vox--2020-09-23--Top US officials are campaigning for Trump in crucial states

Two of President Donald Trump ’ s top national security officials delivered blatantly political speeches in battleground states seemingly to boost their boss ’ s chance of reelection — potentially in violation of federal law .
The Hatch Act of 1939 imposes strict limits on most federal civilian workers who want to engage in political activity .
Some Cabinet departments , including the State Department , augment these statutory limits with additional policies intended to maintain a clear wall of separation between partisan politics and nonpartisan government functions .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser Robert O @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wall on Wednesday .
In Wisconsin , a state Trump won in 2016 and is at risk of losing in 2020 , Pompeo addressed state lawmakers on the administration ’ s policies to confront China .
But he used the speech to touch on themes that could easily be construed as a broader campaign pitch .
“ The Trump administration is fighting to protect our wallets , hearts , minds , and our freedoms , ” he said .
“ Democrat or Republican , you have a friend in the Trump administration to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese Communist Party ’ s ] exploitation of our open society.
” Norm Eisen , a government ethics expert at the Brookings Institution who represented House Democrats in the Trump impeachment hearings and now advises the Biden campaign , told me Pompeo ’ s appearance was definitely a problem .
“ By giving a speech in battleground state Wisconsin a few short weeks before the presidential election , Secretary Pompeo has not only departed from State Department tradition to stay out of domestic politics , but appears to be engaged in an aggressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position and taxpayer-funded resources to serve the president ’ s political interests , ” he said , noting the address “ raises serious questions under the rules.
” Hours after Pompeo ’ s speech , O ’ Brien spoke at Drake University in Iowa — an important state for the president to win — about Trump ’ s general foreign policy .
His comments , though , veered into the political .
“ The world is more peaceful and prosperous , we believe , because of the president ’ s policies , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s more to come in a second Trump term.
” Those remarks , some experts say , went too far .
“ Certainly I think O ’ Brien ’ s comments are a kind of advocacy that runs afoul of the Hatch Act , ” said Donald Sherman , deputy director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ( CREW ) , a watchdog group .
The issue here isn ’ t that Trump administration officials openly boasted about the work of , well , the Trump administration .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue is they ’ re purposely giving pro-Trump speeches in states critical to the president ’ s reelection efforts — on taxpayers ’ dime — just weeks before Election Day .
Pompeo and O ’ Brien , then , may have openly flouted the law .
For the secretary , at least , that ’ s just another day at the office .
Pompeo , as secretary of state , is acting like a Trump campaign surrogate Pompeo ’ s address in Wisconsin shouldn ’ t have come as a surprise .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks to speak in support of Trump the president , and not the Trump administration .
During the Republican National Convention in August , Pompeo filmed a short video while on official travel in Jerusalem , Israel , to back Trump .
His decision shattered years of precedent in which sitting Cabinet members , and especially high-profile ones like secretaries of state , don ’ t engage in openly political and partisan activities .
It was a norm Pompeo ’ s predecessors — in both Republican and Democratic administrations — believed was important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the secretary spoke at a Baptist church in Plano , Texas , about the role of faith while serving in government .
However , he waded into the domestic battles that animate the presidential discussion today .
“ We need to return to the founders ’ central understandings about faith and how this Judeo-Christian nation is central to the world , and we must stand with it and we can ’ t let anybody try and rewrite history to suggest otherwise , ” he told the audience .
“ It is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditions and continue to build them up .
It ’ s for our kids and for our grandkids .
It ’ s absolutely imperative.
” These aren ’ t normal comments for a secretary of state — the nation ’ s top diplomat — to make , or normal forums for him to make them in .
That ’ s why experts like Eisen are concerned .
This all “ appears to be part of a coordinated effort to showcase senior administration personnel in battleground states in close proximity to the election to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than to serve the public interest , ” Eisen told me .
There ’ s a further problem .
“ Pompeo ’ s politicking , especially in his official capacity , undermines his ability to represent the United States across the world , ” CREW ’ s Sherman said .
“ He ’ s either America ’ s chief diplomat or he ’ s a political crony for one political party.
” In effect , giving speeches like the one Pompeo gave in Wisconsin might cause foreign leaders to believe he represents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Based on his recent actions and comments , that may just be right .
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 when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 .

Two of President Donald Trump’s top national security officials delivered blatantly political speeches in battleground states seemingly to boost their boss’s chance of reelection — potentially in violation of federal law.
The Hatch Act of 1939 imposes strict limits on most federal civilian workers who want to engage in political activity. Some Cabinet departments, including the State Department, augment these statutory limits with additional policies intended to maintain a clear wall of separation between partisan politics and nonpartisan government functions.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien may have busted through that wall on Wednesday.
In Wisconsin, a state Trump won in 2016 and is at risk of losing in 2020, Pompeo addressed state lawmakers on the administration’s policies to confront China. But he used the speech to touch on themes that could easily be construed as a broader campaign pitch.
“The Trump administration is fighting to protect our wallets, hearts, minds, and our freedoms,” he said. “Democrat or Republican, you have a friend in the Trump administration to help you push back against the [Chinese Communist Party’s] exploitation of our open society.”
Norm Eisen, a government ethics expert at the Brookings Institution who represented House Democrats in the Trump impeachment hearings and now advises the Biden campaign, told me Pompeo’s appearance was definitely a problem.
“By giving a speech in battleground state Wisconsin a few short weeks before the presidential election, Secretary Pompeo has not only departed from State Department tradition to stay out of domestic politics, but appears to be engaged in an aggressive pattern of conduct to misuse his official position and taxpayer-funded resources to serve the president’s political interests,” he said, noting the address “raises serious questions under the rules.”
Hours after Pompeo’s speech, O’Brien spoke at Drake University in Iowa — an important state for the president to win — about Trump’s general foreign policy. His comments, though, veered into the political. “The world is more peaceful and prosperous, we believe, because of the president’s policies,” he stated, adding “there’s more to come in a second Trump term.”
Those remarks, some experts say, went too far. “Certainly I think O’Brien’s comments are a kind of advocacy that runs afoul of the Hatch Act,” said Donald Sherman, deputy director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a watchdog group.
The issue here isn’t that Trump administration officials openly boasted about the work of, well, the Trump administration. That’s par for the course. The issue is they’re purposely giving pro-Trump speeches in states critical to the president’s reelection efforts — on taxpayers’ dime — just weeks before Election Day.
Pompeo and O’Brien, then, may have openly flouted the law. For the secretary, at least, that’s just another day at the office.
Pompeo, as secretary of state, is acting like a Trump campaign surrogate
Pompeo’s address in Wisconsin shouldn’t have come as a surprise. He’s used many appearances in recent weeks to speak in support of Trump the president, and not the Trump administration.
During the Republican National Convention in August, Pompeo filmed a short video while on official travel in Jerusalem, Israel, to back Trump. His decision shattered years of precedent in which sitting Cabinet members, and especially high-profile ones like secretaries of state, don’t engage in openly political and partisan activities. It was a norm Pompeo’s predecessors — in both Republican and Democratic administrations — believed was important to uphold.
From Jerusalem, the City of David — see you soon! pic.twitter.com/KNPTIXfK0K — Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) August 26, 2020
And three days ago, the secretary spoke at a Baptist church in Plano, Texas, about the role of faith while serving in government. However, he waded into the domestic battles that animate the presidential discussion today.
“We need to return to the founders’ central understandings about faith and how this Judeo-Christian nation is central to the world, and we must stand with it and we can’t let anybody try and rewrite history to suggest otherwise,” he told the audience. “It is an absolute imperative that we stand on these traditions and continue to build them up. It’s for our kids and for our grandkids. It’s absolutely imperative.”
These aren’t normal comments for a secretary of state — the nation’s top diplomat — to make, or normal forums for him to make them in. That’s why experts like Eisen are concerned.
This all “appears to be part of a coordinated effort to showcase senior administration personnel in battleground states in close proximity to the election to benefit President Trump’s political interests rather than to serve the public interest,” Eisen told me.
There’s a further problem. “Pompeo’s politicking, especially in his official capacity, undermines his ability to represent the United States across the world,” CREW’s Sherman said. “He’s either America’s chief diplomat or he’s a political crony for one political party.”
In effect, giving speeches like the one Pompeo gave in Wisconsin might cause foreign leaders to believe he represents Trump more than he represents Americans. Based on his recent actions and comments, that may just be right.


vox--2020-09-24--Amazon employees fear HR is targeting minority and activism groups in email monitoring program

Some Amazon employees are furious after they discovered the company ’ s HR department appears to be quietly monitoring a subset of listservs dedicated to employees who are minorities and those who are involved in activism .
Earlier this week , a group of Amazon employees discovered that an email alias affiliated with Amazon ’ s HR team had subscribed to 78 listservs at Amazon , the majority of which are related to underrepresented employees and employee activism issues , such as climate change , Black employee networking , and Muslim employees .
Amazon has thousands of internal emailing lists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so the dozens of listservs that the alias was subscribed to are a small subset of the total groups that exist .
Amazon denies that its HR teams were tracking emails to monitor organizing , and told Recode that it subscribed to the groups to monitor employee feedback on company culture .
Some of the listservs that Amazon HR appears to be monitoring have been used for employee organizing around controversial issues at the company in recent months , such as Amazon warehouse worker rights , corporate carbon emissions , and military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as groups for women in engineering and employees who are parents .
Recode spoke with six Amazon employees who said they ’ re alarmed by the email monitoring when they consider how Amazon has been increasingly cracking down on worker organizing .
These employees spoke on the condition of anonymity because of Amazon ’ s policies against speaking to the press without management ’ s approval .
They told Recode that dozens of other colleagues have also posted messages on Amazon ’ s internal forums expressing concern about the monitoring , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too scared to speak out publicly .
“ Most people would just read and go quiet , ” said one employee .
“ It doesn ’ t seem smart to engage when we ’ re being told that we are being tracked.
” Just last month , Bloomberg News reported that Amazon had posted a job listing ( which it later removed ) for analysts to research “ labor organizing threats against the company.
” “ If this is what it looks like ... then this is a specific targeting of non-white male @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said one employee .
“ It means that the people responsible for that at Amazon believe that women and people of color are suspicious and threats to the company.
” After discovering the alias , an Amazon employee sent a message to all 78 listservs informing them that the company seemed to be watching their activities .
Vice first reported on an Amazon employee warning their colleagues about the monitoring .
“ Good day !
If you are a moderator or a user of this list , please note that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the email .
It goes on to state , “ Without editorialising ( sic ) , it is difficult to read this project and its initial posting date without also considering the context of the recent job posting for which Amazon has come under fire.
” ( That ’ s a reference to the “ labor organizing threats ” analyst position . )
The email noted that while the Muslim employee listserv was on the list of groups that HR was watching , the Christian one was not .
Amazon spokesperson Jaci Anderson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employee feedback to help improve company practices , and that Amazon does not link feedback from the emails to individual employees .
She added that the company chooses which listservs to monitor based on the size and level of activity of the employee group , and for no other reason .
“ We continually work to improve the Amazon employee experience , and with hundreds of thousands of employees located around the world , we use several methods to gather feedback at scale , ” Amazon spokesperson Jaci Anderson said in a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes shared from these open email forums has helped us improve our employee benefits , further strengthen our COVID-19 procedures , and improve the overall Amazon employee experience.
” One of the Amazon employees who appears to be linked to the email alias is a data analyst in the employee relations division of HR .
And because some employee relations roles at Amazon involve mitigating the risk of unionization in its massive warehouse network , this detail has fueled corporate employees ’ concerns about the listserv monitoring .
According to documents reviewed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these groups also appears to be linked to a larger data visualization project run by Amazon ’ s employee relations team called “ SPOC ” ( geoSPatial Operating Console ) which involves monitoring threats to Amazon ’ s operations — including unionization .
Anderson , the Amazon spokesperson , said the program monitors all types of external activity that impacts the safety and well-being of its employees , from weather events to power outages , and is not intended to favor or target one type of external threat over another .
Shortly after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broader SPOC monitoring project to dozens of employee listservs , those documents were deleted from Amazon ’ s internal network that ’ s broadly available to employees .
In April , Business Insider reported that Amazon was tracking Whole Foods ’ workers unionization efforts in a geographic heat map .
And Recode has previously reported how as far back as the early 2000s , Amazon has previously tracked worker organizing at its warehouses before using excel to make heat maps .
“ It ’ s disappointing but not surprising , ” said one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emails and broader anti-unionization monitoring efforts .
“ We are working in corporate America at one of the largest and most technically advanced companies in the world .
Always assume big brother is watching.
” This employee said they wish the company was as employee-obsessed as it is customer-obsessed , but also acknowledged that the company “ overall takes care of their [ corporate ] employees very well.
” Amazon has faced growing tensions within both its corporate and blue-collar workforces in recent years .
Tensions peaked during the Covid-19 pandemic as many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions and pay — and some started nascent talks about unionization .
The company came under serious scrutiny when it fired Christian Smalls , a former Staten Island warehouse worker who was organizing his colleagues for safer working conditions at the beginning of the pandemic , and after a report emerged that a top Amazon lawyer called Smalls , who is Black , “ not smart , or articulate ” in an executive meeting .
Amazon said it fired Smalls for violating social distancing rules .
The Smalls case , among other factors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tech employees to advocate for greater workplace protections for Amazon warehouse and delivery workers .
The company responded by providing some incremental benefits , such as temporarily raising pay for fulfillment center employees and offering more time off .
At the same time , Amazon also fired several corporate employees leading internal activism efforts , who had organized their tech colleagues in solidarity with Smalls and other warehouse workers .
“ After firing a number of employees organizing for better COVID-19 protections , and getting caught calling a Black organizer ‘ not articulate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was time to form an internal anti-worker police force to frighten employees into shutting up , ” one Amazon software engineer told Recode .
“ That open feeling I had as a tech worker able to freely discuss ideas with coworkers has vanished so fast it ’ s made my head spin .
There ’ s a real culture shift happening , and it sucks.
” In the months since Smalls ’ firing , Amazon employee activism has quieted down , at least publicly .
But workers ’ fears about the company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show that tensions still run deep at the company , and if anything , its workers ’ trust in their employer continues to erode .

Some Amazon employees are furious after they discovered the company’s HR department appears to be quietly monitoring a subset of listservs dedicated to employees who are minorities and those who are involved in activism.
Earlier this week, a group of Amazon employees discovered that an email alias affiliated with Amazon’s HR team had subscribed to 78 listservs at Amazon, the majority of which are related to underrepresented employees and employee activism issues, such as climate change, Black employee networking, and Muslim employees. Amazon has thousands of internal emailing lists where employees discuss common interests and projects, so the dozens of listservs that the alias was subscribed to are a small subset of the total groups that exist.
Amazon denies that its HR teams were tracking emails to monitor organizing, and told Recode that it subscribed to the groups to monitor employee feedback on company culture.
Some of the listservs that Amazon HR appears to be monitoring have been used for employee organizing around controversial issues at the company in recent months, such as Amazon warehouse worker rights, corporate carbon emissions, and military technology. Others are less political, such as groups for women in engineering and employees who are parents.
Recode spoke with six Amazon employees who said they’re alarmed by the email monitoring when they consider how Amazon has been increasingly cracking down on worker organizing. These employees spoke on the condition of anonymity because of Amazon’s policies against speaking to the press without management’s approval.
They told Recode that dozens of other colleagues have also posted messages on Amazon’s internal forums expressing concern about the monitoring, and many more are likely also upset but too scared to speak out publicly.
“Most people would just read and go quiet,” said one employee. “It doesn’t seem smart to engage when we’re being told that we are being tracked.”
Just last month, Bloomberg News reported that Amazon had posted a job listing (which it later removed) for analysts to research “labor organizing threats against the company.”
“If this is what it looks like ... then this is a specific targeting of nonwhite male groups as potential threats to be observed,” said one employee. “It means that the people responsible for that at Amazon believe that women and people of color are suspicious and threats to the company.”
After discovering the alias, an Amazon employee sent a message to all 78 listservs informing them that the company seemed to be watching their activities. Vice first reported on an Amazon employee warning their colleagues about the monitoring.
Do you work at Amazon and have thoughts on what’s going on? Please email Shirin Ghaffary at shirin.ghaffary@protonmail.com or Jason Del Rey at jasondelrey@protonmail.com to reach them confidentially. Signal numbers available upon request by email.
“Good day! If you are a moderator or a user of this list, please note that it is being explicitly watched,” started the email. It goes on to state, “Without editorialising, it is difficult to read this project and its initial posting date without also considering the context of the recent job posting for which Amazon has come under fire.” (That’s a reference to the “labor organizing threats” analyst position.)
The email noted that while the Muslim employee listserv was on the list of groups that HR was watching, the Christian one was not.
Amazon spokesperson Jaci Anderson said the practice was intended to gather employee feedback to help improve company practices, and that Amazon does not link feedback from the emails to individual employees. She added that the company chooses which listservs to monitor based on the size and level of activity of the employee group, and for no other reason.
“We continually work to improve the Amazon employee experience, and with hundreds of thousands of employees located around the world, we use several methods to gather feedback at scale,” Amazon spokesperson Jaci Anderson said in a statement. “The anonymized feedback that is sometimes shared from these open email forums has helped us improve our employee benefits, further strengthen our COVID-19 procedures, and improve the overall Amazon employee experience.”
One of the Amazon employees who appears to be linked to the email alias is a data analyst in the employee relations division of HR. And because some employee relations roles at Amazon involve mitigating the risk of unionization in its massive warehouse network, this detail has fueled corporate employees’ concerns about the listserv monitoring.
According to documents reviewed by Recode, the email account subscribed to these groups also appears to be linked to a larger data visualization project run by Amazon’s employee relations team called “SPOC” (geoSPatial Operating Console), which involves monitoring threats to Amazon’s operations — including unionization. Anderson, the Amazon spokesperson, said the program monitors all types of external activity that impacts the safety and well-being of its employees, from weather events to power outages, and is not intended to favor or target one type of external threat over another.
Shortly after an Amazon employee emailed documents about the broader SPOC monitoring project to dozens of employee listservs, those documents were deleted from Amazon’s internal network that’s broadly available to employees.
In April, Business Insider reported that Amazon was tracking Whole Foods workers’ unionization efforts in a geographic heat map. And Recode has previously reported how as far back as the early 2000s, Amazon has previously tracked worker organizing at its warehouses before using excel to make heat maps.
“It’s disappointing but not surprising,” said one Amazon engineering manager about HR tracking listserv emails and broader anti-unionization monitoring efforts. “We are working in corporate America at one of the largest and most technically advanced companies in the world. Always assume big brother is watching.”
This employee said they wish the company were as employee-obsessed as it is customer-obsessed, but also acknowledged that the company “overall takes care of their [corporate] employees very well.”
Amazon has faced growing tensions within both its corporate and blue-collar workforces in recent years. Tensions peaked during the Covid-19 pandemic as many of its warehouse workers complained about working conditions and pay — and some started nascent talks about unionization. The company came under serious scrutiny when it fired Christian Smalls, a Staten Island warehouse worker who was organizing his colleagues for safer working conditions at the beginning of the pandemic, and after a report emerged that a top Amazon lawyer called Smalls, who is Black, “not smart, or articulate” in an executive meeting. Amazon said it fired Smalls for violating social distancing rules.
The Smalls case, among other factors, prompted many of the companies’ tech employees to advocate for greater workplace protections for Amazon warehouse and delivery workers. The company responded by providing some incremental benefits, such as temporarily raising pay for fulfillment center employees and offering more time off. At the same time, Amazon also fired several corporate employees leading internal activism efforts, who had organized their tech colleagues in solidarity with Smalls and other warehouse workers.
“After firing a number of employees organizing for better Covid-19 protections, and getting caught calling a Black organizer ‘not articulate,’ it seems like Bezos decided it was time to form an internal anti-worker police force to frighten employees into shutting up,” one Amazon software engineer told Recode. “That open feeling I had as a tech worker able to freely discuss ideas with coworkers has vanished so fast it’s made my head spin. There’s a real culture shift happening, and it sucks.”
In the months since Smalls’s firing, Amazon employee activism has quieted down, at least publicly. But workers’ fears about the company targeting and monitoring minority and activist employees show that tensions still run deep at the company, and, if anything, its workers’ trust in their employer continues to erode.


vox--2020-09-24--Amazon’s surveillance cameras fly now — which is unsettling

Amazon has announced a new way for consumers to surveil their own homes : a camera-equipped drone that connects to Ring security systems .
Ring , which Amazon owns , has a history of enabling controversial levels of surveillance in homes and neighborhoods .
So the addition of a flying camera that can venture into new nooks and crannies is , at best , unsettling .
The Ring Always Home Cam is designed to fly around different areas of someone ’ s home every so often , capturing footage before landing back in its dock .
The device is meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on pre-programmed flight paths that navigate between the walls of a house , a Ring spokesperson told Recode .
The announcement comes after Amazon last year won a patent for a home surveillance drone ; it ’ s also worth mentioning that the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) has not yet authorized the sale of this device .
Amazon says its new Ring surveillance drone is scheduled to go on sale in 2021 for $ 249 ( once FCC authorization is obtained ) , and the company says it built in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a live blog of the virtual announcement event , Amazon said the Always Home Cam “ only records when in flight ; when it ’ s not in use it sits in a dock and the camera is physically blocked.
” The company added that the drone is “ loud enough so you hear when it ’ s in motion.
” This is illustrated in a promotional video from Ring that shows a hypothetical robbery in which a burglar breaks into a man ’ s bedroom while the man is not home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burglar while the man anxiously watches the action through a smartphone app .
On its face , the new Ring drone might seem neat and futuristic , but it also serves as a reminder of the company ’ s checkered history with privacy and surveillance .
Ring has long faced intense criticism over its existing security products , and those concerns only grew after Amazon acquired the company for $ 1 billion in 2018 .
One particularly sensitive issue is Ring ’ s vast and somewhat secretive network of police partnerships , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Ring cameras .
Ring ’ s Neighbors app has also been accused of exacerbating racism and capitalizing on fear of crime .
Meanwhile , many , including some members of Congress , are worried that the company will soon incorporate facial recognition into the Ring platform .
“ The introduction of a roving drone security camera inside your own home potentially upends the idea of the very idea of home as a private place , ” Matthew Guariglia , a policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation , told Recode in email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly have the potential to extend what was already an invasive surveillance system into the realm of the absurd.
” While a Ring spokesperson told Recode that the Always Home camera footage can not be requested by police , Amazon has not made a formal commitment not to allow police to request this footage in the future .
The announcement of the Ring drone arrives at a time when Amazon is also attempting to expand its products ’ functionality in private and public spaces with an update to its Sidewalk project .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aims to create a shared network that could connect a suite of Amazon ’ s connected products for the home , like some of its Ring devices and Echo voice assistants .
The effort is also meant to operate at a larger scale , potentially connecting devices throughout a neighborhood .
For example , Amazon says that Sidewalk would enable certain Ring products to continue sending certain alerts even in the absence of a wifi connection .
Eventually , the platform will promote “ smart security ” and even help find pets and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blog post on Monday .
“ The Sidewalk Project has the potential to extend what is supposed to be home surveillance into community and neighborhood surveillance , ” Guariglia said .
“ With all of these technologies , the individuals who purchase this equipment often are not asking how their neighbors feel about technology that could potentially extend the reach of networked smart devices , including those created for the purpose of recording and tracking well outside of their own property and into public spaces.
” So despite the advertised benefits of Amazon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company is also setting itself up for more criticism over how these products also seem invasive or even Orwellian , especially as lawmakers face more pressure to regulate surveillance products and limit the technological capabilities of law enforcement .
Basically , it seems as though Amazon wants to be everywhere , and it ’ s working hard to get there .
So even while every Ring product might seem useful — even cool — on its own , considered in the aggregate , Amazon is producing a constellation of connected products that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us , whether through its microphone- and camera-equipped devices , like the Echo and the Echo Show , or the new Ring cameras for cars Amazon also announced on Thursday .
And with each new device , Amazon seems to hold more of the cards , collecting not only data about what ’ s happening in our homes but in our neighborhoods , too .
That may not be the future we want .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Amazon has announced a new way for consumers to surveil their own homes: a camera-equipped drone that connects to Ring security systems. Ring, which Amazon owns, has a history of enabling controversial levels of surveillance in homes and neighborhoods. So the addition of a flying camera that can venture into new nooks and crannies is, at best, unsettling.
The Ring Always Home Cam is designed to fly around different areas of someone’s home every so often, capturing footage before landing back in its dock. The device is meant to stay indoors and fly autonomously based on pre-programmed flight paths that navigate between the walls of a house, a Ring spokesperson told Recode. The announcement comes after Amazon last year won a patent for a home surveillance drone; it’s also worth mentioning that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not yet authorized the sale of this device.
Amazon says its new Ring surveillance drone is scheduled to go on sale in 2021 for $249 (once FCC authorization is obtained), and the company says it built in the product with “privacy in mind.” In a live blog of the virtual announcement event, Amazon said the Always Home Cam “only records when in flight; when it’s not in use it sits in a dock and the camera is physically blocked.” The company added that the drone is “loud enough so you hear when it’s in motion.” This is illustrated in a promotional video from Ring that shows a hypothetical robbery in which a burglar breaks into a man’s bedroom while the man is not home. The drone then chases off the burglar while the man anxiously watches the action through a smartphone app.
On its face, the new Ring drone might seem neat and futuristic, but it also serves as a reminder of the company’s checkered history with privacy and surveillance. Ring has long faced intense criticism over its existing security products, and those concerns only grew after Amazon acquired the company for $1 billion in 2018. One particularly sensitive issue is Ring’s vast and somewhat secretive network of police partnerships, which allow law enforcement to request footage collected by Ring cameras. Ring’s Neighbors app has also been accused of exacerbating racism and capitalizing on fear of crime. Meanwhile, many, including some members of Congress, are worried that the company will soon incorporate facial recognition into the Ring platform.
“The introduction of a roving drone security camera inside your own home potentially upends the idea of the very idea of home as a private place,” Matthew Guariglia, a policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Recode in email. “Amazon’s new products certainly have the potential to extend what was already an invasive surveillance system into the realm of the absurd.”
While a Ring spokesperson told Recode that the Always Home camera footage cannot be requested by police, Amazon has not made a formal commitment not to allow police to request this footage in the future.
Related Jeff Merkley and Bernie Sanders have a plan to protect you from facial recognition
The announcement of the Ring drone arrives at a time when Amazon is also attempting to expand its products’ functionality in private and public spaces with an update to its Sidewalk project. As Amazon explains on its website, Sidewalk aims to create a shared network that could connect a suite of Amazon’s connected products for the home, like some of its Ring devices and Echo voice assistants. The effort is also meant to operate at a larger scale, potentially connecting devices throughout a neighborhood. For example, Amazon says that Sidewalk would enable certain Ring products to continue sending certain alerts even in the absence of a wifi connection. Eventually, the platform will promote “smart security” and even help find pets and valuables, the company said in a blog post on Monday.
“The Sidewalk Project has the potential to extend what is supposed to be home surveillance into community and neighborhood surveillance,” Guariglia said. “With all of these technologies, the individuals who purchase this equipment often are not asking how their neighbors feel about technology that could potentially extend the reach of networked smart devices, including those created for the purpose of recording and tracking well outside of their own property and into public spaces.”
So despite the advertised benefits of Amazon’s growing network of gadgets, the company is also setting itself up for more criticism over how these products also seem invasive or even Orwellian, especially as lawmakers face more pressure to regulate surveillance products and limit the technological capabilities of law enforcement.
Basically, it seems as though Amazon wants to be everywhere, and it’s working hard to get there. So even while every Ring product might seem useful — even cool — on its own, considered in the aggregate, Amazon is producing a constellation of connected products that could be repurposed to record and surveil us, whether through its microphone- and camera-equipped devices, like the Echo and the Echo Show, or the new Ring cameras for cars Amazon also announced on Thursday. And with each new device, Amazon seems to hold more of the cards, collecting not only data about what’s happening in our homes but in our neighborhoods, too. That may not be the future we want.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-09-24--A Biden Presidency: The Democratic nominee’s policy vision, explained

If Democratic nominee Joe Biden wins the presidency in November , what will he do with it ?
If he wins , Biden will take office amid a collision of American crises .
The Covid-19 pandemic has killed more than 150,000 Americans and brought economic devastation in its wake .
Massive nationwide protests after the police killing of George Floyd have amplified calls for racial justice .
Biden in response is calling for transformational change : massive new programs for clean energy and caregiving , a vastly expanded public option for health care , a multifront attack on the racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 2020 primary , but in the general election , his advisers are positioning him as an FDR-like figure who could seize the crisis to transform parts of the American economy and American life .
Much of the change Biden is promising will require Congress , not just the president , to act .
Whether he can fulfill these promises depends in part on Democrats ’ ability to concurrently win back the Senate .
Biden points to his career as evidence that he can get Republicans on board with his ideas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of his agenda could ultimately depend on whether Senate Democrats are willing to change the rules to get things done — a path that ’ s an uneasy fit for a candidate with decades of experience in the body .
Become a Vox contributor to invest in work like this .
You ’ ll be joining a community of people who believe explanatory journalism has value for our society — 20,000 strong and growing .

If Democratic nominee Joe Biden wins the presidency in November, what will he do with it?
If he wins, Biden will take office amid a collision of American crises. The Covid-19 pandemic has killed more than 150,000 Americans and brought economic devastation in its wake. Massive nationwide protests after the police killing of George Floyd have amplified calls for racial justice.
Biden in response is calling for transformational change: massive new programs for clean energy and caregiving, a vastly expanded public option for health care, a multifront attack on the racial wealth gap. He was the moderate in the 2020 primary, but in the general election, his advisers are positioning him as an FDR-like figure who could seize the crisis to transform parts of the American economy and American life.
Much of the change Biden is promising will require Congress, not just the president, to act. Whether he can fulfill these promises depends in part on Democrats’ ability to concurrently win back the Senate. Biden points to his career as evidence that he can get Republicans on board with his ideas. But the fate of the most ambitious parts of his agenda could ultimately depend on whether Senate Democrats are willing to change the rules to get things done — a path that’s an uneasy fit for a candidate with decades of experience in the body.
Become a Vox contributor to invest in work like this. You’ll be joining a community of people who believe explanatory journalism has value for our society — 20,000 strong and growing.


vox--2020-09-24--How the US keeps poor people from accessing abortion

For the past 44 years , every US Congress and president have approved a federal budget that includes a ban on federal funding for abortion services , except in extreme cases like rape , incest , and a life-threatening situation for the child-bearer .
It ’ s known as the Hyde Amendment , and even politicians who support abortion access generally have a history of voting in favor of it to get spending bills passed .
The politics of abortion access in this country have evolved since the introduction of the Hyde Amendment .
Progressive Democrats have long been critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who are disproportionately poor and people of color .
Presidential candidate Joe Biden supported the Hyde Amendment until 2019 , attributing his reversal to the changing landscape of US abortion access .
Today , abortion access largely depends on the politics of the state you live in .
Because of the Hyde Amendment , it also depends on how much money you have .
Banning federal funding for abortion services primarily affects people who rely on Medicaid for their health care : people who are living close to the poverty line in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the effect of preventing some of the country ’ s most vulnerable people from accessing abortion services , since they are the least likely to be able to afford an out-of-pocket expense .
This video is the third in our series on the 2020 election .
We aren ’ t covering the horse race ; instead , we want to explain the stakes of the election through the issues that matter the most to you .
To do that , we want to know what you think the US presidential candidates should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : http : //vox.com/ElectionVideos You can find this video and all of Vox ’ s videos on YouTube .
And if you ’ re interested in supporting our video journalism , you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube .
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 , concise information on what the outcome of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

For the past 44 years, every US Congress and president have approved a federal budget that includes a ban on federal funding for abortion services, except in extreme cases like rape, incest, and a life-threatening situation for the child-bearer. It’s known as the Hyde Amendment, and even politicians who support abortion access generally have a history of voting in favor of it to get spending bills passed.
The politics of abortion access in this country have evolved since the introduction of the Hyde Amendment. Progressive Democrats have long been critical of it for singling out Medicaid recipients, who are disproportionately poor and people of color. Presidential candidate Joe Biden supported the Hyde Amendment until 2019, attributing his reversal to the changing landscape of US abortion access.
Today, abortion access largely depends on the politics of the state you live in. Because of the Hyde Amendment, it also depends on how much money you have. Banning federal funding for abortion services primarily affects people who rely on Medicaid for their health care: people who are living close to the poverty line in the US or are disabled. This has the effect of preventing some of the country’s most vulnerable people from accessing abortion services, since they are the least likely to be able to afford an out-of-pocket expense.
This video is the third in our series on the 2020 election. We aren’t covering the horse race; instead, we want to explain the stakes of the election through the issues that matter the most to you. To do that, we want to know what you think the US presidential candidates should be talking about. Tell us here: http://vox.com/ElectionVideos
You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. And if you’re interested in supporting our video journalism, you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube.


vox--2020-09-24--Trump is proposing to limit student visas to two years for citizens of 59 countries

The Trump administration is proposing a new rule to limit student visas to two years for citizens of 59 countries , potentially complicating the path to an American college degree for tens of thousands of foreign students .
Student visas are currently valid for as long as students are enrolled in their course of study .
But the proposed rule , published by the Department of Homeland Security , would limit the validity period to two years for certain immigrants under the theory that it will be easier to identify security threats and monitor compliance .
The countries targeted are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of terrorism and those with a high rate of people who come to the US and overstay their visas .
After that two-year period , students will have to apply for an extension .
It ’ s not clear whether immigration officials could deny their request even if a student would need it to complete a traditional four-year undergraduate program or a PhD , which can take six years or longer .
But if a student is taking longer than the typical time it takes to complete their course of study , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compelling academic reasons , ” a documented medical condition , or other circumstances beyond the student ’ s control , including a natural disaster or national health crisis , according to the rule .
That could potentially dissuade foreign students from enrolling in American universities , which are already experiencing a decline in foreign student enrollment — a critical source of talent and tuition .
Foreign students generate an estimated $ 32 billion in revenue annually and support more than 300,000 jobs , according to the think tank New American Economy .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will go into effect .
The Trump administration has only a few months to finalize the rule before January 2021 , when a new administration could take over and abandon the proposal .
But if President Trump wins a second term in November , time would be on his side .
The proposal would affect citizens and people born in countries on the State Department ’ s State Sponsors Terrorism List , including Iran , Syria , Sudan , and North Korea .
It would also apply to citizens of another 55 countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of visa overstays , including all but a few African countries .
Some of those countries send large numbers of foreign students to the US , including Vietnam , Nigeria , and Nepal .
During the 2018-2019 academic year , more than 24,000 Vietnamese , 13,000 Nigerians , 13,000 Nepalese , and 12,000 Iranians were enrolled in US universities , according to the Open Doors report from the Institute of International Education .
Foreign students who are not from any of the affected countries but are enrolled in schools that are unaccredited or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eligibility verification program E-Verify would also only be eligible for a two-year visa .
The majority of people who overstay their visa in the US are from China , India , Brazil , and Canada — none of which are impacted by the proposed rule .
Rather , it targets primarily students from African countries .
The countries with the highest visa overstay rates , with the exception of Syria and Nigeria , actually account for only a small proportion of total annual visa overstays .
In fiscal year 2019 , Burundi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visa overstay rate for students and exchange visitors — one of the highest worldwide .
But it accounted for only 127 of the more than 60,000 total estimated overstays .
China , by comparison , had a less than 2 percent overstay rate in those visa categories , but as the top-sending country for foreign students , it accounted for more than 11,000 overstays .
Trump has a history of seeking to discriminate against immigrants from African countries .
He has sought to keep out Africans from what he called “ shithole countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept more immigrants from predominantly white nations like Norway .
And he ’ s repeatedly sought to dismantle the diversity visa lottery — for many Africans , the only way they can immigrate to the US .
Last year , he also imposed restrictions on citizens of four African countries — Eritrea , Nigeria , Sudan , and Tanzania — seeking to immigrate to the US permanently as part of an expansion of his travel ban policy .
Trump has sought to crack down on foreign students before This also isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discourage foreign student enrollment .
In July , he tried to kick out foreign students who were enrolled in online-only programs , even though many universities had made the decision to suspend in-person classes in the fall in order to protect students , staff , and other members of the campus community amid the pandemic .
After universities filed a slew of lawsuits challenging the policy , the administration ultimately backed down .
But it rattled students , who might now think twice about staying in the US post-graduation .
Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pathway for students to remain in the US long-term , including the sought-after H-1B visa program for skilled workers .
It ’ s a pipeline for foreign talent , particularly in the fields of computer science , engineering , education , and medicine .
During the pandemic , Trump signed a proclamation temporarily blocking the entry of foreign workers coming to the US on H-1Bs and other visas through the end of the year .
According to a senior administration official , he ’ s also pursuing reforms to the program that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just graduating from US universities to qualify .
More than 85,000 immigrants get H-1B visas for skilled workers annually , including thousands of workers at tech giants such as Google and Amazon .
Recipients are currently selected by lottery , but Trump is proposing to instead prioritize workers with the highest wages and raise the program ’ s minimum wage requirements .
Trump has also sought to clamp down on student visa fraud , using what many advocates consider to be questionable methods .
Immigration and Customs Enforcement came under fire in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fake university designed to lure in immigrants seeking to obtain student visas fraudulently — but the students claimed they were the ones who had been deceived .
Some 250 students at the University of Farmington in Farmington Hills , Michigan , were consequently arrested .
The University of Farmington wasn ’ t a real educational institution : Although ICE advertised the university as offering graduate STEM ( science , technology , engineering , and math ) courses , it did not have any teachers , curriculum , classes , or other educational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutors said , was a ticket to an F-1 visa .
But attorneys for the students affected say these operations are entrapment , designed to trick unknowing international students into paying thousands of dollars to a university , while having no way of knowing that their actions are illegal .
The Trump administration also tried to make it easier for students to face penalties for violating the terms of their visas .
US Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a memo in 2018 that meant that mistakes as minor as failing to file an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a course could have prevented students from applying for a new visa or barred them from reentering the US for up to 10 years .
That memo , however , was blocked in federal court before it could go into effect .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

The Trump administration is proposing a new rule to limit student visas to two years for citizens of 59 countries, potentially complicating the path to an American college degree for tens of thousands of foreign students.
Student visas are currently valid for as long as students are enrolled in their course of study. But the proposed rule, published by the Department of Homeland Security, would limit the validity period to two years for certain immigrants under the theory that it will be easier to identify security threats and monitor compliance.
The countries targeted are those that are designated as state sponsors of terrorism and those with a high rate of people who come to the US and overstay their visas.
After that two-year period, students will have to apply for an extension. It’s not clear whether immigration officials could deny their request even if a student would need it to complete a traditional four-year undergraduate program or a PhD, which can take six years or longer. But if a student is taking longer than the typical time it takes to complete their course of study, they will have to provide evidence of “compelling academic reasons,” a documented medical condition, or other circumstances beyond the student’s control, including a natural disaster or national health crisis, according to the rule.
That could potentially dissuade foreign students from enrolling in American universities, which are already experiencing a decline in foreign student enrollment — a critical source of talent and tuition. Foreign students generate an estimated $32 billion in revenue annually and support more than 300,000 jobs, according to the think tank New American Economy.
It’s not clear if the rule will go into effect. The Trump administration has only a few months to finalize the rule before January 2021, when a new administration could take over and abandon the proposal. But if President Trump wins a second term in November, time would be on his side.
The proposal would affect citizens and people born in countries on the State Department’s State Sponsors Terrorism List, including Iran, Syria, Sudan, and North Korea. It would also apply to citizens of another 55 countries with a more than 10 percent rate of visa overstays, including all but a few African countries. Some of those countries send large numbers of foreign students to the US, including Vietnam, Nigeria, and Nepal.
During the 2018-2019 academic year, more than 24,000 Vietnamese, 13,000 Nigerians, 13,000 Nepalese, and 12,000 Iranians were enrolled in US universities, according to the Open Doors report from the Institute of International Education.
Foreign students who are not from any of the affected countries but are enrolled in schools that are unaccredited or do not participate in the federal employment eligibility verification program E-Verify would also only be eligible for a two-year visa.
Targeting countries with high visa overstay rates means targeting African countries
The majority of people who overstay their visa in the US are from China, India, Brazil, and Canada — none of which are impacted by the proposed rule. Rather, it targets primarily students from African countries.
The countries with the highest visa overstay rates, with the exception of Syria and Nigeria, actually account for only a small proportion of total annual visa overstays.
In fiscal year 2019, Burundi, for example, had a 44 percent visa overstay rate for students and exchange visitors — one of the highest worldwide. But it accounted for only 127 of the more than 60,000 total estimated overstays. China, by comparison, had a less than 2 percent overstay rate in those visa categories, but as the top-sending country for foreign students, it accounted for more than 11,000 overstays.
Trump has a history of seeking to discriminate against immigrants from African countries. He has sought to keep out Africans from what he called “shithole countries” while suggesting that the US should accept more immigrants from predominantly white nations like Norway. And he’s repeatedly sought to dismantle the diversity visa lottery — for many Africans, the only way they can immigrate to the US.
Last year, he also imposed restrictions on citizens of four African countries — Eritrea, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania — seeking to immigrate to the US permanently as part of an expansion of his travel ban policy.
Trump has sought to crack down on foreign students before
This also isn’t the first time that Trump has sought to discourage foreign student enrollment.
In July, he tried to kick out foreign students who were enrolled in online-only programs, even though many universities had made the decision to suspend in-person classes in the fall in order to protect students, staff, and other members of the campus community amid the pandemic. After universities filed a slew of lawsuits challenging the policy, the administration ultimately backed down. But it rattled students, who might now think twice about staying in the US post-graduation.
Trump has imposed restrictions on visa programs that provide a pathway for students to remain in the US long-term, including the sought-after H-1B visa program for skilled workers. It’s a pipeline for foreign talent, particularly in the fields of computer science, engineering, education, and medicine.
During the pandemic, Trump signed a proclamation temporarily blocking the entry of foreign workers coming to the US on H-1Bs and other visas through the end of the year. According to a senior administration official, he’s also pursuing reforms to the program that would make it harder for entry-level workers just graduating from US universities to qualify.
More than 85,000 immigrants get H-1B visas for skilled workers annually, including thousands of workers at tech giants such as Google and Amazon. Recipients are currently selected by lottery, but Trump is proposing to instead prioritize workers with the highest wages and raise the program’s minimum wage requirements.
Trump has also sought to clamp down on student visa fraud, using what many advocates consider to be questionable methods. Immigration and Customs Enforcement came under fire in November after announcing that it had been operating a fake university designed to lure in immigrants seeking to obtain student visas fraudulently — but the students claimed they were the ones who had been deceived. Some 250 students at the University of Farmington in Farmington Hills, Michigan, were consequently arrested.
The University of Farmington wasn’t a real educational institution: Although ICE advertised the university as offering graduate STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) courses, it did not have any teachers, curriculum, classes, or other educational activities. Its primary selling point, prosecutors said, was a ticket to an F-1 visa.
But attorneys for the students affected say these operations are entrapment, designed to trick unknowing international students into paying thousands of dollars to a university, while having no way of knowing that their actions are illegal.
The Trump administration also tried to make it easier for students to face penalties for violating the terms of their visas. US Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a memo in 2018 that meant that mistakes as minor as failing to file an address change report or having to drop a course could have prevented students from applying for a new visa or barred them from reentering the US for up to 10 years. That memo, however, was blocked in federal court before it could go into effect.


vox--2020-09-24--Trump made a rare public appearance in DC to pay his respects to RBG. It did not go well.

President Donald Trump was met with boos and chants of “ vote him out !
” when he went to the Supreme Court on Thursday to pay his respects to the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Trump , who in an unusual twist was wearing a mask , and first lady Melania Trump made a brief appearance besides Ginsburg ’ s coffin at the top of the Supreme Court ’ s steps .
As the Trumps stood silently , a nearby crowd made their displeasure with their presence known .
After just a few moments , the Trumps got back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incident quickly went viral .
As CNN White House reporter Kevin Liptak noted along with the video , “ it ’ s rare for this President to see his opposition this up-close and in-person.
” Indeed , the clip serves as a reminder that Trump is a historically unpopular president .
As Harry Enten of CNN detailed earlier this month , Trump has never once hit 50 percent approval in a live interview poll since taking office .
And his average approval rating of 40 percent is 6 points lower than that of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst performance in this metric among post-World War II presidents .
Trump is especially unpopular in large , blue urban areas like Washington , DC , where he was memorably booed when he was introduced during a World Series game last October .
More recently , federal authorities forcefully cleared out protesters so Trump could have a photo op at a church across from the White House in June .
Trump almost never makes public appearances in such cities , instead opting to mingle with paying customers at properties he still owns and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front of his fans in rural or exurban areas where lots of white people live , or participate in roundtable events in front of carefully vetted and friendly audiences .
Of course , being historically unpopular didn ’ t stop Trump from winning the presidency in 2016 , when , according to Gallup , he was the most unpopular major-party candidate ever to run for office .
But a significant factor working in his favor back then was that Hillary Clinton was the second most unpopular such candidate .
Trump doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time around .
While the latest Gallup numbers indicate that Joe Biden ’ s favorability is underwater , his -4 spread ( 46 percent favorability versus 50 percent unfavorability ) isn ’ t nearly as bad as Trump ’ s -16 spread ( 41 percent favorability versus 57 percent unfavorability ) .
Admirers of Ginsburg who were at the Supreme Court while she was lying in repose on Thursday had specific reasons to boo Trump .
By rushing ahead to nominate Ginsburg ’ s replacement before the election , Trump is disregarding her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed , ” she told her granddaughter .
Not only is Trump disregarding her final request , but he repeatedly claimed on Monday without citing evidence that it ’ s somehow a forgery .
“ I don ’ t know that she said that , or was that written out by Adam Schiff and [ Chuck ] Schumer and [ Nancy ] Pelosi ?
” Trump said on Fox & Friends on Monday .
“ I would be more inclined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that came out of the wind .
It sounds so beautiful , but that sounds like a Schumer deal.
” 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 , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

President Donald Trump was met with boos and chants of “vote him out!” when he went to the Supreme Court on Thursday to pay his respects to the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Trump, who in an unusual twist was wearing a mask, and first lady Melania Trump made a brief appearance besides Ginsburg’s coffin at the top of the Supreme Court’s steps. As the Trumps stood silently, a nearby crowd made their displeasure with their presence known. After just a few moments, the Trumps got back into their limousine.
Footage of the incident quickly went viral. As CNN White House reporter Kevin Liptak noted along with the video, “it’s rare for this President to see his opposition this up-close and in-person.”
Trump at the court as crowd chants “vote him out” — it’s rare for this President to see his opposition this up-close and in-person pic.twitter.com/VEVkRHOkjM — Kevin Liptak (@Kevinliptakcnn) September 24, 2020
Indeed, the clip serves as a reminder that Trump is a historically unpopular president. As Harry Enten of CNN detailed earlier this month, Trump has never once hit 50 percent approval in a live interview poll since taking office. And his average approval rating of 40 percent is 6 points lower than that of Jimmy Carter, who previously had the worst performance in this metric among post-World War II presidents.
Trump is especially unpopular in large, blue urban areas like Washington, DC, where he was memorably booed when he was introduced during a World Series game last October. More recently, federal authorities forcefully cleared out protesters so Trump could have a photo op at a church across from the White House in June.
Trump almost never makes public appearances in such cities, instead opting to mingle with paying customers at properties he still owns and profits from, hold political rallies in front of his fans in rural or exurban areas where lots of white people live, or participate in roundtable events in front of carefully vetted and friendly audiences.
Of course, being historically unpopular didn’t stop Trump from winning the presidency in 2016, when, according to Gallup, he was the most unpopular major-party candidate ever to run for office. But a significant factor working in his favor back then was that Hillary Clinton was the second most unpopular such candidate.
Trump doesn’t have that working in his favor this time around. While the latest Gallup numbers indicate that Joe Biden’s favorability is underwater, his -4 spread (46 percent favorability versus 50 percent unfavorability) isn’t nearly as bad as Trump’s -16 spread (41 percent favorability versus 57 percent unfavorability).
Admirers of Ginsburg who were at the Supreme Court while she was lying in repose on Thursday had specific reasons to boo Trump. By rushing ahead to nominate Ginsburg’s replacement before the election, Trump is disregarding her dying request — “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,” she told her granddaughter.
Not only is Trump disregarding her final request, but he repeatedly claimed on Monday without citing evidence that it’s somehow a forgery.
“I don’t know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff and [Chuck] Schumer and [Nancy] Pelosi?” Trump said on Fox & Friends on Monday. “I would be more inclined for the second. You know, that came out of the wind. It sounds so beautiful, but that sounds like a Schumer deal.”


vox--2020-09-24--“It isn’t a question of politics”: Fauci on calling out Sen. Rand Paul’s misinformation

Six months into the US response to the Covid-19 pandemic , Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , remains one of the most visible and steadfast defenders of science in an increasingly politicized environment .
On Thursday , Vox and Today , Explained host Sean Rameswaram spoke to Fauci about calling out Sen. Rand Paul at a Wednesday Senate hearing ; his projections for when vaccines may be ready to distribute ; his concerns about public mistrust in the vaccine approval process ; and telling political appointees at the Centers for Disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walk.
” He also detailed who the real enemy is and what he would ask for if he could wave a magic wand right now .
“ The public health response and the public health activities , in fact , have become politicized , which is so unfortunate , ” he told Rameswaram .
The transcript has been edited for clarity and length .
To hear Today , Explained ’ s full conversation with Fauci , listen to the episode below or wherever you get your podcasts , including Apple Podcasts , Google @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The University of Washington ’ s Covid-19 model is now saying we may see nearly 400,000 deaths by the end of the year .
Is that a realistic estimate ?
We really have got to be careful because those are models .
Models are based on the assumptions that you make to put into the model .
Certainly if things go poorly — if , in fact , we do not get control and people do not cooperate in some of the public health measures — that could happen .
Hopefully , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , we ’ ll know that we have a vaccine , or more than one vaccine , that ’ s safe and effective .
So if we could start vaccinating at least the high-risk people , as well as the front-line responders , by the end of this calendar year and into 2021 , we could prevent that surge that everyone is concerned about .
But we can ’ t just rely on a vaccine .
We ’ ve got to rely on [ people ’ s adherence ] to the simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you ’ re inside and may not be able to keep the physical distance that we ’ d like to see .
What is the latest on a vaccine being available in the United States ?
What do you think the timeline is ?
We don ’ t know .
So when you hear people make projections , they are merely projections .
The vaccines that are currently in advanced trials — the Pfizer , Moderna , and now the JNJ Janssen products — are in play .
( A fourth [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an adverse event that took place . )
They have anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 people [ enrolled ] per trial .
And given the enrollment and the number of infections , I would project ... that by the end of the year , let ’ s say November or December , we will know whether the vaccines , plural , are safe and effective .
It could be earlier .
I mean , if there are enough infections in the trial and you could distinguish between the placebo and the vaccine limb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to make a determination early .
But let ’ s assume that it ’ s November and December .
You could ask , what do you think the chances are of it being safe and effective ?
The first honest thing to say is that you don ’ t know .
But based on the preliminary data that we ’ ve seen in animal studies , as well as in the phase 1 studies , the vaccines appear to induce a response that ’ s comparable to a good response to natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good sign that you ’ re going in the right direction .
But the proof of the pudding is going to be the result of the [ phase 3 ] trials .
Now , if , in fact , it shows to be safe and effective and you start vaccinating people , you could do that as early as the end of this year .
We ’ ve taken a major financial risk of producing vaccines even before we know that they work , which means if they do work , you saved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t work , the only thing you ’ ve lost is money .
And right now , we feel that the investment is really worth the risk financially , because we want to do things as safely but as quickly as possible .
Once we have a vaccine in the United States , do we have a plan for how it will be distributed across the country ?
Yes , yes .
Traditionally , the final decision on that is with the CDC ... and they rely heavily on the advice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Immunization Practices .
With regard to Covid-19 vaccines , we ’ ve added an extra layer to that .
The National Academy of Medicine is putting together a group of scientists , ethicists , and others to map out what we think is the most appropriate , fair , and ethical way to distribute vaccines in a greater fashion .
Traditionally , you start off vaccinating the health care providers and front-line individuals who are putting themselves at risk to take care of sick patients .
The other [ group ] is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the elderly , those who have underlying conditions and people like that .
The final determination has not been made , but that will be coming very soon .
How worried are you about faith in the vaccine ?
Are you concerned that people might not trust a vaccine produced in this country ?
I am very concerned about that .
And that ’ s the reason why I ’ m right here talking with you .
I ’ m trying to make sure that we can reach out to the community and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at the decisions about whether a vaccine is safe and effective — we spoke about this in detail at the Senate hearing yesterday that many people tuned in to — at least I gathered that from a lot of the tweets following that hearing ...
I ’ m not .
But my staff sends me these emails that say , you got to look at this .
The situation is that people need to understand that an independent body , the Data and Safety Monitoring Board [ DSMB ] , is beholden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president , not to the vaccine companies , not to the FDA [ Food and Drug Administration ] .
Not to me .
They are an independent group of established scientists , ethicists , and statisticians .
They are the only ones that have access to the data because it ’ s a double-blind study .
And a vaccine has a predetermined set of criteria to determine if it works or not .
And the DSMB intermittently looks at that .
When they feel it ’ s reached that point , they will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company has the option , which they will certainly do , of presenting it to the FDA either for an emergency use authorization or directly for what we call a BLA , or a biological license application , which essentially is a license .
FDA scientists will look at that .
Then they will consult with another advisory committee called the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee [ VRBPAC ] , who are , again , advisory to the FDA .
Those data will become public so that scientists like myself and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s worrying that someone is going to make an end run around that and try to get a vaccine out for political reasons .
Well , that will not happen , but if it does ... it will be really transparent .
Because the scientists will see the data .
The FDA has pledged publicly multiple times that they will not approve a vaccine unless they ’ ve established that nonpolitical scientists agree that it ’ s safe and effective .
And we ’ ve got to keep getting that message out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mixed messages that are coming out that the public might be skeptical about vaccines .
And if it turns out somebody tries to force it out , I tell you , I will be one of the first ones that will object to that .
So you ’ ll be out there saying this is not the vaccine we should trust ?
Yeah , I would say that the process is not the right process to do this , and we really need to go back to the right process .
Are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic has shaken faith in these institutions that previously had this sort of bulletproof reputation ?
Yes , that is unfortunate .
There have been some unfortunate things that have happened .
There have been people within agencies that have tried unsuccessfully to influence the CDC .
“ I have been in intensive discussions with the director of the CDC and the director of FDA and I really , truly believe that you can trust them ” In one situation , not to mention any names , one of those individuals tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really a fool ’ s errand , because I essentially told them to go take a walk .
Those people are not there anymore .
I can tell you , quite frankly , that I have been in intensive discussions with the director of the CDC and the director of FDA and I really , truly believe that you can trust them .
And besides the core people , the career scientists at the CDC and the FDA — they do this for a living .
They are apolitical and completely devoted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those are the people that will speak out .
Your Wednesday appearance before the Senate sort of blew up on Twitter .
Was it that people finally saw you lose your patience with Sen. Rand Paul ?
I know from watching you over the past six or seven months how hard you ’ ve tried to remain above the political fray .
And I wonder , six , seven months into it , isn ’ t it wearing on you ?
Well , the answer is it is certainly possible , and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last six months , but , like , for 40 years .
“ He was saying things that were not compatible with the scientific data ” I do have a great deal of respect for the institution of the Senate , and I do have respect for Sen. Rand Paul .
But he was saying things that were not true .
And , well , I just couldn ’ t let that stand because there we were on national TV with a lot of cameras .
And I just had to call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are giving him information .
It is what ’ s called cherry-picking information out there .
He was saying things that were not compatible with the scientific data .
So what the audience saw me do was say , “ Whoa , wait a minute , time out .
You really can ’ t say that.
” I wasn ’ t disrespectful at all .
I think I was quite respectful .
But it isn ’ t a question of politics because he was saying what he thought was the right thing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it impossible to remain above the politics when this pandemic has been so politicized ?
We ’ re in a highly charged political season with big-time , high-stakes elections .
The public health response and the public health activities , in fact , have become politicized , which is so unfortunate .
We ’ ve lost sight of the fact that the bad guy here is the virus .
The bad guy is not one side or the other .
Public health measures should be the gateway and the vehicle to getting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the country .
And yet there are some who interpret that as an obstacle .
It isn ’ t the obstacle .
It ’ s the solution .
“ We are at war with a virus .
We are not at war with each other.
” So we ’ ve got to keep hammering that message home : We ’ re all in this together .
And when you have some groups of society who make it a political issue , it makes it very complicated to get a uniform , consistent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could wave a magic wand over the United States and change one thing tomorrow to improve the trajectory of this pandemic , what would it be ?
I think apart from a vaccine , which we ’ ll have to wait a few months for , if I were to wave a wand now , it would be to get the entire country uniformly pulling together in a public health way to get these cases down .
A couple of days after 9/11 , we didn ’ t have any political arguing about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you know , December 1941 after Pearl Harbor .
Everybody was in it together .
That ’ s really what we ’ re dealing with .
I don ’ t want to get too melodramatic , but we are at war with a virus .
We are not at war with each other .
So my magic wand would be ... a spirit of pulling together .
For Today , Explained ’ s full conversation with Fauci , listen to the episode wherever you get your podcasts , including Apple Podcasts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 .

Six months into the US response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, remains one of the most visible and steadfast defenders of science in an increasingly politicized environment.
On Thursday, Vox and Today, Explained host Sean Rameswaram spoke to Fauci about calling out Sen. Rand Paul at a Wednesday Senate hearing; his projections for when vaccines may be ready to distribute; his concerns about public mistrust in the vaccine approval process; and telling political appointees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to “take a walk.” He also detailed who the real enemy is and what he would ask for if he could wave a magic wand right now.
“The public health response and the public health activities, in fact, have become politicized, which is so unfortunate,” he told Rameswaram.
The transcript has been edited for clarity and length.
To hear Today, Explained’s full conversation with Fauci, listen to the episode below or wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.
Sean Rameswaram
The University of Washington’s Covid-19 model is now saying we may see nearly 400,000 deaths by the end of the year. Is that a realistic estimate?
Anthony Fauci
We really have got to be careful because those are models. Models are based on the assumptions that you make to put into the model. Certainly if things go poorly — if, in fact, we do not get control and people do not cooperate in some of the public health measures — that could happen.
Hopefully, as we get toward the end of the year, we’ll know that we have a vaccine, or more than one vaccine, that’s safe and effective. So if we could start vaccinating at least the high-risk people, as well as the front-line responders, by the end of this calendar year and into 2021, we could prevent that surge that everyone is concerned about.
But we can’t just rely on a vaccine. We’ve got to rely on [people’s adherence] to the simple recommended public health measures, particularly mask-wearing when you’re inside and may not be able to keep the physical distance that we’d like to see.
Sean Rameswaram
What is the latest on a vaccine being available in the United States? What do you think the timeline is?
Anthony Fauci
We don’t know. So when you hear people make projections, they are merely projections. The vaccines that are currently in advanced trials — the Pfizer, Moderna, and now the JNJ Janssen products — are in play. (A fourth [AstraZeneca] is on hold because of an adverse event that took place.)
They have anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 people [enrolled] per trial. And given the enrollment and the number of infections, I would project ... that by the end of the year, let’s say November or December, we will know whether the vaccines, plural, are safe and effective.
It could be earlier. I mean, if there are enough infections in the trial and you could distinguish between the placebo and the vaccine limb of the trial, you may be able to make a determination early. But let’s assume that it’s November and December.
You could ask, what do you think the chances are of it being safe and effective? The first honest thing to say is that you don’t know. But based on the preliminary data that we’ve seen in animal studies, as well as in the phase 1 studies, the vaccines appear to induce a response that’s comparable to a good response to natural infection, which traditionally is always a good sign that you’re going in the right direction.
But the proof of the pudding is going to be the result of the [phase 3] trials. Now, if, in fact, it shows to be safe and effective and you start vaccinating people, you could do that as early as the end of this year.
We’ve taken a major financial risk of producing vaccines even before we know that they work, which means if they do work, you saved a lot of months. If they don’t work, the only thing you’ve lost is money. And right now, we feel that the investment is really worth the risk financially, because we want to do things as safely but as quickly as possible.
Sean Rameswaram
Once we have a vaccine in the United States, do we have a plan for how it will be distributed across the country?
Anthony Fauci
Yes, yes. Traditionally, the final decision on that is with the CDC ... and they rely heavily on the advice of a committee called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. With regard to Covid-19 vaccines, we’ve added an extra layer to that. The National Academy of Medicine is putting together a group of scientists, ethicists, and others to map out what we think is the most appropriate, fair, and ethical way to distribute vaccines in a greater fashion.
Traditionally, you start off vaccinating the health care providers and front-line individuals who are putting themselves at risk to take care of sick patients. The other [group] is those at high risk, such as the elderly, those who have underlying conditions and people like that. The final determination has not been made, but that will be coming very soon.
Sean Rameswaram
How worried are you about faith in the vaccine? Are you concerned that people might not trust a vaccine produced in this country?
Anthony Fauci
I am very concerned about that. And that’s the reason why I’m right here talking with you. I’m trying to make sure that we can reach out to the community and explain the process,
Because when you look at the decisions about whether a vaccine is safe and effective — we spoke about this in detail at the Senate hearing yesterday that many people tuned in to — at least I gathered that from a lot of the tweets following that hearing ...
Sean Rameswaram
I thought you weren’t on Twitter?
Anthony Fauci
I’m not. But my staff sends me these emails that say, you got to look at this.
The situation is that people need to understand that an independent body, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board [DSMB], is beholden to no one, not to the president, not to the vaccine companies, not to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration]. Not to me.
They are an independent group of established scientists, ethicists, and statisticians. They are the only ones that have access to the data because it’s a double-blind study. And a vaccine has a predetermined set of criteria to determine if it works or not. And the DSMB intermittently looks at that.
When they feel it’s reached that point, they will then notify the company. Then the company has the option, which they will certainly do, of presenting it to the FDA either for an emergency use authorization or directly for what we call a BLA, or a biological license application, which essentially is a license.
FDA scientists will look at that. Then they will consult with another advisory committee called the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee [VRBPAC], who are, again, advisory to the FDA. Those data will become public so that scientists like myself and my colleagues will have access.
Everybody’s worrying that someone is going to make an end run around that and try to get a vaccine out for political reasons. Well, that will not happen, but if it does ... it will be really transparent. Because the scientists will see the data.
The FDA has pledged publicly multiple times that they will not approve a vaccine unless they’ve established that nonpolitical scientists agree that it’s safe and effective. And we’ve got to keep getting that message out because it’s totally understandable giving the mixed messages that are coming out that the public might be skeptical about vaccines.
And if it turns out somebody tries to force it out, I tell you, I will be one of the first ones that will object to that.
Sean Rameswaram
So you’ll be out there saying this is not the vaccine we should trust?
Anthony Fauci
Yeah, I would say that the process is not the right process to do this, and we really need to go back to the right process.
Sean Rameswaram
Are you worried about how this whole coronavirus pandemic has shaken faith in these institutions that previously had this sort of bulletproof reputation?
Anthony Fauci
Yeah.
Sean Rameswaram
Institutions like the CDC.
Anthony Fauci
Yes, that is unfortunate. There have been some unfortunate things that have happened. There have been people within agencies that have tried unsuccessfully to influence the CDC.
“I have been in intensive discussions with the director of the CDC and the director of FDA and I really, truly believe that you can trust them”
In one situation, not to mention any names, one of those individuals tried to influence what I said, which is really a fool’s errand, because I essentially told them to go take a walk. Those people are not there anymore.
I can tell you, quite frankly, that I have been in intensive discussions with the director of the CDC and the director of FDA and I really, truly believe that you can trust them. And besides the core people, the career scientists at the CDC and the FDA — they do this for a living. They are apolitical and completely devoted to the health of our nation. And those are the people that will speak out.
"You misconstrued that, Senator. And you've done that repetitively in the past." -- Fauci is out of patience with Rand Paul pic.twitter.com/6xRoO19ZYL — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 23, 2020
Sean Rameswaram
Your Wednesday appearance before the Senate sort of blew up on Twitter. Was it that people finally saw you lose your patience with Sen. Rand Paul? I know from watching you over the past six or seven months how hard you’ve tried to remain above the political fray. And I wonder, six, seven months into it, isn’t it wearing on you?
Anthony Fauci
Well, the answer is it is certainly possible, and I have been doing this not only over the last six months, but, like, for 40 years.
“He was saying things that were not compatible with the scientific data”
I do have a great deal of respect for the institution of the Senate, and I do have respect for Sen. Rand Paul. But he was saying things that were not true. And, well, I just couldn’t let that stand because there we were on national TV with a lot of cameras. And I just had to call him on that.
I think people are giving him information. It is what’s called cherry-picking information out there. He was saying things that were not compatible with the scientific data. So what the audience saw me do was say, “Whoa, wait a minute, time out. You really can’t say that.”
I wasn’t disrespectful at all. I think I was quite respectful. But it isn’t a question of politics because he was saying what he thought was the right thing. And I disagreed with that.
Sean Rameswaram
Is it impossible to remain above the politics when this pandemic has been so politicized?
Anthony Fauci
We’re in a highly charged political season with big-time, high-stakes elections. The public health response and the public health activities, in fact, have become politicized, which is so unfortunate. We’ve lost sight of the fact that the bad guy here is the virus. The bad guy is not one side or the other.
Public health measures should be the gateway and the vehicle to getting the country’s economy back and opening up the country. And yet there are some who interpret that as an obstacle. It isn’t the obstacle. It’s the solution.
“We are at war with a virus. We are not at war with each other.”
So we’ve got to keep hammering that message home: We’re all in this together. And when you have some groups of society who make it a political issue, it makes it very complicated to get a uniform, consistent approach in our country.
Sean Rameswaram
If you could wave a magic wand over the United States and change one thing tomorrow to improve the trajectory of this pandemic, what would it be?
Anthony Fauci
I think apart from a vaccine, which we’ll have to wait a few months for, if I were to wave a wand now, it would be to get the entire country uniformly pulling together in a public health way to get these cases down. A couple of days after 9/11, we didn’t have any political arguing about what we needed to do, or, you know, December 1941 after Pearl Harbor. Everybody was in it together.
That’s really what we’re dealing with. I don’t want to get too melodramatic, but we are at war with a virus. We are not at war with each other. So my magic wand would be ... a spirit of pulling together.
For Today, Explained’s full conversation with Fauci, listen to the episode wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.