vox--2020-10-13--Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

If you didn ’ t know that before the Senate Judiciary Committee began confirmation hearings on her Supreme Court nomination , you definitely do now , since her large family has been mentioned at least nine times as of Tuesday afternoon .
Republican Sen. Thom Tillis called her “ a remarkable mother ” on Monday , noting that “ she has seven beautiful children.
” Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) called her “ a tireless mother of seven.
” Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) even seemed to give her two extra children at one point , saying , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children .
Two adopted .
Nine seems to be a good number.
” ( Barrett and her husband have seven children , two of whom happen to be adopted .
Once again , the number is seven . )
It wasn ’ t just Republicans .
Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-CA ) also remarked on Barrett ’ s large family and praised her skills as a mother .
But for politicians on the right , talking about the nominee ’ s kids has a twofold purpose .
First , it ’ s meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case that , as a mom , she simply wouldn ’ t have the heart to do some of the things liberals are afraid of , like voting to overturn the Affordable Care Act .
Second , it aims to paint liberal critics of the nominee as anti-child , anti-family , and anti-woman into the bargain .
“ What your political opponents want to paint you as is a TV or cartoon version of a religious radical , ” Sen. Joni Ernst ( R-IA ) said in her opening statement on Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the irony of how demeaning to women their accusations really are , that you , a working mother of seven with a strong record of professional and academic accomplishment , couldn ’ t possibly respect the goals and desires of today ’ s women , that you , as a practicing Catholic with a detailed record of service , lack compassion .
I know you to be compassionate.
” The message Ernst and others were sending was simple : By opposing the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett , you ’ re opposing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-feminist than that ?
Republicans are talking about Barrett ’ s kids to make her sound empathetic Barrett ’ s children and family have been a core part of the public narrative of her confirmation since she was nominated , not quite three weeks ago .
For some conservative women she ’ s a beacon , proof you can have a big family , a religious life , and a demanding job .
Barrett “ represents the fact that not all women need to think the same way about the raising of children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who is Catholic and recently finished a PhD while raising two young children , told the New York Times .
Some have argued that Barrett ’ s success suggests women don ’ t need abortion , as Rebecca Onion reported at Slate .
The Federalist , meanwhile , hailed the judge ’ s life as a rebuke to feminist orthodoxy , an example of “ how strong women submit to their husbands with joy.
” In general , discourse around Barrett ’ s family life has assumed more knowledge about it than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know , for example , about the division of responsibilities in the Barrett home ) .
The confirmation process has continued in that vein , with senators citing Barrett ’ s kids as proof of various nice things .
Grassley , for example , complained Monday that liberals were “ suggesting Judge Barrett ’ s confirmation would be the demise of the ACA and the protection for preexisting conditions.
” “ That ’ s outrageous , ” he said , “ As a mother of seven , Judge Barrett clearly understands the importance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more outraged on Tuesday , noting that “ not only is Judge Barrett a mother of seven , she has children with preexisting medical challenges of their own.
” ( One of Barrett ’ s children has Down syndrome . )
“ No one on this committee , or anyone , has any right to suggest that she doesn ’ t care about access to health care or protection for the vulnerable , ” Grassley continued .
The goal of Grassley ’ s comments is clear : to make the case that Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member to someone with a disability , would never do something so heartless as to vote to take away health insurance for people with preexisting conditions .
It ’ s an odd argument , as MSNBC ’ s Steve Benen notes — Grassley is essentially saying that “ people who care about families understand the importance of health care , and those who understand the importance of health care wouldn ’ t dare be so callous as to destroy the nation ’ s existing system.
” But if that ’ s true , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , exactly , that Grassley ’ s party and president are enthusiastic supporters of the case that intends to tear down the ACA ?
” Don ’ t they care about families too ?
Questions like this aside , it ’ s clear that part of the reason Grassley and others are bringing up Barrett ’ s kids so often is to make her seem warm and empathetic , and thus more palatable , perhaps , to centrist voters in swing states — the real audience for her confirmation hearings , since members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how they ’ ll vote on her nomination .
They ’ re also trying to paint liberals as anti-feminist But Republicans are also talking about Barrett ’ s kids as a way of arguing that it ’ s actually liberals who are being cruel and bigoted by opposing her nomination .
Graham and others have been exceedingly careful to point out that two of those children became part of the Barrett family through adoption ( they were born in Haiti ) .
Some conservatives appear to see this fact as a kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two adopted children from Haiti , it ’ s going to be interesting to watch Democrats try to smear Amy Coney Barrett as racist , ” Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin tweeted in September .
Of course , having Black children isn ’ t actually any kind of guarantee that someone will not uphold racist policies .
As historian and author Ibram X. Kendi pointed out on Twitter , “ Some White colonizers ‘ adopted ’ Black children .
They ‘ civilized ’ these ‘ savage ’ children in the ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial.
” Kendi ’ s point was to challenge “ a belief too many White people have : if they have or adopt a child of color , then they can ’ t be racist.
” But conservatives have used his and others ’ arguments as proof that liberals are being not just mean but also downright unhinged for pushing back against the argument that Barrett can ’ t be racist because she has Black family members .
“ I know that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Sen. John Kennedy ( R-LA ) said Monday , “ and I know it must hurt for someone of deep Christian faith like yourself to be called a religious bigot , and to have it implied that because you are a devout Christian , that you ’ re somehow unfit for public service .
Before it ’ s over with , they may call you Rosemary ’ s baby for all I know.
” Meanwhile , some are using arguments about Barrett ’ s kids to make a more specific point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it best during her time on Monday , during which she decried Democratic opposition to Barrett : The message , again , is clear : Opposing Barrett ’ s nomination isn ’ t just wrongheaded , it ’ s actively misogynistic .
Indeed , conservatives have applauded Barrett as the apotheosis of a new form of feminism .
This feminism “ insists not just on the equal rights of men and women , but also on their common responsibilities , particularly in the realm of family life , ” conservative legal scholar Erika @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this new feminism , sexual equality is found not in imitating men ’ s capacity to walk away from an unexpected pregnancy through abortion , but rather in asking men to meet women at a high standard of mutual responsibility , reciprocity and care.
” Once again , the American public does not actually know what standards Barrett and her husband set for one another , or how they divide up care and other labor in their home .
But using similar arguments , Ernst and others are performing a sort of switcheroo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett confirmation would impact abortion rights and other feminist priorities .
By focusing on Barrett ’ s life as a mother — and a mother with a demanding job and many children , at that — Republicans are trying to turn the argument around and paint Democrats as the real sexists .
“ The great freedom of being an American woman is that we can decide how to build our lives , whom to marry , what kind of person we are , and where we want to go , ” Ernst said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to fit the narrow definition of womanhood .
We create our own path.
” Barrett does seem to have created her own path .
But as Onion and others have noted , she ’ ll likely soon have the legal authority to shape the paths of millions of other Americans of all genders , potentially deciding how we build our lives and whom we are allowed to marry — and if not what kind of people we are , then certainly where some of us are allowed to go .
Her family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how she would decide such questions .
But as many Republicans have taken pains to note , Barrett also has a high-profile career , during which she has weighed in repeatedly on these important issues .
And perhaps the most feminist thing to do would be to judge her by her work .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Judge Amy Coney Barrett has seven children.
If you didn’t know that before the Senate Judiciary Committee began confirmation hearings on her Supreme Court nomination, you definitely do now, since her large family has been mentioned at least nine times as of Tuesday afternoon.
Republican Sen. Thom Tillis called her “a remarkable mother” on Monday, noting that “she has seven beautiful children.” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) called her “a tireless mother of seven.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) even seemed to give her two extra children at one point, saying, “She and her husband have seven children. Two adopted. Nine seems to be a good number.” (Barrett and her husband have seven children, two of whom happen to be adopted. Once again, the number is seven.)
It wasn’t just Republicans. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) also remarked on Barrett’s large family and praised her skills as a mother. But for politicians on the right, talking about the nominee’s kids has a twofold purpose. First, it’s meant to defuse criticisms of Barrett by making the case that, as a mom, she simply wouldn’t have the heart to do some of the things liberals are afraid of, like voting to overturn the Affordable Care Act. Second, it aims to paint liberal critics of the nominee as anti-child, anti-family, and anti-woman into the bargain.
“What your political opponents want to paint you as is a TV or cartoon version of a religious radical,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) said in her opening statement on Monday. “I’m struck by the irony of how demeaning to women their accusations really are, that you, a working mother of seven with a strong record of professional and academic accomplishment, couldn’t possibly respect the goals and desires of today’s women, that you, as a practicing Catholic with a detailed record of service, lack compassion. I know you to be compassionate.”
The message Ernst and others were sending was simple: By opposing the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, you’re opposing a mom. And what could be more anti-feminist than that?
Republicans are talking about Barrett’s kids to make her sound empathetic
Barrett’s children and family have been a core part of the public narrative of her confirmation since she was nominated, not quite three weeks ago. For some conservative women she’s a beacon, proof you can have a big family, a religious life, and a demanding job. Barrett “represents the fact that not all women need to think the same way about the raising of children and family planning,” Gabrielle Girgis, who is Catholic and recently finished a PhD while raising two young children, told the New York Times. Some have argued that Barrett’s success suggests women don’t need abortion, as Rebecca Onion reported at Slate. The Federalist, meanwhile, hailed the judge’s life as a rebuke to feminist orthodoxy, an example of “how strong women submit to their husbands with joy.”
In general, discourse around Barrett’s family life has assumed more knowledge about it than is publicly available (we do not know, for example, about the division of responsibilities in the Barrett home). The confirmation process has continued in that vein, with senators citing Barrett’s kids as proof of various nice things.
Grassley, for example, complained Monday that liberals were “suggesting Judge Barrett’s confirmation would be the demise of the ACA and the protection for preexisting conditions.”
“That’s outrageous,” he said, “As a mother of seven, Judge Barrett clearly understands the importance of health care.”
He seemed even more outraged on Tuesday, noting that “not only is Judge Barrett a mother of seven, she has children with preexisting medical challenges of their own.” (One of Barrett’s children has Down syndrome.)
“No one on this committee, or anyone, has any right to suggest that she doesn’t care about access to health care or protection for the vulnerable,” Grassley continued.
The goal of Grassley’s comments is clear: to make the case that Barrett, as a mother and a family member to someone with a disability, would never do something so heartless as to vote to take away health insurance for people with preexisting conditions. It’s an odd argument, as MSNBC’s Steve Benen notes — Grassley is essentially saying that “people who care about families understand the importance of health care, and those who understand the importance of health care wouldn’t dare be so callous as to destroy the nation’s existing system.”
But if that’s true, Benen asks, “Why is it, exactly, that Grassley’s party and president are enthusiastic supporters of the case that intends to tear down the ACA?” Don’t they care about families too?
Questions like this aside, it’s clear that part of the reason Grassley and others are bringing up Barrett’s kids so often is to make her seem warm and empathetic, and thus more palatable, perhaps, to centrist voters in swing states — the real audience for her confirmation hearings, since members of the committee have likely already decided how they’ll vote on her nomination.
They’re also trying to paint liberals as anti-feminist
But Republicans are also talking about Barrett’s kids as a way of arguing that it’s actually liberals who are being cruel and bigoted by opposing her nomination. Graham and others have been exceedingly careful to point out that two of those children became part of the Barrett family through adoption (they were born in Haiti). Some conservatives appear to see this fact as a kind of shield against Democratic criticism. “With two adopted children from Haiti, it’s going to be interesting to watch Democrats try to smear Amy Coney Barrett as racist,” Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin tweeted in September.
Of course, having Black children isn’t actually any kind of guarantee that someone will not uphold racist policies. As historian and author Ibram X. Kendi pointed out on Twitter, “Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children. They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial.”
Kendi’s point was to challenge “a belief too many White people have: if they have or adopt a child of color, then they can’t be racist.” But conservatives have used his and others’ arguments as proof that liberals are being not just mean but also downright unhinged for pushing back against the argument that Barrett can’t be racist because she has Black family members.
“I know that it hurts to be called a white colonialist,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said Monday, “and I know it must hurt for someone of deep Christian faith like yourself to be called a religious bigot, and to have it implied that because you are a devout Christian, that you’re somehow unfit for public service. Before it’s over with, they may call you Rosemary’s baby for all I know.”
Meanwhile, some are using arguments about Barrett’s kids to make a more specific point about women and motherhood. Ernst encapsulated it best during her time on Monday, during which she decried Democratic opposition to Barrett:
Instead of entering into this nomination process with an open mind and a desire to understand this woman who has been nominated for the highest court in the land, the focus is on a plan or a strategy, a series of tactics to undermine, coerce, and confuse the American people. Women all over the world are painfully familiar with this strategy. We are all too often perceived and judged based on who someone else needs or wants us to be, not on who we actually are. I cannot speak for those that would attempt to undermine your nomination, but as a fellow woman, a fellow mom, a fellow Midwesterner, I see you for who you are, and I’m glad the American people have the opportunity to get to know Amy Coney Barrett.
The message, again, is clear: Opposing Barrett’s nomination isn’t just wrongheaded, it’s actively misogynistic.
Indeed, conservatives have applauded Barrett as the apotheosis of a new form of feminism. This feminism “insists not just on the equal rights of men and women, but also on their common responsibilities, particularly in the realm of family life,” conservative legal scholar Erika Bachiochi writes at Politico. “In this new feminism, sexual equality is found not in imitating men’s capacity to walk away from an unexpected pregnancy through abortion, but rather in asking men to meet women at a high standard of mutual responsibility, reciprocity and care.”
Once again, the American public does not actually know what standards Barrett and her husband set for one another, or how they divide up care and other labor in their home. But using similar arguments, Ernst and others are performing a sort of switcheroo on Democrats who have questioned how a Barrett confirmation would impact abortion rights and other feminist priorities. By focusing on Barrett’s life as a mother — and a mother with a demanding job and many children, at that — Republicans are trying to turn the argument around and paint Democrats as the real sexists.
“The great freedom of being an American woman is that we can decide how to build our lives, whom to marry, what kind of person we are, and where we want to go,” Ernst said Monday. “We don’t have to fit the narrow definition of womanhood. We create our own path.”
Barrett does seem to have created her own path. But as Onion and others have noted, she’ll likely soon have the legal authority to shape the paths of millions of other Americans of all genders, potentially deciding how we build our lives and whom we are allowed to marry — and if not what kind of people we are, then certainly where some of us are allowed to go.
Her family life tells us little or nothing about how she would decide such questions. But as many Republicans have taken pains to note, Barrett also has a high-profile career, during which she has weighed in repeatedly on these important issues. And perhaps the most feminist thing to do would be to judge her by her work.
ntribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-10-13--A broken internet cable took down Virginia’s voter registration website hours before the deadline

In what is fast becoming a pattern for voter registration in the 2020 presidential election , technical difficulties befell another state ’ s voter registration website on the last day citizens can register .
This time , Virginians were locked out of the ability to register online .
For about six hours on Tuesday , visitors to Virginia ’ s voter registration website were greeted with a message saying it was “ temporarily unavailable ” due to a “ network outage ” that could not have come at a worse time .
The cause , according to the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Verizon fiber optic cable that provided internet to the state ’ s Enterprise Solutions Center was somehow cut , taking the voter registration site down with it .
“ A crew working overnight on a roadside utilities project severed fiber cables , ” Krys Grondorf of Verizon told Recode .
“ It was not a Verizon crew that severed the cable — it was a county roadside utilities project.
” The website was back up and running by around 3:30 pm .
Voters currently have until 11:59 pm to register online .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond to a request for comment on what , if anything , the state will do to make up for the time that the site was down .
But there is precedent for extending voter registration ; in 2016 , Virginia ’ s site crashed just before the deadline due to too much traffic .
A federal judge ordered the state to extend the deadline by 36 hours to make up for it .
Last week , Florida ’ s voter registration website crashed in the final hours of registration .
While the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outage was brief , it turned out to last for several hours , potentially preventing tens of thousands of registrations .
The state ended up extending registration for seven hours the next day , albeit in the middle of the day and with little notice .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from as little as $ 3 .

In what is fast becoming a pattern for voter registration in the 2020 presidential election, technical difficulties befell another state’s voter registration website on the last day citizens can register. This time, Virginians were locked out of the ability to register online.
For about six hours on Tuesday, visitors to Virginia’s voter registration website were greeted with a message saying it was “temporarily unavailable” due to a “network outage” that could not have come at a worse time.
The cause, according to the state’s Information Technology Agency, was that a Verizon fiber optic cable that provided internet to the state’s Enterprise Solutions Center was somehow cut, taking the voter registration site down with it.
“A crew working overnight on a roadside utilities project severed fiber cables,” Krys Grondorf of Verizon told Recode. “It was not a Verizon crew that severed the cable — it was a county roadside utilities project.”
The website was back up and running by around 3:30 pm, and Virginia’s attorney general requested a deadline extension before the end of the day.
He had good news on Wednesday morning: Voter registration has been extended, giving Virginians until October 15 at 11:59 pm to register.
BREAKING Judge says he will GRANT our request to extend voter registration deadline until 11:59pm on Thursday, October 15. Register to vote now!! — Mark Herring (@MarkHerringVA) October 14, 2020
There is precedent for this extension: In 2016, Virginia’s site crashed just before the deadline due to too much traffic. A federal judge ordered the state to extend the deadline by 36 hours to make up for it.
Last week, Florida’s voter registration website crashed in the final hours of registration. While the Florida secretary of state initially said the outage was brief, it turned out to last for several hours, potentially preventing tens of thousands of registrations. The state ended up extending registration for seven hours the next day, albeit in the middle of the day and with little notice.
Update, October 14, 10 am ET: Updated with deadline extension news.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-10-13--North Korea has unveiled new weapons, showing Trump failed to tame its nuclear program

North Korea ’ s display of new , dangerous weapons on Saturday made one thing perfectly clear : Over the last four years , President Donald Trump has failed to curb the nuclear threat from Pyongyang .
Trump made a big bet that meeting North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times and sending him flattering letters might convince Pyongyang to dismantle its nuclear and missile arsenals once and for all .
But during the country ’ s 75th annual military parade celebrating the founding of its ruling party , Kim made sure to signal to the entire world that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front .
In fact , matters have only gotten worse .
Among other revelations , North Korea showed off a large intercontinental ballistic missile ( ICBM ) that could potentially overwhelm US defenses ; more trucks from which to shoot ICBMs than previously known ; and more advanced shorter-range rockets to more precisely threaten South Korea .
Which means North Korea now has a greater ability to threaten America and its regional allies today than it did when Trump entered office .
Trump is by no means the first president to fall short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but he ’ s now the latest .
According to a source familiar with his comments , Trump has been telling White House aides he ’ s “ really angry about [ North Korea ’ s ] missile parade ” and “ really disappointed ” in Kim personally .
But that same person , who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly about internal discussions , noted Trump is unlikely to change his stance toward North Korea unless it tests a new ICBM or a nuclear device .
Perhaps to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s concerns , Kim noted the intentions of the buildup during a speech to open the parade .
“ We will continue to strengthen the war deterrent , the righteous self-defense means , so as to contain and control all the dangerous attempts and intimidatory acts by the hostile forces , including their sustained and aggravating nuclear threat , ” Kim , dressed in a gray Western-style suit , said , clearly referring to the United States .
Such weapons “ will never be abused or used as a means for preemptive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and if , any forces infringe upon the security of our state and attempt to have recourse to military force against us , I will enlist all our most powerful offensive strength in advance to punish them , ” he continued .
Put together , experts say Kim aimed to convey that his nation is more prepared than ever to defend itself and , if necessary , fight back — but only if attacked first .
He ’ s threading a needle in the hope of improving his arsenal while minimizing public backlash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Leaders in South Korea and Japan have conveyed their displeasure publicly , but Trump — who seems content with the status quo as long as North Korea doesn ’ t test these weapons — hasn ’ t said anything openly about the parade .
Some experts say there ’ s still an opportunity to improve the situation .
“ Both sides need to take even greater conciliatory steps to overcome the growing trust deficit caused by the security spiral , ” said Frank Aum , the senior expert on North Korea at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , DC .
If the US and North Korea don ’ t , there could be a repeat of 2017 ’ s “ fire and fury ” era in the next four years — but this time with Pyongyang in possession of more lethal weaponry .
“ The temperature is down because Trump is happy to live in denial , ” MIT nuclear strategy expert Vipin Narang told me .
“ The problem with that is when the temperature inevitably turns back up.
” The main three weapons North Korea displayed , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parade commemorated the 75th year of the Workers ’ Party of Korea , which has outlasted the Soviet Union ’ s 74 years as a nation .
During recent iterations , this annual celebration has provided Kim the chance to showcase not only his hold on power , as his father and grandfather did before him , but also the new weapons he has to safeguard that power .
The 2020 event was no different , save for it confusingly taking place at night instead of during the day ( it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year ’ s display was one of the most troubling in years because of what North Korea ’ s military rolled through the streets of Pyongyang .
Let ’ s take each in turn .
In December 2019 , Kim promised his nation a “ new strategic weapon ” — which experts interpreted as code for a bigger , more capable missile to deliver a nuclear weapon to targets nearby , or even as far away as the United States .
He finally unveiled the promised weapon this past weekend , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Experts say the four showcased missiles are the biggest ever seen in North Korea .
But more than that , they are the largest road-mobile missiles with their own truck-based launchers in the entire world .
This means that , in case of a war , North Korea ’ s military could roll these missiles out of underground bunkers , place them somewhere on land , and shoot them at the United States .
However , the missile is propelled by liquid , so it needs to be fueled before launch .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to track the missile and destroy it before it ever gets off the ground .
“ North Korea is betting that ‘ probably ’ won ’ t be very reassuring to US leaders in a crisis where US cities are at risk of nuclear attack in defense of an ally , ” Georgetown University ’ s Caitlin Talmadge , whose research focuses in part on nuclear deterrence and escalation , tweeted Saturday .
Why would North Korea want to make such a big ICBM , though , especially when it already tested one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Most analysts suspect its bigger size allows it to hold multiple bombs , roughly three or four ( along with decoys , perhaps ) , which could overwhelm US missile defenses .
The US has just 44 ground-based interceptors ( missiles ) in Alaska and California to shoot weapons out of the sky , using four interceptors to destroy each individual warhead .
If North Korea wanted to shoot 12 missiles with one warhead on top , the missile defense system is already overwhelmed .
But why do that when you could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warheads attached to it ?
If the US wanted to beef up the number of interceptors at its disposal , experts note it ’ ll cost a lot of money .
“ Each one of these missiles that North Korea builds will cost the US about $ 1 billion to defend against , ” Jeffrey Lewis , a nuclear expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey , California , tweeted Saturday .
“ At that cost , I am pretty sure North Korea can add warheads faster than we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ICBM — likely to be named the Hwasong-16 , since it ’ s the latest ICBM after North Korea ’ s Hwasong-15 — hasn ’ t been tested yet .
It ’ s possible it may have issues that North Korea still needs to fix .
That ’ s why many experts predict Pyongyang will probably test the massive weapon in early 2021 , in part to see how it goes and to also send a message to whoever is in the White House for the next four years : North Korea is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do anything about it .
All of that is scary enough , but another revelation may actually be the biggest and most troubling news .
More trucks from which to shoot ICBMs — and , potentially , the ability to make more Melissa Hanham , deputy director of the Open Nuclear Network , tweeted that the biggest news from the parade wasn ’ t the four new ICBMs but rather the four trucks carrying them .
Here ’ s why : Until Saturday , experts could only confirm that North Korea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) — that is , trucks that serve as a platform for shooting missiles — for ICBMs .
But the parade featured four trucks carrying the new ICBM and another four with a previously unveiled ICBM on top .
That ’ s eight , which last I checked was more than six .
And by the looks of them , they ’ re different from those North Korea had imported from China .
Simply put , the newer TELs have more axles — the number of sets of wheels — than the older @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ballistic-missile analyst based in Virginia , said this implies two things : Either North Korea is somehow importing trucks or truck parts from and making changes to suit their needs , or it ’ s gained the ability to produce these trucks locally .
If it ’ s the latter , and there ’ s evidence to that effect , it ’ s a big deal .
Indeed , satellite imagery suggests North Korea has built factories to produce the missile-launching trucks at home , avoiding the need to buy them from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the case , North Korea could conceivably make the same number of TELs as ICBMs in its arsenal — if it doesn ’ t have them already .
“ Their ICBM arsenal is , hypothetically , not constrained by a lack of launchers , ” said LaFoy .
“ So long as North Korea opts to launch its ICBMs from trucks , then being able to make trucks means being able to make more ICBMs.
” Which means North Korea could be capable — either today or in the near future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to launch off of trucks during a crisis , lowering the likelihood the US or South Korea could destroy them all before they take flight .
Although North Korea ’ s nuclear and missile programs get all the attention , a seriously underappreciated threat comes from its arsenal of conventional weapons , including the world ’ s largest artillery force .
South Korea ’ s capital city , Seoul , is a so-called “ megacity ” with a whopping 25 million residents living in the greater metropolitan area .
It also happens to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pieces of North Korean artillery already lined up along the border , also known as the Demilitarized Zone .
According to the National Interest , by some estimates Seoul could “ be hit by over half-a-million shells in under an hour.
” The biggest critique of North Korea ’ s shorter-range missiles has been that they are old , creaky , and unreliable .
Kim set out to allay those fears , showing his military has also spent ample time beefing up those weapons along with the longer-range nuclear ones .
LaFoy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple launch rocket systems pictured above , are “ more precise ” because of enhanced GPS and “ augment or replace older artillery pieces.
” In other words , North Korea now has more reliable weapons with which to destroy Seoul and kill hundreds of thousands of people in days , if it so chooses .
The message was unmistakable : North Korea doesn ’ t need to use its nuclear weapons to threaten South Korea and the 25,000 US troops stationed in the country .
This means Trump ’ s boast that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is just that : a boast .
If anything , he led the US during a massive expansion of Pyongyang ’ s military and nuclear power , with little indication of a reversal any time soon .
Some experts , including Jessica Lee , a senior research fellow in the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft ’ s East Asia Program , say there ’ s still a chance for progress .
“ North Korea has always used external threats to justify its nuclear program , ” she told me .
“ The more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the more it will legitimize the North Korean regime ’ s nuclear buildup.
” But if the parade is any indication , North Korea will remain a threat to the US , South Korea , and Japan — regardless of America ’ s position .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

North Korea’s display of new, dangerous weapons on Saturday made one thing perfectly clear: Over the last four years, President Donald Trump has failed to curb the nuclear threat from Pyongyang.
Trump made a big bet that meeting North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times and sending him flattering letters might convince Pyongyang to dismantle its nuclear and missile arsenals once and for all. But during the country’s 75th annual military parade celebrating the founding of its ruling party, Kim made sure to signal to the entire world that Trump has made no progress on that front. In fact, matters have only gotten worse.
Among other revelations, North Korea showed off a large intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that could potentially overwhelm US defenses; more trucks from which to shoot ICBMs than previously known; and more advanced shorter-range rockets to more precisely threaten South Korea.
Which means North Korea now has a greater ability to threaten America and its regional allies today than it did when Trump entered office. Trump is by no means the first president to fall short of reversing Pyongyang’s nuclear progress, but he’s now the latest.
According to a source familiar with his comments, Trump has been telling White House aides he’s “really angry about [North Korea’s] missile parade” and “really disappointed” in Kim personally. But that same person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly about internal discussions, noted Trump is unlikely to change his stance toward North Korea unless it tests a new ICBM or a nuclear device.
INFOGRAPHIC: How does North Korea's latest military parade compare, by the numbers?
The data is startling: Saturday’s parade saw by far the biggest range of new equipment to ever be introduced at a military parade in North Korean history.https://t.co/CuwPGjg2Po pic.twitter.com/lFgwyw1quR — NK NEWS (@nknewsorg) October 11, 2020
Perhaps to assuage Trump’s and the world’s concerns, Kim noted the intentions of the buildup during a speech to open the parade.
“We will continue to strengthen the war deterrent, the righteous self-defense means, so as to contain and control all the dangerous attempts and intimidatory acts by the hostile forces, including their sustained and aggravating nuclear threat,” Kim, dressed in a gray Western-style suit, said, clearly referring to the United States. Such weapons “will never be abused or used as a means for preemptive strike.”
“But, if, and if, any forces infringe upon the security of our state and attempt to have recourse to military force against us, I will enlist all our most powerful offensive strength in advance to punish them,” he continued.
Put together, experts say Kim aimed to convey that his nation is more prepared than ever to defend itself and, if necessary, fight back — but only if attacked first. He’s threading a needle in the hope of improving his arsenal while minimizing public backlash.
That play may have mostly worked: Leaders in South Korea and Japan have conveyed their displeasure publicly, but Trump — who seems content with the status quo as long as North Korea doesn’t test these weapons — hasn’t said anything openly about the parade.
Some experts say there’s still an opportunity to improve the situation. “Both sides need to take even greater conciliatory steps to overcome the growing trust deficit caused by the security spiral,” said Frank Aum, the senior expert on North Korea at the US Institute of Peace in Washington, DC.
If the US and North Korea don’t, there could be a repeat of 2017’s “fire and fury” era in the next four years — but this time with Pyongyang in possession of more lethal weaponry.
“The temperature is down because Trump is happy to live in denial,” MIT nuclear strategy expert Vipin Narang told me. “The problem with that is when the temperature inevitably turns back up.”
The main three weapons North Korea displayed, and their dangers, explained
The October 10 parade commemorated the 75th year of the Workers’ Party of Korea, which has outlasted the Soviet Union’s 74 years as a nation. During recent iterations, this annual celebration has provided Kim the chance to showcase not only his hold on power, as his father and grandfather did before him, but also the new weapons he has to safeguard that power.
The 2020 event was no different, save for it confusingly taking place at night instead of during the day (it’s still unclear exactly why). But this year’s display was one of the most troubling in years because of what North Korea’s military rolled through the streets of Pyongyang.
Let’s take each in turn.
A new intercontinental ballistic missile
In December 2019, Kim promised his nation a “new strategic weapon” — which experts interpreted as code for a bigger, more capable missile to deliver a nuclear weapon to targets nearby, or even as far away as the United States.
He finally unveiled the promised weapon this past weekend, and, well, just look at it.
High resolution of the new North Korean ICBM. pic.twitter.com/gpd6CileNd — Ankit Panda (@nktpnd) October 10, 2020
Experts say the four showcased missiles are the biggest ever seen in North Korea. But more than that, they are the largest road-mobile missiles with their own truck-based launchers in the entire world. This means that, in case of a war, North Korea’s military could roll these missiles out of underground bunkers, place them somewhere on land, and shoot them at the United States.
However, the missile is propelled by liquid, so it needs to be fueled before launch. That probably gives US defenses enough time to track the missile and destroy it before it ever gets off the ground. “North Korea is betting that ‘probably’ won’t be very reassuring to US leaders in a crisis where US cities are at risk of nuclear attack in defense of an ally,” Georgetown University’s Caitlin Talmadge, whose research focuses in part on nuclear deterrence and escalation, tweeted Saturday.
(North Korea did display a missile that looks like it’s propelled by solid fuel, meaning it’s ready to launch right out of the gate, which shows the country is getting better at making those, too.)
Why would North Korea want to make such a big ICBM, though, especially when it already tested one in 2017 that theoretically could strike America? Most analysts suspect its bigger size allows it to hold multiple bombs, roughly three or four (along with decoys, perhaps), which could overwhelm US missile defenses. The US has just 44 ground-based interceptors (missiles) in Alaska and California to shoot weapons out of the sky, using four interceptors to destroy each individual warhead.
If North Korea wanted to shoot 12 missiles with one warhead on top, the missile defense system is already overwhelmed. But why do that when you could shoot three missiles, each with four warheads attached to it?
If the US wanted to beef up the number of interceptors at its disposal, experts note it’ll cost a lot of money. “Each one of these missiles that North Korea builds will cost the US about $1 billion to defend against,” Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California, tweeted Saturday. “At that cost, I am pretty sure North Korea can add warheads faster than we can add interceptors.”
If each new North Korean ICBM can carry 3-4 warheads, we would need about 12-16 interceptors for each missile. (The GMD system salvo fires 4 interceptors at each warhead.) The last time the US bought 14 interceptors, it cost ... $1 billion. https://t.co/SUmIL2P4If — Jeffrey Lewis (@ArmsControlWonk) October 10, 2020
Importantly, the new ICBM — likely to be named the Hwasong-16, since it’s the latest ICBM after North Korea’s Hwasong-15 — hasn’t been tested yet. It’s possible it may have issues that North Korea still needs to fix.
That’s why many experts predict Pyongyang will probably test the massive weapon in early 2021, in part to see how it goes and to also send a message to whoever is in the White House for the next four years: North Korea is a nuclear power, and you can’t do anything about it.
All of that is scary enough, but another revelation may actually be the biggest and most troubling news.
More trucks from which to shoot ICBMs — and, potentially, the ability to make more
Melissa Hanham, deputy director of the Open Nuclear Network, tweeted that the biggest news from the parade wasn’t the four new ICBMs but rather the four trucks carrying them.
I think the truck may be a scarier story than the missile. If the DPRK is indigenously producing their own chassis, then there is less of a constraint on the number of ICBMs they can launch. #DPRKPartyFoundationDay https://t.co/VTZPfRPrEC — Melissa Hanham (@mhanham) October 10, 2020
Here’s why: Until Saturday, experts could only confirm that North Korea had six total truck-erected launchers (TELs) — that is, trucks that serve as a platform for shooting missiles — for ICBMs. But the parade featured four trucks carrying the new ICBM and another four with a previously unveiled ICBM on top. That’s eight, which last I checked was more than six.
And by the looks of them, they’re different from those North Korea had imported from China. Simply put, the newer TELs have more axles — the number of sets of wheels — than the older versions.
Scott LaFoy, a satellite-imagery and ballistic-missile analyst based in Virginia, said this implies two things: Either North Korea is somehow importing trucks or truck parts from and making changes to suit their needs, or it’s gained the ability to produce these trucks locally.
If it’s the latter, and there’s evidence to that effect, it’s a big deal. Indeed, satellite imagery suggests North Korea has built factories to produce the missile-launching trucks at home, avoiding the need to buy them from China or someplace else.
If that’s the case, North Korea could conceivably make the same number of TELs as ICBMs in its arsenal — if it doesn’t have them already. “Their ICBM arsenal is, hypothetically, not constrained by a lack of launchers,” said LaFoy. “So long as North Korea opts to launch its ICBMs from trucks, then being able to make trucks means being able to make more ICBMs.”
Which means North Korea could be capable — either today or in the near future — of scattering and preparing multiple ICBMs to launch off of trucks during a crisis, lowering the likelihood the US or South Korea could destroy them all before they take flight.
Improved shorter-range missiles that threaten South Korea
Although North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs get all the attention, a seriously underappreciated threat comes from its arsenal of conventional weapons, including the world’s largest artillery force.
South Korea’s capital city, Seoul, is a so-called “megacity” with a whopping 25 million residents living in the greater metropolitan area. It also happens to be within direct firing range of thousands of pieces of North Korean artillery already lined up along the border, also known as the Demilitarized Zone. According to the National Interest, by some estimates Seoul could “be hit by over half-a-million shells in under an hour.”
The biggest critique of North Korea’s shorter-range missiles has been that they are old, creaky, and unreliable. Kim set out to allay those fears, showing his military has also spent ample time beefing up those weapons along with the longer-range nuclear ones.
LaFoy told me these weapons, particularly the multiple launch rocket systems pictured above, are “more precise” because of enhanced GPS and “augment or replace older artillery pieces.” In other words, North Korea now has more reliable weapons with which to destroy Seoul and kill hundreds of thousands of people in days, if it so chooses.
The message was unmistakable: North Korea doesn’t need to use its nuclear weapons to threaten South Korea and the 25,000 US troops stationed in the country.
This means Trump’s boast that he ended the threat from North Korea is just that: a boast. If anything, he led the US during a massive expansion of Pyongyang’s military and nuclear power, with little indication of a reversal any time soon.
Some experts, including Jessica Lee, a senior research fellow in the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft’s East Asia Program, say there’s still a chance for progress. “North Korea has always used external threats to justify its nuclear program,” she told me. “The more the United States acts like a threat, the more it will legitimize the North Korean regime’s nuclear buildup.”
But if the parade is any indication, North Korea will remain a threat to the US, South Korea, and Japan — regardless of America’s position.
ntribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-10-14--Why are used cars so expensive right now?

In January 2020 , Eddie Lee was on the verge of selling his 2013 Dodge Charger , but he wasn ’ t impressed with the amount CarMax offered : $ 9,500 .
“ It wasn ’ t a great offer , and I was in no rush to sell it , ” Lee told Vox .
Then , say it with me , the pandemic happened .
In September , Lee , who lives in Howard County , Maryland , sold that same car for $ 11,000 on CarMax , a $ 1,500 increase from the offer he received in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ car prices were reaching levels unseen in several years , I took it to CarMax and it was a done deal , ” Lee said .
While it ’ s true that used car prices are spiking and demand has increased , car sales are down overall for both new and used cars .
This can be traced back , in part , to another staple of pandemic consumerism : a disruption in the supply chain .
Cars never quite reached the coronavirus unavailability of toilet paper — if you wanted to buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to .
However , even seven months into the pandemic and buying a car secondhand , the market is notably different from what it was pre-virus .
Your new car may not be the model you wanted , and it certainly won ’ t be a steal .
As much as it might seem counterintuitive , low sales are helping fuel higher prices .
The used car market is deeply entangled with the new car market The used car market is significantly larger than the new car market : About 40 million used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to about 17 million new vehicles .
But as one auto industry expert described it to me , they operate in tandem .
“ The used car market relies on inventory from elsewhere , ” said Jessica Caldwell , executive director of insights at the automotive research site Edmunds .
Caldwell explains that stock in the used market comes from customers trading in old cars for new ones or turning over leased vehicles , as well as from other sources , like rental car companies casting off the tired fleet for fresh models @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , elements of that makeshift supply chain were impacted by more traditional disruptions in the new car supply chain : locked-down plants and skeleton crews .
New car sales plummeted because there were fewer new cars to sell .
“ While the new car market took a big hit to sales , that affected the used market supply because you don ’ t have people trading in their cars as much or ending their auto leases on as regular a basis as before , ” Caldwell said .
After the 2008 financial crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the auto industry by passing legislation that would incentivize car-buying .
Under the Car Allowance Rebate System , also known as the “ Cash for Clunkers ” program , people trading in old models could qualify for a discount of $ 3,500 or $ 4,500 off the purchase of a newer , more fuel-efficient vehicle .
There ’ s been no similar program following the latest recession as the automotive industry recovers from shutdowns and catches up to meet current demand .
The industry is currently experiencing a V-shaped recovery , Caldwell said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kinds of cars and certain kinds of customers are keeping the new car market afloat : Aaron Bragman of Cars.com says that these shoppers are looking for large SUVs and pickup trucks .
This popularity has led SUV prices to “ go up considerably ” by a couple thousand dollars .
“ Nobody wants a family sedan anymore , and SUVs are frankly just more expensive , ” he said .
For some , that ’ s not a problem .
“ The folks who are buying [ new ] cars are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transaction prices are going up , ” Caldwell said .
And those buyers are in luck : Interest rates are unusually low , taking some of the shock off of the high price tag .
Caldwell explained a trajectory not unlike the much-discussed K-shaped economic recovery , with wealthier people able and incentivized to buy new cars : “ They ’ re buying more expensive or larger vehicles , and are moved to do so because the interest rates are low.
” But new and used car dealerships tend to have both different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buyers .
With the new car market out of reach , some buyers turn to used Pricey SUVs may reign on the lot , but the lack of smaller , cheaper cars forces younger , lower-income buyers out of the new car market .
Buyers who can ’ t afford a new Toyota Highlander are looking for something pre-owned and affordable and may find themselves thrown into a market where sedans are still an option .
On Reddit , first-time car buyers , primarily young adults and teenagers , seek advice from seasoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to determine which models require less maintenance , are reliable , and fit their budgets .
Demand for used vehicles has risen so much that dealers are reportedly running ads and calling up car owners , according to the New York Times .
They attribute this spike to economic difficulty that might inspire customers to seek out a less-expensive alternative , but that ’ s not all .
There are also , they say , buyers who are looking to avoid public transit and ride-sharing in light of the coronavirus .
Anecdotally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been an increase in first-time car buyers — with trend pieces about New Yorkers buying cars popping up from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal — but industry insiders are not solely crediting these consumers with the increase in demand .
Car lease periods are constantly ending , with many renters considering either a lease extension or a purchase .
“ People are still buying cars regardless , and the factors that play into that decision could be low interest rates coupled with utility , ” Bragman said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheaper and functional , not necessarily flashy , they might turn to the used car market.
” This increased demand , coupled with the still-recovering supply chain , means that even while sales are down , demand and supply remain tight , allowing prices to stay high and not waver .
As 2021 approaches , however , Caldwell predicted that used car prices will fall slightly : “ There ’ s a finite period of time towards the end of the year when the model becomes one year older .
So I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even in a pandemic , cars lose value simply when the calendar turns to another year .
For now , though , it ’ s boom time for sellers — depending on their comfort level .
Lee thinks he could ’ ve gotten a better deal if he sold the vehicle privately , up to $ 2,000 more , but because of the coronavirus , he wanted to minimize his interactions with strangers .
Still , as a seller , he made out pretty well .
“ When I did the math , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money back for the Charger and put 15,000 miles on it , ” Lee said .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

In January 2020, Eddie Lee was on the verge of selling his 2013 Dodge Charger, but he wasn’t impressed with the amount CarMax offered: $9,500. “It wasn’t a great offer, and I was in no rush to sell it,” Lee told Vox.
Then, say it with me, the pandemic happened.
In September, Lee, who lives in Howard County, Maryland, sold that same car for $11,000 on CarMax, a $1,500 increase from the offer he received in January.
“When I heard used car prices were reaching levels unseen in several years, I took it to CarMax and it was a done deal,” Lee said.
Used car prices surged 21 percent since last April, including a 10 percent increase in April 2021 alone, according to the Consumer Price Index. Demand for used cars has increased, and while new car sales are up compared to January 2020, the auto industry doesn’t have a steady flow of new vehicles on hand. This can be traced back, in part, to another staple of pandemic consumerism: a disruption in the supply chain.
Cars never quite reached the coronavirus unavailability of toilet paper — if you wanted to buy one, you were almost certainly able to. However, the secondhand car market is notably different from what it was pre-virus. Your new car may not be the model you wanted, and it certainly won’t be a steal. As much as it might seem counterintuitive, low sales are helping fuel higher prices.
The used car market is deeply entangled with the new car market
The used car market is significantly larger than the new car market: About 40 million used cars were sold in 2019, compared to about 17 million new vehicles. But as one auto industry expert described it to me, they operate in tandem.
“The used car market relies on inventory from elsewhere,” Jessica Caldwell, executive director of insights at the automotive research site Edmunds, told Vox in October. Caldwell explains that stock in the used market comes from customers trading in old cars for new ones or turning over leased vehicles, as well as from other sources, like rental car companies casting off the tired fleet for fresh models.
But as the pandemic heated up, elements of that makeshift supply chain were impacted by more traditional disruptions in the new car supply chain: locked-down plants and skeleton crews. Currently, a global shortage of semiconductor computer chips has stalled the manufacturing process. Automakers are struggling with tens of billions of dollars in losses, according to NPR, and workers are facing temporary layoffs or hourly cuts.
“While the new car market took a big hit to sales, that affected the used market supply because you don’t have people trading in their cars as much or ending their auto leases on as regular a basis as before,” Caldwell said.
After the 2008 financial crisis, the federal government tried to spur the auto industry by passing legislation that would incentivize car-buying. Under the Car Allowance Rebate System, also known as the “Cash for Clunkers” program, people trading in old models could qualify for a discount of $3,500 or $4,500 off the purchase of a newer, more fuel-efficient vehicle.
There’s been no similar program following the latest recession as the automotive industry recovers from shutdowns and catches up to meet current demand. The industry is currently experiencing a V-shaped recovery, Caldwell said, even without auto-specific initiatives.
Certain kinds of cars and certain kinds of customers are keeping the new car market afloat: Aaron Bragman of Cars.com says that these shoppers are looking for large SUVs and pickup trucks. This popularity has led SUV prices to “go up considerably” by a couple thousand dollars. “Nobody wants a family sedan anymore, and SUVs are frankly just more expensive,” he said.
For some, that’s not a problem. “The folks who are buying [new] cars are not financially suffering because we can see that transaction prices are going up,” Caldwell said. And those buyers are in luck: Interest rates are unusually low, taking some of the shock off of the high price tag. Caldwell explained a trajectory not unlike the much-discussed K-shaped economic recovery, with wealthier people able and incentivized to buy new cars: “They’re buying more expensive or larger vehicles, and are moved to do so because the interest rates are low.”
But new and used car dealerships tend to have both different kinds of stock and different demographics of buyers.
With the new car market out of reach, some buyers turn to used
Pricey SUVs may reign on the lot, but the lack of smaller, cheaper cars forces younger, lower-income buyers out of the new car market. Buyers who can’t afford a new Toyota Highlander are looking for something pre-owned and affordable and may find themselves thrown into a market where sedans are still an option. On Reddit, first-time car buyers, primarily young adults and teenagers, seek advice from seasoned buyers and dealers on the subreddit r/UsedCars to determine which models require less maintenance, are reliable, and fit their budgets.
Demand for used vehicles has risen so much that dealers are reportedly running ads and calling up car owners, according to the New York Times. They attribute this spike to economic difficulty that might inspire customers to seek out a less-expensive alternative, but that’s not all. There are also, they say, buyers who are looking to avoid public transit and ride-sharing in light of the coronavirus.
Anecdotally, it certainly seems as though there has been an increase in first-time car buyers — with trend pieces about New Yorkers buying cars popping up from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal — but industry insiders are not solely crediting these consumers with the increase in demand. Car lease periods are constantly ending, with many renters considering either a lease extension or a purchase.
“People are still buying cars regardless, and the factors that play into that decision could be low interest rates coupled with utility,” Bragman said. “If they’re looking for something cheaper and functional, not necessarily flashy, they might turn to the used car market.”
This increased demand, coupled with the still-recovering supply chain, means that even while sales are down, demand and supply remain tight, allowing prices to stay high and not waver.
As 2021 approaches, however, Caldwell predicted that used car prices will fall slightly: “There’s a finite period of time towards the end of the year when the model becomes one year older. So I’d imagine prices would briefly drop.” Even in a pandemic, cars lose value simply when the calendar turns to another year.
For now, though, it’s boom time for sellers — depending on their comfort level. Lee thinks he could’ve gotten a better deal if he sold the vehicle privately, up to $2,000 more, but because of the coronavirus, he wanted to minimize his interactions with strangers. Still, as a seller, he made out pretty well. “When I did the math, I got almost 70 percent of my money back for the Charger and put 15,000 miles on it,” Lee said.


vox--2020-10-14--Facebook and Twitter took drastic measures to limit the reach of a disputed story about Hunter Biden

Facebook said on Wednesday morning that it ’ s reducing distribution of a New York Post story containing unconfirmed claims with questionable sourcing about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden ’ s son , Hunter Biden .
Shortly after , Twitter said it ’ s blocking users from posting the story entirely .
Both companies ’ moves to limit the reach of a major news publisher are unusual and drastic at a time when many Republican lawmakers , President Trump , and political figures are threatening new regulations and accusing tech companies of censoring conservative political speech .
While these companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of viral political misinformation networks in the past , doing so to a publication as prominent as the New York Post has immediately attracted attention and criticism .
Although it is known for its conservative slant and track record of publishing questionable stories , the tabloid is a widely read , mainstream outlet .
Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone announced his company ’ s decision in a tweet on Tuesday : Twitter , meanwhile , blocked users from sharing the New York Post article .
If someone tries to tweet the article , Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the link has been identified as “ potentially harmful.
” “ In line with our Hacked Materials Policy , as well as our approach to blocking URLs , we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter , ” wrote Twitter spokesperson Nicholas Pacillo in response to Recode ’ s questions about why Twitter blocked the article .
Twitter posted a longer series of tweets explaining its rationale on Monday evening .
There ’ s a real argument that Facebook — a primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and Twitter should be trying to slow the spread of an unproven news story whose claims haven ’ t been corroborated by other major news outlets and whose origins are from questionable sources .
Especially since the New York Post has a track record of sometimes promoting viral conspiracy theories .
In April , the New York Post was responsible for helping spread a baseless conspiracy theory promoted by former Trump adviser Roger Stone , purporting that Bill Gates created the coronavirus to “ microchip ” people .
That story went viral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joan Donovan , the research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media , Politics and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School .
“ It ’ s really a problem for Facebook because they would not enjoy the same kind of audience without the accordances of the platform , ” said Donovan .
“ Stories that ‘ outperform ’ the normal rate of distribution often do so because of their novelty .
They are one of the few outlets reporting on this , so they get rewarded for not abiding by the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday ’ s action is particularly unusual for Facebook because the company has long taken a laissez-faire approach to curating the endless stream of viral misinformation on its platform , especially about politics .
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has often said he doesn ’ t want the platform to be an “ arbiter of truth.
” Now , it appears that Facebook is taking a firmer stance on moderating what goes viral on its platform — raising questions about when and how it decides to step in , weeks ahead of a presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Recode ’ s repeated requests to explain why it reduced distribution of the story on its platform .
Stone , the Facebook spokesperson , said in a follow-up tweet to his original post announcing reduced distribution of the New York Post story that this was “ part of our standard process to reduce the spread of misinformation.
” But it ’ s hard to find other examples of Facebook reducing distribution of a major news story before it ’ s been fact-checked .
It did happen last month , when , ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slowed the spread of false stories about Joe Biden having an earpiece .
Those stories originated from a New York Post reporter ’ s tweet containing an anonymously sourced claim , which turned out to be bogus .
Facebook ’ s move has already drawn the ire of some Republican leaders on social media .
Sen. Josh Hawley , a Republican from Missouri , sent Facebook a letter demanding the company answer why it reduced distribution of the New York Post article .
Hawley called the action “ censorship ” and , without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as another example of what many conservatives , including President Trump , have called “ anti-conservative bias ” on social media platforms .
President Trump also tweeted in response to the social media companies ’ decisions to moderate the article on Monday evening , calling for a repeal of Section 230 , a landmark internet law which largely shields social media companies from being sued over what its users say on their platforms .
Some have questioned whether Facebook is taking firmer action recently against political misinformation and hate speech because the company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential Democratic leadership in the White House and Congress .
While curbing misinformation and hate speech isn ’ t necessarily a partisan issue , Democrats have long called for Facebook to take a firmer stance .
But long before Democrats were ahead in the polls and appeared likely to take control of Congress and the White House , Facebook executives had warned of a “ hack and leak ” situation , one in which leaked information of questionable authenticity is released prior to an election , for political purposes , similar to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that it would take extra caution with such information , and the company has gone so far as to caution news outlets and other social media platforms to do the same .
The New York Post ’ s Hunter Biden story is a clear example of something that could potentially fit the hack-and-leak description .
While it will take time for fact-checkers to thoroughly interrogate the claims in the story , the basic allegations and circumstances behind the story are rather suspect .
The main allegation in the story is that Hunter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive of a Ukrainian energy firm .
The article claims that this contradicts Biden ’ s previous statement that he has never spoken with his son about his foreign business deals .
It does not , however , prove that Biden actually talked to this business executive ; the Biden campaign has since put out a statement denying that Biden spoke with the executive .
The sourcing of the story has also been questioned : It claims that evidence was obtained from a laptop repair store owner who had access to a computer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belonged to Hunter Biden .
The New York Post claims the repair store owner brought materials to the lawyer of Rudy Giuliani , the former New York City mayor who ’ s now often described as Donald Trump ’ s “ personal lawyer , ” and Giuliani recently shared a copy of them with the paper .
The circumstances behind this leak have drawn scrutiny from political journalists , including New York magazine ’ s Jonathan Chait .
Also called into question is the conservative editorial slant of the New York Post .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who is in a major battle with Facebook in Australia over how much the company pays his media properties for their content .
Facebook ’ s response to the New York Post ’ s track record of promoting false news stories appears to be to treat its latest report with more suspicion than a comparable major news outlet .
Nevertheless , the company ’ s refusal to explain its process is only leaving important questions unanswered and room for unsubstantiated accusations of political bias .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Facebook said on Wednesday morning that it’s reducing distribution of a New York Post story containing unconfirmed claims with questionable sourcing about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. Shortly after, Twitter said it’s blocking users from posting the story entirely.
Related Trump team makes a suspicious effort to swing the election with purported Hunter Biden emails
Both companies’ moves to limit the reach of a major news publisher are unusual and drastic at a time when many Republican lawmakers, President Trump, and political figures are threatening new regulations and accusing tech companies of censoring conservative political speech. While these companies have taken down or limited the reach of viral political misinformation networks in the past, doing so to a publication as prominent as the New York Post has immediately attracted attention and criticism. Although it is known for its conservative slant and track record of publishing questionable stories, the tabloid is a widely read, mainstream outlet.
Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone announced his company’s decision in a tweet on Tuesday:
While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook's third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform. — Andy Stone (@andymstone) October 14, 2020
Twitter, meanwhile, blocked users from sharing the New York Post article. If someone tries to tweet the article, Twitter returns an error message, warning users that the link has been identified as “potentially harmful.”
“In line with our Hacked Materials Policy, as well as our approach to blocking URLs, we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter,” wrote Twitter spokesperson Nicholas Pacillo in response to Recode’s questions about why Twitter blocked the article. Twitter posted a longer series of tweets explaining its rationale on Monday evening.
There’s a real argument that Facebook — a primary news source for four in 10 Americans — and Twitter should be trying to slow the spread of an unproven news story whose claims haven’t been corroborated by other major news outlets and whose origins are from questionable sources. Especially since the New York Post has a track record of sometimes promoting viral conspiracy theories.
In April, the New York Post was responsible for helping spread a baseless conspiracy theory promoted by former Trump adviser Roger Stone, purporting that Bill Gates created the coronavirus to “microchip” people. That story went viral on Facebook, according to research by Joan Donovan, the research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.
“It’s really a problem for Facebook because they would not enjoy the same kind of audience without the accordances of the platform,” said Donovan. “Stories that ‘outperform’ the normal rate of distribution often do so because of their novelty. They are one of the few outlets reporting on this, so they get rewarded for not abiding by the same standards as more reputable news outlets.”
Wednesday’s action is particularly unusual for Facebook because the company has long taken a laissez-faire approach to curating the endless stream of viral misinformation on its platform, especially about politics. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has often said he doesn’t want the platform to be an “arbiter of truth.” Now, it appears that Facebook is taking a firmer stance on moderating what goes viral on its platform — raising questions about when and how it decides to step in, weeks ahead of a presidential election.
Facebook did not respond to Recode’s repeated requests to explain why it reduced distribution of the story on its platform. Stone, the Facebook spokesperson, said in a follow-up tweet to his original post announcing reduced distribution of the New York Post story that this was “part of our standard process to reduce the spread of misinformation.”
But it’s hard to find other examples of Facebook reducing distribution of a major news story before it’s been fact-checked. It did happen last month, when, ahead of the recent presidential debate, Facebook similarly slowed the spread of false stories about Joe Biden having an earpiece. Those stories originated from a New York Post reporter’s tweet containing an anonymously sourced claim, which turned out to be bogus.
Facebook’s move has already drawn the ire of some Republican leaders on social media. Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, sent Facebook a letter demanding the company answer why it reduced distribution of the New York Post article. Hawley called the action “censorship” and, without showing any evidence, pointed to it as another example of what many conservatives, including President Trump, have called “anti-conservative bias” on social media platforms.
President Trump also tweeted in response to the social media companies’ decisions to moderate the article on Monday evening, calling for a repeal of Section 230, a landmark internet law which largely shields social media companies from being sued over what its users say on their platforms.
So terrible that Facebook and Twitter took down the story of “Smoking Gun” emails related to Sleepy Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in the @NYPost. It is only the beginning for them. There is nothing worse than a corrupt politician. REPEAL SECTION 230!!! https://t.co/g1RJFpIVUZ — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 14, 2020
Some have questioned whether Facebook is taking firmer action recently against political misinformation and hate speech because the company is trying to curry favor with a potential Democratic leadership in the White House and Congress. While curbing misinformation and hate speech isn’t necessarily a partisan issue, Democrats have long called for Facebook to take a firmer stance.
But long before Democrats were ahead in the polls and appeared likely to take control of Congress and the White House, Facebook executives had warned of a “hack and leak” situation, one in which leaked information of questionable authenticity is released prior to an election, for political purposes, similar to the 2016 Hillary Clinton emails. Facebook has said that it would take extra caution with such information, and the company has gone so far as to caution news outlets and other social media platforms to do the same.
The New York Post’s Hunter Biden story is a clear example of something that could potentially fit the hack-and-leak description. While it will take time for fact-checkers to thoroughly interrogate the claims in the story, the basic allegations and circumstances behind the story are rather suspect.
The main allegation in the story is that Hunter Biden introduced then Vice-President Biden to an executive of a Ukrainian energy firm. The article claims that this contradicts Biden’s previous statement that he has never spoken with his son about his foreign business deals. It does not, however, prove that Biden actually talked to this business executive; the Biden campaign put out a statement denying any Biden meeting with the executive in official records. A campaign official told the New York Times that a brief encounter was “technically possible” but was very unlikely and that no discussions related to Burisma would have occurred.
The sourcing of the story has also been questioned: It claims that evidence was obtained from a laptop repair store owner who had access to a computer brought in for repair that may have belonged to Hunter Biden. The New York Post claims the repair store owner brought materials to the lawyer of Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who’s now often described as Donald Trump’s “personal lawyer,” and Giuliani recently shared a copy of them with the paper.
The circumstances behind this leak have drawn scrutiny from political journalists, including New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait. Also called into question is the conservative editorial slant of the New York Post. The newspaper is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is in a major battle with Facebook in Australia over how much the company pays his media properties for their content.
Facebook’s response to the New York Post’s track record of promoting false news stories appears to be to treat its latest report with more suspicion than a comparable major news outlet. Nevertheless, the company’s refusal to explain its process is only leaving important questions unanswered and room for unsubstantiated accusations of political bias.


vox--2020-10-14--Amy Coney Barrett describes climate change as a “very contentious matter of public debate”

During her confirmation hearing this week , Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett declined to stake out a position on the existence of climate change , describing it as a “ very contentious matter of public debate.
” “ I will not express a view on a matter of public policy , especially one that is politically controversial because that is inconsistent with the judicial role , ” she added in response to questions from Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) .
Climate change is one of several issues that she approached in this way : refusing to express an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus of an ongoing political controversy or policy debate .
Similarly , on Wednesday , Barrett refused to discuss whether she thought separating a child from their parent was wrong .
She ’ s also refrained from taking a stand on whether the president should commit to a peaceful transfer of power .
Judicial nominees have declined to address politically charged questions in the past .
During his 2018 confirmation hearing , Justice Brett Kavanaugh declined to comment on whether the president should have the ability to influence the actions of federal agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we want judges commenting on the latest political controversy because that would ultimately lead people to doubt whether we are independent , ” he said at the time .
But Barrett ’ s refusal to express her stance on climate change comes in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence on the subject .
“ I don ’ t think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge , nor do I think I have views that are informed enough , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times ’ s John Schwartz wrote , however , her approach to the subject could be important in future cases : “ In past decisions , the justices have accepted that human-caused climate change is occurring and determined that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate greenhouse gases in the case Massachusetts v .
E.P.A.
, but a more conservative Supreme Court might revisit the issue.
” What Barrett did say ended up echoing the way many Republicans have approached the subject of climate change in the past : She declined to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warming , an evasion that still seemed to signal quite a lot about where she stands .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

During her confirmation hearing this week, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett declined to stake out a position on the existence of climate change, describing it as a “very contentious matter of public debate.”
“I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial because that is inconsistent with the judicial role,” she added in response to questions from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).
Climate change is one of several issues that she approached in this way: refusing to express an opinion because she said it was the focus of an ongoing political controversy or policy debate. Similarly, on Wednesday, Barrett refused to discuss whether she thought separating a child from their parent was wrong. She’s also refrained from taking a stand on whether the president should commit to a peaceful transfer of power.
Judicial nominees have declined to address politically charged questions in the past. During his 2018 confirmation hearing, Justice Brett Kavanaugh declined to comment on whether the president should have the ability to influence the actions of federal agencies. “I don’t think we want judges commenting on the latest political controversy because that would ultimately lead people to doubt whether we are independent,” he said at the time.
But Barrett’s refusal to express her stance on climate change comes in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence on the subject.
“I don’t think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge, nor do I think I have views that are informed enough,” Barrett has also said.
As the New York Times’s John Schwartz wrote, however, her approach to the subject could be important in future cases: “In past decisions, the justices have accepted that human-caused climate change is occurring and determined that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate greenhouse gases in the case Massachusetts v. E.P.A., but a more conservative Supreme Court might revisit the issue.”
What Barrett did say ended up echoing the way many Republicans have approached the subject of climate change in the past: She declined to comment on whether humans contributed to global warming, an evasion that still seemed to signal quite a lot about where she stands.