vox--2020-10-23--The new Borat movie mocks a Trump-era fixation on a particular female aesthetic

Sacha Baron Cohen is not the star of his new movie , and I suspect he knows it .
The true star of Borat 2 — excuse me , Borat Subsequent Moviefilm : Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan — is Maria Bakalova , who plays the daughter of disgraced Kazakh media personality Borat Sagdiyev ( Baron Cohen ) .
Bakalova is actually 24 , but in the film , she is 15-year-old Tutar Sagdiyev , the oldest unmarried woman in Kazakstan ( according to Borat ) , playing sidekick to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to America .
Having destroyed the reputation of Kazakhstan with his 2006 film ( the first Borat , the one that prompted every dude you know to say “ mah waiiife ” for a good decade when he wanted to be funny ) , Borat has been doing hard labor as punishment .
But he is summoned to the premier ’ s office and given the task of offering a gift to America ’ s leadership to restore Kazakhstan ’ s standing in the eyes of its new president , “ McDonald Trump.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump ’ s closest colleague , Michael Pence , vice premier of America : a monkey .
When he arrives stateside , Borat discovers Tutar has stowed away in the monkey ’ s crate for the trip and , well , gotten hungry on the way over .
That makes him realize something : Maybe she would make a better gift ?
She is delighted by the idea , lit up by the notion that she might be the next “ queen of America , ” like Melania Trump — who , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Slovenia ’ s not all that not close to Kazakhstan , but it ’ s closer than America .
To tackle that challenge , though , she ’ s going to need a makeover .
And in typical Borat fashion — with unsuspecting hairdressers and dress shop owners and other civilians not quite realizing they ’ re the object of fun — Tutar is transformed from a ratty-haired gremlin into a woman .
Long , dyed-blonde hair with barrel curls , bold lipstick and eye makeup , and a form-fitting dress : If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s because you ’ ve seen it on TV before .
The look that ruled Hollywood for decades and perhaps reached its apex in Baywatch star Pamela Anderson ( the unlucky object of Borat ’ s affection in the first movie ) has migrated to Fox News , where many have noted the clone-like similarities among on-air female talent .
Bakalova has a tough job in Subsequent Moviefilm , playing a teenager nearly a decade younger than herself .
A teenager who has been living in a stable behind her family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her life about what women can and can not do : Women can not drive .
They can not read .
They can not be educated or choose whom to marry or engage in , uh , sexy times .
They can not touch their “ vagines , ” because of the teeth .
But Bakalova plunges into it with aplomb and steals the show from Baron Cohen , who mostly reprises his old shtick , tricking people into saying things they probably wouldn ’ t want to be seen onscreen saying .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ past four ( let alone 14 ) years have shifted anything , it ’ s our sense of what people will do on camera , whether to get attention or just because they ’ re a huge honking racist .
In any case , Bakalova ’ s total commitment to the role is both impressive and necessary , because this movie requires her to get leered at by older men .
A lot .
It happens at stores and in public places , at a debutante ball ( where a man says $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for her , to the disgust of the man ’ s daughter ) , and at a plastic surgeon ’ s office , where Tutar and Borat are pricing out the cost of giving her huge breasts and maybe evening out her nose a little .
And it happens , as you may already know , in a room with Rudy Giuliani .
The Giuliani moment is what got the most attention after the reviews started pouring in on Wednesday .
In case you were lucky enough to miss the news : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movie in which Tutar — who has been rejected by Pence at CPAC , sort of , and has settled on trying to marry Giuliani because he is close to Trump and , unlike several former presidential advisers , isn ’ t in jail — decides to pose as a journalist to get close to Giuliani .
Dressed in nude stilettos and a mint-green , skin-tight sheath dress , she arranges to “ interview ” Giuliani in a midtown Manhattan hotel suite , and he agrees .
He calls her darlin ’ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the attention in the interview .
Then he follows her into the bedroom , drink in hand .
He says “ c ’ mere , c ’ mere ” several times , moving her closer to him and removing her microphone .
She removes his .
He says she should give him her number and address .
He sits on the edge of the bed .
He lays down .
He puts his hand down his pants , adjusting something in the crotch region for about 10 seconds , and then Baron Cohen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look like lingerie , rushes in and declares that Tutar is 15 , “ too old for you.
” The scene is edited , and Giuliani has denied that he was doing anything untoward , saying he was merely tucking in his shirt .
( It does look as if he could plausibly be tucking in his shirt , though I ’ m not sure why one would do that while lying down , or why a simple task would take that long . )
After the past few years , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Giuliani about much of anything .
Here ’ s a troubling possibility : He was reaching down to fondle his genitals , potentially without consent or prompting , while in the room with a virtual stranger who is obviously far younger than he , but whom he had no reason to think is a teenager .
Anyhow .
Perhaps more revealing than the incident itself is what the film points out through Bakalova ’ s character : A certain womanly aesthetic , appealing to a certain sort of man , is prevalent enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Fox News look , after all , is the network ’ s inheritance from its founder Roger Ailes , whose sexual harassment and decrees that women should wear short skirts on camera are no secret .
It ’ s hardly only conservative men who are inclined to give credence for no real reason to a pretty young woman who flirts with them a little .
But it ’ s equally true that conservative men are certainly susceptible ( recall the case of Maria Butina ) , and that adopting a particular look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or would-be grifters .
That ’ s probably why , watching Tutar ’ s antics in this film , I found myself thinking of White Noise , a documentary also out this week that ’ s about three notorious figures on the alt-right : shit-stirrer and Pizzagate conspiracist memelord Mike Cernovich , avowed white nationalist Richard Spencer , and anti-immigrant YouTube personality Lauren Southern .
Directed by journalist Daniel Lombroso , who spent years following each of the trio around , the movie follows the trajectory of a certain kind of young , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past few years , and the role of the internet in their rise to fame .
White Noise is a great and illuminating film , far more engaging and smart than most journalistic profiles of each of these people .
But here ’ s the most striking realization , by the end : This is a portrait of loud , proud , opportunistic grifters — less ideologues than people who ’ ve figured out how to game the system to get the most eyeballs ( and , very importantly , money ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and depthless intensities , is chiefly a function of figuring out how to project an image your audience finds appealing .
The grifting impulse that has taken hold in America , from Fyre Festival to Anna Delvey to whatever Jacob Wohl ’ s whole deal is , owes no fealty to specific political parties .
The con man is an archetype as old as time , and certainly a time-honored element of American culture .
The internet has made it very simple to create a persona of your choice — and far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way social media platforms enable grifters to scramble to the top of the heap is something all three of the White Noise subjects know intimately , and something Lombroso captures with skill .
But it seems at times like Southern understands it the best .
Beautiful , blonde , with an arch smile and a bold , confident exterior , she fits the archetype precisely .
As captured in White Noise , she gives off distinct Regina George vibes , and it works for her as long as she ’ s willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Living in the boys ’ club of white supremacist internet personalities , she makes it clear that she knows her fame comes from both her ability to take extreme positions , which “ puts her on the map , ” and her visibility as a pretty woman whom men like to watch laugh at their jokes and say outrageous things that confirm their biases .
In one sequence , we listen in on her side of a phone conversation with Gavin McInnes , the ( married ) founder of the Proud Boys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get her to sleep with him .
( Onscreen text notes that the filmmakers contacted McInnes and that he denied that he had done such a thing . )
But Southern is clearly proud of her image , and of the spot in the white supremacist landscape she ’ s cultivated .
“ There ’ s a lot of clicks in being contrarian , ” she says early on .
It ’ s only later that the cracks her facade start to show up .
In a sense , the Borat movies are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to parse whether Borat or Baron Cohen is the true con artist is the kind of thought experiment that will tie your gray matter in knots .
But Bakalova ’ s performance adds another layer to Baron Cohen ’ s practical-joking style of comedy .
There ’ s an unselfconsciousness to the men who drool over her , an ego that suggests this woman might actually be into them , coupled with a gleeful cultural mandate to “ appreciate ” a woman verbally , salaciously , and not cater to a culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her with respect .
Unless I missed it , Borat Subsequent Moviefilm never tips into baiting men into decrying the Me Too movement outright .
But it ’ s clear what the filmmakers are implying : In America , those who idolize a certain kind of female aesthetic and feel free to ogle are laughably easy to exploit , whether by grifters , or spies , or social climbers , or just screwball comedians .
And if Bakalova , playing a teenager with a mediocre dye job and some lopsided lipstick , can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they know a camera is around — including an adviser to the president of the United States — that ’ s a pretty damning thing to capture on moviefilm .
Borat Subsequent Moviefilm : Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is streaming on Amazon Prime .
White Noise is available to digitally rent on platforms including Apple TV and Google Play ; see the website for details .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Sacha Baron Cohen is not the star of his new movie, and I suspect he knows it.
The true star of Borat 2 — excuse me, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan — is Maria Bakalova, who plays the daughter of disgraced Kazakh media personality Borat Sagdiyev (Baron Cohen). Bakalova is actually 24, but in the film, she is 15-year-old Tutar Sagdiyev, the oldest unmarried woman in Kazakstan (according to Borat), playing sidekick to her trickster father on his second trip to America.
Having destroyed the reputation of Kazakhstan with his 2006 film (the first Borat, the one that prompted every dude you know to say “mah waiiife” for a good decade when he wanted to be funny), Borat has been doing hard labor as punishment. But he is summoned to the premier’s office and given the task of offering a gift to America’s leadership to restore Kazakhstan’s standing in the eyes of its new president, “McDonald Trump.” He knows just what to present to Trump’s closest colleague, Michael Pence, vice premier of America: a monkey.
When he arrives stateside, Borat discovers Tutar has stowed away in the monkey’s crate for the trip and, well, gotten hungry on the way over. That makes him realize something: Maybe she would make a better gift? She is delighted by the idea, lit up by the notion that she might be the next “queen of America,” like Melania Trump — who, after all, is from Slovenia. Slovenia’s not all that close to Kazakhstan, but it’s closer than America.
To tackle that challenge, though, she’s going to need a makeover. And in typical Borat fashion — with unsuspecting hairdressers and dress shop owners and other civilians not quite realizing they’re the object of fun — Tutar is transformed from a ratty-haired gremlin into a woman.
Long, dyed-blonde hair with barrel curls, bold lipstick and eye makeup, and a form-fitting dress: If Tutar’s makeover looks familiar, it’s because you’ve seen it on TV before. The look that ruled Hollywood for decades and perhaps reached its apex in Baywatch star Pamela Anderson (the unlucky object of Borat’s affection in the first movie) has migrated to Fox News, where many have noted the clone-like similarities among on-air female talent.
Bakalova has a tough job in Subsequent Moviefilm, playing a teenager nearly a decade younger than herself. A teenager who has been living in a stable behind her family’s hovel and fed lies all her life about what women can and cannot do: Women cannot drive. They cannot read. They cannot be educated or choose whom to marry or engage in, uh, sexy times. They cannot touch their “vagines,” because of the teeth.
But Bakalova plunges into it with aplomb and steals the show from Baron Cohen, who mostly reprises his old shtick, tricking people into saying things they probably wouldn’t want to be seen onscreen saying. Although, who knows? If the past four (let alone 14) years have shifted anything, it’s our sense of what people will do on camera, whether to get attention or just because they’re a huge honking racist.
In any case, Bakalova’s total commitment to the role is both impressive and necessary, because this movie requires her to get leered at by older men. A lot. It happens at stores and in public places, at a debutante ball (where a man says $500 would be a “fair price” for her, to the disgust of the man’s daughter), and at a plastic surgeon’s office, where Tutar and Borat are pricing out the cost of giving her huge breasts and maybe evening out her nose a little. And it happens, as you may already know, in a room with Rudy Giuliani.
The Giuliani moment is what got the most attention after the reviews started pouring in on Wednesday. In case you were lucky enough to miss the news: There’s a sequence in the movie in which Tutar — who has been rejected by Pence at CPAC, sort of, and has settled on trying to marry Giuliani because he is close to Trump and, unlike several former presidential advisers, isn’t in jail — decides to pose as a journalist to get close to Giuliani.
Dressed in nude stilettos and a mint-green, skin-tight sheath dress, she arranges to “interview” Giuliani in a midtown Manhattan hotel suite, and he agrees. He calls her darlin’ a lot and seems mostly just flattered by the attention in the interview.
Then he follows her into the bedroom, drink in hand. He says “c’mere, c’mere” several times, moving her closer to him and removing her microphone. She removes his. He says she should give him her number and address. He sits on the edge of the bed. He lays down. He puts his hand down his pants, adjusting something in the crotch region for about 10 seconds, and then Baron Cohen, clad in a bodysuit made to look like lingerie, rushes in and declares that Tutar is 15, “too old for you.”
The scene is edited, and Giuliani has denied that he was doing anything untoward, saying he was merely tucking in his shirt. (It does look as if he could plausibly be tucking in his shirt, though I’m not sure why one would do that while lying down, or why a simple task would take that long.) After the past few years, I’m not particularly inclined to believe Rudy Giuliani about much of anything. Here’s a troubling possibility: He was reaching down to fondle his genitals, potentially without consent or prompting, while in the room with a virtual stranger who is obviously far younger than he, but whom he had no reason to think is a teenager.
Anyhow. Perhaps more revealing than the incident itself is what the film points out through Bakalova’s character: A certain womanly aesthetic, appealing to a certain sort of man, is prevalent enough that it can be easily exploited.
The Fox News look, after all, is the network’s inheritance from its founder Roger Ailes, whose sexual harassment and decrees that women should wear short skirts on camera are no secret. It’s hardly only conservative men who are inclined to give credence for no real reason to a pretty young woman who flirts with them a little. But it’s equally true that conservative men are certainly susceptible (recall the case of Maria Butina), and that adopting a particular look can go a long way for ladder-climbers or would-be grifters.
That’s probably why, watching Tutar’s antics in this film, I found myself thinking of White Noise, a documentary also out this week that’s about three notorious figures on the alt-right: shit-stirrer and Pizzagate conspiracist memelord Mike Cernovich, avowed white nationalist Richard Spencer, and anti-immigrant YouTube personality Lauren Southern. Directed by journalist Daniel Lombroso, who spent years following each of the trio around, the movie follows the trajectory of a certain kind of young, attractive racist American in public life over the past few years, and the role of the internet in their rise to fame.
White Noise is a great and illuminating film, far more engaging and smart than most journalistic profiles of each of these people. But here’s the most striking realization, by the end: This is a portrait of loud, proud, opportunistic grifters — less ideologues than people who’ve figured out how to game the system to get the most eyeballs (and, very importantly, money). Gaming that system, all pastiche and depthless intensities, is chiefly a function of figuring out how to project an image your audience finds appealing.
The grifting impulse that has taken hold in America, from Fyre Festival to Anna Delvey to whatever Jacob Wohl’s whole deal is, owes no fealty to specific political parties. The con man is an archetype as old as time, and certainly a time-honored element of American culture. The internet has made it very simple to create a persona of your choice — and far more rewarding to loudly proclaim it. The way social media platforms enable grifters to scramble to the top of the heap is something all three of the White Noise subjects know intimately, and something Lombroso captures with skill.
But it seems at times like Southern understands it the best. Beautiful, blonde, with an arch smile and a bold, confident exterior, she fits the archetype precisely. As captured in White Noise, she gives off distinct Regina George vibes, and it works for her as long as she’s willing to ignore the sexual harassment directed at her.
Living in the boys’ club of white supremacist internet personalities, she makes it clear that she knows her fame comes from both her ability to take extreme positions, which “puts her on the map,” and her visibility as a pretty woman whom men like to watch laugh at their jokes and say outrageous things that confirm their biases. In one sequence, we listen in on her side of a phone conversation with Gavin McInnes, the (married) founder of the Proud Boys, that strongly suggests he attempted to get her to sleep with him. (Onscreen text notes that the filmmakers contacted McInnes and that he denied that he had done such a thing.)
But Southern is clearly proud of her image, and of the spot in the white supremacist landscape she’s cultivated. “There’s a lot of clicks in being contrarian,” she says early on. It’s only later that the cracks her facade start to show up.
In a sense, the Borat movies are about a grifter, too, though trying to parse whether Borat or Baron Cohen is the true con artist is the kind of thought experiment that will tie your gray matter in knots. But Bakalova’s performance adds another layer to Baron Cohen’s practical-joking style of comedy. There’s an unselfconsciousness to the men who drool over her, an ego that suggests this woman might actually be into them, coupled with a gleeful cultural mandate to “appreciate” a woman verbally, salaciously, and not cater to a culture that asks them to refrain and treat her with respect.
Unless I missed it, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm never tips into baiting men into decrying the Me Too movement outright. But it’s clear what the filmmakers are implying: In America, those who idolize a certain kind of female aesthetic and feel free to ogle are laughably easy to exploit, whether by grifters, or spies, or social climbers, or just screwball comedians. And if Bakalova, playing a teenager with a mediocre dye job and some lopsided lipstick, can lead various men to embarrassing acts even when they know a camera is around — including an adviser to the president of the United States — that’s a pretty damning thing to capture on moviefilm.
Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is streaming on Amazon Prime. White Noise is available to digitally rent on platforms including Apple TV and Google Play; see the website for details.


vox--2020-10-23--“They’re all Americans”: What Biden gets about the pandemic that Trump doesn’t

The country ’ s Covid-19 problem wasn ’ t a New York problem in March , nor was it a Texas problem in July , nor is it a Wisconsin problem right now .
It was and is an American problem .
Throughout the pandemic , President Donald Trump has sought to cast the virus as a state-by-state issue .
( Frankly , a lot of people have . )
It ’ s New York and California that are the real mess , he says .
They ’ re the ones ravaged by the coronavirus , they ’ re the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their health and economic problems .
The red states , well , when they need help , he will provide it of course , but he also insists they ’ re doing much better .
During the final presidential debate on Thursday , the president returned to that line of attack .
According to him , New York City is now a “ ghost town ” that ’ s “ dying , ” wrapped in plexiglass .
And he said the same goes for other places with Democratic leadership , like California , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats , Democrats all , they ’ re shut down so tight and they ’ re dying.
” Joe Biden offered a contrast to Trump ’ s approach , one that brings home an obvious but important point : “ I don ’ t look at this in terms of the way he does , blue states and red states , they ’ re all in the United States.
” Right now , many of the states experiencing spikes in cases are in the upper Midwest , such as Wisconsin and South Dakota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in 2016 , but it doesn ’ t matter .
“ They ’ re all Americans , ” Biden said .
There ’ s no denying that the US has failed to get the coronavirus pandemic under control .
On Thursday , the country reported a single-day record of confirmed coronavirus cases : 77,640 , surpassing the previous high from July .
More than 220,000 Americans have died from the disease , and roughly 1,000 people continue to lose their lives to it every day .
“ We ’ re learning to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who himself contracted the virus recently and now claims he is immune from it , said during the debate .
Biden ’ s retort : “ People are learning to die with it.
” In many ways , it feels as though the federal government has given up on trying to combat both the pandemic and saving the economy .
As the virus spikes in different states , governors and local officials have largely been left to their own devices to combat it , as the president sends tweets assigning blame or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government ’ s strategy seems more like a waiting game for a vaccine , which Trump says is much closer to being available than experts have said .
Meanwhile , millions of people are out of a job , and much of the support they received through the CARES Act stimulus has dried up .
The deal-making president has been unable to get a deal for more assistance , and many Republicans have cast the economic problems caused by the coronavirus as a blue-state issue — one they have no interest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy without fixing the pandemic — a point Trump often misses , but one Biden has stressed But when Republicans refuse to provide assistance to state and local governments that are in desperate need of help , they are actually denying both red states and blue states aid — and creating a situation where budget shortfalls will weigh on the economy for years .
And as much as the president would like to pretend that reopening is the answer , it isn ’ t : With a deadly virus still spreading , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get back out there and consume .
You can ’ t fix the economy without fixing the pandemic — a point Trump often misses , but one Biden has stressed .
“ I ’ m going to shut down the virus , not the country , ” Biden said on Thursday .
New York is America .
So is South Dakota .
And we should all care about both .
During the debate , Trump zeroed in on New York City , his home his entire life until he landed in the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city and state throughout the pandemic .
Earlier this month , he declared New York had “ gone to hell.
” He has consistently blamed Gov .
Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio for the state and city ’ s coronavirus woes .
Thursday was no different .
“ Take a look at New York and what ’ s happened to my wonderful city .
For so many years , I loved it .
It was vibrant .
It ’ s dying .
Everyone ’ s leaving New York , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit hard early on in the pandemic in a way that was painful and heartbreaking .
But the city and state have gone to great lengths to get the virus under control and , at least thus far , have been successful .
Nobody is perfect — and plenty of New Yorkers have a lot of criticism for their governor and their mayor .
But New York has flattened the curve , with leaders now focusing on “ hot spots ” in the city and state where cases are spiking to try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economic front , yes , it ’ s difficult , and there ’ s no denying businesses are being hit hard .
But the city is resilient .
As mentioned , plenty of cities and states need help right now — help the president could make happen .
During the pandemic , we ’ ve seen a lot of finger-pointing .
If only this state had acted faster , this mayor .
And early on in the outbreak , New York was deemed the “ bad place.
” Now , the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s awful to see the disease spread in other places .
Back in April , my family in Wisconsin was calling to check in on me as the disease spread here in Brooklyn .
Now , it ’ s me calling worried about them .
The core of treating coronavirus like a state problem is a desire to treat it like an “ other ” problem .
Covid-19 is something that happens to other people , people who must have done something bad .
Or , in the president ’ s case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone else ’ s fault .
There are plenty of reasons America failed on the pandemic , but it ’ s hard not to wonder if this isn ’ t one of them .
Maybe if the country had treated this like a United States problem and not a New York problem early on , things could have been different .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The country’s Covid-19 problem wasn’t a New York problem in March, nor was it a Texas problem in July, nor is it a Wisconsin problem right now. It was and is an American problem.
Throughout the pandemic, President Donald Trump has sought to cast the virus as a state-by-state issue. (Frankly, a lot of people have.) It’s New York and California that are the real mess, he says. They’re the ones ravaged by the coronavirus, they’re the ones whose leaders are to blame for their health and economic problems. The red states, well, when they need help, he will provide it of course, but he also insists they’re doing much better.
During the final presidential debate on Thursday, the president returned to that line of attack. According to him, New York City is now a “ghost town” that’s “dying,” wrapped in plexiglass. And he said the same goes for other places with Democratic leadership, like California, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina: “Democrats, Democrats all, they’re shut down so tight and they’re dying.”
Joe Biden offered a contrast to Trump’s approach, one that brings home an obvious but important point: “I don’t look at this in terms of the way he does, blue states and red states, they’re all in the United States.”
Right now, many of the states experiencing spikes in cases are in the upper Midwest, such as Wisconsin and South Dakota. Both states were “red states” in 2016, but it doesn’t matter. “They’re all Americans,” Biden said.
There’s no denying that the US has failed to get the coronavirus pandemic under control. On Thursday, the country reported a single-day record of confirmed coronavirus cases: 77,640, surpassing the previous high from July. More than 220,000 Americans have died from the disease, and roughly 1,000 people continue to lose their lives to it every day.
“We’re learning to live with it,” President Trump, who himself contracted the virus recently and now claims he is immune from it, said during the debate.
Biden’s retort: “People are learning to die with it.”
In many ways, it feels as though the federal government has given up on trying to combat both the pandemic and saving the economy. As the virus spikes in different states, governors and local officials have largely been left to their own devices to combat it, as the president sends tweets assigning blame or calling for reopening. Currently, the federal government’s strategy seems more like a waiting game for a vaccine, which Trump says is much closer to being available than experts have said.
Meanwhile, millions of people are out of a job, and much of the support they received through the CARES Act stimulus has dried up. The deal-making president has been unable to get a deal for more assistance, and many Republicans have cast the economic problems caused by the coronavirus as a blue-state issue — one they have no interest in addressing.
You can’t fix the economy without fixing the pandemic — a point Trump often misses, but one Biden has stressed
But when Republicans refuse to provide assistance to state and local governments that are in desperate need of help, they are actually denying both red states and blue states aid — and creating a situation where budget shortfalls will weigh on the economy for years. And as much as the president would like to pretend that reopening is the answer, it isn’t: With a deadly virus still spreading, people aren’t exactly eager to get back out there and consume. You can’t fix the economy without fixing the pandemic — a point Trump often misses, but one Biden has stressed.
“I’m going to shut down the virus, not the country,” Biden said on Thursday.
New York is America. So is South Dakota. And we should all care about both.
During the debate, Trump zeroed in on New York City, his home his entire life until he landed in the White House. He’s been attacking the city and state throughout the pandemic. Earlier this month, he declared New York had “gone to hell.” He has consistently blamed Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio for the state and city’s coronavirus woes. Thursday was no different.
“Take a look at New York and what’s happened to my wonderful city. For so many years, I loved it. It was vibrant. It’s dying. Everyone’s leaving New York,” he said.
New York City was hit hard early on in the pandemic in a way that was painful and heartbreaking. But the city and state have gone to great lengths to get the virus under control and, at least thus far, have been successful. Nobody is perfect — and plenty of New Yorkers have a lot of criticism for their governor and their mayor. But New York has flattened the curve, with leaders now focusing on “hot spots” in the city and state where cases are spiking to try to keep the outbreaks under control.
On the economic front, yes, it’s difficult, and there’s no denying businesses are being hit hard. But the city is resilient. As mentioned, plenty of cities and states need help right now — help the president could make happen.
During the pandemic, we’ve seen a lot of finger-pointing. If only this state had acted faster, this mayor. And early on in the outbreak, New York was deemed the “bad place.” Now, the city’s doing better, but it’s awful to see the disease spread in other places. Back in April, my family in Wisconsin was calling to check in on me as the disease spread here in Brooklyn. Now, it’s me calling worried about them.
The core of treating coronavirus like a state problem is a desire to treat it like an “other” problem. Covid-19 is something that happens to other people, people who must have done something bad. Or, in the president’s case, it’s something that is someone else’s fault.
There are plenty of reasons America failed on the pandemic, but it’s hard not to wonder if this isn’t one of them. Maybe if the country had treated this like a United States problem and not a New York problem early on, things could have been different.


vox--2020-10-24--Are we living in a computer simulation? I don’t know. Probably.

Are we living in a computer simulation ?
The question seems absurd .
Yet there are plenty of smart people who are convinced that this is not only possible but perhaps likely .
In an influential paper that laid out the theory , the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom showed that at least one of three possibilities is true : 1 ) All human-like civilizations in the universe go extinct before they develop the technological capacity to create simulated realities ; 2 ) if any civilizations do reach this phase of technological maturity , none of them will bother to run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have the ability to create many , many simulations , and that means there are far more simulated worlds than non-simulated ones .
We can ’ t know for sure which of these is the case , Bostrom concludes , but they ’ re all possible — and the third option might even be the most probable outcome .
It ’ s a difficult argument to wrap your head around , but it makes a certain amount of sense .
Rizwan Virk , a computer scientist and video game designer , published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that explores Bostrom ’ s argument in much greater detail and traces the path from today ’ s technology to what he calls the “ Simulation Point , ” the moment at which we could realistically build a Matrix-like simulation .
I know nothing about computer science , but this idea that we ’ re all characters in an advanced civilization ’ s video game is , well , kind of awesome .
So I reached out to Virk and asked him to break it down for me .
A lightly edited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know absolutely nothing about the “ simulation hypothesis.
” What the hell is the simulation hypothesis ?
The simulation hypothesis is the modern equivalent of an idea that ’ s been around for a while , and it is the idea that the physical world that we live in , including the Earth and the rest of the physical universe , is actually part of a computer simulation .
You can think of it like a high resolution or high-fidelity video game in which we are all characters , and the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the movie The Matrix , which many people have seen , or even if they haven ’ t seen [ it ] , it ’ s become a cultural phenomenon now beyond the film industry .
In that movie , Keanu Reeves plays the character Neo , who meets a guy names Morpheus , who is aptly named after the Greek god of dreams , and Morpheus gives him a choice of taking the red pill or the blue pill .
And if he takes the red pill , he wakes up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including his job , the building he lived in , and everything else , was part of this elaborate video game , and he wakes up in a world outside of the game .
That is the basic version of the simulation hypothesis .
Are we living in a simulated universe right now ?
There are lots of mysteries in physics that are better explained by the simulation hypothesis than by what would be a material hypothesis .
The truth is that there ’ s much we simply don ’ t understand about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s more likely than not that we are in some kind of a simulated universe .
Now , it ’ s a much more sophisticated video game than the games we produce , just like today World of Warcraft and Fortnite are way more sophisticated than Pac-Man or Space Invaders .
They took a couple of decades of figuring out how to model physical objects using 3D models and then how to render them with limited computing power , which eventually led to this spate of shared online video games .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance we are , in fact , living in a simulation , though we can ’ t say that with 100 percent confidence .
But there is plenty of evidence that points in that direction .
When you say there are aspects of our world that would make more sense if they were part of a simulation , what do you mean exactly ?
Well , there are a few different aspects , one of which is this mystery they call quantum indeterminacy , which is the idea that a particle is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know that unless you observe the particle .
Probably a better way to understand it is the now-infamous example of Schrödinger ’ s cat , which is a cat that the physicist Erwin Schrödinger theorized would be in a box with some radioactive material and there was a 50 percent chance the cat is dead and a 50 percent chance the cat is alive .
Now , common sense would tell us that the cat is already either alive or it ’ s dead .
We just don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the box .
We open the box and it ’ ll be revealed to us whether the cat is alive or dead .
But quantum physics tells us that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time until somebody opens up the box to observe it .
The cardinal rule is the universe renders only that which needs to be observed .
How does Schrödinger ’ s cat relate to a video game or a computer simulation ?
The history of video game development is all about optimizing limited resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1980s if you could you render a game like World of Warcraft , which is a full three-dimensional or a virtual reality game , they would say , “ No , It would take all the computing power in the world .
We couldn ’ t render all those pixels in real time.
” But what happened over time was that there were optimization techniques .
The core of all these optimizations is “ only render that which is being observed.
” The first big game to successfully do this was called Doom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1990s .
It was a first-person shooter game , and it could render only the light rays and objects which are clearly visible from the point of view of the virtual camera .
This is an optimization technique , and it ’ s one of the things that reminds me of a video game in the physical world .
I ’ m going to do the thing that non-scientists always do when they want to sound scientific and invoke Occam ’ s razor .
Isn ’ t the hypothesis that we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simpler — and therefore more likely — explanation ?
I ’ ll bring up a very famous physicist , John Wheeler .
He was one of the last physicists who worked with Albert Einstein and many of the great physicists of the 20th century .
He said that physics was initially thought to be about the study of physical objects , that everything was reducible to particles .
This is what ’ s often called the Newtonian model .
But then we discovered quantum physics and we realized that everything was a field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually physical objects .
That was the second wave in Wheeler ’ s career .
The third wave in his career was the discovery that at the core level , everything is information , everything is based on bits .
So Wheeler came up with a famous phrase called “ it from bit , ” which is the idea that anything we see as physical is really the result of bits of information .
He didn ’ t live to see quantum computers come into reality , but it ’ s looking more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if the world isn ’ t really physical , if it ’ s based on information , then a simpler explanation might in fact be that we are in a simulation that is generated based on computer science and information .
“ The truth is that there ’ s much we simply don ’ t understand about our reality ” Is there any way , in principle , for us to prove definitively that we ’ re living in a simulation ?
Well , there ’ s an argument the Oxford philosopher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth repeating .
He says that if even one civilization got to the point of creating one of these high-fidelity simulations , then they can create literally billions of civilizations that are simulated , each with trillions of beings , because all you need is more computing power .
So he ’ s making a statistical argument that there are more likely to be more simulated beings than there are biological ones , just because it ’ s so quick and easy to create them .
Therefore , if we are conscious beings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a simulated being than a biological one .
That ’ s more of a philosophical argument .
If we were living in a computer program , I assume that program would consist of rules and that those rules could be broken or suspended by the people or beings who programmed the simulation .
But the laws of our physical world seem to be pretty constant , so isn ’ t that a sign that this might not be a simulation ?
Computers do follow rules , but the fact that the rules always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule out that we could be part of a computer simulation .
One of the concepts that ties into this is a concept called computational irreducibility , and it ’ s the idea that in order to figure something out , you can ’ t just calculate it in an equation ; you have to actually go through the steps to figure out what the end result would be .
And this is part of a branch of mathematics called chaos theory .
There ’ s the old idea that the butterfly flaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a hurricane somewhere else in the world .
To figure that out , you have to actually go through and model every step of the way .
Just because the rules seem to apply doesn ’ t mean that we ’ re not in a simulation .
In fact , it could be more evidence that we ’ re in a simulation .
If we were living in a simulation as convincing as The Matrix , would there be any discernible difference between the simulation and reality ?
Why would it matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illusory ?
There are a lot of debates around this topic .
Some of us wouldn ’ t want to know , and would rather take the metaphorical “ blue pill ” like in The Matrix .
Probably the most important question related to this is whether we are NPCs ( non-player characters ) or PCs ( player characters ) in the video game .
If we are PCs , then that means we are just playing a character inside the video game of life , which I call the Great Simulation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know this .
We would want to know the parameters of the game we ’ re playing so that we could better understand it , better navigate it .
If we are NPCs , or simulated characters , then I think it ’ s a more complicated answer and more frightening .
The question is , are all of us NPCs in a simulation , and what is the purpose of that simulation ?
A knowledge of the fact that we ’ re in a simulation , and the goals of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think , would still be interesting to many people — and now we ’ re back to the case of the holodeck character from Star Trek that discovers that there is a world “ out there ” ( outside the holodeck ) that he can ’ t go to , and perhaps some of us would rather not know in that case .
How close are we to having the technological capacity to build an artificial world that ’ s as realistic and plausible as The Matrix ?
I lay out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civilization would have to go through to get to what I call the simulation point , which is the point at which we can create a hyperrealistic simulation like this .
We ’ re at about stage five , which is around virtual reality and augmented reality .
Stage six is about learning to render these things without us having to put on glasses , and the fact that 3D printers now can print 3D pixels of objects shows us that most objects can be broken down as information .
But the really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a lot of technologists have talked about — is in The Matrix , the reason they thought they were fully immersed was they had this cord going into the cerebral cortex , and that ’ s where the signal was beamed .
This brain-computer interface is the area that we haven ’ t yet made that much progress in , but we are making progress in it .
It ’ s in the early stages .
So my guess is within a few decades to 100 years from now , we will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was originally published on April 18 , 2019 .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter .
Twice a week , you ’ ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges : improving public health , decreasing human and animal suffering , easing catastrophic risks , and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good .

Are we living in a computer simulation?
The question seems absurd. Yet there are plenty of smart people who are convinced that this is not only possible but perhaps likely.
In an influential paper that laid out the theory, the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom showed that at least one of three possibilities is true: 1) All human-like civilizations in the universe go extinct before they develop the technological capacity to create simulated realities; 2) if any civilizations do reach this phase of technological maturity, none of them will bother to run simulations; or 3) advanced civilizations would have the ability to create many, many simulations, and that means there are far more simulated worlds than non-simulated ones.
We can’t know for sure which of these is the case, Bostrom concludes, but they’re all possible — and the third option might even be the most probable outcome. It’s a difficult argument to wrap your head around, but it makes a certain amount of sense.
Rizwan Virk, a computer scientist and video game designer, published a 2019 book, The Simulation Hypothesis, that explores Bostrom’s argument in much greater detail and traces the path from today’s technology to what he calls the “Simulation Point,” the moment at which we could realistically build a Matrix-like simulation.
I know nothing about computer science, but this idea that we’re all characters in an advanced civilization’s video game is, well, kind of awesome. So I reached out to Virk and asked him to break it down for me.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
Pretend I know absolutely nothing about the “simulation hypothesis.” What the hell is the simulation hypothesis?
Rizwan Virk
The simulation hypothesis is the modern equivalent of an idea that’s been around for a while, and it is the idea that the physical world that we live in, including the Earth and the rest of the physical universe, is actually part of a computer simulation.
You can think of it like a high resolution or high-fidelity video game in which we are all characters, and the best way to understand it within Western culture is the movie The Matrix, which many people have seen, or even if they haven’t seen [it], it’s become a cultural phenomenon now beyond the film industry.
In that movie, Keanu Reeves plays the character Neo, who meets a guy names Morpheus, who is aptly named after the Greek god of dreams, and Morpheus gives him a choice of taking the red pill or the blue pill. And if he takes the red pill, he wakes up and realizes that his entire life, including his job, the building he lived in, and everything else, was part of this elaborate video game, and he wakes up in a world outside of the game.
That is the basic version of the simulation hypothesis.
Sean Illing
Are we living in a simulated universe right now?
Rizwan Virk
There are lots of mysteries in physics that are better explained by the simulation hypothesis than by what would be a material hypothesis.
The truth is that there’s much we simply don’t understand about our reality, and I think it’s more likely than not that we are in some kind of a simulated universe. Now, it’s a much more sophisticated video game than the games we produce, just like today World of Warcraft and Fortnite are way more sophisticated than Pac-Man or Space Invaders. They took a couple of decades of figuring out how to model physical objects using 3D models and then how to render them with limited computing power, which eventually led to this spate of shared online video games.
I think there’s a very good chance we are, in fact, living in a simulation, though we can’t say that with 100 percent confidence. But there is plenty of evidence that points in that direction.
Sean Illing
When you say there are aspects of our world that would make more sense if they were part of a simulation, what do you mean exactly?
Rizwan Virk
Well, there are a few different aspects, one of which is this mystery they call quantum indeterminacy, which is the idea that a particle is in one of multiple states and you don’t know that unless you observe the particle.
Probably a better way to understand it is the now-infamous example of Schrödinger’s cat, which is a cat that the physicist Erwin Schrödinger theorized would be in a box with some radioactive material and there was a 50 percent chance the cat is dead and a 50 percent chance the cat is alive.
Now, common sense would tell us that the cat is already either alive or it’s dead. We just don’t know because we haven’t looked in the box. We open the box and it’ll be revealed to us whether the cat is alive or dead. But quantum physics tells us that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time until somebody opens up the box to observe it. The cardinal rule is the universe renders only that which needs to be observed.
Sean Illing
How does Schrödinger’s cat relate to a video game or a computer simulation?
Rizwan Virk
The history of video game development is all about optimizing limited resources. If you asked somebody in the 1980s if you could you render a game like World of Warcraft, which is a full three-dimensional or a virtual reality game, they would say, “No, It would take all the computing power in the world. We couldn’t render all those pixels in real time.”
But what happened over time was that there were optimization techniques. The core of all these optimizations is “only render that which is being observed.”
The first big game to successfully do this was called Doom, which was very popular in the 1990s. It was a first-person shooter game, and it could render only the light rays and objects which are clearly visible from the point of view of the virtual camera. This is an optimization technique, and it’s one of the things that reminds me of a video game in the physical world.
Sean Illing
I’m going to do the thing that non-scientists always do when they want to sound scientific and invoke Occam’s razor. Isn’t the hypothesis that we’re living in a flesh-and-blood physical world the simpler — and therefore more likely — explanation?
Rizwan Virk
I’ll bring up a very famous physicist, John Wheeler. He was one of the last physicists who worked with Albert Einstein and many of the great physicists of the 20th century. He said that physics was initially thought to be about the study of physical objects, that everything was reducible to particles. This is what’s often called the Newtonian model. But then we discovered quantum physics and we realized that everything was a field of probabilities and it wasn’t actually physical objects. That was the second wave in Wheeler’s career.
The third wave in his career was the discovery that at the core level, everything is information, everything is based on bits. So Wheeler came up with a famous phrase called “it from bit,” which is the idea that anything we see as physical is really the result of bits of information. He didn’t live to see quantum computers come into reality, but it’s looking more like that.
So I would say that if the world isn’t really physical, if it’s based on information, then a simpler explanation might in fact be that we are in a simulation that is generated based on computer science and information.
“The truth is that there’s much we simply don’t understand about our reality”
Sean Illing
Is there any way, in principle, for us to prove definitively that we’re living in a simulation?
Rizwan Virk
Well, there’s an argument the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom has made that’s worth repeating. He says that if even one civilization got to the point of creating one of these high-fidelity simulations, then they can create literally billions of civilizations that are simulated, each with trillions of beings, because all you need is more computing power.
So he’s making a statistical argument that there are more likely to be more simulated beings than there are biological ones, just because it’s so quick and easy to create them. Therefore, if we are conscious beings, we are more likely to be a simulated being than a biological one. That’s more of a philosophical argument.
Sean Illing
If we were living in a computer program, I assume that program would consist of rules and that those rules could be broken or suspended by the people or beings who programmed the simulation. But the laws of our physical world seem to be pretty constant, so isn’t that a sign that this might not be a simulation?
Rizwan Virk
Computers do follow rules, but the fact that the rules always apply doesn’t rule in or rule out that we could be part of a computer simulation. One of the concepts that ties into this is a concept called computational irreducibility, and it’s the idea that in order to figure something out, you can’t just calculate it in an equation; you have to actually go through the steps to figure out what the end result would be.
And this is part of a branch of mathematics called chaos theory. There’s the old idea that the butterfly flaps its wings in China and it results in a hurricane somewhere else in the world. To figure that out, you have to actually go through and model every step of the way. Just because the rules seem to apply doesn’t mean that we’re not in a simulation.
In fact, it could be more evidence that we’re in a simulation.
Sean Illing
If we were living in a simulation as convincing as The Matrix, would there be any discernible difference between the simulation and reality? Why would it matter ultimately whether our world was real or illusory?
Rizwan Virk
There are a lot of debates around this topic. Some of us wouldn’t want to know, and would rather take the metaphorical “blue pill” like in The Matrix.
Probably the most important question related to this is whether we are NPCs (non-player characters) or PCs (player characters) in the video game. If we are PCs, then that means we are just playing a character inside the video game of life, which I call the Great Simulation. I think many of us would like to know this. We would want to know the parameters of the game we’re playing so that we could better understand it, better navigate it.
If we are NPCs, or simulated characters, then I think it’s a more complicated answer and more frightening. The question is, are all of us NPCs in a simulation, and what is the purpose of that simulation? A knowledge of the fact that we’re in a simulation, and the goals of the simulation and the goals of our character, I think, would still be interesting to many people — and now we’re back to the case of the holodeck character from Star Trek that discovers that there is a world “out there” (outside the holodeck) that he can’t go to, and perhaps some of us would rather not know in that case.
Sean Illing
How close are we to having the technological capacity to build an artificial world that’s as realistic and plausible as The Matrix?
Rizwan Virk
I lay out 10 stages of technology development that a civilization would have to go through to get to what I call the simulation point, which is the point at which we can create a hyperrealistic simulation like this. We’re at about stage five, which is around virtual reality and augmented reality. Stage six is about learning to render these things without us having to put on glasses, and the fact that 3D printers now can print 3D pixels of objects shows us that most objects can be broken down as information.
But the really difficult part — and this is something not a lot of technologists have talked about — is in The Matrix, the reason they thought they were fully immersed was they had this cord going into the cerebral cortex, and that’s where the signal was beamed. This brain-computer interface is the area that we haven’t yet made that much progress in, but we are making progress in it. It’s in the early stages.
So my guess is within a few decades to 100 years from now, we will reach the simulation point.
This article was originally published on April 18, 2019.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.


vox--2020-10-24--Lobbyists tried to ban labeling veggie burgers “veggie burgers.” The EU said no.

Plant-based food makers will still be able to sell products labeled “ veggie burgers , ” the European Parliament voted on Friday after a week of negotiations .
Why was this up for debate in the first place ?
After decades in which veggie burgers and cheese-style vegan spreads have enjoyed their place on the grocery store shelves without controversy , the animal agriculture industry has begun to feel threatened by them in the last few years .
Consumption of plant-based foods has increased , especially as the pandemic has damaged supply chains and raised questions about the public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farms .
And across the United States and the U.K. , agriculture lobbies have been fighting back in the same way : trying to make it illegal for their competitors to advertise with labels like “ burger ” or “ sausage.
” ( Try “ tofu patty ” or “ protein tube.
” ) The EU already , three years ago , banned dairy-specific terms like “ soy milk ” and “ vegan cheese , ” but it allowed for comparisons on labels , such as “ yogurt-style vegan snack.
” The proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those comparisons as well as banning the use of terms associated with meat products , like “ wurst ” and “ schnitzel ” ( think “ vegan schnitzel ” ) .
Ultimately , lawmakers rendered a split decision , banning “ yogurt-style ” comparisons of nondairy products to similar dairy products but not extending the ban to meat products .
The ostensible justification for such a ban is that consumers are confused .
“ Marketing is disconnected from the real nature of products , which is just asking for things to spin out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a spokesman for the EU farmer ’ s association , claimed .
But opponents of the bill have mocked the assertion that consumers can ’ t tell the difference between a plant-based alternative meat product and a meat product .
“ One is a beef burger .
One is a plant-based burger , ” a satirical Dutch commercial criticizing the proposed ban says , showing the very obvious packaging differences between the products .
“ But which one is which ?
It ’ s impossible to tell .
Because they both contain the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You can watch the whole commercial below ) .
But there ’ s a broader context beyond the labeling of these products .
For a long time , plant-based meat was a niche product enjoyed only by vegans and vegetarians ; it is now a mainstream one .
That has the meat industry — both in America and abroad — fighting back .
The EU this week has been negotiating the next EU Common Agricultural Policy .
One of the most discussed proposals under consideration was the “ veggie burger ” ban .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development released a press statement announcing that the members of the European Parliament “ rejected all proposals to reserve meat-related names for products containing meat .
No change for plant-based products & names they currently use when being sold.
” That means the preexisting ban on dairy labels like “ soy milk ” will remain in place — even expanded to cover descriptions such as “ milk-like ” — but it won ’ t be brought to bear against plant-based meat labelled with words like “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the animal agriculture industry groups that had pushed for the change .
Vegetarians make up only about 3 percent of consumers in the US and the EU .
They ’ re not really a threat to the dominance of the factory farming industry .
What makes plant-based products a threat is their appeal to a completely different group of consumers : meat-eaters who have found that plant-based products fit into their diet and lifestyle while being much better for animals and the environment .
Caroline Bushnell oversees retail research at the Good Food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promote meat alternatives .
“ Veggie burgers have been around for many decades , ” she told me last year .
“ Plant-based meats are still just getting started .
The next generation is really designed for meat eaters , so the stakes are higher for what the products need to deliver on .
People really like the taste of meat .
Instead of trying to convince them to eat a kale and quinoa bowl , why not try to make meat for them in a better way ?
” So far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut into the demand for animal-based meat at all — before the pandemic , the factory farming industry was seeing record demand , driven by overall global economic growth .
But there ’ s some reason to think that in the long run , the slaughtered meat industry might really lose market share to the plant-based meat industry .
Polls in India and China find more than 60 percent of consumers say they are “ very likely ” or “ extremely likely ” to purchase plant-based meat .
As concerns grow worldwide about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ animals , on the environment , and on global public health — the share of consumers open to alternatives might continue to grow .
“ We have this great moment of innovation in our industry where these products are better than ever , ” Jaime Athos , the CEO of Tofurky , told me last year as his company fought a veggie burger ban law in Arkansas .
“ They ’ re more widely available , too .
And suddenly people are worried consumers might be confused .
The reality is that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of consumers — they understand that plant-based products are healthier for them and healthier for the environment.
” Agriculture keeps pushing veggie burger bans .
They keep failing .
In several US states , the agriculture industry has responded to the rise of plant-based products with label bans like the one the EU just rejected .
Their motivations are often explicitly protectionist : They want to shield slaughtered meat products from plant-based competitors .
“ This bill will protect our cattle farmers from having to compete with products not harvested from an animal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president Mike McCormick in January when Mississippi ’ s veggie burger ban law passed in the state House .
“ We must protect our industry in this state : agriculture .
It ’ s the No .
1 industry in the state of Louisiana , ” state Rep. Francis Thompson argued during legislative hearings in Louisiana earlier this year .
In the US , veggie burger bans largely haven ’ t held up in court on First Amendment grounds .
A judge granted an injunction against Mississippi ’ s law , concluding it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California tried a ban on “ soy milk ” and similar labels , the US District Court for the Northern District of California struck it down , writing , “ The crux of the claims is that a reasonable consumer might confuse plant-based beverages such as soymilk or almond milk for dairy milk , because of the use of the word ‘ milk.
’ The claim stretches the bounds of credulity .
Under Plaintiffs ’ logic , a reasonable consumer might also believe that veggie bacon contains pork , that flourless chocolate cake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made out of paper.
” In the EU , though , there is no First Amendment and no strong judicial tradition protecting non-misleading commercial speech .
The ban on labels like “ soy milk ” went into effect three years ago , forcing producers to transition to labels like “ yogurt-like ” and “ similar to cheese !
” — which the EU will now ban as well .
This year , the agriculture lobby attempted to follow that ban up with a more comprehensive ban , which would prohibit words like “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ products that do not contain slaughtered animals .
The proposal attracted widespread attention — in some cases to the frustration of environmental activists in the EU .
They pointed out that the negotiations also covered other critical agricultural guidelines , which also encouraged a transition away from meat toward a healthier global climate , but attracted much less attention than the “ veggie burger ban.
” Other agricultural issues deserve attention and scrutiny too , but the veggie burger ban shouldn ’ t be dismissed as a sideshow .
It was a calculated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cruel to animals and workers alike , devastates the environment , and puts us at risk of another pandemic .
It was aimed at stifling the growing new industry that offers an alternative .
It is a good thing that the EU voted the veggie burger ban down — and it will be a good thing if they similarly relax their restriction on soy milk , and if legislators in the many US states that have entertained burger bans of their own follow suit .
Letting consumers choose other products is one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factory farming — which is , of course , precisely why the factory farming lobby has thrown so much effort into interfering with it .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter .
Twice a week , you ’ ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges : improving public health , decreasing human and animal suffering , easing catastrophic risks , and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Plant-based food makers will still be able to sell products labeled “veggie burgers,” the European Parliament voted on Friday after a week of negotiations.
Why was this up for debate in the first place?
After decades in which veggie burgers and cheese-style vegan spreads have enjoyed their place on the grocery store shelves without controversy, the animal agriculture industry has begun to feel threatened by them in the last few years. Consumption of plant-based foods has increased, especially as the pandemic has damaged supply chains and raised questions about the public health implications of our crowded, disease-ridden factory farms.
And across the United States and the U.K., agriculture lobbies have been fighting back in the same way: trying to make it illegal for their competitors to advertise with labels like “burger” or “sausage.” (Try “tofu patty” or “protein tube.”)
Sign up for the Meat/Less newsletter course Want to eat less meat but don’t know where to start? Sign up for Vox’s five-day newsletter full of practical tips — and food for thought — to incorporate more plant-based food into your diet.
The EU already, three years ago, banned dairy-specific terms like “soy milk” and “vegan cheese,” but it allowed for comparisons on labels, such as “yogurt-style vegan snack.” The proposal under consideration this week would have banned those comparisons as well as banning the use of terms associated with meat products, like “wurst” and “schnitzel” (think “vegan schnitzel”). Ultimately, lawmakers rendered a split decision, banning “yogurt-style” comparisons of nondairy products to similar dairy products but not extending the ban to meat products.
The ostensible justification for such a ban is that consumers are confused. “Marketing is disconnected from the real nature of products, which is just asking for things to spin out of control!” Jean-Pierre Fleury, a spokesman for the EU farmer’s association, claimed.
But opponents of the bill have mocked the assertion that consumers can’t tell the difference between a plant-based alternative meat product and a meat product. “One is a beef burger. One is a plant-based burger,” a satirical Dutch commercial criticizing the proposed ban says, showing the very obvious packaging differences between the products. “But which one is which? It’s impossible to tell. Because they both contain the word ‘burger’.” (You can watch the whole commercial below).
But there’s a broader context beyond the labeling of these products. For a long time, plant-based meat was a niche product enjoyed only by vegans and vegetarians; it is now a mainstream one. That has the meat industry — both in America and abroad — fighting back.
The rise of plant-based meat
The EU this week has been negotiating the next EU Common Agricultural Policy. One of the most discussed proposals under consideration was the “veggie burger” ban.
But on Friday, the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development released a press statement announcing that the members of the European Parliament “rejected all proposals to reserve meat-related names for products containing meat. No change for plant-based products & names they currently use when being sold.”
That means the preexisting ban on dairy labels like “soy milk” will remain in place — even expanded to cover descriptions such as “milk-like” — but it won’t be brought to bear against plant-based meat labelled with words like “burger.” It was a defeat for the animal agriculture industry groups that had pushed for the change.
Vegetarians make up only about 3 percent of consumers in the US and the EU. They’re not really a threat to the dominance of the factory farming industry. What makes plant-based products a threat is their appeal to a completely different group of consumers: meat-eaters who have found that plant-based products fit into their diet and lifestyle while being much better for animals and the environment.
Caroline Bushnell oversees retail research at the Good Food Institute, a nonprofit that works to promote meat alternatives. “Veggie burgers have been around for many decades,” she told me last year. “Plant-based meats are still just getting started. The next generation is really designed for meat eaters, so the stakes are higher for what the products need to deliver on. People really like the taste of meat. Instead of trying to convince them to eat a kale and quinoa bowl, why not try to make meat for them in a better way?”
So far, the rise of plant-based meat has not cut into the demand for animal-based meat at all — before the pandemic, the factory farming industry was seeing record demand, driven by overall global economic growth. But there’s some reason to think that in the long run, the slaughtered meat industry might really lose market share to the plant-based meat industry. Polls in India and China find more than 60 percent of consumers say they are “very likely” or “extremely likely” to purchase plant-based meat.
As concerns grow worldwide about the impacts of factory farming — on animals, on the environment, and on global public health — the share of consumers open to alternatives might continue to grow.
“We have this great moment of innovation in our industry where these products are better than ever,” Jaime Athos, the CEO of Tofurky, told me last year as his company fought a veggie burger ban law in Arkansas. “They’re more widely available, too. And suddenly people are worried consumers might be confused. The reality is that this is a proactive decision on the parts of consumers — they understand that plant-based products are healthier for them and healthier for the environment.”
Agriculture keeps pushing veggie burger bans. They keep failing.
In several US states, the agriculture industry has responded to the rise of plant-based products with label bans like the one the EU just rejected. Their motivations are often explicitly protectionist: They want to shield slaughtered meat products from plant-based competitors.
“This bill will protect our cattle farmers from having to compete with products not harvested from an animal,” said Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation president Mike McCormick in January when Mississippi’s veggie burger ban law passed in the state House.
“We must protect our industry in this state: agriculture. It’s the No. 1 industry in the state of Louisiana,” state Rep. Francis Thompson argued during legislative hearings in Louisiana earlier this year.
In the US, veggie burger bans largely haven’t held up in court on First Amendment grounds. A judge granted an injunction against Mississippi’s law, concluding it was likely to be unconstitutional. When California tried a ban on “soy milk” and similar labels, the US District Court for the Northern District of California struck it down, writing, “The crux of the claims is that a reasonable consumer might confuse plant-based beverages such as soymilk or almond milk for dairy milk, because of the use of the word ‘milk.’ The claim stretches the bounds of credulity. Under Plaintiffs’ logic, a reasonable consumer might also believe that veggie bacon contains pork, that flourless chocolate cake contains flour, or that e-books are made out of paper.”
In the EU, though, there is no First Amendment and no strong judicial tradition protecting non-misleading commercial speech. The ban on labels like “soy milk” went into effect three years ago, forcing producers to transition to labels like “yogurt-like” and “similar to cheese!” — which the EU will now ban as well.
This year, the agriculture lobby attempted to follow that ban up with a more comprehensive ban, which would prohibit words like “burger” and “sausage” for products that do not contain slaughtered animals.
The proposal attracted widespread attention — in some cases to the frustration of environmental activists in the EU. They pointed out that the negotiations also covered other critical agricultural guidelines, which also encouraged a transition away from meat toward a healthier global climate, but attracted much less attention than the “veggie burger ban.”
Other agricultural issues deserve attention and scrutiny too, but the veggie burger ban shouldn’t be dismissed as a sideshow. It was a calculated power grab by an industry that is cruel to animals and workers alike, devastates the environment, and puts us at risk of another pandemic. It was aimed at stifling the growing new industry that offers an alternative.
It is a good thing that the EU voted the veggie burger ban down — and it will be a good thing if they similarly relax their restriction on soy milk, and if legislators in the many US states that have entertained burger bans of their own follow suit. Letting consumers choose other products is one of the most powerful tools available to change factory farming — which is, of course, precisely why the factory farming lobby has thrown so much effort into interfering with it.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.


vox--2020-10-24--Poland had some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe. They just got even stricter.

Poland ’ s highest court on Thursday banned abortions due to fetal defects , a ruling that further narrows reproductive rights in a country with some of the most conservative abortion laws in Europe .
On Friday , protestors took to the streets and clashed with police in several major cities across Poland to demonstrate against what reproductive rights advocates say is effectively a near-total ban on abortions .
The Polish constitutional tribunal found that abortions in cases where “ prenatal tests or other medical indications indicate a high probability of severe and irreversible fetal impairment or an incurable life-threatening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The only remaining reasons someone can get a legal abortion in Poland now are in the case of rape , incest , or when the mother ’ s life is in danger .
According to CNN , around 98 percent of legal abortions in Poland are conducted due to fetal defects .
Dunja Mijatović , the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe , condemned the ruling and deemed it a “ sad day for women ’ s rights.
” “ Removing the basis for almost all legal abortions in Poland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights , ” she tweeted .
“ Today ’ s ruling of the Constitutional Court means underground/abroad abortions for those who can afford and even greater ordeal for all others.
” The decision prompted fierce protests in many cities .
In the capital of Warsaw , protesters gathered outside the house of Jarosław Kaczyński , the leader of Poland ’ s right-wing ruling party , holding signs that read , “ You have blood on your hands.
” After protesters clashed with riot police , a Warsaw police spokesperson said on Friday that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police had filed 89 motions in court .
More protests are expected throughout the weekend .
“ In a few days , hell for women will begin in this country , ” reads the Facebook event description for a protest planned this weekend in the city of Gdańsk , according to the Guardian .
Further restricting abortion isn ’ t likely to be a popular move Over 100 conservative and nationalist lawmakers asked the constitutional tribunal last year to consider the legality of abortion in the case of fetal defects , something they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion .
Critics say that the governing Law and Justice ( PiS ) party has undermined judicial independence and packed the constitutional tribunal with partisans who will rule in favor of its political programs .
Political analysts say that the timing of the decision might reflect that tribunal ’ s desire to help buttress the PiS party ’ s political interests , particularly at a time when its governing coalition with a smaller , hard-right party is in a state of crisis .
“ It ’ s PiS trying to score points with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an activist with Polish Women ’ s Strike , a grassroots movement focused on abortion rights , told Politico Europe .
The court ’ s ruling does not appear to be in sync with public opinion .
“ Although Poland is one of Europe ’ s most staunchly Roman Catholic countries , opinion polls suggest there is a clear majority against making the abortion law stricter , ” BBC reported .
Former Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk tweeted : “ Throwing the topic of abortion and a ruling by a pseudo-court into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than cynical.
” Women ’ s rights organizations in Poland say that the actual number of abortions performed every year is far larger than the official numbers show — many are conducted illegally within Poland or legally in neighboring countries .
While the official number of abortions last year was 1,100 , Lempart estimated that Poles conducted 100,000 to 150,000 abortions , either illegally within the country or across the border in neighboring countries with less stringent regulations on abortion .
The new ruling could push illicit abortions even further underground by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strictly regulated act — and that in turn could potentially make them more expensive .
“ Safe abortion will effectively be accessible only to women who can afford it , ” Lempart told Politico Europe .
“ Others will look for cheaper and therefore more dangerous options.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Poland’s highest court on Thursday banned abortions due to fetal defects, a ruling that further narrows reproductive rights in a country with some of the most conservative abortion laws in Europe.
On Friday, protestors took to the streets and clashed with police in several major cities across Poland to demonstrate against what reproductive rights advocates say is effectively a near-total ban on abortions.
The Polish constitutional tribunal found that abortions in cases where “prenatal tests or other medical indications indicate a high probability of severe and irreversible fetal impairment or an incurable life-threatening disease” violate the right to life.
The only remaining reasons someone can get a legal abortion in Poland now are in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger. According to CNN, around 98 percent of legal abortions in Poland are conducted due to fetal defects.
Dunja Mijatović, the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe, condemned the ruling and deemed it a “sad day for women’s rights.”
“Removing the basis for almost all legal abortions in Poland amounts to a ban and violates human rights,” she tweeted. “Today’s ruling of the Constitutional Court means underground/abroad abortions for those who can afford and even greater ordeal for all others.”
The decision prompted fierce protests in many cities. In the capital of Warsaw, protesters gathered outside the house of Jarosław Kaczyński, the leader of Poland’s right-wing ruling party, holding signs that read, “You have blood on your hands.” After protesters clashed with riot police, a Warsaw police spokesperson said on Friday that 15 people had been arrested and the police had filed 89 motions in court.
More protests are expected throughout the weekend. “In a few days, hell for women will begin in this country,” reads the Facebook event description for a protest planned this weekend in the city of Gdańsk, according to the Guardian.
Further restricting abortion isn’t likely to be a popular move
Over 100 conservative and nationalist lawmakers asked the constitutional tribunal last year to consider the legality of abortion in the case of fetal defects, something they’ve framed as “eugenic” abortion.
Critics say that the governing Law and Justice (PiS) party has undermined judicial independence and packed the constitutional tribunal with partisans who will rule in favor of its political programs.
Political analysts say that the timing of the decision might reflect that tribunal’s desire to help buttress the PiS party’s political interests, particularly at a time when its governing coalition with a smaller, hard-right party is in a state of crisis.
“It’s PiS trying to score points with the far right,” Marta Lempart, an activist with Polish Women’s Strike, a grassroots movement focused on abortion rights, told Politico Europe.
The court’s ruling does not appear to be in sync with public opinion. “Although Poland is one of Europe’s most staunchly Roman Catholic countries, opinion polls suggest there is a clear majority against making the abortion law stricter,” BBC reported.
Former Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk tweeted: “Throwing the topic of abortion and a ruling by a pseudo-court into the middle of a raging pandemic is more than cynical.”
Women’s rights organizations in Poland say that the actual number of abortions performed every year is far larger than the official numbers show — many are conducted illegally within Poland or legally in neighboring countries.
While the official number of abortions last year was 1,100, Lempart estimated that Poles conducted 100,000 to 150,000 abortions, either illegally within the country or across the border in neighboring countries with less stringent regulations on abortion.
The new ruling could push illicit abortions even further underground by making it an even rarer and more strictly regulated act — and that in turn could potentially make them more expensive.
“Safe abortion will effectively be accessible only to women who can afford it,” Lempart told Politico Europe. “Others will look for cheaper and therefore more dangerous options.”