vox--2020-01-20--“King-Lee Day” and other ways states bend MLK’s legacy

Welcome to Laboratories of Democracy , a series for Vox ’ s The Highlight , where we examine local policies and their impacts .
The policy : States have stretched the meaning of the federal Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday to honor everything from “ human rights ” to Confederate generals .
In March 1990 , the NFL delivered Arizona an ultimatum .
The league approved Phoenix as the host of the 1993 Super Bowl — a sure economic boon — on one condition : The state needed to finally recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a holiday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ placed MLK Day on the ballot in 1990 , confident it would be approved .
But when the vote tally came in that November , officials were shocked to discover the proposal had failed .
“ We honestly don ’ t believe our kids and grandkids should revere him as a national hero , ” one anti-MLK Day activist told the New York Times .
True to its word , the NFL pulled the 1993 Super Bowl from Arizona .
The Arizona vote revealed something sinister about American race relations : Although MLK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mark the country ’ s supposed racial progress and the life of King , who fought for that progress , many white Americans still refuse to honor the civil rights leader .
States are not required to observe any of the 10 federal holidays , including Martin Luther King Jr. Day .
In many cases , they don ’ t : Columbus Day , for example , is only recognized in 21 states .
But state authority over how to designate holidays has given rise to an ominous downplaying of MLK ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martin Luther King Jr. Day a holiday in 1968 , the year of the civil rights leader ’ s assassination .
Annual bills were introduced for more than a decade , but none of them made it out of committee because of lingering hostility toward King , particularly among several Republican representatives .
But activists and labor unions continued to push for the holiday , delivering a petition that garnered more than 6 million signatures to Congress in the early 1980s .
President Ronald Reagan had initially opposed MLK Day , citing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers , but after the Reagan administration ’ s campaign against affirmative action and welfare , the president decided he needed to shore up his black support somehow .
In 1983 , he signed a law proclaiming that the third Monday of January would become Martin Luther King Jr. Day .
But contempt for King ’ s legacy remained .
Much of it stemmed from an insistence that King ’ s work in desegregating the South and advocating wealth redistribution across the country was fundamentally “ un-American.
” Misinformation about King as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states followed the example of Congress and quickly recognized a holiday in his honor , some of the holdouts decided to get creative .
In April 1984 , a pair of white supremacists crawled under a synagogue in Boise , Idaho , and placed three sticks of dynamite beneath the kitchen .
The duo , members of the violent white nationalist organization Aryan Nations , later said they intended it as an “ act of war.
” When the bomb went off , no one died .
But it became one in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included the murder of a Jewish radio host , that shook the nation in the mid- ’ 80s .
The festering racism in Idaho , one of the whitest states in the country and the main base of the Aryan Nations , became fodder for national news stories .
The state needed an image change , so Idaho Gov .
John Evans devised a simple solution : Idaho would , at long last , push for a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. after years of refusing to recognize it .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t pass .
The legislature tried in 1986 , then again in 1987 , and in 1989 .
Opposing legislators claimed they were concerned about cost , but as Boise State University history professor Jill K. Gill noted in The Pacific Northwest Quarterly , many Idahoans distrusted King , if not civil rights in general .
In King , they saw a man who had committed marital infidelities and supposedly harbored communist sympathies .
But other legislators did not bother to hide that their opposition was rooted in racism .
State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Register , “ A black holiday is what they ’ re wanting.
” The legislature eventually forged a compromise : Rather than create a state holiday that honored King alone , the state would broaden it to include , in theory , anyone .
In April 1990 , the state announced it would celebrate King ’ s birthday as “ Martin Luther King Jr.-Idaho Human Rights Day.
” Although King remained the primary honoree , the extended name was explicitly about mollifying King ’ s detractors .
Idaho isn ’ t alone .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ King-Lee ” day that lumps King together with Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee , whose birthday is January 19 .
Until 2000 , Virginia took this idea even further , creating a “ Lee-Jackson-King Day ” that also honored Confederate leader Stonewall Jackson .
“ Bundling the holidays remains a form of resistance to racial justice in America , ” Gill told Vox .
By putting King alongside Lee , she added , “ it also remains a vehicle for obscuring white supremacist aims , past and present.
” Other states tried an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martin Luther King Jr. out of Martin Luther King Jr. Day .
Until 2000 , Utah ’ s holiday did not mention King by name : MLK Day was known simply as Human Rights Day .
South Carolina took a different tack , passing a standalone holiday honoring the civil rights leader but making its observance optional .
There , state workers could choose between MLK Day and three separate Confederate holidays as their paid day off .
Arizona voters , by contrast , refused to approve a ballot proposal for MLK Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NFL boycotted the state .
And in 2000 , New Hampshire became the last state in the country to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day under any name , closing out an effort that included multiple failed bills since 1979 .
The winning compromise : New Hampshire would call its holiday “ Martin Luther King Jr. Civil Rights Day ” instead of just “ Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
” Attempts to lump King together with other historical figures have not disappeared .
In 2010 , the Utah legislature considered a bill that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state ’ s celebration of King .
When Deseret News asked Senate Majority Leader Scott Jenkins whether he saw any conflict in honoring a gun manufacturer alongside a proponent of nonviolence , Jenkins replied , “ Guns keep peace.
” Many of the same states that have renamed MLK Day also routinely downplay anti-black violence in their discussions of America ’ s past .
According to the Washington Post , Massachusetts , which observes the holiday , mentions slavery 104 times in its K-12 public school history guidelines .
Compare that to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times , or Idaho , which only mentions it twice .
Meanwhile , in New Hampshire , key events in the civil rights movement like the murder of Emmett Till have at times been ignored entirely .
According to Gill , maintaining a joint King-Lee holiday “ continues that tradition of prioritizing white people ’ s reconciliation and image of patriotic nobility over acknowledging the historical truths of racial injustice and culpability.
” Black activists have long pointed out the ways political leaders have diluted King ’ s legacy on his birthday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ radical policies like wealth redistribution , politicians are quick to generalize King as a unifier , proof of America ’ s supposedly harmonious racial present .
Three years ago , the FBI even tweeted its support for King ’ s “ incredible career fighting for civil rights ” — even though the agency cast King as a domestic threat during his lifetime .
That some states still refuse to celebrate King , even in this diluted form , is perhaps an indictment of how far America remains from any semblance of racial equality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the oddities of politics and economics .
His work has appeared in the Atlantic , Gizmodo , BuzzFeed , and the Outline .

Welcome to Laboratories of Democracy, a series for Vox’s The Highlight, where we examine local policies and their impacts.
The policy: States have stretched the meaning of the federal Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday to honor everything from “human rights” to Confederate generals.
Where: Alabama, Mississippi, Utah, Idaho, Virginia, New Hampshire
Since: 1986
The problem:
In March 1990, the NFL delivered Arizona an ultimatum. The league approved Phoenix as the host of the 1993 Super Bowl — a sure economic boon — on one condition: The state needed to finally recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a holiday.
In a scramble, state legislators placed MLK Day on the ballot in 1990, confident it would be approved. But when the vote tally came in that November, officials were shocked to discover the proposal had failed. “We honestly don’t believe our kids and grandkids should revere him as a national hero,” one anti-MLK Day activist told the New York Times. True to its word, the NFL pulled the 1993 Super Bowl from Arizona.
The Arizona vote revealed something sinister about American race relations: Although MLK Day is generally viewed as a way to mark the country’s supposed racial progress and the life of King, who fought for that progress, many white Americans still refuse to honor the civil rights leader.
States are not required to observe any of the 10 federal holidays, including Martin Luther King Jr. Day. In many cases, they don’t: Columbus Day, for example, is only recognized in 21 states. But state authority over how to designate holidays has given rise to an ominous downplaying of MLK’s legacy.
Congress first considered making Martin Luther King Jr. Day a holiday in 1968, the year of the civil rights leader’s assassination. Annual bills were introduced for more than a decade, but none of them made it out of committee because of lingering hostility toward King, particularly among several Republican representatives. But activists and labor unions continued to push for the holiday, delivering a petition that garnered more than 6 million signatures to Congress in the early 1980s. President Ronald Reagan had initially opposed MLK Day, citing the cost of another paid holiday for federal workers, but after the Reagan administration’s campaign against affirmative action and welfare, the president decided he needed to shore up his black support somehow. In 1983, he signed a law proclaiming that the third Monday of January would become Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
But contempt for King’s legacy remained. Much of it stemmed from an insistence that King’s work in desegregating the South and advocating wealth redistribution across the country was fundamentally “un-American.” Misinformation about King as a communist sympathizer spread widely. Although many states followed the example of Congress and quickly recognized a holiday in his honor, some of the holdouts decided to get creative.
How it works:
In April 1984, a pair of white supremacists crawled under a synagogue in Boise, Idaho, and placed three sticks of dynamite beneath the kitchen. The duo, members of the violent white nationalist organization Aryan Nations, later said they intended it as an “act of war.” When the bomb went off, no one died. But it became one in a string of Aryan Nations attacks, which included the murder of a Jewish radio host, that shook the nation in the mid-’80s.
The festering racism in Idaho, one of the whitest states in the country and the main base of the Aryan Nations, became fodder for national news stories. The state needed an image change, so Idaho Gov. John Evans devised a simple solution: Idaho would, at long last, push for a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. after years of refusing to recognize it.
But the legislation to make MLK Day official didn’t pass. The legislature tried in 1986, then again in 1987, and in 1989. Opposing legislators claimed they were concerned about cost, but as Boise State University history professor Jill K. Gill noted in The Pacific Northwest Quarterly, many Idahoans distrusted King, if not civil rights in general. In King, they saw a man who had committed marital infidelities and supposedly harbored communist sympathies. But other legislators did not bother to hide that their opposition was rooted in racism. State Rep. Emerson Smock complained to the Post Register, “A black holiday is what they’re wanting.”
The legislature eventually forged a compromise: Rather than create a state holiday that honored King alone, the state would broaden it to include, in theory, anyone. In April 1990, the state announced it would celebrate King’s birthday as “Martin Luther King Jr.-Idaho Human Rights Day.” Although King remained the primary honoree, the extended name was explicitly about mollifying King’s detractors.
Idaho isn’t alone. Alabama and Mississippi still celebrate a “King-Lee” day that lumps King together with Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, whose birthday is January 19. Until 2000, Virginia took this idea even further, creating a “Lee-Jackson-King Day” that also honored Confederate leader Stonewall Jackson.
“Bundling the holidays remains a form of resistance to racial justice in America,” Gill told Vox. By putting King alongside Lee, she added, “it also remains a vehicle for obscuring white supremacist aims, past and present.”
Other states tried an array of strategies to quite literally take Martin Luther King Jr. out of Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Until 2000, Utah’s holiday did not mention King by name: MLK Day was known simply as Human Rights Day. South Carolina took a different tack, passing a standalone holiday honoring the civil rights leader but making its observance optional. There, state workers could choose between MLK Day and three separate Confederate holidays as their paid day off.
Arizona voters, by contrast, refused to approve a ballot proposal for MLK Day until 1992, two years after the NFL boycotted the state. And in 2000, New Hampshire became the last state in the country to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day under any name, closing out an effort that included multiple failed bills since 1979. The winning compromise: New Hampshire would call its holiday “Martin Luther King Jr. Civil Rights Day” instead of just “Martin Luther King Jr. Day.”
Attempts to lump King together with other historical figures have not disappeared. In 2010, the Utah legislature considered a bill that would add gun manufacturer John Browning to the state’s celebration of King. When Deseret News asked Senate Majority Leader Scott Jenkins whether he saw any conflict in honoring a gun manufacturer alongside a proponent of nonviolence, Jenkins replied, “Guns keep peace.”
Many of the same states that have renamed MLK Day also routinely downplay anti-black violence in their discussions of America’s past. According to the Washington Post, Massachusetts, which observes the holiday, mentions slavery 104 times in its K-12 public school history guidelines. Compare that to Alabama, which only mentions it 15 times, or Idaho, which only mentions it twice. Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, key events in the civil rights movement like the murder of Emmett Till have at times been ignored entirely. According to Gill, maintaining a joint King-Lee holiday “continues that tradition of prioritizing white people’s reconciliation and image of patriotic nobility over acknowledging the historical truths of racial injustice and culpability.”
Black activists have long pointed out the ways political leaders have diluted King’s legacy on his birthday. Instead of focusing on his commitment to radical policies like wealth redistribution, politicians are quick to generalize King as a unifier, proof of America’s supposedly harmonious racial present. Three years ago, the FBI even tweeted its support for King’s “incredible career fighting for civil rights” — even though the agency cast King as a domestic threat during his lifetime.
That some states still refuse to celebrate King, even in this diluted form, is perhaps an indictment of how far America remains from any semblance of racial equality.
Michael Waters is a writer covering the oddities of politics and economics. His work has appeared in the Atlantic, Gizmodo, BuzzFeed, and the Outline.


vox--2020-01-20--How Lunar New Year became a shopping holiday for Western brands

The stretch of time between end-of-year celebrations and Valentine ’ s Day is usually bleak .
People are physically and financially drained from the holidays , and there ’ s not much to celebrate — a dry spell that has led brands to create a deluge of fake holidays like National Shortbread Day ( January 6 ) and National Shop for Travel Day ( January 14 ) .
Within the past decade , a spate of brands both luxury and affordable have adopted a new holiday into their calendars , one that ’ s already celebrated by more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the US , the holiday is generally referred to as Chinese New Year , but Lunar New Year seems like a more accurate description , given that the event is also observed by non-Chinese people .
What is Lunar New Year ?
While Lunar New Year 2020 officially falls on January 25 , the holiday is celebrated across multiple days and even weeks in places like China , Hong Kong , Singapore , South Korea , Taiwan , and Vietnam .
Under the Gregorian calendar used by most countries worldwide , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lunar New Year is the celebration under the lunisolar calendar — which is based on cycles of the moon — and typically falls on the second new moon after the winter solstice .
The specific celebrations and formal dates encompassing the holiday vary by country and culture , but it ’ s an important day reserved for festivities to ring in the new year .
Celebrants host elaborate meals with extended families , exchange money or gifts for good fortune , party in the streets , and set off fireworks .
Lunar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called the Spring Festival , has 15 days of festivities , South Korea ’ s Seollal celebration lasts 12 days , and Vietnam ’ s Tết Nguyên Đán is a week long .
There are numerous other lunar calendar-based celebrations that fall later than January 25 , usually during or after the spring equinox .
For example , Losar , the Tibetan new year , begins on February 24 , while Cambodia starts its new year celebration on April 14 .
It ’ s likely that the growth of Asian immigrant populations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Korean , or Vietnamese descent , has contributed to the overall popularity and cultural awareness of Lunar New Year .
The largest celebrations from these communities typically occur in urban centers like Los Angeles , New York City , or San Francisco .
Lunar New Year is a holiday steeped in tradition .
It ’ s also an occasion to spend .
As with most holidays , Lunar New Year has become an opportunity for retailers to sell shoes , jackets , or handbags on the premise of being culturally observant .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the months that follow , Western companies have notably latched onto Lunar New Year , given the scale of its celebration .
Well-known Western brands like Apple , Gucci , Nike , and Sephora have launched new advertising campaigns and capsule collections overseas , primarily aimed at Chinese customers , but these activities have also bled into the American market .
Malls , shopping centers , and entertainment venues in major US cities are hosting attractions tied to Lunar New Year .
Despite the financial gains made from it , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal holiday .
The commodification of major holidays and events is nothing new .
Brands have long had a corporate incentive to pander to customers by aligning themselves with certain political and social goals .
Yet there ’ s a stark disconnect that emerges when brands try to commercialize a holiday , especially one tied to cultures that celebrate it abroad like Lunar New Year .
Despite the financial gains made from it , however , Lunar New Year is not yet a federal holiday “ There ’ s this flattening of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trends and themes , ” Deb Gabor , a brands expert and CEO of Sol Marketing , told Vox .
“ It mostly started with the luxury brands , but we ’ re seeing more and more mainstream brands doing this , ” like Sephora and online beauty companies .
Lunar New Year appears to be yet another branded holiday where products are marketed with culturally specific colors , themes , and motifs — with the intention of courting an Asian market that holds significant spending power .
Brands , especially luxury retailers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be the world ’ s largest apparel market by 2030 .
The “ Lunar New Year effect , ” as Gabor called it , is reflected in how American retailers are participating in Chinese shopping events , like Singles Day .
According to China ’ s Ministry of Commerce , Chinese consumers in 2019 spent $ 149 billion across the week-long Chinese New Year holiday .
China is also a hot spot for luxury retailers , spending about $ 7 billion each year on brand-name goods , according to McKinsey .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create new merchandise that correlates with the 12 animals of the Chinese zodiac , which symbolizes a given year .
A person ’ s zodiac sign depends on their birth year , and even American consumers have a semblance of knowledge of the zodiac , if not their affiliated animal .
Given our collective enthusiasm at identifying ourselves through unscientific , ambiguous ways , brands are relying on zodiac imagery to sell their products .
2020 is the Year of the Rat , which might not be the cutest animal on earth , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retailers and makeup brands from releasing rat-related merchandise : Gucci and Adidas Originals have both partnered with Disney on capsule collections that feature Mickey Mouse , arguably the most famous rodent in the world .
Rag & Bone has a pizza rat sweater , and Moschino released products with its Mickey Rat logo ( which looks like Mickey Mouse but with a long jagged snout ) .
Other retailers have opted to use more traditional motifs , like Nike , which has a series of subtly intricate shoe designs inspired by traditional Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Western companies haven ’ t escaped the inevitable criticism ( mostly by Western consumers ) that they ’ re commodifying a cultural holiday for their bottom line .
In addition to Lunar New Year , brands have also capitalized on China ’ s Mid-Autumn Festival and the Muslim holiday Ramadan .
In a 2015 piece for Racked , Fareeha Molvi wrote about the slow commercialization of Ramadan , and about grappling with how her culture “ could be the next lucrative frontier , ” like other holidays before it .
“ At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more with less .
Literally , you ’ re asked to do more good deeds while physically consuming less , ” she wrote .
When companies try to co-opt a cultural holiday for material gain , they risk subverting or even trivializing the tradition behind the event .
Despite Lunar New Year ’ s deep-seated traditions , it has devolved into somewhat of a consumerist holiday : It ’ s tradition for people to buy loved ones gifts or exchange money ( which encourages spending ) , and it ’ s even considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year with new stuff .
For the most part , Asian consumers abroad don ’ t appear to take issue with the cultural marketing .
Nike and Apple have received praise for releasing poignant ads that focus on family and tradition .
However , foreign customers are quick to notice failed marketing ploys and point out where brands have erred .
For example , Burberry ’ s Chinese New Year campaign in 2019 featured stoic , heavily stylized family portraits , which Chinese netizens found creepy and tone-deaf .
Amid tensions between China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , Chinese shoppers might not be as receptive to Western brands ’ Lunar New Year efforts .
They ’ ve become especially wary of American companies and critical of international retailers overall , according to a Wall Street Journal piece on how America is losing the Chinese customer .
“ This past Christmas is a good indication that [ retailers ] don ’ t have much up their sleeves besides promotions and discounts , ” Gabor said .
In a way , Lunar New Year has been a saving grace for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more customers to buy .
That might change in the future , as surveys show how Chinese shoppers prefer to buy from domestic brands , partly for patriotism ’ s sake .
On Singles Day , the country ’ s largest shopping holiday , up to 78 percent of respondents surveyed said the trade war would affect their purchase of American brands .
It doesn ’ t help that a string of missteps in 2019 , which left companies scrambling to scrap together corporate apologies , has soured China ’ s perception towards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 that a Chinese fast-fashion company had to set up shop in London to gain appeal in Beijing .
The opposite effect might be taking place now .
Analysts predict that Chinese shoppers alone are expected to spend as much as $ 156 billion on new year festivities .
Still , it ’ s uncertain whether it ’ ll benefit the bottom line of Western companies .
Sign up for The Goods newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters .

The stretch of time between end-of-year celebrations and Valentine’s Day is usually bleak. People are physically and financially drained from the holidays, and there’s not much to celebrate — a dry spell that has led brands to create a deluge of fake holidays like National Shortbread Day (January 6) and National Shop for Travel Day (January 14).
Within the past decade, a spate of brands both luxury and affordable have adopted a new holiday into their calendars, one that’s already celebrated by more than a billion people annually: Lunar New Year. In the US, the holiday is generally referred to as Chinese New Year, but Lunar New Year seems like a more accurate description, given that the event is also observed by non-Chinese people.
What is Lunar New Year?
While Lunar New Year 2020 officially falls on January 25, the holiday is celebrated across multiple days and even weeks in places like China, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Under the Gregorian calendar used by most countries worldwide, the new year starts on January 1. Lunar New Year is the celebration under the lunisolar calendar — which is based on cycles of the moon — and typically falls on the second new moon after the winter solstice.
The specific celebrations and formal dates encompassing the holiday vary by country and culture, but it’s an important day reserved for festivities to ring in the new year. Celebrants host elaborate meals with extended families, exchange money or gifts for good fortune, party in the streets, and set off fireworks. Lunar New Year in China, which is called the Spring Festival, has 15 days of festivities, South Korea’s Seollal celebration lasts 12 days, and Vietnam’s Tết Nguyên Đán is a week long.
There are numerous other lunar calendar-based celebrations that fall later than January 25, usually during or after the spring equinox. For example, Losar, the Tibetan new year, begins on February 24, while Cambodia starts its new year celebration on April 14.
It’s likely that the growth of Asian immigrant populations in the US, especially those of Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese descent, has contributed to the overall popularity and cultural awareness of Lunar New Year. The largest celebrations from these communities typically occur in urban centers like Los Angeles, New York City, or San Francisco.
Lunar New Year is a holiday steeped in tradition. It’s also an occasion to spend.
As with most holidays, Lunar New Year has become an opportunity for retailers to sell shoes, jackets, or handbags on the premise of being culturally observant. While there are various other lunar-based celebrations in the months that follow, Western companies have notably latched onto Lunar New Year, given the scale of its celebration.
Well-known Western brands like Apple, Gucci, Nike, and Sephora have launched new advertising campaigns and capsule collections overseas, primarily aimed at Chinese customers, but these activities have also bled into the American market. Malls, shopping centers, and entertainment venues in major US cities are hosting attractions tied to Lunar New Year. Despite the financial gains made from it, however, Lunar New Year is not yet a federal holiday.
The commodification of major holidays and events is nothing new. Brands have long had a corporate incentive to pander to customers by aligning themselves with certain political and social goals. Yet there’s a stark disconnect that emerges when brands try to commercialize a holiday, especially one tied to cultures that celebrate it abroad like Lunar New Year.
Despite the financial gains made from it, however, Lunar New Year is not yet a federal holiday
“There’s this flattening of the world taking place in regards to marketing trends and themes,” Deb Gabor, a brands expert and CEO of Sol Marketing, told Vox. “It mostly started with the luxury brands, but we’re seeing more and more mainstream brands doing this,” like Sephora and online beauty companies.
Lunar New Year appears to be yet another branded holiday where products are marketed with culturally specific colors, themes, and motifs — with the intention of courting an Asian market that holds significant spending power. Brands, especially luxury retailers, are actively chasing China, which will be the world’s largest apparel market by 2030. The “Lunar New Year effect,” as Gabor called it, is reflected in how American retailers are participating in Chinese shopping events, like Singles Day.
According to China’s Ministry of Commerce, Chinese consumers in 2019 spent $149 billion across the week-long Chinese New Year holiday. China is also a hot spot for luxury retailers, spending about $7 billion each year on brand-name goods, according to McKinsey.
Every year, retailers have the opportunity to create new merchandise that correlates with the 12 animals of the Chinese zodiac, which symbolizes a given year. A person’s zodiac sign depends on their birth year, and even American consumers have a semblance of knowledge of the zodiac, if not their affiliated animal. Given our collective enthusiasm at identifying ourselves through unscientific, ambiguous ways, brands are relying on zodiac imagery to sell their products.
sees what you’re up to Apple. Alot of the emoji engraving options also match the Chinese Zodiac animals so you can engrave the year of your birth. pic.twitter.com/kxvM21ltfw — Brian Suda (@briansuda) January 3, 2020
2020 is the Year of the Rat, which might not be the cutest animal on earth, but that hasn’t stopped fashion retailers and makeup brands from releasing rat-related merchandise: Gucci and Adidas Originals have both partnered with Disney on capsule collections that feature Mickey Mouse, arguably the most famous rodent in the world.
Rag & Bone has a pizza rat sweater, and Moschino released products with its Mickey Rat logo (which looks like Mickey Mouse but with a long jagged snout). Other retailers have opted to use more traditional motifs, like Nike, which has a series of subtly intricate shoe designs inspired by traditional Chinese paper cutting.
Despite their best efforts, Western companies haven’t escaped the inevitable criticism (mostly by Western consumers) that they’re commodifying a cultural holiday for their bottom line. In addition to Lunar New Year, brands have also capitalized on China’s Mid-Autumn Festival and the Muslim holiday Ramadan.
In a 2015 piece for Racked, Fareeha Molvi wrote about the slow commercialization of Ramadan, and about grappling with how her culture “could be the next lucrative frontier,” like other holidays before it. “At its core, Ramadan is about doing more with less. Literally, you’re asked to do more good deeds while physically consuming less,” she wrote.
When companies try to co-opt a cultural holiday for material gain, they risk subverting or even trivializing the tradition behind the event. Despite Lunar New Year’s deep-seated traditions, it has devolved into somewhat of a consumerist holiday: It’s tradition for people to buy loved ones gifts or exchange money (which encourages spending), and it’s even considered good fortune to ring in the new year with new stuff.
For the most part, Asian consumers abroad don’t appear to take issue with the cultural marketing. Nike and Apple have received praise for releasing poignant ads that focus on family and tradition. However, foreign customers are quick to notice failed marketing ploys and point out where brands have erred. For example, Burberry’s Chinese New Year campaign in 2019 featured stoic, heavily stylized family portraits, which Chinese netizens found creepy and tone-deaf.
Amid tensions between China and the US over trade and geopolitics, however, Chinese shoppers might not be as receptive to Western brands’ Lunar New Year efforts. They’ve become especially wary of American companies and critical of international retailers overall, according to a Wall Street Journal piece on how America is losing the Chinese customer.
“This past Christmas is a good indication that [retailers] don’t have much up their sleeves besides promotions and discounts,” Gabor said. In a way, Lunar New Year has been a saving grace for some retailers, another opportunity to get more customers to buy.
That might change in the future, as surveys show how Chinese shoppers prefer to buy from domestic brands, partly for patriotism’s sake. On Singles Day, the country’s largest shopping holiday, up to 78 percent of respondents surveyed said the trade war would affect their purchase of American brands. It doesn’t help that a string of missteps in 2019, which left companies scrambling to scrap together corporate apologies, has soured China’s perception towards Western brands.
It was just in 2018 that a Chinese fast-fashion company had to set up shop in London to gain appeal in Beijing. The opposite effect might be taking place now. Analysts predict that Chinese shoppers alone are expected to spend as much as $156 billion on new year festivities. Still, it’s uncertain whether it’ll benefit the bottom line of Western companies.
Sign up for The Goods newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-01-21--Hillary Clinton jumps into the 2020 primary by blasting Bernie Sanders

It ’ s somehow Hillary Clinton versus Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary again , even though she isn ’ t even on the ballot .
The former secretary of state stirred up controversy on Monday with remarks reinforcing that there is no love lost between her and her 2016 Democratic primary challenger .
The Hollywood Reporter published new details of a forthcoming documentary about Clinton in which she says “ nobody likes [ Sanders ] , nobody wants to work with him ” and declares him a “ career politician.
” In a subsequent interview with the publication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declined to say whether she would endorse and campaign for Sanders if he were to win the Democratic Party ’ s presidential nomination in 2020 .
“ I ’ m not going to go there yet , ” Clinton told THR .
“ We ’ re still in a very vigorous primary season.
” Clinton ’ s remarks , both in the documentary and in the interview , predictably kicked up tensions that have , at this point , been simmering for years .
The Sanders camp views themselves as slighted in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deck for Clinton , tilting everything from the debate schedule to delegate structures against them .
The Clinton camp views Sanders and those around him as sore losers who did not wholeheartedly back her in 2016 and who can ’ t play well with others on the left .
According to a Clinton spokesperson , the interviews in the documentary go as far back as mid-2018 and stretched into the spring of 2019 , but it ’ s not clear exactly when in that time frame she made the Sanders-specific comments .
Regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stood by her assessment and elaborated on it took place in January .
Who would have thought that with the Iowa caucuses two weeks away , we would still be talking about Hillary versus Bernie ?
But here we are .
The 2016 election appears to be the one that won ’ t die , and the pair seems destined to clash again and again and again , revealing that emotions over the last White House race remain very raw .
What Hillary said about Bernie this time On March 6 , Hulu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the former first lady , senator , and secretary of state and 2016 presidential nominee .
And in it , she has some less-than-flattering things to say about Sanders .
Namely , according to the Hollywood Reporter , this : In a follow-up interview in January , Clinton told THR she stands by her assessment and , when asked , declined to say definitively that she would endorse him if he became the nominee .
She went on to explain some of her issues with Sanders and his backers : I will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not only him , it ’ s the culture around him .
It ’ s his leadership team .
It ’ s his prominent supporters .
It ’ s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors , particularly the women .
And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted , [ he ] seems to really be very much supporting it .
And I don ’ t think we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where you campaign by insult and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it , but you either don ’ t know what your campaign and supporters are doing or you ’ re just giving them a wink and you want them to go after Kamala [ Harris ] or after Elizabeth [ Warren ] .
I think that that ’ s a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions .
In the Hollywood Reporter interview , Clinton pointed to recent clashes after a report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private dinner that he didn ’ t believe a woman could win the White House in 2020 .
Warren has confirmed the report , while Sanders has denied it , and supporters of both have dug in .
Some of his backers filled Warren ’ s Twitter mentions with snake emojis , and the hashtags # NeverWarren and # WarrenIsASnake started to trend .
Clinton described the incident as a “ very personal attack ” on Warren and “ part of a pattern ” from Sanders .
It appears Sanders at least is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus today is on a monumental moment in American history : the impeachment trial of Donald Trump .
Together , we are going to go forward and defeat the most dangerous president in American history , ” he said in a statement .
Trump ’ s impeachment trial kicks off on Tuesday in the Senate .
A spokesperson for Clinton did not return a request for comment .
While Sanders and Clinton , beyond what they ’ ve already said , may be determined to let this one lie , the internet has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , # NobodyLikesHim , and # ILikeBernie trended on Twitter on Tuesday , and plenty of people weighed in .
What Hillary has to say about Bernie does and doesn ’ t matter There are two sides to the Hillary-Clinton-said-a-controversial-thing coin : On the one hand , she will likely never run for office or hold a major political position again ; on the other hand , she has deep ties to the Democratic establishment , and she ’ s been a prominent figure in the party for years .
Clinton , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — she ’ s been vilified basically forever — and so in criticizing Sanders , she may be saying something in public that others in the establishment are saying in private .
Establishment fears of Sanders have become a trope in political journalism .
Just two weeks ago , the Associated Press published a story along those lines .
How the establishment feels about a particular candidate doesn ’ t matter as much as it used to , but it still makes a difference .
Clinton is still an important figure among Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most beloved , she ’ s also not as hated as the coverage of her would have you think .
A September 2018 poll from Gallup shows 77 percent of Democrats had a favorable opinion of Clinton — that ’ s higher than Sanders , Warren , and Joe Biden , in a Gallup poll last summer looking at favorability of 2020 presidential candidates .
Her assessment that nobody likes Sanders , however , is off base , among voters : According to a Morning Consult tracking poll , he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And while Clinton may be largely out of the game , many of her allies are not .
Last year , her former aides attempted to undercut Sanders ’ s current campaign , including pushing the media to look into his record on gun control and same-sex marriage and highlighting his use of a private jet while campaigning for Clinton in 2016 .
It ’ s also worth noting that Clinton appears determined to poke the bear every few months or so .
In October , for example , she sparred with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Hawaii Congress member was “ the favorite of the Russians ” as a potential third-party spoiler for Democrats in 2020 .
It ’ s not always easy to say whether Clinton intentionally causes a media firestorm .
She has been held up by conservatives as a boogeywoman for 30 years , and she ’ s taken on a similar aura for some on the left post-2016 as well .
But she must have known her Sanders remarks would kick up dust .
And with the primaries about to begin and tensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her timing is maybe not great .
That being said , her endorsement probably wouldn ’ t help Sanders anyway — if anything , this latest tiff will fire up his supporters even more .
2016 is the election that will never die There ’ s plenty of arguing to be done about what happened in 2016 between Clinton and Sanders , as evidenced by Twitter on Tuesday .
Both sides have important points to make .
As Vox ’ s Ezra Klein wrote in 2017 , Democratic leaders did really shape the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Clinton in 2016 .
Some of that was negative for Sanders — few and oddly scheduled debates , early pledged superdelegates — but some of it was also positive , as Klein notes , because the sense that the DNC was behind Clinton also kept other politicians out of the race .
And while the Bernie Bro trope of white , young , very online males isn ’ t exactly accurate — Sanders has a diverse coalition behind him — Clinton isn ’ t wrong in her assessment that his supporters ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially on the internet .
Dare to breathe a bad word about Sanders and you risk an onslaught of attacks .
Whatever the details of the back-and-forth , or the arguments on either side , what ’ s clear is that we ’ re not yet over 2016 .
Even the recent dustup between Warren and Sanders felt eerily similar to the last race .
Democratic politicians , aides , operatives , and voters want desperately to defeat Trump in 2020 , and the persistent what ifs of 2016 heighten anxieties around that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of concern about party unity whoever the eventual nominee is — and Clinton ’ s comments don ’ t help that .

It’s somehow Hillary Clinton versus Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary again, even though she isn’t even on the ballot.
The former secretary of state stirred up controversy on Monday with remarks reinforcing that there is no love lost between her and her 2016 Democratic primary challenger. The Hollywood Reporter published new details of a forthcoming documentary about Clinton in which she says “nobody likes [Sanders], nobody wants to work with him” and declares him a “career politician.” In a subsequent interview with the publication, Clinton stood by her words and declined to say whether she would endorse and campaign for Sanders if he were to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2020. “I’m not going to go there yet,” Clinton told THR. “We’re still in a very vigorous primary season.” Later in the day on Tuesday, Clinton clarified that she would support whoever the Democratic Party nominates.
Clinton’s remarks, both in the documentary and in the interview, predictably kicked up tensions that have, at this point, been simmering for years. The Sanders camp views themselves as slighted in 2016 by a Democratic establishment that stacked the deck for Clinton, tilting everything from the debate schedule to delegate structures against them. The Clinton camp views Sanders and those around him as sore losers who did not wholeheartedly back her in 2016 and who can’t play well with others on the left.
According to a Clinton spokesperson, the interviews in the documentary go as far back as mid-2018 and stretched into the spring of 2019, but it’s not clear exactly when in that time frame she made the Sanders-specific comments. Regardless, the THR interview in which she stood by her assessment and elaborated on it took place in January.
Who would have thought that with the Iowa caucuses two weeks away, we would still be talking about Hillary versus Bernie? But here we are. The 2016 election appears to be the one that won’t die, and the pair seems destined to clash again and again and again, revealing that emotions over the last White House race remain very raw.
What Hillary said about Bernie this time
On March 6, Hulu will release Hillary, a new documentary about the former first lady, senator, and secretary of state and 2016 presidential nominee. And in it, she has some less-than-flattering things to say about Sanders. Namely, according to the Hollywood Reporter, this:
He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.
In a follow-up interview in January, Clinton told THR she stands by her assessment and, when asked, declined to say definitively that she would endorse him if he became the nominee. She went on to explain some of her issues with Sanders and his backers:
I will say, however, that it’s not only him, it’s the culture around him. It’s his leadership team. It’s his prominent supporters. It’s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it. And I don’t think we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it, but you either don’t know what your campaign and supporters are doing or you’re just giving them a wink and you want them to go after Kamala [Harris] or after Elizabeth [Warren]. I think that that’s a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions.
In the Hollywood Reporter interview, Clinton pointed to recent clashes after a report that Sanders told Warren in a 2018 private dinner that he didn’t believe a woman could win the White House in 2020. Warren has confirmed the report, while Sanders has denied it, and supporters of both have dug in. Some of his backers filled Warren’s Twitter mentions with snake emojis, and the hashtags #NeverWarren and #WarrenIsASnake started to trend. Clinton described the incident as a “very personal attack” on Warren and “part of a pattern” from Sanders.
It appears Sanders is not taking the bait. “My focus today is on a monumental moment in American history: the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Together, we are going to go forward and defeat the most dangerous president in American history,” he said in a statement. Trump’s impeachment trial kicked off on Tuesday in the Senate.
On Tuesday evening, Clinton said in a tweet that she would do “whatever I can to support our nominee” — while also adding in a bit of snark with regard to those who throughout her career have criticized her for seeming inauthentic. “I thought everyone wanted my authentic, unvarnished views!” she wrote.
I thought everyone wanted my authentic, unvarnished views!
But to be serious, the number one priority for our country and world is retiring Trump, and, as I always have, I will do whatever I can to support our nominee. — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 22, 2020
While Sanders and Clinton, beyond what they’ve already said, may be determined to let this one lie, more or less, the internet has made no such determination. Hillary Clinton, #NobodyLikesHim, and #ILikeBernie trended on Twitter on Tuesday, and plenty of people weighed in.
This is inexcusable. If Bernie wins the nomination, we all need to work our asses off to help him win. If someone else is the nominee, we all do the same for them. Don't kick up this bullshit right before Iowa, especially after complaining about Bernie's lack of support in 2016. https://t.co/VXKCixb4Ci — Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) January 21, 2020
Hillary Clinton shitting all over Sanders and implying she won't vote for him, literally one day after everyone lost their minds about what the consequences might be for Democratic party unity if you attack Joe Biden on Social Security and corruption....is funny to me — Paul Blest (@pblest) January 21, 2020
Friends, if there’s anything @HillaryClinton has proven to us time & again is you can count on her to do the right thing for the party & the country. The Dem nominee will face a lot of hurdles, Hillary Clinton will not be one of them. https://t.co/LVZ9p4JVij — Jennifer Palmieri (@jmpalmieri) January 21, 2020
What Hillary has to say about Bernie does and doesn’t matter
There are two sides to the Hillary-Clinton-said-a-controversial-thing coin: On the one hand, she will likely never run for office or hold a major political position again; on the other hand, she has deep ties to the Democratic establishment, and she’s been a prominent figure in the party for years.
Clinton, at this point, has nothing to lose — she’s been vilified basically forever — and so in criticizing Sanders, she may be saying something in public that others in the establishment are saying in private. Establishment fears of Sanders have become a trope in political journalism. Just two weeks ago, the Associated Press published a story along those lines. How the establishment feels about a particular candidate doesn’t matter as much as it used to, but it still makes a difference.
Clinton is still an important figure among Democrats, and while she’s not the most beloved, she’s also not as hated as the coverage of her would have you think. A September 2018 poll from Gallup shows 77 percent of Democrats had a favorable opinion of Clinton — that’s higher than Sanders, Warren, and Joe Biden, in a Gallup poll last summer looking at favorability of 2020 presidential candidates. Her assessment that nobody likes Sanders, however, is off base, among voters: According to a Morning Consult tracking poll, he’s the most popular senator in the country.
And while Clinton may be largely out of the game, many of her allies are not. Last year, her former aides attempted to undercut Sanders’s current campaign, including pushing the media to look into his record on gun control and same-sex marriage and highlighting his use of a private jet while campaigning for Clinton in 2016.
It’s also worth noting that Clinton appears determined to poke the bear every few months or so. In October, for example, she sparred with Tulsi Gabbard after saying in an interview that the Hawaii Congress member was “the favorite of the Russians” as a potential third-party spoiler for Democrats in 2020.
It’s not always easy to say whether Clinton intentionally causes a media firestorm. She has been held up by conservatives as a boogeywoman for 30 years, and she’s taken on a similar aura for some on the left post-2016 as well. But she must have known her Sanders remarks would kick up dust. And with the primaries about to begin and tensions among Democrats already on the rise, her timing is maybe not great. That being said, her endorsement probably wouldn’t help Sanders anyway — if anything, this latest tiff will fire up his supporters even more.
2016 is the election that will never die
There’s plenty of arguing to be done about what happened in 2016 between Clinton and Sanders, as evidenced by Twitter on Tuesday.
Both sides have important points to make. As Vox’s Ezra Klein wrote in 2017, Democratic leaders did really shape the race in a way that was favorable to Clinton in 2016. Some of that was negative for Sanders — few and oddly scheduled debates, early pledged superdelegates — but some of it was also positive, as Klein notes, because the sense that the DNC was behind Clinton also kept other politicians out of the race.
And while the Bernie Bro trope of white, young, very online males isn’t exactly accurate — Sanders has a diverse coalition behind him — Clinton isn’t wrong in her assessment that his supporters’ attacks can be harsh and disproportionate, especially on the internet. Dare to breathe a bad word about Sanders and you risk an onslaught of attacks.
Whatever the details of the back-and-forth, or the arguments on either side, what’s clear is that we’re not yet over 2016. Even the recent dustup between Warren and Sanders felt eerily similar to the last race. Democratic politicians, aides, operatives, and voters want desperately to defeat Trump in 2020, and the persistent what ifs of 2016 heighten anxieties around that. There’s also a lot of concern about party unity whoever the eventual nominee is — and Clinton’s comments don’t help that.


vox--2020-01-21--Marc Benioff picks a new fight with Silicon Valley — over trees

Marc Benioff is betting on the power of trees .
Benioff , the garrulous billionaire founder of Salesforce , loves to needle other tech leaders for being insufficiently civic-minded .
On Tuesday , he took his routine to Davos , Switzerland , and the World Economic Forum .
That ’ s where he announced that he and his wife would provide the financial backing for a new platform , 1t.org , that will support an ongoing global initiative to plant , restore , or conserve 1 trillion trees over the next decade .
The Trillion Trees Initiative is a novel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas emissions , and it ’ s one that some activists are already criticizing as insufficient for the scale of the problem that is climate change , a threat that Davos is meant to address this year .
In fact , some worry that the Benioffs ’ support of reforestation — which , somewhat surprisingly , Donald Trump also endorsed in a speech at Davos — offers an easy out for a business community that is eager to reap the PR value of climate action without actually modifying their own emissions .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it is nowhere near enough of what is needed , and it can not replace real mitigation and rewilding nature , ” said environmental activist Greta Thunberg from Davos following the announcement .
A Benioff representative declined to answer how much exactly the Benioffs would be spending on the new measure .
But Benioff — with a net worth of about $ 7 billion — is reprising his chief role as an instigator in Silicon Valley , where his antics , like rebuking Facebook as akin to “ cigarettes ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their money , have made him a divisive figure in both C-suites and in billionaire philanthropy .
“ If you are attending this conference , you need to commit to planting 1 trillion trees , ” Benioff said , which was just one of a half-dozen exhortations at the end of a mini-speech he gave on a panel on Tuesday .
“ This is a time of action , not words .
We are at that point of urgency with our planet.
” Benioff ’ s funding for 1t.org comes from his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will be responsible for about 100 million of those trillion trees .
Benioff has recently been displaying his zeal for planting the world out of the climate crisis , quizzing interviewers , for instance , about whether they know how many trees exist today versus in the past ( Answer : 3 million and 6 million , respectively . )
A tree-planting initiative of this scale is unprecedented and hard to accomplish , but some experts think it could be one of the most intriguing ways to help save the planet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , referencing an article in the journal Science : Letting saplings regrow on land where forests have been cleared would increase global forested area by one-third and remove 205 billion metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere .
That ’ s two-thirds of the roughly 300 billion metric tons of carbon humans have put up there since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution .
“ The point is that [ reforestation is ] so much more vastly powerful than anyone ever expected , ” said Thomas Crowther , a professor of environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-author of the paper .
“ By far , it ’ s the top climate change solution in terms of carbon storage potential.
” Some climate scientists who were not involved with the study disagree with its calculations and are warning against its “ silver bullet ” message .
Still , supporting natural systems that can soak up carbon is widely accepted as a major component of any climate change mitigation strategy — in addition to deploying clean energy , switching to electric vehicles , and curbing consumption overall .
Some like Thunberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more important work of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by moving away from reliance on fossil fuels .
In fact , even as Trump was telling the elite at Davos that the US would sign onto the trillion-trees program , he was also encouraging Davos not to listen to the “ prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse ” when it comes to climate change .
The initiative does put Benioff into some rare agreement with the Trump administration , which have a good relationship despite being one of the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
The business titan and the “ jovial ” president were reportedly seen engaged in “ animated conversations ” at the ski chalet town in Switzerland .

Marc Benioff is betting on the power of trees.
Benioff, the garrulous billionaire founder of Salesforce, loves to needle other tech leaders for being insufficiently civic-minded. On Tuesday, he took his routine to Davos, Switzerland, and the World Economic Forum.
That’s where he announced that he and his wife would provide the financial backing for a new platform, 1t.org, that will support an ongoing global initiative to plant, restore, or conserve 1 trillion trees over the next decade. The Trillion Trees Initiative is a novel strategy to limit the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, and it’s one that some activists are already criticizing as insufficient for the scale of the problem that is climate change, a threat that Davos is meant to address this year.
In fact, some worry that the Benioffs’ support of reforestation — which, somewhat surprisingly, Donald Trump also endorsed in a speech at Davos — offers an easy out for a business community that is eager to reap the PR value of climate action without actually modifying their own emissions.
“Planting trees is good, of course, but it is nowhere near enough of what is needed, and it cannot replace real mitigation and rewilding nature,” said environmental activist Greta Thunberg from Davos following the announcement.
A Benioff representative declined to answer how much exactly the Benioffs would be spending on the new measure. But Benioff — with a net worth of about $7 billion — is reprising his chief role as an instigator in Silicon Valley, where his antics, like rebuking Facebook as akin to “cigarettes” and saying that tech billionaires “hoard” their money, have made him a divisive figure in both C-suites and in billionaire philanthropy.
“If you are attending this conference, you need to commit to planting 1 trillion trees,” Benioff said, which was just one of a half-dozen exhortations at the end of a mini-speech he gave on a panel on Tuesday. “This is a time of action, not words. We are at that point of urgency with our planet.”
Benioff’s funding for 1t.org comes from his own pockets, but his company, Salesforce, will be responsible for about 100 million of those trillion trees.
Benioff has recently been displaying his zeal for planting the world out of the climate crisis, quizzing interviewers, for instance, about whether they know how many trees exist today versus in the past (Answer: 3 trillion and 6 trillion, respectively.)
A tree-planting initiative of this scale is unprecedented and hard to accomplish, but some experts think it could be one of the most intriguing ways to help save the planet. As my colleague Umair Irfan explained last year, referencing an article in the journal Science:
Letting saplings regrow on land where forests have been cleared would increase global forested area by one-third and remove 205 billion metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere. That’s two-thirds of the roughly 300 billion metric tons of carbon humans have put up there since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. “The point is that [reforestation is] so much more vastly powerful than anyone ever expected,” said Thomas Crowther, a professor of environmental systems science at ETH Zurich and a co-author of the paper. “By far, it’s the top climate change solution in terms of carbon storage potential.” Some climate scientists who were not involved with the study disagree with its calculations and are warning against its “silver bullet” message. Still, supporting natural systems that can soak up carbon is widely accepted as a major component of any climate change mitigation strategy — in addition to deploying clean energy, switching to electric vehicles, and curbing consumption overall.
Some like Thunberg still see this as a distraction from the more important work of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by moving away from reliance on fossil fuels. In fact, even as Trump was telling the elite at Davos that the US would sign onto the trillion-trees program, he was also encouraging Davos not to listen to the “prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse” when it comes to climate change.
The initiative does put Benioff into some rare agreement with the Trump administration, which have a good relationship despite being one of the Democratic Party’s biggest fundraisers in recent years. The business titan and the “jovial” president were reportedly seen engaged in “animated conversations” at the ski chalet town in Switzerland.


vox--2020-01-21--The Hunger Games is getting a prequel that centers on the villain: a young President Snow

Grab your bows , Hunger Games fans , because we ’ re going back to Panem — to learn more about how its deeply dystopian social system all began , with a new prequel , The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes , centered on the series villain .
We learned in 2019 that author Suzanne Collins had penned a prequel to her eerily realistic YA series about a girl forced to join a macabre battle royale in a bleak future version of the US .
The Hunger Games and its two sequels attracted legions of fans when the series launched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a blockbuster film franchise and inspired real-life protesters throughout the 2010s who referenced the series while fighting their own fights against dystopian states around the world .
Entertainment Weekly has debuted a preview of the new book , which is scheduled for a May 19 release date .
The plot seems to be centered around the antagonist of the original series , Coriolanus Snow .
In The Hunger Games , Snow is the authoritarian “ president ” of Panem who works to quash the social uprising led by the book ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hint that Snow ( played by Donald Sutherland in the films and depicted in EW as a young man who ’ s rocking the pretty bad boy/Evil Aryan look , à la Draco Malfoy ) became Panem ’ s ruler in classic Shakespearean fashion — by murdering his opponents until there was no one strong enough left to oppose him .
If that backstory sounds like something you ’ d like to hear all about , you ’ re in luck .
In the excerpt on EW ’ s website , we see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — musing about his prospects as a mentor for the first Hunger Games , which took place several decades before the events of the first novel .
The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes takes us back to when Snow is still a senior in college , and he ’ s horrified when , out of all the gifted students who ’ ve been chosen to mentor the contestants , he ’ s paired with a girl from District 12 .
As a refresher to anyone who needs it : Panem is a starkly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with many of its districts reduced to abject poverty following an apocalyptic event ( strongly hinted to be the result of climate change ) that centered power in a wealthy city now known as the Capitol .
District 12 is the poorest of all the nation ’ s remaining districts .
Ostensibly a form of cultural entertainment , the “ hunger games ” essentially gamify the ongoing poverty throughout the nation by selecting “ tributes ” from each district to participate in a brutal , nationally televised battle to the death .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlast all of the other contestants , whereupon they ’ ll be rewarded with a lifetime of wealth and survivor ’ s guilt .
Eventually , the heroine of The Hunger Games , Katniss , becomes a contestant , one who manages to destroy the system and become an unwitting leader for a massive societal rebellion .
The prequel , however , seems to focus on the games while they ’ re still in their infancy , honing in on the moment Snow himself gets involved in shaping their course .
Collins ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Snow has already proven hugely unpopular with fans , who see the move as an unnecessarily humanizing look at a fascist dictator not unlike President Donald Trump .
As you might have noticed , “ Nazis are people too ” hasn ’ t been the most popular post-Trump take , and this new prequel is no exception .
This reaction is understandable , given widespread cultural backlash against films like Joker for their focus on celebrating and deepening audience empathy with a white male character who ’ s previously been established as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is the Hunger Games , which has always been cannily prescient about its connections to real-life authoritarianism and dystopian society .
The chances are strong that Collins ’ s decision to pair Snow with the Hunger Games contestant from the poorest district — the prequel excerpt doesn ’ t tell us who that is , only that she ’ s a “ District 12 girl ” — is a quick way to explore the power dynamics behind the Capitol ’ s drastically unequal social structure .
We can already get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : It ’ s clear the younger Snow moves within a system of secret power-brokers with social influence .
It ’ s possible the story won ’ t be about humanizing him as much as it will be giving the reader a look inside how this kind of system dehumanizes its victims .
Granted , the book will be from Snow ’ s point of view , and I can understand why inside the mind of the leader of a fascist society might not be the most comfortable , or comforting , place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has never been about comfort — and that part definitely hasn ’ t changed .

Grab your bows, Hunger Games fans, because we’re going back to Panem — to learn more about how its deeply dystopian social system all began, with a new prequel, The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, centered on the series villain.
We learned in 2019 that author Suzanne Collins had penned a prequel to her eerily realistic YA series about a girl forced to join a macabre battle royale in a bleak future version of the US. The Hunger Games and its two sequels attracted legions of fans when the series launched in 2008. The three books led to a blockbuster film franchise and inspired real-life protesters throughout the 2010s who referenced the series while fighting their own fights against dystopian states around the world.
Entertainment Weekly has debuted a preview of the new book, which is scheduled for a May 19 release date. The plot seems to be centered around the antagonist of the original series, Coriolanus Snow. In The Hunger Games, Snow is the authoritarian “president” of Panem who works to quash the social uprising led by the book’s heroine, Katniss Everdeen. The books hint that Snow (played by Donald Sutherland in the films and depicted in EW as a young man who’s rocking the pretty bad boy/Evil Aryan look, à la Draco Malfoy) became Panem’s ruler in classic Shakespearean fashion — by murdering his opponents until there was no one strong enough left to oppose him.
If that backstory sounds like something you’d like to hear all about, you’re in luck.
Meet your new hero, Hunger Games fans. Read @EW’s exclusive first excerpt. https://t.co/qVY7LoOOjH — The Hunger Games (@TheHungerGames) January 21, 2020
In the excerpt on EW’s website, we see Draco — er, future President Snow — musing about his prospects as a mentor for the first Hunger Games, which took place several decades before the events of the first novel. The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes takes us back to when Snow is still a senior in college, and he’s horrified when, out of all the gifted students who’ve been chosen to mentor the contestants, he’s paired with a girl from District 12.
As a refresher to anyone who needs it: Panem is a starkly divided future version of the US, with many of its districts reduced to abject poverty following an apocalyptic event (strongly hinted to be the result of climate change) that centered power in a wealthy city now known as the Capitol. District 12 is the poorest of all the nation’s remaining districts. Ostensibly a form of cultural entertainment, the “hunger games” essentially gamify the ongoing poverty throughout the nation by selecting “tributes” from each district to participate in a brutal, nationally televised battle to the death. The contestant who wins has to kill or outlast all of the other contestants, whereupon they’ll be rewarded with a lifetime of wealth and survivor’s guilt.
Eventually, the heroine of The Hunger Games, Katniss, becomes a contestant, one who manages to destroy the system and become an unwitting leader for a massive societal rebellion. The prequel, however, seems to focus on the games while they’re still in their infancy, honing in on the moment Snow himself gets involved in shaping their course.
Collins’s decision to make the story about Snow has already proven hugely unpopular with fans, who see the move as an unnecessarily humanizing look at a fascist dictator not unlike President Donald Trump. As you might have noticed, “Nazis are people too” hasn’t been the most popular post-Trump take, and this new prequel is no exception.
i couldn’t be more disappointed by the next HUNGER GAMES being about fucking President Snow and trying to paint him as a “misunderstood hero” are you kidding me.
the very last thing i’m interested in is humanizing a fascist dictator because he has a ~tragic past~. — Aiden Thomas (50k) (@aidenschmaiden) January 21, 2020
Of all the characters in The Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins decided to humanize President Snow. Like we need another story about some tortured white boy. I hate it here. pic.twitter.com/iAxnMrBlJz — merline (@merlinereads) January 21, 2020
This reaction is understandable, given widespread cultural backlash against films like Joker for their focus on celebrating and deepening audience empathy with a white male character who’s previously been established as the villain of a franchise.
Then again, this is the Hunger Games, which has always been cannily prescient about its connections to real-life authoritarianism and dystopian society. The chances are strong that Collins’s decision to pair Snow with the Hunger Games contestant from the poorest district — the prequel excerpt doesn’t tell us who that is, only that she’s a “District 12 girl” — is a quick way to explore the power dynamics behind the Capitol’s drastically unequal social structure. We can already get a glimpse of that in the brief excerpt: It’s clear the younger Snow moves within a system of secret power-brokers with social influence. It’s possible the story won’t be about humanizing him as much as it will be giving the reader a look inside how this kind of system dehumanizes its victims.
Granted, the book will be from Snow’s point of view, and I can understand why inside the mind of the leader of a fascist society might not be the most comfortable, or comforting, place to be. But The Hunger Games has never been about comfort — and that part definitely hasn’t changed.


vox--2020-01-21--Netflix says Disney and Baby Yoda may have cut into the streaming service’s growth

For years , Netflix executives have been asked about competition — from long-standing competitors like HBO and from new entrants into the subscription video market , like Amazon .
And for years , Netflix executives answered with a variation on a theme : There ’ s plenty of room for everybody .
We ’ ll keep growing .
And they did .
Today , now that the streaming wars have really started , it ’ s a different story : Netflix just posted meager numbers for its US subscriber growth — lower than the modest numbers Netflix had told Wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that some of the miss might come from ... pressure from new competitors .
For the record : Those new competitors would be Disney , which launched its Disney+ streaming service in November and promptly announced it had signed up 10 million subscribers in a day ; and Apple , which also launched its Apple TV+ service in November — but hasn ’ t provided any information about how that launch went .
Those launches , Netflix says , may have cut into its growth : Netflix had told investors it expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last three months of 2019 , but in reality it only landed 420,000 .
Then again , who knows ?
It may also have been price hikes the company rolled out last year , says CEO Reed Hastings , in the written equivalent of a shrug : “ Our low membership growth in [ the US and Canada ] is probably due to our recent price changes and to US competitive launches.
” The flip side : Netflix posted gangbuster numbers for its growth in the rest of the world — where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and where Netflix is now primarily focused .
Netflix added 8.3 million subscribers outside of the US , way above the 7 million it had projected .
And that mixed result seems to have calmed Netflix investors , who love to crash in and out of the stock for just about any reason at all .
Netflix stock has barely moved since the company put out its results this afternoon .
Still , it ’ s significant that Netflix not only acknowledged the elephants in the room — the big-budget marketing blitzes from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the competition they ’ re about to see as HBO Max and NBC ’ s Peacock launch later this spring — but that it also acknowledged that having elephants in the room might not be ideal .
You can also expect to hear a lot more about that in the years to come .
Which is why Netflix also took pains to tell investors that it thinks it ’ s going to be just fine , even as Disney sends Baby Yoda their way , and Apple sends Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Aniston @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chart Netflix included in their quarterly shareholders letter , which is supposed to illustrate how much more interested global audiences are in The Witcher — a swords and sorcery show that launched late last year that Netflix says will be its biggest season one series ever , with 76 million people watching in the first week — than in Disney ’ s The Mandalorian , Apple ’ s The Morning Show , and Amazon Prime Video ’ s Jack Ryan : Message from Netflix : We made a show that got very , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own home screen — and it ’ s a giant hit around the world .
We ’ ll be fine .
Then again , that ’ s a global look , which Netflix says is fair because it competes around the world with Amazon and Apple .
But if you run the same comparison in the US , things look much closer .
We did that here , so you don ’ t have to : To sum up : Netflix has new competition , especially in the US , and that may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Netflix ’ s big growth plans are all outside the US , where it doesn ’ t compete with Disney — yet .
So this one is way , way too early to call .
Here ’ s what that growth looks like in each region :

For years, Netflix executives have been asked about competition — from long-standing competitors like HBO and from new entrants into the subscription video market, like Amazon.
And for years, Netflix executives answered with a variation on a theme: There’s plenty of room for everybody. We’ll keep growing. And they did.
Today, now that the streaming wars have really started, it’s a different story: Netflix just posted meager numbers for its US subscriber growth — lower than the modest numbers Netflix had told Wall Street it expected to hit — and said that some of the miss might come from ... pressure from new competitors.
For the record: Those new competitors would be Disney, which launched its Disney+ streaming service in November and promptly announced it had signed up 10 million subscribers in a day; and Apple, which also launched its Apple TV+ service in November — but hasn’t provided any information about how that launch went.
Those launches, Netflix says, may have cut into its growth: Netflix had told investors it expected to sign up 600,000 new subscribers in the last three months of 2019, but in reality it only landed 420,000.
Then again, who knows? It may also have been price hikes the company rolled out last year, says CEO Reed Hastings, in the written equivalent of a shrug: “Our low membership growth in [the US and Canada] is probably due to our recent price changes and to US competitive launches.”
The flip side: Netflix posted gangbuster numbers for its growth in the rest of the world — where Disney isn’t really competing yet and where Netflix is now primarily focused. Netflix added 8.3 million subscribers outside of the US, way above the 7 million it had projected.
And that mixed result seems to have calmed Netflix investors, who love to crash in and out of the stock for just about any reason at all. Netflix stock has barely moved since the company put out its results this afternoon.
Still, it’s significant that Netflix not only acknowledged the elephants in the room — the big-budget marketing blitzes from two very big new competitors, and the competition they’re about to see as HBO Max and NBC’s Peacock launch later this spring — but that it also acknowledged that having elephants in the room might not be ideal.
You can also expect to hear a lot more about that in the years to come. Which is why Netflix also took pains to tell investors that it thinks it’s going to be just fine, even as Disney sends Baby Yoda their way, and Apple sends Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Aniston.
Here’s a Google Trends chart Netflix included in their quarterly shareholders letter, which is supposed to illustrate how much more interested global audiences are in The Witcher — a swords and sorcery show that launched late last year that Netflix says will be its biggest season one series ever, with 76 million people watching in the first week — than in Disney’s The Mandalorian, Apple’s The Morning Show, and Amazon Prime Video’s Jack Ryan:
Message from Netflix: We made a show that got very, very little hype — except on our own home screen — and it’s a giant hit around the world. We’ll be fine.
Then again, that’s a global look, which Netflix says is fair because it competes around the world with Amazon and Apple. But if you run the same comparison in the US, things look much closer. We did that here, so you don’t have to:
To sum up: Netflix has new competition, especially in the US, and that may have cut into its business. But Netflix’s big growth plans are all outside the US, where it doesn’t compete with Disney — yet. So this one is way, way too early to call.
Here’s what that growth looks like in each region:


vox--2020-01-21--Why John Roberts won’t save the impeachment trial from partisanship

The Supreme Court is the most consequential institution in American politics .
And yet the public almost never gets to see the chief justice , or any of the justices for that matter , in action .
This will change as President Trump ’ s impeachment trial moves to the Senate on Tuesday .
The Constitution provides that the chief justice “ shall preside ” over the impeachment trial of a president .
The role of the chief justice is mostly ceremonial and may only matter in the event that a tie-breaker vote is needed ; historically , chief justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manage the process .
But Roberts could , if he chose , exert real influence on the trial by compelling witnesses to appear or by ruling on the admissibility of evidence .
It ’ s not likely , but it is possible .
Since there ’ s a chance that Roberts , who was picked to lead the Court in 2005 by George W. Bush , might play a significant role in the impeachment saga , I contacted Joan Biskupic , author of The Chief : The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court for more than 20 years and knows Roberts about as well as anyone .
We discussed Roberts ’ s ideological background ; the role he ’ s played on the Court and in American politics ; and whether we can expect him to preside over Trump ’ s trial impartially .
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows .
What would you say is the most important thing the average citizen should know about John Roberts ?
John Roberts is a student of history ; before getting his law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PhD in history .
So he is aware of the weight on his shoulders as he presides over only the third Senate trial of a president in US history .
He will be ready for his moment on the dais .
He is reserved , cautious , and will probably follow the lead of his mentor William Rehnquist , who presided at the Clinton trial in 1999 , and insert himself in the process as little as possible .
He will also be thinking about his place in history .
He said at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tenure : “ You wonder if you ’ re going to be John Marshall or you ’ re going to be Roger Taney .
The answer is , of course , you are certainly not going to be John Marshall .
But you want to avoid the danger of being Roger Taney.
” Chief Justice Taney wrote the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision , which many people regard as the worst ruling ever .
He said African Americans could not be citizens , invalidated the Missouri Compromise , helped lead to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a moderate ?
A conservative ?
An ideologue ?
Roberts can not be defined by a single label .
He is generally conservative , as we have seen on issues such as race , religion , and campaign finance .
But recall that in 2012 , he split from his conservative brethren to cast the deciding vote to uphold the Obama-sponsored Affordable Care Act .
As I chronicled in my book , that move came after multiple switched votes and tense negotiations with his colleagues .
Today , the chief holds even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the ideological center of the Court ( post-Anthony Kennedy ) .
Overall , he is likely to continue to show his conservative stripes , but in certain high-profile cases , when he is in the middle , he ’ ll inch to the center .
Last June ’ s census case decision is an example of that .
Does he put his role as justice over his identity as a conservative Republican ?
Do his rulings bear that out ?
We ’ ve had 45 presidents and only 17 chief justices .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not in his former roles as an appellate lawyer or a member of the Reagan-Bush administrations .
His prior political work may shape his approach , and he has revealed his conservative roots in his rulings , but he is mostly mindful of what he ’ s doing as chief justice .
As you know , Roberts just released the 2019 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary .
The political undertones of these things are often hard to decipher , but he wrote that “ We have come to take democracy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ civic education.
” What do you make of that ?
Do you think he was quietly speaking to Trump ?
I think he was speaking to many constituencies in that report : the public most broadly , fellow judges , and Trump , too .
Even before Trump came into office , Roberts was concerned about the judiciary becoming entangled in politics .
“ We don ’ t work as Democrats or Republicans , ” he has said repeatedly .
Since Trump took office , that message has taken on more urgency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebuke of Trump over the so-called “ Obama judge ” in November 2018 .
Roberts ’ s role in the Senate impeachment trial is largely ceremonial , but if circumstances force him to get involved , how do you expect him to handle it ?
Under the Senate rules , he could be asked to rule on the relevance and materiality of evidence .
I think he will try to avoid any decision that influences the direction of the trial and whether Trump is acquitted or convicted .
He would want Mitch McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can , as Trent Lott and Tom Daschle did in 1999 .
We ’ re not in 1999 , of course — things are far more polarized — but as much as he can do it , I believe Chief Justice Roberts will relay anything substantive to a vote of the Senate and majority will .
What role is do you expect him to play in the Senate impeachment trial ?
Do you think he ’ ll be fair and impartial ?
I think he will enter the chamber on Tuesday intent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in every way that he is both objective and detached from the Senate as the true decision-maker here .
Remember , the senators are sitting as the “ court ” in this instance .
The chief justice works in a world far from television cameras .
Many people watching the Senate trial will be seeing him in action for the first time .
He will try to set a sense of decorum and avoid anything that would put him or the Supreme Court in a bad light .

The Supreme Court is the most consequential institution in American politics. And yet the public almost never gets to see the chief justice, or any of the justices for that matter, in action.
President Trump’s impeachment trial has changed that.
The Constitution provides that the chief justice “shall preside” over the impeachment trial of a president. The role of the chief justice is mostly ceremonial and may only matter in the event that a tie-breaker vote is needed; historically, chief justices have relied on a Senate parliamentarian to manage the process.
But Roberts could, if he chose, exert real influence on the trial by compelling witnesses to appear or by ruling on the admissibility of evidence.
Since there’s a chance that Roberts, who was picked to lead the Court in 2005 by George W. Bush, might play a significant role in the impeachment saga, I contacted Joan Biskupic a few days before the trial began. Biskupic is the author of The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts and has covered the Supreme Court for more than 20 years and knows Roberts about as well as anyone.
We discussed Roberts’s ideological background; the role he’s played on the Court and in American politics; and whether we can expect him to preside over Trump’s trial impartially. A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
What would you say is the most important thing the average citizen should know about John Roberts?
Joan Biskupic
John Roberts is a student of history; before getting his law degree at Harvard, he considered a PhD in history. So he is aware of the weight on his shoulders as he presides over only the third Senate trial of a president in US history. He will be ready for his moment on the dais. He is reserved, cautious, and will probably follow the lead of his mentor William Rehnquist, who presided at the Clinton trial in 1999, and insert himself in the process as little as possible. He will also be thinking about his place in history.
He said at one public appearance fairly early in his tenure: “You wonder if you’re going to be John Marshall or you’re going to be Roger Taney. The answer is, of course, you are certainly not going to be John Marshall. But you want to avoid the danger of being Roger Taney.”
Sean Illing
Who was Roger Taney?
Joan Biskupic
Chief Justice Taney wrote the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which many people regard as the worst ruling ever. He said African Americans could not be citizens, invalidated the Missouri Compromise, helped lead to the Civil War.
Sean Illing
Would you call Roberts a moderate? A conservative? An ideologue?
Joan Biskupic
Roberts cannot be defined by a single label. He is generally conservative, as we have seen on issues such as race, religion, and campaign finance. But recall that in 2012, he split from his conservative brethren to cast the deciding vote to uphold the Obama-sponsored Affordable Care Act.
As I chronicled in my book, that move came after multiple switched votes and tense negotiations with his colleagues. Today, the chief holds even more of a controlling vote because he is at the ideological center of the Court (post-Anthony Kennedy). Overall, he is likely to continue to show his conservative stripes, but in certain high-profile cases, when he is in the middle, he’ll inch to the center. Last June’s census case decision is an example of that.
Sean Illing
Does he put his role as justice over his identity as a conservative Republican? Do his rulings bear that out?
Joan Biskupic
We’ve had 45 presidents and only 17 chief justices. That’s where his identity is, not in his former roles as an appellate lawyer or a member of the Reagan-Bush administrations. His prior political work may shape his approach, and he has revealed his conservative roots in his rulings, but he is mostly mindful of what he’s doing as chief justice.
Sean Illing
As you know, Roberts just released the 2019 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. The political undertones of these things are often hard to decipher, but he wrote that “We have come to take democracy for granted” and explicitly called for more “civic education.” What do you make of that? Do you think he was quietly speaking to Trump?
Joan Biskupic
I think he was speaking to many constituencies in that report: the public most broadly, fellow judges, and Trump, too. Even before Trump came into office, Roberts was concerned about the judiciary becoming entangled in politics. “We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans,” he has said repeatedly. Since Trump took office, that message has taken on more urgency. Think of the chief’s rebuke of Trump over the so-called “Obama judge” in November 2018.
Sean Illing
Roberts’s role in the Senate impeachment trial is largely ceremonial, but if circumstances force him to get involved, how do you expect him to handle it?
Joan Biskupic
Under the Senate rules, he could be asked to rule on the relevance and materiality of evidence. I think he will try to avoid any decision that influences the direction of the trial and whether Trump is acquitted or convicted.
He would want Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer to work out what they can, as Trent Lott and Tom Daschle did in 1999. We’re not in 1999, of course — things are far more polarized — but as much as he can do it, I believe Chief Justice Roberts will relay anything substantive to a vote of the Senate and majority will.
Sean Illing
What role is do you expect him to play in the Senate impeachment trial? Do you think he’ll be fair and impartial?
Joan Biskupic
I think he will enter the chamber on Tuesday intent on being fair and impartial and signaling in every way that he is both objective and detached from the Senate as the true decision-maker here. Remember, the senators are sitting as the “court” in this instance.
The chief justice works in a world far from television cameras. Many people watching the Senate trial will be seeing him in action for the first time. He will try to set a sense of decorum and avoid anything that would put him or the Supreme Court in a bad light.