vox--2020-01-11--Another earthquake hits Puerto Rico, with aftershocks expected

Puerto Rico was rocked by another large earthquake early Saturday , the latest and largest of dozens of aftershocks that followed a larger quake off the island ’ s southern coast Tuesday .
The latest seismic activity had its epicenter off the coast of Guanica , a city on the island ’ s southern coast .
The 5.9-magnitude quake — initially believed to be a 6.0-magnitude quake — shook buildings and left concrete strewn about many of the islands ’ streets .
Puerto Rico has been racked with nearly 45 aftershocks of at least a 3.0-magnitude since Tuesday ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and injured nine others , according to the Puerto Rico Seismic Network ( PRSN ) .
Ahead of the latest earthquake , nearly one million Puerto Ricans were without power , hundreds of thousands lacked access to clean water , and more than 2,000 people were living in shelters .
The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority said electricity was nearly fully restored following Saturday ’ s quake , claiming 93 percent of the island now has power .
Nevertheless , Saturday ’ s shakes are expected to exacerbate an already critical situation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ collapsed , adding to already extensive damage , including the destruction of the noted natural landmark Punta Ventana .
President Donald Trump declared a state of emergency on the island late Tuesday , the first since Puerto Rico was hit by Hurricane Maria in 2017 .
The declaration will free up federal disaster funds to assist with recovery , but local officials worried that the assistance will be too slow to make a difference .
“ FEMA is a very bureaucratic agency and it moves very slowly .
So slowly that we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maria , ” Daniel Hernández , director of generation for Puerto Rico ’ s Electric Power Authority , told The Associated Press .
For now , the island ’ s residents find themselves once again trying to survive a natural disaster that has devastated the island ’ s infrastructure .
And unfortunately , more aftershocks could hit the island .
Víctor Huérfano , the head of PRSN , said Saturday ’ s seismic activity is likely to trigger aftershocks .
“ It ’ s going to re-energize an unstable situation , ” Huérfano @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a complex zone.
” Earthquakes are difficult to predict — but Puerto Rico may face more in the days to come The quakes plaguing Puerto Rico come almost exactly ten years to the day a massive 7.0-magnitude hit nearby Haiti in 2010 .
Experts , however , have noted the timing is just a coincidence , and that while historical and real-time seismometer data can lay out expected earthquake trends , predicting exact seismic activity in order to save lives is generally a much more difficult proposition .
Puerto Rico has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3.0-magnitude since early December , according to the US Geological Survey ( USGS ) .
Seismologist Lucy Jones suggested on Twitter that they were all part of one continuous seismic event .
The frequency of these events , and Puerto Rico ’ s susceptibility to earthquakes stems from the manner in which the island is situated along the meeting points of the South American , Caribbean , and North American plates : As of yesterday , the USGS seismic forecast for the region predicted a decreasing number of aftershocks after the larger quake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quake , the USGS had given about a 3 percent chance of Puerto Rico experiencing another 6.4-magnitude quake , which Saturday ’ s quake nearly eclipsed .
The organization did warn , however , that there was a “ high likelihood ” aftershocks of magnitude-3.0 or greater could come in the the next week .
As Vox ’ s Umair Irfan has explained it is difficult to give those in earthquake zones more detailed predictions than these : It ’ s difficult to figure out when an earthquake will occur , since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vast area but are disbursed rapidly over a narrow region .
What ’ s amazing is that forces built up across continents over millions of years can hammer cities in minutes .
Forecasting earthquakes would require high-resolution measurements deep underground over the course of decades , if not longer , coupled with sophisticated simulations .
And even then , it ’ s unlikely to yield an hour ’ s worth of lead time .
So there are ultimately too many variables at play and too few tools to analyze them in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreshocks can precede a larger earthquake , but it ’ s difficult to distinguish them from the hundreds of smaller earthquakes that occur on a regular basis .
Despite the difficulty involved , USGS and PRSN officials have been busy late this week trying to install temporary seismometers along the southern coast of Puerto Rico in order to monitor seismic activity and assist in predicting aftershocks on the already reeling island .
In the meantime , thousands will remain in shelters , awaiting concrete assurances it is safe to return and begin rebuilding @

Puerto Rico was rocked by another large earthquake early Saturday, the latest and largest of dozens of aftershocks that followed a larger quake off the island’s southern coast Tuesday.
The latest seismic activity had its epicenter off the coast of Guanica, a city on the island’s southern coast. The 5.9-magnitude quake — initially believed to be a 6.0-magnitude quake — shook buildings and left concrete strewn about many of the islands’ streets. Puerto Rico has been racked with nearly 45 aftershocks of at least a 3.0-magnitude since Tuesday’s 6.4-magnitude quake, which killed one person and injured nine others, according to the Puerto Rico Seismic Network (PRSN).
Ahead of the latest earthquake, nearly one million Puerto Ricans were without power, hundreds of thousands lacked access to clean water, and more than 2,000 people were living in shelters. The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority said electricity was nearly fully restored following Saturday’s quake, claiming 93 percent of the island now has power.
Nevertheless, Saturday’s shakes are expected to exacerbate an already critical situation. Thousands of homes and schools have simply collapsed, adding to already extensive damage, including the destruction of the noted natural landmark Punta Ventana.
These pictures from downtown Ponce, Puerto Rico was just sent to me. This, I'm told, is new damage caused by the 6.0 magnitude eatheuake that happened a short time ago. pic.twitter.com/JU8ZE9vTlk — David Begnaud (@DavidBegnaud) January 11, 2020
President Donald Trump declared a state of emergency on the island late Tuesday, the first since Puerto Rico was hit by Hurricane Maria in 2017. The declaration will free up federal disaster funds to assist with recovery, but local officials worried that the assistance will be too slow to make a difference.
“FEMA is a very bureaucratic agency and it moves very slowly. So slowly that we’re still waiting for federal funds from Maria,” Daniel Hernández, director of generation for Puerto Rico’s Electric Power Authority, told The Associated Press.
For now, the island’s residents find themselves once again trying to survive a natural disaster that has devastated the island’s infrastructure. And unfortunately, more aftershocks could hit the island.
Víctor Huérfano, the head of PRSN, said Saturday’s seismic activity is likely to trigger aftershocks.
“It’s going to re-energize an unstable situation,” Huérfano told The Associated Press. “It’s a complex zone.”
Earthquakes are difficult to predict — but Puerto Rico may face more in the days to come
The quakes plaguing Puerto Rico come almost exactly ten years to the day a massive 7.0-magnitude hit nearby Haiti in 2010. Experts, however, have noted the timing is just a coincidence, and that while historical and real-time seismometer data can lay out expected earthquake trends, predicting exact seismic activity in order to save lives is generally a much more difficult proposition.
Puerto Rico has felt about 139 seismic activities above a 3.0-magnitude since early December, according to the US Geological Survey (USGS). Seismologist Lucy Jones suggested on Twitter that they were all part of one continuous seismic event. The frequency of these events, and Puerto Rico’s susceptibility to earthquakes stems from the manner in which the island is situated along the meeting points of the South American, Caribbean, and North American plates:
Puerto Rico is caught between two subduction zones. The current quake swarm is off the southwest coast, past of the adjustment between the two big faults. Sort of like Northridge 1994 was on a small fault to adjust for the bend in the San Andreas fault. pic.twitter.com/AsJDAwZbLv — Dr. Lucy Jones (@DrLucyJones) January 7, 2020
As of yesterday, the USGS seismic forecast for the region predicted a decreasing number of aftershocks after the larger quake Tuesday.
Ahead of Saturday’s quake, the USGS had given about a 3 percent chance of Puerto Rico experiencing another 6.4-magnitude quake, which Saturday’s quake nearly eclipsed. The organization did warn, however, that there was a “high likelihood” aftershocks of magnitude-3.0 or greater could come in the the next week.
As Vox’s Umair Irfan has explained it is difficult to give those in earthquake zones more detailed predictions than these:
It’s difficult to figure out when an earthquake will occur, since the forces that cause them happen slowly over a vast area but are disbursed rapidly over a narrow region. What’s amazing is that forces built up across continents over millions of years can hammer cities in minutes. Forecasting earthquakes would require high-resolution measurements deep underground over the course of decades, if not longer, coupled with sophisticated simulations. And even then, it’s unlikely to yield an hour’s worth of lead time. So there are ultimately too many variables at play and too few tools to analyze them in a meaningful way. Some research shows that foreshocks can precede a larger earthquake, but it’s difficult to distinguish them from the hundreds of smaller earthquakes that occur on a regular basis.
Despite the difficulty involved, USGS and PRSN officials have been busy late this week trying to install temporary seismometers along the southern coast of Puerto Rico in order to monitor seismic activity and assist in predicting aftershocks on the already reeling island. In the meantime, thousands will remain in shelters, awaiting concrete assurances it is safe to return and begin rebuilding.


vox--2020-01-11--Sanders tops latest Iowa poll, but the 2020 Democratic primary is still a four way race

Throughout the 2020 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination , Sen. Bernie Sanders , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , former Vice President Joe Biden , and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg have topped most early primary state polls .
Iowa and New Hampshire polls released late last week followed that trend , while also registering some important changes in position in the final weeks before voters caucus and cast ballots for the first time .
According to a Des Moines Register poll of likely Iowa caucusgoers released Friday , Sanders currently has the lead in that state , with 20 percent support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last poll released in November .
Warren followed Sanders with 17 percent support ; Buttigieg and Biden were third and fourth , with 16 and 15 percent respectively .
The poll has a margin of error of 3.7 percentage points .
In New Hampshire , a Monmouth poll of likely primary voters shows the same four candidates clustered between 20 and 15 percent , with Buttigieg in the lead with 20 percent , Biden at 19 percent , Sanders at 18 percent , and Warren at 15 percent .
That poll has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With such a tight race among multiple candidates , it ’ s difficult to reach conclusions on how the races in either state will shake out , particularly given the number of voters who remain undecided — and the number who say they could still change their minds .
In Iowa , for instance , only 40 percent of caucusgoers say they have settled on a candidate for sure .
Still , with the Iowa caucuses only 23 days away , the results of the polls do suggest Sanders and Warren are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders , is of course first , and critically , Warren is the most popular second choice — a combined 33 percent of respondents said Warren is either their first or second choice ( 16 percent have her as their second choice ) .
Second choices are important in Iowa because in each precinct , candidates must reach a threshold of 15 percent of caucusgoers to remain viable ( in contention for delegates ) , which means that supporters of any candidate not reaching that threshold would be asked to support another candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topped November ’ s Iowa poll — has the highest second choice support , at 15 percent , also a promising showing .
Biden and Sanders each had 12 percent of respondents chose them as their second choices .
And there are still a sizable number of likely caucusgoers who haven ’ t yet made up their minds : 45 percent said they could be persuaded to change their allegiance before the caucuses , and 15 percent either said they have no first choice , or are n't at all sure who they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These caucusgoers will have a major impact on who wins the caucuses — and who has the momentum that win will grant in the New Hampshire primary .
What this means for the race Iowans aren ’ t alone in their uncertainty .
A recent CBS/YouGov poll showed that less than one third of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters have “ definitely ” made up their minds on a candidate .
That there are so many undecideds just three weeks from the Iowa caucuses and a month out from the New Hampshire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise , as Vox ’ s Ella Nilsen explained : New Hampshire voters in particular are famous for deciding on a candidate at the last minute — sometimes right up until they go into the voting booth .
And many of the dozens of voters I ’ ve spoken to at candidate events say that while they ’ re narrowing down to a few candidates , they still haven ’ t found The One yet .
That tracks in Iowa as well .
The Hawkeye State holds caucuses on February 3 where voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on the candidates they support .
Voting happens out in the open , and candidate “ viability ” — or whether a candidate can reach a 15 percent threshold — matters hugely to their chances .
This also increases the importance of people who support lower-tier candidates that won ’ t reach the viability threshold and have to throw their vote behind someone else .
Each state allocates its delegates to the Democratic National Convention in proportion to primary or caucus results .
Each of the top four candidates have reason to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least one of the first two states in this election cycle , and that makes it seem unlikely that Democrats will have a clear nominee following the contests .
In recent years , the two states have produced different winners from each other .
In 2016 , Hillary Clinton took Iowa while Sanders stormed back a week later to take New Hampshire .
In 2008 , Barack Obama took Iowa , while Clinton followed up with a win in New Hampshire .
( John Kerry did win both states in 2004 , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all attention will turn to South Carolina and Nevada , where Joe Biden continues to maintain a healthy lead on his competitors — that lead could narrow , or even evaporate , based on what happens in the first two contests .
From there , Democrats will sprint to Super Tuesday , the results of which ought to give a much clearer picture for how the race is likely to shake out at that point .

Throughout the 2020 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg have topped most early primary state polls. Iowa and New Hampshire polls released late last week followed that trend, while also registering some important changes in position in the final weeks before voters caucus and cast ballots for the first time.
According to a Des Moines Register poll of likely Iowa caucusgoers released Friday, Sanders currently has the lead in that state, with 20 percent support — up 5 percentage points from the last poll released in November. Warren followed Sanders with 17 percent support; Buttigieg and Biden were third and fourth, with 16 and 15 percent respectively. The poll has a margin of error of 3.7 percentage points.
In New Hampshire, a Monmouth poll of likely primary voters shows the same four candidates clustered between 20 and 15 percent, with Buttigieg in the lead with 20 percent, Biden at 19 percent, Sanders at 18 percent, and Warren at 15 percent. That poll has a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points.
With such a tight race among multiple candidates, it’s difficult to reach conclusions on how the races in either state will shake out, particularly given the number of voters who remain undecided — and the number who say they could still change their minds. In Iowa, for instance, only 40 percent of caucusgoers say they have settled on a candidate for sure.
Still, with the Iowa caucuses only 23 days away, the results of the polls do suggest Sanders and Warren are well-positioned to finish strong in Iowa. Sanders, is of course first, and critically, Warren is the most popular second choice — a combined 33 percent of respondents said Warren is either their first or second choice (16 percent have her as their second choice).
Second choices are important in Iowa because in each precinct, candidates must reach a threshold of 15 percent of caucusgoers to remain viable (in contention for delegates), which means that supporters of any candidate not reaching that threshold would be asked to support another candidate.
After Warren, Buttigieg — who topped November’s Iowa poll — has the highest second choice support, at 15 percent, also a promising showing. Biden and Sanders each had 12 percent of respondents chose them as their second choices.
And there are still a sizable number of likely caucusgoers who haven’t yet made up their minds: 45 percent said they could be persuaded to change their allegiance before the caucuses, and 15 percent either said they have no first choice, or aren't at all sure who they’d like to caucus for. These caucusgoers will have a major impact on who wins the caucuses — and who has the momentum that win will grant in the New Hampshire primary.
What this means for the race
Iowans aren’t alone in their uncertainty. A recent CBS/YouGov poll showed that less than one third of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters have “definitely” made up their minds on a candidate.
That there are so many undecideds just three weeks from the Iowa caucuses and a month out from the New Hampshire primary shouldn’t come as a surprise, as Vox’s Ella Nilsen explained:
New Hampshire voters in particular are famous for deciding on a candidate at the last minute — sometimes right up until they go into the voting booth. And many of the dozens of voters I’ve spoken to at candidate events say that while they’re narrowing down to a few candidates, they still haven’t found The One yet. That tracks in Iowa as well. The Hawkeye State holds caucuses on February 3 where voters literally have to sort themselves into groups based on the candidates they support. Voting happens out in the open, and candidate “viability” — or whether a candidate can reach a 15 percent threshold — matters hugely to their chances. This also increases the importance of people who support lower-tier candidates that won’t reach the viability threshold and have to throw their vote behind someone else.
Each state allocates its delegates to the Democratic National Convention in proportion to primary or caucus results. Each of the top four candidates have reason to be hopeful about their chances in at least one of the first two states in this election cycle, and that makes it seem unlikely that Democrats will have a clear nominee following the contests.
In recent years, the two states have produced different winners from each other. In 2016, Hillary Clinton took Iowa while Sanders stormed back a week later to take New Hampshire. In 2008, Barack Obama took Iowa, while Clinton followed up with a win in New Hampshire. (John Kerry did win both states in 2004, however.)
After Iowa and New Hampshire, all attention will turn to South Carolina and Nevada, where Joe Biden continues to maintain a healthy lead on his competitors — that lead could narrow, or even evaporate, based on what happens in the first two contests. From there, Democrats will sprint to Super Tuesday, the results of which ought to give a much clearer picture for how the race is likely to shake out.


vox--2020-01-11--Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, an opponent of Beijing, has won reelection

Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen has won reelection in this Saturday ’ s elections .
She received 57 percent of the vote , to her chief rival ’ s 38 percent , in a victory that had a lot to do with China , and the continuing upheaval in Hong Kong .
“ Taiwan is showing the world how much we cherish our free democratic way of life and how much we cherish our nation , ” Tsai said in her victory speech , as she warned China to stay out of the island ’ s affairs : “ I also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic Taiwan , and our democratically elected government , will not concede to threats and intimidation.
” China always hangs over Taiwan ’ s elections .
Taiwan , also known as the Republic of China , was established in 1949 when the Chinese nationalists fled after the Communist Party took control in mainland China .
It wasn ’ t always a democracy ; Taiwan was ruled by one party ( the Kuomintang ) until democratic reforms took hold in the 1980s , and it ’ s had direct presidential elections since 1996 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taiwan , as Vox ’ s Jennifer Williams has explained : Just a handful of countries have formal ties with Taiwan , but its democratic rule and de facto independence remain a sore spot for Beijing , which wants to exert its influence there and , ultimately , bring the island back under its control .
And during this year ’ s elections , Beijing has been even harder to ignore .
Chinese President Xi Jinping has been explicit that he wants to reunify Taiwan and mainland China , and he appears willing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That could establish a “ one country , two systems ” setup that currently governs its relationship with Hong Kong .
For many Taiwanese , six months of massive pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong have shown just what a bad deal that would be , and in Saturday ’ s election , they signaled they want a leader who will fight efforts to bring Taiwan under Beijing ’ s rule .
“ I want to once again call upon Beijing authorities to remind them that peace , clarity , democracy and dialogue are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development , ” Tsai said Saturday .
“ Peace means that China must abandon threats of force against Taiwan.
” How China — and Hong Kong — play into Taiwan ’ s elections Tsai , the incumbent Taiwanese president , is a member of the Democratic Progressive Party ( DPP ) , which favors an independent Taiwan .
She was first elected in 2016 , along with a majority in Taiwan ’ s legislature , the Legislative Yuan .
Her tenure faced some troubles early on .
In 2018 , the DPP suffered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were seen as a rebuke of her leadership .
Tsai was forced to resign as leader of the party , and the calls quickly began for her not to seek reelection in 2020 .
But Tsai ’ s candidacy surged in recent months , and her tough line against China and unequivocal embrace of the protesters in Hong Kong likely has a lot to do with it .
Many Taiwanese who worry about Chinese encroachment see Tsai ( who also has cultivated pretty strong ties with the US ) as the better candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavy hand .
This is especially true of Taiwan ’ s younger voters , who ’ ve grown up with Taiwan as a democracy .
Tsai played this up as a campaign issue , too , including running ads that compare normal daily life in Taiwan with the unrest in Hong Kong .
“ Part of it [ is an ] effort by Tsai and by her party to show that she is the one that can protect Taiwan ’ s sovereignty and security , ” Bonnie Glaser , the China Power Project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ International Studies ( CSIS ) , told me .
She added that the Hong Kong protests wouldn ’ t be as large an issue if there wasn ’ t an upcoming election , mostly because “ people in Taiwan don ’ t look to Hong Kong as their future .
They never have.
” In other words , even voters who may see the benefit in closer ties between Taiwan and China never envisioned Taiwan becoming a vassal state , even before the protests .
This still created a problem for Tsai ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represents the Kuomintang Party ( KMT ) .
Han favors closer ties economic and cultural ties with Beijing , seeing a tighter relationship with the mainland as better securing Taiwan ’ s economy in the long term .
To be clear , Han himself opposes a Hong Kong model for Taiwan .
He has explicitly said Taiwan would enter a “ one country , two systems ” arrangement with China “ over my dead body.
” But Han , who won a key mayoral election in a DPP stronghold in 2018 , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen as being too friendly toward Beijing at a time when the Hong Kong protests make that position look a lot less tenable .
Han was also implicated in a scandal this fall , when a man who claimed to be a Chinese intelligence operative told Australian authorities that Beijing had been meddling in elections in Hong Kong and Taiwan , including by spreading disinformation .
This alleged operative also claimed that he had poured about $ 2 million directly into Han ’ s 2018 mayoral campaign , which Han has denied .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s one other candidate running , but these are the main two ) and that ’ s also increased popular skepticism of him .
And there ’ s little doubt that China again tried to interfere in Taiwan ’ s vote , using tools to spread fake news and disinformation .
China has moved in more direct ways to put pressure on Tsai , including conducting military exercises in the Taiwan Strait .
The question is whether such pressure will intensify now that Tsai has won reelection .
At present , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will come to office with a resounding mandate .
Though she staked out a large lead in the polls , the results in the Legislative Yuan could be a little more interesting .
If Tsai ’ s party retains its majority , that will go a long way to determining how effective she can be in implementing her agenda — and would undoubtedly be a blow to Beijing .

Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen has won reelection in this Saturday’s elections.
She received 57 percent of the vote, to her chief rival’s 38 percent, in a victory that had a lot to do with China, and the continuing upheaval in Hong Kong.
“Taiwan is showing the world how much we cherish our free democratic way of life and how much we cherish our nation,” Tsai said in her victory speech, as she warned China to stay out of the island’s affairs: “I also hope that the Beijing authorities understand that democratic Taiwan, and our democratically elected government, will not concede to threats and intimidation.”
China always hangs over Taiwan’s elections. Taiwan, also known as the Republic of China, was established in 1949 when the Chinese nationalists fled after the Communist Party took control in mainland China. It wasn’t always a democracy; Taiwan was ruled by one party (the Kuomintang) until democratic reforms took hold in the 1980s, and it’s had direct presidential elections since 1996.
When it comes to mainland China and Taiwan, as Vox’s Jennifer Williams has explained:
The two territories have been governed separately ever since, with both governments claiming to be the legitimate representative of “One China” — that is, China and Taiwan.” Most countries, including the US, only have formal diplomatic relations with mainland China and don’t officially recognize the government in Taiwan ...
Just a handful of countries have formal ties with Taiwan, but its democratic rule and de facto independence remain a sore spot for Beijing, which wants to exert its influence there and, ultimately, bring the island back under its control.
And during this year’s elections, Beijing has been even harder to ignore. Chinese President Xi Jinping has been explicit that he wants to reunify Taiwan and mainland China, and he appears willing to use force to do so. That could establish a “one country, two systems” setup that currently governs its relationship with Hong Kong. For many Taiwanese, six months of massive pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong have shown just what a bad deal that would be, and in Saturday’s election, they signaled they want a leader who will fight efforts to bring Taiwan under Beijing’s rule.
“I want to once again call upon Beijing authorities to remind them that peace, parity, democracy and dialogue are key to positive cross-strait interactions and long-term development,” Tsai said Saturday. “Peace means that China must abandon threats of force against Taiwan.”
How China — and Hong Kong — play into Taiwan’s elections
Tsai, the incumbent Taiwanese president, is a member of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which favors an independent Taiwan. She was first elected in 2016, along with a majority in Taiwan’s legislature, the Legislative Yuan.
Her tenure faced some troubles early on. In 2018, the DPP suffered big defeats in local elections, which were seen as a rebuke of her leadership. Tsai was forced to resign as leader of the party, and the calls quickly began for her not to seek reelection in 2020.
But Tsai’s candidacy surged in recent months, and her tough line against China and unequivocal embrace of the protesters in Hong Kong likely has a lot to do with it. Many Taiwanese who worry about Chinese encroachment see Tsai (who also has cultivated pretty strong ties with the US) as the better candidate to protect Taiwan from Beijing’s heavy hand. This is especially true of Taiwan’s younger voters, who’ve grown up with Taiwan as a democracy.
Tsai played this up as a campaign issue, too, including running ads that compare normal daily life in Taiwan with the unrest in Hong Kong.
“Part of it [is an] effort by Tsai and by her party to show that she is the one that can protect Taiwan’s sovereignty and security,” Bonnie Glaser, the China Power Project director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told me.
She added that the Hong Kong protests wouldn’t be as large an issue if there wasn’t an upcoming election, mostly because “people in Taiwan don’t look to Hong Kong as their future. They never have.”
In other words, even voters who may see the benefit in closer ties between Taiwan and China never envisioned Taiwan becoming a vassal state, even before the protests.
This still created a problem for Tsai’s opponent, Han Kuo-yu, who represents the Kuomintang Party (KMT). Han favors closer ties economic and cultural ties with Beijing, seeing a tighter relationship with the mainland as better securing Taiwan’s economy in the long term.
To be clear, Han himself opposes a Hong Kong model for Taiwan. He has explicitly said Taiwan would enter a “one country, two systems” arrangement with China “over my dead body.”
But Han, who won a key mayoral election in a DPP stronghold in 2018, has since struggled because he’s still seen as being too friendly toward Beijing at a time when the Hong Kong protests make that position look a lot less tenable.
Han was also implicated in a scandal this fall, when a man who claimed to be a Chinese intelligence operative told Australian authorities that Beijing had been meddling in elections in Hong Kong and Taiwan, including by spreading disinformation. This alleged operative also claimed that he had poured about $2 million directly into Han’s 2018 mayoral campaign, which Han has denied.
Beijing preferred Han over Tsai (there’s one other candidate running, but these are the main two) and that’s also increased popular skepticism of him. And there’s little doubt that China again tried to interfere in Taiwan’s vote, using tools to spread fake news and disinformation.
China has moved in more direct ways to put pressure on Tsai, including conducting military exercises in the Taiwan Strait. The question is whether such pressure will intensify now that Tsai has won reelection.
And it may, particularly given that Tsai will come back into office with a clear mandate. The DPP has won 61 of the Legislative Yuan’s 113 seats, with Han’s KMT winning just 38. Tsai’s party retaining its majority will go a long way in boosting the president’s effectiveness in implementing her agenda — and, like her election, is certainly a blow to Beijing.
Correction: A mistranslation of the word “parity” in Tsai’s statement has been corrected.


Impeachment and Iran

This week , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she would finally send impeachment articles to the Senate .
Why now ?
What is the Senate trial shaping up to look like ?
And how will things change if former National Security Advisor John Bolton testifies before the Senate ?
Andrew Prokop has the answers on this week ’ s Impeachment , Explained .
Then , the most popular question I ’ ve gotten over the past week is : Did Trump bomb Iran to distract from impeachment ?
This reflects a broader view that presidents routinely start foreign conflicts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that true ?
And if it is true , does it work ?
MIT political scientist Adam Berinsky , author of In Time of War : Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq , joins me with the facts .
And , at the end , a few thoughts on what the Senate Republicans ’ resistance to hearing from witnesses reveals about the impossible problem this impeachment process has posed .
You can subscribe to Impeachment , Explained on Apple , Spotify , Stitcher , or wherever you get podcasts @

This week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she would finally send impeachment articles to the Senate. Why now? What is the Senate trial shaping up to look like? And how will things change if former National Security Advisor John Bolton testifies before the Senate? Andrew Prokop has the answers on this week’s Impeachment, Explained.
Then, the most popular question I’ve gotten over the past week is: Did Trump bomb Iran to distract from impeachment? This reflects a broader view that presidents routinely start foreign conflicts to distract from domestic political troubles. Is that true? And if it is true, does it work? MIT political scientist Adam Berinsky, author of In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq, joins me with the facts.
And, at the end, a few thoughts on what the Senate Republicans’ resistance to hearing from witnesses reveals about the impossible problem this impeachment process has posed.
You can subscribe to Impeachment, Explained on Apple, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get podcasts.


vox--2020-01-11--The administration’s deceptions about the Soleimani strike are a big deal

The Trump administration has maintained from the start that it ordered the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in order to forestall an imminent threat to American lives .
It ’ s pretty clear this is not true , that the administration instead simply made a calculated decision to escalate American pushback on Iran as part of a larger series of back-and-forth actions that began with the US pullout from the Iran nuclear deal .
And though the deception involved has been fairly widely reported in the press , it hasn ’ t played a leading role in describing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a mistake .
By killing a foreign country ’ s key leader , the US put itself in the position of facing retaliation , as Iran did with rocket attacks on US bases in Iraq earlier this week .
Those attacks , thankfully , didn ’ t kill any Americans .
The Trump administration , thankfully , agreed not to retaliate further , for now .
But it ’ s clear that members of the Trump administration are not in complete agreement on Iran policy with some influential conservatives who have long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For an administration that wants to start a war with Iran but lacks the public backing to do so — or for a faction that wants to start a war but lacks the full support of the president — one good way to make the dream happen is to do things that provoke Iranian responses that , in turn , provoke new American responses .
A way to halt that cycle of escalation is to insist that people who want to take provocative steps give accurate information about what they are doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspicious For example , the Pentagon ’ s original press release about the Soleimani operation didn ’ t mention it , and the immediate US reaction was to order all American civilians out of Iraq for fear of retaliation — clearly , nobody was made safer in a direct , immediate sense .
Those actions are consistent with a scenario in which Soleimani was a dangerous guy in general , and the decision to take him out was made by policymakers seeking long-term benefits at the short-term cost of elevated risk to American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far as it goes ; sometimes in life you need short-term pain for long-term gain .
But when someone asks you to suffer short-term pain for long-term gain , you normally ask them to explain what kind of gain they ’ re promising so you can consider whether it ’ s a fair deal .
The administration , instead , said it was heading off imminent attacks even as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo conceded that he couldn ’ t say where or when these attacks were supposed to happen .
Similarly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was no evidence of an imminent threat .
Then on Friday , John Hudson , Missy Ryan , and Josh Dawsey reported for the Washington Post that on the same day as the successful strike on Soleimani , there was a second , failed anti-Iranian operation .
That operation , which the administration neglected to tell us about , targeted Abdul Reza Shahlai , described in the Post as “ a financier and key commander of Iran ’ s elite Quds Force who has been active in Yemen.
” That this happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the idea that the Soleimani strike was about disrupting an imminent threat as opposed to a broader shift in policy .
That the administration kept this quiet , even as it went on a multi-day victory tour about killing Soleimani , is further confirmation that fundamentally , it is not leveling with us about what it is doing and why .
Lying the country into war is really bad Trump is , of course , notorious for lying about all kinds of things .
And the national security sector , accustomed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and state secrets , seems in some ways to be instinctively unbothered by deception .
But in reality , this kind of lying is especially dangerous .
The public is highly motivated to protect American lives , as are members of Congress who are responsive to the public .
They would be willing to go further in terms of killing foreigners to actually defend Americans in a specific way than they would to , say , advance Saudi Arabia ’ s regional ambitions with regard to Iran .
And if Iran responds to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that kill more Americans , the public is likely to support further escalation against Iran , and who knows where that will end .
This dynamic is already clearly in place in the larger question of the Iran nuclear deal , the specific elements of which Trump keeps lying about .
Iran ’ s aggressive behavior against the US is clearly linked to Trump ’ s decision to abrogate the deal .
Trump keeps saying he did so because Iran was cheating , which , if it were true , would be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it wasn ’ t true .
Now , though , US-Iran relations have deteriorated to a point where Iran is refusing to abide by the limits in the agreement .
If you lack the original context that the US pulled out of the deal despite Iranian compliance , Iran ’ s actions could be seen as justifying new anti-Iran moves from the US .
By the same token , killing Iranian officials could be a highly effective way of provoking Iranian retaliations that inflame American opinion and drive support for aggressive acts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get behind .
The key way to break the cycle is to demand that the American government give a clear , convincing , and honest account of what it is doing and why — and to stop treating its refusal to do so as a secondary plot , when in fact it ’ s at the very heart of the story .

The Trump administration has maintained from the start that it ordered the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in order to forestall an imminent threat to American lives.
It’s pretty clear this is not true, that the administration instead simply made a calculated decision to escalate American pushback on Iran as part of a larger series of back-and-forth actions that began with the US pullout from the Iran nuclear deal.
And though the deception involved has been fairly widely reported in the press, it hasn’t played a leading role in describing the cycle of tensions. That’s a mistake. By killing a foreign country’s key leader, the US put itself in the position of facing retaliation, as Iran did with rocket attacks on US bases in Iraq earlier this week. Those attacks, thankfully, didn’t kill any Americans. The Trump administration, thankfully, agreed not to retaliate further, for now.
But it’s clear that members of the Trump administration are not in complete agreement on Iran policy with some influential conservatives who have long pushed for a regime change in Tehran. For an administration that appears to want a war with Iran but lacks the public backing — or for a faction that wants a war but lacks the full support of the president — this is one good way to make the dream happen: provoke Iranian responses that, in turn, provoke new American responses.
A way to halt that cycle of escalation is to insist that people who want to take provocative steps give accurate information about what they are doing.
The imminent threat line looks very suspicious
There’s substantial evidence to doubt the administration’s imminent threat message.
For example, the Pentagon’s original press release about the Soleimani operation didn’t mention it, and the immediate US reaction was to order all American civilians out of Iraq for fear of retaliation — clearly, nobody was made safer in a direct, immediate sense.
Those actions are consistent with a scenario in which Soleimani was a dangerous person in general, and the decision to take him out was made by policymakers seeking long-term benefits at the short-term cost of elevated risk to American lives. That’s fine as far as it goes; sometimes in life you need short-term pain for long-term gain. But when someone asks you to suffer short-term pain, you normally ask them to explain what kind of gain they’re promising so you can consider whether it’s a fair deal.
The administration, instead, said it was heading off imminent attacks even as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo conceded that he couldn’t say where or when these attacks were supposed to happen.
Pompeo insists the ideas that Soleimani presented an "imminent" threat but the administration doesn't know when or where he planned to strike are "completely consistent thoughts." pic.twitter.com/7LDFR7zcVU — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 10, 2020
Similarly, senators briefed on the intelligence simply said there was no evidence presented of an imminent threat.
REPORTER: Why are you saying that Soleimani presented an imminent threat against embassies here but not to senators during this week's briefing?
POMPEO: We did.
REPORTER: So senators are lying?
POMPEO: I won't talk about the details. pic.twitter.com/91NoZLoJ1G — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 10, 2020
Then on Friday, John Hudson, Missy Ryan, and Josh Dawsey reported for the Washington Post that on the same day as the successful strike on Soleimani, there was a second, failed anti-Iranian operation. That operation, which the administration neglected to tell us about, targeted Abdul Reza Shahlai, described in the Post as “a financier and key commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force who has been active in Yemen.”
This is another nail in the coffin of the idea that the Soleimani strike was about disrupting an imminent threat as opposed to a broader shift in policy. That the administration kept this quiet, even as it went on a multi-day victory tour about killing Soleimani, is further confirmation that it is not leveling with us about its actions.
And that’s unacceptable.
Lying the country into war is really bad
Trump is notorious for lying about all kinds of things. And the national security sector, accustomed as it is to dealing in classified matters and state secrets, seems in some ways to be instinctively unbothered by deception. But in reality, this kind of lying is especially dangerous.
The public is highly motivated to protect American lives, as are members of Congress who are responsive to the public. They would be willing to go further in terms of killing foreigners to actually defend Americans in a specific way than they would to, say, advance Saudi Arabia’s regional ambitions with regard to Iran. And if Iran responds to American acts with new rounds of aggression that kill more Americans, the public is likely to support further escalation against Iran, and who knows where that will end.
This dynamic is already clearly in place in the larger question of the Iran nuclear deal, the specific elements of which Trump keeps lying about. Iran’s aggressive behavior against the US is clearly linked to Trump’s decision to abrogate the deal. Trump keeps saying he did so because Iran was cheating, which, if it were true, would be a good reason to abrogate the deal. But it wasn’t true.
Now, though, US-Iran relations have deteriorated to a point where Iran is refusing to abide by the limits in the agreement. If you lack the original context that the US pulled out of the deal despite Iranian compliance, Iran’s actions could be seen as justifying new anti-Iran moves from the US.
By the same token, killing Iranian officials could be a highly effective way of provoking Iranian retaliations that inflame American opinion and drive support for aggressive acts that the public wouldn’t otherwise get behind. The way to break the cycle is to demand that the American government give a clear, convincing, and honest account of what it is doing and why — and to stop treating its refusal to do so as a secondary plot, when in fact it’s at the heart of the story.


vox--2020-01-11--A Ukrainian plane crashed in Iran: What we know

Just a few hours after Iran launched an attack against US bases in Iraq in retaliation for the US killing of Qassem Soleimani , a Boeing passenger jet bound for Ukraine crashed shortly after it took off from Tehran .
All 176 people on board — including 82 Iranians , at least 63 Canadians , and 11 Ukrainians — were killed .
Iran originally claimed the crash was not caused by any military action .
However , by Saturday morning , Iranian officials admitted the plane was shot down after it “ took the flying posture and altitude of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act the result of “ human error , ” and President Hassan Rouhani apologized in a statement on Twitter , writing , “ The Islamic Republic of Iran deeply regrets this disastrous mistake .
My thoughts and prayers go to all the mourning families .
I offer my sincerest condolences.
” The admission followed Thursday reports by the US and Canada that their intelligence agencies had found a missile was responsible for the crash .
“ We have intelligence from multiple sources , including our allies and our own intelligence , ” Canadian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile .
It may well have been unintentional.
” Trudeau declined to elaborate on the evidence , but said that these developments confirmed “ the need to have an in-depth investigation into this matter.
” And shortly after Trudeau ’ s address , the New York Times published a video showing the airliner being hit by what appeared to be a missile .
Despite the statements by the US and Canada — as well as the Times ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deny that a missile felled the plane .
Iranian officials accused the US of “ spreading lies.
” Now , however , the country ’ s leaders have reversed course , leading Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to demand the Iranian government “ bring those responsible to justice , return of the bodies of the deceased , pay compensations , issue official apologies through diplomatic channels.
” Zelensky also said Ukrainians “ expect that Iran assures its readiness to have a full and open investigation.
” Rouhani promised Saturday that these steps will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Further investigation is needed to identify all the causes and roots of this tragedy and prosecute the perpetrators of this unforgivable mistake.
” The Iranian leader also promised military procedures would be changed “ to make sure such a disaster is never repeated.
” What we know • Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752 , a 3.5-year-old Boeing 737-800 , departed Tehran ’ s Imam Khomeini International Airport at 6:12 am local time after sitting on the runway for roughly an hour .
• Two minutes after takeoff , a “ fatal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the National Bureau of Air Accidents Investigation of Ukraine .
The plane crashed in farmland near Shahedshahr , a town about 30 miles southwest of Tehran and about 10 miles northwest of the airport .
• All 176 people — 167 passengers and nine crew members — on board died .
• There were 82 Iranians , 63 Canadians , 11 Ukrainians ( two passengers and the nine crew members ) , 10 Swedish nationals , four Afghans , three Germans , and three British nationals on board , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ International Airlines has published a list of the victims on its website .
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky directed Ukrainian prosecutors to begin a criminal inquiry into the crash , and said he ’ s sending “ a team of experts ” to Iran to help with “ the investigation , identification and repatriation of the bodies of Ukrainians killed in the plane crash.
” • The plane ’ s “ black box ” ( which records instrument readings and pilot conversations ) has been recovered and is in Iran ’ s possession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trudeau said Thursday that Iran wants to keep it in Iran , but that Iranian officials have said they would share information with Ukrainian investigators .
Iran has also invited the US National Transportation Safety Board to assist with the investigation .
• The plane had last been routinely serviced on January 6 , and there was no indication that anything was wrong before the plane took off , according to airline officials .
• Ukrainian International Airlines has suspended its scheduled flights between Kyiv and Tehran “ until further notice.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Austrian Airlines , have followed suit , either cancelling or rerouting flights heading to or through Tehran , according to Reuters .
• Iran has admitted it shot down the plane accidentally .
What we don ’ t know • When the airline carriers ’ suspensions of flights to and through Tehran will be lifted Updates to this article have ended — the latest on the crash and US-Iran relations can be found here .

Just a few hours after Iran launched an attack against US bases in Iraq in retaliation for the US killing of Qassem Soleimani, a Boeing passenger jet bound for Ukraine crashed shortly after it took off from Tehran. All 176 people on board — including 82 Iranians, at least 63 Canadians, and 11 Ukrainians — were killed.
Iran originally claimed the crash was not caused by any military action. However, by Saturday morning, Iranian officials admitted the plane was shot down after it “took the flying posture and altitude of an enemy target.”
Iranian officials called the act the result of “human error,” and President Hassan Rouhani apologized in a statement on Twitter, writing, “The Islamic Republic of Iran deeply regrets this disastrous mistake. My thoughts and prayers go to all the mourning families. I offer my sincerest condolences.”
The admission followed Thursday reports by the US and Canada that their intelligence agencies had found a missile was responsible for the crash.
“We have intelligence from multiple sources, including our allies and our own intelligence,” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday afternoon. “The evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile. It may well have been unintentional.”
Trudeau declined to elaborate on the evidence, but said that these developments confirmed “the need to have an in-depth investigation into this matter.”
And shortly after Trudeau’s address, the New York Times published a video showing the airliner being hit by what appeared to be a missile.
Despite the statements by the US and Canada — as well as the Times’ release of the video — Iran continued to deny that a missile felled the plane. Iranian officials accused the US of “spreading lies.”
Now, however, the country’s leaders have reversed course, leading Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to demand the Iranian government “bring those responsible to justice, return of the bodies of the deceased, pay compensations, issue official apologies through diplomatic channels.”
Zelensky also said Ukrainians “expect that Iran assures its readiness to have a full and open investigation.”
Rouhani promised Saturday that these steps will be taken, writing in a statement, “Further investigation is needed to identify all the causes and roots of this tragedy and prosecute the perpetrators of this unforgivable mistake.”
The Iranian leader also promised military procedures would be changed “to make sure such a disaster is never repeated.”
What we know
What we don’t know
When the airline carriers’ suspensions of flights to and through Tehran will be lifted
Updates to this article have ended — the latest on the crash and US-Iran relations can be found here.


vox--2020-01-11--Do “untranslatable words” really exist?

Do “untranslatable words” really exist?

Welcome to Vox ’ s weekly book link roundup , a curated selection of the internet ’ s best writing on books and related subjects .
Here ’ s the best the web has to offer for the week of January 5 , 2020 .
• At the Guardian , Alison Flood talks with the women who are reinventing spy fiction : Scott is also the author of a series of spy novels set in ancient Rome , which were published under the name MC Scott – a deliberate decision by her publisher before the first , Rome : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2010 .
“ They made my name gender neutral because somebody had said ‘ nobody in Tesco will buy a spy book by a woman ’ , ” says Scott .
“ I don ’ t think that would happen now .
Publishing has become much more gender-blind .
If it ’ s a good book they ’ ll publish it , whereas before it was : ‘ Only blokes can write this ’ .
” • At the Paris Review Daily , Benjamin Nugent considers what can be learned from imitating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important aspects of the Saunders aesthetic is something that might be termed “ bonelessness.
” A boneless story doesn ’ t begin with an idea for a central conflict , or with an outline , or with any other structural design .
A boneless story has no skeleton .
That doesn ’ t mean that there ’ s no action .
To the contrary , Saunders ’ s stories are packed with incident .
But the stories accumulate beat by beat .
As a general rule , Saunders doesn ’ t conceive of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to write one funny , interesting moment , and then another funny , interesting moment , and so on .
A Saunders story grows like a fungus .
• Medium ’ s Zora , a vertical for women of color , has put together the Zora Canon , a list of the 100 best books written by African American women : To our knowledge , however , no one has ever compiled a comprehensive list specifically featuring the finest literary works produced by African American women authors .
We decided to undertake that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group of writers and to provide ZORA readers — you — with a handy reference guide to their work .
• At LitHub , Sean Adams considers the problem of writing in a community of writers : Even worse were the little things , the discussions of word count goals , of when to write , for how long , how many drafts .
Simple eccentricities were accentuated until they seemed definitive , perhaps even mystical .
It ’ s an issue of the individual pushing against the community .
Outside of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ‘ writer , ’ and that ’ s it .
You can admit that you sit there , putting words in a row .
That it feels magical at times can be your little secret .
But among writers , every writer has to be a certain kind of writer , and your process better be magical as all hell .
• Scholars have stumbled across a rare first printing of John Addington Symonds ’ s “ A Problem in Greek Ethics , ” a 19th-century essay that anticipated the gay rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only printed 10 copies of the essay , and this new copy is the sixth to be found .
Katherine J. Wu tells the story at Smithsonian Magazine : A gay man himself , Symonds led something of a double life .
Despite marrying a woman and fathering four daughters , he carried on several same-sex relationships ( later detailed in his memoirs ) and penned works like “ A Problem in Greek Ethics.
” His writing , scholars have argued , even influenced Oscar Wilde , who , after exchanging letters with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the criminality of sodomy “ because homosexuality has been a noble pursuit since antiquity , ” as Ryan Warwick , a graduate student who worked on the exhibit , tells McCauley .
• At DCist , Mikaela Lefrak delves into the life of E.D.E.N .
Southworth , the now-forgotten woman novelist who was one of the most celebrated authors of the 19th century : Emma Dorothy Eliza Nevitte Southworth was one of the most successful American writers—male or female—of the mid-19th century , outselling contemporaries like Herman Melville and Nathaniel Hawthorne .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early literary scene : She hosted Friday night salons at her Georgetown cottage , attended Lincoln ’ s second inaugural ball , and is even credited with encouraging Harriet Beecher Stowe to write the anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom ’ s Cabin .
“ It ’ s kind of remarkable to me that we don ’ t know more about her , ” Zuravleff told me a few days before Christmas , as we visited her grave with writers Whitney Fishburn and Carrie Callaghan .
“ How does someone just disappear like that ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for women writers.
” But today , Southworth ’ s books are rarely taught outside of college courses on Southern literature .
No D.C. street bears her name , and her Georgetown home was torn down ages ago .
• At LitHub , David Shariatmadari argues against the myth of untranslatable words : Adults should know better than to believe that other cultures speak in spells .
The concept of “ untranslatable words ” preserves the idea that the world can never be fully mapped out and expunged of mystery .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alive the possibility of escape—of something surviving far beyond our everyday experiences .
It is also an easy replacement for the hard tasks of empathy and understanding .
• At the Baffler , Zoë Hu considers how whiteness functions in Little Women : Sisters like the Marches and Bennets partake in a cinematic tradition that has never managed to wane even amid demands for more politically engaged representations of women .
It ’ s a vision of white girlhood that locates hardship in an overtly romantic , aestheticized panorama of femininity , arranging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impulse .
Though these characters brush against patriarchal pressures or experience the young woman ’ s economic precarity , their lives are also meant to be envied and coveted .
… This placement of precarity and privilege in artful relation to one another is a crucial fantasy ; it induces catharsis by weaving patriarchy into a fanciful , luminous vision instead of depicting its effects for what they amount to : mundane reality .
And here ’ s the week in books at Vox : • In Such a Fun Age , everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but she just wants a real job • Romance is publishing ’ s most lucrative genre .
Its biggest community of writers is imploding .
As always , you can keep up with all our books coverage by visiting vox.com/books .
Happy reading !

Welcome to Vox’s weekly book link roundup, a curated selection of the internet’s best writing on books and related subjects. Here’s the best the web has to offer for the week of January 5, 2020.
At the Guardian, Alison Flood talks with the women who are reinventing spy fiction:
Scott is also the author of a series of spy novels set in ancient Rome, which were published under the name MC Scott – a deliberate decision by her publisher before the first, Rome: The Emperor’s Spy, was published in 2010. “They made my name gender neutral because somebody had said ‘nobody in Tesco will buy a spy book by a woman’,” says Scott. “I don’t think that would happen now. Publishing has become much more gender-blind. If it’s a good book they’ll publish it, whereas before it was: ‘Only blokes can write this’.”
At the Paris Review Daily, Benjamin Nugent considers what can be learned from imitating George Saunders:
One of the most important aspects of the Saunders aesthetic is something that might be termed “bonelessness.” A boneless story doesn’t begin with an idea for a central conflict, or with an outline, or with any other structural design. A boneless story has no skeleton. That doesn’t mean that there’s no action. To the contrary, Saunders’s stories are packed with incident. But the stories accumulate beat by beat. As a general rule, Saunders doesn’t conceive of plots in advance, but rather tries to write one funny, interesting moment, and then another funny, interesting moment, and so on. A Saunders story grows like a fungus.
Medium’s Zora, a vertical for women of color, has put together the Zora Canon, a list of the 100 best books written by African American women:
To our knowledge, however, no one has ever compiled a comprehensive list specifically featuring the finest literary works produced by African American women authors. We decided to undertake that effort both to honor that still underappreciated group of writers and to provide ZORA readers — you — with a handy reference guide to their work.
At LitHub, Sean Adams considers the problem of writing in a community of writers:
Even worse were the little things, the discussions of word count goals, of when to write, for how long, how many drafts. Simple eccentricities were accentuated until they seemed definitive, perhaps even mystical. It’s an issue of the individual pushing against the community. Outside of a writing program, you can just be a ‘writer,’ and that’s it. You can admit that you sit there, putting words in a row. That it feels magical at times can be your little secret. But among writers, every writer has to be a certain kind of writer, and your process better be magical as all hell.
Scholars have stumbled across a rare first printing of John Addington Symonds’s “A Problem in Greek Ethics,” a 19th-century essay that anticipated the gay rights movement. Symond, fearing persecution, only printed 10 copies of the essay, and this new copy is the sixth to be found. Katherine J. Wu tells the story at Smithsonian Magazine:
A gay man himself, Symonds led something of a double life. Despite marrying a woman and fathering four daughters, he carried on several same-sex relationships (later detailed in his memoirs) and penned works like “A Problem in Greek Ethics.” His writing, scholars have argued, even influenced Oscar Wilde, who, after exchanging letters with Symonds, went on to argue against the criminality of sodomy “because homosexuality has been a noble pursuit since antiquity,” as Ryan Warwick, a graduate student who worked on the exhibit, tells McCauley.
At DCist, Mikaela Lefrak delves into the life of E.D.E.N. Southworth, the now-forgotten woman novelist who was one of the most celebrated authors of the 19th century:
Emma Dorothy Eliza Nevitte Southworth was one of the most successful American writers—male or female—of the mid-19th century, outselling contemporaries like Herman Melville and Nathaniel Hawthorne. She was a mainstay of Washington’s early literary scene: She hosted Friday night salons at her Georgetown cottage, attended Lincoln’s second inaugural ball, and is even credited with encouraging Harriet Beecher Stowe to write the anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin. “It’s kind of remarkable to me that we don’t know more about her,” Zuravleff told me a few days before Christmas, as we visited her grave with writers Whitney Fishburn and Carrie Callaghan. “How does someone just disappear like that? I think it happens all the time for women writers.” But today, Southworth’s books are rarely taught outside of college courses on Southern literature. No D.C. street bears her name, and her Georgetown home was torn down ages ago.
At LitHub, David Shariatmadari argues against the myth of untranslatable words:
Adults should know better than to believe that other cultures speak in spells. The concept of “untranslatable words” preserves the idea that the world can never be fully mapped out and expunged of mystery. That’s a comforting thought. It keeps alive the possibility of escape—of something surviving far beyond our everyday experiences. It is also an easy replacement for the hard tasks of empathy and understanding.
At the Baffler, Zoë Hu considers how whiteness functions in Little Women:
Sisters like the Marches and Bennets partake in a cinematic tradition that has never managed to wane even amid demands for more politically engaged representations of women. It’s a vision of white girlhood that locates hardship in an overtly romantic, aestheticized panorama of femininity, arranging bodies and objects under a fetching curatorial impulse. Though these characters brush against patriarchal pressures or experience the young woman’s economic precarity, their lives are also meant to be envied and coveted. … This placement of precarity and privilege in artful relation to one another is a crucial fantasy; it induces catharsis by weaving patriarchy into a fanciful, luminous vision instead of depicting its effects for what they amount to: mundane reality.
And here’s the week in books at Vox:
As always, you can keep up with all our books coverage by visiting vox.com/books. Happy reading!


vox--2020-01-11--Sanders tops latest Iowa poll, but the 2020 Democratic primary is still a 4-way race

Throughout the 2020 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination , Sen. Bernie Sanders , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , former Vice President Joe Biden , and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg have topped most early primary state polls .
Iowa and New Hampshire polls released late last week followed that trend , while also registering some important changes in position in the final weeks before voters caucus and cast ballots for the first time .
According to a Des Moines Register poll of likely Iowa caucusgoers released Friday , Sanders currently has the lead in that state , with 20 percent support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last poll released in November .
Warren followed Sanders with 17 percent support ; Buttigieg and Biden were third and fourth , with 16 and 15 percent respectively .
The poll has a margin of error of 3.7 percentage points .
In New Hampshire , a Monmouth poll of likely primary voters shows the same four candidates clustered between 20 and 15 percent , with Buttigieg in the lead with 20 percent , Biden at 19 percent , Sanders at 18 percent , and Warren at 15 percent .
That poll has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With such a tight race among multiple candidates , it ’ s difficult to reach conclusions on how the races in either state will shake out , particularly given the number of voters who remain undecided — and the number who say they could still change their minds .
In Iowa , for instance , only 40 percent of caucusgoers say they have settled on a candidate for sure .
Still , with the Iowa caucuses only 23 days away , the results of the polls do suggest Sanders and Warren are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders , is of course first , and critically , Warren is the most popular second choice — a combined 33 percent of respondents said Warren is either their first or second choice ( 16 percent have her as their second choice ) .
Second choices are important in Iowa because in each precinct , candidates must reach a threshold of 15 percent of caucusgoers to remain viable ( in contention for delegates ) , which means that supporters of any candidate not reaching that threshold would be asked to support another candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topped November ’ s Iowa poll — has the highest second choice support , at 15 percent , also a promising showing .
Biden and Sanders each had 12 percent of respondents chose them as their second choices .
And there are still a sizable number of likely caucusgoers who haven ’ t yet made up their minds : 45 percent said they could be persuaded to change their allegiance before the caucuses , and 15 percent either said they have no first choice , or are n't at all sure who they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These caucusgoers will have a major impact on who wins the caucuses — and who has the momentum that win will grant in the New Hampshire primary .
What this means for the race Iowans aren ’ t alone in their uncertainty .
A recent CBS/YouGov poll showed that less than one third of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters have “ definitely ” made up their minds on a candidate .
That there are so many undecideds just three weeks from the Iowa caucuses and a month out from the New Hampshire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise , as Vox ’ s Ella Nilsen explained : New Hampshire voters in particular are famous for deciding on a candidate at the last minute — sometimes right up until they go into the voting booth .
And many of the dozens of voters I ’ ve spoken to at candidate events say that while they ’ re narrowing down to a few candidates , they still haven ’ t found The One yet .
That tracks in Iowa as well .
The Hawkeye State holds caucuses on February 3 where voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on the candidates they support .
Voting happens out in the open , and candidate “ viability ” — or whether a candidate can reach a 15 percent threshold — matters hugely to their chances .
This also increases the importance of people who support lower-tier candidates that won ’ t reach the viability threshold and have to throw their vote behind someone else .
Each state allocates its delegates to the Democratic National Convention in proportion to primary or caucus results .
Each of the top four candidates have reason to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least one of the first two states in this election cycle , and that makes it seem unlikely that Democrats will have a clear nominee following the contests .
In recent years , the two states have produced different winners from each other .
In 2016 , Hillary Clinton took Iowa while Sanders stormed back a week later to take New Hampshire .
In 2008 , Barack Obama took Iowa , while Clinton followed up with a win in New Hampshire .
( John Kerry did win both states in 2004 , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all attention will turn to South Carolina and Nevada , where Joe Biden continues to maintain a healthy lead on his competitors — that lead could narrow , or even evaporate , based on what happens in the first two contests .
From there , Democrats will sprint to Super Tuesday , the results of which ought to give a much clearer picture for how the race is likely to shake out .


vox--2020-01-12--Nancy Pelosi explains what Democrats gained by holding onto the articles of impeachment

Much has been made of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s decision not to send Trump ’ s articles of impeachment to the Senate following the House ’ s impeachment vote in December .
President Donald Trump and his GOP allies have claimed the delay shows his impeachment was a partisan effort to stain his legacy rather than an attempt to check his conduct , pointing out that Pelosi said Trump asking Ukraine to investigate his political rival constituted an “ urgent concern ” to national security .
They argue that if it was an urgent concern , she would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meanwhile , were reportedly kept in the dark about the delay , with CNN reporter Manu Raju reporting that even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was not informed about the hold — or when Pelosi planned to send the articles over .
On Friday , Pelosi announced the articles would finally be sent , allowing the Senate ’ s impeachment trial to begin , and Sunday she appeared on ABC ’ s This Week , explaining why she chose to hold on to the articles for so long .
There were three primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the speaker .
First , she hoped to pressure Senate Republicans into accepting Democrats ’ requests that witnesses be called in the trial .
“ We wanted the public to see the need for witnesses , witnesses with firsthand knowledge of what happened , ” Pelosi told This Week ’ s George Stephanopoulos .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was initially resistant to Democratic calls for witnesses — in fact , he reportedly privately spoke of the need to have a trial without witnesses — and was criticized by Democrats for saying he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the White House counsel ’ s office ” throughout the trial .
Pelosi wasn ’ t entirely successful in changing his mind on the issue of witnesses , but McConnell did shift slightly — the Republican position evolved : now GOP senators say the trial should reflect the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton , meaning that the issue of witnesses could be taken up after opening statements .
Key GOP senators who have been critical of the president with respect to his pressure campaign on Ukraine — and who voiced concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process — have signaled some willingness to entertain the idea of witnesses down the line .
Whether this means the trial actually will have witnesses — particularly the four desired by Democrats — remains to be seen , but Pelosi called this shift a win Sunday , and did the same when speaking about former National Security Adviser John Bolton ’ s surprise announcement that he would cooperate with a Senate subpoena and testify if told to do so .
“ Over 70 percent of the American people think that the president should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again , it ’ s about a fair trial , ” Pelosi said .
“ And we think that would be with witnesses and documentation .
So , that dynamic has — now the ball is in their court to either do that , or pay a price for not doing it.
” The speaker added , “ [ Bolton ] has said in this two weeks ’ period , there was another piece of progress that we made , that he would respond to a subpoena from the United States Senate.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow the public time to see further “ documentation which the president has prevented from coming to the Congress ” — that is , more evidence of wrongdoing .
As Vox ’ s Li Zhou has explained , more evidence has indeed come to light : Finally , Pelosi suggested that the delay helped create contrast between Democrats in the House and Republicans in the Senate .
McConnell and Senate Republicans , she argued , are not taking impeachment seriously , but rather looking for ways to protect the president .
The process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as lawmakers who put the Constitution first , she said .
“ But the fact is , is one of the things that I think is really important , what I think people should be very aware of , very unusually , the leader of the Senate , Mitch McConnell , has signed on to a resolution to dismiss the case , ” Pelosi said .
“ Dismissing is a cover-up .
If they want to go that route , again , the senators who are thinking now about voting for witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be accountable for not having a fair trial.
” She went on to say , “ We ’ ve done our job .
We ’ ve defended the Constitution of the United States .
We would hope that the Senate would do that as well.
” Republicans would obviously disagree .
Trump has called the impeachment process a “ ‘ no pressure ’ Impeachment Hoax ” and a “ partisan Democrat Witch Hunt.
” His allies have cast Democrats as having unfairly targeted him ; Sen. Lindsey Graham , for instance , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ridiculous sham ” and “ partisan nonsense.
” Both parties will have another chance to advance their arguments during the trial .
Pelosi said she ’ ll hold a vote on transmitting the articles to the Senate Tuesday , and a trial could start soon after those articles are received .

Much has been made of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision not to send President Donald Trump’s articles of impeachment to the Senate following the House’s impeachment vote in December.
President Trump and his GOP allies have claimed the delay shows his impeachment was a partisan effort to stain his legacy rather than an attempt to check his conduct, pointing out that Pelosi said Trump asking Ukraine to investigate his political rival constituted an “urgent concern” to national security. They argue that if it was an urgent concern, she would have sent the articles immediately.
Democrats meanwhile, were reportedly kept in the dark about the delay, with CNN reporter Manu Raju reporting that even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was not informed about the hold — or when Pelosi planned to send the articles over.
On Friday, Pelosi announced the articles would finally be sent, allowing the Senate’s impeachment trial to begin. On Sunday she appeared on ABC’s This Week, explaining why she chose to hold onto the articles for so long.
There were three primary reasons for the delay, according to the speaker.
First, she hoped to pressure Senate Republicans into accepting Democrats’ requests that witnesses be called in the trial.
“We wanted the public to see the need for witnesses, witnesses with firsthand knowledge of what happened,” Pelosi told This Week’s George Stephanopoulos.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was initially resistant to Democratic calls for witnesses — in fact, he reportedly privately spoke of the need to have a trial without witnesses — and was criticized by Democrats for saying he’d work “in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office” throughout the trial.
Pelosi wasn’t entirely successful in changing his mind on the issue of witnesses, but McConnell did shift slightly — the Republican position evolved: Now GOP senators say the trial should reflect the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, meaning that the issue of witnesses could be taken up after opening statements.
Key GOP senators who have been critical of the president with respect to his pressure campaign on Ukraine — and who voiced concern over how McConnell originally framed the Senate process — have signaled some willingness to entertain the idea of witnesses down the line.
Whether this means the trial will actually have witnesses — particularly the four desired by Democrats — remains to be seen, but Pelosi called this shift a win Sunday, and did the same when speaking about former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s surprise announcement that he would cooperate with a Senate subpoena and testify if told to do so.
“Over 70 percent of the American people think that the president should have those witnesses testify. So, again, it’s about a fair trial,” Pelosi said. “And we think that would be with witnesses and documentation. So, that dynamic has — now the ball is in their court to either do that, or pay a price for not doing it.”
The speaker added, “[Bolton] has said in this two weeks’ period, there was another piece of progress that we made, that he would respond to a subpoena from the United States Senate.”
Pelosi also said the delay was to allow the public time to see further “documentation which the president has prevented from coming to the Congress” — that is, more evidence of wrongdoing.
As Vox’s Li Zhou has explained, more evidence has indeed come to light:
Since the House’s impeachment vote in December, more and more documents — including Pentagon emails about Ukraine aid — have leaked out and strengthened Democrats’ case, further building the public record for the Trump impeachment charges. ... “[Former National Security Adviser John] Bolton’s statement on Monday and new emails showing the Pentagon was concerned about President Trump’s freeze on Ukraine aid are significant developments that demand a fair trial in the Senate — and wouldn’t have happened without Speaker Pelosi holding the articles,” [a Democratic] aide says.
Finally, Pelosi suggested that the delay helped create a contrast between Democrats in the House and Republicans in the Senate.
McConnell and Senate Republicans, she argued, are not taking impeachment seriously, but rather looking for ways to protect the president. The process has shown Democrats on the other hand, as lawmakers who put the Constitution first, she said.
“But the fact is, is one of the things that I think is really important, what I think people should be very aware of, very unusually, the leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, has signed on to a resolution to dismiss the case,” Pelosi said. “Dismissing is a cover-up. If they want to go that route, again, the senators who are thinking now about voting for witnesses or not, they will have to be accountable for not having a fair trial.”
She went on to say, “We’ve done our job. We’ve defended the Constitution of the United States. We would hope that the Senate would do that as well.”
Republicans would obviously disagree. Trump has called the impeachment process a “‘no pressure’ Impeachment Hoax” and a “partisan Democrat Witch Hunt.” His allies have cast Democrats as having unfairly targeted him; Sen. Lindsey Graham, for instance, has called the impeachment vote a “sad, ridiculous sham” and “partisan nonsense.”
Both parties will have another chance to advance their arguments during the trial. Pelosi said she’ll hold a vote on transmitting the articles to the Senate Tuesday, and a trial could start soon after those articles are received.