#no like 80 percent of this i wrote last november

[vaya-writes]

The Wyvern's Bride - Part 3.4

When Adalyn gets sacrificed to the local wyvern, she’s a little annoyed and a lot terrified. Upon meeting the wyvern, she discovers that he’s not particularly interested in eating people, and mostly wants to be left alone. In a plot to save himself from the responsibilities his family keep pushing on him, Slate names Adalyn as his human Envoy, and tasks her with finding him a wife.

2900 words. Cis female human x Cis male wyvern (slow burn, arranged marriage, eventual smut). firefly-graphics did the divider.

Masterlist - Previous

It's finally here. Please enjoy conflict resolution, gardening, and somebody finally taking the initiative. No notable content warnings. Mild descriptions of food and profanity.

To his credit, Slate does return on time. Adalyn watches him land, guarded and curious, from her spot at the dining table. There’s a thunk as a large wooden crate is set upon the balcony. A billow of shadow, and Slate appears after it, dressed neatly in his human form.  

He smiles. “Good morning, dearest!”  

“…good morning, Slate.” 

“I brought you something.” He waves her over, oblivious to her reticence.  

Reluctantly, she approaches. He bounces on his heels and grins at her again, cheeks flushed. His enthusiasm fazes her a little, but she’s not ready to forgive his unplanned absence. 

“Open it.” 

“It’s nailed shut.” 

He hesitates for a beat. “Right. Do you want me to..?” 

She gestures that he have at it. 

Slate uses his bare hands to pry open the crate. The lid groans and splinters under his touch, before cracking. His strength impresses her, but she doesn’t let it show. 

He steps back and removes the lid, now in several pieces, with a flourish. “Ta-da.” 

Bags of dirt. No. Bags of fertiliser. And... tools; pots, seedlings. She blinks. Everything she’d need to start a garden. Almost as if he’d read her mind. 

Adalyn doesn’t know what to say.  

At her silence, Slate’s smile falters, and he musses his hair, sheepish. “You left your garden plans out. I’m sorry I looked without asking. But I already had to go to Cheywyn so I thought I’d pick up your supplies... I can bring up soil from the forest and take you to Fleecehold to get clippings from your old garden. And I was thinking that once your garden is more established we could even talk to folks at one of the apiaries and see about getting a small hive up here-” He hesitates when he sees her expression. “Are you okay?” 

Adalyn closes her eyes. She lets out a long breath and takes a moment to compose herself. To relax her jaw. She doesn’t know how to answer his question. Doesn’t know if she should be honest, or if that would be showing too much vulnerability too soon.  

“This is a thoughtful gift. Thank you.” She speaks the truth, but struggles to inject any warmth into her tone. Instead she trudges inside and finishes making her drink. 

He follows her. Hesitates by the table. “Do you want to talk about it?” 

She works in silence. Mulls over her words while she takes a sip of her tea. Then shrugs. “I was - I am – quite upset with you. But you’ve gone and done something sweet and now it doesn’t seem fair to be mad.” 

He takes in her dejected posture. Pulls up the seat beside her. Puts his hand on the table, inches away from hers. “You can still be mad. How did I upset you?” 

She struggles to meet his eyes. “You told me you’d spend time with me. Show me your armour. And then you left without saying anything.” 

He pales. “Ancestors. I completely forgot. I’m so sorry.” 

She turns away. “It’s fine.” 

“No. It’s obviously not fine. You’ve every right to be upset.” He hesitates, “Look, I don’t want you to even consider the gift until I’ve made it up to you. I don’t want it to seem like I’m trying to buy your affection.” He shifts again, floundering at words. “How else can I make this better?” 

Adalyn lets her eyes drift back to him. He really does look concerned.  

“I don’t know.” 

“I owe you some quality time. Why don’t we go over the armour this morning and the weapons? Unless, of course, you wanted to be alone.” 

Adalyn leans back in her chair, arms crossed. She’s still upset. And a petty part of her wants to turn her nose up at Slates offer and sulk in privacy. But she knows she’d regret it. 

She scowls down at her drink. Tries really hard to be nice. To be forgiving. To move past the upset, just a little. 

“It’d be a start.” 

Some of the tension leaves his shoulders. He taps one of her fingers with one of his own. “Did anything else happen? I mean, did I do anything else?” 

Her eyes flick to him, before dropping back to her drink. She sits in silence while she tries to straighten out her upsets. 

“I wish you’d said something before leaving. Even with your note, I still felt left in the dark.” 

Slowly he creeps one of his hands around hers. Absently, his thumb brushes the back of her hand. “I didn’t realise leaving would bother you. Does it usually?” 

Adalyn shrugs. She hadn’t expected him to take her so seriously. And with his gentle touch it’s getting increasingly difficult for her to pull away. “I’m used to it.” 

She misses his wince. His frown. “Okay. Barring emergencies, I won’t do it again. I’m sorry I didn’t consider how you’d feel about it.” 

Adalyn looks up. 

He’s completely serious. 

She’s surprised by his reaction, and slightly warmed. She’d felt like such a fool, being upset over something so small. He hadn’t made her feel like that at all.  

Feeling bold, Adalyn shuffles closer. Leans across the space and rests her forehead against his chest. 

“Tomorrow you can make it up to me some more.” 

“Yes?” 

“By helping me with the garden.” 

He strokes her hair. She tries not to melt completely at the touch, but it’s nearly impossible. Adalyn realises that she’s starved for these small affections, and presses her face harder against him. 

Her words are muffled, but Slate still hears her when she next speaks. 

“Thank you for listening. And taking me seriously.” 

He clears his throat. “Uh. Well. Of course. You listen to me every day, even when I talk about boring things.” 

“I like listening to you talk about boring things.” 

Her face heats at the admission. She wants to pull away, suddenly aware of her proximity, but doesn’t want Slate to see how embarrassed saying that had made her. 

There’s a long silence. 

“Do you… want to hear me talk about my amour collection?” 

She nods. Then, with great reluctance, pulls back, standing and clearing the table before she’s able to meet his eyes again. 

“Yeah. I’d love to.” 

--- 

Adalyn barely stirs when Slate touches her shoulder. The room is still dark. The fire burnt to embers. 

“Hmm?” 

“I’m going to start bringing up some soil. If I’m not back by breakfast, I’ll see you outside.” 

“M’kay,” she mumbles, drifting back to sleep. 

She forgets the encounter.  

The sun rises and Adalyn drags herself from bed. It’s not until she notes the lack of construction noise, which typically rumbles distantly, but surely, that she connects the dots of Slate’s absence. Excitement rises in her, but she ignores it, dressing and eating, focusing on one step at a time. Finally, she makes her way to the surface. 

In the first week Slate had carved several doors for her, emerging into the lush and stony mountainsides. The one she uses now had been discussed last night: located halfway down Slate’s Tower and exiting onto a small plateau that clings to the spire’s side. 

She adjusts to the sunlight and takes in her surroundings. Her garden supplies are in a precarious pile, and the wooden crate that had housed them is nowhere to be seen. To the side is a large tarp, weighed down by a pile of loamy soil.  

Confused, but happy to start, she begins working, filling and placing pots, drawing lines in the dirt. She’s just beginning to wonder how soon she can start building garden beds when a shadow appears overhead. 

The missing crate creaks when Slate sets it on the ground, and Adalyn can’t help but wonder how many more trips up and down the spires it can survive. Lid missing, she has a clear view of the dirt inside. 

Good morning. 

“Hi,” Adalyn greets him, craning her neck and allowing a shy smile. “You’ve been busy.” 

The wyvern stretches his neck, and adjusts his wings, allowing them to flare momentarily. It could be construed as a shrugging gesture. Adalyn thinks it looks a bit like Slate preening.  

I’m used to early starts. 

She hides her smile at the forced humbleness. Then looks over the plateau. “Do you want to build some garden beds with me?” 

Shadow streams off of him and he shrinks in size until his demi form remains. 

Adalyn blinks, letting her gaze linger over his horns and his scaled cheeks. She doesn’t get to see him like this very often. Especially not out in the light. Aside from when he’s busy digging, or around his family, he tends to present as human around Adalyn. 

She uses the chance to stare, greedily taking in the glint of his claws and the shine of sun on his scales. The way his profile changes with his muscles shifted to hold the extra weight. The almost imperceptible change in his stance.  

She meets his eyes, and realises she’s been caught staring. 

His cheeks darken a shade. “I’m stronger like this. How can I help?” 

She forces herself to stare at the unbuilt garden surrounding them. “I’ll need some materials for the garden beds. What do you recommend?” 

He rubs his chin, smearing dirt without realising. “Wood will break down over time. You could use it for temporary garden beds and build outwards after. Or reinforce and replace the edges. Stone has better longevity. I’d use larger slabs for an elegant, but basic look. You could do cobbled stone for something quaint looking, but it would take much more work to assemble. Plus, it wouldn’t be as durable, and roots could grow through if we left it unpatched.” 

“I like the idea of large slabs. And perhaps some pavers. I don’t want the path turning into mud or washing away every time it rains.” 

“Well, I’ve plenty of limestone. I wouldn’t use it for carvings though. It weathers kind of poorly outside. But it’ll work for slabs and pavers. I could size it for you today?” 

Adalyn straightens. “That sounds like a plan. Why don’t you bring some out while I get us some drinks?” 

The pair part ways. When Adalyn returns to the budding garden, sandwiches and hot drinks in tow, she finds Slate already at work, shaping the stone with his claws, and smoothing it further with a chisel. 

She offers him food, and he smiles gratefully, reaching for a sandwich before pausing. His hands are covered in dust. He looks to his shirt, about to wipe them clean, when he notices the garment is also grey with powdered limestone. 

She bites back a smile at the defeated expression on his face, picks up a sandwich, and holds it to his mouth. 

They lock eyes for a moment, and at the proximity, Adalyn can’t help but flush at the unexpected intimacy.  

“Thanks,” he says in a mumble, before clearing his throat and taking a bite. 

Slate tries to keep busy, turning back to his work between bites, and discussing with Adalyn. They chose the size and shape, decide against using mortar, and finish eating before Slate starts walking the slabs into place.  

Adalyn puts her gloves back on and continues work, filling the first garden bed with stone and soil, while Slate builds and assembles the other beds. By afternoon they’ve built four and filled one, which Adalyn regards with pride.  

“Last thing I’ll need is a source of water.” 

Slate sits on one of the garden edges, sprawling out. “My fancy bathroom won’t be far. I could probably extend the piping.” 

Adalyn tries not to roll her eyes or quip about his growing list of architectural projects. “A rain catcher would also work.” 

He looks sheepish for a moment. “I suppose it would. Until Winter.” 

“Does fancy plumbing not freeze in Winter?” 

“Not if I really shell out. I could have them built from dwarven metals. Or hire an enchanter.” 

She does roll her eyes this time. “And I could do what most of the locals do, and not grow crops in Winter.” 

He blinks. And Adalyn swears he also blushes. “Yes. I suppose you could do that.” 

--- 

That evening Adalyn accompanies Slate downstairs and offers to help with dinner. He brushes her off with a smile and insists on cooking. Content, Adalyn sits in the dining area during the interim, going over the mail she’d picked up that afternoon. 

The pair had made a trip down the mountain to visit Gwen and Grace, and to take cuttings from Adalyn’s old garden. They’d returned one mysterious package heavier.  

Adalyn pointedly ignores the lower half of the dining area. The table from the third trial is gone from the walkway, but the memory still lingers. Adalyn puts her back to it when she sits at the dais table, looking closer at the parcel.  

It’s wrapped tightly in cloth and leather, in a desperate attempt to keep its contents safe, and when Adalyn opens it, she sees why.  

‘St James’ Treatise on Wyvern Physiology’ 

It’s a hefty tome written on parchment, with detailed diagrams and illustrations, inked in colour. A handful of bookmarks protruding from the top draw the eye, and Adalyn opens to one.  

A subheading written in bold jumps out at her: ‘Mating Habits of the Duopedes Draconis’. Adalyn shuts the book and purses her lips. It’s then she spots the letter, nested among the book wrappings. It’s sealed shut with red wax. She eases it open. 

“Dear Adalyn, 

I’ve enclosed a gift you might find useful. I regret that I was unable to unearth it from my home until recently, but I imagine you’ll appreciate it all the same. I’ve marked some passages you may find particularly insightful. 

Unfortunately, the treatise does not go into great detail on wyvern societal customs. By the time my letter reaches you, I imagine you will have run into a few cultural differences in your courting expectations. In case Slate has not thought to tell you, please know that females usually take the lead when it comes to approaching partners. When males assert themselves or make the first move, it’s considered crass, or disrespectful. 

I also realise I didn’t explain the reasoning behind your wedding gift. You’ll understand after you’ve done some reading. A small dab on the wrists and neck is usually enough to be noticeable, though I’d advise against mixing scents unless you have Slate’s assistance. 

I’ve been busy with my travels this year, but I’ll be nesting at home during the Winter. I’ve attached my return address for your convenience. 

Warm regards, 

Rin 

She scans the letter again, rereading the second paragraph as a knot begins to form in her stomach. A surge of emotions washes over her. Shock. Bewilderment. Irritation. Relief. She’s a bit annoyed at the conclusions Rin is jumping to, but since the female isn’t entirely wrong, Adalyn can’t begrudge her the letter or the advice.  

Could Slate have been holding back for these reasons? Sure, it’s still possible he holds no interest in her, but...  

Before she has a chance to ponder it further, the wyvern in question emerges from the kitchen, two plates in tow. Adalyn stows the book and letter away in their wrappings, hurriedly. She ignores Slate’s curious stare, and forces a smile. She’s not ready to talk about the book yet. 

“What’s for dinner?” 

He raises his brow and looks pointedly at the bundle pressed against her chest. He knows precisely what she’s doing, but goes along with it.   

“Rabbit. It’s a bit threadbare, but it’s all freshly foraged.” 

Adalyn looks over the meal. It’s just meat on a stick, but it’s been seasoned with fragrant herbs and served with a side of greens. 

“It’s fine,” she digs in. “Like you’ve said, variety is the spice of life.” 

He huffs and smiles, before sitting opposite her and digging in.   

Adalyn had only lit the closest torches, and the room is mostly in shadow, the pair seated in the dim glow. Still, the clink of cutlery and scrape of the plates are small sounds in a large room, reminding Adalyn of the cavernous shape to the place. Huddling in the low light, it’s somewhat... cozy.   

“I was thinking,” she starts, trying to work up the nerve. Is now really the time?  

Slate listens attentively between bites. 

Fuck it. If Rin is right, she’d never get anywhere, waiting for him to take the initiative. 

“You’ve been working nonstop these past weeks. Perhaps we could take a day off together. Go on an outing?”  

He considers. “That could be nice. Somewhere in the valley?”  

Adalyn forces herself to continue. To be bold. “I was thinking just us. Maybe a picnic or something? You could show me the east side.”  

She’s surprised when he agrees so readily.   

“I’d be delighted. When would you like to go?”  

She considers. “Well, I want to get those cuttings sorted tomorrow.” And take the time to do some reading. “The day after?” 

“I’ll adjust my schedule.”  

She huffs at the poor joke. “I’ll look forward to it.”

Next

[blakescoven]

11 with Xavier 🥺 plz!

11. Telling them a dumb joke just to see their smile 

A/N: cant believe I actually wrote something after MONTHS. This is trash I’m sorry :( and things got out of hand because it’s about 2k words oops, but thank you for the ask darling, I had fun🖤 (Despite my proofreading there might be grammar mistakes because of my italian illiterate ass, so please be nice)

Warnings: they’re ghosts here, but honestly just dumb jokes, fluff and a heated moment but if you blink you’ll miss it haha

It’s one of those mornings. One of those mornings when the sunlight peaks through the window waking you up. But why even bother sleeping when you’re dead? Well, call it a habit, call it boredom, call it not wanting to let go that crumb of routine which, as much as possible, allows you to keep holding on to whatever is the shred of humanity left within you; like a fading flame that, for some reason, is still burning. Or at least this is the only way to not dissociate from reality and preserve your sanity.

Based on the amount of light, it must be almost 9 am.

Before even opening your eyes, you already know that he isn’t there. It’s when you turn to the other side of the bed that you get the confirmation; he’s not beside you, just crumpled sheets cold to the touch.

It's one of those mornings you perfectly know where he went. As much as he may not want to admit it, Xavier is pretty predictable.

Halloween has just slipped by, and all of you however-reluctant-residents of Camp Redwood spent 24 hours of complete freedom from that hellmouth, that place which does nothing but constantly remind you of that life that none of the souls stuck there had the chance to live. 24 hours to do ‘whatever the hell you want’. On this occasion, you guys are used to split up and part from each other; it has become a sort of established practice not talking about what you did on those hours, a somewhat “private full-day experience” that you all have this silent agreement to not share.

But then there was Montana being Montana, who enthusiastically bragged about how many frat guys and girls she hooked up with and then mercilessly killed at those wild college gatherings, despite your well-known disappointment on killing innocent people in cold blood. But actually, you’re almost a hundred percent certain that she and Trevor annually spent that day together, doing crazy things and partying all night long. For the first few years, after becoming aware that all the trapped souls are somehow unbound from the invisible restraints and free to step outside the borders of the ‘slaughter camp’, acclimatizing to the evolution and changing of times has been particularly challenging.

You were the one of the gang that for years had used those 24 hours to find a way to set you spirits free from redwood, once and for all. You talked to mediums and psychics, charlatans, coming close to obsession; it has been Xavier who persuaded you to let go, begging to just give up.

“Xav, there must be a way out of this, a loophole…something that could release our souls and let us move on, I-”

“Babe stop, we tried hard enough, but that's just the way it is…and then at least there’s a bright side,” he claimed with a faint smile, stroking your cheek with his thumb.

“And what on earth can that be?” you sighed.

“We've got all eternity to be together.”

He’s always been your rock. A hotshot and a dork too, but still. You wouldn’t want anybody else by your side for the rest of your non-life. 

So, from that moment, once a year, you and Xavier chose to make the most of your ‘day off’ going on dates, like normal couples do. For over three decades.

Then, as they say, the sun comes up and reality sets in.

And every time, without skipping a year, having to go back to the camp and dealing with that dreadful reality killed Xavier’s mood drastically. His aching heart led him to want to pass the day after in complete isolation, lost in his thoughts, grieving about what he has lost.

“I need to be alone for a while, Y/N” he used to mumble with a shrug, his usual confidence gone all at once, “This ‘let’s play humans’ thing was a mistake.” 

And every single year you let him walk away, respecting what has now become a sort of ritual, of cathartic moment. Year after year seeing all those people living their lives, achieving their dreams, having a purpose, or just solely breathing was too much for Xavier. Realizing that he won’t ever have anything of this. For this reason, you always gave him space. But not today. You’ve always felt powerless; all you want is finding a way to let your boyfriend know that, as he had said decades ago, ‘it’s time to move on and accept your new reality’. No more sorrow. If there’s something you know is how to cheer up your favorite aerobics instructor. 

On this November 1st of what should be 2020, Xavier is, as well as the last twenty years, sitting on the dock by the lake and staring off into space, surrounded by a disturbing silence.

“Boo” you seductively whispered in the shell of his ear, appearing out of nowhere kneeled behind him.

“Nice try,” he replies sarcastically, albeit his tone was rather emotionless, plain. “…but I can tell when you’re around.” He doesn’t even turn, totally unimpressed by your weak attempt of scaring him.

“Lame” you smirk, suddenly getting up, “Thought you could use some company, tough boy.”

You can’t see his face but you’re sure he is rolling his eyes now. He just sighs. Oh, and do you love his drama queen manners.

Without a real invitation to join him, you sit down again, this time right next to him, swinging your legs off the dock. You stare at the same direction he’s looking at, nervously tapping your fingers on the hard-wooden planks to the beat of an 80’s song.

“So,” you casually begin, though he seems pretty lost in his own thoughts, “Why don’t we skinny dip? I bet that could wash away that sad face.” you grin, biting your lip. 

You’ve never been this cheeky before, but what’s wrong in testing the waters?! Honestly, you’re not even sure he is actually paying attention to what you’re saying; you feel almost lucky he acknowledged your presence. You sure as hell won’t budge or back off this time, you won’t indulge his annual pity party. This time you are more than determined to make your boyfriend feel better, even unleashing your secret anti-sadness weapon.

Evidently caught off guard from this unusual boldness, Xavier lifts his head and turns to you with a surprised look on his face, but frowning at the same time.

Damn it, how can he be so attractive even when he furrows his brows like that?

Right now, the glare of sunlight on the water is perfectly reflecting off his sharp features, and, in this one moment, it’s like everything else falls away, and it’s just the two of you. Nothing else matters but him. Just a few seconds and you’re positive you’re going to forget the reason why you are there in the first place.

It’s the soft sound of his voice that brings you back to reality.

“I’m not sad.”

You shoot him a spare-me-that-bullshit-glance, that doesn’t go unnoticed, since he immediately emphasizes what he said in an attempt to make it sound more convincing, a few octaves higher.

“I’m not sad, Y/N!”

Very well Xav, time to bring out the big guns then.

With what you think is the most serious and straight expression your face can make in that moment, you tenderly place a hand on this cheek, which results in his brows furrowing even more, as if he’s silently questioning your sudden change of demeanor. He’s already preparing to get your lecture when instead you come up with:

“Do you know why ghosts are terrible liars?”

With a combo of a dramatic pause and a poker face, you bite the inside of your cheek noting his confused and puzzled look, “You can see right through them.”

Xavier’s blue eyes suddenly widen, shocked by your brainless joke that you’re certain he wasn’t expecting. You remain silent and he looks at you with his mouth slightly open, completely speechless.

“No way, no no no,” his eyebrows raised even further, “You didn’t say what you’ve just said.” and despite his apparent grimace, he lets out a loud laugh he really can’t hold back.

“Any chance to unhear this cringe-worthy joke?”

“Oh stop, it wasn’t that bad.”

“Are you kidding me?” he dramatically snorts. Theatrical might be the right word to describe the way your boyfriend always reacts when he’s at a loss of words.

“If you were searching for a non-physical way to kill me, you just found it.” he puts a hand on his forehead.

“Then why are you laughing, blondie?” you tease him.

“Because you’re the worst comedian ever, baby.”

Yeah? A bulb glows on your head.

“I disagree. Now tell me, what do you call a ghost-comedian?”

“Don’t you dare.” he warns

“DEAD-FUNNY” you scream back, then bursting into laughter.

It starts as a chuckle, but soon Xavier can’t help but mirror your reaction, cracking up himself.

It’s a laughter that fills his lungs, so hard that it takes his breath away, loud yet so warm and pleasant. The lack of oxygen doesn’t matter. All the distress of the past few days melts; as long as you two stay together, the tension is relieved.

“Jeez, you’re lucky you’re the love of my life,” he lightly shakes his head, “...otherwise I would run away from you as fast as I can.” he lies, lightly bumping your shoulder.

Fixing quite unconsciously his signature bleached hair, always perfectly styled, has been his tic for ages. The first time you noticed it was when he nervously tried to divert attention from his blushing, finally bent on making a move on you. You two were friends, but head over the heels for each other.

He smiles at himself; even the thought alone of spending the eternity in that purgatory without you is inconceivable.

“Why don’t you write a book with all these bad jokes?!” he mocks you.

“Only with you as a ghostwriter!” and proud of your quick-but-cheap pun, you put on a massive shit-eating grin on your face.

“Are you fucking with me, Y/N?” Xavier smiles at you lovingly, pinching your side that he knows is a ticklish-weak-spot. 

Your body twitches to escape his hold and push his hands away, but when you grab his wrists something shifts inside you. Are your eyes clouded with…is it lust? You’re not sure what it is, but you give him a little smirk, and, much to Xavier’s surprise, you straddle him placing your hands on his toned chest.

“Not yet, babe…unless it is what you want.”

“God Y/N, you suck at flirting” he claims but the groan that slips out means he can’t hide his arousal as much as he would.

“Teach me, then. Still got the moves?” you slightly shift, making sure to adjust your position with a slow grind against his half-boner. He hisses and lets out a little moan in response.

“Very well, but I think we should work on your flexibility first.”

What follows is a series of slow open-mouthed kisses on your jaw and love bites on his neck. You will never get tired of this, not even in a million years.

“Hey, Romeo and Ghouliet! Stop fucking your brains out and get over here…we have a sort of guest.” Chet screams from the lakeshore.

“We are not!” You both manage to say, reluctantly interrupting your heated kiss.

“I’m dead dears, not stupid.” the brunette winks.

Damn cockblocker.

“A guest?” Xavier questions, tilting his head and looking at you as if you know what Chet is talking about. You shrug and ask the athlete who this person is and what exactly they want.

“I think it’s about our…condition. Clairvoyance shit, I don’t know. Her name is Billie Dean Howard or something.” Chet explains, not sure either what all this is about.

Xavier is the first to get up, helping you do the same.

“Maybe she’s just a ghost-obsessed freak who wants to reopen the camp?!” you wonder out loud and tenderly link your hand with your boyfriend’s, ready to go.

“Yeah, maybe. But it wouldn’t be a bad idea, though.”

[newstfionline]

Friday, February 19, 2021

NASA rover lands on Mars to look for signs of ancient life (AP) A NASA rover streaked through the orange Martian sky and landed on the planet Thursday, accomplishing the riskiest step yet in an epic quest to bring back rocks that could answer whether life ever existed on Mars. Ground controllers at the space agency’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, leaped to their feet, thrust their arms in the air and cheered in both triumph and relief on receiving confirmation that the six-wheeled Perseverance had touched down on the red planet, long a deathtrap for incoming spacecraft. The landing marks the third visit to Mars in just over a week. Two spacecraft from the United Arab Emirates and China swung into orbit around Mars on successive days last week. All three missions lifted off in July to take advantage of the close alignment of Earth and Mars, journeying some 300 million miles in nearly seven months. Perseverance, the biggest, most advanced rover ever sent by NASA, became the ninth spacecraft since the 1970s to successfully land on Mars. Over the next two years, Percy, as it is nicknamed, will use its 7-foot (2-meter) arm to drill down and collect rock samples containing possible signs of bygone microscopic life. Three to four dozen chalk-size samples will be sealed in tubes and set aside to be retrieved eventually by another rover and brought homeward by another rocket ship.

Share of U.S. workers holding multiple jobs is rising, new Census report shows (Reuters) The share of Americans working more than one job to make ends meet has been growing over the past two decades, and the pay from second jobs make up a substantial share of workers’ earnings, according to a paper published by the U.S. Commerce Department on Wednesday. An estimated 7.8% of U.S. workers had more than one job as of the first quarter of 2018, up from 6.8% in 1996, according to new data unveiled by the Census bureau. The earnings from the workers’ second jobs make up an average 28% of their total earnings, showing that workers are likely relying on that pay, researchers said. In general, women were more likely to have multiple jobs than men, with 9.1% of women holding multiple jobs as of 2018, compared with 6.6% of men.

Desperate for Light and Warmth (NYT) Halfway through the week that Texas froze over, everything seemed to be in a state of frigid chaos. Some homes had no water at all while others watched it gush from burst pipes into their hallways and living rooms. On Wednesday more than 2.5 million people were still without power [now down to 330,000], while at least twice as many were being told to boil their water. In Houston, Catherine Saenz and her family, like most of their neighbors, have had no power or water for days, as the city remains in the grip of the fiercest winter in memory. But they are fortunate: They have a fireplace. Even fireplaces have to be fed, though, and to keep the two parents, two daughters and two grandmothers from freezing, her husband has spent hours in the afternoon scouring the neighborhood for fallen trees and rotten wood. “I never imagined that we would be in this situation,” said Ms. Saenz, who grew up in Colombia but has lived in Houston through Hurricanes Ike and Harvey. “No one is prepared, it is dangerous and we are very vulnerable.”

A silent killer inside: Carbon monoxide (Washington Post) With no electricity in their home for hours, the Houston family tried to fight off the freezing cold by running their car in the attached garage, authorities say. When Houston police officers entered the property to conduct a welfare check, they found the two adults and two children, police said in a statement Tuesday morning. The woman and girl did not survive, and the man and boy were taken to a hospital. The deaths are among a rising number of reports of people being poisoned by carbon monoxide as Texans face a deadly winter storm that has brought record-low temperatures and demands for electricity that overwhelmed the state’s grid, leaving more than 3.2 million people in the dark and with no heat for more than 24 hours. As more reports of poisoning emerged Tuesday, government officials sounded the alarm. “SPREAD THE WORD: The number of people being admitted to local hospitals for carbon monoxide is rising at a disturbing rate. Do not bring any outdoor appliances (grills, etc.) inside, or run your car inside the garage,” Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo wrote on Twitter.

Word of flight to Cancun from frozen Texas lands Senator Ted Cruz in hot water (Reuters) U.S. Senator Ted Cruz faced widespread criticism on social media on Thursday after images went viral online that a journalist said showed him flying to a resort in Cancun while his home state of Texas struggled through a deadly deep freeze. Photos circulating on social media appeared to show the Texas Republican in airport line, in a passenger lounge and aboard an airliner. “Just confirmed @SenTedCruz and his family flew to Cancun tonight for a few days at a resort they’ve visited before. Cruz seems to believe there isn’t much for him to do in Texas for the millions of fellow Texans who remain without electricity/water and are literally freezing.” former MSNBC anchor David Shuster tweeted shortly after midnight.

Rare Earths (Financial Times) It takes 417 kilograms of rare earth minerals—more difficult-to-obtain bits of the periodic table that have uses in elaborate semiconductors and instrumentation—to build one F-35 fighter jet, a critical set of components that are about to be much harder to find. China is considering an export ban on rare earth minerals, and given that they control about 80 percent of the global supply, that would put Lockheed Martin, which makes the aircraft, in a bit of a pinch. As it stands now, even ore mined in the United States has to be sent to China for refining.

Migrants on the move again in Mexico and Central America (AP) In the first Mexican shelter reached by migrants after trekking through the Guatemalan jungle, some 150 migrants are sleeping in its dormitories and another 150 lie on thin mattresses spread across the floor of its chapel. Only six weeks into the year, the shelter known as “The 72” has hosted nearly 1,500 migrants, compared to 3,000 all of last year. It has halved its dormitory space due to the pandemic. That wasn’t a problem last year because few migrants arrived, but this year it’s been overwhelmed. Latin America’s migrants are on the move again. After a year of pandemic-induced paralysis, those in daily contact with migrants believe the flow north could return to the high levels seen in late 2018 and early 2019. The difference is that it would happen during a pandemic. The protective health measures imposed to slow the spread of COVID-19, including drastically reduced bedspace at shelters along the route, mean fewer safe spaces for migrants in transit.

Weary of COVID restrictions, Finns take up running in deep snow in socks (Reuters) Finns keen to avoid gyms and other indoor sports venues this winter because of the coronavirus pandemic have found a new way to keep fit—running in the snow wearing no training shoes, just thick woollen socks. Finland has seen particularly heavy snowfall this winter and running outside in just socks provides great exercise as well as a sense of freedom, said Pekka Parviainen, a helicopter pilot and an avid barefoot runner. “This is traditional Finnish crazy stuff, I think we all agree,” said Parviainen. In Finland, where taking a sauna in winter and then running through snow to jump into an ice-cold lake is a traditional pastime, barefoot running has become popular in the past few years during the warmer months. Running in socks through heavy snow, now about half a metre deep in many places, takes this to the next level. Parviainen recommends wearing at least two, preferably three, pairs of woollen socks to get the most out of the run.

Two journalists jailed for two years in Belarus for filming protests (Reuters) A Belarusian court sentenced two Belarusian journalists from Poland-based TV news channel Belsat who filmed protests against President Alexander Lukashenko to two years in prison on Thursday. Katsiaryna Andreyeva, 27, and Darya Chultsova, 23, were detained in an apartment in November from where they had been filming protests taking place over the death of a protester who was killed several days earlier. Both women pleaded not guilty after being accused of orchestrating the demonstrations by filming them. Neighbouring Lithuania urged Minsk to end a “spiral of repression” while Poland said Belarus should end its persecution of journalists. More than 33,000 people have been detained in a violent crackdown on protests against Lukashenko’s rule following a contested election last August that his opponents say was rigged to extend his rule. He has been in office since 1994.

Protesters out again in Myanmar, police use water cannon in capital (Reuters) Protesters were out again across Myanmar on Thursday to denounce the Feb. 1 coup and arrest of elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi, with police resorting to force to disperse crowds, using water cannon in the capital and catapults in a northern town. The daily protests and strikes that have paralysed many government offices show no sign of easing despite a junta promise of a new election and appeals for civil servants to return to work and threats of action if they do not.

Facebook blocks news access in Australia (AP) In a shocking act of retaliation Thursday, Facebook blocked Australians from sharing news, a milestone in the increasingly frantic jockeying between governments, media and powerful tech companies. Australia’s government condemned the decision, which also blocked some government communications, including messages about emergency services, and some commercial pages. The digital platforms fear that what’s happening in Australia will become an expensive precedent for other countries. Facebook took the drastic action after the House of Representatives passed legislation that would make Facebook and Google pay for Australian journalism, said Treasurer Josh Frydenberg. Facebook said the proposed Australian law “fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between our platform and publishers who use it.” Both Google and Facebook have threatened retaliation if Australia enacts the law, which the government contends will ensure media businesses receive fair payment for their journalism being linked on those platforms.

Jerusalem’s Old City turns white after rare snowfall (Reuters) Jerusalem woke up to the rare experience of seeing its holy sites covered in snow on Thursday, with the Dome of the Rock and the Western Wall under a layer of white after an overnight snowstorm. Before dawn children were up hurling snowballs at each other outside the Old City gates, as the faithful trudged to sites holy to Judaism, Islam and Christianity. The snowstorm began on Wednesday evening, leading the authorities to shut down public transportation and block the main road to Jerusalem.

After delay, Israel allows vaccines into Hamas-run Gaza (AP) Israel allowed the Palestinian Authority to deliver the first coronavirus vaccines to the Gaza Strip on Wednesday despite objections from Israeli lawmakers who suggested they be used as a bargaining chip for the release of captives held by the territory’s militant Hamas rulers. Israel has faced international criticism for largely excluding Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza from its highly successful vaccination campaign. It held up the shipment for two days as the government faced questioning from a parliamentary committee before ultimately approving it. The dispute highlights the Palestinians’ reliance on Israel even as they struggle to combat the pandemic on their own.

[diarrheaworldstarhiphop]

In late November, the Justice Department unsealed indictments against eight people accused of fleecing advertisers of $36 million in two of the largest digital ad-fraud operations ever uncovered. Digital advertisers tend to want two things: people to look at their ads and “premium” websites — i.e., established and legitimate publications — on which to host them. The two schemes at issue in the case, dubbed Methbot and 3ve by the security researchers who found them, faked both. Hucksters infected 1.7 million computers with malware that remotely directed traffic to “spoofed” websites — “empty websites designed for bot traffic” that served up a video ad purchased from one of the internet’s vast programmatic ad-exchanges, but that were designed, according to the indictments, “to fool advertisers into thinking that an impression of their ad was served on a premium publisher site,” like that of Vogue or The Economist. Views, meanwhile, were faked by malware-infected computers with marvelously sophisticated techniques to imitate humans: bots “faked clicks, mouse movements, and social network login information to masquerade as engaged human consumers.” Some were sent to browse the internet to gather tracking cookies from other websites, just as a human visitor would have done through regular behavior. Fake people with fake cookies and fake social-media accounts, fake-moving their fake cursors, fake-clicking on fake websites — the fraudsters had essentially created a simulacrum of the internet, where the only real things were the ads.

How much of the internet is fake? Studies generally suggest that, year after year, less than 60 percent of web traffic is human; some years, according to some researchers, a healthy majority of it is bot. For a period of time in 2013, the Times reported this year, a full half of YouTube traffic was “bots masquerading as people,” a portion so high that employees feared an inflection point after which YouTube’s systems for detecting fraudulent traffic would begin to regard bot traffic as real and human traffic as fake. They called this hypothetical event “the Inversion.”

In the future, when I look back from the high-tech gamer jail in which President PewDiePie will have imprisoned me, I will remember 2018 as the year the internet passed the Inversion, not in some strict numerical sense, since bots already outnumber humans online more years than not, but in the perceptual sense. The internet has always played host in its dark corners to schools of catfish and embassies of Nigerian princes, but that darkness now pervades its every aspect: Everything that once seemed definitively and unquestionably real now seems slightly fake; everything that once seemed slightly fake now has the power and presence of the real. The “fakeness” of the post-Inversion internet is less a calculable falsehood and more a particular quality of experience — the uncanny sense that what you encounter online is not “real” but is also undeniably not “fake,” and indeed may be both at once, or in succession, as you turn it over in your head.

The metrics are fake.                        

Take something as seemingly simple as how we measure web traffic. Metrics should be the most real thing on the internet: They are countable, trackable, and verifiable, and their existence undergirds the advertising business that drives our biggest social and search platforms. Yet not even Facebook, the world’s greatest data–gathering organization, seems able to produce genuine figures. In October, small advertisers filed suit against the social-media giant, accusing it of covering up, for a year, its significant overstatements of the time users spent watching videos on the platform (by 60 to 80 percent, Facebook says; by 150 to 900 percent, the plaintiffs say). According to an exhaustive list at MarketingLand, over the past two years Facebook has admitted to misreporting the reach of posts on Facebook Pages (in two different ways), the rate at which viewers complete ad videos, the average time spent reading its “Instant Articles,” the amount of referral traffic from Facebook to external websites, the number of views that videos received via Facebook’s mobile site, and the number of video views in Instant Articles.

Can we still trust the metrics? After the Inversion, what’s the point? Even when we put our faith in their accuracy, there’s something not quite real about them: My favorite statistic this year was Facebook’s claim that 75 million people watched at least a minute of Facebook Watch videos every day — though, as Facebook admitted, the 60 seconds in that one minute didn’t need to be watched consecutively. Real videos, real people, fake minutes.

The people are fake.                        

And maybe we shouldn’t even assume that the people are real. Over at YouTube, the business of buying and selling video views is “flourishing,” as the Times reminded readers with a lengthy investigation in August. The company says only “a tiny fraction” of its traffic is fake, but fake subscribers are enough of a problem that the site undertook a purge of “spam accounts” in mid-December. These days, the Times found, you can buy 5,000 YouTube views — 30 seconds of a video counts as a view — for as low as $15; oftentimes, customers are led to believe that the views they purchase come from real people. More likely, they come from bots. On some platforms, video views and app downloads can be forged in lucrative industrial counterfeiting operations. If you want a picture of what the Inversion looks like, find a video of a “click farm”: hundreds of individual smartphones, arranged in rows on shelves or racks in professional-looking offices, each watching the same video or downloading the same app.

This is obviously not real human traffic. But what would real human traffic look like? The Inversion gives rise to some odd philosophical quandaries: If a Russian troll using a Brazilian man’s photograph to masquerade as an American Trump supporter watches a video on Facebook, is that view “real”? Not only do we have bots masquerading as humans and humans masquerading as other humans, but also sometimes humans masquerading as bots, pretending to be “artificial-intelligence personal assistants,” like Facebook’s “M,” in order to help tech companies appear to possess cutting-edge AI. We even have whatever CGI Instagram influencer Lil Miquela is: a fake human with a real body, a fake face, and real influence. Even humans who aren’t masquerading can contort themselves through layers of diminishing reality: The Atlantic reports that non-CGI human influencers are posting fake sponsored content — that is, content meant to look like content that is meant to look authentic, for free — to attract attention from brand reps, who, they hope, will pay them real money.

The businesses are fake.                        

The money is usually real. Not always — ask someone who enthusiastically got into cryptocurrency this time last year — but often enough to be an engine of the Inversion. If the money is real, why does anything else need to be? Earlier this year, the writer and artist Jenny Odell began to look into an Amazon reseller that had bought goods from other Amazon resellers and resold them, again on Amazon, at higher prices. Odell discovered an elaborate network of fake price-gouging and copyright-stealing businesses connected to the cultlike Evangelical church whose followers resurrected Newsweek in 2013 as a zombie search-engine-optimized spam farm. She visited a strange bookstore operated by the resellers in San Francisco and found a stunted concrete reproduction of the dazzlingly phony storefronts she’d encountered on Amazon, arranged haphazardly with best-selling books, plastic tchotchkes, and beauty products apparently bought from wholesalers. “At some point I began to feel like I was in a dream,” she wrote. “Or that I was half-awake, unable to distinguish the virtual from the real, the local from the global, a product from a Photoshop image, the sincere from the insincere.”

                                       The content is fake.                        

The only site that gives me that dizzying sensation of unreality as often as Amazon does is YouTube, which plays host to weeks’ worth of inverted, inhuman content. TV episodes that have been mirror-flipped to avoid copyright takedowns air next to huckster vloggers flogging merch who air next to anonymously produced videos that are ostensibly for children. An animated video of Spider-Man and Elsa from Frozen riding tractors is not, you know, not real: Some poor soul animated it and gave voice to its actors, and I have no doubt that some number (dozens? Hundreds? Millions? Sure, why not?) of kids have sat and watched it and found some mystifying, occult enjoyment in it. But it’s certainly not “official,” and it’s hard, watching it onscreen as an adult, to understand where it came from and what it means that the view count beneath it is continually ticking up.

These, at least, are mostly bootleg videos of popular fictional characters, i.e., counterfeit unreality. Counterfeit reality is still more difficult to find—for now. In January 2018, an anonymous Redditor created a relatively easy-to-use desktop-app implementation of “deepfakes,” the now-infamous technology that uses artificial-intelligence image processing to replace one face in a video with another — putting, say, a politician’s over a porn star’s. A recent academic paper from researchers at the graphics-card company Nvidia demonstrates a similar technique used to create images of computer-generated “human” faces that look shockingly like photographs of real people. (Next time Russians want to puppeteer a group of invented Americans on Facebook, they won’t even need to steal photos of real people.) Contrary to what you might expect, a world suffused with deepfakes and other artificially generated photographic images won’t be one in which “fake” images are routinely believed to be real, but one in which “real” images are routinely believed to be fake — simply because, in the wake of the Inversion, who’ll be able to tell the difference?

                                       Our politics are fake.                        

Such a loss of any anchoring “reality” only makes us pine for it more. Our politics have been inverted along with everything else, suffused with a Gnostic sense that we’re being scammed and defrauded and lied to but that a “real truth” still lurks somewhere. Adolescents are deeply engaged by YouTube videos that promise to show the hard reality beneath the “scams” of feminism and diversity — a process they call “red-pilling” after the scene in The Matrix when the computer simulation falls away and reality appears. Political arguments now involve trading accusations of “virtue signaling” — the idea that liberals are faking their politics for social reward — against charges of being Russian bots. The only thing anyone can agree on is that everyone online is lying and fake.

                                       We ourselves are fake.                        

Which, well. Everywhere I went online this year, I was asked to prove I’m a human. Can you retype this distorted word? Can you transcribe this house number? Can you select the images that contain a motorcycle? I found myself prostrate daily at the feet of robot bouncers, frantically showing off my highly developed pattern-matching skills — does a Vespa count as a motorcycle, even? — so I could get into nightclubs I’m not even sure I want to enter. Once inside, I was directed by dopamine-feedback loops to scroll well past any healthy point, manipulated by emotionally charged headlines and posts to click on things I didn’t care about, and harried and hectored and sweet-talked into arguments and purchases and relationships so algorithmically determined it was hard to describe them as real.

Where does that leave us? I’m not sure the solution is to seek out some pre-Inversion authenticity — to red-pill ourselves back to “reality.” What’s gone from the internet, after all, isn’t “truth,” but trust: the sense that the people and things we encounter are what they represent themselves to be. Years of metrics-driven growth, lucrative manipulative systems, and unregulated platform marketplaces, have created an environment where it makes more sense to be fake online — to be disingenuous and cynical, to lie and cheat, to misrepresent and distort — than it does to be real. Fixing that would require cultural and political reform in Silicon Valley and around the world, but it’s our only choice. Otherwise we’ll all end up on the bot internet of fake people, fake clicks, fake sites, and fake computers, where the only real thing is the ads.

[sunsetbeachsoap]

Hollywood: Daytime Goes to the Beach Aaron Spelling will bring sunshine and sand to set-bound soap operas with his new ‘Sunset Beach’

Nov 4, 1996 By Betsy Sharke Except for a nasty cold, Aaron Spelling couldn’t be in much better spirits. He’s spent most of the day with his office crammed full of wardrobe racks and cast members from Sunset Beach, the first daytime drama that Spelling Entertainment has ever done and the first daytime drama to be introduced on network TV in eight years (1989’s Generations was the last — and it didn’t).

‘We brought in 12 racks of clothes,’ says Spelling. ‘I think fashion is as important to a serial as anything else.’ Fashion sets the tone. It defines the palette. The length of a skirt, the style of jeans, can tell the viewer volumes about a character before the first word of dialogue is spoken. Spelling already loves the Sunset Beach cast — their names have been added to his annual Christmas party list — and on this day he is doling out advice to them on everything from buying a new car to renting apartments to how to handle fame, should it be lucky enough to come. He has issued his no-hair-changes dictum — Sunset cast members had better be happy with the style and color they start the show with, because Spelling isn’t about to let them confuse a new audience with a makeover any time soon. It is a long-standing rule for a Spelling show, and his staff knows that he’s deadly serious about it even if some of the awestruck actors don’t — yet. On Jan. 6, Sunset Beach will hit the air. ‘The series is a critical component of NBC West Coast president Don Ohlmeyer’s plan to make the network’s daytime schedule as potent as its prime time. NBC is in third place in daytime, though the net is up 20 percent this season and is closing in on second-place ABC. Ohlmeyer has his sights set on first, which CBS now owns. ‘With Sunset, we have something new and hot and exciting,’ Ohlmeyer says. ‘(In) the ‘80s, NBC daytime basically disintegrated. We are in the process of rebuilding, but we have to deliver the goods. That’s how we’ve built prime time, with distinctive programming. ‘There hasn’t been a successful soap launched in 10 years. It’s very difficult to do, but with Aaron’s touch and looking at the cast we have, we think it’s worth the effort. Some of our affiliates are very receptive (to the show) some, we’re in the process of kidnapping their children.’ On Stage 11 at NBC Studios in Burbank, carpenters and set designers are working late into the night to complete the sets that will form the primary backdrop for the show. The small community of Seal Beach, roughly a 90-minute drive south of Los Angeles, has been scouted nearly grain by grain of sand. It will be the exterior home for Sunset, and unlike most daytime soaps, the location will be a frequent player. Last week, readings and the first of three weeks of shooting exteriors began. The Santa Anas — California’s devil winds — stirred up the sand, making it sting on the skin. The water, which is never warm at Seal Beach, was even colder than usual. But no one was complaining. The 22 actors who will give shape and form to Sunset Beach are a beautiful bunch indeed, a canvas of racial diversity plucked from the talent pool in New York, Los Angeles and other cities including Philadelphia, the hometown of Spelling Entertainment president Jonathan Levin, who went back for that casting session. They are also young faces, part of the strategy to make Sunset a daytime soap for younger viewers, to do for daytime drama what Ricki Lake did for talk, at least in terms of attracting a new audience. Spelling is considered a master at casting, instinctively knowing which faces will work together as a couple, which actors will have that all-important element of chemistry. Now the virtually unknown Sunsetters are all in front of him, many meeting for the first time, and the air is electric. ‘One of my favorite sports is finding new people and combining them with other people, and I had used so many people from daytime on our soaps,’ says Spelling, whose legacy includes such prime-time legends as Loveboat and Dynasty. The company is currently on prime time with an unprecedented four dramas: Melrose Place; Beverly Hills, 90210; Savannah; and Seventh Heaven. Sunset has been 18 months in the making, and Spelling is like a proud papa, surrounded by actors whose future he has just secured. The series, which is co-owned by Spelling and NBC, has a one-year commitment from the network. That’s 51 weeks of shows, 255 hour-long episodes guaranteed. ‘I wouldn’t tell Candy, my wife, for a week after the show was sold, but my daughter Tori is a daytime addict, and she kept saying, ‘Do it,” says Spelling. With four shows already on the air, he has little time. Launching a daytime soap would siphon off even more of it. ‘I don’t think it hit me for a while. OnMelrose, we wrap on the 22nd of November and don’t come back until January 5th. The actors and writers get a chance to rest. This is never-ending. But it’s been a strange, great experience.’ Worldvision, which sells Spelling’s shows internationally, already has 10 countries signed on for Sunsetwithout one scene shot, based on a four-minute video that outlined the premise of the show and included Spelling talking about it. The foreign sales are important, as is NBC’s share in the financing. Mounting a daytime drama from scratch is a massive undertaking. ‘It requires the logistics of mounting a military campaign,’ says Levin. ‘There’s huge construction, there’s an enormous amount of lighting, tremendous casting, wardrobe problems. It’s not like prime time, when you see life in a kind of episodic way. Daytime is an endless stream of programming that, once it’s begun, can’t be stopped.’ Ohlmeyer puts the production investment alone at about $50 million. ‘Then there’s the cost of launch, advertising and promotion — it’s a major commitment on our part,’ he says. ‘With daytime, you’re not really going to know anything concretely for 18 months. I feel we’re very much on track. We’ve done this in a really organized way in terms of laying out target dates, scripts in by here, cast in place by here, task force working on clearances to this point we’re right on schedule. That still doesn’t change the pucker factor.’ NBC was initially looking at four ideas, Spelling’s idea among them, for a daytime soap. Spelling’s concept originally was loosely defined as ‘Melrose Place at the beach.’ When they began to look seriously for a title for the new show, Spelling ran a title contest in-house. The winner would get $200. There were dozens of suggestions, but the most serious contender, Never Say Goodbye, came from an unlikely source: Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone, who suggested it during a dinner with Spelling. ‘I loved the name — it says romance, which this show is all about,’ says Spelling, whose company is part of Viacom. But in testing, viewers were drawn to the ‘beach’ motif more than anything else, Spelling says. Executive producer Gary Tomlin (Santa Barbara) and Robert Guza Jr. are the people on the front line of the creative side of Sunset Beach. The initial groundwork on the series was done by Chuck Pratt, who was an executive producer on Melrose Place, and Guza, whose work everyone knew from Spelling’sModels Inc. Together they wrote a nearly 400-page bible outlining Sunset’s premise, characters and storyline. Spelling remembers the bible for Melrose Place being closer to 40 pages. Unlike most daytime dramas, which tend to build their storylines around families and family rivalries,Sunset Beach is about young singles and couples who have been drawn to the town, and the relationships that emerge as the action unfolds. The producers also created an underlying mythology about the town as a place where one can find true love. ‘We loved the idea of creating a town and making the town a character,’ says Guza, who is cocreator and head writer. ‘(With) Sunset Beach, you get to create this world and these characters, and then you get to screw up their lives.’ Sunset Beach is being written at a faster pace than traditional daytime dramas. It’s a delicate balancing act to move action through each episode without losing the audience. ‘We would love it if people watched five days a week, but they don’t,’ says Tomlin. Three days is more typical. ‘We have to make certain they’re able to pick up where the story left off and that it hasn’t moved so rapidly that they can’t figure it out.’ The show is also being designed to allow room for cameos by big-name prime-time stars. Spelling wants to give viewers as compelling a reason as possible to tune in to Sunset. ‘On top of needing to have a terrific show, you are fighting against viewer habits that are long, long ingrained,’ says Levin. ‘It is very difficult to change the loyalty of the daytime viewer, and we’re talking about shows that have been on for 30 years. That’s one of the reasons we’re targeting young viewers — they’re the most available and the most flexible in their viewing habits.’ Then there is the station lineup. Affiliates exert their independence far more in daytime than prime time. NBC says that Sunset is cleared on 85 percent of its affiliates; the network expects to reach 90 percent by the premiere. With the cast now in place and the first rolls of tapes being produced, the network knows that stations that are wavering at least will have something concrete to see. ‘Will we get sufficient coverage — that’s a constant battle,’ says Levin. ‘Will the local affiliates elect to air the show in desirable time slots that will afford us the best opportunity to be sampled? These are things we are lobbying for but ultimately we don’t control.’ Spelling and NBC executives hope that Sunset Beach will be scheduled to follow Days of Our Lives, which has made a dramatic turnaround. ‘Over the last 18 months with that show, it’s been unbelievable, going from being in the middle to the top,’ Ohlmeyer says. ‘If we can get that kind of performance from Another World — and we think we’re finally on the right track there — with Sunset Beach we could have a solid three-hour block.’ Copyright ASM Communications, Inc. (1996) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/esearch/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=510703

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Yesterday, my colleague Nathaniel Rakich wrote about the Democrats’ impressive third-quarter fundraising haul, which boosted their odds in our forecast in a number of competitive House races. I’m going to hit the topic of fundraising once more — just to underscore how much of an outlier the Democratic advantage is relative to historical norms and how that could represent a challenge for our forecast.

It would be one thing if Democrats were raising money only in a few high-profile races — say, for example, in Beto O’Rourke’s Senate race in Texas. But that’s precisely not what is happening. Instead, the Democrats’ fundraising advantage is widespread. They’re raising money almost everywhere they need it in the House, whereas Republicans are sometimes coming up short.

For instance, we project that by the time they file their 12G reports later this month — the last filings due before the election — 144 Democrats on November House ballots1 will have raised at least $1 million in individual contributions, not counting self-funding or outside money. But we project just 84 Republicans will have done the same. We also project that 73 Democratic House candidates will have raised at least $2 million, as compared to just 17 Republicans.

Until recently, it was rare for House candidates to raise $2 million for their races — but it’s become more common in recent years as fundraising has gone digital and candidates have learned how to make highly tailored online appeals. There was a huge jump in the number of $2-million-plus candidates in both parties between 2014 and 2016, for example. But while Democrats’ numbers have held steady or improved from the high levels they had in 2016, Republican numbers have collapsed. The 17 GOP candidates that project to raise at least $2 million this year is down from 64 in 2016. (All figures are adjusted for inflation.)

Democrats’ fundraising advantage is widespread

Number of candidates on Nov. House ballots raising … At least $500K by 20 days before the election At least $1M by 20 days before the election At least $2M by 20 days before the election Year Dem. GOP Dem. GOP Dem. GOP 1998 93 128 22 37 3 4 2000 123 153 48 61 4 9 2002 108 151 38 37 8 6 2004 134 178 48 66 8 10 2006 156 172 62 65 13 13 2008 190 168 84 60 18 10 2010 200 220 95 87 20 15 2012 170 227 80 105 18 2 2014 153 197 65 76 23 9 2016 212 249 142 171 80 64 2018* 232 179 144 84 73 17

*2018 totals are extrapolated based on fundraising through Sept. 30.

All figures are adjusted for inflation.

Source: Federal election commission

The result is a fundraising disparity of the likes we’ve never seen before — at least not in recent years. (Our data on House fundraising goes back to 1998.) In the average House district, the Democratic candidate has raised 64 percent of the money,2 or almost two-thirds. Likewise, the Democrat has raised an average of 65 percent of the money in districts rated as competitive3 by the Cook Political Report. In all previous years in our database, no party had averaged more than 56 percent of the money in these competitive districts.

Democrats’ fundraising dominance has no recent precedent

Democrats’ share of two-party campaign contributions All House districts Competitive House districts Year Average Median Average Median 1998 47% 42% 51% 49% 2000 50 49 49 50 2002 49 41 46 44 2004 47 44 49 50 2006 54 54 51 50 2008 60 66 49 49 2010 47 49 54 53 2012 46 43 48 48 2014 48 46 56 55 2016 49 46 52 54 2018* 64 71 65 68

*Based on data available as of Oct. 18, 2018. For other years, totals are based on data available as of Election Day. The data covers individual campaign contributions only, and not candidate self-funding or donations from PACs or outside groups.

Source: Federal Election Commission

The fundraising numbers are so good for Democrats — and so bad for Republicans — that it’s a little bit hard to know quite what to make of them. From a modelling standpoint, we’re extrapolating from years in which fundraising was relatively even, or from when one party had a modest edge, into an environment where Democrats suddenly have a 2-1 advantage in fundraising in competitive races. Moreover, this edge comes despite the fact that a large number of these competitive races feature Republican incumbents (incumbents usually have an easier time raising money than challengers) and that most of them are in red terrain.

If Democrats beat their projections on Nov. 6 — say, they win 63 House seats, equalling the number that Republicans won in 2010, an unlikely-but-not-impossible scenario — we may look back on these fundraising numbers as the canary in the coal mine. That data, plus Democrats’ very strong performances in special elections, could look like tangible signs of a Democratic turnout surge that pollsters and pundits perhaps won’t have paid enough attention to. Right now, in fact, the polls are not showing a Democratic turnout advantage. Instead, based on a comparison of likely-voter and registered-voter polls, they’re projecting roughly equal turnout between the parties, with Republicans’ demographic advantages (older, whiter voters typically vote at higher rates at the midterms) counteracting Democrats’ seemingly higher enthusiasm. If turnout among Democratic-leaning groups actually outpaces that among Republican-leaning ones, Democrats will beat their polls and our projections.

It’s just as easy to imagine the error running the other way, however. Maybe, precisely because fundraising has become easier, including winning contributions from out-of-state and out-of-district donors, it’s no longer as meaningful an indicator of candidates’ grassroots appeal or organizational strength. Maybe the demographics of the Republican coalition have changed such that they’ll no longer raise as much money but will still get plenty of votes. Or maybe the GOP can make up for their lack of individual fundraising with more money from outside groups. If that’s the case, our model could overestimate Democrats’ chances. Although, I should note that while there’s a gap between our Lite forecast, which is based on local and national polls only, and our Classic forecast, which also incorporates fundraising and other “fundamentals” data, it’s not an especially large one. (Lite projects Democrats to pick up 36 seats, on average, as compared to 39 in Classic.)

Either way, we’re in somewhat uncharted territory here. For the most part, the various indicators we use in our House forecast tell a consistent story. The generic congressional ballot, district-by-district polling, and the past electoral history of midterm years under unpopular presidents are all consistent with a Democratic edge of somewhere between 6 and 10 percentage points in the House popular vote, and their being reasonably solid but not overwhelming favorites to win a majority of seats. The fundraising data points toward a massive, Democratic landslide, on the other hand.

As a first approximation, the correct approach with data that looks like an outlier is to average it together with the other indicators — not to throw it out. (More often than you might think, the seeming “outlier” proves to be correct and it’s the other data that was off.) And that’s more or less what our model does. But the fundraising data contributes uncertainty to our forecast in a way our topline probabilities may not capture well.

[dinafbrownil]

Trump executive orders on drug prices: Much ado about nothing?

President Trump signed 4 executive orders on drug pricing on July 24, 2020. How are they likely to affect drugs prices?

Passing along rebates to patients

The one of the executive orders mandates that rebates go to reduce patient cost sharing:

These middlemen — health plan sponsors and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) — negotiate significant discounts off of the list prices, sometimes up to 50 percent of the cost of the drug.  Medicare patients, whose cost sharing is typically based on list prices, pay more than they should for drugs while the middlemen collect large “rebate” checks.  These rebates are the functional equivalent of kickbacks, and erode savings that could otherwise go to the Medicare patients taking those drugs.  

Directing these rebates sounds like a great deal for patients. However, CMS’s Office of the Actuary found that if rebates are going to patients rather than Part D plans, these plans will need to increase premiums to make up for the lost rebate revenue. Thus, federal government spending will increase since the government pays for a large share of premiums. Specifically, as FactCheck.org reports:

“Federal spending would increase by $196 billion over the 10-year period, while average beneficiary costs and manufacturer concessions would decrease,” the CMS actuary report said. “Though average beneficiary costs would decrease, the majority of beneficiaries would see an increase in their total [out-of-pocket] and premium costs. The minority of beneficiaries who utilized drugs with significant manufacturer rebates would experience a substantial decrease in costs, causing average beneficiary cost across the program to decline.”

The executive order calls for premiums not to increase:

Prior to taking action under section 3 of this order, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall confirm — and make public such confirmation — that the action is not projected to increase Federal spending, Medicare beneficiary premiums, or patients’ total out-of-pocket costs

Permitting Drug importation

Trump is also allowing for drug importation by

…facilitating grants to individuals of waivers of the prohibition of importation of prescription drugs, provided such importation poses no additional risk to public safety and results in lower costs to American patients…[and]…authorizing the re-importation of insulin products upon a finding by the Secretary that it is required for emergency medical care 

This may be a workable solution for emergency situation but importing drugs from Canada is unlikely to sustainable. As I wrote last year, one study found that if 40% of U.S. prescriptions were filled from Canada, the Canadian drug supply would run out in 118 days. Allowing drug importation would require FDA acceptance of regulatory approval from other countries, or limiting the importation to drugs already FDA approved. Further, most other countries don’t want to send their drugs to the US.

Mandates for FQHCs to pass along discounts on insulin and epinephrine to low-income Americans.

Trump also is planning insure that payers reimburse Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) based on drug acquisition cost (plus a minimal administration fee). Currently, FQHCs can pocket any 340(b) discounts they receive and get reimbursement from payers at inflated prices.

….[FQHCs] receive discounted prices through the 340B Prescription Drug Program on prescription drugs.  Due to the sharp increases in list prices for many insulins and some types of injectable epinephrine in recent years, many of these products may be subject to the “penny pricing” policy when distributed to FQHCs, meaning FQHCs may purchase the drug at a price of one penny per unit of measure.  These steep discounts, however, are not always passed through to low-income Americans at the point of sale…  It is the policy of the United States to enable Americans without access to affordable insulin and injectable epinephrine through commercial insurance or Federal programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, to purchase these pharmaceuticals from an FQHC at a price that aligns with the cost at which the FQHC acquired the medication

This policy is sensible. It may squeeze FQHC’s bottom lines and additional funding may need to be made available to FQHC. However, FQHC’s should not be in the business of making huge profits off prescription drugs simply due to discounts from other federal programs.

International reference pricing

The fourth executive order calls for international reference pricing for Part B drugs. My comments on how reference pricing works can be found here. Note that reference pricing can slow time to market for lower priced countries (as shown in these four research studies). The International Pricing Index (IPI) pilot program was already planned to be implemented in November 2020. Under the program, Part B drug prices would in tied in part to an IPI based on the prices of physician-administered drugs in 15 other developed nations. Thus, the last executive order isn’t new news.

Policy & Medicine write:

Interestingly, this fourth Order does not become effective for one month, on August 24th, and is written such that it will become effective “absent successful negotiations with drug company executives.” President Trump wants to have input from the pharmaceutical industry on how they think we can reduce the 80% “markup” the United States pays for Part B drugs than other countries.

Conclusion

Of the four executive orders, the biggest change would be the implementation of the Part B IPI. However since a pilot program for that was already on the books and this executive order will not be signed until late August, the impact is modest. The other three executive orders are either beneficial but small in scale (FQHC pricing proposal), largely infeasible (drug importation at large scale), or are not practical to be implemented (it is impossible fund lower patients out of pocket cost without increase premiums). In short, keep your eye on IPI to see if/how that evolves.

from Updates By Dina https://www.healthcare-economist.com/2020/08/05/trump-executive-orders-on-drug-prices-much-ado-about-nothing/

[maxihealth]

Trump executive orders on drug prices: Much ado about nothing?

President Trump signed 4 executive orders on drug pricing on July 24, 2020. How are they likely to affect drugs prices?

Passing along rebates to patients

The one of the executive orders mandates that rebates go to reduce patient cost sharing:

These middlemen — health plan sponsors and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) — negotiate significant discounts off of the list prices, sometimes up to 50 percent of the cost of the drug.  Medicare patients, whose cost sharing is typically based on list prices, pay more than they should for drugs while the middlemen collect large “rebate” checks.  These rebates are the functional equivalent of kickbacks, and erode savings that could otherwise go to the Medicare patients taking those drugs.  

Directing these rebates sounds like a great deal for patients. However, CMS’s Office of the Actuary found that if rebates are going to patients rather than Part D plans, these plans will need to increase premiums to make up for the lost rebate revenue. Thus, federal government spending will increase since the government pays for a large share of premiums. Specifically, as FactCheck.org reports:

“Federal spending would increase by $196 billion over the 10-year period, while average beneficiary costs and manufacturer concessions would decrease,” the CMS actuary report said. “Though average beneficiary costs would decrease, the majority of beneficiaries would see an increase in their total [out-of-pocket] and premium costs. The minority of beneficiaries who utilized drugs with significant manufacturer rebates would experience a substantial decrease in costs, causing average beneficiary cost across the program to decline.”

The executive order calls for premiums not to increase:

Prior to taking action under section 3 of this order, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall confirm — and make public such confirmation — that the action is not projected to increase Federal spending, Medicare beneficiary premiums, or patients’ total out-of-pocket costs

Permitting Drug importation

Trump is also allowing for drug importation by

…facilitating grants to individuals of waivers of the prohibition of importation of prescription drugs, provided such importation poses no additional risk to public safety and results in lower costs to American patients…[and]…authorizing the re-importation of insulin products upon a finding by the Secretary that it is required for emergency medical care 

This may be a workable solution for emergency situation but importing drugs from Canada is unlikely to sustainable. As I wrote last year, one study found that if 40% of U.S. prescriptions were filled from Canada, the Canadian drug supply would run out in 118 days. Allowing drug importation would require FDA acceptance of regulatory approval from other countries, or limiting the importation to drugs already FDA approved. Further, most other countries don’t want to send their drugs to the US.

Mandates for FQHCs to pass along discounts on insulin and epinephrine to low-income Americans.

Trump also is planning insure that payers reimburse Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) based on drug acquisition cost (plus a minimal administration fee). Currently, FQHCs can pocket any 340(b) discounts they receive and get reimbursement from payers at inflated prices.

….[FQHCs] receive discounted prices through the 340B Prescription Drug Program on prescription drugs.  Due to the sharp increases in list prices for many insulins and some types of injectable epinephrine in recent years, many of these products may be subject to the “penny pricing” policy when distributed to FQHCs, meaning FQHCs may purchase the drug at a price of one penny per unit of measure.  These steep discounts, however, are not always passed through to low-income Americans at the point of sale…  It is the policy of the United States to enable Americans without access to affordable insulin and injectable epinephrine through commercial insurance or Federal programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, to purchase these pharmaceuticals from an FQHC at a price that aligns with the cost at which the FQHC acquired the medication

This policy is sensible. It may squeeze FQHC’s bottom lines and additional funding may need to be made available to FQHC. However, FQHC’s should not be in the business of making huge profits off prescription drugs simply due to discounts from other federal programs.

International reference pricing

The fourth executive order calls for international reference pricing for Part B drugs. My comments on how reference pricing works can be found here. Note that reference pricing can slow time to market for lower priced countries (as shown in these four research studies). The International Pricing Index (IPI) pilot program was already planned to be implemented in November 2020. Under the program, Part B drug prices would in tied in part to an IPI based on the prices of physician-administered drugs in 15 other developed nations. Thus, the last executive order isn’t new news.

Policy & Medicine write:

Interestingly, this fourth Order does not become effective for one month, on August 24th, and is written such that it will become effective “absent successful negotiations with drug company executives.” President Trump wants to have input from the pharmaceutical industry on how they think we can reduce the 80% “markup” the United States pays for Part B drugs than other countries.

Conclusion

Of the four executive orders, the biggest change would be the implementation of the Part B IPI. However since a pilot program for that was already on the books and this executive order will not be signed until late August, the impact is modest. The other three executive orders are either beneficial but small in scale (FQHC pricing proposal), largely infeasible (drug importation at large scale), or are not practical to be implemented (it is impossible fund lower patients out of pocket cost without increase premiums). In short, keep your eye on IPI to see if/how that evolves.

Trump executive orders on drug prices: Much ado about nothing? posted first on https://carilloncitydental.blogspot.com

[newstfionline]

Tuesday, January 12, 2021

Records show fervent Trump fans fueled US Capitol takeover (AP) The mob that showed up at the president’s behest and stormed the U.S. Capitol was overwhelmingly made up of longtime Trump supporters, including Republican Party officials, GOP political donors, far-right militants, white supremacists, members of the military and adherents of QAnon. The Associated Press reviewed social media posts, voter registrations, court files and other public records for more than 120 people either facing criminal charges related to the Jan. 6 unrest or who, going maskless amid the pandemic, were later identified through photographs and videos taken during the melee. The evidence gives lie to claims by right-wing pundits that the violence was perpetrated by left-wing antifa thugs rather than supporters of the president. Steven D’Antuono, the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Washington field office, told reporters that investigators had seen “no indication” antifa activists were disguised as Trump supporters in Wednesday’s riot. The AP found that many of the rioters had taken to social media after the November election to retweet claims by Trump that the vote had been stolen.

Parler, Free Speech, and bans (NYT) From the start, John Matze had positioned Parler as a “free speech” social network where people could mostly say whatever they wanted. It was a bet that had recently paid off big as millions of President Trump’s supporters, fed up with what they deemed censorship on Facebook and Twitter, flocked to Parler instead. On the app, which had become a top download on Apple’s App Store, discussions over politics had ramped up. But so had discussions that the election had been stolen from Mr. Trump, with users urging aggressive demonstrations last week when Congress met to certify the election of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. By Saturday night, Apple and Google had removed Parler from their app stores and Amazon said it would no longer host the site on its computing services, saying it had not sufficiently policed posts that incited violence and crime. Early on Monday morning, just after midnight on the West Coast, Parler appeared to have gone offline. Parler’s plight immediately drew condemnation from those on the right, who compared the big tech companies to authoritarian overlords. Parler has now become a test case in a renewed national debate over free speech on the internet and whether tech giants such as Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon have too much power.      (Worldcrunch) The moves by the tech giants didn’t sit well with many, including critics of the president. “We understand the desire to permanently suspend [Trump] now,” Kate Ruane, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote in a statement on Friday. “But it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions—especially when political realities make those decisions easier.” French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire went further, telling France Inter radio this morning that he was “shocked” that the social networks could take such action: “The regulation of the digital [space] can’t be carried out by the digital oligarchy itself. The digital oligarchy is one of the threats that weighs on our nations and our democracies.”

Presidential Disqualification (NYT) If the House impeaches President Trump this week, it will still have almost no effect on how long he remains in office. His term expires nine days from now, and even the most rapid conceivable Senate trial would cover much of that time. But the impeachment debate is still highly consequential. The Senate has the power both to remove Trump from office and to prevent him from holding office in the future. That second power will not expire when his term ends, many constitutional scholars say. A Senate trial can happen after Jan. 20. And disqualifying Trump from holding office again could alter the future of American politics. There is a significant chance he could win the presidency again, in 2024. He remains popular with many Republican voters, and the Electoral College currently gives a big advantage to Republicans. If he is not disqualified from future office, Trump could dominate the Republican Party and shape American politics for the next four years.

As spending climbs and revenue falls, the coronavirus forces a global reckoning (Washington Post) Costa Rica built Latin America’s model society, enacting universal health care and spending its way to one of the Western Hemisphere’s highest literacy rates. Now, it’s reeling from the financially crushing side effects of the coronavirus, as cratering revenue and crisis spending force a reckoning over a massive pile of government debt. The pandemic is hurtling heavily leveraged nations into an economic danger zone, threatening to bankrupt the worst-affected. Costa Rica, a country known for zip-lining tourists and American retirees, is scrambling to stave off a full-blown debt crisis, imposing emergency cuts and proposing harsher measures that touched off rare violent protests last fall. Around the globe, the pandemic is racking up a mind-blowing bill: trillions of dollars in lost tax revenue, ramped-up spending and new borrowing set to burden the next generation with record levels of debt. In the direst cases—low- and middle-income countries, mostly in Africa and Latin America, that are already saddled with backbreaking debt—covering the rising costs is transforming into a high-stakes test of national solvency. Analysts call it a “debt tsunami”: National accounts are sinking into the red at a record pace. “I consider the risk to be very high of an emerging-market debt crisis where a lot of countries run into problems at once,” said Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. “This is going to be a rocky road.”

Schools shut as Madrid clears record snow (AP) Schools in Madrid were closed on Monday while most trains and flights resumed as the Spanish capital tried to return to some form of normalcy after a huge snow storm on the weekend. While many in Madrid enjoyed the rare snow fall, skiing right at the heart of the city and holding mass snowball fights, a cold spell was set to turn the snow into slippery ice this week, and authorities rushed to clear more streets. With most streets still covered in snow, many workers stayed home. A Reuters reporter saw a number of empty shelves at several central Madrid supermarkets.

Pope, in new decree, allows more roles for women in Church (Reuters) Pope Francis, in another step towards greater equality for women in the Roman Catholic Church, on Monday changed its law to allow them to serve as readers at liturgies, altar servers and distributors of communion. In a decree, the pope formalised what already has been happening in many countries for years. But with the change in the Code of Canon Law, conservative bishops will not be able to block women in their diocese from those roles. But the Vatican stressed that the roles were “essentially distinct from the ordained ministry”, and were not an automatic precursor to women one day being allowed to be ordained priests. In a big shift last August the pope appointed six women, including the former treasurer for Britain’s Prince Charles, to senior roles in the council that oversees Vatican finances. Francis has already appointed women as deputy foreign minister, director of the Vatican Museums, and deputy head of the Vatican Press Office, as well as four women as councillors to the Synod of Bishops, which prepares major meetings.

Populist, Prisoner, President: A Convicted Kidnapper Wins Kyrgyzstan Election (NYT) A populist politician and convicted kidnapper won a landslide victory on Sunday in a snap presidential election in Kyrgyzstan triggered by a popular uprising against the previous government. Sadyr Japarov, the winning candidate, got nearly 80 percent of the vote, according to the central electoral commission of the mountainous country, the only democracy in Central Asia. More than 80 percent of voters also supported Mr. Japarov’s proposal to redistribute political power away from Parliament and into the president’s hands. In September, Mr. Japarov, 52, was still in jail, serving a lengthy term for orchestrating the kidnapping of a provincial governor, a charge he denounced as politically motivated. A violent upheaval that erupted in October over a disputed parliamentary election sprung Mr. Japarov from a prison cell to the prime minister’s chair. A few days later, he assumed the interim presidency before resigning to run for that office. The country’s main investigative body quickly canceled Mr. Japarov’s conviction. A landlocked former Soviet republic of 6.3 million people, Kyrgyzstan has suffered recurrent political strife. Three of its presidents, including Mr. Japarov’s immediate predecessor Sooronbay Jeenbekov, have been toppled in violent revolts since the country’s independence from Moscow in 1991.

A Year After Wuhan, China Tells a Tale of Triumph (and No Mistakes) (NYT) At a museum in Wuhan, China, a sprawling exhibition paints a stirring tale of how the city’s sacrifices in a brutal 76-day lockdown led to triumph over the coronavirus and, ultimately, rebirth. No costs appear to have been spared for the show, which features a hologram of medical staff members moving around a hospital room, heart-rending letters from frontline health workers and a replica of a mass quarantine site, complete with beds, miniature Chinese flags and toothbrush cups. But the exhibition is also striking for what is not included. There is no mention of the whistle-blowing role of Ai Fen, one of the first doctors to sound the alarm in Wuhan, where the virus is believed to have originated, or the decision by Zhang Yongzhen, a Shanghai doctor, to share its genome with the world against official orders. Visitors are invited to lay a virtual chrysanthemum at a wall of martyrs that includes Li Wenliang, the ophthalmologist at a Wuhan hospital whose death from the virus led to nationwide mourning. But missing from his brief biography is a crucial fact: that Dr. Li was reprimanded by the government for warning colleagues about the virus from which he later died. China has spent much of the past year trying to spin the narrative of the pandemic as an undisputed victory led by the ruling Communist Party. The state-run news media has largely ignored the government’s missteps and portrayed China’s response as proof of the superiority of its authoritarian system, especially compared to that of the United States and other democracies, which are still struggling to contain raging outbreaks. Those efforts have taken on new urgency as the Jan. 23 anniversary of Wuhan’s lockdown draws closer. In recent weeks, the government has deployed an army of censors to scrub the internet of critical coverage of the Wuhan outbreak.

Daily Low Flying Israeli Jets Over Lebanon Spreading Jitters (AP) Israeli military jets carried out several low flying flights over Beirut as reconnaissance drones also buzzed overhead Sunday in what has become a daily occurrence. Israel regularly violates Lebanon airspace, often to carry out strikes in neighboring Syria. On Christmas Eve, Israeli jets flew low late into the night, terrorizing Beirut residents who are no strangers to such flights. They were followed by reported Israeli strikes in Syria. The frequency of low flying warplanes over the capital has intensified in the last two weeks, making residents jittery as tensions run high in the region on the final days of President Donald Trump’s administration. “Of all types of panic I experienced in life in Beirut, the panic that accompanies the Israeli warplanes flying this low in Beirut is very special,” Tweeted Rudeynah Baalbaky, who said it brought back memories of the 2006 war with Israel. “When the drone leaves, the warplanes come. When the warplanes leave, the drones return. They have seen us in our PJs, filmed us in our PJs and surveilled us in our PJs. Now what,” quipped Twitter user Areej_AAH.

Lebanon tightens lockdown, imposes 24-hour curfew, as hospitals buckle (Reuters) Lebanon announced a tightening of its lockdown on Monday, introducing a 24-hour curfew from Thursday as COVID-19 infections overwhelm its medical system. The new all-day curfew starts at 5 a.m. (0300 GMT) on Thursday and ends at 5 a.m. on Jan. 25, a statement by the Supreme Defense Council said. Lebanon last week ordered a three-week lockdown until Feb. 2 that included a nighttime curfew from 6 p.m. to 5 a.m. But tighter measures were now necessary as hospitals run out of capacity to treat critically ill patients, President Michel Aoun said in the statement.

In Trump’s final days, Netanyahu orders more settler homes built (Reuters) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered construction plans advanced on Monday for some 800 Jewish settler homes in the occupied West Bank, anchoring the projects in the final days of the pro-settlement Trump administration. Palestinians condemned such construction as illegal. The timing of the move appeared to be an attempt to set Israel’s blueprint in indelible ink before Joe Biden, who has been critical of its settlement policies, becomes U.S. president on Jan. 20. Moving ahead with the projects could help shore up support for Netanyahu from settlers and their backers in a March 23 election, Israel’s fourth in two years, in which the conservative leader faces new challenges from the right.

Saar, longtime Netanyahu ally, emerges as his top challenger (AP) For years, Gideon Saar was one of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s most loyal and vocal supporters, serving as Cabinet secretary and government minister. Now, the telegenic Saar, armed with extraordinary political savvy and a searing grudge against his former boss, could prove to be Netanyahu’s greatest challenge. After breaking away from the Likud Party to form his own faction, Saar is running against Netanyahu in March elections and has emerged as the long-serving leader’s top rival. A secular resident of culturally liberal Tel Aviv with a celebrity news anchor wife, Saar, 54, is a hard-line nationalist long seen as an heir to the Likud Party leadership. After unsuccessfully challenging Netanyahu in a leadership race and then being denied a government position as retribution, Saar last month broke out on his own. He said his aim was to topple Netanyahu for turning the Likud into a tool for personal survival at a time when he is on trial on corruption charges. Saar’s chances of becoming prime minister in the next elections are far from certain and polling forecasts his New Hope party coming in second place after Likud. But his entry into the race reconfigures the playing field and could complicate Netanyahu’s task of forming a coalition government, perhaps sidelining the Israeli leader after more than a decade at the helm.

Pompeo Designates Houthis as Foreign Terror Organization (Foreign Policy) The U.S. Department of State designated Yemen’s Houthis as a terrorist organization on Sunday, potentially complicating efforts by an incoming Biden administration to bring an end to a war that has become the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Because the Houthis don’t appear to have foreign bank accounts, a terrorist designation will do little to affect the group’s operations. The designation is likely to complicate and at best delay humanitarian relief efforts, however, with charities and international groups wary of facing prosecution for working in Houthi-controlled territory. Pompeo’s statement attempted to head off humanitarian concerns surrounding the designation, adding that the U.S. Treasury Department is “prepared” to issue licenses for “certain humanitarian activities conducted by non-governmental organizations in Yemen” and “certain transactions and activities.” Scott Paul, Oxfam America’s humanitarian policy lead, is skeptical that the State Department has done its homework. “No responsible humanitarian agency or private business can afford to rely on these assurances. We’ll need to prepare for the worst,” Paul wrote on Twitter.

[xtruss]

US Orders Chinese Consulate in Houston Closed, Trump Hints at More to Come

US bent on waging two Cold Wars concurrently

— Jason Ditz | July 23, 2020 | Russia Insider | Anti-Empire.Com |

A “unilateral political provocation by the US side against China, a grave violation of the international law and basic norms governing international relations” the Chinese foreign ministry said

Continuing with mounting tensions, on Wednesday the United States ordered the Chinese Consulate in Houston, TX to be closed by Friday. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said this was retaliation for Chinese IP theft.

State Department officials say that the consulate was the “epicenter of theft” for China. Later in the day, Justice Dept officials also accused China of trying to hack Covid-19 labs. It is not clear that this was generally connected to the consulate.

Having the US close large nations’ consulates as a punitive measure is increasingly common. During Obama’s Administration, Russian consulates were constantly being shuttered or ordered to eliminate staff.

China said the move was “unbelievably ridiculous,” and threatened retaliatory countermeasures. The US has seven consular posts or other diplomatic sites in China, which could lead to a tit-for-tat move. Whether or not they do this, President Trump suggests more consulates could be closed.

Source: Antiwar.com

US President Donald Trump has indicated that it was “always possible” he would order the closure of more Chinese consulates in the United States, after the US gave Beijing 72 hours to shut its consulate in Houston further souring ties between the two countries.

Trump, at a White House news conference on Wednesday, noted that a fire had been spotted on the Houston consulate’s grounds after the US Department of State ordered the closure.

“I guess they were burning documents and burning papers,” he said.

China has condemned the closure as “an unprecedented escalation” that would sabotage relations between the two countries.

The South China Morning Post reported on Thursday that Beijing could retaliate by shutting down the US consulate in the Chinese city of Chengdu. It cited an official briefed on the decision.

Chinese state media angrily reacted to the move as an attempt to blame Beijing for American failures ahead of presidential elections in November.

The official English-language newspaper China Daily on Thursday described the move as “a new gambit in the US administration’s bid to paint China as a malevolent actor on the world stage, and thus make it an outlaw to the international community”.

“The move shows that lagging behind his presidential election opponent in the polls… the US leader is going all out in his attempts to portray China as an agent of evil,” it added.

The Global Times, an English-language tabloid run by the Communist Party’s People’s Daily newspaper, also accused Trump of playing politics. “The November presidential election is driving Washington mad,” it said.

In a statement earlier on Wednesday, Morgan Ortagus, spokeswoman for the US Department of State, said Washington directed the Houston consulate’s closure “in order to protect American intellectual property and Americans’ private information”.

She did not elaborate.

In Beijing, Wang Wenbin, a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry, called the “unilateral closure” of the Houston consulate “an unprecedented escalation of” US’s recent actions against China.

“We urge the US to immediately revoke this erroneous decision. Should it insist on going down this wrong path, China will react with firm countermeasures,” Wang said.

He added that China “strongly condemns” the “outrageous and unjustified move, which will sabotage China-US relations”.

Wang did not indicate what steps China would take against the US. Besides its embassy in Beijing, the US has five consulates in mainland China, according to its website. They are in Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu, Wuhan and Shenyang.

Meanwhile, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying wrote on social media on Wednesday that China’s embassy in Washington, DC had received bomb and death threats, as a result of “smears” and “hatred fanned up” by the US government.

Source: Al Jazeera

China’s Foreign Ministry on Wednesday strongly condemned the US for asking China to close its Consulate General in Houston, a reckless and dangerous move which analysts said will further flare up tensions between the two largest economies in the world.

On Tuesday local time, the US abruptly asked China to close its Consulate General in Houston in 72 hours. This is a unilateral political provocation by the US side against China, a grave violation of the international law and basic norms governing international relations, a grave violation of relevant provisions of the China-US consular treaty, and a deliberate attempt to undermine China-US relations, Wang Wenbin, spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said on Wednesday.

The Chinese side strongly condemned the move, and urged the US to immediately correct its mistakes. Otherwise, China will make a legitimate and necessary response, the spokesperson said.

For some time, the US has been attacking and launching smear campaigns against China, and unreasonably made trouble for staff members at Chinese consulates. The latest move to ask China to close its Consulate General in Houston is an unprecedented escalation of its moves against China, the spokesperson said.

In October 2019 and June 2020, the US side twice imposed restrictions on Chinese diplomatic staff in the US, opened Chinese diplomatic packages privately on many occasions, and seized Chinese official supplies, the spokesperson said.

As a result of the recent indiscriminate stigmatization and incitement of hatred by the US, bomb and death threats have been made against Chinese diplomatic missions and personnel in the US, the spokesperson said.

The website of the US Embassy in China often publishes articles openly attacking China. It is clear who is interfering in other countries’ internal affairs and who is infiltrating and inciting confrontations, he said.

The Consulate General in Houston is the first Chinese consulate general established in the US. Several Chinese experts on China-US relations said, “Washington is completely out of the line,” while one expert suggested that China could take countermeasures such as shutting down the US Consulate General in Hong Kong.

Observers also called the move “unprecedented”, saying it would trigger a broader earthquake in diplomatic ties between the two countries.

Some video footage circulating on social media showed documents being burned in the courtyard of the consulate general on Wednesday, with police and firefighters outside the embassy.

The last time the Trump administration ordered a foreign consulate on American territory to close was in August 2017, when it ordered Russia to close its consulate in San Francisco and two diplomatic annexes, in New York and Washington, “bearing all of the hallmarks of a Cold War-era grudge match,” according to the New York Times.

Xin Qiang, deputy director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, told the Global Times on Wednesday that the US move, which is unprecedented in the history of China-US relations, indicated a serious escalation in bilateral confrontations and will definitely result in countermeasures from China.

Xin said that asking the Chinese consulate general to close down on a short notice is very rude, and is tantamount to eviction.

The US move disregards the consequences of all-around deterioration in bilateral ties and it seems that easing China-US relations is almost impossible during the Trump administration, Xin said.

He said that the US takes the full responsibility for the deterioration in bilateral ties, and under the current circumstances, the US may expel some Chinese diplomats in the US, Xin said.

Some US-China relations observers and legal experts also suggested that it is possible that China will ask the US to close the US Consulate General in Hong Kong as a countermeasure, a move which is conducive for Hong Kong’s stability, as US consulate staff there have played a role in the months-long unrest in Hong Kong last year, observers said.

Such a suggestion also reflected public opinion. In an online poll conducted by the Global Times Wednesday asking netizens that as a countermeasure, “which US consulate general in China is most likely to be closed?” Over 8,600 netizens cast their votes as of 9:30 pm on Wednesday, and nearly 80 percent voted for the US consulate general in Hong Kong and Macao on Chinese Twitter-like Weibo.

Although it doesn’t represent the official options for countermeasures, it represents a certain level of Chinese public sentiment, some observers suggested.

“Such poll result vividly reflected the public anger over the US meddling in Hong Kong affairs,” Tian Feilong, a member of Beijing-based Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, told the Global Times on Wednesday.

The same poll on Twitter garnered nearly 10,000 respondents, with 64.9 percent voted for the US consulate general in Hong Kong and Macao, 10.4 percent voted for the one in Guangzhou and 7.8 percent voted for the one in Chengdu.

China is considering ordering the closure of the US consulate in Wuhan, Central China’s Hubei Province, Reuters said on Wednesday, citing a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

However, those who speculate that China will shut the US consulate in Wuhan in retaliation are underestimating Chinese government’s will. As staff has not returned to Wuhan consulate, so a closure would not be an equivalent countermeasure compared with the US bullying tactics, said observers.

The US’ move came after reports claiming that some US diplomats have not been able to return to China as Washington and Beijing cannot agree on testing and quarantine procedures for diplomats and their families. However, insider said that this is not the reason that the US asked China to close consulate in Houston. The US doesn’t have any reasonable excuse at all for this action, people who are familiar with the situation said.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said on July 2 that China and the US have been in close communication on the return of American diplomats to China, and we already helped the US to arrange a charter flight to bring back their diplomats after bilateral consultations.

Our quarantine measures apply equally to all foreign diplomatic missions to China, Zhao said.

Source: Global Times

[vinayv224]

Rep. John Lewis’s voting rights legacy is in danger

Rep. John Lewis advocates for expanded voting rights protections in 2019. | Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Lewis was unable to see the Voting Rights Act restored before his death.

Rep. John Lewis, who died Friday at age 80, spent decades fighting for civil rights. But he specifically made voting rights a key part of his advocacy — so much so that he risked his life to enfranchise voters time and again, including when he had his skull cracked by law enforcement during a voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama.

Other voting rights advocates were beaten that day as well. Lewis testified about that march — which became known as Bloody Sunday — one week later. Images of the beatings, including a photograph of Lewis being hit on the head by an officer, were seen around the world; video of it was broadcast on television. And public pressure created by the brutality led to the federal government enacting the Voting Rights Act, a measure that empowered Black voters, and helped bring Lewis into government.

“I have said this before, and I will say it again,” Lewis said in June 2019, “The vote is precious. It is almost sacred. It is the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democracy.”

Six months after making that statement, Democrats in the House of Representatives passed the Voting Rights Advancement Act, a bill intended restore the vote to Americans — mostly Black, Latinx, and Native Americans — disenfranchised by the US Supreme Court in the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, which overturned a key part of the Voting Rights Act Lewis and so many others were beaten to bring about. But the legislation has gone nowhere — the Republican controlled Senate has ignored it.

Because of this delay, and because of Shelby County v. Holder, Lewis’s work to ensure all Americans are able to vote is in jeopardy. This feels especially meaningful in an election year in which Americans are faced with a particularly stark choice in presidential candidates — and in which parties will be able to redistrict a given state in an advantageous way if they are in control of that state’s government.

In the final years of his life, Lewis saw repeated erosion of voting rights, including in his state of Georgia, and asked his fellow lawmakers to ensure the fact “some gave a little blood, and others gave their very lives” for voting rights not be in vain. However, little has been done — particularly by the Senate — to protect the value of the sacrifices he made for voting rights.

The voting rights problems of the ’60s and ’70s are the same as today’s

Much of recent voter disenfranchisement — from voter ID laws to poll taxes — can be traced back to Shelby County v. Holder, as Vox’s Ella Nilsen has explained:

The Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder invalidated a portion of the Voting Rights Act relating to a “coverage formula,” which identified certain towns, counties, or states with a history of voter discrimination.

Essentially, if those places wanted to pass new voting laws, they had to undergo extra scrutiny from the federal government — an additional measure to protect voters from discriminatory laws being passed. In its decision, the Supreme Court asked Congress to come up with the standard for a coverage formula, something Congress hasn’t done.

Areas with histories of voter discrimination that the Voting Rights Act covered included some places in the North — like parts of New York — but largely focused on nine states with a history of segregation and racial terror, including: Virginia, Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and Alabama, Alaska, and Arizona.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts argued the coverage formula was no longer needed because there were lots of lawmakers of color from those states, and because it was “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”

“Things have changed in the South,” Roberts wrote. “Our country has changed.”

The argument was a familiar one for Lewis, who said in House testimony — in 1971 — “We have to look beyond the glowing reports of a new South. We have to recognize the fallacies of those who would tell us that Federal registrars and observers are no longer needed. We cannot allow ourselves to be duped into believing that, in these so-called new and changing times, the Voting Rights Act is no longer needed.”

Lewis went on to argue, “There are fewer violent tactics, but the subtle and more sophisticated forms of intimidation are still being devised and are quite prevalent.”

Those words are sadly just as relevant 50 years later — new forms of intimidation and disenfranchisement sprung up immediately after Shelby County v. Holder.

As P.R. Lockhart has explained for Vox, lawmakers in Texas immediately rolled out a voter ID law following the 2013 decision, and engaged in redistricting that diluted the power of minority voters. Other states formerly governed by the Voting Rights Act made similar changes, with states like Georgia and Virginia also enacting voter ID laws, which some studies have found lead to minorities being excluded from voting.

While a few of those studies are debated, the intent is clear — for instance, in a 2016 lawsuit, a federal court found North Carolina implemented voter ID laws to disenfranchise black voters with “almost surgical precision.”

Georgia in particular has been criticized in 2018 for purging voters from voter rolls. Current Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp supervised the removal of 1.5 million voters from the state registry from 2012 to 2016 while serving as secretary of state, according to an analysis by New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. Ahead of the 2018 gubernatorial election, which Kemp won amid accusations of voter suppression — particularly in majority Black areas of the state — the secretary of state’s office removed an additional 500,000 voters.

Purges like these weaken the political power of communities of color, Lockhart noted, in part because they lead to closure of polling places, making it harder to vote. And an analysis by Vice’s Rob Arthur and Allison McCann found that polling place closures that followed voter roll purges — throughout the country — disproportionately affected voters of color, particularly Black voters. In 61 percent of the counties the authors studied, polling place closures forced minority voters to travel further to vote than white voters.

Those voters able to make the trip were often faced with longer lines — and during Georgia’s 2018 election, broken machines.

And there have been a number of other measures created to disenfranchise minority voters as well, like drawing congressional districts in ways that carefully ensure voters of color do not make up too large a percentage of the district’s residents. Such redistricting was tacitly approved by the Supreme Court in 2018, and a more recent ruling allowed Florida to enact a poll tax for the formerly incarcerated, which means approximately 85,000 people will not be able to vote in November’s election, unless they pay what are in many cases unspecified fines. And, if any of these people decides to vote without paying, they could face prosecution. An analysis by University of Florida political scientist Daniel Smith found that in many Florida counties, two times as many Black people would be disenfranchised by this rule as white people.

Lewis described similar issues in his 1971 congressional testimony, lamenting that Black voters were turned away from polling places for not having identification to show their age, that some were unable to cast ballots because they arrived at the polls only to find they were not registered as they thought they were — and that those who were able to vote had to face “crowded lines” meant to “discourage Black political participation.”

Lewis gave that testimony while serving as the head of of the Voter Education Project, which sought to register Black Southerners to vote. All the problems he cited remain ahead of November’s elections — and with only months to go before voters begin casting ballots, there is little indication lawmakers have any intention of ensuring Black Americans won’t remain disenfranchised.

The problems are the same because Congress won’t act

Voting problems remain because Congress has repeatedly failed to act. Beyond Shelby County v. Holder, voting policy has been shaped in recent years by the courts. As Lockhart noted, lost protections have been restored by cases like a 2016 lawsuit that amended North Carolina voter ID laws after a federal court found the state had worked to disenfranchise black voters “almost surgical precision.”

For every voting rights victory won in court, however, there are a number of losses, from a North Dakota voter ID law that discriminated against Native Americans being upheld to voters rights advocates dropping a redistricting lawsuit in Georgia after it became clear the long gestating process would stretch past 2021 — when new districts will be drawn.

The onus of creating fair voting laws is on Congress — something Roberts explicitly noted in his Shelby County v. Holder decision, and something Lewis acknowledged as well, arguing in 2019, “The way votes were not counted and purged in states like Georgia and Florida and other states changed the outcome of the last election. That must never happen again in our country. We will make it illegal.”

But many of those who praised Lewis following his death have blocked making voter suppression illegal.

In Lewis’s own state, Gov. Kemp — who again, has been accused of using his powers as secretary of state to push Black voters off voter rolls and to sway a gubernatorial election in his favor — said he is “praying” for the Lewis family and called the lawmaker “a Civil Rights hero, freedom fighter, devoted public servant, and beloved Georgian.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put out a long statement praising Lewis as an “American hero” who “endured hatred and violence” to “bring our nation into greater alignment with its founding principles.”

But that praise, many Democrats noted, came as McConnell has blocked all effort to repair the damage the Supreme Court has done to the Voting Rights Act. A version of the Voting Rights Advancement Act was included in HR 1, the first legislation the House of Representatives passed in its current term, and McConnell refused to allow it to come to the Senate floor, calling it “offensive to average voters” and saying, “What is the problem we’re trying to solve here People are flooding to the polls.”

Similarly, the majority leader has refused to hear the standalone version. And he is not alone in his congressional colleagues in lauded Lewis, but participating in the dismantling of his legacy.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called Lewis “a friend” and a man who “suffered for this nation, enduring what would have easily broken other men, so that future generations could enjoy the full blessings of freedom.”

But McCarthy — like many other House Republicans celebrating Lewis’s life — voted against the Voting Rights Advancement Act.

All this has many of Lewis’s Democratic allies, like Sen. Kamala Harris and Rep. Ilhan Omar, demanding Republicans honor the late lawmaker by finally passing the Voting Rights Advancement Act.

There is still time in this legislative session for the Senate to take up the bill. If it fails to do so, lawmakers will have another two years to do so starting next year. Until Congress passes the legislation Lewis spent his final year advocating for, voting rights will remain at risk.

Because as Lewis said in 2019, “There are forces in this country that want to keep American citizens from having a rightful say in the future of our nation.”

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/3eHsn0j from Blogger https://ift.tt/3eOxWdy via IFTTT

[truemedian]

A Reckoning at Condé Nast

“It’s hard to be a person of color at this company,” a staff member said. In response to an uprising, Anna Wintour and the chief executive, Roger Lynch, offered apologies.

The Condé Nast leaders Anna Wintour and Roger Lynch at a fashion show in New York last year.Credit...Brian Ach/Getty Images

June 13, 2020, 5:26 p.m. ET This was supposed to be Condé Nast’s year. The publisher of Vogue, Vanity Fair and The New Yorker was going to be profitable again after years of layoffs and losses. Then advertising revenue suddenly dropped as the coronavirus pandemic cratered the economy. More recently, as protests against racism and police violence grew into a worldwide movement, company employees publicly complained about racism in the workplace and in some Condé Nast content. In response, the two leaders of the nearly all-white executive team — the artistic director, Anna Wintour, and the chief executive, Roger Lynch — offered apologies to the staff. At an all-hands online meeting on Friday, employees asked if Ms. Wintour, the top editor of Vogue since 1988 and the company’s editorial leader since 2013, would be leaving. Mr. Lynch and the communications chief, Danielle Carrig, shot down the question, saying Ms. Wintour was not going anywhere, said three people who attended the meeting but were not authorized to discuss it publicly. Image

Ms. Wintour sent an apologetic email to Vogue’s staff, saying she had made “mistakes.”Credit...Christophe Petit Tesson/EPA, via Shutterstock Tumult has hit Condé Nast, a company built partly on selling a glossy brand of elitism to the masses, at a time when its financial outlook is grim. Last year, the U.S. division lost approximately $100 million on about $900 million in revenue, said several people with knowledge of the company, who were not authorized to speak publicly. The European arm also had losses. Mr. Lynch said in an interview Friday that he was “not familiar” with the cited figures, adding that the company’s merger of its domestic and international operations, part of a recent restructuring, had been costly. In April, the company instituted pay cuts for anyone making over $100,000. Then came layoffs — 100 jobs gone out of roughly 6,000. Condé Nast is one of many media organizations, including The New York Times, whose employees have questioned company leaders as people around the world have taken part in protests prompted by the killing of George Floyd, a black man who died last month in Minneapolis after a white police officer pinned him to the ground. The company has been led by the Newhouse family since 1959. Steven Newhouse heads the parent company, Advance, and his cousin Jonathan Newhouse is chairman of Condé Nast’s board. Advance also controls more than 40 newspapers and news sites across the country. Many of them, including The Plain Dealer of Cleveland and The Star-Ledger in Newark, have struggled. The Newhouse family has protected itself against losses with significant investments in the cable giant Charter and the media conglomerate Discovery. Before the internet took readers away from print, Condé Nast was known for thick magazines edited by cultural arbiters who traveled in the same circles as the people they covered. As digital media rose, Condé Nast was slow to adapt. Budgets tightened. Magazines including Gourmet, Mademoiselle and Details folded. By the time Mr. Lynch, a former head of the music streaming service Pandora, succeeded Robert A. Sauerberg as the chief executive last year, Condé Nast was in triage mode. After his arrival, it unloaded three publications: Brides, Golf Digest and W. On Monday, Condé Nast reckoned with how the company deals with issues related to race. Adam Rapoport, the longtime top editor of Bon Appétit, resigned after a photo surfaced on social media showing him in a costume that stereotypically depicted Puerto Rican dress. Image Adam Rapoport resigned as Bon Appétit’s top editor after a photo of him in a racially insensitive costume surfaced.Credit...Bryan Bedder/Getty Images He apologized to staff members in a videoconference. After Mr. Rapoport left the call, the staff voiced complaints about the Bon Appétit workplace. Some minority employees said they had been used as ethnic props in Bon Appétit’s videos, a growing segment of the Condé Nast business. “It’s so hard to be a person of color at this company,” said Ryan Walker-Hartshorn, a black woman who worked as an assistant to Mr. Rapoport. “My blood is still boiling.” She recalled a 2018 meeting of editors to discuss how to make the magazine’s Instagram account more diverse. In a room of about eight editors, three were people of color. “And we’re all very junior, no power,” Ms. Walker-Hartshorn said in an interview. “I was like, ‘You’re asking us how to make our Instagram black without hiring more black people?’” At a company forum on Tuesday, Mr. Lynch said Bon Appétit employees should have raised their concerns earlier, a comment that rubbed many the wrong way. In a closed-door session later that day, he apologized to a group of staff members who had pushed for Mr. Rapoport’s ouster. “I want you to know I take this personally, and I take personal responsibility for it,” he said, according to an audio recording of the meeting obtained by The New York Times. A onetime banker at Morgan Stanley, Mr. Lynch spent much of his career at Dish, the satellite TV service. As a hobby he played lead guitar in a classic-rock cover band, the Merger. He moved from San Francisco to New York and updated his wardrobe to join Condé Nast. Mr. Lynch, 57, has emphasized diversity efforts and environmental programs in emails to the staff. He said in the interview on Friday that he was developing an overall company strategy as he assembled his executive team. In December he hired Deirdre Findlay as the chief marketing officer, making her the company’s highest-ranking black executive. Image Mr. Lynch in 2018, when he ran Pandora. He became chief executive of Condé Nast last spring.Credit...Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg His former executive assistant, Cassie Jones, who is black, quit shortly after he gave her a gift she considered insulting, three people with knowledge of the matter said. In November, after she had spent four months working for him, Mr. Lynch called Ms. Jones into his office and handed her “The Elements of Style,” a guide to standard English usage by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White. Mr. Lynch said he thought she could benefit from it. With its suggestion that her own language skills were lacking, the gift struck Ms. Jones as a microaggression, the people said. A few days later, she quit. Before leaving the headquarters at 1 World Trade in Lower Manhattan, she placed the book on his desk. Mr. Lynch said he hadn’t meant to insult Ms. Jones, who declined to comment for this article. “I really only had the intention — like every time I’ve given it before — for it to be a helpful resource, as it has been for me,” he said. “I still use it today. I’m really sorry if she interpreted it that way.” Before Mr. Lynch’s arrival, David Remnick, the editor in chief of The New Yorker, objected to a plan that would have lowered the magazine’s subscription price and raised ad rates. He has brought aboard a diverse crew of journalists, including Jia Tolentino, Hua Hsu and Vinson Cunningham, while adding digital subscriptions. Three people with knowledge of the company said The New Yorker was likely to surpass Vogue as Condé Nast’s biggest contributor to U.S. profits by the end of 2020. The people added that about 80 percent of The New Yorker’s revenue came from readers, which helped the magazine weather the advertising downturn. The magazine did not cut staff during the recent layoffs. Image Condé Nast, with headquarters in Lower Manhattan, has cut the pay of employees making over $100,000 and laid off 100 workers.Credit...Vincent Tullo for The New York Times On June 4, Ms. Wintour sent an apologetic note to the Vogue staff. “I want to say this especially to the Black members of our team — I can only imagine what these days have been like,” Ms. Wintour wrote. She added, “I want to say plainly that I know Vogue has not found enough ways to elevate and give space to Black editors, writers, photographers, designers and other creators. We have made mistakes, too, publishing images or stories that have been hurtful or intolerant. I take full responsibility for those mistakes.” The British-born Ms. Wintour has been credited internally for championing Radhika Jones, one of few top editors of color in the company’s history. Ms. Jones, the former editorial director of the book department at The Times who took over Vanity Fair from Graydon Carter in 2017, changed the magazine’s identity. The first cover subject she chose, for the April 2018 issue, was the actress and producer Lena Waithe, a black woman photographed by Annie Leibovitz in a plain T-shirt. Later covers featured Michael B. Jordan, Janelle Monae and Lin-Manuel Miranda. Ms. Jones has put out 16 Vanity Fair covers featuring people of color. When Ms. Jones arrived, she was pilloried by fashion insiders who questioned her style sense. Her choice of legwear — tights with illustrated foxes — drew stares, according to a report in Women’s Wear Daily. Ms. Wintour later showed her support for Ms. Jones at a welcome party by handing out gifts: tights with foxes on them. Image Vanity Fair’s top editor, Radhika Jones, sat through a difficult meeting early in her time at the magazine.Credit...Michael Kovac/Getty Images At a quarterly meeting of company executives in April 2019, on Mr. Lynch’s second day at Condé Nast, Ms. Jones presented her plan for Vanity Fair’s fall issues, a prime landing spot for fashion and luxury advertisers. (From September to December last year, the Vanity Fair covers featured Kristen Stewart, Lupita Nyong’o, Joaquin Phoenix, and Chrissy Teigen, John Legend and their children.) Two executives criticized Ms. Jones’s plan, according to three people who were at the meeting and were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In particular, Susan Plagemann, the chief business officer of Condé Nast’s style division, challenged Ms. Jones at length, saying the plan would be difficult to sell to advertisers. To defuse the tension, Ms. Wintour banged her fist on the table, saying, “We need to move on,” according to the three people who were at the meeting. Ms. Plagemann, who is white, joined the company in 2010 as Vogue’s chief business officer and worked closely with Ms. Wintour; in 2018, she was elevated to her current job. Three people with knowledge of the matter said she was vocal about her negative view of Vanity Fair under its new editor. She had criticized Ms. Jones’s choices of cover subjects, telling others at the company that the magazine should feature “more people who look like us,” two of the people said. A third person said he had heard her use words expressing a similar sentiment. All the people said they interpreted the phrase and similar remarks as referring to well-off white women who adopt an aesthetic common among the fashion set. Through a Condé Nast spokesman, Ms. Plagemann denied making those statements and denied expressing a dim view of Ms. Jones’s Vanity Fair. In the interview on Friday, Mr. Lynch addressed Ms. Jones’s stewardship of the magazine more broadly. “The challenge with her taking that new direction would be alienating some of the traditional Vanity Fair audience,” he said. “I really applaud what she’s done.” The uprising at Condé Nast was overdue, some staff members said. “We’ve been asking for change for months now,” Sohla El-Waylly, an assistant editor at Bon Appétit, said in an interview. In the Tuesday meeting with Bon Appétit staff members, Mr. Lynch said he hoped to prove a commitment to diversity with the choice of Mr. Rapoport’s replacement. Later in the call, he suggested that some staff members wanted to hurt Bon Appétit financially to bring about change, a comment that irked some in the meeting. “It felt infantilizing, as if we were teenagers rebelling,” said Jesse Sparks, an editorial assistant. Mr. Lynch said in the interview that he had meant to underscore the urgency of the matter. “I wanted to make sure they understood the brand they worked so hard to build was actually being harmed, and I think I even apologized to them in that meeting,” he said. A Bon Appétit personality, Claire Saffitz, has generated over 200 million views with “Gourmet Makes,” a show in which she makes homemade versions of Twinkies and other junk food. She represents a new kind of Condé Nast, one built on a kind of rough-cut authenticity, but her popularity has drawn attention to the problem of representation. Image “We’ve been asking for change for months now,” said Sohla El-Waylly, an assistant editor at Bon Appétit.Credit...Francesco Sapienza for The New York Times Ms. El-Waylly, who was a regular guest on the show, said her addition to “Gourmet Makes” had been cynically motivated. “They just want me there to play the part to make it look like they have people of color on staff,” she said. She said she was not paid for her appearances, as her white counterparts were. Condé Nast disputed that and said Ms. El-Waylly’s salary covered her video appearances. On Wednesday, the company’s head of video, Matt Duckor, stepped down. Several employees had accused him of bias. Many people at the company are rooting for more change. “What’s crazy is what it took for this stuff to happen,” Ms. Walker-Hartshorn said. “It took George Floyd.” Read More Read the full article

[orbemnews]

Biden Aides Quietly Say His Tax Increases Would Help Charities WASHINGTON — President Biden’s plan to raise taxes on high earners and the wealthy is likely to entice more rich Americans to give property or other assets to charity before they die in order to avoid large tax bills, a top administration official told nonprofit leaders last week in a private conference call. On the call, a deputy director of Mr. Biden’s National Economic Council, David Kamin, was asked how the president’s tax plans would affect charitable giving — in particular, his proposals to change the tax treatment of the capital gains income that high earners receive from selling assets that have gained value, like businesses or stocks. The plan “actually increases the incentive to give to charity,” Mr. Kamin told the group. “And it basically says if you want to not pay tax on the gain, the way you need to do that is to give the property to charity.” Mr. Kamin further explained the administration’s rationale, saying “at that point it’s obviously with a charitable organization.” “We think it’s appropriate that no tax is paid at that point,” he continued. “But if you choose to give it to your heirs or you choose to use it for yourself, then you should be paying tax on those very large amounts of gains.” The comments were an acknowledgment that Mr. Biden’s proposals would encourage the wealthy to find new workarounds to reduce the amount of tax they or their heirs pay, particularly on assets that appreciate over time, even as the president seeks to level the tax playing field between typical workers and the very rich. Mr. Biden could have limited that workaround by proposing a cap on itemized deductions for high earners, as he did in the campaign, but such a plan was not included in his $4 trillion economic agenda introduced this spring. White House officials say they have accounted for the potential increase in charitable giving in their internal estimates of how much revenue Mr. Biden’s plans will raise. Those proposals include raising the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6 percent from 37 percent, subjecting more income to a 3.8 percent tax that helps to fund the Affordable Care Act and a variety of efforts to raise more from high-income people who earn money from their investments. Officials have not detailed their estimates of how much money Mr. Biden’s capital gains tax changes will bring in, though Mr. Kamin was a co-author of a study in 2019 that estimated a less ambitious version of the proposal would raise nearly $300 billion over a decade. The president has not promoted incentives for giving as he attempts to sell his tax proposals, which include $80 billion for enhanced enforcement efforts at the International Revenue Service to help capture revenue from high earners and corporations who evade taxes illegally — as opposed to take advantage of legal avenues to reduce them, like charitable giving. Today in Business Updated  May 6, 2021, 11:23 a.m. ET Mr. Biden has instead leaned into his case that high earners can and should pay more to the government. “We’re not going to deprive any of these executives of their second or third home, travel privately by jet,” he said this week. “It’s not going to affect their standard of living at all. Not a little tiny bit. But I can affect the standard of living that people I grew up with.” Administration officials say Mr. Biden proposed the suite of tax increases he judged best to help fund his economic ambitions this year, which include a sprawling proposal to invest in and update both physical infrastructure and what officials call “human infrastructure.” To help fund his $1.8 trillion plan for education, child care and expanded tax credits, Mr. Biden has proposed what would be a near-doubling of the capital gains rate for people earning more than $1 million a year. He would also eliminate a provision in the tax code that reduces the tax bill on assets that have gained value over time and been passed on to heirs at death as part of a large estate. Such moves would reduce the amount of money that high earners and the wealthy have on hand to donate to charity. But they would increase the value of donations, because they would more rapidly reduce a high-earning donor’s tax liabilities. Many economists and tax experts agree the net effect of the plans would be an increased incentive to donate. “When I heard about this proposal, the potential opportunity for avoidance through charitable giving was the first thing that came to my mind,” said Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, a think tank in Washington that tends to extol the benefits of lower taxes. “Higher tax rates mean the deductibility with respect to charitable giving is more valuable.” Efforts to overhaul the tax code are often met with cheers or resistance among nonprofit organizations that rely heavily on tax-deductible donations. Such groups watched Mr. Biden closely through the presidential campaign, as he introduced plans to raise taxes on businesses and on people earning more than $400,000 a year. Mr. Biden’s plans would also have capped the value of itemized deductions at 28 percent for high earners, which would have reduced the tax benefits of giving to charity for many heavyweight donors. Duke University published an online guide to Mr. Biden’s tax plans for its donors in November, noting that donating stocks and other assets that have gained value “to a public charity — like Duke — can have two powerful tax benefits.” The president’s proposed increase in the capital gains rate for high earners, it wrote, “would mean that significantly more tax could be avoided through a charitable gift, greatly incentivizing gifts of these appreciated investments.” Patrick M. Rooney, an economist who is the executive associate dean for academic programs at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, said Mr. Biden’s increases could also create a psychological incentive of sorts for people who were under pressure to pass assets on to their heirs, but instead want to donate them. “It kind of gives you an out with the kids and the grandkids,” he said. “‘I’m not going to give it to you, because so much will be taken out in taxes — and you can help me decide who to give it to.’” Source link Orbem News #Aides #Biden #Charities #increases #Quietly #Tax

[womenofcolor15]

#BLACKGIRLMAGIC: Olympic Sprinter Allyson Felix’s Post-Pregnancy Return Breaks World Record Held By Usain Bolt

Talk about a comeback! Allyson Felix gave birth to a baby girl less than a year ago and she came back snatching world records. Deets inside…

Who said you can’t have kids and come back better than ever?

Olympic sprinter Allyson Felix took time off to make her family and then came back with a vengeance, proving women can be both moms and all-star athletes. Nike tried to throw salt in the game, penalizing her and other female track stars who were pregnant. Now, they’re eating her dust.

The 33-year-old sprinter snatched up a world record held by a MAN - and not just any man. The world’s fastest man. And she did it just 10-months after giving birth. #BlackGirlMagic!

Allyson competed in Team USA’s mixed-gender 4x400m relay team that won the gold at the IAAF World Championships in Doha, Qatar.

        View this post on Instagram

                  Humbled

A post shared by Allyson Felix (@af85) on Oct 1, 2019 at 7:09am PDT

  The win secured Allyson’s 12th gold medal at the world championships, which pushed her past Usain Bolt’s record for the most gold medals of any athlete at the track and field world championships. Yasssss!

Allyson’s return comes after a difficult pregnancy. She had to undergo a C-section at 32 weeks because she suffered from severe pre-eclampsia, which threatened the lives of her and her baby. Thankfully, everything went OK. She and her husband,  Kenneth Ferguson, welcomed their daughter, Camryn, in November.

Allyson officially returned to competing back in July – eight months after welcoming her baby girl.

        View this post on Instagram

                  #9 Life looks different. Cammy is 10 months old today. Figuring out this mom life. I’ve had to fight a lot this year- for my health, for my daughter, for women & mothers, for what I deserve and for my fitness. I’m really proud to be at my 9th world championships and this one is extra special because my baby girl is in the stadium to watch it all. #WorldAthleticsChamps

A post shared by Allyson Felix (@af85) on Sep 28, 2019 at 11:38am PDT

Back in May, Allyson wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, where she shared what her pregnancy journey was like as a professional athlete. She blasted Nike for trying to get rid of her after she became pregnant.

In part, she wrote:

I felt pressure to return to form as soon as possible after the birth of my daughter in November 2018, even though I ultimately had to undergo an emergency C-section at 32 weeks because of severe pre-eclampsia that threatened the lives of me and my baby.

Meanwhile, negotiations were not going well. Despite all my victories, Nike wanted to pay me 70 percent less than before. If that’s what they think I’m worth now, I accept that.

What I’m not willing to accept is the enduring status quo around maternity. I asked Nike to contractually guarantee that I wouldn’t be punished if I didn’t perform at my best in the months surrounding childbirth. I wanted to set a new standard. If I, one of Nike’s most widely marketed athletes, couldn’t secure these protections, who could?

Nike declined. We’ve been at a standstill ever since.

Ironically, one of the deciding factors for me in signing with Nike nearly a decade ago was what I thought were Nike’s core principles. I could have signed elsewhere for more money.

After Allyson and the other female track stars spoke out, Nike said they would do more to protect female athletes’ during and after pregnancy.

“Last year we standardized our approach across all sports to support our female athletes during pregnancy, but we recognize we can go even further,” the company said in a statement. “Moving forward, our contracts for female athletes will include written terms that reinforce our policy.”

The track mom wasn’t the only mom to cop a win at the world championships. Jamaican sprinter Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce celebrated her win in the 100-meter race with her 2-year-old son. She called it a "victory for motherhood.”  Sweet!

Following their victories, Allyson and Shelly-Ann snapped a girl power photo together:

        View this post on Instagram

                  Our journey to motherhood and back is bigger than us and bigger than sport. I believe it’s about overcoming and that is something we all have to do. I have seen the power of the collective. The need to speak your truth. It’s a pivotal time for women in sport. We can create change. Women, let’s support each other. Uplift and encourage. Open doors for one another. Celebrate and elevate each other. We can all win. This is sisterhood. Zyon & Camryn’s Mom #embracethejourney #momstrong #WorldAthleticsChampionships

A post shared by Allyson Felix (@af85) on Oct 2, 2019 at 6:39am PDT

  Congrats ladies!

So yeah, having a baby isn’t the “kiss of death” for all athletes. It made Allyson Felix better.

Photo: Andrew Makedonski / Shutterstock.com

[Read More ...] source http://theybf.com/2019/10/03/blackgirlmagic-olympic-sprinter-allyson-felix%E2%80%99s-post-pregnancy-return-breaks-world-record

[un-enfant-immature]

Startups Weekly: Spotify gets acquisitive and Instacart screws up

Did anyone else listen to season one of StartUp, Alex Blumberg’s OG Gimlet podcast? I did, and I felt like a proud mom this week reading stories of the major, first-of-its-kind Spotify acquisition of his podcast production company, Gimlet. Spotify also bought Anchor, a podcast monetization platform, signaling a new era for the podcasting industry.

On top of that, Himalaya, a free podcast app I’d never heard of until this week, raised a whopping $100 million in venture capital funding to “establish itself as a new force in the podcast distribution space,” per Variety.

The podcasting business definitely took center stage, but Lime and Bird made headlines, as usual, a new unicorn emerged in the mental health space and Instacart, it turns out, has been screwing its independent contractors.

Spotify gets acquisitive

As mentioned, Spotify, or shall we say Spodify, gobbled up Gimlet and Anchor. More on that here and a full analysis of the deal here. Key takeaway: it’s the dawn of podcasting; expect a whole lot more venture investment and M&A activity in the next few years.

Instacart “maliciously misappropriated gratuities”

This week’s biggest “yikes” moment was when reports emerged that Instacart was offsetting its wages with tips from customers. An independent contractor has filed a class-action lawsuit against the food delivery business, claiming it “intentionally and maliciously misappropriated gratuities in order to pay plaintiff’s wages even though Instacart maintained that 100 percent of customer tips went directly to shoppers.” TechCrunch’s Megan Rose Dickey has the full story here, as well as Instacart CEO’s apology here.

Slack and Postmates move closer to the public markets 

Slack confidentially filed to go public this week, its first public step toward either an IPO or a direct listing. If it chooses the latter, like Spotify did in 2018, it won’t issue any new shares. Instead, it will sell existing shares held by insiders, employees and investors, a move that will allow it to bypass a roadshow and some of Wall Street’s exorbitant IPO fees. Postmates confidentially filed, too. The 8-year-old company has tapped JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America to lead its upcoming float.

Reddit CEO Steve Huffman delivers remarks on “Redesigning Reddit” during the third day of Web Summit in Altice Arena on November 08, 2017 in Lisbon, Portugal. (Horacio Villalobos-Corbis/Contributor)

Deal of the week

It was particularly tough to decide which deal was the most notable this week… But the winner is Reddit, the online platform for chit-chatting about niche topics — r/ProgMetal if you’re Crunchbase editor Alex Wilhelm . The company is raising up to $300 million at a $3 billion valuation, according to TechCrunch’s Josh Constine. Reddit has been around since 2005 and has raised a total of $250 million in equity funding. The forthcoming Series D round is said to be led by Chinese tech giant Tencent at a $2.7 billion pre-money valuation.

The very first mental health unicorn

Runner up for deal of the week is Calm, the app that helps users reduce anxiety, sleep better and feel happier. The startup brought in an $88 million Series B at a $1 billion valuation. With 40 million downloads worldwide and more than one million paying subscribers, the company says it quadrupled revenue in 2018 from $20 million to $80 million and is now profitable — not a word you hear every day in Silicon Valley.

Here’s your weekly reminder to send me tips, suggestions and more to kate.clark@techcrunch.com or @KateClarkTweets. 

Scooters

I listened to the Bird CEO’s chat with Upfront Ventures’ Mark Suster last week and wrote down some key takeaways, including the challenges of seasonality and safety in the scooter business. I also wrote about an investigation by Consumer Reports that found electric scooters to be the cause of more than 1,500 accidents in the U.S. I’m also required to mention that e-scooter unicorn Lime finally closed its highly anticipated round at a $2.4 billion valuation. The news came just a few days after the company beefed up its executive team with a CTO and CMO hire.

More startup cash

Databricks raises $250M at a $2.75B valuation for its analytics platform Retail technology platform Relex raises $200M from TCV Raisin raises $114M for its pan-European marketplace for savings and investment products Self-driving truck startup Ike raises $52M Signal Sciences secures $35M to protect web apps Ritual raises $25M for its subscription-based women’s daily vitamin Little Spoon gets $7M for its organic baby food delivery service By Humankind picks up $4M to rid your morning routine of single-use plastic

Turvo gets the spotlight

We don’t spend a ton of time talking about the growing, venture-funded, tech-enabled logistics sector, but one startup in the space garnered significant attention this week. Turvo poached three key Uber Freight employees, including two of the unit’s co-founders. What’s that mean for Uber Freight? Well, probably not a ton… Based on my conversation with Turvo’s newest employees, Uber Freight is a rocket ship waiting to take off.

Surprise! There’s money in women’s brands

Who knew that investing in female-focused brands could turn a profit for investors? Just kidding, I knew that and this week I have even more proof! This is L., a direct-to-consumer, subscription-based retailer of pads, tampons and condoms made with organic materials sold to P&G for $100 million. The company, founded by Talia Frenkel, launched out of Y Combinator in August 2015. According to PitchBook, it was backed by Halogen Ventures, 500 Startups, Fusion Fund and a few others.

Fresh Faces

Speaking of ladies getting stuff done, Bessemer Venture Partners promoted Talia Goldberg to partner this week, making the 28-year-old one of the youngest investing partners at the Silicon Valley venture fund. Plus, Palo Alto’s Eclipse Ventures, hot off the heels of a $500 million fundraise, added two general partners: former Flex CEO Mike McNamara and former Global Foundries CEO Sanjay Jha.

Listen to me talk

If you enjoy this newsletter, be sure to check out TechCrunch’s venture-focused podcast, Equity. In this week’s episode, available here, Crunchbase editor-in-chief Alex Wilhelm and I chat about the expanding podcast industry, Reddit’s big round and scooter accidents.

Want more TechCrunch newsletters? Sign up here.

[cryptoquicknews-blog]

New Post has been published here https://is.gd/3KiZaX

RIP ICOs: 2019 Will Be the Year of Enterprise Blockchain Tokens

This post was originally published here

Ajit Tripathi is a partner at ConsenSys, where he specializes in global financial services business development and corporate venture strategy.

The following is an exclusive contribution to CoinDesk’s 2018 Year in Review. 

One year ago, I wrote an article for CoinDesk in which I humbly argued that the price of ether didn’t matter and what everyone in the blockchain community should focus on is building useful applications instead.

Hate to say I told you so, but… I did.

A few short months later, CryptoKitties were chased away by the bears, the initial coin offering (ICO) boom was gone, and the euphoria of $1,000 ether and $20,000 bitcoin had been replaced by the dire prognostications that crypto was “ded.”

Below I review what I regard as the major developments of 2018, and what lies ahead in 2019. And at the risk of being accused of double-spending, I’m going to quote freely from my earlier article, since many of the points I made have been vindicated or bear repeating.

When you’re #ODL and you know it…

Until June 2018, enticing crypto engineers to work on any enterprise product was hard, very hard. The lure of tokens ran rampant.

Most people in my dot-com generation learned the hard way that showing up at 8 a.m. and burning brain fuel until 10 p.m. is kinda the only way. But what 24-year-old who can write a grammatically correct sentence with “token” and “moon” in the same breath wants to do that?

When the dot-com microcaps were booming, I didn’t either. What exactly are these cash flows… duh! But, as I wrote a year ago:

“One day everyone in crypto will have to generate fiat revenues and profits in some form.”

When most of the tokens later crashed spectacularly, moon and lambo swiftly retreated from the social discourse and boring middle class concepts like enterprise technology, real human users and a fiat salary re-entered human conversation.

Deja vu, deja vu…

The year of regulation

I quote myself, yet again: “Dealing with other people’s money is always going to be regulated”.

In 2018, when folks in crypto weren’t talking about the tanking prices, we were talking about regulation or hoping it’d go away. Well, it didn’t.

In February, Chairman Christopher Giancarlo of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission advocated a “do no harm” approach to crypto regulation, referring to the erstwhile U.S. approach to the internet.

The clearest and most concise guidance from a regulator came in February from the Swiss, who, to their credit, have been forward-looking in their acknowledgment of the potential of blockchain technology so far. The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, or FINMA, clearly laid out the various types of tokens and what makes a token a payment token or a utility token or a security.

Both sides of the securities law debate were woken up by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) director of corporate finance, William Hinman, when he stated in June that to his understanding, “the ethereum network and its decentralized structure, current offers and sales of ether are not securities transactions.”

We the British, maintained our classical studious approach, studying and further studying the space and to our credit, doing no damage, either in support or opposition of the crypto space while calling for good behavior and manners… yes, manners all this time.

On the policy front, the European Commission led the way with a systematic approach to engaging with the blockchain community through the EU Blockchain Observatory.

The year of ‘ded’ ICOs

That said, the news flow in 2018 was dominated not by hardworking engineers building great technology but by traders and bankers mooning and REKTing things, as they do best.

Against the flow, as ICOs boomed I mused…

“I suspect that each year, half of the ICO-funded startups from the previous year will die – if they even make it that long.”

Well, they didn’t.

As EY reported:

“86% are now below their listing price; 30% have lost substantially all value. An investor purchasing a portfolio of The Class of 2017 ICOs on 1 January 2018 would most likely have lost 66% of their investment. Of the ICO start-ups we looked at from The Class of 2017, only 29% (25) have working products or prototypes, up by just 13% from the end of last year.”

Forgive them for they know not of which they speak

So many many folks mused that since ICOs were doing so badly and since most ICOs were launched on ethereum, ethereum must also be “ded.” Well, the price chasers were wrong then and they are wrong now.

As I said to CoinDesk editor in chief Pete Rizzo in a video interview at Consensus 2018, “cryptocurrencies are online community assets.”

Any token that has survived at least one boom or bust and has a thriving community (of people, not trolls and trading bots) has the potential to be used by many many more people over the next two decades as this technology matures and as these platforms scale.

We haven’t even scratched the tip of the iceberg with our ice skates yet. Further, ethereum is the leading platform today because of its ecosystem, which only seems to grow and accelerate…

The year of the ecosystem

Turns out, the price of ether is the least interesting feature of ethereum. I said back then…

“Ethereum has momentum, developer adoption, and a team that is willing to address the technical limitations even at risk to the price of ether. This is why I am making a big bet of time on ethereum rather than a bet of money in crypto. It has people who are serious about the Web 3.0 vision and solving real consumer and business problems.”

At DevCon4, Joseph Lubin, the illustrious co-founder of ethereum, made his famous “killer ecosystem” speech. The way I understood it was that we’re so early in this technology that it’s the quality and depth of the ecosystem surrounding a blockchain platform that’d define its long-term success or failure.

Waiting for a killer app is a fool’s errand because killer apps don’t quite tell you in advance that they are killer apps. The way to get to a whole range of killer apps is to unleash the creative power of developers, enterprises, investors and other agents of society.

That to date has been ethereum’s singular achievement.

The week before, Joe received a memorable reception at Sibos, the biggest conference in banking. Sibos featured enterprise platforms like komgo, Adhara and Trustology in addition to solutions from DAH, Hyperledger, Corda and Ripple and ran talks to packed business audiences.

At the end of Sibos, the most common refrain from the attendees was… “blockchain is here to stay”.

Indeed, the crypto ecosystem of hoodies had just started to merge with the enterprise ecosystem of suits

The year of #buidl

I am insufferable… I quote myself again:

“The question is what did we solve, enhance, or deliver that will make individuals, companies or governments produce more, be more efficient, or enjoy their lives and relationships more?”

In my book, the crowning glory of the year for the entire enterprise blockchain community, and not just the ethereum community, was the production release of VAKT, a platform for trading of physical commodities and komgo, a trade finance platform for commodities that interoperates seamlessly with VAKT. These two platforms were built from start to finish within 2018 on ethereum and marked the arrival of enterprise ethereum in real production use.

The coolest piece of kit produced by enterprise blockchain in 2019 was Kaleido. Built by ex-IBM engineers at ConsenSys, Kaleido enabled one-click industrial-grade deployment and support of enterprise ethereum-based applications. This is a much bigger deal than it sounds.

Development is arguably less than 20 percent of the effort over the lifetime of any enterprise application. Deployment and support are the other 80 percent. Kaleido took 80 percent of the effort out of that 80%.

The most valuable piece of engineering in blockchain was Open Law which enabled the creation of smart contracts whose execution corresponds demonstrably with the underlying legal contracts. In essence, Open Law put the “contract back in smart contracts” and opened up a vast range of real-world applications in financial and non-financial asset markets.

The most readable news in blockchain was Evan Van Ness’ “This Week in Ethereum,” a relentlessly BUIDL focussed newsletter that was a source of perspective through the amusing hysteria and paranoia of the #crypto investor community.

The year tokens came to enterprise

While no one was watching, tokens came to enterprise financial services as Euronext and other ecosystem partners went to pilot at Liquidshare, a consortium re-engineering the interaction between post-trade parties by leveraging blockchain technology and developing a new infrastructure for small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) in Europe.

In June, the South African Central Bank. working on Project Khokha, proved that a new wholesale payment system built on ethereum can process a day’s worth of interbank payments in less than two hours, that too with full confidentiality and finality.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore and SGX, the city-state’s stock exchange, announced in September that they have successfully developed delivery versus payment (DvP) capabilities for the settlement of tokenized assets across different blockchain platforms.

The public blockchain space started to create enterprise-friendly (and -unfriendly) fiat tokens at pace. As CoinInsider reported, 45 stablecoin projects had raised $350 million in funding by November.

The jokes about a stablecoin going to the moon suddenly didn’t sound like jokes anymore.

2019… The year of enterprise tokens

When you follow the market news too closely, it’s difficult to not be blinded by the obvious. So what’s really going on?

It turns out that the first killer app of the internet was not email. It was the ridiculously simple web page. The first killer app of blockchain is the ridiculously simple token.

A token is a mere smart contract that encapsulates the rules governing the exchange of an asset. Once this contract can be generated from an underlying legal contract and shown to execute in line with the legal contract, regulated, legally sound applications of blockchain become possible. This is a big deal.

It turns out, all economic activity, micro or macro is built on top of legal contracts. Unfortunately, because of information asymmetries, cost of enforcement, the risk of disputes and uncertainty in legal systems, the cost of contracting in too many transactions can exceed the benefit of the transaction.

Smart contracts that execute in line with legal contracts provide evidence of state on-chain and ship with dispute resolution systems can dramatically reduce the costs of contracting and the cost of enforcement, unlocking economic activity across industries and economies.

All that in a little token…

Ok, so should I buy? SODL? HODL?

I quote myself again

“Does that mean you should buy ether today? I can’t and don’t offer investment advice.”

In 2019, tokens will invade the enterprise in full force. The de-siloing of systems that began with multiple energy and bank companies creating VAKT and komgo will accelerate exponentially across applications such as gaming, securities markets, trade finance, intellectual property, digital collectibles, patents and licenses, real estate and many many more, and by 2020, start to show what all the fuss around blockchain was really all about.

Even more importantly, the boundary between public and private networks will start to disappear as assets on one network need to be exchanged with assets on another. Ethereum is uniquely position to grow from this phenomenon.

To conclude, indulge me as I quote myself one last time:

“When we are dead, it’s not what we HODL or SODL that matters. It’s what we BUIDL.”

Rebirth image via Shutterstock.

#crypto #cryptocurrency #btc #xrp #litecoin #altcoin #money #currency #finance #news #alts #hodl #coindesk #cointelegraph #dollar #bitcoin View the website

New Post has been published here https://is.gd/3KiZaX