vox--2020-02-24--Sanders’s Cuba comments are bad politics

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has a long history of showing support for left-wing dictatorships around the world , but some thought he would steer clear of offering even qualified statements toward those regimes now that he ’ s running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination .
On Sunday night , though , Sanders made it clear that belief was misplaced .
Asked about his past backing of Fidel Castro ’ s communist government in Cuba during an interview with 60 Minutes , Sanders began by saying , “ We ’ re very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know , it ’ s unfair to simply say everything is bad.
” “ When Castro came into office , you know what he did ?
He had a massive literacy program , ” he told journalist Anderson Cooper during the interview .
“ Is that a bad thing , even though Fidel Castro did it ?
” It arguably was a bad thing .
In a 2015 Atlantic article , two experts on Cuba — including the former British ambassador to the island — explained why .
“ Under Fidel Castro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also stipulated that anyone who received this education would have to actively promote government policies both during and after their schooling , ” the authors wrote .
“ They would also be required to take government-approved courses that didn ’ t tolerate any criticism of socialism as a way of life .
In other words , education was seen as key to the revolution taking hold and creating a literate population loyal to the government.
” And while Cuba does have a widely praised health care system , some say it works better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Cuba ’ s health service is divided in two : one for Cubans and the other for foreigners , who receive better quality care , while the national population has to be satisfied with dilapidated facilities and a lack of medicines and specialists , who are sent abroad to make money for Cuba , ” Dr. Julio César Alfonso , director of the medical group Solidaridad Sin Fronteras and a Cuban exile , told El País in 2017 .
The positive read of Sanders ’ s comments is that he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Members of his team have long told me the senator rejects the good-bad dichotomy that dominates Washington ’ s foreign policy discourse .
One can reject a nation ’ s system of government and its leadership while recognizing some of the advances they might make , they argue .
In fact , even President Barack Obama made similar comments to Sanders ’ s .
“ The United States recognizes progress that Cuba has made as a nation , its enormous achievements in education and in health care , ” Obama said in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s comments aren ’ t particularly controversial .
“ There are elements of the Castro regime that have produced things , in terms of health care and education , that were undeniable progress , ” Michael Desch , a professor of US foreign policy at the University of Notre Dame , told me .
“ He ’ s not crazy to mention those them from the standpoint of history.
” The other read , though , is more in line with Sanders ’ s past .
Time after time , he has apologized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Cuba to Nicaragua to the Soviet Union , partly out of a critique of America ’ s meddling in these countries but also — some argue — because of his ideological sympathies toward them .
“ Bernie has had his heart frozen in an earlier period of optimism for these regimes , and that optimism hasn ’ t borne out very well , ” Desch said .
He added that many of the political and social trends in these places were “ frankly deplorable.
” It ’ s worth noting that Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dictatorial and corrupt regimes , a point the senator ’ s campaign communications director Mike Casca made in a statement to me on the Cuba comments : “ Sen .
Sanders has clearly and consistently criticized Fidel Castro ’ s authoritarianism and condemned his human rights abuses , and he ’ s simply echoing President Obama ’ s acknowledgment that Cuba made progress , especially in education.
” But it ’ s interesting that Sanders doesn ’ t grant the same nuance to other murderous , despotic governments .
For example , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader Kim Jong Un has improved economic conditions for loyalists in his nation ’ s capital , or that Saudi Arabia ’ s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has recently granted citizens , and especially women , more personal freedoms .
Those kinds of qualified comments seemingly are reserved solely for leftist revolutionary leaders , and they ’ re potentially a problem for him in a general election .
Sanders ’ s stance on Nicaragua provides a particularly instructive example of his leftist dictator problem .
The Sandinistas were a Cuban- and Soviet-backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s right-wing dictatorship in 1979 .
They proved adept at brutality : They shot unarmed civilians , relocated thousands , curtailed press freedoms , postponed elections to hold on to power , and mistreated indigenous populations .
The United States under Ronald Reagan tried to force out the Sandinistas , as having a Moscow-friendly outfit in charge of a Central American nation was seen as troublesome in Washington during the Cold War era .
The Reagan administration even funded an opposition insurgent group known as the Contras to root out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of left-leaning leaders , Sanders among them .
“ The Reagan administration drove them crazy in the 1980s , particularly over the wars in Central America in El Salvador and Nicaragua , ” Desch said .
For Sanders , who was the mayor of Burlington , Vermont , at the time , the Sandinista government wasn ’ t a bloody regime guilty of violating human rights — rather , it was a model for his state .
“ Vermont could set an example to the rest of the nation similar to the type @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of Latin America , ” he told a crowd in 1985 after touring the Central American nation for a revolutionary rally .
Similar to his Sunday defense of Cuba , the then-mayor cited some of the programs the Sandinista government provided .
“ Is [ their ] crime that they have built new health clinics , schools , and distributed land to the peasants ?
Is their crime that they have given equal rights to women ?
Or that they are moving forward to wipe out illiteracy ?
” he asked the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime in Mr. Reagan ’ s eyes and the eyes of the corporations and billionaires that determine American foreign policy is that they have refused to be a puppet and banana republic to American corporate interests , ” Sanders said .
Sanders even traveled to New York City that year to visit Daniel Ortega , then Nicaragua ’ s president and a top Sandinista .
The visit was mere weeks after the Ortega regime announced a state of emergency that led to mass arrests and the forced closing of media organizations .
Given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a press conference , Sanders punted : “ Am I aware enough of all the details of what is going on in Nicaragua to say [ to Ortega ] ‘ you have reacted too strongly ?
’ I don ’ t know.
” His campaign noted in an email that Sanders , as mayor , had denounced the Sandinistas at certain points .
However , even those denunciations were pretty weak .
For instance , Sanders told the Burlington Free Press in 1985 , “ I have no reason to doubt that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Sandinistas make their share of mistakes , and I don ’ t intend to ignore that.
” When asked about the Sandinistas ’ shuttering of newspapers a week later , Sanders also told the Burlington Free Press , “ It is very distasteful to me to hear of censorship in any form .
My hope is that in Nicaragua in the near future , there will be total freedom of expression for all individuals .
That does not exist today.
” However , he went on to say that “ he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government on earth is perfect , ” according to the Burlington Free Press .
It seems that even when criticizing leftist regimes , Sanders just can ’ t help pointing out their positive qualities or excusing their abuses with a shrug and a “ nobody ’ s perfect.
” And that fact could hurt his chances of becoming president .
For Van Jackson , who is currently advising Sen. Elizabeth Warren ’ s campaign and before counseled the campaigns of Julián Castro and Kamala Harris , the focus on Sanders ’ s 60 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Everyone ’ s reaction seems exaggerated , ” he told me .
“ All of it misses the point that Cuba ’ s just not important except maybe as an indicator of your foreign policy style .
“ He ’ s definitely going to establish rhetorical markers that are different from past presidents , but I don ’ t think you ’ re going to see big policy swings or deviations , ” Jackson continued .
That may be true , and Sanders ’ s answers on foreign policy during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realize .
As the senator told the New York Times this month , he ’ d consider military force for a humanitarian intervention , or even to preempt a missile test by Iran or North Korea .
He did , however , vow not to engage in any way in regime change efforts abroad .
He ’ s also mainly framed his left-wing regime support , including at the time the Sandinista backing , as part of his stance against America ’ s military adventurism .
He ’ s also consistently touted his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Sanders ’ s left-wing sympathetic past , and his occasional reminders of it , is that it ’ s horrible politics .
President Donald Trump is already stoking fears that Sanders would usher in a socialist revolution that would doom America .
Any nod to those previous stances will only make it harder for him to defeat Trump should Sanders be the nominee .
After all , Democrats in Florida are already angry at Sanders ’ s Cuba comments .
“ From the standpoint of the Democratic frontrunner , he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says Notre Dame ’ s Desch .
“ There ’ s a lot of you can say as the underdog ” — which Sanders has been for much of his political career — “ but you can ’ t say it as the top dog .
”

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has a long history of showing support for left-wing dictatorships around the world, but some thought he would steer clear of offering even qualified statements toward those regimes now that he’s running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
On Sunday night, though, Sanders made it clear that belief was misplaced.
Asked about his past backing of Fidel Castro’s communist government in Cuba during an interview with 60 Minutes, Sanders began by saying, “We’re very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba,” before adding, “but, you know, it’s unfair to simply say everything is bad.”
“When Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program,” he told journalist Anderson Cooper during the interview. “Is that a bad thing, even though Fidel Castro did it?”
Bernie Sanders defends his 1980s comments about Fidel Castro in an interview on 60 Minutes. https://t.co/ySqvQKoiBU pic.twitter.com/lTwuXWp9sA — 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) February 24, 2020
It arguably was a bad thing. In a 2015 Atlantic article, two experts on Cuba — including the former British ambassador to the island — explained why.
“Under Fidel Castro, education became universal — but he also stipulated that anyone who received this education would have to actively promote government policies both during and after their schooling,” the authors wrote. “They would also be required to take government-approved courses that didn’t tolerate any criticism of socialism as a way of life. In other words, education was seen as key to the revolution taking hold and creating a literate population loyal to the government.”
And while Cuba does have a widely praised health care system, some say it works better for outsiders than for its citizens.
“Cuba’s health service is divided in two: one for Cubans and the other for foreigners, who receive better quality care, while the national population has to be satisfied with dilapidated facilities and a lack of medicines and specialists, who are sent abroad to make money for Cuba,” Dr. Julio César Alfonso, director of the medical group Solidaridad Sin Fronteras and a Cuban exile, told El País in 2017.
The positive read of Sanders’s comments is that he’s injecting nuance into an oversimplified issue. Members of his team have long told me the senator rejects the good-bad dichotomy that dominates Washington’s foreign policy discourse. One can reject a nation’s system of government and its leadership while recognizing some of the advances they might make, they argue.
In fact, even President Barack Obama made similar comments to Sanders’s. “The United States recognizes progress that Cuba has made as a nation, its enormous achievements in education and in health care,” Obama said in 2016.
In that sense, Sanders’s comments aren’t particularly controversial. “There are elements of the Castro regime that have produced things, in terms of health care and education, that were undeniable progress,” Michael Desch, a professor of US foreign policy at the University of Notre Dame, told me. “He’s not crazy to mention them from the standpoint of history.”
The other read, though, is more in line with Sanders’s past. Time after time, he has apologized for the actions of brutal left-wing dictatorships from Cuba to Nicaragua to the Soviet Union, partly out of a critique of America’s meddling in these countries but also — some argue — because of his ideological sympathies toward them.
“Bernie has had his heart frozen in an earlier period of optimism for these regimes, and that optimism hasn’t borne out very well,” Desch said. He added that many of the political and social trends in these places were “frankly deplorable.”
It’s worth noting that Sanders is clear today on his opposition to dictatorial and corrupt regimes, a point the senator’s campaign communications director Mike Casca made in a statement to me on the Cuba comments: “Sen. Sanders has clearly and consistently criticized Fidel Castro’s authoritarianism and condemned his human rights abuses, and he’s simply echoing President Obama’s acknowledgment that Cuba made progress, especially in education.”
But it’s interesting that Sanders doesn’t grant the same nuance to other murderous, despotic governments. For example, he doesn’t note that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has improved economic conditions for loyalists in his nation’s capital, or that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has recently granted citizens, and especially women, more personal freedoms.
Those kinds of qualified comments seemingly are reserved solely for leftist revolutionary leaders, and they’re potentially a problem for him in a general election.
Sanders’s left-wing dictatorship sympathies, explained by his Nicaragua stances
Sanders’s stance on Nicaragua provides a particularly instructive example of his leftist dictator problem.
The Sandinistas were a Cuban- and Soviet-backed rebel group in Nicaragua that overthrew the country’s right-wing dictatorship in 1979. They proved adept at brutality: They shot unarmed civilians, relocated thousands, curtailed press freedoms, postponed elections to hold on to power, and mistreated indigenous populations.
The United States under Ronald Reagan tried to force out the Sandinistas, as having a Moscow-friendly outfit in charge of a Central American nation was seen as troublesome in Washington during the Cold War era. The Reagan administration even funded an opposition insurgent group known as the Contras to root out the Sandinistas.
That policy drew the ire of left-leaning leaders, Sanders among them. “The Reagan administration drove them crazy in the 1980s, particularly over the wars in Central America in El Salvador and Nicaragua,” Desch said.
For Sanders, who was the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, at the time, the Sandinista government wasn’t a bloody regime guilty of violating human rights — rather, it was a model for his state. “Vermont could set an example to the rest of the nation similar to the type of example Nicaragua is setting for the rest of Latin America,” he told a crowd in 1985 after touring the Central American nation for a revolutionary rally.
Similar to his Sunday defense of Cuba, the then-mayor cited some of the programs the Sandinista government provided. “Is [their] crime that they have built new health clinics, schools, and distributed land to the peasants? Is their crime that they have given equal rights to women? Or that they are moving forward to wipe out illiteracy?” he asked the 1985 audience.
“No, their crime in Mr. Reagan’s eyes and the eyes of the corporations and billionaires that determine American foreign policy is that they have refused to be a puppet and banana republic to American corporate interests,” Sanders said.
Sanders even traveled to New York City that year to visit Daniel Ortega, then Nicaragua’s president and a top Sandinista. The visit was mere weeks after the Ortega regime announced a state of emergency that led to mass arrests and the forced closing of media organizations.
Given a chance to denounce those actions during a press conference, Sanders punted: “Am I aware enough of all the details of what is going on in Nicaragua to say [to Ortega] ‘you have reacted too strongly?’ I don’t know.”
His campaign noted in an email that Sanders, as mayor, had denounced the Sandinistas at certain points. However, even those denunciations were pretty weak. For instance, Sanders told the Burlington Free Press in 1985, “I have no reason to doubt that, like every other government in the world, the Sandinistas make their share of mistakes, and I don’t intend to ignore that.”
When asked about the Sandinistas’ shuttering of newspapers a week later, Sanders also told the Burlington Free Press, “It is very distasteful to me to hear of censorship in any form. My hope is that in Nicaragua in the near future, there will be total freedom of expression for all individuals. That does not exist today.”
However, he went on to say that “he had no reason to believe that any government on earth is perfect,” according to the Burlington Free Press.
It seems that even when criticizing leftist regimes, Sanders just can’t help pointing out their positive qualities or excusing their abuses with a shrug and a “nobody’s perfect.”
And that fact could hurt his chances of becoming president.
“Leading with his chin”
For Van Jackson, speaking in a personal capacity but who is advising Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign and before counseled the campaigns of Julián Castro and Kamala Harris, the focus on Sanders’s 60 Minutes comments isn’t that important. “Everyone’s reaction seems exaggerated,” he told me. “All of it misses the point that Cuba’s just not important except maybe as an indicator of your foreign policy style.
“He’s definitely going to establish rhetorical markers that are different from past presidents, but I don’t think you’re going to see big policy swings or deviations,” Jackson continued.
That may be true, and Sanders’s answers on foreign policy during the campaign have been more mainstream than people realize. As the senator told the New York Times this month, he’d consider military force for a humanitarian intervention, or even to preempt a missile test by Iran or North Korea. He did, however, vow not to engage in any way in regime change efforts abroad.
He’s also mainly framed his left-wing regime support, including at the time the Sandinista backing, as part of his stance against America’s military adventurism. He’s also consistently touted his antiwar record.
I was right about Vietnam.
I was right about Iraq.
I will do everything in my power to prevent a war with Iran.
I apologize to no one. pic.twitter.com/Lna3oBZMKB — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) May 24, 2019
The real problem now with Sanders’s left-wing sympathetic past, and his occasional reminders of it, is that it’s horrible politics. President Donald Trump is already stoking fears that Sanders would usher in a socialist revolution that would doom America. Any nod to those previous stances will only make it harder for him to defeat Trump should Sanders be the nominee. After all, Democrats in Florida are already angry at Sanders’s Cuba comments.
“From the standpoint of the Democratic frontrunner, he’s basically leading with his chin,” says Notre Dame’s Desch. “There’s a lot of you can say as the underdog” — which Sanders has been for much of his political career — “but you can’t say it as the top dog.”


vox--2020-02-24--Harvey Weinstein is the first major figure taken down by #MeToo to be convicted

Harvey Weinstein ’ s verdict is in , and the first high-profile Me Too trial is over .
In October 2017 , the New York Times and the New Yorker published their landmark articles accusing the Hollywood producer of sexual harassment , assault , and rape , launching the Me Too movement into overdrive .
And on Monday , a jury found Weinstein guilty of rape in the third degree and a criminal sexual act in the first degree .
He was found not guilty of first-degree rape and two charges of predatory sexual assault , the more serious of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with this verdict , Harvey Weinstein has become the first of the high-profile men accused of sexual misconduct since October 2017 to face genuine legal consequences for his actions .
Other high-profile men have been convicted of sex crimes since 2017 , like Bill Cosby and Larry Nassar .
But both Cosby and Nassar were charged with their crimes well before the Me Too movement went viral .
Weinstein is the first of the high-profile men who was accused , investigated , charged , and tried all within the world created by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reached its most visible phase because of Weinstein ’ s case .
This fact is worth remembering and repeating .
Since the Me Too movement was galvanized in October 2017 , and women began to work to overcome the enormous stigma of speaking up about sexual violence , the movement has faced a profound backlash .
Critic after critic has declared Me Too dangerous and called for it to come to an end .
Yet for all the hand-wringing about whether Me Too has gone too far , for all the discussion about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lynch mobs and innocent people ’ s lives are being ruined , for all that : 35 months after the Me Too movement went viral , Harvey Weinstein is still the first high-profile man to be legally punished for his actions as a result of that movement .
And he wasn ’ t even found guilty on all charges .
In the fall of 2017 , more and more women across the country said , “ Me too , ” and it felt like the world was changing The first articles about Harvey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were followed rapidly by more articles about more men .
Suddenly , it became impossible for a single week , or even day , to go by without another story breaking in which another powerful man was accused of sexual misconduct .
It was as though someone had jostled a line of dominoes , and now we were watching them all topple in real time .
The accusations against Weinstein broke on October 5 .
Accusations against a litany of other famous men followed : Nelly on October 7 .
Kevin Spacey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November 7 , Louis C.K .
on November 9 , Charlie Rose on November 20 , Mario Batali on December 11 .
By the end of 2018 , there would be 262 in total .
Person after person was saying , “ Me too , ” and it seemed as though the world was actually , for once , listening .
It seemed as though these accusations might really matter , that they might matter in the way that accusations against powerful men who have hurt women often don ’ t .
Historically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t do much to the rich and famous and powerful men of the world when women say that those men have hurt them .
We give them Oscars and a seat on the Supreme Court and in the White House , and we call their accusers liars or hysterical or unreliable .
We treat the men and their power as sacrosanct and the women and their pain as disposable .
But after the Weinstein accusations in October 2017 , the world reacted with outraged , fascinated shock , and it began to feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The institutions that were the seat of these men ’ s power began to treat them as liabilities rather than assets .
Weinstein lost his company .
Kevin Spacey was kicked off House of Cards .
The wide release of Louis C.K.
’ s movie was canceled , and he lost his TV show .
None of it was the same as a punishment , per se — these men were all still rich and still had the freedom to enjoy their enormous wealth — but it felt as though people were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual misconduct seriously .
It felt as though we were beginning to think about women ’ s pain as being as worthy of consideration as men ’ s power .
Within three months of the Weinstein accusations , the Me Too backlash arrived But by the time 2018 rolled around , the backlash had already begun .
Me Too , people began murmuring , had already gone too far .
After all : Men were losing their jobs .
“ In our current climate , to be accused is to be convicted , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times on January 5 , citing the fact that Garrison Keillor , Jonathan Schwartz , Ryan Lizza , and Sen. Al Franken had all lost their jobs after being accused of harassment and investigated by their employers .
( Franken was not investigated , but he voluntarily resigned after eight women accused him of harassment . )
“ Due process is nowhere to be found , ” Merkin concluded .
“ People have to be allowed to serve their time and move on with their lives , ” tweeted Michael Che @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
made a surprise performance at New York City ’ s Comedy Cellar less than a year after he admitted to sexually harassing women .
“ There are very few people that have gone through what they have , losing everything in a day , ” Norm Macdonald said of C.K .
and Roseanne Barr in September 2018 .
( Barr lost her job over a series of racist tweets . )
“ Of course , people will go , ‘ What about the victims ?
’ ” Macdonald continued .
“ But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have to go through that.
” Harvey Weinstein , the Me Too backlashers almost universally allowed , was surely a monster .
He was the genuine article , the kind of target that it was legitimate for the Me Too movement to go after — one of “ the truly heinous sorts , ” as Merkin put it .
But they suggested that the other men who had been targeted were being treated unfairly .
Weinstein became a sacrificial lamb for the patriarchy , the man who everyone agreed had gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was unacceptable , some backlashers argued , surely anyone whose misconduct was not quite so bad as his should be forgiven .
In October 2018 , an NPR poll found that 40 percent of Americans believed Me Too had gone too far .
For a movement often described as having “ gone too far , ” Me Too has carried remarkably few legal consequences Here ’ s the thing : What happened because of Me Too was that a bunch of powerful men were accused of doing terrible things .
Some of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men who were investigated lost their jobs .
Many of the men who were accused became unpopular , although often legions of fans remained loyal .
And some of the other accused men remained president or were installed onto the Supreme Court .
Those were the consequences .
That was a movement that had gone “ too far.
” And despite the repeated use of quasi-legal language from critics of Me Too — the fretting over “ due process , ” the argument that accused men had “ served their time ” by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ famous comedy clubs — none of the high-profile men of the Me Too movement had faced actual legal consequences .
Until now , when Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of third-degree rape and a sexual criminal act .
Harvey Weinstein is facing a minimum of five years in prison and a maximum of 25 .
He has also been charged with four counts of sexual assault in Los Angeles , where he will soon face trial .
But he was acquitted of three of the charges he faced in New York state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harvey Weinstein ’ s case shocking to begin with was the overwhelming volume of accusers , the more than 100 women who came forward to say that Weinstein harassed or assaulted or raped them , the apparently undeniable pattern of vicious predatory violence that spanned decades .
Legally , that sort of pattern is described as predatory sexual assault , and during Weinstein ’ s trial , prosecutors attempted to prove a pattern existed in part by calling in Annabella Sciorra to testify as a witness .
Sciorra says that Weinstein raped her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of limitations has run out on her claim .
But prosecutors hoped her testimony , along with that of five other women who testified regarding how Weinstein treated them , would prove to the jury that Weinstein made a pattern of assaulting and raping women .
“ He took my hands and put them over my head to hold them back , ” Sciorra said on the stand , staring directly at the jury as she raised her hands over her head and locked her wrists .
“ Then he got on top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the jury , which scrutinized Sciorra ’ s testimony closely over a weekend of deliberation , seemed unable to decide that her testimony was truthful beyond a reasonable doubt .
Instead , the jury acquitted Weinstein on two counts of predatory sexual assault .
Even Harvey Weinstein , the monster of the Me Too movement , the one man who nearly everyone agrees is truly a predator — even he will not face legal consequences for all the crimes of which he has been accused .
In the face of his New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether any of the hundreds of other men accused of hurting women in the wake of the Me Too movement will ever be punished at all , or whether the survivors of their actions will ever see justice .
The enormous cultural shift that seemed to have finally come back in October 2017 now seems fuzzy , uncertain .
It ’ s not clear whether anything has really changed in our corrupted and dangerous systems , or if there has been a change , whether it could ever make a meaningful difference .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree that Harvey Weinstein was guilty of everything he was accused of , then , my god , who will we ever be able to find guilty ?
The question is not whether Me Too has gone too far .
The question is whether it will ever be able to go far enough .

Harvey Weinstein’s verdict is in, and the first high-profile Me Too trial is over.
In October 2017, the New York Times and the New Yorker published their landmark articles accusing the Hollywood producer of sexual harassment, assault, and rape, launching the Me Too movement into overdrive. And on Monday, a jury found Weinstein guilty of rape in the third degree and a criminal sexual act in the first degree. He was found not guilty of first-degree rape and two charges of predatory sexual assault, the more serious of the five charges he faced.
And with this verdict, Harvey Weinstein has become the first of the high-profile men accused of sexual misconduct since October 2017 to face genuine legal consequences for his actions.
Other high-profile men have been convicted of sex crimes since 2017, like Bill Cosby and Larry Nassar. But both Cosby and Nassar were charged with their crimes well before the Me Too movement went viral. Weinstein is the first of the high-profile men who was accused, investigated, charged, and tried all within the world created by the Me Too movement — a movement that reached its most visible phase because of Weinstein’s case.
This fact is worth remembering and repeating. Since the Me Too movement was galvanized in October 2017, and women began to work to overcome the enormous stigma of speaking up about sexual violence, the movement has faced a profound backlash. Critic after critic has declared Me Too dangerous and called for it to come to an end. Yet for all the hand-wringing about whether Me Too has gone too far, for all the discussion about how men are facing witch hunts and lynch mobs and innocent people’s lives are being ruined, for all that: 35 months after the Me Too movement went viral, Harvey Weinstein is still the first high-profile man to be legally punished for his actions as a result of that movement.
And he wasn’t even found guilty on all charges.
In the fall of 2017, more and more women across the country said, “Me too,” and it felt like the world was changing
The first articles about Harvey Weinstein dropped in October 2017, and they were followed rapidly by more articles about more men. Suddenly, it became impossible for a single week, or even day, to go by without another story breaking in which another powerful man was accused of sexual misconduct. It was as though someone had jostled a line of dominoes, and now we were watching them all topple in real time.
The accusations against Weinstein broke on October 5. Accusations against a litany of other famous men followed: Nelly on October 7. Kevin Spacey on October 29. Ed Westwick on November 7, Louis C.K. on November 9, Charlie Rose on November 20, Mario Batali on December 11. By the end of 2018, there would be 262 in total.
Person after person was saying, “Me too,” and it seemed as though the world was actually, for once, listening. It seemed as though these accusations might really matter, that they might matter in the way that accusations against powerful men who have hurt women often don’t.
Historically, we as a culture don’t do much to the rich and famous and powerful men of the world when women say that those men have hurt them. We give them Oscars and a seat on the Supreme Court and in the White House, and we call their accusers liars or hysterical or unreliable. We treat the men and their power as sacrosanct and the women and their pain as disposable.
But after the Weinstein accusations in October 2017, the world reacted with outraged, fascinated shock, and it began to feel as though something might finally be changing.
The institutions that were the seat of these men’s power began to treat them as liabilities rather than assets. Weinstein lost his company. Kevin Spacey was kicked off House of Cards. The wide release of Louis C.K.’s movie was canceled, and he lost his TV show.
None of it was the same as a punishment, per se — these men were all still rich and still had the freedom to enjoy their enormous wealth — but it felt as though people were at least beginning to take accusations of sexual misconduct seriously. It felt as though we were beginning to think about women’s pain as being as worthy of consideration as men’s power.
Within three months of the Weinstein accusations, the Me Too backlash arrived
But by the time 2018 rolled around, the backlash had already begun. Me Too, people began murmuring, had already gone too far. After all: Men were losing their jobs.
“In our current climate, to be accused is to be convicted,” wrote Daphne Merkin darkly at the New York Times on January 5, citing the fact that Garrison Keillor, Jonathan Schwartz, Ryan Lizza, and Sen. Al Franken had all lost their jobs after being accused of harassment and investigated by their employers. (Franken was not investigated, but he voluntarily resigned after eight women accused him of harassment.) “Due process is nowhere to be found,” Merkin concluded.
“People have to be allowed to serve their time and move on with their lives,” tweeted Michael Che in August 2018, after Louis C.K. made a surprise performance at New York City’s Comedy Cellar less than a year after he admitted to sexually harassing women.
“There are very few people that have gone through what they have, losing everything in a day,” Norm Macdonald said of C.K. and Roseanne Barr in September 2018. (Barr lost her job over a series of racist tweets.) “Of course, people will go, ‘What about the victims?’” Macdonald continued. “But you know what? The victims didn’t have to go through that.”
Harvey Weinstein, the Me Too backlashers almost universally allowed, was surely a monster. He was the genuine article, the kind of target that it was legitimate for the Me Too movement to go after — one of “the truly heinous sorts,” as Merkin put it. But they suggested that the other men who had been targeted were being treated unfairly.
Weinstein became a sacrificial lamb for the patriarchy, the man who everyone agreed had gone beyond the pale. But because Weinstein was unacceptable, some backlashers argued, surely anyone whose misconduct was not quite so bad as his should be forgiven.
In October 2018, an NPR poll found that 40 percent of Americans believed Me Too had gone too far.
For a movement often described as having “gone too far,” Me Too has carried remarkably few legal consequences
Here’s the thing: What happened because of Me Too was that a bunch of powerful men were accused of doing terrible things. Some of those men were investigated. Some of those men who were investigated lost their jobs. Many of the men who were accused became unpopular, although often legions of fans remained loyal. And some of the other accused men remained president or were installed onto the Supreme Court.
Those were the consequences. That was a movement that had gone “too far.”
And despite the repeated use of quasi-legal language from critics of Me Too — the fretting over “due process,” the argument that accused men had “served their time” by spending a few months not performing at famous comedy clubs — none of the high-profile men of the Me Too movement had faced actual legal consequences. Until now, when Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of third-degree rape and a sexual criminal act.
Harvey Weinstein is facing a minimum of five years in prison and a maximum of 25. He has also been charged with four counts of sexual assault in Los Angeles, where he will soon face trial. But he was acquitted of three of the charges he faced in New York state, and those acquittals matter.
What made Harvey Weinstein’s case shocking to begin with was the overwhelming volume of accusers, the more than 100 women who came forward to say that Weinstein harassed or assaulted or raped them, the apparently undeniable pattern of vicious predatory violence that spanned decades. Legally, that sort of pattern is described as predatory sexual assault, and during Weinstein’s trial, prosecutors attempted to prove a pattern existed in part by calling in Annabella Sciorra to testify as a witness.
Sciorra says that Weinstein raped her in the 1990s, so the statute of limitations has run out on her claim. But prosecutors hoped her testimony, along with that of five other women who testified regarding how Weinstein treated them, would prove to the jury that Weinstein made a pattern of assaulting and raping women.
“He took my hands and put them over my head to hold them back,” Sciorra said on the stand, staring directly at the jury as she raised her hands over her head and locked her wrists. “Then he got on top of me and he raped me.”
But the jury, which scrutinized Sciorra’s testimony closely over a weekend of deliberation, seemed unable to decide that her testimony was truthful beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the jury acquitted Weinstein on two counts of predatory sexual assault.
Even Harvey Weinstein, the monster of the Me Too movement, the one man who nearly everyone agrees is truly a predator — even he will not face legal consequences for all the crimes of which he has been accused.
In the face of his New York verdict, it’s unclear whether any of the hundreds of other men accused of hurting women in the wake of the Me Too movement will ever be punished at all, or whether the survivors of their actions will ever see justice.
The enormous cultural shift that seemed to have finally come back in October 2017 now seems fuzzy, uncertain. It’s not clear whether anything has really changed in our corrupted and dangerous systems, or if there has been a change, whether it could ever make a meaningful difference. Because if we can’t even agree that Harvey Weinstein was guilty of everything he was accused of, then, my god, who will we ever be able to find guilty?
The question is not whether Me Too has gone too far. The question is whether it will ever be able to go far enough.


vox--2020-02-24--Amazon tells Sanders and Warren that warehouse workers can pee whenever they want

Amazon stayed on the defensive in a response to United States senators about its warehouse working conditions on Friday , disputing claims that its workers can ’ t take bathroom breaks when they need to and calling on politicians who haven ’ t visited an Amazon fulfillment center to take the company up on its offer of a tour .
Amazon also said it is “ exploring the best way to make information about Amazon ’ s safety record public , ” but argued that worker injury records submitted to the US Department of Labor contain “ private and sensitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injury descriptions that are treated as confidential .
The eight-page response was sent on Friday to a group of 15 Democratic US senators , including Tammy Baldwin ( WI ) and Sherrod Brown ( OH ) , as well as presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren .
Two weeks earlier , the senators warned Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos in a letter to overhaul an alleged “ profit-at-all-costs culture ” that they say manifests itself in a punishing work environment for the hundreds of thousands of workers responsible for sorting , packing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response letter , signed by Amazon policy executive Brian Huseman , will likely do little to squelch protest from worker activists and some progressive politicians who say worker complaints and injury rates speak for themselves .
Chief among the allegations Amazon faces is that the pace of work inside Amazon warehouses is so intense that some workers relieve themselves in bottles so that their performance doesn ’ t suffer .
To address the allegations , the senators had asked Amazon to “ cease including bathroom breaks as a ‘ time off task.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that workers “ are allowed and encouraged to take breaks as needed , in addition to their traditional breaks during a shift ... including time spent using the restroom.
” “ If there are instances where our leaders can not account for the whereabouts of an associate for a significant amount of time ( ‘ time off task ’ ) , managers speak with the associate to understand if there are any issues that can be addressed by the leadership team ( such as defective equipment or process defects ) , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason behind the ‘ time off task ’ is related to bathroom breaks , it is excused.
” The company also continued to maintain that injury rates of its workers are higher than the industry average because the company is more aggressive than its peers in recording injuries on the job .
“ In 2016 , ” the letter read , “ we decided to change our approach to recordkeeping and design a system that reported all injuries — no matter the severity — to remove elements of subjectivity and provide the data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No word yet on a response from the senators .

Amazon stayed on the defensive in a response to United States senators about its warehouse working conditions on Friday, disputing claims that its workers can’t take bathroom breaks when they need to and calling on politicians who haven’t visited an Amazon fulfillment center to take the company up on its offer of a tour.
Amazon also said it is “exploring the best way to make information about Amazon’s safety record public,” but argued that worker injury records submitted to the US Department of Labor contain “private and sensitive” details such as worker names and injury descriptions that are treated as confidential.
The eight-page response was sent on Friday to a group of 15 Democratic US senators, including Tammy Baldwin (WI) and Sherrod Brown (OH), as well as presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Two weeks earlier, the senators warned Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos in a letter to overhaul an alleged “profit-at-all-costs culture” that they say manifests itself in a punishing work environment for the hundreds of thousands of workers responsible for sorting, packing, and shipping customer orders. But this response letter, signed by Amazon policy executive Brian Huseman, will likely do little to squelch protest from worker activists and some progressive politicians who say worker complaints and injury rates speak for themselves.
Chief among the allegations Amazon faces is that the pace of work inside Amazon warehouses is so intense that some workers relieve themselves in bottles so that their performance doesn’t suffer. To address the allegations, the senators had asked Amazon to “cease including bathroom breaks as a ‘time off task.’” In its response, Amazon said that workers “are allowed and encouraged to take breaks as needed, in addition to their traditional breaks during a shift ... including time spent using the restroom.”
“If there are instances where our leaders cannot account for the whereabouts of an associate for a significant amount of time (‘time off task’), managers speak with the associate to understand if there are any issues that can be addressed by the leadership team (such as defective equipment or process defects),” the letter went on. “If the reason behind the ‘time off task’ is related to bathroom breaks, it is excused.”
The company also continued to maintain that injury rates of its workers are higher than the industry average because the company is more aggressive than its peers in recording injuries on the job.
“In 2016,” the letter read, “we decided to change our approach to recordkeeping and design a system that reported all injuries — no matter the severity — to remove elements of subjectivity and provide the data needed to drive comprehensive safety improvements.”
No word yet on a response from the senators.


vox--2020-02-24--This is the math that made Katherine Johnson — one of NASA’s “Hidden Figures” — a legend

Katherine Johnson , who died Monday at age 101 , was a pioneer in many ways : She was an early employee of NASA ( and even worked at the agency that predated it ) , and an African American woman working in a field hugely dominated by white men .
She was also a pioneer in that her work helped put humans in space , and returned them safely home to Earth .
Before rising to pop-culture fame with the book and movie Hidden Figures , before being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom , Johnson created and calculated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s adventures in spaceflight successful .
As Bill Barry , NASA ’ s chief historian , told the Washington Post in an obituary : “ If we go back to the moon , or to Mars , we ’ ll be using her math.
” Here ’ s what she did , and why she ’ ll be remembered for a long time .
NASA gave Johnson landing zones .
She figured out how to get spacecraft there .
In the 1960s , NASA had figured out how to launch a human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That was an extremely impressive feat .
But equally hard was getting that human to land safely back on Earth .
One of the trickiest bits : the spacecraft couldn ’ t just land anywhere .
Were an astronaut to touch down in a desolate corner of the ocean , without any land in sight , it could presumably take days to be rescued ( if rescued at all ) .
This means that Johnson needed to calculate the entire trajectory of the flight — where it started , how fast it went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The missions to send humans to space and back had to be precise and choreographed .
Johnson ’ s math enabled that choreography .
She best explained her job in her own words : “ Early on , when they said they wanted the capsule to come down at a certain place , they were trying to compute when it should start , ” Johnson said in a 2008 NASA interview .
“ I said , ‘ Let me do it .
You tell me when you want it and where you want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll do it backwards and tell you when to take off.
’ That was my forte.
” And so , she calculated the trajectory for Alan Shepard ’ s historic 1961 flight that put the first American in space , and landed him in the Atlantic Ocean .
But greater challenges were to come .
Shepard visited space , but he was not put into orbit around the Earth .
He went up , and came down .
Flying , essentially , in a simple parabolic arc .
Orbit — having the spacecraft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In orbit , not only is the spacecraft moving at 17,000 mph , the Earth below is also moving , rotating on its axis .
Here , Johnson ’ s challenge was the same .
She had to take a landing zone for an orbiting spacecraft , and calculate backwards : figuring out the math for how the spacecraft would arrive there .
She did this work to prepare for Astronaut John Glenn ’ s historic 1962 mission when he became the first American to orbit the globe .
This work meant juggling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rocket took off , where it entered obit , how quickly it was moving in orbit , the rotation of the Earth beneath it , the angle at which it ought to reenter the Earth , and the location of the splashdown .
In figuring it out , she became the first woman to ever co-author a research paper at NASA .
Entitled “ Determination of Azimuth Angle at Burnout for Placing a Satellite Over a Selected Earth Position , ” the paper — with co-author Ted Skopinski — basically explains where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rockets to land on a particular portion of the Earth .
Famously , before Glenn took off on his first orbital spaceflight , he requested Johnson double-check all the orbital math of the mission by hand — being slightly distrustful of the new-fangled electronic computers that NASA had installed to do the work .
Glenn ’ s flight , and the math making it happen , was the subject of the 2016 film Hidden Figures , in which Johnson , as well as other African American women working at NASA , are given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s largely white and male .
But Johnson ’ s work didn ’ t stop there .
She worked on the Apollo program , which brought humans to the moon for the first time : Her calculations were critical in getting the lunar lander to meet back up with the command module in orbit around the moon .
She later worked on the space shuttle program , as well as satellites , before retiring in 1986 .
Today , there ’ s a computational research facility at NASA ’ s Langley campus named @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came late in life , but it ’ s also important Her mathematics is an important legacy .
But so is the legacy of her recent celebrity .
For too long , Johnson ’ s contributions to the space program were unknown by the public .
The story of America ’ s success in the space race has largely been told through the stories of the men at NASA .
But Johnson was there , too .
And it ’ s important to remember that .
The public needs more diverse role models @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about what a scientist means , you probably think of an Einstein figure — a man in a lab or at a chalkboard with fuzzy , unkempt hair , ” as my Vox colleague Julia Belluz has written .
“ When you think of a scientist ’ s voice , you might conjure Neil deGrasse Tyson or Carl Sagan .
With these voices and images so pervasive in our culture , it ’ s easier to associate ‘ scientist ’ with ‘ man ’ — and in particular , ‘ white man.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nettie Stevens , Henrietta Leavitt , Rosalind Franklin , Johnson and so many others ought to be just as famous .
Today , too many women — and minorities — still feel unwelcome in many corners of science .
Johnson ’ s legacy shows them they have every right to be there .

Katherine Johnson, who died Monday at age 101, was a pioneer in many ways: She was an early employee of NASA (and even worked at the agency that predated it), and an African American woman working in a field hugely dominated by white men. She was also a pioneer in that her work helped put humans in space, and returned them safely home to Earth.
Before rising to pop-culture fame with the book and movie Hidden Figures, before being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Johnson created and calculated some extremely important equations to make America’s adventures in spaceflight successful. As Bill Barry, NASA’s chief historian, told the Washington Post in an obituary: “If we go back to the moon, or to Mars, we’ll be using her math.”
Here’s what she did, and why she’ll be remembered for a long time.
NASA gave Johnson landing zones. She figured out how to get spacecraft there.
In the 1960s, NASA had figured out how to launch a human being aboard a rocket into space. That was an extremely impressive feat. But equally hard was getting that human to land safely back on Earth.
One of the trickiest bits: the spacecraft couldn’t just land anywhere. Were an astronaut to touch down in a desolate corner of the ocean, without any land in sight, it could presumably take days to be rescued (if rescued at all).
This means that Johnson needed to calculate the entire trajectory of the flight — where it started, how fast it went, and where it would land. The missions to send humans to space and back had to be precise and choreographed. Johnson’s math enabled that choreography.
She best explained her job in her own words: “Early on, when they said they wanted the capsule to come down at a certain place, they were trying to compute when it should start,” Johnson said in a 2008 NASA interview. “I said, ‘Let me do it. You tell me when you want it and where you want it to land, and I’ll do it backwards and tell you when to take off.’ That was my forte.”
And so, she calculated the trajectory for Alan Shepard’s historic 1961 flight that put the first American in space, and landed him in the Atlantic Ocean.
But greater challenges were to come. Shepard visited space, but he was not put into orbit around the Earth. He went up, and came down. Flying, essentially, in a simple parabolic arc.
Orbit — having the spacecraft encircle the Earth — is harder.
In orbit, not only is the spacecraft moving at 17,000 mph, the Earth below is also moving, rotating on its axis.
Here, Johnson’s challenge was the same. She had to take a landing zone for an orbiting spacecraft, and calculate backwards: figuring out the math for how the spacecraft would arrive there.
She did this work to prepare for Astronaut John Glenn’s historic 1962 mission when he became the first American to orbit the globe.
This work meant juggling a lot of different variables: where the rocket took off, where it entered obit, how quickly it was moving in orbit, the rotation of the Earth beneath it, the angle at which it ought to reenter the Earth, and the location of the splashdown.
In figuring it out, she became the first woman to ever co-author a research paper at NASA. Entitled “Determination of Azimuth Angle at Burnout for Placing a Satellite Over a Selected Earth Position,” the paper — with co-author Ted Skopinski — basically explains where an orbiting spacecraft should fire its reentry rockets to land on a particular portion of the Earth.
Famously, before Glenn took off on his first orbital spaceflight, he requested Johnson double-check all the orbital math of the mission by hand — being slightly distrustful of the new-fangled electronic computers that NASA had installed to do the work.
Glenn’s flight, and the math making it happen, was the subject of the 2016 film Hidden Figures, in which Johnson, as well as other African American women working at NASA, are given the spotlight amid a workforce that’s largely white and male.
But Johnson’s work didn’t stop there. She worked on the Apollo program, which brought humans to the moon for the first time: Her calculations were critical in getting the lunar lander to meet back up with the command module in orbit around the moon. She later worked on the space shuttle program, as well as satellites, before retiring in 1986. Today, there’s a computational research facility at NASA’s Langley campus named after her.
Johnson’s celebrity came late in life, but it’s also important
Her mathematics is an important legacy. But so is the legacy of her recent celebrity. For too long, Johnson’s contributions to the space program were unknown by the public. The story of America’s success in the space race has largely been told through the stories of the men at NASA. But Johnson was there, too. And it’s important to remember that.
The public needs more diverse role models in science. “When you think about what a scientist means, you probably think of an Einstein figure — a man in a lab or at a chalkboard with fuzzy, unkempt hair,” as my Vox colleague Julia Belluz has written. “When you think of a scientist’s voice, you might conjure Neil deGrasse Tyson or Carl Sagan. With these voices and images so pervasive in our culture, it’s easier to associate ‘scientist’ with ‘man’ — and in particular, ‘white man.’”
Women scientists like Vera Rubin, Nettie Stevens, Henrietta Leavitt, Rosalind Franklin, Johnson and so many others ought to be just as famous. Today, too many women — and minorities — still feel unwelcome in many corners of science. Johnson’s legacy shows them they have every right to be there.


vox--2020-02-24--Coronavirus fears have spurred a stock market sell-off

Wall Street is waking up to the threat of the coronavirus .
The stock market took a dip Monday morning in the face of increasing fears about the coronavirus ’ s potential impact on the global economy .
The Dow Jones Industrial Average , S & P 500 , and Nasdaq all ended the day down by more than 3 percent .
The Dow tumbled by more than 1,000 points , erasing its gains for the year .
There have been concerns about the coronavirus for months , but worries about it approaching pandemic status have been building in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Belluz explained , as of Monday , there were more than 79,000 cases of Covid-19 ( the disease caused by the coronavirus strain ) in 29 countries .
While most cases have been found in China , countries around the world have reported surges in recent days , including Italy , Iran , and South Korea .
Italy quarantined multiple towns and canceled the Venice Carnival and several football events .
And an outbreak on a cruise ship outside Japan has increased concerns , too .
“ The likelihood that we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that spreads around the world — or that we ’ re hurtling toward one — seems higher than just a week ago , ” Belluz wrote .
The World Health Organization said it believes there ’ s still time to contain the virus and that its epidemic peak may be declining in China , but other experts believe the virus has already spread widely and anticipate epidemics around the world .
Either way , the threat is causing ripples across global stock markets and economies .
An investor survey conducted by the market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Sunday found that most investors still believe coronavirus will not cause a global economic recession , and only about one-third of them had made changes to their or their clients ’ portfolios , taking into account the risks of the disease .
But it ’ s worth noting the survey was collected between Tuesday and Saturday of last week , before the latest wave of fear-inducing news hit .
In a note to clients on Monday , Ian Shepherdson , chief economist at the research firm Pantheon Macroeconomics , warned that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline ” and said there ’ s still a lot of uncertainty on the impact of the coronavirus .
“ At this point , no one knows — and no one can know — whether these fears [ around the virus ] will prove justified , which means that markets are now slaves to the news , ” he wrote .
The spread of the disease in China and elsewhere has already impacted global supply chains and travel , and the situation could worsen .
Last week , Apple said it would slash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was going to slow because so much of its production is based in China , and saying that demand for its devices in China had been harmed .
As CNBC noted on Monday , the coronavirus-induced market slide was specifically felt by airlines and chipmakers .
And it ’ s not just US stocks that are suffering — markets around the globe shuddered , too .
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett on Monday told CNBC that the US economy still looks pretty solid , but President Donald Trump ’ s trade war and coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the tariff situation was a big question mark for all kinds of companies .
And still is to some degree .
But that was front and center for a while .
Now , coronavirus is front and center , ” he said .
While the coronavirus news and its potential effects on the global economy and markets are worrying , it ’ s important not to panic .
( Today is perhaps not the day to look at your 401 ( k ) balance . )
The Dow is just slightly below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s about 2,000 points above where it was this time a year ago .

Wall Street is waking up to the threat of the coronavirus.
The stock market took a dip Monday morning in the face of increasing fears about the coronavirus’s potential impact on the global economy. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, and Nasdaq all ended the day down by more than 3 percent. The Dow tumbled by more than 1,000 points, erasing its gains for the year.
There have been concerns about the coronavirus for months, but worries about it approaching pandemic status have been building in recent days. As Vox’s Julia Belluz explained, as of Monday, there were more than 79,000 cases of Covid-19 (the disease caused by the coronavirus strain) in 29 countries.
While most cases have been found in China, countries around the world have reported surges in recent days, including Italy, Iran, and South Korea. Italy quarantined multiple towns and canceled the Venice Carnival and several football events. And an outbreak on a cruise ship outside Japan has increased concerns, too. “The likelihood that we’re in a pandemic, a new disease that spreads around the world — or that we’re hurtling toward one — seems higher than just a week ago,” Belluz wrote.
The World Health Organization said it believes there’s still time to contain the virus and that its epidemic peak may be declining in China, but other experts believe the virus has already spread widely and anticipate epidemics around the world. Either way, the threat is causing ripples across global stock markets and economies.
An investor survey conducted by the market insight and research firm DataTrek Research released on Sunday found that most investors still believe coronavirus will not cause a global economic recession, and only about one-third of them had made changes to their or their clients’ portfolios, taking into account the risks of the disease. But it’s worth noting the survey was collected between Tuesday and Saturday of last week, before the latest wave of fear-inducing news hit.
In a note to clients on Monday, Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at the research firm Pantheon Macroeconomics, warned that “virus-induced nerves will persist until non-China cases decline” and said there’s still a lot of uncertainty on the impact of the coronavirus. “At this point, no one knows — and no one can know — whether these fears [around the virus] will prove justified, which means that markets are now slaves to the news,” he wrote.
The spread of the disease in China and elsewhere has already impacted global supply chains and travel, and the situation could worsen. Last week, Apple said it would slash sales expectations, noting its smartphone supply was going to slow because so much of its production is based in China, and saying that demand for its devices in China had been harmed. As CNBC noted on Monday, the coronavirus-induced market slide was specifically felt by airlines and chipmakers. And it’s not just US stocks that are suffering — markets around the globe shuddered, too.
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett on Monday told CNBC that the US economy still looks pretty solid, but President Donald Trump’s trade war and coronavirus are cause for concern. “Tariffs — the tariff situation was a big question mark for all kinds of companies. And still is to some degree. But that was front and center for a while. Now, coronavirus is front and center,” he said.
While the coronavirus news and its potential effects on the global economy and markets are worrying, it’s important not to panic. (Today is perhaps not the day to look at your 401(k) balance.) The Dow is just slightly below where it started in 2020, and it’s about 2,000 points above where it was this time a year ago.


vox--2020-02-24--The race for presidential delegates has begun. Track them here.

Share All sharing options for : The race for presidential delegates has begun .
Track them here .
The magic number to win the Democratic Party ’ s nomination for president is 1,991 delegates .
It could take months to officially get there .
Presidential candidates are all competing for a majority of 3,979 pledged delegates .
Separately , there are also 771 automatic delegates , otherwise known as “ superdelegates.
” But after a contentious 2016 primary , the Democratic National Committee changed its rules around superdelegates so they may now vote on the first ballot to select a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if a campaign has secured a supermajority of pledged delegates .
( Otherwise , they weigh in in the event of a second round of voting at the convention . )
Candidates are competing for these delegates against a backdrop of complex rules : Delegates are awarded proportionally , and most states and districts require a minimum threshold of 15 percent of the primary or caucus vote to earn pledged delegates .
This makes the contest a bit fairer , but also means it ’ s much harder to secure that magic number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the year .
The Iowa caucuses officially kicked off the delegate race on February 3 .
But while the early states are all about gaining momentum , the race is ultimately about who can bag the most delegates and get to that magic number .
This could all be over very quickly if one candidate racks up an insurmountable lead , or it could drag on into the spring and summer , ahead of the Democratic National Convention in July .
Vox has a delegate tracker , in partnership with our friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Politics .
It ’ s easiest to think about the primary race in three phases , as we explained in our primary calendar .
• Phase one : The early states .
This is the all-important opening salvo of Iowa , New Hampshire , Nevada , and South Carolina , but their importance is all about momentum — not delegates .
Taken together , these four states account for 155 delegates , or just 4 percent of the total pledged allocated delegates .
• Phase two : Super Tuesday and the mid-March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday and its 15 contests are when the presidential race shifts into a true national primary .
A total of 1,344 delegates will be allotted on Super Tuesday alone — about 33 percent of the total .
And 11 more state contests are up for grabs on March 10 and 17 .
By the time March 17 rolls around , 61 percent of the pledged delegates will be allotted .
• Phase three : The slog .
As Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop noted , we could either have a pretty good sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-March , or the primary could still be contested , as it was in 2016 .
If the latter , the contests to decide the winner will happen from March 18 to June 6 .
Those three months will be when the remaining 39 percent of delegates will be allotted ; the most important day in this stretch is April 28 , when New York and Pennsylvania vote , among others .
The four earliest states don ’ t contain a lot of delegates , but they act to winnow the field to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be especially important this year , with more than 10 candidates still in the race .
Winnowing the field is half the battle .
The race to bag delegates starts in earnest on Super Tuesday .
“ It ’ s a virtual national primary because there are so many states .
The math itself changes , and every network has some sort of chart showing the projected delegate count , ” longtime California Democratic consultant Bill Carrick told Vox recently .
And this is not just about winning states , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ district level .
Most states award both delegates based on state-level totals as well as delegates in each individual district .
District-level delegates are the voters and local activists who sign up through their state party to act as delegates — together they make up the vast majority of eligible delegates .
It is critical for Democratic candidates to get at least a 15 percent threshold in states or individual congressional districts in order to qualify for pledged delegates .
And a big part of figuring out delegate math means campaigns have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain districts with demographics that could be favorable for them .
Here ’ s a breakdown of the delegate math , both pledged delegates and automatic delegates : Again , it ’ s worth noting the biggest DNC rules changes were around superdelegates .
That means these 771 superdelegates will largely sit on the sidelines on the first ballot , unless there ’ s already a candidate with a supermajority of pledged delegates .
Correction : An earlier version of this story said it takes 1990 delegates to win the Democratic nomination .
@ @ @ @ @ @

Share All sharing options for: The race for presidential delegates is well underway. Track them here.
The magic number to win the Democratic Party’s nomination for president is 1,991 pledged delegates.
No candidate has yet reached that number, but following the March 17 primaries, former Vice President Joe Biden became the first to cross the 1,000 pledged delegate mark, and has established a significant lead on his closest rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders. The final candidate remaining in the race, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, has won only two delegates so far.
Beyond the race’s 3,979 pledged delegates, there are also 771 automatic delegates, otherwise known as “superdelegates.” After a contentious 2016 primary, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) changed its rules around superdelegates so they may now vote on the first ballot to select a nominee at the Democratic National Convention only if a campaign has secured a supermajority of pledged delegates. Otherwise, they weigh in during a second round of voting at the convention.
Candidates are competing for these delegates against a backdrop of complex rules: Delegates are awarded proportionally, and most states and districts require a minimum threshold of 15 percent of the primary or caucus vote to earn pledged delegates. This may make the contest fairer but means it’s harder to secure that magic number in a contested primary until much later in the year.
The Iowa caucuses officially kicked off the delegate race on February 3. But while the early states were all about gaining momentum, the race is ultimately about who can bag the most delegates and get to that magic number. March was a critical month for delegate math: Super Tuesday, March 10, and the three contests on March 17 got us more than 50 percent of the way there.
Now that those contests have concluded, Biden has racked up a delegate lead that will be difficult for Sanders to surmount. But many states have still yet to vote, and the contest could continue on further into the spring and summer, ahead of the Democratic National Convention in July.
Vox has a tracker for the total number of delegates awarded, in partnership with our friends at Decision Desk and the Virginia Center for Politics.
Delegate math, briefly explained
The four earliest states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina — didn’t contain a lot of delegates, but they did winnow the field. This was especially important this year, as several Democratic candidates were still in the race on Super Tuesday, March 3, the first time a large number of delegates were up for grabs.
Winnowing the field — now down, essentially, to Sanders and Biden — is half the battle. The other half is winning enough of the vote to rack up an insurmountable delegate lead.
Doing this is not just about winning states: It’s also about winning delegates at a congressional district level. Most states award delegates proportionally based on state-level totals as well as delegates in each district. District-level delegates are the voters and local activists who sign up through their state party to act as delegates to the convention — together they make up the vast majority of pledged delegates.
It is critical for candidates to get at least a 15 percent threshold in states or individual congressional districts to qualify for pledged delegates. And a big part of figuring out delegate math means campaigns have to focus on crunching the numbers to target certain districts with demographics that could be favorable for them.
For instance, Sanders focused heavily on states with Latinx voters in March, counting on big wins in California and Nevada to boost his delegate count. That did not quite work out as the senator’s campaign hoped, but Biden’s big bets on Southern states that had large black electorates did pay dividends.
Here’s a breakdown of the delegate categories, both for pledged delegates and automatic delegates:
Pledged delegates
District level: 2,591
At-large: 898
Party leaders and state and local elected officials (PLEO): 490
Total: 3,979
Automatic (“super”) delegates
Democratic National Committee members: 445
Democratic members of Congress: 280
Democratic governors: 24
Party leaders: 22
Total: 771
It’s worth noting the DNC’s biggest rules changes were around superdelegates. That means these 771 superdelegates will largely sit on the sidelines on the first ballot unless there’s already a candidate with a supermajority of pledged delegates.
Correction: An earlier version of this story said it takes 1,990 delegates to win the Democratic nomination. The correct number is 1,991.


vox--2020-02-24--A female Saudi rapper is facing possible arrest over her “Mecca Girl” music video

A Saudi Arabian rapper is facing possible arrest for the ultimate crime : having pride in being a woman of color from Mecca , one of the most sacred places in the world for Muslims .
The rapper , who goes by the name Asayel Slay , uploaded a video to her YouTube channel last week of her performing a song titled “ Mecca Girl , ” in which she raps about the pride she has for her city , her womanhood , and the color of her skin .
In the video , which has since been taken down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ English .
Modest in dress and in tongue , she praises the women of her city for their beauty and strength .
She raps in a cafe , surrounded by young male and female backup dancers .
Asayel has also had her YouTube channel suspended , according to BBC News .
“ Yo , drop the beat , with Mecca girls you can ’ t compete , ” Slay raps .
Saudi officials tweeted that the governor of Mecca , Khalid al-Faisal , has called for the arrest of Asayel Slay as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the song , for offending “ the customs and traditions of the people of Mecca.
” The tweet uses an Arabic hashtag that translates to “ # You_Are_Not_Mecca_Girls , ” which is now being used by other social media users to criticize the video and Slay .
One popular tweet , which I translated from the original Arabic , reads , “ Who gave this foreigner the right to speak about Saudi Arabian women in general and specifically about girls of Mecca ?
” Many tweets specifically mention the color of her skin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is reportedly of Eritrean descent and has brown skin .
One tweet , which I translated from the original Arabic , reads “ Mecca is not African # You_Are_Not_Mecca_Girls.
” The hashtag brought to light a larger issue surrounding the controversy : anti-black racism .
This isn ’ t the first recent instance where anti-black racism has reared its head in Saudi Arabia .
A Saudi security official was accused of anti-black racism over a video posted by Middle East Eye in 2019 that purportedly showed him ignoring children with darker complexions at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security forces .
But the controversy over Slay ’ s video goes deeper than just the race issue : It also exposes deep tensions that are roiling Saudi society as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attempts to liberalize some aspects of the conservative Muslim country .
The Meccan authorities ’ distaste for the song lies not only in the lyrics , but also in the place Slay is rapping from .
Mecca is the holiest site in the Islamic world and is the place of pilgrimage , or hajj , which all able-bodied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once in their lifetimes if they are financially able .
Having a rapper — and a woman rapper , at that — make a music video in the holy city seems to have crossed a line for many more conservative-minded people in the country ( even though , again , Slay is rapping inside a cafe , not a holy site ) .
One Twitter user wrote that Mecca “ is not meant for trashy songs and anything that is considered haram [ forbidden ] .
” It ’ s a sign that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open up the country and lift some of the country ’ s strict restrictions on citizens , especially women , has its limits .
Saudi Arabia has undergone a massive image transformation over the past few years .
From the expansion of the tourism frontier by opening the country up to non-religious citizens to the introduction of mixed-gender concerts to the lifting of the ban on women driving , Saudi Arabia continues to shake off its ultra-conservative image .
The crown prince has been hailed by some Western media as a feminist reformer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the reality is that Saudi Arabia still has a long way to go when it comes to gender equality .
In fact , in a recent US News & World Report survey of more than 20,000 global citizens , it ranked as the third-worst country for women in the world based on perception , behind Qatar and the United Arab Emirates .
When the driving ban on women was lifted , bin Salman took most of the credit , while the women ’ s rights activists who fought for the ban were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some cases , were actually arrested .
And while Saudi Arabia ’ s guardianship laws were changed so that Saudi women could travel without permission and other basic human rights , activists who fought those very laws remain behind bars .

A Saudi Arabian rapper is facing possible arrest for the ultimate crime: having pride in being a woman of color from Mecca, one of the most sacred places in the world for Muslims.
The rapper, who goes by the name Asayel Slay, uploaded a video to her YouTube channel last week of her performing a song titled “Mecca Girl,” in which she raps about the pride she has for her city, her womanhood, and the color of her skin.
In the video, which has since been taken down, Slay raps in both Arabic and English. Modest in dress and in tongue, she praises the women of her city for their beauty and strength. She raps in a cafe, surrounded by young male and female backup dancers. Asayel has also had her YouTube channel suspended, according to BBC News.
“Yo, drop the beat, with Mecca girls you can’t compete,” Slay raps.
Saudi officials tweeted that the governor of Mecca, Khalid al-Faisal, has called for the arrest of Asayel Slay as well as those responsible for the production of the song, for offending “the customs and traditions of the people of Mecca.”
The tweet uses an Arabic hashtag that translates to “#You_Are_Not_Mecca_Girls,” which is now being used by other social media users to criticize the video and Slay.
One popular tweet, which I translated from the original Arabic, reads, “Who gave this foreigner the right to speak about Saudi Arabian women in general and specifically about girls of Mecca?”
Many tweets specifically mention the color of her skin and her perceived African origins. Slay is reportedly of Eritrean descent and has brown skin. One tweet, which I translated from the original Arabic, reads “Mecca is not African #You_Are_Not_Mecca_Girls.”
The hashtag brought to light a larger issue surrounding the controversy: anti-black racism.
A Saudi woman who appears 2 be of African descent made a cute video rapping about Makkah & her culture using witty lyrics. The video went viral, she was reported to authorities. The twitter backlash against her is full of racist pricks like this person .. #لستن_بنات_مكة https://t.co/8IdN08akXN — MS SΛFFΛΛ صفاء (@MsSaffaa) February 20, 2020
This isn’t the first recent instance where anti-black racism has reared its head in Saudi Arabia.
A Saudi security official was accused of anti-black racism over a video posted by Middle East Eye in 2019 that purportedly showed him ignoring children with darker complexions at an award ceremony for orphaned children of security forces.
But the controversy over Slay’s video goes deeper than just the race issue: It also exposes deep tensions that are roiling Saudi society as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attempts to liberalize some aspects of the conservative Muslim country.
The Meccan authorities’ distaste for the song lies not only in the lyrics, but also in the place Slay is rapping from. Mecca is the holiest site in the Islamic world and is the place of pilgrimage, or hajj, which all able-bodied Muslims are required to do at least once in their lifetimes if they are financially able.
Having a rapper — and a woman rapper, at that — make a music video in the holy city seems to have crossed a line for many more conservative-minded people in the country (even though, again, Slay is rapping inside a cafe, not a holy site). One Twitter user wrote that Mecca “is not meant for trashy songs and anything that is considered haram [forbidden].”
It’s a sign that the crown prince’s efforts to open up the country and lift some of the country’s strict restrictions on citizens, especially women, has its limits.
Saudi Arabia has undergone a massive image transformation over the past few years. From the expansion of the tourism frontier by opening the country up to non-religious citizens to the introduction of mixed-gender concerts to the lifting of the ban on women driving, Saudi Arabia continues to shake off its ultra-conservative image.
The crown prince has been hailed by some Western media as a feminist reformer for making strides for Saudi women. But the reality is that Saudi Arabia still has a long way to go when it comes to gender equality.
In fact, in a recent US News & World Report survey of more than 20,000 global citizens, it ranked as the third-worst country for women in the world based on perception, behind Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
When the driving ban on women was lifted, bin Salman took most of the credit, while the women’s rights activists who fought for the ban were left in the dark — and in some cases, were actually arrested.
And while Saudi Arabia’s guardianship laws were changed so that Saudi women could travel without permission and other basic human rights, activists who fought those very laws remain behind bars.