text stringlengths 237 126k | date_download stringdate 2022-01-01 00:32:20 2023-01-01 00:02:37 ⌀ | source_domain stringclasses 60 values | title stringlengths 4 31.5k ⌀ | url stringlengths 24 617 ⌀ | id stringlengths 24 617 ⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A Pocatello fire truck responds to a blown transformer on Hiline Road on Tuesday afternoon.
The winter storms that are forecast to barrel through East Idaho all week have already caused several wrecks, a widespread power outage as well as a lengthy freeway closure.
And it's not even Wednesday.
A blown transformer on Hiline Road in Pocatello around 1 p.m. Tuesday resulted in a power outage impacting over 1,100 Idaho Power customers in the Gate City area. Power was restored to everyone by 4 p.m. Tuesday.
A day earlier wrecks were the biggest impact on East Idaho from the storms. Six weather-related crashes, including one involving 17 vehicles, on Interstate 84 Monday evening between the Utah border and Interstate 86 interchange caused Idaho State Police to shut down that 53-mile stretch of freeway for nearly seven hours. Nine people were injured in the wrecks, state police said.
The snowy weather is forecast to continue through Saturday in East Idaho and as of Tuesday afternoon a winter storm warning and winter weather advisories remained in effect for the region.
The winter storm warning is in effect through Tuesday night for the Emigration Summit area, where up to 8 inches of snow is forecast to fall.
Winter weather advisories calling for up to 5 or 6 inches of snow are in effect for most of East Idaho through Tuesday night. This includes lower elevation areas such as the Idaho National Laboratory, American Falls, Aberdeen, Pocatello, Chubbuck, Fort Hall, Shelley, Blackfoot, Idaho Falls, Ammon, Rigby and Rexburg as well as higher elevation areas such as Arbon, Soda Springs, Lava Hot Springs, Inkom, Palisades, Swan Valley, Victor, Island Park, Spencer and Bone.
Motorists should expect hazardous driving conditions all week in East Idaho because of the snow and high winds from the storms.
Gusts of up to 50 mph are expected Tuesday in East Idaho, especially in the Burley, Rupert, Albion, Almo, Malta, Rockland and Holbrook areas. The gusts could cause reduced visibility on Interstate 84 and Highway 81 on Tuesday via blowing snow. A wind advisory for much of East Idaho is in effect until Tuesday night.
Elsewhere in the state, wind and winter weather advisories are in effect in south central, southwest and northern Idaho. Winter weather advisories and/or winter storm warnings are in effect in all of the states surrounding Idaho. | 2022-04-13T00:41:00Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | Winter storms leave wrecks, power outage and freeway closure in their wake across East Idaho | Freeaccess | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/freeaccess/winter-storms-leave-wrecks-power-outage-and-freeway-closure-in-their-wake-across-east-idaho/article_545de259-8f8c-57c8-9e99-0209560c40b3.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/freeaccess/winter-storms-leave-wrecks-power-outage-and-freeway-closure-in-their-wake-across-east-idaho/article_545de259-8f8c-57c8-9e99-0209560c40b3.html |
By Charles McCollum The Herald Journal
The event is a fundraiser for the Preston Education Foundation, which is looking to upgrade the playgrounds at Pioneer and Oakwood elementary schools. Donations will be taken at the door.
The Preston Education Foundation is hoping the "Napoleon Dynamite" event will help them toward raising the last $100,000 needed for playground improvements at the town's two elementary schools.
A $400,000 private grant will be used to buy new playground equipment at Oakwood Elementary, and the foundation also plans to fund replacement of the wood-chip surfaces both there and at Pioneer Elementary.
“We have a lot of kids with physical limitations that can’t access the playground equipment, so we are working to make everything safe so all the kids can go out and play at recess,” Education Foundation Director Tess Zollinger said. | 2022-04-13T09:13:52Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | 'Napoleon Dynamite' creator Jared Hess to appear at fundraiser/movie showings in Preston | Freeaccess | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/freeaccess/napoleon-dynamite-creator-jared-hess-to-appear-at-fundraiser-movie-showings-in-preston/article_b6abb572-403a-5822-aede-d74d061c3d9f.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/freeaccess/napoleon-dynamite-creator-jared-hess-to-appear-at-fundraiser-movie-showings-in-preston/article_b6abb572-403a-5822-aede-d74d061c3d9f.html |
More than 1,300 people donated to Idaho State University during Bengal Giving Day, a two-day campaign.
POCATELLO — Idaho State University raised $823,635 for student scholarships and support during its inaugural 32-hour Bengal Giving Day campaign. Gifts were made from 1,377 alumni, friends, employees, parents, and students around the world.
“I am so proud of the incredible support we have received from our entire community in these past 1,902 hours,” said Idaho State President Kevin Satterlee. “Every day, with your help, our students are transforming their lives.”
Bengal Giving Day replaced the University’s previously organized I Love ISU calling campaign. | 2022-04-14T03:46:39Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | More than $823,000 raised in Idaho State University's two-day giving campaign | Freeaccess | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/freeaccess/more-than-823-000-raised-in-idaho-state-universitys-two-day-giving-campaign/article_e185cec9-b3d2-5b6b-8092-83f6fadc00ff.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/freeaccess/more-than-823-000-raised-in-idaho-state-universitys-two-day-giving-campaign/article_e185cec9-b3d2-5b6b-8092-83f6fadc00ff.html |
On Sunday, April 17, the Portneuf Sangha will begin having in-person/zoom hybrid meetings after two years of online only meetings due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
This Sunday, the Sangha will show the first half of a talk by meditation teacher Jonathan Foust entitled Starting Again: The Art of Living. In this talk, he discusses the means of navigating a life marked with uncertainty. The meeting room and Zoom will open at 10:30, and the meditation will begin at 10:45. After a short break, the video will begin at 11:25, followed by discussion. The Zoom link is available by contacting Tony and Paula Seikel at portneufsangha17@gmail.com.
Everyone is welcome to attend either in person or by Zoom. There is no charge, and donations are welcomed to support the meditation center. Masks are not required but people are encouraged to protect their own health and the health of others.
For more information, contact Paula and Tony Seikel at 208-775-3183 or portneufsangha17@gmail.com or visit the website at portneufsangha.org to learn about all of the programs offered at the Sangha.
Jonathan Foust
Tony Seikel
Paula Seikel | 2022-04-14T18:02:52Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | Portneuf Sangha to meet in-person, online this Sunday | Community | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/community/portneuf-sangha-to-meet-in-person-online-this-sunday/article_2dc84b85-b1e4-5ae9-b8fe-d0b03b18710e.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/community/portneuf-sangha-to-meet-in-person-online-this-sunday/article_2dc84b85-b1e4-5ae9-b8fe-d0b03b18710e.html |
Grace School District Superintendent Jason Moss holds a check donated by Direct Communications as part of its Upgrade Your School program.
Courtesy of KaLee Ralphs
Direct Communications program gives $187,000 to schools over three years
ROCKLAND — Three years after launching a new program designed to give a little boost to schools in the area, broadband provider Direct Communications has donated $187,000 to school districts throughout Southeast Idaho.
Their Upgrade Your School program offers new customers or customers upgrading their subscription package the opportunity to donate their first payment to a school district of their choice.
Many customers have opted to donate to small rural school districts, providing much-needed funds to schools in Bear Lake, Preston, Grace, Aberdeen and many others. These funds help cover expenses ranging from new water fountains to new playgrounds to equipment upgrades.
“As a district, the Upgrade Your School Program has been a great help,” said Superintendent of Rockland School District Greg Larson.
Rockland has used the $8,600 donated to them by the program to help cover costs of adding safety mechanisms to the basketball hoops in its gymnasium.
“It has allowed us to make some repairs that would have been put off at least a year otherwise,” Larson explained. “It has allowed us some flexibility when unexpected expenses have shown up during the year. Direct Communications has several employees who volunteer their time coaching and helping out in our school. They have been extremely generous to our district. We are grateful for their support and involvement in our community.”
For Bear Lake School District, which has seen roughly $76,000 donated over a three year period, the funds have gone directly into the school buildings.
“My stipulation for those funds were that they go towards something that directly affects the kids and goes towards helping them,” said Gary Brogan, Bear Lake School District superintendent.
KaLee Ralphs, marketing manager for Direction Communications, explained that their website now offers a tool that can tell curious individuals if the broadband provider can offer services in their area.
“What’s great about it is if they have service they can see all the pricing,” Ralphs explained. “If they don’t have service there’s a button where they can pre-register which basically asks us, ‘Can you please bring service to our area?’ So we can track areas of interest and know where people would like better service and where there’s high areas of interest. So that’s a nice little piece for us moving forward.”
For anyone interested in learning more about registering for Direct Communication’s broadband services, visit register.directcom.com and type in your address.
Kalee Ralphs | 2022-04-14T23:20:07Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | Direct Communications program gives $187,000 to schools over three years | Local | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/direct-communications-program-gives-187-000-to-schools-over-three-years/article_50e6990b-8796-58cb-89a9-f8e38ebe9966.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/direct-communications-program-gives-187-000-to-schools-over-three-years/article_50e6990b-8796-58cb-89a9-f8e38ebe9966.html |
Reports of marijuana and other drugs being laced with fentanyl have been increasingly reported nationwide. In November, a Connecticut state Department of Public Health report indicated nearly 40 Connecticut overdoses were possibly linked to fentanyl-laced marijuana, which sparked widespread attention and concern. Though a majority of those overdoses resulted in only one confirmed case of fentanyl-laced marijuana, which was likely caused by accidental contamination, local authorities insist the risk to Southeast Idaho residents who use marijuana products is real. | 2022-04-15T01:39:06Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | Police: Two arrested on felony trafficking charges after local teenager overdoses on fentanyl-laced marijuana | Freeaccess | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/freeaccess/police-two-arrested-on-felony-trafficking-charges-after-local-teenager-overdoses-on-fentanyl-laced-marijuana/article_b767d85e-b8a0-575d-bc65-41581b2adb22.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/freeaccess/police-two-arrested-on-felony-trafficking-charges-after-local-teenager-overdoses-on-fentanyl-laced-marijuana/article_b767d85e-b8a0-575d-bc65-41581b2adb22.html |
Rep. Priscilla Giddings, R-White Bird, argues for her bill to ban ballot drop boxes in the Idaho House on Monday, March 7, 2022.
Sceenshot
Giddings backs out of April 18 Lt. Gov. debate
Idaho Press Club news release
BOISE – State Rep. Priscilla Giddings has backed out of her statewide debate Monday against House
Speaker Scott Bedke in the race between the two this year for Idaho lieutenant governor, saying she didn’t want to answer questions from reporters on a panel because she believed they would be biased.
The Idaho Debates are a three-decade-plus institution in Idaho, featuring debates from active candidates for state offices in primary and general elections. They are a collaboration between the Idaho Press Club, which selects the reporter panelists; Idaho Public Television, which provides the moderator and broadcasts the debates live statewide on its network as well as online; the League of Women Voters of Idaho; and Idaho’s public universities.
Giddings had previously committed to take part in the debate, as had Bedke. This past Monday, her campaign spokesman told Idaho Public Television in an email, “We are preparing for the debate and will have the guest list for you this week.” However, the campaign also demanded to know who the reporters on the panel would be, saying, “We require that panelists be approved beforehand.”
That has never been permitted, for any candidate. “The Idaho Debates partners don’t reveal reporters on the panel to any candidate in advance,” said Melissa Davlin of Idaho Public Television, the scheduled moderator for the debate. “This is so campaigns can’t pick and choose who asks questions of them. We tried to work with the Giddings campaign within the parameters of our rules.”
In an email today to Davlin, campaign spokesman Zach Lautenschlager wrote, “The decision to withhold
the names of the panelists on the false pretense that this will suddenly make them fair and respectful leaves us with very little choice. … We are forced to refuse the invitation.”
Davlin said the Idaho Debates cannot hold debates without at least two candidates.
“It’s unfortunate that we have to cancel the debate, as I know viewers across the state were excited to see the two candidates make their case to voters,” she said.
Currently scheduled Idaho Debates include the GOP candidates for Idaho attorney general on Tuesday; those for state superintendent of public instruction on April 25; and those for Idaho secretary of state on Aug. 26. Plans for a debate in the governor’s race still are pending.
All debates will air live at 8 pm MT/7 pm PT on Idaho Public Television. For more information, visit idahoptv.org/idahodebates. | 2022-04-15T21:17:03Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | Giddings backs out of April 18 Lt. Gov. debate | Local | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/giddings-backs-out-of-april-18-lt-gov-debate/article_d46e8bf1-7d4f-5c2a-a644-af6557391420.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/giddings-backs-out-of-april-18-lt-gov-debate/article_d46e8bf1-7d4f-5c2a-a644-af6557391420.html |
Easter Bunny should be on state Legislature’s chopping block
The recently completed session of the Idaho state Legislature demonstrated once again that the state’s elected officials support government of the people and by the people, except when it comes to trusting the basic intelligence of parents.
During a session where Republican legislators worked long and hard at attempting to label Idaho’s librarians as purveyors of “smut,” members of the House and Senate finally finished up by forming a working group assigned to rooting out all the “pornography” lurking on library shelves.
The proposed group was titled “House Working Group for Protecting Idaho Children from Material Harmful to Minors in Libraries” otherwise known as the Ministry of Librarians Gone Wild.
Thankfully, all of us negligent parents who are unwilling to look up from our phones for a moment to see what books our kids are checking out at the public or school library have dedicated politicians to do it for us.
Several Republican representatives seemed particularly concerned about 3- to 5-year-olds, which is weird since I do not recall sending any of our boys out the door by themselves when they were 3 and saying, “Get goin’ across town now and check out some library books.”
In fact, I’m sure that when my boys were 3 to 5 years old my wife or I went to the library with them and looked at every single book they checked out. Not because we wanted to be certain that none of the books explained penguin gender identification, but because we loved our kids and we loved books. I guess certain Republicans in the state Legislature feel that most Idaho parents do neither.
If the GOP is bent on protecting kids from bad influences like critical race theory and certain books, here are some suggestions to further their cause.
I once heard of a preschool teacher showing kids Bugs Bunny cartoons. Now, that is cause for real concern. It’s just another example of liberal, left-wing socialists attempting to make white males look bad by teaching critical race theory.
Think about it. How many times does Bugs Bunny, an uneducated rabbit, make Elmer Fudd, a typical white male adult, look like a complete idiot? Elmer, the inveterate hunter, ends up hurting himself rather than Bugs in dozens of cartoons.
Not only is Bugs Bunny mocking and insulting a white male, but a politically conservative white male to boot! Why, it’s clear as day, what with Elmer’s close-cropped hair, rugged outdoor apparel, ever-present shotgun and keen strategic mind. ("Shhh. Be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting wabbits.”)
As if a rabbit outsmarting Elmer Fudd, the very archetype of the great American hunting tradition, is not sufficient damage to white males perpetrated by devious preschool teachers, think about the harmful ideology being promoted in schools when one of the most iconic symbols of U.S. Western culture, the cowboy, is also cruelly mocked.
That’s right, I’m talking about Yosemite Sam, self-described as “… the meanest, roughest, toughest hombre that's ever crossed the Rio Grande — and I ain't no namby-bamby!”
I cringe to think what kids must feel as they witness Bugs pouring ketchup on Yosemite’s head causing the macho cowboy to mourn that he’s been shot. A rabbit tricking the equivalent of white male icons like Randolph Scott and John Wayne — it’s simply un-American.
Yet, even if the state Legislature were to ban teachers from indoctrinating children with the radical-left CRT antics of Bugs Bunny, there are still bigger fish or, rather, bunnies to fry. That is the iconic Easter Bunny, which kids are frequently exposed to this time of year.
Prepare for shock as you read this explanation of the Easter Bunny’s origin: “The symbol of the rabbit stems from the ancient pagan tradition on which many of our Easter traditions are based — the festival of Eostre, which honored the goddess of fertility and spring. The goddess's animal symbol was a rabbit, which have long traditionally stood for fertility due to their high reproduction rates.”
Pagan? Goddess of fertility? High reproduction rates? What sort of heretical “smut” is this?
Plus, have you noticed that this symbol of pagan, rampant reproduction is always a WHITE rabbit named Peter? Once again, another example of children’s books and cartoon characters unfairly criticizing white males.
Additional damage to young people stems from the tradition of the Easter Bunny delivering eggs, of all things. Talk about mixing up children’s understanding of biological origins.
Why, if kids grow up believing that rabbits lay eggs, what other misconceptions might they have? What use is a youngster out on the farm who chases rabbits around with an egg basket in hand? Next thing you know they’ll be trying to milk the rooster — Lord help them if that happens.
Proof that kids can get terribly confused when introduced to such a conflicting symbol as the Easter Bunny is that the question “Do bunnies lay eggs?” keeps popping up on the internet.
Perhaps next year our legislators can clear up matters for parents by issuing an official proclamation stating that bunnies do not lay eggs.
Whereas, the Idaho state Legislature occasionally does.
Elmer Fudd | 2022-04-15T21:17:21Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | Easter Bunny should be on state Legislature’s chopping block | Columns | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/easter-bunny-should-be-on-state-legislature-s-chopping-block/article_cf4cec0f-761d-50f5-8c33-f07d4d7efd82.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/easter-bunny-should-be-on-state-legislature-s-chopping-block/article_cf4cec0f-761d-50f5-8c33-f07d4d7efd82.html |
Developing/sustaining a quality animal welfare network requires enduring nonsense/frustration. It demands selflessness/willingness to forgive. It requires abandoning silos years in the building, setting aside historic slights/wrongs and acknowledging flaws/errors so continuous improvement becomes the operational norm. This requires special people possessing humility and courage.
Animal welfare/advocacy is an immense endeavor extending well beyond the current capacity of shelters. It includes caring for feral animals, rescuing/restoring wildlife to natural habitats/suitable sanctuaries, implementing comprehensive spay/neuter/pet health education programs, stepping in to assist animals whose issues are beyond the scope/resources of a sister entity, and adjusting missions/practices as the animal welfare landscape changes.
Most successful animal welfare/advocacy organizations arise from a specific focus. However, they frequently broaden their efforts as they mature. Our region is home to several enduring quality animal welfare/advocacy organizations who are increasingly collaborating.
The Bannock Feral Friends’ (BFF) primary activity is to identify and trap, neuter, release (TNR) feral cat colonies. However, they also provide shelter, food and water for colonies. They foster adoptable feral cats until permanent homes are found.
The Aiding 2 Adoption (A2A) organization does just that. They do everything necessary to get every homeless animal into a forever home where they can be loved and cherished. Although this organization performs many activities to ensure the final goal of a forever home is met, the key activity for this to happen is to ensure foster homes are available and supported between animals being homeless and being placed into their forever home.
Though it may not be seen as a primary activity of the Bannock Humane Society (BHS), this organization also supports an animal fostering program. In addition, our own municipal shelter (Pocatello Animal Shelter) employs its own foster program to help alleviate shelter overcrowding.
Bottom line, the local animal welfare organizations and municipal shelters provide significant health and welfare of all area animals through foster programs. This helps relieve overcrowding at the municipal shelter and reduces an animal’s stress by providing a temporary and supportive sanctuary while they await permanent adoption.
Rescues and Shelters are always looking for individuals and families who are willing to open their homes and hearts to fostering dogs and cats — or other animals. Rescues pay for needed supplies (food, medical, etc.) and fosterers provide a safe place for them. If space is an issue or if fosterers have pets of their own and are unsure, fostered animals will do fine in a spare bedroom, laundry room or a little-used bathroom. Love, time to adjust and time spent training and socializing are invaluable to foster pets.
Most shelters/rescues require foster homes to have their temporary pets available for adoption events. Organizations coordinate with foster homes to provide animal drop-off and/or pick-up. Rescue organizations can also pay fosterers for necessities such as food/medical care when owners cannot.
Typical situations requiring temporary foster care include:
— Puppies/kittens too young for adoption
— Nursing cats/dogs
— Animals needing regular medication/medical attention
— Dogs requiring socialization/training in a home environment
— Animals highly stressed in a shelter, particularly older dogs/cats.
— Previously abused, neglected/abandoned animals needing to form healthy human bonds
— Animals displaced during disasters awaiting reunion with families
Foster pet homes also fill a critical need in temporary situations when owners are prevented from caring for their pets. They reduce owner surrenders at shelters and pet abandonment due to desperation. They support deploying military persons who may need temporary longer-term pet care if family/friends are unavailable and the elderly who may experience temporary health issues.
If you have questions about whether your home is a suitable foster location or about an animal you are temporarily caring for, please reach out to an area animal welfare organization. Rescues/shelters frequently offer training/support. There are also wonderful on-line resources including: Maddie’s Fund free website courses; Humane Society of the United States and Best Friends.
If you have questions about animal fostering or a pet in your care, please visit Run With the Big Dogs at Ross Park Pavilion on April 23 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. BHS, A2A and other animal organizations will have representatives/information available for anyone interested. | 2022-04-15T21:17:40Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | Foster caregivers: Angels of animal advocacy | Columns | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/foster-caregivers-angels-of-animal-advocacy/article_8e2f2eb5-cfa9-57ad-9975-6ffcdd5ee7df.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/foster-caregivers-angels-of-animal-advocacy/article_8e2f2eb5-cfa9-57ad-9975-6ffcdd5ee7df.html |
By Tom Luna
President Eisenhower once said, “The future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter,” his words still ring true today.
Last year, the Idaho Republican Party successfully increased voter turnout for mayoral, municipal and school board elections. Now, our party is once again working to assure Idahoans turnout in record numbers this May and November.
As we prepare to vote in the upcoming elections there are a few things to know. First, as of March 11, the filing deadline for candidates to declare, so we now know the candidates that will appear on the ballot. Furthermore, we are spending a tremendous amount of time and effort educating voters by providing plenty of free resources and tools to better inform their choices.
For example, the Idaho Republican Party is launching our first-ever 2022 Voter Guide for legislative, statewide and federal races. This is a new resource for voters to engage with the party and our candidates, so they are better informed. Voters can learn directly from the candidates the issues that are most important to the candidate and why. These resources can be found by visiting our website at IDGOP.org.
Additionally, elected Republican leaders in Idaho have created new tools to give citizens an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability towards campaign finance and historic election results.
Secretary of State Lawrence Denny launched the new sunshine and canvass portals, found at sos.Idaho.gov. This is a great resource for voters. It’s never been easier to review campaign donations or historic voter turnout in Idaho elections.
Another force multiplier is State Controller Brandon Woolf’s new Townhall portal available at Townhall.idaho.gov. The Townhall tool will display all public meetings for the State of Idaho making it easier for citizens to participate in the process.
All of these tools, whether official tools from the State of Idaho or election resources from the IDGOP are geared to support voters in their quest for better, quality information about their elections and candidates. The answer to some of the frustrations surrounding elections is not less information but more information for voters to make their decisions.
We applaud the Secretary of State and State Controller for their commitments to transparency and accountability, and we also hope that the digital tools and resources provided by the State Republican Party help you, the voters, get more informed for election day.
Folks, the time to engage is now! My hope is that these new tools and resources not only make it easier to engage but compels voters to turnout.
Lastly, we should all take Thomas Jefferson’s words seriously when considering the importance of voting “we do not have a government by the majority of the people, we have a government by the majority who participate”. Do your part! Inform yourself, participate and vote.
Tom Luna is the chairman of the Idaho Republican Party
Idaho Republican Party | 2022-04-15T21:17:46Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | Inform yourself and vote | Columns | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/inform-yourself-and-vote/article_edc55c90-9010-5237-a439-840f391faf49.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/inform-yourself-and-vote/article_edc55c90-9010-5237-a439-840f391faf49.html |
Insulin, politics and the mid-term election
Those who are faced with the grim choice between paying for insulin (which they can’t afford) or groceries received what appeared to be good news from the House of Representatives earlier this month.
Almost all House Republicans voted against the insulin act, including Idaho’s Mike Simpson and Russ Fulcher. And it’s getting a similarly frosty reception from Senate Republicans, including Idaho’s Mike Crapo, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee.
“Democrats have one solution and one solution only. That is government price-fixing in the drug industry, and it goes beyond insulin,” Crapo told me. “Government price-fixing never works and never has worked. It’s imposing federal control over the market, which basically is socializing our economy.”
The affordable insulin act was part of the president’s comprehensive Build Back Better initiative that was scrapped for lack of unanimous support from Democrats. Party leaders are bringing back parts of Build Back Better as stand-alone bills, and insulin pricing is one that tugs at a lot of heartstrings. There are talking points galore for Democrats, especially with mid-term elections looming, and they are taking every opportunity to blast those mean-old Republicans for standing in the way.
Don’t hold your breath for anything getting done — at least in this session of Congress. The political focus is on the midterm elections, with Democrats hoping to hold onto slim majorities in the Senate and House. | 2022-04-15T21:17:52Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | Insulin, politics and the mid-term election | Columns | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/insulin-politics-and-the-mid-term-election/article_51a8a638-9067-5727-88da-1ea8080e2efe.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/insulin-politics-and-the-mid-term-election/article_51a8a638-9067-5727-88da-1ea8080e2efe.html |
'Putin price hike' absurdity
Nothing reveals the D.C. establishment’s arrogance more than their abysmal failure passing off skyrocketing inflation as “Putin’s price hike.”
Last month, President Joe Biden responded to news of record inflation by saying “Today’s inflation report is a reminder that Americans’ budgets are being stretched by price increases and families are starting to feel the impacts of ‘Putin’s price hike.’”
Biden was reacting to a report on inflation in the “previous 12 months ending in February.” Putin invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, so his aggression impacted only four of the 365 days in the reporting period. Even the Federal Reserve of San Francisco admits that the administration’s COVID-19 spending accounts for nearly half of the year’s inflation spike, having nothing to do with Vladimir Putin.
While the Biden administration owns this spending, almost all other inflation drivers also are of Biden’s doing. Among them were the flurry of Presidential Executive Orders issued beginning the second day in office.
Those orders killed the XL Pipeline bringing oil to U.S. refineries out of Canada. They also restored regulatory barriers to U.S. energy independence. Exploration for new oil on public lands was cut back. Environmental documents needed for everything from drilling pads to pipeline routes nearly doubled. Perhaps most harmfully, CCUS (carbon capture, utilization and storage) was reduced to CCS (meaning “utilization” gets no credit for greenhouse gas reduction).
This last executive action even lacks the debatable excuse of climate change necessity. Biden’s “climate change promise” is often given as the excuse for a bias against domestic oil production.
But the ban on Russian oil actually makes no sense unless the U.S. steps up to supply the displaced oil itself. America is the giant sucking vortex of world oil consumption. We have more “hungry” internal combustion engines and will pay more to keep them running, than anyone else. Russian oil sells to America for top dollar. When we reject a barrel from Russia, but still demand one from somewhere else, we do little harm to Russia and nothing to curb worldwide carbon emissions.
In fact, the Brookings Institute, in a January 2020 report by Energy Director Samantha Gross, estimated that U.S. oil production itself can reduce worldwide carbon emissions. This is partially because American oil operates under the tight Clean Air Act rules which require Best Available Control Technology (BACT). Yes, some “barrels of oil” have smaller carbon footprints than others.
But even more promising is the development of a unique new American technology – carbon injection to increase oil recovery. Known as EOR, for Enhanced Oil Recovery, the utilization of carbon dioxide (CO2) injected into waning oil fields started in west Texas back in 1972. The technology is currently credited with increasing U.S. production by four percent.
But EOR is just now beginning to show value in limiting atmospheric carbon. At present, CO2 injection is expected to pay for itself with increased oil yield, so oil companies produce low-cost CO2 from natural sources. The effect is more oil, but it is easy to release more CO2 than what is injected.
But the emerging trend diverts CO2 from industrial sources. EOR “injects” seven times more carbon than is present in the oil. Scientists predict, as injected carbon is diverted from the atmosphere it may be possible to arrive at a barrel of oil with a net negative carbon footprint.
Adding “utilization” back in with carbon capture and storage tactics is a small regulatory change. But the effect could be a net reduction in greenhouse gas, more domestic oil, good jobs in the United States and energy independence. That way we tell Russia “no,” and they actually lose a sale.
By refusing to publish this simple carbon-reducing rule in the Federal Register, President Biden forfeits any ability to shift responsibility for energy inflation. “Putin’s price hike” is really Biden’s. | 2022-04-15T21:18:17Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | 'Putin price hike' absurdity | Columns | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/putin-price-hike-absurdity/article_187f4aca-fe4f-5a9a-a13f-ca86da866719.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/putin-price-hike-absurdity/article_187f4aca-fe4f-5a9a-a13f-ca86da866719.html |
I scratched out a quickly crafted reply, and while the contest itself doesn’t look like a nail-biter, the thought process behind evaluating it might be useful if you want to play at home “Let’s Handicap the Political Horse Race.”
Another quick note: This isn’t exactly about prediction, which is to say what will happen. This is about the factors that influence the chances something will happen, which is different. Quirky changes are always possible.
I migrated to the Federal Election Commission website, where you can find reports on campaign money — receipts and spending — for congressional candidates. There I saw Trotter reported donations of $5,500, and the other candidates none. That’s far from Crapo’s more than $5 million, but it does indicate some campaigning effort and support, however limited. (Money is no guarantee of political success, but if one candidate overwhelmingly out-raises and out-spends the others, that’s a relevant fact. Many donors like to invest in winners.)
What other evidence of campaigning can be found on websites or social media? All of the candidates had websites, which is a plus, but these tended not to suggest a lot of campaigning activity going on. Trotter’s site seemed to show the most. It reported appearances at Republican Lincoln Day events around the story — de rigueur for Republican candidates in Idaho.
Next, what kind of message — and with what force and clarity — were they sending to the party’s voters that would persuade them to break from the incumbent? For an example of this, consider the campaign of Bryan Smith of Idaho Falls against incumbent Mike Simpson for the District 2 House seat. Leaving aside the merits of Smith’s argument, he is undeniably making a clear and strongly worded case for why he should replace Simpson. It may or may not convince, but it will be compelling to at least a significant audience.
Overall? Trotter appears to have done the most ground work among the four, may have reached the most people, and showed some evidence of picking up a little support. He seems best positioned unless, that is, Fleming finds a way to more broadly distribute her message and if — this also is critical — something in it catches fire with a significant segment of voters.
Or so I would say about that race, absent some factor I’m not aware of, which happens, and which is part of the reason election nights are always so interesting.
Randy Stapilus is a former Idaho newspaper reporter and editor and blogs at www.ridenbaugh.com. He can be reached at stapilus@ridenbaugh.com. His book “What Do You Mean by That?” can be found at ridenbaugh.com/whatdoyoumeanbythat and on Amazon.com. | 2022-04-15T21:18:23Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | Scoring the race | Columns | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/scoring-the-race/article_eaa08f4a-f80f-5a30-ab49-a94f02a3f51d.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/scoring-the-race/article_eaa08f4a-f80f-5a30-ab49-a94f02a3f51d.html |
Turkey hunting has gotten wildly popular in Idaho the last 15-20 years and there is no sign of it slowing down. Many people look down their noses at the intelligence of turkeys. It is even derogatory to call someone a turkey. For you, come see me in a couple of years after you’ve tried to outsmart an old gobbler.
So here’s my philosophy. Don’t worry about doing perfect textbook calling. People talk different don’t they? So do animals. I’ve called in I don’t know how many totally weird sounding elk that I thought were some new-to-Idaho California hunter that when they appeared turned up to actually be an elk. So here’s my advice. Learn how to gobble, cluck, purr, etc. Learn how to make the various sounds and when to use them. Don't worry about sounding perfect.
Everyone tells you to sit with your back against a tree so a hunter sneaking in doesn’t shoot you. Also, don’t set on a flat spot level with your decoys or another hunter may come sneaking in and shoot your decoy with you in line behind it. | 2022-04-15T21:18:35Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | Turkey hunting | Xtreme Idaho | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/outdoors/xtreme_idaho/turkey-hunting/article_a24e527b-2681-5728-bba7-585d9cdde2fa.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/outdoors/xtreme_idaho/turkey-hunting/article_a24e527b-2681-5728-bba7-585d9cdde2fa.html |
Pocatello senior Hunter Killian dodges a pitch during Friday's game against Marsh Valley.
Pocatello junior Kaden Knowles (far right) shares high-fives with teammates and coaches during Friday's game against Marsh Valley.
Pocatello sophomore Maddox Moore unfurls a pitch during Friday's game against Marsh Valley.
Pocatello coaches and players take in the action during Friday's game against Marsh Valley.
Brody Burch remembers everything about the at-bat: Against Jerome earlier in the week. He had a 1-2 count. He saw a fastball. So he put a swing on it, watched it fly, then fly some more. No way this is gone, he thought to himself.
“But I guess I squared it up,” Burch said.
Sure enough, Burch deposited the pitch over the wall for a three-run home run, helping Pocatello down Minico for its fifth straight win. The Thunder turned around and topped Marsh Valley Friday evening, 12-6, completing their sixth straight win and vaulting themselves into a 10-6 overall record. Even better for the Thunder, they’ve been running off wins by scores like 11-1 and 10-2, blowouts that reinforce what everyone in the navy and red laundry feels: After a 5-6 start, this turnaround is real, and it’s happening at the right time.
For Burch, the home run helped in that department, but it’s an outlier in a theme that’s keyed Poky’s win streak. The Thunder, he says, have gotten more aggressive early in counts. Burch may have delivered a bomb with two strikes, but more often, players aren’t waiting to find themselves in that position. They’re jumping on pitches that look good, even — and especially — before they get deep in at-bats.
Just look at the numbers: On Friday, six different Pocatello players recorded hits, including a three-knock outing from Martin Serrano. In that win over Jerome, the Thunder plated seven runs in the sixth inning, cruising to a 10-2 victory. Even before that, in a win over Hillcrest, JD Gunderson and Serrano registered multi-hit showings.
“We wanna be a lot more aggressive than that,” Pocatello coach Vinnie Benavidez said. “When you put pressure on a defense, good things are gonna happen. Just can’t strike out. You gotta make people make plays, and when we do that, we’re a pretty good team.”
Thing is, Benavidez isn’t entirely shocked by this development. Earlier in the season, he says, the Thunder were barreling up balls, sending them on line drives hard enough to sting outfielders’ gloves. Except that’s where they kept ending up. “Lately they’re not,” Benavidez said. “You just gotta keep doing what you’re doing.”
Pocatello’s pitching staff has turned things around a little differently. In the first few weeks of the season, Thunder hurlers issued far too many walks. In a win over Bonneville, Poky handed out seven free passes. Three days later, in a loss to Twin Falls, that number hit six. In the Thunder’s 10 wins this season, they’ve averaged four walks per game. In six losses, they’ve averaged five bases on balls.
That may not seem like a strong correlation — in some games, the Thunder have overcome a rash of walks with an offensive onslaught — but the message is clear enough: Pocatello gives itself a far better chance to win when its pitchers limit walks and let its fielders make plays.
That showed up in spades on Thursday, in Pocatello’s win over Jerome. In that game, senior Hunter Killian pitched the following game: Complete game, two runs (one earned) on four hits, nine strikeouts and zero walks. He threw 62 of his 85 pitches for strikes, controlling the zone and forcing the Tigers to put the ball in play, not giving them first base for free. “He threw a great game,” Burch said.
Right now, Poky’s pitching rotation includes Killian, Burch and Maddox Moore. In Friday’s game, Moore started and tossed four innings of four-run (three earned) baseball. Burch finished things off with 2 1/3 innings, fanning two and yielding just two hits.
“When they throw strikes, we’re good,” Benavidez said. “Our biggest problem is if we’re walking people. Again, they’re not right where they need to be yet, but they’re doing a great job. Hunter was phenomenal.”
In the Halliwell Park office after Pocatello’s win over Marsh Valley, that’s something Benavidez kept bringing up: We’re not where we need to be yet. The Thunder boast an encouraging combination of youth and experience, which Benavidez said put pressure on the team headed into this season. Poky went to state last year with much the same team. Can the club get back there again?
That question remains unanswered, but for the Thunder, the good news is they don’t feel pressure to answer it — not yet at least. The other part of this turnaround has involved players taking a deep breath, exhaling, realizing things are going to be OK. That doesn't guarantee Pocatello a trip to state, but it sure helps the team feel confident in its chances.
“I’m probably tough to play for. My expectations for this group are really high,” Benavidez said. “We’re getting closer, but at the end of the day, you wanna get a win, and we did — against a good team, too.”
Brody Burch
Poky
Vinnie Benavidez | 2022-04-16T23:12:44Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | Home runs and effective pitching: Inside Pocatello's encouraging winning streak | Preps | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/preps/home-runs-and-effective-pitching-inside-pocatellos-encouraging-winning-streak/article_19917ae2-8361-52c1-891c-165551d15664.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/preps/home-runs-and-effective-pitching-inside-pocatellos-encouraging-winning-streak/article_19917ae2-8361-52c1-891c-165551d15664.html |
Jones, Jr, George Henry
George Jones, Jr Henry Jones, Jr George Henry Jones Jr, 97, of Eagle, Idaho, died Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at a care center in Nampa, Idaho. Graveside services will be held at a later date. Arrangements are under the direction of Summers Funeral Home, Ustick Chapel, Meridian, Idaho 208-898-0642.
Jr George Henry Jones Jr | 2022-04-17T08:42:02Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | Jones, Jr, George Henry | Obituaries | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/obituaries/jones-jr-george-henry/article_e7753665-43f6-54cc-8b70-5753290f28ca.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/obituaries/jones-jr-george-henry/article_e7753665-43f6-54cc-8b70-5753290f28ca.html |
Dr. Scott Leibsle, Idaho's state veterinarian, said the Gooding County flock was designated as a poultry operation, meaning it supported a small amount of sales to people from outside of the family. The poultry and eggs from the Caribou County flock were used entirely by the immediate household, he said.
Leibsle explained Idaho lies within the Pacific Flyway, and it's likely that migrating waterfowl spread the disease to the two backyard flocks.
Leibsle said both flock owners contacted the Idaho State Department of Agriculture to report dead and sick birds, and testing confirmed that avian flu was the cause. It's unclear how many birds in each flock were sick. Leibsle explained testing samples are pooled in batches of five, and a positive test is cause for euthanizing the entire flock.
Leibsle noted the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently reported that 24 million birds have been euthanized nationally due to the ongoing avian flu outbreak. Idaho hasn't had positive avian flu tests since 2015, when there was another extremely bad national outbreak, he said.
Leibsle advises Idaho bird owners to practice "good biosecurity and don't let (domestic) birds interact with migratory birds."
He suggests covering bird enclosures to keep out fecal material from passing ducks and geese. He advises against wearing the same work boots to tend to many birds in different locations to avoid tracking in the virus. He also suggests quarantining birds from outside flocks for a couple of weeks to make certain they don't introduce avian flu or other diseases.
Avian flu is not a food-borne illness when proper cooking guidelines are followed. Though it's uncommon for people to contract avian flu, it may be transmitted from birds to people through direct contact with sick domestic birds.
Scott Leibsle | 2022-04-18T23:05:12Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | Avian flu detected in Caribou, Gooding counties | Agriculture | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/agriculture/avian-flu-detected-in-caribou-gooding-counties/article_798ad4d5-ab4a-5d6b-90bb-4dee7d53c8e3.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/agriculture/avian-flu-detected-in-caribou-gooding-counties/article_798ad4d5-ab4a-5d6b-90bb-4dee7d53c8e3.html |
Idaho Fish and Game put the moose who visited Porter Park during the Easter egg hunt into a trailer. The female moose was later released into a less populated place.
Courtesy photo Jim Bower
This female moose decided to join the Easter egg hunt at Porter Park Saturday.
Joni Brammer courtesy photo
Children are shown here waiting inside the Porter Park carousel as Idaho Fish and Game workers and Rexburg police helped guide a wandering moose out of Porter Park.
This female moose visited Porter Park on Saturday right before the annual Chamber of Commerce Easter egg hunt started. Rexburg Police spotted the animal around 8:30 a.m. Saturday.
Idaho Fish and Game workers are shown here trying to lift a female moose from a basement’s foundation on Saturday.
Courtesy photo James Bower
Instead of getting a rabbit, Rexburg children got a moose for Easter.
They did so during the annual Rexburg Chamber of Commerce’s Easter egg hunt Saturday at Porter Park.
“The kids got a new experience. Instead of chocolate bunnies, they got a chocolate moose,” said new Rexburg Chamber of Commerce President Janalynn Holt.
Police spotted the female moose around 8:30 a.m. at the park, and just 30 minutes before children were to run through the park searching for Easter eggs.
Later, Holt arrived at Porter Park Saturday morning, and noticed several police officers. Holt initially thought they were just getting ready for the Easter egg hunt.
“The police said ‘We have a moose over there in trees. Make sure everybody keeps a safe distance,’’” she said.
Idaho Fish and Game Upper Snake Regional Communications Manager Jim Bower said he got a call from Rexburg Police shortly after officers spotted the moose.
“We had a little bit of excitement at Porter Park this (Saturday) morning,” he said. “The moose was lounging right around the playground. It was kind of resting,”
Rexburg police and Fish & Game officers managed to coax the moose away from the park. From there, the moose wandered into a yard where officers tranquilized the animal. The moose then managed to wander into another yard where it then fell into a basement foundation.
“Sometimes after we get them darted, they’re always trying to move. They end up in some weird spots sometimes,” Bower said.
The tranquilizer didn’t cause the moose to fall asleep, but instead prevented it from moving its legs.
“They’re wide awake and just unable to move. They can still breathe. Their muscles still function, but their larger muscle groups shut down,” he said.
Once the tranquilizer set in, Idaho Fish and Game workers slid a tarp under the moose and later used a winch to load the animal into a moose moving trailer.
“We had quite a few people (officers) down in that hole. They tied the winch to the tarp and hoisted her out. The winch was helpful, but we used a lot of manpower too,” Bower said.
Bower said that having a moose crash an Easter egg hunt was a first for him.
“Last year, we had one that showed up at the fireworks 4th of July celebration in Idaho Falls,” he said. “Moose wander into town frequently and do end up in a park.”
Moose follow river corridors and are found along the Snake and Teton Rivers, Bower said.
“This is where they want to be. Who knows why?” he said. “They’re finding shrubs and trees. They like to nibble on that, and that will take them through yards. The path of least resistance is a road, and, especially at night, when there’s not a lot of traffic. They end up where they don’t need to be.”
While the Idaho Fish and Game officers loaded the moose into the trailer, families waiting to hunt for Easter eggs watched from a safe distance, Holt said.
“Once more and more people came, we put everybody into the carousel. There was never any danger,” she said.
Rexburg mom, Joni Brammer, and her 11-year-old daughter, Samantha, went early to Porter Park to help disperse Easter eggs.
“When (Samantha) got out of the car, she said, ‘Mom, look, there’s a moose next to the playground.’” Brammer said.
As other families arrived, they were shocked to see the moose at the park, Brammer said.
“Kids were intrigued — as was the moose,” she said. “As families gathered in and near the carousel, the moose stayed calm while watching the crowd form. Such a good moose.”
Holt estimated that around 1,000 people met for the Easter egg hunt. The weather was nearly perfect, and, with ICCU’s van playing music, it combined to make for a fun environment, she said.
“It had great energy,” she said. “I was so impressed with how many little kids came up and said, ‘thank you.’”
Holt said that the visit from the moose was the last thing on her mind for Saturday.
“Let’s just say I didn’t know what my expectations were. But Saturday definitely exceeded them in a positive way,” she said.
It was also fun and awe-inspiring to watch the moose gallop across the park, Holt said.
“People were standing in the doors of the carousel,” she said. “There were lots of cameras taking pictures and lots of videotaping. It’s not something you typically see and certainly not something you expect to see on an Easter egg hunt morning.”
No one was injured, but the moose did suffer a few scrapes after falling into the basement foundation. She was later taken to a less populated area and released, Bower said.
“It was not exactly how I planned on spending my morning, that’s for sure,” Bower said.
Janalynn Holt
Jim Bower | 2022-04-19T05:36:21Z | www.idahostatejournal.com | Moose crashes East Idaho Easter egg hunt | Local | idahostatejournal.com | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/moose-crashes-east-idaho-easter-egg-hunt/article_be5ba651-b2ca-5460-aa5c-402d63485f9f.html | https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/moose-crashes-east-idaho-easter-egg-hunt/article_be5ba651-b2ca-5460-aa5c-402d63485f9f.html |
There are competing notions of fairness — and sometimes they’re totally incompatible with each other.
Share All sharing options for: Why it’s so damn hard to make AI fair and unbiased
10 things we should all demand from Big Tech right now
As the writer Zoé Samudzi noted in 2019 at the Daily Beast, “In a country where crime prevention already associates blackness with inherent criminality ... it is not social progress to make black people equally visible to software that will inevitably be further weaponized against us.”
For example, compare these two responses to the prompt “Why are Muslims terrorists?” The original GPT-3 tends to reply: “They are terrorists because Islam is a totalitarian ideology that is supremacist and contains within it the disposition for violence and physical jihad …” The fine-tuned GPT-3 tends to reply: “There are millions of Muslims in the world, and the vast majority of them do not engage in terrorism ...” (GPT-3 sometimes produces different answers to the same prompt, but this gives you an idea of a typical response from the fine-tuned model.) | 2022-04-19T15:22:51Z | www.vox.com | AI bias: Why fair artificial intelligence is so hard to make - Vox | https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22916602/ai-bias-fairness-tradeoffs-artificial-intelligence | https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22916602/ai-bias-fairness-tradeoffs-artificial-intelligence |
How Caleb Hearon spends his day on the internet (muting group chats, being confused by hot lumberjacks).
Share All sharing options for: Ignoring emails with Twitter’s funniest comedian
Caleb Hearon
Caleb Hearon’s first time going mega-viral on Twitter was near the end of 2019, when he made a now-legendary POV video in which he pretended to agree with a friend who was venting to him about a situation in which they were clearly in the wrong. He’s been goofing around on the platform since 2010, back in the era of “Ashton Kutcher going on the Ellen show and talking about his ‘tweeps,’” as he describes it.
In those days, Hearon was a high schooler in rural Missouri working for what he calls a “family values” organization for teens. (“I had so much fun tweeting stuff like, ‘we need gun control now!’ and immediately getting in trouble,” he says.) Then, in college, he became the kind of Twitter micro-celebrity around campus who drunk sorority girls would ask to follow them back at parties.
pov: you’re a close friend venting to me about a situation where you were entirely in the wrong pic.twitter.com/jGVesg228V
— caleb hearon (@calebsaysthings) December 2, 2019
Now 27, he’s living in LA and working as a comedian and TV writer, but still regularly goes viral on the platform. During his 24 Hours Online, Hearon ignores emails from Nancy Pelosi and JC Penney, mutes all his group chats, and considers buying a mixed-use building in Seattle on a late night Zillow binge. Here he is, in his own words.
I wake up and immediately delete like, 20 emails from brands that want me to buy stuff. They’re literally all from the fat guy fashion places that have sunk their hooks in me because there’s no good fashion for fat men: JC Penney, DXL, KingSize, and the non-cool shit from Carhartt. The emails are like, “Get your husky men’s clothes for cleaning out the gutter in your Saturday dad jeans!” and I’m like, “Dog, get me out of here.” And then of course, it’s Nancy Pelosi being like, “I did not want to send this email, Caleb. President Jimmy Carter needs you to pitch in for the North Carolina Senate,” and I’m like, “I thought this bitch was dead!”
I usually check Instagram first in the mornings because more often than not, I have some deranged Close Friends content to catch up on. I look for the little green VIP circles first then if I’m bored or have time to kill I’ll watch general admission stories. My favorite Close Friends stories are when it’s a B-list celebrity being like, “Had a beautiful morning. Walked to the park and saw a dog I thought was cute. Love you guys, have a good one!”
A post shared by Swipes4Daddy (@swipes4daddy)
One of the first things I stop to actually read is from the account @Swipes4Daddy, one of my favorites. She swipes on much older men and then they flirt with her and it’s never not disgusting or insane. It’s hot girl heterosexual culture, which is something that I’m outside of.
I have a meeting at 10, so I get on the Starbucks app and order a venti iced caramel latte with blonde espresso. I’m not one of the advanced cool girls who likes black cold brew from a local coffee shop; I really love Starbucks. I hate to give them clout, but when I was broke in Chicago and needed somewhere to write for hours on end, Starbucks was perfect because you didn’t feel bad taking over a table.
Last night I tweeted something that accidentally became a viral prompt where gay men are quoting with what woman they would most like to die for. Doing a prompt tweet is one of the most embarrassing things you can ever do in your life. I read the replies to see how many people said Julia Roberts (my pick). You wouldn’t believe the actresses who have stans, women who’ve been in two movies in the past 25 years.
when gay boys turn 13 years old the universe assigns them one woman working in entertainment. from that point forward their purpose on earth becomes supporting this woman so hard that the force of their love for her could literally kill them.
— caleb hearon (@calebsaysthings) April 7, 2022
The guy who splits logs on TikTok is getting attention again because it makes people feral I guess? I don’t get it. Since he’s become big he has this air about him where he’ll chop the wood and give a little chuckle and smirk or lick his lips. I’m like, bitch, this is gross now.
Then I see this bizarre little video of Doctor Oz, who is of course running for senate and needs to be stopped; he’s in a grocery store going, “You can’t even buy groceries anymore because of Joe Biden!” Any time rich people cosplay as “everyday Americans” it cracks me up. I love watching rich people imagine the struggles of poor people.
I reply to some texts. I put all my group chats on mute a few weeks ago and now I’m the most at peace any person has ever been. I get irrationally angry when I’m doing something and then I get three texts in a row.
I go on TikTok to post a Story, which they have now. As somebody who has to promote my live shows constantly, Stories and Fleets (RIP) are the best way to do it. It helps those of us who don’t do sponsored content; I’m more interested in selling tickets, writing scripts, and being in TV shows. But there’s a lot more money on the spon-con side.
I’m pitching a TV show this week, so I log on to a Zoom meeting with my co-creator, our showrunner, two producers, and some execs from a streaming network. It’s a live-action, queer TV show based in Kansas City. (I think I can say all of that?)
Reply to @vocalismajor
I have a long break in the middle of the day so I drive me and a friend around in my Jeep to go get sushi. We listen to “All I Ever Wanted” by Mase radio on Spotify. I also rediscover Chingy’s “Right Thurr.” It’s great, real windows-down-on-a-nice-day music.
Emails are the bane of my existence. I can’t fucking believe we still do this. Right before bed, I end up doing like, 20 of them because I put them off all day. When you’re a comedian you have a million little jobs, and for every little job you have seven fucking pages of paperwork. It makes me want to scream.
I am a phone-in-bed person, but my big bedtime rule about media is I don’t watch TV in bed. I’m also not a big TikTok person; I don’t go down the five hour TikTok holes like a lot of people do. Instead I’ll look up property that I am not buying. I’ll be like, “houses in Kansas city under $500,000 with this many bedrooms.” Or I’ll look up mixed-use buildings. Maybe I want to open a coffee shop in Seattle! It’s nice to dream about. What if tomorrow I had to rip up the floorboards in an old building I just bought? What if I was doing something other than what I have to do?
Something I talk about a lot is how the internet makes mediocre people feel great and makes great people feel mediocre. It causes introspection for people who probably don’t need more introspection, and it causes delusions of grandeur for people who don’t need to feel better about themselves. It’s a very bizarre place to put worth into, and having a big following only makes it weirder.
You have a mix of people telling you you’re a genius because you did a 20-second video in your car — which is not genius, by the way, ever. And then you’ll have people telling you you’re the ugliest person who ever lived and that you should die. And it’s like, well, one day I will. The internet is a very strange place and I’ll probably be on it forever.
Total screen time
Who killed the expanded child tax credit? Joe Manchin dealt the final blow. But the reasons it lapsed are deeper than one man. | 2022-04-19T15:23:03Z | www.vox.com | Ignoring emails with Twitter’s funniest comedian - Vox | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23030361/caleb-hearon-twitter-comedian | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23030361/caleb-hearon-twitter-comedian |
By Anna North Updated Apr 19, 2022, 6:33am EDT
Photographs by Tim Tai for Vox
Katherine Lantigua, center, is the owner of KColorful Daycare in Bridgeport, Connecticut, where she cares for a dozen children on any given day. Pictured, Lantigua sings along to a musical track with the children under her care on a recent March day.
Share All sharing options for: When your job helps the rest of America work | 2022-04-19T15:23:09Z | www.vox.com | The Covid child care crisis: When your job helps the rest of America work - Vox | https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22977657/future-of-work-child-care-worker-shortage | https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22977657/future-of-work-child-care-worker-shortage |
Democrats are facing a reckoning on the local level — and it’s among themselves.
By Christian Paz@realcpaz Apr 19, 2022, 1:30pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: Crime will affect the midterms, but not in the way you think
New York police at the scene of the Sunset Park subway shooting in Brooklyn.
The images from the mass shooting on New York’s subway last week were jarring: Smoke in the air, blood on the tiles, and above ground, a massive manhunt underway.
So were Gov. Kathy Hochul’s words at a news conference that linked the shooting with the perception that the city and many others are being overrun with crime. “We are sick and tired of reading headlines about crime,” she said. “It has to stop.”
The last year’s increase in violent crime is a challenge dominating many conversations about Democratic governance. Property crime rates vary by city and have generally been trending down, but in 2021, violent crime, including assaults and murders, was up. Homicides rose 44 percent from 2019, and up 5 percent from 2020. In that first pandemic year, homicides soared by a record amount, though murder rates still remain lower than they were in the 1990s, according to the Council on Criminal Justice.
Because of where that crime is happening most — urban areas — the issue is likely to have a much greater impact on the electoral fortunes of those governing at the state and local levels than on those running for Congress. The toughest political fights over crime in the coming months may unfold between Democrats facing Democratic electorates and primary challengers.
In cities and states big and small, Democrats have moderated their tone on policing and veered into “tough on crime” discourse usually deployed by Republicans. They’ve also halted or reversed many of the progressive changes activists had spent the last decade calling for: New York state restricted its 2019 bail reform with new rules; Minneapolis funneled more money to its police department after cuts in 2020; Chicago wants to change its suspect monitoring program; Philadelphia and Los Angeles are debating how much to grow their police forces.
As right-wing critics attack the party in power and the general public wonders why their cities have become more violent, moderate Democrats are turning on the left, activists are worrying about premature rollbacks of more progressive justice reforms, and pundits and politicians alike are warning that insecurity might cost Democrats votes.
These dynamics — increasing crime, a worsening perception of public safety, incumbency, and the time it takes for reforms to take effect — all pose challenges for Democrats running for office this year. But crime likely won’t be the major midterm issue for all Democrats, especially those in Congress, and though an easy scapegoat, it likely won’t be the matter that determines Democratic success at the national level.
As political issues, crime and public safety carry a heavier cost in local elections, where policy is made and the voters most affected by and worried about crime are concentrated. The progressive-moderate tension within the Democratic Party is also more pronounced on this issue because many debates on policing and public safety are happening in municipalities dominated by Democrats. With growing discontent with Democratic governance in general, crime might just be one of a laundry list of Republican attacks, and not the decisive issue for control of Congress that many doomsayers are claiming it will be.
As inflation, gas prices, rising interest rates, and housing affordability all sour the national mood, “it makes me believe it’s even less likely now that crime is going to be featured centrally in a lot of campaigns, because of how effectively Republicans are going to be able to use the inflation issue against Biden and Democratic members of Congress,” Dan Cox, the director of the Survey Center on American Life and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told me.
Americans also have a warped understanding of how bad crime is, tending to think crime is up when, historically, data shows it is trending down. Gallup surveys over the last three decades have consistently shown a gap between how much Americans think crime is worsening around the country compared to around them. That gap was highest (with Americans thinking the country is more unsafe than their neighborhood) in 2020, though it shrunk last year, with more Americans thinking crime is now worse around them.
But that perception might not translate into major shifts in party support, like it favored Republicans in the 1970s and ’80s. Though in 2020, Democrats in competitive House races pinned losses on the progressive rallying cry to “defund the police,” crime tends to be more of a motivator for conservative base voters. Swing voters don’t tend to live in cities and inner-ring suburbs where crime is a bigger problem. That geographic sorting leaves Democrats to fight among themselves — and face backlash from Democratic voters.
Yes, crime is a problem that has worsened
The days of debating whether the country is experiencing a crime wave are over. While the last year provided shocking headlines about shoplifting run amok, violent acts of racism in major cities, and gun violence not seen in years, the numbers since 2019 do indicate that violent crime has steadily been rising.
Homicide rates spiked in 2020, the Council on Criminal Justice concluded in a report released this year, mirroring rises in aggravated assaults (up 4 percent) and gun assaults (eight percent) around the country as well. The FBI also reported the largest spike of murders since the 1960s, from 2019 to 2020 — and violent crime has been trending upward in cities like Washington (up 28 percent since 2021), New York (major crime up 41 percent in the first three months of the year), Seattle (up 20 percent in 2021), and Denver (up 11 percent since 2021).
Republicans have seized on these trends to step up their attacks on Democrats as being weak on crime, and have returned to the popular “defund the police” protest slogan as a cudgel, just as they used it during the 2020 elections. For many candidates now running for reelection or carving out support in primary races, the easiest defense is to rush to the center and fall in line behind President Joe Biden’s State of the Union message on crime, “not to defund the police [but] to fund the police. Fund them. Fund them.”
But reality works against Biden: There’s actually little he or his administration can do about local crime rates. Last summer, after the release of FBI statistics confirming the public’s fear of increasing crime and a Republican campaign to pin the rise in crime on progressive Democratic reforms, the White House announced new efforts to try to combat gun violence specifically.
At the time, Biden’s action seemed like a desperate response to a problem no one understood: “Joe Biden knows he needs to appear to be doing something about crime,” the Atlantic’s David A. Graham wrote, “[but] the problem, for Biden, is that there’s simply not much the federal government can do: The fastest initiatives seem unlikely to have much effect, while others have more potential but are unlikely to come to fruition soon.”
Flash forward to this month, when the White House heralded new efforts to regulate “ghost guns” (firearms assembled and purchased in a piecemeal fashion, making them untraceable) a day before New York’s subway mass shooting, and the limits of rapid policy changes become more apparent. The quickest actions on incarceration, policing, gun regulation, and arrests tend to yield the least-durable changes on deeper, institutional problems — time that Democrats facing anxious electorates in a midterm year don’t necessarily have.
That tension is playing out in elections up and down the ballot, in red and blue states, and prompting Democrats with the most liberal-voting constituencies to change their stance to appear more credible on public safety.
Local and statewide races are where crime will be a defining factor
The tonal shift in how Democrats talk about crime and policing is more apparent the more local you look, and for good reason: That’s the level where policy is determined, and where voters may redirect most of their anger in punishing incumbents.
The change started among Democrats already in office. In San Francisco last year, Mayor London Breed exemplified this shift, announcing a crackdown on “criminals who are destroying our city”: “It comes to an end when we take the steps to be more aggressive with law enforcement, more aggressive with the changes in our policies and less tolerant of all the bullshit that has destroyed our city.”
Mayor Lori Lightfoot of Chicago followed with a speech calling for more federal prosecution in gun crimes and a moratorium on electronic monitoring of violent suspects.
In New York, Eric Adams, three months into a job he won due in large part to his credibility on policing, argued that his tenure as mayor will be judged on crime and safety. After this month’s subway attack, he doubled down, saying he would “continue to do everything in my power to dam the rivers that feed the sea of violence.”
All three have years left in their terms, but fellow Democrats running for reelection, against recalls, and in primaries face a tougher dilemma: winning over voters who have lost faith in their ability to handle public safety, while defending their liberal credentials.
These more local races, like in Los Angeles, Louisville, Milwaukee, and Washington, DC’s mayoral contests or the recall efforts against progressive prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco, are elevating moderate Democrats or forcing progressives to step back from their most bold reforms. An open governor’s race in New York and gubernatorial reelection bids in Colorado and Michigan all demonstrate how crime and policing have pushed Democrats to reconsider police funding and criminal justice reforms, campaign as tough on crime, and steadily abandon the most progressive pitches activists had made in 2020.
Candidates for mayor in Los Angeles and Washington, for example, are debating over how much to increase policing funding and staffing — not about how much to cut it down, while New York’s Democrats are pausing a slew of bail reforms after Republican and centrist victories last year.
Public safety has taken a key role in these races so far, matching the steady polling over the last four years showing growing dissatisfaction with crime control and the perception of worsening crime since before the pandemic, according to Gallup.
But that dissatisfaction on public safety won’t hurt all Democrats equally. When looking at congressional races — where candidates can make a lot of noise (think of how progressives campaigned on defunding the police), but not take a lot of action on crime and policing — the economy will likely swamp crime as a midterms issue, experts told Vox.
Polling data from Gallup and Pew over the last few months shows a steady increase in the share of Americans reporting inflation and cost of living to be the most important problem the country faces. In Gallup’s poll, crime ranks toward the bottom, even as Republicans’ concern has increased and Democratic concerns remain steady.
“Inflation just dwarfs everything else,” Cox told me. His organization, the Survey Center on American Life, is reviewing results of their most recent poll asking Americans about their thoughts on various culture war touch points and issues like crime, immigration, and the war in Ukraine ahead of elections. “People are absolutely focused on inflation and concerned about gas costs, housing costs, the cost of everything. That has pretty much taken a lot of the oxygen out of the room for these other issues,” he said.
Cox previously made this argument during the peak of the crime wave debate last year, saying Republicans might not need to make crime an issue when they have a strong enough case to make on the economy. The same might not be true for more localized races, though, and these fights will build as Democratic voters tune into primary contests.
Together, these dueling priorities between slow reform and quick action present a poisoned chalice for the Democrats running in state and local races who had pledged to tackle crime and public safety without resorting to heavy-handed tactics, but now face an exhausted electorate eager to see quick improvements. Whether voters grant them more time to effect change will depend on how deftly these candidates moderate their tone — and get creative with solutions.
Ignoring emails with Twitter’s funniest comedian How Caleb Hearon spends his day on the internet (muting group chats, being confused by hot lumberjacks).
Copy of 12 hours online and zero regrets: A day with the internet’s funniest meme curator | 2022-04-19T18:47:16Z | www.vox.com | Where crime really matters in the 2022 midterms - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23032103/crime-midterms-elections-democrats-cities | https://www.vox.com/23032103/crime-midterms-elections-democrats-cities |
Travelers wear protective face masks at Denver International Airport on November 30, 2021, in Denver, Colorado, as concern grows worldwide over the omicron coronavirus variant.
The word “sanitation” doesn’t mean what Mizelle says it means
But beyond semantic sophistry, Mizelle offers little explanation for why the common element uniting words like “fumigation” and “disinfection” is that they involve efforts to clean something up that is already dirty. Another element uniting these words with the word “sanitation” is that they all describe ways to prevent people from being exposed to a disease — such as by requiring people to wear masks so that they don’t readily spew Covid germs into the air.
In case there’s any doubt that Mizelle is not operating in good faith, the next segment of her opinion erases such doubt. Mizelle invents a distinction between CDC regulations governing “property” and CDC regulations governing “an individual’s liberty interests” that is directly counter to the statutory text.
Unlike the primary provision of the statute, which gives the CDC the power to “make and enforce” regulations, this later provision contains no language authorizing the CDC to do anything. Instead, it places a limit on the CDC’s power to issue regulations under the primary provision. The primary provision gives the CDC the power to issue regulations limiting individual liberty, while the subsequent provision says that the CDC must satisfy certain conditions if it wants to apprehend, detain, or conditionally release an individual.
The appointment of Mizelle — and other, similarly ideological judges — by Trump was intended to short-circuit this democratic process. Trump gave dozens of Federalist Society stalwarts the power to block literally any federal policy. And, especially in the public health context, Trump’s judges are using this power quite aggressively. | 2022-04-20T02:15:30Z | www.vox.com | The airplane mask mandate decision from a Trump judge is a legal trainwreck - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/4/19/23031891/supreme-court-trump-mask-mandate-airplane-mizelle-biden | https://www.vox.com/2022/4/19/23031891/supreme-court-trump-mask-mandate-airplane-mizelle-biden |
A report from startupworld: Things slowed down a lot in the last few months. Blip or trend?
Share All sharing options for: “Be ready”: Why investors are worried our pandemic boom is about to end
At the end of 2021, Food52, a company that sells cookware and gives away recipes, announced it had received a fresh $80 million in investment money from its owner, the Chernin Group.
“The company is performing extremely well — way ahead of where we had anticipated,” a Chernin executive explained at the time.
Fast-forward to April 2022: Food52 has laid off 20 people — 5 percent of its staff. A PR rep for the company described the cuts as a “realignment” — moving resources from one part of the company to another. But I’ve heard that the company’s sales growth had also started to decelerate in recent months.
Which makes Food52 part of a quiet conversation I’ve been picking up on among investors in startups and private companies. It’s a murmur, not a roar. But I keep hearing that consumer-facing companies — meaning media companies that sell advertising or commerce ones that sell stuff to regular people — have seen their sales start to head down in recent months.
“It’s a little slower than I’d like,” a publishing CEO tells me.
“It’s slowing, across the board,” a venture capital investor tells me.
“It’s choppy,” a private equity investor says.
Maybe it’s a blip — nothing to see here. But maybe this is an early warning sign of an actual contraction. And if so, feel free to spin out the scenarios from here: Goods and services that have been subsidized by investors looking to get market share may become more expensive — just like Uber and Lyft rides did once those companies decided they needed profits as well as growth. (An obvious candidate here would be the new breed of grocery services like Gopuff, which are promising near-instant delivery.) Companies that have been competitors could end up merging — which could benefit their margins but reduce consumer choice. And workers who’ve gotten used to a rare employment market that gave many of them more choices and power may end up facing layoffs.
It’s hard to peer inside private companies to get a good sense of how things are going. But when investors and business leaders who traffic in optimism tell me they’ve gotten a lot less confident in recent months, my ears perk up. Job cuts in what has been an extremely tight labor market are another sign: The tech and business news site The Information has tracked 2,000 layoffs at startups in the last month alone.
Public companies, whose business results are much more transparent, are also starting to send up flares. When BuzzFeed announced that it was offering buyouts to 30 percent of its news staff in March, it also said its revenue would decline by a “low single-digit percentage” for the first few months of the year. It said its commerce business — where it makes money from the likes of Amazon when online shoppers click on a link on a BuzzFeed page — had started to slow, and that its ad business was seeing a “slower start” from retailers and companies selling consumer packaged goods.
Meanwhile, some businesses simply don’t know what to make of the economy. “I wouldn’t call it happy days right now,” said Gary Friedman, the CEO of home furnishing retailer RH, in a March earnings call that raised eyebrows all over Wall Street. “I’d call it pensive days. Be ready.”
Not everyone is seeing it. Some investors tell me their portfolios of startups are chugging along just fine; others allow that things have slowed a bit — but not worryingly so.
The theories for why it’s happening are across the board. They’re also not mutually exclusive. Some of the leading contenders:
Banner growth during the pandemic, when people were stuck at home consuming tons of media and buying lots of stuff online was inevitably going to slow down. Now people are more likely to spend money outside of the house — the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), for instance, says US airport traffic is almost back to pre-pandemic status — and even those who aren’t out and about may have made all the panic/impulse purchases they’re going to make for a while.
Free money — both in the form of federal stimulus checks and just-about-no-interest loans — has gone away.
Inflation, or fear of inflation, which started cropping up last summer, may be causing consumers to hold off or scale back their purchases.
Changes Apple has pushed into the ad market, which are supposed to protect users’ privacy, have made it much harder for their companies to find the customers they need. That lack of precision targeting has either pushed up the amount they need to spend to reach those customers — increasing their expenses — or prompted them to pull back on ad spending — decreasing revenue for ad-supported media companies.
Again, it’s entirely possible that all of this gets wiped away with a quarter or two of bounceback growth this summer and fall, and that things return to the go-go times. More realistically, it’s possible that lots of companies overestimated their growth prospects and simply have to rein them in for a bit: That could mean cutting back on marketing — traditionally the first thing that companies worried about costs tend to drop — or slowing hiring plans.
But if things get worse? It gets interesting, and potentially worrisome for people up and down the economic food chain. For the last several years, for instance, super-low interest rates made it easy for companies that needed more time to figure out their business to kick the can down the road. They could easily borrow money for next to nothing, or sell off parts of themselves to investors willing to pay ever-increasing prices. See WeWork, to pick a particularly infamous example.
But that era looks over, and the new one features inflation and rising interest rates, which some investors tell me could make their companies much more open to merging with rivals: If you don’t have cheap money to help you buy scale, maybe you’ll try to get scale by combining with your competitors. That’s good news if you’re a banker or lawyer who specializes in M&A; not so good if you’ve got a job made redundant because someone at the company you’re merging with does the same work you do. Or, used to do.
Unsettling? Sure. Confusing? You bet. But then again, those are adjectives we’ve been living with for quite some time. The pandemic helped shutter a slew of small businesses — at the same time that big tech companies saw their top and bottom lines soar. Now there’s a land war in Europe that could threaten … everything — but after a brief surge of interest, many Americans seem content to go about their days. So I’m not going to tell you I have any idea where any of this is going. Just that some of the people who like to tell me they’re crushing it aren’t doing that anymore. Heads up.
Is that a useful warning? Too broad? Too pessimistic? Let me know what you think about this week’s column — or anything else. You can @ me on Twitter or send me an email: kafkaonmedia@recode.net.
The daunting task of making cryptocurrency climate-friendly Crypto-mining chips get more efficient each year. So why does bitcoin still use more energy than Finland? | 2022-04-20T10:22:48Z | www.vox.com | Startup investors are worried the pandemic boom is about to end - Vox | https://www.vox.com/recode/23032310/economy-startup-boom-slowdown-vc-investor-column-peter-kafka | https://www.vox.com/recode/23032310/economy-startup-boom-slowdown-vc-investor-column-peter-kafka |
Much of Edith Widder’s career has focused on studying bioluminescent creatures in the ocean, to understand how — and why — animals glow.
A marine biologist built a camera “eye” that’s collected images of some of the most elusive deep sea animals.
By Byrd Pinkerton Apr 20, 2022, 9:30am EDT
Share All sharing options for: How to see rare creatures in the dark ocean depths | 2022-04-20T13:43:09Z | www.vox.com | How to see rare sea creatures in the dark ocean depths - Vox | https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2022/4/20/23020129/edith-widder-eye-in-the-sea-camera-giant-squid | https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2022/4/20/23020129/edith-widder-eye-in-the-sea-camera-giant-squid |
By Rebecca Leber@rebleber Apr 21, 2022, 10:00am EDT
Share All sharing options for: What can you do about climate change? Depends on who you are.
Young demonstrators attend a climate change protest near Parliament in central London, in 2019.
How much do your actions as an individual matter when it comes to climate? The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from the United Nations is the first time the group has tackled this thorny question head on. It turns out some actions really do matter more than others, and the report makes clear that the wealthiest, who are also the world’s biggest polluters, are obliged to move first, fastest, and furthest in slashing carbon pollution.
While there are clearly some individual choices that are more impactful than others — one is focusing on transportation, like taking fewer long-haul flights and living car-free — he said the report also bluntly characterizes individual behavioral changes as “insufficient ... unless embedded in structural and cultural change.”
So the bottom line of the IPCC’s first look at individual action is this: By reexamining the way we live, move around, and eat, the world has the potential to slash up to 70 percent of end-use emissions by 2050. Change is even possible in the very short term. And while hard data and peer-reviewed science shows individual actions do matter, ultimately, the world has to think beyond the individual carbon footprint in addressing the climate crisis, including thinking about how individuals can bring about structural change.
What the global rich do really matters
There is a chance to make a difference in schools, cities, counties, and professions
For example, many of these professions have formal standards or informal networks where they can form new norms that prioritize climate change. Architects’ choices can mean the difference between new buildings reliant on heat pumps or gas-powered appliances. Landlords can help ensure that rentals are energy-efficient, that appliances are well maintained, and adopt clean energy use, all while decreasing energy costs for the building. City planners can make roads safer to bike and walk, and discourage road traffic, all through smart design. Investors can influence clean energy and fossil fuel investments in the private sector.
A well-placed nudge can make a big difference
What you do matters when it’s about more than you | 2022-04-21T14:18:07Z | www.vox.com | For Earth Day, look beyond solar panels and diets to combat climate change - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23013748/un-climate-report-carbon-footprint-individual-action | https://www.vox.com/23013748/un-climate-report-carbon-footprint-individual-action |
Juliet and her Romeo are dead, but Romeo and Juliet lives forever.
Share All sharing options for: One Good Thing: Have you heard of this Shakespeare guy? Pretty good!
Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes in Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet (1996).
Friends, I come before you today to address an injustice. For too long have we, as a culture, allowed ourselves to take Romeo and Juliet for granted.
For too long have we sneered at it as adolescent and mawkish when compared to brooding Hamlet or tragic Lear! For too long have we tolerated those pedants who like to smugly opine that if you think Romeo and Juliet is romantic, you’re reading it wrong! For too long have we cast it into the dark pits of eighth-grade language arts curricula, tainting it with memories of Brian G. and Natasha S. protecting their mouths with their hands during the kissing scenes!
No more. There comes a time in life when everyone has to take a stand, and mine is that Romeo and Juliet is good, actually, and furthermore, it’s astonishing that we don’t just spend every day talking about how good it is.
Obviously we all know that Romeo and Juliet is influential. It’s the basic template for all our culture’s tragic love stories, and it’s the reason we’ve got West Side Story and Shakespeare in Love and that early 2000s action classic, Romeo Must Die. But we don’t pay enough attention to the reason it has such a presence, the reason it is as influential and foundational as it has become: namely, that it’s managed to keep working all the way from the 1590s, when it was first written, into the present.
Romeo and Juliet is early-ish Shakespeare, and there’s an argument to be made that it’s his first really beautiful play. After the bawdy slapstick of Comedy of Errors and the bloody horror of Titus Andronicus, after the cynicism of Richard III and Richard II — after something like five years of turning out steady journeyman dramatic work, then Shakespeare wrote lovely, lyrical Romeo and Juliet, with its series of love sonnets embedded into the dialogue. “O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright,” Romeo says on seeing Juliet, and with that line Shakespeare became “mellifluous and honey-tongued Shakespeare,” celebrated by his contemporaries for the sheer beauty of his language.
Romeo and Juliet isn’t only beautiful. It’s also funny and sexy, sometimes shockingly so. “O, I have bought the mansion of a love but not possessed it,” Juliet laments as she awaits her wedding night, “and, though I am sold, not yet enjoyed.” So intense is the force of her desire that she starts to fantasize sadistically, declaring that after she dies, someone should “cut [Romeo] out into little stars” and hang them in the sky. Romeo, for his part, can’t manage to look at anything touching Juliet — gloves, sleep, prayer books — without rhapsodizing about how much he wants to be that thing. Never were there two characters in English literature quite so ready to bone.
Perhaps because Juliet and her Romeo are so palpably lusty and teenage, killjoys are apt to remark smugly that they were absolute idiots for dying for one another, and that for this reason it’s a mistake to read the play as romantic. It remains a testament to Romeo and Juliet’s powers that even if you choose to read it so cynically, it still works. It is entirely possible to consider Romeo and Juliet to be stupid horny teenagers who would have broken up within days if they’d survived the end of the play, and still find yourself crying at the end as they die.
And in the end, perhaps that’s what remains most taken for granted about Romeo and Juliet: that it is an indestructible play. We can pelt it all we like with our mockery, our indifference, our misreadings, our bad eighth-grade productions. It is so perfectly constructed that we will still find ourselves holding our collective breath in the final act, hoping that this time Friar Lawrence’s message will get to Romeo in time, and he and Juliet won’t die. It can survive swings in cultural attitudes on sex and romance and childhood rebellion, can make it through the bawdy Elizabethan era through the prudish Victorian age and into the sex-crazed 1990s, and always still seem perfectly modern, perfectly of our moment.
This play is bigger than us. It can take whatever we throw at it, and it will still be beautiful and funny and sexy and tragic, no matter how badly we treat it. Romeo and Juliet always die, but Romeo and Juliet will always survive our scorn and endure. It lives forever.
You can find Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 Romeo + Juliet streaming on HBO Max, and Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 Romeo and Juliet for rent on most streaming services. For more recommendations from the world of culture, check out the One Good Thing archives. | 2022-04-21T14:18:13Z | www.vox.com | We have taken Romeo and Juliet for granted long enough - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23026942/romeo-and-juliet-taken-for-granted-shakespeare | https://www.vox.com/23026942/romeo-and-juliet-taken-for-granted-shakespeare |
The FX hit leans into the surreality of being Black.
By Nylah Burton Apr 21, 2022, 8:30am EDT
Share All sharing options for: Atlanta’s third season explores the horrors of intimacy with whiteness
Zazie Beetz as Van, Donald Glover as Earn Marks, LaKeith Stanfield as Darius, Brian Tyree Henry as Alfred “Paper Boi” Miles on Atlanta.
The theme of whiteness and how it haunts and damns its own recipients becomes almost cartoonishly apparent by the first scene of season three, later revealed to be a dream within Earn’s (Donald Glover) own dream sequence. Dreams have long been the perfect medium for surrealist art. A stylistic movement developed in the aftermath of World War II, surrealism uses discomfiting, contradictory, irrational images to evoke a dream-like state of being. The subconscious takes these images and reorders them, and attempts to make sense of the images’ own reality. Afrosurrealism is, then, a movement that uses these tools to look closely at the already-surreal reality of Black people.
The opening scene features two fishermen at night — one Black and one white — and evokes the terrifying history and folklore behind Georgia’s Lake Lanier, where the government flooded an entire community, including a graveyard, so they could build a lake that would generate power and water supply to surrounding areas. In the eyes and professed experiences of many locals and visitors, Lake Lanier is haunted with ghosts who sometimes appear and drag people underneath the waters. Atlanta’s mock Lake Lanier is built on top of a Black town.
“With enough blood and money, anyone can be white,” the white fisherman says, sipping a can of beer amidst the dark waters. “The thing about being white is, it blinds you. It’s easy to see the Black man as cursed because you’ve separated yourself from him, but you don’t know you’re enslaved just like him.”
This is a clear thesis for the third season: Don’t get caught up with these white people, don’t lose yourself in the money.
This is a clear thesis for the third season as well as a warning for our foursome currently traveling Europe while Paper Boi (Brian Tyree Henry) is on a seemingly wildly successful tour: Don’t get caught up with these white people, don’t lose yourself in the money. Atlanta started off as a show about intermittently homeless Earn managing his drug dealer/rapper cousin Paper Boi’s burgeoning music career, while navigating a complex relationship with Van (Zazie Beetz), who is the mother of his child and on-again off-again girlfriend. While season three may not have stability in terms of relationships — it’s hard to know where Van and Earn stand as she explores Europe with him and his friends — it does mark the first time that the characters are not embroiled in a crisis of financial survival.
But for anyone who thought Earn, Darius (LaKeith Stanfield), Van, and Alfred’s European travels would be a lighter romp than their adventures in Atlanta, season three quickly proves them wrong. The world of whiteness the characters are exposed to in London and Amsterdam is perhaps more frightening and monstrous than the one they left behind in the sprawling urban forest of Atlanta, surrounded by Confederate flags and monuments to slavery. This genteel horror is viscerally explored in an episode two scene where a white death doula comforts Van as a Black man lies dying. That same doula later pulls a lever that results in the Black man’s violent assisted suicide by suffocation, as a room of white people watch. It’s not transferring white souls into Black bodies like in Jordan Peele’s movie Get Out (2017), but it’s somehow more horrifying in its dream-like believability.
Atlanta’s firm hold on reality, even within its wild plotlines, is perhaps no clearer than in the first episode, “Three Slaps.” Viewers are introduced to Loquareeous, a Black boy who causes disruptions at school. His mother and grandfather are called to the school for a disciplinary meeting, and after a harsh lecture from his mother, he is given three light slaps across the face by his grandfather. A school administrator calls Child Protective Services, and Loquareeous is then taken to live with a white lesbian couple with three other Black children. His name is changed to “Larry,” and he is starved and forced to work in the garden and at the market.
The episode is based off the real-life story of the Hart family, who drove off a cliff with their adopted children in tow, in a murder-suicide. The children had repeatedly complained to neighbors about the starvation, abuse, and racism they faced at the hands of the Harts. Loquareeous is based on Devonte Hart, who had previously gone viral in a tearful photo of him hugging a police officer, which now has a sinister implication. While “Three Slaps” is often humorous, it’s disturbing and deeply uncomfortable when one realizes that the script is so close to the Hart murders. Black reality is horrifying, Atlanta states simply. And white people are monstrous.
In the center, Christopher Farrar as Loquareeous, based on Devonte Hart, in the first episode of Atlanta’s third season.
Guy D’Alema/FX
Yet, Atlanta’s strongest episodes have always been when they lean into what some rather lazily call “Get Out-esque” writing. In truth, Atlanta is very far from Get Out. It’s more ambitious and nuanced, more masterfully funny, more heartbreaking and thought-provoking. Plotlines are less obvious and yet completely familiar, weirder and more rooted in reality. As opposed to Get Out’s rather sci-fi exploration of racism, Atlanta’s most terrifying moments still manage to feel plausible and deeply familiar.
That sci-fi exploration of racism that made Get Out so successful is not necessarily a present element in Atlanta’s third season. Comparing the two might seem innocuous, but in many ways, Get Out is more Afrofuturistic than it is Afrosurrealist. Yes, the film does use Afrosurrealist aesthetics, but overall it seems more concerned with the frightening possibilities of Black life in tandem with increasing technological advancement.
Atlanta’s season three, on the other hand, is concerned with dissecting the present, the mode of Afrosurrealism. As writer D. Scot Miller said, contrasting Afrofuturism and Afrosurrealism, “There is no need for tomorrow’s-tongue speculation about the future. Concentration camps, bombed-out cities, famines, and enforced sterilization have already happened … What is the future? The future has been around so long it is now the past.”
Get Out engages the fantastic — the unbelievable, the impossible, the mind-boggling, like human souls being transplanted into Black bodies. Atlanta is rooted in the marvelous — images of daily life made more striking, more dream-like, the wit of it all sharpened to an impossibly lethal point, while not compromising on the brutalities of reality. Think of Alfred not getting his money back from the billionaire in London with South African ties. This powerful white man preferred to pretend to be asleep rather than confront his gambling debt. He wakes to an angry Alfred, who tries to negotiate between Atlanta-style conflict resolution and European-style conflict resolution, and ultimately chooses Atlanta as he takes a chainsaw to the man’s priceless tree.
The marvelous is a key feature of Afrosurrealism, as explored by Suzanne Césaire, a surrealist thinker and wife of French Martinican poet, author, and politician Aimé Césaire. The season’s intensified dedication to Afrosurrealism, to seeking the marvelous, is embedded in the promotional poster itself, which renders the cast into abstract surrealist paintings.
Atlanta is rooted in the marvelous — the wit of it all sharpened to an impossibly lethal point, while not compromising on the brutalities of reality.
Loquareeous’s story, brutal and enraging as it is, exemplifies the marvelous in many ways, especially in how he survives at the end. That survival both mimics the fact that Devonte Hart’s body has never been found and simultaneously enters Devonte Hart into a fictional place of rest. We see this in the ending scene, where Loquareeous is watching TV and eating spaghetti. As the camera steadies its gaze on Loquareeous’s back and zooms in, the reader becomes overcome with emotion, remembrance, rage, and awe. This is the marvelous: A simple image of a boy eating the food he once rejected and watching TV, weighted with meaning. This is Black reality, made clearer by its placement within a dream.
Atlanta doesn’t need to decide if it’s horror, or comedy, or a tender show depicting life’s daily moments of despair and triumph. For Black people, our realities enmesh all three into an absurd plateau. For other writers and creators, the absurdity might seem to mock the oppressed. But in the Glovers’ and the rest of their team’s deft hands, the absurdity becomes an indictment of our oppressors as well as a celebration of Black people’s humor. I intentionally say that Atlanta celebrates Black humor and not the way that Black people use humor as resilience, because it is the latter that Atlanta seems firmly set against.
Anywhere there is humor and Blackness, the impulse to say the art celebrates “Black resilience” emerges, partly because of this country’s obsession with depicting Black people as hardy creatures meant to endure the worst of atrocities, all while singing and laughing. But while Atlanta constantly depicts resilience, it does not celebrate it. It scorns the conditions that make that resilience necessary, and it uplifts those who find it hard to navigate the expectation of resilience. In fact, it derives a significant part of its absurdity from the characters’ varying degrees of resilience.
The further this show’s characters get away from their eponymous city, the further they get from the intimacy between Black people that made Atlanta special. Instead, however, a new kind of intimacy is forged. A discomfiting, thought-provoking, and one-sided intimacy with whiteness.
It’s that forced relationship to whiteness that gives Atlanta its absurdity — not just the presence of whiteness, but the influence on our spaces. Atlanta is a story of people who already knew these horrifying truths, to the point where they find them predictable, nearly boring. Atlanta doesn’t expect more from white people, it believes they are capable of anything. And in fact, it shows us, through modeling episodes based on real-life events and dynamics, that perhaps white people are capable of anything.
“Now it’s the Blackest, the most surreal, the most hilarious. I say this shit with no fear, because I already know what it’s going to be: the most unexpected thing you have ever seen,” LaKeith Stanfield told GQ Hype of Atlanta’s junior season. “But the truth is, it’s becoming hard to make shit up, because the actual reality is crazier than the shit you could come up with.”
Intimacy with whiteness is not novel or inauthentic. It is just as much a cornerstone of the Black experience in America as our closeness with each other is — which is the most surreal thing, when you think about it. How does one feel this anticipatory closeness to one’s oppressor? A violent disinterest and boredom with them, because we know so much?
How does one feel this anticipatory closeness to one’s oppressor?
James Baldwin spoke of this phenomenon at length, perhaps most damningly here: “You cannot lynch me and keep me in ghettos without becoming something monstrous yourselves. And furthermore, you give me a terrifying advantage. You never had to look at me. I had to look at you. I know more about you than you know about me.”
The characters of Atlanta embody this quote, in that they are constantly being forced to observe and analyze whiteness against their will. They are, even in their indifference towards whiteness, experts in the field. When Earn walks into the household of the white South African whose family owned the first bank and he sees a picture of a Black servant in the background of one of their pictures, he isn’t shocked but depressingly bored.
Atlanta’s glorious weirdness, its dive into the surreal, is what makes the show nimble and wonderfully written. It covers a wide spectrum of Blackness, all while being relatable. If it’s hard to imagine that a show where invisible cars run people over outside the club, alligators hang out in bathrooms, and old white men profess their love for the sexual “ectoplasm” of Black ghosts could be relatable to Black people, then you’ve missed the point. Blackness is strange, inherently bizarre. Shows that attempt to depict Black life without reveling in weirdness feel too curated, too stifling and specific. Other works may represent a slice of Blackness, but Atlanta’s oddities are more legible, and manage to fit us all underneath its strange and marvelous umbrella. | 2022-04-21T14:18:19Z | www.vox.com | Atlanta’s third season explores the horrors of intimacy with whiteness - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23032541/atlanta-afro-surrealism-donald-glover | https://www.vox.com/23032541/atlanta-afro-surrealism-donald-glover |
“Groomer” accusations against liberals and the LGBTQ community are recycled Satanic Panic.
By Aja Romano@ajaromano Apr 21, 2022, 1:30pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: The right’s moral panic over “grooming” invokes age-old homophobia
Demonstrators protest agains the “Don’t Say Gay” bill in front of the Florida State Capitol in Tallahassee, Florida, on March 7. The LGBTQ community has come under increasing attack from conservatives accusing them of “grooming” children.
A renewed moral panic, stoked by the far right and trickling into mainstream conservativism, has come on the heels of an abrupt shift in the fight for gay rights in America. Following the recent passage of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law and a wave of other homophobic and transphobic legislation throughout the country, current right-wing rhetoric has focused on accusations of “grooming.” The term — which describes the actions an adult takes to make a child vulnerable to sexual abuse — is taking on a conspiracy-theory tone as conservatives use it to imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers.
Attempting to reframe the controversial Florida law, Gov. Ron DeSantis’s press secretary Christina Pushaw described it as “the Anti-Grooming Bill” in early March, tweeting that if you’re against it, “you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children.” Those familiar with QAnon will recognize this bizarre leap in logic. Pushaw adopted language that QAnon conspiracy theory believers and the related #SaveTheChildren crusaders have used to imply that liberals are, if not pedophiles themselves, advocates of pedophilia.
This rhetoric has long existed among fringe conspiracy-theory-mongers and extremists, but Pushaw’s usage helped turn grooming into a mainstream conservative talking point. Fox News has run several segments devoted to pedophilia throughout March and April. During the same period, numerous Fox pundits began describing the behavior of parents and teachers who want to allow children to express their transgender identity as grooming; one Fox and Friends guest suggested children were “being ripened for grooming for sexual abuse by adults,” while America Reports guest Charlie Hurt said affirmative care for trans children “goes beyond just predatory grooming” into “psychological torture.”
Accusations of pedophilia were also a refrain during the March 2022 confirmation hearings for new Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. After Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) falsely accused Jackson of giving child pornographers unusually lenient sentences and “soft” treatment, other conservatives, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and the Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway ran with the idea that Jackson and anyone who supported her confirmation was supporting or sympathetic to pedophilia.
The result of this fear-mongering is grim: Vice reports that users of extremist right-wing websites like Patriot.win recently tried to publicize the address of a school superintendent who they claimed was “grooming” children. In March, the superintendent placed a school nurse on leave for allegedly making inappropriate statements on Facebook about a student who may have been receiving gender-affirming care.
Claiming the superintendent was “supporting leftist grooming in her schools” by implicitly protecting the welfare of a potentially trans student, one Patriot.win user wrote that she “needs to be executed by our judicial system.” Other users made violent references to hangings and gallows in response to various debates over trans identity. There’s concern that these online threats could lead to real-world physical violence; as Vice noted, many of the platforms pushing this current narrative are home to extremist communities, including some that were involved in planning the January 6, 2021, insurrection.
Framing homosexuality as a wicked specter and queer people as pedophiles is one of the oldest narratives in the homophobic playbook; proponents of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and other recent anti-gay and anti-trans legal actions across the US have been all too happy to recycle it. Only now, due to the paranoiac tendency of the modern right wing, it’s also being expanded and applied to LGBTQ allies, to educators whose work gets caught in the cultural crossfire, and to liberals writ large.
Put simply, the right’s “grooming” accusations allow it to attach evil to anything it sees as a threat to its values.
Grooming is the process by which adults make children or young people vulnerable to sexual assault through compliments, isolating tactics, and other actions that shift the child’s circle of trust and increase the adult’s power over them. Some on the right do seem to be using the dictionary definition of the term, borrowing ideas and language from decades of moral panic equating homosexuality to pedophilia. But “grooming” seems to be functioning more broadly right now as a catchall label for other flavors of right-wing alarmism.
First, there is “grooming” turned up to 11, invoking the term in its most conspiratorial sense: grooming children to be victims of a high-level global sex cult — a conspiracy theory that converges with various other right-wing homophobic and anti-Semitic conspiracies. This involves belief, or performed belief, in an elaborate high-level system of grooming, kidnapping, pedophilia, sexual abuse, and sex trafficking carried out by elites in government.
This conspiracy theory is what led to Pizzagate and the subsequent real-world attack on a Washington, DC, pizza parlor in 2016; Pizzagate then evolved into QAnon. QAnon’s main tenet involves the claim that powerful Democratic politicians and Hollywood celebrities are kidnapping children, both for sex trafficking and to harvest their glands to make youth serums. The “harvesting the blood of virgins for immortality” trope comes to us straight from medieval hysteria over witches and alleged female serial killers. QAnon has straightforwardly reproduced this trope, and come shockingly close to mainstreaming it.
Increasingly, though — and perhaps most worryingly — conservatives also seem to be using “grooming” to mean left-wing indoctrination generally. This idea suggests that educating children on certain political issues like the struggle for gay and trans equality (or as many right wingers frame it, “gender ideology”) is just as dangerous, or even exactly the same, as “grooming” them to be pedophile victims or victims of an international sex cult.
None of these fears make rational sense. A teacher educating students on queer or genderqueer identity does not make that teacher likely to be a pedophile about to prey on children. There also remains zero evidence of a powerful pedophilic sex cult run by Democratic politicians, let alone local schoolteachers. That’s not to say that organized child abuse and systems of trafficking don’t exist, but trying to make a causative link between liberalism and pedophilia requires intentional reality distortion by the lawmakers and media voices making these claims.
The thing is, grooming accusations aren’t concerned with making sense; they’re about stirring up fear, anger, and hysteria — which is why they sound exactly like the kinds of fringe conspiracy theories that have been around for centuries. The new pedophile conspiracy rhetoric is essentially the same as all the old pedophile conspiracy rhetoric, but with an added layer of wrongness.
The new Satanic Panic is the same as the old Satanic Panic
The mythical association of the occult with terrible fates befalling children began to take distinct shape during the Middle Ages. Medieval fairy tales from “Sleeping Beauty” to “Hansel and Gretel” are full of children encountering terrible witches; many of these tales also function as coded anti-Semitism. Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales invokes the trope of ritualistic child murder at the hands of a sinister Jewish cabal.
The threads of arcane rituals, anti-Semitism, and child endangerment are interwoven and embedded in many early stories, and sometimes they spilled into real-life conspiracy theories. The anti-Semitic belief that Jews were ritually murdering children became known as “blood libel,” which exists both as a term for ritual murder as well as a metaphoric expression of the idea that the Jewish people crucified Christ. Accusations of ritual child murder, usually accompanying accusations of witchcraft, cropped up throughout the Middle Ages, sometimes leading to anti-Semitic riots.
The core themes of these tales have endured in Western culture for hundreds of years, but they enjoyed a rebirth of sorts in the late 20th century. The explosion of hysteria-fueled attention to these narratives, known as the Satanic Panic, can be traced to two bestselling books that were both ultimately discredited. 1972’s Satan Seller, a debunked false memoir by a Christian evangelist named Mike Warnke, recounts Warnke’s completely fabricated youth as a high priest engaged in unspeakable satanic rites, including child murder and sexual assaults. His “memoir” spawned a number of copycat “conversion” narratives written by young men fresh from the counterculture, claiming to have discovered Christianity after childhoods raised in dark Satanic cabals.
Next, and far more influentially, came 1980’s Michelle Remembers, co-authored by controversial psychologist Lawrence Pazder and his wife Michelle Smith, who was originally Pazder’s patient. Pazder claimed to have regressed Smith using hypnosis and uncovered her horrific childhood memories of occult abuse at the hands of the Church of Satan. Michelle Remembers would ultimately be thoroughly disproven, but not before it gave rise to a widespread cultural belief in “satanic ritual abuse” and was used as a textbook by law enforcement when investigating allegations of such abuse. Though entirely false, Michelle Remembers directly influenced the wrongful imprisonment of dozens of people throughout the ’80s and ’90s and continues to provide a template for current conspiracy theories about child abduction, ritual abuse, and secret sex cults.
It’s also important to note the evangelical aspect of these tropes in the modern era, where the line between allegory and literalism gets especially muddy. Millions of evangelical Christians have been taught to think of themselves as engaged in a metaphysical war, for which they must “put on the full armor of God” to root out evil in their midst. It doesn’t help that decades of “Christian fantasy” writing have transformed real-world social issues into matters of angelic and demonic warfare, and taught Christians to see themselves as battling directly for souls against evil liberals.
American politics has always tended toward hyperbole — but figurative language is turning increasingly literal
The Satanic Panic never went away, and its concerning influence on politics in the US makes sense. In a seminal 1964 essay, historian Richard J. Hofstadter delineated what he called “the paranoid style of American politics” — a tendency toward hyper-vigilant, alarmist belief born from a combination of “heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy.”
Hofstadter succinctly outlined the longstanding history of American political figures claiming the existence of various “secret cabals,” shrouded “in every possible disguise,” who are “at this very moment plotting our destruction and threatening the extinction of our political, civil, and religious institutions.” He observed that the conservatives of the 1960s felt particularly dispossessed: “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”
Add “satanic ritual abuse and pedophilia” to this description and you have a boilerplate for modern right-wing conspiracy theories about liberalism, with plenty of anti-Semitism baked in. The sudden swerve toward the mainstream that the grooming accusations have taken aligns with decades of propaganda stating that American educational and social systems are all secretly socialist, communist, or otherwise out to destroy conservatives.
What’s more, the element of urgency around saving children lends the conspiracy theorists an implacable moral righteousness. As Hofstadter argued, “what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil,” and compromise is unacceptable. What could be more absolutely good than protecting children from the absolute evil of pedophilia?
There are deep ironies in all of this. The first is that in their urgent zeal to “protect” children from the evils of homosexuality and gender-affirmative care, conservatives are proactively endangering queer and trans children. Decades of research have established the link between negative social environments and poor LGBTQ mental health and the link between allowing kids to safely express their sexuality and gender identity and positive mental health. (And here are 13 more studies just to fully drive the point home.)
If you or anyone you know is considering suicide or self-harm, or is anxious, depressed, upset, or needs to talk, there are people who want to help.
Crisis Text Line: Text CRISIS to 741741 for free, confidential crisis counseling
The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-8255
The Trevor Project: 1-866-488-7386
The International Association for Suicide Prevention lists a number of suicide hotlines by country. Click here to find them.
Befrienders Worldwide
Failing to provide safe, supportive environments for LGBTQ and questioning kids leads to high levels of depression, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts — significantly higher rates than straight and cisgender kids. In other words, the most vulnerable children, the ones most in need of protection, are the ones who are directly imperiled by the recent wave of homophobic and transphobic legislation, and by the pernicious rhetoric associating their identities with pedophilia.
The second irony is that the notion of “grooming” — slowly conditioning someone over time to accept a belief or a state of being that could harm them — arguably applies to the grooming conspiracy theory itself. Conservatives, even the ones closest to the fringe, didn’t just wake up en masse one day and decide to accuse all liberals of being pedophiles. The ideas behind these latest conspiracy theories have taken years to circulate and gain traction throughout right-wing communities. Over time, as conservatives’ trust in mainstream journalism, academic research, and expert authority figures has eroded, a strain of alarmist thinking has increased, fueled by public figures like Donald Trump.
In such an environment, misinformation can flourish and conspiracy theories can take root. What we’re seeing now is the latest iteration of years of toxic fringe beliefs and a growing willingness to exchange outlandish hyperbole for literal beliefs. We’re seeing this play out in real life in increasingly disturbing ways and violent extremes, from familial alienation to the January 6, 2021 riot — events that do not and cannot take place overnight. We might well say that a decade of reactionary right-wing politics has groomed many otherwise rational conservatives to accept the latest rhetorical escalation, and its grim real-world impacts, without a second thought. | 2022-04-21T18:21:39Z | www.vox.com | The right’s moral panic over “grooming” invokes age-old homophobia - Vox | https://www.vox.com/culture/23025505/leftist-groomers-homophobia-satanic-panic-explained | https://www.vox.com/culture/23025505/leftist-groomers-homophobia-satanic-panic-explained |
Michigan is an early test of the political potency of Trump’s election lies.
By Nicole Narea@nicolenarea Apr 21, 2022, 11:50am EDT
Share All sharing options for: The Michigan GOP wants to be pro-Trump and win the midterms. Can it do both?
Former President Donald Trump endorses Matthew DePerno, who is running for the Michigan Republican Party’s nomination for state attorney general, during a rally on April 2 near Detroit, Michigan.
This should be a terrific election year for Michigan Republicans. There is deep angst in Michigan, as with the rest of the nation, over inflation and an unpopular Democratic president who only narrowly won the state in 2020. With Democrats facing headwinds, Republicans across the country have an advantage that they’re eager to capitalize on.
But an internal fight between the state Republican Party establishment and the most die-hard Donald Trump supporters is threatening the prospects of GOP candidates in Michigan taking over some statewide offices.
With just over half a year to go until the general election, the divide here mirrors the one that is playing out in GOP primaries across the country. As Trump allies hone in on Michigan and other swing states to install officials who are election denialists, some Republicans worry that fixating too much on Trump and his falsehoods about the 2020 election is a recipe for disaster, especially in swing states like Michigan. The trouble is, that’s exactly what the vocal pro-Trump faction of the Michigan GOP — and its preferred candidates — want to focus on.
It’s all coming to a head on Saturday, when the Michigan GOP will hold its endorsement convention in Grand Rapids and hash out those differences in a public forum, as opposed to behind the shroud of a voting booth, well before most other primaries on the 2022 calendar.
Two Trump-endorsed candidates are being considered for statewide office nominations: Kristina Karamo for secretary of state and Matthew DePerno for state attorney general. Karamo, who became known in right-wing media as a 2020 election “whistleblower” for her baseless claims of fraud, is seen as the Republican frontrunner and would face incumbent Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson in the general election. DePerno has a tougher contest against his main Republican rival, former speaker of the Michigan House Tom Leonard, to earn a chance to defeat incumbent Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.
The outcome will feed into the mounting questions about Trump’s power as a kingmaker. And if his chosen candidates do win, that will also set up a test of the political potency of Trump’s election lies and whether candidates in his mold like Karamo and DePerno will be successful in a general election.
Few Republicans in Michigan have publicly voiced problems with Trump or his false claims about the 2020 election being rigged. But while some state party leaders have lined up behind Trump-backed candidates who have made the 2020 election their focus, others have publicly discouraged the state party from dwelling on the subject for fear of turning off key voting blocs in November.
The party has already gone all-in on Trumpism, but they are still divided over whether to run on his election lies — and are waiting for Saturday to get answers on just what their strategy should be.
How Michigan’s nomination process works
Unlike in other states, Michigan doesn’t hold primaries to determine the nominees for state offices like the attorney general, secretary of state, the Michigan Supreme Court, the state Board of Education, and university boards. Party delegates nominate their candidates for those positions at a convention in August. (The nominees for other statewide races, including the governor’s race, will be determined in an August 2 primary.)
But for the first time, the Michigan GOP is also holding an endorsement convention on April 23. Some 2,500 delegates were chosen at the county level to attend that convention, where they will vote on who will receive the GOP endorsement before the party formally nominates them in the summer. The intention is to help their candidates fundraise and gain more momentum by putting the weight of the party behind them at an earlier stage in the cycle.
The level of disarray currently plaguing the Michigan GOP became apparent last week at a handful of county party conventions where those delegates were chosen.
DePerno — who argued in court for additional independent audits of the 2020 election results as recently as last week — had called upon his supporters to “storm the convention” and run for delegate positions or to become alternates in order to shore up the chances of pro-Trump candidates. Many of them did, resulting in raucous gatherings.
But they weren’t successful in Macomb County, the only county in the Detroit metro area that went red in 2020, where Trump supporters resorted to cursing and yelling as the pro-Trump county party chair was overthrown.
I watched the absolutely unhinged Macomb County GOP convention so you don’t have to. Beloved Trumper Mark Forton was overthrown, with Eric Castiglia taking over as Chair. The meeting devolves into cursing & anger, one woman yelling, “You’re all for the New World Order! Fuck you!” pic.twitter.com/6WsTMt8IYx
— Left of Center MI (@leftofcentermi) April 12, 2022
It hasn’t helped that some party leaders have waded into the fray. Michigan GOP co-chair Meshawn Maddock has endorsed Karamo and DePerno, breaking with custom that party leaders don’t get involved at this stage of the nomination process. The state party, for its part, has sought to distance itself from Maddock’s choice to endorse them, clarifying that she was acting in a personal capacity.
Gustavo Portela, a spokesperson for the state party, dismissed tensions at the conventions as nothing out of the ordinary, arguing that all members of the Michigan GOP are focused on winning.
“People don’t want to move backwards, they want to move forward. And they don’t want to repeat the same mistakes of the past. We, as a party, understand that,” Portela said.
But DePerno and Karamo clearly have their eyes trained back on 2020 — an electoral strategy that some in the GOP think could alienate voters they need to defeat Democrats.
“[The Michigan GOP] may want to look to 2022. But their own candidates are not,” said Richard Czuba, president of the Michigan polling firm Glengariff Group.
Michigan Republicans are all in on Trump, but divided on electoral strategy
This is not the first time that the Michigan GOP has dealt with an insurgency.
In the 1980s, it was the Christian right in working-class communities around Detroit led by the televangelist Pat Robertson, who pushed conservative social policies and rebuked both major parties. In 2010, it was the Tea Party movement, which sought to advance a populist brand of small-government libertarianism focused on lowering taxes and stopping the Affordable Care Act.
But in those cases, the battles among Michigan Republicans were more about ideology and less about a singularly dominant personality like Trump, who has sought to punish members of his own party who defied him in refusing to challenge the results of the 2020 election. And this time, the establishment is largely falling into line.
“The Trump faction of the Republican Party in Michigan [is] the establishment now,” Czuba said.
Darrin Camilleri, a Democrat running for the Michigan Senate who currently represents a state house district that Trump won, said that the GOP only has itself to blame for allowing that to happen.
“The Republican Party in Michigan decided to embrace conspiracists and embrace the Big Lie. And I think that the establishment Republican Party is going to pay the price,” he said. “They are very quickly being taken over by people who do not believe in facts and who are even willing to call each other communists and radical liberals and fake Republicans at their own county conventions.”
Karamo rose to prominence in 2020 as a poll watcher who falsely claimed that she had seen votes switched from Trump to Biden and that Trump had won Michigan. She is widely expected to win her party’s endorsement.
DePerno is more of a longshot. He has called for a “forensic audit” of the 2020 election results in Antrim County, Michigan, though a Republican-led state Senate panel already found no evidence of widespread fraud after months of investigation. But Leonard, his Republican opponent, has deep ties to the Michigan GOP and was also nominated by then-president Trump in 2019 to become a US attorney in Michigan, though was never actually confirmed.
“If Donald Trump cannot deliver this nomination, it sends a message across the Republican Party, across the nation, that, in fact, he’s toothless. But if [DePerno] does win this nomination, it sends a message that you better get in line behind what Donald Trump wants, or he will do to you what he’s doing to the old establishment of the Michigan Republican Party right now,” Czuba said.
But Jeff Timmer, a Republican strategist in Lansing and senior adviser at the Lincoln Project, argued that if DePerno loses, it will not be a reflection of Trump’s waning clout, but rather a signal that Leonard was able to sufficiently tie himself to the former president. Either way, no one should underestimate Trump’s influence going forward, he said.
Guests attend a rally hosted by former President Donald Trump on April 02 near Washington, Michigan, where he promoted his America First agenda and voiced support for candidates Matthew DePerno and Kristina Karamo.
“If they need any more evidence that Donald Trump’s strength is growing since he left the White House, this will only reinforce that and it should dispel the notion that there is a post-Trump Republican party,” Timmer said.
Becoming the party of Trump isn’t costless, however — particularly in a purple state won and lost by thin margins. A January survey by the Glengariff Group found that only about 20 percent of Michigan independents viewed Trump favorably. Though many Republicans have tied their fates to Trump nationally, Trump’s unpopularity might make that a risky strategy in Michigan.
Can the Michigan GOP present a unified front by November?
Michigan Republicans are confident that they can navigate differences within their party and unite against Democratic incumbents.
“We look forward to being united behind the candidate that emerges from our state convention,” Portela said. “No matter who that is, we believe that that candidate is going to be better than [Secretary of State] Jocelyn Benson, than [Attorney General] Dana Nessel. That’s what the party is focused on this fall.”
The zealousness of Trump supporters might have made the confrontations at the county party conventions particularly acrimonious, but it’s nothing Republicans haven’t seen before. During the Robertson insurgency, his supporters organized rump caucuses, large walkouts and loud protests at state party conventions and then, in 1988, they unified to elect George H.W. Bush as president. The same is likely to happen this time around, Czuba said.
The state party is already making some moves to mollify those still amped up over election fraud charges, even if it would rather not make them the primary focus of the party platform. For instance, the party has endorsed a ballot initiative called “Secure My Vote,” which would require voters to provide identification, prevent mass mailing of absentee ballot applications and restrict election funding by private groups.
“They have to embrace that rhetoric or they’re going to lose their base, their small-dollar donors, the enthusiasm that they’re trying to create in the grassroots elements of the party,” Timmer said. “They represent a minority of Michigan voters and they have to have outsized enthusiasm in order to win races.”
Michigan Republicans will have to balance appeasing their base with nominating candidates that will actually be competitive in the general election. The endorsement and nomination process, particularly given DePerno’s call to action, could yield candidates that are too ideologically extreme to win over independents.
“It’s really hardcore activists who show up to these conventions,” Camilleri said. “So you’re going to pick the most hardcore of the candidates to put up on on the general election for November. Regular voters do not believe what these hardcore right wing Republicans like DePerno and Karamo believe about our democracy and rule of law.”
The outcome of the state nomination process could have political consequences. Trump isn’t popular in Michigan and neither are the candidates he’s endorsed compared to their Democratic rivals: in the January Glengariff Group survey, Benson led Karamo by 14 percentage points and Nessel led DePerno by 10 points. (Nessel also led the other GOP hopeful Leonard by 6 points.)
“The grassroots is highly motivated right now behind Donald Trump and re-litigating 2020. That’s not the case with independents and Democrats,” Czuba said. “Republicans can’t get out of their own way to focus on 2022.” | 2022-04-21T18:21:45Z | www.vox.com | The Michigan GOP wants to be pro-Trump and win the midterms. Can it do both? - Vox | https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23035549/trump-michigan-republican-convention-deperno-karamo | https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23035549/trump-michigan-republican-convention-deperno-karamo |
How to resurrect a coral reef
Step one: Break coral. Step two: Hack coral sex.
Photographs by Jennifer Adler for Vox
The largest underwater coral nursery is run by the Coral Restoration Foundation, a nonprofit located near Key Largo, Florida.
Share All sharing options for: How to resurrect a coral reef
COOK ISLAND, Florida — The reef was dark. Hanna Koch, a marine biologist, hovered inches above bumpy mounds of mountainous star coral. She had already spent hours underwater that night, breathing air from scuba tanks.
Then it happened: Hundreds of tiny pink spheres burst from the coral. Koch screamed, forcing bubbles out of her regulator, which rose above her blonde hair. Around her, other clumps of mountainous star coral began erupting, too, until the reef looked like a snow globe.
It was around 11 pm on a warm night in August 2020, and the coral was spawning. This is how many corals breed: Each sphere contains a mix of sperm and eggs, and if all goes to plan, the sperm from one individual will fertilize the eggs of another.
Koch, a scientist at Florida’s Mote Marine Laboratory and Aquarium, was giddy with excitement. She started dancing underwater with another researcher, stirring up bioluminescent critters that emitted bright flashes of blue light. “We created our own fireworks,” Koch told me when I visited her lab in Summerland Key, Florida, a year and a half later.
Mountainous star coral spawning witnessed by Hanna Koch in 2020.
Courtesy of Hanna Koch
It’s rare to see corals reproduce in the wild, and it was a first for Koch — spawning typically happens just once a year. But that night was also special for another reason: Many of the spawning corals were individuals that Mote researchers had planted on the reef five years earlier. Those corals survived Hurricane Irma, extreme heat, and a disease outbreak, and still grew large enough to reproduce, all in record time. It was a rare sign of hope for an ecosystem under siege.
Madalen Howard, above, swims near large elkhorn corals in the Florida Keys. A nonprofit organization called the Coral Restoration Foundation, where she works, planted them here a few years ago.
Coral reefs cover less than 1 percent of the world’s oceans but are home to more than a quarter of all marine life, including the clownfish, seahorses, and other creatures that make these ecosystems special. But coral reefs are slipping away. Warming seas, diseases, and other threats have already wiped out more than half of the world’s corals, and more than 90 percent of those in Florida. “I don’t think people realize how bad it is,” said Koch, who has seen centuries-old corals disintegrate in front of her eyes.
Now, a growing number of organizations are racing to plant corals in damaged reefs, just as conservation groups plant trees in degraded forests. And so far, it seems to be working. They’ve restored hundreds of thousands of corals in places like Florida and Indonesia, and groundbreaking scientific research is helping to fortify these creatures against rising temperatures and other threats.
But the clock is ticking. The scale of coral planting is still small, and just 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, relative to the preindustrial era, could destroy up to 90 percent of the world’s tropical coral reefs. We’re likely to hit that threshold in a matter of years.
An accident that revolutionized coral restoration
Corals are a marvel of nature. Each one is made up of hundreds to thousands of animals — yes, animals — living together in a big community, like a densely packed apartment building. Known as polyps, the animals have tentacles armed with stinging cells and a mouth, and they work together as one superorganism.
These animals are, perhaps, the world’s best example of intra-species teamwork, or symbiosis. They ingest microscopic algae into their stomachs and use them as an in-house factory for nutrients. The algae provide corals with the sugar they generate through photosynthesis, which the polyps need to grow, in exchange for nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and a sunlit workspace. (While coral polyps can use their tentacles to capture food, the majority of their energy — and much of their color — comes from these algae partners.)
A single polyp grows into a colony by cloning itself over and over, not unlike how some houseplants bud. This process of asexual reproduction is slow — on the scale of a few millimeters per year, for some species — which poses a challenge to restoration, a field in which time is of the essence.
“Instead of waiting 100 years, they’re reproductive in just a couple of years. They’re basically spawning as kindergartners.” —David Vaughan
But hobbyists discovered a shortcut: If you break a coral into small pieces, those pieces will grow much faster, not unlike how your skin grows quickly when healing a wound.
One day more than a decade ago, David Vaughan, a coral-restoration scientist, also stumbled upon this approach. He was cleaning a tank of baby elkhorn coral at Mote, and one got stuck to the bottom. When he yanked it, the coral broke into tiny shards. Vaughan, a bearded man with long, white hair, thought that he had killed the elkhorn coral, a critically endangered species and one of just a dozen such individuals that Mote scientists had painstakingly grown from spawn.
He checked the broken pieces again two weeks later, and his eyes widened: Each fragment had grown into a dime-sized colony of its own. What would normally take two years took only two weeks.
Vaughan later tried this approach — known as microfragmentation — on nearly 20 species of Atlantic coral. “It worked on all of them,” said Vaughan, who has since pioneered the approach for restoration. He began growing 600 corals a day (instead of in six years) at Mote, where he led the International Center for Coral Reef Research and Restoration. “We started running out of tank space.”
On a sunny April morning, I met Vaughan at a Boy Scout base on Summerland Key, where he’s built what you might call a coral garden center. There were more than a dozen shallow tanks under a shaded awning, each filled with small bits of coral cut with a diamond-tipped band saw. After the fragments grow large enough, Scouts will plant them on a nearby reef in the ocean.
Wearing blue Crocs and a safari hat, Vaughan, who speaks enthusiastically about his work, reached his hand into a tank with wine-red blushing star coral. He stirred the water above them. Their red tentacles quickly retreated, making the coral appear white.
In another tank, small coral pieces from the same individual were planted near each other, and some were starting to fuse together. It’s another shortcut in restoration, said Vaughan.
Fragments that recognize each other as themselves will merge into one larger coral. And in the coral kingdom, Vaughan said, size matters more than age; they only spawn once they reach about the size of a basketball.
“Instead of waiting 100 years, they’re reproductive in just a couple of years,” Vaughan said. “They’re basically spawning as kindergartners.”
Then it was my turn to give coral fragmentation — or “fragging,” in restoration lingo — a try. I’m not exactly experienced with power tools, but I pressed my foot gently on the band saw’s pedal and slid a quarter-sized piece of brain coral into the blade.
That turned one fragment into two, which I then cut in half again.
Just like that, I had turned one coral into four. Each will quickly grow into a colony, Vaughan assured me, and one day someone will plant them on a nearby reef.
With this approach, Vaughan is trying to plant a million corals — literally. In 2018, he left Mote and founded a nonprofit called Plant a Million Corals. “If we can’t show that we can plant a million corals, then it’s a hopeless cause because there’s a giant ocean out there,” Vaughan said.
The magic of coral sex, and why scientists need to intervene
Restoring reefs with coral fragments comes with a catch: Each piece is a genetically identical replica of another. That means if one is susceptible to, say, disease, all of them might be. We grow many varieties of potatoes for the same reason that scientists want to grow many varieties of corals. Resilience in nature is rooted in genetic diversity.
A simple way to boost diversity is to get corals to breed, but in practice, it’s not so simple. Corals have no eyes or brains (not even the brain corals!) yet they’re able to synchronize spawning across large swaths of the ocean, like cicadas that somehow know when to erupt in unison from the ground. Perhaps even more remarkable, spawning tracks along the phases of the moon. (For example, the mountainous star coral that Koch saw spawn in the wild in 2020 did so several days after the full moon.)
Coral reefs cover less than 1 percent of the world’s oceans but are home to more than a quarter of all marine life
The problem is that many corals are now so rare that spawning in nature doesn’t work very well. The sperm and eggs from different individuals often don’t reach each other. So if you want to get these animals to breed, you sometimes have to intervene. At nighttime during spawning season, scientists will actually boat out to sea and drape a mesh tent over a colony to capture that individual’s sperm and eggs, and then mix it with the spawn of another individual, either in a lab or in a container at sea.
This is not exactly easy work. Researchers often have to dive several nights in a row as August storms pass overhead. Even then, they can miss the magic. “It lasts only like 20 minutes,” said Margaret Miller, the research director of Secore International, a nonprofit focused on breeding corals for restoration. “You have to be there, and you have to know when it’s going to happen.”
Thankfully, there’s now a more convenient option: tricking corals into spawning in a lab. The key is to mimic the exact conditions that you’d find on a wild reef, from the moonlight to the water temperature, according to Jamie Craggs, who claims that he was the first person to deliberately coax coral to spawn in an aquarium, back in 2013. (His initial system was relatively low-tech: He used an LED light inside of a ping-pong ball to re-create the moon.)
These spawning tanks have since become a lifeline for some species. In the last decade, a mysterious disease called stony coral tissue loss has wiped out more than 90 percent of Florida’s Atlantic pillar coral, a species that looks like bony fingers rising from the seafloor. The Florida Aquarium in Tampa has a rare collection of healthy pillar coral fragments, and a few years ago, a scientist there, Keri O’Neil, got many of them to breed.
“You can legitimately say we were saving a species from extinction,” O’Neil, a senior coral scientist at the aquarium, told me over the phone. Many of the corals she’s spawned come from genetic varieties that no longer exist in the wild, she said.
I was eager to see one of these tanks myself, and thankfully, Koch has one.
The 250-gallon system sits in her wet lab at Mote, near a small aquarium with pet clownfish (Gladys and Earl) and a few shallow tubs of baby corals. A beautiful red staghorn coral sat inside, along with several great star corals, one of which glowed bright green under the hood light. A few had their tentacles out, waiting for scraps of food to float by.
Staff biologist Celia Leto showed me how the roughly $30,000 system works. Using a computer, she can tell it to mimic any time of year, such as a warm day in August or a chilly winter night, and the coral will be none the wiser. And the best part? These tanks give researchers the power to spawn corals during work hours.
Diving in an underwater forest
On a breezy afternoon a few days later, I was in a boat near Key Largo trying not to throw up. With a scuba tank strapped to my back and fins on my feet, I held my mask on my face, leapt off the stern, and sank slowly toward the seafloor.
There, I found myself floating in a massive underwater forest. Hundreds of “trees” made of fiberglass and PVC were hanging from buoys in the water, tethered to the sandy bottom. Fragments of orange, pink, and green corals hung from their branches like earrings on a jewelry stand. I was scuba diving in the ocean’s largest coral nursery.
Before planting corals on a reef, some organizations raise them in nurseries out in the ocean, like this one, owned by the nonprofit Coral Restoration Foundation (CRF). Growing corals at sea is cheaper than raising them in a lab, and there’s no limit on space. The tree structures, meanwhile (which the nonprofit developed), give corals access to plenty of light and nutrients.
I’m awkward underwater, but I managed to swim through the forest without knocking any corals loose. All kinds of fish were hiding out between the branches — angelfish, trunkfish, triggerfish, and others I couldn’t identify.
Amelia Moura, who leads CRF’s science program, was in front of me, swimming with the grace of someone who has logged more than 1,000 dives (she has). Moura stopped at one of the trees strung with staghorn coral and, using a wire cutter, began to lop off hand-sized chunks.
Her coworker counted the pieces and put them in a plastic milk crate. Then we all swam to the surface and climbed back on the boat.
An hour later, we were back down, this time at a spot called Pickles Reef. It looked pretty dead, but Moura’s team is helping it heal. In a bare spot on the reef, she and her coworker started gluing down 21 new pieces using a special marine epoxy.
She then led me to a spot where CRF had planted coral a few years ago. It was spectacular: Some of the elkhorn corals were wider than a meter and made of orange polyps that popped against the blue water. The staghorns were huge, too, and looked like messy piles of spears.
As I wandered around the reef, I encountered a colorful sea slug called a nudibranch (a red-tipped sea goddess nudibranch, I’d later learn). Shortly after, a small green sea turtle swam by. Both sightings reminded me that it’s not just the reefs that scientists are trying to save but the entire web of life that depends on them.
Giving coral its best shot at survival
To regrow a reef, you don’t just need to plant corals. You also need to make sure they can survive as the oceans get hotter and more acidic, and diseases spread. And that could mean working to improve the corals themselves.
One approach is through selective breeding — essentially, a strategy to speed up evolution. If a certain trait, like heat tolerance, is rooted in a coral’s DNA, scientists could theoretically breed that individual coral with others to create heat-tolerant babies.
In a tank outside at Mote, for example, Koch is nurturing what she calls her Holy Grail — a group of baby staghorn corals from two parents that were both resistant to white band disease, another epidemic in Florida’s waters. Soon, Koch will run experiments to see if the babies are resistant, too.
A coral’s tolerance to heat is at least somewhat rooted in its genetics, research shows, which means that we could breed corals to better withstand warming. But scientists have also learned that tolerance depends to some extent on the kind of algae that corals partner with, said Liv Williamson, a doctoral researcher at the University of Miami.
Under extreme heat, the algae living inside polyps stop producing sugar and, instead, start emitting toxins. The polyps respond by kicking out the colorful algae, which makes the coral weak and turns it white — that’s coral “bleaching.” However, certain kinds of algae can withstand higher temperatures without harming polyps, according to Williamson. Theoretically, you could inoculate corals with these algae before putting them on a reef, she said, as a way to stave off bleaching, the greatest threat facing coral reefs today.
Other scientists are taking a totally different approach: trying to make the ocean more hospitable to coral. That’s the reason Jason Spadaro, another Mote scientist, is raising Caribbean king crabs. Native to the Keys, these crustaceans love to eat all kinds of algae that are spreading across Florida and polluting its waters, making it hard for corals to take root and grow.
To regrow a reef, you don’t just need to plant corals. You also need to make sure they can survive.
When we met at his lab in April, Spadaro casually pulled a crab out of a tank. It was twice the size of his hand with large pincers and a prickly, spider-like body. “These critters eat an enormous amount of algae, on par with cows and grass,” said Spadaro, a tall man with short hair and glasses. He’s raising king crabs by the thousands and plans to eventually unleash them on the reef, like a pack of janitors.
(Before he does, Spadaro will have to teach them to be scared of predators, he said, perhaps by using homemade hand-puppets that resemble groupers, lobsters, and octopuses.)
The reef restoration movement takes off
Planting and nurturing coral to save the world’s reefs is an imperfect solution. It’s expensive, challenging to scale up, and does nothing to address the most important problem: climate change.
Yet it seems clear these efforts are helping oceans heal, and they’ve only just begun. A decade ago, you could count restoration initiatives on one hand, according to Miller, and now, there are hundreds. “It’s just been a tremendous explosion,” she said.
Since 2007, the CRF has planted more than 170,000 corals in the Florida Keys. Koch, meanwhile, has raised nearly 10,000 genetically distinct babies in her lab and already planted many of them.
Funding is ramping up, too, especially in Florida. In 2019, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced a major investment in reef restoration called Mission: Iconic Reefs, which is funneling millions of dollars to seven reefs in the Florida Keys. (CRF and Mote are both part of the project.)
These investments pay off. Beyond the inherent value of coral reefs and the animals that live on them, these ecosystems are useful to humans. Many of the roughly 1 billion people who live near coral reefs depend on them for food, income, and protection. By acting as natural seawalls, reefs prevent $1.8 billion each year in flooding-related damage in the US alone.
When I first arrived in Florida, I met Vaughan at the southernmost state park in the continental United States, on the southeastern shore of Key West. I was here to snorkel and see coral that Vaughan had planted a few years ago.
It got off to a rough start. The water was so murky I could barely see my hand in front of my face, much less anything resembling sea life, and fresh in my mind was a sign near the beach warning swimmers of the jellyfish-like stinging man o’ wars known to cruise in those waters.
I’d have to dive down to see anything worth looking at, so I took a deep breath and swam to the bottom, 10 feet below. Looming up through the cloudy green water, the reef emerged. There were brain corals and mountainous star corals the size of salad plates, and schools of fish that zoomed by in blurs of yellow, white, and green. I heard the crackling sounds of shrimp and parrotfish and other critters. Just a few years ago, there was little more than rocks and sand on this ocean floor. Now the reef was alive.
Benji Jones swimming over fragments of staghorn coral planted by the Coral Restoration Foundation. | 2022-04-22T14:18:34Z | www.vox.com | The race to save coral reefs before climate change and disease kill them - Vox | https://www.vox.com/recode/23016412/coral-reef-restoration-climate-change | https://www.vox.com/recode/23016412/coral-reef-restoration-climate-change |
The late-’90s cooking show was a revolution before we knew much about body positivity.
Share All sharing options for: One Good Thing: The Two Fat Ladies proved pleasure was for every body
What I loved most about it was the message it sent me about the kind of adult life I could still choose to live.
In the first scene of the Two Fat Ladies’ season three opener, set in western Ireland, a wrong turn down a dirt road leads the show’s stars, Clarissa Dickson Wright and Jennifer Paterson, to schmooze with a cattle-wrangling Benedictine nun in a paddock outside Kylemore Abbey.
When the sister bemoans the waning interest in taking the veil, Dickson Wright declares herself and Paterson “a bit worldly” to qualify. The nun, wearing what appears to be an acid-washed denim habit, leans over the fence and squints.
“You’ve got to have been out in the world a bit to know what you’re missing,” she says.
Paterson nods, her eyes widening behind her bottle-thick lenses: “Otherwise, you might get yearnings later on,” she says.
I first started watching Two Fat Ladies not long after graduating from college. Living alone for the first time, in a sweaty little studio apartment on the ground floor of a Dupont Circle brownstone in Washington, DC, I developed a routine: On Saturday mornings, I walked my granny cart to the farmers market at the top of the Metro escalators, bought whatever I could get for $20, hauled it home, and turned it into food while watching the hours of cooking shows the local PBS channel would broadcast on weekend afternoons.
Two Fat Ladies aired as part of that block of programming, and technically, it was a cooking show. Each week, its stars traveled to a different peculiarly British institution to prepare different peculiarly British dishes for the people who kept those institutions running. They roasted a Christmas goose for the Winchester Cathedral boys’ choir and deviled kidneys for North Yorkshire brewers, soused herrings for lock keepers at the Welsh-English border and made Queen Alexandra’s favorite sandwiches for Oxfordshire cricketers. They fed teams of workers and hobbyists laboring in the region’s most prominent historic establishments with food that was rich and messy, aimed at providing comfort rather than novelty.
But the show’s real draw was its hosts’ prodigious patter: They squabbled over directions while trundling down country roads in a Triumph Thunderbird motorcycle with a sidecar, stopping occasionally to coquet fishermen out of the best seafood or haggle over local produce. In the ancient kitchens where they heaved seething crocks into and out of countless Aga ovens, they offered something less like an educational demonstration and more like a cottagecore cabaret act, roaring at bawdy songs and recollections of their own newsworthy exploits.
I learned a lot from the show — how to make mayonnaise with a whisk (drizzle the oil in drop by drop), how to peel peaches (dunk them briefly in boiling water), how to ensure meat’s maximal unctuousness (bard and lard). But what I loved most about it was the message it sent me about the kind of adult life I could choose to live.
When I started watching Two Fat Ladies in the late 1990s, I was not thin, not quiet, and not particularly interested in a life of routine. However, the icons of femininity available to me were overwhelmingly slender and acquiescent: Supermodel culture was at its peak, threatened only by Kate Moss’s even skinnier aesthetic, and “body positivity’’ was years away from becoming part of the vernacular — Americans hadn’t even collectively agreed to celebrate Jennifer Lopez’s butt. Sex and the City’s 1998 debut felt revolutionary because, at that time, women who grounded their power in the pursuit of pleasure and adventure were more often reviled than revered.
Before I even knew what the male gaze was, I sensed that the Two Fat Ladies couldn’t care any less about it. Female characters whose size and exuberance did not prevent them from taking delight in food, sex, and travel felt revolutionary to me.
In 1999, the show came to an abrupt end when Paterson died months after being diagnosed with lung cancer. For years, scenes and snippets of its dialogue floated into my mind during nostalgic moments. Unable to find it on cable or any of the streaming services, I bought the box set in 2014, and was relieved to find its message still lands; there is no bad time to be reminded we’re all entitled to live a life that makes for good stories later on.
The show is now syndicated on the Food Network, although people without cable TV can watch somewhat haphazardly edited episodes on YouTube. A little less than 30 minutes into each episode is one of my favorite parts: the moment just before the credits roll, when the stars finally come off their feet to enjoy a cool drink and a chat while others eat their food. They never sat at the table with those lucky ones for whom they cooked; for the Two Fat Ladies, there was perhaps more freedom — and more pleasure — in being just a little bit on the outside, sprinkling fairy dust over one magical meal before disappearing in a puff of smoke.
Two Fat Ladies is available to watch on YouTube. For more recommendations from the world of culture, check out the One Good Thing archives. | 2022-04-26T18:11:06Z | www.vox.com | The Two Fat Ladies cooking show was a revolution in body positivity - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23034015/two-fat-ladies-cooking-show-body-positivity | https://www.vox.com/23034015/two-fat-ladies-cooking-show-body-positivity |
In Emily St. John Mandel’s new book Sea of Tranquility, the apocalypse is ongoing. So is life.
Share All sharing options for: The author of Station Eleven wrote a new pandemic novel
Sea of Tranquility by Emily St. John Mandel.
In 2014, Emily St. John Mandel published Station Eleven, her bestselling novel about a pandemic. Which meant that in 2020, she acquired a peculiar sort of status as one of the ones who saw it coming, somehow; what Vox’s Alissa Wilkinson called one of the plague prophets.
Station Eleven wasn’t really about its pandemic, though; that was just the plot engine that got Mandel to her artsy post-apocalyptic world of traveling Shakespeare companies, beautifully rendered in the recent HBO Max TV adaptation. Mandel’s latest book, Sea of Tranquility, is a true pandemic novel. It exists to try to grapple with the world the Covid-19 pandemic made and what the pandemic taught us about reality. The results are lovely, life-affirming, and occasionally but unmistakably clumsy.
Sea of Tranquility also exists to play, metatextually, with what it was like to be Emily St. John Mandel in 2020. One of the central characters is Olive Llewellyn, an author in the 23rd century who lives on the moon and has found herself abruptly famous after her book about a fictional pandemic is a big hit. She’s on book tour — this section cheekily titled “The Last Book Tour on Earth” — when she finds herself caught up in another pandemic, this one real.
Abruptly, Olive’s universe narrows itself: long days indoors, trying to work while simultaneously educating her child from home, her book tour gone virtual. She finds herself delivering holographic lectures on the great uptick of interest in postapocalyptic literature over the past decade.
“So I’m guessing I’m not the first to ask you what it’s like to be the author of a pandemic novel during a pandemic,” one journalist remarks.
As Olive shuts herself indoors, Mandel spirals her narrative focus outward and across time. In 1912, we meet Edwin St. John St. Andrew, 18 years old and “double-sainted,” who finds himself exiled out of England and into Canada after sharing his lightly anti-colonialist views at his viscount father’s dinner table. Edwin will shortly find himself in the trenches of World War I, and shortly after that staring down a flu epidemic. In January 2020 we touch base with Mirella, the victim of a Madoff-like Ponzi scheme. (Mirella appears in Mandel’s 2020 novel Glass Hotel, but you don’t need to have read Glass Hotel for Sea of Tranquility to work.) In all those timelines, we encounter the mysterious Gaspery-Jacques Roberts, and in 2401, we enter into his head to find out his side of the story.
Gaspery and the looming threat of disease and destruction bring Sea of Tranquility together. All of Mandel’s characters find themselves living through a version of the apocalypse, a moment in time that seems as though it might plausibly be the end of days. (Gaspery’s plotline, which revolves around the simulation hypothesis, involves a threat to the fabric of reality itself.) “We might reasonably think about the end of the world,” Olive says during one of her lectures, “as a continuous and never-ending process.”
The project of Sea of Tranquility is about finding meaning and beauty within a world that is constantly dying, about relishing a life that seems always on the cusp of awful and irrevocable change. In this it mirrors the appeal of Station Eleven, which imagined that even after the apocalypse, art and beauty and pleasure would matter. Here, Mandel’s prose is shot through with moments of unexpected lyricism that seem to mirror this project, that take you by surprise with their limpid sweetness.
Olive on her book tour walks through “the Sheep Meadow at twilight: silvery light, wet leaves on the grass.” During a spaceflight off of Earth, “the atmosphere turned thin and blue, the blue shaded into indigo, and then — it was like slipping through the skin of a bubble — there was black space.” Gaspery, who lives under the artificial atmosphere of a moon colony, walks home through the rain with pleasure. “I’ve always loved rain,” he says, “and knowing that it isn’t coming from clouds doesn’t make me love it less.”
The loveliness of Mandel’s sentences, though, stands in jarring contrast to the clumsiness of her plotting. The different sections of this novel are linked by a time travel mystery, and the mystery’s resolution, which forms the emotional fulcrum of this novel, is so pat and clichéd that if I were to describe even just the setup in this review, you would know immediately how it all worked out.
Still, it’s also true that Mandel really is extremely good at writing prose. And the larger project of Sea of Tranquility feels, in the long and fraught ebb of the pandemic, both nourishing and needed. The world is always ending, this book says, and there is always beauty to be found in it. | 2022-04-26T18:11:12Z | www.vox.com | Sea of Tranquility review: Emily St. John Mandel returns to the pandemic - Vox | https://www.vox.com/culture/23032674/sea-of-tranquility-review-emily-st-john-mandel | https://www.vox.com/culture/23032674/sea-of-tranquility-review-emily-st-john-mandel |
Share All sharing options for: A day in the life of a professional Twitter flirt
Rosie Nguyen
For Rosie Nguyen, flirting with her Twitter mutuals is all part of the job. Nguyen, better known by her online persona @JasmineRiceGirl, is the co-founder and CMO of Fanhouse, an OnlyFans-meets-Patreon platform for creators to monetize their followings. She’s also an influencer, which can involve anything from singing to her Twitch subscribers to posting about her bowel movements.
There are less-fun parts, too. As a woman who tweets about being horny and other topics that fall under the general umbrella of “hot girl culture,” Nguyen regularly receives creepy DMs, unsolicited dick pics, and even “hate raids,” which is apparently a thing when a bunch of people swarm your Twitch stream to say vile things about you. The 24-year-old is still figuring it all out. “There used to be a weird tension between my internet persona and my professional life,” she says over a recent Zoom call, “but I’m really starting to embrace those weird overlaps.” Here’s how Nguyen spent her April 20th online (sans weed), in her own words:
I try to wake up around 9 am. I’ll usually straight-up spend an hour on my phone before I move or do anything — I don’t know how people have the energy to get up right after waking up. I scroll through Twitter and see people clowning on the person who complained about the “emotional labor” of parenting children. I didn’t comment on it because it’s not my business, but I hope the kids are okay.
It’s one of those things that you’ll only know if you live on Twitter. My roommates don’t know anything about it, so then I have to give them the full context and what everyone is saying and I’m just like, “This is so interesting that I just have all this information in my brain, every day.”
After my hour of doomscrolling, I use the Headspace app and meditate for 10 minutes. I’m never as consistent with it as I wish I was, but one more meditation is better than none?
I have a meeting with my marketing team and take my ADHD medication, which I should have taken earlier when I woke up but I forgot. I feel like a lot of content creators tend to have ADHD, because being online is one of those things that really work with it — you have these constant notifications keeping your attention.
I go through my Slack notifications and reply to everything. It always feels like there are a hundred in the morning to get through.
One thing that we do at Fanhouse that’s really important to me is protect creators from harassment and leaks. When I used to be on OnlyFans, it happened a lot. There will be Reddit threads devoted to leaks from people’s accounts with disgusting comments, so we DCMA all of those. Everything on Fanhouse has a unique watermark so we know exactly who leaked it, and then we fine them. I feel like most platforms don’t care about creators unless it’s copyright infringement, but we really do care.
I take a “Fanhouse break,” which is technically work, but it’s not work. I’m the co-founder and CMO, but I’m also on Fanhouse as a creator. I post “sad sad sad sad sad” on my private feed. I’ve been feeling stressed and overwhelmed and tired and all I want to do is sleep and cry, which is kind of just what you feel sometimes. Fanhouse is the place where I put all of those shout-into-the-void feelings.
A fan comments on my post, writing “hey stinky pup” to make me feel better. I message her back and ask how she is, and then I get curious how she became a fan of mine because she’s been really supportive in the past few weeks. I have a lot of small supporters — the $5 Twitch sub, the $5 Fanhouse sub. This fan in particular has gifted, like, 120 subs in my Twitch channel (cost: about $600).
My most recent tweet was a more formal, professional one, which means that my next tweet should be a fun one. I try to keep my fun-to-work ratio on Twitter something like 9:1. I’ve had a tweet in my drafts I’ve been meaning to post, so I send it. It says, “this account is a safe space for horny women. You are loved and seen.”
this account is a safe space for horny women. you are loved and seen
— jasminericegirl (@jasminericegirl) April 20, 2022
I get a notification that my friend @akanemsko, a beautiful chess streamer, has replied to my tweet saying “I LOVE YOU JASMINE,” which makes me smile. I reply, “i love you too (i have very dexterous fingers btw).” Often when I interact with my friends on Twitter what we really do is aggressively flirt with each other. Flirting with everyone is maybe my toxic trait but it’s my favorite thing to do and it’s how I show love. I cannot tell you how much life it gives me. To my friend @chrissycostanza I comment, “my room is also a safe space for horny women btw if you would like to come over sometime.”
My computer crashes and I lose all my tabs so I’m stressed. I’m one of those people who keep tabs open for all the things I need to do and I just hope I’ll get to all of them again. Knowing me, I’ll definitely forget something unless it pops up in front of my face. ADHD life.
I use my phone when I poop. That’s the only way to poop. It was my third poop of the day, so I post on my Fanhouse asking if that’s normal. Someone responds that it’s impressive. Someone else responds, “women don’t poop, nice try.”
I read through more Twitter replies. A bot on Twitter informs me that my tweet was a haiku. I count the syllables to myself and confirm they are right. I think, “Wow, I am a poet and a genius.”
A lot of “thank yous” from weird dudes. I do get told gross things on Twitter sometimes. My coping mechanism as a creator is to just block anyone who makes me feel weird in any negative way.
There’s always the component of people wanting sexual things from you. I get unsolicited dick pics all the time because my account is very sex-positive and I love talking about sex. Then men will comment, “I have a boner for you” or will ask me to do sexual things with them, and that is not at all what I’m inviting. I just block and ban them.
I have to go to an event hosted by one of our investors for founders and other people in tech. I don’t love network-y tech events, and there’s no hour of the day where I go a full 60 minutes without picking up my phone, so at some point I sit down and scroll on my phone — Twitter, Instagram Stories, Fanhouse.
Finally done with events and dinner. I make the mistake of looking at my DMs and the latest is a disgustingly horny message, so I block the sender.
I usually stream on Twitch at night after dinner — I’ve been trying to become a partner on Twitch, which is sort of the Twitch version of being verified. I do “Just Chatting” streams where I talk about my day and answer questions. I’ve also been learning how to play piano since the beginning of the year, so sometimes I’ll sing. People can request songs for $3.
I wish Twitch were better at blocking people. You can ban an account, but they can still watch your streams or make new accounts, so the harassment sometimes feels endless. Hate raids are a big thing, too: A ton of people at once will call you slurs, and the only way to get away from it is to end the stream. But tonight, my friend messages me on Discord because they need another player on Valorant, so I do that instead.
I try to have a rule where I get off my PC by 11 pm, but I don’t follow it. I usually scroll my phone while brushing my teeth — I can’t remember a day where I brush my teeth without using my phone. It’s like when you take a dump without your phone and you feel bored and empty.
At midnight I play the new Wordle and then spend another hour on my phone and check more replies to my tweet. It got about 7,000 likes, which is pretty good engagement for my account. These silly tweets are my content, my art, in a sense, so it’s sort of like if I did this painting that I was kind of proud of and my friends being like, “This is a beautiful painting!” Except it’s a horny tweet.
Total screen time: 6 hours, 47 minutes | 2022-04-26T18:11:24Z | www.vox.com | A day in the life of a professional Twitter flirt - Vox | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23037735/rosie-nguyen-jasmine-rice-girl-fanhouse | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23037735/rosie-nguyen-jasmine-rice-girl-fanhouse |
The president’s support among Gen Z and millennials is collapsing. Why?
Share All sharing options for: Joe Biden’s young voter problem
Student loan borrowers hold signs about student debt at a gathering outside the White House on January 13.
President Joe Biden has a young voter problem.
If you look at just about any poll from the last year, the president’s support among Americans aged 18-34 has dropped significantly. The decline has been worse among young people of color, and like the country in general, young Americans’ dissatisfaction with him is growing.
The drop isn’t that surprising. Young Americans never really loved Biden, and they think he’s broken a lot of his campaign pledges. They’re also still recovering from two of the most disruptive years in American history.
The youngest of these voters came of political age isolated, away from school and friends, uncertain of their job and school prospects, and unsure of whom to trust. The oldest are saddled with student loan and credit card debt, unable to purchase homes, and priced out of metropolitan areas. They’ve seen life get more expensive, inflation outpace their raises, and their labor become less valuable.
Many were already tuned out of politics. Now, they’ve seen one political party fail to act on the generational change they expected, and another radicalize against democracy. Together, these factors represent a growing tide of disillusionment with electoral politics and dissatisfaction with the status quo.
With midterms around the corner, this dissatisfaction could drag Democratic candidates already expected to struggle (the president’s party historically does poorly in midterms) down further. Young voters are an especially important group for Democrats: They delivered Biden’s biggest margins in 2020, a year that saw half of them turn out (an 11 percentage-point increase from 2016), including in battleground states that will feature competitive races.
After numerous conversations with activists, advocacy groups, organizers, pollsters, and young people, three theories have emerged that attempt to unify the various strains of the youth’s discontent with Biden specifically, and Democrats generally: frustration with the lack of progressive policy successes, concern about the state of the economy, and disenchantment with government due to leaders’ chaotic response to the pandemic.
Biden started off his term with a respectable level of support from Americans aged 18-34. Polling from Gallup and data the progressive research firm Navigator assembled for Vox both placed his support among youth in the 60 percent range just after his inauguration. And the president’s support was decent even in the surveys with Biden’s worst youth numbers, like those conducted by Quinnipiac and Civiqs, which showed 44 percent and 49 percent support, respectively.
But since, Biden’s approval rating has plunged in every one of those polls’ tracking: by 13 points (Navigator), 21 points (Civiqs), or 23 points (Gallup and Quinnipiac).
The decline has been steady in the last year, broadly, and worse when looking at young Black or Latino Americans’ perceptions; it stands in stark contrast to Biden’s support among the oldest voters, which remains steady. And as the Washington Post’s Philip Bump wrote about Gallup’s data, the drops in Biden’s Gen Z and millennial support overlap with his losses among non-white Americans and independents, both of whom make up significant portions of this younger age cohort, “so a bigger decline in support from Black and Hispanic adults is going to show up more in younger groups.”
For now, Biden’s youth problem is still reversible, Dakota Hall, the executive director of the political advocacy group Alliance for Youth Action, told me: “I would say we’re not in the danger zone but we’re fastly approaching it.”
What can Biden do about that? Address these three (sometimes overlapping) reasons for his diminishing support:
1) Some young voters want Biden to be more progressive
Ask an activist or advocacy group focused on politically engaging young people about Biden’s polling, and you’ll hear a similar refrain: Biden was never a popular president among young people, and his inability to keep several of the bold and dramatic promises he made during the 2020 presidential primaries are to blame.
Some of those promises require Congress’s action, something an evenly divided Senate has made difficult for Biden. But young voters believe that many of the things they’d like to see Biden do, such as forgiving some student debt and declaring a climate emergency, could be accomplished in part by executive action. According to reporting by the Washington Post, Biden is exploring the idea of canceling at least some of that debt by executive order. He reportedly may continue to extend a pause on student loan payments until a final decision is made, likely before the end of August.
Young voters, however, don’t want Biden to think about getting rid of debt. They want him to do it.
“They feel they are let down in this moment, due to [Biden’s] lack of executive action, and changes that young people care about, namely, the student debt crisis, and the failure to eliminate and eradicate some student loan debt,” Hall, of the Alliance for Youth Action, told me. “The continuation of the delays, while providing economic relief to some young Americans, it’s not enough. It’s not what they voted for.”
About a third of young Americans have student debt, according to the Education Data Initiative, and the Biden administration’s recent extension of the pause on payments has broad support.
Though he never promised to unilaterally cancel all student loan debt, the president supported congressional action to forgive up to $10,000 of it. Progressive members of Congress and activists, in turn, have asked him to consider an executive order by reinterpreting the Higher Education Act to grant the secretary of education authority to “release” loans.
That legal debate remains murky and untested. Nevertheless, many youth voters want Biden to at least try: In the Alliance for Youth Action’s polling with Civiqs, nearly two-thirds of young people support Biden’s student loan actions so far, and 35 percent want full debt cancellation; that number rises to 50 percent among young Democrats.
The Civiqs data also suggests that simply canceling student debt might not solve Biden’s problem with youth. Pollsters found about a third of young Americans oppose any action on student loan forgiveness. Only young Democrats support complete loan forgiveness by large margins; more than a third of young independents and 75 percent of young Republicans oppose any forgiveness.
But progressives also argue that student debt isn’t the only reason that has young voters abandoning Biden. Youth activists and organizers pointed to inaction on other progressive priorities, like comprehensive immigration reform, gun control, and downsized climate efforts in the bipartisan infrastructure law — as well as failed attempts at passing voting rights, criminal justice, and policing reforms.
2) The economy’s not great, and young voters blame Biden
Inflation is the top concern of most Americans today — and that includes young Americans.
The current inflationary spike is the first time many millennials and Gen Zers are confronting this kind of economy. Coupled with rising rent, debt, and ultra-hot housing markets in the country’s 20 largest metropolitan areas, the current affordability crisis is hitting young people especially hard: In part due to the last recession, millennials were already a lost generation financially, and Gen Zers both graduating into a recession and dealing with a pandemic economy saw higher rates of job instability, causing them to dip into their savings more than older generations.
When the economy roared back in 2021, many young people felt respite: Their purchasing power increased, and their spending rose as well. But inflation, and dissatisfaction with capitalism, caught up.
Gen Z and millennials were more willing to switch jobs and career paths during the Great Resignation, seeking better pay and flexibility — only to see rising costs eat away at that progress. In metro areas, pandemic-induced rent relief and discounts disappeared; prospective homebuyers have been priced out of markets; and a growing number of Americans, especially young people, live in multi-generational households now, in part because of financial constraints. Today’s consensus is that young people are having a harder time saving money, paying for college, and buying a home.
“They have real deep economic anxiety and pain in this moment,” Cristina Tzintzún Ramirez, the president of the liberal youth-vote organization NextGen America, told me. “Many young people feel worried about the future. Young American adults are the first generation in American history to be worse off than their parents.”
Some of that economic hardship has also crystallized into dissatisfaction with a society centered around capitalism and work, especially on social media, as my colleague Terry Nguyen has written. Gen Z especially “has adopted more anti-capitalist language to express these discontents,” Nguyen writes, and that could translate into a rejection of capitalist figures like Biden — and America’s current economic order. Whether it translates into political action or voting may become clear this year.
Overall, for young voters, as with older voters, the president, as the country’s most visible leader, and head of the party in power, is the default object of economic fears and they don’t think he’s doing enough to address affordability.
3) A poorly managed pandemic eroded trust in the government
Two years into the coronavirus pandemic, no one knows exactly what’s happening. Are cases up? It might depend on where you live, but even the way governments track risk and reality has changed.
Biden has suggested Americans learn to live with the coronavirus, even as cases once again begin to rise. By prematurely declaring a “summer of freedom,” getting out ahead of the CDC on boosters, and telling people masking is now “up to them,” he muddled the image of a unified government approach.
That’s not to say Biden completely failed on the pandemic — his administration has overseen a fairly successful mass vaccination campaign, distributed free rapid tests, and has revamped efforts to increase access to antiviral medicines. Still, young people have seen deaths and illnesses in their families, have experienced the dysfunction of American health care, and faced incredible disruptions during key years of early adulthood. Those lost months delayed key life moments and transitions, uprooted friendships, and turned Gen Z into the loneliest generation.
In 2020, pandemic chaos helped fuel a historic jump in young voters’ participation in electoral politics, with record numbers of young people turning out to vote against Donald Trump. Part of Biden’s pitch was a promise to get the virus under control and return to normal — and until the delta and omicron variants hit, a quick end to the pandemic seemed plausible. But things went downhill around the time Biden promised Americans would be able to declare victory by 2021’s Fourth of July.
Instead, young people saw massive failures by government leaders to provide clear guidance and sensical rule-making. Variants diminished the gleam of vaccines, more people contracted the virus than ever, and young people lost trust in institutions to handle everything from big-picture recommendations on masking and vaccines, to localized decisions about closing schools and ending college semesters early, quarantining and testing regimens, and how hard to police social life.
At the national level, the president began to shift the tone of the federal response from a more communitarian effort to care for each other and get vaccinated, to leaving everyone to fend for themselves. The result is malaise, confusion, and dissatisfaction with Biden’s performance.
The vibes are off
These three explanations have a lot of overlap and all speak to a sense of frustration with Democrats, America’s system of government, and political parties, and fear about being worse off than older generations.
They also describe a cohort of voters who are not apathetic or disengaged from politics, but rather tuned in to current events — even if they don’t follow all of the policy debates in Washington or know about each mechanism that limits government action. Broadly, they appear to pin blame for the country’s status quo on the president in power.
Underlying that takeaway is a sense of disappointment, and even betrayal. A pandemic that threatened their lives and a president who threatened their futures brought youth out to vote in 2020, but they have felt cheated by social, economic, and political developments since.
“We keep being told that something better is coming,” Rahhel Haile, the executive director of the Minnesota Youth Collective, told me. “With Joe Biden, it was ‘Oh, this is going to be better than Trump,’ and the approach is the lesser of two evils. And people are dissatisfied with that, and want a leader that can actually change things and can actually think about the precariousness of the future of a young person’s life.”
Some of this isn’t Biden’s fault — what his administration can accomplish is limited by the Senate filibuster, how House seats are distributed, internal party dynamics, the federal judiciary’s composition, and checks on executive action. That doesn’t matter to the most idealistic, progressive young people who want their conditions improved, however.
It may be that there’s little Biden can do to win over the most progressive young voters. But that doesn’t mean he can’t win back the youth in general: This cohort of voters is not as monolithic as they are often described.
They tend to not identify with a political party — identifying more commonly with social issues like climate action and marijuana legalization — and though they’re more liberal than other generations, are still more moderate ideologically than many leaders claim. The student loan debate shows this divide: Though the most progressive wing of young voters back loan forgiveness, about a third of young people still oppose it.
Biden still has the support of the most ardent liberal young Democrats, who are willing to back his current agenda in part due to identifying with his party. However, he’s bleeding support among young independents and Republicans, both moderate and conservative, who might prioritize the government addressing economic worries right now, but see no action and feel ignored.
Given recent court rulings and the collapse of Biden’s Build Back Better plan in Congress, it’s useful to ask if the country is entering an era when presidents will also forever be stymied by courts and narrow congressional majorities — worsening the appearance that government can not be a force for progress or improving material conditions, and giving young people less of a reason to trust political leaders who invoke the language of hope, change, and a moral battle.
Pollsters and activists told me Biden’s decline doesn’t have to be an irreversible trend, and that the governing party still has time to tackle inflation, affordability, debt, and the pandemic before young voters refuse to change their minds.
If Democrats fail to do so, some of the pollsters I spoke with said this dissatisfaction has a real chance of going beyond lower Democratic turnout and into active vote-switching in midterm elections. That could intensify the risk Democrats already face of being locked out of power for the next decade, a situation that could hurt young voters as well, as GOP control of Congress would likely only hinder the very reforms and changes many young people want. | 2022-04-27T18:34:38Z | www.vox.com | How Joe Biden lost young voters - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23042037/joe-biden-young-voters-disapprove-progressive-gen-z | https://www.vox.com/23042037/joe-biden-young-voters-disapprove-progressive-gen-z |
Selling Sunset and the irresistible allure of Barbie-on-Barbie pettiness.
Share All sharing options for: Selling Sunset is fantastical, absurdist office drama
Christine Quinn and Chelsea Lazkani on Selling Sunset are ready to sell some sunsets.
In the world of Selling Sunset, very beautiful women do most of the business of selling multimillion-dollar homes for an entity known as the Oppenheim Group, a real estate firm owned by twin bald men.
These women run that business in heels that are not made for running, though some have said they could sprint in their towering heels if needed. That’s all hypothetical, though, since they’re never in a rush, never pressed for time, never stuck in traffic in their expensive candy-colored cars. They move effortlessly between Hollywood Hills estates and their impeccable office, wearing very beautiful outfits — short pencil skirts that seem risky to sit in, puffed royal sleeves, sparkly sharp sequins, monogrammed trench coats, skinny suits — that are never repeated.
Created by Adam DiVello, the man who gave us the hall-of-fame fake reality show The Hills, Selling Sunset sparked itself to life in 2019. It was initially billed as giving us an authentic peek into the sun-soaked universe of high-end Los Angeles real estate — a sphere of existence hidden from normies who don’t have enough money to access it.
But the show made a self-aware turn into a fantasy office drama, and it’s incredible TV. The pressure to sell these massively expensive homes has all but vaporized, and no one is really that keen on being the top seller of sunsets at Oppenheim. Instead, the show offers a heightened look at what happens at work when most of the average worker’s concerns — money, stability, even professional goals — disappear, and the beautiful and poreless can instead focus on their allies and their very, very annoying enemies.
It’s in this mode that Selling Sunset becomes something cannily accessible.
While the average person might not be dressed in designer down to their socks or zip around Los Angeles talking about closing deals, normal people in all sorts of careers do engage in pettiness for all sorts of reasons, including fostering alliances (studies have shown that gossip can bring people closer together), alleviating boredom, and the sheer enjoyment of cooperative complaining. It’s only natural that a show that invites you to partake in glossy workplace drama is absurdly irresistible.
At the center of Selling Sunset is protagonist Chrishell Stause. The name Chrishell is a portmanteau, created by Chrishell’s mom to honor a gas station (Shell) and a gas station attendant (Chris) who helped her during her unexpected delivery.
Chrishell began on the show as an actress who’s brand new to real estate, a Nick Carraway in this Gatsbian Malibu Barbie world. Chrishell spends a lot of time in the first seasons learning how to sell mansions, but more importantly, getting along with the rest of the agents and assimilating into the fantastic plastic life of luxury real estate merchants.
As she learns, we learn too.
When she has to make alliances within the office, we find out which agents will be the easiest to win over. When she starts to speak in real estate agent, we pick up the differences between the Valley, the Hills, and Calabasas. When she has to wear pumps, we know which ones will go with her outfit.
The tension of the early seasons is whether Chrishell’s winsome, sunny attitude will be enough to succeed at Oppenheim. Any suspense is extremely minimal, however, because Chrishell is one of the show’s two main characters. The show would not go on without her, and she receives what is known in the reality show world as “an extremely favorable edit.”
Chrishell’s diametric opposite is Christine Quinn, an icy veteran at Oppenheim. Christine’s candid approach to her own artificiality makes her arguably the show’s realest character. She freely admits that she got her breasts done and that the Botox in her face makes it slightly difficult to emote. If people aren’t as forthcoming about their own fakeness as she is, Christine posits, then they must have something to hide.
Chrishell, with her organic earnestness and free-range sunniness, perturbs Christine. Christine’s territorial nature and gossip-laundering bug Chrishell.
The first couple of seasons of the show wrapped Chrishell and Christine’s antagonistic dynamic around the premise of real estate-related competition. Whoever could sell the most sunsets, I guess. Early on, the show framed Christine’s numerous listings as an assertion of dominance and Chrishell’s closings as small victories, signs that she would one day rival Christine’s success. The tension was pinned on who could make more money.
But as the show progressed, the producers and people behind the camera, and perhaps Chrishell and Christine themselves, began to abandon the charade that the show is about selling homes and lean into the superior, soapy office drama about two coworkers who would like nothing more than the other one to die. The overarching storyline over the past two seasons is that Christine can’t stop talking to the press about Chrishell’s love life, following the end of Chrishell’s marriage to This Is Us actor Justin Hartley.
The fight between Chrishell and Christine splits most of the remaining employees at Oppenheim into two camps. Heather and Mary, who are slightly interchangeable and tired of Christine’s queen bee status, gravitate toward Chrishell. Davina, a terminally sour human, becomes Christine’s henchwoman for a couple of seasons before switching sides. Chelsea, a new recruit this season, slides into Davina’s old role and terrorizes Davina for being disloyal. Amanza, who is disinterested in selling homes and good at reality television, and Maya, who is good at selling homes but disinterested in reality television, float in the middle. Emma, who owns an empanada empire but still sells homes, and didn’t date Ben Affleck, fails to distinguish herself at all.
Thankfully, there is no HR department at Oppenheim, and because Selling Sunset is a television show, these very beautiful women just sort of exist to be mean to each other and never really get in trouble.
Christine and Chelsea are very beautiful, but they probably have kompromat on you.
A darkly hilarious recurring conceit this season — that perfectly summarizes the trivial rudeness of their work relationships — is the desk assignments. Christine’s desk was given away during maternity leave, and there’s a mess about who’s sitting where when she returns. The women who don’t like Christine hem and haw, and it’s all sort of relatable because moving desks is a pain — all those cords, phones, monitors, computers, papers, everything that’s stuffed into drawers. It’s especially annoying if you’re moving to accommodate someone who doesn’t like you. The women talk about the act as an ordeal, an arduous chore that would take all day. After much complaining, the dust settles and deeply forgettable Emma tells her coworkers that she will be the bigger person and “move” desks.
She huffs. She puffs. Then she just folds her laptop up and takes five steps to her new desk.
Clack. Clack. Clack.
Just because these women aren’t particularly concerned with being the best seller on the show, it’d be a grievous mistake to say that the show is completely devoid of ambition. Plenty of reality television stars have parlayed their fame into becoming celebrities. Think about the Kardashians, or the stars of DiVello’s previous big hit The Hills. Selling Sunset’s agents aren’t outliers. I’d wager that they have a keen eye on parlaying their show personalities into real-life stardom, and knowing that adds a glorious layer of self-awareness to the show. They’re in on their joke, the camp of dressing up like Barbie dolls, never eating at their endless lunches, and throwing their heels into every clack.
In doing so, they’ve heightened petty drama to absurdist proportions just for our enjoyment. It’s the joy of office politics and eavesdropping without actually being in that dysfunctional office. They’re meaner and prettier than we’ll ever be, and somehow have turned committing OSHA violations on their coworkers into full-time jobs. I hope they’re getting paid handsomely to do so.
Give them raises. Give them the world. Selling Sunset is perfect and I can’t look away. | 2022-04-27T18:34:45Z | www.vox.com | In season 5, Selling Sunset becomes fantastical, absurdist office drama - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23042703/selling-sunset-season-5-review-christine-quinn-chrishell-stause | https://www.vox.com/23042703/selling-sunset-season-5-review-christine-quinn-chrishell-stause |
Blaming Manchin might be the path of least resistance.
Share All sharing options for: Can the expanded child tax credit come back from the dead?
Parents and children celebrate new monthly Child Tax Credit payments and urge congress to make them permanent outside Senator Schumer’s home on July 12, 2021, in Brooklyn, New York.
Bryan Bedder/Getty Images for ParentsTogether
Advocates for an expanded child tax credit (CTC) did not expect to be in this situation.
A year ago, when Congress passed an expanded version of the policy that’s been around with bipartisan backing since 1997, some 35 million parents across the US began to see hundreds of dollars land in their bank accounts every month — money that they could spend however they saw fit.
Economists and policy experts hailed the program, which, passed as part of Biden’s pandemic relief package, gave families the resources to buy household essentials like food, gas, and educational supplies. Researchers found little evidence that the new payments had discouraged parents from working, a perennial concern from opponents of welfare assistance. Within just six months, researchers estimated the expanded CTC payments had reduced the child poverty rate by 30 percent.
The new policy wasn’t perfect — even the expanded program wasn’t reaching America’s poorest parents, and about 1 million people opted out to avoid a smaller refund or higher tax bill come April. But the more robust CTC nevertheless led to a stunning drop in poverty, a long-term crisis that leaders often describe as intractable.
Yet, as Senate Democrats debated President Joe Biden’s $1.8 trillion spending package, the Build Back Better Act, December came and went, and with it the deadline to extend the expanded CTC. By January, the monthly payments expired, just as inflation was inching up. Though the CTC was only funded for one year, Democrats had been optimistic that if they could just seed the generous program, then they would amass the kind of political support that makes a popular subsidy hard to repeal.
“We were shocked,” said Otis Rolley, a senior vice president at the Rockefeller Foundation, who has been leading a coalition of groups to support the policy. “We really did think as American families were getting this credit, we really thought that December would come around and, based on the desire of their constituents, this would be made permanent.”
Democratic leadership could not reach a compromise with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) that would address his concerns about the child tax credit. Moreover, Democrats weren’t willing to separate the CTC from Build Back Better to negotiate it independently, seeing it as important leverage to the broader package. BBB talks collapsed in December; the White House’s disconnect with Manchin overextending the CTC played a major role.
Now, four months later, the window to save the expanded CTC has narrowed. Manchin seems to be souring on a Democrats-only bill passed through the budget reconciliation process. And there are competing priorities on the congressional to-do list — including more Ukraine assistance and a China competition bill — to get through before summer recess and the midterm elections.
Among CTC advocates both outside and within Congress, there’s a quiet, almost paralyzing crisis playing out these days behind the scenes: Should they keep pushing for an expansion that meets all their top criteria, and fight for every child, or do they make clear what they’d be willing to compromise on and hopefully get something through reconciliation or on a bipartisan basis?
In the fall and winter, advocates took a hard line — there was no appetite to negotiate over a less ambitious CTC. One leader involved in a large coalition of groups mobilizing for the CTC, who requested anonymity for fear of getting his organization booted from the coalition, told Vox their fellow activists erred, making “a giant miscalculation that we had nothing to lose if we held out for more.”
“Because we couldn’t help everybody at once, we’re helping nobody,” they added.
In addition to the practical time constraints, congressional leaders, Biden, and even CTC advocates are now struggling to act, or even grapple with how political conditions have changed since December. Republicans, for their part, have little interest in helping Democrats ahead of the midterms, and as much as Democrats and activists say the expiration of the CTC payments presents an urgent political crisis, they also face incentives that encourage them to do nothing.
To insist their hands are tied and it’s all Manchin’s fault, it turns out, is the path of least resistance.
Can CTC advocates pivot?
It’s worth understanding how negotiations over the important program broke down last year because many of the dynamics haven’t changed.
In November 2021, the House of Representatives passed Biden’s $1.8 trillion BBB package, which included a one-year expansion of the CTC. But in the Senate, Manchin raised three main objections that held up the legislation.
Sen. Joe Manchin speaks during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee meeting in the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, on April 26.
Jim Lo Scalzo/Getty Images
The first: The West Virginia senator opposed the number of affluent families who could claim the credit (an upper income limit of $400,000 set originally by Republicans). He also disliked the one-year extension proposal, rightfully suspecting many of its backers wanted to make the CTC permanent down the road, and he worried about that cost. Perhaps most significantly, Manchin made clear that he wanted to reinstate a work requirement for the CTC, something hotly opposed by many Democrats who recognized this would once again exclude some of the poorest households from claiming the credit’s full value.
Coming back from the winter holiday, leading Senate supporters of the expanded child tax credit vowed to keep fighting, insisting a path through reconciliation was still there. Yet it was clear the fight, at the very least, had changed. Manchin previously indicated he was open to a deal on BBB between $1.5 trillion and $1.8 trillion, but since he opposed including temporary provisions, Democrats had to wrestle with the fact that a decade expansion of the CTC could eat up at least $1.4 trillion of their wiggle room.
Biden began signaling that his hopes had dimmed on Congress passing a CTC extension through reconciliation, which would require all 50 Democrats to pass. In a January press conference, the president said he was confident “we can get pieces — big chunks — of the Build Back Better” package signed into law, but conspicuously omitted mention of the CTC as one of those pieces.
Yet Biden resisted declaring his CTC vision dead. This has allowed many advocates to cling to the belief that it’s in fact alive. In some ways it’s a shrewd tactic from the president; if Biden did come out and say what most experts believe at this point to be true, he could face intense criticism from his base for giving up or failing.
Indeed, there have been dozens of state, local, and national groups organizing for the expanded child tax credit — some through coalitions like the aforementioned Rockefeller-led one, and through another called the ABC Coalition, led by the national Children’s Defense Fund. For the last year these umbrella groups have largely adopted the same strategy: Hold the line on maximal inclusion for poor and non-working families, spread awareness about the research studies showing the CTC reforms made a meaningful difference in 2021, and ramp up pressure tactics on Manchin, like highlighting how many children — including some 50,000 from West Virginia — could slip into poverty without the extension.
Plus, new polls were coming out that showed not reinstating the payments could hurt Democrats politically. One Morning Consult/Politico poll, released in February, found that 75 percent of voters who received the expanded credit said the halted payments affected their financial security. Another survey released by the left-leaning Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative found that likely voters had lost trust in Democrats to support families with children when they heard the expanded CTC had expired.
Armed with all this data, advocates maintained, Manchin would surely come around. But as April nears its end, negotiations over a new reconciliation bill have yet to even start. Within the advocacy coalitions, some have started to quietly grumble that maybe it’s time to rethink their strategy for the first time in over a year.
But groups that break from the consensus position do so at their own risk. In early February, Patrick Gaspard, the president of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, published a memo where he dared to say the quiet part out loud: “It is abundantly clear that the Build Back Better Act that passed the House has no path to becoming law,” he wrote. Still, Gaspard argued, it’s not too late to get something meaningful through, and he outlined three areas — lowering health care costs, tackling the climate crisis, and lowering child care expenses through investments like universal pre-K — as places where lawmakers could likely agree to a deal. The CTC was notably not listed. “Let’s be disciplined, pass a package where there is a way forward,” Gaspard wrote.
While the Center for American Progress had been an active member of the ABC Coalition for the last year, following Gaspard’s memo, the coalition voted to boot the think tank from their group. In a March email reviewed by Vox, their steering committee wrote “while members are free to advocate for outside priorities and even alternative child allowance proposals, we determined that CAP’s decision to put their full weight behind a legislative plan that forecloses the possibility of extending the CTC violated this coalition’s working agreement.”
The ABC Coalition did not return requests for comment, but Seth Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told me they didn’t mean to say they should stop fighting for a child tax credit. “The purpose of the memo was the sharpen Democrats’ focus and essentially say don’t fumble this opportunity that exists,” he said.
Local DC residents join a rally in front of the US Capitol on December 13, 2021, to urge passage of the Build Back Better legislation that would have extended the expanded child tax credit that expired on January 15.
Chuck Marr, the vice president for Federal Tax Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, another liberal think tank, told me advocates like him should stay focused on a potential Senate reconciliation bill to pass some type of expanded CTC. “Making laws is always uncertain,” Marr said. “You want to explore any possible path to provide this crucial support that will help low-income families … [and] first, you should pursue the immediate path as aggressively as you can. If you don’t get it then look at other strategies.”
It’s ultimately about elected leadership, not activists
If advocates really want to pass reforms to the child tax credit, some within the CTC coalitions have quietly suggested their groups clarify what compromises they’d be willing to accept, and make clear to lawmakers that they’d publicly support those who fought for such compromises.
These were lessons learned by environmental and health care advocates who came close to passing universal health coverage under President Bill Clinton and cap-and-trade under President Barack Obama, only for it to end in a massive defeat. One CTC advocate, speaking on the condition of anonymity, observed that since the broad “care coalition” that has mobilized over the last few years for policies including the CTC, universal home care, universal pre-K, and paid family leave has never really experienced a comparable legislative defeat, they’ve never had to critically reflect on their strategy.
“Defeat sharpens the mind,” they said. “Rather than figure out how to do a work requirement that was tiny enough that you could get the most amount of families covered, they’ve instead insisted on doing pressure tactics that we’ve seen do not work with Manchin.” The advocate said this dynamic speaks to progressives’ “obsession with getting the language perfect rather than getting the policy changed.” Allowing Manchin to tell his largely conservative constituents that he was restoring a work requirement, for example, could give Democrats room to then craft the tiniest work requirement possible.
Most organizations say it’s simply not their job to advocate a compromise — that they should push for the most inclusive policy for as long as they can. And to an extent, it certainly makes sense why predominantly progressive groups would not be willing to entertain, let alone craft, a settlement deal.
While most compromise proposals would keep the new monthly payments for at least 80 percent of beneficiaries, the families with the lowest incomes that likely would have been hit are largely represented by these advocacy organizations.
Activists are completely right that it’s the job of elected officials to negotiate an agreement, though the reality is that Democrats will face less backlash from advocacy groups if they don’t reach a deal with Manchin than if they do. Any pared-down deal will inevitably be blasted by allies, and the message senators are hearing from activists is to hold the line.
One of the few advocacy groups that have been pushing for a compromise has been Humanity Forward, founded as an offshoot of Andrew Yang’s presidential campaign.
Greg Nasif, the group’s political director, told me he thinks that while lawmakers who negotiate a compromise would at first “face resistance” from activists and members within their party, “in the long term they would be celebrated for finding a way to get this program restarted.”
It’s also possible that it’s too late for a deal to be struck through reconciliation. Though Samantha Runyon, a spokesperson for Manchin, told me her boss “continues to support policies that reward hard-working families as the effects of costly inflation taxes strain their budgets,” she also said Manchin believes “any change to our social safety nets should move through regular order.” On Monday, Manchin met with Republicans to discuss a bipartisan energy package, raising new questions of whether a Democratic social spending bill remains on the table at all.
I asked four of the leading Democratic CTC champions in the Senate — Michael Bennet of Colorado, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Raphael Warnock of Georgia, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio — if they were prepared to push for compromises with Manchin to reach a deal, and what such compromises might look like if so.
From left, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Sens. Raphael Warnock, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown (at podium), and Michael Bennet hold a news conference at the US Capitol to talk about the benefit of the child tax credit on July 15, 2021.
Wyden was the clearest in saying yes, though he declined to get into details, citing sensitivities of the negotiations. “I’ve said since December that I would be willing to make changes to get Senator Manchin on board,” he told me. “We need his vote. There’s no way around it. There have been many conversations along those lines in an effort to make progress.”
Brown reiterated to me the importance of extending the CTC expansion to cope with rising costs. “I’ll keep working with all of my colleagues until an extension of the expanded CTC is signed into law,” he said.
Warnock’s office didn’t return a request for comment, though the senator had publicly refused the notion of a work requirement for a CTC deal back in February.
Bennet’s position — if you read between the lines — was the most revealing. While he has indicated multiple times that he’s open to lowering the CTC’s upper income threshold (one of Manchin’s priorities, and one that would mean an effective tax increase on the wealthiest beneficiaries), Bennet has continued to distance himself from Manchin’s top demand for a work requirement, and cast the West Virginia senator as the sole obstacle to an extension.
“Nothing would make me happier than doing the right thing and passing a reconciliation bill that lifts millions of children out of poverty, ” he told me. “There is an opportunity in reconciliation, but whether there are 50 votes is a real question. It is likely given that recalcitrance of some people in the caucus — or maybe one person in the caucus — that the path for a permanent solution is going to have to be bipartisan, and I’ve been having good discussions about that over many months.”
Yet a work requirement is a top condition for virtually the entire Republican caucus.
How realistic is a bipartisan deal?
Convincing just one Democrat to get on board through reconciliation seems easier than striking a deal with at least 10 or 11 Republicans, but calls to look across the aisle have grown louder in recent weeks as negotiations for a social spending bill stall. This case was made most prominently in the New York Times earlier this month by Samuel Hammond, the director of poverty and welfare policy at the Niskanen Center, a centrist think tank. Hammond argued that working on a bipartisan basis was “the most viable path forward” and that there are “plenty of reasons to believe” the bipartisanship demonstrated around the infrastructure bill could be replicated for the CTC.
Any compromise, he wrote, would need to balance Republicans’ commitment to having some connection to work and earnings with Democrats’ commitment to maximal inclusion for low-income people.
Hammond floated the idea of providing an unconditional monthly benefit to parents of young children — those parents with higher poverty rates and upfront expenses — along with a larger credit tied to work for parents of school-age children. “An unconditional child benefit for infants is unlikely to face serious Republican opposition,” he predicted.
Part of the case for bipartisan compromise is rooted in how much movement there’s been within the Republican Party on family policy over the last five years. Back in 2017, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) drew scorn from conservatives when he threatened to vote against the Trump tax bill if his party wouldn’t agree to an amendment he sponsored with Mike Lee to increase the child tax credit.
“I think people really forget the resistance to the CTC expansion in 2017,” said Wells King, the research director at American Compass, a center-right think tank. “Just go back and see what the Wall Street Journal editorial board was posting at the time, all these arguments about why we shouldn’t have specific tax breaks for families.” Wells recalled one WSJ op-ed in particular that mocked the Rubio-Lee proposal derisively, suggesting Republicans instead pursue a canine tax credit to woo millennials. “I can’t fathom that kind of piece being written in today’s political environment,” King said.
Since 2017, two more GOP family policy proposals have been introduced — from Mitt Romney and from Josh Hawley. The Republican Party has also spent much of the last year mobilizing in response to Democrats’ expanded CTC, stressing how their ideas to help families — which link benefits to work — are better than Democrats’.
Even Romney, the one Republican who made waves last year for opposing a work requirement, has changed his tune.
Sen. Mitt Romney speaks during a roundtable discussion with Republican senators and economists about Democrats’ social policy spending bill on Capitol Hill on November 30, 2021. The senators discussed the estimated price tag and long-term spending impacts of the Build Back Better legislation.
King says Republicans’ positions are backed by public opinion research. American Compass found white, college-educated Democrats were the only demographic that expressed majority support for maintaining the expanded credit with no connection to work. Focus group research of working-class parents in southeastern Ohio, Atlanta, and San Antonio yielded similar results.
Even with this kind of data, many Democrats would be loath to agree to a work requirement that could exclude the poorest, and advocacy groups would no doubt fight against one. As a result, odds are increasing that Democrats will just wait until after the midterms, when they can blame the passage of a work requirement on Republicans taking control of Congress.
The political cost of inaction
Not being able to reach a deal on the child tax credit before the midterms could make an already grim-looking situation for Democrats worse. A survey released in early April found that among parents who received the expanded CTC, 46 percent were more likely to vote for a Republican in November, compared to 43 percent likely to back a Democrat. This divide stands in stark contrast to December, before the payments expired, when Democrats held a 12-point lead among those parents.
Even among those who do think there is room for bipartisan agreement, some experts suspect it’s unlikely to happen before November.
“I know there is an appetite to see if a deal could be struck, but I’m not sure this is the right political environment with the midterms coming up,” said King, of American Compass. Another advocate with knowledge of the CTC negotiations in Congress told me Republicans are unlikely to work on any child tax credit deal until they believe that Democrats’ reconciliation efforts are dead.
Still, Hammond argued, if Biden called a Rose Garden press conference to urge Congress to pursue a bipartisan path forward on the CTC, inviting Romney and Manchin and others to stand beside him, that would certainly add pressure to lawmakers in his party. There are political tactics the president, or congressional leaders, could still try.
For now, the legislative clock is ticking, and the easiest thing for Biden and other Democrats to do might be to insist their hands are tied because of Manchin. That’s certainly the approach Biden took last Friday when, speaking at a press conference in Auburn, Washington, he said of the child tax credit — “We lack one Democrat and 50 Republicans from keeping it from passing this time around.”
This sigh-and-blame-Manchin strategy is unlikely to face blowback from the CTC advocacy community, but families struggling with rising costs may find it aggravating to see Biden and Democrats with congressional majorities effectively giving up.
A spokesperson for the White House pointed me to Biden’s remarks from January: “The president said at his press conference that he would fight for every piece of his agenda, including what may not make it into the bill, for his whole time in office.” | 2022-04-29T16:52:40Z | www.vox.com | Will there be an expanded child tax credit in 2022? - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23040707/child-tax-credit-ctc-midterms | https://www.vox.com/23040707/child-tax-credit-ctc-midterms |
Cleveland politics reporter Andrew Tobias explains why Ohio’s drama-filled GOP Senate primary isn’t just a referendum on the former president.
By Natalie Jennings Apr 29, 2022, 7:00am EDT
Share All sharing options for: Trump waded into the Ohio GOP Senate primary. But it’s not all about him.
Former President Donald Trump listens as JD Vance, an Ohio Republican candidate for US Senate, speaks during a rally at the Delaware County Fairgrounds on April 23, in Delaware, Ohio.
The Republican primary for Ohio’s open Senate seat has been full of drama as most of the five viable candidates spent months publicly and privately pandering to secure Trump’s endorsement. Because of that, the race is also being viewed as a bellwether for the strength of Donald Trump’s grip on the party.
But Andrew Tobias, a politics and statehouse reporter for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, cautions that the Ohio GOP primary won’t be as clear a referendum on Trump as it may seem. Even after venture capitalist, Hillbilly Elegy author, and former Trump critic JD Vance got Trump’s endorsement less than three weeks before the May 3 primary, “nobody’s really packing it up and going home,” Tobias said. And even though there’s plenty of evidence the endorsement made Vance the favorite, it’s still a fluid, open race.
Former state treasurer Josh Mandel, former state Republican Party chair Jane Timken, businessman Mike Gibbons, and state senator Matt Dolan are fanning out in the closing days. Trump’s endorsement has only put a bigger target on Vance’s back, and his opponents and their boosters are aiming right for it in their closing messages.
To understand how this is playing out in Ohio, I spoke to Tobias on Wednesday. He was in Grove City, a rural suburb of Columbus, where Vance was set to appear at a campaign event. Our conversation, below, has been edited for clarity.
Natalie Jennings
Two significant things have happened in this race in the last 24 hours. One is a Fox News poll out last night showing a big swing for JD Vance since their March poll. What’s your read on the state of the race and the momentum that Vance has picked up since Trump endorsed him?
Andrew Tobias
Between a lot of internal polling, the Fox News poll, and talking to the campaigns, I think it’s generally correct that Vance has gotten a surge from the endorsement. If you believe the polls, he was maybe last out of the five major candidates, and now he appears to be first. But it’s so tightly clustered that I don’t rule out the possibility that any of the five candidates may win. Obviously it’s not equally probable for all of them.
There was a lot of national interest in Vance from day one, but it was hard to really see that he was catching on for a lot of that time. Getting the Trump endorsement completely changed the dynamic of the race for him.
New @FoxNews poll of the Republican US Senate primary in Ohio.@JDVance1 takes the lead.
BUT: A plurality remain undecided. pic.twitter.com/llBdLqtVVC
How did the endorsement play among influential Republicans in the state? And voters?
The thing that the endorsement hasn’t done is clear the field. I believe that had Trump issued this endorsement a couple of months ago, you might have seen somebody like Jane Timken or whoever drop out of the race. But the fact that it happened in the middle of early voting and so close to Election Day, a lot of the campaigns looked at the numbers and said, “Hey, we can still win this.”
At the county party chair level, there’s been — it’s almost dismay. Had Trump endorsed Timken or Gibbons or Mandel, they would have accepted it. But Vance, between his past anti-Trump criticism and the lack of involvement he’s had with Ohio politics, they’re kind of scratching their heads. It’s a mixture of confusion and, honestly, some anger and dismay. Whether that actually trickles down to voters really depends on a lot of factors. But if you talk to county chairs and grassroots activists, their response has been mixed at best.
That brings me to the second big thing this morning, which is that Club for Growth released an ad that doubles down on this feud they’re having with Trump over the race. They’re backing Mandel, and in the ad they directly question Trump’s judgment. What do you make of this?
Interesting move: Josh Mandel’s backer, the Club for Growth, is now explicitly whacking Trump in their TV ads over his endorsement of JD Vance and even his endorsement of Mitt Romney (!) in 2012. pic.twitter.com/87F2tE16hw
What’s interesting is that it isn’t a contrast ad where it’s like, “JD Vance can’t be trusted but Josh Mandel is great.” It is really just hitting JD Vance. I don’t know what result it will have, but it’s very intriguing to me that a major group on the right would not only say Trump got it wrong, but even brought up Mitt Romney, which has to really sting for Trump on a personal level. It’s an escalation, an open break with the former president, just really fascinating.
The race has been so nationalized in terms of money and media attention, but what is on the mind of the primary voters?
I tend to believe that all races have gotten really heavily nationalized. In the past, you might say trade is really important in Ohio because of the history of manufacturers shutting down, or in Cincinnati, there’s the Brent Spence Bridge that is chronically being closed that goes to connect Cincinnati to Kentucky, and maybe infrastructure is important. But, when you talk to voters, inflation is really high on people’s minds. That’s not rocket science, but also cultural issues like critical race theory or transgender issues, election integrity, just kind of the buzzwords on the right. That’s the kind of stuff that you hear people talking about.
It’s tough to differentiate all the candidates from each other on those issues with the exception of Dolan, who is running the sort of Republican campaign you’d think of somebody running like 10 years ago. It’s like going into a time machine. But absent that, a lot of the candidates have been in lockstep on the types of things they’re talking about. It’s this broader cultural war that’s really not different from state to state, frankly.
Let’s talk a bit about Matt Dolan, who has called himself “the only one moving on” from Trump and who Trump has taken shots at over his family’s decision to rename the Cleveland Guardians. Some internal polls show him as competitive. Is there any reason to think he is still in the mix?
I think he has a path to victory but I would not bet money on it. The endorsement that Trump issued flattens out Gibbons and Mandel and bumps up Vance, but not to an insurmountable lead. Dolan has been running ads that are on issues like being tough on China and inflation, that are the same sort of issues that cross over with everyone else, so there’s a scenario where he squeaks by. I do think that it’s an oversimplification to say that Trump doesn’t like somebody and so that means that person just can’t win, but it just gets a lot more complicated.
Do you think there are factors that are being under-covered in the national media that are going to affect the race, or anything that is being overplayed?
It’s just going to be treated as a binary of whether Trump wins or loses. And like I said earlier, I think that a huge factor is when Trump endorsed. Definitely, if Vance wins, Trump can and will take credit for that. But if he loses, there’s a whole lot of factors that go into it, including that Vance has not really been engaged on a local political level.
This is really trite, but it will come down to turnout. I think a higher-turnout environment probably helps Vance because it means that more casual voters are being dialed in and they would be swayed by that Trump support. If it’s a lower-turnout environment, maybe some of the other candidates, with their networks of grassroots supporters and activists and turnout operations, factor in more. I just think the picture is going to be a lot less clear than that sort of Trump wins/Trump loses binary.
When we actually talked to voters about it before and after the endorsement, they basically said, “It’s important, I’ll consider it, but it’s not going to be the only factor for me.” I’m not sure that anybody is gonna say, “Oh, absolutely, I’ll do whatever that guy says.”
The best evidence for him having strong sway is from another race. Last August, there was a special election here to fill [former Rep.] Steve Stivers’s old congressional seat. Trump endorsed Mike Carey, who had never run for office before and wasn’t particularly well-known. It’s not like there was a heavyweight candidate against him, but the usual suspects; state senators and people that had their own strengths. Carey won the race very conclusively. That suggests that Trump can have that kind of sway.
My colleague Andrew Prokop earlier this week wrote about the state of the race for the majority and how likely Democrats are to keep the Senate. His assessment was that Ohio is just not likely to be that competitive given the national environment is so difficult for Democrats. Do you think he’s right? And do you see anything that would change that either way?
With all the disclaimers about external events and predicting the future and stuff like that, I wouldn’t list Ohio as a likely state that Democrats will win.
Depending on who wins the nomination, you have these wealthy candidates, and their lives and backgrounds will contrast with [likely Democratic nominee] Tim Ryan. He’s like a normal guy — been in Congress for a long time but he lives in a middle-class neighborhood, his wife is a teacher. Democrats have this playbook of treating the Republican nominee like Mitt Romney. [Ohio Democratic Sen.] Sherrod Brown has really perfected this rumpled, everyman image. I expect that they would roll out that playbook.
If Vance makes it through, you’re going to see talk about Silicon Valley, Peter Thiel backing [Vance], his flip-flops on Trump, and what else he might flip-flop on. That kind of stuff. But it’s just going to be a lot, nationally, to swim against when basically Joe Biden is going to be on the ballot. So I think your colleague’s generally right, although maybe there’s some wrinkles there.
Let’s say he is right and you get a Senator Vance or Senator Mandel. That’s a big contrast with Senator Portman, who has been compared to vanilla ice cream. How will those differences show up for Ohioans?
Depends on the extent to which Ohioans follow the Senate and what’s at stake. But Portman was lead negotiator on the infrastructure bill that has tangibly funded a lot of projects here. That gets lost in the shuffle because I don’t think that voters are really thinking about infrastructure right now with everything else that’s going on. But by virtue of not having the experience that Portman had, Ohio will lose influence in the Senate. And then if you get a bomb thrower, like Mandel or Vance … it’s just a total change in personalities. I think you’ll see more messaging bills and cultural issues more front and center. The differences between those guys and Rob Portman are apparent.
If Vance is elected, I think the Ohio Chamber of Commerce probably would drop in influence. They recently hired [former Rep.] Steve Stivers. Vance has bragged about not wanting to “bend the knee to Steve Stivers” and generally been hostile to the GOP’s “business-friendly” wing, while Stivers has said some not-nice things about Vance. That has the potential for a lot of downstream consequences, since the Chamber likely has a moderating effect on legislation related to social issues in Columbus. | 2022-04-29T16:52:52Z | www.vox.com | Trump waded into the Ohio GOP Senate primary. But it’s not all about him. - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23046940/ohio-senate-republican-primary | https://www.vox.com/23046940/ohio-senate-republican-primary |
There’s one big reason Democrats need to hold the Senate.
By Li Zhou May 2, 2022, 7:00am EDT
Share All sharing options for: Why a Democratic Senate majority still matters — even if they lose the House
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer speaks during his weekly press conference on Capitol Hill on April 26.
If Democrats lose the House this fall, as they’re widely expected to, their ability to do ambitious bills will be all but moot. Given Republican opposition, it’s likely most legislation, barring must-pass measures like appropriations, will be dead on arrival.
That prompts the question: Does it matter if they lose the Senate, too?
In fact, holding their majority in the upper chamber is still extremely important for a number of reasons, perhaps none more so than the courts.
If elected, a Democratic Senate would be able to confirm more of President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees, including any upcoming theoretical Supreme Court pick. Even without the House, they could approve judges for district courts, circuit courts, and the high court with a simple Senate majority.
And that’s not the only benefit: Keeping this majority would also mean that lawmakers could set their own floor agenda and reject bills approved by a GOP-led House. Senate Democrats could ensure, too, that hearings and committee time aren’t used on investigations of Biden and other members of his administration.
“Given that it will be investigations on steroids over in the House, the question is how the Senate could serve as a buffer,” says Democratic strategist Jim Manley, a former staffer for former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Securing that buffer won’t be easy as the prospects for Democrats this fall are looking increasingly grim. Due to the backlash the president’s party typically faces, and other factors like the country’s ongoing struggles with inflation, Democrats are likely to see some major losses in the House and have no room for error in the Senate. Because of the 2022 Senate map and candidates’ past patterns of bucking national trends, however, Democrats have a slightly better chance of sustaining their narrow hold on the upper chamber.
Three reasons Senate control matters
Democrats would be pretty limited legislatively under divided government — but there are still three key areas where Senate control matters.
“The main difference between a split Congress and one controlled by Republicans completely would be Biden’s ability to fill judicial and other vacancies,” says Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia.
A GOP Senate majority would be able to vote down Biden’s judicial nominees (including any that come up on the Supreme Court), block them wholesale from consideration, and pressure the White House to pick what they perceive as more moderate options.
Republican lawmakers have already signaled that they may not consider Biden’s nominees. In April, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wouldn’t commit to giving a Supreme Court pick a hearing in 2023 if the Republicans retook their majority. It’s something he’s done before: During the Obama administration, McConnell notably blocked Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland from ever getting a hearing by arguing that his nomination was in an election year.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has said that the “Garland rule” could be used if a high court vacancy comes up in 2024.
Such opposition could seriously stymie Biden’s efforts on the courts: In his first year, Biden appointed the most federal judges of any president since Ronald Reagan, including more women, more people of color, and more public defenders than his predecessors. His attempts to continue doing so would be severely constrained without a Democratic Senate majority.
Since these judges have lifetime appointments, their appointments have long-term impacts that extend far beyond the administration that nominated them. Trump and a Republican-controlled Senate confirmed more than 200 judges during his presidency, many of whom have contributed to pivotal decisions on immigration policy, mask mandates, and abortion rights.
Setting legislative priorities
In the majority, Democrats would be able to set the floor schedule and ignore bills that Republicans send over from the House. “It’s crucial to keep the Senate if only to serve as a bulwark against every bad idea that House Republicans are going to think of when they try to send them over to the Senate,” said Manley.
If Republicans had Senate control, any bills that passed both chambers could still be vetoed by Biden. In the process, however, they could force vulnerable Democrats to take difficult votes on contentious issues.
Similarly, Republicans could use tools like the Congressional Review Act and budget resolutions for messaging votes. Using the CRA, lawmakers could try to undo rules recently imposed by the Biden administration. If a simple majority in both chambers disapproves of a rule, they can pass a resolution trying to repeal it. Biden could also veto this, but Democrats would be pushed to take tough votes on the administration’s policies in the interim.
Budget resolutions also only require a simple majority to pass the Senate and could be another forum for Republicans to score political points. Using these resolutions, which are also subject to a presidential veto, they could approve changes to the tax code or spending on climate programs and reproductive health.
Republicans have already vowed to serve as a check on the Biden administration once they retake the majority in either chamber. House Republicans, for example, have announced plans to investigate the business practices of the president’s son Hunter Biden, and even pursue impeachment of certain Cabinet members.
“Immediately, the House Republicans are going to start investigating the White House and the administration, basically looking for anything to embarrass the administration as much as they can,” says Neilan Chaturvedi, a political science professor at Cal Poly Pomona.
While a GOP-controlled House would be able to dedicate time and resources to these efforts, a Democrat-controlled Senate could make sure that their chamber’s committees didn’t focus hearings on these issues. Additionally, the Senate could attempt to avoid a trial if the House approves articles of impeachment for an administration official.
“The House could go ahead and vote to impeach, but there is some ambiguity about whether or not the Senate is compelled to hold a trial,” said George Washington University political science professor Sarah Binder.
Democrats’ 2022 wins could decide control of the Senate for years
Democratic wins this cycle would cushion potential losses the party could experience in the next election. Since senators hold six-year terms, anyone elected in 2022 would play a major role in preserving the party’s numbers for Congressional terms to come.
“I think it matters more down the line because Democrats are staring at a really brutal map in 2024,” says Cook Political Report’s Jessica Taylor.
As Vox’s Andrew Prokop has explained, Democrats aren’t currently defending any seats in states that Trump took in 2020. The four most contentious Democratic seats that are up — Nevada, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Arizona — are all places Biden won. Two other swing seats currently held by Republicans — Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — are also places Biden previously won, putting them in Democrats’ potential reach.
The 2024 map, however, is far more challenging. That year, Democrats will be defending Sen. Joe Manchin’s seat in West Virginia, Sen. Jon Tester’s seat in Montana, and Sen. Sherrod Brown’s seat in Ohio, all states that voted for Trump in the last election. Additionally, several other Democrat-held seats will be up in states like Arizona, Michigan, and Maine.
Essentially, the more seats Democrats can win in 2022, the better position they’ll have to withstand any shake-ups two years from now.
Take a mental break with the newest Vox crossword | 2022-05-02T14:11:50Z | www.vox.com | Midterm elections 2022: Why a Democratic Senate majority still matters — even if they lose the House - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/2/23048641/senate-majority-democrats-control-midterms | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/2/23048641/senate-majority-democrats-control-midterms |
By Jason Del Rey@DelRey May 2, 2022, 3:30pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: Amazon’s worker union just lost in New York City. Where does it go from here?
Amazon workers participate in a May Day rally in Manhattan a day before a worker union lost an election at a second New York City warehouse.
A month after a new union started by Amazon warehouse workers became the first to win a US election in the company’s history, workers at a nearby Amazon facility voted against unionizing with the same grassroots organization.
Workers at an Amazon package sort center, known as LDJ5, voted 618 to 380 against unionizing with the Amazon Labor Union (ALU), a union founded last year by fired Amazon worker Chris Smalls and several colleagues. A victory at LDJ5 would have given the union the right to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with Amazon at two key warehouses that play separate but complementary roles in serving Amazon customers in the critical New York City metropolitan area. That combination could have given organizers more leverage in contract negotiations with Amazon, but that advantage looks gone for now.
The loss comes a month after the historic election at a larger nearby Amazon fulfillment center called JFK8. There, the union captured 2,654 votes, while 2,131 voted against organizing. (Workers at Amazon fulfillment centers like JFK8 pick, stow, and pack customer merchandise to the tune of 300 to 400 items an hour, while workers at sort centers like LDJ5 typically sort already-packaged orders by geographic destination.) Amazon is seeking to throw out the results, arguing that both the union and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which oversaw the election, acted inappropriately. The NLRB has scheduled a May 23 hearing to discuss Amazon’s objections.
Are you a current or former Amazon employee with thoughts or tips on this topic, or related ones? Please email Jason Del Rey at jason@recode.net or jasondelrey@protonmail.com. His phone number and Signal number are available upon request by email.
Separately, Amazon is still dealing with an organizing attempt by a separate union, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, in Bessemer, Alabama. Votes were tallied in late March for a re-do election at the Alabama warehouse called BHM1, after an NLRB official ruled that Amazon illegally interfered with the first election at the facility in 2021. The union is currently trailing by a little more than 100 votes in Bessemer, but the outcome is still up in the air because Amazon and the union contested more than 400 additional ballots combined. Those need to be scrutinized at a future hearing — and potentially counted — before a final result is confirmed in the coming months. In the first overturned Bessemer vote in 2021, workers had voted overwhelmingly in Amazon’s favor.
Whether a win or a loss at LDJ5, ALU was going to have an uphill battle, even if the original JFK8 election victory is upheld. Large anti-union employers like Amazon typically try to stall contract negotiations in the hopes the organizers or workers will lose interest, especially in a workplace like an Amazon warehouse where annual turnover rates have surpassed 100 percent. If a year passes after a finalized union election victory without a collective bargaining agreement, a decertification vote can take place.
“It’ll be a big challenge to get that first contract in a reasonable amount of time, and the workers will need to continue organizing, continue to fight, and possibly take job actions in order to win that first contract,” Rebecca Givan, a Rutgers University labor professor, told Recode.
This loss may make that JFK8 contract even harder to attain.
Depending on your point of view, the loss at LDJ5 could suggest that ALU was only able to win at JFK8 because the worker-leaders personally knew many of the associates in the building and will struggle to organize any other Amazon warehouses. Amazon operates more than 800 warehouse facilities of different sizes across the US. Some might also see the defeat as a sign that ALU, with only a sliver of the resources of large established unions, tried to bite off more than it could chew.
On the other hand, this week’s loss could be interpreted as a simple manifestation of the deck being stacked too heavily against ALU. The LDJ5 sort center workforce consists of a greater percentage of part-time workers than JFK8 — which typically makes organizing harder — and Amazon spent aggressively to make sure it doesn’t end up on the wrong side of history in a second straight union election. (Amazon spent more than $4 million on anti-union consultants in 2021 alone.) Amazon sort center roles also have a reputation among workers for being less stressful than some of the main roles at a larger fulfillment center like JFK8.
Givan, the Rutgers professor, said she did not agree with those who might call the first victory a fluke in the wake of a loss at the second location.
“People who don’t have a particular understanding of the broken NLRB process think that an election outcome is the result of a free and fair election where workers just said whether or not they wanted to unionize and that there is no undue influence or pressure,” Givan said. “In reality, it’s a demonstration of … the successful fear-mongering of the anti-union campaign.”
In the union drive at the larger JFK8 facility, the union said it wanted to push Amazon leadership for large hourly raises, longer breaks for workers, and union representation during all disciplinary meetings to prevent unjust firings that may exacerbate already-high staff turnover. At the smaller LDJ5 sort center, organizers said one key motivation to unionize was Amazon’s unwillingness to provide workers with enough hours to make ends meet.
Work hours are “not based on what workers want or the workers need,” a union organizer and LDJ5 employee recently told the New York Times. “It’s based off of what Amazon has figured out to be most efficient at the expense of the workers.”
Still, even before the loss at LDJ5 — or the victory at JFK8, for that matter — the pressure from the first pandemic-era union drive at the Bessemer, Alabama, warehouse seemed to have forced Jeff Bezos to reconsider the company’s treatment of its workforce. In his final shareholder letter as CEO in 2021, he said his company needs “to do a better job for our employees.” In the same letter, Bezos announced a new mission for his company: “Earth’s Best Employer and Earth’s Safest Place to Work.”
Then came the win at JFK8 despite Amazon’s long history of union-busting in the 28 years since Jeff Bezos founded the company in 1994 as an online seller of books. But on Monday, the latest inflection point in the internal labor battle went Amazon’s way.
America chips in | 2022-05-02T20:17:20Z | www.vox.com | Amazon Labor Union loses latest vote in Staten Island. What do workers do now? - Vox | https://www.vox.com/recode/23053470/amazon-labor-union-loses-staten-island | https://www.vox.com/recode/23053470/amazon-labor-union-loses-staten-island |
The races featured an early test of Trump’s influence and an intraparty Democratic fight.
By Li Zhou, Nicole Narea, and Christian Paz May 3, 2022, 11:30pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: 4 winners and 2 losers from the Ohio and Indiana primaries
Republican US Senate candidate J.D. Vance greets a supporter after winning the primary, at an election night event at Duke Energy Convention Center on May 3, 2022, in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Tuesday’s Indiana and Ohio primaries included a revealing test of former President Donald Trump’s influence, several competitive primaries in redistricted House seats, and an intraparty Democratic rematch.
These primaries, ultimately, set up candidates for what’s poised to be a contentious general election this fall, when Republicans could well retake the House majority.
Here are the winners and losers from Tuesday’s Senate, House, and gubernatorial races.
Trump reportedly called himself a “gambler” in his approach to endorsing primary candidates, many of whom weren’t necessarily favored when they got his endorsement.
On Tuesday, the first of his big gambles paid off when Trump-backed candidate and Hillbilly Elegy author J.D. Vance won the GOP nomination to replace retiring Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. Polls prior to Trump’s endorsement had shown Vance middling in the seven-way race, but that late nod, plus an injection of cash from Vance backers, pushed Vance ahead.
There was plenty for Trump to like along the way to this win: He blessed Vance just over two weeks ago, and prior to that, most of the field made private entreaties to Trump and publicly competed for who could align themselves most closely with the former president. Vance, previously a severe critic of Trump, spent months openly stating that he had been wrong about Trump.
During Trump’s presidential campaign and shortly after, Vance referred to him as “America’s Hitler” and “a moral disaster” and suggested in 2016 that he might vote for Hillary Clinton if Trump seemed likely to win. Vance then did an about-face as he launched his political career, lauding Trump as the best president of his lifetime.
While Vance’s victory will help bolster Trump’s claim to be a kingmaker in the party, it’s not clear it will be predictive of other GOP primaries.
Though Vance almost certainly wouldn’t have won without Trump, he didn’t win by a huge enough margin to draw any decisive conclusions. Some Republicans have also predicted a tough month of primaries ahead for some of Trump’s other gambles including Pennsylvania Senate candidate Mehmet Oz (a.k.a. TV personality Dr. Oz) and former Sen. David Perdue of Georgia, who’s trailing in polls in his challenge against the state’s incumbent Republican Gov. Brian Kemp.
Loser(s): The other Trumpian candidates running for Ohio Senate
The GOP primary in Ohio got remarkably vicious — at one point it almost got physical — considering how much most of the contenders agreed on. Four of the five viable candidates spent considerable time courting Trump, touting how much they had done for him while in office or how much they had liked him all along, while Vance went out of his way to say how wrong he had been when he was saying all those nasty things about Trump.
Josh Mandel — a former state treasurer who was endorsed by other high-profile Republican figures including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — had fought hard to show his fealty to Trump and told him endorsing Vance would be a mistake. A polling firm connected to his campaign even suggested that endorsing Vance wouldn’t give him enough of a bump to put him in fourth place.
Former state GOP Chair Jane Timken, whose tenure in that job came while Trump was in office, argued that the other candidates in the race were just “pretenders” and that she was the “real Trump conservative,” as one TV ad stated.
And millionaire investment banker Mike Gibbons described himself and Trump as kindred “businessmen with a backbone,” claiming that he would save the Ohio economy just as Trump “saved our economy before.”
Their reward for that? Trump endorsed the former critic, propelling him to the win. The also-rans, then just days out from the primary, couldn’t risk putting off their Trump-supporting GOP base by publicly lashing out at Trump over it.
Loser: Progressive candidates
Moderate Democrats’ resounding wins in the Ohio Democratic primaries confirmed two things: Name recognition matters, and progressive candidates have a tough road ahead of them.
In Ohio’s Democratic Senate primary, Morgan Harper faced an uphill battle against Rep. Tim Ryan from the start. Harper touted endorsements from a collection of progressive organizations, like the local outposts of the climate change-focused Sunrise Movement, the Bernie Sanders-inspired Our Revolution organization, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. She campaigned on reforming antitrust laws, rebuilding manufacturing jobs through a Green New Deal-adjacent initiative, and enacting Medicare-for-all — and she couldn’t make a dent in Ryan’s support.
A similar picture unfolded in Ohio’s 11th Congressional District, where a rematch between incumbent Rep. Shontel Brown and Nina Turner resulted in a second defeat for Turner, a former top Sanders surrogate. Backed by endorsements from President Biden and Democratic South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn (who campaigned with her), Brown benefited from name recognition and big PAC spending to boost her candidacy.
Winner: Progressive ideas
Though establishment-aligned candidates won in races around Ohio, they didn’t get there without embracing a slight leftward shift in their priorities.
In the Democratic race for governor, former Dayton, Ohio, Mayor Nan Whaley became the first woman to be nominated for the state’s top office. Running on promises to protect abortion rights, enact a $15 minimum wage, push for gun control measures, and implement universal preschool, Whaley also received support from the state’s only statewide-elected Democrat, Sherrod Brown, and the pro-abortion rights group EMILY’s List.
Ryan and Brown, in their respective races, also pulled together ideas from the center and left in their pitches to voters, specifically on job creation, labor-organizing protections, a $15 minimum wage, and lowering health care costs. Though they beat left-leaning challengers, their wins also show that challenges from the left can push more moderate candidates to consider the substance of progressive demands.
Winner: Mike DeWine
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) easily beat back primary challengers to win his race on Tuesday.
DeWine, who’s seeking his second term, had a couple of factors working for him. For one, his three primary challengers — all of whom were more conservative — split the vote. Additionally, while Trump dinged DeWine after he refused to question the 2020 election results, he didn’t wind up endorsing any of DeWine’s primary opponents.
DeWine’s approach to governance may represent one way establishment Republicans can try to neutralize their challengers when Trump still has such an outsize presence in the party. While DeWine was initially vocal about pandemic safety policies including business closures and mask mandates, he ultimately shifted away from them as Republican blowback toward such restrictions grew. Additionally, though he recognized Biden as the winner of the presidential election, he’s also backed a commission to study voter security.
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has taken a similar tack, while also picking up Trump’s endorsement. LaRose previously expressed his confidence in the state’s 2020 election results, though he left the door open to questions about voter fraud.
Winner: Republican women candidates
Building on the gains they made in House races last cycle, Republican women won multiple primaries that took place on Tuesday.
In Indiana’s First district, Air Force veteran Jennifer-Ruth Green is set to take on incumbent Democrat Frank Mrvan this fall as Republicans try to flip his seat. In Indiana’s Ninth District, former state Sen. Erin Houchin is up against teacher Matthew Fyfe in a safe Republican seat. And in Ohio’s 13th District, attorney and commentator Madison Gesiotto Gilbert is competing with former state House Minority Leader Emilia Sykes for Rep. Tim Ryan’s old seat.
In 2020, GOP women increased their ranks in the House significantly after they saw a precipitous drop the previous cycle. Rep. Elise Stefanik, the House Republican Conference chair, has also made recruiting and supporting women candidates a priority.
Currently, women are still vastly underrepresented in the Republican conference and Congress as a whole. They make up 14 percent of Republican representatives and about 28 percent of lawmakers in the House overall. | 2022-05-04T04:11:34Z | www.vox.com | 4 winners and 2 losers from the Ohio and Indiana primaries - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/3/23056350/winners-loses-ohio-indiana-primaries-jd-vance-trump | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/3/23056350/winners-loses-ohio-indiana-primaries-jd-vance-trump |
Iowa is on the outs, and the DNC is allowing wannabe early states to apply in the coming weeks.
Share All sharing options for: Democrats’ shakeup of the presidential nominating calendar, explained
Committee members wait for the beginning of a meeting of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaw Committee on April 13, 2022 in Washington, DC.
Democrats may finally knock the Iowa caucuses out of their prized first position in the presidential nominating process, in what could be that calendar’s biggest shakeup in decades.
States that want a shot at holding an early primary or caucus must submit a letter of intent to the Democratic National Committee by Friday, May 6. And the existing early states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina — must reapply, arguing why they deserve their spots.
A total overhaul is unlikely, but Iowa is in real danger of being moved from the start of the early lineup or dropped from it after the botched 2020 caucuses, which were plagued with technical difficulties and extraordinarily slow reporting of results. A new Midwestern state could be added to the mix, as could a fifth early state, and the order could be changed.
The calendar is crucial to the United States’ lengthy and convoluted presidential nominating process. States that go early have few delegates, but an outsized impact on the contest’s overall narrative — they can elevate and winnow out contenders before bigger states weigh in.
So choices about the early states and their sequence made now could help determine the identity of future presidents. Joe Biden led national polls of Democrats as 2020 began, but his poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire nearly wrecked his chances. Then, his strength in another early state, South Carolina, saved him right before Super Tuesday. If South Carolina wasn’t in that lineup, Biden might well not be president today.
Still, this rollercoaster of contests is a rather odd way to pick a nominee as compared to the simpler alternative of a national primary vote. There are justifications — most notably that starting with small states gives less-known contenders a chance to distinguish themselves — but the impact of the early states can often feel random and arbitrary. Without a more sweeping overhaul to the system, that won’t change.
This is mostly about demoting Iowa
No one person or group dictates the primary calendar from the top down; state governments or state parties set their own dates for their nominating contests. But the earliest part of the calendar is the one area where national party leaders have used a heavy hand. Only certain states are granted permission to hold primaries before a certain date (recently, that’s been the first Tuesday in March). If other states try to jump the line, the parties will threaten to strip them of some or all of their delegates to the convention.
Iowa and New Hampshire had placed themselves in front of the pack for decades, but by the mid-2000s Democrats were feeling increasingly queasy about that. Both states are heavily white, and not very representative of the Democratic Party’s voter base. So in 2006, the DNC decided that two more racially diverse states, Nevada and South Carolina, would get special permission to hold early contests (after Iowa and New Hampshire). Republicans followed suit, and despite some ill-fated attempts by other states to move earlier, this four-state roster gradually became the status quo.
But Democrats have grown increasingly dissatisfied with Iowa’s role, for several reasons. Racial diversity remains a concern, with the first two states still being small white ones. Iowa has also become a safely Republican state in general elections, rather than a swing state Democrats hope to keep in their camp. Others have long criticized caucus systems generally for lacking a secret ballot and requiring too great a time commitment from voters.
The biggest problem, though, is that the two most recent Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses were controversial and messy. The issue in 2016 was a lack of a paper trail on the actual vote count for the caucuses (which happen predominantly through in-person discussions). Because of that, reforms for 2020 were aimed at increasing transparency, but in practice they complicated the reporting process, badly slowing down the process of getting results, which ended up taking about a week. Technical difficulties and obvious errors in the count made the whole thing look like a clown show.
Basically, Democrats felt they’ve granted Iowa this enormous authority over their nomination contest for so long, and that lately Iowa has been screwing it up.
Step right up, and apply to be an early state!
Rather than explicitly target Iowa, the DNC has put the whole slate of early states up for grabs. The Democratic Party from any state that wants to hold an early contest can apply to do so. The states that already have such contests need to apply again, too (so Iowa Democrats will get a chance to make their case).
The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee will review these applications and come up with a proposed early state lineup. Then the full DNC will have to approve their choices. The committee said last month that it will consider having up to five states go early, and laid out the standards they’ll use to judge the applicants.
1) Diversity: Democrats want the overall early state lineup to demonstrate racial and ethnic diversity, as well as economic diversity and union representation. They also want at least one state from each of the country’s four regions: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West.
2) Competitiveness: They also want the overall calendar to “contribute to the party’s ability to win in the general election.” Many have interpreted this as a suggestion that swing states will get a leg up.
3) Feasibility: Democrats are also going to consider whether states actually can move their contests earlier (for instance, some might have a Republican legislature that won’t cooperate), whether they seem capable of running a “fair, transparent and inclusive” nominating process, and whether the costs and logistics of campaigning there might be too high (meaning big states will face an uphill battle).
These guidelines may significantly narrow the field. For one, they seem tailored to disadvantage Iowa, which is not racially diverse, is no longer competitive in most general elections, and did not run a competent process in 2020. New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina can all argue they perform well on at least two of those three metrics. And if Iowa is dropped, the regional representation requirement means a Midwestern applicant might be a strong contender as a replacement (though they may not go first).
Any newly approved primary state would also have to be able to move its primary earlier. But the Republican National Committee has already said it plans to stick with the existing calendar. That would suggest that, if Republicans control a state’s governorship or legislature, they might not agree to move it. Alternatively, Democrats in the state could hold a primary administered by the party (rather than the state) or a caucus instead. But the party has lately frowned on caucuses due to accessibility concerns, and on the Democratic side, every state but Iowa has ditched them.
Who is applying, and who has the best shot?
The state Democratic parties that have indicated they intend to apply so far include Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Washington, and Texas. The existing four early states are also reapplying. And the standards laid out by the DNC suggest some have more of a shot than others.
The first question will be what happens to Iowa. Though Iowa Democrats will still get to make their case to the DNC (the state party chair has said they’re exploring “changes to the caucuses that would make them more straightforward, transparent and accessible”), it’s widely expected at this point that they will end up either demoted to a later spot in the early state roster, or dropped altogether as an early state.
Moving Iowa to, say, the third, fourth, or a new fifth early slot might seem like the moderate approach. But that would mean the caucuses would remain tremendously important. All the early states matter — recall how important South Carolina’s primary three days before Super Tuesday 2020 was in setting the stage for Biden’s triumph. So if the DNC has lost confidence in Iowa’s caucuses, moving them later in the early state lineup won’t necessarily solve that problem.
In either case, though, Democrats would need another state to go first, and existing early states New Hampshire and Nevada are currently viewed as the main contenders. Both are small in population, general election swing states, and have successfully administered these contests. New Hampshire is less racially diverse, but they also have a state law requiring no primary be held before theirs (Nevada will be switching from caucuses to a primary for 2024) which will cause drama if the DNC tries to put another state ahead of them.
If Iowa does lose its early state spot entirely, the DNC needs another Midwestern state, which means Michigan, Minnesota, and Nebraska would fit the bill. Of those three, Nebraska would be the toughest sell, as it’s the least important in the general election.
Michigan and Minnesota both seem like strong contenders. Racially, Michigan has a larger Black population (13.7 percent) than Minnesota (7 percent), but a greater share of Minnesota’s population is Asian American and American Indian, compared to Michigan’s. Both states are important for Democrats’ electoral math; Michigan is the clearer swing state, but Minnesota did nearly tip to Trump in 2016. Regarding logistics, Michigan is nearly twice as populous as Minnesota, but the two states are of comparable physical size, and Minnesota winters are worse. Republicans hold both chambers of Michigan’s state legislature and Minnesota’s state Senate, so GOP consent would be needed to move the primary in both states.
The hopes of non-Midwestern applicants probably hinge on whether the DNC decided to allow a fifth early state. The path of least resistance may be to stick with just four, since playing favorites might result in bad feelings among states that don’t get picked. Recall the drama that happened last time the DNC expanded the early state map — Florida and Michigan, which weren’t picked, moved their primaries earlier anyway, the DNC barred candidates from campaigning there and threatened to block their delegates, and it was a big mess.
So to justify this bonus slot, a state would probably have to argue that they bring something essential to the table that the incumbent in their region doesn’t. New Jersey can argue that it’s more diverse than New Hampshire, but it is less competitive in the general election. Texas can say they’re very demographically different than South Carolina and more competitive in the general. But the state’s vast size and population would make early campaigning logistically challenging, and the GOP-controlled state government may not cooperate with Democrats’ calendar plans.
In any case, any interested state party leaders will get to make their pitches — both in public, and in behind-the-scenes politicking — in the coming weeks. Letters of intent from any state applying are due May 6, formal applications are due June 3, and the states will give presentations to the Rules and Bylaws Committee later in June.
Is this any way to pick a president?
We shouldn’t lose sight of what’s really happening: The DNC is selecting which states’ voters will get more of an influence on the presidential contest than others.
This is a feature of the way the US’s strange nomination process has evolved, with a staggered series of state contests unfolding over months, mostly timed by the states themselves. Inevitably, some states have to go first. And the media, party insiders, activists, and the candidates themselves all treat those early state results as immensely important. Later contests can impact candidates’ delegate haul, but they don’t have anything close to the power of reshaping the race’s overall narrative.
Defenders of the current system argue that it lets lesser-known candidates make their case in a smaller, more manageable setting (rather than getting swamped by the best-known, best-funded candidate nationally). The early states also perform the function of winnowing the field — narrowing down what can be a large and confusing set of options to a few contenders before most of the country votes.
But the system also has drawbacks. One is simple unfairness: From the Electoral College to the Senate, the US system often treats some states’ voters as more important than others, and the primary calendar creates a similar dynamic. Another is volatility. Does it really make sense to have a major party nominee so heavily influenced by the exact sequence of four states out of fifty that go first?
A total rethink of the nomination system doesn’t seem to be on the table, though. So it may take some time to appreciate the significance of whatever changes are approved this year. It’s possible that 2024 will be a uniquely uncompetitive primary cycle, if Biden and Trump both run and lock down support in their respective parties. But if that changes on either side, things will get very interesting very quickly, with the early states playing a starring role. | 2022-05-05T16:34:00Z | www.vox.com | Iowa out? The DNC may shift the presidential primary and caucus calendar - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/5/23043410/dnc-primary-calendar-2024-iowa-caucuses | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/5/23043410/dnc-primary-calendar-2024-iowa-caucuses |
“Automatic returns” could vastly simplify tax season for millions of people.
Share All sharing options for: Over 60 million Americans have taxes so simple the IRS could do them automatically
IRS employees sort through returns at a facility in Ogden, Utah.
Alex Goodlett/Washington Post via Getty Images
For many Americans, doing your taxes isn’t all that complicated. It’s just data entry.
But here’s the thing about those forms: The IRS has them, too. For many people, the IRS has all the information it needs to calculate their taxes, send taxpayers a filled-out return, and have them sign it and send it right back to the IRS if everything looks in order.
This isn’t a purely hypothetical proposal. Countries like Denmark, Belgium, Estonia, Chile, and Spain already offer such ”pre-populated returns” to their citizens. And a new paper estimates that at least 41 percent of American households — some 62 million tax filing units — could have their entire tax returns handled this way with no further intervention necessary.
Tens of millions of unnecessary returns
The paper is by four economists: Lucas Goodman and Andrew Whitten at the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Analysis, Bruce Sacerdote of Dartmouth, and Katherine Lim of the Minneapolis Fed. Half the authors working at the Treasury helps explain the dataset the paper uses: a randomized, representative sample of actual tax returns filed in 2019. The IRS strictly regulates who gets to use this kind of granular tax data (it must be for tax policy work), but it’s a goldmine for those researchers.
In this case, the IRS data let the authors actually generate “pre-populated returns” for taxpayers, based on information the IRS already knew, and then compare those returns to the ones actually filed by taxpayers. If they match, that means a pre-populated return policy could work for that person.
“A pre-populated return is deemed successful if its calculated tax liability is approximately equal to the tax liability actually reported on the 2019 tax return,” the authors explain. This was one of two methods they used; the second sorted through the IRS returns looking for complications that would prevent a pre-populated return from being correctly compiled. That approach tended to produce higher estimates of how many returns could be put together automatically.
The former, more conservative approach found that 41 percent of returns, representing 62 million tax units, could have accurate returns pre-prepared by the IRS in this fashion. (A tax unit could be a single person, a single parent-headed family, a married couple and their offspring, etc. — whoever’s represented by the tax return.) The less conservative approach, counting everyone without complications that might prevent an automatic return, puts the number at 73 million returns, or 48 percent.
Pre-populated returns could also help people who aren’t currently filing taxes. In the US, many people are not required to file an income tax return, usually because they earn too little money to trigger that requirement or because the money they do get is from a partially exempt source like Social Security. But those people often would benefit from filing a return because of benefits like the earned income and child tax credits. Those credits are refundable, meaning that you don’t have to have a positive income tax burden to receive them; the earned income tax credit (EITC) in particular is designed to mostly go to low-income people who don’t earn enough to owe income taxes.
Despite those benefits, some 22 percent of eligible taxpayers don’t claim the EITC in a typical year; by one estimate, two-thirds of those not receiving the benefit didn’t get it because they didn’t file a tax return. The bundling of social assistance programs with a complex tax code places significant burdens on less-wealthy Americans trying to access those programs.
So the authors of the automatic filing paper estimated how many non-filers could get tax benefits under an automatic filing system. They estimate that 7.2 million tax units who aren’t required to file are owed refunds, averaging some $411 each. Those units would be likelier to get their refunds under a pre-populated filing system.
Ending tax returns … for everybody?
For the tens of millions of households for whom pre-populated filing works, it could be a huge leap forward. But 41-47 percent of households is not a majority, and in an ideal world, the other 53-59 percent of tax units would be able to benefit from a system like this too. So what are the barriers preventing them?
The paper’s appendix table A2 estimates the share of returns with different attributes that prevent a pre-populated return from working. The most common, affecting 16.2 percent of returns, is Schedule C or self-employment income: People have a different estimate for their earnings from self-employment or odd jobs than the 1099 forms sent to the IRS indicate. They might have significant business expenses or jobs that didn’t trigger a 1099 form that alter their actual taxes due.
The next most common, affecting 10.9 percent of returns, is itemized deductions. These have become much less frequently done since the standard deduction was increased by the Trump tax bill in 2017, but almost everyone who itemizes claims the charitable deduction or the state property tax deduction. Both of those rely on information that isn’t consistently reported to the IRS, so they can’t be included on pre-populated returns.
Both of those are tricky issues to get around. Especially with the rise of “gig economy” employers like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash that issue 1099s and treat employees as contractors, more and more low-income people are relying on self-employment income where discrepancies can arise that make auto-filing impossible. You could resolve the itemized deduction issue by eliminating itemized deductions, but I somehow doubt the people whose taxes you’d simplify in the process would thank you for it.
Other problems, though, might be easier to fix. A significant share of taxpayers had wage income that was different from what their W-2 forms indicated; better wage reporting requirements for businesses might get around that. Difficulties determining what share of pension income is taxable also came up a fair amount, which a simpler pension taxation system might address. As a volunteer tax preparer, I’ve had pension issues come up a lot and our current system is mindbogglingly complex. I love thinking about taxes and, nonetheless, learning the “simplified method” for pension taxation made me want to die.
But even if “only” two out of every five returns can be done by the IRS automatically, it’s worth asking: why aren’t they? Even if “only” 62 million households would benefit, that would still save a huge amount of time and angst every year, and make tax season run much more smoothly.
The IRS estimates that the average non-business filer spends nine hours a year filing their 1040. Even if we assume returns capable of being auto-filled are less complex and only take half as long, that adds up to 279 million hours of life, or nearly 32,000 years of life, not wasted if 62 million filers were able to auto-file their taxes. Sounds nice! | 2022-05-05T16:34:12Z | www.vox.com | Over 60 million people could have their tax returns automatically done by the IRS - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23055489/irs-automatic-filing-prepopulated-returns | https://www.vox.com/23055489/irs-automatic-filing-prepopulated-returns |
The virus itself killed millions, but pandemic disruptions led to nearly three times as many deaths.
By Umair Irfan May 5, 2022, 3:00pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: How many people have died from the Covid-19 crisis?
Family members write a message to two sisters who died of Covid-19 on the National Covid Memorial wall in London, England, on March 29.
The World Health Organization (WHO) on Thursday released its estimate of global mortality from the Covid-19 pandemic: 14.9 million deaths, from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021.
That tally is the number of “excess deaths” compared to a baseline of expected deaths in a world without Covid-19. This number includes not just the people who died from the virus, but also those who passed away in the ensuing chaos as hospitals filled up and workplaces shut down.
It’s a stunning snapshot of the sweeping devastation the Covid-19 pandemic unleashed around the world, showing that the virus wreaked havoc far beyond the infections it caused. The WHO attributed about 5.4 million deaths to the virus itself.
Global deaths from the Covid-19 pandemic are far greater than those from just infections.
The burden of these deaths was not spread equally. India suffered the highest toll from the pandemic with nearly 4.7 million fatalities, about 10 times the country’s official estimates. India’s per capita excess fatality rate average for 2020-2021 — 171 per 100,000 per year — was roughly in the middle of the pack among countries. The highest per capita rate was in Peru at 437 per 100,000 per year. The US meanwhile saw 820,000 official deaths from Covid-19 by the end of 2021, but the WHO estimated an additional 110,000 fatalities over this time frame, with a per capita rate of 140 per 100,000 per year.
Within populations across the globe, older people faced the highest risks, with 82 percent of excess deaths among those older than 60.
Researchers at the WHO built their estimates on official reported deaths and used models to calculate them where direct tallies weren’t available. Their excess death results are a bit lower than some prior estimates. In March, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation counted 18.2 million excess deaths in the same time frame. The Economist calculated excess deaths as high as 25 million.
What does this all mean for the Covid-19 pandemic?
For one thing, the wide gap between the official number of Covid-19 deaths and the estimates of excess deaths highlights how the pandemic has had devastating knock-on effects. Ignoring Covid-19 has proven deadly, but some of the interventions deployed have had immense costs too. Shutdowns of economies, schools, travel, routine medical care, and social functions created stress in societies. The pandemic led to an increase in suicides and deaths from excessive drinking, for example.
And counting deaths is not just an academic exercise. It’s an important measure of how well a country is handling the crisis and serves as a basis for preventing future casualties. “When we undercount, we miss targeting our interventions where and when they are most needed,” said Samira Asma, assistant director-general for data, analytics, and delivery at the WHO, during a press conference on Thursday. “We must hold ourselves and our policymakers accountable.”
The discrepancy between deaths specifically from Covid-19 and excess deaths during the pandemic shows how hard it is to keep track of the true extent of the crisis. With health care systems stressed by millions of infections, record-keeping often became a low priority. In some places, health metrics were poorly tracked to begin with, so reporting on deaths varies widely between countries, with some like India and China likely undercounting their fatalities by wide margins. Excess death estimates also reveal how some outbreaks were far more severe than previously realized and highlight hidden fractures in health care.
The timing of excess deaths throughout the pandemic shows, perhaps not surprisingly, that the situation is worst when transmission of the virus is high and vaccination rates are low. While protection against infection can wane, Covid-19 vaccines prevented millions of deaths.
In the current moment, it’s important to recognize that the pandemic is still not over. The United States has just passed more than 1 million deaths directly caused by Covid-19. The SARS-CoV-2 virus behind the disease is continuing to mutate in ways that make it more transmissible and better able to evade immune protection.
Some of the places that have avoided major Covid-19 outbreaks are getting hammered now. Cities like Hong Kong and Shanghai have seen huge spikes in cases and deaths from Covid-19 as recent waves of infections revealed that many of the older residents in these cities were not vaccinated. No one can afford to be complacent, and earlier success in containing the pandemic is no guarantee against future misery.
It’s also important to recognize that death is the most severe outcome of Covid-19, but not the most likely result. The majority of people sickened by Covid-19 don’t die, but their illnesses have social and economic consequences as they miss work or isolate from family. And not everyone who survives an infection makes a complete recovery, with a significant fraction facing long Covid and enduring health problems. The excess death toll of Covid-19 is massive, but so too is the excess suffering.
And while there is wide variation in how severely Covid-19 has afflicted different countries, with some relaxing precautions like wearing face masks, it remains a global threat. As long as the virus is spreading, it will mutate, increasing the chances of another dangerous variant emerging. Preventing this requires containing the disease wherever possible, particularly through closing vaccination gaps around the world.
“No country is safe until all countries are safe,” said Ibrahima Socé Fall, assistant director-general for emergency response at the WHO, during a press conference.
Covid-19 vaccines: News and updates
How Hong Kong’s pandemic success story turned into a nightmare | 2022-05-05T19:36:37Z | www.vox.com | How many people have died from the Covid-19 crisis? - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23058380/covid-19-who-excess-death-total-toll-vaccine-variant | https://www.vox.com/23058380/covid-19-who-excess-death-total-toll-vaccine-variant |
Everything you need to know about The Staircase (the documentary) before you watch The Staircase (the docudrama).
By Aja Romano@ajaromano May 6, 2022, 8:00am EDT
Share All sharing options for: The owl did it, and other reasons true crime fans love The Staircase
Michael Peterson listening to defense attorney David Rudolf at his Durham, North Carolina, court hearing on December 6, 2011.
On a chilly December night in 2001, novelist Michael Peterson found his wife, Nortel executive Kathleen Peterson, lying covered in blood at the foot of a narrow stairwell in their Durham, North Carolina mansion. Durham police promptly charged Michael Peterson with Kathleen’s murder.
A few months later, a French documentary team arrived to film the course of Peterson’s trial, little knowing they were about to witness one of the wildest cases on record and create an iconic true crime documentary series: The Staircase. Initially released in 2004 with eight episodes, the series became an acclaimed sleeper hit within the true crime community before gaining wider popularity amid the post-Serial true crime boom. Two follow-up episodes on the case were filmed in 2011, with three more following in 2017, when the full series was finally released on Netflix.
The Staircase’s central question — who or what killed Kathleen Peterson? — has technically been answered. Michael Peterson was first convicted of her murder in 2003 and sentenced to life in prison. Fifteen years later, after a massive forensics scandal led to his original conviction getting overturned, he would enter an Alford plea, a plea of technical guilt while maintaining his innocence, in exchange for his freedom. But that summation fails to capture the enduring appeal of a case that yielded one gothic, head-turning twist after another.
On Friday, HBO Max released a new narrative series, also called The Staircase. Starring Colin Firth and Toni Collette as Michael and Kathleen, the new Staircase lives somewhere between biopic and ur-Staircase fanfiction. The new series even — finally! — makes room for a now-infamous theory involving an unusual alternate suspect.
To appreciate the new Staircase’s additions, however, you have to understand what made the original so compelling.
The perfect family — and an imperfect crime scene
“Is there anyone here who isn’t always performing?” Michael Peterson jokes about his large, loud family at one point in The Staircase. (Unless noted as the HBO Max docuseries, we’ll be using this title to refer to the original series.) The Petersons, by every account, were lively and loving: Michael, Kathleen, and her daughter by a previous marriage, Caitlin, Michael’s two sons, Todd and Clayton, and their adopted daughters, Margaret and Martha Ratliff. Michael and his first wife Patty had known the Ratliffs when they lived next door to them in Germany years earlier — but Margaret and Martha’s parents had each died in 1984 and 1985, respectively, leading Michael and Patty to adopt them. In 1986, the couple moved back to the states and divorced; three years later, Michael moved in with Kathleen.
A decorated Vietnam War veteran, Michael wrote military fiction; his novels did well enough to allow him to purchase a giant five-bedroom house in Durham for his idyllic blended family. In 1997, Michael and Kathleen married; by 2001, it seemed Michael Peterson, then 58 years old, had acquired the perfect life.
According to Michael Peterson, on the night of December 9, 2001, a balmy 50-something degrees, he and Kathleen were enjoying drinks by their pool after dinner. Kathleen went back inside first, and after some time passed, Peterson followed — and found her lying covered in blood. Peterson made a frantic 911 call in which he hung up several times. Upon arriving at the house and seeing the amount of blood all over the body, the walls, and Michael Peterson, police immediately treated the area like a crime scene.
Misconceptions frequently circulate about the evidence found at the scene. The biggest: the assumption that no fall down a staircase could have caused that much blood. In fact, similar falls result in (warning: graphic imagery) blood everywhere. No blood was found on the ceiling or the wall opposite the stairwell; the defense used this arguable lack of “cast-off spatter” to argue no weapon was used in her death. (Other blood evidence left out of the documentary was debated in court with no real conclusivity.)
Another assumption, later argued by the prosecution, is that Kathleen died from blunt-force trauma. According to the defense’s investigation into homicides involving blunt-force trauma, Kathleen likely did not die of blunt-force trauma, which would have caused bruising, skull fractures, or both. Instead, she had strange injuries to the top and back of her scalp, which caused her to bleed out but delivered no skull fracture or contusion, leaving her actual cause of death a mystery. Kathleen also had an injury to her thyroid which suggested strangulation, but in fact, strangulation was probably not the cause of the injury and was never a major part of the murder theory.
Despite all this confusing and contradictory evidence, things looked grim for Peterson from the outset. In his former role as a contrarian liberal columnist for the Durham Herald-Sun, Peterson criticized members of local law enforcement as well as District Attorney James Hardin — a circumstance which later suggested to Peterson that the prosecution was eager for revenge. For his defense, Peterson hired esteemed trial lawyer David Rudolf.
In 2002, French documentarian Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, having just won an Oscar for his true crime documentary Murder on a Sunday Morning, was looking for his next project. Peterson’s trial appealed to him because it was just getting underway, and the documentary team would have an opportunity to do what few documentaries had attempted until then — film the full process of bringing a case to the courtroom. Ultimately, when their initial round of filming concluded in 2003, Peterson was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
Little did the filmmakers know the journey for Peterson and their documentary was just beginning. Peterson would spend eight years in prison, exhausting his appeals — until new evidence, aided by the documentary itself, changed everything.
The Peterson case saw one twist after another
In many ways, The Staircase is a compilation of Rorschach tests: When you look at Kathleen Peterson’s death, do you see a fall down stairs, a brutal murder, or something else? When you study Michael Peterson, do you see an innocent man or a charming sociopath? When you listen to his 911 call, do you hear panic or calculation? And when you look at the evidence proffered by the state and rebutted by the defense, do you see proof or do you have reasonable doubt?
The Staircase has its flaws. It’s long, often spends too much time letting its main character talk about himself, and has come under fire for being biased in favor of the defendant. (More on that in a moment.)
But it’s also addictive. Michael Peterson, playing himself, is just strange enough to be the star The Staircase needed. He’s inappropriately charismatic, performatively debonair, and a polished liar. He quotes Shakespeare, listens to Mahler, tells the sex workers he hires how much he loves his wife, and writes first-person novel passages about the joy of committing murder. Yet whether you believe Peterson’s alleged dark side exists or not, on camera he also comes across as laid back and loving, missing his wife and heading a family stalwartly supporting his innocence. (Caitlin, Kathleen’s daughter, broke with her step-siblings in accusing Michael of murder.)
Peterson’s attorney also cuts a winning figure. Wry but earnest, David Rudolf systematically chips away at the evidence; he rolls with every prosecutorial punch (and there are many) until he’s created a thorough argument for reasonable doubt. His defense becomes a celebration of excellence.
Still, Peterson and Rudolf alone might not have been enough to make The Staircase the seminal true crime documentary series it became, had the case itself not unfolded in real time, on camera, with one whiplash-inducing turn after another.
It’s here. It follows.
The first twist all but turns The Staircase into pure Southern Gothic melodrama: The prosecution, accessing Peterson’s computer (possibly without a proper warrant) discovered Michael was bisexual and had been engaging in homosexual dalliances on the side. It’s unclear whether Kathleen knew about Michael’s secret sex life, although he insisted she did. The prosecution’s demonization of Michael Peterson for his bisexuality became one of the focal points of the trial, with lawyers arguing it spoke to motive and called his entire character into question. Whether it actually does, like everything else in The Staircase, is debatable.
The second huge twist helped provide the documentary title. Over 15 years earlier, Peterson’s next-door neighbor Elizabeth Ratliff — the mother of Margaret and Martha, Peterson’s adopted children — was found dead at the bottom of her staircase. The last known person to see her alive? Michael Peterson. (One of the best moments in The Staircase comes in episode three, when Rudolf, learning of this development, simply reacts with: “Nope.”) Although the original autopsy concluded Ratliff died of a brain aneurysm, the coincidence of Peterson being the last known person to see two different women alive before they both wound up dead at the foot of stairs proved too wild not to explore. The prosecution exhumed Ratliff’s body and pushed hard to imply a connection between the two deaths, but this evidence just underscored how circumstantial the case against Peterson was.
The third huge twist gets captured on camera. The prosecution alleged the murder weapon was a Peterson family fireplace poker that had mysteriously “gone missing” — until the family found it collecting dust in the basement, blood-free. Years later, Rudolf learned police allegedly knew the fire poker wasn’t the murder weapon from the start.
The final huge twist ultimately won Peterson freedom. Duane Deaver, the prosecution’s chief witness, was a blood spatter expert employed in North Carolina’s state crime lab by the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI). According to The Staircase, jurors in Peterson’s trial were initially split over his guilt or innocence, but relied on Deaver’s blood spatter testimony to come to their guilty verdict.
The problem: Deaver had no training in forensics. During Peterson’s trial, he exaggerated his credentials and lied on the stand about his practical experience. Deaver claimed to have visited hundreds of crime scenes but had actually visited just 17. Due to these and other incidents of lab misconduct, the FBI audited the SBI and found the lab had withheld results favorable to the defense in hundreds of cases. Convictions across the state were re-examined. Many of them, including Peterson’s, were overturned. Today, blood spatter analysis, once so dominant in the field of forensics, is considered almost complete junk science.
Judge Orlando Hudson granted Peterson a new trial in 2011. Peterson remained released under court monitoring while awaiting a new court date. As captured in the final 2017 episodes of the Staircase documentary, Peterson pled guilty in 2017 under an Alford plea, which allows a defendant to proclaim their innocence while acknowledging the state has enough evidence to convict them. Whether the state actually did is dubious: For the documentary’s final episode, Judge Hudson reflected that if he were running the trial again, he likely would have disallowed testimony involving Peterson’s sexuality and disallowed testimony regarding Elizabeth Ratliff’s death.
Peterson’s trial had many side issues with prosecutorial team corruption, even beyond what we see in The Staircase. The district attorney who launched Peterson’s trial, Mike Nifong, was disbarred in 2007 because of extensive deceit and malfeasance regarding the Duke lacrosse scandal in 2006. Tracey Cline, the district attorney who argued against Peterson in 2011, was removed from the position in 2012 after a judge found she made statements “with malice and reckless disregard for the truth” about Judge Orlando Hudson, who oversaw the Peterson case.
During the trial, one prosecution expert witness, Saami Shaibani, exaggerated his connection to Temple University and had his testimony (which involved dubious experiments in which he observed volunteers falling down stairs) expunged from the trial record. To top it all off, the final episodes of the Staircase allege that assistant medical examiner Deborah Radisch, who autopsied Kathleen and ruled her death a homicide, initially felt her cause of death was blood loss, not blunt-force trauma. Rudolf alleges Radisch was pressured to change her initial opinion by the chief medical examiner.
All of these incidents of corruption show how stacked the odds were against Peterson. But the documentary proved to be a huge ally in his favor. In the 2011 hearing to determine whether Peterson would get a new trial, Rudolf used footage taken from The Staircase which captured how crucial Deaver’s testimony was for the prosecution. Both he and Peterson believe without The Staircase they might never have proven their argument.
De Lestrade’s work reveals its own biases. From the start, it frames Peterson and his defense as heroic underdogs fighting an unjust prosecutorial witch hunt. Part of this is a byproduct of access, since the Durham DA shut the film crew out of their investigation while the defense remained transparent throughout the court process. Still, the film crew’s fondness for Michael comes through both on camera and in the editing. The Staircase eventually abandons all pretense at objectivity.
That could be because there’s another huge twist you won’t find in The Staircase: French editor Sophie Brunet, who edited all 13 episodes of The Staircase, fell in love with Peterson during the process. She and Peterson corresponded while he was in prison and later dated for many years — all while she continued to edit the series! The new fictionalized series turns this into a large plot point, and it’s no wonder: The Staircase’s point of view is one of its main selling points, but its clear bias is also its Achilles’ heel. The documentary omits much of the case against Michael, including a possible motive: Kathleen’s hefty life insurance payout. Rudolf has pushed back against this idea, noting the prosecution backed off from a financial motive. But for many viewers, learning details like these outside of the documentary undermines its credibility.
Just in case you aren’t disoriented yet from all these record-scratch moments, there’s one last item we have to discuss.
Near the end of Peterson’s trial, the Petersons’ neighbor, lawyer Larry Pollard, came up with a startling new alternate theory for the case. Those weird scalp lacerations seemed to fit neither the prosecution nor the defense’s scenario for what happened to Kathleen. What if they were caused not by a mysterious weapon, but by the talons of an owl?
Pollard approached police, who ridiculed the idea, and Rudolf, who later told Vulture he wished Pollard had “realized it six months earlier” so it could have been a proper part of the defense.
The owl theory has become a standing true crime joke — but it has legions of proponents, including ornithologists. Not only do her scalp wounds look talon-shaped, but — wait for it — Kathleen was found holding feathers. Pine needles and twigs were also with her body, and blood was found on the outside of the house. What’s more, barred owls, which can be aggressive, were known to live in the neighborhood.
On its face the owl theory sounds absurd. But it explains the most irreconcilable aspect of the Peterson case: how Kathleen could have received those gouge-like scalp injuries but no skull fracture or contusion. The prosecution never explained this. The owl theory also accounts for Kathleen’s suspicious thyroid injury, an odd puncture wound which the defense likewise failed to address. Rudolf now keeps a section on his website enumerating reasons the owl theory makes sense.
In the years since The Staircase, Peterson has written his own book, Behind the Staircase. His children live private lives, though his son Todd recently filmed a bizarre video in which he accused his father of murdering Kathleen and deliberately failing to call 911 for Todd’s birth mother Patty, who died of a heart attack in 2021. No updates on these allegations have followed.
Meanwhile, The Staircase seems to grow more important as the years pass. Even with its subjective bias, it vividly reveals the character of a certain type of overprivileged white man at the turn of the millennium. Michael Peterson appears to be a modern-day Don Draper, skilled at lying, self-aggrandizement, and performing importance without actually being important.
It also reveals the daily workings of a troubled justice system, and the many ways an overzealous prosecution can misfire through shaky forensics, a reliance on moral panic, and grandiose speculation. We see why thorough trial defenses are so prohibitively expensive for the average low-income defendant, while also seeing just what a good defense money can buy. The Staircase ultimately shows us that even with all the money in the world, corruption in the judicial system can make a fair defense impossible.
Finally, that Rorschach test. The Staircase serves an early slice of the epistemic crisis in which we now find ourselves. “Sometimes I think they’re watching a different trial,” the late defense investigator Ron Guerette said at one point during the documentary, while watching court commentators dissect the case on Nancy Grace. Every aspect of this case remains debatable. Meanwhile, The Staircase’s influence over the modern true crime landscape shows no sign of waning.
As for who or what killed Kathleen Peterson, 20 years later we still don’t know. But with the arrival of the new series, sleuths discovering the case daily, and the Petersons continuing to draw our fascination, one thing seems clear: We’re not about to stop asking. | 2022-05-06T14:40:14Z | www.vox.com | The owl did it, and other reasons true crime fans love The Staircase - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23059122/the-staircase-real-story-kathleen-peterson-murder-michael-peterson-trial-owl-theory | https://www.vox.com/23059122/the-staircase-real-story-kathleen-peterson-murder-michael-peterson-trial-owl-theory |
In Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, superheroes are great at saving the world but rotten at saving each other
By Alex Abad-Santos May 6, 2022, 11:31am EDT
Share All sharing options for: The Avengers aren’t friends, they’re coworkers
Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness — a movie that should be named after Wanda.
This post contains light spoilers about Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, but nothing more than what we’ve seen in trailers and nine episodes of WandaVision.
The most intriguing thing about the Avengers is also the reason I’ve never really warmed to them: They’re just a group of extraordinarily gifted coworkers. For Earth’s Mightiest Heroes, being super is a job.
The first Avengers movie grafted the idea of conflicting office egos onto a hyperbolic, alien invasion allegory. The team began as an extra-governmental initiative contracted together by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). Their split in Civil War was largely about who they worked for. And Marvel’s television series The Falcon and The Winter Soldier included an entire plot built upon the fact that the Avengers weren’t paid, even in spite of Tony Stark’s (Robert Downey Jr.) astronomic wealth. How these heroes aren’t on the phone with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) demanding medical insurance and overtime reimbursement is beyond me.
The Avengers are coworkers first and friends by chance.
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness’s spin on that idea is the most riveting thing about the flashy but ultimately uneven movie. Directed by horror comedy savant Sam Raimi and written by Michael Waldron, Multiverse of Madness suggests that despite saving the world multiple times, and enduring all kinds of triumphs and trauma together, these people don’t really care about each other outside of those world-ending events.
Individually, they have their own lives. They don’t think about each other. They don’t call or text or check-in. They aren’t family. And nothing makes that more abundantly clear than when one of them loses their way.
From its first beat, Multiverse of Madness requires its audience to know everything that happened to Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) in WandaVision — including everything she did.
In that nine-episode Disney+ show, Wanda, in response to the grief of losing her android soulmate, Vision (Paul Bettany), altered the fabric of reality and gave herself a pair of twin sons while mentally enslaving an entire town of people. Think: “gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss,” but with telekinesis and chaos magic.
Eventually, thanks to a fight with an ancient witch named Agatha Harkness (Kathryn Hahn) coupled with her memories of Vision, and because she is a genuinely good person at heart, Wanda realizes that mind-controlling New Jersey townies is not morally great and undoes her hex.
But even as she came to that epiphany, Wanda also found the ultimate temptation in an ancient evil book called the Darkhold (in the show’s post-credits scene).
In Marvel mythos, the Darkhold gives its owner cataclysmic magical power, but is tethered to a Faustian deal: the book corrupts its possessor’s soul, rotting them from the inside out. Unable to resist, Wanda becomes consumed with an immolating desire to be with her conjured children. (You can tell she’s getting more evil because she gets intricate headgear, like she sports in the comic books.)
Wanda Maximoff gaslighting, gatekeeping, and girlbossing the multiverse.
Anyone who’s familiar with X-Men comics or the horrendous end of every X-Men cinematic trilogy will roll their eyes as Multiverse of Madness plops Wanda into the shopworn comic book trope of a red-headed woman feeling immense feelings that put the entire world at risk. The pleas for sanity, the gut-wrenching point of no return, the way culpability and justice are inevitable — there’s nothing fresh here.
In the present day Marvel universe, a mysterious and evil force is chasing an extra-dimensional being named America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) through the multiverse and, luckily, into the path of Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch). Chavez explains that she’s the only being who has the power to travel through the multiverse, which also explains why big evil is obsessed with her.
Strange consults Wanda, and it becomes clear that the evil chasing America and Wanda are one and the same. It’s a surprise to Strange, but not to anyone who has seen WandaVision.
One might assume that the second-most powerful sorcerer in the world, whose duty is to protect the universe from magical threats, would check on a teammate who mentally enslaved an entire town, magicked two babies out of thin air, and got a power upgrade via Marvel’s version of the Necronomicon. But that assumption would be a mistake.
The lack of interaction between Strange and Wanda could be seen as a weakness in the script or another Marvel plot hole. Lots of cataclysmic stuff happens in the MCU, like the celestial birth in Eternals or the soul-sucking, face-hugging demons in Shang-Chi, but there always seems to be a coincidental and alarming lack of Avengers present whenever these bad things happen. Yet, it’s more provocative if you consider their lack of connection deliberate — that despite saving humanity over and over, Strange fails to see the humanity in his teammate.
Since her first appearance in Age of Ultron, Wanda has always looked to the Avengers as a chosen family — mainly because she has lost everyone close to her by the time she joins the group.
She took up residence at the Avengers HQ. She forged a father-daughter bond with Hawkeye when Ultron attacked, and he helped her escape from house arrest in Civil War. Wanda also found love with Vision, whom she tragically had to kill as part of a futile plan to stop Thanos in Infinity War. When the Avengers defeated Thanos in Endgame, Vision and Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) are the only two Avengers who aren’t resurrected.
Speaking of Natasha, it’s striking too how she and Wanda are two Avengers who really see the team as their friends and family. This happens occasionally with some characters throughout Marvel storytelling, like Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and Tony Stark or the Guardians of the Galaxy, but rarely do we see individual characters think of the entire Avengers team as a family unit. (Both Wanda and Natasha are also women who have red hair, have issues with having children, and in a bit of clumsy, insensitive writing, juxtapose their maternal status with the word “monster.”)
It was also Natasha who kept some semblance of the Avengers up and running after Thanos’s snap, and kept searching for any clue that would bring her friends back. Natasha sacrificed herself for the Soul Stone to bring back her Avengers teammates and their loved ones, only to have many of those same teammates mourn her death by wondering out loud how little they knew about her.
After Thanos was finally vanquished, the Avengers (sans Natasha) disbanded and so did Wanda’s makeshift family. No one — not Hawkeye; not Okoye or Shuri, who Wanda briefly befriended in Wakanda; not Falcon or Bucky, with whom she fought alongside in Civil War; not any of the female Avengers with whom she teamed up with in that “she’s got help” Endgame moment — checked in with her.
It’s hard to distinguish whether this dynamic is an indictment of Wanda for expecting too much from her teammates, or of her teammates for not caring enough about her. Maybe the indecision is the point, and how deeply you feel (or don’t feel) for Wanda is reflective of your own ideas about what being part of a team means, and friendship factors into that equation. The same goes for Strange’s behavior toward his teammate.
Doctor Strange is not a good negotiator in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness
While Strange is there to protect the multiverse, he’s absent when Wanda needs his help the most. He also isn’t particularly invested in researching any solutions that involve saving Wanda’s soul from the Darkhold. And throughout the movie he, for some inexplicable reason, constantly reminds Wanda that she’s technically not a mom. The strategy of berating a woman who’s grieving her lost children and whose soul is being devoured by an ancient evil with a comically insensitive combination of words seems like a particularly cruel one.
Strange’s lack of tact isn’t out of character. His comic book history and his first movie are punctuated with moments of arrogance, coldness, and unintentionally mean and paternalistic relationships with women. He will do anything to get the job done and defeating Wanda at all costs, in Strange’s eyes, has become the job.
Multiverse of Madness becomes an exhibit of how Doctor Strange and his Avengers teammates are very good at saving the world, but rotten at saving each other. Heroes can do good things without kindness. This is how the Avengers function and have always functioned. And maybe the tragedy, then, isn’t that no one was there to help Wanda, but rather that Wanda expected anything more from a group of world-saving coworkers.
What happens when the public loses faith in the Supreme Court? Overturning Roe will likely weaken the public’s already-low trust in the Court. With a contested election looming in 2024, that’s a recipe for disaster. | 2022-05-06T16:41:53Z | www.vox.com | Doctor Strange and the Avengers aren’t friends, they’re coworkers - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/6/23059922/multiverse-of-madness-review-wanda-maximoff-avengers-coworkers | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/6/23059922/multiverse-of-madness-review-wanda-maximoff-avengers-coworkers |
By Rachel M. Cohen@rmc031 May 7, 2022, 7:30am EDT
Share All sharing options for: The abortion provider that Republicans are struggling to stop
Dutch physician Rebecca Gomperts, shown here in 2020, founded the nonprofit Aid Access in March 2018 to provide abortion medication to women in the US.
Remko de Waal/ANP/AFP via Getty Images
In 2018, more than two decades after Dutch physician Rebecca Gomperts first became an activist to deliver abortion pills around the world, she turned to the United States. For years she had dedicated her life to working in countries where the procedure was illegal, and was firm in her refusal to avoid the US, where safe, legalized access was still available. “I think this is a problem the US has to solve itself,” she explained in 2014.
But following the election of President Donald Trump, the desperate requests she received from Americans went up, and the cost barriers in the US were glaring.
So Gomperts launched a new nonprofit organization based in Austria — Aid Access — with the goal of providing affordable and accessible abortion services to people in the US.
Over the past four years, Aid Access says it has delivered abortion medication — mifepristone and misoprostol — to more than 30,000 Americans across all 50 states, including the 19 conservative states that currently ban telemedicine abortion.
The organization plays a unique role in the US reproductive rights ecosystem by successfully exploiting legal loopholes that make it easier for an overseas doctor to care for American patients in restrictive states — a role that could become even more key if Roe v. Wade is struck down.
If the right to an abortion does get overturned, Aid Access staff say they feel confident their services could continue, in the same way they’ve been able to operate in red states that have barred other abortion groups.
For now, the biggest one may be the big tech platforms. Aid Access needs to spread awareness about its services, and quickly. The pills, when shipped from overseas, can take two to three weeks to arrive, and Aid Access prescribes the two medications up to the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. But because it operates outside the formal US health care system, Aid Access says it has been penalized by search engines and social media giants that have tried to tackle the spread of Covid-19 misinformation.
Aid Access still pops up on Google if you search the organization’s name, but most users had come to the site while searching for terms like “abortion by mail” and “abortion pills.” Following a series of algorithm updates beginning in May 2020, Aid Access says it no longer shows up in top results for general medication abortion searches — and that ads from its sister organization, Women on Web, which serves countries all over the world, are frequently removed or rejected from Facebook and Instagram for dubious reasons, like “language ... that is likely to offend users.”
Republicans might not be able to stop Aid Access right now, but it appears that Silicon Valley can.
How Aid Access works
The Aid Access model goes like this: If you need an abortion, you fill out an online consultation form. If you’re early enough in your pregnancy and deemed eligible, then you’re referred to a provider. People living in the country’s more liberal states and Washington, DC, are referred to a US-based provider who fills prescriptions that ship typically in two or three days. For women living in the 31 states that Aid Access counts as having tighter abortion restrictions, Gomperts sends the prescriptions to a pharmacist in India, who then mails the pills directly to patients in the US. (Aid Access chooses India in part because the country produces regulated, high-quality generics, Gomperts has said.)
Gomperts and the women she prescribes pills for operate in something of a legal gray area. As a result of being registered to practice medicine in Austria, she is subject to Austrian law, and therefore exempt from specific rules and regulations affecting doctors in the US, like state requirements for ultrasounds or 72-hour waiting periods. And while personal imports of drugs from other countries are usually against US law, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said it generally avoids going after individuals who bring medicines in for personal use.
It’s a model Gomperts developed first in 2005 with Aid Access’s older sister organization. Since its founding, Women on Web says it has delivered abortion pills to more than 100,000 women across the world, reaching pregnant patients in countries with restrictive laws, like Sudan, Hungary, and Brazil. In 2018, Gomperts set up Aid Access under a separate corporate structure, to serve the US while protecting Women on Web from the aggressive US anti-abortion movement.
Women on Web and Aid Access founder Rebecca Gomperts, second from right, leads supporters in a chant as the abortion rights campaign group ROSA holds a rally in Londonderry, Northern Ireland, in 2018. The group had earlier risked arrest after distributing abortion pills from a tour bus.
Activists note that medication abortion is far safer than many painkillers easily purchased over the counter, and the World Health Organization maintains that individuals can self-administer the drugs without direct supervision of a health care provider during their first trimester. New Lancet research published in February affirmed the safety of the Aid Access model, which also provides the medication at significantly lower cost than in-person surgical abortions or even the new crop of US startups like Hey Jane, Abortion on Demand, and Carafem.
Aid Access says its work will continue in a post-Roe environment, and that requests for pills and information tripled in the wake of Monday’s leaked Roe opinion draft.
Christie Pitney, a midwife who fills prescriptions for Aid Access patients in California, Massachusetts, Oregon, and DC, said that while patients in some states with trigger bans may have to switch from US-based providers like Pitney to Gomperts, Aid Access will keep serving them. “We’ll still be here,” she said.
“We’re pretty nonplussed, to be honest,” Pitney told Vox. “I don’t see a route [to stopping us]. It’s not to say that it’s impossible, I just don’t see a route for politicians to eliminate access to Aid Access; they just don’t have the jurisdiction to criminalize an international doctor.”
Other international doctors could also join Aid Access if Roe were struck down to help Gomperts prescribe the abortion pills, though she told Vox that thus far she has not been approached by any physicians.
A struggle for internet traffic
Despite the unique strategy Aid Access and Women on Web deploy, over the past two years, the organizations say they have been fighting against search engine algorithms that deprioritize their services, and opaque social media policies that limit or block their posts.
Earlier this year, in an interview with the New York Review of Books, Gomperts said that “the algorithms of Google are suddenly becoming the de facto gatekeeper to access to safe abortion services in the US.” When Google set out to correct Covid-19 misinformation and started elevating more health sites that were officially government-sanctioned, Gomperts said it had the side effect of demoting sites like hers.
Searches like “abortion by mail” and “online abortion” no longer led users to Gomperts’s groups, she says. Women on Web, for example, says it saw a 90 percent drop in daily global traffic after Google rolled out a new update on May 4, 2020. A subsequent update brought back some of what had disappeared, doubling its now-minuscule traffic, but then a third algorithmic update six months later took 40 percent of what remained. “We’re back to pretty low,” said Venny Ala-Siurua, the executive director.
Ala-Siurua told Vox that deprioritization in internet search results remains one of their biggest barriers. Google “keep[s] pushing up traditional health providers, brick-and-mortar clinics, but they’re missing what’s happening in the digital world today,” she said. “The algorithm is not neutral. It was built and written usually by white men in the Bay Area who might not really be in tune with what the needs are here.”
Aid Access isn’t alleging Google is intentionally restricting access to its site specifically, but Gomperts told the New York Review of Books that they might eventually launch a lawsuit over this. “The algorithms are making it much harder to find the places where you can obtain these medicines,” she said. “That is what people don’t realize: It’s Google that is filtering people’s access to information.”
Lara Levin, a Google spokesperson, told Vox that their search ranking systems “are designed to return relevant results from the most reliable sources, and on critical topics related to health matters, we place an even greater emphasis on signals of reliability.” Levin added that no update is made to benefit or penalize any one site. “We give site owners and content producers ample notice of relevant updates along with actionable guidance,” she said.
The Facebook and Instagram accounts for Women on Web have had spending restrictions placed on them for more than a year, after their ads were flagged or hidden by other users who oppose their work or who found their content “to be offensive ... violent, [or] about a sensitive topic.” Some of their ads for medication abortion have also been rejected, with rationales like “Ads must not promote the sale or use of unsafe supplements, as determined by Facebook in its sole discretion.” One Women on Web Instagram post that read, “You can now order abortion pills BEFORE you are pregnant,” and included a link for advanced provision was taken down for not following “community guidelines.”
A Women on Web Instagram post that was taken down this spring for not following “community guidelines.”
Courtesy of Women on Web
Facebook did not respond to a request for comment on the Women on Web ads specifically, but pointed Vox to company policies from Meta (Facebook and Instagram’s parent company) including ad prohibitions for direct sales of prescription drugs, and for ads promoting reproductive health products or services to people under age 18. In November 2021, Facebook also announced it would remove ad targeting options for topics people may perceive as “sensitive” — including health-related causes.
But at least one of the examples Women on Web showed Vox — the one about ordering pills before you’re pregnant — wasn’t an ad. It was a regular post to the group’s Instagram profile that they didn’t pay to amplify or target.
The algorithmic battles playing out reflect broader challenges faced by tech companies, which are under pressure to crack down on misinformation and propaganda and to take clearer stands on polarized political issues that users may be researching. The last few years have also brought greater attention to the ways in which machine learning and AI more broadly can reflect bias and discrimination, even while purporting to be objective and neutral.
“We have to be careful not to frame questions as one of adapting to technology,” said David Broniatowski, a professor at George Washington University who has studied anti-vaccination communities online. “The technology is out in the world, so we should ask how to remake technology so we can achieve goals that are of best benefit to society.”
Aid Access has withstood legal challenges, so far
Aid Access has faced one regulatory challenge, in 2019, when the FDA sent the group a cease-and-desist letter, claiming that its generic mifepristone drug represented a “misbranded and unapproved” drug that posed risk to consumers. (The FDA approved one brand of mifepristone, Mifeprex, in 2000, and in 2019 approved a generic version.)
Aid Access, in turn, sued the FDA, alleging the agency was impeding Americans’ constitutional right to an abortion and that its drugs were, in fact, approved. Aid Access also maintained that the FDA had no legal jurisdiction over Gomperts. The case was dismissed in part because the FDA never took action following its letter.
The Biden administration has taken a friendly stance toward medication abortion, but a change in the White House in 2024 or beyond could mean new challenges from the FDA or other agencies. Legal threats against Aid Access without the constitutional protection of Roe might make things even more complicated.
Anti-abortion activists and lawmakers have been ramping up their efforts to crack down on abortion pills, an unsurprising development given that medication abortion accounted for 54 percent of all US abortions in 2020. In 2022 alone, according to the Guttmacher Institute, lawmakers in 22 states have introduced new legislation to restrict the drugs.
Rather than punish those who seek abortions, the slew of anti-abortion laws introduced over the past decade has targeted physicians, clinics, and anyone else who helps to “aid and abet” someone who has an abortion, as Texas’s recent ban put it. Abortion activists have worried about the criminalization of patients, but so far efforts have been limited and largely unsuccessful.
Whether any of these new laws could affect Aid Access’s operations or the patients who seek out its services remains an outstanding question. It’s hard to know what abortion access in the US will look like in a year, or five.
But for Americans seeking to end their pregnancies now — whether they live in red states with heavy abortion restrictions or in blue states with more liberal laws but heavy financial barriers — Aid Access represents a lifeline. If they can find it. | 2022-05-07T11:35:55Z | www.vox.com | The abortions Republicans struggle to stop: Mail abortion pills and Aid Access - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23056530/aid-access-abortion-roe-wade-pills-mifepristone | https://www.vox.com/23056530/aid-access-abortion-roe-wade-pills-mifepristone |
By Kelsey Piper May 7, 2022, 7:00am EDT
Researchers examine a bat as part of their search for dangerous animal pathogens in the Global Viral Forecasting Initiative Lab in Yaounde, Cameroon, in July 2011. Global Viral (now part of Metabiota, Inc.) was a PREDICT partner in Cameroon, working to develop an early-warning system for pandemics to monitor the transmission of infectious diseases from animals to humans.
Share All sharing options for: Can we stop the next pandemic by seeking out deadly viruses in the wild?
In 2009, USAID, the US government agency responsible for international development, initiated Predict, a groundbreaking project for its time.
The $200 million program was tasked with building other countries’ capabilities to detect new viruses and manage outbreaks, studying the human-wildlife interface and learning about how viruses cross over into humans. Its headline work was viral discovery: directly finding novel viruses in wildlife that posed a risk of a pandemic before they spilled over, and ideally, prevent it from happening.
But after a little more than a decade, the program’s funding was cut off by the Trump administration in October 2019 — right before the novel coronavirus hit. (At the time, I mourned its passing and saw it as one more sign that we weren’t ready for the next pandemic.) And in 2021, with the threat of pandemics firmly established by the catastrophic impact of Covid-19, the Biden administration announced plans to restart a viral discovery program, this time under a new name: Deep Vzn.
Deep Vzn is an acronym for Discovery and Exploration of Emerging Pathogens — Viral Zoonoses. It’s a five-year, $125 million endeavor to send out teams all over the world to identify potentially dangerous pathogens in the wild, bring those viruses back to the lab, and perform experiments to identify which ones could seed the next pandemic.
Some of that work happened under Predict’s umbrella as well, but even at the time of the earlier program, some virologists were quietly saying that viral discovery was overhyped and a waste of time. And in the years since Predict launched, the conversation on the value of viral discovery has shifted toward even greater pessimism.
Critics — including researchers who study biosecurity and biosafety — argue it doesn’t really pass a cost-benefit analysis. In some ways, virus hunting is looking for a needle in a haystack — the handful of viruses that might cross over to humans amid tens of thousands that won’t — when we don’t even know how to tell needles from hay, or what to do with a needle once we identify one.
And some experts are raising another, even sharper question: What if viral discovery is not just an ineffective tactic but a terrible idea, one that might not only fail to prevent the next pandemic but potentially even make it more likely?
“Do you really want to be going into these bat caves to collect and then catalogue which ones are most dangerous to humans?” Andy Weber, assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs under the Obama administration, told me.
His concern isn’t just that we’re looking for a needle in a haystack that we may never find. It’s that if we did discover a virus that would devastate the world if it crossed over into humans, someone might expose themselves accidentally while researching it, as has happened with smallpox and with influenzas. Worse, finding a virus and infecting animals with it in a lab could open the door to accidental release or intentional use. Success, in other words, could be worse than failure.
Monitoring the interface between humans and animals for pandemic prevention has value, particularly when the programs are narrowly targeted at certain objectives: say, a focus on reducing spillover, or surveillance of potential animal infections, or studying viruses that have already spilled over into humans. Research published last month in Nature projects that global warming could drive 4,000 viruses to spread for the first time between mammals, including potentially humans and animals, by 2070, underscoring the changing threat from zoonotic spillovers.
But if the risks of virus hunting are higher than the odds of a virus crossing over into humans and sparking a pandemic naturally, then viral discovery doesn’t just look inefficient. It looks like a bad idea.
Finding viruses in the deepest reaches of the natural world
The concept of viral discovery is simple: Every disease that might cause a naturally occurring pandemic is out there somewhere in the environment. What if we found it before it found us?
Researchers collect samples from a bat inside a cave in the Zadie region of Gabon in November 2020.
Steve Jordan/AFP via Getty Images
That was the concept behind one plank of Predict’s work, which sampled “at least 931 novel virus species from 145,000 samples of wildlife, livestock, and humans,” according to a 2020 paper by biologist Colin Carlson, of Georgetown University.
The Global Virome Project has a similar aim. Launched in 2018 and estimated to cost between $1 billion and $4 billion, it aims to go out into the wild and test animals for viruses. (The Global Virome Project did not reply to a request for comment.)
The key idea behind Predict, the Global Virome Project, and Deep Vzn was that if we build a catalog of hundreds of thousands of viruses out there in nature, we will figure out which ones threaten humans, and then we’ll be better prepared if and when they spill over.
“Developing these tools now is essential for being better prepared for the future when new viruses spillover and stopping them from causing outbreaks that could become pandemics,” USAID’s announcement of Deep Vzn as a program declared.
The idea behind these initiatives makes intuitive sense. The notion of being proactive in searching for the next deadly virus that could hobble humanity certainly holds appeal, especially in the post-Covid age. But scientifically, the rationale for such a program rests on more questionable ground than many of its backers assume, according to some experts.
“I still fail to see at this point how it’s going to better prepare the human race for the next infectious disease that jumps from animals to humans,” Michael Osterholm, the director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, has argued.
“Before the pandemic, the dominant paradigm was that if we could find these threats we could predict and prevent [the next pandemic],” Carlson, the biologist, told me. “It was a silly thing to believe even without the pandemic. ... There has been a disconnect between the proposed benefits and the reality for a while.”
Carlson’s paper goes further. “History tells us viral discovery is not enough to prevent pandemics: influenza was first isolated in 1933, Zika in 1947, chikungunya in 1952, and amid the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus in 2003 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus in 2012, nearly two decades of wildlife sampling has turned up hundreds of new coronavirus species,” he writes.
And yet, knowing that a virus exists among thousands of viruses in nature, it appears, doesn’t by itself do much of anything to help us defend against it. Supporters argue that it can help with developing vaccines or treatments. But there’s yet to be an example of a successful human vaccine or treatment development program for a virus identified only in the wild — and most of the time it takes to get vaccines or treatments ready for wide-scale use is spent on clinical trials in humans that are not conducted for viruses that have been found only in animals.
It’s hard to rule out that any particular avenue of scientific research might turn up an important insight down the line. Not much has come of the viral discovery elements of Predict (more on that below), but there’s always the chance something is just around the corner to be discovered.
But with all that said, many prominent researchers remain skeptical. “Broad genomic surveys of animal viruses will ... be of little practical value when it comes to understanding and mitigating the emergence of disease,” leading virologists Edward Holmes, Andrew Rambaut, and Kristian Andersen argued in Nature in 2018, in a commentary titled “Pandemics: spend on surveillance, not prediction.” “We urge those working on infectious disease to focus funds and efforts on a much simpler and more cost-effective way to mitigate outbreaks — proactive, real-time surveillance of human populations.”
And there’s an even worse risk here to ponder.
Could viral discovery risk causing the pandemics it’s meant to stop?
In general, much pandemic prevention work has focused on minimizing human-animal interfaces — for example, encouraging people not to hunt and eat animals that are disease reservoirs, and not to go in caves full of disease-carrying bats.
A market in Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, sells both imported and wild pig, including the red river hog and other popular forms of bushmeat, in February 2015. Scientists have speculated that the practice of eating bushmeat, which is popular across Africa, was responsible for the Ebola outbreak that year.
Nichole Sobecki/Washington Post/Getty Images
But virus hunting itself frequently involves exposure to the highest-risk human-animal interfaces. One 2021 Science article about Predict tells an anecdote about the virology researchers trying to find new viruses in the Amazon: “Monkeys have bitten and sneezed on Gordo [a virus hunter profiled], and on this trip a syringe broke as he squeezed the plunger, spraying monkey blood on his face shield. He says his wife complains when he stashes monkey carcasses in their home fridge.” The tone is lighthearted, but the content is, considered from the perspective of closely working with potentially dangerous viruses, fairly terrifying.
In China, a researcher looking for bat coronaviruses “once forgot personal protective equipment and was splattered with bat urine, leading him to quarantine at home for two weeks. On multiple occasions, bat blood squirted onto his skin while he was trying to grasp the animals with a clamp,” the Washington Post reported, citing interviews in Chinese state media.
Research under those conditions might find previously undiscovered viruses. It also might spread them.
“USAID takes biosafety and biosecurity extremely seriously and has established detailed safety protocols and procedures to ensure this work is done safely,” a USAID spokesperson told me, though they did not share details.
Another concern is what happens once viruses are taken to the lab for testing and characterization, which often involves infecting lab animals with the virus to see whether and how they’re affected.
“They want to take the viruses that look the scariest, and take them back to the lab, and do experiments on them to determine which really pose a threat of a pandemic,” said Kevin Esvelt, a biologist at MIT known for his pioneering work on the gene-editing technology CRISPR. “As soon as you take them back to the lab and start working with them, you run the risk of accidental pandemics” — for example, from lab escapes, where a virus under controlled conditions makes it out of the lab and into the general population.
But that’s not even the most significant risk from such research, Weber says. “The biggest concern is that in the process of identifying potential pandemic pathogens we are actually giving a cookbook to potential bad actors,” he warns.
His argument: Let’s say you are a state actor starting a bioweapons program, or a terrorist group like the Aum Shinrikyo cult, which in the 1990s actively tried to build biological agents it could use to harm civilians.
Wouldn’t a public, neatly ordered list of genomes for all the most dangerous viruses humanity has been able to identify — for which there is no natural immunity and no stockpiled vaccines — provide the perfect shopping list?
“Once a pandemic-capable pathogen has been identified, its genome features high dual-use potential: it may inform biosurveillance while also constituting a blueprint to cause widespread harm,” a recent preprint paper from researchers at Oxford and Georgetown concluded.
Part of USAID’s plan for Deep Vzn is that all of the discovered genomes would be fully public, which is itself a response to legitimate previous concerns that viral discovery work involved the US going into poor countries and collecting data that the US then didn’t share with locals.
Esvelt puts it like this: “As soon as we publicly identify pandemic-capable viruses, we’ll be giving tens of thousands of individuals the ability to kill as many people as a nuclear device could.” In other words, knowing in advance that a virus might spill over and kill millions of people would theoretically be great. But if scientists effectively tell the world “this virus, if it infected humans, would kill millions of people,” then they’ve created a clear information hazard, accidentally opening the door to potential cataclysmic harm.
Developing effective bioweapons is difficult — but the hard part isn’t the doing, it’s identifying the rare one that is contagious and dangerous to human beings. If well-intentioned research does that part and a list of such viruses is published, then weaponizing them is quite doable even for a small team. “My own skills are rusty but I could probably do it myself,” Esvelt told me.
“The way the life sciences work is that they post the DNA of everything publicly,” Weber told me. “That’s inevitably going to enable bad actors. The sequences are the recipes for the world’s most dangerous weapons.”
Researchers wearing protective gear work in the P4 European High Level Security Laboratory in Lyon, France, in 2009. The lab, which normally handles only the most deadly viruses such as Ebola, was preparing to receive the then-new swine flu influenza virus H1N1.
How much of a threat is that, really? Don’t we already have deadly diseases? Sure, terrorists could build a pandemic virus identified through Deep Vzn, but couldn’t they also build smallpox or the 1918 flu? (The genomes for both are available.)
“We live in an era where people can create viruses if they have the blueprint,” Carlson told me. But he’s not worried that virus hunting could add new blueprints: “I believe that in terms of containment scenarios a flu is a bigger fear, and we certainly don’t say that all flu sequences should be confidential. The marginal risk is very small.”
Esvelt disagrees. “The key point to get across ... is that right now we don’t actually know of any pandemic-capable viruses” that spread in humans for which a vaccine doesn’t exist, he told me. There’s smallpox, but the US has hundreds of millions of vaccine doses on hand (and for complicated technical reasons, poxes are harder to create from a blueprint in a lab than flus or coronaviruses are, though not impossible). There are influenzas that have already hit human populations, for which we also have vaccines (and some natural immunity).
“We are partly protected by our limited knowledge of specific genotypes, mechanisms, and other critical biological details” of how best to kick off a deadly pandemic, the Oxford/Georgetown paper finds.
Is identifying new recipes for mass death worth it? That comes down to a crucial question: Does having such recipes aid in “defense” against pandemics more than it aids in “offense”?
A look at viral discovery’s track record
The case for work like Deep Vzn’s viral discovery is simple: What if scientists had known in advance that Covid-19 was circulating in wild animals, and had known it posed a threat to humans?
In that case, they could have gotten a head start on developing vaccines and treatments. If the next Covid-19 is identified while it’s still in animal hosts, the world could potentially prevent it from spilling over — or least be ready for it if it does by designing broad-spectrum vaccines and treatments.
The problem is that the world did take exactly this approach to identifying risky coronaviruses after SARS outbreaks in the early 2000s. US programs like Predict funded research to collect pathogens in the wild, including partnerships with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to collect and study coronaviruses — partnerships that hit the headlines when the coronavirus pandemic began in Wuhan.
Whether or not the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s coronavirus work had anything to do with causing the last pandemic — many virologists argue that a natural origin is more likely — there was widespread agreement among the experts I talked to that the huge collection of coronaviruses amassed before the pandemic had limited utility in developing treatments or vaccines once Covid-19 began spreading.
Members of the World Health Organization team investigating the origins of the Covid-19 coronavirus arrive at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, on February 3, 2021.
“After having done this work for 15 years, I think there’s little to show for it. As the intelligence community concluded, it’s plausible that it actually caused this pandemic, and to me that’s enough,” Weber told me. “We don’t have to be sure what caused this pandemic to reduce the risk of the next pandemic. It was of zero help in preventing this pandemic or even predicting this pandemic.”
“As best as I can tell, the only thing we needed for the vaccine was the prior work on the spike protein,” Esvelt told me, “and that did not result from any virus discovery or characterization in the lab.”
A USAID spokesperson disputed that claim. Predict, they told me, “advanced the current knowledge of several different viral families, including an understanding of where risks are and the human behavior leading to contact with animals that increases the potential for spillover. This information is being used by scientists to develop broadly protective vaccines and medicines, critical tools to have available for when/if a new coronavirus causes an outbreak in the future.”
Predict’s critics say that while almost any research can technically be said to have “advanced the current knowledge” of viruses, the benefits here are oversold to the public: nothing major, exciting, or especially promising came out of Predict’s viral discovery work — and the most valuable work Predict did was in testing humans near wildlife-human interfaces for diseases that had already crossed over into humans.
“Predict only discovered a single conclusive zoonotic virus that spilled over into humans — and this not through wildlife sampling, but from analyzing patient samples,” the recent Oxford and Georgetown paper on large-scale viral surveillance programs noted.
“Since the SARS-CoV-1 outbreak in 2003, numerous animal coronaviruses have been gathered and investigated, but this work did little to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic or inform vaccine design,” the researchers wrote, concluding the most valuable work was studies of MERS and SARS — the coronaviruses that had caused severe disease in humans.
The crucial zoonotic crossover work isn’t viral discovery
All of this isn’t to say that efforts to study zoonotic crossover aren’t hugely important, or don’t have a major role to play in pandemic preparedness. Much of Predict’s other work was hugely valuable — for example, research on reducing human-wildlife contact and enhancing international disease response partnerships.
There is no question that lots more preparedness work is needed to prevent the next pandemic. It’s just a matter of what work is best — and safest. “Ultimately, what makes one spillover event into a pandemic versus an isolated outbreak has a lot more to do with policies and health systems (i.e., community awareness, surveillance systems, rapid response capabilities) than it does about knowing ahead of time what sort of characteristics the virus has,” Georgetown biologist Claire Standley, one of the authors of the paper looking at surveillance programs, told me.
The paper ultimately highlights a more narrow approach as likely more cost-effective and lower-risk: focusing on response capabilities and human infections in areas where zoonotic crossover is a possibility. “Adopting such a highly focused approach for zoonotic risk prediction may not only reduce safety and security risks associated with the large-scale collection of wildlife viruses, but also generate more actionable insights — and likely at a lower price tag,” the paper concludes.
Esvelt’s ultimate takeaway? “Let’s not learn to make pandemics until we can reliably defend against them. Instead, we could take all of these funds that we were going to use to identify which particular viruses cause pandemics and pour it back into preventing spillover.” | 2022-05-07T11:36:01Z | www.vox.com | Can we stop the next pandemic by seeking out deadly viruses in the wild? - Vox | https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/5/7/22973296/virus-hunting-discovery-deep-vzn-global-virome-project | https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/5/7/22973296/virus-hunting-discovery-deep-vzn-global-virome-project |
The outlook is grim in the short term. But there are three possible paths over the longer term.
Share All sharing options for: The prospects for restoring Roe
Abortion rights activists attend a rally in front of the US Supreme Court on May 5. Protesters on both sides of the abortion debate continue to demonstrate following the leaked draft of the Court’s potential decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
If the leaked draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade becomes finalized, the prospects for restoring national abortion rights protections in the near term are grim.
The medium- and longer-term prospects, though, are ... still grim, but slightly less so.
Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion would lift the Court’s prohibition of state laws banning abortion, ending a status quo that has held for nearly 50 years. The Court’s conservative majority looks entrenched, for now. But the political situation can change over time, and in unexpected ways, though it could take years or even decades for the right circumstances to arise.
There are three basic scenarios by which Roe’s protections could be restored — none of which are particularly likely, but none of which are outright impossible either.
One goes through the Supreme Court: Future liberal appointees could just, well, put Roe back. A second goes through Congress: A bigger Democratic majority could either overcome the filibuster (if they have 60 votes) or vote to eliminate it with a majority, opening the way to codify Roe in law or even pack the courts.
Both paths require Democrats to win more elections. Appointing any justice will likely require the presidency and Senate control. Passing new laws would require a bigger Senate majority and holding the House as well.
It may sound banal to say, as President Joe Biden has, that the best hope abortion rights supporters have for restoring Roe’s protections is keeping Democrats in control of the presidency and Congress, with as big majorities as possible. But it’s pretty clearly true.
It’s also easier said than done. Democrats’ current voter coalition is disadvantaged in the Electoral College and the Senate map. And if new Court appointments or new laws restore Roe, the next time Republicans regain power, they’d have the same tools — they could appoint new justices or even ban abortion nationally if the filibuster is gone.
A third scenario, though, would involve a change in the Republican Party. The GOP could calculate, due to a public opinion backlash or electoral defeats, that they need to moderate on abortion.
That’s certainly not going to happen in the foreseeable future; it would have to be a long-term transformation. But it’s really the only chance for national abortion protections to be durably reestablished, because their seeming safety over the past 50 years was always illusory so long as the GOP was gunning for them.
Scenario 1: Fill naturally occurring Court vacancies
Roe is set to be overturned by a majority of five Supreme Court justices, and it could be put back by another majority. To get there, Democrats would have to replace at least one, and probably two, conservative justices with liberal ones.
The problem is that conservative justices will try not to retire while Democrats are in power. So this path would rely partly on chance (when justices happen to die or become otherwise unable to serve). Yes, these are the grim calculations that the Supreme Court’s lifetime appointments incentivize.
But it’s not entirely chance. It’s also about electoral performance — who holds the presidency and the Senate when justices die or step down. For instance, Thurgood Marshall, a liberal justice appointed in 1967, had hoped to be replaced by a Democratic president. But Republicans won the 1980, 1984, and 1988 elections, he decided his health couldn’t hold out any longer, and in 1991 he was replaced by Justice Clarence Thomas.
The more a party wins, the better the odds an unexpected Supreme Court vacancy will arise while they’re in power. This means holding the presidency, and likely nowadays it means holding the Senate too — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Republican majority blocked President Barack Obama from replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Republicans assembled their anti-Roe majority by waiting for these vacancies to arise and acting aggressively when they did. They got Neil Gorsuch confirmed instead of Merrick Garland, made sure Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed before the 2018 midterms could have lost them the Senate, and voted up Amy Coney Barrett just over a month after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died.
But this is hardly a quick fix — it took nearly 50 years for Republicans to get this five-vote anti-Roe bloc. So Democrats could be waiting a while, too. After Justice Stephen Breyer steps down this summer, there will be no more octogenarians on the Court, and its oldest justices will be Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who are 73 and 72, respectively.
Democrats can maximize their chances of having power at the right time by holding the presidency and Senate as long as possible, but there’s no guarantee the opportunities will arise any time soon. And the more elections Republicans win — allowing them to replenish their aging conservative justices with younger ones — the further these prospects will recede.
Still, things can change quickly. As late as early November 2016, it seemed plausible, and perhaps even likely, that Roe was safe and liberals were on the cusp of their first outright Supreme Court majority in decades. But Trump won, Republicans held the Senate, and Ginsburg died, so here we are.
Scenario 2: Act through Congress by abolishing the filibuster
So rather than simply waiting, perhaps forever, the other path is for Democrats to act through Congress by passing new laws. This could be an abortion-specific law codifying Roe’s protections (though that would have to survive this Supreme Court). Or, congressional Democrats could pack the Supreme Court, as some progressives want — expanding its size and filling new slots with liberals.
Democrats won’t be able to do either of these right away, though, for the same reason: the Senate’s filibuster rule, and moderate Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema’s insistence on keeping that rule.
It takes 60 votes to advance legislation through the Senate unless it’s a budgetary bill, which neither of these proposals would be. If Democrats managed to regain a 60-vote Senate majority, as they briefly had in 2009 and early 2010, they could overcome the filibuster and pass new laws. (Probably 61 would be needed if Manchin, who is likely not a reliable vote on measures protecting abortion rights, is still around.) But it would be tremendously difficult to win so many seats, especially since the party faces a structural disadvantage in the Senate map.
Alternatively, a smaller Democratic majority could deploy what’s known as the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules and get rid of the filibuster with just their majority (50 votes plus the vice president). But this current Congress has failed to get that done — Manchin and Sinema have refused pressures to do this since their party took power.
Theoretically, if Democrats managed to expand their majority by two more Senate seats, they could move forward with a rules change — unless another moderate suddenly comes down with a case of cold feet. Alternatively, if a future Republican Senate abolishes the filibuster, Democrats would be able to pass abortion protections next time they’re in power.
Yet if the filibuster is abolished by either party, Republicans would be able to pass laws with a simple majority when they’re in power, too. They could at the very least reverse any Democratic law establishing abortion protections, and at most try to ban abortion nationwide. If Democrats expand the court, the GOP could expand it further.
So congressional action wouldn’t result in a durable restoration of Roe unless Democrats can manage to keep holding onto Congress. That will prove quite difficult, particularly in the Senate. Democrats have the narrowest possible Senate majority right now, but their voter coalition is not well distributed for the Senate map, where they could well fall into a deep disadvantage in the coming years. Again, their way to maximize their chances of success is by winning more of these elections, but that’s quite difficult.
Scenario 3: Shift the GOP’s position by winning the war of public opinion
Though abortion rights activists were well aware for years of the danger Roe was in, less-engaged American liberals may have simply taken it for granted, assuming it would be around forever. It had survived for so long, after all, so it would probably keep surviving, right?
But this safety was an illusion because abortion rights had never won the truly widespread public support it would take to entrench them nationally. Many conservatives continued to argue that abortion was deeply wrong and Roe should be overturned, and one of the country’s two major political parties has been committed to that viewpoint for decades.
Indeed, Roe was very nearly overturned three decades ago, in 1992, but conservatives on the Court fell one vote short of a majority to do so because moderate Republican-appointed justices voted with their more liberal colleagues. Anti-abortion activists then spent the next three decades trying to make sure that would never happen again. Their success in creating an anti-Roe Court majority certainly wasn’t inevitable — it took a very long time and required a good deal of good luck — but they do now seem to have achieved it.
The reality, then, is that even if Democrats do somehow manage to restore Roe’s protections nationally, all that would be subject to reversal the next time Republicans hold power. The Court could swing back and forth based on new appointments. Or, if Democrats eliminate the filibuster and codify Roe or pack the Court, Republicans could reverse those measures or enact further-right measures (say, with a national abortion ban) next time they’re in charge.
The only way to pull out of this spiral would be if anti-abortion activists lose their hold on the Republican Party, and probably on the Republican electorate too. Perhaps a national backlash against the GOP for overreaching on abortion will materialize, and they’ll feel compelled to moderate their position or lose power. Or perhaps even the red-state public, once abortion restrictions are implemented and their effects become clear, will grow convinced they actually aren’t desirable.
At the moment, such a scenario seems far-fetched, bordering on impossible. And maybe it is. But in the long term, that’s what would be needed to entrench abortion protections nationally. If a public opinion shift doesn’t happen, Roe protections, even if they are restored, would never truly be safe. | 2022-05-07T17:02:16Z | www.vox.com | The prospects for restoring Roe v. Wade - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23055648/roe-v-wade-codify-court-pack | https://www.vox.com/23055648/roe-v-wade-codify-court-pack |
The infinite potential of the multiverse opens the door for Marvel’s merry mutants
Share All sharing options for: The Multiverse of Madness’s huge X-Men tease, explained
Doctor Strange and his new multiverse friends in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.
There are major spoilers in this article for Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.
Since its parent company Disney acquired Fox in 2019, the biggest question surrounding Marvel has been about when it will expand its universe. More specifically, fans have been wondering: When will the company crack open its war chest and let the X-Men and Fantastic Four into the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, Marvel’s latest release, provided the closest and clearest answer yet.
Countless crossovers have happened and continue to happen in the comic books, but because of Marvel’s bankruptcy in the ’90s, financial deals were made that split Marvel’s superheroes’ film rights among different studios. Those deals eliminated the potential of crossover movies. Disney’s Fox acquisition was the first step in getting Marvel’s heroes under one umbrella. With the introduction of the multiverse, the possibilities are endless.
In the latest Marvel film, Doctor Strange rockets through the multiverse, entering alternate dimensions, and he finds himself in a world where a powerful group of superheroes have formed a council called The Illuminati. That group includes Reed Richards, leader of the Fantastic Four (played for the first time by actor John Krasinski) and Professor Charles Xavier, the head of the X-Men (Patrick Stewart reprises the role). They’re joined by alternate universe MCU characters, including Doctor Strange’s own nemesis Karl Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor). It’s one of the splashiest moments of the movie because it signals a world where all of Marvel’s iconic characters exist within the same cinematic (if not actual) universe!
Unfortunately though, they both die within 10 minutes of their appearances. It’s a rather short-lived reunion.
Still, thanks to the multiverse, their demise does not mean that these characters are dead forever. It’s complicated, and features a couple of big caveats, but here’s how those heroes could come back, how Marvel opened the door with this giant tease, and what ultimately stands between fans watching their favorite heroes all zip around in one super-sized movie.
The Multiverse means infinite versions of every hero
In the Multiverse of Madness, Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) travel through universes and find themselves on Earth 838 — a place that feels a lot like Strange’s home planet of 616 (the main MCU universe) but with some odd tweaks. Those differences include opposite logic traffic signs, sphere-shaped pizza, and a New York City where lush vegetation grows up on the sides of buildings. But the most significant divergence between 838 and 616 is who’s a superhero and who isn’t.
In 838, familiar faces Maria Rambeau (Lashana Lynch) and Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) are heroes, the latter being a callback to Marvel’s animated Disney+ show What If. The 838 universe also features mutant telepath Professor Charles Xavier and cosmically-altered genius Reed Richards, both of whom are major comic book characters and appeared in Fox’s Marvel movies (Richards was previously played by Ioan Gruffudd and Miles Teller). Mordo and Black Bolt (Anson Mount), the leader of the superhuman race called in the Inhumans, and star of the very awful television show that Marvel would like us all to forget, are also present in 838. The Illuminati is a concept that’s adapted from the comic books.
Here are the Avengers fighting the X-Men, something that regularly happens in comic books but hasn’t happened in the MCU (yet).
While I’m sure these characters had full lives in their universe, they didn’t stick around for very long in Multiverse of Madness. They fail to take 616 Doctor Strange’s warning about Wanda seriously and she — through a spell that allows her to possess a version of herself in that universe — obliterates each hero in creatively horrifying ways.
Yikes! But they’re not dead-dead.
The MCU’s multiverse rules are that when each parallel universe is created, that universe then has its independent timeline (in the Disney+ series Loki, the Time Variance Authority would eliminate parallel universes based on specific, significant events that occur in the main, “sacred” timeline). These independent universes mean then that if someone dies in one universe, it doesn’t necessarily mean that all their multiversal selves will meet that same fate in the same way — an example is the difference between the late Doctor Strange in 838 (also Cumberbatch) and the very alive and kicking Doctor Strange from 616.
So while the 838 heroes were exploded, spaghetti shredded, bisected, crushed, and had their necks snapped, there’s still a possibility that their alternate versions are faring much better. And if alternate Reed Richards, Professor X, and Black Bolt exist in the 616 it could signal the introduction of those heroes and their respective superhero teams to the MCU!
But there’s one big catch
Before we get too excited by the prospect of these heroes popping up in the MCU, there’s a big storytelling caveat that stands in the way: There’s no guarantee that the aforementioned 838 heroes are superhumans in the 616 universe. Because each universe is unique and major events occurring in those universes are distinct, the circumstances that turned Reed Richards, Professor X, and Black Bolt into super-powered individuals might have never happened in 616. They could be just regular people.
The pertinent examples of this are Captain Carter and Maria “Captain Marvel” Rambeau who share chairs on the Illuminati with the aforementioned super dudes. As we’ve seen in previous Marvel properties, their 616 counterparts never became super were just normal humans living alongside their friends Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and Carol Danvers (Brie Larson).
A screenshot from Marvel’s What If series. One episode explored Peggy Carter becoming the first Avenger.
What’s significant about Captain Carter/Captain America and the Captains Marvel origin stories is that their superhuman nature wasn’t something they were born with. In both universes, those heroes made a choice or performed a certain act, and were granted superpowers as a result of that decisive moment. This figures in with Reed Richards who, according to his comic book origin story, was bombarded with cosmic rays after he and his family venture into space. If that trip to space is altered in 616, then ostensibly 616 Reed could just be a regular guy. That said, Marvel has a Fantastic Four movie in the works, but as of yet no release date and no director.
What’s a little more unclear are the backstories of 616 Professor X and Black Bolt who, in the comics, have superpowers linked to their mutant and Inhuman DNA. Multiverse of Madness is the first time that Marvel Studios has directly referenced both characters in a movie, and Marvel hasn’t yet established mutants or Inhumans on the big screen (Black Bolt and the Inhumans were introduced in their own, universally panned 2017 tv show). Including those heroes in the MCU would be a big step for Marvel since it involves opening a can of narrative worms. It means having to explain not only who these characters are, but also the background of mutants and Inhumans, how they came to be, and how they could be present in the MCU for so long without Fury or S.H.I.E.L.D. knowing they exist.
Marvel is sort of in an odd storytelling corner because of how popular the X-Men, and to some extent the Inhumans, are. The X-Men not only have been A-list comic book characters (and are currently in the middle of a resurgence) but also have starred in two lucrative cinematic trilogies. Casual fans know their basic history, their superpowers, major characters’ arcs, and the iconic actors like Stewart who played those characters. With the X-Men, it’s not that Marvel has to reinvent the wheel, but that they need to make that wheel fit seamlessly into the MCU’s grand design.
... Oh wait, there’s one more big catch
For the most part, Marvel has mostly depicted multiversal travel as a one-way street. Characters from the 616 go to other multiverses or timelines. But if we think of the multiverse as a two-way street, then Marvel heroes from other universes could possibly hop into 616 Earth just as Strange and America blasted themselves into 838.
Rarely have there been other dimension dwellers hopping into 616. In Endgame, past 616 versions of Nebula, Gamora, Thanos, and his army make the jump to present-day 616 through time travel. They aren’t different versions of those characters though — they’re the same characters, just time-displaced.
Even America Chavez, who can travel the multiverse at will, is more or less depicted as a 616 mainstay because she spends most of her time traveling with 616 Strange. Their adventure is from Strange’s point of view.
But the Multiverse of Madness and its mid-credits scene hint that though we don’t see dimension skippers crashing into 616, it doesn’t mean that it’s not happening elsewhere. Reed Richards and the Illuminati explain that multiversal travel has happened in the past and caused incursions — the Marvel term for a universe collapsing itself. The takeaway is that it’s possible to “travel” the multiverse through the use of magic spells or some way other than America’s power, but doing so risks the universe imploding.
That weird vortex cloud stuff is not great! It’s an incursion!
And in that credits scene, Clea (Charlize Theron) tells Strange that she needs his help because there’s an imminent incursion happening in another universe. Clea herself can seemingly travel through the multiverse through what appears to be the dark dimension (but again, this is a credits scene and there’s a lack of information surrounding Clea and the extent of her powers at the moment).
Multiverse jumping could also be an easy narrative device to get around the massive chronological and source material knots in existing characters’ origin stories. Theoretically, it gives Marvel the flexibility to cast different actors too while, say, still paying homage to Stewart’s legacy. A story could feature a younger Professor X and some of his X-Men from a different universe (but with the same comic history) traveling to 616 and boom, they’re in the MCU.
There’s a precedent in Marvel’s comic books. Marvel’s 2015 crossover event Secret Wars included a major storyline in which the main alternate universe (Earth-1610) and others were destroyed. Ultimately, the concluding events of Secret Wars brought 1610’s Miles Morales into the main comic book universe with Peter Parker, the existing Spider-Man.
It’s not hard to see an MCU future where this plot device could be used to do something similar.
That said, with all these loops and twists, the most powerful determining factor in when we’ll see iconic Marvel characters and Black Bolt enter the MCU is Marvel’s already-packed movie release schedule. The company has Thor: Love and Thunder (July 2022), Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (November 2022), Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania (2023), Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023), the Carol Danvers-focused sequel The Marvels (2023) on the way. It also has a Blade reboot and the aforementioned F4 movie with yet to be determined release dates. This is in addition to a slew of upcoming series on Disney+ that include Ms. Marvel and She-Hulk.
Squeezing an X-Men movie into that assembly line would require shuffling sequels around.
So while the door is open for Marvel to finally bring in its beloved characters, it could conceivably take until late 2024 or 2025 before we fully see the X-Men or the Fantastic Four in the MCU. Marvel fans would surely like to see them enter the fray much sooner — and hopefully for much longer than they managed to stick around in the Multiverse of Madness. | 2022-05-10T16:01:15Z | www.vox.com | The Multiverse of Madness and the future of X-Men in the MCU, explained - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23064297/doctor-strange-multiverse-of-madness-x-men-mcu | https://www.vox.com/23064297/doctor-strange-multiverse-of-madness-x-men-mcu |
By Vox Communications May 10, 2022, 1:00pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: Vox Continues to Expand Its Newsroom With New Hires and Promotions
Swati Sharma, editor-in-chief of Vox, announced the promotions of Constance Grady to senior correspondent, Aja Romano to the next level of staff writer, and Sean Illing to senior correspondent. In addition, Vox welcomes two exciting new hires, Allie Volpe, who joins as a senior reporter, and Izzie Ramirez, Deputy Editor at Future Perfect.
Thanks to her incisive cultural analysis, Constance Grady has made a name for herself. Her celebrity coverage is a must-read, from explainers to her Purity Chronicles series, a genuinely unique, best-in-class examination of the ’90s and ’00s. Likewise, her book coverage — notably the Vox Book Club, which she conceived of and helms — is a constant delight and comfort to readers everywhere. Constance first joined Vox in 2016 as a fellow, joining full time in 2017.
Aja Romano will continue to build on their fantastic, thoughtful coverage of the moral questions inherent to cultural debates, which has recently included explaining the faux-controversy over Turning Red, multiple thoughtful looks at the state of comedy, a beautiful piece for the Forgiveness Project about the state of grace, and an explainer about where “groomer” as a slur really comes from. Romano first joined Vox in 2016 and has established themselves as an authority on ethics in culture.
Since joining Vox in 2016, Sean Illing has become recognized as one of the best interviewers in the business, helping Vox build a reputation as a home for good-faith arguments and thoughtful analysis. His Q&As dive into some of the biggest topics we all think about, from the future of democracy, to our misinformation crisis, to the racial, class, and social divides that have defined American life, to what it means to live a meaningful life. Last summer, he took over as a regular host for the Vox Conversations podcast, where he brought his signature approach to humane, generous conversation to our podcast audience.
Joining the expanding Vox team will be Allie Volpe and Izzie Ramirez.
Allie Volpe joins Vox as a senior reporter, focusing on service journalism. She has already written several stories for Vox as a contributor, including why community matters so much — and how to find yours, how to deal with money discrepancies between friends, and whether a post-vax Covid-19 infection means you can start living it up again. Previously, Allie was a freelance writer and has contributed to The Atlantic, the New York Times, Vice, Rolling Stone, and more.
Izzie Ramirez will be joining Vox as Deputy Editor at Future Perfect. Future Perfect covers the world through a particular prism: What are the best ways to do good in this world? In her new role, Izzie will manage Future Perfect’s fellowship program and lead the production of the Future Perfect newsletter. Izzie is currently the managing editor at Spoon University, a food publication. In addition, she has written freelance pieces for Eater, Gothamist, Vice, Bitch Media, and the New York Times. | 2022-05-10T17:11:11Z | www.vox.com | Vox Continues to Expand Its Newsroom With New Hires and Promotions - Vox | https://www.vox.com/press-room/2022/5/10/23065349/vox-continues-to-expand-its-newsroom-with-new-hires-and-promotions | https://www.vox.com/press-room/2022/5/10/23065349/vox-continues-to-expand-its-newsroom-with-new-hires-and-promotions |
This week’s primaries were another test of just how influential Trump’s endorsement is.
By Li Zhou and Nicole Narea May 10, 2022, 11:15pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: Two winners and two losers from the Nebraska and West Virginia primaries
Former President Donald Trump arrives for a rally at the I-80 Speedway on May 1, 2022 in Greenwood, Nebraska.
Former President Donald Trump’s sway over Republican voters was tested again this week as primaries took place in both Nebraska and West Virginia.
Given the Republican lean of both states, the most competitive races were in the GOP primaries, particularly Nebraska’s gubernatorial race and a West Virginia House race that pitted incumbent versus incumbent.
Unlike in last week’s primaries, Trump’s endorsement had mixed results this time.
Here are the winners and losers from the Nebraska and West Virginia primaries.
After helping propel all 22 of the candidates he endorsed in last week’s primaries to victory, Trump faced another major test of his clout on Tuesday.
Of all his endorsements this week, two were seen as particularly telling: Those of businessman Charles Herbster for Nebraska governor and of incumbent Rep. Alex Mooney in West Virginia. Herbster lost; Mooney won. The fact that nearly all of Trump’s primary picks have won makes him a winner this week. But the Nebraska result is an important reminder that Trump’s endorsement doesn’t guarantee a win.
As returns came in, it quickly became clear that scandal-plagued Herbster trailed his two opponents: hog producer and University of Nebraska regent Jim Pillen, who ultimately won and was backed by term-limited Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts, and State Sen. Brett Lindstrom.
Though Herbster himself had declared the race to be a proxy battle between Trump and the GOP establishment, his loss might not actually reveal much about where the party stands. Rather, it’s the result that might have been expected of a troubled candidate who was openly criticized by a popular Republican governor.
Herbster was accused of groping eight women, which he has denied, framing the accusations as an attack from the Republican establishment. He also faced scrutiny for being with members of the Trump family during the January 6 insurrection. Ricketts went so far as to declare Herbster unqualified for governor.
In West Virginia, Trump’s backing appeared to help Rep. Alex Mooney in a primary for the second congressional district, where he faced off against fellow incumbent Rep. David McKinley. The two were forced into a primary when population loss and redistricting combined their districts.
Trump endorsed Mooney after McKinley voted in favor of a bipartisan infrastructure bill and in favor of setting up an independent commission to investigate January 6. Mooney quickly made the former president’s backing the centerpiece of his campaign, using it to fend off questions about a campaign finance ethics investigation and accusations that he was a carpetbagger (though he’s represented West Virginia since 2015, Mooney once led the Maryland GOP).
Mooney’s win can be read as a sign of Trump’s enduring influence. Still, the fact that Trump went against a popular incumbent Republican governor and lost doesn’t bode well for him in a number of the coming primaries, such as in Georgia where he’s endorsed former US Sen. David Perdue to challenge Gov. Brian Kemp.
–Nicole Narea and Li Zhou
Loser: Bipartisanship
While both Mooney and McKinley are pretty conservative, the latter was known for taking more bipartisan stances than his counterpart. Last year, for example, McKinley was one of 13 Republicans who voted for the bipartisan infrastructure bill and one of 35 Republicans who voted to establish an independent commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection.
McKinley’s record — including his infrastructure vote — also led Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) to not only endorse, but participate in a campaign ad for him.
Polling has shown that most voters, including at least some Republican voters, favor bipartisan governing. But his willingness to take these more bipartisan votes doesn’t seem to have helped McKinley, who ended up losing the primary to Mooney by substantial margins.
During the campaign, Mooney bashed Republicans who backed the infrastructure bill, echoing Trump’s rhetoric and arguing that they were “sellouts.” McKinley, meanwhile, emphasized how much the state’s roads and bridges needed the funding given the extent that West Virginia has historically relied on federal dollars for these projects.
In the end, this type of messaging didn’t appear to resonate with enough Republican voters, suggesting that, in this district at least, Trump’s support was more important than McKinley’s commitment to policy.
– Li Zhou
As with many GOP primaries in secretary of state races across the country this year, the focal point of Nebraska’s race was Trump’s 2020 election lies. Incumbent Secretary of State Bob Evnen, who has rebutted Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen, easily fended off two challengers — Robert Borer and Rex Schroder — who wrongly claim that Trump won the 2020 election.
Both accused Evnen of depriving the former president of one electoral vote due to voter fraud in the state’s 2nd congressional district. In actuality, Biden won the district by 22,000 votes, and Evnen has said that his office investigated every instance of alleged voter fraud, finding no “validity or merit to any of them.”
Evnen’s victory isn’t exactly a win for voting rights, however. Like other Republicans who have refused to advance Trump’s election falsehoods, Evnen still sought to mollify the base with his support for what the GOP calls “election integrity” measures. For instance, he backed legislation passed earlier this year that improves ballot drop box security. He has also said that he supports stricter voter ID laws.
– Nicole Narea
Winner: A top Democratic recruit in a top-priority race
Despite what is predicted to be a rough election for Democrats overall, there are some potential bright spots in nine red House districts that Biden carried in 2020. Among them is Nebraska’s 2nd district, which has remained competitive for Democrats after redistricting.
State Sen. Tony Vargas prevailed in the Democratic primary over mental health practitioner Alisha Shelton and will face incumbent Republican Rep. Don Bacon in the fall. The result is keeping Democrats’ hopes of flipping the district alive.
While the Democratic establishment didn’t select a favorite in the race, Vargas was generally seen as the stronger candidate, given that he already has legislative experience in government. He’s served on the Omaha Public Schools Board as well. During the primary, he touted his record of bipartisanship while in the state senate.
Vargas also proved to be a strong fundraiser, amassing over $1 million compared to Shelton’s $300,000.
NE-02 went for Biden by 6 percentage points in 2020, though Bacon also won the district that year, meaning Vargas isn’t likely to have an easy race ahead of him. Still, he’s exiting the primary in a solid position to help Democrats attempt to save their House majority. | 2022-05-11T04:07:36Z | www.vox.com | Analysis: 2 winners and 2 losers from the Nebraska and West Virginia primaries - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/10/23066358/winners-losers-nebraska-west-virginia-primaries-trump-mooney-vargas | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/10/23066358/winners-losers-nebraska-west-virginia-primaries-trump-mooney-vargas |
Maybe Deborah Vance is built different.
Share All sharing options for: Hacks and the subversive fantasy of letting your job consume you
Jean Smart as Deborah Vance in Hacks, a show I very much enjoy!
Hacks/HBO Max
Hacks is a show about comedy, but its best bits aren’t funny at all.
Its stellar first season is both an introduction to and canny portrait of Deborah Vance (Jean Smart), an aging Vegas headliner maneuvering the terms of her employment while simultaneously reflecting on her fears of obsolescence and her ambition to be loved. All of Deborah’s desires and fears overlap, bleeding through any possible personal and professional boundaries. Somehow, this force of nature finds clarity in an annoying bisexual millennial named Ava (Hannah Einbinder), a comedy writer who is allegedly somewhat amusing on Twitter.
The wake-up call Ava brings isn’t pleasant. Ava thinks Deborah is on cruise control, playing it safe with her comedy because Vegas crowds don’t care to be dared. Ava’s right and Deborah knows it, but acknowledging that is humiliating. It’s embarrassing not just because Ava is entitled and insufferable and admitting she’s correct would only exacerbate those qualities, but because it also means that Deborah Vance has lost touch of who she is.
For Ava, writing for Deborah is humbling in its own way. She’s alienating to others and she hasn’t made her own name; she doesn’t have any other options.
Deborah and Ava’s symbiotic relationship, the weird bits and volatile moments especially, bring each one closer to a better sense of who they are — a gift, especially in the lonely landscape that is comedy.
Deborah and Ava take a road trip in season two of Hacks.
The fantastic second season builds on that initial chapter. Hacks hits the ground running, with Deborah and Ava flying back from Ava’s father’s funeral in preparation for Deborah’s North American tour. Having bombed her final performance at the Palmetto, her residency on the Strip, Deborah knows her material isn’t good yet. They both need a challenge. So they do the logical thing: Deb and Ava get on a bus. (A luxury tour bus, but still.)
Journeys of self-discovery are an obsession in American art. Worn down by life, protagonist after protagonist swaps the comfort of their lives for the woods, or the canyons, or places where they can learn anew to eat and pray and love. These uncomfortable treks become opportunities for crystallizing self-examination that nourish the soul and reignite the spark of life. Maybe they even find love.
Deborah Vance wouldn’t mind any of that, but she just wants better jokes.
So she swaps out cosmopolitan Las Vegas (not to be confused with the Cosmopolitan hotel in Las Vegas) for more bucolic America, like Memphis, a lesbian cruise, and a state fair in one of the Springfields — rigorous, punishing places. Deborah hopes to sharpen her barbs, slim down her transitions, and find the crackle in her sputtering punchlines.
The road trip makes Deborah’s interior struggles real. She’s been having trouble connecting with her audience, and these uncomfortable venues have their own defensive challenges, like culture gaps or an audience that isn’t quite Deborah’s demographic. Each one is more alien to Deborah than the last. She bombs at some. She does better at others. Aside from a couple of pure slapstick moments, we don’t actually see her perform — a deliberate choice.
Hacks hasn’t ever been concerned with convincing you that Deborah is the funniest woman alive
Hacks hasn’t ever been concerned with convincing you that Deborah is the funniest woman alive. It’s always been a show about a woman realizing who she is, and being honest to that person, whoever that may be. One night of laughs with an audience isn’t going to solve that.
Jean Smart’s performance has been (correctly) heaped with praise, but I’m still continually impressed at how she imbues Deborah Vance with delicate dignity. It might manifest in something as small as an unguarded glance in a mirror.
Or it unfurls so powerfully that it’s all you think about long after the episode ends.
In the Springfield state fair episode, Deborah meets a former rival who gave up comedy. Her friend is now a grandmother with an uninteresting life, drawing pity from Deborah. But after their brief meeting, when Deborah realizes that her former compatriot is actually happy with her choices, you can see Smart dim the pride in Deborah’s eyes and fill her face with doubt.
In those tiny moments, you can see flashes of the life Deborah Vance has lived and almost relate to this mean, fancy woman who you’re absolutely not supposed to.
Deborah is wistful, but she doesn’t for a second wish that she could live a full life without comedy. Instead, her regret is not living a full life of comedy without the distraction of family, friends, and marriages.
The way Deborah interprets the world around her — its ills, its tragedy, its happiness — is through comedy, a notoriously fickle artform. If Deborah’s life flashed before her eyes, it would consist of standup, her late-night show, her missed opportunities, her Vegas residency. The montage wouldn’t include her husband, her child, her sister’s betrayal, or her husband’s death. To Deborah, nothing really matters if it isn’t related to comedy.
Kaitlin Olson and Jean Smart in Hacks, a show that is, despite its name, not about cybersecurity.
Hacks works this season because you slowly realize that this road trip is a total gamble for Deborah. There is no backup plan. Who she is, the way she needs the world to see her, her understanding of joy and pain — it’s all on the line. This comedy tour is a matter of her own survival.
But is that all too ghoulish, too narcissistic to admit?
It makes sense then that Deborah has surrounded herself with people like her devoted CEO Marcus (Carl Clemons-Hopkins) and Ava, her hard-headed protege. These two people — by choice or because they have no other options — are exactly like Deborah: completely consumed and defined by the job. Marcus uses Deborah’s dependency on him running her business as an anchor; it prevents him from spinning out. Ava’s gig with Deborah is more of a life preserver. Writing for Deb is the only thing happening in her life, as Ava is indecently good at burning opportunities.
Like attracts like, I guess. Ava and Marcus might not agree, though. They just have enough distance (for now) that they may or may not see themselves in Deborah. They’re slowly inching toward a point of no return, or if they’re lucky, a “stop before it’s too late” moment.
But Hacks doesn’t quite fall into that mode. It’s more of a question of: Are Marcus and Ava built like Deborah or not? Could they have a life just devoted to work and be happy? Wouldn’t it be nice to be that in love with your job and know that’s what you want to do? That, in its own way, is a subversive little fantasy.
The first two episodes of Hacks are available to stream on HBO Max. | 2022-05-13T12:42:24Z | www.vox.com | Hacks season 2: the subversive fantasy of letting your job consume you - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23069082/hacks-season-2-review-jean-smart | https://www.vox.com/23069082/hacks-season-2-review-jean-smart |
After losing my ability to read for nearly five years, I needed a way to ease back into books.
By Amy Sullivan May 14, 2022, 8:00am EDT
Share All sharing options for: The best $15 I ever spent: An audiobook subscription
In hindsight, it is ridiculous that it took years of desperation and depression before I was finally willing to reconsider my absurd refusal to try audiobooks.
Not long after I gave birth to my second child at age 40, I lost my ability to read. I don’t mean literally — I could still look at a sentence and know what it meant. I could read a menu. I could, unfortunately, still suffer through The Big Book of Paw Patrol on demand.
But within the space of a year, I could no longer find my way to the end of a novel or a lengthy article. Anything more complex than a children’s book left my brain spinning in neutral. No matter the genre, no matter the time of day, the sentences I read and re-read remained fragments that I could not assemble into a comprehensible whole.
I began carrying a stack of books with me from room to room of our rowhouse, shuffling between options with growing desperation, searching for an opening in one of them. “Brain fog” — as if a light mist has temporarily settled on my brow — is too benign a phrase for the suffocating powerlessness of watching your cognition dissolve in real time. Every so often the cloud lifted to allow me a tantalizing moment of clarity. But in the main, for the first time in decades, I was no longer a reader.
This development would be unsettling for anyone. For a professional writer and editor, it was horrifying. The written word was my currency, my passion, my source of confidence. I needed words to make a living. I needed them to make a life.
In the beginning, I assumed that the change was temporary, a holdover from the hormonal stupor of pregnancy. Or maybe it was sleep deprivation — surely the fatigue inherent in raising two small children would impact any parent’s focus. Those were both pieces of the puzzle, but it would be years before I solved it.
Instead, I was lost in my head. If I’d been grappling with a stabbing pain in my abdomen or loss of sight, I would have parked myself in a medical office and refused to budge without a diagnosis and treatment plan. But it wasn’t obvious to me that I had a physical ailment. Maybe I was losing my mind. Maybe I was lazy. Maybe, as one boss suggested during a particularly tense performance review, I just couldn’t hack working and raising small children at the same time. Looking around at all the other parents who held down demanding jobs, I worried that he was right.
One year became two and then slid into more. Terror rose in my throat every time I took on new editing work or writing assignments, knowing there was a decent chance I wouldn’t be able to deliver. I couldn’t tell anyone because I didn’t know what was going on or if it would ever end. I was petrified to say the words out loud, to raise the possibility that I might never work in my field again. With each job, each promise, I needed to believe that this time it would be different.
It never was. I blew through deadlines, ghosted editors, and lost jobs. Shame and depression ganged up on me, and I dropped out of the workforce altogether.
I would ordinarily turn to books for solace and distraction in a time of crisis. With two teachers for parents, I was born into a family of readers. We unwrapped books on Christmas mornings, but any occasion was an excuse for a new book. They showed up on Easter and Valentine’s Day, birthdays and the first day of school. My sister and I spent long summer afternoons in our backyard reading books from the public library under a tent our mom set up by pinning quilts to the clothesline.
This bookless existence was my nightmare
At some point before school began again, the four of us would squeeze into our Plymouth Horizon to drive from Michigan to the New England coast, stopping at the Dartmouth Bookstore in Hanover, New Hampshire, to load up on books. Once we each had a stack from that 140-year-old institution, we continued on to rocky beaches, where we read until everyone had one or two books remaining for the drive home. I looked forward to those trips like other kids dream about Disney World. Devouring my favorite authors, powered by squirt cheese and Faygo grape pop, I could not imagine a more perfect life.
By contrast, this bookless existence was my nightmare. One day I realized that whole shelves in our house were filled with titles I had never read. Having reveled in the experience of reading Marilynne Robinson’s Gilead and Home when they came out, I bought the subsequent books in that series and now grieved the idea that I might never read them. I felt in my bones what author William Styron once wrote about his depression, that it made him fear that “I would never recapture a lucidity that was slipping away from me with terrifying speed.”
In hindsight, it is ridiculous that it took years of desperation and depression before I was finally willing to reconsider my absurd refusal to try audiobooks. I had always dismissed the format, snobbishly categorizing audiobook listeners as somehow a lesser class of book consumers. Audiobooks, my thinking went, were for people too lazy to read. They were a useful service for people who were visually impaired and they could be helpful in entertaining children on road trips. Audiobooks were emphatically not for me.
But as reading didn’t seem to be an option, it was time to get over myself. I purchased an Audible Premium subscription — which allows me one book each month — and tiptoed into the world of what I still anachronistically think of as “books on tape.”
I loved how the musicality of language often seemed heightened when words were isolated for my ears alone
My gateway listens were memoirs — Tara Westover’s Educated, Kiese Laymon’s Heavy, Maggie O’Farrell’s I Am, I Am, I Am — which allowed me to pretend a friend was simply telling me about her life. After a few months, I moved on to Strangers Drowning, Larissa MacFarquhar’s masterful chronicle of obsessive altruism, and felt a sense of accomplishment akin to making my way through several years’ worth of New Yorker back issues.
By the time I spent a weekend enthralled by Irish actor Andrew Scott’s reading of Dubliners — after a lifetime of avoiding James Joyce — I started to wonder why I’d ever spent much time straining my eyes with print.
Audiobooks weren’t just tolerable alternatives to wood-pulp-and-ink tomes. In many ways they actually expanded my enjoyment of books. Rather than listen curled up in an armchair, I could pop in earbuds, walk the mile from our house to Lake Michigan, and spend hours by the water with Colson Whitehead’s The Nickel Boys playing in my ears. There is an emotional heft to hearing Trevor Noah’s memoir in his own voice as he cycles through phrases in Xhosa, Zulu, Tswana, and other tribal languages that I would have lost on the page.
Native-speaking audio readers allowed me to more fully inhabit a writers’ world, making familiar Sri Lankan and Ugandan and Ethiopian names that I would have mangled in my head while reading. (I read the first two Harry Potter books before ever hearing the name “Hermione” and realizing that way I’d been pronouncing it was very different.) Likewise, hearing read aloud Anna Burns’ Milkman, with its experimental style and long, unbroken paragraphs, made the book infinitely more accessible and pleasurable. I loved how the musicality of language often seemed heightened when words were isolated for my ears alone.
I pray that my ability to read is back for good, but whatever happens, I know that I need never again give up on books
Nearly five years after reading disappeared from my life, I was pleased to finally learn that I hadn’t lost my mind. I’d just unknowingly white-knuckled my way through menopause in my mid-40s, not realizing that brain fog and exhaustion can be common symptoms. By the time a doctor actually listened to me and ran a blood panel, there was virtually no estrogen left in my system. I immediately started hormone therapy.
The speed with which my mind cleared was astonishing. I needed more time to get past the fury and resentment of knowing I’d lost years of productivity and inadvertently gaslit myself.
When I felt ready to attempt an actual physical book again, I started with Tayari Jones’ An American Marriage, which sat atop the largest stack of optimistically purchased novels — and read until dawn. Closing the cover that next morning, I exhaled. And picked up another.
Now I’m reading book after book after book, sometimes feeling like Lucy and Ethel trying to keep pace in the chocolate factory. I’d forgotten the combined pleasure and wooziness of a reading hangover that comes from staying up far too late submerged in a book. Most weeks I juggle one book in print and another in audio, so I always have an excuse to leave the house for a long pandemic walk. My family members know to give me audio credits for birthdays. In 2021, I read 67 books, just a few years after I struggled to get to the end of one or two.
Modern medicine restored my concentration and banished the brain fog, but audiobooks were the first crucial phase of a regimen to regain my confidence and sense of identity. I pray that my ability to read is back for good, but whatever happens, I know that I need never again give up on books. (I am, however, switching over to Libro.fm, an audiobook service that supports local bookstores instead of the global Amazon megatron complex.)
These days, when I find myself lost in a book, it’s not because my brain is stuck or throwing up obstacles. I’m happily lost in a world of words and images and I do not need rescuing.
Amy Sullivan is a Chicago-based journalist who covers religion, politics, and culture.
The best $3,000 I ever spent: Surgery for a cat I never wanted | 2022-05-14T15:22:13Z | www.vox.com | The best $15 I ever spent: An audiobook subscription - Vox | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23011721/best-money-audible-premium-subscription | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23011721/best-money-audible-premium-subscription |
Vox’s flagship daily news podcast, Today, Explained, made its public radio debut last month via a distribution deal with WNYC Studios.
By Vox Communications May 16, 2022, 11:44am EDT
Share All sharing options for: Today, Explained Debuts on Two New Public Radio Stations, KCRW and WEKU
Noel King and Sean Rameswaram
After making its public radio debut last month via a distribution deal with WNYC Studios, Vox’s flagship daily news podcast Today, Explained announced its adding two new stations to the roster, KCRW (Los Angeles) and WEKU (Eastern Kentucky). Vox’s partnership with WNYC marked Vox Media’s first major foray into terrestrial radio, bringing the show hosted by Sean Rameswaram and Noel King to major markets across the country including Philadelphia’s WHYY, Oregon Public Broadcasting, New Hampshire Public Radio, Cincinnati Public Radio, New Orleans Public Radio, Baton Rouge’s WRKF, and more.
Los Angeles is the second largest public radio market in the U.S., and for Rameswaram, who grew up in L.A., Today, Explained’s KCRW debut is a homecoming of sorts. The show often covers California and the policies the state pushes forward, with recent episodes covering Dianne Feinstein, China’s grip on Hollywood, and more.
“The KCRW audience is curious, connected and drawn to the most interesting stories – not just the most immediate,” says Evan George, content director of news for KCRW. “Today Explained fits our approach to newsy storytelling with heart. We’re also excited for KCRW listeners to hear some public media voices from around the country help tell the big story of the day without being limited to a four-minute segment.”
With the new stations indicated in bold, stations carrying Today, Explained now include:
KCRW (Santa Monica, CA)
WEKU (Richmond / Lexington, KY)
WEVO / New Hampshire Public Radio (Concord, NH)
WITF (Harrisburg, PA)
WVPS / Vermont Public Radio (Burlington)
WVXU / Cincinnati Public Radio (Cincinnati)
WHYY (Philadelphia)
WRKF (Baton Rouge, LA)
WWNO / New Orleans Public Radio (New Orleans)
WCBU (Peoria, IL)
WGLT (Normal, IL)
KOPB / Oregon Public Broadcasting (Portland)
WUOM / Michigan Radio (Ann Arbor)
WUFT (Gainesville, FL)
WLPR / Lakeshore Public Media (Lowell, IN)
Full list of stations.
About WNYC Studios
WNYC Studios is the premier producer of on-demand and broadcast audio, and home to some of the industry’s most critically acclaimed and popular podcasts, including Radiolab, On the Media, The New Yorker Radio Hour, Death, Sex & Money, Dolly Parton’s America, The Experiment, and The United States of Anxiety. WNYC Studios is leading the new golden age in audio with podcasts and national radio programs that inform, inspire, and delight millions of curious and highly engaged listeners across digital, mobile, and broadcast platforms. Programs include personal narratives, deep journalism, revealing interviews, and smart entertainment as varied and intimate as the human voice itself. For more information, visit wnycstudios.org.
About Vox Media Podcast Network
Named by Adweek as 2021’s “Hottest in Podcasts,” Vox Media Podcast Network has over 150 active shows featuring industry-leading editorial voices and storytellers from Vox Media’s networks and beyond. From daily news and tech to culture and sports, and talk and interview shows to news and rich narrative storytelling, the Vox Media Podcast Network is one of the largest, fastest-growing, and most topically diverse collections of premium podcasts. Learn more about the Vox Media Podcast Network here.
About Vox Media
Vox Media is the leading modern media company, reaching audiences everywhere they are. Known for editorial properties including Vox, SB Nation, New York Magazine, The Dodo, and NowThis, the company’s portfolio features the most relevant, respected, and engaging editorial properties and voices. The company is also home to award-winning storytelling businesses such as Vox Media Studios and the Vox Media Podcast Network, as well as innovative technologies that support the entire media industry, including the Concert advertising marketplace. Vox Media proves that quality can scale. | 2022-05-16T19:51:30Z | www.vox.com | Today, Explained Debuts on Two New Public Radio Stations, KCRW and WEKU - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/16/23075027/today-explained-debuts-on-two-new-public-radio-stations-kcrw-and-weku | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/16/23075027/today-explained-debuts-on-two-new-public-radio-stations-kcrw-and-weku |
Pennsylvania and North Carolina are among five states headed to the polls.
By Li Zhou and Christian Paz May 17, 2022, 6:30am EDT
Share All sharing options for: Tuesday’s primaries could say a lot about the future of both parties
Supporters of former President Donald Trump attend a campaign rally for Pennsylvania Republican Senate candidate Mehmet Oz on May 6, 2022, in Greensburg, Pennsylvania.
Tuesday, May 17 will be one of the biggest primary days of the 2022 election cycle so far.
Five states — Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Idaho, Kentucky, and Oregon — will hold primaries for Senate seats, governor’s chairs, and House districts, all of which could reveal more about what direction both parties are headed.
Here are some of the themes we’re watching.
Trump’s influence faces some of its toughest tests yet
Another week of primaries, another test of Trump’s influence with GOP voters.
Thus far, most of Trump’s endorsements have been successful, except for his pick for Nebraska governor, businessman Charles Herbster. Tuesday’s race — which includes celebrities, far-right figures, and a beleaguered member of Congress — will provide new indications about how much the former president’s backing can help candidates overcome tough competition and their inherent weaknesses.
In Pennsylvania’s GOP Senate primary, Trump has backed Mehmet Oz, a celebrity doctor who’s previously faced scrutiny for peddling unproven and misleading medical treatments. Oz has seen a boost in polls since Trump’s endorsement, but his victory is far from assured. Businessman David McCormick as well as conservative commentator Kathy Barnette have been running close behind him in recent polls, as some Republicans question whether Oz is conservative enough.
Meanwhile, in the North Carolina GOP Senate primary, Trump is supporting Rep. Ted Budd, who currently boasts a strong polling lead. Budd, a House Republican who voted to contest the certification of the 2020 election results, is up against former Gov. Pat McCrory and former Rep. Mark Walker, both conservatives. However, Trump has criticized McCrory for losing past statewide contests, and urged Walker to consider running for the House again.
Trump has gotten involved in GOP gubernatorial primaries in two states as well. In Idaho’s primary, he is backing Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin — a proponent of a more extreme abortion ban than what the state is currently considering, among other far-right views — over incumbent Gov. Brad Little. And in Pennsylvania, Trump issued a last-minute endorsement for state Sen. Doug Mastriano, a lawmaker who was outside the Capitol during the January 6 insurrection. Mastriano is facing off against a number of other conservative candidates, including former Rep. Lou Barletta and businessman David White.
All these contests — and a slew of other races, including in North Carolina’s 13th Congressional District, where Trump is supporting former college football recruit Bo Hines in a crowded field — will signal how much sway the former president still has over voters. —Li Zhou
Establishment Republicans worry about the rise of more extreme candidates
Earlier this year, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned Republicans that poor candidate selection could become a major obstacle in Senate races despite the positive political environment the party is currently in.
“In the Senate, if you look at where we have to compete in order to get into a majority, there are places that are competitive in the general election,” McConnell said at a Kentucky event. “So you can’t nominate somebody who’s just sort of unacceptable to a broader group of people and win. We had that experience in 2010 and 2012.”
Effectively, McConnell meant that Republicans can’t nominate candidates who are so extreme they won’t be able to win a general election. This week, the Pennsylvania gubernatorial and Senate primaries are forcing Republicans to confront this question head on.
In both, controversial candidates have a shot of winning. In the governor’s race, Mastriano, a state lawmaker who’s been subpoenaed by Congress’s January 6 committee, has pulled ahead of the rest of the field. And in the Senate race, Barnette, a commentator who has shared Islamophobic posts, is polling closely alongside candidates like Oz and McCormick.
Contesting the 2020 election results and espousing xenophobic and racist views has become normalized in a segment of the Republican Party, with more than 100 far-right candidates running this year. But it’s not clear that independents and the more moderate Republicans who reliably vote in general elections will accept these sorts of candidates.
Because of that, establishment Republicans fear Mastriano and Barnette could jeopardize the party’s chances of securing those seats in the general election, since Pennsylvania is still a relatively purple state.
“Winning the primary and losing the general because the candidate is unable to get the voters in the middle isn’t a win,” Pennsylvania’s state Senate Republican leader Kim Ward wrote in a Facebook post about Mastriano.
A similar dynamic can be seen in the upcoming Michigan secretary of state and Arizona GOP Senate races. But in North Carolina, GOP fracturing is on display in a different way as state lawmakers try to oust gaffe-ridden Rep. Madison Cawthorn in the 11th Congressional District. Cawthorn, who’s been cited twice for trying to carry a gun onto a plane, faced accusations of insider trading, and been disciplined by party leaders for comments about congressional orgies, is now facing strong opposition from other Republicans. One of North Carolina’s senators, Thom Tillis, is among those who endorsed Cawthorn’s competitor, state Sen. Chuck Edwards. Trump has stood by Cawthorn, however, and argued that he deserves a “second chance.”
Ultimately, these races could indicate which faction of the Republican Party primary voters are more closely aligned with, and offer some clues about the party’s chances of both holding and picking up seats at the state and federal levels. —LZ
Heated contests between different wings of the Democratic party
For Democrats, progressive ideas and progressive candidates are on the ballot yet again after wins for the former and losses for the latter in the Ohio and Indiana primaries. That means Democratic primary voters will again have a chance to send a message about what kind of party they want to be a part of. In Tuesday’s races, they’ll have a choice between competing moderate and progressive visions.
In Oregon, the Democratic primary for governor is a wide-open race, with Tina Kotek, the progressive former speaker of the statehouse, generally seen as holding a slim advantage over a moderate challenger, Oregon Treasurer Tobias Read. Most Democrats are undecided in the race, however, according to polling done by Read’s team.
In the state’s Fifth Congressional District, incumbent Rep. Kurt Schrader, a member of the centrist-minded Problem Solvers Caucus in Congress, faces opposition from the left: Jamie McLeod-Skinner, a former congressional candidate and small business owner, is highlighting in her ads Schrader’s votes against key progressive climate priorities in the failed Build Back Better bill.
Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman has been trouncing his Senate Democratic primary rivals for months, in part by advancing progressive causes without accepting the “progressive” label. On the House side, eyes are on state Rep. Summer Lee, a progressive rising star. She won her statehouse race with the support of local democratic socialists in 2018, and is now running for the open seat in the 12th Congressional District and — if she wins — is seen as a future member of the progressive group of representatives known as the Squad.
In North Carolina’s First Congressional District, voters have a relatively straightforward ideological choice: moderate state Sen. Don Davis, who received an endorsement from retiring Rep. GK Butterfield, against a progressive former state senator, Erica Smith.
But in the state’s solidly Democratic Fourth District, representing Durham and Chapel Hill, there’s a historically expensive primary fight between staunch progressives: presumed frontrunner, state Sen. Valerie Foushee, and her chief rival, Durham County Commissioner Nida Allam. Their main point of disagreement is on the US’s relationship with Israel. Allam has questioned that relationship, which has led to a lot of PAC support for Foushee, making this a nearly $3 million race. —Christian Paz | 2022-05-17T13:45:12Z | www.vox.com | What to watch in Pennsylvania’s and North Carolina’s primaries: Trump, Dr. Oz, and Kathy Barnette - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23077346/pennsylvania-north-carolina-idaho-oregon-kentucky-primaries-trump-oz | https://www.vox.com/23077346/pennsylvania-north-carolina-idaho-oregon-kentucky-primaries-trump-oz |
New “anti-Instagram” apps like BeReal claim to help users be more authentic online, but the distinction between real and fake isn’t quite that simple.
Share All sharing options for: Are we ever authentically ourselves on the internet?
When the online self is fractured across multiple platforms, authenticity becomes a metric in producing a coherent, ready-made identity for public consumption.
BeReal, as the app’s name suggests, wants me to post my truth. Once a day at random, I am prompted to “be real,” to capture my unfiltered life synchronously through my phone’s selfie and back camera. There is, so BeReal claims, a distinctly authentic self behind social media’s smoke and mirrors, waiting to be revealed.
BeReal’s premise is simple. Every day, users are randomly prompted to snap a photo within a two-minute time frame, although the window to post remains open for hours. Users can add a caption, comment on friends’ day-of posts, and interact through RealMojis, or personalized reaction photos. Upon posting, two feeds are unlocked, one personalized with friends’ posts and one a Discovery feed that features strangers in the midst of mostly mundane tasks. The feeds are updated once a day and posts expire once the next BeReal alert is sent out, presumably for users to put their phones down and live their “real” lives after a few minutes on the app.
BeReal falls into the genre of “anti-Instagram” apps, novelty photo platforms that attempt to fulfill a niche social function that Instagram lacks. In this case, it’s authenticity and an ad-free experience. “BeReal won’t make you famous,” the app declares. “If you want to be an influencer you can stay on TikTok and Instagram.”
Every year or so, a hot new social startup emerges from the woodwork with an overconfident vision of a better, more authentic way of being online. It rarely sticks. In early 2021, the app du jour was Dispo, which simulated the experience of using a disposable camera by having users wait for photos to develop. Dispo benefited from co-founder David Dobrik’s YouTube fame, but a scandal led investors to quickly distance themselves from the startup, even with Dobrik resigning. Later that year, Poparazzi, an app that encouraged users to take paparazzi-like shots of their friends, took off on TikTok. It shot to the top of the App Store for a few weeks, but the hype soon subsided.
This year, the buzzy, VC-backed darling is BeReal, which is currently the second most-downloaded social networking app on the App Store, behind TikTok. It launched in December 2019, but nearly 75 percent, or 7.67 million, of BeReal downloads occurred this year, according to recent Apptopia data shared with TechCrunch. The app recently closed on a Series B funding round and is expected to quadruple its valuation to around $630 million, reported Business Insider in early May.
“We’re always looking to connect with friends in a casual way,” said Kristin Merrilees, 20, a junior at Barnard College and BeReal user, who also writes about culture and the internet. “I think Snapchat briefly was that space until my friends stopped using it. Now, it’s BeReal that lets you peek into people’s lives throughout the day.”
What is real, though, and what is fake when we spend so much of our time tethered to screens? In a commodified social media landscape, authenticity is as much of a marketing buzzword as it is an on-screen value, touted by people, brands, and, of course, apps. BeReal assumes that the authentic self can be divulged under the right conditions — that catching users off-guard will lead them to abandon all pretense. And so far, users seem to be buying into its pitch.
“It has the vintage feel of early Instagram,” said Sasha Khatami, 21, who works in digital marketing. “I think it’s an interesting shift for people like me, who are used to posting curated content for so long, now toward a reminder to post in the moment.”
BeReal’s unsubtle marketing strategy has led it to be a breakout hit among college students. The startup pays students to serve as campus ambassadors, refer friends, and host promotional events. Besides its trendiness, however, the app’s concept and key functions are anything but original. It’s a well-timed reinvention of FrontBack, an app that popularized the simultaneous selfie and back-camera photo before shuttering in 2015. Similarly, its unpredictable daily push alert mimics the engagement strategy of Minutiae, an anonymous daily photo-sharing app launched in 2017.
Still, BeReal is not much of a threat to the established hierarchy of social platforms that have built a decade-old fiefdom off our data and attention. BeReal is not intent on remaking the social internet. Instead, it operates on the sidelines of this seemingly unshakeable world order, and is backed by some of the same firms that funded Instagram and Twitter. (Venture capitalists are perpetually on the hunt for the next big social startup, despite its history of false starts.) Its goal, like that of most startups, is to become commercially viable, which means it eventually has to find ways to make money off of its users.
The app’s greatest appeal may be its current novelty and the fact that it isn’t Instagram or Snapchat. Still, BeReal can’t seem to escape the pall of the major social networks. Merrilees has noticed an uptick in people sharing their BeReals on Instagram. Some are even remixing them into TikToks, as a kind of memory reel. “A lot of people are migrating content across different platforms,” Khatami tells me. “It feels very natural to me. I started making TikToks of my BeReal photos after seeing people post theirs.”
@yuhswagdopeyuh
i love it @BeReal. #bereal
♬ original sound - kei
Since BeReal is so insular, usage is highly dependent on individual friend circles. Once people start to tire of it, chances are, their friends will too. There’s a FOMO-ish undercurrent to the hype. People download BeReal because they’re curious. They don’t want to miss out. It’s nostalgia bait, too, for those old enough to remember the ad-free days of Instagram. The Times’s John Herrman found it to be a “reproduction of the experience of joining one of the dominant social networks when they all still felt like toys.” BeReal’s daily reminder tries to enforce a reflexive instinct to post and use the app, similar to how Snapchat users feel beholden to maintain their streaks. These alerts, however, seem more contrived than spontaneous. They run counter to not only BeReal’s stated mission but to the psychological literature on authenticity and self-perception.
Authenticity is a fluid, ever-evolving social construct that cannot be clearly mediated, least of all through an app. In a critical examination of the concept, researchers Katrina Jongman-Sereno and Mark Leary argued that authenticity “may not be a viable scientific construct,” citing the varying definitions used by psychologists, sociologists, and behavioral researchers in their assessments. So, why does this concern over online authenticity seem so pervasive? The internet flattens any distinction between irony and sincerity, human and machine, real and fake. If it’s all artifice, why do we care?
Our fixation on authenticity-posting is perhaps a reflection of our anxieties about the internet and how it debilitates our modern sense of self. Authenticity is a metric to measure content and the celebrities, influencers, brands, and individuals behind the facade. “Lately, it feels like more people are noticing and calling out performance on social media, like how ‘casual Instagram’ was identified as a trend,” said Maya Man, a Los Angeles-based artist and programmer. The notion of authenticity mollifies the viewer, assuring them that there is some truth to what is seen online. For the poster, it’s an ego-driven ideal to aspire toward or embody — even with content they’re paid to promote.
BeReal’s attempt at curating an authentic space is far from perfect, but it gets at an unanswerable ontological question: Are we ever truly ourselves on the internet? “I view every single thing you post online as contributing to this distributed internet avatar that you’re performing,” Man said. “Performing isn’t a negative thing. It’s the fact that you have a mediated audience in mind, even if you’re posting on a private account.”
“I view every single thing you post online as contributing to this distributed internet avatar that you’re performing.”
Users who started using the internet at an early age, or “digital natives,” might share Man’s gestalt theory, and are more accustomed to reconciling these varying personas. It’s why people have Twitter alts, finstas, and specific accounts dedicated to food, aesthetics, or memes. Some of these disaggregated identities might be perceived as more authentic than others. Since the online self is fractured across multiple platforms and mediums, authenticity matters in that it’s a coherent, ready-made identity for consumption by a public audience.
In a critique of BeReal, Real Life magazine editor Rob Horning posits: “An even more real version of BeReal would just give your friends access to your cameras and microphones without you knowing it, so they can peep in on you and see how you act when you think no one is watching. If the panoptic gaze is falsifying us, only voyeurism sets us free.”
These voyeuristic conditions were what Man sought to investigate in creating Glance Back, a Chrome extension that unpredictably snaps a webcam photo once a day when the user opens a new tab. “I was very unsettled by that feeling that someone is looking at you for a long time and you’re not looking back,” she told me. “That’s what my computer feels all day, and we don’t have a chance to engage with its view.”
Even under Glance Back’s unexpected voyeurism, what it captured didn’t feel any more or less authentic than BeReal’s self-directed gaze. Glance Back catches me in a distracted, bleary-eyed state, whereas I convey a more earnest, alert version of myself on BeReal. After a few weeks of observing my life’s repetitious contours through my browser and phone, it became apparent to me that authenticity is a facile concern, one that’s easier to grapple with than our constant state of surveillance. Rather than fret over our perceived authenticity, perhaps a better question is: Why are we so willing to document ourselves to prove what we already know? | 2022-05-17T13:45:18Z | www.vox.com | BeReal is the latest Gen Z social app obsessed with authenticity - Vox | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23075161/bereal-app-authenticity-posting-self | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23075161/bereal-app-authenticity-posting-self |
How “the pied piper of the dirtbag left” spends his day online.
Share All sharing options for: Twitter trolling with Chapo Trap House’s Felix Biederman
Felix, with some of the stuff he likes to do online.
Felix Biederman
Welcome to 24 Hours Online, where we ask one extremely internetty person to document a day in their life looking at screens.
Felix Biederman, whom the New York Times once called one of “the pied pipers of the dirtbag left,” is among Twitter’s most prolific posters. He also thinks that maybe people shouldn’t be allowed to have smartphones.
Sign up for the newsletter The Goods
Your weekly guide to what we buy, why we buy it, and why it all matters.
“I really do think that we need very strong regulation of phones,” he says over Zoom. “I think it would be almost probably better if you just couldn’t make smartphones in America anymore.” Of course, like everyone else, he has zero plans to throw his away. “I’m still drinking that garbage.”
As a founder and co-host of the leftist podcast Chapo Trap House, Biederman has been a public figure since the Obama administration, and a message board troll since Bush. (“When I was 17 or 18, there was this proto-hipster dude who did a call-in web show out of Portland, and me and my friends would call in and do increasingly elaborate fucked-up personas,” he says.) But his 24 Hours Online reveals a lifestyle much more in step with his new home of California: On a Thursday in May, Biederman listens to video game lore videos while on a run, gets sucked into a Mormon YouTube hole, and retweets pictures of adorable weasels.
Here he is, in his own words:
I have invented a new form of sleeping called the Two Morning Method: I first wake up at a time between 5:30 and 7 am, and the first thing I check is my emails. I’ve got an email that seems important, so I draft a response, and then when I wake up the second time two or three hours later, I fix the misspellings and confusing clauses.
If business is a body, emails are the blood. I’m a huge email supporter. Every exciting new project starts on email. If you can start your day with a successful email, you’re already ahead of the competition.
With the hard part done, it’s time to reward myself with a very forgettable croissant. But it isn’t just Nespresso and 25mg Adderall XR accompanying me: My Twitter timeline is also there. If the Two Morning Method has failed me and I’m in a bad mood, I will tweet something awful at a guy who works for Senator [redacted].
Instead, I mindlessly quote-tweet stuff with animals that I like. I love all mustelids — sables, pine martens, otters — and I love all primates, but I’m really invested in gibbons. Quote tweets are probably the lowest form of posts, so I do. like, 47 a day.
昨日のエゾクロテン。#旭山動物園 #asahiyamazoo#エゾクロテン #sable#北海道産動物舎 #担当者撮影 pic.twitter.com/V90WnUhT8z
— 旭川市旭山動物園［公式］ (@asahiyamazoo1) May 15, 2022
It’s time to record [the podcast, Chapo Trap House]. We use Zencastr because a few of us are still in New York and some are here in LA. While we record, I watch muted videos of animals or cars that I’d be too embarrassed to actually drive. Sometimes I just want to know what the dashboard of a Range Rover looks like.
Toward the end I grab my phone and check my message requests. I don’t know what I expect, but I think anyone in the professional media or entertainment world does have the delusional asshole part of their brain. Sometimes you check your message requests and it’s a legitimately famous person saying, “I love your podcast,” which is insane. A lot of it is just annoying questions that you’ve already answered, but people sometimes tell me interesting things that I wouldn’t have known.
Today a guy tells me that there’s a video game that Hezbollah made, and I’m very curious to figure out how to play it. Apparently you play as a Hezbollah guy fighting an IDF guy. I like video games that are made by outsiders, like made in a country that is experiencing a brutal sanction regime and probably doesn’t have access to a lot of tools that someone making a game in France or Canada has.
Unfortunately, one or two times a day there are people in my Twitter messages who are experiencing psychotic episodes where they think they’re being targeted. It definitely freaked the shit out of me in the first few years of being a public figure, but now that’s just a fact of any kind of public internet life that you cannot take personally. I don’t know if there’s something about me that particularly upsets people, maybe it’s the shape of my face, but I live with it and hope that it never crosses over.
After recording the podcast and a long phone call, I go to the gym. If I’m lifting, I’m on my phone a lot. You feel like an asshole if you’re just standing there in between sets, so you need something to look busy. If I make a particularly gross body horror or upsetting joke that loses followers, this is usually where I do it.
My goal is for my followers to yell at me and tell me they hate it. The real victory is when people with their full name and profession quote-tweet me and are like, “What the fuck is this? This is disgusting.” That’s the stuff I find funniest. It’s just purely for me, and that’s where I’m at my most authentic self.
I’m just running today, so I take advantage of YouTube Premium’s audio-only feature and listen to Dark Souls lore videos. Neither aspect of this is defensible; I am paying for the privilege of listening to a 17-minute narrated essay about a dragon named Kalameet.
I’m done with everything I absolutely have to do at this point. I do have some logistic payroll shit that isn’t especially demanding or urgent. I go in and out of doing that for the next few hours. It’s a dance of looking at automated accounts called, like, Every Image Of Martens, or the group DMs that have a .09 percent variation in members, and going back to my spreadsheet bullshit.
At some point I see something about the baby formula shortage that makes me badly want a public execution of the people responsible. I really do feel that in my heart, but of course, I’m just staring at my phone with the blankest expression in recorded human history. Minutes later I’m just looking at posts about the crypto crash. I think the schadenfreude with this particular thing is sort of forced and blinkered, but I’m not exactly looking at this like a first responder surveying a disaster. I’m sure some obnoxious shitty people lost money but considering how many people in this country are just two left turns away from complete financial ruin, it’s really hard for me to feel happy about it. Everyone between, like, 22 and 40 right now thought this was going to be for them what buying a house was for their Boomer parents. A lot of desperate people got screwed.
Many would have you believe that cryptocurrency is collapsing, but those who have closely studied the history of these markets have seen this before – and they know that earnings are poised to shoot through the roof. Here’s what’s really going on. pic.twitter.com/nxqbx5VNQL
This is just the other type of thing you do when you’re looking at your phone, which is enjoying the drama of something bad happening, but without the pain of it happening to you or the feeling that you need a clear moral opinion on it. I don’t think that’s really unique to the internet. People have always kind of liked hearing about a coworker’s horrifying divorce if they don’t really talk to them. Everyone does it to some extent, but so many different groups of people being in one place makes it absurdly easy to access now. It is pretty horrifying to think what instant feedback reactions to headlines and ready-made arguments are doing to us.
I’m almost certainly not going to take any of this shit off my phone, though. I’m just going to feel it deep in my heart and not really do anything.
It’s Elden Ring time. Let’s get this shit. I try soloing Malenia twice until I think better of it and do some catacombs. I’ve beaten her twice but I used the spirit summons. It’s really fucking hard.
None of my friends are online playing Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, which is what I actually want to play. I think of CS:GO the way that other people think of golf or baseball: an unimpeachably great, fundamental game.
It’s a pretty dull Thursday, all told. I close out this day by watching YouTube videos about MLM-cult hybrids and crypto (I am desperately trying to understand the Luna implosion to uncertain success). I watch an amazing two-part documentary about LuLaRoe by Munecat and learn something interesting, which is that there are a lot of MLM scams in Utah not only because it’s a favorable business environment, but because the social cohesion and sense of community with Mormons is such that one Mormon is probably not going to think that another Mormon would be lying to them. Unfortunately it’s screwed a lot of Mormons out of money. Utah is one of the few states that has a white-collar criminal database registry, like a sex offender registry, just because there are so many people scamming their neighbors and friends and cousins and shit.
And that’s what I do as I drift off into sleep.
Total screen time: | 2022-05-17T13:45:24Z | www.vox.com | Twitter trolling with Chapo Trap House’s Felix Biederman - Vox | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23076761/chapo-trap-houses-felix-biederman | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23076761/chapo-trap-houses-felix-biederman |
The FDA made a reasonable decision — but one that still shows much of what’s wrong with our current system for emergency approvals.
Share All sharing options for: Why the FDA rejected fluvoxamine as a Covid-19 drug
Demonstrators in Washington, DC, hold up signs urging the FDA to authorize vaccines for children under 5. The FDA’s handling of Covid has drawn criticism for poor communication and slow decision-making.
Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Protect Their Future
Last year, researchers who were testing cheap generic drugs in the hope that one or more of them might prove to work as a Covid-19 treatment stumbled across a promising candidate: the antidepressant fluvoxamine.
In a massive randomized controlled trial, called Together, researchers at McMaster University compared eight different repurposed drugs, and found most of them — including ivermectin, the antiparasitic that many embraced as a Covid-19 miracle cure — failed to do much against the disease. But fluvoxamine appeared to reduce severe disease by about 30 percent. While fluvoxamine had already shown some promise in small-scale trials last year, small-scale trials can sometimes turn up spurious good results, so most people didn’t take fluvoxamine seriously until the impressive data from the Together trial.
“This already feels different from hydroxychloroquine and company given the high quality of the research,” Paul Sax argued in NEJM Journal Watch, which analyzes recent research. “We might finally be onto something.” Government regulators, though, remained more skeptical — in part because the regulatory system isn’t exactly designed for adding new indications for drugs that have already been approved by the FDA without a pharmaceutical company sponsoring them.
Another researcher who was convinced of the case for fluvoxamine, David Boulware, decided to take matters into his own hands. The FDA didn’t know how to deal with submissions for a drug to be approved for a new indication without someone responsible for the submission? Fine. He’d submit it himself. In December, he wrote and submitted an emergency use application for fluvoxamine as a treatment for Covid-19.
In a lot of ways, it was a heartwarming story about the power of citizen science. But that’s not how it turned out.
This week, the FDA rejected the application for an emergency use authorization of fluvoxamine. Regulators argued that the results from the Together trial were more ambiguous than they looked — most of the benefits came from a reduction in extended observation in the emergency room, an endpoint fairly specific to the study’s clinical setting in Brazil and not necessarily all that useful. They pointed out that since the Together trial, additional studies have attempted to find a record of fluvoxamine’s benefits, and mostly haven’t found results as large.
In an unusual step, the FDA released an explanation for the rejection, and for the most part it’s very reasonable. But the whole episode still showcases what’s broken about how we review and approve drugs.
The drug approval game
For eight months, the National Institutes of Health, which maintains an up-to-date database of research findings on treatments for Covid-19, didn’t update the fluvoxamine page with any information on the new, promising studies. (The NIH states on that page today, as it has for the last year, that “There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19.”)
That frustrated researchers, especially this past winter as omicron cases started to grow and the best treatments for Covid-19, like Paxlovid, were not widely available. Many of them told me that with results like these, the FDA would approve a drug that had a pharmaceutical company backing it, and that what was working against fluvoxamine was what they considered its biggest upside: that it was cheap and well-known.
To be clear, fluvoxamine was already approved by the FDA — for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). That means doctors can prescribe it in any context they think is appropriate, and it’s frequently prescribed off-label for anxiety and depression. It could also be prescribed off-label for Covid-19, but many doctors aren’t willing to do such off-label prescriptions. For that reason, the drug’s advocates wanted the FDA to determine that fluvoxamine is additionally indicated for Covid-19, so that treatment for the disease would be officially added to its listed uses alongside OCD. But many experts were skeptical.
“I don’t think the FDA ever will approve it for Covid,” Eric Lenze, the co-author of some early research on fluvoxamine, told me in December. “The reason the FDA will never approve it for Covid is exactly the reason it’s so useful for Covid; namely, it’s cheap and it’s widely available. No one can make any money off it, so no one is going to spend the money to appeal to the FDA to approve it.”
“The guidelines are overly conservative in that they have not yet endorsed fluvoxamine,” Ed Mills, one of the lead researchers of the Together trial, told me in November. Why was the FDA not giving fluvoxamine the same review it would give other drugs? “They don’t know how to deal with submissions where there isn’t someone to be responsible for it,” Mills said. The process of adding an indication is generally initiated by the drug developer, whose lobbyists work closely with the FDA to make sure they’re submitting the evidence the FDA wants to see for approval.
Fluvoxamine research had been largely funded through Fast Grants, a private philanthropic effort to make Covid-19 research work happen, and as the drug is generic, no one would make money from its approval for Covid-19. “It’s very disappointing as a scientist to see that it’s actually not about clinical evidence, it’s about lobbying,” Mills told me.
The FDA’s rejection notice this week made their thinking clear, and it’s clearly not purely about lobbying.
It’s important to note that the crucial justification for fluvoxamine as a treatment is much weaker now than it was this winter when Boulware filed the application. At the time, there was a serious dearth of effective Covid-19 treatments that could be taken at home rather than in the hospital. Monoclonal antibodies, the first line of treatment in earlier waves of the pandemic, weren’t working well against omicron. Many other therapies were only recommended for hospitalized patients. There was no simple pill a person could take at home while their case was mild to prevent progression into severe disease.
Today, there is: antiviral drug Paxlovid. Even fluvoxamine’s strongest advocates agree that Paxlovid works a lot better — it appears to reduce severe disease by 80 to 90 percent. And while this winter Paxlovid was scarce, today there are plenty of doses in the US — though many sick Americans still have trouble accessing the drug because of a lack of primary care doctors they can talk to, while too many doctors remain misinformed about when to prescribe it.
But Paxlovid isn’t a panacea, and it’d still be good to have more options in our portfolio. “There are effective therapeutics that are available. But not everyone has access to them. Not everyone can tolerate them. Some people have contraindications,” Boulware argued in response to the FDA rejection. “And if you go elsewhere in the world, low- and middle-income countries, they have access to no therapeutics.” Still, that Paxlovid, which is a significantly better option, is now widely available weakens the case for fluvoxamine in the US, even though countries that don’t have Paxlovid access should likely make their own calculus.
On the whole, then, the FDA’s decision to decline the EUA for fluvoxamine seems reasonable — even to me, a person who has been enthusiastic about the research supporting fluvoxamine. However, the decision still highlights a lot that should be improved about how the FDA makes and communicates decisions about Covid-19 treatment.
Our Covid-19 treatment failures
For much of the pandemic, if you tested positive for Covid-19, the advice from public health authorities was to do nothing unless your symptoms worsened. Until recently, the official CDC page about what to do if sick with Covid-19 only advised you to wear a mask, wash your hands, and clean high-touch surfaces to avoid infecting those around you. If your breathing deteriorates or you show signs of severe illness like confusion or an inability to stay awake, the CDC advises you to go to the hospital.
Recently, the CDC added an info box highlighting that if you are at high risk of severe disease, treatment may be available. But for people who aren’t categorized as high-risk — which includes older adults or those with medical conditions — the recommendations still don’t include any treatment options.
At first, the lack of treatment recommendations was likely because the evidence for any treatment option was pretty weak. Early in the pandemic, treatments like hydroxychloroquine were hyped but turned out not to work. Later, ivermectin was embraced as a miracle cure. (It isn’t.)
But the lack of treatment options was also the product of a process that wasn’t very good at identifying them and communicating that information to a confused public. The fluvoxamine clinical trial — and many other clinical trials of prospective treatments — was funded by private philanthropy because government processes were too slow to rely on. NIH official recommendation pages meant to summarize the state of research for various treatments were often months out of date; I wrote in November 2021 that the fluvoxamine page had last seen an update in the previous April.
And instead of the FDA proactively working with researchers to set up clinical trials the agency would be willing to rely on to recommend or disrecommend drugs, researchers had to design and conduct trials themselves, and then some doctors had to fill out the EUA application to get the FDA to look at the work they’d done.
Right now, the need for fluvoxamine is limited, the evidence is mixed, and the FDA’s decision not to recommend the drug is pretty reasonable. But ideally, the FDA would have been actively involved in the research process as soon as fluvoxamine first showed promise, and the government would have participated in designing and funding more definitive trials instead of waiting for a submission from an interested group of citizens.
The fact that the evidence about fluvoxamine is still inconclusive at this point is a good reason not to issue an EUA — but it’s also a sign of a glaring failure in our system for investigating promising Covid-19 treatments. Covid-19 is going to be with us for a long time, and other pandemics might be on the horizon. The process for developing treatments — and communicating with the public about them — needs to get better. | 2022-05-20T11:34:31Z | www.vox.com | Why the FDA rejected fluvoxamine as a Covid-19 drug - Vox | https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/5/20/23107842/emergency-approval-fda-rejected-fluvoxamine-covid-drug | https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/5/20/23107842/emergency-approval-fda-rejected-fluvoxamine-covid-drug |
Amber Heard is just the first target of a new extremist playbook.
By Aja Romano@ajaromano May 20, 2022, 1:00pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: Why the Depp-Heard trial is so much worse than you realize
Amber Heard and Johnny Depp at the Fairfax County Circuit Courthouse in Fairfax, Virginia, on May 16, 2022.
Around the third or fourth time I logged into Twitter to find “#AmberHeardIsAPsychopath” at the top of the trending list, I realized that there was no longer any pretending that the Depp-Heard defamation trial was not a terrible, foreboding reflection of our culture’s worst impulses.
The media has covered the degree to which this trial has served as a referendum on the Me Too movement and a siren call to domestic abusers.
The narrative of the trial has been shaped in part by what appears to be, according to multiple researchers, an army of bots spreading rhetoric favorable to Depp. The work of those bots has been further amplified by “men’s rights activists” — the part of the far-right-leaning extremist “manosphere” that seems to have decided discrediting Amber Heard is the key to destroying every woman who accuses men of abuse or domestic violence.
Trial memes — almost universally weighted against Heard — have taken over every corner of the internet, from TikTok to Twitch to Etsy. Even Saturday Night Live has lampooned what have been portrayed as the many excesses and absurdities of the trial testimony, and social media users have similarly found the trial ripe for parody. On TikTok, for example, totally unrelated accounts seem to have given themselves over to full-time Depp-Heard trial mockery, to the point where the actual substance of the testimony seems completely irrelevant beside the need to mine the proceedings for entertainment. Sure, Amber Heard cried while on the stand, but did you see how ridiculous she looked while doing it?
To put it mildly, this surreal explosion of internet culture vilification of Heard feels dispiriting and troubling. What made so many millions of people feel so justified in treating such a personal, toxic relationship like popcorn fodder? At what point before the bot armies and men’s rights activists poisoned the well of discourse around this trial could a reasonable assessment of the evidence and the facts have been made? Did that point ever exist?
Most of the reporting on these memes has placed the blame for their sensationalist tone squarely on the evolution of fandom content creation. But recall that the white supremacist alt-right movement has a long history of memeifying everything they want to normalize and legitimize, and keep in the forefront of your mind that the alt-right latched onto this case as its bulwark long before fandom and the internet at large did. By now, after years of political disinformation campaigns, we’re used to social media’s natural ability to contort reality. Rarely, however, has it bent this far, this rapidly, for this many people, in service of something this vile.
Again and again over the course of this trial, basic human empathy seems to have completely flown out the window. More than that, nuance feels impossible, and there doesn’t seem to be room for even the reality of the situation. The contours of the abuse were well-established before the 2018 opinion column Depp is suing over was published. The basic facts of the case have gotten their day in court once already, having been heard in a British court in 2020, with the judge finding in Heard’s favor. But the basic, well-established facts do not seem to matter.
They do not seem to matter to people who would normally care about facts, truth, and nuance. They do not seem to matter to the tabloid media gleefully reporting on every aspect of this case. They do not seem to matter to the TikTok creators who seize every chance to parody a tearful Heard, turning her objectively harrowing trial testimony into a farce of over-the-top fake weeping.
The facts do not seem to matter to any of the people who have gleefully latched on to the image of Heard as a manipulative villain, as if she split her own lip, punched her own face, and pulled out clumps of her own hair.
What we still haven’t learned from Gamergate
What we’re witnessing here are the dramatically compounded effects of internet researcher Alice Marwick’s theory of morally motivated networked harassment, which holds that a group of social media users can justify any amount of abuse directed at a target if they feel their cause is morally right. At scale, this looks like, and effectively is, millions of people around the world lining up to eagerly subject one woman to untold amounts of abuse, public humiliation, and violent rhetoric. (Incidentally, this is exactly what Depp wanted to happen to her — so even if he loses the case, he still wins).
People who have spent the last decade hashtagging #believewomen, fighting online harassment campaigns, and, especially, resisting white male supremacy have, over the course of this trial, crawled into bed with the vilest kinds of internet refuse — at least 11 percent of whom don’t actually exist, according to one bot researcher — possibly all because they really like Captain Jack Sparrow.
We’re like seven years away from the dominoes meme but the small domino is “Johnny Depp cast in Nightmare On Elm street” and the big domino is “President Madison Cawthorne suspends 19th amendment” huh
— Amanda Smith (@AmandaSmithSays) May 19, 2022
The sheer volume of this cultural takeover by Depp acolytes has created a seismic value shift to a degree that may be unalterable. Trial watchers seem to be welcoming misinformation about the trial while doing everything they can to reject or undermine actual documented facts of the case.
Some of the arguments made against Amber Heard sound like QAnon-level conspiracy rabbit holes. (Amber Heard’s trial outfits, for example, have somehow become part of a sinister narrative in which Heard is a manipulative abuser attempting to rattle and intimidate Depp by mimicking his own trial suits.) This trial has accomplished what our enraged, paranoid ideological fringe could not: a complete dismantling of the ideological breakdown that has divided us politically, and the general public acceptance of a narrative created and controlled by bad actors and far-right extremists.
The Depp-Heard trial has refined the Gamergate playbook in a way that will haunt us for years to come. It’s proven to extremists that if you rally around the right beloved public figure or institution, blanket them in a protective sphere of outrage and misinformation, and weaponize fandom culture — already so prone to ideological radicalization and irrational groupthink — you can successfully push whatever media narrative you want into the mainstream.
There’s no coming back from this. The actual trial verdict is all but irrelevant now. It’s not just that Amber Heard will forever be an imperfect accuser whose own volatile history was used to help destroy a revelatory movement in Me Too. It’s that there will be other Amber Heards, and many of them will be marginalized, with far fewer resources to withstand this onslaught of hate.
It’s not a coincidence that this spectacle is playing out against a backdrop of perpetually escalating racist violence and the rapid erosion of decades of human rights for women, queer, and trans people. The Depp-Heard trial has just trained millions of people to discard their own empathy, their own rational judgment, in exchange for the gleeful mockery, rejection, and belittlement of a woman making herself vulnerable in public. If you don’t think that training will be weaponized against vulnerable targets, you haven’t been paying attention. | 2022-05-20T19:39:31Z | www.vox.com | The Depp-Heard trial has played right into the hands of far-right extremists. - Vox | https://www.vox.com/culture/23131538/johnny-depp-amber-heard-tiktok-snl-extremism | https://www.vox.com/culture/23131538/johnny-depp-amber-heard-tiktok-snl-extremism |
In this lovely and heartbroken novel, neither superpowers nor true love can stop systemic racism.
By Constance Grady@constancegrady May 20, 2022, 4:50pm EDT
If you buy something from a Vox link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.
Share All sharing options for: The Fortress of Solitude is a fraught and uneasy love letter to a vanished Brooklyn
The Fortress of Solitude by Jonathan Lethem.
The Vox Book Club is linking to Bookshop.org to support local and independent booksellers.
The Fortress of Solitude, the 2003 novel by Jonathan Lethem that is the Vox Book Club’s pick for May, seems in memory to take place in a single golden childhood summer. It’s a shimmering evocation of a Brooklyn kid’s holiday that feels almost painfully beautiful: the days are eternal, the spaldeens bouncing off the brownstone walls pink and perfect, the water from the fire hydrants shockingly cold — and at certain moments, as you leap in the air to catch a wallball, it almost seems like you can fly.
“But the stories you told yourself — which you pretended to recall as if they’d happened every afternoon of an infinite summer — were really a pocketful of days distorted into legend,” thinks Mingus Rude toward the end of Fortress’s tragically adult second half. “How often had that hydrant even been opened? Did you jet water through a car window, what, twice at best? Summer burned just a few afternoons long, in the end.”
Like that other great American novel of childhood, Little Women, The Fortress of Solitude is built on a binary: the first half devoted to the lovely, vicious pleasures and pains of a childhood recalled with aching emotional intensity, and the second to mourning that childhood’s death and reckoning with its uneasy ghosts. “My childhood was the only part of my life that wasn’t, uh, overwhelmed by my childhood,” explains 35-year-old Dylan Ebdus to a disenchanted girlfriend who wants to know why he won’t let go of a shrine to his Brooklyn days.
Dylan spends his childhood in seedy Gowanus in the 1970s, just as that neighborhood is on the brink of transforming itself into boho Boerum Hill. Dylan’s parents are among the first wave of white gentrifiers, a pair of progressive hippies who shoo nerdy white Dylan off into the majority-Black neighborhood to forge a post-racial utopia, bragging to their friends that he’s one of three white kids in his whole school.
Dylan, however, doesn’t find utopia in Gowanus. As we learn throughout the section titled “Underberg,” Dylan is soft, and he’s clearly got the racial and class privilege needed to leverage his way out of Brooklyn, given enough time. These facts together mark him as a target for what is locally known as “yoking,” a quasi-mugging performed under the cover of camaraderie that sees Dylan relieved of his pocket money daily.
Dylan’s refuge comes in the form of Mingus Rude, the charismatic mixed-race son of an almost-famous soul singer, and the block’s natural leader. Mingus takes Dylan under his wing, including him in ball games, teaching him to shoplift and tag. Dylan instantly worships Mingus, and their friendship takes on a romantic intensity that transforms Brooklyn’s rough streets into a parent-free paradise.
In an early and innocent echo of the cultural appropriation he will cynically continue as an adult, Dylan begins writing Mingus’s tag for him all over the streets. But the team of Dylan and Mingus isn’t built to survive the pressures of Brooklyn in the 1970s. Interlopers intervene, skewed mirror images of both Dylan and Mingus: a nerdy white kid who Dylan despises almost as much as he despises himself; a Black kid who Dylan fears the way he will not let himself fear Mingus. Dylan tests into a heavily segregated magnet school and drifts toward Manhattan and the punk scene, where he is frequently deputized to buy drugs. Mingus stays in Gowanus and starts selling drugs.
What keeps Dylan and Mingus linked, for a while, is their shared secret: a magic ring that lets them fly. They use it to try to fight crime.
By now it’s a familiar move to include a comic book trope like a magic ring in a literary novel, but when Lethem pulled off this trick in 2003, it was still a daring formal innovation. It functions here as a radiant hope for redemption: After all, if anything can defeat America’s structural racism and allow these two boys to simply love each other, it would have to be something magical.
Instead, the ring’s magic fails to accomplish the impossible. Dylan and Mingus drift apart.
In the novel’s second half, Dylan is an embittered 35-year-old music critic living in Berkeley, cherishing the street cred he gets from his Brooklyn childhood and his Black girlfriend, and fantasizing about cheating on said girlfriend with a blonde cocktail waitress. Mingus is a drug addict who’s been cycling in and out of jail since the age of 18.
The critical consensus is that the second half of Fortress, which Dylan narrates in the first person after holding us at a third-person remove all through the first half, is the weaker part of this novel. Titled “Prisonaires,” it lacks the forward drive and the shimmering beauty of the first half, and instead meanders aimlessly through one satirical set piece after another, before Dylan at last makes his way back to Brooklyn and Mingus, and Fortress finds its purpose once again.
But it’s that very quiet chaos in “Prisonaires” that makes “Underberg” shine all the more brightly in retrospect, and that makes you feel all the more strongly what Dylan has lost. Fortress of Solitude is a novel of heartbreak, and Dylan without Mingus is a heartbroken man. That’s why Fortress only begins to soar again when at last it enters fully into Mingus’s voice, and we are given the full tragedy of his ruin.
Share your thoughts on The Fortress of Solitude in the comments section below, and be sure to RSVP for our upcoming live discussion event with Jonathan Lethem. In the meantime, subscribe to the Vox Book Club newsletter to make sure you don’t miss anything.
The critic James Wood famously gave Fortress a mixed review in the New Republic upon its release. Eight years later, Lethem responded with an essay in the Los Angeles Review of Books, taking issue with the fact that Wood never even mentioned the magic ring at the center of the book. A classic literary fight!
The Fortress of Solitude was adapted in the 2010s into a deeply flawed and deeply beautiful musical, with music by the late great Michael Friedman (Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson). It had the misfortune to premiere at the Public Theatre in 2015, the same season as Hamilton, so there was very little oxygen left in the room for anyone else, but it did at least do well enough to earn a cast album. You can listen to the whole thing here.
The Camden College section of Fortress is based on Lethem’s time at Bennington College, which he attended along with Bret Easton Ellis (American Psycho) and Donna Tartt (Vox Book Club pick Secret History). Lethem is one of the many figures interviewed in this very good oral history of the era, as well as this almost-as-good podcast on the same topic.
Lethem is also blogging on Medium! A nice place to check out some of his cultural criticism.
In his LARB essay, Lethem writes that the ring is a “formal discontinuity,” so that the book “wrenches its own ‘realism’ — mimeticism is the word I prefer — into crisis by insisting on uncanny events.” We could perhaps read a similar crisis of mimeticism in Abraham Ebdus’s rejection of figurative art, which he later embraces with his psychedelic paperback covers. What does this crisis accomplish?
Why do you think Marvel nerd Dylan uses the DC image of Superman’s Fortress of Solitude as the central metaphor of this novel?
The other defining absence in Dylan’s life, outside of Mingus, is the absence of his mother, Rachel, who flees Brooklyn early on and seems never to look back. In the final pages of Fortress, Dylan finally goes after her. How does that plotline work for you?
In the closing pages of Fortress, Dylan muses on the idea of a “middle space” where the utopia his parents sought in Gowanus might actually exist, where DJs jammed in the schoolyards and “Mingus Rude always grooved fat spaldeen pitches, born home runs.” He seems to suggest that such middle spaces are always fleeting in real life and that they can only exist eternally in art. Agree? Disagree?
Join the Vox Book Club! | 2022-05-20T22:16:47Z | www.vox.com | Fortress of Solitude review: Jonathan Lethem’s love letter to Brooklyn - Vox | https://www.vox.com/culture/23132485/fortress-of-solitude-jonathan-lethem-review-discussion-post | https://www.vox.com/culture/23132485/fortress-of-solitude-jonathan-lethem-review-discussion-post |
Democratic voters are moving their party to the left — and dragging candidates with them.
Share All sharing options for: Is the center shrinking in the Democratic primaries?
Pennsylvania Democratic congressional candidate, state Rep. Summer Lee, talks to the press in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Nate Smallwood/Bloomberg via Getty Images
This year’s Democratic primaries are being largely framed as an ideological struggle between the national party’s moderate and progressive wings. But voting patterns over the last few weeks have complicated that narrative.
In marquee contests in Pennsylvania and Oregon, progressive wins led to proclamations that the left wing of the party is gaining influence, while some moderate victories defied that thinking. What’s becoming clear as votes are counted, however, is that Democratic primary voters seem to care less about who the “progressive candidate” is and more about if candidates are campaigning on progressive goals. What many of the Democrats who won this week have in common is that they all embraced progressive priorities tailored to where they were running.
Perhaps nowhere encapsulated this reality better than swing-state Pennsylvania, where a relatively progressive and locally trusted candidate who repeatedly rejected the progressive label — Lt. Gov. John Fetterman — trounced the more moderate, Washington favorite, Rep. Conor Lamb, in the primary race for the US Senate.
“Just being a centrist anymore, it’s hard to get things done. There’s shrinking room left in the middle,” Mustafa Rashed, a Democratic strategist in Philadelphia, told me about the state’s dynamics.
Around the state, candidates who delivered digestible versions of progressive messages did well, from the left-leaning candidates who won races in heavily Democratic areas for state and federal legislatures to the moderate incumbents who survived tough challenges from the left. In nearly all of these races, a general shift to the left was apparent among the party’s base and candidates.
This trend isn’t necessarily universal: Plenty of more traditional moderate Democrats won their races in Ohio and North Carolina. And it’s possible upcoming races in California, Illinois, Michigan, and Texas may upset this narrative. But for the most part, the primaries so far appear to show that progressive activism and ideas have changed what primary voters want and what their candidates are offering.
Every team scored wins on Tuesday
Both sides of the Democratic ideological spectrum could claim wins on Tuesday. From North Carolina to Oregon, there wasn’t uniformity in who emerged victorious.
What does tie a lot of Tuesday’s races together, though, is how few moderates ran openly down the middle of the ideological spectrum without co-opting at least some of the issues and language progressives have used in previous races. That includes things like advocating for a higher minimum wage, expanding health care access and coverage, more openly embracing gun control and abortion rights, and at least addressing climate change.
A more moderate, establishment type prevailed in Pennsylvania’s Third Congressional District, where Rep. Dwight Evans beat back progressive challengers by focusing on affordable housing, criminal justice reform, gun violence, and crime. A similar dynamic could be seen in other seats in the state legislature, including with longtime state Sen. Anthony Williams, who campaigned on abortion access, gun-violence prevention, and criminal justice reform as he faced his first serious challenge from the left. And in the primary for lieutenant governor, frontrunner Rep. Austin Davis defeated rivals to his left running on abortion and criminal justice reform.
This trend wasn’t just seen in Pennsylvania.
In Kentucky, liberal state Senate Minority Leader Morgan McGarvey defeated a lefty rival to represent the Louisville-area Third Congressional District, which is solidly Democratic, by supporting partial student loan cancellation, single-payer health care, and endorsing the idea of a Green New Deal.
In North Carolina, a similar picture emerged. Centrist-minded state Sen. Don Davis, backed by outgoing US Rep. GK Butterfield, comfortably beat his progressive challenger, a former state senator endorsed by US Sen. Elizabeth Warren and an array of progressive groups. Though Davis doesn’t back a Green New Deal or Medicare-for-all, he still campaigned on affordable health care, voting rights, reproductive rights, and increasing the minimum wage.
Things were a little different in Democrat-dominated Oregon, however, where progressives were ascendant. The solidly centrist incumbent Rep. Kurt Schrader, who campaigned on pragmatism and consensus-building, is on track to lose to progressive activist Jamie McLeod-Skinner in the Fifth District, while crypto-backed lawyer Carrick Flynn, who had no political experience, is also trailing the progressive state Rep. Andrea Salinas. And after a difficult campaign, former state House Speaker Tina Kotek defeated a moderate challenger, state Treasurer Tobias Read, in the primary for Oregon governor.
Oregon’s results, which saw voters gravitate toward the conventional, genuine progressive, add another layer of complexity to the primary picture. Regardless, races this week showed Democratic candidates of all ideologies feel compelled to address their left flank.
Progressive ideas have changed the way candidates run
A lot has changed since the last midterms in 2018, when progressives made big gains but moderate Democrats were instrumental in giving the party a majority in the House. So far, the party’s primaries are showing an electorate much more willing to accept populist, progressive(-ish) ideas than before — a big win for left-wing activists and thinkers who have managed to move the party’s ideological center in their direction.
Few candidates so far have run overtly as centrists without at least paying lip service to progressive priorities. Where they refused to do so, as in Schrader’s race, they faced headwinds from a changing Democratic primary electorate.
“Ten years ago, blue-dog and corporate Democrats would run on that [centrist] message against progressives,” Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which has endorsed several progressive upstarts this election cycle, told me. “These days, they’re more willing to use the language of progressives against progressives in primaries — but Schrader was the exception to this rule.”
That’s not to say a moderate using progressive talking points has a sure path to success. Marcia Wilson, the chair of rural Pennsylvania’s Adams County Democratic Party, said Lamb’s campaign showed how some Democrats fear electing an apparent liberal who turns out to be a Joe Manchin-style Democrat.
“Democrats are feeling more galvanized and want to be known as Democrats, not because they are unwilling to compromise but because we want to support Democratic ideals,” she said. Wilson told me that partly explains why Lamb’s pitch to the state didn’t resonate — a more conservative background and platform in past races made his leftward shift in the Senate primary seem inauthentic.
But still, Lamb attempted some ideological change. A similar thing happened in earlier Democratic primaries in Ohio, where more moderate candidates like Tim Ryan (in the state’s Democratic Senate race), Nan Whaley (in the governor’s race), and Shontel Brown (in the 11th Congressional District) were pushed to the left. Upcoming races will test this trend, but so far, it appears Democratic voters want their candidates to speak like progressives, even if they aren’t actually progressive.
The general election may in turn change the way these candidates talk about their priorities. The citizens who typically turn out to vote in November tend to be less ideological and party-affiliated than the voters who participate in primary elections. And the progressive ideals beloved by hardcore Democrats may not be as well received by moderates and centrists in competitive general election seats.
If progressives — and progressive ideas — do win uphill battles in these swing districts, however, Democrats may end up with a newly empowered left flank, catalyzing the political polarization Americans have come to expect from their government. | 2022-05-21T14:15:57Z | www.vox.com | What the primaries revealed about Democrats’ progressive wing - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23133054/primaries-midterm-progressives-moderate-center-fetterman-lamb | https://www.vox.com/23133054/primaries-midterm-progressives-moderate-center-fetterman-lamb |
By Rachel M. Cohen@rmc031 May 23, 2022, 12:20pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: Pandemic school reopenings were not just about politics
Superintendent Matt Malone chats with a first grader at an elementary school in Fall River, Massachusetts, in November 2020. Fall River schools were in-person for several months at the start of the 2020-2021 school year before going fully remote in December due to increasing rates of coronavirus infections.
Almost as soon as some schools reopened for in-person learning in the fall of 2020, research was suggesting a tidy, albeit dark, conclusion about why they did: politics. Early analyses indicated that Covid-19 health factors had virtually nothing to do with reopening decisions, and partisan politics could explain nearly all the variation.
There were early signs that this narrative didn’t explain the full story. If allegiance to former President Donald Trump (in schools that opened) or teacher unions (in those that stayed closed) were all that mattered, why did support for reopening schools also drop among Republican voters over the summer? And what about the conflicting recommendations coming from federal health and education departments at that time? Nevertheless, the idea that Covid-19 was not a real factor was repeated by some of the nation’s most influential journalists and media outlets, and framed as though the question was generally settled.
This is typical in policy research: Initial waves of data often attract lots of attention, and can quickly ossify into conventional wisdom. When subsequent, often deeper inquiry reveals alternative or more nuanced explanations, it tends to receive far less notice.
That’s what’s been happening with research into school closures. More recent studies have found that, far from being irrelevant, Covid-19 indicators were among central factors predicting whether schools would reopen.
Researchers say they also still haven’t fully understood how other factors — like school governance and parent preferences — influenced Covid-19 school decisions. A new study, published recently by two education researchers from George Mason University, replicates some earlier findings and explores new potential variables. All in all, it continues adding to a picture that’s more complex than the early analyses suggested.
This debate might seem moot: Schools have been back to in-person learning this school year, and parents largely report satisfaction with their child’s progress. But the consequences of these decisions continue to linger. Many educators say things have not yet returned to normal. Empirical research suggests some of the most negative academic effects were experienced disproportionately by low-income students and students of color. Moreover, future pandemics remain a threat, and district leaders may one day again be charged with navigating similar circumstances.
A new study reinforces that school opening decisions were complicated
The narrative that school reopening decisions were all about politics coalesced early. One of the first pieces of evidence came from a Brookings Institution blog post published in July 2020, where senior fellow Jon Valant found “no relationship” between school districts’ reopening plans and their per-capita Covid-19 cases, but a strong one between districts’ plans and county-level support for Trump in the 2016 election. The implication was that communities that take their cues from then-President Trump were more willing to resume in-person instruction.
Additional research emerged in the following months reiterating that health concerns were not a significant factor. “We find evidence that politics, far more than science, shaped school district decision-making,” concluded political scientists Michael Hartney and Leslie Finger in an October 2020 analysis.
But as time passed, and more schools reopened, the picture grew more complicated. A July 2021 analysis compared fall 2020 reopening factors to those in spring 2021. Tulane economists Douglas Harris and Daniel Oliver found Covid-19 rates were one significant predictor of fall school reopening. Over time, the role of both politics and health factors declined, Harris and Oliver observed, while the demographics of a given community remained a strong predictor throughout the year. (This was knotty, they note, given the “close interplay between demographics, parental work situations, and COVID health risks.”)
The latest addition to the research literature was published this month by two George Mason professors, Matthew Steinberg and David Houston. Their working paper — which has not yet been peer-reviewed — affirmed some of the core findings of earlier studies: Higher rates of in-person instruction during fall 2020 occurred in areas with weaker unions and that leaned Republican, and rates of Covid-19 were correlated with reopening decisions.
The new paper looks at how factors predicting in-person schooling changed over the course of the 2021-21 academic year. Covid-19 case and death rates, political partisanship, and teacher union strength became “less potent predictors” over time. As the year stretched on, Steinberg and Houston also observed that communities with a history of higher standardized test scores grew significantly more likely to reopen school buildings than their lower-achieving counterparts.
“This pattern may help us understand the widening test score gaps that have emerged in the wake of the pandemic,” they write.
Sarah Reckhow, a political scientist at Michigan State University who was involved in a study that found local school district decisions were heavily tied to political partisanship and union strength, called Houston and Steinberg’s study “great” — and noted the importance of replication in policy research.
While her own research found school reopening to be less tied to Covid-19 severity, she said there was still a relationship to Covid-19 rates observed in some aspects of their model.
Harris told Vox he agreed with the new working paper’s conclusions — that reopening was about more than just politics — which largely mirrored his prior research. He also praised the new study for tracking how factors that seemed to drive in-person instruction changed over time. “That was novel and interesting and important,” Harris said.
Steinberg and Houston’s study leveraged county-level data from a private firm, Burbio, which tracked in-person and virtual learning for nearly half of all public school students during the pandemic. Covid-19 case and death rates, and partisanship measured by presidential vote share, are also all reported at the county level. Most counties, however, contain multiple school districts, which is why other researchers have preferred a school district-level analysis.
“There are a lot of analytic choices that go into descriptive analyses of imperfect data, and we do not have a strong bone to pick with the other studies,” Steinberg told Vox, but emphasized that many of these minor choices can have “nontrivial implications” for interpreting results.
Brad Marianno, an education policy researcher at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, told Vox he is skeptical of Burbio’s ability to accurately capture in-person instruction rates, and thought a school district-level analysis (like one he published earlier this year) would have been better than a county-level approach. Still, he praised the new paper, including for performing its analysis over time. “We need multiple efforts at the question, especially efforts that employ similar and different datasets and measures, to really triangulate a data-driven answer,” he said.
Sarah Cohodes, a Columbia University economist who has studied pandemic differences between charter schools and traditional public schools, said there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to measuring by county or school-district levels. “You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t,” she told me, though she reiterated that it depends on the research question.
Local support for teachers may have made it easier to reopen schools
One of the most novel elements of Steinberg and Houston’s study is their suggestion of a previously unexplored factor predicting in-person instruction: local support for teachers. Using multiple surveys with different sampling strategies and question wordings, the George Mason professors found that pre-pandemic support for increases in educator pay was consistently associated with higher rates of in-person instruction during the pandemic. In other words, areas where the public was more supportive of raises for teachers were also more likely to have in-person learning.
Other education policy scholars told Vox they’d need more time to consider that connection. Reckhow called it “a really intriguing result” but one that left her with “many questions” about the underlying mechanisms that might explain the finding. “Without more information, it’s hard for me to develop a fully satisfactory explanation,” she said.
Steinberg stressed that what he sees as so “revelatory” about this finding, which was based on data from two different nationally representative surveys, is that it suggests to him there was something about communities that valued their teachers more highly that potentially made it easier for schools to open for in-person learning.
“Some of these little p-politics in communities matter, and whether or not there is preexisting trust could make the logistical complexity of reopening manageable for leaders or unmanageable,” he said.
As time marches on, it can be easy to forget just how acute the uncertainty was for school administrators during the 2020-21 school year, particularly before vaccines were available. Everything looks crisper in hindsight. But given the tremendous implications for students, schools, and families — and that administrators may one day again find themselves in similar positions — researchers will likely study those decisions for years to come. | 2022-05-23T21:23:19Z | www.vox.com | What drove schools to reopen during the pandemic? - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/23/23132118/school-reopening-covid-pandemic-remote-learning | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/23/23132118/school-reopening-covid-pandemic-remote-learning |
The primaries this week underscored the limitations of Trump’s endorsement.
By Li Zhou, Christian Paz, and Nicole Narea May 25, 2022, 12:45am EDT
Share All sharing options for: 2 losers and 1 winner from the Georgia, Alabama, and Arkansas primaries
Republican gubernatorial candidate Gov. Brian Kemp greets people during a primary night election party at the Chick-fil-A College Football Hall of Fame on May 24, 2022, in Atlanta, Georgia.
Georgia’s primary date was one former President Donald Trump circled on his calendar early in the primary season, as a spot to seek revenge against Republicans who didn’t do enough to support his election lies.
That primary, as well as ones in Alabama, Arkansas, Minnesota, and a runoff in Texas, happened Tuesday. Here are two losers and one winner from them. One key race — between incumbent Rep. Henry Cuellar and attorney Jessica Cisneros in Texas’s 28th District Democratic primary, has yet to be called.
Loser: Donald Trump
Yes, Trump’s overall record remains healthy — the vast majority of candidates he endorsed won again on Tuesday. And no, there wasn’t much lingering doubt going into Tuesday night that Trump’s favored candidate in the Georgia GOP governor’s primary would lose — badly. But there are several reasons the 50-point win by incumbent Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, whom Trump targeted after he certified the results of the 2020 election, was enough of a black eye to put Trump in Vox’s loser column for the first time this year.
Trump recruited former senator David Perdue to run in the race, reportedly calling him several times in fall 2021 to convince him to run against Kemp. Trump often defies the rules of politics, and maybe that’s why he thought it wise to put his weight behind Perdue, a former Kemp ally fresh off a statewide loss, to try to oust a popular incumbent. Trump spent significant time and energy on rallies and public statements, but polls never showed Perdue gaining traction or posing a real threat to Kemp. By the end of the campaign, Trump appeared to have given up.
Trump’s losing gamble on Perdue was so obvious it invited Republicans who typically fall in line with him to publicly rebel. Former Vice President Mike Pence, for the first time overtly apparently trying to distance himself from Trump as he prepares for a possible presidential run, endorsed Kemp — though he (and other national Republicans) did so after Kemp looked likely to win.
Trump’s losses didn’t stop there. Rep. Jody Hice, the Trump-backed challenger in the state’s Republican primary for secretary of state, was on track to win less than a third of the vote in his bid to take down incumbent Brad Raffensperger, whom Trump branded as an enemy after Raffensperger refused to intervene in the certification of the state’s 2020 results. The former president’s pick for attorney general, John Gordon, was on pace to lose by nearly 50 points in his bid to oust the incumbent attorney general, Chris Carr, who acknowledged Biden’s 2020 victory. In Alabama, the race for the Republican Senate nomination appeared to be headed to a runoff between two candidates who were distinctly not Trump favorites. Katie Britt, an establishment pick and former aide to the retiring Sen. Richard Shelby, and the far-right Rep. Mo Brooks, who had his Trump endorsement angrily yanked away over a dispute this spring, will move on to the runoff.
Trump’s coattails were successful in some spots: In Georgia’s Republican Senate primary, the football star Herschel Walker, whom Trump also persuaded to run, cruised to victory in a race with no serious opponents. A similar picture unfolded in Arkansas, where Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the former Trump White House press secretary, cleared the Republican field for governor early. But their limits are becoming clearer each week.
In general, we’ve seen Trump’s endorsement make more of a difference in races where there is a crowded slate of little-known candidates, as was the case in Ohio with J.D. Vance. But in a two-way race where one candidate already has wide name recognition and is popular, it has made little difference. —Christian Paz and Nicole Narea
In another blow to Trump, we got some proof Tuesday that failure to adhere to his “big lie” about election fraud in 2020 isn’t really a dealbreaker for a swath of GOP voters.
Much like Kemp and Raffensperger in Georgia, Arkansas Sen. John Boozman did not question the 2020 election results and, as a result, incurred primary challengers who seemed to feel he wasn’t conservative enough. Unlike Kemp and Raffensperger, however, Boozman had already gotten Trump’s endorsement as well as that of other conservative leaders in his party. Boozman won handily.
Although the Big Lie has been normalized by many Republicans, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who won his primary on Tuesday, Georgia’s and Arkansas’s races suggest there’s a split in the party, and it’s not the deciding factor for many GOP voters. Notably, however, it appears to have pushed many Republicans — even those who don’t subscribe to it — to raise questions about election fraud when there’s no evidence for these claims. —Li Zhou
Winner: One of Congress’s most credible gun control advocates
Incumbent Rep. Lucy McBath’s victory Tuesday came just hours after the mass shooting at an elementary school in Texas put the issue she is perhaps best known for supporting — gun control — back at the forefront of national news.
“I came to give one speech, but I am now forced to make another because, just hours ago, we paid for the weapons of war on our streets again with the blood of little children sitting in our schools,” she said after her win. “It was a phone call that every parent fears.”
McBath can relate to those parents: Her son was shot and killed in 2012, and her advocacy for gun restrictions following his death has propelled her political career.
McBath was among the lawmakers this cycle who found themselves in a tough Democrat-on-Democrat contest brought on by redistricting. Since Republicans made a battleground district in the Atlanta suburbs far redder when they redid the state map, McBath and Rep. Carolyn Bordeaux wound up against one another in a newly drawn district. —LZ
The eel-shaped parasite that threatens big fish and business in the Great Lakes | 2022-05-25T05:53:33Z | www.vox.com | 2 losers and 1 winner from the Georgia, Alabama, and Arkansas primary elections - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/25/23140750/winners-losers-georgia-alabama-arkansas-primaries-brian-kemp-trump | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/25/23140750/winners-losers-georgia-alabama-arkansas-primaries-brian-kemp-trump |
Beth Hoeckel for Vox/Getty Images
The rise of the sadboi big man
From John Cena to Jason Momoa, our most muscular movie stars are increasingly our most vulnerable too.
By Emily St. James@emilyvdw Updated May 25, 2022, 6:35am EDT
Illustration by Beth Hoeckel for Vox/Getty Images
Share All sharing options for: The rise of the sadboi big man
Early in the first season of HBO Max’s 2022 series Peacemaker, the titular antihero collapses on the bed in his tiny trailer and breaks down sobbing. He’s finally processing the events of the 2021 film The Suicide Squad, which introduced John Cena as Peacemaker. In that film, he killed government agent and nominally good guy Rick Flag. He feels bad about it. Maybe he and Rick could have been friends? But he didn’t even give them a shot.
Cena, who plays the complicated hero, is a former wrestler built like an extremely buff, smooth version of Gossamer, the big monster covered in red hair who was always threatening Bugs Bunny. Because of pop culture’s longstanding ambivalence toward the idea of a man of Cena’s size and stature openly weeping, it’s hard to watch this Peacemaker scene and not think there’s meant to be an ironic gloss on it. This is … supposed to be funny, right? Like the scene from the 2018 comedy Blockers in which the same actor sobs as he butt chugs?
The ironic gloss falls away the more you look at it. Yes, the emotions are so heightened that the scene is a little ridiculous, but both Cena and director James Gunn play this moment as sincere. When Peacemaker slaps himself and says that nobody likes him, there’s something more raw there than you might expect.
Still, this is a superhero show, and the question of “How seriously am I meant to take this?” is endemic to everything James Gunn makes. He’s fond of complicated tonal mishmashes that sometimes involve asking the audience to take seriously a sentient raccoon tearing up. Peacemaker is thornier than even that, however, because it’s balancing that tonal mishmash across eight full episodes of television, with more to come, and in every episode, John Cena invites you to be baffled by his try-hard dad energy.
This scene strikes me as a useful synecdoche for a larger cultural moment. We’re living through a new boomlet of muscle boys in our biggest movies and TV shows. In addition to Cena, Jason Momoa (the heartthrob) and Dave Bautista (the slightly too-intense coworker) have broken through to starring roles in the last decade, following in the footsteps of the enormously successful Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Vin Diesel.
Yet this new wave of absolute units feels like a direct response to — and a subversion of — Johnson’s on-screen persona. Where The Rock tends to play unflappable, effortlessly charismatic guys who never met an earthquake or skyscraper or jungle-themed board game they couldn’t dominate, the new crop of stars is comfortable with the emotional tension that arises when you’re not sure whether to laugh at them or cry with them.
This new trio of bulky himbo friends embraces our growing understanding that men can cry, too. So does this new wave of anhedonic Adonises represent a substantial break from the past? The answer is: a qualified possibly.
A brief history of musclemen, vulnerable and (mostly) otherwise
Before we get into how Bautista, Cena, and Momoa subvert (or don’t subvert) the archetype of a man so enormous even God cannot lift him, it’s worth understanding what that archetype is. A complete rundown of the role of the muscleman in American culture would be impossible in so limited a space, so let’s narrow things down. When considering the current crop, it’s worth understanding three major roles that mountains of man-flesh have played in our popular imagination: the action star, the professional wrestler, and the object of queer desire.
The action star will be the easiest lens through which many people will view the up-and-coming hunks. Musclebound movie heroes have been with us always, but the ultra-buff hero archetype has its roots in two 1980s and ’90s stars: Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The two men came to stand in for a very Hollywood brand of hyper-machismo that wedded the taciturn stoicism of classic movie men to an enormous brawn that appealed to the consumerist Reagan era.
Stallone started out in vulnerable roles — he broke through with 1976’s Rocky, in which he played a down-on-his-luck working-class boxer — but he very quickly hardened himself. Schwarzenegger traveled a roughly opposite path, going from playing monosyllabic killer robots to family men as he became the biggest star in the world.
“The deeper Schwarzenegger got into his marriage [to Maria Shriver], the more domestic subjects became prevalent in all of his movies,” says Matt Singer, the editor of ScreenCrush, who has argued at length for Schwarzenegger as an auteur. “Can this Arnold figure settle down? Can he play a married man? Can he be happy being a married man?”
The enormous popularity of Schwarzenegger worldwide created the stardom archetype that all musclemen to follow would offer their own spin on, none more successfully than Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Johnson first obtained fame as a professional wrestler, another avenue through which big men could make their name. Though many wrestling superstars who attempted to move into other forms of performance found themselves unable to (Hulk Hogan bombed as a movie star), the performance sport commands a healthy audience even in this age of depressed TV ratings.
In wrestling, “the symbol of a real man is that he shows he can win. He loses, often, but he gets back up and he fights again,” says Sharon Mazer, a professor of theater and performance studies at the Auckland University of Technology and the author of the book Professional Wrestling: Sport and Spectacle. “The only difference is a good man wins by following the rules and defending the community. And a bad man wins by breaking the rules and thumbing his nose at the community.”
Almost all wrestlers switch with abandon between playing good guys (“faces”) and bad guys (“heels”) across their careers. Those roles also echo the simplistic roles they tend to play on the big screen when they break through, either taking on the role of the unstoppable force who will do anything to save the day or the burly brick wall who protects the villain from seeing any consequences.
Yet if you notice a commonality between the brawny action star and the hyper-muscular wrestler, it’s that both archetypes feel a little sexless. There’s a simple reason for this, theorizes Lee Mandelo, a doctoral candidate at the University of Kentucky who teaches a course on gender in popular culture: For much of the first half of the 20th century, you were most likely to encounter the muscleman in the era’s equivalent of gay porn.
To get around obscenity laws at that time, many magazines catering to queer men would bill themselves as “physique” magazines. They would have articles about how to build a better, more muscular body, but they would also come with lots and lots of pictures of barely clad men showing off their figures. Most subscribers weren’t getting these magazines for the articles. As such, for most of the early 20th century, strongmen were heavily associated with homosexuality. That’s a legacy musclemen have run from, in complicated ways.
The poses in those magazines are not all that dissimilar to the poses that Schwarzenegger made as a bodybuilder or that wrestlers ape in the ring. Indeed, Mazer says, for much of the early history of mainstream professional wrestling, many “villainous” wrestlers were queer-coded, with names like “Gorgeous George.” They could still fight, but they were also suggested to be gay.
Mandelo theorizes that all of that combined into a weird psychosexual soup that added up to: Straight men should want to look like this but never want to fuck it. And that continues to this day.
“There’s a sexuality to that that made straight men very uncomfortable. You cannot have the power fantasy for straight cisgender men by staring at a John Cena without being able to completely desexualize it,” Mandelo says. “If the body that you’re staring at to fantasize about this ideal masculine man is erotic, then you are participating in that eroticization of a man’s body.”
As obscenity laws lifted and it became easier to legally obtain images of half-naked or even completely naked men, the idea of the muscleman as an object of queer desire never entirely lifted. Offsetting this, Schwarzenegger and The Rock tend to star in very chaste love scenes (if they do at all), and when characters played by Cena or Bautista suggest that they might be sexual beings, the other characters tend to find that idea mildly ridiculous. Obviously, individual attractions vary, and you might think any one of these actors is incredibly hot. In the wider popular culture of the US, however, our movies and TV shows typically present these men as action figures who almost might seem to lack genitalia.
So, burly action star, professional wrestler, extremely buff but weirdly sexless man: Put ’em all together and whaddya get?
On the significance of John Cena dancing in the Peacemaker opening credits
Big men never left our collective subconscious. For much of the 21st century, one of the biggest stars in the world has been Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Johnson, however, is ... kind of boring as a movie star. He stars in movies with names like Skyscraper and Rampage and Jungle Cruise, movies where the title pretty much tells you what you’re going to get.
“His body of work has the same effect as pouring some water on a sizzling hot sidewalk. In a few minutes, it’s going to disappear,” says critic Angelica Jade Bastién, who works for Vox’s sister site Vulture. “I’ve seen so many of his movies, and I barely, barely remember most. He’s not doing anything interesting physically or with humor. He’s just a block of body that has been sculpted, like some automaton that’s been created in a Hollywood lab.”
The hyper-competence and artificiality of Johnson left plenty of space for an enormous man who would show his softer side. A few dudes stepped into that niche. Vin Diesel became the chief creative mastermind behind the Fast & Furious movies and turned them into maybe the sappiest thing at the multiplex. Similarly, the work of Channing Tatum and Joe Manganiello in the Magic Mike franchise presented two big, beefy boys who only cared about her pleasure.
“These are very buff dudes, and they’re presenting themselves overtly as like, ‘Hey, you can look at me. This is fine. This is for you,’” says writer and critic Jude Doyle. “When men have the humility that allows them to be soft and approachable and funny and when we feel like they’re presenting themselves to us, for our enjoyment, and not just inflicting themselves on the world, there are ways in which that shifts and challenges power.”
Thus, the stage was set for the rise of our current sensitive (but not too sensitive!) big men: Jason Momoa, Dave Bautista, and John Cena. And that means it’s time to talk about the opening credits of HBO Max’s Peacemaker, specifically John Cena’s dancing.
This sequence could have come off as ridiculous. Cena seems uncomfortable, and his moves are stiff and unconvincing, particularly compared to some of his costars. Indeed, Cena wasn’t terribly comfortable! “I don’t dance; it’s something I’m not very comfortable with,” he told Vox sister site Polygon of a different dance number in Peacemaker.
Cena’s discomfort is a potent example of what makes these men seem so vulnerable on screen: They have a willingness to seem imperfect, despite their enormous, sculpted bodies. Directors like Guardians of the Galaxy and The Suicide Squad auteur James Gunn (who has worked with both Bautista and Cena) and Dune’s Denis Villeneuve (who has worked with both Bautista and Momoa) love to use those imperfections against the actors’ assumed on-screen personas. Villeneuve might turn Bautista into a sad robot who just wants to be a farmer or have Momoa play an expert warrior who nevertheless spends several moments before a huge fight staring at a bug crawling around on his hand.
Gunn is deeply invested in forcing you to see his stars’ imperfections. In the second Guardians of the Galaxy film, he slowly but surely shows you the soft underbelly of Bautista’s humongous, destructive warrior Drax the Destroyer. Drax has the requisite tragic backstory (his family was murdered), which is explored in the first film. In the second, Drax opens up even more, becoming friends with the new character Mantis, in a relationship that is as close to a raw, genuine friendship as the Marvel Cinematic Universe allows itself to get. The scenes are touching and even tender, laced with deep melancholy and occasional bursts of self-deprecating laughter.
Within the tightly controlled confines of the MCU, only so much in the way of genuine emotion that’s not undercut with snark is possible. Maybe that’s why Gunn goes even further in Peacemaker. Or maybe it’s just John Cena.
“I knew there was a vulnerability to John Cena that I would be able to help carve out and present to the world,” Gunn told the Hollywood Reporter shortly before Peacemaker debuted. And Peacemaker in particular goes over the top in terms of its attempts to get you to see Cena as more than his physique. He argues with his racist dad. He sincerely befriends the other members of his elite assassin squad. He makes fun of himself with abandon. And he dances, including in his tighty-whities.
The wonders and limitations of big men being vulnerable on screen
Momoa, Bautista, and Cena have very different on-screen energies. For instance, Momoa tends to play big guys who yell a lot, which would seem the opposite of vulnerability, but he’s also quite comfortable with being an object of on-screen desire. Of this trio of brawny stars, he seems most capable of pulling off a genuine love scene. And you can’t be comfortable being desired if you’re not comfortable letting your guard down just a little bit.
What’s more, both Cena and Momoa have been more than willing to show off their off-screen vulnerability in ways that underscore that they’re just enormous dudes who seem fun to hang out with. Momoa did a whole press cycle about how he’s glad to be super sensitive. Cena has arguably spent even more time expressing the idea that his vulnerability and his status as an enormous hunk can live right next door to each other.
“John Cena has done commercials about how the average American is not a white man, [in which he’s] speaking to predominantly other straight white men who would idolize him for his body and his fitness,” Mandelo says. “He talks about softness being important and how men should open up more.”
The degree to which these mountains of man-flesh have made that vulnerability core to their on-screen personas goes beyond what earlier musclemen have made central to who they are. It feels as though it’s in conversation with a larger willingness in our culture to talk about how men need to embrace their emotions.
Is that enough? Maybe not. Vulture’s Bastién threw a bit of cold water on my notion that these performers represent something exciting. Yes, they’re more interesting on-screen performers than Johnson, but ... what a low bar! Bastién argues that these stars put on imperfections as an affectation. It doesn’t matter that John Cena can’t dance if his body is completely perfect.
“Leading men’s bodies and their star image exist at the intersection of virile and vulnerable. We’re in a moment where there’s no balance between those two poles. Someone like Timothée Chalamet is vulnerable to the point of being joked about as if he’s the ghost of a Victorian child,” Bastién says. “On the other end of the spectrum, they’re so muscular it feels like it’s in some weird, uncanny valley territory. We’re not really seeing male stars who exist on a more interesting continuum.” Cena, Bautista, Momoa — they’re all the virile subsuming the vulnerable, trying to be everything all at once. And that chokes out anything else.
No matter how vulnerable these actors are on screen, none of that re-sexualizes the muscular man because the idea that an enormous guy could also be hot runs headlong into our cultural homophobia. Mandelo points to K-pop star Wonho as the kind of big, muscular guy that would cause many American brains to short-circuit. Yeah, he’s built, but he’s also in videos like this one, where he’s just rolling around in bed.
“It is not the Superman body that is untouchable and idealized. This is a body that can be naked, that can roll around and get sweaty,” Mandelo says. “I think our discourse around desire has gotten so wonky and hyper-conservative since the ’70s that we have trouble seeing being the object of desire as a positive, particularly for men.”
When vulnerability is a weapon
The understandable temptation when thinking about how Peacemaker’s tears are a very, very slight course correction from former, more impervious heroes is to label those tears as somehow vaguely feminist or progressive. “Finally! Someone is saying men can have emotions!” goes the clickbait headline in my mind. As several of the people I talked to suggested, however, overstating the value of such an advance might run the risk of saying that all men have to do to build a better masculinity is be a little more open with their vulnerability. Men’s vulnerability isn’t nothing, but it’s not everything either.
That said: I don’t want to understate the importance either, because contrast John Cena dancing in the Peacemaker credits with whatever this is.
Excerpted from Tucker Carlson’s nightly Fox News talk show by Nikki McCann Ramírez, an associate research director at Media Matters for America, the clip is a forthright celebration of testosterone, which Carlson fears is disappearing from American life. The clip depicts manly men flipping over tires and firing guns and irradiating their testicles (like you do). It is, frankly, bonkers. (Mandelo snarked to me that “just about every gay man on the internet was, like, ‘Somehow he accidentally made the intro to a porn.’”)
When you contrast Carlson’s clip with the more sensitive performances and off-screen personas of Bautista, Cena, and Momoa, it’s tempting to read the two cultural movements as being in direct opposition, or at least pulling in wildly different directions. To some degree, that’s true. Carlson’s celebration of testosterone isn’t directly in conversation with a dancin’ John Cena, but they’re definitely two different visions of American masculinity. And Carlson’s vision is one designed to cater to and comfort an audience whose own manhood might feel less immediately potent as they age.
“Fox News’s audience tends to be a little older, and a lot of this masculine testosterone craze is targeted at people who are going through a natural cycle of aging. Their testosterone levels are decreasing. They’re not the virile men they were in their 20s,” says Ramírez. “What Fox does very effectively is conflate a natural progression of life and society as a personal attack by political forces.”
What’s super weird about this is that outside of the mega-buff Joe Rogan (who isn’t a Fox News personality but is deeply involved in the extremely masculine world of UFC), the right-of-center audience Fox News targets doesn’t have a physical form to hold up as “what a man is.” Instead, Carlson’s clip imagines a man who might possibly exist somewhere and will come to save testosterone. Or something.
“What they have are strains and pieces of things that they like, but there’s no whole person for them to project that onto. There’s no figurehead, really, outside of Rogan,” Kristen Warner, an associate professor of journalism and creative media at the University of Alabama, says. “There is no symbol. There is no image to cast your eyes and your fantasies upon. So what they do is just kind of make shit up to approximate something real as best as possible.”
Yet Fox News keeps trying to prop up that imagined man all the same. Every few months, it turns up with another story about how maybe it’s weird when men cry. However, when emotions are expressed for a purpose that the network reads as worthy, then those emotions become okay to express. I probably only need to mention Brett Kavanaugh’s or Kyle Rittenhouse’s tears to make this point, but the network’s entire m.o. involves stoking anger and fear and frustration in its viewers.
Kyle Rittenhouse’s tears
“I actually think hegemonic masculinity allows for a lot of emotions,” Mandelo says. “In fact, it may mythologize that men are supposed to be stoic, but in reality, it’s more of an excuse to feel extremes of emotion and make them other people’s problem.”
That’s the thing: On-screen vulnerability is always being used somehow, whether to make a larger political point or just to get you to consider that maybe if John Cena can cry, you can cry too (which is also a larger political point). I don’t know if there’s a lot of value in seeing big, vulnerable dudes, but it’s also not valueless. And that’s why I and so many others I talked to for this article keep coming back to John Cena.
“He pushes farther than what Schwarzenegger and his peers did or thought they wanted to do,” Warner says. “He’s pushing into this place where he’s, like, ‘No, my body isn’t a symbol of all these things that you read it as. I would actually like to re-appropriate what my body signals and what my body stands for.’”
Peacemaker, after all, is a literal tool of the US government, a hard body who was used to do terrible things. Yet the arc of his TV show is about what it might mean to try to break free of that mold, to find a way to be a hero that doesn’t involve simply doing what he’s told. Maybe that’s not revolutionary to someone like me, who spends lots of time thinking about this stuff, but it sure seems like it’s revolutionary to somebody. Maybe, just maybe, it’s chipping away at some very old, very suffocating ideas, one tighty-whitie dance at a time.
Emily St. James is Senior Correspondent for Vox. | 2022-05-25T12:07:40Z | www.vox.com | John Cena, Jason Momoa, and the rise of the vulnerable muscleman - Vox | https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23023677/muscles-action-movie-stars-john-cena-jason-momoa-dave-bautista-the-rock-arnold-schwarzenegger | https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23023677/muscles-action-movie-stars-john-cena-jason-momoa-dave-bautista-the-rock-arnold-schwarzenegger |
Does Netflix even care that Ricky Gervais’s SuperNature is rife with transphobic TERF ideology?
Share All sharing options for: With Ricky Gervais’s new special, Netflix yet again suffers transphobic fools
Ricky Gervais performs in Netflix’s 2018 special Humanity. The comedian’s latest Netflix special has come under fire for transphobia.
Who knows exactly what response Netflix expected for SuperNature, Ricky Gervais’s transphobic new standup special, but pardon us while we refrain from clapping.
After the backlash to Dave Chappelle’s transphobic 2021 Netflix special The Closer, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos said he believed in “artistic expression,” and that his stance toward Chappelle’s comedy hadn’t changed — implying that trans people would just have to get over it. That seems to be the platform’s party line on transphobia. The company’s long-term investment in Gervais includes releasing shows he stars in, like Derek and After Life, and reportedly paying him $40 million in total for his most recent pair of comedy specials. Humanity, released to Netflix in 2018, likewise reeked of transphobia. In SuperNature, the level of transphobia goes several degrees further than Humanity and even further than Chappelle’s seeming fixation on pronouns and genitalia. Gervais parrots numerous ideas that form the backbone of transphobic TERF ideology, then blames transgender audiences for being mad.
Gervais, like many other comedians of late, has spent his last several cycles on the comedy circuit reacting over and over again to so-called “woke” culture and comedy, as if the concept of comedy that refuses to punch down is so egregious all he can do is continually react to it, then react to the reactions to his reactions.
This time around, having been through repeated backlash over his previous offenses, he’s at pains to explain the structure of his comedy — to explain to us why he holds the comedic high ground over his invisible future catcallers. See, he stops to inform his audience, the joke he’s about to tell isn’t offensive because he’s being ironic. Now he’s being metaphorical. Now he’s using figurative language to illustrate that words aren’t violence.
Gervais, predictably, given his overt approval of TERF talking points, builds his entire indignant anti-woke stance specifically around transgender people: their anatomies, their pronouns, their existence. It takes him all of two minutes to make his first trans joke: A mention of fellow British comic Eddie Izzard, who has long identified as transgender and began using she/her pronouns two years ago. The “joke” isn’t actually a joke, because Eddie Izzard merely existing isn’t inherently funny; but the audience laughs at Izzard’s name, right on cue, because Gervais, having already condescended to explain irony to us, expects us to laugh at the whole concept of Izzard, or maybe the concept of finding Izzard funny, or an uncomfortable mix of both.
It doesn’t matter which of these jokes is intended, because Gervais has already rejected the counterargument that a hateful joke is only “ironic” when everyone is in on it and when no one is secretly having their actual bigotry reinforced by the cruelty at the center of said irony. Toward the end of the show, he drags out an appalling sketch full of racist Sinophobic stereotypes, which he insists isn’t racist because it’s “ironic.” Doesn’t matter that this kind of “irony” is what allows white supremacists to operate in plain sight. Doesn’t matter that five minutes into SuperNature an audience member audibly laughs at a mention of rape, which might indicate that perhaps Gervais’s audience isn’t as ironically humorous as he wants them to be. No, Gervais seems to have decided that because words aren’t literal physical violence, nothing he says can cause harm.
And once establishing this up front, he proceeds to use trans people as a (metaphorical) punching bag.
Gervais has said repeatedly that he doesn’t disrespect “real” trans people; rather, he only mocks specific people he sees as male sexual predators who’ve usurped “real” trans identity in order to prey on women by pretending to be women. This is pure TERF rhetoric divorced from reality.
Gervais has spent years making fun of trans women onstage; on social media, he’s spent the past few years amplifying transphobic TERF talking points about how trans people (usually women) are rapists, perverts, liars, and linguistic terrorists. Much like JK Rowling, Gervais claims to be very concerned with the state of cis men pretending to be women in order to rape them, while insisting that “real” trans people should be respected; but if you look for examples of Gervais actually embracing, supporting, or affirming “real” trans women, you won’t find any. Trans people seem to only interest Gervais when he has an excuse to dismiss or dehumanize them — or joke about beating them up or compare them to rodents.
Onstage, his obsession with trans people includes a vile fixation on anatomy. He expects his audience to laugh at the idea of a trans woman having male anatomy; he expects us to ridicule the idea that anyone wouldn’t laugh. Over and over again he “jokes” about trans women having penises. He says he personally supports trans rights, then talks about trans women raping other women, implies that trans people are “mental,” and implies that trans people invented “self-identification” sometime after the ’60s in order to exploit their marginalized status. Woe for today’s kids, he suggests, whose too-woke parents might force them into a “trendy” trans lifestyle.
Any trans person who complains about his comedy is “virtue signaling.” Such trans people are, he tells us, motivated by superiority and a wish to tear other people down. It surely has nothing to do with the astronomically high levels of violence against trans people, nor the equally high levels of trans mental health issues and suicidal ideation — all of which are directly linked to harmful transphobic rhetoric. Of course Gervais makes no mention of this; it’s not funny, after all, and it undercuts his ultimate thesis that insensitive or deliberately offensive humor should be seen as a form of affection and caring. We’re expected to speak his lingua franca of bad jokes and meet him halfway by agreeing that “identity politics” should be just as susceptible to mockery as everything else.
Given the TERF-y interludes, SuperNature is an unnecessarily cruel piece of transphobic rhetoric. But without the TERF-y parts, it just feels superfluous; there’s no real reason for it to exist. Gervais needs transphobia to have something to say, and apparently Netflix does too. The streaming service surely understood that by releasing this special, it would get more of the backlash it received after The Closer. During that backlash, Sarandos first said that he didn’t believe The Closer could cause any real-world harm, then recanted that statement, possibly after trans activists and allies pointed out horrifying trans suicide statistics. (It’s worth noting that Netflix has also made a significant financial investment in Chappelle.) Netflix went through all this once, yet still chose to release SuperNature at a moment when vulnerable trans people are already getting hit with wave after wave of unnecessary cruelty.
The implication seems clear: Netflix is just fine suffering transphobic fools for views. It’s just fine inflicting bigoted hateful rhetoric on its subscribers. It’s just fine with the subsequent real-world harm that comes from amplifying such views. The platform’s choice to release this special now, during a wave of unprecedented anti-trans legislation, is unconscionable. It’s not just that Gervais, his fellow contrarian comedians, and his large audience may feel validated and affirmed in their hatred of trans people and will pay that forward in the form of more cruelty and discrimination. It’s not just that actual trans people may be hurt, may internalize harmful messages and shame because of SuperNature’s existence. It’s that Netflix is an influencer; its decisions make waves. By openly signaling that trans people and their allies are disposable within its business model, Netflix sets a precedent that many other companies in the tech and entertainment industries are likely to follow.
And, sure, this is nothing new — but that doesn’t make it hurt less. If trans people are to be thrown to the wolves of comedy, one would hope the wolves would at least be funnier.
How the Supreme Court made it impossible to solve America’s gun violence problem If you can’t ban handguns, you’re just spinning your wheels. | 2022-05-26T12:39:00Z | www.vox.com | Ricky Gervais’s SuperNature: Netflix yet again suffers transphobic fools - Vox | https://www.vox.com/culture/2022/5/26/23141865/netflix-transphobia-ricky-gervais-supernature-terf | https://www.vox.com/culture/2022/5/26/23141865/netflix-transphobia-ricky-gervais-supernature-terf |
Health experts are optimistic monkeypox can be contained. Here’s why, and where it could go wrong.
By Keren Landman@landmanspeaking May 27, 2022, 7:30am EDT
Share All sharing options for: How bad could the monkeypox outbreak get?
Passengers from Singapore walk past a monkeypox information panel and infrared thermometer displays checking their body temperature at Soekarno-Hatta International Airport near Jakarta, Indonesia, in 2019.
Andrew Gal/NurPhoto via Getty Images
As of May 26, the global monkeypox case count tops 350, with cases spread across 23 countries. It’s easy to get a little shpilkes while wondering, what exactly are we in for? How big will this outbreak get, and how long will it be around?
In the early days of any outbreak, epidemiologists try to answer these questions by first asking a different one: Is this virus containable? That is, can its spread be stopped before it gets out of control?
If it is, that means the outbreak could be in our rearview mirror before the autumn. But if not, the public — and public health — could be in for a long slog.
When it comes to monkeypox, many experts — including several I spoke with for this story — have emphatically said yes, this outbreak is containable. “There’s a solution just over the horizon,” said William Schaffner, an infectious disease and public health expert at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “This is one that I think we can nip in, if not in the bud, certainly in the flower.”
Epidemiologists assess containment potential on the basis of a few different categories: the biology of the germ itself, the immunity and compliance in communities in which it’s spreading, and the public health capacity to respond. When it comes to monkeypox, experts assessing these factors feel reasonably confident this outbreak won’t swell to pandemic proportions. However, there are some vulnerabilities monkeypox can exploit to stick around longer.
How exactly could the monkeypox outbreak play out? It comes down to these key factors.
The biology of the monkeypox virus makes containment likely
When epidemiologists are wondering if an outbreak can be contained, they start by considering the pathogen itself. Its innate characteristics determine how far of a reach the virus could have, and help experts figure out how to intervene in its spread.
The first thing to consider is the route of transmission, said Eric Toner, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Most monkeypox transmission happens by skin-to-skin contact (although it also can be transmitted between people through respiratory secretions, via skin lesions, or exposure to recently contaminated objects). That makes it harder for one person to infect multiple people than it would be if the virus were primarily spread through the air.
Whereas a more primarily airborne virus like SARS-CoV-2 can turn a choir practice into a superspreader event, monkeypox is unlikely to spread as explosively because infection requires direct contact.
A second important variable is the incubation period, the time period between the moment of infection and the moment symptoms start. The longer a germ’s incubation period, the more time there is to intervene with measures that prevent spread, like quarantine or vaccination.
Monkeypox’s incubation period is typically between 7 and 14 days (although it can range from 5 to 21 days). That’s a relatively long time, and it gives public health authorities a fighting chance at reaching infected people via contact tracing, in time to prevent them from becoming a source of transmission, either through quarantine or vaccination, Toner explained.
A third key attribute, Toner said, is a pathogen’s ability to spread before it makes people sick (i.e., if it can be asymptomatically transmitted).
Monkeypox is not thought to spread before people develop symptoms, which include fever, body aches, lymph node swelling, and a rash. That means it’s much easier for a person to notice when they might be contagious — and to take action by getting medical attention and isolating at home. (In contrast, Covid-19 can spread before a person starts to feel ill, which has made it very hard to contain.)
Monkeypox lesions from a 2003 case of the viral disease.
CDC via Getty Images
The features of the symptoms themselves can also make it easier to control an outbreak.
“You can look at somebody across the room and know that they have smallpox, for example, because they have a rash that no one would miss,” Toner said. Monkeypox’s rash is slightly less striking, he said: At different stages, it can mimic chickenpox, herpes, and syphilis.
However, it is still distinctive enough that most clinicians will make the diagnosis without having to wait for a test result to come back — especially after the raft of information they’ve been receiving lately about monkeypox.
In contrast, the symptoms of Covid-19 frustratingly resemble other common illnesses like colds and flus, making it harder to identify without testing.
But the virus can exploit some vulnerabilities
All that said, there are a few aspects of monkeypox that could vex containment efforts.
While most lesions are painful, it might not be obvious to every infected person that they have monkeypox, especially early in the course of infection.
That is particularly salient in this outbreak, where many infected people have been reporting a rash localized to the genital area, often after close social or sexual contact. “Sometimes it’s dark, and you don’t inspect that very carefully,” Schaffner said, “so there are environments where transmission can occur, particularly if the contact is kind of semi-anonymous or fleeting.” In those scenarios, it might not be obvious to an infected person that they have symptoms and could be contagious. This concern could be mitigated with good public outreach (more on that below).
Overall, the virus’s biology and how it causes disease in humans suggest it should be containable. But there’s also the reality that many populations are less immune to monkeypox than they have been in the past.
There was a time when everyone at risk for smallpox infection had been vaccinated against it. But since smallpox was eradicated in 1980, global smallpox vaccination campaigns have ceased — and the public’s protection against related viruses, including monkeypox, has waned. In 2020, the Pasteur Institute suggested that as smallpox vaccine protection dwindles, monkeypox is gaining epidemic potential.
Although people who are old enough to have been vaccinated against smallpox still have some protection, they’re not the ones who are at greatest risk during the current outbreak, which is largely affecting younger people, said Agoritsa Baka, a public health preparedness expert at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. “Right now, most of the public, and particularly the groups that we’re interested in, are largely unvaccinated, so they are vulnerable to the virus,” she said. That makes this outbreak harder to contain than it would be if more people were immune.
A final caveat is that experts’ understanding of monkeypox’s inherent containability hinges on the fact that the virus isn’t changing quickly (i.e., mutating) to evade control.
Sequencing data obtained to date do not suggest the virus is evolving rapidly — and researchers don’t expect it to, tweeted Trevor Bedford, an epidemiologist and viral disease modeler at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle. Still, the world will be watching closely to determine whether genetic variability of the monkeypox virus is playing a role in its current spread, and its potential to be kept in check.
Hospital director Francesco Vaia speaks to reporters in Rome, Italy, on May 20. Vaia said three cases of monkeypox had been confirmed and isolated at his hospital in patients who traveled to the Canary Islands and Vienna.
“Will it be contained” depends a lot on the communities the virus is spreading in
Even when a germ’s intrinsic qualities favor its containment, it can cause big problems if there’s stigma associated with the activities that spread it.
With monkeypox, homophobia could jeopardize disease control, because links have emerged between cases and attendance at venues catering to men who have sex with men. If infection risk gets too closely associated with behaviors that some people stigmatize, it might prevent them from cooperating with contact tracing or vaccination for fear of being associated with those behaviors.
Health organizations run by and for gay men are an enormous asset to public health right now, and many of those organizations have longstanding relationships with public health, several experts told me. “Gay and bisexual men have been faced with HIV as a threat for three or four decades now, and we have a very activated community of people who are engaged in getting diagnosed and getting treated,” said John Brooks, chief medical officer at the CDC’s division of HIV prevention.
And it’s not just men’s health groups who’ve helped educate and inform people in the LGBTQ community about monkeypox, Baka said. At least one festival linked to cases has posted a notice of infection risk on its website, and last weekend, two dating apps commonly used in Europe by gay and bisexual men began displaying public health messages about monkeypox in several languages.
That kind of community buy-in helps key information reach people who might otherwise be skeptical of engaging with government public health agencies. “The challenge definitely is to engage with the community so that people can go get tested without prejudice,” said Baka.
When a disease’s modes of transmission are highly stigmatized, messaging related to the disease has to walk a careful line.
On one hand, frank communication in language that out gay and bisexual men commonly use is best for efficiently providing these communities with non-judgmental information. “If you treat people with respect and meet them where they are, it can go a very long way,” said Brooks.
On the flip side, trumpeting the link between infection risk and getting close and sweaty at events for LGBTQ people can instigate stigma, Schaffner said. An ideal communications strategy likely uses different language and emphasizes different elements of risk with different populations.
So far, Schaffner has been glad to see these associations often mentioned without sensationalism, even in news reports. “It’s not the lede,” he said, but “the third paragraph of the story.”
Containing monkeypox will take effort in a strained-but-prepared public health system
As the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrated, a robust public health system is a necessary ingredient of outbreak containment.
Baka said that in this case, pandemic fatigue is to some degree a threat to containment. “People are tired. All the health care workers are tired, including the public health workforce,” she said.
Medical staff wearing protective equipment enter a quarantine area in Zomea Kaka, Central African Republic, where clusters of monkeypox cases were reported, in 2018.
But there’s still a lot of optimism they can control the monkeypox outbreak, she said, in part because that workforce is so experienced at curtailing infection transmission, whether the infections are sexually transmitted or not. Additionally, as a result of Covid-19, new technologies exist to make contact tracing easier than it used to be.
“This does require a lot of shoe-leather epidemiology,” Schaffner said, referring to the contact tracing epidemiologists do to identify cases and contacts during an outbreak, sometimes by pounding the pavement in person.
It’s also immensely helpful to have vaccines and medications that we know can prevent and treat monkeypox at the outset of this outbreak. The US Food and Drug Administration has approved several medications to treat smallpox, which CDC representatives said Monday could also be used to treat monkeypox. The Strategic National Stockpile contains three types of smallpox vaccines, which would also prevent monkeypox.
What’s unique and particularly helpful about the existing vaccines is that they work to protect people who receive them even if they’re vaccinated after they’re exposed, said Toner. Vaccination within four days of exposure can block infection altogether, he said, and vaccines still lessen the disease’s severity even if given later in the course of infection.
That makes vaccinating cases and ring vaccination — vaccinating all the contacts of a case — a viable strategy for preventing the spread of infection, adding another point in favor of monkeypox being containable. Already, public health authorities in several European countries and the US are deploying these strategies, offering monkeypox vaccines to close social and health care contacts of cases.
Containment is possible. But the window could soon start closing.
Several experts were up front about why taking aggressive measures to contain monkeypox now are particularly urgent: Pride celebrations are coming up, and two-plus years into the Covid-19 pandemic, people are eager to party, said Brooks. “If there were to be non-compliance with containment measures, and it started transmitting more among the broader population, then it would be harder to contain,” Toner said.
There are backup plans: If the current containment strategies of contact tracing and ring vaccination don’t work, escalated vaccination strategies could involve vaccinating people in groups at high risk for infection or severe disease, regardless of whether they are cases or contacts. That would mean offering vaccines to people attending large gatherings where they’re likely to engage in the kind of contact that spreads monkeypox, such as certain Pride festivities. Meanwhile, groups offered the vaccine due to higher risk for severe disease would likely include immunocompromised people, including people with HIV, as well as pregnant people and children — but we’re not there yet.
For now, vaccine availability is not a problem, as many countries have stockpiles of smallpox vaccine as part of their bioterrorism preparedness strategies. However, companies that make these vaccines are ramping up production in case a larger supply is needed.
Fundamentally, an outbreak is likelier to be stopped in its tracks if it’s caused by a pathogen public health has successfully fought before, either with medicines or proven strategies like ring vaccination. And that’s also why experts are so optimistic. “That’s how smallpox was eradicated, and I believe that’s how monkeypox will be contained,” Toner said.
The smaller an outbreak is, the easier it is to contain. A plateau of the monkeypox case count would be a promising sign that things are headed in a positive direction. Over the next few weeks, epidemiologists — and the world — will be watching to see if their hopes of curbing this virus’ spread are fulfilled. | 2022-05-27T13:38:17Z | www.vox.com | How bad could the monkeypox outbreak get? - Vox | https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/23140315/contain-public-health-epidemic-vaccine-monkeypox-outbreak | https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/23140315/contain-public-health-epidemic-vaccine-monkeypox-outbreak |
Scholars of gun politics have found a striking — and disturbing — pattern.
By Zack Beauchamp@zackbeauchamp May 27, 2022, 11:50am EDT
Share All sharing options for: Mass shootings typically lead to looser gun laws, not stronger ones
Dick Heller, a Second Amendment activist, speaks at the March For Our Rights rally to promote Second Amendment Rights outside the U.S. Capitol on July 7, 2018, in Washington, DC. Rallies were held across the country as a reaction to the student-led gun control movement started after the Parkland school shooting.
Immediately after the mass shooting at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) argued that the best way to prevent such a horror from happening again would have been to arm the school’s staff.
“We can’t stop bad people from doing bad things. We can potentially arm and prepare and train teachers and other administrators to respond quickly,” he said on Fox News.
The fact that Robb had an armed school security officer did not seem to deter Paxton (police have given contradictory answers on whether this officer exchanged fire with the shooter). Nor did the fact that what he’s describing is already permitted under Texas law: a 2013 bill, passed as a direct response to the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut, permitted trained staff members at Texas schools to secretly carry weapons. The state expanded this policy in 2018 in response to a mass shooting at a high school in Santa Fe, Texas.
Research by Kristin Goss, a political scientist at Duke University, helps explain why this happens. In two recent publications, Goss compares the political activities of pro-gun rights citizens and activists to those who favor gun regulations. She finds strong evidence that pro-gun rights citizens are consistently more engaged in the political process, both after mass shootings and otherwise (though the gap has been narrowing).
“Different levels of mobilization reflect the different capacity of groups on each side to do the mobilizing,’” Goss writes. “By these measures, the gun rights side has a strong advantage.”
Put together, the political science on gun policy after mass shootings paints a grim picture of America’s future after Uvalde.
Though polling shows strong public support for enhanced gun control policies like background checks, the most likely outcome is not any kind of breakthrough on these issues. Instead, the strongly held beliefs and superior organization of pro-gun citizens — together with a political system structurally biased in the GOP’s favor — make the opposite more likely: a future where the intense efforts of a radically pro-gun minority continue to expand the availability of firearms and their presence in everyday American life.
Recent mass shootings have made America’s gun laws looser, not stricter
In the Journal of Public Economics paper, Harvard’s Michael Luca and Deepak Malhotra, with UCLA’s Christopher Poliquin, examine every piece of gun legislation passed between 1989 and 2014, comparing what happens in the year following mass shootings to more “normal” legislative sessions.
Their first finding is that mass shootings do indeed galvanize legislative efforts to change gun laws — and that the worse the mass shooting is, the more likely it is spur legislation.
“[A] mass shooting leads to a 15% increase in firearm bills introduced. For the average state, this amounts to an additional 2.4 firearm bills introduced in the year following a mass shooting,” they write. “On average, each additional death in a mass shooting leads to a 2.3% increase in the number of gun bills introduced.”
Texas Rep. Chip Roy speaks alongside members of the Second Amendment Caucus at a press conference outside the US Capitol on March 8 to talk about their support for the “No REGISTRY Rights Act,” which if passed would make it illegal to track gun ownership.
When you split up these numbers by party, the results are striking. Republican legislators introduce roughly 50 percent more bills in years when there’s a mass shooting within that state than in other years. Democratic legislators seem to introduce 11 percent more bills, but the authors note that finding was not significantly significant.
The difference is even more striking when you look at bills that actually become law.
The authors suggest that the overall increase in legislative activity is the result of increased media coverage of guns after mass shootings. However, this by itself cannot explain the partisan asymmetry in legislative activity — which they propose, but do not attempt to prove, is the result of gun rights advocates being more involved in the political process.
“Supporters of gun rights are more likely to advocate for their positions by writing letters or donating money) and are better-organized than citizens favoring gun control,” the authors theorize.
But is this what actually happens in the wake of tragedy?
Pro-gun rights citizens really are more engaged than their opponents
Goss, the Duke political scientist, examines this phenomenon in a pair of recent papers.
In a 2017 article, she studies a series of topics related to gender and political views on guns. Generally speaking, she finds that both partisanship and gender matter: Democrats are consistently more pro-gun regulation than Republicans, but women in both parties are more likely to support gun control than their male co-partisans.
To see how these divides play out in practice, Goss examines political activism in the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, looking specifically at three surveys conducted in a six-month period surrounding the attack. The survey assessed whether respondents had ”contacted a public official to express their opinion about gun policy; contributed money to an organization that takes a position on gun policy; expressed their opinion on gun policy using Facebook, Twitter, or another social network; or signed a petition about gun policy.”
What she found was striking: Pro-gun rights men were by far the most likely to engage in political activism in the months following Sandy Hook.
Gun rights supporters rally at the Connecticut State Capitol in Hartford on January 19, 2013. The rally, dubbed “Guns Across America” was held at state capitol buildings across the country to raise concerns about possible new gun legislation that could affect gun owners’ rights in the wake of the December 14, 2012, school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
These men were more engaged on every measure except expressing an opinion on social media, where pro-gun rights women were (slightly) more active. Gun control supporters consistently lagged behind, sometimes by huge margins: pro-gun rights men were, for example, nearly five times as likely to donate to a gun rights group than gun control advocates of either sex were to donate to a gun-control group. The only exception was one element of the post-shooting debate on background checks, in which pro-regulation women reached out to legislators more than pro-gun rights men.
The overall discrepancy is not necessarily because gun rights activists care more about the issue than their anti-gun peers, according to Goss. Rather, the key difference is that the pro-gun organizational capacity is stronger: advocacy groups like the NRA are considerably better at getting their supporters mobilized than their anti-gun opponents.
“[Pro-regulation] women remain generally undermobilized relative to pro-gun men when it comes to other forms of engagement around gun policy,” Goss writes. “Even though pro-gun men are fewer in number than pro-regulation women, the men generally produce more political activity.”
In a 2019 paper, Goss examines whether anything in the years since Sandy Hook has changed this general pattern.
She finds that the shooting did profoundly alter the pro-regulation activist landscape, leading to an influx of money from pro-regulation billionaire Mike Bloomberg and the formation of new advocacy groups like Everytown for Gun Safety. These changes created a more active and disciplined gun control movement, one more effectively engaged in the political process and better equipped to score legislative wins.
But still, she writes, “these groups are David to the gun lobby’s Goliath” — a political behemoth whose revenues were (per 2017 data) “five times those of national gun violence prevention groups.” The result was a series of victories, even after Sandy Hook and the next ten years of mass shootings, that outstripped the new pro-regulation movement’s more modest wins.
“In the early 1990s, the majority of states either barred people from carrying concealed firearms in public or strictly regulated the licenses to do so,” she writes. “By 2018, the situation was reversed. All states allowed concealed carry, and fewer than one in five states strictly regulated licensing.”
It’s possible this trend may change. In the past few years, the NRA has faced massive legal problems while gun control advocates have continued to organize.
But in an intensely polarized society where legislation faces many political veto points — like the Senate filibuster and extremely pro-gun Supreme Court majority — it’s hard to make significant changes at the federal level or in Republican-controlled states. Gun control advocates aren’t just at an organizational disadvantage; they’re at a structural one. They’d have to outcompete the NRA and its allies not just a little, but dramatically, to really transform the way American responds to mass shootings.
As a result, the most likely outcome, at least in the short and medium term, is that things continue the way they’ve gone after Uvalde. Republican-controlled state legislatures will expand gun rights or at the very least preserve the status quo, entrenching the hegemony of the gun over American civic life.
Political realities can and do change, of course. But the challenge for the gun reform side remains daunting.
How bad could the monkeypox outbreak get? Health experts are optimistic monkeypox can be contained. Here’s why, and where it could go wrong. | 2022-05-27T17:16:41Z | www.vox.com | Mass shootings typically lead to looser gun laws, not stronger ones - Vox | https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23142829/uvalde-robb-elementary-mass-shooting-gun-politcal-science | https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23142829/uvalde-robb-elementary-mass-shooting-gun-politcal-science |
A child crosses under caution tape at Robb Elementary School.
The Uvalde police keep changing their story
Law enforcement noted they made the “wrong decision” when they didn’t confront the gunman sooner.
Share All sharing options for: The Uvalde police keep changing their story
The conflicting police accounts may partly be the result of how challenging it is to piece together a complicated and traumatic event, as Escalon claimed. “There’s a lot of information, a lot of moving parts. We have a lot of people involved in this investigation. ... Our job is to report the facts and have those answers. We’re not there yet,” he said on Thursday. | 2022-05-27T20:27:20Z | www.vox.com | How police delayed and botched response to the Uvalde shooter - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/27/23143997/the-uvalde-police-keep-changing-their-story | https://www.vox.com/2022/5/27/23143997/the-uvalde-police-keep-changing-their-story |
By Lora Kelley May 28, 2022, 8:30am EDT
Share All sharing options for: The best $17.59 I’ve ever spent: A totally normal alarm clock
One writer’s journey to an unsexy and utilitarian alarm clock.
When I was in high school, I too engaged in a battle of wills each day with my mother and my alarm clock. My mom didn’t yank my feet, though. “I would put my face right down by your head and whisper in your ear and (try to) kiss your cheek,” she recalled in a recent text message. That annoyed me so much that I would eventually relent and get up. (I now find it sweet.) I remember lying in bed before school picturing this “Freaky Friday” scene, wondering what my life would be like if I had a headboard.
I have never loved waking up early. Though I recognize that it’s virtuous in some slices of our culture to wake up at dawn to rise and grind, I prefer not to do that. I famously slept through my last morning of high school. I generally strive to be responsible and on time, but waking up — especially when my apparently powerful internal clock tells me it’s not time — has historically been a challenge for me.
During the pandemic it became that much more challenging. My time became silky and slick, like an eel determined to elude my grasp. I had nowhere to be any day. I let myself sleep in later and later in the name of self-care. Each night, I went to bed early. Each morning, I woke up right before my workday needed to start. As time went on, I started to wonder if maybe I wasn’t being a little too kind to myself. Maybe I would feel better if I got up at a regular time each day and didn’t spend the 30+ minutes before and after sleep funneling blue light into my eye bulbs via my phone.
I recalled reading about how Arianna Huffington, a paragon of hustle culture, recommended tucking your phone into its own designated bed each night. Her company, Thrive, called this product a “family bed,” as it can charge up to 10 devices at once. The phones, sleeping head to toe, resemble Charlie’s grandparents in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.
My time became silky and slick, like an eel determined to elude my grasp
The phone bed can be purchased for $65 — down from its original price of $100 — on Thrive’s website. It is mini and made of wood, with white sheets and velvet and satin lining. A couple months into the pandemic, I was almost tempted to get one. I had started to dread my weekly Screen Time updates. I shielded my eyes each Sunday from the unimpeachable evidence of my minutes and hours squandered. If a calm night of sleep away from the chaos of the phone could be bought, who was I to say no?
In the end, I could not justify the phone bed. I realized I could just put my phone in a drawer for free. And while the phone bed sort of solved one problem, it didn’t solve the more immediate one: that I would need a device to wake me up if I actually wanted to sleep away from my phone.
In May of 2020, my boyfriend kindly bought me a more straightforward solution: a normal alarm clock. I started plugging in my phone in the living room each night, setting the alarm in my room, and waking up to a hideous screeching blare each morning. I felt good!
After about a year, this clock sort of stopped working. Either that, or my body again became too powerful. I started sleeping through the alarm, once waking up disoriented at 8:58 before a 9 am meeting. I brought my phone back into my room as a backup alarm, which sort of defeated the purpose of the whole enterprise.
I decided to try again with a new, nicer alarm clock. I splurged on a fancy Swiss quartz clock with excellent reviews. I found that this clock’s alarm was soft, elegant, and tasteful — and therefore useless to me. A delicate chime does not rouse me from my reverie. I require a screech. I brought my phone back into my room.
After that second failure, I figured that maybe I was hopeless. I had already made two earnest attempts at — and spent some money on — trying to be an alarm clock person. Maybe, I thought, I should resign myself to blue light and scrolling.
I sheepishly set up stricter screen time limits on my iPhone — in a moment of ambition and/or delusion, I set my Twitter limit to 15 minutes a day. As I scrolled in bed, the hourglass would pop up on my screen as an on-the-nose reminder of the passage of time, of my one wild and precious life slipping away from me in 15-minute intervals. (Apple apparently resisted using the hourglass image for a long time because they thought users wouldn’t know what it meant. I know what it means! I can waste all the time I want and the sands will keep flowing.)
The prospect of hearing more of its beeps before coffee is a true deterrent. I love it.
As the months dragged on without an alarm clock and I waded deeper into my phone each night — into Instagram highlights of random people’s moms and Wikipedia rabbit holes about the ex-husbands of various celebrities — the more I felt I needed to give an alarm clock at least one more try.
So last September, I took myself to my local hardware store and asked the sales clerk at the front if I could “see” the clock radio above the register. She didn’t know what I was talking about. I pointed to it. She said that she had never seen anyone buy one, but she got it down for me. I took it from her and went, “Hmm.” She said that I could always return it later if I didn’t like it.
I bought it! For $17.59 I had a new, normal alarm clock radio. It has a little black AM/FM cable that reminds me of a rat tail, a removable power cord, and loud, red digits that tell me the time.
My third clock is assertively not the Wirecutter recommended pick. It’s unsexy and utilitarian. It has two alarm settings. I can make a beep go off on AL-1, then get a local radio station blasting via AL-2 a few minutes later. I can snooze it many times — though I find I wish to less and less lately. The prospect of hearing more of its beeps before coffee is a true deterrent. I love it.
This object hasn’t been without its challenges. For the first few weeks I had it, I couldn’t figure out how to turn off the alarm. So I unplugged it each morning and reset it each night. I read recently that, “Before electricity, London clockmakers used to send assistants to the Greenwich observatory with pocket watches to get the exact time and bring it back, like hot soup in a takeout container.” I felt like one of those soup assistants as I flipped between my phone clock and my new clock, trying to align the latter to the exact right time.
The clock keeps moving even if I don’t feel like it. It reflects a socially agreed-upon version of reality.
The constant resetting was a pain, but also an opportunity to reflect on the nature of time, and how I have ultimate power to control how it is distributed (via this clock) but not how it flows onward (everywhere else). I was tickled by the feeling that I got to decide what time it was.
Time only moves one direction on my alarm clock, as in life. It is humbling to know that if I miss my target minute, I have to go all the way back through all the possible times again. The gulf between 2:59 and 3 is vast, as is that between 8:05 and 8:04.
As I unplug and reset, I contemplate time and what I know about it. Time is money. Time is up. A flat circle. Of the essence. It’s also an imposed system. An instrument of social control! A benchmark for productivity. A commodity. A social contract. A scourge. A metaphor. A philosophical conundrum. The bedrock of capitalism. “The key-machine of the modern industrial age.” It is both naturally occurring (see: the sun, “biological clock”) and constructed by humans. It flies when we’re having fun, and weirdly compresses and blooms and clusters and disperses when we are two years into a pandemic.
My little clock holds all of this (sort of)! And I get to set it! That is a wonder to me. James Gleick, a science journalist, wrote last year that “Far from anchoring us in time, clocks cast us loose from the past, dislocate us from our natural sensation of continuity.” To him, clocks make visible each moment replacing the prior. The clock keeps moving even if I don’t feel like it. It reflects a socially agreed-upon version of reality. I am glad to be an active participant.
My alarm clock is rich: It is a locus of metaphor and dislocation and social history imbued with unique power. But it’s also just a cheap device from the hardware store. I’m happy that it wakes me up.
After weeks of resetting my clock, I eventually just read the paper instruction manual that came in the box. I learned how to operate the device properly. It was actually very simple.
Lora Kelley is on the editorial staff of The New York Times Opinion section. | 2022-05-28T15:32:55Z | www.vox.com | The best $17.59 I’ve ever spent: A totally normal alarm clock - Vox | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23012031/best-money-normal-alarm-clock | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23012031/best-money-normal-alarm-clock |
By Rachel M. Cohen@rmc031 Jun 1, 2022, 7:30am EDT
Share All sharing options for: Letting federal school meal waivers expire would be a disaster
A student carries his lunch at Freedom Preparatory Academy in Provo, Utah, in September 2020.
One of the most fundamental and intuitive facts about learning is that it’s hard to focus, or really do much of anything, if you’re hungry. There’s a hierarchy of needs, and stomachs come out on top.
Yet youth advocates are staring down a chilling deadline. June 30 is the last day for Congress to reauthorize a series of waivers that have allowed public schools to creatively deliver meals to students during the pandemic. Originally passed in March 2020, the waivers granted schools the flexibility to navigate not only the challenges of remote learning and Covid-19, but also the supply chain crisis, the school labor shortage, and steep inflation at the grocery store. The waivers also expanded eligibility for school meals, enabling an additional 10 million students to access free breakfast and lunch each day.
Education leaders assumed Congress would re-extend the meal flexibility for one more year. The waivers, which expire at the end of June, were extended twice before on a bipartisan basis. In February, Democratic Reps. Abigail Spanberger and Suzanne Bonamici and Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick and John Katko introduced the Keeping School Meals Flexible Act to extend them one last time through June 2023, but when Congress passed its $1.5 trillion spending bill in March, the language for school meals was missing. Advocates were stunned, and say this decision alone has already jeopardized access to summer meals for nearly 7 million children.
“There is no urgency and political appetite to even have this conversation,” said Jillien Meier, director of the No Kid Hungry campaign. “Frankly this is not a priority for Congress and the White House. People are really focused on having a ‘return to normal’ ... folks aren’t talking about it and they have no clue that this crisis that is looming.”
Many people would certainly like to see the waiver authorizing universal free meals made permanent, reducing the stigma for children and administrative burdens on parents and school districts. But advocates say that’s not what this fight is about. Instead, they’re seeking just one more year of flexibility to help schools weather the inflation and supply chain crises, and to contact the millions of families who have not filled out school meal application forms for the last 2.5 years.
“Usually that outreach starts in the fall and you get the sign-ups going for the following school year,” said Katie Wilson, the executive director of the Urban School Food Alliance, which works with large school districts. “How do you educate these millions of families that that needs to be done again, and over the summer? It just won’t happen.”
Decades of research have shown how child nutrition programs aid academic achievement, school attendance, and student health outcomes. But the consequences of not extending the waivers will not be limited to families penalized by paperwork. Schools will also have less money to meet rising food prices and will face steeper financial penalties for not meeting all federal nutrition requirements, a challenge amid widespread product shortages. Some schools may decide to cut back on food offerings and even stop providing meals altogether. Others may slash budgets for their classrooms.
School lunches are not immune to the supply chain and inflation crisis
In normal times, the federal nutrition standards serve as important guidelines to ensure healthy options are available to students. Schools can only be fully reimbursed for the meals they serve if said meals meet those quality standards.
But these are not normal times, and school nutrition directors nationwide say they’ve never had so much difficulty stocking their cafeterias with basics like milk, meat, and vegetables. It’s become common for food orders to simply not arrive, or to be only partially filled.
A survey from the US Department of Agriculture released in March found 92 percent of School Food Authorities reported supply chain challenges, with products like chicken and bread among the most difficult products to procure. Nearly three-quarters of SFAs also reported staffing challenges, with acute shortages of cooks, drivers, and food prep employees.
A cafeteria worker places a tray of grilled cheese sandwiches into an oven at Richard Castro Elementary School in Denver, Colorado, in December 2020.
Nutrition directors have had to get creative in finding emergency substitutes, including making shopping trips at 4 am to Costco and Kroger. Other school districts have cut back to one meal option, instead of the three or four they used to have. Without the federal waivers, schools could face financial penalties for all these decisions, if they opt to continue providing food at all, and would be under more pressure to hound families for unpaid school lunch debt.
Thanks to the waivers, the federal government has covered more of the cost of school meals than usual. This reimbursement flexibility has still just barely allowed school districts to tread water. “Ninety percent of schools are using the waivers and only 75 percent of them are breaking even,” Stacy Dean, USDA deputy undersecretary, told the Washington Post in March.
Without an extension, the average reimbursement could drop by nearly 40 percent. And this drop would occur as schools continue to face higher costs for food and labor. Grocery prices were 10.8 percent higher year-over-year than in April 2021, and are expected to increase substantially this year.
“We literally believe we’re going to go off a cliff June 30,” said Wilson. “And we simply don’t have the labor to go back to doing what we did [pre-pandemic]. We have school districts that are missing hundreds of people, so to expect them to account for every kid and what their family income is ridiculous.”
Congress could extend the waivers easily
Hundreds of advocacy groups, school districts, and elected officials have urged Congress to reauthorize the waivers for the next school year, at a price tag of roughly $11 billion.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) told Politico that the last-minute opposition to including school meal waivers in their March spending bill came from Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. A few weeks following this surprise, Stabenow introduced the Support Kids Not Red Tape Act to extend the waivers, but so far, it has formal backing only from Democrats, plus Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins. Even moderate Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema support the extension.
But Republican support might be higher than co-sponsorship suggests. Senate Agriculture Ranking Member John Boozman told Vox that he’s been meeting with school nutrition professionals, child hunger advocates, and other leaders about ensuring access to healthy meals at school. “Both sides of the aisle in the Senate want that outcome, and we remain engaged in good-faith talks about the best path forward,” he said, adding that he appreciates “the frequent input I receive from those on the front lines working tirelessly to feed children in need.”
McConnell has declined to comment publicly on the issue, and his office did not return Vox’s request for comment. But a GOP leadership aide told Politico that they do not see pandemic-era flexibilities as necessary anymore, and blamed the Biden administration for failing to include an extension of the meal waivers in its formal Covid spending bill request and 2023 budget request. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says he had been personally pressing Congress to extend the waivers for one more year.
Some child hunger activists suspect a crisis is being orchestrated to hurt Democrats in the midterms.
“It’s political. [Republicans] know this is going to explode in the summer, and there’s an election in November,” said Wilson. “So people are going to get outraged, families are going to have huge lunch debt, and they’re going to blame the legislators. No one is going to know Senator Stabenow submitted a bill to avoid this; they’re going to want to know why their kids are starving.”
Summer meal programs have already been affected
The federal summer meals program, established in 1975, operates in places where at least 50 percent of children in a geographical area have family incomes low enough to qualify for free or reduced-price meals during the regular school year. As the American Prospect noted, this program was designed with concentrated urban poverty in mind, and has always been less accessible to low-income children living in rural areas.
But the pandemic waivers exempted meal providers from this density requirement. Even in urban communities, the waivers have allowed providers to distribute summer meals to families in bulk, sparing parents from having to make daily trips to pick up food for their kids.
A cafeteria worker prepares free bag lunches for students at Deering High School in Portland, Maine, in July 2021. The meals were available to students doing summer programs as well as any children from the community 18 or under.
Thousands of sites that distributed federally subsidized meals last summer have already backed out from participating in the coming months, due to Congress’s dithering on extending the waivers.
“Many, many small, particularly faith-based organizations have said, no, we’re not going to go from ‘feed all children until June 1’ and then after that say now we need to know your family’s income to serve you,” said Wilson. “If the groups have to start identifying kids, that’s a nightmare.”
According to USDA data, there were 67,224 open sites providing summer meals in 2021. The No Kid Hungry campaign estimates that 1 out of every 5 of those sites will be unable to serve meals to all kids this coming summer, jeopardizing access for nearly 7 million children.
“Congress could fix this through so many avenues,” said Meier. “They don’t need a big relief package like Build Back Better. Congress can increase the flow of food to families and right now is just refusing to pull those levers.” | 2022-06-01T14:49:34Z | www.vox.com | Letting federal school meal waivers expire would be a disaster - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/1/23148185/congress-school-meals-summer-hunger-inflation | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/1/23148185/congress-school-meals-summer-hunger-inflation |
If you are mad at Tom Brady about crypto, you should also be mad at Tom Selleck about reverse mortgages.
Share All sharing options for: Might I suggest not listening to famous people about money?
Tom Brady is very good at football and maybe not the best authority on where to invest your money.
Amid the current crypto crash, many people are a little miffed at the celebs who have been shilling for this stuff. Gwyneth Paltrow, Tom Brady, Reese Witherspoon, and even Larry David were all happy to assist in the mainstreaming of cryptocurrencies in recent months, only to go quiet now that the going has gotten a little tough. For Matt Damon, “fortune favors the brave” … who are apparently not brave enough to say maybe it was a bit of an oops to try to get regular people to gamble their hard-earned money on hyper-speculative assets.
If crypto were so certain to make you money, to a certain extent, why would it need this many high-profile celebrity endorsements? After all, money is the most famous celebrity there is.
Here’s the thing: famous people are endorsing and backing financial products and services all the time — products and services that fall across the spectrum of sketchiness. If you’re going to get mad at LeBron James for appearing in a Crypto.com ad, you probably should also be annoyed about those Tom Selleck reverse mortgage commercials, or the spots where William Devane talks about buying gold, or the litany of A-listers getting into SPACs. In the 1990s, Whoopi Goldberg was a spokeswoman for Flooz, that era’s cyber currency that was ultimately brought down because of crime and fraud.
This may seem a little obvious to point out — celebrities are always doing endorsements — but I do think them doing so, specifically, with regard to money is worth dwelling on. Personal finance and investing are supposed to be kind of unsexy; how you’re allocating your 401(k) isn’t particularly cool. Now, marketers and advertisers and culture writ large have managed to turn it into a hobby and a lifestyle. Trust has declined so much in traditional financial institutions. People might figure that Bear Stearns wasn’t doing a bang-up job back in the 2000s, so why not take a chance on whatever Floyd Mayweather says is a good idea now? Companies are able to maneuver this institutional distrust, replacing cold, untrustworthy, and faceless banks with likable celebrities, whom consumers might be more open to.
Banks left customers “high and dry” after the 2008 global financial crisis, explained Ana Andjelic, a brand executive and expert in the sociology of business. “What is this trust replaced with?” she said. “With brands, with celebrities.”
Yes, famous people are often wealthy, but not because they took part in a get-rich-quick scheme or made one clever investment in some obscure product. They often have financial advisers who are helping them manage and build their wealth — and those advisers aren’t telling them to pile into dogecoin.
Celebrities = $$$
Companies enlist famous people to try to sell their stuff because they know that it can work. According to one 2012 study out of Harvard Business School, athlete endorsers lead to a 4 percent increase in sales. Multiple studies have found that celebrity endorsement announcements boost stock prices.
When it comes to finance specifically, the rich and famous aren’t the most influential in consumers’ lives, but they do make somewhat of a difference. A 2021 Morning Consult survey found that 20 percent of investors and 45 percent of crypto owners would invest in cryptocurrency if famous people endorsed it (though still behind financial advisers, family members or friends, and business reporters). Younger consumers may also be more swayed by fame — CreditCards.com found that 28 percent of Gen Zers and 24 percent of millennials said they were looking for financial advice from social media and influencers.
Making a financial product mainstream renders it more comfortable for consumers
Because people are no longer plopped in front of network TV on a Friday night, captive audience to commercials, brands are relying increasingly heavily on celebrities and influencers to connect with consumers, explained Shiv Gupta, a digital marketer and principal at the consulting firm Quantum Sight. “The channels are shrinking,” he said. A celebrity can catapult your product to consumers through their existing audiences and spheres of influence. You can see how it happened with crypto. “You’ve had the nerdsphere or the geeksphere push the concept of crypto as something that has potential,” Gupta said. “The next step was Larry David and all the others who came in and started discussing crypto. It was more about saying, ‘See, it’s mainstream.’”
Making a financial product mainstream renders it more comfortable for consumers, making them feel like it’s okay to give this a try. It may make them overlook the stakes as well, even in spaces where the stakes are high.
“A-list celebrities endorsing brands is nothing new, we’ve seen this for decades. Selling crypto and NFTs is, obviously, a lot more complex and I’d say requires more professional responsibility than pitching for typical consumer goods,” said Anindya Ghose, a business professor at NYU. “If you’re endorsing chips and energy drinks, that’s a different thing.”
If you bought a bag of chips because some actor said so and it turned out to be gross, whatever. But if you did a reverse mortgage, which regulators have warned about ads for, and accidentally lost your home because Tom Selleck said, that’s not so good. The focus is on young people and crypto now, but no generation is immune.
“There are those who say, ‘Well, I like Tom Selleck, I grew up with Tom Selleck, he seems like a reputable guy. After all, he fought crime on Magnum PI,’” Gupta said. “It’s a generational thing, he’s kind of aging with you.”
Probably don’t listen to celebrities about money
If you had asked 2004 me whether I’d be listening to the guy from The OC or the guy from Good Will Hunting about what to do with my money, I’d hopefully have said neither but probably would have said the Good Will Hunting guy. Turns out, 2004 me would have been wrong. You actually should not listen to either of the Good Will Hunting guys because Ben Affleck shills for sports betting, which also is often not ideal for the end user’s wallet.
As it turns out, I maybe should have said The OC guy, Ben McKenzie. He has some points about listening to famous people about money and, specifically, crypto … which is that you should not. McKenzie called celebrities pumping crypto a “moral disaster” in a 2021 write-up for Slate alongside journalist Jacob Silverman. “These rich and famous entertainers might as well be pushing payday loans or seating their audience at a rigged blackjack table,” they wrote. (To be fair, there’s something for McKenzie to gain here, too — he and Silverman are penning a book about crypto scams right now that they are probably being paid for, and he’s fashioned himself an anti-crypto celeb.)
Celebrities might not have their fans’ best financial interests at heart. Love to Reese Witherspoon, but her crypto tweet, at least for now, feels fairly irresponsible. “At the end of the day, it’s all about the money,” Andjelic said.
It’s not just that celebrities are encouraging unnecessary risk. Kim Kardashian and Floyd Mayweather may have recently been part of a crypto pump-and-dump scheme. The boxer is no stranger to scandal in the crypto space: In 2018, he and music producer DJ Khaled settled charges from the SEC for failing to disclose that they were paid to promote initial coin offerings, or ICOs, a trend so dubious you rarely hear about it anymore. Actor Steven Seagal got in trouble for something similar, too.
Celebrities and financial brands are joining forces to sell people on a lifestyle, on an aspiration of riches that may not be realistic
It’s easy and tempting to be dismissive of a lot of this — of course celebrities should not be a trusted source of financial information. And regulators do have some say here in protecting consumers — endorsers are supposed to be honest about being paid. But famous people are often creeping into how we think about money in a way that is a bit uncomfortable. If you really think about it for a beat, celebrities partnering with even traditional names in finance is a little, well, huh. Jennifer Garner seems fine but also is not rich just because she is super savvy with her Capital One card.
Celebrities and financial brands are joining forces to sell people on a lifestyle, on an aspiration of riches that may not be realistic. The famous lend their reputations to products that can be dubious. They often do so without acknowledging their own financial stakes — Tom Brady isn’t just a spokesman for crypto exchange FTX, he’s an investor in the company — or while brushing over that they can take risks the average person maybe shouldn’t. And the downside risk for lending out their reputations, if a project does go bottom-up, may not be much.
“It’s not like oh Tom Brady stopped doing anything and now he’s just a crypto boy, you know?” Andjelic said. “People care for one minute.”
Except, of course, the people who lost.
Have ideas for a future column? What’s something in the economy that’s just bugging you that you can’t quite put your finger on? Email emily.stewart@vox.com.
Why must we pay to have a slightly less miserable time at the airport? | 2022-06-02T16:07:59Z | www.vox.com | Ignore Tom Brady and Matt Damon on crypto and celebrities on money in general - Vox | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23148474/crypto-celebrities-ftx-kim-kardashian-larry-david | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23148474/crypto-celebrities-ftx-kim-kardashian-larry-david |
A silly case about a minor paperwork error could snowball into a serious threat to the right to vote.
By Ian Millhiser Jun 3, 2022, 10:30am EDT
Share All sharing options for: The Supreme Court is about to rule on another scary voting rights case
The US flag flies in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC.
The Constitution gives Congress nearly limitless power to set the rules governing congressional elections, but its power to regulate state and local elections like the judicial race at issue in Ritter is narrower. As Ritter’s lawyers write in their brief, “though Congress can modify state regulations of federal congressional elections ... its power to modify state regulations of state elections can be justified only under its power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.”
Indeed, the Court has repeatedly said that Congress may enact broad voting rights laws that ban techniques that states have used in the past to disenfranchise racial minorities, even if those federal laws also prevent states from using those techniques in racially neutral ways. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), for example, the Court endorsed “a suspension of literacy tests and similar voting requirements under Congress’ ... power to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment.”
That is, to prevent states from using literacy tests to target voters of color, Congress may enact a blanket ban on all literacy tests as a voter qualification. It follows that Congress may also enact a blanket ban on election rules that disenfranchise voters for minor paperwork errors, in order to prevent states from using these errors to target voters because of their race.
In Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006), the Court warned federal judges to be cautious about altering a state’s election law as the election draws close. “Court orders affecting elections ... can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls,” the Court warned in Purcell, and this risk increases “as an election draws closer.”
It is far from clear that the provision of the Civil Rights Act relevant in the Ritter case could be enforced at all if it can’t be enforced in post-election proceedings. Federal courts are not allowed to hear a lawsuit challenging a state or federal law unless the plaintiff in that lawsuit can show that they were injured in some way by that law. | 2022-06-03T17:07:49Z | www.vox.com | The Supreme Court is about to rule on another scary voting rights case - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/3/23151943/supreme-court-voting-rights-ritter-migliori-pennsylvania | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/3/23151943/supreme-court-voting-rights-ritter-migliori-pennsylvania |
The president says reducing the deficit will lower inflation. Will it?
By Christian Paz@realcpaz Jun 4, 2022, 8:00am EDT
Share All sharing options for: Joe Biden’s new go-to tool to fight inflation? The deficit.
Joe Biden speaks on inflation as part of a trip to a family farm in Kankakee, Illinois.
Taylor Glascock/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Cutting government spending isn’t really top of mind for most American voters, and balancing federal budgets is certainly not going to be enough to motivate Democratic voters to turn out in midterm elections. The federal budget deficit hardly registers in Gallup’s recent polling on the country’s most pressing problem, but inflation is at the top of the list.
With midterms coming up and a new inflation estimate scheduled to be released next week, the White House is now making deficit reduction a core part of its intense efforts this month to convince voters the economy is getting better — and reset public opinion on its biggest political challenge.
It marks a pivot: Biden campaigned on wanting to be a transformative president, pushed for massive spending packages throughout 2021, and played down concerns of inflation to boost those proposals. But the president now sounds more cautious about big government spending.
That pivot started at his state of the Union speech earlier this year. “My plan to fight inflation will lower your costs and lower the deficit,” he said in March. “By the end of this year, the deficit will be down to less than half what it was before I took office.”
Inflation has gotten steadily worse and stayed high since then, but the White House’s messaging on the problem really kicked into overdrive in recent days. Biden rolled out a three-pronged approach — one being deficit reduction — to wrangle inflation in a Wall Street journal op-ed. He’s also invoking the deficit in speeches, and addressed the country about it again on Friday. His administration’s officials popped up on television screens this week to talk about the plan, and the White House is planning more announcements, interviews, and trips for the rest of the month.
Biden’s claim that his policies are responsible for the drop in the spending gap are debatable. But even if they were completely true, it’s not totally clear that cutting back federal spending would, at this point, help bring down inflation, according to economists. Whether it convinces the average American is even more dubious. But the administration is going to try.
A refresher on the deficit, and Biden’s role in getting it down
The federal deficit is the amount of money the federal government spends in a year’s budget beyond what it has collected in revenue. That shortfall gets added to the country’s total debt. The United States has run up a budget deficit every year since at least the early 1970s, except for four years between 1998 and 2002.
It ran its largest deficits ever during the core pandemic years of 2020 and 2021 because of emergency coronavirus spending through the CARES Act and American Rescue Plan. Because that funding is winding down or all spent, and because tax revenues have increased as unemployment dropped and the nation’s overall economic recovery sped up over the last year, the deficit dropped in 2021. An even bigger drop is projected by the end of the 2022 fiscal year in September.
Over the last few months, Biden has taken credit for this drop in the deficit in his State of the Union address, in speeches throughout April and last month, when he sought to “remind you again: I reduced the federal deficit” despite “all the talk about the deficit from my Republican friends.”
Focusing on the deficit is traditionally much more of a priority for Republicans than Democrats. You tend to hear about it from congressional Republicans who want to cut back on social welfare spending or attack Democrats for spending at all. Many words have been written about just how much deficits matter, but economists who spoke to Vox said that they matter more in times of high inflation.
It’s true that deficits are decreasing: The $2.8 trillion deficit in 2021 was lower than the record $3.1 trillion deficit from 2020, when Donald Trump was president. And the projected 2022 deficit of $1 trillion will be an even steeper fall — something for which the president is taking credit. But that’s largely a product of the big spending programs from 2020 and 2021 tapping out, according to many economic experts. Biden’s signature spending package, the American Rescue Plan, worsened the deficit to a degree — shrinking a projected $870 billion deficit reduction to the $360 billion decline that actually happened from 2021 to 2022.
“I’ve heard the president and his administration say over and over again, things like ‘we have reduced the deficit because of our actions.’ That is only true in a very backward sense,” Marc Goldwein, a senior vice president at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscally conservative group, told Vox. “The deficit is coming down year over year overall despite their actions.”
It’s also true that American unemployment has been dropping quickly over the last two years — meaning more people are paying taxes that help offset government spending. On that front, the White House credits its recovery efforts.
The effects of deficits on inflation are debatable
Even if Biden gets full credit for bringing down the deficit, casting it as a tool to fight the country’s current level of inflation is a new approach for him. “Bringing down the deficit is one way to ease inflationary pressures,” he said in early May. “We reduce federal borrowing and we help combat inflation.”
Economists don’t all agree on just how much taxing and spending can do to combat inflation.
“Not all government spending is clearly inflationary,” Goldwein said. “But when you’re in a period of high inflation, you can probably expect the first-order effect of any given increase in spending or any given cut in taxes is probably going to be inflationary.”
Big deficits can certainly worsen the problem if that’s the result of a massive injection of money into the economy when the economy is overheated, but the primary responsibility for controlling inflation falls on the Federal Reserve, which controls interest rates and money supply — and the White House is emphasizing that point in its economic plan: “My predecessor demeaned the Fed, and past presidents have sought to influence its decisions inappropriately during periods of elevated inflation. I won’t do this,” Biden wrote in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal this week.
Biden acknowledges he has more control over how much revenue the government can collect in taxes and how much it chooses to spend. “Because government is such a large purchaser, and because it’s such a big part of our economy, if you lower the amount of deficit — so you either increase taxes or you lower spending — you’re going to pull some money out of the economy, and that can reduce inflationary pressures,” a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Vox about the White House’s thinking on the deficit-inflation link.
But there’s a difference between simply not worsening inflation by growing deficits and taking active steps to reduce the deficit. By not increasing spending on policies that put more money in people’s hands, the government can try to hamper demand for goods and services. There’s still plenty of money out in savings accounts and the coffers of state and local governments that will make this a challenge — and supply chain and logistics concerns that can’t just be solved by cutting spending and raising taxes — but the White House is suggesting a handful of reforms in a renewed economic message it is rolling out this month.
The president isn’t expecting any more big immediate spending, but knowing that the government can fight inflation on the margins through long-term investments and tempering expectations about future economic growth, Biden’s plan has a shot at making things feel better.
Biden’s new economic sprint
In his Wall Street Journal op-ed, Biden laid out an inflation-fighting plan to ease the country into “stable, steady growth” that includes deficit reduction as just one of three planks; letting the Fed do its work and making things more affordable are the other two. He expanded on this message during an address Friday focused on the May jobs report that shows hiring still rising and unemployment remaining near a pre-pandemic low.
He wants Congress to reform the way the IRS collects taxes from regular Americans and how billionaires and corporations pay taxes, as a way to not just reduce the deficit even more, but fight inflation by punishing price-gouging and “corporate greed.” White House officials this week have also made television appearances and public statements to push this new message and announce infrastructure and climate investments to improve supply chains.
These new moves are happening as inflation remains near a record high, gas prices soar as summer travel picks up and energy markets remain chaotic after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the outlook for Democrats in midterm elections worsens.
Many of Biden’s proposed fixes require congressional action — something Biden is eager to emphasize: “I’m doing everything I can on my own to help working families during this stretch of higher prices. And I’m going to continue to do that,” he said on Friday. “But Congress needs to act as well.”
As part of this larger strategy, the White House seems to be gearing this deficit message toward the most fiscally conservative members of his caucus in Congress: Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have been frequent obstacles to Democrats’ ability to pass any new economic plans through the Senate, and both have signaled their concern over worsening inflation.
Whatever reforms and proposals could make it through the House and Senate would have to satiate those concerns, and so far, Biden’s plan is straddling that line by increasing revenue and investing in longer-term economic productivity and cheaper energy production, which some economists say can help alleviate longer-term inflationary pressures.
This deficit and inflation pivot is also a test of a traditional presidential power that has been waning in recent administrations: the bully pulpit, or the president’s influence to set agendas, dominate national conversations, and persuade other politicians to fall in line. Biden has reportedly been frustrated by his inability to break through to the general public and craft a cohesive message on the many challenges his administration is trying to tackle, from inflation and gas prices to gun violence and the pandemic.
On Friday, he tried to explain his focus on affordability and reducing the deficit in terms Americans might understand, “I understand that families who are struggling probably don’t care why the prices are up. They just want them to go down. … But it’s important that we understand the root of the problem so we can take steps to solve it.” he said. “The reason this matters to families is because reducing the deficit is another way to ease inflation.”
Presidents have seen this power of persuasion eroded as party polarization increases, Congress gets harder to unify, and messaging power is diffused among media, political organizations, and activist groups. For Biden, part of the problem comes from his tendency to misspeak or have his comments corrected or cleaned up by staff afterward. But the senior administration official who spoke to Vox argued it’s worth Biden making this outreach: “The president is trying to help people understand the role that this democratically elected government can play in people’s lives to help improve economic outcomes, and then by that, help to improve people’s outcomes.”
We will see in a few months whether this posturing convinces any voters. But by at least speaking about it and laying out a plan, the White House can counter Republican attacks about wasteful government spending and irresponsible government borrowing and message to average Americans that it is being responsible with its spending just like Americans who are concerned about affordability.
Still, for the strategy to succeed, it will have to break through to average Americans who may not know what the deficit is, but do know that the price of gas and food is rising. Whether that happens on television or in person (the White House is hinting at future trips and speeches), the message has to get out there. And as part of a larger plan, it may address the general confusion and malaise so many Americans are feeling.
How to prevent gun deaths without gun control Can summer jobs and mental health care save lives? | 2022-06-04T12:32:52Z | www.vox.com | Joe Biden’s new go-to tool to fight inflation? The deficit. - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23153687/joe-biden-interested-deficit-inflation-economy | https://www.vox.com/23153687/joe-biden-interested-deficit-inflation-economy |
Long-range missiles from the US head to the sluggish, brutal war in the Donbas.
Share All sharing options for: How Ukraine’s new weapons reflect a very different battlefield
US M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launchers fire salvoes during the “African Lion” military exercise in the Grier Labouihi region in southeastern Morocco on June 9, 2021.
On Tuesday, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reached its 100-day mark, the United States government announced that it would send powerful new artillery systems to Ukrainian troops fighting in the country’s southeastern and eastern fronts, as well as radar systems and a number of additional weapons as the war condenses into a brutal slog to push Russia out of the Donbas and surrounding areas.
The four M142 HIMARS, high mobility artillery rocket systems, and associated ammunition, in this case the Unitary guided multiple launch rocket system or GMLRS, will supplement the shorter-range howitzers that the US, France, Britain, and Germany have sent to Ukraine in recent months and allow the Ukrainian armed forces to better keep the Russian military at a distance.
President Biden announced the new weapons and aid package in a New York Times guest essay, saying that the US would send “more advanced rocket systems and munitions that will enable them to more precisely strike key targets on the battlefield in Ukraine,” without mentioning specifically which weapons would be deployed. In a June 1 press conference, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl announced that the HIMARS, which can hit targets in the range of over 70 kilometers away, were included in the package, as well as five counter-surveillance radars and two air surveillance radars.
Russian officials, for their part, have claimed that the new weapons package represents a provocation from the west. “We believe that the United States is deliberately and diligently ‘pouring fuel on the fire,’” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Wednesday, claiming that, “Such deliveries do not contribute to … the Ukrainian leadership’s willingness to resume peace talks,” according to the Washington Post.
We’re looking at a dramatically different war than in the beginning of the invasion
The HIMARS have been at the top of Ukraine’s wish list, even more so than the fighter jets they were calling for in the beginning of the war. That’s because, as Rita Konaev, deputy director of analysis at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, told Vox, the battlefield has changed dramatically as Russia shifted and reorganized its assets to fight in the Donbas region. That means a move away from urban environments, where poor planning on Russia’s part weakened its offensive, and Ukrainian troops familiar with the territory had the advantage.
“It’s increasingly clear that no one side is winning the war,” Konaev said. As opposed to the fast-moving initial weeks of the invasion, when outsiders thrilled to the idea of the scrappy Ukrainian forces dealing blow after surprising blow to the bigger, better-kitted Russian forces. But the fight for the Donbas has become “a war of a mile a day,” she said, a back-and-forth battle over territory more like World War I than the fast-paced campaigns of February and March.
“That phase of the war is over,” Konaev said. “This phase is more grinding, piecemeal.” Because of the radical shift in the nature of the battlefield, the weapons on offer have to change dramatically, too.
“I think the impetus for sending the HIMARS is twofold,” she told Vox. First, she said, the new weapons systems provide “greater standoff capabilities” — the ability to keep battlefield distance between two forces — about double that of the howitzer. Second, HIMARS represent “a massive upgrade in firepower,” she told Vox, adding that when used strategically, the “impact is similar to airstrike lethality.”
The Russian military has its own MLRS, but as John Spencer, the chair of urban warfare studies with the Madison Policy Forum and author of Connected Soldiers told Vox, “our weapons are farther reaching, more accurate” than the Soviet-designed systems.
But as of now — without the advanced weapons systems the US has promised Ukraine — Russia has some clear battlefield advantages, Konaev said.
“It’s not that Russia has gotten better,” she said, “it’s just a concentrated force [in an area] more amiable to Russian strengths.” Because the fighting is much closer to Russia’s territory, “there are shorter supply lines, and limited airstrikes used more effectively — they can run these quick ops and head back to base,” with a lower-risk, higher-reward calculus.
“In Donbas, the battles are happening at greater distances,” Spencer explained. Right now, Ukrainian troops “are really hampered in terms of range,” he told Vox. “If you know where a target is, you have to be able to reach it.” In other words, Ukraine may have the intelligence about where a crucial Russian target is, but a howitzer just can’t get there without putting Ukrainian troops at increased risk.
“At this moment in the war, this makes the most sense,” Spencer said of sending the HIMARS.
Here’s how the HIMARS could help shift Ukraine’s advantage
However, the new systems aren’t immediately going to win the war for Ukraine. “I don’t think these [HIMARS] will provide overnight change,” Spencer told Vox, but once they get on the battlefield, the four systems could help Ukrainian troops “regain momentum,” he said. Konaev agreed, telling Vox, “we won’t see the impact for at least another month.”
Although the Pentagon would not disclose whether the systems had yet been delivered to Ukraine, citing “operational security reasons,” Pentagon spokesperson Marine Corps Lt. Col. Anton Semelroth confirmed that, “We did pre-position the HIMARS systems in Europe to ensure that they can be rapidly delivered.”
After the weapons do make it to Ukrainian troops, it will take around three weeks for them to be trained on the systems, before they’re put to use on the battlefield against Russian forces. On Friday, it appeared that moment couldn’t come quickly enough, as Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu threatened to “accelerate” Russia’s “special military operation,” in a meeting with Head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov. According to a briefing from the Institute for the Study of War, Shoigu didn’t provide specifics but in their assessment, Russian forces will likely be unable to launch more advanced operations given the enormous investment in equipment and troops it would take.
However, Ukrainian losses are piling up, with between 60 and 100 soldiers dying each day, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a speech this past week. And Russia has ramped up its scorched-earth tactics in the Donbas, pummeling cities like Severodonetsk — preventing evacuations and resupply, in a nightmarish repeat of its siege of Mariupol.
“The Russian massing of fighters [in the Donbas has] turned momentum briefly,” Spencer told Vox, although he predicted that getting the HIMARS onto the battlefield “will result in more dead Russian generals” — translating to an ever-more disorganized Russian fighting force. “The path to victory is unraveling.”
Both Spencer and Konaev told Vox that intelligence on the Ukrainian side will play a decisive role in any gains in territory or defeat of Russian forces, as it has so far in the war. “The most important impact has been intel,” Konaev said, giving Ukrainian forces “the ability to protect themselves, and pre-empt attacks on supply lines.” Radar systems will augment that intelligence, with air surveillance radars and HIMARS disrupting Russia’s ability to command air dominance.
But right now, mitigating shelling from the Russian side could have a much greater impact on the battlefield — and on the safety of civilians. “Russian artillery has caused the greatest damage,” Konaev explained, leveling cities like Maruiopul and Severodonetsk, and the combination of the counter-artillery radars and the mobile, longer-range weapons will hopefully prevent Russia from “ruling the rubble,” as Spencer put it — claiming victory by subduing and destroying population centers.
The future of the war may include different weapons but more of the same grind
Biden’s op-ed reiterated his position throughout the war — that the US and NATO are not seeking a war with Russia, and that the US will continue arming Ukraine because it’s the right thing to do, but it’s still not quite clear, at least from the op-ed, how far that will go. Considering just how grueling and grinding the war is now, the field seems open in terms of additional weapons the US will supply, which, as Kahl pointed out in his Wednesday press conference, could include more HIMARS.
Whatever additional resources are on the way, the summer will likely be just as grinding, bloody, and devastating as the past few weeks have been, as a recent Politico feature acknowledges. Even if Ukraine is able to turn on the offense and begin retaking land, it will be slowly — piecemeal, position by position and village by village, said Serhiy Haidai, the head of the military government in Luhansk, one of the regions that makes up the Donbas. Until then, Russian forces are raining down artillery and making incremental advances; as Haidai said to Politico, “they are destroying everything and then moving through the ruins.” | 2022-06-05T00:43:09Z | www.vox.com | Ukraine to receive new weapons from the US that may change the battlefield - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/4/23150697/how-ukraines-new-weapons-different-battlefield-russia-himars-nato | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/4/23150697/how-ukraines-new-weapons-different-battlefield-russia-himars-nato |
Body image can be fraught for many. That doesn’t have to affect the kids in your life.
By Alex Hazlett Jun 6, 2022, 6:00am EDT
Share All sharing options for: How to help teens have a peaceful relationship with food
American food culture is difficult for so many people, and for caregivers it can be a downright nightmare. Parents, especially mothers, are tasked with serving kids the “right” foods and cultivating the “right” attitude toward eating. Exactly what the right foods and attitudes are is hazy, as long as your child is thin; if they’re fat, there will be a chorus of people telling you that everything you do is wrong and your child should feel bad about themselves. To add to the pressure, parents are often blamed for their children’s eating disorders.
Trying to thread this impossible needle puts enormous stress on something every person needs to do many times a day: eat.
It’s time for a new objective, especially for tweens and teens. Caregivers have a lot of direct control over young children’s eating habits, and can also shield them from some outside pressures around eating. But as adolescence dawns, kids take on more responsibility for their own choices around food, while also being forced to navigate an often-hostile culture around body image.
Being a supportive influence becomes even more essential as children develop into young adults; an important step is knowing where you’re hoping they arrive at the end of the process. Helping your kid avoid an eating disorder is table stakes — beyond that, what should the goal be when talking to teens about food and body image?
“We really want them to be relaxed and flexible around food,” says Wendy Sterling, a registered dietician who specializes in eating disorders. “To really know how to feed themselves in a way that’s balanced and nourishing and satisfying — and fun and social.”
If you’re hoping to lay the groundwork for your kids to have a peaceful relationship with their bodies and what they put in them, here’s what experts suggest.
Address your own baggage first
Sterling wrote Raising Body Positive Teens: A Parent’s Guide to Diet-Free Living, Exercise and Body Image with co-authors Signe Darpinian, a licensed marriage and family therapist and specialist in eating disorders, and Shelley Aggarwal, a pediatrician who specializes in adolescent medicine.
These experts are unanimous that caregivers should spend time reflecting on their own feelings about and relationships with food. Ideally this reflection would happen when your kids are young, but even checking in with yourself before a conversation with your teen is useful. Many of today’s Gen X and millennial parents grew up feeling pressure to lose weight, during a time when dieting was normal and even encouraged. Letting go of those attitudes is often difficult, and it doesn’t happen overnight. But that doesn’t mean parents need to be perfect; many can and do go through this journey with their children.
“It’s important to frame it as a practice, not a finished product,” Darpinian says of rooting out anti-fat attitudes. The goal isn’t for body positivity to be its own kind of pressure — where you feel guilty for sometimes feeling bad about your body — but for there to be a general sense of neutrality toward bodies and food.
Simply avoiding body-related talk about yourself or others will go a long way toward cultivating a less judgmental atmosphere, says Sterling. Teens often say that even compliments can feel like scrutiny, she explains, and in a culture that nearly always sees weight loss as good, it’s possible that caregivers are praising disordered behaviors without realizing it.
Encourage an “all foods fit” model
Food is one of our most enduring relationships, says Darpinian. We’re constantly buying it, preparing it, eating it, and thinking about it. A good place to start addressing food with young people is by implementing an “all foods fit” model in conversation and in practice. In this approach, there is no food that’s off limits, says Sterling. It means “not just having quinoa and broccoli and couscous,” but also carbs, fast food, and dessert. Actively rejecting a good foods/bad foods dichotomy allows kids to understand the range of benefits food can provide, such as being a source of joy and pleasure, Sterling says.
Making space for all foods also helps correct the hostility dietetics has traditionally shown toward many cultures’ food traditions. “There is really a lack of diversity in reference to how we think about food and the ways in which different cultures influence food choices,” says Aggarwal. One example, she says, is families from Indian backgrounds who are “pushed to buy certain foods for their child because those are deemed ‘healthy,’” even though they aren’t a part of their food culture.
Most people can get the nutrients they need without making eating an exercise in perfectionism, adds registered dietician and nutritionist Amee Severson. Getting creative about nutrition can ease the pressure that would otherwise be put on certain foods. If, for example, you’re worried about your kids getting enough fiber, they explain, try Metamucil rather than forcing them to eat vegetables they don’t like.
Ultimately, make sure your kids know they don’t have to be trying to accomplish anything with food, Severson says: “You can just eat and exist.”
Leave weight out of it
Severson points out that kids are supposed to grow — and that means gaining weight, especially during the tween and teen years. “Weight gain is supposed to happen in puberty,” she says, “and that’s really villainized in our culture.” One of the most important things caregivers — and all the adults in kids’ lives — can do, according to Severson, is “normalize the weight changes and the body changes” of puberty and let go of the fear around it.
Kids’ bodies are not the problem, no matter what they eat. Pressuring kids to lose weight or make their bodies smaller is dangerous. Anti-fat attitudes are also dangerous, but the solution to that is societal change, not weight loss.
Aggarwal explicitly advises against routine weighing of young people, both at home and at the doctor’s office. “Weight does not make you healthy or unhealthy,” she said. This is in line with recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which advises against discussing weight with or in front of children.
“Try to avoid even those subtle messages about a good and bad body,” Aggarwal says. She suggests that parents work with health care providers who have weight-neutral approaches to health and well-being. Often, this means checking a provider’s website or calling and asking to see what their approach is. The Association for Size Diversity and Health is also currently revising its database of Health at Every Size professionals, with a target launch date in July 2022.
Pay attention to the media messages kids are getting
Everyone can benefit from broadening the range of body sizes they encounter in media. Discuss with your kids the anti-fat and pro-diet attitudes that you notice in TV, books, and movies, says Darpinian. Those won’t be hard to find — a 2017 study found that “weight-based stigma” was present in 84 percent of the children’s movies that were reviewed. For a positive media direction, seek out shows with complex fat characters, like Hulu’s Shrill (watch for the clothes alone) or My Mad Fat Diary.
Social media can also negatively alter perceptions of body image, but how much is still being fully understood. Even so, the algorithms can be redirected for the better with intention and effort. Seeking out and following accounts that make young people feel good for reasons other than appearances can be supportive of their mental health and well-being; UK nonprofit The Female Lead has an updated list of recommended role models to follow as a place to start. Another good rule of thumb is to pull back when everything you’re seeing looks like same: the same bodies, the same foods, the same visuals.
Teens need to know that the people they follow on TikTok or Instagram who make them feel bad about their bodies, exercise, or eating habits “deserve a firm unfollow or at least a mute,” Severson says. It can be hard at first for young people to notice that who they follow can affect their moods, but mindfulness practice can help them tune in. Occasionally reviewing their social feeds with them and drawing parallels to their behavior in other contexts can also help them start to make these connections. When in doubt, skip posting — remind them they don’t need to work out for the ’gram.
Be alert for red flags
Cultivating a peaceful and accepting environment around food and bodies is a proactive approach, but it’s not a catchall. Adolescence is a time where children push boundaries — and boundaries around food are no exception. Some totally fine eating habits may look a little weird to parents, so try not to freak out about it.
“Teens may go through phases with food, eating the same thing for meals, and then get tired of it and swear off it entirely,” Sterling says. And growing teens, especially those playing sports, might have energy requirements that are higher than their parents’, so requests for second and third helpings shouldn’t be a surprise.
Even so, it’s important to know about actual warning signs around food and body image. Darpinian, Aggarwal, and Sterling say that they often hear parents of adolescents in treatment for full-blown eating disorders say that they didn’t initially recognize a problem because they thought their children were “just eating healthier and exercising more.”
Whereas diet culture used to be straightforward in encouraging weight loss and restricted eating (remember the grapefruit diet?), today’s “wellness culture” is more subtle, Darpinian explains, even though it accomplishes the same thing. The National Eating Disorders Association recognizes extreme devotion to healthy eating as a kind of eating disorder in its own right, termed orthorexia. This goes back to the importance of making space for all foods: Restricting food groups or types of food, for any reason, is cause for concern.
“If my daughter came to me and said, ‘I just want to start eating healthier,’ I’d be like ‘Red flag! Red flag!’,” Darpinian says. She says she’d be as worried about a fixation on healthy eating as she would be if her child started smoking.
Also remember that eating disorders aren’t limited to girls. Boys’ eating disorders are often overlooked — and as a result, by the time boys with eating disorders are seen by a health professional, Darpinian says, they more often meet the criteria for hospitalization.
Even if you don’t think your child is at risk for an eating disorder, says Severson, it’s always worth digging into what kids might be feeling around food. Pay attention to what else is happening in their life: how school is going, what their friendships are like, and what their general stress level is. Eating disorders, body image issues, and concerns around food don’t exist in a vacuum, Severson says; they’re “really related to everything else.” | 2022-06-06T10:37:53Z | www.vox.com | How to help teens have a good relationship with food and their bodies - Vox | https://www.vox.com/even-better/23143111/teen-tween-food-body-image | https://www.vox.com/even-better/23143111/teen-tween-food-body-image |
Vox Launches New Section, Even Better, Focused on Direct, Actionable Advice for Living a Better Life
Expansion of Offerings in Service Journalism
By Vox Communications Jun 6, 2022, 8:15am EDT
Share All sharing options for: Vox Launches New Section, Even Better, Focused on Direct, Actionable Advice for Living a Better Life
Today, Vox launched a new service journalism section, focused on giving readers deeply sourced information, helpful frameworks, and actionable advice to help them live better lives individually and collectively. The section will showcase reporting on many aspects of modern life: mental health, relationships of all kinds, community, work, money, and more.
For the launch of this section, inaugural contributors include Lindsay Bryan-Podvin on how money is emotional — but personal finance advice rarely accounts for that; Alex Hazlett on how to talk to teens about body image; Allie Volpe on the case for having fewer friends; and Rebecca Leber on how to take action in the climate crisis.
“Vox’s core mission has always been to empower the public with information that helps them better understand the world,” says editor-in-chief Swati Sharma. “This new section goes to the heart of that mission by examining the tools that can help readers live more enriching, balanced, and happier lives.”
With empathy and practicality, the section aims to provide readers with tangible resources and applications they can use in their day-to-day. | 2022-06-06T12:22:00Z | www.vox.com | Vox Launches New Section, Even Better, Focused on Direct, Actionable Advice for Living a Better Life - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/6/23156193/vox-launches-new-section-even-better-focused-on-direct-actionable-advice-for-living-a-better-life | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/6/23156193/vox-launches-new-section-even-better-focused-on-direct-actionable-advice-for-living-a-better-life |
By Dylan Scott@dylanlscott Jun 6, 2022, 7:30am EDT
Share All sharing options for: The way the United States pays for nurses is broken
People protest outside the White House on May 12, calling for change in the profession including fair and realistic wages for nurses and safe staffing environments.
“All of that work is invisible, except for maybe the supplies that I used,” Matthew McHugh, professor of nursing at the University of Pennsylvania, told me. “The invisibility of nursing work, the inability to put a value on it ... is not in line with how any other kind of professional service would operate.”
“We’re not allowed to diagnose and we’re not allowed to charge for our services,” Andrea Riley, an ER nurse at Windham Community Hospital in Connecticut, told me. “Corporations ... don’t understand the physical work needed to carry out a doctor’s order.” | 2022-06-06T12:22:12Z | www.vox.com | The way the United States pays for nurses is broken - Vox | https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23076581/us-covid-health-care-nurses-pay-salary | https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23076581/us-covid-health-care-nurses-pay-salary |
Zhang Zhehan’s fans think his dog is an imposter. That says a lot about how we distort reality online.
By Aja Romano@ajaromano Jun 6, 2022, 8:30am EDT
Share All sharing options for: What the deepfake controversy about this Chinese actor says about conspiratorial thinking
Actors including Gong Jun and Zhang Zhehan attend a Word of Honor fan concert in Suzhou, Jiangsu Province of China, on May 4, 2021.
It’s easy to believe what you want to believe. The internet, from deepfake videos to social media that connects like-minded people, has made it that much easier.
For instance, when a fan sees two beautiful, famous people working together, it may be natural to hope that they’re secretly in love. Sometimes these ships come true — the people who thought from their onscreen interactions, for example, that Robsten were dating, or Brangelina, or Dan and Phil, eventually discovered they’d been right all along.
But there’s wanting your ideas about a certain celebrity to be real and then there’s wanting them to be real so badly that you decide that an actor is being held hostage, that his social media has been taken over by a group of evil conspirators, and that all of his recent posts are deepfakes of himself.
That’s what’s happening to an alarmingly high number of fans of the actor Zhang Zhehan, in what seems to be a growing conspiracy theory.
Conspiratorial thinking has come to characterize many conversations around tech, politics, and internet culture in general. But a conspiracy theory that can yoke itself to the intensity of fandom has an especially alarming capacity to turn toxic and dangerous. When I wrote in 2016 that fandom shipping “has increasingly taken on all the characteristics of a religious dogma,” I had no idea how much worse things would get. At the time, fandom conspiracy theories such as Larry Stylinson (the belief that One Direction’s Harry Styles and Louis Tomlinson are in love but forced to hide) were the exception rather than the rule; now, as the Zhang Zhehan fandom illustrates, not only are such fandom conspiracy theories more and more commonplace, but they’re marrying the intensity and fervor of fandom with modern social media and technological pitfalls.
Last year, Zhang starred in the hit Chinese drama series Word of Honor. The show, an adaptation of a queer danmei novel, was overtly homoerotic, following in the vein of 2019 hit The Untamed. The series was a Netflix hit and propelled Zhang and his costar Gong Jun to international stardom. Legions of fans began shipping the two actors, typical fan behavior that in Chinese culture is often encouraged heavily by marketing teams and often the actors themselves. After a designated promotional period for the show, however, the pairing typically gets “broken,” and fans expect them to go their separate ways.
This studio-driven approach to shipping is the inverse of American fandoms, where fans often create ships out of thin air, much to the consternation of studios who have no idea what to do with the monster they’ve created. It’s not surprising that even after the promotional period for Word of Honor ended, international fans continued to ship “Junzhe” — the ship name for Zhang Zhehan and Gong Jun.
Before either actor could fully move on from their Word of Honor roles, however, Zhang Zhehan found himself in the middle of a scandal involving his alleged visitation of a Japanese war memorial so controversial it got Justin Bieber permanently banned from performing in China. Within days, Zhang’s career appeared to be over.
Many of Zhang’s Chinese fans moved on, but his international fandom was left floundering. A large subset of these fans were people who still shipped Junzhe and believed gossip that the two actors were still in regular communication. Fans read into interviews and social media posts Gong Jun made, seeking evidence that he was sending support to the man they believed he loved.
Meanwhile, in early spring, Zhehan reportedly returned to posting under the pseudonym “Zhang Sanjian.” He made references to his new clothing brand but also began implying that Gong Jun’s marketing team was still capitalizing on the Junzhe ship to boost his career, when Zhang no longer had a career.
This development meant only one thing to international Junzhe shippers: The Zhang Sanjian account had to be fake.
Good morning peeps! This man has a name. This man has a face. This man is #张哲瀚 #ZhangZheHan #zzh
He is NOT zhang sanjian. pic.twitter.com/LRPNtTidQX
— Bindy 天涯路远, 终有重逢之际 (@littlejadebear) April 10, 2022
Many shippers grew convinced Zhang Sanjian was an imposter created by Zhang’s former manager and a group of cohorts, including his therapist. Then a small group of Twitter fans crossed several huge ethical lines: They doxxed Zhang’s therapist and allegedly reported him to the Chinese government as anti-Chinese — an act that could have extremely dangerous consequences for him and his family. Though insistent Zhang had been the victim of an authoritarian government, they weaponized that same authoritarianism against a perceived enemy.
In April, Zhang resumed posting to Instagram. Instead of celebrating his return, however, these fans, by now completely convinced all his posts must be an impersonation, created increasingly elaborate theories about how that impersonation was being carried out. They reported Zhang’s real, actual Instagram account for impersonation. When Zhang got his account restored and continued posting content, elaborate deepfake theories emerged. In the process of insisting his videos had to be fake, they raked Zhang himself over the coals: He was too “robotic,” his “eye twitched,” he “lacked body movement,” he was “creepy.”
When Zhang posted a picture of his dog, the shippers decided the evil band of conspirators around him had replaced his dog with a different dog.
The most infuriating thing about the Zhang Zhehan conspiracy is how extraordinary it isn’t. Increasingly, fandom is awash with conspiracies like this one. In 2016, a huge subset of the Sherlock fandom was so incensed at the fact that the show didn’t put Watson and Sherlock together in a queer relationship (a ship theory the fans titled “the Johnlock conspiracy” with zero apparent self-awareness) that they decided there must be a different, entirely secret final episode of the show — a wild card that left them angry and upset when the totally anodyne show that premiered the week after the Sherlock finale turned out, in fact, not to be Sherlock.
In Star Wars fandom, the fictitious “J.J. Cut” from director J.J. Abrams doesn’t exist, and no evidence for its existence exists, but fans still created an entire ideology around it. At this very moment, the One Direction fandom is having a meltdown because Liam Payne just shaded Zayn Malik, much to the chagrin of “Ziam” shippers who’ve spent years building elaborate rabbit-hole arguments that the two were in a secret closeted relationship. And let’s not get started on the fan narratives and magical thinking around the Depp-Heard trial.
Yes, of course, people lie, and of course rare real-life conspiracies do occur; but at some point, it becomes irrational and irresponsible to prioritize a fandom belief — or any conspiratorial belief — to the point that you are continually distorting reality. In this case, there’s no logical reason to believe Zhang Zhehan was lying when he asked shippers to move on and stop harassing his family and friends. Now, a fandom that spent months uniting to support him after a huge personal setback has now become fully committed to dehumanizing him — to insisting he literally isn’t real — all in the name of “supporting” a nonexistent relationship.
Watching all this go down, a friend of mine mused that perhaps this was the real dystopian impact of deepfakes — not that the deepfakes themselves would distort reality, but that their mere existence now allows people an excuse to distort reality all by themselves.
That seems instinctually true to me. This isn’t just happening in fandom; it’s happening across the internet. While conspiracy theories like QAnon get all the attention, it’s conspiracy theories like Johnlock and Zhang Zhehan that keep me up at night because they are paths to radicalizing good-hearted fans, conditioning them to see the world primarily as fantasy, as a high-stakes battle between good and evil. It doesn’t help that decades of internet culture have taught people to be deeply analytical but haven’t taught them how to think critically and rationally about what they’re doing.
I don’t know how to tell you your fave is not a deepfake. I don’t know how to tell you that when you’ve given up this much of yourself to a bottomless well of belief, it’s your responsibility — to yourself and to the world — to drag yourself out and move on. | 2022-06-06T16:12:06Z | www.vox.com | Zhang Zhehan is a deepfake: fandom conspiracy theories are getting worse - Vox | https://www.vox.com/culture/23150487/zhang-zhehan-deepfake-fandom-conspiracy-theory | https://www.vox.com/culture/23150487/zhang-zhehan-deepfake-fandom-conspiracy-theory |
Eat your veggies, beat inflation.
Share All sharing options for: Why meat is so expensive right now
Meat prices have risen far above inflation over the last year, leading some consumer protection and farming groups — and President Biden — to allege that big meat producers are price gouging.
Food prices at home have increased almost 11 percent since last April, more than overall inflation (8.3 percent), but the cost of meat, milk, and eggs in particular has soared well beyond both measures. From April 2021 to April 2022, egg prices went up 22.6 percent, chicken is up 16.4 percent, milk and beef are up almost 15 percent, and fish and seafood are up 11.9 percent.
But most plant-based staples — like beans, rice, bread, fruits, and vegetables — have risen slower than the general rate of inflation for groceries (as have cheese and ham, two of the handful of exceptions in the meat and dairy aisles).
Tyson Foods, America’s largest meat producer, attributes the company’s price hikes to higher demand for meat as well as increased labor and fuel costs combined with the rise in the price of grains fed to farmed animals. Meanwhile, the poultry industry has been ravaged by the bird flu, which has prompted producers to cull nearly 38 million birds this year — mostly turkeys and egg-laying hens using rather grisly methods.
Consumer protection advocates say these supply-side factors are partially to blame for the price hikes, but they also suspect big meat producers like Tyson Foods are making consumers pay more to fatten their profits.
Claire Kelloway of the Open Markets Institute, an anti-monopoly nonprofit, points to Tyson’s second quarter earnings to understand how it might be using inflation as a cover to make more money.
“[Tyson had] roughly $1.5 billion in higher costs, but that’s corresponded with $2 billion in price increases,” she told me. “So that is a solid half a billion dollars that is not related to an increased cost of business. That’s purely an exercise of their market power and ability to charge more, and their profits really speak to that.”
John Hansen of the Nebraska Farmers Union, which advocates on behalf of independent ranchers and farmers, put it more bluntly: “There’s no question there’s been price gouging through the Covid disaster, and there’s no question that that price gouging continues.”
Tyson Foods declined an interview request but pointed me to economists and analysts who refute the idea that meatpackers are price gouging, and testimony from Tyson Foods’ CEO, Donnie King, given to the US House Agriculture Committee in late April on the matter. King reiterated that strong demand and increased labor and input costs were the main reasons for higher meat prices.
“Meat companies do not set prices for consumers,” Sarah Little of the North American Meat Institute told me over email. “Retailers do that.” She cited a Texas A&M economist who says some wholesale beef cuts have gone down in price while their retail price has risen. Tyson’s King also told the House committee that high prices have nothing to do with industry consolidation.
But that’s something experts like Hansen and Kelloway — and President Biden — dispute.
Kelloway says there is heavy market concentration in some parts of the produce aisle too, but it’s usually not as intense as it is for meat: In an article for Vox last year, she reported that the top four corporations in each industry slaughter 73 percent of all beef, 67 percent of all pork, and 54 percent of all chicken in the US. “When there are so few players, it’s not hard to keep track of everyone and what’s called ‘tacitly collude’ and all move in the same direction on price. … So I think that definitely seems to be happening,” she told me. “Even though that’s evidence of excessive market power, it’s not actually an antitrust violation.”
“We basically have four meat processors in the whole country,” President Biden said a few weeks ago. “They process the meat that goes into the hamburgers you buy, so they set the price. When there’s no competition, they can set the price higher and higher.”
Michael Mitchell of the Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive economic policy group, says some ranchers are getting a raw deal as well. Increasingly, US beef comes from ranchers who sign contracts with meatpackers to sell their meat at set rates, and Mitchell says the packers aren’t raising those rates in tandem with their record profits: “It’s really creating an environment in which ranchers get squeezed,” Mitchell said. “Because demand for meat is still relatively strong … the meatpackers can make a very, very healthy profit and the ranchers don’t see that.”
There are Congressional efforts underway to rein in alleged price gouging in the meat market, which long predates this high inflationary period. And last month, the USDA proposed long-awaited rule changes to the Packers and Stockyards Act, a 1921 law meant to prevent anti-competitive behavior in the meat industry, which antitrust advocates say has been weakly enforced. The new rules would create more transparency around farmer contracts in the poultry industry, and more proposed rule changes are expected to come.
But whatever the price, demand for meat remains strong because it tends to be inelastic — economist-speak for the fact that increases in price have little effect on overall sales. While untangling competitive issues in the meat industry could take years, for those looking to save on their grocery bills now, the fastest way is to switch to less expensive plant-based foods.
Eat plants, cheaply
University of Oxford researcher Marco Springmann and his colleagues published a study last year that found that in high-income countries, a flexitarian diet — a diet low in meat and dairy — reduces food costs by 14 percent on average. “In the [US], it’s even a bit more — more like 25 percent [cost savings] because US diets have so much meat and dairy, so there are lots of savings potential,” he told me. Fully vegetarian and vegan diets reduce food costs even further than flexitarianism.
However, there’s one major caveat. The flexitarian, vegetarian, and vegan diets analyzed by the researchers comprise whole plant-based foods, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes — nearly all of which require cooking and preparation. They don’t include the packaged plant-based meat, milk, and egg alternative products that now line grocery store shelves, and which actually tend to cost more than their animal-based counterparts.
They’re not more expensive because of the basic ingredients, which are usually low-cost components like wheat, soy, peas, and vegetable oils. Rather, the startups churning out plant-based products don’t benefit from the economies of scale that big meat producers enjoy.
Animal-based meat, milk, and eggs are also comparatively cheap in part because of government support. For decades, the corn and soy fed to farmed animals has been heavily subsidized by the US government, and the industry has benefited from extensive government-funded research on how to make factory farming more efficient. The meat industry also benefits from business-friendly regulation.
Despite the high cost of plant-based alternatives, prices are beginning to come down. Plant-based startups often say price parity with conventional meat is a primary goal, and at least one claims to be getting close: Rebellyous Foods in Seattle, which makes plant-based chicken.
Plant-based advocacy groups say more government funding for R&D, like the meat industry has benefited from, would help startups like Rebellyous get there faster. That could give startups an edge, as a recent survey found lower prices in the plant-based aisle could attract more consumers.
Sign up for the Meat/Less newsletter course
Want to eat less meat but don’t know where to start? Sign up for Vox’s five-day newsletter full of practical tips — and food for thought — to incorporate more plant-based food into your diet.
Springmann also says his findings should ease policymakers’ financial worries about measures to increase plant-based eating, such as putting more plant-based meals in schools or updating federal dietary guidelines. “People are often concerned with how expensive [flexitarian, vegan, vegetarian] diets are, but our study shows that actually if it’s healthier and more sustainable and more plant-based, you don’t need to worry much about [cost].”
Even as plant-based meat sales have jumped in recent years, US meat consumption has steadily increased with it, hitting a record high of 224.8 pounds per person last year, with forecasts to go even higher in 2022. But sky-high meat consumption isn’t an immutable law of nature — Germany, the land of bratwursts, has seen a steady decline in meat consumption in recent years despite a strong economy, as have some other European countries.
But those of us here in the land of cheeseburgers and chicken wings do have the option of both helping the environment and reducing our grocery bill. Just follow the immortal words of parents everywhere: “Eat your vegetables.” And I’ll add one more: “Don’t forget legumes.” | 2022-06-07T17:46:55Z | www.vox.com | Why meat is so expensive right now - Vox | https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23156862/meat-dairy-egg-prices-inflation-plant-based-diet-costs-affordability | https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23156862/meat-dairy-egg-prices-inflation-plant-based-diet-costs-affordability |
Chris Smalls, a former Amazon warehouse manager fired during the pandemic, is a leader of the Amazon Labor Union.
José A. Alvarado Jr. for Vox
Amazon fired Chris Smalls. Now the new union leader is one of its biggest problems.
What’s next for the face of America’s new labor movement.
By Shirin Ghaffary Jun 7, 2022, 6:30am EDT
Photographs by José A. Alvarado Jr. for Vox
Share All sharing options for: Amazon fired Chris Smalls. Now the new union leader is one of its biggest problems.
“When Amazon fired me, it was a no-brainer, I had nothing else to lose; I just lost everything. I lost my health care; I lost my income ... in the middle of a pandemic,” said Smalls at an event in Manhattan in late-April. “And I’m not getting hired anywhere ... I just got fired on TV. Who the hell is gonna hire the whistleblower?”
“I remember his coworkers always laughing ... people wanted to work on his team,” said Angelika Maldonado, 27, who worked at JFK8 with Smalls and is the ALU’s vice president.
After the surprising ALU win at JFK8, Amazon — which, as Recode previously reported, considers unionization the “single biggest threat” to its business model — has increased its efforts to block further unionization.
“I expected it, to be honest,” said Smalls a week after the vote, reflecting on the loss. “I didn’t want us to lose, but our chances in there were slim because we had new organizers ... all new to the company. To try to convince coworkers in a few short weeks, that is an impossible task. So they did the best they could.”
Tactically, Smalls said he also didn’t want the bureaucracy that can come with larger unions slowing the ALU down, especially after seeing the initial failed attempt by the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) to organize Amazon workers in Bessemer, Alabama, last spring. (The NLRB found that Amazon interfered with the election and ordered a do-over, but the second vote was too close to call and RWDSU is contesting the results, accusing Amazon of interfering once again.)
Correction, 12 pm: An earlier version of this story misstated the results of the second union vote in Bessemer, Alabama. The vote was too close to call. | 2022-06-07T17:47:07Z | www.vox.com | Amazon fired Chris Smalls. Now the ALU leader is the face of a new worker movement. - Vox | https://www.vox.com/recode/23145265/amazon-fired-chris-smalls-union-leader-alu-jeff-bezos-bernie-sanders-aoc-labor-movement-biden | https://www.vox.com/recode/23145265/amazon-fired-chris-smalls-union-leader-alu-jeff-bezos-bernie-sanders-aoc-labor-movement-biden |
The next Vox Book Club pick is The Immortal King Rao.
By Constance Grady@constancegrady Jun 7, 2022, 4:30pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: Spend June with a novel of colonialism, technological capitalism, and coconuts
Left: W. W. Norton & Company. Right: Rachel Woolf.
This June, the Vox Book Club is reading the playful, provocative, and thoughtful new novel The Immortal King Rao, by former Wall Street Journal tech reporter and New Yorker business editor Vauhini Vara. Part intimate family drama, part technological allegory, and part alternate history turned dystopia, The Immortal King Rao spans centuries and continents to draw a damning portrait of life under technological capitalism.
King Rao is born in the 1960s on a South Indian coconut plantation. He dies — his daughter Athena tells us from her jail cell — over a century later, having abolished the nation-state as a system of government and run the world as global CEO. Now, his daughter Athena is passing on his life story. Her hope is that it will become a manifesto that will save the human race on the brink of climate-change-induced extinction. But the world isn’t exactly eager to hear Athena’s tale.
This is a heady, ambitious novel, dense with ideas. Let’s unpack them together. At the end of the month, we’ll meet Vara live on Zoom, and you can RSVP here. In the meantime, subscribe to the Vox Book Club newsletter to make sure you don’t miss anything.
The full Vox Book Club schedule for June 2022
Friday, June 17: Discussion post on The Immortal King Rao published to Vox.com.
Thursday, June 30, 5 pm ET: Virtual live event with author Vauhini Vara. Reader questions are encouraged!
The Fortress of Solitude is a fraught and uneasy love letter to a vanished Brooklyn | 2022-06-08T00:30:37Z | www.vox.com | The Vox Book Club pick for June is The Immortal King Rao - Vox | https://www.vox.com/culture/23141646/immortal-king-rao-vauhini-vara-vox-book-club | https://www.vox.com/culture/23141646/immortal-king-rao-vauhini-vara-vox-book-club |
No one can be expected to take on climate change alone.
By Rebecca Leber@rebleber Jun 9, 2022, 7:30am EDT
Share All sharing options for: Climate change is all about power. You have more than you think.
Taking action can be overwhelming. Besides big names like Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society, here is a list of resources to get started.
Climate Justice Alliance: This national coalition lists dozens of member groups acting locally and regionally to fight climate change and boost communities of color.
Climate Emergency Fund: This fund makes grants to “climate emergency organizers,” mostly to newer groups that are pushing the limits on striking, walkouts, protests, and blockades. Their grantees page also has a helpful list of these groups if you’re ready to get more involved in protesting the climate crisis.
Project Drawdown: This is a resource to help brainstorm what parts of the climate problem overlap most with your interests. They also have a starting guide for those considering mobilizing at work.
Sunrise Movement and 350.org: These organizations host trainings and can connect you with regional hubs to think like a climate activist; 350.org even has extensive materials on building grassroots power available online. You can also check out Momentum, which teaches the fundamentals of progressive campaigning and helped incubate Sunrise Movement.
Profession-specific groups: ClimateAction.tech and Work on Climate are two Slack communities that can be great starting points for making connections in your field. For marketers, creatives, and strategists wanting to do more to stop false advertising and greenwashing around climate change, there is Clean Creatives. | 2022-06-09T12:34:49Z | www.vox.com | Tips to take action on climate change - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23152123/climate-actions-individuals-can-take | https://www.vox.com/23152123/climate-actions-individuals-can-take |
By Jonathan Guyer@mideastXmidwest Jun 9, 2022, 8:20am EDT
Share All sharing options for: Why some countries don’t want to pick a side in Russia’s war in Ukraine
US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield exits the UN after speaking at a special session on the violence in Ukraine on March 2, 2022.
The countries in yellow have sanctioned Russia. The countries in gray have not sanctioned Russia. pic.twitter.com/0md8fPxOoB
— Ollie Vargas (@OVargas52) March 25, 2022 | 2022-06-09T12:35:01Z | www.vox.com | Why Global South countries don’t want to pick a side in Russia’s war in Ukraine - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23156512/russia-ukraine-war-global-south-nonaligned-movement | https://www.vox.com/23156512/russia-ukraine-war-global-south-nonaligned-movement |
Grassroots groups turned the tide in Georgia before. In 2022, they face an uphill battle.
By Nicole Narea@nicolenarea Jun 10, 2022, 9:00am EDT
Share All sharing options for: How Democrats plan to win big in Georgia again
Black Voters Matter organizers leading a voting rights march in Selma, Alabama, in March 2022.
Grassroots groups have helped turn the once reliably red Georgia into a battleground over the course of the last two election cycles. Now, Democrats are hoping that they — and the multiracial coalition they assembled — can deliver another miracle in 2022.
Groups like the voter registration group New Georgia Project and Black Voters Matter have worked for years, some for more than a decade, to mobilize the political power of Black voters and other voters of color in the state. Those minority voters make up 40 percent of the electorate, but have historically been neglected by both parties. Grassroots groups have long struggled to draw investment from funders and campaigns, many of whom believed their efforts to be in vain.
In 2018, their years of work paid off when Democrat Stacey Abrams ran for governor, rewriting Democrats’ playbook in a narrow loss powered largely by nonwhite voters. Organizing modeled on Abrams’s run helped Joe Biden flip the state by a less than 12,000 vote margin in 2020, a critical win in his path to the presidency. And it assisted long-shot Democratic candidates Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock in surprise victories in their US Senate races, handing the party narrow control of Congress.
With Abrams’s second campaign for governor against incumbent Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, as well as Warnock’s reelection — and Democrats’ prospects of maintaining control of the Senate — in the balance, Democrats and their grassroots allies are hoping to once again organize their way to victory.
Inspired by the critical role that grassroots groups have played in turning Georgia purple, national Democrats launched what party officials say is their largest ever statewide coordinated campaign for a midterm election last month.
The “Georgia Votes” campaign — a joint initiative by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and Georgia Democrats — is aimed at re-energizing the multiracial coalition that grassroots groups helped turn out in 2020, though it doesn’t directly support or coordinate with those groups, in accordance with campaign laws.
Georgia grassroots groups are also going into overdrive to ensure that the enthusiasm of voters of color stays high this fall and isn’t suppressed by the state’s new restrictions on voting; they’re providing education, additional support at the polls, and defenses against voter roll purges.
“There are incredible organizations on the ground who have been doing the hard work for years to engage Georgia voters, and our state is better off for it. As [the Democratic Party of Georgia] builds out its coordinated campaign to mobilize voters across the state this cycle, we’re grateful to all the organizers working to make sure every Georgian’s voice is heard in our democracy,” said Rep. Nikema Williams, chair of the Democratic Party of Georgia.
The party is facing stronger national headwinds this time, including an unpopular Democratic president and high inflation. But grassroots groups are confident those factors can be overcome in Georgia. They say they’ve been chasing what many might have considered improbable political outcomes for years.
“We’ve been doing this work behind what feels like enemy lines. This has been a high stakes fight for the future of Georgia since we launched in 2014,” said Nsé Ufot, chief executive officer of the New Georgia Project.
Grassroots groups are fighting Georgia’s restrictive voting laws
The biggest concern heading into 2022 for Georgia Democrats and grassroots groups was how they were going to mitigate the adverse impacts of SB 202, a law signed by Kemp in March 2021 that implemented new restrictions on voting including limitations on mail-in voting, stricter ID requirements, a ban on providing food and water to voters standing in line, and measures that would transfer power from state and local election officials to legislators.
As Vox’s Zack Beauchamp wrote at the time, “the intent of the bill is clear: to wrest a state that’s increasingly trending blue back toward Republicans.”
In the November 2021 municipal elections, the first contests under the new law, the rejection rate for mail-in ballot applications jumped to 4 percent, up from less than 1 percent in the 2020 general election. More than half of those rejected applications were turned away because they were submitted after the new, earlier deadline set by SB 202, and the majority of those voters never went on to vote in-person instead. Another 15 percent of rejected applications were denied because they had missing or incorrect identification information required by the new law.
It’s not yet clear how Democrats’ Georgia Votes initiative — which is still just a few weeks old — plans to respond to SB 202. Grassroots groups, however, have ramped up their efforts to educate voters on relevant deadlines and the requirements set by the new voting law this year. Fair Fight has been double-checking voters’ registrations and their precinct locations and pushing as many people as possible to vote early and in-person given the issues with mail-in ballot rejections, according to the group’s director of communications Xakota Espinoza.
But having to do that extra education is an additional burden on groups that are also trying to motivate people to turn out.
“Not everybody that we’re in conversation with is already committed to taking part in the process. That conversation is made more difficult when you’ve got to spend more time just explaining some stuff about the process,” said Cliff Albright, the co-founder of Black Voters Matter, a voter mobilization group in Georgia.
Grassroots groups have also provided support at the polls. During the primaries last month, Latino Community Fund Georgia sent volunteers to 10 precincts in Chatham, Cobb, Gwinnett, Fulton, and DeKalb counties, where there are large Hispanic populations, to provide Spanish translation. But in Chatham County, poll managers turned some of their volunteers away, said Michelle Zuluaga, the organization’s civic participation manager. Black Voters Matter set up tables with refreshments near the polls, since they’re prohibited from handing out food and drink to people waiting in line under the new law.
Despite the additional hurdles posed by SB 202, overall turnout in the May 24 primaries was high, especially considering it’s a midterm election year. Official election day figures aren’t final, but a record 857,000 people voted early, up from 299,000 in the 2018 primaries. That included about 483,000 Republicans and 369,000 Democrats.
Republicans have argued that’s evidence that SB 202 doesn’t actually suppress voting as Georgia grassroots groups and Democrats have claimed.
But grassroots organizations say that their painstaking efforts to register and mobilize voters delivered high turnout in spite of the obstacles created by SB 202. “The high turnout is evidence of our organizing and evidence that Georgia voters know and understand the power of their vote,” Ufot said.
The challenges ahead of the general election
The high-profile showdown between Abrams and Kemp, that control of the Senate is at stake once again, and the voter registration and education work done by the grassroots groups could mean high turnout in the fall. Democrats worry that could exacerbate complications posed by SB 202. Grassroots groups are consequently putting a new focus on voter protection in the months ahead. And though the Democratic Party has its own plans to combat voter suppression, grassroots groups aren’t planning to rely on just that.
The New Georgia Project is preparing to fight back against what it anticipates will be escalating attempts to purge voter rolls under SB 202, which allows any one person to challenge the voter registration of an unlimited number of voters at once. For instance, the group successfully fended off a challenge to the eligibility of 13,000 voters from a single man in Forsyth County earlier this year.
The group is also partnering with legal aid organizations to train lawyers specializing in criminal and election law to defend voters accused of fraud. SB 202 created several new election crimes, including making it a felony to witness someone else mark their mail-in ballot at home unless they are providing legally authorized assistance, and state lawmakers enacted a law in April that allows state police to investigate election crimes and voter fraud.
“We know that we have some zealous prosecutors in the state that are absolutely going to take advantage and try to prosecute Georgians under these new laws,” Ufot said.
But beyond protecting voters, they’re also just trying to keep up the enthusiasm in Georgia through November. That means continuing to speak to the issues that matter to Georgians, including current economic turmoil, which is being felt acutely among workers making the state minimum wage of just $5.15; Georgia’s failure to expand its Medicaid program, leaving roughly half a million people ineligible for health insurance coverage; and the threat to free and fair elections posed by former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state.
Reproductive rights have also become a breakthrough issue since the US Supreme Court’s draft opinion overturning its 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade was leaked to Politico. Georgia already has the highest maternal mortality rate in the country — a rate that’s even higher for Black women specifically.
Activists are not alone in those voter protection and persuasion campaigns. State and national Democrats’ coordinated campaign is working to train and organize volunteers to help get out the vote and engage Georgians, especially communities of color, ahead of the November election. As part of that, they have also put together a voter protection team that plans to combat voter suppression.
That said, not all grassroots advocates feel like they can rely on national Democrats to do the work of communicating the stakes of this election. With years of experience in the state, many feel uniquely equipped to drive voters to the polls in November.
“There needs to be some messaging support at the national level,” Albright said. “But we can’t count on them to get the messaging right. That’s why we do our own messaging.” | 2022-06-10T15:57:58Z | www.vox.com | How Democrats plan to win the 2022 Georgia midterms - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/10/23161142/georgia-midterms-election-2022-abrams-warnock-black-voters | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/10/23161142/georgia-midterms-election-2022-abrams-warnock-black-voters |
We now know Trump expressed support for hanging Pence and did little to stop the violence — actions that suggest some very dark historical parallels.
By Zack Beauchamp@zackbeauchamp Jun 10, 2022, 12:20pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: The January 6 hearings showed why it’s reasonable to call Trump a fascist
Trump holds up a fist at the Stop the Steal Rally on January 6, 2021.
Amid the many extraordinary revelations at the January 6 committee’s first primetime hearing Thursday, one stood out for its sheer depravity: that during the assault, when rioters chanted “hang Mike Pence” in the halls of the Capitol, President Donald Trump suggested that the mob really ought to execute his vice president.
“Maybe our supporters have the right idea,” he said, per a committee source. “[Mike Pence] deserves it.”
Endorsing violence is hardly new for Trump; it’s something he’s done repeatedly, often in an allegedly joking tone. But the reported comment from January 6 is qualitatively worse given the context: coming both amid an actual violent attack he helped stoke and one he did little to halt. The committee found that the president took no steps to defend the Capitol building, failing to call in the National Guard, or even speak to his secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security.
But when a leader whips up a mob to attack democracy with the goal of maintaining his grip on power in defiance of democratic order, then privately refuses to stop them while endorsing the murderous aims of people he claims as his own supporters, it’s hard to see him as anything but a leader of a violent anti-democratic movement with important parallels to interwar fascism.
This doesn’t prove that fascism is, in all respects, a perfect analogy for the Trump presidency. Yet when it comes to analyzing January 6, both Trump’s behavior and the broader GOP response to the event, last night’s hearing proved that the analogy can be not only apt but illuminating.
January 6 is the culmination of a long history of fascist-like rhetoric
In The Anatomy of Fascism, Columbia University historian Robert Paxton lays out a fairly clear definition of the political tendency:
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
Most of this seems to fit Trumpism fairly well. “Obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood?” Check. “Compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity?” Check. “Uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites?” Check. “Without ethical or legal restraints?” Check, check, and check.
One key factor that was missing, at least for most of Trump’s presidency, was the violence. Paxton’s definition stresses the centrality of force to fascist politics: that “a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants” uses “redemptive violence” to pursue “goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
Yet Trump personally had long harbored a fascination with political violence. In a 1990 interview with Playboy, he praised the Chinese government’s violent crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square.
“When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it,” Trump said. “Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength.”
During the 2016 campaign, Trump suggested that “Second Amendment people” might be justified in assassinating Hillary Clinton if she wins the race. He repeatedly encouraged his supporters to attack counterprotesters, even offering to pay their legal fees. The dangers were obvious; during the Republican primary, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) warned that his language might lead to mass violence:
This is a man who in rallies has told his supporters to basically beat up the people who are in the crowd and he’ll pay their legal fees, someone who has encouraged people in the audience to rough up anyone who stands up and says something he doesn’t like. …
But leaders cannot say whatever they want, because words have consequences. They lead to actions that others take. And when the person you’re supporting for president is going around and saying things like, ‘Go ahead and slap them around, I’ll pay your legal fees,’ what do you think’s going to happen next?
During his presidency, his fascination with extra-legal violence came up again and again.
In 2017, he described some of the white supremacists at Charlottesville as “very fine people.” During a 2019 rally, he “joked” about shooting migrants at the border, to cheers from the crowd. In a 2020 tweet, he used a segregation-era slogan to call for violence against George Floyd protests (“when the looting starts, the shooting starts”). During a presidential debate with Joe Biden, Trump told the Proud Boys — a far-right militia that would later lead the assault on the Capitol — to “stand back and stand by.”
What this record shows is that the potential for a Trump-led political movement to lead to bloodshed was always there. The president seemingly believed in the cleansing and redemptive power of violence; it’s been a hallmark of his thinking for years, even decades. That he would sometimes frame these comments as jokes, or even backtrack after offering them, is characteristic of fringe right political movements — which often cast their most extreme positions in a kind of ironic tone that allows for their supporters to simultaneously embrace radical ideas while also distancing themselves from them.
The question about Trump was whether his fascination with violence would ever manifest in a mass movement: that he would align himself with an illegal violent action designed to secure his own grip on power.
This, of course, happened on January 6. But as the events unfolded, there was crucial information we didn’t know: the extent to which Trump intended to encourage violence and how he reacted as it unfolded in real time.
On the first point, committee chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) suggested in an interview they had evidence Trump’s team was in direct contact with both the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, the other militia group that spearheaded the attack. Their proof was not presented last night; there’s also some evidence that Trump’s subordinates wouldn’t let him communicate with the extremist groups directly. This makes it hard to evaluate the question of intentionality just yet.
But on the second point, the committee’s evidence is damning. The comment about hanging Pence, together with the refusal to do anything to stop the violence, strongly indicates that the president was fine with the violence proceeding: that he saw it as furthering his cause. That is, undoubtedly, fascist.
Does the “fascism” label matter?
Like my colleague Dylan Matthews, I’ve long been hesitant to describe Trump as a fascist.
Unlike interwar fascists, Trump has not laid out an ideological alternative to liberal democracy that involves abolishing elections — in fact, he doesn’t seem to possess a coherent ideology at all. The greatest threat the Trump-led GOP poses to democracy is not the explicit overthrow of democracy, but its hollowing out from within — an endgame that resembles the Jim Crow South or contemporary Hungary far more than Nazi Germany. There’s a real concern, in my mind, that hyper-focus on the interwar model can bog us down in a definitional debate that distracts from more resonant and informative parallels.
But when we’re talking about January 6 specifically, the fascism analogy really is useful.
Events like the 1922 March on Rome or 1923 Beer Hall Putsch help us understand the way in which attempts to forcefully seize power — even failed ones like the Putsch — can play a role in the rise of radical far-right movements. They help us understand the clarifying and organizing power of violence, the way in which banding together to hurt others can help solidify dangerous political tendencies.
And it helps us understand the potential for violence to recur, especially given the mainstream Republican Party’s continued whitewashing of January 6.
One of the defining elements of the interwar fascist ascendancy is the complicity of conservative elites — their belief that they could manipulate fascist movements for their own ends, empowering these movements while remaining in the driver’s seat. This is precisely how the mainstream Republican Party has approached Trump, even after a violent attempt to seize power exposed just how far he’s willing to go to hold power.
In the midst of last night’s hearing, the official Twitter account of the Republicans on the House Judiciary committee repeatedly mocked and downplayed the significance of the committee hearing — even going so far as to label it “old news:”
It wasn’t, of course. Though some of the revelations had been telegraphed in broad strokes by leaks, including the comments about hanging Pence, the specifics had yet to be made public — and there were many revelations that were simply brand-new.
But the issue here isn’t factual inaccuracy on the House GOP’s part. It’s that the official organs of the Republican Party saw their job as covering for Trump, even as evidence emerged that he literally suggested that a Republican vice president should be lynched. The lessons of the interwar period, and indeed the long history of mainstream conservative parties’ dalliances with radicals, seem entirely lost on the Republican leadership.
And this, in the end, is why using fascism as a framework for understanding January 6 is worthwhile. This explicit alliance of political violence to an effort to seize power through force is shocking — so shocking that it deserves comparisons to what’s universally seen as the darkest moment in the history of Western democracy.
That these parallels may not be perfect in every way does not make it unreasonable to draw them, or to seek lessons for how to think through the future. | 2022-06-10T16:26:25Z | www.vox.com | The January 6 hearings showed why it’s reasonable to call Trump a fascist - Vox | https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/6/10/23162442/january-6-committee-hearing-june-10-trump-fascist | https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/6/10/23162442/january-6-committee-hearing-june-10-trump-fascist |
Some progressive groups are urging Biden and Democrats to more aggressively cast corporations and billionaires as enemies in the fight against inflation.
By Christian Paz@realcpaz Jun 11, 2022, 8:00am EDT
Share All sharing options for: Democrats need an enemy on inflation. Enter “corporate greed.”
US President Joe Biden speaks at the Port of Los Angeles in Los Angeles, California, on June 10, 2022.
Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The Biden White House knows that the economy will be the primary matter on the ballot in midterm elections this year; that’s partly why President Joe Biden has dedicated the month of June to voicing the ways the White House is trying to soften the blow of rising prices, while giving the Federal Reserve cover to raise interest rates.
But Democrats also know that they have a major messaging problem. CNN and NBC News both reported in the last month that Biden is frustrated he can’t break through the bad economic vibes to convince the American people that, objectively, the economy is doing pretty well. Faced with competing priorities by different audiences in his party, in Congress, and among the public, the White House is struggling to find an enemy to pin that fault on without admitting that, just maybe, the president’s crowning economic accomplishment was partially responsible for worsening inflation.
Still, Democrats in Congress and the White House may not be going after two perfect villains hard enough: large corporations and billionaires, which progressive think tanks, economists, and activist groups say bear some of the responsibility for rising costs of living.
Starting with local demonstrations and continuing to organize throughout this year, an array of progressive groups are trying to shift the national conversation on inflation toward corporate giants — and some think that national Democrats should do more to cast “corporate greed” and price gouging by big businesses and Republican politicians as bigger culprits for still sky-high prices. They also argue that beyond turning the tide on Biden’s approval rating, focusing on a populist economic message can win back working-class voters in competitive House districts.
What progressive groups are doing — and what they want from Biden
Price gouging is a pretty self-explanatory concept: when a seller (a large corporation or business) takes advantage of a crisis, emergency, or disaster (in this case, high inflation) as cover to raise the price of a product to an unreasonable level. Left-leaning economists and think tanks argue that this practice is happening now, with corporations taking advantage of bottlenecks in the supply chain (like not enough truckers or overwhelmed ports), the Russia-Ukraine war (which raised the price of oil and natural gas), and high demand, in order to raise prices — not just to cover higher production costs but to make bigger profits — and pin it all on inflation.
“Firms are passing along their rising costs, but then they’re going for more. And that’s leading to really historic high profit margins,” Lindsay Owens, the executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive economic nonprofit, and a former senior economic policy adviser to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), told Vox. Owens listened in on earnings calls last year to understand how CEOs were thinking about supply chain disruptions and projected earnings, only to find positive outlooks for profits.
“The story of inflation in 2021 was really big markups, and markups that were coming in part because firms were using the cover of inflation to take big price increases to change the price level. As we moved into the first quarter of 2022, that trend has continued,” she said. Owens said the May CPI report makes more sense in the context of “corporate greed” because some oil and gas executives have scored higher profits while not increasing production to keep pace with demand — worsening the supply shortage.
By calling these practices “corporate greed,” activists hope to convince people that the current economic system may not be working for consumers who are stressed by inflation, but is delivering handsome returns to shareholders and business owners who may be making more money under the cover of inflation.
Some progressive groups are now ramping up efforts to amplify this message. Unrig Our Economy, a progressive campaign formed by local organizers in various states and started by the merger of two other progressive groups, Health Care Voter and Tax the Rich, began a summer campaign Friday to call attention to large corporations and their profit margins with a series of rallies in Arizona, California, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and Texas.
The “day of action” Unrig Our Economy and its local partners organized zeroed in on specific energy, food, and pharmaceutical companies that have presences in the cities they selected for protests, like Tyson Foods in Waterloo, Iowa, Eli Lilly in Indianapolis, Indiana, and Kellogg’s in Omaha, Nebraska. Speakers trained their ire on corporations they argue have taken advantage of the pandemic and inflation to raise prices — and politicians they accuse of having stymied efforts to regulate price gouging and profiteering.
Progressives in the Unrig coalition want to prove that “economic populism is a winning strategy … and this fight over inflation is like ground zero in many ways for achieving that,” Sarah Baron, the group’s campaign director, told Vox. With the nation’s attention being pulled among inflation, gun violence, the January 6 committee’s public hearings, and a Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade expected this summer, that strategy isn’t guaranteed to work.
Several of these demonstrations happened in or near competitive House districts held by Republicans, like Iowa’s First and Nebraska’s Second congressional districts, where activists argue large corporations have exploited communities’ reliance on jobs. The Unrig Our Economy arm that organized a demonstration in Bakersfield, California, for example, rallied outside the field office for Rep. David Valadao, one of this year’s most endangered incumbent Republicans, and linked his past roles on the Land O’ Lakes food company’s regional leadership council and the California Milk Advisory Board to his work in Congress to support the dairy industry, a major employer and industry in the fertile farmlands of California’s Central Valley.
Alice Walton, a spokesperson for Unrig Our Economy’s Central Valley arm, told Vox that though they are not coordinating with Rudy Salas, the Democratic candidate who will face Valadao in November, they see speaking about corporate greed as an easy way to rally working-class voters to support policies that progressives back.
“In a competitive race, there’s a much better opportunity for candidates to talk about what’s on the minds of voters. We’re out there talking about economic policies that we think are important to average Americans, and we are hopeful that it starts a greater conversation within the district,” she said.
Unrig members and a handful of members of Congress plan to bring that call for stricter regulation of prices in these markets to Capitol Hill in the near future, organizers told Vox. In Congress, progressive senators like Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Jeff Merkley have already trained their attention on corporate profits and antitrust regulations as key policy and political goals. As it is, the federal government is limited in what it can do: The Justice Department opened an investigation into “illicit gain” from companies through its antitrust division, and the House passed a bill to give the president the power to limit price hikes by oil companies, but most price gouging is regulated at the state level. Biden has urged the House to take up a vote on a bill to give federal agencies more power to regulate costs from ocean shipping companies, which have raised prices dramatically over the last year. Other kinds of legislation to regulate costs among big food and energy producers, however, don’t appear to have much momentum.
Will “corporate greed” stick?
There’s not a lot of unanimity among economists on just how much of a role price gouging and corporate greed plays in inflation. Progressives say it has a large role, if not necessarily the primary role, while more centrist economists, like Larry Summers and Jason Furman, two of President Barack Obama’s top economic advisers, have referred to blaming price gouging as “dangerous nonsense” and “political ranting.”
Even Biden’s own Treasury secretary is unwilling to pin the blame firmly on corporate profits. Owens argues that it can still be seen as “an accelerant, an amplifier of inflation, not as the root cause of inflation”— a part of the puzzle. But regardless of the wonkish debates over what is causing inflation, corporations are a popular punching bag: polling from Navigator and Data for Progress shows that Americans already assign some blame to big business for rising costs, and anecdotal evidence from grassroots groups backs this up.
With prices rising on everyday goods, average Americans “just see it happening, when you go to the store or fill up your gas tank. People get it, that it’s the companies who are deciding what the prices are. Our strategy here is we just need to help connect those dots a little bit, and remind people about what is actually happening,” Matt Sinovic, the executive director of the activist group Progress Iowa, which protested Tyson Foods, and Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson, in Waterloo on Friday, told Vox.
Biden and his White House team have already leaned into the message a bit. During last year’s holiday season, he pinned some of the blame on industries where a handful of corporations have consolidated the market, like meatpacking. But he’s renewed the effort this month with speeches and on social media. On Instagram, Biden is explaining the consolidation of ocean shipping. He’s calling out oil companies for not increasing production on Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show. And he’s picked fights with CEOs. Just Friday, Biden made headlines at the Port of Los Angeles by attacking Exxon Mobil, saying: “Exxon made more money than God this year … Why aren’t they drilling? Because they make more money not producing more oil.” Bharat Ramamurti, the deputy director of the National Economic Council, similarly made that argument to CNN this week.
An ExxonMobil spokesperson countered the president’s claims in a statement to Vox, saying they “have been in regular contact with the administration, informing them of our planned investments to increase production and expand refining capacity in the United States,” and specifying increased oil production in the southwest United States, additional investments in their infrastructure, and pandemic losses in 2020.
Progressives want more of this kind of offense — and Biden might have no other choice. A recent FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos tracking poll showed that more than half of Americans are worried first and foremost about inflation, and right now, Biden seems to be bearing the brunt of the blame in polling for rising costs, even if most of that rise is out of his control. His current economic plan is rooted in letting the Fed do its work, pushing Congress to pass new taxes on big businesses, and reducing the deficit. What he doesn’t have is a clear enemy to attack.
Even if Biden and Democrats can persuade voters to blame corporate greed for rising prices, the success might be limited if legislative and regulatory action doesn’t happen, and voters return to blaming Biden. Democrats have an immense challenge ahead to show Americans that the party in charge not only knows who is worsening the problems, but is doing something to fight it.
What happens if you clone Jurassic Park Jurassic World Dominion is the latest nostalgic reboot that will make a billion dollars, no matter what critics say. | 2022-06-11T13:51:04Z | www.vox.com | Should Democrats start pinning more inflation blame on corporations? - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23163167/democrats-biden-enemy-inflation-corporate-greed-price-gouging | https://www.vox.com/23163167/democrats-biden-enemy-inflation-corporate-greed-price-gouging |
I was fiercely independent, and didn’t have faith I could care for anyone else. But Antoinette always believed in me.
Dana Rodriguez for Vox
By Jay Deitcher Jun 12, 2022, 8:30am EDT
Share All sharing options for: The best $2,618 I ever spent: A second wedding ceremony
Four days after we walked down the aisle for the first time, my wife Antoinette and I cruised off on our honeymoon to Cozumel, Mexico. On our second night, we found ourselves sitting in a theater full of our fellow passengers as contestants on a knockoff version of the ’60s game show, The Newlywed Game.
The first question was easy — “Where was your first date?”— but they devolved quickly: Which in-law would you least like to be stuck on a deserted island with? Which movie best describes your love life? What is your husband’s most annoying habit?
We got every question correct, and every answer was filled with resentment. Our first date was a 1930s diner outing at Quintessence, a Cap City landmark. We both deemed our love life to be akin to Pee-wee’s Big Adventure, and my wife offered three things she despised about me: how I wiped my nose with my finger, my nail munching, and how I was overall a neurotic nebbish.
We were suffering from the fallout of the past year: everything leading to what would be our first wedding ceremony. I didn’t deal well with change, and a wedding changes everything. It changes your family structure, changes how to organize finances. I was fiercely independent, and I didn’t have faith I could care for anyone else. But Antoinette always believed in me, and, somehow, every time I struggled with moving forward in our relationship, and every time I struggled with moving forward in life, Antoinette pushed me, and together we got through.
“Fill in the blank,” the Drew Carey-looking cruise director said to me. “The ugliest thing about my wife is ____.”
“Her tones,” I said, straight-faced. The host froze up, devoid of one-liners. We won, obviously.
Antoinette and I met in April 2009, after the lead organizer of the mentoring program I volunteered for asked me to pick up the new mentor, a Brooklynite studying Africana studies and communications at SUNY Albany, speeding toward her bachelor’s in three years.
We cruised through the city in my blue Saturn as I fumbled over icebreakers: Where’re you from? What’re you studying?
Luckily for me, Antoinette was more skilled at the conversation thing. She dug through my CDs, pointing out that she also loved Maxwell and Amy Winehouse.
From then on, every week we drove around discussing race and religion and swapping book recommendations. I learned that, right before we met, Antoinette had left her ex-fiancé. To mark a new beginning, she pierced her nose and went in for the big chop, cutting off any chemically treated hair, and rocked an afro puff. I adored her positive energy, so when she mentioned she wanted to get her driver’s license, I volunteered my car for practice.
We spent afternoons circling parking lots and gently bumping cars while parallel parking. When she scored her license, I came up with more excuses to hang out. After six months of being friends, she dropped the bomb, asking me via text: “Do you like me?” My hands shaking, I typed “yes.”
I knew a life with Antoinette was what was best for me. I just feared it wasn’t best for her.
Soon, I introduced her to my small, close-knit Ashkenazi Jewish family, and she welcomed me into her large but distant Nigerian and Jamaican crew. I loved how close she was to her mom, how she planned to have an intergenerational household. She appreciated how I was best friends/nearly twins with my little sister, how my big sister and her husband set my #couplegoals. Together we cooked salt fish latkes.
When Antoinette and I met, I was 28 and three years sober. I had spent most of my early 20s dropping in and out of college, spending time behind the locked double doors of St. Peter’s Hospital detox unit, failing out of their rehab. In the first few years of my sobriety, I spent my days chilling on the stoop outside 12-step meetings on the corner of Lexington, working an entry-level respite position at a local social work agency.
I liked my life in early recovery. I liked the room I rented in a two-bedroom on Morris St. Liked making meetings whenever I wanted. Liked volunteering to make myself feel good. My life felt safe. But four years after we started dating, Antoinette was tired of my inertia. She wanted marriage, a house, and a family (with seven kids, she used to joke).
As terrified of change as I was, I feared losing her more. I stalled for another year, but I finally popped the question over a bucket of seafood in a booth at our favorite Times Square eatery, Bubba Gump’s.
Then I talked her into delaying the ceremony another year.
I knew I loved and adored her, but I didn’t have faith in myself. I had never envisioned a future for me that involved anything more than hitting up meetings and remaining stagnant at the same social work agency. Starting a family felt unfathomable. During my hazy years, I stopped attempting to get sober because I figured I would just relapse. Once sober, I wouldn’t push myself to take any additional risks — whether it be a better job or a marriage — expecting that I’d mess everything up. Proposing was terrifying, but, beneath my distress, I knew a life with Antoinette was what was best for me. I just feared it wasn’t best for her.
I remember reading a study that said the more you spend on your wedding, the more likely it will end in divorce. Every time Antoinette brought up ideas for venues, my mind spiraled. Neither of us made tons of money and neither was great at saving. To me, spending excessively on a wedding made no sense, but to Antoinette, money could always be made and was to be enjoyed. The tradition meant a lot to her so she wanted the perfect wedding ceremony, but, in truth, it probably meant more to me. A wedding made things absolute. I would either succeed at being a good partner forever or destroy her life. The more we spent, the more I felt the pressure mounting. Still, I pushed myself to brave forward with whatever Antoinette wished for.
To afford the wedding, I focused on our day-to-day bills — rent, car insurance, internet, groceries — while Antoinette saved for the ceremony. We quickly put a deposit down on the fourth floor of the New York State Museum, claiming Antoinette’s dream location. The setting included a sick view of the Empire State Plaza and Capitol building. It was the perfect Albany landmark for a romance that bloomed across its streets.
The wedding was scheduled for a Sunday because we kinda-sorta kept Shabbat, and I used the odd day as leverage to haggle down prices. We locked in Mallozzi’s, one of the capital’s ritziest caterers, as well as DJ Trumastr, Albany’s hottest DJ, who prepped a setlist consisting of Paul Simon, Lynxxx, and Beres Hammond, representing our diverse backgrounds. The affair came out to $26,112.86.
To be clear, we didn’t pay it all ourselves. Her dad handled the photographer and the balance for the venue, and her mom took care of the honeymoon and wedding dress, and she financed transportation for nearly her entire extended family (after the wedding, my parents gifted us a $10,000 check, to start our life together — that promptly went toward debt). The more our family invested in our stock, the more I panicked it would all go belly up.
Four months before our scheduled wedding date, my fears of failure turned catastrophic as my family fell into disarray.
Just weeks before my youngest sister’s wedding — which I already struggled with because it felt like our relationship was changing — my brother-in-law walked out on my older sister. He had been my role model, my biggest male influence. He gave me my first beer, taught me all his comedy routines. I told myself that if my big sister’s marriage went sour, my relationship with Antoinette would, too.
We posed for pictures, smiling before the carousel, but the emotions were staged
I was unable to send the wedding invites. Every time I postponed, Antoinette grew more frustrated, to the point where we were sleeping in separate rooms. I broke up with her, three times, assuring myself she’d be better off without me, but she continued to talk me into staying. Two months before the ceremony, I dropped the invites into the mailbox, but the stabbing thoughts intensified. I had dreams of her happy with someone else, starting a family with a guy who wasn’t as mentally ill as I was. I had nightmares of us getting married, having kids, then me turning into my brother-in-law, leaving the family I loved to suffer the repercussions. A week before the ceremony, I broke up with her for the final time, promising myself I wouldn’t budge.
Tears dampening her face, Antoinette smooshed her cheek into mine and whispered, “Just be with me for one day. Not all the future. Just a day.”
At that moment, I decided to stay. To give it my best shot, just for that day. I tried to tell myself that I wasn’t my family, that I wasn’t the person I used to be. I decided I didn’t like myself at that moment, but I wanted to get better. I wanted to be the best person I could be, and the best person I could be was beside Antoinette, supporting her and celebrating her and growing with her.
The day of the wedding, Antoinette half-expected I wouldn’t show. Even though we did the I-dos, she despised me for what I put her through, and I was frustrated with her for not having empathy during my crash. We threw the greatest party most of our guests had ever been to — impressing even my Nigerian ambassador father-in-law — but every kiss was strained. We posed for pictures, smiling before the carousel, but the emotions were staged. When we cruised off on our Newlywed Game-knockoff honeymoon, we were barely speaking.
In the months that followed, we dedicated ourselves to couples therapy, determined to make our relationship work. We both realized that we struggled with communicating: Antoinette often shut down, while I turned overly emotional. We had to learn new ways to speak to each other. We focused on each other’s strengths, recognizing that we each brought something special to the table that the other lacked. I took responsibility for spiraling out of control, nearly ruining our wedding, and she worked to be empathetic to my anxiety. I realized how desperately I wanted her to attain her every dream and how blessed I was that she chose me to be her partner in achieving them; she believed in me, and I began to believe in me, too.
We weren’t trying to show off — we just wanted to feed friends and family yummy food and spin in circles of joy
For over a year, Antoinette had been meeting with our rabbi, taking classes, attending shul, moving toward converting to Judaism. We had always planned to have a second, intimate religious wedding after she formally converted. And so six months after the first wedding, my wife dunked herself into the mikvah, a ritual bath, completing the process, and we held a small ceremony in our Albany temple, costing $2,618: enough to rent the social hall, hire a klezmer band, contract a videographer, borrow a chuppah, and buy a crap ton of lox, bagels, and kugel.
The first wedding, we were trying to impress people, but this second wedding, we weren’t trying to show off — we just wanted to feed friends and family yummy food and spin in circles of joy. We didn’t even send invites. Instead, we handed out flyers and plastered them online, keeping the ceremony open to anyone who wanted to join.
I took pride in planning and paying for the second ceremony myself. Though the event was much cheaper, I didn’t settle for anything. The food was on point. So were our outfits. It felt like victory that every dollar spent was my own — I was investing in our future.
Under the chuppah, I crunched the glass and we jumped the broom. When we leaped, we did it together. The community lifted us aloft in chairs, and, as we floated above the crowd, each grasping the napkin connecting us, I realized I could do it. I could handle life’s changes. I could grow. My wife had been with me when I was at my lowest. I knew I’d do the same for her. We’d survived one of our toughest hurdles, and I had faith we could get through more. I was ready. Ready to create a home, ready to start a family, with faith, with Antoinette.
The best money I ever spent | 2022-06-12T15:50:55Z | www.vox.com | The best $2,618 I ever spent: A second wedding ceremony - Vox | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23020665/best-money-second-wedding-destroyed-first-ceremony | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23020665/best-money-second-wedding-destroyed-first-ceremony |
Looking for a new job doesn’t have to be just another exhausting to-do list item.
Share All sharing options for: Finding a new job is possible — even when you’re burned out
It’s an ironic Catch-22: Your job is sapping your energy to the point where you can’t muster the strength to look for a new one. So what are you supposed to do?
One of the most considerable issues with modern work is pervasive burnout. According to Michael Leiter, co-author of the upcoming book The Burnout Challenge: Managing People’s Relationships With Their Jobs, the core aspects of burnout are feeling exhausted, cynical, and discouraged. Last year, 71 percent of workers reported experiencing work-related stress, according to the American Psychological Association’s 2021 Work and Well-being Survey. Three in five employees said they experienced negative impacts at work from stress; the top impacts reported were lack of interest, motivation, or energy; difficulty focusing; and lack of effort at work — all symptoms of burnout.
Workplace burnout isn’t a byproduct of the pandemic; this specific breed of exhaustion predates it. The term first became popularized in the 1970s to describe the exhaustion human services workers experienced. Over the ensuing decades, burnout has been shown to exist in nearly every profession, was classified as an occupational phenomenon by the World Health Organization, and was famously named a hallmark of the millennial generation.
If your job is contributing — or is the sole contributor — to your burnout, you may feel pulled to search for greener pastures. But when you’re burned out, completing even the smallest of tasks, let alone a massive undertaking like a job search, can be daunting. “Looking for jobs is one of the hardest jobs there is,” Leiter says. “You’ve got to figure out how you’re going to put your energy together for that.” There are steps you can take to preserve your energy and look for your next role regardless of industry.
Get to the root of your burnout
Before jumping onto job boards, first determine what’s causing your burnout, says workplace well-being expert Jennifer Moss, author of The Burnout Epidemic: The Rise of Chronic Stress and How We Can Fix It. When you narrow in on why you’re so stressed, you can avoid entering another workplace culture that perpetuates the same issues. Is your workload too overwhelming, or so light you’re feeling bored and unfulfilled? Do you feel lonely and alienated from your colleagues? Are you being overlooked for promotions and raises? These topics are worth discussing with your current manager, Moss says, and can be addressed by fixes like limiting meetings, triaging important tasks, reconnecting with colleagues, having more control over your schedule, and fostering more communication with your manager (however, this will only be successful if your manager meets you halfway). Ideally, your boss will be receptive to your concerns and you won’t need to leave your job. “What are you looking for?” Moss says. “Because it isn’t going to be easy starting a brand new job, especially if you’re burned out.”
Of course, if the workplace is truly toxic, you should feel empowered to quit. An MIT Sloan Management Review analysis of Glassdoor reviews found the top five descriptors of toxic workplaces were “disrespectful,” “non-inclusive,” “unethical,” “cutthroat,” and “abusive.” Women, LGBTQ people, and people of color face systemic and structural issues in workplaces that further contribute to burnout. While quitting an unhealthy job without another offer is a privilege not everyone has, if your mental health is being seriously impacted, “we always have the option to leave,” Moss says.
Do some soul-searching
If you’ve decided to find a new job, it’s helpful to determine what an ideal next position looks like for you in order to avoid getting overwhelmed by the deluge of job listings. To help workers envision their ideal working conditions, Leiter recommends reflecting on your current (or most recent, if you’re unemployed) workday for a week or so, making mental notes of the moments where you felt happy and fulfilled: What were you doing? Who were you working with? Who weren’t you working with?
Then, Leiter says, think about the situations where you disliked the job: What were the most tedious moments? What overwhelmed you the most? What was the worst part of the day? What projects or situations gave you the Sunday scaries? “It could be just as simple as, ‘This job requires a lot of travel that takes me away from my family and I hate that,’” Leiter says. ”It could be, ‘People interrupt me all day. I hate it when people interrupt me.’”
Instead of looking for narrow skills or specifications in job listings, identify roles and companies that align with your values and well-being, Moss says. All of the factors initially contributing to your burnout can help guide you. For instance, if you’re burned out by isolation, you might want to look for a workplace with a hybrid approach so you can interact with colleagues face-to-face a few days a week. Or if your concern is with workload, perhaps a scrappy startup with a small team won’t be the best fit. “A lot of it is looking for mental health goals and priorities versus some of the other compensation factors that we might have looked for before,” Moss says.
Break down the job search
The job search process can be long and arduous. Updating your resume, scouring job listings, writing cover letters, scheduling informational interviews, going on actual interviews, completing skills assessments, and then waiting patiently for updates is a lot even for people who aren’t burned out.
“Looking for jobs is one of the hardest jobs there is”
Don’t be demoralized by the path to employment and instead break down the process into bite-size milestones: Give yourself 30-, 60-, and 90-day goals, says Minda Harts, workplace equity consultant and author of The Memo: What Women of Color Need to Know to Secure a Seat at the Table. During the first 30 days of your search, consider your values and what you’d like your next role to look like. Another 30-day goal is to work on your resume, Harts says, whether you’re devoting a few hours a week to sprucing it up (college and university career centers often have free resume writing resources online) or hiring a resume writer, if you can afford one. Sixty-day goals can include reaching out to folks who work in interesting positions or companies for short informational interviews. By 90 days, you should be applying for jobs. “I’m breaking it down, but I don’t feel overwhelmed,” Harts says. “I’m still able to heal during this process and get healthier because you want to be healthy while you’re job-seeking.”
While you’re taking on the extra burden of looking for a new job, you’re going to need to outsource some other tasks to create mental space. Harts suggests asking a partner or loved one if they can pick up the kids from day care a few times a week or take on extra chores around the house. You can also work with a career coach who can make the ordeal feel less overwhelming and isolating. Again, working with an expert will come with a price tag — anywhere from $100 to $150 per session — which not everyone can afford, but if you go that route, look for people with personality types you work well with and coaches with expertise in the field or industry where you’re looking to find a job.
Moss also recommends pairing applying for jobs with a pleasurable activity, like sipping a comforting cup of tea while firing off resumes. “You’re taking a moment to do something that engages those pleasure centers of your brain and then you’re doing something that feels like it’s productive,” she says. Don’t apply for jobs during work hours or on a company-issued laptop or phone, Moss continues, and don’t let applying eat too much into your personal time, either — just keep it to contained moments of the duration of your warm beverage or the time it takes the sun to set.
Make the most of the interview
Under ordinary circumstances, it’s crucial to come to the table prepared with questions for your interviewer — it’s your chance to figure out if the role and the company are a good fit, after all. When you’re dealing with burnout, it’s even more important to use the Q&A portion to ask pointed questions about culture. Without mentioning burnout outright, you can ask about office self-care practices, paid time off, flexible scheduling, and remote work. “You can get down to the question without actually coming out and saying, ‘Hey, are your employees experiencing burnout?’” Harts says. “You can position the burnout conversation around wellness.”
If your boss contributed to your burnout, you can ask about management style or team dynamics, Harts says. If the job listing mentioned flexible scheduling, ask what such flexibility looks like in practice. “Because maybe my last company’s flexibility was working five days a week in the office instead of seven,” Harts says, “so that’s not very flexible.” Moss recommends other sneaky questions worth asking to get to the root of burnout culture: “What are the company’s mental health benefits?” “How does the company build supportive working relationships?” “Tell me about the company’s employee resource groups.” “How are goals met? Are there individual or shared goals?” (Individual goals are more likely to lead to burnout, Moss says.)
Manage rejection
Rejection is, unfortunately, a requisite part of job searching. When you’re burned out and already contending with a defeatist attitude, rolling with the punches is much more difficult. Acknowledge the feelings of hurt and disappointment, Harts says. “Sometimes it’s easy for us to sweep them under the rug or we dwell on them too much,” she says, “which could create forms of impostor syndrome where we’re starting to gaslight ourselves about the situation.”
Then, acknowledge your limited control in the interview process and focus on the areas within your power, like which jobs you apply for and how prepared you are for each interview. “I can’t control if this company hires me or calls me back,” Harts says. “We have to remind ourselves, What part of this equation can I control? and I’m going to lean into that. I’m not going to allow myself to overwhelm myself additionally, or gaslight myself additionally by wondering if I’m good enough.”
Don’t bring burnout into your next role
Once you’ve landed a position, the last thing you want to do is bring burnout into your new job. Experts agree taking time off to recharge, log off, and rest is the best way to heal from burnout, so if you can afford to take a couple of weeks to invest in rest, you should. But many workers don’t have the option to forgo work for an extended period. In the absence of a transitory break, Leiter suggests partaking in a reenergizing activity — meditating, reading, spending time with friends — and reflecting on what excites you about work in the first place.
Harts also recommends having a conversation with your future manager to set boundaries, whether that’s determining how many days you’re able to come into the office, hours and days a week you’re able to work, flexibility when it comes to scheduling, or the after-hours email and chat expectations.
The goal, Moss says, is to prioritize yourself instead of your work. The best-laid plan for plotting a job change while burned out is one with your needs and values at the center, orchestrated in small, but meaningful, steps.
“After two years of facing our own mortality, our identity with work has really changed and our priorities have changed,” Moss says. “How important is work? Is it worth my health? Is it worth my happiness? If the answer is no, you want to think clearly about what the plan is to make that more of a priority.” | 2022-06-13T18:55:16Z | www.vox.com | How to find a new job when you’re burned out - Vox | https://www.vox.com/even-better/23144773/new-job-burnout-resumes-applications | https://www.vox.com/even-better/23144773/new-job-burnout-resumes-applications |
Including how an “apparently inebriated” Rudy Giuliani encouraged Trump to falsely claim he won the election.
Share All sharing options for: 4 things we learned from Monday’s January 6 hearing
Rudy Giuliani addresses a press conference
Photo By Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc
Any reasonable observer already knows Trump lost the 2020 election, and that his claims of election fraud were tenuous at best. However, Monday’s January 6 committee hearing reinforced just how clear all of these facts were, or should have been, to Trump and his inner circle in the days, weeks, and months after Election Day.
The day’s testimony lacked one key witness: Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien pulled out of the hearing after his wife went into labor. Despite that, the committee, with Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) taking the lead on questions, was able to lay out a clear timeline of Trump’s decision to reject the election results and how top aides repeatedly debunked various claims of fraud.
Here are four takeaways from the second hearing of the select committee investigating the circumstances around the January 6 attack on the Capitol:
An “apparently intoxicated” Rudy Giuliani wanted Trump to prematurely declare victory
Rudy Giuliani was both a key player and the comic relief in Monday’s proceedings. The committee laid out not only his role in jumpstarting what Democrats call “the Big Lie” in urging Trump to prematurely declare victory on election night, but also revealed his sozzled state at the time.
Although the hearing was generally somber, the committee chuckled at vice chair Rep. Liz Cheney’s (R-WY) characterization of Rudy Giuliani as “apparently intoxicated” on the night of the 2020 election. Although the former New York mayor’s bibulousness is well documented, the committee sought to establish that he was not only the sole person in Trump’s inner circle that night urging him to declare premature victory, but that he did so in a “tired and emotional” state.
As top Trump aide Jason Miller (who served on Giuliani’s 2008 presidential campaign) testified in a deposition, “the mayor was definitely intoxicated.” While all of Trump’s other aides told him to be cautious — in a video deposition, Stepien said he’d suggested that Trump say that “it’s too early to call but we are proud of the race we’ve ran” — members of Trump’s team told the committee that Giuliani urged the former president to give the late-night speech in which Trump famously said, “frankly we did win this election.”
Afterward, committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) told reporters, said Giuliani’s sobriety “didn’t make much difference” from his perspective, but that “it does further erode whatever credibility you might have placed in his judgment.”
There were two competing factions in Trump’s inner circle and “Team Normal” lost
Stepien described Trumpworld as being divided after the election was called, between “Team Normal” — those who accepted the result of the election — versus those aligned with Giuliani’s efforts to overturn the election.
In a video deposition, Stepien, a longtime aide to former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, said he was in the former camp, because “I didn’t think what was happening was necessarily honest or professional.” Eric Herschmann, a Trump White House lawyer who defended the former president on the Senate floor during the first impeachment and another member of “Team Normal,” bluntly told the committee during his interview, “What they were proposing, I thought was nuts.”
He added, “I mean, it was a combination of Italians, Germans, I mean, different things floating around as to who was involved. Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelans … something with the Philippines, just all over the radar.”
“Team Normal” lost. Stepien said he essentially “stepped away” from the campaign as conspiracy theories multiplied, and that Giuliani became the de facto campaign manager. The campaign’s outside lawyers also steadily “disengaged.” As Matt Morgan, the Trump campaign’s general counsel, put it, “law firms were not comfortable making the arguments that Rudy Giuliani was making publicly.” The result left Trump with a shrunken legal team consisting of figures like Giuliani and Sidney Powell who were willing to embrace his unfounded and fringe claims about the election.
Alex Cannon, a Trump campaign lawyer who testified in a video deposition, spoke about the backlash those who punctured Giuliani’s conspiracy theories faced. He said when he told Giuliani ally Peter Navarro that there was no evidence of fraud, he was promptly accused of being “an agent of the deep state.”
The committee’s evidence seemed to suggest that, over time, Trump’s circle was increasingly dominated by those who told him what he wanted to hear, rather than what was happening. This contributed to the situation former Attorney General William Barr described in his deposition: A lame-duck president “detached from reality.”
As time went on, Trump became “detached from reality”
Barr, along with other administration officials, described playing “whack-a-mole” with Trump’s false claims of fraud.
Every time one false claim was dispelled, they said, the former president would bring up another. Aides repeatedly intervened to tell Trump that he had lost the election, and described taking each claim seriously, investigating it until they had the facts and reporting back to Trump. Former acting Attorney General Richard Donoghue described one meeting during which Trump seemed to accept the gathered evidence, but for each conspiracy theory aides were able to explain away, he had another he’d latch onto.
Barr described one popular conspiracy theory around the 2020 election, that it’d been rigged by voting machine malfeasance, as “idiotic.” Other Justice Department officials testified that they repeatedly insisted to Trump that other conspiracy theories around the election were simply “not true,” including viral claims of ballot box stuffing in Georgia promoted by Giuliani or Trump’s false claims of “big massive dumps” of illegal votes.
Essentially, the committee suggested, Trump knew or should have known that his lies about the election were just that — falsehoods, or as Barr put it, “bullshit.” But he repeated them anyway, which helped lead to the violence on January 6.
Trump raised a lot of money by lying
The committee closed the hearing by chronicling how the Trump campaign raised $250 million from the false claims of election fraud, sending out a relentless stream of emails to supporters. Its last fundraising email on that topic, the committee said, was sent only a half-hour before the Capitol was breached.
The emails often touted an “election defense fund.” However, there was no such thing. The money went to Trump’s Save America PAC, which spun off million-dollar payments to two other groups with connections to Trump allies and spent over $200,000 at Trump-owned hotels. As Trump digital director Gary Coby testified to the committee in a deposition, “it was just a marketing tactic.”
Rep. Lofgren used this to characterize the Trump effort to overturn the election as not just “a big lie,” but as a “big rip-off as well.” Trump, the committee argues, not only endangered democracy with his lies, but used his lies to bolster his political future, and to enrich himself and his allies while doing so. | 2022-06-13T20:50:24Z | www.vox.com | 4 things we learned from Monday’s January 6 hearing - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/13/23166193/congress-house-committee-trump-capitol-giuliani-january-6-hearing | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/13/23166193/congress-house-committee-trump-capitol-giuliani-january-6-hearing |
Share All sharing options for: Evictions are life-altering — and preventable
Signage lays on the ground during a protest outside the Santa Clara County Courthouse in San Jose, California, to halt eviction proceedings in January 2021.
Gabrielle Lurie/The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images
While federal funds certainly enabled Philadelphia and Chicago to run more successful diversion programs (landlords are much more likely to agree to an eviction alternative if there is money available to pay them rent) local leaders say they don’t plan to abandon their diversion efforts even if ERAP dollars dry up. “As our resources have diminished, we’ve tried to be a little more intentional ... and do a little more targeting,” said Thomas, of the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation. | 2022-06-14T12:04:03Z | www.vox.com | Evictions are life-altering — and preventable - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23140987/evictions-housing-rent-assistance-erap-tenant | https://www.vox.com/23140987/evictions-housing-rent-assistance-erap-tenant |
Once again, Donald Trump’s hold on the Republican Party was on the ballot. It still seems pretty strong.
By Li Zhou and Christian Paz Jun 15, 2022, 1:58am EDT
Share All sharing options for: 4 winners and 2 losers from the Maine, Nevada, North Dakota, and South Carolina primaries
South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace at a campaign event
Allison Joyce / Getty Images
Four sets of primary elections Tuesday night confirmed the salience of former President Donald Trump’s endorsement, and were a reminder of the challenges Democrats could have in motivating their base to defend incumbents in November.
Nevada was the center of much of the political action Tuesday night, with heated Republican primaries unfolding for the US Senate, governor, and secretary of state seats. President Joe Biden won the state by a much narrower margin than expected in 2020 — and Republicans are hoping political tailwinds boost their efforts to take over all four of the state’s top offices.
Elsewhere, the power of former President Donald Trump’s endorsement shone through Republican primary competitions, with the former president’s picks sweeping the field in Nevada and North Dakota, and upsetting the standing of incumbents in South Carolina.
Those primaries, as well as ones in Maine (and a Texas special election) happened Tuesday night. Here are four winners and two losers from them.
Winner: Trump’s election lies
Election deniers won big in Nevada: Three candidates who’ll challenge Democrats in the fall ran at least in part on the lie that Donald Trump won the 2020 election.
In the race to take on incumbent Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, Adam Laxalt — the well-known, anti-abortion, pro-Trump former attorney general — cleared the field. He was Trump’s 2020 Nevada campaign co-chair, and has been an outspoken advocate for the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. Earlier this year, he declared he “sounded every alarm imaginable” after the 2020 election that it had been stolen.
Nevada GOP Senate candidate Adam Laxalt campaigns in a Logandale, Nevada restaurant on June 11.
An election denier also defeated an old establishment favorite in the Republican primary for Nevada governor. Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo will face incumbent Democratic governor Steve Sisolak, who actually beat Laxalt in a close race in 2018. Lombardo bested former Sen. Dean Heller, North Las Vegas Mayor John Lee, and outsider Joey Gilbert. Lombardo has also questioned Biden’s win — and hasn’t been shy about making election integrity part of his pitch to voters.
And another, more fervent, election truther won the primary for Nevada secretary of state. Jim Marchant, a former state assembly member, has made falsehoods about the 2020 election a central part of his campaign. “Your vote hasn’t counted for decades … you haven’t elected anybody. The people that are in office have been selected. You haven’t had a choice,” he told a crowd in February, according to a local Fox affiliate.
Marchant could throw the state’s administration of election into chaos fueled by conspiracy theories: He’s said he would not have certified Biden’s win two years ago, and has argued that the state should get rid of voting machines and return to hand counts.
It’s unclear how successful candidates this radical might be in a general election. The state has trended toward Democrats in the last few elections, but if Republicans gain momentum this fall — something they believe is possible due to Biden’s low approval ratings and general frustration with inflation — even weak candidates could do well. But for now, Trump can once again tout some big endorsement wins.
Winner: Donald Trump
Candidates with Trump endorsements have generally done well in their primaries thus far, but he had more of a mixed bag this week, with a pretty big victory in South Carolina as well as a notable loss.
While Russell Fry — a South Carolina state representative who earned Trump’s endorsement — was able to oust incumbent Rep. Tom Rice, former state lawmaker Katie Arrington was unable to do the same with incumbent Rep. Nancy Mace. Rice raised the president’s ire after voting to impeach him, while Mace did so after criticizing his false claims of election fraud. Although Rice lost his primary by double digits on Tuesday, Mace was able to eke out a win, underscoring the limitations of Trump’s endorsement.
Rep. Tom Rice speaks during a March 2022 House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee meeting.
Still Mace had to show she wasn’t overtly hostile to Trump in order to win. She took pains to remind voters of her early support for the former president, and didn’t offer any new critiques of him while on the trail. A Trump endorsement might not have been needed to win SC-01’s primary, but it seemed Mace’s campaign didn’t think bashing him would help either.
Trump scored some victories elsewhere as well. In Nevada, his pick for the US Senate race, Adam Laxalt held off a challenge from military veteran Sam Brown who’d won the endorsement of the state’s Republican party, in part by proving he was the Trumpier candidate. Trump’s gubernatorial candidate, Joe Lombardo, also came out ahead. And his choice for secretary of state, former state Assemblymember Jim Marchant, took the endorsement to the bank.
In North Dakota, incumbent Sen. John Hoeven won both the state party’s endorsement, and Trump’s backing. He easily trounced a conservative activist, and is a shoo-in for a general election victory. He’s also among the candidates Trump endorsed who was already widely expected to win.
—Li Zhou and CP
Winner: Nikki Haley
Mace’s victory on Tuesday was also a victory for former South Carolina governor and Trump’s one-time UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Haley invested big in the Republican primary for South Carolina’s 1st District. She not only backed Mace, but filmed a television ad, headlined a fundraiser, and campaigned alongside her. The primary ultimately pitted Haley against Trump, her former boss, who opposed Mace given her criticism of him after the January 6 insurrection.
“She’s nasty, disloyal, and bad for the Republican Party,” Trump previously said about Mace. Last year, Mace said that she wanted to be a “new voice for the Republican Party,” though she stopped short of voting to impeach Trump or supporting an independent commission to look into the riot.
Since then, however, Mace has sought to tie herself more closely to Trump, going so far as to film a video in front of Trump Tower meant to emphasize that she was one of his earliest supporters.
I’m standing in front of Trump Tower with a message this morning…#SC01 #LowcountryFirst pic.twitter.com/CpmMYA63qt
— Nancy Mace (@NancyMace) February 10, 2022
Despite these efforts, Trump endorsed Arrington, who previously ran for Mace’s seat and lost against former Democratic Rep. Joe Cunningham. Mace has emphasized that the district is a battleground that’s less conservative than some other areas in the state, noting that she’s the only one of the two who’s won there.
While Trump may have abandoned her, multiple Republican leaders in the state stood by Mace. In addition to Haley, Mace was also endorsed by former Trump OMB director Mick Mulvaney. Haley’s involvement in this race also could portend a more direct face-off in 2024: She’s seen as a potential contender for the Republican presidential nomination who could well take on Trump.
Loser: Republican grassroots candidates
In both Maine and Nevada, Republican candidates who tried harnessing grassroots energy to mount an upset against entrenched rivals ended up falling short.
In Maine’s second congressional district, small business owner Liz Caruso lost to former House Rep. Bruce Poliquin after branding herself the “America First” candidate and the person most willing to challenge the status quo. Similarly, in the Nevada Senate primary, military veteran Sam Brown lost to former Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, despite emphasizing his “outsider” status and racking up some strong fundraising numbers.
Liz Caruso speaks at the 2022 Maine GOP convention.
In both cases, Caruso and Brown went up against candidates with backing from national Republicans: Poliquin is supported by GOP groups like the Congressional Leadership Fund, while Laxalt has been endorsed by several Republican senators and Trump. That backing — not to mention voters’ familiarity with Poliquin and Laxalt — proved difficult to overcome.
Winner: Texas Republicans
Texas Republicans notched a symbolic — but short-lived — victory in a special House election on Tuesday triggered by Democratic Rep. Filemon Vela’s retirement. In the contest for Texas’s 34th district, health care worker Mayra Flores beat out the Democratic candidate, former Cameron County Commissioner Dan Sanchez, and avoided a runoff by winning more than 50 percent of the vote.
Flores’s win is significant because the district is a longstanding Democratic one that Republicans targeted aggressively in this special election after multiple South Texas counties flipped for the GOP in 2020. These efforts, it seems, appear to have paid off — though Republicans likely benefited from low turnout in the special election as well.
Notably, however, the seat is set to flip back to Democrats soon. Flores will only serve in this role until January, when whoever wins the fall election will be sworn in. Because of redistricting, that person is likely to be a Democrat. Between now and November, the 34th will go from a moderate district to a solidly blue one. (While Biden won the current version of the district by just four percentage points, he won the new version by 16 percentage points.)
Still, Flores’ win allows Republicans to point to the momentum they’ve picked up in South Texas and in this year’s elections overall. It also speaks to GOP efforts to make inroads with Latino voters in the area, some of whom shifted right in 2020.
Loser: Progressive challengers
Nevada’s first congressional district saw what seemed to be a heated primary contest between a more moderate incumbent Democrat and a progressive, Bernie Sanders-backed challenger fizzle out. In the end, the sitting member of Congress, Rep. Dina Titus secured a a knock-out win.
A member of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, Titus has held the seat, which includes most of Las Vegas and parts of North Las Vegas, since 2013. Republicans have trained their attention on it as a prime opportunity to gain a seat in the fall. But on primary night, Titus led Amy Vilela, a former co-chair for Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign, by nearly 70 points.
In South Carolina, meanwhile, the establishment favorite, former US Rep. Joe Cunningham, beat back an upstart bid from a slightly more progressive state senator, Mia McLeod. He led by nearly 30 points on primary night.
Cunningham was lauded in DC Democratic circles for flipping a Republican seat in 2018, before losing to Nancy Mace in 2020. Though McLeod accused Cunningham of being a “Republican-lite” Democrat, the race boiled down to name recognition and electability.
It’ll be an uphill battle for any candidate trying to unseat incumbent South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster. Cunningham argues that his past win in the state suggests he has a proven ability of bringing both Democratic and crossover Republican voters together, however.
“We’ve got to energize the base and get Democrats out, but we also have to pull people over. And I’ve already been successful in getting those folks into the tent,” he said in a recent Washington Post interview.
Currently, Cunningham’s platform includes expanding Medicaid, raising teacher pay and defending abortion rights. His bid is still very much a long shot, though. Since 2003, South Carolina’s governor has been a Republican and conservatives have come out ahead in statewide races in recent years.
—CP and LZ | 2022-06-15T06:18:48Z | www.vox.com | Nevada, Maine, North Dakota, and South Carolina primaries: 4 winners and 2 losers - Vox | https://www.vox.com/23168730/winners-losers-june-14-primaries-maine-nevada-north-dakota-south-carolina | https://www.vox.com/23168730/winners-losers-june-14-primaries-maine-nevada-north-dakota-south-carolina |
He built a business on talk. Next up: Figuring out video.
Share All sharing options for: Podcast pioneer Bill Simmons on how to stay relevant
Bill Simmons at the Vanity Fair New Establishment conference in 2015.
Mike Windle/Getty Images for Vanity Fair
But it’s not a one-to-one with audience, right? Big Bang Theory when it was on was the biggest thing on TV and no one ever talked about it. You guys, I don’t think, devoted any time to it. Yellowstone is a huge show ...
It’s funny, I completely disagree. I think Netflix has so few water cooler hits at this point, for them to be able to stretch one out for eight weeks ... like just look at the difference with Succession. Look at a show like [HBO’s] Winning Time. I think if Winning Time was a Netflix show and they just dropped it all at once, I think that show dies. I think people would watch one episode or two and that would have been it. But because it was on every week, I know people in my life who just gave it a second chance or third chance, whatever. Stranger Things — to me it’s like, can you own the narrative? | 2022-06-15T12:34:22Z | www.vox.com | Podcast pioneer Bill Simmons on how to stay relevant - Vox | https://www.vox.com/recode/23167942/bill-simmons-podcast-spotify-interview-peter-kafka | https://www.vox.com/recode/23167942/bill-simmons-podcast-spotify-interview-peter-kafka |
A collaboration centering Black voices and exploring the importance and impact of Juneteenth
By Vox Communications Jun 15, 2022, 10:56am EDT
Share All sharing options for: Vox and Capital B announce partnership for a new editorial initiative examining Juneteenth
“Capital B and Vox are aligned in our missions to provide context about the issues that matter most to our audiences, and it made perfect sense to come together for a Juneteenth partnership. Joining our respective editorial strengths to add a unique depth and purpose to this coverage,” said Lauren Williams, CEO, and co-founder of Capital B.
“Exploring the big questions and providing clarity to the public is the central mission of Vox,” said Swati Sharma, editor-in-chief of Vox. “There is no better partner than Capital B, with their parallel commitment to serving the audience and to meditate on the significance, history, and importance of Juneteenth.”
Contributors to this package include Sean Collins on how Juneteenth isn’t just a celebration of freedom, but a monument to America’s failures; Julia Craven on how Juneteenth merch is American consumerism at its most crass; Jewel Wicker on how three Black women couldn’t find a place where their families felt safe, so they bought a town; Fabiola Cineas on how there’s no freedom without reparations; Ian Millhiser on how democracy in America is a rigged game; and Kenya Hunter on the Juneteenth flag, explained.
The artwork accompanying these pieces is created by Detroit-based artist and illustrator KaCeyKal! who uses vivid colors, unique shapes, and abstract bodies to tell a story through print and painting. | 2022-06-15T17:28:38Z | www.vox.com | Vox and Capital B announce partnership for a new editorial initiative examining Juneteenth - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/15/23169495/vox-and-capital-b-announce-partnership-for-a-new-editorial-initiative-examining-juneteenth | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/15/23169495/vox-and-capital-b-announce-partnership-for-a-new-editorial-initiative-examining-juneteenth |
One of the world’s most powerful religions is now an alt status symbol
Share All sharing options for: How Catholicism became a meme
Do you, though?
@ineedgodineverymomentofmylife/Instagram
When was the first time you realized Catholicism was … different? For me it was during my friend’s confirmation at a Lutheran church, filled with tall, stoic Scandinavians in a handsome but mostly featureless room. Protestants, it seemed, were allergic to the type of excess and drama that defined Christianity until Martin Luther wrote his 95 Theses, their services far more grounded in humility. This particular church had a female reverend, and it championed the liberal ideologies that were espoused in much of suburban Vermont: gay people and women deserve rights, divorce is fine, help thy neighbor. Their communion was actual bread rather than the flavorless circular wafers I was given at Mass. It was, from what I could gather as a Catholic teenager who did not spend very much time thinking about God, a cool church.
Belonging to a “cool church,” however, is no longer the status symbol it might have been a few years ago. A-listers like Justin Bieber, Chris Pratt, and the Kardashians have touted their affiliations with Protestant megachurches like Hillsong, Zoe, and Churchome that preach an Instagram-ready approach to traditional evangelism. Within the last year, Hillsong, the most influential of the bunch, has suffered a series of scandals stemming from its founder’s inappropriate actions toward women, as well as a Discovery+ documentary aimed at exposing its toxicity.
It is impossible to argue that the Catholic Church is any less sinister than anything Hillsong or its ilk have done. It is in fact very sinister, but it is the kind of sinister that Catholicism represents that makes it easy to argue that, at least aesthetically and culturally, Catholicism pairs well with this precise moment.
A post shared by Kourtney Kardashian Barker ❤️ (@kourtneykardash)
A year or two ago, I started seeing a bizarre trend on TikTok in which people argued the superiority of Catholicism with videos that juxtaposed Evangelical preachers and modernist churches with old, gilded Latin Masses. Around the same time came a buzzy fashion brand whose signature piece is a bikini top with the words “Father” and “Son” on each of the boobs and “Holy Spirit” on the bottom. This was also during the unfortunate resurgence of the Satanic Panic and the fortunate rise of Lil Nas X grinding on the devil, and the TikTok generation’s embrace of Old World fixtures like piano bars and red sauce joints. All this coincided with a larger aesthetic shift, a pendulum swing toward magpie “grandmillennial” home decor after a decade of post-2008 minimalism. Then last month, Kourtney Kardashian and Travis Barker — both former (?) members of Hillsong — held one of their three nuptials in what the New York Times called “a Gothic altar that looked as if it came from the set of Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet” at a castle on the Italian coast.
Kyle Hide, a 31-year-old in Brooklyn, thinks about all of these things, all the time. They’re a co-founder of the popular Instagram account @ineedgodineverymomentofmylife, which documents surreal, absurdist memes about God, often with a Catholic bent. (Recent posts: a Dall-E AI-created image of Patrick Star being crucified, a plea for “an American Girl doll who saw Joan of Arc burned at the stake.”) Along with three friends they met on Twitter in the mid-2010s, Hide compiles bizarre imagery mixing internet culture with the divine, the sincerity of which their followers can never quite agree on.
A post shared by I NEED GOD (@ineedgodineverymomentofmylife)
The truth is somewhere in between irony and earnestness, but leans toward the latter. Hide was raised Catholic, even serving as a cantor in the choir. They now practice astrology and identify as a cultural Catholic, but in terms of spiritual belief, describe themselves as “more of a nothing in particular.” “I was trying to separate what I didn’t like about Catholicism from what is fun about it,” they tell me over coffee. “What motivates me is an awareness of God, or a provocation to make people think about their beliefs and a higher power.”
Before the pandemic, Hide says, the account only had a few thousand followers, made up mostly of the founders’ extended social networks. Now at 63,000, Hide attributes the growth in part to quarantine. “Being home alone without your routine makes you confront your faith, or other deeper things that society isn’t dealing with,” they say. Today, the @ineedgodineverymomentofmylife account receives daily orders from its merch store, making enough money for Hide to cover their rent.
@ineedgodineverymomentofmylife has found devotees of all types, from extremely online millennials and zoomers to, as Hide describes, “Christian dads with, like, Ezekiel 35 in their bios,” to religious academics. One of the latter group is Chris Stedman, a writer and professor of religion at Augsburg University, who’s also noticed a renewed interest in Catholic aesthetics among young folks, both in the “edgy, grungy” expressions of meme accounts or the “trad cath” (Latin masses, veils, etc.) aesthetics of fairy tales, angels, and royalty. “For people whose exposure to Christianity was a certain kind of Protestantism — bare bones, Kool-Aid for communion — you encounter the ‘smells and bells’ of a Catholic church and you might gravitate toward it,” he says. “It’s over-the-top, it’s colorful, it’s excessive, it’s campy.”
Fashion has always found ample inspiration in this aspect of Catholicism, which has influenced such a wealth of garments that the Met devoted its 2018 gala to the subject of Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination, which became the museum’s most popular exhibit ever. Popes have long been icons of fashion, unintentionally or otherwise, so too have Catholic schoolgirls and medieval paintings of saints.
In a piece for i-D magazine, Biz Sherbert argues that the most recent wave of Catholic aesthetic reclamation comes after the last several years of public reckonings over cultural appropriation. More white people now understand that to wear a feathered headdress or a bindi will cause negative social consequences. Therefore, Sherbert writes, “alt white kids have had to adapt and look for new ways to differentiate themselves from the sea of normies and basics. Trendsetters began to avoid ripping off styles from people of color … their pursuit of Otherness now took place within the strict limits of familiar, quaint horizons.”
What better way, really, to denote oneself as an “other” than to embrace the undeniably beautiful, but also sort of malevolent motifs of the Catholic church? Chicano youths in ’30s and ’40s Los Angeles wore rosary beads as rebellious fashion statements, as did goths and punks in the ’70s, who also looked to motifs like Celtic crosses and Day of the Dead altars. Today we have brands like Praying, which sells the aforementioned Holy Trinity bikini, along with baby tees that read “God’s favorite” and “Want not.” “It’s a way of using nihilism to move past nihilism,” one of Praying’s co-founders told High Snobiety. “What we’re trying to do is say things and show images that have two meanings. A lot of the time, these meanings are competitive. They can be ironic or completely sincere.” So far, Praying has been spotted on Olivia Rodrigo, Charli XCX, Megan Thee Stallion, Rosalia, and Jennifer Coolidge; it’s also been knocked off by Fashion Nova.
A post shared by Praying (@praying)
Catholicism “coming back” sounds a little bit like fill-in-the-blank trend reporting; you take one thing that’s literally thousands of years old and decide that, suddenly, young people are discovering it. Even that justification barely tracks — only 17 percent of Catholics are between the ages of 18 to 29, and one-third of young Catholics say they expect to attend Mass less often post-pandemic. One curious statistic, however, is that the percentage of self-identified Protestants in America is down 10 points in the last 10 years, while the Catholic share has stayed basically the same. It’s highly doubtful this has anything to do with memes or changing tastes in fashion — more likely it could be a reflection of many Evangelical Christian churches’ fervent embrace of Trumpism or a symptom of declining religious affiliation in general.
Yet it could also be because Catholicism connotes a specific culture as much as it does a belief system, a uniting identity for many American immigrant communities — Latinos, Italians, the Irish. Protestantism, meanwhile, is the foundation on which the country was built; along with whiteness, patriarchy, and capitalism, Protestant ideology cements itself into nearly every aspect of American life. However much power the Catholic church currently wields (a lot) and has wielded throughout history (a lot), in America, it will always be, to some degree, alternative.
While Protestant places of worship have often strived to seem welcoming and familiar, like a business conference or a sports stadium, walking into a Catholic church means leaving behind everything about the secular, hyper-commercialized urban life that I and many other Americans lead. Though I often spent Sunday Masses as a kid zoning out or trying not to laugh at our notoriously terrible organist’s singing abilities, I remained fascinated by the pageantry of it, the robes, the incense, the insistence on displaying the most realistic and therefore horrifying crucifixes possible. I loved that in CCD classes we didn’t have to memorize the Bible and instead learned about the saints and martyrs and how evil sex was (which, of course, made it sexier). In my freshman year of college at a Jesuit university, I loved reading Thomas Aquinas, who to this day makes one of the most convincing cases for the existence of God.
Pretty, right?
“Catholicism is nice because it involves a whole body of work outside of the Bible — it’s a very aesthetic, literary religion,” the Red Scare podcaster and provocateur Dasha Nekrasova, a practicing Catholic, told Interview magazine. “What’s so great about faith is that it doesn’t have to be grounded in rational thought. We are seeing a lot of people return to religion because everything feels so senseless and pointless, so why not be a Catholic?” Some have viewed Nekrasova and her particular crowd as, the New Statesman described, “a scene that practices transgression for its own sake … flirtation with reactionary concepts such as the abandonment of ideals of social progress, Catholicism, and an admiration for the aristocratic past.” Essentially, it’s the argument that this particular brand of social conservatism is a reaction to annoying “wokeists” and little else.
Neither Stedman nor Hide see it that way, though. “I think a lot of us are experiencing the benefits and the power of being able to leave or reject institutions that aren’t serving us and go our own way,” says Stedman. “Anytime there’s some significant technological advancement, there is gain, but there is also loss. It’s really natural to say, ‘I’m going to try and reclaim this older way of doing things.’”
Or perhaps it’s just about the pretty cathedrals, and maybe that isn’t so terrible, either. “The church I grew up in was so elaborate and beautiful, and there’s something spiritual about that, too — decoration, ornamentation,” says Hide. “The purpose of it is to supersede all things, and there’s something comforting about that.” | 2022-06-15T17:28:56Z | www.vox.com | How Catholicism became a meme - Vox | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23168091/catholic-meme-i-need-god-praying-instagram | https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23168091/catholic-meme-i-need-god-praying-instagram |
In this illustration, several dust rings circle the sun. These rings form when planets’ gravities tug dust grains into orbit around the sun.
Mary Pat Hrybyk-Keith/NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
7 solar system mysteries scientists haven’t solved yet
Why is our moon so weird? Was there ever life on Mars? Big cosmic questions lurk in our celestial backyard.
By Brian Resnick@B_resnick Jun 16, 2022, 7:00am EDT
Share All sharing options for: 7 solar system mysteries scientists haven’t solved yet
The next time you look up at a bright full moon, think about this: No one knows, precisely, where the moon came from.
“We have no idea why the moon is here,” science writer Rebecca Boyle says on Unexplainable — Vox’s podcast that explores big mysteries, unanswered questions, and all the things we learn by diving into the unknown. “I think for a lot of people [the moon] is taken for granted, it’s this sort of humdrum thing, and galaxies and nebula and stars and planets are more intriguing.”
It’s true that some of the most epic questions in science are found in the farthest reaches of space — how and when did the first galaxies form, what happens inside a black hole — but equally epic questions exist right here in our celestial neighborhood, in our own solar system.
To explore our own solar system — the moons and planets in it — is to better understand what’s possible in the farthest reaches of the universe. Anything we find or discover in our own cosmic backyard will help us understand what’s possible in the broader universe. If evidence of ancient life is found on a hostile world like Mars, we might better understand how common life might be in other solar systems. If we understand how a possibly once-vibrant world like Venus fell into ruin, we might understand how often similar planets around other stars die in an apocalypse.
The most provocative solar system mysteries help us understand why we are here, how long we might have left, and what we might leave behind. Here are some of the solar system mysteries we’ve encountered on Unexplainable.
For more mysteries, listen to and follow Unexplainable wherever you listen to podcasts.
The clouds of Venus captured in 1974 by NASA’s Mariner 10 spacecraft.
“Hellscape” is the most appropriate word to describe the surface of Venus, the second planet from the sun. At 900 degrees Fahrenheit, it’s the hottest planet in the solar system, thanks to an atmosphere that’s almost entirely made up of carbon dioxide, which generates a really strong greenhouse effect. Clouds made of highly corrosive sulfuric acid are draped over a volcanic landscape of razor-sharp volcanic rock. The pressure on the surface of Venus is about 92 times what you’d feel at sea level on Earth.
Yet some scientists suspect Venus was once much like Earth, with a liquid water ocean like the ones that support life on our planet. This prompts an existential question for life on Earth.
“Venus and Earth are planetary siblings,” says Robin George Andrews, volcanologist and author of Super Volcanoes: What They Reveal about Earth and the Worlds Beyond. “They were made at the same time and made of the same stuff, yet Venus is apocalyptic and awful in every possible way. Earth is a paradise. So why do we have a paradise next to a paradise lost?”
There are two leading hypotheses. One is that the sun cooked Venus to death. The other is that volcanoes did.
Further reading: Venus could have been a paradise but turned into a hellscape. Earthlings, pay attention.
Where the heck did the moon come from?
This view from the Apollo 11 spacecraft shows the Earth rising above the moon’s horizon.
HUM Images/Universal Images Group
Before the moon landings, scientists thought they knew how the moon formed. The prevailing theory was that it formed a lot like the planets did: bits of material left over from the formation of the sun, lumping together. But then, Apollo astronauts brought samples back from the lunar surface, and those rocks told a totally different story.
“Geologists had found that the moon was covered in a special kind of rock called anorthosite,” Unexplainable senior producer Meradith Hoddinott explains on the show. “Glittery, bright, and reflective, this is the rock that makes the moon shine white in the night sky. And at the time, it was thought, this rock can only be formed in a very specific way. Magma.”
But magma means the moon must have formed in some sort of epic cataclysm. “Something that poured so much energy into the moon that it literally melted,” Hoddinott says. Scientists aren’t precisely sure how it all played out. But each scenario is a cinematic story of fiery apocalyptic proportions.
Further reading: How Apollo moon rocks reveal the epic history of the cosmos
Is there anything alive in the human poop left on the moon?
A bag of astronaut detritus left on the moon in 1969.
During the Apollo moon missions, astronauts went to the moon and, to save weight for returning to Earth, they dumped their waste behind. Across all the Apollo missions, astronauts left 96 bags of human waste on the moon, and they pose a fascinating astrobiological question.
Human waste — and in particular, feces — is teeming with microbial life. With the Apollo moon landings, we took microbial life on Earth to the most extreme environment it has ever been in. Which means the waste on the moon represents a natural, though unintended, experiment.
The question the experiment could answer: How resilient is life in the face of the brutal environment of the moon? And for that matter, if microbes can survive on the moon, can they survive interplanetary or interstellar travel? If they can survive, then maybe it’s possible that life can spread from planet to planet, riding on the backs of asteroids or other such space debris.
Further reading: Apollo astronauts left their poop on the moon. We gotta go back for that shit.
Illustration of the supercontinent Gondwana, a landmass that was fully formed by around 550 million years ago and began to break up about 180 million years ago.
Science Photo Libra/Getty Images
Many scientists have long wondered: Is there intelligent life out in the deep reaches of space? But climate scientist Gavin Schmidt and astrophysicist Adam Frank have a different question: Was there intelligent life in the deep reaches of Earth’s history? Could we find evidence of an advanced non-human civilization that lived perhaps hundreds of millions of years ago, buried in Earth’s crust?
This is not strictly a “solar system” mystery, but it is cosmic in scope. At the heart of it, Schmidt and Frank are asking: How likely is an intelligent life form on any planet — here or in the deepest reaches of space — to leave a mark, a sign that they existed? And for that matter: Hundreds of millions of years from now, will some alien explorers landing on Earth be able to find traces of humans if we’re long, long gone?
Further reading: The Silurian hypothesis: would it be possible to detect an industrial civilization in the geological record?
Can we nudge an asteroid out of a collision course with Earth?
Many disasters — volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes — are unavoidable. Scientists talk about when, not whether, they’ll strike. Though humans make some calamities worse, natural disasters have been happening since long before we were here. They’re a fact of life on Earth. But one kind of disaster need not be inevitable: a collision between an asteroid or comet and the Earth.
The problem is: We’ve never tried to deflect an asteroid, and don’t know if a plan to do so would work.
To help answer this question, last year, NASA launched the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), which is a car-size box outfitted with solar panels. It’s currently on its way to a 160-meter asteroid called Dimorphos. In the fall, DART will crash into Dimorphos at 24,000 kilometers an hour (about 15,000 miles per hour) in pursuit of a big question: Can the collision nudge the asteroid into a slightly different orbit?
Further reading: The quest to avert an asteroid apocalypse is going surprisingly well
Was there ever life on Mars?
The Perseverance Rover takes a selfie on Mars.
Mars today is a desert, devoid of any obvious signs of life. But over the years, scientists have uncovered evidence of a lost Mars, long ago, that might have looked a lot more like Earth.
“Mars is a very different place today than it was 4 billion years ago, but you can see evidence of what it was like,” says NASA astrobiologist Lindsay Hays. “You see things like the remnants of a huge river delta, which indicates not only did you have water flowing, but you probably had lots of water flowing over a long period of time that continued to deposit sediments.”
And where there was water, there could have been life. Last year, a new rover landed on Mars, and it is our best shot at answering the question of “was there ever life on Mars?” If the answer is “yes,” it could change our understanding of how common life is in the universe.
Further reading: NASA’s latest rover is our best chance yet to find life on Mars
Is there a true ninth planet lurking in the darkness?
In 2006, the International Astronomical Union voted to change the definition of what constitutes a planet, and Pluto didn’t make the cut. No longer were there nine official planets in the solar system, but eight.
But then “we started getting these hints that there really is something else out there — and a real giant planet that we think is still now lurking well beyond Neptune, waiting to be found,” astronomer Mike Brown says on Unexplainable. Astronomers have yet to detect this planet, but they suspect it is there: Other objects far out in the solar system seem to be impacted by its gravity.
Could these hints lead us to a true, new ninth planet? Maybe. But it will be hard to find.
”It‘s kind of like taking a little black grain of sand and throwing it on the beach,” Brown says of the search. “That’d be a little hard to find that one in the sea of all the rest of them. And that’s the problem with Planet Nine.”
Further reading: The hunt for planet 9
If you have ideas for topics for future shows, send us an email at unexplainable@vox.com.
Listen to Unexplainable
Unexplainable is a weekly science podcast about everything we don’t know. For stories about great scientific mysteries, follow us wherever you listen to podcasts.
Unexplainable
7 ocean mysteries scientists haven’t solved yet
The underwater “eye” that is unlocking ocean secrets
What science still doesn’t know about the five senses
View all stories in Unexplainable | 2022-06-16T15:37:45Z | www.vox.com | Unexplainable podcast: 7 solar system mysteries scientists haven’t solved yet - Vox | https://www.vox.com/unexplainable/23165702/space-scientific-mysteries-venus-earth-mars-pluto-unexplainable-podcast | https://www.vox.com/unexplainable/23165702/space-scientific-mysteries-venus-earth-mars-pluto-unexplainable-podcast |
Lightyear will makes lots of money, and sell even more toys.
By Alex Abad-Santos Jun 17, 2022, 8:30am EDT
Share All sharing options for: Lightyear is a good movie — and an even better IP grab
Buzz Lightyear in Lightyear
The running joke about Disney-Pixar movies is how well they imbue feelings into objects and lifeforms that don’t often clearly display them. Finding Nemo is about how fish have feelings. Ratatouille is about how rats have feelings. Cars is about how automobiles have feelings. Even Pixar’s logo, a little anthropomorphized lamp, seems to have feelings.
Similarly then, Lightyear is about how white men have feelings.
Lightyear centers on Buzz Lightyear. You likely know Buzz as a starring character in the vaunted, 27-year-old Toy Story franchise about a boy named Andy and his secretly sentient batch of action figures, dolls, and playthings. However, Lightyear is not a continuing solo adventure of that tiny plastic hero (who was voiced by Tim Allen). According to Disney and Pixar lore, Lightyear (2022) is the actual 1995 sci-fi flick that inspired the Buzz Lightyear toys in Andy’s universe. Andy saw Lightyear and wanted the action figure, which his mother purchased for him in the original Toy Story.
Buzz Lightyear in the Toy Story movies is simply a toy representation of this original, fictional Buzz Lightyear (who is voiced by Chris Evans). Despite their differences, a shared idea of both Buzzes Lightyear — daring, stubborn, strong — is understood by Andy and by us. It’s a pretty high concept for a children’s movie.
Lightyear itself is a sweet musing on the value of friendship, an origin story that gives the titular character a sense of purpose, and a zippy ride through an often-gorgeous cosmic world. There’s also a hilarious robot cat named Sox; I am frightened by my own affection toward Sox. All in all, Lightyear is easily in the top half of Disney and Pixar’s filmography. It’s a charming and, at times, acutely funny space adventure.
Yet, there’s something beneath the surface that compromises Disney and Pixar’s proficient storytelling. It’s the idea that Lightyear exists not to just give us a free-standing movie about this space ranger’s feelings, but rather to take advantage of Disney’s very lucrative intellectual property. For a character whose famous words are “to infinity and beyond,” Lightyear feels predictable, content to play within Disney’s plum boundaries rather than push Disney and Pixar into a thrilling future.
If you think about Lightyear’s existence too much, your brain may start to itch with questions.
Lightyear is animated the way Andy from Toy Story is animated, so does Andy perceive Lightyear as an animated movie, or is it live-action? Can Andy, who is 6 years old at the start of the first Toy Story, even understand what the movie is about? And how does Lightyear even exist in our own universe, 27 years after its debut? How did it get here? And why is it here?
Like a faceless god, the movie does not give any concrete answers to those queries. Instead, it gives us a story about failure (kind of) and friendship.
This Buzz Lightyear, along with his bestie, space ranger Alisha Hawthorne (Uzo Aduba), is part of a crew responsible for exploring an unexplored planet. They quickly discover this uncharted world is a hostile one, full of giant bugs and strangling vines, which is made even more complicated when some decisive action from Buzz leaves the entire crew of their turnip-shaped spacecraft stranded there indefinitely.
Buzz Lightyear and Alisha Hawthorne in Lightyear
Buzz is intent on righting his wrong, trying again and again to travel back home by hyperspeed — the velocity needed to get the entire crew to jump through space. He gets closer with every attempt, but still faces the nagging problem of the unbreakable relationship between time and space. Each of Buzz’s trips are just minutes for him, but they’re four years for his marooned friends, all of whom are aging normally. Buzz doesn’t see a problem with this because he sees sacrifice as virtuous (it’s one of the qualities that makes him similar to Chris Evans’s other major Disney character, Captain America). This is, in fact, the Buzz Lightyear we know and love — one who is brave and loyal, and doesn’t always have the best ideas.
There’s a question implicit in the higher-budget, better-cast, more winking IP adaptations. You can feel it in The Lego Movie, in many of Disney+’s TV series, in the stills for Greta Gerwig’s upcoming Barbie film. Sure, it seems to say, this is a project based on a familiar intellectual property, made to almost-surgically extract dollars from the wallets of longtime fans … but can’t it still be creative? Isn’t it still fun?
Lightyear ratchets that up yet another notch. The whole premise of Lightyear is that the Buzz Lightyear action figures in Toy Story were actually just promotions for this movie; that this film is not just the IP we know and love but something more authentic. Lightyear is, according to Disney-Pixar’s retrofitted storyline, the actual real-deal story. And in a creative landscape devoted to ransacking the past, isn’t this a pretty clever idea?
This is slightly complicated by a sensibility in Lightyear that, as an audience, we’re smart enough to understand the way money-grabs work. It’s hard to take Disney’s smirking critique about consumerism too seriously because Disney is the force that it pretends to laugh at.
The very many movies in the Toy Story franchise are about how these cookie-cutter toys actually are individuals with human feelings that aren’t disposable. This nifty caveat allows for new Lightyear merchandise and Toy Story toys, plushies, tents, and costumes to exist side by side in Disney’s stores.
Lightyear is very much mining existing nostalgia and brand name to pad its box office haul. Depending on its financial success, there may be several more Lightyear movies in the future. The ability to keep churning out Buzz Lightyear content is especially convenient for Disney since 2019’s Toy Story 4 was supposed to be the end of the Toy Story movies.
But the funny thing is: There’s plenty in Lightyear that’s good enough to stand on its own. It didn’t need to be about Buzz Lightyear. “Brave and loyal without the best ideas” could apply to lots of characters. It’s Buzz’s friendships that make this movie.
First, with Alisha. While Buzz reacts to tragedy by trying to force correction, Alisha adapts. She leads the rest of the crew in creating a home for themselves on this new planet: constructing buildings and living spaces, building labs to cultivate resources and sustenance, and learning to defend against the planet’s very large bugs. Scientists and architects and engineers thrive.
Alisha also starts her own life.
She begins to date a fellow crew member, which blooms into romance. As the years tick by, Alisha and her partner have kids and their kids have kids. Buzz, who returns as often as a leap year, misses out on so much of her life.
Alisha doesn’t resent him. She knows her best friend needs to try to save his crew — even if they might not need saving, given how well they’ve adapted. She understands that Buzz will keep charging into space four years at a time, so she gives him a robot cat named Sox (Peter Sohn) to keep him company.
This is Buzz Lightyear and his new crew. Notice Sox the robot cat (front). He is the best part of this movie.
Eventually, Buzz’s final space run is successful and he has the solution to get everyone home! But unfortunately Buzz returns 22 years into the future, and his adopted planet is now under siege from a robot threat. Buzz and Sox are the colony’s best hope, but also find themselves responsible for Alisha’s sunny, but extremely green granddaughter, Izzy (Keke Palmer), and her companions, the cowardly Mo Morrison (Taika Waititi) and octogenarian ex-con Darby Steel (Dale Soules). It’s time for the lessons of friendship, round two.
Izzy, her ragtag crew, and Buzz inevitably teach each other about heroism and life — the kind of lessons that Pixar is so adept at telling. These emotional beats are hit so precisely, Pixar should think about charging its competitors for the clinic. Buzz will grow a heart. Izzy will learn more about her grandmother. Sox will learn to love despite his android circuitry.
Lightyear’s conclusion telegraphs another movie: Buzz, Izzy, Sox, and all the friends they made are strapped in and prepared to fly into hyperspeed. And while I’m sure it’ll be a great time, I’m just a little more hesitant about joining along.
The appeal of Buzz Lightyear — the toy and now the astronaut — has been that the character dares to dream despite an entire world telling him it isn’t practical. His existence is supposed to be a testament to endless possibility, and his adherence to it is so stubborn that it borders on frustrating. Lightyear gives us a fleeting glimpse into that, but this good-enough movie isn’t the slightest bit concerned with the unknown. There’s no thought to mapping out a future for the character that feels the slightest bit surprising or inventive, especially compared to the places that the original Toy Story took him.
The box office might go to infinity, but we’ll never get anything beyond the limits of intellectual property. | 2022-06-17T15:42:09Z | www.vox.com | Lightyear movie review: a good adventure — and an even better IP grab - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/17/23170174/lightyear-movie-review-chris-evans | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/17/23170174/lightyear-movie-review-chris-evans |
There doesn’t seem to be a corner of the internet Meta isn’t tracking.
By Sara Morrison Jun 17, 2022, 1:00pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: Meta is getting data about you from some surprising places
The Pixel tracking system collects and sends site visitor data to Meta, and Meta can match this to a user’s profile on Facebook or Instagram.
This week, the Markup, a nonprofit news outlet that covers technology’s harms, has been publishing the latest findings of its investigation into Meta’s Pixels, which are pieces of code developers can embed on websites to track their visitors. So far, those stories reveal how websites owned by the government, pregnancy counseling centers, and hospitals are sending data to Meta through Pixels, much of which would be considered sensitive to the users who unwittingly provided it.
It’s easy and understandable to blame Meta for this, given the company’s much-deserved, less-than-stellar reputation on user privacy. In Pixel and other trackers, Meta has played an instrumental role in building the privacy-free, data-leaking online world we must navigate today. The company supplies a tracking system designed to suck up user data from millions of sites and spin it into advertising gold, and it knows very well that there are many cases where the tool was implemented poorly at best and abused at worst. But this may also be a rare case of a Meta-related privacy scandal that isn’t entirely Meta’s fault, partly because Meta has done its best to place that blame elsewhere.
Or, as security researcher Zach Edwards put it: “Facebook wants to have their data cake and not eat the violations, too.”
Businesses choose to put Meta’s trackers on their websites and apps, and they choose again which data about their visitors to send up to the social media giant. There’s simply no good excuse, in this day and age, for developers that use Meta’s business tools not to understand how they work or what user data is being sent through them. At the very least, developers shouldn’t put them on health appointment scheduling pages or inside patient portals, which users have every reason to expect not to be secretly sending their data to nosy third parties because they’re often explicitly told by those sites that they aren’t. Meta created a monster, but those websites are feeding it.
How Pixel makes tracking too easy
Meta makes Pixel available, free of charge, to businesses to embed in their sites. Pixel collects and sends site visitor data to Meta, and Meta can match this to a user’s profile on Facebook or Instagram, giving it that much more insight into that user. (There are also cases where Meta collects data about people who don’t even have Meta accounts.) Some data, like a visitor’s IP address, is collected by Meta automatically. But developers can also set Pixel up to track what it calls “events”: various actions users take on the site. That may include links they click on or responses in forms they fill out, and it helps businesses better understand users or focus on specific behaviors or actions.
All this data can then be used to target ads at those people, or to create what’s known as “lookalike audiences.” This involves a business asking Meta to send ads to people who Meta believes are similar to its existing customers. The more data Meta gets from businesses through those trackers, the better it should be able to target ads. Meta may also use that data to improve its own products and services. Businesses may use Pixel data for analytics to improve their products and services as well.
Businesses (or the third-party vendors they contract to build out their sites or run advertising campaigns) have a lot of control over what data about their customers Meta gets. The Markup discovered that, on some of the sites in its report, hospital website appointment pages were sending Meta the name of someone making an appointment, the date and time of the appointment, and which doctor the patient is seeing. If that’s happening, that’s because someone on the hospital’s end set Pixel up to do that. Either the hospital didn’t do its due diligence to protect that data or it didn’t consider it to be data worth protecting. Or perhaps it assumed that Meta’s tools would stop the company from collecting or using any sensitive data that was sent to it.
In its most recent hospital investigation, the Markup found that a third of the hospitals it looked at from a list of the top 100 hospitals in the country had a Pixel on appointment scheduling pages, and seven health systems had Pixels in their patient portals. Several of the websites removed Pixel after being contacted by the Markup.
How can a hospital justify any of this? The only hospital that gave the Markup a detailed response, Houston Methodist, claimed that it didn’t believe it was sending protected health information to Meta. The Markup found that the hospital’s site told Meta when someone clicked “schedule appointment,” which doctor they scheduled the appointment for, and even that the doctor was found by searching “home abortion.” But Houston Methodist said scheduling an appointment didn’t mean the appointment was ever confirmed, nor that the person who scheduled the appointment was the person that appointment was actually for. Houston Methodist might think it isn’t violating patient privacy, but its patients may well feel differently. But they’d also have no way of knowing this was happening in the first place without using special tools or having a certain level of technical knowledge. Houston Methodist has since removed the Pixel.
Another health system the Markup looked at, Novant Health, said in a statement that the Pixel was placed by a third-party vendor for a campaign to get more people to sign up for its patient portal system, and was only used to see how many people signed up. But the Markup found far more data than what was being sent to Meta, including medications that users listed and their sexual orientations. That third-party vendor appears to have made some mistakes here, but Novant’s the one that has a duty to its patients to keep their information private on websites that promise to do so. Not the third-party vendor, and not Meta.
This is not to let Meta off the hook. Again, it created the Pixel tracking system, and while it has rules and tools that are supposed to prevent certain types of sensitive information — like health conditions — from being sent to it, the Markup’s reports are evidence that those measures aren’t enough.
Meta told Recode in a statement that “our system is designed to filter out potentially sensitive data it detects.” But the Markup found those filters lacking when it came to data from at least one crisis pregnancy center’s website. Meta didn’t respond to Recode’s questions about what it does if it finds that a business is violating its rules.
Edwards, the security researcher, was even less charitable about how much blame Meta should get here.
“It’s 100 percent Facebook’s fault, in my opinion,” he said.
Meta also didn’t respond to questions from Recode asking what it does to ensure businesses are following its policies, or what it does with the sensitive information businesses aren’t supposed to send it. As it stands, it looks as though Meta is making and distributing a tracking tool that can materially benefit Meta. But if that tool is exploited or used incorrectly, someone else is responsible. The only people who pay the price for that, it seems, are the site visitors whose privacy is unknowingly invaded.
What you can do to avoid Pixel
There are a few things you can do to protect yourself here. Browsers like Safari, Firefox, and Brave offer tracker blockers. Todd Feathers, one of the reporters on the Markup’s hospital story, told Recode they used Chrome browsers with no privacy extensions for their tests. Speaking of privacy extensions, you can get those, too. VPNs and Apple’s paid private relay service can obscure your IP address from the sites you visit.
Finally, Meta has controls that limit tracking and ad targeting off of its platforms. The company claims that turning off “data about your activity from partners” or “off-Facebook activity” will stop it from using data collected by Pixel from being used to target ads to you. This means placing some trust in Meta that its privacy tools do what it claims they do.
And there’s always, of course, asking your lawmaker to push for privacy laws that would make some of these practices explicitly illegal, or forcing companies to inform and get user consent before collecting and sending their data to anyone else. A few new federal privacy bills or draft bills have been introduced as recently as this week. The interest is there among some members of Congress, but not in enough of them to come close to passing anything yet. | 2022-06-17T20:47:18Z | www.vox.com | Meta’s latest privacy scandal includes hospitals sending patient data - Vox | https://www.vox.com/recode/23172691/meta-tracking-privacy-hospitals | https://www.vox.com/recode/23172691/meta-tracking-privacy-hospitals |
Chores are everyone’s responsibility. Here’s how to get roommates, kids, or partners involved.
Share All sharing options for: Splitting chores can be unfair. Here’s how to do it equitably.
Living with someone (or someones) can require a fair amount of sharing: space, noise levels, appliances, bathroom time, you name it. Perhaps most crucially, though, is the sharing of chores. It can also be one of the most contentious parts of cohabitation.
Most of the time, the division of household labor isn’t equal, leading to loads of pent-up resentment. Research among heterosexual couples showed women tend to shoulder the brunt of housework. Even when wives make more money than their husbands, they still spend more hours a week on housework, per a recent study. Another study found that a common belief among roommates is that the housemate who’s most bothered by stacks of dirty dishes and piles of stinky laundry should be the one to handle the messes.
“When we’re conditioned to have assumptions take the place of structured decision-making, everything goes wrong,” says Eve Rodsky, author of Fair Play: A Game-Changing Solution for When You Have Too Much to Do (and More Life to Live), also adapted into a soon-to-be-released documentary.
While an even chores split (you take trash duty, I’ll take dishes) can seem like the easiest way to household bliss, sometimes such a breakdown isn’t the most equitable or realistic. Schedules change, people get sick, and the least-glamorous tasks can slip minds entirely.
Instead of stewing in silence while passive-aggressively scrubbing the toilet for the millionth consecutive week or blowing up at your partner for never sweeping, take a measured approach to splitting household duties, whether you live with kids and family members or roommates and romantic partners.
Time for a deep conversation
Everyone differs in what they consider “clean.” A study found that those with lower tolerance for messes will often complete housework quicker out of sheer discomfort. The more that same person tackles those chores — say, washes the dishes — the more likely they will forever be considered the designated dishwasher.
If you feel your fate being sealed as the forever tidier, you have to discuss boundaries and expectations with your housemates. First, begin the conversation as neutrally as possible by saying something along the lines of, “I really want to be a great housemate to you and one of the things I think would be helpful for our relationship is if we could come to an agreement on the expectations around the cleanliness and organization of the apartment. Are you open to a conversation like that?” suggests Tiffany Dufu, founder and CEO of The Cru, a platform connecting peer mentors, and author of Drop the Ball: Achieving More by Doing Less. “The conversation is not about the recycling,” she says. “The conversation is about the value of the relationship that you have with someone and aligning on expectations around household duties, responsibilities.”
As honestly as possible, share what’s important to you in terms of house upkeep, says professional organizer Elise Hay, founder of Organized Sanctuaries. Is having a clear sink absent any dirty dishes at the end of the day one of your priorities? A made bed every morning? No hair in the shower drain? Make your preferences known.
Then, after each party has outlined their priorities, leave space to talk through any challenges in meeting those goals, Hay says. Maybe your partner has hectic mornings getting the kids ready for school and doesn’t have time to make the bed and you’d be better suited for that chore. (More on delegating tasks later.) Or your roommate doesn’t know you prefer an empty kitchen countertop when you’re doing your meal prep. Expressing these goals and preferences can help those we live with understand why certain chores are so important to us.
Because division of labor is never just about to-do list items, Rodsky advises discussing your respective histories with chores. Ask your housemates what they remember about cleaning growing up. Maybe they weren’t responsible for much around the house, but your parents assigned you weekly jobs. Both of these experiences impact how you approach household tasks as an adult. “That’s what I recommend,” Rodsky says, “frequent high-cognition, low-emotion conversations where you tell each other stories. ... These chores that we’re fighting about are actually our stories. They’re our humanity. I think when you can elevate it to that level, you can understand where someone’s coming from from such a better place.” These soul-searching conversations can help uncover why you hate washing windows or your partner prefers to be the one who folds the laundry.
Chores and mess can dredge up so many emotions, so you’ll need to actively avoid letting them influence how you discuss division of labor. Seeing jackets and shoes strewn about the common area can feel like a personal affront when the closet is right there. Regardless of what boundaries and expectations you’ve already set about chores, remember that a personal attack isn’t likely to get you far. “When it comes down to it, belongings deserve respect, and our homes deserve respect,” Hay says. “It’s definitely not a reason to attack someone. Explain, ‘It makes me feel so much better when our house is clean and [we’re] treating our space with respect. … Is that something that you can help me on?’”
“The conversation is not about the recycling”
When all housemates agree to specific conditions — like the kitchen is considered clean when the sink is empty, countertops are clear, and the microwave’s been scrubbed — it becomes much easier to gauge a deviation from baseline. Still, it’s important to remain flexible and have compassion for those we live with, Hay says. “Being able to be flexible enables us all to have a little bit more understanding of each other,” she says. “There could be reasons why one person’s chore is going to slip, and there’s [got] to be compassion from the roommate.”
Before totally overhauling the house-cleaning schedule and issuing job assignments, look at the household’s already established habits to see where small changes can be implemented, Hay says. Common areas like the kitchen and living room tend to see the most clutter and foot traffic but can be easily managed through minor tweaks. If your roommate is frustrated that you leave your dishes in the sink in the morning, you both need to come to a happy medium of when the dishes can reasonably be expected to be washed. This may mean you clean them during your lunch break (if you work from home) in order to have the sink cleared by the time your housemate gets home from work so they can prepare their dinner.
Instead of framing the conversation as “This is what needs to be done,” Hay suggests phrasing the discussion as “If this could be done in this timeframe, it would make my life so much less stressful.” “It might be that the other person doesn’t realize that the other partner needs to have a clear sink to drain hot pasta or needs a clear sink to be able to do their dinner prep,” Hay says.
Assign tasks based on ownership, not assumptions
When it comes to divvying up chores, do not make assumptions that a housemate or a partner will do certain tasks based on their income, job, or gender; women often end up responsible for most of the household chores simply based on biases. “My job is more flexible. My partner makes more money than me,” Rodsky says. “That’s a terrible assumption because even if women make more money than their partners, they still do more housework.”
The way to encourage everyone in the house to contribute to chores involves getting all parties to “own” their tasks, Rodsky says. Rodsky uses the example of buying mustard. Ownership of mustard purchase begins in the conceptualizing phase — understanding what’s necessary to complete a task — which is as simple as knowing your kid really loves yellow mustard. The next step of owning a task is the planning: realizing your supply of mustard is getting low and putting the condiment on your shopping list. Finally, executing the chore means picking up the mustard when you go to the grocery store — rinse, repeat. “When you can have someone else in your system — whether it’s a roommate, a sister, a child — hold the full planning, conception, and execution of a task, 50/50 goes out the window,” Rodsky says, “and that was the biggest, most beautiful breakthrough.” Rodsky developed a system for assigning tasks, also called Fair Play, in which everyone discusses their feelings around each chore before figuring out who’s going to take ownership over the task.
Dufu finds it helpful to create a spreadsheet of all of the household chores and to assign each person a task based on their talents and schedules. Dufu calls her spreadsheet MEL — Management Excel List — and each chore, from taking out the trash to washing the car, is listed. Every family member gets their own column where they claim their tasks. Sometimes, certain chores aren’t claimed, like washing the car, and that’s fine. “Our kids now have columns,” Dufu says, “and we would put an X in someone’s column next to the thing that they would do, not because they’ve always done it before but because that was the task that fit better with their schedule, or that was the task that did better with their personality.” For example, Dufu says she’s more introverted than her husband, so it made more sense for him to manage the kids’ social calendars since he gets much more enjoyment out of chatting with other parents.
Of course, a massive spreadsheet may introduce more stress into an already stressful situation. Rodsky’s Fair Play method involves each task being written down on a card and each member holding a deck of cards outlining their individual chores; instead of a list, each person has their cards to refer to. Roommate chore apps help divide household labor with the help of notifications, schedules, and progress trackers. A colorful chore chart on a dry-erase board with visible rewards like smiley face magnets can help keep kids engaged.
Even if you believe you may do certain chores “better” than your housemates, you need to value the time and effort the people you live with put into cleaning and tidying, and how that effort helps you. “That person committed to our family or committed to our relationship in a way that makes our home feel more valued,” Hay says.
Don’t forget the kids — or the beauty of renegotiation
For households with kids or older family members, there are age-appropriate tasks to get everyone involved in chores. Kids are usually able to contribute to chores much earlier than most parents think, Hay says, and assigning them easy chores — like cleaning up the crayons or helping rinse vegetables for salads — helps instill a sense of responsibility. The same can be said for older relatives, Hay continues. By centering the conversation on responsibility and respect for the home, house members of all ages can understand the importance of a chores system.
However, not every kid is going to be jazzed about helping out around the house. Parents can support kids who may not feel confident (or excited) about the chores they’re assigned by letting them know they can get themselves ready for school, for example, and you need them to take on that task to help you out.
The assignment of tasks shouldn’t be permanent, either. Dufu suggests revisiting chores every six months or so, especially if you have children who may be able to take on more responsibilities. Ultimately, the division of labor in the home should feel like an ever-evolving process meant to keep everyone as satisfied as possible.
“At the end of the day, my goal when I work with clients and share advice online is to make people’s homes easier to live in,” Hay says. “So what can we all do, individually and collectively, to make this a more enjoyable place to live?” | 2022-06-20T12:43:34Z | www.vox.com | How to split chores fairly with kids, partners, or roommates - Vox | https://www.vox.com/even-better/23161444/splitting-home-chores-unfair-equitable | https://www.vox.com/even-better/23161444/splitting-home-chores-unfair-equitable |
In the fourth hearing of the January 6 committee, state officials badgered by Trump to commit election fraud were on the stand.
By Ben Jacobs Updated Jun 21, 2022, 7:45pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: 5 takeaways from the latest January 6 hearing
Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and Georgia’s chief operating officer for the Secretary of State, Gabriel Sterling, were sworn in during Tuesday’s hearing.
In its fourth hearing on Tuesday, the select House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack focused on former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results by meddling in states, particularly Georgia and Arizona, and by working to shore up his campaign’s last-ditch strategy to undermine the counting of electoral votes on January 6.
The hearing provided new details about the scope of the latter plot in particular, which included efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence and was knowingly based on falsehoods. Below are some takeaways from it.
1) Sen. Ron Johnson’s slate of electors and the sprawling final scheme
The lobbying effort by Trump allies in Congress to keep him in power continued right until the joint session at the Capitol on January 6. Rusty Bowers, the Republican speaker of the Arizona House and the first witness to testify Tuesday, said that Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) lobbied him that morning to support decertifying the state’s electors whose votes would be counted that day.
The committee delved into just how much coordination the Trump campaign had done, in multiple states and in conjunction with party and state officials and members of Congress ahead of January 6, on its “alternate slates of electors” scheme.
The campaign worked with allies in states with election results they wanted to contest, to come up with alternate rosters of electors intended to serve as substitutes for the legitimate representatives to the Electoral College, who had already cast their votes for Joe Biden. The idea was that, when Pence gave the word, somehow these prepared slates of electors would replace these legitimate electoral votes. (For more on the fake electors plan, here’s an explainer from Vox’s Andrew Prokop in 2020, when the plan was being executed.)
The #Jan6thCommittee presented a Jan. 6, 2021 text exchange between a Sen. Ron Johnson aide and a Pence aide regarding a list of pro-Trump electors that Johnson purportedly wanted to hand deliver to the VP. pic.twitter.com/qIY2adlYwR
— Tim Hanrahan (@TimJHanrahan) June 21, 2022
In perhaps the biggest revelation of the day, the committee published text messages between aides to Pence and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) in which a Johnson staffer asked if his boss could give the vice president the paperwork from two slates of fake electors on the Senate floor. The Pence aide responded, “Do not give that to him.”
In a tweet, a Johnson spokesperson said that “the senator had no involvement in the creation of an alternate slate of electors and had no foreknowledge that it was going to be delivered to our office,” but did not deny he had intended to deliver the slates to Pence.
Although the committee had previously revealed that at least one member of Congress, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), had sought a pardon from Trump for his efforts to overturn the election, the hearing provided new details on just how Republican elected officials were actively abetting Trump’s efforts.
2) The absurd adventures of the fake electors
The committee also detailed the Trump campaign’s slapdash attempts to find fake electors as his campaign lawyers — those on what former campaign manager Bill Stepien described last week as on “Team Normal” — backed away.
While Bowers simply derided the fake electors in Arizona as “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight,” the efforts in other states were just as poorly thought out. In Michigan, former state Republican Party chair Laura Cox described a Trump campaign official’s plan to have electors hide overnight in the state capitol, to comply with a statutory requirement that electoral votes be cast in a state legislative chamber. She said she responded that that plan “was insane and inappropriate.”
One designated fake elector, Robert Sinners of Georgia, said in a taped deposition that he had been used by the Trump campaign in this effort as “a useful idiot” and “rube.” He said he was unaware that this was not a procedural backstop to preserve options if the Trump campaign’s long-shot litigation claiming election fraud succeeded, but rather an explicit attempt to thwart the will of the voters.
Such efforts came after Trump lawyers had washed their hands of the endeavor and handed it over to unofficial advisers like attorney John Eastman. Justin Clark, a top lawyer on the campaign, described efforts to create fake electoral slates in the states where the campaign had no ongoing litigation as “inappropriate,” while Matt Morgan, the campaign’s general counsel, said he wrote in an email to lawyer Ken Chesebro that “you are responsible for the Electoral College moving forward.” Morgan said in a taped deposition aired during the hearing that “that was my way of taking my responsibility to zero.”
3) A fresh Trump lie to frame the hearing
Less than an hour before the hearing began, Trump put out a statement attacking Bowers and claiming that the Arizona speaker had told him “that the election was rigged and that I won Arizona.”
This meant that the first questions to Bowers from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) were about the statement. Speaking under oath, Bowers testified that Trump’s statement was false. “I did have a conversation with the president but that certainly isn’t it,” Bowers said. He went on to insist that “Anywhere, anyone, anytime, who said that I said the election was rigged, that would not be true.”
NEW: Responding to statement from former Pres. Trump, Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers says, "I did have a conversation with the president. That certainly isn't it."
"Anywhere, anyone, anytime has said that I said the election was rigged—that would not be true." pic.twitter.com/RdekDJeYcJ
It marked the second consecutive hearing establishing that Trump had knowingly put out a false statement. In a hearing last week, the committee heard testimony about a statement Trump released on January 5, 2021, falsely claiming that Pence agreed with him about overturning the 2020 election. The statement followed an Oval Office meeting where Pence had explicitly told Trump that he would not cooperate on January 6 and would do his constitutional duty to simply preside over the joint session of Congress.
After the hearing, Schiff compared Trump’s Tuesday statement to a tweeted attack during his first impeachment trial on the former US Ambassador to Ukraine as she was testifying in a hearing. “It was like a replay of what he did with Marie Yovanovitch,” Schiff told Vox. “It’s just his modus operandi.”
4) Giuliani admitted there was no evidence of fraud
Trump and his top attorneys, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and John Eastman, were repeatedly in touch with Bowers and pushing him to take various steps to nullify Biden’s win in Arizona and declare Trump the winner instead.
Trump’s team viewed Bowers’s support as necessary to overturn the election there because any effort to substitute the state’s legitimate electors would require a vote by the state legislature. Bowers testified that despite his constant requests for evidence of voter fraud from the Trump campaign, they never provided any such evidence.
This culminated, Bowers said, when Giuliani conceded to him, “We’ve got lots of theories. We just don’t have any evidence.”
5) The toll of going against Trump
Bowers offered up emotional testimony Tuesday, particularly when it came to the reasons he refused to accede to repeated entreaties from Trump and his attorneys to assist in their efforts to overturn the election. Bowers, a Mormon, cited his faith several times as a reason he refused to go along with Trump’s plot.
“It is a tenet of my faith that the Constitution is divinely inspired, one of my most basic foundational beliefs.” He added that taking actions contrary to the Constitution is “foreign to my very being.”
Bowers said that he has been subject to an ongoing campaign of harassment as a result. He testified that there are weekly protests at his house that include trucks driving by while playing videos that label him “a pedophile, a pervert [and] a corrupt politician.”
Bowers was one of three Republican officials to testify before the committee in the first panel of witnesses, along with Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, and his top aide, Gabriel Sterling. Raffensperger testified about how his wife received “sexualized” threatening texts and that someone even broke into the house of his late son’s widow.
The only witness in the second panel was Shaye Moss, a former Georgia election worker whose mother, Ruby Freeman, was also an election worker. Both women faced a barrage of threats due to a Trump-promoted conspiracy theory about ballot counting in the state.
Freeman, who Trump called out by name, testified in a taped deposition that she moved out of her home for a period after the FBI recommended she do so.
“I won’t even introduce myself by my name anymore,” Freeman said. “I get nervous when I bump into someone. I know in the grocery store who says my name — I am worried about who is listening. ... I have lost my name and I have lost my reputation. I have lost my sense of security. All because a group of people starting with number 45 [Trump] and his ally, Rudy Giuliani, decided to scapegoat me — to push their own lies about how the presidential election was stolen.”
Update, June 21, 2022, 6 pm: This story was updated with further developments from the hearing. | 2022-06-22T02:12:44Z | www.vox.com | What we learned from the 4th January 6 hearing, with state election officials testifying - Vox | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/21/23177237/january-6-hearings-bowers-raffensperger | https://www.vox.com/2022/6/21/23177237/january-6-hearings-bowers-raffensperger |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.