vox--2020-01-08--AI poses risks, but the White House says regulators shouldn’t “needlessly hamper” innovation

Artificial intelligence is here , and it ’ s impacting our lives in real ways — whether it ’ s the Alexa smart speaker on our nightstand , online customer service chatbots , or the smart replies Google drafts for our emails .
But so far , the tech ’ s development has outpaced regulation .
Now , government agencies are increasingly encountering AI-based tools , and they must figure out how to evaluate them .
Take the Food and Drug Administration , which greenlights new medical products : It needs to review and approve new health care products that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promises to detect eye problems related to diabetes — before they ’ re sold to us .
Or consider the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission , which investigates employment discrimination .
Today , the agency must also make decisions about AI-based hiring algorithms , like those that screen job candidates ’ resumes and decide whether or not you deserve an interview .
On Wednesday at CES , the prominent Las Vegas-based technology trade show , White House officials formally announced how the Office of Science and Technology wants federal agencies to approach regulating new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ develop the tech .
The White House ’ s proposed AI guidance discusses some of the biggest concerns technologists , AI ethicists , and even some government officials have about the technology , but the guidelines are centered most on encouraging innovation in artificial intelligence and making sure regulations don ’ t “ needlessly ” get in the way .
That reflects an ongoing problem for AI , one that ’ s already played out in other tech sectors , where a rush to innovate without much oversight has only come to back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AI is certainly a consideration , critics of the technology have said that regulators must scrutinize artificial intelligence more closely as it continues to be rolled out in the real world .
They argue that artificial intelligence can replicate , and even amplify , human biases .
These tools often function in black boxes — meaning that they ’ re proprietary and operated by the companies that sell them — which makes it difficult for us to know when or how they might be harming real people ( or if they even work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tools can also raise concerns about privacy and surveillance .
For now , these new guidelines are just that — guidelines — which means that today ’ s memo won ’ t have an immediate effect on the artificial intelligence tech you might encounter in your daily life .
But the memo shows how the government is thinking about AI and its potential impact on Americans .
“ People should care that the White House is trying to bring a framework for assessing and justifying the deployment of AI tools , because what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ develop and emerge is that there are some applications that have deeper consequences than others , ” said Nicol Turner-Lee , a fellow at the Brookings Institution who researches technology and equity .
Trump and his administration want the US to dominate the AI industry — and they definitely want the US to be better at AI than China .
Early last year , President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing the “ American A.I .
Initiative , ” which is meant to jumpstart AI research and help build an AI-competent US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he didn ’ t give the effort any new funding ) .
Outlining 10 primary principles , today ’ s memo to federal departments and agencies echoes the goals of that executive order .
It urges regulators to be mindful of innovation and to “ consider ways to reduce barriers to the development and adoption ” of AI when weighing how existing laws and potential new rules apply to the emerging technology .
“ Federal agencies must avoid regulatory or non-regulatory actions that needlessly hamper AI innovation and growth , ” says the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precautionary approach that holds AI systems to such an impossibly high standard that society can not enjoy their benefits.
” At the same time , the guidance also urges regulators to be conscientious of values like transparency , risk management , fairness , and nondiscrimination .
These are all fair points .
By encouraging these federal departments and agencies to take action , the Trump administration also hopes to avoid a future in which American AI companies might face a patchwork of local and state regulation , or possibly overreaching federal regulation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expansion .
AI experts told Recode that the AI guidelines are a starting point .
“ It will take time to assess how effective these principles are in practice , and we will be watching closely , ” said Rashida Richardson , the director of policy research at the AI Now Institute .
“ Establishing boundaries for the federal government and the private sector around AI technology will offer greater insight to those of us working in the accountability space.
” Aaron Rieke , the managing director of the technology rights nonprofit Upturn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , for now , he doesn ’ t think the memo will have much influence : “ I do not think these principles will have much of an impact on the average person , especially in the short term .
I think regulators will be able to justify their decisions , good or bad , without much effort.
” Importantly , the memo doesn ’ t actually apply to artificial intelligence that the US government itself uses ( of which there ’ s plenty ) .
For instance , a search of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Centers for Disease Control has purchased facial recognition products ( an AI-based technology ) , while the Department of Commerce appears to be using AI to improve its patent search system .
One of the reasons AI needs regulations : It comes with risks AI systems are not inherently objective .
Humans build these tools , and AI is often developed using flawed or biased data , which means the technology can inherit or even magnify human biases like sexism and racism .
For instance , when in 2017 scientists taught a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by mining the internet , it ultimately became prejudiced against women and black people .
Critics say that risk means the government should aggressively regulate , and even ban , certain applications of artificial intelligence .
And some AI tools , like facial recognition , that rely on collecting sensitive information , have also spurred concerns about how this tech could potentially create privacy and surveillance nightmares .
“ AI systems have a potential to discriminate against the American public on the basis of race , sex , gender — every sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AI already has the potential to have a real impact on your life , even if you haven ’ t realized it yet .
Some landlords have floated requiring tenants to use facial recognition to enter their homes , even though the technology is known to be less accurate on people of color and women ( and especially women with dark skin ) , among other groups .
Another example : Though never used , a resume-screening algorithm produced by Amazon inadvertently discriminated against female applicants because it was trained on resumes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came from men .
Imagine losing out on your dream job because of a biased algorithm .
“ AI systems have a potential to discriminate against the American public on the basis of race , sex , gender — every sort of criteria imaginable , ” Albert Fox Cahn , an attorney who leads the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project at New York University , told Recode .
“ This could impact everything from whether you get a job offer , whether you get approved for an apartment or a mortgage , whether you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad interest rate .
It could impact college admissions and school placement.
” That ’ s left him disappointed with the new proposed guidelines .
“ Rather than provide a framework for regulators to actually address discrimination head-on , instead the White House is urging a hands-off approach which will allow AI to simply target historically marginalized communities without the interventions we need , ” said Cahn .
He said the memo ’ s references to values of nondiscrimination and transparency don ’ t have much force behind them .
“ When you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AI-vulnerable , it ’ s in those areas like housing , health care , and employment — the areas that primarily make the front page of the newspaper , ” said Turner-Lee .
She said it ’ s not clear what the memo will mean for agencies like the Department of Labor and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as compared to , say , the Department of Agriculture .
She adds that it ’ s also not clear whether agencies are actually prepared to identify the risks AI tech poses , or if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensuring their regulations keep pace with innovation .
“ There ’ s a lot more of the devil in the details that I ’ d like to see , but I think they ’ re just trying to give us a general framework for some kind of ethical and fair deployment.
” Now the White House wants feedback , including yours The draft guidance isn ’ t set in stone .
For the next several months , it will be subject to public feedback , including yours ( we ’ ll update this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon as the information becomes available ) .
Once the guidance is formally approved , the White House expects that agencies will report back on how they plan to meet its new AI expectations .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

Artificial intelligence is here, and it’s impacting our lives in real ways — whether it’s the Alexa smart speaker on our nightstand, online customer service chatbots, or the smart replies Google drafts for our emails.
But so far, the tech’s development has outpaced regulation. Now, government agencies are increasingly encountering AI-based tools, and they must figure out how to evaluate them. Take the Food and Drug Administration, which greenlights new medical products: It needs to review and approve new health care products that boast AI-capabilities — like this one that promises to detect eye problems related to diabetes — before they’re sold to us. Or consider the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which investigates employment discrimination. Today, the agency must also make decisions about AI-based hiring algorithms, like those that screen job candidates’ resumes and decide whether or not you deserve an interview.
On Wednesday at CES, the prominent Las Vegas-based technology trade show, White House officials formally announced how the Office of Science and Technology wants federal agencies to approach regulating new artificial intelligence-based tools and the industries that develop the tech.
The White House’s proposed AI guidance discusses some of the biggest concerns technologists, AI ethicists, and even some government officials have about the technology, but the guidelines are centered most on encouraging innovation in artificial intelligence and making sure regulations don’t “needlessly” get in the way.
That reflects an ongoing problem for AI, one that’s already played out in other tech sectors, where a rush to innovate without much oversight has only come to back haunt us.
While encouraging innovation in AI is certainly a consideration, critics of the technology have said that regulators must scrutinize artificial intelligence more closely as it continues to be rolled out in the real world. They argue that artificial intelligence can replicate, and even amplify, human biases. These tools often function in black boxes — meaning that they’re proprietary and operated by the companies that sell them — which makes it difficult for us to know when or how they might be harming real people (or if they even work as intended). And new AI-based tools can also raise concerns about privacy and surveillance.
For now, these new guidelines are just that — guidelines — which means that today’s memo won’t have an immediate effect on the artificial intelligence tech you might encounter in your daily life. But the memo shows how the government is thinking about AI and its potential impact on Americans. “People should care that the White House is trying to bring a framework for assessing and justifying the deployment of AI tools, because what we’re finding as these tools develop and emerge is that there are some applications that have deeper consequences than others,” said Nicol Turner-Lee, a fellow at the Brookings Institution who researches technology and equity.
The Trump administration wants a national AI effort
Trump and his administration want the US to dominate the AI industry — and they definitely want the US to be better at AI than China. Early last year, President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing the “American A.I. Initiative,” which is meant to jumpstart AI research and help build an AI-competent US workforce, among other goals, and directs agencies to prioritize the technology within their budgets.
“Federal agencies must avoid ... needlessly hamper[ing] AI innovation and growth”
Outlining 10 primary principles, today’s memo to federal departments and agencies echoes the goals of that executive order. It urges regulators to be mindful of innovation and to “consider ways to reduce barriers to the development and adoption” of AI when weighing how existing laws and potential new rules apply to the emerging technology.
“Federal agencies must avoid regulatory or non-regulatory actions that needlessly hamper AI innovation and growth,” says the memo. “Agencies must avoid a precautionary approach that holds AI systems to such an impossibly high standard that society cannot enjoy their benefits.” At the same time, the guidance also urges regulators to be conscientious of values like transparency, risk management, fairness, and nondiscrimination.
These are all fair points. By encouraging these federal departments and agencies to take action, the Trump administration also hopes to avoid a future in which American AI companies might face a patchwork of local and state regulation, or possibly overreaching federal regulation, that could impede the technology’s expansion.
AI experts told Recode that the AI guidelines are a starting point. “It will take time to assess how effective these principles are in practice, and we will be watching closely,” said Rashida Richardson, the director of policy research at the AI Now Institute. “Establishing boundaries for the federal government and the private sector around AI technology will offer greater insight to those of us working in the accountability space.”
Aaron Rieke, the managing director of the technology rights nonprofit Upturn, said in an email to Recode that, for now, he doesn’t think the memo will have much influence: “I do not think these principles will have much of an impact on the average person, especially in the short term. I think regulators will be able to justify their decisions, good or bad, without much effort.”
Importantly, the memo doesn’t actually apply to artificial intelligence that the US government itself uses (of which there’s plenty). For instance, a search of a US federal contracts database shows that the Centers for Disease Control has purchased facial recognition products (an AI-based technology), while the Department of Commerce appears to be using AI to improve its patent search system.
One of the reasons AI needs regulations: It comes with risks
AI systems are not inherently objective. Humans build these tools, and AI is often developed using flawed or biased data, which means the technology can inherit or even magnify human biases like sexism and racism. For instance, when in 2017 scientists taught a computer program to learn the English language by mining the internet, it ultimately became prejudiced against women and black people.
Critics say that risk means the government should aggressively regulate, and even ban, certain applications of artificial intelligence. And some AI tools, like facial recognition, that rely on collecting sensitive information, have also spurred concerns about how this tech could potentially create privacy and surveillance nightmares.
“AI systems have a potential to discriminate against the American public on the basis of race, sex, gender — every sort of criteria imaginable”
This all matters because AI already has the potential to have a real impact on your life, even if you haven’t realized it yet. Some landlords have floated requiring tenants to use facial recognition to enter their homes, even though the technology is known to be less accurate on people of color and women (and especially women with dark skin), among other groups. Another example: Though never used, a resume-screening algorithm produced by Amazon inadvertently discriminated against female applicants because it was trained on resumes the company had previously collected, which mostly came from men. Imagine losing out on your dream job because of a biased algorithm.
“AI systems have a potential to discriminate against the American public on the basis of race, sex, gender — every sort of criteria imaginable,” Albert Fox Cahn, an attorney who leads the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, told Recode. “This could impact everything from whether you get a job offer, whether you get approved for an apartment or a mortgage, whether you get the good interest rate or the bad interest rate. It could impact college admissions and school placement.”
That’s left him disappointed with the new proposed guidelines. “Rather than provide a framework for regulators to actually address discrimination head-on, instead the White House is urging a hands-off approach which will allow AI to simply target historically marginalized communities without the interventions we need,” said Cahn. He said the memo’s references to values of nondiscrimination and transparency don’t have much force behind them.
“When you think of where most consumers are more AI-vulnerable, it’s in those areas like housing, health care, and employment — the areas that primarily make the front page of the newspaper,” said Turner-Lee. She said it’s not clear what the memo will mean for agencies like the Department of Labor and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as compared to, say, the Department of Agriculture.
She adds that it’s also not clear whether agencies are actually prepared to identify the risks AI tech poses, or if they’re up to the job of ensuring their regulations keep pace with innovation. “There’s a lot more of the devil in the details that I’d like to see, but I think they’re just trying to give us a general framework for some kind of ethical and fair deployment.”
Now the White House wants feedback, including yours
The draft guidance isn’t set in stone. For the next several months, it will be subject to public feedback, including yours (You can share your comments here). Once the guidance is formally approved, the White House expects that agencies will report back on how they plan to meet its new AI expectations.
Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly implied that President Trump has not directed an increase in funding for AI. The 2020 budget includes new funding for AI.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-01-09--Why you might not see any athletes protest at this summer’s Olympics

There will be no athletes taking a knee on the field at this year ’ s Olympics in Tokyo .
In fact , there won ’ t be any visible athlete protests if the International Olympic Committee gets its wish .
The IOC on Thursday became the latest athletic organization to crack down on political protests by its athletes , publishing new rules governing when and how competitors can express political opinions .
According to the new rules , athletes are barred from conducting protests or demonstrations on the field of play , in the Olympic Village , during medal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closing ceremonies of the games .
The rule gives several examples of prohibited protest , including messages on armbands or signs , hand gestures with political meaning , kneeling , or refusal to follow ceremony protocol .
Athletes will be allowed to express political opinions in media gatherings , press conferences , and mixed-zone interviews , and on social media .
That runs counter to a limited , but storied , history of protest at the biannual sporting event ; the famous 1968 podium protest when Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest racism in America would be prohibited under these rules .
IOC officials stressed Thursday that limiting political speech is key to maintaining harmony between athletes and nations at the games .
“ It is important , on both a personal and a global level , that we keep the venues , the Olympic Village and the podium neutral and free from any form of political , religious or ethnic demonstrations , ” said the IOC Athletes ’ Commission in an introduction accompanying the rules .
“ If we do not , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around us could be tarnished , and the world would quickly no longer be able to look at us competing and living respectfully together , as conflicts drive a wedge between individuals , groups and nations.
” While restricting athlete protest may produce a sufficiently sterilized sporting environment for Olympic sponsors and broadcasters , it may violate the original spirit of the games .
The founder of the modern Olympics , Pierre de Coubertin , emphasized that games were meant to bring humanity together not only to celebrate athletic excellence , but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ To spread these principles is to build up a strong and more valiant and , above all , more scrupulous and more generous humanity , ” he ’ s quoted as saying in the Olympian , published in 1984 .
Athletes could still choose to defy the rules but would risk facing three layers of disciplinary action — from the IOC , their home nation ’ s Olympic Committee , and their sport ’ s international governing body .
In a statement last week , Athlete Global blasted the IOC ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let ’ s be clear , the Olympic Movement has already politicized sport , ” reads the statement , citing promotion of the unified North and South Korea at the Winter Games in 2018 , and the involvement of heads of state as de facto heads of national Olympic committees .
“ We should embrace [ athletes ’ ] diverse opinions .
Silencing athletes should never be tolerated and to threaten them with removal from the Olympic Games is another sign of the imbalance between sport leaders and athletes.
” The IOC joins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hard line on athlete protest The IOC is far from the only sports organization to prioritize harmony — and its bottom line — over the athletes ’ attempts to “ strive for a better world.
” The US Olympic Committee punished two athletes for participating in podium protests at the Pan Am Games last August .
Hammer thrower Gwen Berry raised a fist and fencer Race Imboden took a knee during medal ceremonies , and both were subsequently put on probation by the USOC for 12 months , which will cover the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a resurgence in the 2010s — from NBA protests in 2014 that featured LeBron James and several other league stars wearing warmup shirts that read “ I can ’ t breathe , ” the last words of Eric Garner as he was strangled by New York Police officers , to perhaps most notably NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick and several of his teammates taking a knee during the national anthem to protest police violence against black people in the US in 2016 .
His protest set off a high-profile clash with President Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ should find a country that works better for him.
” The former 49ers player has since been blackballed by the NFL and hasn ’ t taken a snap since 2016 .
US Soccer restricted political protests in 2017 by its players after star Megan Rapinoe began kneeling during the national anthem in solidarity with Kaepernick the year before .
“ When I take a knee , I am facing the flag with my full body , staring straight into the heart of our country ’ s ultimate symbol of freedom — because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as it is yours , to ensure that freedom is afforded to everyone in this country , ” she wrote at the time of her protest in an op-ed for the Players ’ Tribune .
( The restrictions haven ’ t stopped Rapinoe or others on the US Women ’ s National Team from expressing themselves politically in other ways . )
More recently , the NBA was criticized for cracking down on player and coach support for protesters in Hong Kong to preserve its access to the Chinese market .
Houston @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ fight for freedom , stand with Hong Kong.
” The tweet set off a firestorm that included denunciation from the Chinese Consulate in Houston , and an apology from the NBA league office ; the Rockets were reportedly at one point considering firing him .
While the IOC may well end up with the protest-free Summer Games it ’ s hoping for , burying political speech on behalf of the world ’ s marginalized populations most likely won ’ t do anything to create a better world .

There will be no athletes taking a knee on the field at this year’s Olympics in Tokyo. In fact, there won’t be any visible athlete protests if the International Olympic Committee gets its wish.
The IOC on Thursday became the latest athletic organization to crack down on political protests by its athletes, publishing new rules governing when and how competitors can express political opinions.
According to the new rules, athletes are barred from conducting protests or demonstrations on the field of play, in the Olympic Village, during medal ceremonies, or during the opening or closing ceremonies of the games. The rule gives several examples of prohibited protest, including messages on armbands or signs, hand gestures with political meaning, kneeling, or refusal to follow ceremony protocol. Athletes will be allowed to express political opinions in media gatherings, press conferences, and mixed-zone interviews, and on social media.
That runs counter to a limited, but storied, history of protest at the biannual sporting event; the famous 1968 podium protest when Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their gloved fists on the medal stand to protest racism in America would be prohibited under these rules.
IOC officials stressed Thursday that limiting political speech is key to maintaining harmony between athletes and nations at the games.
“It is important, on both a personal and a global level, that we keep the venues, the Olympic Village and the podium neutral and free from any form of political, religious or ethnic demonstrations,” said the IOC Athletes’ Commission in an introduction accompanying the rules. “If we do not, the life’s work of the athletes around us could be tarnished, and the world would quickly no longer be able to look at us competing and living respectfully together, as conflicts drive a wedge between individuals, groups and nations.”
While restricting athlete protest may produce a sufficiently sterilized sporting environment for Olympic sponsors and broadcasters, it may violate the original spirit of the games.
The founder of the modern Olympics, Pierre de Coubertin, emphasized that games were meant to bring humanity together not only to celebrate athletic excellence, but also to strive for a better world. “To spread these principles is to build up a strong and more valiant and, above all, more scrupulous and more generous humanity,” he’s quoted as saying in the Olympian, published in 1984.
Athletes could still choose to defy the rules but would risk facing three layers of disciplinary action — from the IOC, their home nation’s Olympic Committee, and their sport’s international governing body.
In a statement last week, Athlete Global blasted the IOC’s focus on limiting free expression. “Let’s be clear, the Olympic Movement has already politicized sport,” reads the statement, citing promotion of the unified North and South Korea at the Winter Games in 2018, and the involvement of heads of state as de facto heads of national Olympic committees. “We should embrace [athletes’] diverse opinions. Silencing athletes should never be tolerated and to threaten them with removal from the Olympic Games is another sign of the imbalance between sport leaders and athletes.”
The IOC joins a long string of sports organizations taking a hard line on athlete protest
The IOC is far from the only sports organization to prioritize harmony — and its bottom line — over the athletes’ attempts to “strive for a better world.”
The US Olympic Committee punished two athletes for participating in podium protests at the Pan Am Games last August. Hammer thrower Gwen Berry raised a fist and fencer Race Imboden took a knee during medal ceremonies, and both were subsequently put on probation by the USOC for 12 months, which will cover the Olympics this summer.
Athlete protest has had a resurgence in the 2010s — from NBA protests in 2014 that featured LeBron James and several other league stars wearing warmup shirts that read “I can’t breathe,” the last words of Eric Garner as he was strangled by New York Police officers, to perhaps most notably NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick and several of his teammates taking a knee during the national anthem to protest police violence against black people in the US in 2016. His protest set off a high-profile clash with President Donald Trump, who last year said Kaepernick “should find a country that works better for him.” The former 49ers player has since been blackballed by the NFL and hasn’t taken a snap since 2016.
US Soccer restricted political protests in 2017 by its players after star Megan Rapinoe began kneeling during the national anthem in solidarity with Kaepernick the year before. “When I take a knee, I am facing the flag with my full body, staring straight into the heart of our country’s ultimate symbol of freedom — because I believe it is my responsibility, just as it is yours, to ensure that freedom is afforded to everyone in this country,” she wrote at the time of her protest in an op-ed for the Players’ Tribune. (The restrictions haven’t stopped Rapinoe or others on the US Women’s National Team from expressing themselves politically in other ways.)
More recently, the NBA was criticized for cracking down on player and coach support for protesters in Hong Kong to preserve its access to the Chinese market. Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted, “fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong.” The tweet set off a firestorm that included denunciation from the Chinese Consulate in Houston, and an apology from the NBA league office; the Rockets were reportedly at one point considering firing him.
While the IOC may well end up with the protest-free Summer Games it’s hoping for, burying political speech on behalf of the world’s marginalized populations most likely won’t do anything to create a better world.


vox--2020-01-09--The House just sent a major message about checking the president’s war powers on Iran

The House of Representatives on Thursday sent President Donald Trump a decisive message on conflict with Iran , voting overwhelmingly to block his ability to engage in further military action without congressional approval .
Three Republicans and one independent joined Democrats to advance a war powers resolution introduced by Rep. Elissa Slotkin ( D-MI ) that closely mirrors a proposal from Sen. Tim Kaine ( D-VA ) in the Senate .
The final vote total was 224-194 , and while Democrats were broadly united , eight moderate members of the caucus ultimately defected .
The measure , which says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Iran unless Congress votes to approve it , directly pushes back on his decision to kill Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani without consulting lawmakers last week .
It ’ s not legally binding — the sponsors chose to introduce a non-binding “ concurrent resolution ” that wouldn ’ t require Trump ’ s signature — so if anything , it ’ s more of a message .
The message , in this case , focuses both on Trump ’ s actions , as well as growing concerns from lawmakers that the legislative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war powers authority to the executive in recent decades .
In addition to the vote on Thursday , the House is poised to consider measures from progressive Reps. Ro Khanna and Barbara Lee in the coming days , according to a letter Speaker Nancy Pelosi released on Wednesday .
Khanna ’ s resolution would cut off federal funds for any unilateral military action against Iran , and Lee ’ s would repeal a 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force ( AUMF ) that was passed by Congress in order to send @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too , could vote on its war powers resolution as early as next week .
Trump would likely veto these measures even if they were to pass both chambers , but they still make a notable point about where Congress stands on the subject as the tension between the US and Iran grows .
Trump on Wednesday announced that his administration is considering harsher economic sanctions against Iran in response to the missile strikes the country took on a US military base in Iraq after Soleimani ’ s killing .
The bipartisan nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Much like they did in the past to support an amendment from Khanna and Rep. Matt Gaetz in last year ’ s defense bill , a few Republicans joined with Democrats to approve this resolution .
It suggests that some members of the GOP caucus are still willing to break with Trump on this particular front , including on the question of executive power , even as they ’ ve remained united on impeachment .
Though it won ’ t become law , the House resolution emphasizes Congress ’ s stance on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote is Congress ’ s latest attempt to put a check on the president ’ s war powers The Thursday House vote marks the latest in a series of attempts to check the president ’ s war powers , which have evolved significantly , in part , with the help of past congressional authorizations .
As Vox ’ s Ian Millhiser explained , the expansion of these powers has also been enabled by the courts over the years , as well as legal opinions offered by the executive branch itself : The focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ straightforward : It would require the president to gain congressional approval if he wanted to take additional military action against Iran , and would bar him from doing so without a declaration of war or other legal authorization .
It includes exceptions for cases of self-defense and responses to imminent attacks .
“ This resolution is intended to make clear that , if the President wants to take us to war , he must get authorization from Congress , ” Slotkin said in a statement .
The measure follows a push from House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include amendments in the national defense bill that would have similarly restrained the president ’ s ability to singlehandedly take military action in Iran , though these efforts were ultimately stripped out .
Lawmakers have also tried to draw boundaries limiting the use of past AUMFs that were approved after 9/11 and prior to the Iraq War .
These authorizations , both of which are nearly 20 years old , have since been used to justify other military action across the Middle East .
As legal experts have told Vox , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how the administration interprets the various restraints that are passed .
If Kaine ’ s measure is approved and signed into law , for example , it ’ s possible the administration could attempt to bypass it .
The vote on this resolution follows a briefing from the Trump administration about the airstrike against Soleimani that ’ s since prompted criticism from both Democrats and Republicans .
On Thursday , Republican Sens .
Mike Lee and Rand Paul — who both voted for a similar resolution last year — announced that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s war powers resolution in the Senate .

The House of Representatives on Thursday sent President Donald Trump a decisive message on conflict with Iran, voting overwhelmingly to block his ability to engage in further military action without congressional approval.
Three Republicans and one independent joined Democrats to advance a war powers resolution introduced by Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) that closely mirrors a proposal from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) in the Senate. The final vote total was 224-194, and while Democrats were broadly united, eight moderate members of the caucus ultimately defected.
The measure, which says that Trump should wind down any military engagement with Iran unless Congress votes to approve it, directly pushes back on his decision to kill Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani without consulting lawmakers last week. It’s not legally binding — the sponsors chose to introduce a non-binding “concurrent resolution” that wouldn’t require Trump’s signature — so if anything, it’s more of a message.
The message, in this case, focuses both on Trump’s actions, as well as growing concerns from lawmakers that the legislative branch has ceded too much of its war powers authority to the executive in recent decades.
In addition to the vote on Thursday, the House is poised to consider measures from progressive Reps. Ro Khanna and Barbara Lee in the coming days, according to a letter Speaker Nancy Pelosi released on Wednesday. Khanna’s resolution would cut off federal funds for any unilateral military action against Iran, and Lee’s would repeal a 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was passed by Congress in order to send troops to Iraq.
The Senate, too, could vote on its war powers resolution as early as next week. Trump would likely veto these measures even if they were to pass both chambers, but they still make a notable point about where Congress stands on the subject as the tension between the US and Iran grows. Trump on Wednesday announced that his administration is considering harsher economic sanctions against Iran in response to the missile strikes the country took on a US military base in Iraq after Soleimani’s killing.
The bipartisan nature of Thursday’s vote is significant: Much like they did in the past to support an amendment from Khanna and Rep. Matt Gaetz in last year’s defense bill, a few Republicans joined with Democrats to approve this resolution. It suggests that some members of the GOP caucus are still willing to break with Trump on this particular front, including on the question of executive power, even as they’ve remained united on impeachment.
Though it won’t become law, the House resolution emphasizes Congress’s stance on the matter.
This week’s vote is Congress’s latest attempt to put a check on the president’s war powers
The Thursday House vote marks the latest in a series of attempts to check the president’s war powers, which have evolved significantly, in part, with the help of past congressional authorizations.
As Vox’s Ian Millhiser explained, the expansion of these powers has also been enabled by the courts over the years, as well as legal opinions offered by the executive branch itself:
One consequence of judicial deference is that there is fairly little case law explaining when the executive branch can and cannot take military action. Instead, most of the legal opinions in this space were drafted by executive branch officials. According to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the second Bush administration, “Practically all of the law in this area has been developed by executive branch lawyers justifying unilateral presidential uses of force.” These lawyers, Goldsmith warned, “view unilateral presidential power very broadly.”
The focus of Slotkin’s resolution is pretty straightforward: It would require the president to gain congressional approval if he wanted to take additional military action against Iran, and would bar him from doing so without a declaration of war or other legal authorization. It includes exceptions for cases of self-defense and responses to imminent attacks.
“This resolution is intended to make clear that, if the President wants to take us to war, he must get authorization from Congress,” Slotkin said in a statement.
The measure follows a push from House progressives last year, who sought to include amendments in the national defense bill that would have similarly restrained the president’s ability to singlehandedly take military action in Iran, though these efforts were ultimately stripped out.
Lawmakers have also tried to draw boundaries limiting the use of past AUMFs that were approved after 9/11 and prior to the Iraq War. These authorizations, both of which are nearly 20 years old, have since been used to justify other military action across the Middle East.
As legal experts have told Vox, however, Congress can only do so much depending on how the administration interprets the various restraints that are passed. If Kaine’s measure is approved and signed into law, for example, it’s possible the administration could attempt to bypass it.
The vote on this resolution follows a briefing from the Trump administration about the airstrike against Soleimani that’s since prompted criticism from both Democrats and Republicans. On Thursday, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Rand Paul — who both voted for a similar resolution last year — announced that they would be voting in favor of Kaine’s war powers resolution in the Senate.


vox--2020-01-09--The viral false claim that nearly 200 arsonists are behind the Australia fires, explained

A false claim that a big wave of arson is driving Australia ’ s raging bushfires has gone viral this week on social media , particularly among climate skeptics grasping for a counter-narrative about the wildfire disaster .
Donald Trump Jr. and Sean Hannity were among the most prominent tweeters this week of the allegation that close to 200 people in Australia have been charged with arson for deliberately lighting brushfires .
Other people on the right , as well as bots trying to amplify climate skepticism , jumped on board with the hashtag # ArsonEmergency .
In many instances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are doing so to refute climate change as a driver of the fires , with some conspiracy theorists going as far as to blame environmentalists for deliberately starting fires .
To be clear : Climate change is definitely a factor in the growing severity of Australia ’ s fire risks .
And there is no arson emergency in Australia ; the number of arrests for arson being cited is wrong .
In fact , the Fox article in Hannity ’ s tweet debunks his headline : Let ’ s unpack what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ nearly 200 ” people being charged with arson claim is a news release from the New South Wales Police Force on January 6 , 2020 .
What the release actually says is that legal action was taken against 183 people since November 8 , 2019 , for fire-related offenses , including things like improperly discarding cigarettes or not taking enough precautions around machinery , i.e .
not arson .
Legal action “ ranges from cautions through to criminal charges , ” according to NSW police , so not everyone is being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of these penalties are for incidents linked to the wildfires .
It turns out that only 24 people are currently facing criminal charges for deliberately igniting fires in New South Wales , and even fewer have actually managed to start large fires .
Remember that this is the number of people charged over the course of three months .
There have been thousands of bushfires burning across Australia since September , scorching an area larger than West Virginia .
As of Thursday morning , there were close to 150 different fires burning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them are burning in remote , sparsely populated areas .
So clearly this is not just the work of prolific pyromaniacs .
Officials in the state of Victoria have also refuted arson as a major cause of bushfires .
“ Police are aware of a number of posts circulating in relation to the current bushfire situation , however currently there is no intelligence to indicate that the fires in East Gippsland and north-east Victoria have been caused by arson or any other suspicious behaviour , ” a police spokeswoman told The Age on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Australia , 10 people have been arrested since September for deliberate or reckless fire behavior .
The main cause of fire ignitions of Australia ’ s bushfires is dry lightning , essentially lightning from thunderstorms that don ’ t produce rain .
“ The majority of these bushfires have been generated by lightning strikes associated with weather and climate effects , ” Dale Dominey-Howes , a professor of hazard and disaster risk sciences at the University of Sydney , told HuffPost .
In fact , some of the bushfires have grown so large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in turn producing more lightning .
And the point of ignition doesn ’ t change the underlying fact that the most densely populated parts of Australia , particularly New South Wales , are getting hotter and drier , vastly increasing the risk of a major conflagration .
Australia is coming out of its hottest and driest year on record as ocean circulation patterns aligned to heat up the continent and drive away rainfall .
Over the long term , climate change is raising the likelihood of extreme wildfires , a risk Australian scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So whether the spark comes from a lighter or lightning , the fact that so much vegetation is ripe to ignite over such a vast area is clearly due to long-term trends .
“ Arson is a red herring , ” Mike Flannigan , director of the Canadian Partnership for Wildland Fire Science at the University of Alberta in Edmonton , told NBC News .
But police are on high alert for fire ignitions because the risk of fire is so high — a total fire ban is in place in many parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequences are deadly .
That ’ s why the punishments for carelessness are so severe : Penalties relating to bushfires under the NSW Crimes Act , the Rural Fires Act , and Rural Fires Regulation include : - Damaging property with the intention of endangering life — up to 25 years imprisonment ; - Starting a bushfire and being reckless as to its spread — up to 21 years imprisonment ; - Lighting a fire when a total fire ban is in place — up to 12 months imprisonment and/or a $ 5500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire that you have lit — up to 12 months imprisonment and/or a $ 5500 fine ; - Failing to comply with a bush fire hazard reduction notice — up to 12 months imprisonment and/or a $ 5500 fine ; - Light or use a tobacco product within 15 metres of any stack of grain , hay , corn , straw or any standing crop , dry grass or stubble field — up to a $ 5500 fine .
So why did this arson emergency talking point suddenly surge ?
Timothy Graham , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Technology who has built a tool for detecting fake social media accounts , said many automated accounts , a.k.a .
bots , were amplifying the # ArsonEmergency hashtag .
“ It really looks , in many ways , like classic disinformation , ” Graham told NBC News .
“ Australia has been pulled into a global disinformation landscape.
” It ’ s not clear who is behind these bots , but such anti-environment disinformation campaigns have emerged before when climate change became a trending topic , like when CNN held a climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are other kinds of misinformation about the bushfires spreading as well , such as misleading maps of fire damage .
Some social media users have also been blaming environmentalists for blocking hazard-reduction burns to reduce wildfire risk .
But environmental groups like Australian Greens actually support these tactics .
Fire officials also say that fuel reduction burns won ’ t solve the underlying problem of increasing heat and dryness .
And with Australia ’ s fire season growing longer , there are fewer times of the year left to safely start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major blaze .
“ We can ’ t see these fuel reduction burns as a silver bullet , ” Steve Warrington , chief officer of the Country Fire Authority in Victoria , told Australia ’ s 3AW on Wednesday .
It ’ s not the first time we ’ ve seen environmental groups baselessly blamed for fires .
Amid the surge in forest fires in the Amazon rainforest last year , Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro said with no evidence that environmental activists were starting the blazes .
Such blame-shifting serves to deflect attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental disasters and the difficult changes needed to mitigate them , particularly curbing greenhouse gas emissions .
In Brazil , that would mean confronting the country ’ s lucrative agriculture sector .
In Australia , it means challenging the powerful coal mining industry .
Misinformation is always a risk in a chaotic , fast-moving situation , but in Australia ’ s bushfires , the evidence points toward mostly natural sources of ignition on top of natural weather variability and human-caused climate change .

A false claim that a big wave of arson is driving Australia’s raging bushfires has gone viral this week on social media, particularly among climate skeptics grasping for a counter-narrative about the wildfire disaster.
Donald Trump Jr. and Sean Hannity were among the most prominent tweeters this week of the allegation that close to 200 people in Australia have been charged with arson for deliberately lighting brushfires. Other people on the right, as well as bots trying to amplify climate skepticism, jumped on board with the hashtag #ArsonEmergency.
Officials Charge Nearly 200 with Arson, Looting as Wildfires Rage https://t.co/sY2lhGhsGZ — Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) January 7, 2020
In many instances, the people promoting the arson narrative are doing so to refute climate change as a driver of the fires, with some conspiracy theorists going as far as to blame environmentalists for deliberately starting fires.
To be clear: Climate change is definitely a factor in the growing severity of Australia’s fire risks. And there is no arson emergency in Australia; the number of arrests for arson being cited is wrong. In fact, the Fox article in Hannity’s tweet debunks his headline:
“The fires, fueled by drought and the country’s hottest and driest year on record, have been raging since September, months earlier than is typical for Australia’s annual wildfire season. So far, the blazes have killed 25 people, destroyed 2,000 homes and scorched an area twice the size of the state of Maryland,” reports Fox News. “The NSW Police Force announced Monday that since Nov. 8, authorities have taken legal action against 183 people for fire-related offenses, including 24 individuals who have been charged for allegedly deliberately lighting bushfires — a crime punishable by up to 21 years in prison,” adds Fox.
Let’s unpack what’s going on here. The source of the “nearly 200” people being charged with arson claim is a news release from the New South Wales Police Force on January 6, 2020. What the release actually says is that legal action was taken against 183 people since November 8, 2019, for fire-related offenses, including things like improperly discarding cigarettes or not taking enough precautions around machinery, i.e. not arson. Legal action “ranges from cautions through to criminal charges,” according to NSW police, so not everyone is being charged with a crime. And not all of these penalties are for incidents linked to the wildfires.
It turns out that only 24 people are currently facing criminal charges for deliberately igniting fires in New South Wales, and even fewer have actually managed to start large fires. Remember that this is the number of people charged over the course of three months. There have been thousands of bushfires burning across Australia since September, scorching an area larger than West Virginia. As of Thursday morning, there were close to 150 different fires burning across New South Wales. Many of them are burning in remote, sparsely populated areas. So clearly this is not just the work of prolific pyromaniacs.
Officials in the state of Victoria have also refuted arson as a major cause of bushfires. “Police are aware of a number of posts circulating in relation to the current bushfire situation, however currently there is no intelligence to indicate that the fires in East Gippsland and north-east Victoria have been caused by arson or any other suspicious behaviour,” a police spokeswoman told The Age on Thursday. In the State of South Australia, 10 people have been arrested since September for deliberate or reckless fire behavior.
The main cause of fire ignitions of Australia’s bushfires is dry lightning, essentially lightning from thunderstorms that don’t produce rain. “The majority of these bushfires have been generated by lightning strikes associated with weather and climate effects,” Dale Dominey-Howes, a professor of hazard and disaster risk sciences at the University of Sydney, told HuffPost.
In fact, some of the bushfires have grown so large they have created their own thunderstorms, in turn producing more lightning.
And the point of ignition doesn’t change the underlying fact that the most densely populated parts of Australia, particularly New South Wales, are getting hotter and drier, vastly increasing the risk of a major conflagration. Australia is coming out of its hottest and driest year on record as ocean circulation patterns aligned to heat up the continent and drive away rainfall. Over the long term, climate change is raising the likelihood of extreme wildfires, a risk Australian scientists have been warning about for years.
So whether the spark comes from a lighter or lightning, the fact that so much vegetation is ripe to ignite over such a vast area is clearly due to long-term trends. “Arson is a red herring,” Mike Flannigan, director of the Canadian Partnership for Wildland Fire Science at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, told NBC News.
But police are on high alert for fire ignitions because the risk of fire is so high — a total fire ban is in place in many parts of New South Wales — and the consequences are deadly. That’s why the punishments for carelessness are so severe:
Penalties relating to bushfires under the NSW Crimes Act, the Rural Fires Act, and Rural Fires Regulation include: - Damaging property with the intention of endangering life — up to 25 years imprisonment; - Manslaughter — up to 25 years imprisonment; - Starting a bushfire and being reckless as to its spread — up to 21 years imprisonment; - Lighting a fire when a total fire ban is in place — up to 12 months imprisonment and/or a $5500 fine; - Not putting out a fire that you have lit — up to 12 months imprisonment and/or a $5500 fine; - Failing to comply with a bush fire hazard reduction notice — up to 12 months imprisonment and/or a $5500 fine; - Light or use a tobacco product within 15 metres of any stack of grain, hay, corn, straw or any standing crop, dry grass or stubble field — up to a $5500 fine.
So why did this arson emergency talking point suddenly surge?
Timothy Graham, a lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology who has built a tool for detecting fake social media accounts, said many automated accounts, a.k.a. bots, were amplifying the #ArsonEmergency hashtag.
“It really looks, in many ways, like classic disinformation,” Graham told NBC News. “Australia has been pulled into a global disinformation landscape.”
It’s not clear who is behind these bots, but such anti-environment disinformation campaigns have emerged before when climate change became a trending topic, like when CNN held a climate change town hall for presidential candidates last September.
There are other kinds of misinformation about the bushfires spreading as well, such as misleading maps of fire damage. Some social media users have also been blaming environmentalists for blocking hazard-reduction burns to reduce wildfire risk. But environmental groups like Australian Greens actually support these tactics. Fire officials also say that fuel reduction burns won’t solve the underlying problem of increasing heat and dryness. And with Australia’s fire season growing longer, there are fewer times of the year left to safely start fires to reduce the risk of a major blaze.
“We can’t see these fuel reduction burns as a silver bullet,” Steve Warrington, chief officer of the Country Fire Authority in Victoria, told Australia’s 3AW on Wednesday.
It’s not the first time we’ve seen environmental groups baselessly blamed for fires. Amid the surge in forest fires in the Amazon rainforest last year, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro said with no evidence that environmental activists were starting the blazes.
Such blame-shifting serves to deflect attention away from the underlying causes of these environmental disasters and the difficult changes needed to mitigate them, particularly curbing greenhouse gas emissions. In Brazil, that would mean confronting the country’s lucrative agriculture sector. In Australia, it means challenging the powerful coal mining industry.
Misinformation is always a risk in a chaotic, fast-moving situation, but in Australia’s bushfires, the evidence points toward mostly natural sources of ignition on top of natural weather variability and human-caused climate change.


vox--2020-01-09--FX delays American Crime Story season 3, which is about Clinton’s impeachment

FX ’ s Emmy-dominating American Crime Story franchise — of The People vs. O.J .
Simpson and The Assassination of Gianni Versace fame — has delayed its third season , which is about Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999 .
The season , announced in August 2019 , was initially slated to debut on September 27 , 2020 , about six weeks before the 2020 presidential election .
The season will now likely debut in 2021 , but no official date has been announced .
And while the initial premiere date had prompted anger from many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 2020 election , FX Networks President John Landgraf insisted that response had nothing to do with the season ’ s date change during his executive session at the 2020 Television Critics Association winter press tour .
“ [ Executive producer ] Ryan [ Murphy ] , who is objectively the busiest man in show business , is not available to start production until March 21 , ” Landgraf said .
“ I don ’ t think [ a September release date is ] reasonable , given that we don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 reports that producer Ryan Murphy had lost interest in the idea of doing a season about Clinton ’ s impeachment , FX announced its existence during the 2019 Television Critics Association summer press tour .
The season will be adapted by playwright Sarah Burgess ( whose play Dry Powder made complex financial topics easy to understand ) , from the book A Vast Conspiracy : The Real Story of the Sex Scandal That Nearly Brought Down a President by Jeffrey Toobin .
( Toobin ’ s earlier book The Run of His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
Perhaps most intriguing are the season ’ s early casting choices .
Murphy mainstay Sarah Paulson ( who won an Emmy for playing Marcia Clark in The People vs .
O.J . )
will play Linda Tripp , who taped Monica Lewinsky ’ s confessions of her affair with President Clinton .
Lewinsky herself will be played by Beanie Feldstein ( Lady Bird , Booksmart ) , while Paula Jones , who accused Clinton of sexual harassment , will be played by Tony winner Annaleigh Ashford .
To say much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I do so enjoy reading tea leaves .
The presence of Burgess as the season ’ s writer , the presence of Lewinsky as a producer , and the fact that the first three actors cast are all playing women who were embroiled in the scandal and — in the case of Lewinsky — came to feel that their concerns and accusations were exploited by a Republican Party that was thirsty to push Bill Clinton out of office suggests that the story won ’ t center on Clinton .
Instead , it seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions of power , politics , and gender .
Indeed , Landgraf more or less suggested as much at his executive session in August 2019 , when he said the season ’ s story would be told from the point of view of the women swept up in the Ken Starr investigation .
Telling the story of Clinton ’ s impeachment is a calculated risk for FX and the American Crime Story team , since Americans might be pretty burned out on politics after the 2020 election .
But in a world where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a risk that just might pay off .

FX’s Emmy-dominating American Crime Story franchise — of The People vs. O.J. Simpson and The Assassination of Gianni Versace fame — has delayed its third season, which is about Bill Clinton’s impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999.
The season, announced in August 2019, was initially slated to debut on September 27, 2020, about six weeks before the 2020 presidential election. The season will now likely debut in 2021, but no official date has been announced.
And while the initial premiere date had prompted anger from many who feared it would fan the flames of the 2020 election, FX Networks President John Landgraf insisted that response had nothing to do with the season’s date change during his executive session at the 2020 Television Critics Association winter press tour.
“[Executive producer] Ryan [Murphy], who is objectively the busiest man in show business, is not available to start production until March 21,” Landgraf said. “I don’t think [a September release date is] reasonable, given that we don’t plan to wrap until October.”
(You may have also noticed that President Donald Trump has been impeached since the season was announced, which can’t have helped.)
Despite 2018 reports that producer Ryan Murphy had lost interest in the idea of doing a season about Clinton’s impeachment, FX announced its existence during the 2019 Television Critics Association summer press tour. The season will be adapted by playwright Sarah Burgess (whose play Dry Powder made complex financial topics easy to understand), from the book A Vast Conspiracy: The Real Story of the Sex Scandal That Nearly Brought Down a President by Jeffrey Toobin. (Toobin’s earlier book The Run of His Life inspired The People vs. O.J.)
Perhaps most intriguing are the season’s early casting choices. Murphy mainstay Sarah Paulson (who won an Emmy for playing Marcia Clark in The People vs. O.J.) will play Linda Tripp, who taped Monica Lewinsky’s confessions of her affair with President Clinton. Lewinsky herself will be played by Beanie Feldstein (Lady Bird, Booksmart), while Paula Jones, who accused Clinton of sexual harassment, will be played by Tony winner Annaleigh Ashford.
To say much more would be reading tea leaves, but I do so enjoy reading tea leaves. The presence of Burgess as the season’s writer, the presence of Lewinsky as a producer, and the fact that the first three actors cast are all playing women who were embroiled in the scandal and — in the case of Lewinsky — came to feel that their concerns and accusations were exploited by a Republican Party that was thirsty to push Bill Clinton out of office suggests that the story won’t center on Clinton. Instead, it seems as though it will focus on larger questions of power, politics, and gender.
Indeed, Landgraf more or less suggested as much at his executive session in August 2019, when he said the season’s story would be told from the point of view of the women swept up in the Ken Starr investigation.
Telling the story of Clinton’s impeachment is a calculated risk for FX and the American Crime Story team, since Americans might be pretty burned out on politics after the 2020 election. But in a world where impeachment is back in the headlines, it’s a risk that just might pay off.


vox--2020-01-09--The Trump administration has finalized an agreement to deport Honduran asylum seekers back to Hondur

The Trump administration has finalized an agreement to deport Honduran asylum seekers back to Honduras

The Trump administration finalized an agreement Thursday that would allow the US to deport migrants seeking protection at the US-Mexico border back to Honduras .
Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf arrived in Honduras Thursday to go over the implementation of the agreement with President Juan Orlando Hernández , who is facing prosecution in the US for allegedly accepting campaign contributions from drug traffickers .
Wolf announced in an address in Tegucigalpa that the agreement , originally signed in September , would go into effect in a matter of weeks .
“ We plan to implement in phases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while working through operational considerations and questions on a small scale , ” Wolf said .
The US has brokered similar agreements with Guatemala and El Salvador , though only the agreement with Guatemala has gone into effect so far .
Hundreds of thousands have fled violence and the lack of economic opportunity in the region , which is known as Central America ’ s “ Northern Triangle , ” over the past year .
The agreements resemble “ safe third country agreements ” — a rarely used diplomatic tool that requires migrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass through by deeming those countries capable of offering them protection — although the Trump administration has been reluctant to use that term .
Until recently , the US had this kind of agreement with just one country : Canada .
The administration has sought such agreements in Central America as a means of achieving President Donald Trump ’ s goal of driving down the number of migrants seeking refuge at the US southern border by sending them back to the countries they came from and passed through .
But immigrant advocates argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could have deadly consequences .
Honduras remains a hotbed of gang violence , largely perpetrated by the international criminal gang MS-13 , which formed in Los Angeles and was transplanted to Central America after mass deportations of unauthorized immigrants with criminal histories in the 1990s .
The gangs facilitate drug trafficking , extort local residents , and force teenage boys to join .
Honduras has the fifth-highest homicide rate worldwide , according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime , as well as rampant government corruption and high rates of violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also produces high numbers of people seeking asylum : In 2017 , the most recent year for which asylum data is available , the US granted asylum to 2,048 migrants from Honduras , compared to 1,048 from Mexico , 3,471 from El Salvador and 2,954 from Guatemala .
DHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the specific terms of the Honduran agreement .
Wolf announced the asylum agreement Thursday alongside separate agreements addressing Honduran border security , information sharing with US authorities , and economic development .
Under those agreements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deploy US Customs and Border Protection and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel to Honduras in order to “ support the capacity-building efforts of the Honduran migration , border security and customs counterparts , working together to target the gangs and cartels that spread corruption , violence and fear in Honduras , ” Wolf said .
The Honduran government will also share biometric data with US authorities in order to combat crime , drug and human trafficking , and other security threats .
Furthermore , the US will expand and streamline the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmworkers to ensure that they are not “ victimized in seeking legal migration , ” Wolf said .
The US government ’ s International Development Finance Corporation , which attracts private investment in developing countries , has also invested $ 235 million in Honduras and will continue to work to spur economic growth , he added .

The Trump administration finalized an agreement Thursday that would allow the US to deport migrants seeking protection at the US-Mexico border back to Honduras.
Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf arrived in Honduras Thursday to go over the implementation of the agreement with President Juan Orlando Hernández, who is facing prosecution in the US for allegedly accepting campaign contributions from drug traffickers.
Wolf announced in an address in Tegucigalpa that the agreement, originally signed in September, would go into effect in a matter of weeks.
“We plan to implement in phases, to gradually roll out the program while working through operational considerations and questions on a small scale,” Wolf said.
The US has brokered similar agreements with Guatemala and El Salvador, though only the agreement with Guatemala has gone into effect so far. Hundreds of thousands have fled violence and the lack of economic opportunity in the region, which is known as Central America’s “Northern Triangle,” over the past year.
The agreements resemble “safe third country agreements” — a rarely used diplomatic tool that requires migrants to seek asylum in the countries they pass through by deeming those countries capable of offering them protection — although the Trump administration has been reluctant to use that term. Until recently, the US had this kind of agreement with just one country: Canada.
The administration has sought such agreements in Central America as a means of achieving President Donald Trump’s goal of driving down the number of migrants seeking refuge at the US southern border by sending them back to the countries they came from and passed through. But immigrant advocates argue that sending migrants back to those countries could have deadly consequences.
Honduras remains a hotbed of gang violence, largely perpetrated by the international criminal gang MS-13, which formed in Los Angeles and was transplanted to Central America after mass deportations of unauthorized immigrants with criminal histories in the 1990s. The gangs facilitate drug trafficking, extort local residents, and force teenage boys to join.
Honduras has the fifth-highest homicide rate worldwide, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, as well as rampant government corruption and high rates of violence against women and LGBTQ individuals.
Honduras also produces high numbers of people seeking asylum: In 2017, the most recent year for which asylum data is available, the US granted asylum to 2,048 migrants from Honduras, compared to 1,048 from Mexico, 3,471 from El Salvador and 2,954 from Guatemala.
DHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the specific terms of the Honduran agreement.
Wolf announced the asylum agreement Thursday alongside separate agreements addressing Honduran border security, information sharing with US authorities, and economic development.
Under those agreements, the Trump administration will be able to deploy US Customs and Border Protection and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel to Honduras in order to “support the capacity-building efforts of the Honduran migration, border security and customs counterparts, working together to target the gangs and cartels that spread corruption, violence and fear in Honduras,” Wolf said.
The Honduran government will also share biometric data with US authorities in order to combat crime, drug and human trafficking, and other security threats.
Furthermore, the US will expand and streamline the H-2A temporary agricultural visa program for Honduran farmworkers to ensure that they are not “victimized in seeking legal migration,” Wolf said. The US government’s International Development Finance Corporation, which attracts private investment in developing countries, has also invested $235 million in Honduras and will continue to work to spur economic growth, he added.


vox--2020-01-09--Evidence is mounting that Iran accidentally shot down the Ukraine flight

Iran may not have killed US troops in its retaliatory strikes in Iraq on Tuesday night , but it ’ s looking more and more like the country did kill civilians , albeit likely unwittingly : the 176 passengers of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 .
Just a few hours after Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two US military targets in Iraq Tuesday night , Flight 752 , which was flying from Tehran to Kyiv , crashed minutes after taking off from Imam Khomeini International Airport , killing all 176 people on board — half of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far maintained the crash was not caused by any military action .
But multiple news outlets are now reporting that unnamed US officials have assessed that Iran shot down the passenger plane with an anti-aircraft missile .
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau , speaking during a Thursday afternoon press conference in Ottawa , said his nation — which had at least 63 of its citizens on board — had intelligence pointing to Iran as the culprit .
“ We have intelligence from multiple sources , including our allies and our own intelligence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile .
It may well have been unintentional.
” Trudeau declined to elaborate on the evidence but said these developments confirmed “ the need to have an in-depth investigation into this matter.
” Moments after Trudeau finished speaking , the New York Times published a video purportedly showing a surface-to-air missile hitting the jetliner in midair .
While the video is grainy and the camera is far from the scene , it shows an explosion at the point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Times , didn ’ t immediately come down ; ablaze , it flew back toward the airport in Tehran before exploding and dropping quickly .
Iran ’ s culpability still has not been officially confirmed , and the investigation is ongoing .
But the evidence increasingly suggests the Islamic Republic is responsible .
If true , it would mean the death toll in the current US-Iran conflict has risen significantly , and horrifically .
The narrative after Tuesday ’ s strikes was that President Donald Trump had “ won ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Qassem Soleimani not only avenged the murder of an American contractor by an Iranian-backed militia but also deterred Tehran from further escalating the months-long standoff .
That assessment was based on each side losing only one citizen before tensions calmed .
But that narrative is increasingly being called into question as evidence grows that nearly 180 people may have lost their lives as a result of Iran ’ s decision to aggressively retaliate against the US .
Based on the New York Times video and other reports , it looks like the Islamic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were on high alert and mistook the commercial jet for an American warplane .
If that ’ s the case , it was an accident .
But that doesn ’ t mean it wasn ’ t avoidable .
Iran and those pushing for conflict — including some current and former top Trump administration officials — own this grave error .
“ War is never cost free , ” Ilan Goldenberg , an Iran expert at the Center for a New American Security , tweeted on Thursday afternoon .
It ’ s a brutal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amid a US-Iran squabble .
In 1988 , the missile cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 , killing all 290 people on board .
The US warship thought the passenger plane was a fighter jet .
That tragedy lives long in Iranian memory , and the country ’ s president , Hassan Rouhani , tweeted about that incident in a Twitter quarrel with Trump on Monday .
It will take time for more information to come out about who is to blame for the crash .
But for now this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even ones that last a short time — have severe consequences .

Iran may not have killed US troops in its retaliatory strikes in Iraq on Tuesday night, but it’s looking more and more like the country did kill civilians, albeit likely unwittingly: the 176 passengers of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752.
Just a few hours after Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two US military targets in Iraq Tuesday night, Flight 752, which was flying from Tehran to Kyiv, crashed minutes after taking off from Imam Khomeini International Airport, killing all 176 people on board — half of whom were Iranian.
Iran has so far maintained the crash was not caused by any military action. But multiple news outlets are now reporting that unnamed US officials have assessed that Iran shot down the passenger plane with an anti-aircraft missile.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, speaking during a Thursday afternoon press conference in Ottawa, said his nation — which had at least 63 of its citizens on board — had intelligence pointing to Iran as the culprit.
“We have intelligence from multiple sources, including our allies and our own intelligence,” Trudeau said at a press conference. “The evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile. It may well have been unintentional.”
Trudeau declined to elaborate on the evidence but said these developments confirmed “the need to have an in-depth investigation into this matter.”
Moments after Trudeau finished speaking, the New York Times published a video purportedly showing a surface-to-air missile hitting the jetliner in midair. While the video is grainy and the camera is far from the scene, it shows an explosion at the point of impact. The plane, according to the Times, didn’t immediately come down; ablaze, it flew back toward the airport in Tehran before exploding and dropping quickly.
The video shows an object exploding in the air, near a location where #PS752's stopped transmitting its signal. The plane didn't explode, managed to turn back towards the airport, but crashed quickly, the @nytimes has determined. https://t.co/HxpaGV7urF pic.twitter.com/7v5S53NkDz — Christiaan Triebert (@trbrtc) January 9, 2020
Iran’s culpability still has not been officially confirmed, and the investigation is ongoing. But the evidence increasingly suggests the Islamic Republic is responsible. If true, it would mean the death toll in the current US-Iran conflict has risen significantly, and horrifically.
“War is never cost-free”
The narrative after Tuesday’s strikes was that President Donald Trump had “won” the flare-up with Iran. Killing military leader Qassem Soleimani not only avenged the murder of an American contractor by an Iranian-backed militia but also deterred Tehran from further escalating the months-long standoff. That assessment was based on each side losing only one citizen before tensions calmed.
But that narrative is increasingly being called into question as evidence grows that nearly 180 people may have lost their lives as a result of Iran’s decision to aggressively retaliate against the US.
Based on the New York Times video and other reports, it looks like the Islamic Republic’s air defenses near Tehran were on high alert and mistook the commercial jet for an American warplane. If that’s the case, it was an accident.
But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t avoidable. Iran and those pushing for conflict — including some current and former top Trump administration officials — own this grave error.
“War is never cost free,” Ilan Goldenberg, an Iran expert at the Center for a New American Security, tweeted on Thursday afternoon.
It’s a brutal historical irony that another airliner has fallen amid a US-Iran squabble. In 1988, the missile cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655, killing all 290 people on board. The US warship thought the passenger plane was a fighter jet.
That tragedy lives long in Iranian memory, and the country’s president, Hassan Rouhani, tweeted about that incident in a Twitter quarrel with Trump on Monday.
Those who refer to the number 52 should also remember the number 290. #IR655
Never threaten the Iranian nation. — Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) January 6, 2020
It will take time for more information to come out about who is to blame for the crash. But for now this tragedy reminds us that these conflicts — even ones that last a short time — have severe consequences.


vox--2020-01-09--A Ukrainian plane crashed in Iran: What we know

Just a few hours after Iran launched an attack against US forces stationed in Iraq in retaliation for the US killing of Qassem Soleimani , a Boeing passenger jet bound for Ukraine crashed shortly after it took off from Tehran .
All 176 people on board — including 82 Iranians , at least 63 Canadians , and 11 Ukrainians — were killed .
The plane , operated by Ukraine International Airlines , was a Boeing 737-800 — not a 737 Max , the Boeing plane plagued by technical issues that has been grounded after being involved in two deadly crashes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crash was not caused by any military action .
But on Thursday , news reports citing unnamed US officials stated that the Iranian military may have accidentally shot down the plane .
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed the reports Thursday afternoon .
“ We have intelligence from multiple sources , including our allies and our own intelligence , Trudeau said at a press conference .
“ The evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile .
It may well have been unintentional.
” Trudeau declined to elaborate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these developments confirmed “ the need to have an in-depth investigation into this matter.
” Shortly after Trudeau ’ s address , the New York Times published a video showing the airliner being hit , the most compelling evidence so far that the plane was struck by a missile .
The cause of the crash is still under investigation , with Iran and Ukraine leading the inquiry .
The story is still developing .
Here ’ s what we know , and what we do n't , so far .
What we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 3.5-year-old Boeing 737-800 , departed Tehran ’ s Imam Khomeini International Airport at 6:12 am local time after sitting on the runway for roughly an hour .
• Two minutes after takeoff , a “ fatal accident occurred to the aircraft , ” according to the National Bureau of Air Accidents Investigation of Ukraine .
The plane crashed in farmland near Shahedshahr , a town about 30 miles southwest of Tehran and about 10 miles northwest of the airport .
• All 176 people — 167 passengers and nine crew members — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• There were 82 Iranians , 63 Canadians , 11 Ukrainians ( two passengers and the nine crew members ) , 10 Swedish nationals , four Afghans , three Germans , and three British nationals on board , according to Ukraine ’ s foreign minister .
Ukraine International Airlines has published a list of the victims on its website .
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky directed Ukrainian prosecutors to begin a criminal inquiry into the crash , and said he ’ s sending “ a team of experts ” to Iran to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and repatriation of the bodies of Ukrainians killed in the plane crash.
” • The plane ’ s “ black box ” ( which records instrument readings and pilot conversations ) has been recovered and is in Iran ’ s possession , but is said to be damaged .
Trudeau said Thursday that Iran wants to keep it in Iran , but that Iranian officials have said they would share information with Ukrainian investigators .
Iran has also invited the US National Transportation Safety Board to assist with the investigation .
• The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January 6 , and there was no indication that anything was wrong before the plane took off , according to airline officials .
• Ukrainian International Airlines has suspended its scheduled flights between Kyiv and Tehran “ until further notice.
” What we don ’ t know • The definite cause of the crash • Whether the crash was the result of an accident • When Ukrainian International Airlines ’ suspension of flights between Kyiv and Tehran will be lifted

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


vox--2020-01-09--Grubhub sale rumors highlight the state of the struggling food-delivery industry

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that food-delivery service Grubhub could be up for sale .
Whether or not that sale comes to fruition , it highlights that Grubhub and its competitors are struggling to compete over who brings you food from restaurants .
Grubhub has seen its market share decline to about 30 percent of US sales in November , down from more than half just two years earlier , according to data from credit card measurement company Second Measure .
Meanwhile , venture capital-backed startups like DoorDash have moved into the lead , with 37 percent of US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a handful of smaller competitors are also duking it out in cities and towns across America .
Here ’ s that same chart another way , where you can more easily see Grubhub ’ s decline over time : Food delivery is a low-margin business , which makes money from charging customers delivery and other service fees , and from revenue shares with restaurants .
And to sign up some bigger restaurant chains , food delivery services have had to lower their commissions .
Those margins are further tightened as food-delivery companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lowering their fees for customers and offering expensive promotions .
These discounts , however , aren ’ t necessarily locking in customers , but rather encouraging customers to shop around .
It ’ s a similar situation to ride-hailing , where customers are not loyal .
“ We believe online diners are becoming more promiscuous , ” Grubhub ’ s CEO wrote in a shareholder letter in October .
“ For years , we saw in our data that a Grubhub diner was extremely loyal to our platform .
However , our newer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having ordered on a competing online platform , and our existing diners are increasingly ordering from multiple platforms.
” The food-delivery business is also notoriously expensive and difficult to scale nationally , as you can see from the varied market share city to city .
Scaling includes a resource-intensive process of signing up restaurant partners as well as drivers in each city .
Drivers have also been a source of consternation for food-delivery services like DoorDash , which has been accused of skimming drivers ’ tips .
Each food delivery service has different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buys which , drivers ’ earnings could be affected .
Amazon shut down its US food delivery business in June after struggling to gain major market share .
The Journal story said Uber wants to move out of cities where it isn ’ t the No .
1 or No .
2 player .
The result of all this competition ?
Big losses .
According to the Information , “ Uber Eats was losing nearly $ 1 for every $ 1 it generated in net revenue , after subtracting payments it makes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 2019 , or three times worse compared to the same period in 2018 .
Uber had been trumpeting Eats as a potential growth engine , but that no longer seems to be the case .
DoorDash is expected to lose $ 450 million for 2019 .
Postmates posted a $ 75 million operating loss in 2017 ( the latest data available ) , which Recode previously reported .
And Grubhub , the only profitable company of the bunch , has had to reduce its earnings expectations .
DoorDash and Postmates have both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bigger companies .
Any consolidation would be welcomed by the industry , though perhaps not by customers , who are currently enjoying the major discounts that result from the competition among these companies .
Grubhub ’ s shareholders seem to like the idea of consolidation .
Its stock is up about 14 percent after the Wall Street Journal report .

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that food-delivery service Grubhub could be up for sale. Whether or not that sale comes to fruition, it highlights that Grubhub and its competitors are struggling to compete over who brings you food from restaurants.
Grubhub has seen its market share decline to about 30 percent of US sales in November, down from more than half just two years earlier, according to data from credit card measurement company Second Measure. Meanwhile, venture capital-backed startups like DoorDash have moved into the lead, with 37 percent of US sales. Uber Eats, Postmates, and a handful of smaller competitors are also duking it out in cities and towns across America.
Here’s that same chart another way, where you can more easily see Grubhub’s decline over time:
Food delivery is a low-margin business, which makes money from charging customers delivery and other service fees, and from revenue shares with restaurants. And to sign up some bigger restaurant chains, food delivery services have had to lower their commissions. Those margins are further tightened as food-delivery companies seek to beat out their competition by lowering their fees for customers and offering expensive promotions. These discounts, however, aren’t necessarily locking in customers, but rather encouraging customers to shop around. It’s a similar situation to ride-hailing, where customers are not loyal.
“We believe online diners are becoming more promiscuous,” Grubhub’s CEO wrote in a shareholder letter in October. “For years, we saw in our data that a Grubhub diner was extremely loyal to our platform. However, our newer diners are increasingly coming to us already having ordered on a competing online platform, and our existing diners are increasingly ordering from multiple platforms.”
The food-delivery business is also notoriously expensive and difficult to scale nationally, as you can see from the varied market share city to city. Scaling includes a resource-intensive process of signing up restaurant partners as well as drivers in each city.
Drivers have also been a source of consternation for food-delivery services like DoorDash, which has been accused of skimming drivers’ tips. Each food delivery service has different policies, so depending on which company buys which, drivers’ earnings could be affected.
Amazon shut down its US food delivery business in June after struggling to gain major market share. The Journal story said Uber wants to move out of cities where it isn’t the No. 1 or No. 2 player.
The result of all this competition? Big losses.
According to the Information, “Uber Eats was losing nearly $1 for every $1 it generated in net revenue, after subtracting payments it makes to drivers” in the first three quarters of 2019, or three times worse compared to the same period in 2018. Uber had been trumpeting Eats as a potential growth engine, but that no longer seems to be the case. DoorDash is expected to lose $450 million for 2019. Postmates posted a $75 million operating loss in 2017 (the latest data available), which Recode previously reported. And Grubhub, the only profitable company of the bunch, has had to reduce its earnings expectations.
DoorDash and Postmates have both considered going public or joining up with bigger companies. Any consolidation would be welcomed by the industry, though perhaps not by customers, who are currently enjoying the major discounts that result from the competition among these companies.
Grubhub’s shareholders seem to like the idea of consolidation. Its stock is up about 14 percent after the Wall Street Journal report.