Meet Newton Howard, the Brain Scientist Who Put Giant Transformers in Front of His D.C. Home
The Georgetown professor isn't a toy lover—he's trying to convey a philosophical idea about the nature of free will and the capacity of humans to remake the world around them.
HD DownloadIn March of 2021, the brain scientist, inventor, and national security advisor Newton Howard erected two Transformers statues of Bumblebee and Optimus Prime outside his home in the District of Columbia's Georgetown neighborhood. His neighbors were furious and demanded that he take them down. Howard refused.
"With an abundance of real issues in the world…[why were] two sculptures…at the center of debate by such high intellectuals and high-powered people?" he asks.
They complained to the district's Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs and the federally funded Old Georgetown Board, which oversees the historic neighborhood. Howard was fined $20,000 and ordered to dismantle them.
After 11 years in the intelligence community, during which he worked as an analyst for the CIA, dictating to him what he was allowed to put on his property, he says, was a violation of the principles he had dedicated his career to upholding.
"This is my property," he tells Reason. "I put something on it."
But why Transformers? He's not a toy lover or a fan of the animated movies or TV shows. Instead, he's trying to convey a philosophical idea about the nature of free will and the capacity of humans to remake the world around them.
Photo: Taylor Crul - U.S. Air Force via CNP/picture alliance/ Consolidated News Photos/Newscom
Music: "Helix" by Break of Reality via Artlist; "Source Code" by Jimmy Svensson via Artlist; "Guardian Angel" by Ian Post via Artlist; "Moon Travel" by Roman P via Artlist; "Plastic Breath" by Tamuz Dekel via Artlist; "The Undertake" by Borrtex via Artlist;
"Fury" by Ardie Son via Artlist
Written and produced by Noor Greene; edited by Danielle Thompson; shot by Isaac Reese, Mike Koslap, and Aaron Schwartz; audio by Ian Keyser.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hipster dufus.
Maybe, but he's smoking a Peterson, and anybody who smokes a Pete can't be all bad. Give him his props where they're due.
He might have it is his mouth, but he isn’t smoking.
Thanks Reason - now Hasbro is going to fuck. Him. Up.
You'd be surprised at some of the intersections between former executives at Hasbro and people in his former line of work. There's one particularly well-known example.
And if the police use excessive force bringing him in, no one can post the video due to copyright violations.
"After 11 years in the intelligence community, during which he worked as an analyst for the CIA, dictating to him what he was allowed to put on his property, he says, was a violation of the principles he had dedicated his career to upholding."
Uh buddy, you worked for the CIA. Is a bit late to be starting to talk about *principles*.
[insert some sort of argument about imposing aesthetic externalities upon your neighbors here]
Every community has one of these people with weird sculptures in their yard, or screeds painted across their wall, or some sort of performative decoration the neighbors hate. Given enough time such shit might become beloved historical artifacts. Maybe.
In my hometown there was a dude who had a giant frog in this yard, dwarfing his gazebo (what's a gazebo). It's now historic and beloved. Currently a neighbor down the street has a life sized iron tyrannosaur in his yard. Such things are becoming popular for some strange reason. Is there a moral difference between a giant rusting dinosaur and a diminutive garden gnome? I can see none.
"But it lowers the neighbors property values!", I hear you say. But does it really? Is it any different if I paint my house magenta? Or do I need to stick to one of twelve HOA approved shades of beige and gray? In the end, it's an authoritarian impulse to rule over what other people put in their own yards.
So long as it's not offensive (nekkid Trump with tiny penis) I'm fine with it. If the latter, it's for torts to decide and not city council overreach.
I've never understood the hoopla surrounding 'lowering property value'.
1. It's not anyone's duty to maximize your property value'.
2. Low property value' means low property taxes.
3. Sale value of the home only matters if you're selling it or borrowing against it - neither of which should be happening often enough to drive other people's actions.
For 2
During the 2008 down turn when housing prices collapsed, Chicago raised their property taxes in order to not have less money
See my comment below. Property taxes don't go down when housing values go down, and in fact often go up.
It does become a problem when you can no longer sell your home at all though, because one of your neighbors is an asshole. Close to where my dad lives there is an asshole that plastered every inch of the front of their house with blm and pride signs. The people across the street from them attempted to sell their house for six months and couldn't get any bids because no one wants to move across the street from someone that is that such an obviously huge asshole.
The people across the street still have to pay the same property taxes as if they didn't own a home across the street from an asshole though, because property taxes and values aren't determined by what your house is actually worth, but by an approximation of what your house is worth created from similar homes that have sold near you. Homes which aren't within sight lines of the assholes house and thus actually can be sold.
They have Fire insurance, right?
Nuff said.
Good idea, wrong house - does the *neighbor* have fire insurance . . .
Who cares?
The root problem is that your dad's neighbor is an asshole, not merely that he advertises his assholery.
Yes, that's a pain for the neighbors who want to sell but consider it from the buyer's perspective. Think of how pissed off you'd be if your future neighbors intentionally concealed a known hazard in order to trick you into buying the house across from the asshole.
2. Low property value' means low property taxes.
No it doesn't, unfortunately. That's a widely misunderstood myth.
Property taxes are based on "your percentage of the pie". During the housing collapse of 2008, here in Washington, property taxes continued to go up while property values were going down. People complained. The state carefully explained that your "value" (and yes, everything the scare quotes imply) only determine what percentage of the pie you owe.
To be clear, the county assessor is told, "We need eleventy million in property taxes, go find it." The assessor then tweaks the formula in all kind of byzantine ways and your 'percentage' of that eleventy billion is then extracted by your property value.
In other words, a low valuation means your slice of the pie is smaller.
Yes, but the size of the pie grows. If IF IF your state or county does something completely unheard of... lowering taxes, then yes your slice of the pie will go down. But that doesn't happen. That why, as I stated in my comment, even when property values go down, your tax bill can and does go up.
To be clear, all those levies and shit you vote "yes" on? Those increase the size of the pie. This is why value 'formulations' are so complicated. "Rolling three year averages adjusted by the 7 surrounding properties blah blah blah". King County literally tweaks its formula like every other year. The reason is they're going to make sure they "find" eleventy billion in taxes no matter what your actual assessed value is.
That is why I vote no in everything.
This was from 2008 during the crisis when people saw their values dropping and tax bills going up and were scratching their head as to how that was possible.
Wasn't there once some idea about restricting the vote to property owners?
I dunno. I mean, everyone pays property taxes at some point. You're paying them via your rent, unless you live in San Francisco and live in a Rent controlled apartment.
Don't take my word for it:
The above is a happy, "taxes for dummies" 'splainer. What it's telling you is that if your county's taxes go up, it don't matter what your property and assessed "value is" you're gonna pay more.
It's because in our modern home ownership regime, houses are investments, not homes. Thus the value must keep rising or people think they are losing their investment. It's stupid, but it's there.
You certainly don't want to lose money if you end up having to sell, but most people who bought a house plan to stay there. So what's the point of ever increasing taxes? (Unless you have a tax cap, in which case all the new taxes go to other people, as in California).
If the government can seize your property at any time for a football stadium or a shopping center, is it really an investment? Do you even really own it?
Not to mention the rent (property taxes) you pay them every year to live there.
So long as it's not offensive (nekkid Trump with tiny penis) I'm fine with it.
I don't exactly have as much of a problem with offensive as I do dilapidation. Neighbors across the road revamped a large portion of their front yard, including the parkway, with 'low maintenance' landscaping. They even allowed people to come and take some of the propagating plants for their own purposes. Someone from the village stopped by and cited them for mucking with the parkway. Now the turf parkway provides a nice, uh, contrast to the rest of their low maintenance yard. Meanwhile, 2-3 other houses around the village have wooden shingles or siding that's rotting off and raccoons poking holes in the corners of the garage. Fuck the 42" tall feather grass and hostas in the parkway, do something about the guy unwittingly raising raccoons in what remains of his garage right next to the bus stop.
And don’t forget the “Flintstone’s” house.
After 11 years in the intelligence community, during which he worked as an analyst for the CIA
So he's useless
Just register them to vote as democrats.
Problem solved.
he's trying to convey a philosophical idea about the nature of free will and the capacity of humans to remake the world around them.
But enough about Vladimir Putin.
After 11 years in the intelligence community, during which he worked as an analyst for the CIA
The original Disinformation Governance Board.
Meh. Most NIMBYs are also NIYFYs.
Doesn't look like Optimus Prime or Bumblebee. Looks more like iron man.
That's the one in the still frame and is inside his house. the one's outside his home are clearly bumblebee and o-prime.
I see Reason's Camera guy thinks he's Fellini.
Does anyone remember that scene from Die Hard: With a Vengeance where John McClain is in Harlem with a sign that says "I hate niggers"? That is what a true First Amendment, free speech warrior looks like IRL.
See Eye Aye guy complaining about freedom is a little lolz.
Good one!
Georgetowners deserve worse than this, how about a giant raised middle finger sculpture?
Humans are inherently flawed garbage, nothing will change.
You never really own your home.
Well, if it conforms to zoning laws and any CC&Rs, then he can do it; after all, he bought the property subject to those conditions.
If not, he needs to remove it or face the penalties.