Mostrando postagens com marcador Slate. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Slate. Mostrar todas as postagens

segunda-feira, 10 de novembro de 2025

A New Report Adds Evidence That Trump Was a Russian Asset - William Saletan (Slate, 2021)

 Mais um artigo de 2021, sobre um famoso Russian asset:


POLITICS
A New Report Adds Evidence That Trump Was a Russian Asset
He helped Putin manipulate the U.S. election in 2020, as he did in 2016.
BY WILLIAM SALETAN
Slate, March 18, 2021
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/03/trump-russian-asset-election-intelligence-community-report.html#
Donald Trump was a tool in a long-running Russian campaign to weaken the United States. That’s been documented in Republican-led investigative reports, and now it has been updated with new evidence, thanks to the U.S. Intelligence Community’s assessment of the 2020 election. The report, drafted by the CIA, the FBI, and several other agencies, was released in unclassified form on Tuesday, but it was presented in classified form on Jan. 7. In other words, it was compiled, written, and edited during Trump’s administration. It destroys his lies about the election, and it exposes him as a Russian asset.
The report debunks conspiracy theories, promoted by Trump and his lawyers, that hackers in other countries robbed him of victory. “We have no indications that any foreign actor attempted to interfere in the 2020 US elections by altering any technical aspect of the voting process,” including “ballot casting, vote tabulation, or reporting results,” says the document. A separate analysis released by the Department of Justice reaches the same conclusion. The IC report adds that evidence of such operations, if they existed, would have shown up in U.S. surveillance or in “post-election audits of electronic results and paper backups.” The report implicitly mocks insinuations from Trump’s lawyers that former Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, who died in 2013, somehow rigged Trump’s defeat. “We have no information,” it notes drily, that “current or former Venezuelan regimes were involved in attempts to compromise US election infrastructure.”
During the campaign, Trump, his national security appointees, and his allies in Congress insisted that China was meddling in the election to help Joe Biden. They even claimed that China’s interference was more dangerous than Russia’s. The report shreds that fiction. China “did not deploy influence efforts intended to change the outcome of the US Presidential election,” says the assessment. It finds no attempt by China to “provide funding to any candidates or parties,” and it challenges the Republican spin that China feared Trump because he was too tough. It argues, to the contrary, that Beijing saw Trump as a weaker adversary because he “would alienate US partners,” whereas Biden “would pose a greater challenge over the long run because he would be more successful in mobilizing a global alliance against China.”
As to Russia, the report leaves no doubt: In 2020, as in 2016, “President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations” to help Trump and hurt his Democratic opponent. For example, “Shortly after the 2018 midterm elections, Russian intelligence cyber actors attempted to hack organizations primarily affiliated with the Democratic Party.” Then, in late 2019, Russia’s military intelligence service, the GRU, “conducted a phishing campaign against subsidiaries of Burisma holdings, likely in an attempt to gather information related to President Biden’s family.” Throughout the 2020 election, agents “connected to the Russian Federal Security Service,” FSB, planted negative stories about Biden. Internet operatives working for the Kremlin, including the troll farm that had boosted Trump in 2016, continued to promote “Trump and his commentary, including repeating his political messaging.”
Attacks on Biden and his son, Hunter, were part of this operation. Through “US officials and prominent US individuals, some of whom were close to former President Trump and his administration,” the report says Russia’s intelligence services “repeatedly spread unsubstantiated or misleading claims about President Biden and his family’s alleged wrongdoing related to Ukraine.” In this way, Trump’s circle “laundered” the Russian-planted stories, which were then recirculated—and promoted by Russia’s online proxies—as American news.
One section of the report zeroes in on two Russian agents, Andriy Derkach and Konstantin Kilimnik, along with their associates. It says they met with and passed materials to people linked to the Trump administration to advocate for government investigations. Derkach peddled audio recordings that were edited to make Biden look corrupt, and he “worked to initiate legal proceedings in Ukraine and the US related to these allegations.” The report doesn’t name the Americans who collaborated with the Russian agents, but it’s easy to identify them from news reports. Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, met with Derkach twice. Donald Trump Jr. promoted Derkach’s tapes. Trump’s 2016 campaign manager, Paul Manafort, gave Kilimnik inside information on the campaign. Trump, in a 2019 phone call, pressed Ukraine’s president to open an investigation of Biden, as Derkach proposed. And congressional Republicans, led by Reps. Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes, parroted a Russian-planted narrative “to falsely blame Ukraine for interfering in the 2016 US presidential election.”
Trump also helped Putin discredit American democracy. That was a major goal of Russia’s 2016 and 2020 operations, the report explains: “Throughout the election, Russia’s online influence actors sought to amplify mistrust in the electoral process by denigrating mail-in ballots, highlighting alleged irregularities, and accusing the Democratic Party of voter fraud.” Trump peddled the same fears. After the election, as “Russian online influence actors continued to promote narratives questioning the election results,” Trump duplicated that message. Russia’s agents also hyped “allegations of social media censorship,” as Trump did.
The IC assessment doesn’t address what Trump knew about the Russian influence campaign. But according to former officials who spoke last fall to the Washington Post and the New York Times, he was directly warned. In a December 2019 conversation, then–national security adviser Robert O’Brien told Trump that Giuliani had been “worked by Russian assets in Ukraine.” Trump shrugged and went on promoting the allegations Giuliani was feeding him. That makes Trump more than a Russian asset. It makes him, in technical terms, an agent of a foreign power.

sábado, 18 de maio de 2024

Les personnes qui lisent de la fiction ont un cerveau plus performant - Lola Buscemi Slate

Les personnes qui lisent de la fiction ont un cerveau plus performant

Lola Buscemi

Slate, 13 mai 2024 à 21h30

https://www.slate.fr/story/266808/lecture-fiction-cerveau-impact-effet-avantages-etude

 

Bonne nouvelle pour les rats de bibliothèque.

La fiction boosterait certaines de nos capacités cognitives. 


L'impact de la consommation des récits de fiction sur le cerveau humain a longtemps constitué un sujet de discorde au sein du corps scientifique. Pour certains, il s'agirait seulement d'une source de divertissement qui présenterait plusieurs désagréments, comme une tendance à ôter son lecteur son ancrage vis-à-vis du monde réel; mais pour d'autres, ce serait un excellent moyen d'améliorer ses capacités cognitives. L'équipe de Lena Wimmer, chercheuse à l'université allemande de Wurtzbourg, a mené une nouvelle étude afin de déterminer comment la lecture de fiction affecte le cerveau.

Psypost reprend les résultats de l'enquête publiée dans le Journal de la psychologie expérimentale, où il est expliqué que l'équipe de chercheurs a mené deux méta-analyses distinctes. Ce processus consiste à combiner les résultats de plusieurs études indépendantes afin d'en tirer des conclusions.


Une tendance positive commune 

La première s'est concentrée sur les études expérimentales. Les spécialistes ont rassemblé soixante-dix analyses de ce type, qui impliquaient un total de 11.172 participants. Les résultats ont montré que la lecture de fiction «avait un effet positif faible, mais statistiquement significatif, sur les compétences cognitives en général», détaille Psypost. Les avantages étaient plus prononcés au niveau de l'empathie et de la capacité à comprendre les intentions d'autrui.


La seconde méta-analyse regroupe les travaux mesurant l'impact des écrits de fiction sur des lecteurs réguliers, tout au long de leur vie. La combinaison de 114 études a mis en évidence une relation positive et constante entre la quantité de fiction lue au cours d'une vie et l'amélioration des compétences cognitives. Cette corrélation était particulièrement forte pour les capacités verbales et cognitives générales (comme le raisonnement ou la résolution de problèmes).

En conclusion, «ce projet de recherche suggère que les personnes qui lisent beaucoup de fiction ont de meilleures compétences cognitives que celles qui lisent peu ou pas de fiction», souligne Lena Wimmer. Cependant, ces résultats ne constituent pas une preuve irréfutable: d'autres études, qui incluraient des variables tel que le niveau d'éducation, seraient en effet nécessaires.

 

 =========

Si vous voulez lire davantage, suivez les conseils de ces grands lecteurs

Tout est une question d'habitude.

Les Français lisent-ils plus? Selon le Centre national du livre, la tendance remonte après une baisse pendant la pandémie. En 2023, 86% des personnes interrogées déclaraient lire spontanément, contre 81% deux ans plus tôt.

En revanche, le temps de lecture réel est en deçà des attentes individuelles, notamment chez les 15-49 ans. Si la majorité dit vouloir lire plus, elle considère aussi avoir du mal à le faire par manque de temps et la préférence pour d'autres loisirs. Mais il existe des moyens de contourner ces obstacles, d'après le Washington Post. Le quotidien américain a recueilli les conseils de grands lecteurs, ces personnes qui arrivent à lire plusieurs centaines de livres par an.

Première recommandation: prendre avantage des petits laps de temps dans la journée, que ce soit dans les transports ou lorsque l'on attend que l'eau des pâtes arrive à ébullition. Faire d'un moment dans la journée son temps de lecture privilégié facilite aussi la prise d'habitude: lire une demi-heure avant d'aller au lit par exemple, lorsque l'on n'a rien d'autre à faire (d'autant plus que cela améliore le sommeil).

S'engager dans la lecture

Autre conseil: suivre sa progression, que ce soit d'un livre ou vers un objectif de lecture sur une période donnée. «Je dois dire que [le faire] m'a rendue un peu moins à même d'abandonner un livre», explique Olivia Ambrogio, formatrice en sciences de la communication. «On se dit “J'en ai lu 42%! Je peux le finir.”»

S'engager dans la lecture est donc l'axe principal de cette habitude«Si on veut vraiment lire un livre, il faut vraiment s'investir dans les premières 100, 200 pages» estime Paul Scott, un retraité californien. «Je ne peux pas vous dire le nombre de fois où j'ai commencé un livre en lisant les quinze premières pages, et où j'ai relu ces quinze pages le lendemain en essayant de vraiment m'y accrocher.»

Et pour ceux qui n'ont jamais les mains libres, il y a toujours les livres audio, que l'on peut écouter en faisant ses tâches ménagères. Que ce soit en supplément de la version écrite ou non, c'est un bon moyen de s'y mettre. En revanche, les bienfaits d'un livre écrit pour le cerveau sont atténués par l'écoute. Mieux vaut adopter un mélange des deux à long terme.


Postagem em destaque

Livro Marxismo e Socialismo finalmente disponível - Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Meu mais recente livro – que não tem nada a ver com o governo atual ou com sua diplomacia esquizofrênica, já vou logo avisando – ficou final...