vox--2020-01-07--How Ms. Marvel became Marvel’s most important superhero

Iron Man .
Captain America .
Black Panther .
Captain Marvel .
Thor .
The Guardians of the Galaxy .
The last decade of Marvel has made a variety of superheroes into household names , cultural phenomena , and topics of mainstream conversation .
Some have even changed the way we think about the world around us .
Arguably , though , the most important Marvel superhero of the last decade isn ’ t on that list : Kamala Khan , otherwise known as Ms. Marvel .
To be clear , there ’ s no such thing as Marvel Studios @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jr. That performance turned Marvel into a movie-making juggernaut .
But although Marvel has come to define blockbuster movies , it ’ s a comic book publisher first and foremost .
The most emblematic example of Marvel ’ s rich tradition of storytelling , heart , and underdog spirit pioneered by Marvel godfathers Stan Lee and Jack Kirby isn ’ t Iron Man , however .
The character ’ s time in the spotlight has effectively wrapped .
Instead , it ’ s important to look at what the future holds for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that sense , it ’ s the comic book star Ms. Marvel who is the character that matters most .
Marvel ’ s heroes have always represented the best of humanity , but historically , they haven ’ t done a great job of reflecting the diversity of humanity .
Although fans have often been asked to imagine themselves as the heroes they admire , the pervading idea has been that comic books featuring legacy heroes who are mostly men — and mostly white men at that — were the only ones that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had the biggest sales ( correlation and causation be damned ) .
Ms. Marvel changed that narrative .
Since the series launched , its protagonist Kamala Khan and its massive success have proved to Marvel that not only could its A-list heroes stand to look more like the wide array of people who read and love Marvel comics , but also that its loyal readers could relate to a hero who doesn ’ t look like the traditional model .
The stories Marvel went on to tell after her debut — and will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for years to come — are indebted to Ms. Marvel .
Prior to Ms. Marvel ’ s introduction in 2014 , Marvel ’ s comics division was deeply focused on its long-standing core characters , including the Avengers ( thanks in large part to the movies ) and the X-Men ( whose film franchise was well-established and whose characters , like the iconic Peter Parker , a.k.a .
Spider-Man , dominated popularity in the ’ 90s ) .
It was also beginning to push the race of superhumans called the Inhumans ( stars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That meant most of the featured heroes were generally men and mostly white ; though the X-Men , for example , featured mutants of all colors , shapes , and sizes , burly Wolverine was often the featured star of the comics .
Heroes who weren ’ t white men , like alt-universe Spider-Man Miles Morales and Carol Danvers , a.k.a .
Captain Marvel , had loyal followings too .
But none of them had the same level of recognition and success as that of Peter Parker or Tony Stark .
Written by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Adrian Alphona , and overseen by editors Sana Amanat and Steve Wacker , Ms. Marvel stars Kamala Khan , a Muslim and a Pakistani-American teen living in New Jersey .
She leads a pretty normal life , complete with all of the usual insecurities , schoolwork , crushes , heartaches , disappointments , triumphs , parties , groundings , and melodrama — that is , until a green mist sweeps across the world ( while Kamala is at a party for which she snuck out to go ) , activates her latent alien @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abilities .
Kamala faces a Peter Parker-like challenge : to continue living life as a teen , but also as the hero she always dreamed of being .
Most of the time , one comes at the expense of the other , with hero-ing getting in the way of school or first kisses or with things like doting parents , overprotective siblings , and the need to maintain grades at school interrupting hero time .
What ’ s so distinctive about Kamala ’ s story is how contemporary and relatable it is .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular superheroes who preceded her — her religion , the color of her skin , her being a suburban teenage girl — it ’ s a testament to Wilson and Alphona ’ s touching storytelling that Kamala ’ s life , its highs and lows , is so universal and yet specific to her experiences .
Marvel ’ s comic books have always asked their readers to imagine themselves in someone else ’ s shoes and someone else ’ s experiences , and Kamala turned out to be no different .
“ Wilson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s creation , instilling a kind of charm that will resonate with all of her readers .
Kamala Khan is loud , she ’ s Inhuman , and she ’ s here to stay — and I couldn ’ t be happier for it , ” Meagan Damore wrote for CBR , formerly Comic Book Resources .
“ For every muscular white dude punching another muscular white [ dude ] that panders to the ‘ core ’ comics fans , there should be another issue of this or of Young Avengers or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as those other two titles there , Kamala ’ s problems feel real and genuine and relatable even to a non-Muslim , and seeing her journey from that to superhero is important , ” David Henderson wrote at Multiversity Comics .
In Kamala ’ s case , it ’ s not that fans couldn ’ t imagine themselves in her shoes — it ’ s that they ’ ve never really been asked to .
Ms. Marvel # 1 was a critical and commercial hit , earning high marks from reviewers while going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue was so high , it required Marvel to create more comic books seven times over to keep up .
According to Comic Chron , a site that tracks and estimates comic book sales , 75,280 physical issues of Ms. Marvel # 1 were sold in 2014 , landing it among the top 105 issues sold that year ( keep in mind that multiple issues of comics from multiple publishers are released every week ) .
Digitally ( where sales aren ’ t reported by comic book companies thoroughly ) , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of Marvel ’ s bestsellers and that over 500,000 trade paperbacks ( collected , physical editions of the comic book ) have been sold as of 2018 .
Ms. Marvel currently stars in the also-successful The Magnificent Ms. Marvel , written by Saladin Ahmed and drawn by Minkyu Jung .
Ms. Marvel ’ s breakaway success , in a territory crowded by recognizable legacy costumes , was undeniable proof to Marvel that racial , religious , and gender diversity were worth the investment .
The idea of readers , kids especially , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has fueled Marvel comics ’ success .
With Kamala , an entire swath of Marvel fans were able to finally see someone with their skin color , with their religious beliefs , and within their age group saving the world — that ’ s a nice sentiment .
But Marvel is a business , and in order for it to get fully on board with representation , high profit margins are a big help .
Ms. Marvel certainly brought those .
The Ms. Marvel effect will find its way onscreen in 2021 Coinciding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its success was a bigger conversation about the diversity , or lack thereof , of superheroes on the big screen .
By 2014 , the year Ms. Marvel launched , Marvel had made a total of 10 movies .
None were devoted to a female superhero .
To be clear , characters like Gamora and Black Widow existed , but they did not command their own films ; no female Marvel superhero would have her own solo film until 2019 ’ s Captain Marvel .
A year later , after the infamous Sony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between studio executives from Sony and other studio heads , it was revealed that then-Marvel CEO Ike Perlmutter believed that female superhero-led movies would fail .
His view strongly differed from what was happening on the comic book side , where Marvel soon began what would be a concerted push for representation and diversity in its comic books .
Silk and Spider-Gwen , characters in the Spider-Man universe , were introduced and found followings the same year as Ms. Marvel .
Existing characters like Scarlet Witch and Spider-Woman also got their own solo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Marvel began monumental changes : Steve Rogers ’ s compatriot Sam Wilson , a.k.a .
Falcon , took the title of Captain America , Jane Foster became Thor , and Iceman , an original X-Man , came out as gay .
A-Force , a comic featuring an all-female team of Avengers , also debuted in 2015 .
Not all of these books were successful , and some poor titles even caused retailers to grumble about sales .
Therein is probably a lesson about the pitfalls of cashing in on diversity for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also been many legacy heroes ’ books that have flopped .
But Marvel ’ s comic books , in the wake of Ms. Marvel ’ s success , were more diverse than ever .
And with the surge of female and non-white superheroes on the comic book side of Marvel ’ s business , it made Marvel Studios ’ s lack thereof even more glaring .
It turns out that Ms. Marvel is a trailblazer on the Studios ’ side of things , too .
Her success has set the stage for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movies .
In 2021 ’ s Thor : Love and Thunder , directed by Taika Waititi , Jane Foster ( Natalie Portman ) will return and , just like in the comic books , she will be deemed “ worthy ” to wield the mythical Mjölnir and assume the powers of the Thunder God — a story inspired by the 2015 event created during Marvel ’ s broader representation push .
Thor : Love and Thunder will follow Captain Marvel ’ s debut in 2019 and Black Widow ’ s long-awaited solo movie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be Marvel ’ s first three female superhero movies .
Marvel Studios will also continue telling stories that feature non-white heroes .
2018 ’ s Black Panther was a box-office smash , becoming one of the biggest movies of all time .
And next up , Marvel will welcome its first Asian-American superhero in 2021 ’ s Shang Chi .
Marvel ’ s cinematic schedule , including a sequel to Black Panther in 2022 , will be the most diverse in history .
Instead of joining these heroes on the big screen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll have her own television show , which Marvel announced at this year ’ s D23 Expo fan event .
No official release date has been set , but according to Marvel , Ms. Marvel and the rest of Marvel ’ s Disney+ television shows will eventually tie into the Marvel Cinematic Universe .
This could mean the eventual appearance of Kamala on the big screen , fighting alongside all of the Avengers she idolized .
And if that happens , Kamala could be the beacon of hope for a new set of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are already familiar with Jersey ’ s friendly neighborhood shapeshifter a chance to fall in love with her all over again .

Iron Man. Captain America. Black Panther. Captain Marvel. Thor. The Guardians of the Galaxy. The last decade of Marvel has made a variety of superheroes into household names, cultural phenomena, and topics of mainstream conversation. Some have even changed the way we think about the world around us.
Arguably, though, the most important Marvel superhero of the last decade isn’t on that list: Kamala Khan, otherwise known as Ms. Marvel.
To be clear, there’s no such thing as Marvel Studios without Tony Stark/Iron Man and Robert Downey Jr. That performance turned Marvel into a movie-making juggernaut. But although Marvel has come to define blockbuster movies, it’s a comic book publisher first and foremost.
The most emblematic example of Marvel’s rich tradition of storytelling, heart, and underdog spirit pioneered by Marvel godfathers Stan Lee and Jack Kirby isn’t Iron Man, however. The character’s time in the spotlight has effectively wrapped. Instead, it’s important to look at what the future holds for this formidable force in entertainment — and in that sense, it’s the comic book star Ms. Marvel who is the character that matters most.
Marvel’s heroes have always represented the best of humanity, but historically, they haven’t done a great job of reflecting the diversity of humanity. Although fans have often been asked to imagine themselves as the heroes they admire, the pervading idea has been that comic books featuring legacy heroes who are mostly men — and mostly white men at that — were the only ones that could be successful, since they traditionally had the biggest sales (correlation and causation be damned).
Ms. Marvel changed that narrative. Since the series launched, its protagonist Kamala Khan and its massive success have proved to Marvel that not only could its A-list heroes stand to look more like the wide array of people who read and love Marvel comics, but also that its loyal readers could relate to a hero who doesn’t look like the traditional model. The stories Marvel went on to tell after her debut — and will continue to tell on the big screen for years to come — are indebted to Ms. Marvel.
Ms. Marvel was a breakout success that changed Marvel comic books
Prior to Ms. Marvel’s introduction in 2014, Marvel’s comics division was deeply focused on its long-standing core characters, including the Avengers (thanks in large part to the movies) and the X-Men (whose film franchise was well-established and whose characters, like the iconic Peter Parker, a.k.a. Spider-Man, dominated popularity in the ’90s). It was also beginning to push the race of superhumans called the Inhumans (stars of a dismal television series). That meant most of the featured heroes were generally men and mostly white; though the X-Men, for example, featured mutants of all colors, shapes, and sizes, burly Wolverine was often the featured star of the comics.
Heroes who weren’t white men, like alt-universe Spider-Man Miles Morales and Carol Danvers, a.k.a. Captain Marvel, had loyal followings too. But none of them had the same level of recognition and success as that of Peter Parker or Tony Stark.
Enter Ms. Marvel.
Written by G. Willow Wilson, drawn by artist Adrian Alphona, and overseen by editors Sana Amanat and Steve Wacker, Ms. Marvel stars Kamala Khan, a Muslim and a Pakistani-American teen living in New Jersey. She leads a pretty normal life, complete with all of the usual insecurities, schoolwork, crushes, heartaches, disappointments, triumphs, parties, groundings, and melodrama — that is, until a green mist sweeps across the world (while Kamala is at a party for which she snuck out to go), activates her latent alien Inhuman genes, and unlocks her shape-shifting abilities.
Kamala faces a Peter Parker-like challenge: to continue living life as a teen, but also as the hero she always dreamed of being. Most of the time, one comes at the expense of the other, with hero-ing getting in the way of school or first kisses or with things like doting parents, overprotective siblings, and the need to maintain grades at school interrupting hero time.
What’s so distinctive about Kamala’s story is how contemporary and relatable it is. Considering how different she is from the popular superheroes who preceded her — her religion, the color of her skin, her being a suburban teenage girl — it’s a testament to Wilson and Alphona’s touching storytelling that Kamala’s life, its highs and lows, is so universal and yet specific to her experiences. Marvel’s comic books have always asked their readers to imagine themselves in someone else’s shoes and someone else’s experiences, and Kamala turned out to be no different.
“Wilson and Alphona infuse pure joy into Kamala’s creation, instilling a kind of charm that will resonate with all of her readers. Kamala Khan is loud, she’s Inhuman, and she’s here to stay — and I couldn’t be happier for it,” Meagan Damore wrote for CBR, formerly Comic Book Resources.
“For every muscular white dude punching another muscular white [dude] that panders to the ‘core’ comics fans, there should be another issue of this or of Young Avengers or of Nova. Because just as much as those other two titles there, Kamala’s problems feel real and genuine and relatable even to a non-Muslim, and seeing her journey from that to superhero is important,” David Henderson wrote at Multiversity Comics.
In Kamala’s case, it’s not that fans couldn’t imagine themselves in her shoes — it’s that they’ve never really been asked to.
Ms. Marvel #1 was a critical and commercial hit, earning high marks from reviewers while going into seven printings; the demand for the issue was so high, it required Marvel to create more comic books seven times over to keep up. According to Comic Chron, a site that tracks and estimates comic book sales, 75,280 physical issues of Ms. Marvel #1 were sold in 2014, landing it among the top 105 issues sold that year (keep in mind that multiple issues of comics from multiple publishers are released every week).
Digitally (where sales aren’t reported by comic book companies thoroughly), we know that Ms. Marvel has traditionally been one of Marvel’s bestsellers and that over 500,000 trade paperbacks (collected, physical editions of the comic book) have been sold as of 2018. Ms. Marvel currently stars in the also-successful The Magnificent Ms. Marvel, written by Saladin Ahmed and drawn by Minkyu Jung.
Ms. Marvel’s breakaway success, in a territory crowded by recognizable legacy costumes, was undeniable proof to Marvel that racial, religious, and gender diversity were worth the investment.
The idea of readers, kids especially, seeing themselves in the superheroes they admire has fueled Marvel comics’ success. With Kamala, an entire swath of Marvel fans were able to finally see someone with their skin color, with their religious beliefs, and within their age group saving the world — that’s a nice sentiment. But Marvel is a business, and in order for it to get fully on board with representation, high profit margins are a big help. Ms. Marvel certainly brought those.
The Ms. Marvel effect will find its way onscreen in 2021
Coinciding with Ms. Marvel’s release and its success was a bigger conversation about the diversity, or lack thereof, of superheroes on the big screen.
By 2014, the year Ms. Marvel launched, Marvel had made a total of 10 movies. None were devoted to a female superhero. To be clear, characters like Gamora and Black Widow existed, but they did not command their own films; no female Marvel superhero would have her own solo film until 2019’s Captain Marvel. A year later, after the infamous Sony email leak, which included internal correspondence between studio executives from Sony and other studio heads, it was revealed that then-Marvel CEO Ike Perlmutter believed that female superhero-led movies would fail.
His view strongly differed from what was happening on the comic book side, where Marvel soon began what would be a concerted push for representation and diversity in its comic books. Silk and Spider-Gwen, characters in the Spider-Man universe, were introduced and found followings the same year as Ms. Marvel. Existing characters like Scarlet Witch and Spider-Woman also got their own solo titles in 2015.
That same year, Marvel began monumental changes: Steve Rogers’s compatriot Sam Wilson, a.k.a. Falcon, took the title of Captain America, Jane Foster became Thor, and Iceman, an original X-Man, came out as gay. A-Force, a comic featuring an all-female team of Avengers, also debuted in 2015.
Not all of these books were successful, and some poor titles even caused retailers to grumble about sales. Therein is probably a lesson about the pitfalls of cashing in on diversity for the sake of diversity, but there have also been many legacy heroes’ books that have flopped. But Marvel’s comic books, in the wake of Ms. Marvel’s success, were more diverse than ever. And with the surge of female and non-white superheroes on the comic book side of Marvel’s business, it made Marvel Studios’s lack thereof even more glaring.
It turns out that Ms. Marvel is a trailblazer on the Studios’ side of things, too. Her success has set the stage for a much more diverse next phase of Marvel movies. In 2021’s Thor: Love and Thunder, directed by Taika Waititi, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) will return and, just like in the comic books, she will be deemed “worthy” to wield the mythical Mjölnir and assume the powers of the Thunder God — a story inspired by the 2015 event created during Marvel’s broader representation push.
Thor: Love and Thunder will follow Captain Marvel’s debut in 2019 and Black Widow’s long-awaited solo movie in May 2020 — the trio will be Marvel’s first three female superhero movies. Marvel Studios will also continue telling stories that feature non-white heroes. 2018’s Black Panther was a box-office smash, becoming one of the biggest movies of all time. And next up, Marvel will welcome its first Asian-American superhero in 2021’s Shang Chi. Marvel’s cinematic schedule, including a sequel to Black Panther in 2022, will be the most diverse in history.
Instead of joining these heroes on the big screen, Kamala will star elsewhere: She’ll have her own television show, which Marvel announced at this year’s D23 Expo fan event. No official release date has been set, but according to Marvel, Ms. Marvel and the rest of Marvel’s Disney+ television shows will eventually tie into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This could mean the eventual appearance of Kamala on the big screen, fighting alongside all of the Avengers she idolized. And if that happens, Kamala could be the beacon of hope for a new set of fans — and could give those who are already familiar with Jersey’s friendly neighborhood shapeshifter a chance to fall in love with her all over again.


vox--2020-01-08--The drive to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, explained

For Jennifer Carroll Foy , the fight against sexism started in high school .
Her class was watching TV coverage of the historic 1996 Supreme Court decision United States v. Virginia .
In a famous majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , the Court found that the previously all-male Virginia Military Institute — a prestigious military college in Foy ’ s home state — would have to admit women .
Foy agreed with the decision , but the boys in the class were outraged , she told Vox .
Her male best friend even came up to her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to VMI , he would go too , because “ I want to be there to watch you when you fail.
” They both went to the military college , but only Foy graduated — one of the first black women to do so .
She went on to become an attorney and , in 2017 , one of a historic number of women elected to the Virginia House of Delegates .
Now , in 2020 , she ’ s introducing a measure to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment .
The amendment would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , enshrining in the US Constitution the principle of gender equality that Ginsburg argued for in United States v. Virginia .
To become law , the amendment must be ratified by 38 states .
Since 37 have already done so , ratification in Virginia would put the amendment above the threshold .
There would still be major legal and political hurdles to clear before the amendment could become law .
But Foy believes that now more than ever , there ’ s momentum in Virginia and around the country for enacting a constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the making .
“ Women are fed up , ” she said , “ and we ’ re now in positions of power.
” Virginia is poised to ratify the ERA .
It ’ s just the beginning of a fight .
The Equal Rights Amendment is simple .
Here ’ s the text : But these few words have been wending their way through American politics for nearly 100 years , as Vox ’ s Emily Stewart writes .
First introduced in 1923 , it passed Congress with bipartisan support in 1972 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional amendment , it still had to be ratified by three-quarters of the states , or 38 out of 50 .
Thirty-five states ratified the amendment quickly , but then momentum slowed , in part due to the work of anti-feminist advocates like Phyllis Schlafly in the mid to late 1970s .
However , things have picked up again in recent years , with Nevada ratifying the amendment in 2017 and Illinois doing so in 2018 .
Foy says the resurgence of interest stems from a combination of factors like the Women ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court even after he was publicly accused of sexual assault .
“ Women are now understanding that none of our fundamental rights are really guaranteed , ” she said .
Virginia also tried to ratify the amendment in 2018 , but Republicans in the state legislature quashed the effort .
In 2019 , however , Democrats took control of the legislature for the first time in 20 years .
Now , with Democrats in control , Foy is confident the measure will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a question of if the Equal Rights Amendment will pass in Virginia , it ’ s just when , ” she said .
Ratification in Virginia , however , won ’ t be the end of the fight over the ERA .
Congress set a deadline of 1982 for states to ratify the amendment , meaning Virginia ’ s decision would come almost 40 years too late .
Democrats in Congress are working to remove this obstacle .
In November , the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution to eliminate the deadline , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the full House .
But such legislation will have a harder time in the Republican-controlled Senate .
Meanwhile , some states are actively fighting the amendment .
Last year , Louisiana , Alabama , and South Dakota filed a lawsuit in an effort to force the federal government to let the 1982 deadline stand .
The ERA would guarantee gender equality in the Constitution for the first time Despite the obstacles , advocates say the fight is crucial because the ERA would send an important message of gender equality to the entire country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t explicitly address sex discrimination at all .
The ERA would change that , Emily Martin , vice president for education and workplace justice at the National Women ’ s Law Center , told Vox .
“ It would , at the most fundamental level , recognize that gender equality is a foundational principle for the United States.
” There are laws on the books that ban sex discrimination in some arenas .
The Equal Pay Act , for example , requires that men and women get equal pay for equal work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws can be changed just as easily as legislators change their minds ” — a constitutional amendment is more permanent .
Moreover , a constitutional amendment would give people more tools when they challenge discriminatory laws or practices in court .
Federal courts have interpreted the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as conferring some protection against sex discrimination , Martin said .
But adding an explicit ban on such discrimination in the Constitution would likely force courts to take the issue much more seriously .
People could use the Equal Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to restrictions on abortion , Martin said .
And it wouldn ’ t just affect women ’ s rights .
By banning discrimination on the basis of sex , it could implicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity as well , offering protections to gay and trans people regardless of their gender .
Many legal scholars and LGBTQ rights advocates — including supporters of the gay and trans employees challenging discriminatory practices in three cases currently before the Supreme Court — have argued that discrimination against gay and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discrimination on the basis of sex .
“ This kind of discrimination is all bound up with each other , ” Martin said .
Moreover , the effort to pass the ERA will bolster activism for gender equality around the country , Martin said .
In recent years , “ we ’ ve seen this need and hunger and energy around women ’ s organizing , around women demanding equality , ” she explained .
“ The push for the Equal Rights Amendment is part of that and builds on that.
” And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaningful that the deciding vote to ratify the ERA could come from her home state .
“ Virginia has been on the wrong side of history so many times , ” she said .
“ Virginia has fought against interracial marriage , Virginia has fought against desegregation , and Virginia fought against women ’ s right to vote.
” But things are changing in the state , and the historic number of women in the legislature is a big reason behind that change , Foy said .
Now , Virginia can be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that women are here and we will be heard .
”

For Jennifer Carroll Foy, the fight against sexism started in high school.
Her class was watching TV coverage of the historic 1996 Supreme Court decision United States v. Virginia. In a famous majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court found that the previously all-male Virginia Military Institute — a prestigious military college in Foy’s home state — would have to admit women.
Foy agreed with the decision, but the boys in the class were outraged, she told Vox. Her male best friend even came up to her and told her that if she went to VMI, he would go too, because “I want to be there to watch you when you fail.”
“I told him, ‘Challenge accepted,’” Foy recalls.
They both went to the military college, but only Foy graduated — one of the first black women to do so. She went on to become an attorney and, in 2017, one of a historic number of women elected to the Virginia House of Delegates.
Now, in 2020, she’s the sponsor of a measure to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which would ban discrimination on the basis of sex, enshrining in the US Constitution the principle of gender equality that Ginsburg argued for in United States v. Virginia. To become law, the amendment must be ratified by 38 states. And on January 15, 2020, Virginia became the 38th state, with the ERA passing both houses of the state legislature.
However, there are still major legal and political hurdles to clear in order for the amendment to officially become law. But Foy believes that, now more than ever, there’s momentum in Virginia and around the country for enacting a constitutional change that’s been decades in the making. “Women are fed up,” she said, “and we’re now in positions of power.”
Virginia ratified the ERA. It’s just the beginning of another fight.
The Equal Rights Amendment is simple. Here’s the text:
Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
But these few words have been wending their way through American politics for nearly 100 years, as Vox’s Emily Stewart writes. First introduced in 1923, it passed Congress with bipartisan support in 1972. But because it’s a constitutional amendment, it still had to be ratified by three-quarters of the states, or 38 out of 50.
Thirty-five states ratified the amendment quickly, but then momentum slowed, in part due to the work of anti-feminist advocates like Phyllis Schlafly in the mid to late 1970s. However, things have picked up again in recent years, with Nevada ratifying the amendment in 2017 and Illinois doing so in 2018.
Foy says the resurgence of interest stems from a combination of factors like the Women’s March, the Me Too movement, and the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court even after he was publicly accused of sexual assault. “Women are now understanding that none of our fundamental rights are really guaranteed,” she said.
Virginia also tried to ratify the amendment in 2018, but Republicans in the state legislature quashed the effort. In 2019, however, Democrats took control of the legislature for the first time in 20 years. And on Wednesday, the measure passed the House of Delegates and the state Senate. “In passing this resolution, we’re finally on record as supporting women’s rights as human beings, equal to men,” Foy said in a statement, “something that must also finally be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.”
Ratification in Virginia, however, is far from the end of the fight over the ERA. Congress set a deadline of 1982 for states to ratify the amendment, meaning Virginia’s decision comes almost 40 years too late.
Democrats in Congress are working to remove this obstacle. In November, the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution to eliminate the deadline, and it’s expected to pass the full House. But such legislation will have a harder time in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Meanwhile, some states are actively fighting the amendment. Last year, Louisiana, Alabama, and South Dakota filed a lawsuit in an effort to force the federal government to let the 1982 deadline stand. And President Trump’s Justice Department issued guidance earlier this month stating that Congress does not have the power to change the deadline. Whatever happens next, a court battle over the amendment is all but inevitable.
The ERA would guarantee gender equality in the Constitution for the first time
Despite the obstacles, advocates say the fight is crucial because the ERA would send an important message of gender equality to the entire country. Right now, the Constitution doesn’t explicitly address sex discrimination at all. The ERA would change that, Emily Martin, vice president for education and workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center, told Vox. “It would, at the most fundamental level, recognize that gender equality is a foundational principle for the United States.”
There are laws on the books that ban sex discrimination in some arenas. The Equal Pay Act, for example, requires that men and women get equal pay for equal work. But, Foy noted, “laws can be changed just as easily as legislators change their minds”; a constitutional amendment is more permanent.
Moreover, a constitutional amendment would give people more tools when they challenge discriminatory laws or practices in court. Federal courts have interpreted the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as conferring some protection against sex discrimination, Martin said. But adding an explicit ban on such discrimination in the Constitution would likely force courts to take the issue much more seriously.
People could use the Equal Rights Amendment to challenge anything from unequal pay to restrictions on abortion, Martin said. And it wouldn’t just affect women’s rights. By banning discrimination on the basis of sex, it could implicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity as well, offering protections to gay and trans people regardless of their gender.
Many legal scholars and LGBTQ rights advocates — including supporters of the gay and trans employees challenging discriminatory practices in three cases currently before the Supreme Court — have argued that discrimination against gay and trans people is, in essence, discrimination on the basis of sex. “This kind of discrimination is all bound up with each other,” Martin said.
Moreover, the effort to pass the ERA will bolster activism for gender equality around the country, Martin said. In recent years, “we’ve seen this need and hunger and energy around women’s organizing, around women demanding equality,” she explained. “The push for the Equal Rights Amendment is part of that and builds on that.”
And for Foy, her home state’s role in ratifying the amendment is especially meaningful. “Virginia has been on the wrong side of history so many times,” she said. “Virginia has fought against interracial marriage, Virginia has fought against desegregation, and Virginia fought against women’s right to vote.”
Things are changing in the state, and the historic number of women in the legislature is a big reason behind that change, Foy said. Now, Virginia can be the state “to put everyone on notice that women are here and we will be heard.”


vox--2020-01-08--La-Z-Boy used to be a punchline. Now it’s an aspirational brand.

My husband , an immigrant from the Soviet Union , divides consumer experiences via a simple binary : this is , or is not the America he was promised .
A Starbucks that ’ s out of half-and-half is not the America he was promised , while a restaurant with unlimited soft drink refills is .
At the peak of the America-I-Was-Promised hierarchy is a weekend afternoon with a beer in hand , watching football ( US pigskin or otherwise ) on TV while ensconced in an overstuffed La-Z-Boy recliner .
It ’ s an image that was pushed deliberately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarterback Joe Namath appeared in magazine ads for the brand , a vision of masculine potential energy surrounded by a lot of brown tones and vaguely sleazy taglines .
The La-Z-Boy recliner is one of the last viable vestiges of the 20th-century American Dream .
The La-Z-Boy recliner is one of the last viable vestiges of the 20th century American dream , expansive as a classic Cadillac , but without the obvious fuel emissions .
La-Z-Boy has emerged in the wake of the 2008 recession as both a stock market winner and luxury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and meaning , it ’ s imagined as enormous , drawing revulsion from spouses who don ’ t want their dad ’ s ugly furniture parked in the living room , and longing from those for whom The Chair is symbolic of a good life .
It ’ s a piece of interior decor that originated as medical furniture and can serve as a home hospital bed today .
It ’ s an object that taps into our deepest , most American anxieties about comfort and leisure and bodies at rest .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two furniture legacies built in Michigan typify the state ’ s , if not the country ’ s , cultural divide and explain some of the reasons for our confused feelings about living room recliners .
On the east side of the state is the city of Monroe , where in the mid-1920s cousins Edward M. Knabusch and Edwin J. Shoemaker founded Floral City Furniture Company .
In 1929 , they would invent a product so iconic that it would eventually become the name of the company : the upholstered La-Z-Boy recliner .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steelcase and Herman Miller , best known for the Eames chair , Aeron chair , and office cubicle .
One could view western Michigan , also home to proto-side-hustle empire Amway , as tending the furnace that powers our current total work nightmare .
The geographic divide between Michigan ’ s iconic furniture brands and what they produce mirrors the nation ’ s push and pull between work and leisure .
In the ’ 80s , ’ 90s , and early 2000s there was a fear of leisure , and by extension the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something that ’ s this comfortable can ’ t be morally okay .
Judgment of recliners was tremendous , with La-Z-Boy attracting the most negative attention probably due to being the most recognizable brand .
In the midst of the ’ 80s ’ work-and-sweat fixation , William E. Geist of the New York Times headed to a La-Z-Boy showroom before the New York City Marathon to talk to customers who found runners “ wacky ” and planned to spend the day reaching into a polystyrene cooler for a cold beer .
Several entries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling us how lazy we all are , ” mentioning La-Z-Boy as symbolic of our woes , made their way into Vanity Fair and NPR .
A few years after Brooke Shields was named La-Z-Boy spokesperson in 2010 , a reporter wrote that she ’ d have trouble selling to women since La-Z-Boy “ is synonymous with the words lethargic , sluggish and idle.
” The La-Z-Boy recliner was cast as an object that softens the body to the point that it takes on the form of the chair .
A review of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ben “ a La-Z-Boy in human form , ” an image helpfully illustrated by artist Benedikt Notter in a NSFW Instagram post .
2008 ’ s Wall-E features recliners turned into a lifestyle , where people essentially merge with their chairs due to an excess of comfort and convenience .
Defending harsh boot camp tactics , Lance Corporal Gene Talley asked military newspaper Stars and Stripes , “ Do you want a La-Z-Boy [ recliner ] in combat ?
” The concept of the La-Z-Boy has expanded far beyond the confines of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become a metaphor for disengagement , especially disengagement from the political process .
In the lead-up to the 2012 election , an opinion writer described Obama ’ s Ohio strategy as , “ Pry every Democratic voter out of his or her La-Z-Boy.
” In 2014 , members of MoveOn.org took an actor portraying then-Speaker of the House John Boehner on a four-day Ohio tour , where the character John “ Lazy Boy ” Boehner , “ recline [ d ] in a La-Z-Boy recliner and contemplate [ d ] various topics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” An Esquire piece from 2015 liberally paraphrases an Obama speech as telling Ohio voters to “ put down the damn remote , [ get ] their lazy ass out of the La-Z-Boy , ” and vote .
Given that Donald Trump won Ohio by a margin of 8.13 points in 2016 , Democratic candidates might want to embrace the recliner rather than beer as a symbol of their regularness .
When it ’ s not associated with sloth , La-Z-Boy is portrayed as a humorously hypermasculine accessory for men who are very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man was arrested for driving what was reported as a motorized La-Z-Boy while under the influence of alcohol .
Police seized the recliner , which had been tricked out with a stereo and cup holders , powered by a Briggs & Stratton engine and small steering wheel .
A forfeited property eBay auction topped $ 43,700 before La-Z-Boy Inc. requested that the name of the item be changed to remove their trademark since the chair was not , in fact , a La-Z-Boy .
Police Chief Walter Wobig told Wired that he included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the media ... used the term.
” Not even the police department ’ s attorney caught the error before the auction started .
It was an easy mistake .
In the 90 years since the birth of the La-Z-Boy , the name has come to mean much more than products made by La-Z-Boy Inc. Like Jell-O and Kleenex , the term “ La-Z-Boy ” is a genericized trademark that ’ s used to apply to a whole class of furniture , usually recliners , due to their popularity and the memorability of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time when the Barcalounger dominated in popular culture and we spoke far more about the Morris chair , but only the La-Z-Boy occupies such a massive space in the popular imagination now that it ’ s a shorthand for every recliner ever made .
It represents the whole checked-out mentality that resists America ’ s total work culture and fitness culture , without ever putting the footrest down .
A lot of the recent news about La-Z-Boy concerns the company ’ s hot stock .
In March 2009 , shares were trading at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ re above $ 30 despite La-Z-Boy reporting that it had missed earnings expectations in November .
Given that the traditional image of a La-Z-Boy consumer is an elder man enjoying his “ earned repose ” after a lifetime of work ( or , less favorably , an older man who falls asleep watching TV instead of paying attention to his wife ) , I wondered how a company could be making so much money by mostly selling fairly pricey recliners to people living on fixed incomes .
Part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes a whole lot more than just recliners : Bedroom , kitchen , and outdoor furniture bear the La-Z-Boy brand name , and the company acquired mid-century modern brand Joybird in 2018 .
They ’ re also now repped by Kristen Bell and they ’ ve restructured in the wake of the 2008 downturn .
Far from being a chair for isolated singles and men dodging their families , involved dads like hockey ’ s Mike Fisher proclaim proudly that they cuddle their babies in the family La-Z-Boy .
For many people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a practical decision based on the way the US health care system works .
We got our own La-Z-Boy under intense but , I ’ ve learned , not-uncommon circumstances ; after a series of extreme surgeries that involved putting part of a cadaver in my jaw , I found that buying a recliner was only slightly more expensive than renting a hospital bed , with the added bonus of giving my husband The-America-He-Was-Promised .
The use of a recliner as medical furniture isn ’ t quite so much a dystopian hack ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ room instead of an ambulance ) , as a return to the recliner ’ s 19th-century advent — as patent furniture for medical use .
If work leaves you with back pain , the American Chiropractic Association has endorsed La-Z-Boy reclining furniture , and programmers have shared how to hack one into a desk chair .
But for most people , a recliner represents a space away from work , a napcentric , personal pod of softness that aligns surprisingly well with late-2010s consumerism Treat Yo ’ Self-care culture .
Starting in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the benchmark for a comfortable seat , driving the company ’ s image rehabilitation .
Car reviewers were among the first in recent memory to use La-Z-Boy favorably when they compared cushy car seats to a recliner .
The 2012 Fisker Karma EcoChic ’ s seats “ are plush and comfortable , not overly bolstered or sporty but , like an old La-Z-Boy , good for many hours of spinal serenity , ” according to Car and Driver .
A “ big Lincoln ’ s seats rival most La-Z-Boy chairs , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat that is as inviting as your favorite La-Z-Boy , ” and a 2013 Lexus LS 460 ’ s ride “ is La-Z-Boy comfortable.
” Soon , other seats were compared to the La-Z-Boy recliner : Singapore Airlines ’ s upgraded cabins featured La-Z-Boy-like reclining seats ; NBA courtside seats were called relaxing like La-Z-Boy recliners ; even bike saddles have been compared to La-Z-Boys .
The comparison expanded to include super-cushioned shoes and beds of seaweed for just-released baby sea turtles .
The 20th-century promise of America is collapsing around millennials , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into luxury brands .
The 20th-century promise of America is collapsing around millennials , turning functional , once-uncool companies like La-Z-Boys into luxury brands .
The association of La-Z-Boy with luxury seems linked to the advent of plush recliner seating at movie theaters , which started to take off around the early 2010s , likely inspired by the home theaters of the super rich .
A luxury barbershop offered La-Z-Boy recliners at the grooming stations , and Seoul ’ s Incheon Airport offered relaxation stations with massaging La-Z-Boys .
Owning a La-Z-Boy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repose and literal leaning out , an act of passive consumer resistance to a culture of total work and burnout that offers no guarantee of the payoff that animated previous generations .
For millennials , the promises aren ’ t very big anymore .
You may not be able to buy a home , but it ’ s possible to score a discount La-Z-Boy online .
Even if the American dream is out of reach , the American nap is still in our grasp .
Sign up for The Goods newsletter .
Twice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

My husband, an immigrant from the Soviet Union, divides consumer experiences via a simple binary: this is, or is not the America he was promised. A Starbucks that’s out of half-and-half is not the America he was promised, while a restaurant with unlimited soft drink refills is. At the peak of the America-I-Was-Promised hierarchy is a weekend afternoon with a beer in hand, watching football (US pigskin or otherwise) on TV while ensconced in an overstuffed La-Z-Boy recliner. It’s an image that was pushed deliberately in the 1970s, when NFL heartthrob quarterback Joe Namath appeared in magazine ads for the brand, a vision of masculine potential energy surrounded by a lot of brown tones and vaguely sleazy taglines.
The La-Z-Boy recliner is one of the last viable vestiges of the 20th-century American Dream.
The La-Z-Boy recliner is one of the last viable vestiges of the 20th century American dream, expansive as a classic Cadillac, but without the obvious fuel emissions. La-Z-Boy has emerged in the wake of the 2008 recession as both a stock market winner and luxury brand among millennials. In both form and meaning, it’s imagined as enormous, drawing revulsion from spouses who don’t want their dad’s ugly furniture parked in the living room, and longing from those for whom The Chair is symbolic of a good life. It’s a piece of interior decor that originated as medical furniture and can serve as a home hospital bed today. It’s an object that taps into our deepest, most American anxieties about comfort and leisure and bodies at rest.
The battle for the seat of America
The two furniture legacies built in Michigan typify the state’s, if not the country’s, cultural divide and explain some of the reasons for our confused feelings about living room recliners. On the east side of the state is the city of Monroe, where in the mid-1920s cousins Edward M. Knabusch and Edwin J. Shoemaker founded Floral City Furniture Company. In 1929, they would invent a product so iconic that it would eventually become the name of the company: the upholstered La-Z-Boy recliner. To the west are office furniture powerhouse Steelcase and Herman Miller, best known for the Eames chair, Aeron chair, and office cubicle. One could view western Michigan, also home to proto-side-hustle empire Amway, as tending the furnace that powers our current total work nightmare.
The geographic divide between Michigan’s iconic furniture brands and what they produce mirrors the nation’s push and pull between work and leisure. In the ’80s, ’90s, and early 2000s there was a fear of leisure, and by extension the La-Z-Boy recliner, a sense that maybe something that’s this comfortable can’t be morally okay. Judgment of recliners was tremendous, with La-Z-Boy attracting the most negative attention probably due to being the most recognizable brand. In the midst of the ’80s’ work-and-sweat fixation, William E. Geist of the New York Times headed to a La-Z-Boy showroom before the New York City Marathon to talk to customers who found runners “wacky” and planned to spend the day reaching into a polystyrene cooler for a cold beer. Several entries in the genre known as “men telling us how lazy we all are,” mentioning La-Z-Boy as symbolic of our woes, made their way into Vanity Fair and NPR. A few years after Brooke Shields was named La-Z-Boy spokesperson in 2010, a reporter wrote that she’d have trouble selling to women since La-Z-Boy “is synonymous with the words lethargic, sluggish and idle.”
The La-Z-Boy recliner was cast as an object that softens the body to the point that it takes on the form of the chair. A review of the movie Knocked Up calls lead character Ben “a La-Z-Boy in human form,” an image helpfully illustrated by artist Benedikt Notter in a NSFW Instagram post. 2008’s Wall-E features recliners turned into a lifestyle, where people essentially merge with their chairs due to an excess of comfort and convenience. Defending harsh boot camp tactics, Lance Corporal Gene Talley asked military newspaper Stars and Stripes, “Do you want a La-Z-Boy [recliner] in combat?”
The concept of the La-Z-Boy has expanded far beyond the confines of a chair made by La-Z-Boy Inc., and has become a metaphor for disengagement, especially disengagement from the political process. In the lead-up to the 2012 election, an opinion writer described Obama’s Ohio strategy as, “Pry every Democratic voter out of his or her La-Z-Boy.” In 2014, members of MoveOn.org took an actor portraying then-Speaker of the House John Boehner on a four-day Ohio tour, where the character John “Lazy Boy” Boehner, “recline[d] in a La-Z-Boy recliner and contemplate[d] various topics for up to eight hours a day.” An Esquire piece from 2015 liberally paraphrases an Obama speech as telling Ohio voters to “put down the damn remote, [get] their lazy ass out of the La-Z-Boy,” and vote. Given that Donald Trump won Ohio by a margin of 8.13 points in 2016, Democratic candidates might want to embrace the recliner rather than beer as a symbol of their regularness.
When it’s not associated with sloth, La-Z-Boy is portrayed as a humorously hypermasculine accessory for men who are very male. In 2008, a Minnesota man was arrested for driving what was reported as a motorized La-Z-Boy while under the influence of alcohol. Police seized the recliner, which had been tricked out with a stereo and cup holders, powered by a Briggs & Stratton engine and small steering wheel. A forfeited property eBay auction topped $43,700 before La-Z-Boy Inc. requested that the name of the item be changed to remove their trademark since the chair was not, in fact, a La-Z-Boy. Police Chief Walter Wobig told Wired that he included the term “La-Z-Boy” because “because the media ... used the term.” Not even the police department’s attorney caught the error before the auction started.
It was an easy mistake. In the 90 years since the birth of the La-Z-Boy, the name has come to mean much more than products made by La-Z-Boy Inc. Like Jell-O and Kleenex, the term “La-Z-Boy” is a genericized trademark that’s used to apply to a whole class of furniture, usually recliners, due to their popularity and the memorability of the brand name. There was a time when the Barcalounger dominated in popular culture and we spoke far more about the Morris chair, but only the La-Z-Boy occupies such a massive space in the popular imagination now that it’s a shorthand for every recliner ever made. It represents the whole checked-out mentality that resists America’s total work culture and fitness culture, without ever putting the footrest down.
Millennials: not killing La-Z-Boy!
A lot of the recent news about La-Z-Boy concerns the company’s hot stock. In March 2009, shares were trading at just 60 cents each; these days, they’re above $30 despite La-Z-Boy reporting that it had missed earnings expectations in November. Given that the traditional image of a La-Z-Boy consumer is an elder man enjoying his “earned repose” after a lifetime of work (or, less favorably, an older man who falls asleep watching TV instead of paying attention to his wife), I wondered how a company could be making so much money by mostly selling fairly pricey recliners to people living on fixed incomes.
Part of the stock’s rise is because La-Z-Boy makes a whole lot more than just recliners: Bedroom, kitchen, and outdoor furniture bear the La-Z-Boy brand name, and the company acquired mid-century modern brand Joybird in 2018. They’re also now repped by Kristen Bell and they’ve restructured in the wake of the 2008 downturn. Far from being a chair for isolated singles and men dodging their families, involved dads like hockey’s Mike Fisher proclaim proudly that they cuddle their babies in the family La-Z-Boy.
For many people, the purchase of a La-Z-Boy may be a practical decision based on the way the US health care system works. We got our own La-Z-Boy under intense but, I’ve learned, not-uncommon circumstances; after a series of extreme surgeries that involved putting part of a cadaver in my jaw, I found that buying a recliner was only slightly more expensive than renting a hospital bed, with the added bonus of giving my husband The-America-He-Was-Promised. The use of a recliner as medical furniture isn’t quite so much a dystopian hack (like taking an Uber to the emergency room instead of an ambulance), as a return to the recliner’s 19th-century advent — as patent furniture for medical use. If work leaves you with back pain, the American Chiropractic Association has endorsed La-Z-Boy reclining furniture, and programmers have shared how to hack one into a desk chair. But for most people, a recliner represents a space away from work, a napcentric, personal pod of softness that aligns surprisingly well with late-2010s consumerism Treat Yo’ Self-care culture.
Starting in the late 2000s, the La-Z-Boy recliner became the benchmark for a comfortable seat, driving the company’s image rehabilitation. Car reviewers were among the first in recent memory to use La-Z-Boy favorably when they compared cushy car seats to a recliner. The 2012 Fisker Karma EcoChic’s seats “are plush and comfortable, not overly bolstered or sporty but, like an old La-Z-Boy, good for many hours of spinal serenity,” according to Car and Driver. A “big Lincoln’s seats rival most La-Z-Boy chairs,” the Hyundai Equus Ultimate has “a back seat that is as inviting as your favorite La-Z-Boy,” and a 2013 Lexus LS 460’s ride “is La-Z-Boy comfortable.” Soon, other seats were compared to the La-Z-Boy recliner: Singapore Airlines’s upgraded cabins featured La-Z-Boy-like reclining seats; NBA courtside seats were called relaxing like La-Z-Boy recliners; even bike saddles have been compared to La-Z-Boys. The comparison expanded to include super-cushioned shoes and beds of seaweed for just-released baby sea turtles.
The 20th-century promise of America is collapsing around millennials, turning functional, once-uncool companies like La-Z-Boys into luxury brands.
The 20th-century promise of America is collapsing around millennials, turning functional, once-uncool companies like La-Z-Boys into luxury brands. The association of La-Z-Boy with luxury seems linked to the advent of plush recliner seating at movie theaters, which started to take off around the early 2010s, likely inspired by the home theaters of the super rich. A luxury barbershop offered La-Z-Boy recliners at the grooming stations, and Seoul’s Incheon Airport offered relaxation stations with massaging La-Z-Boys.
Owning a La-Z-Boy is a shortcut to a taste of earned repose and literal leaning out, an act of passive consumer resistance to a culture of total work and burnout that offers no guarantee of the payoff that animated previous generations. For millennials, the promises aren’t very big anymore. You may not be able to buy a home, but it’s possible to score a discount La-Z-Boy online. Even if the American dream is out of reach, the American nap is still in our grasp.
Sign up for The Goods newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-01-07--Iran just fired missiles at US military targets. What does this mean?

Overnight Wednesday local time , Tehran fired more than a dozen missiles at two US military targets inside Iraq in response to the United States ’ killing of senior Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani last week .
The death of Soleimani , one of the most powerful figures in Iran , was extraordinarily provocative , and Iran had signaled that it would respond .
But now that it has done so , what comes next ?
It ’ s impossible to answer with any degree of certainty , particularly given the capriciousness of the current American president .
President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement Wednesday morning but didn ’ t say much more than that , other than noting that “ All is well !
” and “ so far so good !
” The Trump administration ’ s reticence might be the most hopeful sign that the US-Iran conflict that has escalated dramatically since the strike on Soleimani could cool back down soon .
To understand why , and what Iran ’ s actions might mean , I spoke with Ilan Goldenberg , a senior fellow and director of the Middle East Security Program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security think tank in Washington .
Our conversation , edited for length and clarity , is below .
When we hopped on the phone , you said you were feeling a little more positive than you were earlier this evening , so I guess that ’ s a good place to start : Why ?
Because the White House announced that there will not be a speech by the president tonight .
If the president had gone on TV tonight , it would have been for one reason and one reason only : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States and a significant American retaliation .
The fact that he ’ s not doing that indicates at least two things to me .
One is that the administration is thinking about things , so that ’ s good — they didn ’ t just jump immediately .
Because we do have time , we can respond on our own terms , if we need to respond .
And two is that we don ’ t know yet what the exact battle damage assessment was and what the results of the strike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ severe , then we would already be seeing the president on TV tonight , I think .
So , for me , it means this looks like a less significant attack than it might have otherwise been .
Yes , absolutely , no news in the form of a presidential speech is good news .
Since Soleimani ’ s death , the world has been watching and waiting to see how Iran might respond .
How do you assess this response by Iran to the attack last week ?
First , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know exactly what the response was yet because we don ’ t know the results , meaning the damage done to these bases in Iraq .
Things still haven ’ t been reported out .
This is also not necessarily the entire Iranian response .
This might just be the immediate response .
My sense is that Iran needed to do something quickly , something symbolically , something that was public given how public the killing of Soleimani was .
Those were some of the parameters that the supreme leader set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Iran didn ’ t want to trigger an all-out war .
This Iranian attack is bold .
It ’ s major .
It ’ s significant .
But it stops short of killing a large number of Americans .
Then the Iranians , on their own state television , they ’ re saying things like 30 Americans were killed and that Iranian planes are flying into Iraqi territory .
They ’ re saying all kinds of crazy things , which is really for their own domestic audience .
So the reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least for the moment , respond relatively proportionally .
That ’ s my sense .
“ This Iranian attack is bold .
It ’ s major .
It ’ s significant .
But it stops short of killing a large number of Americans.
” But this is not going to be the only response , in my opinion .
I think Iran will look to do other things over time , just maybe not as public .
I still think we need to be worried about things like cyberattacks , terrorist attacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on American officials .
I think all those things are entirely on the table for potentially years , frankly , in retaliation .
You mentioned the domestic audience .
How important was it for the Iranian regime to signal to it that they were responding to Soleimani ’ s death ?
One , there ’ s this nationalistic response to Soleimani ’ s killing .
On the one hand , he ’ s very popular in parts of Iran as the guy who protected Iran from ISIS .
He ’ s also very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially for his actions in Syria .
But , like I said , it ’ s a national moment in Iran , and if you ’ re an authoritarian government you ’ re trying to channel it toward support for you .
And second of all , you want to show the people that you are tough and strong .
So Iran had to do something .
To that point — of Iran trying to make a very public response — do you think these attacks on the US military targets were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also avoid , perhaps , American casualties that would be more likely to necessitate US counteraction ?
Look , launching about 12 moderately accurate missiles at a massive base in the middle of the desert is unlikely to kill anybody .
But I can ’ t say they purposely went out of their way not to kill Americans .
And what about Iraq in this situation ?
There are reports of Iraqi casualties .
Right .
But more broadly , what does this conflict between the US and Iran mean for Iraq ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly going to be caught in this escalation .
This is Iraq ’ s total nightmare .
I was in Iraq last month , and the sense I got is that Iraqis just want their country back .
They ’ re sick of Iranians .
They ’ re sick of Americans .
They just want their country back , and their worst nightmare is to be the chessboard board on which the game gets played between the United States and Iran .
Now it appears this is where it might be going .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obviously , we ’ re still figuring out what happened , but what should we be watching for next ?
So I think there are two things to watch for : On the US side , the president ’ s national security team had a meeting at the White House [ Tuesday evening ] and left .
Are they going to cook up more options ?
Are we going to see an American response in the next couple of days ?
Or are we going to see a calm silence ?
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the immediate and what is the long term ?
In the immediate , are they done ?
Or will we have another wave like this tomorrow ?
I think they ’ re done .
I ’ m really hoping they ’ re done .
I think we should still watch out for other unattributable things , which is where the more damaging or meaningful response will come .
Again , cyberterrorism , assassinations — I think those things are being cooked up and may come , but we just don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could be a matter of weeks .
It could be a matter of months , it could be years .
It could even be after Donald Trump ’ s presidency .
So to the question everyone wants to know : Are we at war ?
Or , at least , are we closer to war than we were after the initial news of Soleimani ’ s death ?
I don ’ t know yet for sure .
Here are the things to watch : It ultimately depends on what we , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what Iran does next .
At the moment , we ’ re not at war .
We are in a highly escalatory situation .
We are in a shadow war .
We ’ re not at war .
And being at war would mean having to go to Congress and get approval for that .
So we ’ re not at war .
Are we a step closer ?
Maybe .
I ’ m actually not sure we ’ re a step closer .
We may even be a step farther away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran ’ s , at least its initial , public retaliation — it could have been worse .
But if it ’ s the beginning of more public retaliation , that ’ s different .

Iran has retaliated.
Overnight Wednesday local time, Tehran fired more than a dozen missiles at two US military targets inside Iraq in response to the United States’ killing of senior Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani last week.
The death of Soleimani, one of the most powerful figures in Iran, was extraordinarily provocative, and Iran had signaled that it would respond.
But now that it has done so, what comes next? It’s impossible to answer with any degree of certainty, particularly given the capriciousness of the current American president.
President Trump tweeted Tuesday evening that he would make a statement Wednesday morning but didn’t say much more than that, other than noting that “All is well!” and “so far so good!”
The Trump administration’s reticence might be the most hopeful sign that the US-Iran conflict that has escalated dramatically since the strike on Soleimani could cool back down soon.
To understand why, and what Iran’s actions might mean, I spoke with Ilan Goldenberg, a senior fellow and director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security think tank in Washington.
Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.
Jen Kirby
When we hopped on the phone, you said you were feeling a little more positive than you were earlier this evening, so I guess that’s a good place to start: Why?
Ilan Goldenberg
Because the White House announced that there will not be a speech by the president tonight. If the president had gone on TV tonight, it would have been for one reason and one reason only: to announce the Iranian attack on the United States and a significant American retaliation.
The fact that he’s not doing that indicates at least two things to me. One is that the administration is thinking about things, so that’s good — they didn’t just jump immediately. Because we do have time, we can respond on our own terms, if we need to respond.
And two is that we don’t know yet what the exact battle damage assessment was and what the results of the strike were. But if they were truly severe, then we would already be seeing the president on TV tonight, I think. So, for me, it means this looks like a less significant attack than it might have otherwise been.
Jen Kirby
Basically, no news is good news.
Ilan Goldenberg
Yes, absolutely, no news in the form of a presidential speech is good news.
Jen Kirby
Since Soleimani’s death, the world has been watching and waiting to see how Iran might respond. How do you assess this response by Iran to the attack last week?
Ilan Goldenberg
First, it’s important to note that we don’t know exactly what the response was yet because we don’t know the results, meaning the damage done to these bases in Iraq. Things still haven’t been reported out.
This is also not necessarily the entire Iranian response. This might just be the immediate response.
My sense is that Iran needed to do something quickly, something symbolically, something that was public given how public the killing of Soleimani was. Those were some of the parameters that the supreme leader set down, at least according to reporting.
But Iran didn’t want to trigger an all-out war. This Iranian attack is bold. It’s major. It’s significant. But it stops short of killing a large number of Americans.
Then the Iranians, on their own state television, they’re saying things like 30 Americans were killed and that Iranian planes are flying into Iraqi territory. They’re saying all kinds of crazy things, which is really for their own domestic audience.
So the reality is Iran found a way to, at least for the moment, respond relatively proportionally. That’s my sense.
“This Iranian attack is bold. It’s major. It’s significant. But it stops short of killing a large number of Americans.”
But this is not going to be the only response, in my opinion. I think Iran will look to do other things over time, just maybe not as public. I still think we need to be worried about things like cyberattacks, terrorist attacks, targeting American embassies, assassination attempts on American officials. I think all those things are entirely on the table for potentially years, frankly, in retaliation.
Jen Kirby
You mentioned the domestic audience. How important was it for the Iranian regime to signal to it that they were responding to Soleimani’s death?
Ilan Goldenberg
It matters.
One, there’s this nationalistic response to Soleimani’s killing. On the one hand, he’s very popular in parts of Iran as the guy who protected Iran from ISIS. He’s also very unpopular in parts of the Arab world, especially for his actions in Syria.
But, like I said, it’s a national moment in Iran, and if you’re an authoritarian government you’re trying to channel it toward support for you. And second of all, you want to show the people that you are tough and strong. So Iran had to do something.
Jen Kirby
To that point — of Iran trying to make a very public response — do you think these attacks on the US military targets were strategically calculated to do that, but also avoid, perhaps, American casualties that would be more likely to necessitate US counteraction?
Ilan Goldenberg
Look, launching about 12 moderately accurate missiles at a massive base in the middle of the desert is unlikely to kill anybody. But I can’t say they purposely went out of their way not to kill Americans.
Jen Kirby
And what about Iraq in this situation? What does this conflict between the US and Iran mean for Iraq? It looks as if the country is increasingly going to be caught in this escalation.
Ilan Goldenberg
This is Iraq’s total nightmare. I was in Iraq last month, and the sense I got is that Iraqis just want their country back. They’re sick of Iranians. They’re sick of Americans. They just want their country back, and their worst nightmare is to be the chessboard board on which the game gets played between the United States and Iran. Now it appears this is where it might be going.
Jen Kirby
It does certainly seem like that. Obviously, we’re still figuring out what happened, but what should we be watching for next?
Ilan Goldenberg
So I think there are two things to watch for: On the US side, the president’s national security team had a meeting at the White House [Tuesday evening] and left. Are they going to cook up more options? Are we going to see an American response in the next couple of days? Or are we going to see a calm silence?
On the Iranian side, the question is what is the immediate and what is the long term? In the immediate, are they done? Or will we have another wave like this tomorrow? I think they’re done. I’m really hoping they’re done.
I think we should still watch out for other unattributable things, which is where the more damaging or meaningful response will come. Again, cyberterrorism, assassinations — I think those things are being cooked up and may come, but we just don’t know when they will come.
And that could be a matter of weeks. It could be a matter of months, it could be years. It could even be after Donald Trump’s presidency.
Jen Kirby
So to the question everyone wants to know: Are we at war? Or, at least, are we closer to war than we were after the initial news of Soleimani’s death?
Ilan Goldenberg
I don’t know yet for sure. Here are the things to watch: It ultimately depends on what we, the United States, do in response, and what Iran does next.
At the moment, we’re not at war. We are in a highly escalatory situation. We are in a shadow war. We’re not at war. And being at war would mean having to go to Congress and get approval for that.
So we’re not at war. Are we a step closer? Maybe. I’m actually not sure we’re a step closer. We may even be a step farther away because if this was the extent of Iran’s, at least its initial, public retaliation — it could have been worse. But if it’s the beginning of more public retaliation, that’s different.


vox--2020-01-07--Iran attacks 2 US military targets in Iraq: What we know so far

Iran fired multiple missiles at two US military targets in Iraq on Tuesday night in retaliation for President Donald Trump ’ s decision last week to kill Qassem Soleimani , the leader of Iran ’ s elite military and intelligence force .
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps , a part of Iran ’ s military in which Soleimani was a leading figure , claimed responsibility for the attack , and top-level Iranian officials are already boasting about the strikes .
For days , Iranian leaders signaled that they would strike US military targets in response to Soleimani ’ s killing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me that Iran fired 15 missiles : Ten struck al-Asad airbase west of Baghdad , Iraq ; one struck Erbil in northern Iraq ; and four failed .
David Cloud of the Los Angeles Times reports that the US was able to track the launches with radar , giving personnel time to take cover .
A White House official told me that there were no American casualties , which tracks with multiple other reports citing unnamed sources saying that there were no US casualties from the strikes .
There are unconfirmed reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems unbothered by what happened , tweeting hours after the attack that “ All is well !
” It ’ s important to note that Iran doesn ’ t have missiles that can reach the US mainland from Iran , nor does it have a nuclear weapon .
It ’ s why Iran uses proxies and weapons at its disposal mainly to strike US targets and American allies in the Middle East .
There ’ s a chance for de-escalation , as Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said in a tweeted statement that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in self-defense.
” Concluded is an important word , signaling that Iran may be done .
However , Iran has threatened to attack inside the US if America responds specifically to this assault — which means an Iranian strike inside the US isn ’ t imminent .
Iran has also vowed to attack the cities of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and Haifa in Israel if Iranian soil is bombed .
Details are still developing , but here ’ s what we do and don ’ t know so far .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we learn more .
What we know • A US Central Command spokesperson told me that Iran fired 15 missiles , four of which failed to hit their target .
Ten were struck al-Asad airbase and one struck Erbil .
• A White House official told me there are no American casualties , though it ’ s unclear if there are Iraqi casualties .
• Iran has threatened to attack inside the US if America retaliates to this specific assault .
Iran has also vowed to attack the cities of Dubai in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Iranian soil is bombed .
• The FAA has barred US airlines from flying over Iraq and Iran .
What we don ’ t know • If anyone has been officially confirmed as injured or killed

Iran fired missiles at two US military targets in Iraq Tuesday night in retaliation for President Donald Trump’s decision last week to kill Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s elite military and intelligence force.
The Revolutionary Guard Corps, a part of Iran’s military in which Soleimani was a leading figure, claimed responsibility for the attack, and top-level Iranian officials boasted about the strikes. For days, Iranian leaders signaled that they would strike US military targets in response to Soleimani’s killing, and it certainly seems like this was that strike. It’s unclear if there are more to come in the next few days or weeks.
A spokesperson for US Central Command told me that Iran fired 15 missiles: Ten struck al-Asad airbase west of Baghdad, Iraq; one struck Erbil in northern Iraq; and four failed. David Cloud of the Los Angeles Times reports that the US was able to track the launches with radar, giving personnel time to take cover. Unnamed Iraqi military officials told the New York Times that Iran launched 22 missiles.
A White House official told me Tuesday night that there were no American casualties, although the Pentagon has yet to officially say whether or not Americans were killed. Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi released a statement on Wednesday saying no Iraqis were killed.
CNN reports that some Trump administration officials believe Iran purposefully missed areas with Americans, but there is no official confirmation on that yet.
Trump seems unbothered by what happened, tweeting hours after the attack that “All is well!” He plans to make a statement sometime on Wednesday morning.
All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2020
It’s important to note that Iran doesn’t have missiles that can reach the US mainland from Iran, nor does it have a nuclear weapon. It’s why Iran uses proxies and weapons at its disposal mainly to strike US targets and American allies in the Middle East.
There’s a chance for de-escalation, as Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said in a tweeted statement that “Iran took and concluded proportionate measures in self-defense.” Concluded is an important word, signaling that Iran may be done.
Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched.
We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression. — Javad Zarif (@JZarif) January 8, 2020
However, Iran has threatened to attack inside the US if America responds specifically to this assault — which means an Iranian strike inside the US isn’t imminent. Iran has also vowed to attack the cities of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and Haifa in Israel if Iranian soil is bombed.
There’s more: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said his nation’s final act will be to get all US forces out of the region. It’s unclear if that means using military force to compel US troops to leave or work with political allies, especially in Baghdad, to have the US military leave.
And Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted Wednesday morning that Iran may take further action.
They were slapped last night, but such military actions are not enough. #AlAssadBase — Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) January 8, 2020
Planet Labs has released an image of Al-Asad airbase showing extensive damage to some of the installation’s buildings.
Several locations of Ain al-Asad airbase were hit by the IRGC ballistic missiles, this @planetlabs satellite image captured this morning shows. Damage assessment by @ArmsControlWonk and @DaveSchmerler. Google Maps reference of area: https://t.co/PYa7owsYHo. pic.twitter.com/cpzvTgH6U0 — Christiaan Triebert (@trbrtc) January 8, 2020
The story is still developing, but here’s what we do and don’t know so far. We will continue to update this article as we learn more.
What we know
A US Central Command spokesperson told me that Iran fired 15 missiles, four of which failed to hit their target. Ten struck al-Asad airbase and one struck Erbil. Iraqi officials say Iran launched 22 missiles.
A White House official told me there are no American casualties, and Iraq’s prime minister said no Iraqis died. The Pentagon has yet to confirm if there were any US deaths.
Iran has threatened to attack inside the US if America retaliates to this specific assault. Iran has also vowed to attack the cities of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and Haifa in Israel if Iranian soil is bombed.
The FAA has barred US airlines from flying over Iraq and Iran.
What we don’t know


vox--2020-01-07--It’s all up to Trump now

It’s all up to Trump now

Iran ’ s Tuesday night missile attacks on multiple US military targets in Iraq are the country ’ s first tangible retaliation for the killing of Qassem Soleimani , a key Iranian military leader .
A White House source told Vox there were no American casualties , but it is still possible Iraqis may have been killed in the strike .
The big question now — the really scary question — is how President Donald Trump will respond .
The Iranians have sent clear signals , both through the missile strikes and through semi-official and official channels , that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chooses a relatively limited and restrained form of retaliation , or even a nonmilitary response like just sending out a tweet declaring victory , it ’ s possible that Iran won ’ t escalate things any further .
This crisis set off by Soleimani ’ s killing would then turn out to be a short-lived military skirmish rather than a full-scale war .
Indeed , Trump ’ s first tweet after the attacks suggests this is the route he ’ s going down : But this is not necessarily the last word ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make a statement Wednesday morning ) .
If Trump changes his mind and goes in the other direction — ordering some kind of aggressive retaliation like airstrikes on targets inside Iranian territory , for example — the Islamic Republic will likely feel a need to respond yet again .
Fox News ’ s Sean Hannity , one of the media personalities the US president watches religiously , is calling for attacks on Iran ’ s oil and nuclear facilities .
If that happens , we could very well be on the road @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of war that , if it comes to it , could dwarf even the Iraq War in scope and horror .
Iran ’ s Revolutionary Guard has vowed to respond to another strike by the US with an attack on the American homeland .
Congress has largely abandoned its oversight role when it comes to war and peace .
That means that , in the American political system as it actually operates , one person gets the final say on this .
Currently , that person is Donald Trump .
Whether this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his deeply questionable judgment .
Why almost everything hangs on America ’ s — that is , Trump ’ s — response now It ’ s possible this isn ’ t the end of the Iranian military response .
However , strong signals from Tehran sent out Tuesday night through various channels are all framed as contingent on another American response .
If you attack us again , we ’ ll hit you again — but not otherwise .
This suggests the Iranians don ’ t want a wider war .
That makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their interest to fight a major war against a vastly superior military power like the United States .
But it ’ s not in American interests to fight that war , either .
As my colleague Alex Ward explains , a US-Iran war would be incredibly ugly and bloody .
Iran ’ s capabilities to fight back , both in the region and via terrorist attacks around the world , far outstrip Iraq ’ s in 2003 .
An untold number of soldiers and civilians would die for very little strategic gain .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : that his oft-stated desire to avoid US involvement in Middle East wars kicks in , and he backs down from the brink in the same way that he pulled away from the threats to attack North Korea in 2017 ( and Iran in June ) .
Maybe just send out some tweets declaring his policy a success , and call it a day .
His first tweet certainly indicates this could be the outcome .
But it ’ s not necessarily what this mercurial president will settle on .
The administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was , as far as we can tell , that hitting Iran hard would deter the country from further attacks on American interests — “ deterrence by escalation , ” essentially .
Yet Tuesday night , Iran openly struck directly at American bases for the first time in recent memory ( typically , it has proxy forces conduct such risky operations to add a layer of plausible deniability ) .
According to the administration ’ s stated logic and that of its validators on Capitol Hill and in the media , this could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This would likely have the opposite of the intended effect — pushing Iran to retaliate , thus locking the two countries in a cycle of escalation that could make a full-scale war that nobody wants a reality .
And more fundamentally , Trump is an erratic and impulsive man .
He ’ s demonstrated little capability to think strategically about conflict , going with whatever seems persuasive in the moment rather than some kind of well-thought-out strategy .
The strike on Soleimani was something he decided on personally , an extreme policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wouldn ’ t take .
So we ’ re at a fork in the road between deescalation and a wider war .
All the strategic logic in the world suggests the smart move would be to travel down the first path .
But the White House ’ s unpredictable occupant is at the wheel , and there is no real way to predict which direction he ’ ll go .
The first signs are encouraging — but we ’ re not out of the woods yet .

Iran’s Tuesday night missile attacks on multiple US military targets in Iraq are the country’s first tangible retaliation for the killing of Qassem Soleimani, a key Iranian military leader. A White House source told Vox there were no American casualties, but it is still possible Iraqis may have been killed in the strike.
The big question now — the really scary question — is how President Donald Trump will respond.
The Iranians have sent clear signals, both through the missile strikes and through semi-official and official channels, that this is their big response. If Trump chooses a relatively limited and restrained form of retaliation, or even a nonmilitary response like just sending out a tweet declaring victory, it’s possible that Iran won’t escalate things any further.
This crisis set off by Soleimani’s killing would then turn out to be a short-lived military skirmish rather than a full-scale war. Indeed, Trump’s first tweet after the attacks suggests this is the route he’s going down:
All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2020
But this is not necessarily the last word (after all, he said he plans to make a statement Wednesday morning). If Trump changes his mind and goes in the other direction — ordering some kind of aggressive retaliation like airstrikes on targets inside Iranian territory, for example — the Islamic Republic will likely feel a need to respond yet again. Fox News’s Sean Hannity, one of the media personalities the US president watches religiously, is calling for attacks on Iran’s oil and nuclear facilities.
If that happens, we could very well be on the road to a much bigger war — the kind of war that, if it comes to it, could dwarf even the Iraq War in scope and horror. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has vowed to respond to another strike by the US with an attack on the American homeland.
Congress has largely abandoned its oversight role when it comes to war and peace. That means that, in the American political system as it actually operates, one person gets the final say on this. Currently, that person is Donald Trump. Whether this crisis escalates depends a great deal on his deeply questionable judgment.
Why almost everything hangs on America’s — that is, Trump’s — response now
It’s possible this isn’t the end of the Iranian military response. However, strong signals from Tehran sent out Tuesday night through various channels are all framed as contingent on another American response. If you attack us again, we’ll hit you again — but not otherwise.
Iran saying it will escalate if attacked by US, or per our @aliarouzi , will stop if no US response. — Richard Engel (@RichardEngel) January 8, 2020
This suggests the Iranians don’t want a wider war. That makes sense: It’s not in their interest to fight a major war against a vastly superior military power like the United States.
But it’s not in American interests to fight that war, either. As my colleague Alex Ward explains, a US-Iran war would be incredibly ugly and bloody. Iran’s capabilities to fight back, both in the region and via terrorist attacks around the world, far outstrip Iraq’s in 2003. An untold number of soldiers and civilians would die for very little strategic gain.
The hope is that Trump recognizes this: that his oft-stated desire to avoid US involvement in Middle East wars kicks in, and he backs down from the brink in the same way that he pulled away from the threats to attack North Korea in 2017 (and Iran in June). Maybe just send out some tweets declaring his policy a success, and call it a day.
His first tweet certainly indicates this could be the outcome. But it’s not necessarily what this mercurial president will settle on.
The administration’s thinking behind the hit on Soleimani was, as far as we can tell, that hitting Iran hard would deter the country from further attacks on American interests — “deterrence by escalation,” essentially.
Yet Tuesday night, Iran openly struck directly at American bases for the first time in recent memory (typically, it has proxy forces conduct such risky operations to add a layer of plausible deniability). According to the administration’s stated logic and that of its validators on Capitol Hill and in the media, this could require yet another, bigger US response.
This would likely have the opposite of the intended effect — pushing Iran to retaliate, thus locking the two countries in a cycle of escalation that could make a full-scale war that nobody wants a reality.
And more fundamentally, Trump is an erratic and impulsive man. He’s demonstrated little capability to think strategically about conflict, going with whatever seems persuasive in the moment rather than some kind of well-thought-out strategy. The strike on Soleimani was something he decided on personally, an extreme policy option the Pentagon was reportedly fairly confident he wouldn’t take.
So we’re at a fork in the road between deescalation and a wider war. All the strategic logic in the world suggests the smart move would be to travel down the first path. But the White House’s unpredictable occupant is at the wheel, and there is no real way to predict which direction he’ll go. The first signs are encouraging — but we’re not out of the woods yet.


vox--2020-01-07--Facebook is like sugar — too much is bad for you, says a top Facebook exec

It ’ s no longer news when a prominent tech figure describes Facebook as a product with potentially toxic effects .
We ’ ve been hearing that for several years now .
It is news when that description comes from a current top Facebook executive .
The Facebook executive is Andrew “ Boz ” Bosworth , a longtime Facebook executive who currently runs the company ’ s experiments in augmented and virtual reality .
And his analogy — which compares Facebook to sugar— comes from a recent memo he distributed to Facebook employees late last year , which surfaced on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ While Facebook may not be nicotine I think it is probably like sugar .
Sugar is delicious and for most of us there is a special place for it in our lives .
But like all things it benefits from moderation , ” Bosworth wrote in an internal post he initially published at the end of 2019 .
Then he took his argument to ( his ) logical conclusion : “ If I want to eat sugar and die an early death that is a valid position.
” Bosworth ’ s memo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is getting plenty of deserved attention , including the assertion that Facebook did indeed help Donald Trump win the 2016 election — by giving him the tools to run “ the single best digital ad campaign I ’ ve ever seen from any advertiser .
Period.
” And the memo also reveals that Bosworth , a self-described “ committed liberal ” , fantasizes about using Facebook to prevent Trump from winning in 2020 , but won ’ t .
But it ’ s Bosworth 's notion that Facebook , like sugar , can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that Facebook ’ s users are ultimately responsible for deciding how to use Facebook , that is striking .
I haven ’ t ever heard a Facebook executive say something that clear , out loud , in what is more or less a public forum .
In the past , Facebook leaders like Mark Zuckerberg have discussed the idea of promoting healthy use of Facebook , using notions like “ time well spent.
” But describing the $ 611 billion company ’ s core product as a thing that can make you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s both common sense — you shouldn ’ t use too much of anything — and an important milestone for a company that has been under constant attack .
The flip side : As jarring as the analogy sounds for a company that has always insisted that its product is a fundamentally good thing for the world , it is also a useful way for Facebook to encourage users , politicians , and regulators to think about Facebook .
Sugar , after all , is legal , and produced and consumed in enormous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lots of people , including government agencies , will tell people not to consume too much sugar , they almost never put restraints on sugar consumption .
( Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg , a rare exception , did try to do that as Mayor of New York City , by taxing sugary drinks , and found himself widely derided as an advocate of a nanny state .
You won ’ t see him talking that one up during his campaign . )
Bosworth heads down this route in his essay , arguing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decide how much sugar to shove into their body — and pointing out unsuccessful efforts by companies to sell healthy foods , because their consumers truly want to shovel lots of sugar into their body .
“ At the end of the day we are forced to ask what responsibility individuals have for themselves.
” That doesn ’ t mean Bosworth , or his bosses , are arguing that Facebook shouldn ’ t be regulated — Facebook ’ s current talking point is that it welcomes regulation , and wishes that that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and regulate Facebook and the rest of the internet .
But it ultimately leaves Facebook off the hook for damage the product causes : It only sold you Twinkies by the pallet — it didn ’ t force you to eat all of them .

It’s no longer news when a prominent tech figure describes Facebook as a product with potentially toxic effects. We’ve been hearing that for several years now.
It is news when that description comes from a current top Facebook executive.
The Facebook executive is Andrew “Boz” Bosworth, a longtime Facebook executive who currently runs the company’s experiments in augmented and virtual reality. And his analogy — which compares Facebook to sugar— comes from a recent memo he distributed to Facebook employees late last year, which surfaced on Tuesday via the New York Times.
“While Facebook may not be nicotine I think it is probably like sugar. Sugar is delicious and for most of us there is a special place for it in our lives. But like all things it benefits from moderation,” Bosworth wrote in an internal post he initially published at the end of 2019. Then he took his argument to (his) logical conclusion: “If I want to eat sugar and die an early death that is a valid position.”
Bosworth’s memo has much more in there, which is getting plenty of deserved attention, including the assertion that Facebook did indeed help Donald Trump win the 2016 election — by giving him the tools to run “the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser. Period.” And the memo also reveals that Bosworth, a self-described “committed liberal,” fantasizes about using Facebook to prevent Trump from winning in 2020, but won’t.
But it’s Bosworth's notion that Facebook, like sugar, can be a harmful product if misused, and that Facebook’s users are ultimately responsible for deciding how to use Facebook, that is striking. I haven’t ever heard a Facebook executive say something that clear, out loud, in what is more or less a public forum.
In the past, Facebook leaders like Mark Zuckerberg have discussed the idea of promoting healthy use of Facebook, using notions like “time well spent.” But describing the $611 billion company’s core product as a thing that can make you sick is something new.
It’s both common sense — you shouldn’t use too much of anything — and an important milestone for a company that has been under constant attack.
(Here we should point out that this isn’t the first time one of Bosworth’s internal memos have created uncomfortable news for Facebook. But while Bosworth isn't speaking on Facebook’s behalf, Facebook feels comfortable with Bosworth speaking his mind in public forums like Twitter and the 2019 Code Conference. Asked for comment on Bosworth’s commentary, Facebook PR sent a link to a Facebook post he put up today which republishes his commentary, along with introductory text.)
The flip side: As jarring as the analogy sounds for a company that has always insisted that its product is a fundamentally good thing for the world, it is also a useful way for Facebook to encourage users, politicians, and regulators to think about Facebook.
Sugar, after all, is legal, and produced and consumed in enormous quantities around the world. And while lots of people, including government agencies, will tell people not to consume too much sugar, they almost never put restraints on sugar consumption. (Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, a rare exception, did try to do that as Mayor of New York City, by taxing sugary drinks, and found himself widely derided as an advocate of a nanny state. You won’t see him talking that one up during his 2020 campaign.)
Bosworth heads down this route in his essay, arguing that it’s up to consumers to decide how much sugar to shove into their body — and pointing out unsuccessful efforts by companies to sell healthy foods, because their consumers truly want to shovel lots of sugar into their body. “At the end of the day we are forced to ask what responsibility individuals have for themselves.”
That doesn’t mean Bosworth, or his bosses, are arguing that Facebook shouldn’t be regulated — Facebook’s current talking point is that it welcomes regulation, and wishes that that the governments of the world would hurry up and regulate Facebook and the rest of the internet.
But it ultimately leaves Facebook off the hook for damage the product causes: It only sold you Twinkies by the pallet — it didn’t force you to eat all of them.