A pivot from tech to empowerment at bra startup ThirdLove

Marketing images for ThirdLove feature models of many shapes and races. | Sarah Lawrence for Vox

How a woke brand is made.

Convincing 100 women to show up at a warehouse and take photos of their chests is no easy feat. Convincing them through a Craigslist ad is nearly impossible. But that’s what lingerie company ThirdLove did in 2013 while developing a proprietary app that was designed to predict better bra sizes.

“The app was problematic, to say the least,” said a former engineer we’ll call Ben. “It basically only worked if the photos were good.” When people tried out the at-home instructions exactly — take two pictures in front of a full-length mirror in good lighting while wearing a tight tank top, making sure the phone is at waist-height — the results were reliably accurate. But getting people to do that was difficult.

Then there was the matter of data security. Co-CEO David Spector told Inc the company never “recorded” people’s images, but no one was clear on what that meant. Once the photos were submitted via the app, where did they go?

After securing $8 million in funding, ThirdLove stopped developing the app. The technology was complicated, the data difficult to get right. In its wake, the founders doubled down on a narrative that would help set them apart in the competitive but old-school lingerie market: diversity and female empowerment.

To co-CEO Heidi Zak, these tenets had been there all along. “We set out to build a brand for all women of all sizes,” she told Vox. “Look at what we’ve done in the past year or two” — the company has featured diverse models in almost all of its recent marketing campaigns — “We wouldn’t do all these things if that wasn’t core to who we are.”

Many employees aren’t buying it. “It’s all about the money,” said a member of the marketing team we’ll call Liz. Interviews with 10 current and former employees, all of whom asked to remain anonymous, paint a picture of ThirdLove’s transformation, from a data-driven bra brand to a bastion of diversity and inclusion, as one of keen opportunism. The gap between their viewpoint and the founders’ suggests that while the company has succeeded in pushing the lingerie industry to be more inclusive on multiple fronts, it has a long way to go to convince the workers who helped build the brand of its motives.


David Spector and Heidi Zak founded ThirdLove (then called MeCommerce) in 2012 to improve the bra shopping experience. Both came from big tech backgrounds — Zak worked at Google, Spector at the investment firm Sequoia Capital. Early documents list Spector as the CEO and Zak as the president, although today, they co-lead the company and ThirdLove is touted as “female-run.” Their first hire, Ra’el Cohen, continues to head up the design team.

The initial concept was to use computer vision technology to predict more accurate bra sizes. People took photos of themselves using ThirdLove’s proprietary app; computer vision technology then processed the images, and suggested a personalized fit.

To alleviate privacy concerns, Spector was careful to highlight the company’s data sharing policy in interviews, noting privacy was of the “utmost importance” and leading reporters to say the images were “processed without ever being recorded by ThirdLove.”

This was 2013, so a computer vision underwear app was revolutionary. “Want a bra that fits perfect? This billionaire-backed app helps with just your iPhone,” wrote Forbes. “How a NASA scientist helped size my bra,” added Fast Company.

ThirdLove did have a scientist helping them develop the technology. Ara Nefian, a researcher at Carnegie Mellon who contracted at NASA, worked on the apps and nights and weekends, and even he said the technology presented difficulties. “It relied heavily on accurately following the directions and that was a bit complicated,” he explained.

Regardless of the complications, when a woman we’ll call Natalie joined the company in 2014, she was immediately blown away by the technology. “The story was that the app could size you better than a sales rep in a store, which seemed pretty innovative,” she said. “I was really excited about the idea of working at a startup.”

Unlike many of ThirdLove’s recent employees who thought they were joining a female-led company and felt blindsided when they realized Spector’s involvement, Natalie joined for the technology, not the feminist credentials.

Three months into her tenure, however, she was told they were abandoning the app. Computer vision “was just a buzzword,” she realized, even though the tech stayed on the App Store. When she began to ask questions (How would they know people’s sizes? What was going to happen to all the data?), she was told not to worry — the company had stopped using data from the photos anyway.

The reality was slightly more complicated. By late 2014, Nefian had stopped working on the app, and the technology quickly went defunct. It had been finicky when he was involved. Without him, it was almost unusable.

Privacy was also a concern. Women were writing in asking where their photos were going, especially since some had included their faces in the pictures. Employees didn’t know how to respond, but it was clear the app was “freaking people out,” Ben said. Were the photos stored by ThirdLove? The employees themselves still aren’t sure today; the company vehemently denies the photos “were ever stored on any kind of server of any kind,” or even on a “camera roll.”

Nevertheless, ThirdLove began asking users questions about people’s current bra size and fit to get a more reliable read. It was a method that ultimately led to the fit finder quiz they now use.


Thirdlove via The Daily Mail
Screenshot of Thirdlove’s AI App

Thirdlove via The Daily Mail
A screenshot of Thirdlove’s AI App.

By the end of 2015, the computer vision project had been more or less scrapped, and the media story around ThirdLove began to change. Over the next few years, they became the brand that actually understood breast shape. The company that called out Calvin Klein for sexist ads. The founders that fought for LGBT rights. They called themselves the “antithesis of Victoria’s Secret” and championed inclusivity in terms of both skin tone and size. It was a narrative that would ultimately stick.


ThirdLove’s 2014 marketing bears little resemblance to that of the company people know and love today. Their initial brand persona — the fictional customer they designed their products for — was a heterosexual white woman in her mid-thirties living in Brooklyn, according to three former employees. “She’d meet her co-workers at rooftop bars for drinks after work. It was like Sex and the City,” Liz said. “That’s how ThirdLove started — it wasn’t about being inclusive.”




These employees also recall getting pushback when they tried to use diverse models. “We liked to feature models of color in emails and on the homepage, and they [Spector and Cohen] would just ask us to change them. Sometimes they would say it was because white models sell better,” Liz said.

Four recent employees echoed these claims, saying they have had to reshoot entire campaigns — including one titled “to each her own” that celebrated women’s uniqueness — because there were “too many” models of color. “You’d hear comments from Ra’el Cohen that a model of color ‘looked tough’ or that ‘she looks like she’s going to slap a b,’” a member of the marketing team told us. Zak, who said she has been at every photoshoot produced by the brand, said this was untrue.

Tensions around race and identity are still running high inside ThirdLove. Last month, leaked audio obtained by Vox revealed Zak apologized at a company meeting after she and Spector appeared in traditional Mongolian wedding garb on Halloween, offending employees. “As a few of you know, Dave and I were so fortunate this summer to go to Mongolia,” she explained. “We really just wanted to highlight something we felt was really beautiful.” She then asked people to “assume positive intent,” and moved on.

Other aspects of the brand have evolved, employees say. While Natalie remembers Cohen originally not being enthusiastic about offering larger bra sizes — saying “we will never be a plus-size company” on multiple occasions, when asked why ThirdLove didn’t carry larger bra sizes — more recent employees say she has become a strong advocate for bigger bodies. The company now carries over 80 sizes — far more than the typical bra brand — and Zak attributes this in large part to Cohen.

Undisputed is the fact that Spector championed this change. “This is where Dave can be a fascinating human,” Natalie said. While many employees report feeling bullied by his behavior, when he was on their side in an argument, his intensity could be an asset. “Like, he only wanted us to have hot models on our website but then he could be such a pitbull like, ‘This is low-hanging fruit. We have all these women who want this size, we should start carrying it. When are we going to start?’”

This pitbull quality also came out in less than ideal ways. In 2015, when the company launched a free trial program to allow customers to try on bras at home and send them back if they didn’t like the fit, he realized people’s credit cards were getting declined. Some were simply expired, but if customers kept the product, the company didn’t have a good way to recoup the funds, regardless if it was negligence or fraud.

Three employees remember Spector emailing people under a fake name in order to recover the money, claiming that if they didn’t pay up, the company would report them to an agency of online retailers. (No such agency exists.) “If you got too many strikes, you wouldn’t be able to shop online,” Emily recalls Spector telling customers. “It was my first job and I was like, this isn’t normal, right?” In response to this claim, ThirdLove said, “This is a twisted allegation trying to paint something negative which is simply normal business practice.”

Perhaps the company was suffering from the same difficulties as many early-stage startups: things were moving fast, people said things off the cuff, and the founders were zealous in their drive. But employee perception suggests the founders didn’t always take the time to bring the organization’s mission to life inside the company walls, which led to a growing chasm between how executives and their staff saw the brand.

It was around this time that Scott Nathan, a fashion photographer in Los Angeles, was approached about shooting a campaign for a different underwear company, Naja, which had launched in 2014. Naja partnered with women in need to design “underwear with a purpose.” It was founded by the actress Gina Rodriguez and Stanford MBA Catalina Girald.

Naja’s new line was called “Nude for All,” and it boasted an array of bras and underwear for a wide variety of different skin tones. In the photoshoot, Nathan framed 10 “real” women — all with unique jobs and backstories — against a neutral background. The campaign launched in 2016 in subway stations in New York.


Catalina Girard Behance
Naja’s Nude for All campaign in the New York subway.

Nathan was proud of how the campaign turned out. The images were fresh and showcased Naja’s inclusive values.

A year later, ThirdLove came out with its new campaign, called “The New Naked.” “The industry-favorite brand is launching nude bras for ALL,” Refinery29 announced.

Goodbye “nude”, hello Naked. Introducing: The New Nakeds Collection from ThirdLove. Meet the five Naked shades inspired by YOU and find your Naked shade! #FindYourNaked

Posted by ThirdLove on Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Fashion brands often borrow each other’s concepts and draw inspiration from one another. But to Nathan, ThirdLove’s images were too close to his own. “They completely jacked Naja’s campaign,” he opined. “They basically just copied the whole concept.”

Naja was hardly the first company to sell bras for different skin tones; still, ThirdLove employees felt the brand was jumping on a bandwagon in order to beat out a competitor. “It’s strange because originally it was really hard to get them to commit to an authentic image,” recalled Emily. “It was all very skinny neutral women — none of that girl power feeling they are preaching today.”

To ThirdLove’s early employees, watching the company transform from a tech-focused brand to an industry leader in female empowerment has been surreal. Many feel validated that the company now uses diverse models and offers a wide range of sizes, but the change also feels inauthentic. “They’re just opportunistic,” Liz said.

Zak remains steadfast in her belief that the narrative shared by these employees is wrong. “We’ve always been a brand that’s been for all women,” she said, “from the very beginning of the company.”

Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2qoUwWR

The weekend in startling impeachment news, explained

President Donald Trump talks to reporters before boarding Marine One and departing the White House November 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

What happened over the weekend will impact this week’s impeachment hearings.

This past weekend served as a fitting cap to a dramatic week of public impeachment hearings — and set up this week’s sessions in riveting style.

On Saturday, the House Intelligence Committee, which leads the impeachment process, released a transcript of the closed-door deposition of Tim Morrison, formerly the top Ukraine official on the National Security Council. He revealed that President Donald Trump ordered his staff to withhold military aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigations into Joe Biden’s family and Democrats.

Further, Morrison testified that Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25 was so concerning, it merited storing the transcript on a secret server to avoid its potential leak from damaging the White House. However, Morrison maintained the president did nothing illegal.

The committee also released the transcript of the testimony of Jennifer Williams, a special adviser to Vice President Mike Pence for Russian and European affairs. Though not as dramatic as Morrison’s testimony, Williams’s corroborated what’s already known about the scheme and also filled in some details of Pence’s involvement.

Those releases came hours before leaks of a rare Saturday closed-door deposition with Mark Sandy, the deputy associate director for national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget. He told lawmakers that his boss, Trump appointee Michael Duffey, took a special interest in the process by which the US distributes funds to other nations. Sandy testified he had never before seen a political official take control of such a portfolio.

On Sunday, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, kept Trump administration officials aware of his efforts to pressure Ukraine to launch the desired investigations. Sondland will testify in an open hearing this week, and lawmakers will surely ask him about the coordinated effort.

Also on Sunday, Trump specifically called out Williams for her cooperation with the impeachment inquiry. She and other so-called “Never Trumpers” should “work out a better presidential attack,” Trump tweeted. That message came just days before Williams is scheduled to appear in a public impeachment hearing, leading some to say the president is attempting to intimidate a witness.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

If you missed any of this because you wanted to enjoy your weekend, don’t worry. We’ve got you covered.

Tim Morrison told leaders of the impeachment inquiry that Trump directed a Ukraine scheme

Last month, reports indicated that Morrison told Congress behind closed doors that there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine. In testimony designed to avoid making Trump look bad, the former White House official confirmed what other witnesses already told investigators: Trump wanted aid to Kyiv withheld to place pressure on Zelensky to open probes into Democrats and Biden’s family.

But based on the full transcript of his deposition, Morrison told lawmakers a whole lot more.

First, Morrison noted two instances in which Sondland relayed the plot to him.

Morrison said Sondland gave him a quick readout of a September 1 conversation the envoy to the EU had with a top Ukrainian official. “He told me that in his — that what he communicated was that he believed the — what could help them move the aid was if the prosecutor general would to go the mic and announce that he was opening the Burisma investigation,” the former NSC official said, referencing the name of a Ukrainian gas company of which Hunter Biden — Joe Biden’s son — sat on the board.

That discussion came on the heels of a meeting between Pence and Zelensky in Warsaw, Poland.

Six days later, Sondland and Morrison spoke again, that time about a call the ambassador just had with Trump.

“He told me he had just gotten off the phone with the president,” Morrison said. “He told me … that there was no quid pro quo, but President Zelensky must announce the opening of the investigations and he should want to do it.”

Put together, the testimony showed that not only was there a plan to get Ukraine to investigate Trump’s potential 2020 rival, but that the president was also involved.

Second, Morrison admitted he worried about the potential aftermath of Trump’s troublesome July 25 call with Zelensky, in part because White House lawyers weren’t aware of what was said during the conversation.

“I was concerned about whether or not they would agree that it would be damaging for the reasons I outlined in my statement of the caII package — if the call [memorandum of conversation] on its contents leaked,” Morrison told investigators.


Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Tim Morrison, the former National Security Council director for Russia and Europe, escorted to a closed-door deposition October 31, 2019 in Washington, DC.

It was already known the summary of the call was stored in an ultra-secret server designed to hold information about the most sensitive intelligence. But Morrison was effectively admitting that one reason he pushed for its placement in the server was to keep its contents hidden. It corroborates the whistleblower’s charge that there was a White House effort to “lock down” access to the transcript.

This was very damaging testimony for Trump — and it came from inside the White House.

Jennifer Williams backs known evidence and adds color about Pence’s role

Morrison’s testimony is the main one to read, but the near-simultaneous release of Williams’s deposition is also worth your time. A State Department staffer assigned to Pence’s office, Williams provided investigators with more information about the administration’s Ukraine policy as well as Pence’s role in it.

About the Trump-Zelensky call on July 25, she said, “I certainly noted that the mention of those specific investigations” — meaning into Burisma and Democrats — “seemed unusual as compared to other discussions with foreign leaders.” She also said she “believed those references to be more political in nature,” that they served the president’s “personal political agenda” instead of “a broader foreign policy objective of the United States.”

That’s quite damning, as she corroborated the substance of the call and explained how it might benefit Trump more than the country he leads. She also noted that before that conversation, she had not heard anything about the Bidens, Burisma, or the Democrats, implying that the focus came from the president and his inner Ukraine circle.

Perhaps the greatest value of her commentary, though, is what she said about Pence.

The vice president fielded a question from Zelensky about the military aid during their September 1 meeting in Warsaw. Per Williams, Pence gave a canned, traditional response to the Ukrainian’s comments. “The VP responded by really expressing our ongoing support for Ukraine, but wanting to hear from President Zelensky, you know, what the status of his reform efforts were that he could then convey back to the president.”


Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, arrives at the Capitol on November 7, 2019, for a deposition related to the House’s impeachment inquiry.

It has long been US policy to push Ukraine to solve its myriad corruption issues, and American support for the country has been conditioned, in part, on Kyiv making serious strides to curb that problem. The issue, though, is it doesn’t appear that Trump cared about corruption — he cared about probes into the Bidens.

That’s not foreign policy. That’s personal interest.

Mark Sandy, top OMB official, sheds light on the Ukraine aid freeze

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which helps compile and assess the administration’s spending, doesn’t usually get a lot of attention. But the little-known office is now at the center of the impeachment hearings.

The OMB was told during the summer to hold on to nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine, and that order — according to witness testimony and US officials — went from Trump to acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney to the OMB. Some analysts say that violates the law, since the White House decided to withhold the money for non-budgetary reasons without informing Congress, which had already authorized the disbursement of funds.

It was no surprise, then, that House investigators wanted to speak to someone inside the OMB to get a clearer picture of what was going on at the time. Thanks to Sandy’s testimony on Saturday, we now have just that.

According to the Washington Post, Sandy told lawmakers that he signed the first of many letters required to freeze the aid. The letter Sandy signed is dated July 25, the same day as the troublesome Trump-Zelensky call. Sandy and others, however, weren’t given an explanation for why there was a hold in the first place.

What’s more, Sandy said that Michael Duffey — his boss and a Trump appointee — asked to learn more about the apportionment process by which the US provides aid to other countries. That was highly irregular, per Sandy, who said he never saw a political appointee care about the process during his time at the OMB.

Sandy didn’t provide any new information on the reasons for withholding the aid, but he did highlight that the decision and process to do so wasn’t routine. It’s not necessarily damning testimony, but it is curious. At a minimum, it undercuts assertions by Trump officials, especially Mulvaney, that this kind of thing happens “all the time.”

Sondland kept US officials abreast of the Ukraine scheme before the Trump-Zelensky call

In the weeks leading up to the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call, US ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland kept top US officials aware of the plan to have Ukraine open investigations into the Bidens.

That’s the major takeaway from a Wall Street Journal story published Sunday. The newspaper got ahold of emails that Sondland sent to people like Mulvaney and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, in which he made them aware of what he was up to.


Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Gordon Sondland, US ambassador to the European Union, arrives at the Capitol on October 17, 2019, for his deposition as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry.

One July 13 email, for example, showed Sondland trying to organize a Trump-Zelensky meeting before Ukraine’s parliamentary elections eight days later. “Sole purpose is for Zelensky to give Potus assurances of ‘new sheriff’ in town,” the ambassador wrote to Morrison. “Corruption ending, unbundling moving forward, and any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently.” Morrison simply responded that he was “tracking.”

Then on July 19 — the day before the originally scheduled Trump-Zelensky call — Sondland relayed the message he had just heard from the Ukrainian leader. “I talked to Zelensky just now. He is prepared to receive Potus’ call,” wrote Sondland. “Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will ‘turn over every stone.’”

David Holmes, a staffer at the US embassy in Ukraine, overheard Sondland and Trump discussing similar things, according to testimony he gave Congress last week.

The emails add only more flame to the fire engulfing the ambassador. Sondland is a central player in the ploy to get Ukraine to open up probes to help Trump, which text messages, these emails, and his own written testimony make clear.

Sondland’s public appearance Wednesday will no doubt be the inquiry’s main event to date.

Trump is trying to intimidate Williams before her public hearing

Williams will testify openly in the impeachment inquiry on Tuesday morning — and Trump is keenly aware of this.

“Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is, to read BOTH transcripts of the presidential calls, & see the just released ststement [sic] from Ukraine,” Trump tweeted Sunday. “Then she should meet with the other Never Trumpers, who I don’t know & mostly never even heard of, & work out a better presidential attack!”

It’s unclear why Trump singled out Williams, especially since he claims he doesn’t know who she is. But there are likely two reasons why.

First, per her closed-door testimony discussed above, Williams said Trump’s comments during the July 25 call with Zelensky were “unusual” and beneficial to his political aspirations. The president doesn’t like it when someone calls him out for misbehavior, especially when the person is a woman.

Second, Williams works for Pence. Any damaging comments she might make on Tuesday carry more weight because of that. It’s one thing for a NSC staffer to say something, it’s another for the vice president’s own staff to denigrate the commander-in-chief’s case.

As of now, there are no signs that Williams is rethinking testifying on Tuesday, but it’s possible she may be even more careful with her words now that Trump is openly attacking her. That possibility alone adds some heft to the argument that Trump is tampering with a witness, especially since he also tweeted an attack during Friday’s testimony by Marie Yovanovitch, the ousted US ambassador to Ukraine.

At this rate, expect Democrats to file an “obstruction of justice” article of impeachment against the president, if that moment ever comes.


Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
President Donald Trump talks to reporters November 8, 2019, before boarding Marine One and departing the White House.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2CRnRvP

The best-case and worst-case scenarios for Trump’s health care price transparency rule

scale health care

(Shutterstock) | Shutterstock

Trump wants to make health care prices more transparent. How much good will it do?

The Trump administration has grand plans to make health care prices more transparent, hoping a little bit of sunlight will help disinfect the high costs of US health care.

In new regulations, the administration is requiring hospitals to disclose for the first time the prices they negotiated with health insurers for a wide range of services, as well as the prices they charge patients who are paying with their own money. The hospitals will also be asked to create a list of 300 so-called “shoppable” services that patients can use, targeted to more elective services where customers might actually shop around.

At the same time, under another related new rule, health insurers will be required to specifically detail how much patients could be asked to pay out of pocket for various medical services. Combined, the regulations are a salvo against the often opaque and labyrinthine world of health care prices.

But is it going to make any difference? I asked a few health policy experts for their best-case scenario under the new price transparency regimes (assuming it survives the coming lawsuits from the industry), their more realistic scenario, and their worst fears.

Everyone I talked to was pretty skeptical price transparency would have a meaningful effect on consumer behavior or prices. Health care is simply a difficult thing to shop for (especially in an emergency); arguments could be made that transparency might actually increase prices.

So there’s a wide range of possible outcomes. Let’s start off with the optimistic before we get to the cynical takes.

The best-case scenario

The sunniest take on health care price transparency, the one that dominates the Trump administration’s point of view, is that consumers are empowered with all this information to seek out more cost-effective care, spending less money and lowering costs.

This would be arguably unprecedented in American health care.

“App developers will go crazy developing shopping tools for patients, and patients will use those tools to search for the best deals,” said Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, summing up that best-case scenario. “The public availability of prices will shame high-priced hospitals into lowering their prices because they’ll be so embarrassed.”

There is at least some evidence that price transparency can be effective in lowering costs. Zach Brown, a researcher at the University of Michigan, used the debut of a new price transparency website that listed the costs for MRIs. He found, compared to an alternative scenario without price transparency, prices were significantly lower (about 22 percent). Patients were able to shop for lower-cost options, and insurers were able to negotiate lower rates from providers.

Not every service is comparable to an MRI. But if you wanted a reason to be optimistic about the market using this price data to better self-regulate, that’s a good place to start.

The newly available public data on health care prices could also motivate lawmakers to take more direct action to regulate prices. That probably isn’t what the Trump administration has in mind, preferring to let the market take the wheel, but a Democratic White House and/or Congress could do a lot with the kind of information the administration wants disclosed.

“The most optimistic scenarios are ones where shining a brighter light on health care prices spurs policymakers to implement other policies designed to reduce prices,” Matthew Fiedler, a fellow with the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, told me. “I’m not sure I think that’s likely, but I also don’t think it’s completely implausible.”

The more realistic scenarios for price transparency

But nobody I talked to believed very strongly that we would see such significant benefits from more health care price data being available. In fact, they didn’t expect much effect at all.

“We have a reasonable amount of experience in the commercial market that suggests most people do not shop for lower-cost health care services, even when pricing information is made available to them,” Caroline Pearson, senior fellow at NORC-University of Chicago, says.

She ticked through a few reasons why:

  • It’s hard to shop for health care. Patients aren’t medical experts and a lot of care is unplanned. You’re not shopping for a cardiologist on the way to the ER while you think you’re having a heart attack.
  • The way insurance works doesn’t encourage customers to shop. The service would need to cost enough that you’d get value out of shopping, but not be so expensive you’d hit your deductible or out-of-pocket limit. MRIs are one of the few services that qualify.
  • There is more to health care than cost. Relationships matter. Patients have doctors they like, and some clinics have stronger reputations than others, which matters to patients. For specialists, patients are usually referred by their primary care doctor, which might limit the desire to shop around.

“So, to make cost information actionable, it requires a sophisticated, easy-to-understand consumer interface combined with an insurance benefit design that creates incentives for people to choose lower-cost providers,” Pearson says. “We haven’t seen many examples where transparent pricing combines with nuanced insurance benefit designs to change consumer behavior.”

There is also the possibility hospitals will decide just not to comply with the Trump rule and pay a penalty instead, which would dampen the impact of the policy. The fine for noncompliance is $300 a day, peanuts for hospitals with nine-figure budgets (or higher).

Then again, hospitals might not want to purposefully violate a federal regulation. Let’s assume hospitals provide the data. What’s the worst that can happen?

The worst-case scenarios for price transparency

The worst fear for the Trump plan is that making more information to patients could end up actually raising costs.

Craig Garthwaite, research professor at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern, described one nightmare scenario: Patients assume more expensive doctors provide higher-quality care.

“My gut reaction is when you have little information on quality, and you see other people purchasing the same good, you infer quality because they can maintain that price,” Garthwaite says. “If they don’t have some financial reason to go to one provider or another based on price, they will substitute price for quality.”

More systematically, David Cutler and Leemore Dafny laid out another cost concern back in 2011: hospitals would raise their prices. Right now, a hospital might offer one insurer a lower price than another because Insurer A has more patients than Insurer B and could send them elsewhere. But if Insurer B now knows what the hospital pays Insurer A, they might demand the same price or send their patients elsewhere. So if the hospital now must publicly disclose its prices, it will raise the price for Insurer A, rather than risk having to reduce the price for Insurer B.

“Complete transparency of prices negotiated between payers and providers could raise costs instead of lowering them, especially in markets where there is some degree of pricing power and where consumers are imperfect decision makers,” they wrote.

This story appears in VoxCare, a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America’s health care debate. Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news.

Join the conversation

Are you interested in more discussions around health care policy? Join our Facebook community for conversation and updates.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2rRJnOx

David Bazan talks about his music and watching Christianity be “co-opted by authoritarianism”

Musician David Bazan sitting in his car in a still from Strange Negotiations.

Strange Negotiations follows musician David Bazan on a solo tour — and during the 2016 election. | Brandon Vedder/Aspiration Entertainment

The provocative Pedro the Lion frontman is the subject of the new documentary Strange Negotiations.

David Bazan’s straightforward and bluntly honest brand of indie rock won him secular and Christian accolades alike starting in the mid-’90s, especially as songwriter and frontman for the influential band Pedro the Lion. Bazan was raised in a Pentecostal church, and always assumed he’d be a music minister; as part of Pedro the Lion, he became a success story for a different breed of Christian music, one that was musically and lyrically adventurous as well as blunt about the struggles of faith, which set it apart from the more predictable inspirational pop that drenched the Christian radio airwaves.

But Bazan shocked many of his Christian fans in 2006, when he dissolved Pedro the Lion and began a solo career — a move that coincided with a shift in his religious beliefs, away from Christianity.

As a solo artist, Bazan has since recorded five solo albums. He no longer identifies as a Christian. But he speaks freely and passionately about his loss of faith and his love for his family and friends who are still part of that world.

In the new documentary Strange Negotiations, which shares its title with Bazan’s 2011 album, filmmaker Brandon Vedder follows Bazan beginning shortly before the 2016 election and continuing into 2017. That period spans a tour in which Bazan plays house concerts, confesses his difficulties with fatherhood, talks with fans — many of whom are navigating their own challenging relationship with faith — and grapples, especially, with the mounting evidence during the 2016 presidential election that assumptions he still held about American evangelical Christians were wrong. It concludes with his decision, in 2017, to re-form Pedro the Lion, in hopes of rediscovering a sense of community he’d lost in years spent touring alone.

Strange Negotiations is an absorbing and painfully honest movie; Bazan has no interest in presenting a façade. Instead, he’s honest about his pain and his struggles and his hope.

I recently spoke with Bazan by phone about trying to understand how to move forward in light of the 2016 election, his goals as a musician, and how he writes his raw, honest music.

Alissa Wilkinson

About two-thirds of the way through Strange Negotiations, the 2016 election is happening, and you’re driving down the road. You say something really striking: “The people who taught me to be a decent person are losing their minds.”

That sentiment is really familiar to me, and to others who felt during the election and the years since like they were watching their elders betray what they taught us. Have you found that sentiment continuing to affect your work in the years since?

David Bazan

For me, it’s heartbreaking over and over again. You just think, “Surely now they can see. Surely now they can see.” What do I do with that? Knowing that certain people that I love deeply, and depended on, are just going to go to their graves being stooges for fascism and authoritarianism? That’s still something I’m trying to make sense of.

The big project that I’m working on now is trying to show the path by which people who have the capacity to be good, and can recognize good, get co-opted by authoritarianism and by conformity and by violence. I think that everybody has the capacity to be in balance and to do good.

But I want to show that this can happen to anybody, and it has to do with what you do with your hurt. It has to do with what you do with your secrets. It has to do with what you do with your shame. It’s a scramble for all of us to understand how this is happening and why it continues to happen and what’s the difference between me and a person who can’t see the harm that this is doing. I’m trying to find the hopeful way of describing it, so that even if people are kind of lost to [those ideologies], are not ever going to be found, at least the rest of us can figure out how to interact and how to be kind and loving.

Because the hurt and the anger that I feel is kind of … yeah, I wish I could shut it off.

An aerial view of a highway with a giant cross by the side of the road from Strange Negotiations.
Brandon Vedder / Aspiration Entertainment
Strange Negotiations follows Bazan through a cross-marked American landscape.

Alissa Wilkinson

The only description I’ve really landed on is “mourning” — like I feel like things I assumed were true about the world, and about people I previously respected, have turned out, in many respects, to be built on sand. How they think about idolatry and compassion and fear and putting others’ needs ahead of your own. It’s really sad.

With that said, I still speak the “language” natively. And you do too. Do you feel like your work is translating or finding spaces for people who are stuck in that same place?

David Bazan

Having an expertise in something like Christian culture at this point is tough. I grew up feeling like the people who were elders were making a distinction between religion as faith and religion as a club. They would even say, “It’s not a religion, it’s a relationship.” I took it to heart. I needed to sign onto it, as a kid. I needed to believe that [Christianity] was more than a club. I realize now that I was clinging to that.

The principles that I was collecting along the way were the foundation of my belief system, and I thought that’s what everybody was doing. I was on board to have to think about all those things and to have humility in the process. I think that there are still people who are motivated by those things, and who feel like Christianity is the only place to do that.

Now, I just want people to be free to follow their ethics, to know that the conformity that the system is built on is at odds with [those ethics], to give people the freedom to think their own thoughts about things.

That’s what I was fighting for in myself when I started this journey in 2005 of being more honest with myself about my faith. And I know that’s made me somebody that people in that [evangelical Christian] world don’t really want to listen to — and fair enough. But I want so badly for people to have the opportunity to meet themselves.

It’s really been a driver of what I have been doing with my life during this time. But now, I have a bit more focus than I did before. And a lot of people are trying to illuminate their little corner of the world, and help people. I just hope that more people can be set free from captivity.

Alissa Wilkinson

A lot of the documentary is about you trying to make a living in your particular career moment. The economic realities of making a living require you to do a lot, to be on the road all the time. There’s a sense in which the music business requires you to fit into a certain box and conform to a set of demands in order to survive.

David Bazan

From an early age, I was pretty scattered — really focused but also couldn’t really follow through with anything. In a way that’s why I chose music as a vocation, because I couldn’t change, as much as I tried. I wanted to be a disciplined person. I wanted to be all these things, but I just failed constantly at it. So music was a way for me to harness that, because with making records, it was deadline-driven, and that’s a social pressure. I was able to organize my actions and my behavior through making music in a way that I couldn’t do any other way.

I don’t really have a choice in how honest I am. I have a choice in what I write about, but this is the only way I know how to write about it. What comes up in the tunes is a creative process that leans heavily on my subconscious. When I do that, what comes out is what has to come out. In a way I can’t help but be my authentic self because my ADHD or whatever is just too extreme.

So, I’ve done 20 years at this grueling job, and I’m very faithful to it and I’m very committed to it, because it’s all I could do.


Brandon Vedder / Aspiration Entertainment
Bazan in the studio.

Alissa Wilkinson

And do you sit down to write an album “about” issues, or does it come to you another way? What’s your songwriting process like?

David Bazan

With [2009’s] Curse Your Branches, I wanted to turn over a new leaf and make music and records that weren’t so obsessed with my internal lies, and with religion, and with addiction. But if I’m going to produce something that has creative depth, sonically, somatically, I just don’t have a choice about what happens. Your subconscious, it’s like dreaming. You don’t have a choice about what you dream. You dream what you need to dream. And so it’s the same thing with creativity. People who do make those choices apart from their subconscious, I don’t trust them.

Sometimes focusing on your pain so obsessively in art, I’m sure, can be unhelpful. But I’m doing what I can. I wanted to be allowed to do this. As I said in the movie, I wanted to be allowed to play in this particular sandbox and feel valid doing it. It’s really satisfying to come to that understanding with yourself, despite the ups and downs of how people respond to you or accept you or reject you.

Alissa Wilkinson

You’ve always challenged orthodoxies, whether it was within the Christian world or now outside of it. But do you find there are other orthodoxies you’re challenging, stuff that you see in the world that you find yourself butting up against?

David Bazan

Yeah. I have an internal desire to find some sort of unifying explanation for the different ways that people, myself included, wind up in trouble ethically, or holding ideas that turn out to be bad seeds. I never fancied myself a contrarian, because I always really thought that everybody was doing the same project — just trying to be better. That’s been the most disappointing part. When people say something about themselves to me, I think that they’re telling me the truth, or doing their best to. And if anybody’s ever misrepresenting themselves, I just am not prepared to deal with that. I mean, I eventually can figure it out and get past it. But in the moment I’m sort of primed to just believe what people tell me about themselves.

I saw someone talking about the new Pixar movie.

Alissa Wilkinson

Soul? [The film, about a jazz musician transported to a mysterious realm, will come out in 2020.]

David Bazan

Yes. I haven’t seen a trailer or anything, but I saw somebody commenting on it online from a Christian perspective, but sarcastically. They said, like, Oh yeah, that’s what everybody needs, to find their true selves and to follow their passion, ha ha. Then all the comments were like, it’s so freeing to have a safe identity in Christ because my identity changes all the time and blah blah blah.

I’m reading this stuff and just thinking, I can’t tell if they’re joking. Then I’ll realize, like, “Oh man, they’re deep into this captive mindset.” What I experienced [when I was a Christian] was feeling estrangement, reinforced by my family and Christianity, because of the notion that I can accept myself only if God accepts me first. That’s pretty fraught, because your idea of who God is depends on the culture you were brought up in. How kind you think God is depends on how people treat you — how kind they are, how punitive they are, how driven by shame they are.

Within evangelical Christianity, there’s always this talk of a kind of counterintuitive wisdom that is represented by Christianity. The world thinks that this is wisdom, but Christians know that it’s something else. The first shall be last, the last shall be first. But when you get down to it, it’s not [what they believe] at all. That’s how they trick you, I guess — by having this benevolent spin on it.

Part of my life now is just mumbling the f-word at everybody, figuring out how to protect myself from this cycle that happens over and over again, where I believe that people are good and have good intentions. Being disappointed by the way that things really are, over and over again.

And then just realizing, I’m hurting now, and when I get over this hurt, I’ll be able to have and own my ideas about things, and find peace with myself. That I’ll be able to have more kindness more easily for people who are still foot soldiers for authoritarianism.

Strange Negotiations will be released on digital platforms on November 19.

This conversation has been edited and condensed.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2KzY3sl

Code Media 2019: News & updates

Adam Tow

Leaders at Facebook, Verizon Media, Condé Nast, and more join Recode’s Peter Kafka in Los Angeles.

This year, Recode’s annual Code Media conference is in Hollywood — where it’s all happening. Recode’s Senior Media Correspondent Peter Kafka hosts the tech and media conference each year. This year we will examine big-picture industry trends and what they mean for the entire media ecosystem.

Peter Kafka and Recode’s expert reporting staff will discuss some of the biggest questions facing the media world today:

  • Fake news, virality, and public trust: We’ll take an honest look at the spread of fake news, efforts to combat it, and what responsibilities tech and media companies have to address it.
  • Who’s buying who and why it matters: We’ve seen several recent major media acquisitions — AT&T/Time Warner, Disney/Fox, Meredith/Time, Inc. — and we’re going to ask how they are reshaping the landscape as legacy companies compete with big tech.
  • Content creation and distribution in the shadow of big tech: We’ll look at how Amazon, Netflix, and Apple are changing the content creation and distribution strategies of studios.

The Code Media conference kicks off on Monday, November 18, in Los Angeles. Every onstage interview will be available to stream on demand on Recode’s YouTube channel after each session. Take a minute to subscribe to our channel and get updates as highlights and full-interview videos are made available. And follow Recode on Twitter for news and highlights from the stage. We’ll be live tweeting our onstage interviews using the #CodeMedia hashtag. Here’s who will be onstage and how to follow along this week.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2XpMKbj

Did Rand Paul betray libertarians?

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., leaves the Senate floor after a vote in the Capitol on Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2019. | Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call

The senator was once dubbed “the most exciting figure in politics” for libertarians. Now he’s one of Trump’s biggest allies. Why?

In 2014, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul told an audience at an event in Florida that the Whistleblower Protection Act should be expanded to include government contractors like former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden. Paul repeated the view in a 2015 speech on the Senate floor in which he praised whistleblowers who had come forward to tell America that the NSA was collecting phone records on a mass scale as part of the Patriot Act — which Paul called “the most unpatriotic of acts.”

But in 2019, Paul seems to feel differently about whistleblowers, at least the individual whose complaint kicked off House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

At a rally for Trump’s 2020 campaign in Kentucky last Monday, Paul said, “We also now know the name of the whistleblower. I say tonight to the media, ‘Do your job and print his name!’” He’s argued on Twitter that not only is it essential to reveal the name of the whistleblower but also that to not do so would be a violation of Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to face his accuser.

But in Paul’s view, the two perspectives make total sense, as does his unwavering support for Trump, whose presidency has pushed a number of libertarians out of the Republican Party altogether. And though some libertarians — who once hoped Paul could bring about the “libertarian moment” in American politics — have been disappointed by his turn toward Trump, Paul argues he can do more to advance libertarian ideals from inside the halls of power and with the ear of the president.

Shifting views on the importance of whistleblowers

I reached out to Paul’s office, and a representative for the senator said that Paul’s views on whistleblowers have not changed. The representative noted that on November 6, Paul gave a floor speech extolling the importance of whistleblowers and introducing legislation that would extend whistleblower protections to all federal government contractors — not just federal employees or contractors within the intelligence community — and that would retroactively give that protection to contractors like Snowden.

But the next day, Paul blocked a Senate resolution in support of whistleblowers, terming it “fake outrage.” And his own legislation, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2019, concludes with this sentence:

Congress reaffirms that, in the case of criminal prosecutions and impeachments arising from the disclosures of whistleblowers, the accused has the right to confront his or her accuser in such proceedings and that right is not superseded by the whistleblower protections.

This is why Paul’s office claimed his stance had not changed: Paul’s calls for the whistleblower’s unmasking are in this view not about stripping him of his rights, but about allowing the president to “confront” his accuser.

It is a case Paul makes explicitly in a piece for the Hill, in which he argues that because “the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to confront one’s accusers,” Trump “must both face his accuser and face questions regarding his own knowledge and activities.”

It is a case Paul has also made on Twitter:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

But that argument doesn’t seem to hold up with legal thinkers, even those who might be supportive of the president. Conservative writer and former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy (who recently published a book lambasting special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation), wrote in National Review of Rand Paul, “As a constitutional lawyer, Rand Paul makes a good medical doctor.”

McCarthy added that, though the whistleblower’s anonymity may not be protected by law (while also noting that Paul himself has not said the person’s name), “The Sixth Amendment has nothing to do with impeachment, and it does not advance a claim that the ‘whistleblower’ should be outed and questioned.”

Scott Shackford, an associate editor at Reason Magazine, wrote of Paul’s argument, “The way Paul is talking about revealing the whistleblower now — during the investigation itself — is akin to the police revealing the names of witnesses to a suspect long before that suspect has been charged with any crime,” adding, “The Sixth Amendment does not require the naming of witnesses in an investigation, nor should it.”

For many libertarians, Paul’s desire to unmask the whistleblower has not been popular. Nick Gillespie, Reason’s editor-at-large, told me, “Paul’s call to out the whistleblower and his insistence that Trump has a constitutional right to face his accuser — as if impeachment or just normal politics is a court battle — doesn’t play well among most libertarians I talk with.”

From “the most exciting figure in politics” to a Trump “cheerleader”

Paul entered Congress with a family name virtually synonymous with the libertarian movement (his first name, after all, is in honor of the writer Ayn Rand, a major influence on philosophical libertarianism.) His father, former Rep. Ron Paul, was a three-time presidential candidate and one of the most influential voices in libertarian circles, advocating for non-interventionism abroad, limited government at home, and extreme fiscal conservatism.

Rand managed his father’s 1996 congressional campaign, and supporters of his father urged Rand to run for one of Kentucky’s two Senate seats — which he did, after Rep. Jim Bunning declined to run again, citing Republican opposition.

In a 2009 interview with CNN, Rand said he was running because “I’m very worried about our country; I’m worried about the debt. I’m worried about what the debt will lead to. Both sides of the aisle — Republican and Democrat — have been unwilling and afraid to address the deficit, and someone’s got to.” His father said of Rand, “I think the family sort of expected that he would be the first one to get to politics like this.”

Rand’s win in 2010, amid the rise of the Tea Party (some members of which viewed Ron as the “intellectual godfather” and “brain”), was seen as a harbinger of things to come, not only for the Tea Party but also for libertarian-leaning voters and thinkers across the country. Though there are relatively few Americans who describe themselves as “libertarian” (roughly 11 percent of Americans did so in 2014), the Libertarian Party is the nation’s third-largest political party. A number of Americans hold libertarian-leaning viewpoints, leading to many arguing (granted, not for the first time) that a watershed moment for the ideology was afoot.

As the Cato Institute’s David Boaz told the Atlantic in 2013, America has a “core libertarian attitude.”

“Skepticism about power and about government, individualism, the idea that we’re all equal under the law, free enterprise, getting ahead in the world through your own hard work — all of those ideas are very fundamentally American,” Boaz said at the time. And Rand was viewed as the person to take those viewpoints to the highest echelon of American politics.

Former Rep. Dennis Ross, a Florida Republican who entered Congress at the same time as Rand, told me, “I believe his message was an extension of his father’s strong Libertarian principles, and that was pivotal in 2010 as it ushered in the Tea Party movement. That message was that business as usual was not appropriate and that government should get their fiscal house in order, and get out of the business of health care, and don’t apologize for America.”

Reason Magazine’s Nick Gillespie said that when Rand first entered the Senate back in 2010, he “was the most exciting figure in politics, not just for libertarians but for most thoughtful Americans.”

In Gillespie’s view, Rand “seemed likely to bring what [Reason editor-at-large] Matt Welch and I had called ‘the libertarian moment’ to fruition: Here was a guy who was talking seriously and persuasively about reducing the size, scope, and spending of the federal government in every dimension; who was attacking police abuses in Ferguson, [Missouri]; calling for an end to the drug war; and reaching out to black and Latino audiences in serious ways; and who said of illegal immigrants, ‘If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you.’”

When he was preparing to run for president, Rand continued to emphasize his desire to see the GOP become a bigger tent, saying in 2014 that the party could not simply be for “fat cats, rich people, and Wall Street.”

But Rand’s more recent actions — lambasting the Ukraine whistleblower and demanding his name be revealed publicly, and his seeming enthusiasm for Trump — has turned off many libertarians. In a piece for Reason titled “Rand Paul Wants Whistleblower Outed. Libertarians Want the Old Rand Paul Back,” Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote:

Paul’s enthusiastic and near perpetual support for Trump actions continues to bum out many libertarians — who had hoped Rand would turn out more like his father, former Rep. Ron Paul — and limited-government conservatives, for whom the Kentucky senator was a bright spot back when the Tea Party movement showed promise and principles. In the #MAGA era, Paul has become one of the biggest cheerleaders of Trump-style Republicanism and a tireless defender of the president’s perspective.

Allahpundit, an anonymous blogger for the conservative website Hot Air, told me of Rand, “I remember his acceptance speech in 2010, when he beat Trey Grayson in the primary, right at the moment that Tea Party conservatism was catching fire. Grayson was the McConnell-backed establishmentarian, Paul was the populist outsider.”

The writer added, “Specifically, I remember him addressing Washington and telling him that he had a ‘message from the Tea Party.’ What did that message turn out to be? ‘Anything for Trump.’”

Rand’s particular calculus on supporting the president is complex: He once called Trump a “delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag.” But he clearly believes that staying within the bounds of the Republican Party — and firmly in support of the president — is his best option for pushing Trump, and the GOP, in a more libertarian direction. (By contrast, Rep. Justin Amash, a libertarian who left the Republican Party in July, has voiced support for impeachment.)

As Gillespie told me, “I think he’s trying to figure out ways to advance his agenda, which ultimately is about balancing the budget and scaling back the warfare state. I suspect that he figures he’s got a better chance of getting some or all of that done by being the president’s good graces.”

Ross said much the same: “I don’t think he changed his principles, I think he was made aware of a different manner in which to advocate those principles. Hence his somewhat cordial relationship with this president.”

A libertarian angel on Trump’s shoulder?

As conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat argued in 2018, perhaps Trump didn’t defeat libertarian ideals in 2016, but rather reappropriated them for his own purposes — most prominently with foreign policy, where Trump ran hard against the Iraq War and interventionism (and against America’s intelligence services, of which Rand is a longtime skeptic) and won.

That’s where Rand has centered his efforts to influence Trump. For example, he argued in June against a potential war with Iran during an appearance on Fox News — the president’s favorite television channel.

“One of the things I like about President Trump is that he said the Iraq War was a mistake,” Rand said. “I think an Iran war would be even a bigger mistake than the Iraq War. We lost over 4,000 soldiers over there. I don’t think we need to get involved in another war.”

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

It’s not as though Rand has stopped fighting Republicans in his efforts to court Trump. He joined Democrats in adding an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that required congressional approval before money could be used in military operations in Iran.

But the problem he faces is that Trump’s occasional nod to libertarian ideals has little to do with the ideals themselves. After all, troops originally withdrawn from Syria by Trump have now been tasked with protecting Syrian oil fields, and the practice of wiretapping American citizens (something Rand has spoken out against) has not only continued under the Trump administration but also widened, with some of Trump’s biggest allies voting to maintain Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and give it additional powers (and Trump signing that expansion into law).

On other issues, like the deficit, Rand continues to rail against the Republican status quo, calling for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution — and the president doesn’t seem to care. Sure, Trump and Rand may find common ground on certain issues (like the debate over Russian interference), but that seems more to do with what Trump thinks will be most beneficial for Trump.

Despite this, in an interview with libertarian commentator John Stossel, one of Rand’s biggest supporters, he said “progress has been made” in the fight for libertarian ideals, citing tax cuts, fewer regulations, and Trump’s call for an end to “endless wars.”

When Stossel noted that Trump “hasn’t pulled out of anywhere,” Rand responded, “Compare it, though, to George W. Bush, who got us involved everywhere. Or President Obama, who sent 100,000 troops to Afghanistan. The rhetoric of President Trump has been, I think, a relief.”

“Has it happened yet? No,” he acknowledged. “But I continue to push.”

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2OpdXqA

A Hong Kong university becomes a battleground in the latest round of protests

An anti-government Hong Kong protester uses a garden hose to try to extinguish a room on fire.

An anti-government protester extinguishes a fire at Hong Kong Polytechnic University on November 18, 2019. | Laurel Chor/Getty Images

Police trapped demonstrators inside the campus in a standoff that lasted hours.

The campus of a Hong Kong university transformed into an apocalyptic scene on Monday as riot police armed with tear gas and rubber bullets surrounded pro-democracy protesters.

The standoff between authorities and protesters at Hong Kong Polytechnic University has turned into one of the fiercest, most violent conflicts in the nearly six months of protests in the autonomous territory.

What began as a movement to block a controversial extradition bill morphed into a sustained call for greater democratic rights in Hong Kong and a pushback against the growing influence of China. The demonstrations have grown increasingly tense in recent weeks. Last week, police shot a protester and demonstrators set a pro-Beijing activist on fire.

Protesters have been occupying parts of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University campus since last week, but the confrontation with police escalated dramatically on Sunday and into Monday, turning the campus into a war zone. Protesters hunkered down and barricaded themselves against police, flinging firebombs and debris and even firing arrows at riot police. Police threatened to use live ammunition in response.

Early Monday local time, riot police rushed the campus, effectively trapping hundreds of demonstrators inside. Authorities cornered the activists and delivered an ultimatum, calling on them to surrender or face a barrage of tear gas. Police said those who do surrender will face arrest and potential charges of rioting, which means individuals could face up to 10 years in prison.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Some demonstrators have managed to sneak away; photographers documented people running along a footbridge away from campus. But others are holed up, waiting for an opportunity to break free and avoid arrest.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Han, a 23-year-old protester and first aider, told me she was hiding inside a classroom at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, resting before trying once again to find a way out. We spoke through a translator based in the UK via WhatsApp.

Han said that protests broke out at PolyU because it’s near major infrastructure; protesters wanted to block those areas to create real impact and force the government to listen to their demands. “Students [don’t] want to fight these battles, they just want the government to listen to their demands,” she said.

Some protesters pleaded for help on social media, saying they were cornered by police with no defense and running out of food and medicine. Supporters of the campus protesters tried to form a human chain to deliver medical supplies, helmets, food, and water. According to the Wall Street Journal, the link stretched miles but failed to penetrate the police barricade.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Hong Kong officials said they were allowing the Red Cross to enter the campus and treat injured protesters.

Other supporters — including parents of some students at the university — staged a sit-in outside campus. They carried signs that said “Save our Kids.”

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Demonstrators also flocked to other parts of the city, trying to distract and draw police away from the campus so demonstrators there could escape. Scenes of chaos also emerged in other parts of Hong Kong as demonstrators blocked traffic, many carrying umbrellas to fend off tear gas.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The Hong Kong protests are growing increasingly tense, with no obvious solution in sight

At least 150 people were arrested over the weekend, according to the New York Times. That number is likely to rise, though, as about 500 protesters were still believed to be trapped inside campus well past midnight local time.

Police said they had arrested more than 50 people who “claimed to be journalists or medics” on Monday, according to the Hong Kong Free Press. The BBC reported that, per Hong Kong’s Hospital Authority, more than 100 people had been injured.

And authorities seem prepared to outlast the protesters. Cheuk Hau-yip, the regional police commander, threatened arrest for anyone on campus, saying officers had given protesters “enough time and enough warnings.”

“If they surrender and come out, we will arrange the appropriate medical help for them,” Cheuk said, according to the Washington Post.

Tensions between police and protesters have fueled the protests in recent weeks, as pro-democracy activists accuse authorities of using heavy-handed and violent tactics to crush otherwise peaceful protests. Police, in turn, point to very real examples of vandalism and violence as part of the demonstrations to justify the use of force. Demonstrators say they’re just trying to defend themselves.

That has led to specific demands from the protesters, including releasing all those arrested for rioting and an independent inquiry of the Hong Kong police force. The Hong Kong government, led by Chief Executive Carrie Lam, has so far resisted, saying the current body is equipped to handle a review.

This impasse has created an untenable situation in Hong Kong — though some protesters see the police response as galvanizing Hongkongers. “The unacceptable use of violence by the police is pushing more people, i.e. supporters of peaceful protests, to believe they [should] come out and protect the students,” Han said. “So I do think all these protesters’ operations [are] leading to a positive outcome.”

Also on Monday, a Hong Kong court ruled that the government’s face-mask ban — introduced last month — was unlawful. Though many protesters had been defying the ban anyway, it was another example of the Hong Kong government’s botched and aggressive attempt to curtail the unrest.

As the Washington Post noted, Lam has remained largely quiet during the unrest this weekend. Hong Kong has its own government system under the “one country, two systems” rule that has been in place since Great Britain returned Hong Kong to China in 1997 and is supposed to last until 2047. Protesters see Beijing’s encroachment ahead of that date as an existential threat to their territory.

On Monday, the Chinese government warned that “no-one should underestimate” Beijing’s will “to safeguard its sovereignty and Hong Kong’s stability.”

Beijing interceding directly in Hong Kong would inflame tensions, and so far it has stopped short of such measures. But China has grown increasingly impatient with the uprising in Hong Kong, which has hurt the economy in the territory.

The campus unrest also threatens to derail upcoming local elections in Hong Kong, scheduled for this weekend, where pro-democracy lawmakers are expected to win big. Some fear that the Hong Kong government might cancel or postpone the elections, citing the violence in the city.

That would deny Hong Kong a democratic outlet for their discontent — exactly what protesters are fighting to preserve.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/33ZJx4O

These senators are going after the biggest climate villains in Washington

Senate Environment Committee Holds Confirmation Hearing For Andrew Wheeler To Become EPA Administrator.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) questions Andrew Wheeler during his confirmation hearing to lead the Environmental Protection Agency on January 16, 2019. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Sens. Whitehouse, Heinrich, and Schatz discuss how to hold the Chamber of Commerce accountable.

On Tuesday, November 19, the Chamber of Commerce will meet to discuss its climate policy approach. It has prompted renewed pressure from a group of Democratic senators for the Chamber to play a more constructive role. I discussed their criticisms of the Chamber and other business trade groups in June, when this piece was originally published.


Business trade groups are known for throwing their weight around — and getting their way — in Washington.

The US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Farm Bureau, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the American Petroleum Institute — these names strike fear in the hearts of members of Congress. They have enormous, well-funded lobbying arms and links to dark-money groups that can mobilize against any politician who crosses them.

Among other things, these groups have helped completely block climate policy at the federal level. In 2009, the Chamber of Commerce claimed to Congress that “warming of even 3 [degrees] C in the next 100 years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans.” And it has backed its denialism with money and lobbying. In 2017, NAM helped convince Trump to begin the process of pulling out of the Paris climate accord.

But the ground is shifting beneath the feet of the Chamber of Commerce and its cohort. More and more corporations are cleaning up their energy use and supply chains and lining up behind climate action.

US Chamber Of Commerce CEO Delivers Annual State Of American Business Address
Photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images
Thomas Donohue, CEO and President of the US Chamber of Commerce.

In 2009, Apple left the Chamber of Commerce over its position on climate change, along with Nike and several other high-profile companies. Since then, at least 13 more large companies have followed them out the door. Under mounting pressure, the Chamber of Commerce has recently softened its stance on climate change, claiming to be a partner in the fight, not a denier. Through its Global Energy Institute, it released “cleaner, stronger” energy agenda, which was mostly about staying the course on fossil fuels, along with some hand-waving about “innovation.” The National Association of Manufacturers has adopted similar rhetoric.

For now, it is widely seen as a smokescreen. The leadership of these trade groups is dominated by fossil fuel money and loyal to the GOP. The Chamber of Commerce employs a revolving roster of ex-GOP congressional aides and, as of 2016, directs 100 percent of its election spending to Republicans.

The big trade groups are coming out of alignment with their own members on climate change. And a group of Democratic senators, spearheaded by Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse, wants to highlight that growing tension, making sure that every member of these trade groups knows the effect they are having on federal climate politics.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

I recently chatted with Whitehouse, along with two Democratic colleagues in the Senate, New Mexico’s Martin Heinrich and Hawaii’s Brian Schatz, about the role trade groups play in climate politics and what might be gained by increasing the political pressure on them. (Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.)

David Roberts

These trade associations have been lobbying against progressive priorities for a long time. What’s new?

Sheldon Whitehouse

What’s new is that climate change has reached an unprecedented level of priority and popular interest. And with that, corporate America has made a fairly significant move toward getting serious about it. That has exposed a rift between the direction of a great number of the corporate members of the COC [Chamber of Commerce] and the Chamber itself.

It looks to us as if the COC is no longer representing its nominal corporate board. My suspicion is that one of the reasons they don’t reveal their funding is that they’re taking huge amounts of secret money from the fossil fuel industry to become its front group. Between service to the fossil fuel industry and properly representing the corporate members of its board is a fissure we want to expose and exploit.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Martin Heinrich

This younger generation of millennials has created a situation where most of corporate America understands the reputational risk of denying or delaying action on climate. That has not caught up with the Chamber, and that mismatch has allowed us to drive a wedge.

David Roberts

The Chamber has lost members, for instance Apple and Nike, over its position on climate before. Do you know of other members who are making noise about this issue now?

Brian Schatz

We believe there is an ongoing rebellion among Chamber members. Some of them are going to be more public about it than others. But the bottom line is, some of these companies — for commercial reasons, or ecological reasons — are no longer comfortable funding the primary actor against climate action, even as they tell their customers that they are reforming their supply chain.

If they’re doing minor things internally on the one hand, but funding the organization that is most effective in preventing federal climate action on the other hand — they know this situation cannot stand. So some are pushing the Chamber to reform its position, and some are just simply cutting ties and deciding they don’t need the Chamber anymore.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

David Roberts

How much power do the Chamber and NAM [National Association of Manufacturers] still have in Washington? Does the power match the myth?

Martin Heinrich

That’s what we’re trying to test here, right? There’s a lot of inertia in decision-making in Washington, DC. There are always powerful interests that continue to have power as incumbents long past when structural changes start to occur in the country. So we have to test that.

Brian Schatz

The Chamber has spent $150 million on congressional races since the Citizens United decision. A lot of that spending has targeted Democrats specifically, but also, they make ads about carbon taxes. They make ads about climate action. They are not just theoretically opposed to doing the right thing, they are spending money where it counts and attacking the people who attack the climate problem.

Sheldon Whitehouse

If you’re a Republican, all five [of the major trade groups] are telling you the same thing, which is, don’t touch climate change, don’t limit carbon emissions. And the two worst, according to Influence Map, are the Chamber and NAM.

So I think it will be very consequential if the two worst obstructors on climate change can be forced by their own membership to change their position and go from being enemies to allies.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

David Roberts

The chamber has been making conciliatory moves on climate change, at least talking about it in a more sensible way, and even putting climate-forward businesses out front to speak for it. It seems — and you could say this of the GOP as well — to feel some pressure to move on this. How seriously should we take these rhetorical shifts?

Brian Schatz

I think they are going to see how little they can get away with doing. Our job is to make sure that actions follow the words.

Changing your congressional testimony or the climate section of your website is not a significant move unless it’s an indicator of a real shift, and we have no reason yet to believe that they’ve changed their calculus. That’s why we’re going to keep pressing.

Martin Heinrich

One of the things all of us experience here on the Hill is, corporations will take a position that nominally may be good for the country and the planet, but they won’t always make it a priority. We know what it looks like when they come in and start seriously lobbying for a set of policies. And we’ve just never seen that for climate action, even when the rhetoric has been there.

David Roberts

There seems to be a critical mass around climate action in the corporate world — lots of big names and big initiatives. Are those climate-conscious corporations collaborating and lobbying? Are they a force in DC?

Sheldon Whitehouse

It’s just begun, so it’s a little hard to tell. You’ve got the four food companies that have agreed to lobby for a price on carbon. You’ve got Microsoft, which has followed them and stepped up. You’ve got some strong signals out of the Climate Leadership Council. And you’ve got the Climate Dialogue Group of 13 CEOs.

CEO Climate Dialogue
CEO Climate Dialogue
Companies and organizations involved in “climate dialogue.”

I think it’s a good, strong signal that those things are starting to happen. But when push comes to shove, the Chamber is here lobbying day in and day out. And it backs up its lobbying with electioneering muscle. And it’s interconnected with climate-denying groups that it can launch at candidates.

So the companies that want to participate in trying to get good climate legislation out of Congress need to understand how mature, powerful, and remorseless the opposition is.

Martin Heinrich

All those other businesses are finding their footing on this. They want to know, what is the social impact and pushback from their colleague corporations of taking this new leadership position? We’re in a very unsettled time right now, but I think it’s also a very important time for the right feedback loops to occur, to allow for some real leadership positions to develop and solidify.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2Ohy5dW

Brazil’s Amazon rainforest destruction is at its highest rate in more than a decade

In this aerial view the red dust of the BR230 highway, known as “Transamazonica”, mixes with fires at sunset in the agriculture town of Ruropolis, Para state, northern Brazil, on September 6, 2019

Fires in the Amazon rainforest this year have contributed to the highest rate of deforestation in more than a decade, according to new measurements. | Johannes Myburgh/AFP/Getty Images

New satellite measurements show an alarming spike in deforestation this year.

Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has surged to its highest rate in more than a decade, according to new data from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE). It’s an alarming development in one of the most critical ecosystems for the planet, and it highlights how policy decisions by President Jair Bolsonaro’s government are driving the destruction.

The latest results show that deforestation increased nearly 30 percent between August 2018 and through July 2019 compared to the 12 months prior. It marks the highest rate of deforestation since 2008 and amounts to a cleared area spanning 9,762 square kilometers (3,769 square miles), larger than Yellowstone National Park.

The increase coincides with the election of Bolsonaro in October 2018, a far-right politician who campaigned on promises of exploiting the Amazon rainforest to benefit the Brazilian economy.

Over the summer, INPE reported that deforestation in June was 88 percent higher than the same month the year before. At the time, Bolsonaro called the results “lies” and ousted the head of INPE, Ricardo Galvão.

That was followed by a spike in fires that sent smoke thousands of miles across the region, darkening skies all the way to São Paulo, Brazil’s largest city. The Amazon rainforest does not burn naturally, so fires are a direct result of human activity. Many are deliberately ignited to clear the forest for farming and cattle ranching. Brazil is the largest beef exporter in the world, and 80 percent of the soy it grows in the Amazon goes to animal feed.

Activists say the Brazilian government under Bolsonaro has been lax in its enforcement of environmental regulations and has tacitly approved the clearing of the forest, hence the recent spike in deforestation and forest fires.

Fire is also used as a tactic to drive indigenous people who live in the rainforest off their lands. Violence against indigenous people in Brazil also rose under Bolsonaro, who also campaigned on rolling back indigenous rights. The number of land incursions, illegal natural resource extraction, and property damage in indigenous areas doubling in the first nine months of the administration compared to the year prior.

The Amazon fires this summer triggered an international outcry, and Bolsonaro eventually responded by sending the military to fight the fires. The number of fires decreased, but new blazes continued to ignite into October.

But significant damage was done to the massive, fragile forest by the fires, and by the ongoing deforestation. The Amazon has one of the highest concentrations of biodiversity in the world. Its trees keep the air cool, cycle moisture, and generate about half its own rainfall while also providing water to nearby farms and cities. Its vegetation and soil are a massive reservoir of carbon that become a source of emissions with fires and deforestation. So losing swaths of rainforest threatens regional rainfall patterns, the global climate, and some of the most unique forms of life on the planet.

Brazilian Indigenous leader Angela Kaxuyana speaks during a press conference on November 12, 2019, in the French capital Paris.
Thomas Samson/AFP/Getty Images
Brazilian Indigenous leaders like Angela Kaxuyana are calling for more international pressure on Brazil’s government to limit deforestation.

And activists are worried the situation will only continue to get worse under Bolsonaro. “Even in the face of an alarming scenario for the Amazon, with increased fires, deforestation, invasions of protected areas, and violence against Indigenous Peoples, the government hasn’t presented any consistent policy to protect the forest and its peoples; on the contrary, the government is taking the side of environmental crime,” said Cristiane Mazzetti, an Amazon campaigner for Greenpeace, in a statement.

Scientists also fear the Amazon is closer to a tipping point where it will enter an irreversible cycle of collapse known as a dieback. Between 15 and 17 percent of the Amazon rainforest has been lost, and if the amount of cleared forest land reaches 25 percent, there won’t be enough trees cycling moisture through the rainforest. That will cause the rainforest to dry out and degrade into a savanna.

Next month, Brazil and other countries will gather in Madrid, Spain, to cement the details of how they plan to meet their obligations to fight climate change under the Paris climate agreement. One of the most important tactics for limiting warming is preserving and restoring natural ecosystems like the Amazon rainforest. The rainforest stores and takes in a vast quantity of carbon, making a valuable global environmental asset.

However, Bolsonaro has said that international interest in the Brazilian Amazon is a threat to his country’s sovereignty. About 60 percent of the Amazon rainforest’s 2.1 million square mile range is within Brazil’s borders. “It is a fallacy to say that the Amazon is the heritage of humankind,” he told the United Nations General Assembly in September.

At the Madrid meeting, Brazil will likely face more pressure from other countries to curb deforestation, but it may demand more concessions from other countries to preserve the rainforest, like more favorable accounting rules for emissions reductions or more financial incentives.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2Xqa1tx

Amazon rainforest destruction is at its highest rate in more than a decade

In this aerial view the red dust of the BR230 highway, known as “Transamazonica”, mixes with fires at sunset in the agriculture town of Ruropolis, Para state, northern Brazil, on September 6, 2019

Fires in the Amazon rainforest this year have contributed to the highest rate of deforestation in more than a decade, according to new measurements. | Johannes Myburgh/AFP/Getty Images

New satellite measurements show an alarming spike in deforestation this year.

Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has surged to its highest rate in more than a decade, according to new data from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE). It’s an alarming development in one of the most critical ecosystems for the planet, and it highlights how policy decisions by President Jair Bolsonaro’s government are driving the destruction.

The latest results show that deforestation increased nearly 30 percent between August 2018 and through July 2019 compared to the 12 months prior. It marks the highest rate of deforestation since 2008 and amounts to a cleared area spanning 9,762 square kilometers (3,769 square miles), larger than Yellowstone National Park.

The increase coincides with the election of Bolsonaro in October 2018, a far-right politician who campaigned on promises of exploiting the Amazon rainforest to benefit the Brazilian economy.

Over the summer, INPE reported that deforestation in June was 88 percent higher than the same month the year before. At the time, Bolsonaro called the results “lies” and ousted the head of INPE, Ricardo Galvão.

That was followed by a spike in fires that sent smoke thousands of miles across the region, darkening skies all the way to São Paulo, Brazil’s largest city. The Amazon rainforest does not burn naturally, so fires are a direct result of human activity. Many are deliberately ignited to clear the forest for farming and cattle ranching. Brazil is the largest beef exporter in the world, and 80 percent of the soy it grows in the Amazon goes to animal feed.

Activists say the Brazilian government under Bolsonaro has been lax in its enforcement of environmental regulations and has tacitly approved the clearing of the forest, hence the recent spike in deforestation and forest fires.

Fire is also used as a tactic to drive indigenous people who live in the rainforest off their lands. Violence against indigenous people in Brazil also rose under Bolsonaro, who also campaigned on rolling back indigenous rights. The number of land incursions, illegal natural resource extraction, and property damage in indigenous areas doubling in the first nine months of the administration compared to the year prior.

The Amazon fires this summer triggered an international outcry, and Bolsonaro eventually responded by sending the military to fight the fires. The number of fires decreased, but new blazes continued to ignite into October.

But significant damage was done to the massive, fragile forest by the fires, and by the ongoing deforestation. The Amazon has one of the highest concentrations of biodiversity in the world. Its trees keep the air cool, cycle moisture, and generate about half its own rainfall while also providing water to nearby farms and cities. Its vegetation and soil are a massive reservoir of carbon that become a source of emissions with fires and deforestation. So losing swaths of rainforest threatens regional rainfall patterns, the global climate, and some of the most unique forms of life on the planet.

Brazilian Indigenous leader Angela Kaxuyana speaks during a press conference on November 12, 2019, in the French capital Paris.
Thomas Samson/AFP/Getty Images
Brazilian Indigenous leaders like Angela Kaxuyana are calling for more international pressure on Brazil’s government to limit deforestation.

And activists are worried the situation will only continue to get worse under Bolsonaro. “Even in the face of an alarming scenario for the Amazon, with increased fires, deforestation, invasions of protected areas, and violence against Indigenous Peoples, the government hasn’t presented any consistent policy to protect the forest and its peoples; on the contrary, the government is taking the side of environmental crime,” said Cristiane Mazzetti, an Amazon campaigner for Greenpeace, in a statement.

Scientists also fear the Amazon is closer to a tipping point where it will enter an irreversible cycle of collapse known as a dieback. Between 15 and 17 percent of the Amazon rainforest has been lost, and if the amount of cleared forest land reaches 25 percent, there won’t be enough trees cycling moisture through the rainforest. That will cause the rainforest to dry out and degrade into a savanna.

Next month, Brazil and other countries will gather in Madrid, Spain, to cement the details of how they plan to meet their obligations to fight climate change under the Paris climate agreement. One of the most important tactics for limiting warming is preserving and restoring natural ecosystems like the Amazon rainforest. The rainforest stores and takes in a vast quantity of carbon, making a valuable global environmental asset.

However, Bolsonaro has said that international interest in the Brazilian Amazon is a threat to his country’s sovereignty. About 60 percent of the Amazon rainforest’s 2.1 million square mile range is within Brazil’s borders. “It is a fallacy to say that the Amazon is the heritage of humankind,” he told the United Nations General Assembly in September.

At the Madrid meeting, Brazil will likely face more pressure from other countries to curb deforestation, but it may demand more concessions from other countries to preserve the rainforest, like more favorable accounting rules for emissions reductions or more financial incentives.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2NXTslP

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started