-woke” egalitarianism; but on the other, wealthy families are already gaming college admissions through clever manipulation of the system. A Harvard study revealed that athletes, legacies, donors' children, and faculty offspring—categories overwhelmingly benefiting affluent white families—receive admission advantages far exceeding any diversity program. Yet while demanding universities abandon "racial proxies," Trump's administration simultaneously insists on counting student demographics, exposing the contradiction in claims of colorblind meritocracy.Tatum’s new book, Peril and Promise: College Leadership in Turbulent Times, draws from her extensive experience as President of both Mount Holyoke College and Spelman College. Tatum discussed her controversial decision to e

Globalization is dying, maybe even dead. Borders are back, baby. That’s the message in Jonn Elledge’s sparkling Brief History of the World in 47 Borders. In this romp around world history , Elledge introduces us to 47 of the world’s oddest borders including particularly weird ones in Detroit, Kaliningrad and Bolivia. So should be celebrating or mourning the rebirth of the border? Elledge is in mourning. A self-described progressive who grew up on Star Trek dreams of planetary unity, he sees nationalism's resurgence since 2016 as "quite a bad thing." He blames economic stagnation—when the pie stops growing, generous approaches to migration and distribution become much harder to sustain. I’m more sanguine. Whatever globalist bureaucrats at the UN or EU promised us, borders were never going away. As a species, we humans are agoraphobic. The Trekkies are wrong. The claustrophobia of the border is what gives us our sense of space. 1. Borders are having a political moment - The "liberal hegemony" that promised bord

When somebody says “win-win” in Silicon Valley, check your pockets. It’s usually some elaborate prelude to a sales pitch. And the only thing dodgier than a two-way win is the “win-win-win” narrative that my friend Keith Teare is selling this week. “User, Publishers and AI: Everybody Wins” is the title of Keith’s That Was The Week newsletter this week. And to be fair, what he’s selling is the dream of an AI world in which the publishers, consumers and manufacturers of information all win. Who wouldn’t want that? Our conversation this week is built around the AI ethics showdown by Y Combinator and Andreessen Horowitz which has shaken Silicon Valley this week. The battle centers on whether AI agents should identify themselves when accessing publisher content - a seemingly technical question that reveals broader tensions about who controls information in the age of artificial intelligence. Y Combinator’s Garry Tan called new authentication requirements an "axis of evil" while Andreessen Horowitz’s Martin Casado

It’s only been a quarter century, but IN FORMATION magazine is now back. Published by David Temkin with the tagline “Every Day, Computers are Making People Easier to Use”, IN FORMATION was originally designed in 1998 as the “Anti-Wired” - a glossily skeptical anti-tech publication for Silicon Valley insiders. And now, as more tech hysteria grips the Valley, IN FORMATION has - like the promise of AI itself - magically reappeared. This third issue, costing the Orwellian sum of $19.84, features contributions from former Google VPs, cryptography experts, and Silicon Valley veterans like Temkin who helped build the original internet. The San Francisco-based Temkin, now at PayPal after stints at Apple and Google, sees AI as another "step function change" in the way that computers are, indeed, making people easier to use. Just in the nick of time, in my not-so-humble opinion. Everyone should subscribe. 1. The Power Dynamic Has Flipped Temkin's tagline "Every Day, Computers are Making People Easier to Use" captures

Is the convicted sex criminal Roman Polanski worth defending? Particularly in the context of “An Officer and a Spy”, his vaguely autobiographical 2019 movie about the Dreyfus case, the first Polanski film in a decade to be shown in the United States. Writing in Liberties Quarterly, Charles Taylor answers yes, intelligently making the case that we should concentrate on evaluating Polanski’s art rather than his crimes. But I wonder about the wisdom of Polanski making a film about, of all things, the Dreyfus Affair - the celebrated 19th century French case of the persecution of an innocent Jewish military officer. Taylor’s Liberties piece is entitled “Polanski’s Nation of Pain” in reference to the manifold tragedies of the filmmaker’s life. But there’s also the unimaginable pain Roman Polanski has inflicted on any number of innocent women and girls. No, I don’t think I’ll be paying to see “An Officer and a Spy”. Not even if it’s a good movie. 1. The Separation Dilemma Can we truly separate art from artist? Taylo

It's become the new orthodoxy: social media is the cause of the epidemic of anxiety amongst adolescents. So the way to fix this is by taking away their smartphones. But according to Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times writer Matt Richtel, things are actually a lot more complicated than blaming everything on digital technology. In fact, we may have got things a bit upside down. In his new book, How We Grow Up, Richtel argues that parents have, ironically, become what he calls "the social media" in their kids' lives. Smartphones enable parents to constantly observe not just their kids' movements but even their thoughts through constant surveillance of grades, texts, and location data. We are, indeed, creating a "surveillance state with our children," he warns - which could be one explanation (amongst many) why today's teens engage in significantly less risky behavior than previous generations. Understanding adolescents might actually require grown-ups to face up to their own parental anxieties. "Love, lead,