Javier Milei won Argentina’s presidency last month by wielding a roaring chain saw on the campaign trail to symbolize the slashing he planned for the nation’s government.On Tuesday, two days after taking office, the self-proclaimed “anarcho-capitalist” unveiled deep spending cuts and a sharp devaluation of Argentina’s currency, carrying the struggling nation of 46 million into a stretch of austerity that he said would bring even more economic pain.Mr. Milei’s government said it would halt new infrastructure projects; lay off recently hired government workers; reduce energy and transportation subsidies for residents; cut payments to Argentina’s 23 provinces; and halve the number of federal ministries, from 18 to nine.It said it would also officially devalue the Argentine peso — $1 will now cost 800 pesos, instead of 350 — bringing the government exchange rate much closer to the market value of the peso. The move will likely lead to even sharper price increases in Argentina, which is already suffering under 140 percent inflation.Mr. Milei and many economists have said that such severe reforms are needed after years of government overspending, but that they would lead to even greater hardship in a nation enduring one of its worst economic crises, including a collapsing currency and rising rates of poverty and hunger.ImageMr. Milei wielded a chain saw at campaign appearances, symbolizing his promise of deep cuts in government spending.Credit...Luis Robayo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe package of measures “will increase inflation, will reduce income, will reduce activity and employment and it will increase poverty,” said Martin Rapetti, an economist at the University of Buenos Aires.“The question is, what is society’s tolerance for these measures?” he added. “The people are the ones who are going to pay.”Mr. Milei, 53, first became known to Argentines as a conservative economist and television pundit who railed against big government and promoted a strain of libertarianism, which he called anarcho-capitalism, that essentially says society is better without a state at all.So many Argentines were shocked last month when Mr. Milei, whose presidential campaign was once seen as a sideshow, won the election in a landslide.His combative style and embrace of conspiracy theories have drawn comparisons to Donald J. Trump, which he has embraced. He has called climate change a socialist plot, for instance, and downplayed the atrocities of Argentina’s bloody military dictatorship of the 1970s and 1980s. But many voters looked past such far-right politics and picked Mr. Milei for his promise of a sharp break with failed economic policies of the past.He centered his campaign on pledges to eliminate Argentina’s central bank and replace the peso with the U.S. dollar. Yet since winning the election, he has signaled that such an overhaul would have to wait until he could stabilize the economy. That, he has now warned, must happen through deep cuts.“In the short term, the situation will worsen, but then we’ll see the fruits of our efforts,” he said in his inaugural address on Sunday, to chants of “chain saw” from his supporters. “This is the last rough patch before starting the reconstruction of Argentina,” he added.ImageMr. Milei promised to eliminate Argentina’s central bank, but he signaled this week that the economy would have to be stabilized first.Credit...Luis Robayo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesOn Tuesday, he had his new economy minister, Luis Caputo, deliver the difficult details in an 18-minute prerecorded address. “We will be worse off than now for a few months, especially in terms of inflation,” he said.Mr. Caputo, a former Wall Street banker, argued that the drastic measures were necessary because Mr. Milei had inherited the “worst situation in history,” adding that Argentina “has always been addicted to deficits.”The country has been a symbol of economic dysfunction for decades, with bouts of severe inflation, debt defaults, bank runs, currency fluctuations and the political instability that often followed.Those cascading problems have largely been caused by severe economic mismanagement, by governments on both the left and the right. The latest economic crisis has its roots in the policies of the leftist former president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who financed large social programs and economic subsidies partly by draining reserves and simply printing more pesos.Argentines elected a conservative president, Mauricio Macri, in 2015 to try to reverse such spending, but his bid for major changes failed in the face of massive protests from unions and the poor, who rely on state assistance. Instead, the major legacy of Mr. Macri’s presidency was taking on the biggest loan ever from the International Monetary Fund, eventually amounting to $44 billion, which Argentina is now struggling to pay back.The I.M.F. cheered Mr. Milei’s moves on Tuesday, saying they “will help stabilize the economy and set the basis for more sustainable and private-sector led growth.”Alejandro Werner, a former I.M.F. official who helped negotiate Argentina’s loan, said that Mr. Macri had failed by trying to sell austerity measures as painless. Mr. Milei’s government “is not sugarcoating anything,” said Mr. Werner, who has written a book about Argentina’s economic struggles.He said that the reforms made economic sense but faced major political challenges. Mr. Milei is probably inducing a recession, Mr. Werner said, and that is likely to turn the public and politicians against him.ImageThe new economy minister, Luis Caputo, announced the spending cuts on Tuesday. Credit...Luis Robayo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIn an attempt to soften the blow for some, Mr. Milei’s government said that for the nation’s poorest families, support payments would be doubled to $50 a month and food subsidies raised by 50 percent, to as much as $85 a month.The government says that an average Argentine family’s necessities, including food, transportation and clothing, cost $430 a month. More than 40 percent of Argentine households make less than that, putting them below the poverty line, according to government statistics.The government left many details vague on Tuesday, such as how many state jobs would be eliminated and how much energy and transportation costs would rise.The government said it would lay off public workers hired within the last year. It also said it would not start new infrastructure projects and would cancel planned ones that had not yet begun. Argentina employed more than 450,000 people on public infrastructure projects this year.Subsidies have made energy and transportation very cheap for Argentines. Bus and train fares in Buenos Aires are currently 9 cents, for instance. If the subsidies are eliminated, according to the government, the bus would cost 88 cents and the train $1.38. Those fares would still be considered low in wealthier countries, but under the new government exchange rate, the average Argentine makes only $6,300 a year.

Enlarge this image Former national security adviser Michael Flynn leaves the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in late 2018. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images Former national security adviser Michael Flynn leaves the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in late 2018. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images Updated at 8:27 p.m. ETThe Justice Department is dropping its case against President Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia's then-ambassador to the United States.The about-face by the department brings to a close the long-running case against Flynn brought by former special counsel Robert Mueller during the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.It also deepened questions about the independence of the Justice Department under Attorney General William Barr, who has long expressed skepticism about the Mueller probe."A crime can not be established here," Barr said on CBS News on Thursday evening. "They did not have a basis for a counter-intelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage." Trump hailed the move on Thursday in remarks to reporters at the White House."He was an innocent man ... Now, in my book, he's an even greater warrior," Trump said.The president faulted former President Barack Obama's administration and said: "They're human scum ... It's treason."Long, strange tripFlynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversation with Russia's ambassador during the transition as Trump's camp was preparing to take the place of Obama's in the White House.He cooperated with authorities for months during the Russia investigation, and prosecutors hailed what they called the value of his contributions.Flynn admitted his wrongdoing in court and appeared for a time to be on track to be sentenced — with a recommendation in hand from prosecutors that he be treated leniently in view of his cooperation.But no sentence ever was issued.Instead a combination of events changed Flynn's trajectory: He shook up his legal team, and his new counselors advised that he break with prosecutors and fight the case. He withdrew a plea of guilty about actions he had admitted before a judge. National Security President Trump Believes Michael Flynn Will Be 'Totally Exonerated' And revelations about missteps by the Justice Department and FBI in the Russia investigation changed the political environment in Washington, along with the arrival of Attorney General William Barr, who viewed the Mueller legacy warily.A Justice Department review of Flynn's case ordered by Barr concluded that the interests of justice would not be served by going ahead with the prosecution, according to information from the department on Thursday.D.C. United States Attorney Timothy Shea wrote in a brief that the government now considers Flynn's false statements "not 'material' to any bona fide investigation," and that accordingly, it is asking to dismiss the case.Separately, Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said another U.S. attorney brought into the matter, Jeff Jensen of the Eastern District of Missouri, recommended that the Flynn case be spiked.Attorney General BarrThursday's developments were expected to bring more criticism of Barr, whom Democrats have called too eager to please Trump and too reluctant to be an independent officer of the law."The decision to drop the charges against General Flynn is outrageous," said Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee."The evidence against General Flynn is overwhelming. He pleaded guilty to lying to investigators. And now a politicized and thoroughly corrupt Department of Justice is going to let the president's crony simply walk away. Americans are right to be furious and worried about the continued erosion of our rule of law."In February, Barr interceded in sentencing recommendations in the case of another figure from the Russia imbroglio, political consultant Roger Stone, not long after Trump complained about what he called the harsh punishment contemplated in the matter. Law House Dems Say They're Looking Into Political Influence At Justice Department Justice Department officials said Trump hadn't directed Barr to intercede but the involvement by the agency's headquarters with a politically sensitive case was criticized as an improper overreach by the president and a concession by Barr.The attorney general went so far as to plead with Trump not to comment about pending cases — but the president has continued to do so.For Trump and supporters, Flynn was a victim of malicious overreach — by an FBI they said ran amok under Director James Comey.Although the broad findings of the bureau about Russia's interference in 2016 and since have been validated and revalidated, Trump and Republicans have highlighted Flynn's case and other examples of what they call abuse by investigators or prosecutors.

“An unfair and unfree parliamentary election will only deepen Venezuela’s crisis,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a Twitter post Friday. “All those who seek to deprive Venezuelans of a democratic future should consider themselves on notice.”Meanwhile, the European Union has cautiously encouraged Mr. Capriles’s negotiations, and is considering sending an electoral mission to monitor the vote, if it is postponed to a later date. Mr. Capriles’s bid is also supported by Maduro allies Turkey and Russia, which want to relax Western sanctions against Venezuela to boost their commercial activity in the country.Mr. Capriles, a wiry 48-year-old known for sporty outfits and folksy speech, now has to navigate complex geopolitical alliances as he tries to negotiate better electoral conditions and put together a coalition to confront Mr. Maduro’s Socialist party in December. He is facing a government-stacked electoral council and Supreme Court, a national lockdown, a demoralized electorate and deepening repression by security forces against government dissenters.His campaign is hobbled by the fact that Mr. Capriles himself is banned from running for office by Mr. Maduro because of unproven corruption charges, a paradox not lost on boycott supporters.Opposition strategists and people close to Mr. Capriles acknowledge privately that the opposition is unlikely to retain a congressional majority even in relatively clean elections because of Mr. Maduro’s tight grip on the country. More than five million Venezuelans, or one in six citizens, have left the country since the last congressional elections in 2014, depriving the opposition of its most committed voters and financial backers.Supporters of elections argue it is worth participating even in a fraudulent vote to highlight government abuses. They point to recent events in Belarus, where an unpopular authoritarian leader, Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, was accused of rigging August elections and is now struggling to hold on to power amid widespread protests and defections.

A $5 million donation from Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey will go toward thousands of “micro-grants” distributed by a COVID-19 relief program launched by former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew YangAndrew YangYang expands lead in NYC mayor race: poll Evelyn Yang pens children's book on sexual abuse, reveals she was sexually assaulted as a child Yang pitches plan to revive Broadway, live performances in New York MORE’s nonprofit Humanity Forward.Dorsey announced his donation on an episode of Yang’s podcast, “Yang Speaks,” that launched Thursday. Dorsey’s donation will go toward Humanity Forward’s direct cash assistance program, providing $250 micro-grants to nearly 20,000 people amid the coronavirus pandemic, the nonprofit announced Thursday. The billionaire CEO also announced his donation in a tweet Thursday. "$5mm to @HumanityForward to immediately distribute small cash grants of $250 to nearly 20,000 people who’ve lost their jobs or taken an economic hit as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thank you @AndrewYang!" he tweeted. $5mm to @HumanityForward to immediately distribute small cash grants of $250 to nearly 20,000 people who’ve lost their jobs or taken an economic hit as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thank you @AndrewYang! https://t.co/ABTJDpAcLx— jack (@jack) May 21, 2020The donation is part of Dorsey’s Start Small LLC, a $1 billion foundation he launched last month to support global COVID-19 relief efforts. “Not only will Jack’s donation directly impact tens of thousands of people in need during the current economic downturn, it will help Humanity Forward and our movement continue to make a case for Universal Basic Income (UBI) in the United States,” Yang said in a statement. “We know UBI for every American is possible, and this $5 million from Start Small is going to help demonstrate what is possible for families across the country.”Humanity Forward’s coronavirus relief fund plans to delivering both one-time and recurring basic income payments to individuals and families most impacted by the coronavirus crisis, according to the nonprofit's website.The program is in line with Yang’s support for universal basic income, which was a central proposal of his presidential primary campaign. Dorsey showed support for Yang’s campaign proposal during a conversation the entrepreneurs had on the Thursday podcast. “Every single field is going to be touched by automation, and UBI to me represents a floor. A floor that people can stand on, and have the knowledge and peace of mind that they could survive and eat and feed their children while they are learning how to transition into this new world,” Dorsey said.

Apple Inc is adapting to the pandemic. For instance, the company’s “Time Flies” event on Sept. 16 will be held virtually, just like its Worldwide Developers Conference in June. In India, the pandemic-linked innovation will soon include a move that could revamp its retail experience.The Cupertino-based company is reportedly launching an online store in the world’s second-largest smartphone market later this month. Apple did not respond to Quartz’s request for comment.This comes after the company spent years lobbying for direct retail stores in the country, and got approval for the same only last year. However, coronavirus threw a spanner in the works for physical stores.Experts say this is the perfect time for Apple to make an e-tail move. The company is witnessing favourable market reforms, it has boosted domestic production, and there has been a spike in demand for iPhone 11 and the new SE models. Meanwhile, anti-China sentiment on the ground has opened the window wider for Apple.“Direct-to-customer is a trend picking across most industries where they want to eliminate the middle distributors to improve their margin as well as control the supply chain to drive better experience and authenticity of products,” said Yugal Joshi, vice-president at consultant Everest Group.Apple’s first store opened in southern California in 2001. Now, the iPhone maker operates over 500 stores in 25 countries and employs over 123,000 retail employees. But the brand, which debuted in India way back in August 2008, is sold in the country mostly through third-party sellers.The lack of a direct store is often considered one of the reasons why Apple has struggled to cement its position in smartphone-crazy India.“Local regulations, high import taxes, variable national infrastructure, high costs, lack of carrier subsidies, and nationwide logistics across a large territory have long hampered Apple’s ability to sell its devices online in India,” said Neil Mawston, executive director at UK-based Strategy Analytics.But things have been looking up for Apple lately.In the October-December 2019, Apple was one of the fastest-growing brands in India driven by multiple price cuts on the iPhone XR, thanks to local manufacturing, according to Hong Kong-based Counterpoint Research. In the first three months of 2020, Apple grew 78% year-over-year driven by strong sales of iPhone 11 and multiple discounts on e-commerce websites like Flipkart and Amazon. In the ultra-premium segment (above Rs45,000), it was the leading brand with a market share of 55% between January and March this year.Going forward, the locally-assembled iPhone SE–the cheapest iPhone in India at Rs42,500 ($578)—could prove to be a formidable rival for the likes of Samsung and OnePlus.The online play is perhaps in anticipation of this boom since physical stores are likely to continue seeing less footfall because of Covid-19. “In a post-Covid world, we are going to see more sales across categories happening online and via e-commerce, and this online store can provide a big boost to Apple sales and revenues,” said Anindya Ghose, professor of technology, operations, and statistics at New York University’s Stern school of business.Moreover, the online store launch is coming right before the festive season starts in India when the demand for electronics, among other things, sharply increases. This will help Apple tap consumers who’ve been holding back on non-essential purchases amid the pandemic.“We could see a significant relieving of pent-up demand (for smartphones) during the Diwali holiday season, and Apple could be looking to capitalise on that,” said Advait Mardikar, research analyst at tech market intelligence firm Canalys.After the country’s foreign direct investment laws were relaxed last year, the elusive Apple stores are supposedly coming soon. Meanwhile, over a third of iPhone sales in India are through online marketplaces such as Amazon, Flipkart, Paytm Mall, and others, according to Sukriti Seth, an analyst at Noida-based TechSci Research.“Apple is betting that higher costs of developing its own stores and website in India can be offset by higher revenues and profits from affluent consumers,” Strategy Analytics’ Mawston said. “The Apple brand is more prestigious than Amazon or Flipkart, and wealthy urban consumers often prefer to deal directly with Apple.”Half a dozen experts Quartz spoke to also agree that the online stores are not the endgame. It’s the teaser before physical retail is part of daily life again. Especially since Apple sees its stores abroad as “town squares” more than shopping outlets. There are boardrooms visiting entrepreneurs can use. There’s free wifi. Some stores hold coding classes for kids. Others host workshops to educate teachers on how to incorporate technology into their classrooms. The Genius Bar made repairs and replacements quick and easy. A team of Creative Pros teaches customers skills spanning photography, music, art, coding, and more.Eventually, Apple could follow in the footsteps of sportswear brand Nike, which stopped direct retail on Amazon in late 2019 to forge a more personal relationship with customers. But in the past, removing the retail distributor hasn’t always worked. Household brands like Nestle and Kelloggs have had to stop direct store deliveries in the US for specific products because it was turning out to be too expensive.Apple’s future plans now hinge on the success of this first step. “…scaling online is not that easy, but Apple has deep pockets,” said Everest Group’s Joshi.

When the Apple Watch was new, Apple decided to market it as a fitness device. But it’s increasingly become a more general personal-wellness device with the addition of features like deep breathing, fall detection, and an electrocardiogram function. And now it’s able to track one of the most important elements of health: sleep. The Watch’s Sleep app is part of the new watchOS 7, available just in time for the release of the Watch Series 6 today. Much of the sleep functionality is shared between the Watch and an iPhone that’s running iOS 14, also available today. I installed the public betas of both systems to test out the sleep functions, and spoke to Apple about the thinking behind its features. I’ve never used smartphone-based sleep tracking before, but I found that the Sleep app prompted me to start thinking about sleep in the way I think about hitting my step goals or exercise goals for the day. Rather than overloading me with too much data, Apple’s simple approach focuses on creating a healthier bedtime routine. The Sleep app is focused on creating habits that will help you get to bed on time. [Photo: Mark Sullivan]Sleep, Apple’s wayThe sleep features of the Watch are pretty basic—but that’s by design. Apple doesn’t get hung up on giving you a ton of data to fuss over. Apple tells me that some of its employees who tested the new sleep functions ended up stressing out if they were exposed to too much sleep data. The awareness that they were not “performing” well against their sleep routine and goals actually made it harder for them to get to sleep. That feedback informed Apple’s approach, which is less about metrics and more about helping users develop a habit or ritual around bedtime. You tell the app how much you’d like to sleep every night. Based on that target, the app asks you to set a normal time for going to bed. It then sets up a personalized routine that, if followed, facilitates you reaching your sleep goals. In the Sleep app, you’ll also find Apple’s positive reinforcement approach to coaching. If you hit your goals, it’ll send you a congratulatory message. If you haven’t been doing so well, you won’t get any messages. If you do want to get into the weeds on how you’ve been sleeping, Apple will provide you with some information in the Health app. You can see, for example, when you finally laid down your phone at night, and the time interval before you picked it up in the morning. Apple calls this “time in bed.” You can also see a more precise reading of when the sensors on the Watch, including the heart rate monitor, detected that you actually fell off to sleep. If you want to drill down a bit, you can open the Health app on your iPhone to see when you woke during the night. You can also track your heart rate readings throughout the night. The Health app provides weekly and monthly averages for both “time in bed” and “time asleep.”In the Health app you can drill down to see exactly when you slept and woke during the night. The app also tracks your sleep duration and consistency over time. [Screenshot: Mark Sullivan]Notably, the Sleep app does not give you a sleep score, like wearables from Fitbit, Amazon, and Garmin do. Nor does the Sleep app offer numbers for average heart rate during sleep, sleep stages, or average sleep respiration. In contrast, the Fitbit Charge 3, Amazon Halo, and Garmin Vivoactive 4S track sleep stages, like light, deep, and REM sleep. The Fitbit Charge 3 can track naps, not just night sleep, and Amazon’s new Halo wearable tracks skin temperature while sleeping.But Apple announced Tuesday that the newest Apple Watch, the Series 6, has a sensor on its back that has big implications for sleep tracking. The sensor reads blood oxygenation (SpO2), which represents the level of oxygen being carried by the red blood cells from the lungs to the rest of the body. The new sensor shines infrared light through the skin and into the bloodstream, some of which bounces back to a sensor on the Watch, then an algorithm infers the oxygen level from the color of the blood.Blood oxygenation levels add another facet to the measurement of sleep quality in watchOS 7. According to Jeff Williams, Apple’s chief operating officer, the Watch can take periodic blood oxygen readings during the night (when the wearer’s arm is stationary and relaxed), then add the readings to the Health app on the iPhone. The Health app also shows the nightly range of SpO2 readings, and the nightly average. Lowered or highly variable blood oxygen levels during sleep can point to a range of health problems including sleep apnea.Apple stipulates that the new SpO2 feature isn’t regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and isn’t meant for medical use, and the company provides no accuracy data. But if the new blood oximetry sensor is like the Watch’s other sensors, it’s probably highly accurate.The Watch Series 6 has a pulse oximeter to measure blood oxygen, which could be useful in sleep tracking. [Animation: courtesy of Apple]Pulse oximeters are nothing exotic; Walgreens sells the kind that clip on the end of your finger. But having one in a device that you can wear through the night is an advantage.Nor is Apple first to the party with pulse oximetry. Fitbit, for example, offers an SpO2 watch face for its Ionic, Versa, and Sense smartwatches that displays a nightly SpO2 range and average.Transitioning to sleepThe central invention of the Sleep app is its “wind down” period before sleep. You tell the app how long you want that period to be (the default is 30 minutes), and henceforth within this period the Watch and the iPhone work together to help you stop doing things like taking calls or texting or tweeting. As numerous studies have shown, it’s these kinds of activities that can hinder your transition into sleep. When your prescribed wind-down period begins, the phone silences calls, hides notifications, and puts up a new wind-down screen on top of your normal lock screen. This new screen is black with dimmed blue lettering. It shows only basic information like the time and date, a Good Evening/Do Not Disturb message, any alarms you’ve set, and, at the bottom, the quick buttons for camera and flashlight. There’s a “dismiss” button that gets you to your normal lock screen if you need to use the phone. When the wind-down period ends and your scheduled sleep time begins, the message on the dimmed screen changes to read “Sleep Well” while all the other items remain the same. After a while you notice that having to get through two screens—a wind-down screen and a lock screen—is itself a mild deterrent to using your phone. The Watch can now serve as your alarm clock. [Photo: courtesy of Apple]Waking upApple also built a wake-up routine to smoothly transition you out of sleep. That starts with the alarm functions. If you’ve worn your Watch to bed, you get a series of little taps on your wrist from the device’s haptic feedback mechanism. It starts with some gentle triplets, then moves to a slightly more insistent series of four taps. If you’re still not up, it starts a long cadence of slightly harder taps. If you’re not wearing your Watch, the phone will play one of the wake-up alarms Apple added to iOS two years ago. The default alarm I’ve been waking to features a simple two-note piano cadence (it sounds a bit like a Coldplay song), which gradually becomes more orchestrated and forceful. I hate Coldplay, so I’m up and pounding that dismiss button almost immediately. You can also set up your Watch so that you get little knocks on your wrist that work in concert with the alarm music from the phone, Apple says. When you wake up your phone, you see a Good Morning screen that gives you the time, date, temperature outside, and the high and low temperature for the day. If you hit your sleep goal for the night, it’ll give you a little positive reinforcement message like “Congratulations, you reached your sleep goal for the night.”iOS 14 users will be able to use the wind-down and wake-up features through the iPhone’s Health app—they’ll just miss out on precise data about when exactly they fell asleep.The battery questionYou might be wondering how the Watch’s battery can support all-day and all-night wear. Before the addition of the sleep functions, I normally just put my (Series 5) Watch on its cradle to charge overnight. The battery in the new Watch Series 6 isn’t materially bigger or more powerful than the one in the Series 5–both devices can last about 18 hours on one charge (this can vary a lot based on your usage habits). However, Apple says the Series 6 charges 40% faster than the Series 5. The Series 5 can charge to 80% in 90 minutes, but the Series 6 can charge to 100% in the same time.While testing the sleep functions, Apple employees normally charged the Watch during the hours before going to bed, Apple says. Some charged it in the morning if the battery level dropped to below 30% during the night. Accordingly, Watches running watchOS 7 will display the battery charge level if it’s below 30% either before you go to bed or when you wake up in the morning. And you’ll be alerted soon enough that you have time to charge up before going to bed or before leaving the house in the morning.Like it often does, Apple appears to be starting slow with the sleep functions—putting the most basic ones in the first version of the app, with the intention of expanding them over time in later updates. I haven’t used the Sleep app long enough to know if it will help me change my bad sleeping habits. But just the fact that my Watch, and my iPhone, are now talking to me about sleep is making the issue more top-of-mind for me. And that’s a good start.

Brexit was supposed to be about taking back control, re-asserting Britain’s authority over what goes on within its borders and breaking free from outside meddling in our affairs. But if the proposed £30bn acquisition of Arm Holdings, a global leader in processor design, by California’s Nvidia is waved through by Boris Johnson, then, far from reclaiming sovereignty, Britain would be forgoing it. Arm may be owned by Japan’s SoftBank but its headquarters are in Cambridge and its intellectual property is overwhelmingly British. That means Arm is not subject to US export laws. But it would be if Silicon Fen’s biggest company ended up in American hands.Competition over control of key technologies has seen states, and the EU, internationalise their standards and try to impose their regulations on other countries. The US is at the forefront of such practices. Monday was the last day that US-origin technology shipments could leave ports destined for use by Huawei, because in Washington’s eyes the company’s links to the Chinese government make its telecoms equipment a security threat. Arm’s designs power more than 95% of smartphones. What if the White House decided Arm could no longer supply Chinese companies or European – or even UK – ones?There are more acute concerns. Nvidia, the world’s most valuable chip company, says it will keep Arm in Cambridge. These assurances are not legally binding. In the undesirable event that the sale goes ahead they ought to be. About 2,500 people work in Arm’s Cambridge headquarters and many more in other UK cities. There would be a brain drain to Silicon Valley. Nvidia has form: it bought and closed down another UK semiconductor company. Its ownership would threaten Arm’s business model. The Cambridge outfit makes money by licensing its processor designs. Nvidia is one of Arm’s customers. Other chipmakers that rely on unfettered access to Arm’s cutting-edge technology would fret about losing it to a rival manufacturer. It might also spur the adoption of open-source alternatives to Arm’s processors.Chip technology is at a turning point. Moore’s Law – that shrinking processor size would double its performance every couple of years – has slowed to a crawl. Chip components are now atom-sized. Yet Arm’s skill in design, via clever stacking, could reaccelerate processor power. Arm’s adoption by Apple and Fujitsu means that it could dominate the global market in personal computers and vast data centres, which are the backbone of the internet. Hermann Hauser, Arm’s co-founder, is right to say the company’s sale surrenders the “UK’s most powerful trade weapon to the US” rendering “Britain a US vassal state”.Decades of ministerial unwillingness to distinguish among activities that create, redistribute and destroy value has cost this country dear. Arm’s sale is not a done deal. It should be halted and ministers ought to force it to be taken public, with the state holding an “anchor” share. Mr Johnson says reverting to World Trade Organization rules would be a “good outcome” for Britain. But these were designed for textiles not technology. Britain should protect prosperity-inducing innovation. Washington may be angered. But if the US is free to close its market to Huawei, then why can’t Britain defend its national interest over Arm? Should Mr Johnson refuse to act, his Brexit would seem to be about destroying rather than creating value for the UK.

SEE NEW POSTSBen Kamisar and Julia JesterAndrew Yang files paperwork for New York City mayoral bidWASHINGTON — Former Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang has filed paperwork with New York City to run for mayor, marking the next political chapter for the entrepreneur who mounted an underdog bid for president in 2020. Yang, who had been reportedly eyeing a bid for New York City mayor, filed on Wednesday with the city's Campaign Finance Board. An affiliated committee, Yang For New York, which is associated with a top Yang aide, also registered with the city board.Yang has not yet commented on the filing, but a source close to Yang told NBC that the filing is "just procedural" and that "no decision has been made," but that since Yang was "seriously considering it" that filing "was the necessary next step."Andrew Yang speaks during a forum on gun safety in Des Moines, Iowa, on Aug. 10, 2019.Stephen Maturen / Getty Images fileWith New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio term-limited, the mayoral race is expected to be wide open. New York Democratic Rep. Max Rose, who lost his re-election bid this year, is exploring a bid. Other prominent candidates include New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer, former de Blasio aide and police oversight board head Maya Wiley (a former MSNBC legal analyst), former Housing and Urban Development Sec. Shaun Donovan, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and New York City Sanitation Commissioner Kathryn Garcia.Yang announced his 2020 presidential campaign in late 2017, far before almost any other major candidate. And while he was initially viewed as a long-shot, his campaign caught a jolt of momentum as he pitched his plan for all Americans to receive monthly $1,000 checks as part of a universal basic income.He ultimately dropped out of the race after the New Hampshire primary and started a nonprofit aimed at advancing his ideas, including universal basic income. He endorsed President-elect Joe Biden in March.For the first time, New York City will be running the mayoral primary races with ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to rank a slate of candidates. If no candidate wins a majority vote, the votes for the lowest-finishing candidates will be reallocated to their next preferred candidate, with the process repeating until one candidate hits a majority. Ben KamisarDNC will elect new chair at Jan. 21 virtual Winter MeetingWASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee will pick its new chair during its virtual Winter Meeting on Jan. 21, NBC News has learned, one day after President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated. The party informed committee-members today of the date of its Winter Meeting, one of the seasonal gatherings where it conducts party business, a DNC aide told NBC. The centerpiece of the Winter Meeting will be the party's officer elections, which will include the election of a new chair. Current DNC Chairman Tom Perez has said he will not serve another four-year term, opening the vacancy at the top of the organization. With Biden entering the White House, he'll have significant sway over who leads the party. While there are no official candidates yet, former South Carolina Senate nominee Jaime Harrison has expressed openness to running, telling The Washington Post last month "If that's something that they are interested in me doing, I'll definitely take a good look." Harrison proved to be a strong fundraiser during his failed bid for the Senate this past cycle, raising more money in a single fundraising quarter than any candidate in American history. He ultimately lost that race to Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham by about 10 points. The Democrat has sought to lead the party before — he ran for DNC chair after the 2016 election, and Perez tapped him to be the DNC's associate chairman after that election. Before that, he led the South Carolina Democratic Party. And he's close with one of Biden's key allies, South Carolina Democratic Rep. James Clyburn, after having worked as one of his top aides in the House. While other DNC seasonal meetings include various caucus forums and committee work, including the work that helps to shape the party's rules, the party will just focus on electing its new officers during the January session. On top of the chairperson's race, the party will also be electing vice chairs, secretaries, treasurers and national finance chair. Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez speaks before the start of the Democratic presidential primary debate on Feb. 25, 2020, in Charleston, S.C.Patrick Semansky / APPerez will leave the party after one term as its leader, in which the party won back both the House and the White House in the 2018 and 2020 elections respectively. The former Labor Secretary during the Obama administration, he inherited a DNC in turmoil after the party's loss in the 2016 presidential election, as well as after hacked emails showing some key party leaders deriding Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders were released. Perez faced criticism from some Democrats and DNC members for the party's fundraising in the early years of his tenure. And even as the party won back the White House in November, Democrats lost ground in the House and underperformed its targets in the Senate (control of that body will now be decided in the two runoff Senate elections in Georgia). But Perez and top Democrats have pointed to the steps taken to dig the party out of its 2016 hole to help its eventual nominee, Biden, defeat President Trump, including investments in organizing staff and its voter file, emphasizing targeting key constituencies, and helping to fund expansive voting-rights litigation effort across the country. Ben KamisarIowa Democrat Rita Hart files challenge to six-vote defeat in the HouseWASHINGTON — Iowa Democrat Rita Hart is officially contesting Iowa's Second Congressional District election, asking the House of Representatives to recount ballots and arguing that she would have won but for lawful votes left uncounted. Hart ran against Republican state Sen. Mariannette Miller-Meeks in November's election, and the state's election officials certified the Republican's narrow victory, by just six votes, late last month.But in an official "notice of contest" filed with the House, Hart's campaign claims it has identified "at least 22 lawful ballots" that were left out of the count (the vast majority of those votes, but not all, were for Hart). The campaign says that if those votes were correctly added to the tally, the Democrat would have won.The request goes on to request a "hand recount of every ballot" to be sure all votes are captured. "We believe that in a democratic system, that it is important that this process be abided by, and that every vote be counted. It is better to get it done right than to simply ignore the fact that voters have been disenfranchised because it might be more convenient," Mark Elias, the Hart campaign's lawyer, said in a briefing with reporters. Miller-Meeks and fellow Republicans slammed the decision."Every vote has been counted under Iowa law, and recounted under Iowa law. The canvas of votes was approved unanimously by a bipartisan board, and certified by the state of Iowa. I'm proud that a narrow majority of you elected me," Miller-Meeks said in a video statement Tuesday. "Unfortunately, Rita Hart now wants Washington politicians to override the will of Iowa voters and disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Iowa voters." And in a statement, National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Bob Salera called the decision to petition the House a "naked power grab."The challenge is the latest twist in what's slated to be one of the tightest House races in modern American history. First, the state's unofficial results found Hart 47 votes behind Miller-Meeks, but the margin narrowed to six votes after a recount requested by Hart. Ultimately, the House has control over who it decides to seat, so it will be up to the Democratic-controlled body as to whether to investigate and ultimately decide who should be seated. One high-profile example of the process happened in 1984, when the House conducted a recount that ultimately overturned the results in Indiana's 8th Congressional District. With a few House races still outstanding and likely to be settled by a handful of votes (with potential legal maneuvering to come), here's a look back at one of the closest, most contested and most politically consequential House races of all time: Indiana's Bloody 8th in 1984...— Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) November 25, 2020 The request for the House to weigh in comes as Democrats have criticized President Donald Trump for claiming, without evidence, that he is the rightful winner of the 2020 presidential election, even despite all votes being certified and electoral votes already cast.The 176-page challenge from the Hart campaign specifically identifies ballots the campaigns believe should have been counted, and includes affidavits from those involved in the counting process, as well as from voters. The campaign says the votes weren't counted for a variety of reasons, including an error by an election worker, a misplaced signature, and ballots not being sealed properly. Asked about the GOP criticism of bringing the challenge to the Democratic-controlled House, Elias said that the move wasn't partisan, but that they were only following the process laid out in federal law to contest federal elections. And he added that while the ballots he identified were not counted for a handful of reasons, he’s not suggesting any animus. “Elections are, under the best of circumstances, challenging to administer. In the middle of a pandemic, they are even more challenging,” he said. Ben KamisarLarry Hogan celebrates bipartisan Covid relief deal in new 'No Labels' adWASHINGTON — Maryland RepublicanGov. Larry Hogan is appearing in a new ad campaign applauding the "bipartisan leadership" that led to Congress passing a Covid-relief deal over months of stalemate, NBC News has learned. The new ad campaign is from No Labels, the moderate advocacy group that champions bipartisanship, which named Hogan its national co-chairman earlier this month. In the ad — on which No Labels says it will spend $350,000 to run on cable and digital across the country — Hogan pitches a hopeful message about Congress' way forward, calling the agreement "how our government needs to work," by putting partisan "labels aside and put the country first." "This is what real, bipartisan leadership looks like. This relief package will save lives, save businesses and save jobs. It's what Americans have been waiting for," Hogan says in the ad. "So many people are hurting, and I know it's hard to see our way through this. But if we unite as Americans and work together, I promise you, we can come out of this stronger and better than ever." Lawmakers have been struggling to reach a consensus on a new round of relief for months, but broke the logjam over the weekend. But a deal materialized over the last few weeks, and Congress ultimately passed an almost $900 billion relief package late Monday. The deal includes new stimulus checks and an extension of the expanded unemployment benefits, and also provides more funds for areas including the vaccine rollout, for schools and for businesses. No Labels supports the House Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan group that has been pushing for compromise in the House on Covid relief and other issues. A handful of the top negotiators in the latest round of Covid relief in the Senate are allies of the group too. In a statement to NBC, Ryan Clancy, the chief strategist for No Labels, applauded those allies who "kept working" when "congressional leaders weren't talking, and a deal seemed impossible" because "they knew the stakes and that millions of Americans desperately needed help."This deal simply would not have happened if not for the work of this group. So No Labels wanted to highlight this rare and welcome act of bipartisanship but just as important, to let Americans know we can see a lot more of this in 2021 if we demand it," Clancy said. The new ad appearance comes in the early weeks of Hogan's term at the helm of the organization. The Maryland Republican has sought to stake out an independent lane in recent years within a GOP dominated by support for President Donald Trump. The former head of the National Governor's Association, Hogan has been out-front on his state's response to the coronavirus pandemic, and told "Meet the Press" in July that he's a "lifelong Republican who has not been afraid to stand up and disagree with the president on any number of issues."Full Hogan: 'We're not going to be rushed into' school re-openingJuly 12, 202007:41"I don't know what the future holds in November, but I know that the Republican party is going to be looking at what happens after President Trump and whether that's in four months or in four years. And I think they're going to be looking to, “How do we go about becoming a bigger tent party?” he said at the time. Marianna SotomayorHere's where Joe Biden fell short with critical Hispanic votersWASHINGTON — In the early days of the 2020 Democratic primaries, former Vice President Joe Biden's campaign began polling to learn why their candidate was struggling to gain traction with Hispanic voters, in comparison to primary rivals like Bernie Sanders. Their data found that many Hispanics knew little about Biden — remembering him as Barack Obama’s vice president, and almost nothing else. That lack of familiarity spelled trouble once Biden became the Democratic nominee, and left him vulnerable to President Trump and other Republicans' campaign to paint Biden and other Democrats as supporting socialist policies that could hurt Latinos economically. Nationally, Biden fell just one percentage point behind 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton among Latinos, 65 to 66 percent respectively per exit polls. But several factors — like varying ideologies, countries of origin and where they live in the U.S. — influence the political leanings of Latinos, especially in key battleground states where Republican investment and communication infrastructure are prominent. Among Latino men: Biden won 59 percent, a drop-off of four points from Clinton in 2016. The Trump campaign had prioritized outreach to them after identifying Latino business owners could be persuaded by Trump's economic message.Joe Biden speaks about the disproportionate ways coronavirus has impacted Latinos in Nevada during a campaign stop at the East Las Vegas Community Center on Oct. 9, 2020.Kevin Lamarque / ReutersThe Biden campaign also did little door-to-door campaigning during the pandemic, which may have also affected his ability to persuade a group that doesn't have a set party affiliation. Biden advisers insist the campaign jumped into action when they realized Biden wasn't gaining ground with Hispanic voters. They allotted millions for paid media to micro-target Latino communities. And Biden still won an overwhelming majority of voters against Trump nationally. Matt Baretto, whose polling firm Latino Decisions assisted the Biden campaign, said the campaign had done a good job reintroducing the candidate to Hispanic voters by describing his nearly-five decade political record and his commitment to his family and Catholic faith.But he said the campaign, and the Democratic Party broadly, needed to do much more.“You can only give the campaign so much criticism and credit. This is something that the party as a whole needs to be engaged with consistently from now on starting the day after inauguration,” Baretto said.The Biden campaign’s chief strategist Mike Donilon echoed that point in a recent press briefing, noting that the party and Biden’s White House “are focused on and fully intend to strengthen” their outreach to the Latino community.In Arizona and Nevada, investments and cohesion between Hispanic grassroots groups and state Democratic parties helped put Biden over the top. And Hispanic turnout also jumped in other battleground states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. But Biden saw a concerning dip in Hispanic support in Florida where Republicans worked to convince Miami-Dade County’s Cuban-American community that Biden was sympathetic to socialism. Biden won the county by just 7.3 points, a 23 point swing from Clinton’s total in 2016. And in south Texas, the once heavily Democratic Rio Grande Valley along the border with Mexico saw a steep drop in support for Biden compared to Clinton in 2016. Strategists there said Trump's law enforcement message turned many voters in the region away from Biden even as Biden publicly stated that he didn't support the "defund the police" effort. “A lot of the border patrol, law enforcement are heavily Latino in the Rio Grande valley. So when you are talking about ‘defunding the police’ and you don’t stand up to those types of rhetoric, then it leaves an opening for Republicans,” Domingo Garcia, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), said during a post-election virtual press conference in November. Joe Biden's supporters promote the importance of the Latino vote in the majority Hispanic neighbourhood of Maryvale in Phoenix on Oct. 31, 2020.Edgard Garrido / ReutersHispanic grassroots operatives and campaign officials told NBC News the campaign and party lacked a firm effort to combat attacks and misinformation spreading about Biden. Advisers also saw Biden fall victim to a trend they believe has badly served Democrats for some time: Assuming Latino voters would support them because of Trump and Republicans’ anti-immigrant rhetoric. While Trump’s attacks on illegal immigration and his effort to build a border wall with Mexico may have alienated many Hispanic voters, others were attracted to his economic record and warnings that Democrats would slow the economy. Trump’s messages were quickly and repeatedly disseminated through established conservative Spanish language T.V., radio and social media channels, as well as messaging platforms like WhatsApp.Multiple aides said they pushed Biden to forcefully disassociate himself from socialism, which he did often when pressed in interviews. But he mentioned his record of taking on dictators in Central America just once in a speech in Miami — a missed opportunity, they say, since he gave nine speeches in Florida ahead of Election Day.Former campaign officials, Hispanic operatives and state party leaders also said Biden needed to convey a much stronger economic message to voters who liked Trump’s record. And Biden’s support for strict regulations to control the pandemic, including the temporary closures of some businesses, left many voters fearing that they would lose their jobs if he were president, strategists said.“I think it’s deeper than saying Biden needed to do more. It’s that the Democratic Party needs to assess how we can more effectively communicate our answers to misinformation,” Baretto said. “So let’s find that message and have other Latino Democrats communicating and sending the leaders of your party to do that. They should be echoing it.”Priscilla Thompson and Julia JesterBiden cuts ad with Warnock and Ossoff for Georgia Senate runoffsWARNER ROBINS, Ga. — Democratic Senate hopefuls Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock are out with a new ad featuring none other than President-Elect Joe Biden as they look to give Democrats their second statewide win in a span of a few short months. The minute-long ad opens with Biden speaking straight to camera, telling Georgians that while "things are tough right now," that “help is on the way,” outlining his plan to combat COVID, get folks vaccinated, and help business.But Biden pivots to the Senate race, connecting Democratic success next month to his agenda. “Let me be clear, I need Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff in the United States Senate to get this done," he says, adding: “There are folks in Congress threatening to do everything in their power to block our efforts,” and implorign Georgians to vote for the Democrats in their respective races. Ossoff is running against GOP Sen. David Perdue and Warnock against GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler. While former President Barack Obama narrated an ad in support of both candidates, this is Biden's first, and it comes days after the president-elect joined the pair for a rally in Georgia. Marianna SotomayorInauguration committee announces limited attendance amid Covid-19 pandemicWASHINGTON — President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration will look more like a State of the Union, with the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies announcing Tuesday that they'll limit tickets and guests for lawmakers. In a statement released Wednesday, Rules Committee Chairman Roy Blunt noted that the JCCIC has concluded alongside public health and medical experts that they will strictly “limit attendance at the 59th Inaugural Ceremonies to a live audience that resembles a State of the Union” address.Workers construct the stage for the presidential inauguration in Washington on Dec. 1, 2020.Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images fileWhile the JCCIC traditionally gives out 200,000 tickets for members of Congress to distribute to constituents, the committee will now only distribute tickets to members of the 117th Congress and one guest to see the ceremonies on the Capitol’s West Front. Constituents, however, can still request memorabilia tickets and program packets, but they will not allow for access to the Capitol grounds.The latest safety protocols follows the Presidential Inaugural Committee announcement Tuesday that they are also planning a largely virtual inauguration and parade to encourage supporters celebrate at home rather than gather in Washington, D.C.Abigail Williams and Josh LedermanState Department to receive first Covid vaccines this weekWASHINGTON — The State Department will be receiving its first doses of the Covid-19 vaccine this week, according to internal agency communications obtained by NBC News. The “very limited number,” of the vaccines received by the department in the first tranche will be administered to a small prioritized group of staff undertaking “mission critical” work, according to an email sent to employees Tuesday by Under Secretary of State Brian Bulatao. He did not say how many doses would be immediately available to diplomats, but noted more would arrive “incrementally over the next several months.”Frontline medical personnel are among those first to receive the vaccine as well as State Department employees serving on the frontlines in Kabul, Afghanistan; Baghdad, Iraq and Mogadishu, Somalia, where poor healthcare systems put them even more at risk. Diplomatic Security agents in Washington, D.C. performing critical operations and coming into close contact with the Secretary of State will also be a priority for vaccinations. A vial of Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine that receive emergency use authorization is seen at George Washington University Hospital, in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 14, 2020.Jacquelyn Martin / Pool via Reuters“While we would have preferred to vaccinate our entire Department workforce at once, we will have to do so incrementally based on vaccine availability,” Bulatao said in the State Department-wide email. In the meantime, Bulatao advised employees “to continue to wear face coverings, physically distance, and follow [Department] guidance.”Bulatao noted the State Department is working closely with Operation Warp Speed, as well as the Department of Health and Human Services, and will “deploy the Covid-19 vaccine to the broader workforce as soon as it is made available.”A State Department spokesperson declined to expand on the timing or logistics of agency’s plan due to “operational sensitivity,” but said vaccine distribution “will allow the Department to advance U.S. national security interests and ensure America’s essential diplomacy continues unimpeded.”The State Department prioritization comes as officials across the U.S. government, in particular at national security agencies, are working to decide how and when to dole out the vaccine to critical staffers while avoiding the perception that government workers are skipping the line. President Donald Trump has said White House staffers should get it “somewhat later in the program” and that he isn’t currently scheduled to do so until “the appropriate time.” Two sources familiar with the matter said Tuesday that Vice President Mike Pence will get the vaccine by week’s end. Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller received the Covid-19 vaccine on camera on Monday at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.Melissa HolzbergNina Turner announces bid for potential Ohio House special electionWASHINGTON — Former Ohio state senator Nina Turner announced her campaign for Rep. Marcia Fudge's, D-Ohio, seat on Tuesday. Turner was the co-chair of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign. Fudge's seat will become vacant if she is confirmed as President-elect Joe Biden's Housing and Urban Development secretary. Biden announced Fudge as his choice to lead HUD on Dec. 8. Turner touched on her Cleveland roots — a large part of Ohio's 11th district — in her announcement video. "I am a daughter of Cleveland. I was raised in this community by parents who worked very hard. My mother was a nurse's aid, my father a truck driver. I can relate to people who live in the 11th Congressional District from all walks of life," Turner said. It’s official! I am running for Congress. I am asking you to join me today as part of a historic grassroots campaign--one that centers the voices of everyday working Ohioans. We have so much to do and I hope we can do it together! Please donate 👇🏾https://t.co/BXxAz1pNDt pic.twitter.com/Hw5ENHR7LI— Nina Turner (@ninaturner) December 15, 2020 The district has been represented by just two representatives since 2000: Fudge and former Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Turner, like Fudge and Jones, is also a woman of color. Turner served as a state senator from 2008 to 2014 in the Cleveland area, and was on the Cleveland city council prior to that. She has already amassed support from Sanders campaign alums like California Rep. Ro Khanna and the progressive group, Our Revolution, that was created after Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign. Gov. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, will call a special election if and when Fudge formally leaves her seat to lead HUD. Ben KamisarGOP holds spending edge five weeks into Senate runoffsWASHINGTON — Republicans hold a narrow TV and radio spending edge in the Georgia Senate runoffs, an edge powered by a big boost from outside groups. There's already been about $220 million spent on the airwaves in both races combined, according to the ad-tracking firm AdImpact, with more than $400 million in total already slated to be spent over the two-month runoff period. That type of spending, in such a small period, means that Georgians have already been inundated with TV ads — AdImpact estimates that as of last Thursday, every Georgian adult (aged 35 or above) had seen about 328 Senate runoff ads already. Republicans overall have a larger spending advantage in the special runoff, which pits GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler against Democratic Rev. Raphael Warnock. Republicans have spent $60.9 million through Monday to the Democrats' $50.4 million. The GOP spending edge in the race between GOP Sen. David Perdue and Democrat Jon Ossoff is smaller — $55.7 million to $53 million. Supporters of Sens. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., and David Perdue, R-Ga., wait for the arrival of Vice President Mike Pence at his Defend the Majority Rally on Dec. 10, 2020, in Augusta, Ga.Curtis Compton / APUnder the hood, both races are following similar trends, with the Democratic candidates the largest individual TV ad spenders in their races, but with Republican outside groups filling the gap, and then some. Warnock leads the pack in his race with $37.3 million spent on TV and radio ads, with Loeffler at $25 million. But the GOP-aligned American Crossroads is right behind her at $24.8 million, with the top Democratic outside group Georgia Honor at $11.8 million. Ossoff similarly is outpacing Perdue, spending $41.1 million to the Republican's $22.7 million. Senate Leadership Fund, the GOP-aligned group, spent $22.5 million, with the Democrat-aligned Georgia Way spending $10.6 million. Ben KamisarIn-person early voting in Georgia Senate runoffs begins MondayWASHINGTON — Voters are voting in person in Georgia's Senate runoff.Georgians could already vote absentee to choose between Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler and Democratic Rev. Raphael Warnock, as well as GOP Sen. David Perdue and Democrat Jon Ossoff. But Monday marked the first day when voters could cast their ballots for the pivotal elections in person. Voters line up for the first day of early voting in Atlanta on Dec. 14, 2020.Jessica McGowan / Getty ImagesEarly, in-person voting made up 54 percent of total votes in the Senate races’ first round, so it’s going to be important for the candidates to bank these votes (you can see more of the breakdown at the Secretary of State’s website, they refer to it as “advanced voting”).For what it’s worth, GOP Sen. David Perdue won those advanced votes in his race by a margin of about 54 percent to 46 percent. In a massive field (reminder: the special election held a jungle primary), GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler and GOP Rep. Doug Collins, the two top GOP candidates, won a combined 49 percent, per the Secretary of State’s website, while Warnock, far-and-away the top Democrat in the crowded field, winning 30 percent (the second-place Democrat, Deborah Jackson, had another 7 percent of the early votes). Cobb County, the state's most populous county, announced last week it would add two more locations for early voting in response to "concerns" that its initial plan of more limited locations could hamper the ability of minority voters to make have access to the polls. Load More Posts

Enlarge this image Pete Buttigieg, seen in 2019, will be nominated as Joe Biden's transportation secretary, the transition team announced. Buttigieg is a former mayor of South Bend, Ind., and Democratic presidential candidate. Bebeto Matthews/AP hide caption toggle caption Bebeto Matthews/AP Pete Buttigieg, seen in 2019, will be nominated as Joe Biden's transportation secretary, the transition team announced. Buttigieg is a former mayor of South Bend, Ind., and Democratic presidential candidate. Bebeto Matthews/AP Updated at 7:37 p.m. ETPresident-elect Joe Biden plans to nominate former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg to be his secretary of transportation, the transition team announced on Tuesday.Buttigieg, one of Biden's former rivals in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, is the first openly LGBTQ person to be nominated for a permanent Cabinet position. "Mayor Pete Buttigieg is a patriot and a problem-solver who speaks to the best of who we are as a nation," Biden said in a statement. "This position stands at the nexus of so many of the interlocking challenges and opportunities ahead of us. Jobs, infrastructure, equity, and climate all come together at the DOT, the site of some of our most ambitious plans to build back better. I trust Mayor Pete to lead this work with focus, decency, and a bold vision — he will bring people together to get big things done." Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris are expected to introduce Buttigieg in a Wednesday event.Annise Parker, president and CEO of the LGBTQ Victory Institute, called the nomination a "milestone" and said in a statement that "its impact will reverberate well-beyond the department he will lead. It distances our nation from a troubled legacy of barring out LGBTQ people from government positions and moves us closer to the President-elect's vision of a government that reflects America." Biden Transition Updates Biden To Name Gina McCarthy, Former EPA Chief, As Domestic Climate Coordinator Biden Transition Updates Biden Plans To Nominate Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm As Energy Secretary Elections Biden Administration: Here's Who Has Been Named So Far As head of the Department of Transportation, Buttigieg would oversee an agency of some 53,000 employees, with oversight of the nation's airline industry, along with railroads, commercial trucking, mass transit and pipelines. It could become a high-visibility post for the 38-year-old Buttigieg, if Biden follows through on his campaign promises to rebuild the nation's infrastructure.On his transition website, Biden says he will work to "create millions of good, union jobs rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure — from roads and bridges to green spaces and water systems to electricity grids and universal broadband — to lay a new foundation for sustainable growth, compete in the global economy, withstand the impacts of climate change, and improve public health, including access to clean air and clean water."He also vows to "provide every American city with 100,000 or more residents with high-quality zero-emissions public transportation options" that would include "improving existing transit and bus lines to installing infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists."But much will depend on the will of Congress. President Trump also pledged to improve the nation's infrastructure but never followed through with lawmakers. Biden Transition Updates What Most Biden Picks Have In Common: Time In Obama Administration Buttigieg is a former Rhodes scholar and was a military intelligence analyst in the Navy, serving a tour in Afghanistan. While he finished first in the Iowa caucuses, he was never able to expand his support beyond white voters and dropped out of the presidential race after the South Carolina primary, endorsing Biden.Black Lives Matter activists have been critical of Buttigieg, citing inequality in South Bend during his tenure as mayor. In a call earlier Tuesday with local BLM groups, South Bend leader Jorden Giger blasted Buttigieg's housing and policing policies, charging that he "would continue his record of hurting black communities every day in his decision-making process."Buttigieg would become the first openly gay Cabinet member to be confirmed by the Senate. Richard Grenell, who is also openly gay, temporarily served as acting director of national intelligence in the Trump administration but was not confirmed for the post. NPR political reporter Juana Summers contributed to this report.

On Monday, a reporter exposed President Donald Trump for yet again peddling a nonsensical conspiracy theory about Barack Obama.Hours after Trump posted a string of tweets and retweets about “Obamagate” — a new conspiracy theory that holds Obama responsible for masterminding the Russia investigation and railroading former Trump administration National Security Adviser Michael Flynn into a guilty plea for lying to the FBI (never mind that there’s no evidence of investigatory misconduct) — Philip Rucker of the Washington Post called Trump’s bluff.“In one of your Mother’s Day tweets, you appeared to accuse President Obama of ‘the biggest political crime in American history, by far’ — those were your words. What crime exactly are you accusing President Obama of committing, and do you believe the Justice Department should prosecute him?” Rucker asked, during a news conference that was ostensibly about the coronavirus.Trump had nothing.“Uh, Obamagate. It’s been going on for a long time,” he began. “It’s been going on from before I even got elected, and it’s a disgrace that it happened, and if you look at what’s gone on, and if you look at now, all this information that’s being released — and from what I understand, that’s only the beginning — some terrible things happened, and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again.”Of course, “Obamagate” does not involve a crime, and there’s no evidence that Obama or his top officials conspired against Trump — quite the opposite. So when Rucker pressed the point by asking what exactly the ostensible crime was, Trump resorted to smears.“You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody. All you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours.” .@PhilipRucker: You appeared to accuse Obama of a crime yesterday. What did he do?TRUMP: "Obamagate." RUCKER: What is the crime?TRUMP: "You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody." pic.twitter.com/EUueidNwGp— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 11, 2020 You might be wondering why this even came up during a press conference about coronavirus testing. The answer appears to be that with the US leading the world in deaths and the number of new cases in the country not yet showing a strong downward trend, Trump believes fresh conspiracy-mongering about Obama is politically useful for him — even if there is no basis for them.The rest of the press conference proved the point: After repeating misinformation about testing and the state of coronavirus cases, he abruptly ended the event and huffed off the stage when two female reporters asked him pointed questions. After Trump prematurely declared victory over the coronavirus, lied about US testing capacity, and misled people about how America’s response stacks up to other countries in the world, Monday’s news conference ended with a bang.His meltdown began when Weijia Jiang of CBS asked him to explain why he seems to be fixated on competing with other countries while 2,000 or so Americans continue to lose their lives each day from the coronavirus. Trump fired back by telling her to “ask China.”“Don’t ask me — ask China that question,” Trump said.Jiang, who is Asian American and who previously said that a White House official referred to the coronavirus as the “Kung-Flu” to her face, followed up by asking Trump, “Sir, why are you saying that to me, specifically?”“I’m telling you,” Trump said, “I’m not saying it specifically to anybody. I’m saying it to anybody who would ask a nasty question like that.” .@weijia: Why is this a global competition to you when Americans are losing their lives every day?TRUMP: Maybe that's a question you should ask China.WEIJA: Why are you saying that to me, specifically?TRUMP: I'm saying it to anybody who would ask a nasty question like that. pic.twitter.com/hokJOXASh8— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 11, 2020 Trump followed that seconds later up by throwing a tantrum when Kaitlan Collins of CNN tried to ask him a question, then storming away. Trump throws a fit when @kaitlancollins of CNN tries to ask him a question and abruptly ends the press conference pic.twitter.com/58AVZ9CABl— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 11, 2020 In sum, Trump’s performance featured a baseless conspiracy about America’s first black president, incendiary comments toward an Asian American journalist, and then a press conference-ending fit. This shtick may have served him well at times, but in the context of the pandemic, one can see why his advisers reportedly concluded weeks ago that these press conferences are doing him no favors. Will you help us celebrate seven years of Vox? Since Vox started in 2014, we’ve held tight to our mission: to make the most important issues clear and comprehensible, and empower you to shape the world in which you live. Where other news organizations focus on what just happened, we focus on the context. We’re committed to keeping our distinctive explanatory journalism free, but that work is expensive, and advertising alone won’t sustain our ambitions. Help us celebrate Vox, and support our unique mission, by making a $7 contribution today..

When Bill Clinton defeated Bush in 1992, he approached the Cabinet as an exercise in representation, promising a team “that looks like America.” George W. Bush used his Cabinet to compensate for his lack of experience in Washington, picking a group that had long records in foreign policy and defense. (This did not prevent, and probably encouraged, catastrophic results.)Barack Obama billed his Cabinet as a “team of rivals,” taking inspiration from the 2005 Doris Kearns Goodwin book about Abraham Lincoln’s advisers. Obama had chosen a primary opponent, Joe Biden, as his running mate, and he selected another, Hillary Clinton, as his secretary of state. But in general, as Todd S. Purdum wrote in Vanity Fair, he picked a bunch of competent but low-profile loyalists, which made them somewhat unhelpful to Obama’s cause.The Trump Cabinet was, like much of his presidency, not entirely coherent. In some cases, he chose people who he thought looked the part, like Defense Secretary James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, but it soon became clear that he intended to run foreign policy and immigration out of the White House, sidelining the departments, and all three were gone from those roles within two years. In other cases, he just wanted to reward friends (Wilbur Ross at Commerce, Linda McMahon at Small Business Administration), had no interest in the department’s work (Ryan Zinke at Interior, Alex Acosta at Labor), or both (Ben Carson at Housing and Urban Development).*The nascent Biden team is very different from Trump’s in most respects, but so far it projects a similar jumble of approaches. There are subject-matter experts in some places. The State Department nominee Tony Blinken is a veteran hand—but he’s also a close Biden confidant. The Pentagon pick Lloyd Austin is a four-star general—but Biden passed over Michèle Flournoy, who has more direct experience managing the Defense Department. There are also White House veterans, such as Susan Rice (domestic policy) and Denis McDonough (VA), but they’re both removed from their shared background in foreign policy and national security.Biden has also sought to use appointments as a vehicle for representation, echoing Clinton’s vow with a promise to have “the most diverse Cabinet anyone in American history has ever announced.” Buttigieg, who would be the first Senate-confirmed openly LGBTQ Cabinet official, fits that. There are many people of color, including Rice, Austin, Becerra, Alejandro Mayorkas (Homeland Security), Marcia Fudge (HUD), Michael Regan (EPA), and Deb Haaland (Interior). There are a number of women, including the pathbreaking Treasury pick Janet Yellen. Biden is also reportedly weighing appointing a Republican, which represents a different sort of outreach.

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller has stayed out of the limelight since completing his work last year by submitting an exhaustive report on the details of the Russia probe and presidential obstruction, and giving testimony before Congress. In his absence, Attorney General Bill Barr has launched a counter-investigation to effectively Monday morning quarterback the entirety of the Russia investigation, and has already intervened in both the Roger Stone and the Michael Flynn proceedings to largely undo the very work of the Special Counsel’s Office. President Trump, ever the thin-skinned bully, has unleashed a tirade of attacks on those who assisted Mueller. Career line attorneys at the Department of Justice withdrew from the Roger Stone and Michael Flynn cases, and in one instance left government entirely.Mueller’s work is being taken apart, piece by piece. It’s time for him to speak up.Mueller’s silence and stoicism have been noble and professional, and consistent with prior customary practice. But nothing about this administration is typical and past normal rules no longer have a place, at least not if the rule of law is to survive the Trump presidency.Some brave individuals have already begun speaking out to express their dissent. Approximately 2,000 DOJ alumni have signed onto a letter criticizing the attorney general's actions. Mary McCord, the former head of the National Security Division, disputed how her past written comments were characterized by DOJ as justification to drop the Flynn charges, and one of Mueller’s former subordinates — Jonathan Kravis — has made clear his concern about the ongoing politicization of cases tied to the president’s allies. Mueller needs to add his voice to this growing chorus of concern.The nature and substance of the Mueller report was already mischaracterized once before by the Attorney General in his initial pre-release press conference, and he has continued to try and whitewash the entire investigation in subsequent remarks and through the Durham investigation. Mueller’s congressional testimony, unfortunately, was a bland and repetitive recitation of basic facts that the American public could simply read in his team’s exhaustive report. Those who know Mueller or his reputation anticipated that restrained and anti-climactic performance.This moment is different.Neither Mueller nor anyone from his team needs to (nor should they) divulge classified information or reveal grand jury information. Not only would that be illegal, but it would defy the very principles that need to be upheld. They still have to comply with federal laws regarding disclosure of government information, particularly non-disclosure agreements they signed that protect classified information. Nor do they need to start revealing additional details from the special counsel’s report that were redacted for reasons other than those implicated by federal criminal statutes. Mueller and his prosecutors should try to adhere to at least the spirit of non-binding government policies regarding the disclosure of information that the government claims it has a legitimate interest in protecting.But Mueller and his former team need to defend the legitimacy of their work.For example, they can explain why the plea deal with Flynn was pursued in the manner it was, including addressing legitimate questions about the extent to which they believed Flynn was intentionally lying to FBI agents and if the negotiations with Flynn’s original lawyers met the government’s ethical and legal obligations. They can speak about the seriousness of the felonies for which Stone was tried and convicted, and opine on whether the original sentence recommendation that the attorney general overruled was proper and why under the circumstances.Most importantly, they can provide a reassuring voice of reason at a time when the legal and law enforcement community is crying out for stability. The president is too busy describing various FBI officials as “traitors” and “human scum". The attorney general has already been chastised by one federal judge for misrepresenting the findings of Mueller’s team, and many career professionals believe he lacks credibility at this point outside of the president’s political base. Mueller and his team can outline why, as messy as it was, the work they performed—and the criminal prosecutions they brought—were legitimate and necessary to ensure equal application of the rule of law in this country. Unfortunately, others who played key roles in the cases, such as former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, no longer have that type of credibility across the ideological spectrum to persuasively make that case. Mueller does.Mueller and his team are decent, dedicated professionals, but this is not a decent time. They need to step up to the microphone and speak to the American public. It is no longer a question of whether they can do it, but how can they not?Bradley P. Moss and Mark S. Zaid are national security attorneys in Washington, D.C.

“He will, I think, grasp the challenge of moving the transportation sector toward a net-zero emissions profile by 2050,” Mr. Podesta added.Mr. Buttigieg now stands as the first major member of Mr. Biden’s domestic climate change team, which the president-elect had hoped to roll out in its entirety this week.Several sources close to the presidential transition said Mr. Biden had selected Gina McCarthy, who led the Environmental Protection Agency in the Obama administration, to lead the White House office of climate policy, and Jennifer Granholm, the former governor of Michigan, as the energy secretary.But the nomination of an E.P.A. administrator has been held up with concerns over racial equity.Mr. Biden’s first choice to head the agency was Mary D. Nichols, California’s top climate change regulator. But she came under fire from liberal activists who contended that Ms. Nichols did not do enough in her state to address racial disparities in environmental policy.That has set off a scramble to find a candidate of color to lead the agency: last-minute possibilities include Richard L. Revesz, an Argentina-born law professor and former dean of N.Y.U. School of Law; Michael S. Regan, who currently serves as head of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality and is Black; and Eric Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, who is of Mexican descent.Mr. Buttigieg would be not only the first openly L.G.B.T.Q. person to be confirmed to a cabinet-level position in the Biden administration, but the first confirmed in any cabinet, according to the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group that last month pressed Mr. Biden to appoint L.G.B.T.Q. people to his cabinet.“His voice as a champion for the L.G.B.T.Q. community in the cabinet room will help President-elect Biden build back our nation better, stronger and more equal than before,” said Alphonso David, the president of the Human Rights Campaign.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus and former presidential candidate Andrew Yang open the final night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention with a not-so-subtle dig at Republicans mispronouncing vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris’s first name

closeVideoMSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell declares Trump to be 'Russian operative''The Last Word' host Lawrence O'Donnell says if the reporting by the Washington Post and New York Times is true, Donald Trump is a 'Russian operative.' A former MSNBC producer claimed that 2020 candidate Andrew Yang was barred from appearing on "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell" during the Democratic primary. Ariana Pekary, who left her role in August as an "integral member" of O'Donnell's primetime show, appeared on Yang's podcast "Yang Speaks," but on Twitter shed some light on what went on behind the scenes at MSNBC in response to an article about the slanted media coverage of the outsider candidate. "Actually, I just reviewed my journal. On 4/25/19, I was told that we were never to pursue Andrew for an interview on our show (along with several others)," Pekary tweeted on Sunday. "The list of candidates was dictated, but the reasons for allowing them or not were not explained."She later added, "To be clear the list was unique to The Last Word (did not come from upper [management]). And looking back, I’m somewhat surprised by the list -- who was in, who was out (somewhat but not entirely). Some 'friends' of the show were out, others were in."Yang's former Democratic primary competitor Marianne Williamson weighed in on Pekary's revelation. "The political/media industrial complex had a pre-prescribed conversation, and a pre-prescribed list of people they were willing to allow into the conversation," Williamson said. "What voters were presented with was an illusion of choice."In a follow-up conversating with Yang, Pekary named other candidates that were on the "list" including Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., Gov. Jay Inslee, D-Washington, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who Pekary was specifically remembered having a "question mark" next to her name. Yang told Pekary that the revelation brought a "sense of relief" to him and his fans who have long speculated that MSNBC had a bias against him. MSNBC did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment. Yang, who is now a CNN contributor, had a bitter feud with MSNBC during the Democratic primary over a dozen instances of the candidate being omitted from on-air graphics showing polls, which often included candidates who were doing worse than him.He even at one point set a self-imposed boycott of MSNBC until the network offered an apology.

Joe Biden has picked Pete Buttigieg, his former rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, to be his transportation secretary, in a move which would make the former South Bend mayor the first out gay person to be confirmed by the Senate to a cabinet post.The nomination came as more picks for senior positions in Biden’s incoming administration emerged on Tuesday, including Jennifer Granholm, the former governor of Michigan, to run the energy department.Buttigieg confirmed he had been tapped as transportation secretary in a tweet on Tuesday evening, saying he was “honored”.Biden said in a statement that Buttigieg was a “patriot and a problem-solver who speaks to the best of who we are as a nation”.“I am nominating him for secretary of transportation because this position stands at the nexus of so many of the interlocking challenges and opportunities ahead of us,” Biden said, “Jobs, infrastructure, equity, and climate all come together at the DOT, the site of some of our most ambitious plans to build back better.”Biden’s decisions comes as he rounds out his cabinet of top officials to run federal agencies, having already selected former Obama adviser Tony Blinken as his secretary of state, retired Army Gen Lloyd Austin as his secretary of defense and former Fed chair Janet Yellen as his treasury secretary. He’s also picked former agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack to reprise that role in the Biden administration, and Ohio representative Marcia Fudge to serve as housing secretary.Buttigieg is one of the few white men Biden has picked to serve as a cabinet secretary. Granholm’s selection as energy secretary was widely reported on Tuesday and confirmed to the Associated Press by four people familiar with the plans, although Granholm has yet to comment publicly.Granholm served two terms as Michigan’s governor and defeated the husband of the US education secretary, Betsy DeVos, to win her second term. In November, she penned an op-ed for the Detroit News calling for Michigan’s auto industry to invest in a low-carbon economy, stating that “the time for a low-carbon recovery is now”.“She’s really a student of the [energy] transition,” Skip Pruss, who directed the Michigan department of energy, labor, and economic growth under Granholm, told Politico. “If you were to ask me what was a limitation in Michigan, I would say that she was slightly ahead of her time.”Buttigieg, 38, ran an upstart presidential campaign and proved to be a competitive candidate with a knack for building a notable warchest. After he dropped out of the Democratic primary for president, he quickly endorsed Biden.Buttigieg’s name had floated around lists for multiple cabinet positions. He was often mentioned as a possible candidate for ambassador to the United Nations, a position that some of his supporters noted could help improve his international relations credentials and give him an opening to New York donors. But Buttigieg was passed up for Linda Thomas-Greenfield, a veteran American diplomat.His name had been mentioned for other positions including secretary of Veterans Affairs. But Buttigieg, a navy veteran, was not interested in that job, according to multiple Democratic supporters. Buttigieg’s team has denied any report or suggestion that he turned down an offer to run that department. He had also been mentioned as a possible secretary of commerce.Throughout his presidential campaign, Buttigieg struggled to get any traction among African American voters. He will probably face similar questions on how his tenure as mayor of South Bend affected African Americans. Still, as transportation secretary Buttigieg will be involved in a part of the Biden administration that affects African Americans across the country.Buttigieg’s appointment was met with praise by some high-profile Democrats.“As a former mayor, he knows the importance of investing in safer, more efficient interstate roads and bridges, and in the connections provided by a secure rail network,” New Jersey’s governor, Phil Murphy, said in a statement. “President-elect Biden has chosen the right person to lead on delivering the promise of clean energy and electric vehicles, on creating new union jobs, and on investments in environmental justice – all of which are inextricably intertwined within our transportation infrastructure.”Biden’s selection of Buttigieg for transportation secretary drew praise from LGBTQ rights groups, with one calling it “a new milestone in a decades-long effort” to have LGBTQ representation in the US government.“Its impact will reverberate well-beyond the department he will lead,” added Annise Parker, president and CEO of the LGBTQ Victory Institute.The South Bend chapter of Black Lives Matter, however, denounced Buttigieg‘s impending nomination. The group had made their displeasure of Buttigieg known during his presidential campaign, following the 2019 South Bend shooting of a Black man by a white police officer.“We saw Black communities have their houses torn down by his administration,” said Jorden Giger, BLM’s South Bend leader, in a statement, referring to Buttigieg‘s effort to tear down substandard housing. “We saw the machinery of his police turned against Black people.”Biden also plans to tap the former Environmental Protection Agency chief Gina McCarthy to become his domestic climate czar, spearheading Biden’s ambitions for a massive, coordinated domestic campaign to slow climate change. Her counterpart in climate efforts will be John Kerry, the former secretary of state, earlier named by Biden as his climate envoy for national security issues.The Associated Press contributed reporting.

Which is it? This is a site for nerds, so let's talk about the the actual technical problem, not society's problem. Things such as algorithms having a hard time with low contrast images, poor training of AI models, etc. If there is actual racial bias, let's talk about if it is because of actual intentional bias, unconscious bias, or just technical momentum (biased or not) because whomever trained the model happened to have access to more caucasian images than those showing people of color. I would be interested to know if the algorithm is actually biased, as the headline suggests (meaning some code specifically makes a racial judgement) or if the process leading to the creation of the algorithm was influenced by bias (meaning that the headline is not technically accurate), or if there isn't actually any bias.Bro, chill the fuck up. It is a legitimately technical discussion to discuss "bias" in an AI algorithm, which could be "racial bias", which is distinct from "racist bias." If there's someone that is technically incapable to distinguish between these terms, that's you, so just stop telling the rest of us what is technical or what is not. Or just keep ranting at the wind going out of a tangent if it makes you feel better, I am not judging.

In his four years as president, Donald Trump has responded to nearly every major foreign policy problem with the same tool: sanctions.Change the Iranian regime’s behavior? Sanctions. Dismantle North Korea’s nuclear arsenal? Sanctions. Depose Venezuela’s dictator? You guessed it: Sanctions. That indiscriminate wielding of America’s economic might — in a strategy his administration labels “maximum pressure” — is a trademark of Trump’s foreign policy. No president, in the minds of experts I spoke with, has relied so heavily on sanctions to solve intractable problems. But at the same time, experts I spoke to said no president has failed so clearly to grasp the nature of financial warfare and how to deploy it effectively.“I’ve never seen a president use sanctions as much or as clumsily,” said David Baldwin, an international economics expert at Princeton University. “He’s like a bull in a china shop.”Yet Trump has little to show for his efforts. Iran’s leadership remains in power and is no closer to reaching a new diplomatic pact with the US over its nuclear program. North Korea’s nuclear and missile arsenals have grown in numbers and strength. And Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, still shows no sign of letting control of the country slip through his clenched fist.That’s not to say Trump didn’t inflict economic harm on foreign countries, leaders, and individuals in his first term. US sanctions are directly responsible for deepening financial crises in all three nations, exacerbating woes caused by local mismanagement, corruption, and coronavirus outbreaks. But that devastation has hurt millions of people in those countries much more than it has helped the Trump administration achieve its goals, making it easier for regimes to blame the US — and not themselves — for the pain.The fundamental problem with Trump’s approach: He believes sanctions will get him what he wants, but he demands too much in return for their removal, or undermines them through weak enforcement and ever-shifting policies. “When the president doesn’t believe in the sanctions program, the program loses all value,” former State Department sanctions official Edward Fishman told me.Trump’s first term thus offers a key lesson: US sanctions can be very effective — and debilitating — but they work best when a president understands their limitations, how to make them stick, and when to coordinate them with other countries. Otherwise, the nation those measures may end up isolating most is America. Sanctions are financial penalties a country places on a foreign government, business, or person. They usually forbid the use of economic necessities like American banks and financial markets, making it harder for a target to use or make money held in the US. The hope is that the afflicted parties will want access to those funds so badly that they’ll cave to US demands.John Smith, who formerly ran the Treasury Department office responsible for implementing sanctions, told me he wasn’t surprised to see Trump use sanctions as often as he has. “It allows the US to carry a big stick, which Trump likes, without cost of boots-on-the-ground military action, which Trump doesn’t like,” he said. And, he added, “they don’t cost the US a lot to impose, and they can be incredibly powerful” — a high-impact, low-risk action that appeals to this or any other president.Trump has used sanctions on a number of foreign countries and individuals, but he’s used them as the primary means to achieve his desired policy goals in three major cases: Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. Let’s take a look at each one.After Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal two years ago, his administration launched a “maximum pressure” campaign against the Islamic Republic. Simply put, the US places more and more sanctions on the regime until it finally decides to give up any pursuit of nuclear weapons and ceases developing missiles and supporting terrorist organizations (among other changes).The goal, then, was to alter 12 of the most troubling aspects of Iran’s foreign policy and ratify the changes in a new, more encompassing deal before Tehran got any sanctions relief. Trump reiterated that stance in August, claiming he’ll sign such a pact in the first month of his second term (if he’s reelected, of course). Here is Secretary Pompeo’s list of 12 demands from Iran via @GalloVOA pic.twitter.com/3nZ1qM0QUT— Golnaz Esfandiari (@GEsfandiari) May 21, 2018 Trump had understandable reasons to think his plan would work. In pursuit of the nuclear deal, President Barack Obama placed what were then the harshest economic sanctions on Iran in history while getting other nations to join along in opposition to Tehran’s nuclear advances. That pressure led Iranian officials to the negotiating table and, ultimately, the nuclear agreement in 2015.Trump was no fan of the deal, but experts said he took something from it: If a lot of economic pressure got Iran to stop improving its nuclear work, then even more sanctions might compel Tehran to bend further to America’s will. “Clearly, sanctions against Iran can work,” said Susan Allen, a sanctions expert at the University of Mississippi. “Sanctions against Iran did work,” though not necessarily in the way Trump envisioned.With Trump’s withdrawal from the accord, his administration reimposed the sanctions lifted after the 2015 pact was signed and proceeded to add even more penalties on Iran, including on top government officials as well as the steel, iron, and oil industries. The Trump administration’s goal of changing Iran’s behavior simply hasn’t worked, at least not yet. There was a problem with Trump’s plan: All of it was done without the support of US allies — primarily the European signatories to the Iran deal — who argued against America reneging on its commitment and for maintaining their own business ties to Tehran.“We should do anything to preserve the deal,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in January. “We will continue to employ all diplomatic means to keep this agreement alive, which is certainly not perfect but it is an agreement and it comprises commitments by all sides.”The Trump-led sanctions, though, undoubtedly had an impact. Iran’s economy has cratered due to the economic pressure and because countries and companies are worried doing business with Tehran might invite US sanctions on them (these are known as “secondary sanctions”). Oil revenues are way down, so funds that would go to supporting proxy groups or nuclear research — or to improving the lives of everyday Iranians — have dwindled significantly.“Every single day, as soon as people open their eyes, they face a dark and vague future,” Mehdi Rajabian, an artist and regime critic, told the Washington Post in January.But as life got worse, so did Trump’s prospects of seeing Iran’s regime wither under the pressure.Iran has attacked oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, oil fields in Saudi Arabia, military bases in Iraq housing US troops, and an unmanned US military drone over the Strait of Hormuz. Crucially, it’s also gradually stopped complying with the terms of the nuclear accord by stockpiling and enriching uranium at higher levels than the pact allowed. While Iran fiercely denies it seeks a nuclear bomb and remains far away from obtaining one, that possibility is more likely now than when Trump entered office.To hear Trump’s team tell it, the pressure — not the result — is the point. “Sometimes it’s the journey and sometimes it’s the destination,’’ Brian Hook, Trump’s outgoing special representative for Iran, told the New York Times on August 8. “In the case of our Iran strategy, it’s both. We would like a new deal with the regime. But in the meantime, our pressure has collapsed their finances.”“By almost every metric, the regime and its terrorist proxies are weaker than three and a half years ago,” he continued. “Deal or no deal, we have been very successful.”But the truth is that the administration hasn’t been very successful at getting Iran to comply with American demands — even with the sanctions pressure — and there’s little chance of that happening despite new efforts to place even more penalties on the country.“The idea that Trump will be able to quickly conclude an agreement with Iran if reelected is, without a massive change in the US position, a fantasy,” Eric Brewer, who worked on Iran in Trump’s White House and is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told me in August. “Being willing to talk to relieve some pressure is a far cry from meeting the demands the administration has set out, which are fundamentally unworkable for Iran.”In 2017, North Korea tested increasingly powerful missiles, capping off the launches with its first intercontinental ballistic missile. Such provocative actions not only led Trump to threaten war in a series of heated exchanges with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un but also galvanized worried nations into placing immense economic pressure on Pyongyang.That August, the US got China, Russia, and the rest of the UN Security Council to approve stringent sanctions financial on North Korea. The measure included a full ban on Pyongyang’s top exports like iron and coal, reducing the country’s revenue by about $1 billion. The following month, the council strengthened its sanctions even further by banning the sale of natural gas liquids to the country. It was, in the minds of many experts at the time, an effective use of the “maximum pressure” strategy: Get allies, friends, and close North Korean partners — namely China — to signal that Pyongyang’s behavior was unacceptable and impose actual costs on the regime. There were some initial complications. China, Russia, and even close US allies like Germany were still quietly trading with North Korea anyway, keeping the country’s economy afloat in the face of the harsh international sanctions. But the measures eventually had the intended impact: North Korea’s economy foundered under the weight of those multilateral penalties as it struggled to do business with its main trading partners in Beijing and other world capitals. Trump didn’t just want North Korea to stop testing dangerous weapons, though — he wanted Kim to give up his entire nuclear arsenal. The White House in a February 2019 statement was explicit about the trade Trump sought: “The President has made clear that should North Korea follow through on its commitment to complete denuclearization, we will work to ensure there are economic development options.”Trump’s own actions undermined his policy in two key ways.First, he invited Kim to three dramatic summits, events North Korean leaders always sought so they could boast that having nuclear weapons made their tiny nation a world power. While Trump administration officials claimed Kim’s presence at the meetings was partly due to US-led sanctions pressure, they were never necessary to convince the dictator to chat with a sitting US president.“Sanctions didn’t get Kim to the table, Trump’s ego did,” Fishman, the former State Department sanctions official, said.Second, Trump occasionally relaxed the sanctions pressure he put on Kim’s regime due to their budding friendship. For example, in March 2019 he tweeted a “withdrawal” of sanctions on North Korea, though it was unclear which measures he was referring to — they were likely ones announced a day prior or new penalties in the works. It was announced today by the U.S. Treasury that additional large scale Sanctions would be added to those already existing Sanctions on North Korea. I have today ordered the withdrawal of those additional Sanctions!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 22, 2019 Either way, then-White House press secretary Sarah Sanders explained that Trump didn’t want to further sanction North Korea because Trump “likes Chairman Kim, and doesn’t think these sanctions will be necessary.”The bonhomie between Trump and Kim — underscored by Trump’s 2018 claim that they “fell in love” thanks to letters they sent back and forth — weakened the sanctions pressure, experts say. It signaled to other countries, especially China, that Trump wasn’t serious about enforcing the sanctions. The president’s friendship with Kim, rather than the end of North Korea’s nuclear development, drove his policy.That’s had disastrous results. Even with the summits and sanctions — which the UN says North Korea has found ways to avoid — Kim’s nuclear arsenal has only gotten stronger. Indeed, Pyongyang is a more powerful nuclear player than it was before Trump took office. The ones most feeling the economic pain so far are everyday North Koreans, who have suffered since the regime asked them to eat less food and buy fewer necessities due to dwindling state funds. Of course, Kim could spend those resources on improving the lives of his people instead of the power of his weapons, but that’s a calculation he was always likely to make and that the US should have anticipated.But it didn’t, and the US, millions of North Koreans, and the world are worse off for it.In January 2019, Venezuela was in the midst of a political standoff between two men who both claimed to be the legitimate president of Venezuela: Nicolás Maduro, who was reelected president in May 2018, and opposition leader Juan Guaidó.Guaidó claimed the 2018 election was rigged and that he, as the head of the National Assembly (the country’s legislative body), was the rightful president according to the country’s constitution. The United States and nearly 50 other countries officially recognized Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president and called Maduro’s claim to the presidency “illegitimate.” But Maduro has responded with defiance and showed no signs of stepping down.The Trump administration, then, turned to sanctions to force Maduro out of Caracas.That same month, Trump issued an executive order for the Treasury Department to sanction Petróleos de Venezuela (PdVSA), the behemoth state-owned oil and natural gas company that provides the country with thousands of jobs and billions in revenue. Maduro uses the enterprise to reward his cronies and buy loyalty. For instance, he offers top members of Venezuela’s military a stake in the energy giant.The sanctions were intricate, but basically they boiled down to this: All PdVSA assets — like cash and property — in the US were frozen. Any cash earned in transactions with the United States would be held in an inaccessible account until Maduro transferred control of the company over to a democratically elected leader or Guaidó. However, refineries could still import Venezuelan crude as long as the profits didn’t go to Maduro’s regime.The United States “will continue to use the full suite of its diplomatic and economic tools to support Interim President Juan Guaidó, the National Assembly, and the Venezuelan people’s efforts to restore their democracy,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said at the time.The “economic tools” Mnuchin touted led to two major concerns.First, former administration officials I spoke to said Trump’s team had devised a program to further increase sanctions pressure on Venezuela if Maduro proved defiant. The final step in that package was the PdVSA sanctions, which would only be used if the US found no previous option proved effective. Instead, the US used its final economic bomb in the first month, meaning US sanctions officials had to scramble to design new plans for what and whom to sanction if Maduro still wouldn’t leave. Second, the PdVSA sanctions essentially gave Maduro even more ammunition to paint the US as a big, mean bully trying to destroy Venezuela and make its people suffer. Before 2019, US sanctions targeted people close to Maduro, most prominently his wife. But the PdVSA sanctions made it clear Washington was trying to take down not just Maduro, but Venezuela’s sputtering economy in the process.If the economy tanked even further than it already had under his watch, the Venezuelan leader could blame the US sanctions and regain favor among both the elites — particularly the military leadership — whose support Maduro needs to remain in power, as well as everyday Venezuelans who are the most vulnerable to economic pressures.Maduro badly needed a good scapegoat: Millions fled the country due to the economic crisis gripping the country. Inflation flew through the roof. Hunger rates skyrocketed. And diseases once thought eradicated from Venezuela sparked a new health crisis. Unsurprisingly, all of that and more made Maduro an unpopular leader. But if the dictator could claim with some credibility that economic woes were America’s fault, not his, it would relieve some of the pressure on him.That was likely a miscalculation, according to Fernando Cutz, who worked on Venezuela policy in Trump’s National Security Council from January 2017 to April 2018.“When we first put sanctions in place against Venezuela, they were against individuals who were bad actors. They were targeted and limited in scope. I would say that they helped as a pressure tool at the time, though obviously they didn’t lead to our ultimate goal of restoring democracy in Venezuela,” he told me. “After I left, the scope and scale of sanctions were drastically expanded to large sectors of Venezuela’s economy.”The administration’s sanctions from August 2019 were a case in point. One measure froze all the regime’s assets in the US and placed sanctions on any person or business that worked with Venezuela’s leaders, and another made it even harder for the nation’s oil sector to survive. Those moves were basically admissions that the US was out of specific ideas, but they would still inflict widespread economic pain to make life worse for Maduro and the millions suffering under his rule.That play just hasn’t worked. Maduro has retained a firm grip on power. Guaidó’s opposition has fractured. Venezuela has moved closer to US adversaries like Russia. Meanwhile, Elliott Abrams, the US special representative for Venezuela, now has to split his time to work on Iran issues.Altogether, it’s clear that not even the mighty economic power of the US could dislodge a failed leader. Then again, that was never likely to happen — though the Trump administration should have known better.Experts I spoke to were clear that Trump, from top to bottom, misused the powerful sanctions tool at his disposal. A president leading a future administration, or Trump in a second term, can glean three main insights from US sanctions policy since 2017.“Sanctions have never brought down a regime. They are designed to create pressure, and therefore leverage,” said Cutz. “Unfortunately, the purpose of sanctions has been lost in the rhetoric of this administration, and many — including some in government — have become truly convinced that sanctions by themselves will bring about regime change. There’s just no precedent that should lead us to believing that.”The goals America should seek with sanctions, then, must be achievable. Bringing down an entire government via economic pressure just isn’t in the cards, and likely never will be.Venezuela comes to mind here. The whole point of the economic pressure was to make Maduro leave and replace him with Guaidó. But tanking the already sputtering economy was never going to be enough for that: Maduro had — and continues to have — a strong grip on the state’s security services and political system. Any plan that failed to address that, short of forcibly removing him in an invasion, was always doomed.It’s better when Washington’s friends join in on a sanctions campaign. Few experts doubt the economic pressure on Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela would be tougher, and their diplomatic options curtailed, if multiple nations worked against them.The US taking on these fights alone makes it harder to take on these nations now, and stiff-arming allies makes it harder to add pressure down the line. “The US is losing sanctions-related partnerships around the world,” said Menevis Cilizoglu, director of international relations concentration at St. Olaf College.This is what Obama understood that Trump didn’t. Obama purposefully brought in allies from Europe and Asia when sanctioning Iran to close off multiple fonts of cash. That squeezed Tehran from multiple angles and sent a global political signal that it needed to stop its nuclear work. By contrast, Trump’s sanctions plan allows the regime to do business with European and Asian nations, all while claiming the pressure campaign is just the US bullying Iran. That’s not to say Trump’s unilateral actions haven’t sent a strong signal: They have, but they haven’t yet compelled Iran to change in any of the 12 wanted ways.It also doesn’t help when Trump sanctions anyone and everyone who wrongs him. Just last week, his administration sanctioned the two lead investigators at the International Criminal Court who are investigating potential war crimes committed by US troops in Afghanistan. That has less to do with the US using sanctions to achieve specific policy goals and more to do with retribution. That’s likely to lose America friends in the long run.“The problem is not just that we are using sanctions,” Columbia University’s Richard Nephew said; it’s that in the Trump era, they’re being used “in ways and against targets that no one else sees as legitimate.”This seems straightforward, but clearly it needs to be repeated. “The president needs to support the president’s own policies,” said Smith, now a partner at the Morrison & Foerster law firm.When Trump cozies up to the leaders he’s sanctioning, it signals to everyone he may not be serious about enforcement. Companies and individuals will then make bets they can still do business with US sanctions targets because Trump won’t follow through on punishing them. Overall, it weakens the bite the penalties are meant to have.Take Trump and Kim’s bromance. Sanctions are meant to be a blunt instrument, where the US imposes financial pain and tells the world “don’t do business with this government.” That’s usually accompanied by an antagonistic posture.But there’s nothing antagonistic about the way Trump deals with Kim. Trump clearly likes the dictator, and he has failed to increase the pressure on him. It’s no wonder, then, that other nations like China have continued their business, giving Pyongyang an economic lifeline.Allen, the University of Mississippi sanctions expert, said the next president will have to learn these lessons. But, she said, whoever sits in the Oval Office after Trump would be well served by following a simple rule to better wield their sanctions power: “Ensure sanctions are thoughtfully designed and more judiciously imposed.” Will you help us celebrate seven years of Vox? Since Vox started in 2014, we’ve held tight to our mission: to make the most important issues clear and comprehensible, and empower you to shape the world in which you live. Where other news organizations focus on what just happened, we focus on the context. We’re committed to keeping our distinctive explanatory journalism free, but that work is expensive, and advertising alone won’t sustain our ambitions. Help us celebrate Vox, and support our unique mission, by making a $7 contribution today..

When President Donald Trump’s top diplomat can’t get a meeting with God’s ambassador, you know something is wrong.While on a weeklong trip to Europe, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo planned to sit down with Pope Francis during a visit to the Vatican. But the Catholic leader refused the photo ops and handshakes with America’s top diplomat out of one major concern: That he’d be a pawn in Trump’s reelection efforts.“Yes, that is precisely why the pope will not meet American secretary of state Mike Pompeo,” Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, the Vatican’s secretary for relations with states, told Italian news agency Ansa on Wednesday. That’s jarring, especially since the men met in person last October to discuss promoting religious freedom, even amid impeachment hearings in Washington.Pompeo still met with top Vatican officials, but the papal stiff-arming underscored two key changes. First, Pompeo wanted to criticize the Vatican’s still-secret deal with China, agreed to two years ago, so instead he used a speech in Rome on Wednesday to make his points publicly. “Nowhere is religious freedom under assault more than in China,” Pompeo said during a conference on religious freedom hosted by the US embassy to the Holy See, clearly directing his comments at Pope Francis. “We must support those demanding freedom in our time.”It’s not a surprise Pompeo went after the deal. He’s led the administration’s fierce pushback against China and wants much of the world to follow suit. Plus, Pompeo has made promoting religious liberty a key issue during his time at the State Department.Second, the 2020 US presidential election is just over a month away, and pictures of Pompeo and His Holiness smiling and chuckling could conceivably alter some Americans’ views on the current administration. Pope Francis, it seems, didn’t want to run that risk.But wait: The Secretary of State is America’s top diplomat, not Trump’s personal envoy. Why, then, would the Vatican boss have any concerns that such a meeting with Pompeo might be seen as picking sides in the US presidential race? The answer lies with Pompeo’s unsavory decision of late to act as Trump’s campaign surrogate, even in his official capacity — and it seems that decision may now be harming the administration’s ability to meet with foreign leaders.During the Republican National Convention in August, Pompeo filmed a short video while on official travel in Jerusalem, Israel, to back Trump. His decision shattered years of precedent in which sitting Cabinet members, and especially high-profile ones like secretaries of state, don’t engage in openly political and partisan activities. It was a norm Pompeo’s predecessors — in both Republican and Democratic administrations — believed was important to uphold. From Jerusalem, the City of David — see you soon! pic.twitter.com/KNPTIXfK0K— Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) August 26, 2020 And earlier this month, the secretary spoke at a Baptist church in Plano, Texas, about the role of faith while serving in government. However, he waded into the domestic battles that animate the presidential discussion today.“We need to return to the founders’ central understandings about faith and how this Judeo-Christian nation is central to the world, and we must stand with it and we can’t let anybody try and rewrite history to suggest otherwise,” he told the audience. “It is an absolute imperative that we stand on these traditions and continue to build them up. It’s for our kids and for our grandkids. It’s absolutely imperative.”These aren’t normal comments for a secretary of state — the nation’s top diplomat — to make, or normal forums for him to make them in. That’s why government ethics experts like the Brookings Institution’s Norm Eisen are concerned.This all “appears to be part of a coordinated effort to showcase senior administration personnel in battleground states in close proximity to the election to benefit President Trump’s political interests rather than to serve the public interest,” Eisen told me last week.There’s a further problem: “Pompeo’s politicking, especially in his official capacity, undermines his ability to represent the United States across the world,” said Donald Sherman, deputy director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a watchdog group. “He’s either America’s chief diplomat or he’s a political crony for one political party.”Pope Francis’s decision not to meet with Pompeo seems to make it clear which one the Vatican thinks he is. Will you help us celebrate seven years of Vox? Since Vox started in 2014, we’ve held tight to our mission: to make the most important issues clear and comprehensible, and empower you to shape the world in which you live. Where other news organizations focus on what just happened, we focus on the context. We’re committed to keeping our distinctive explanatory journalism free, but that work is expensive, and advertising alone won’t sustain our ambitions. Help us celebrate Vox, and support our unique mission, by making a $7 contribution today..

Curious to know why the Globe stopped short of asking Trump to leave office, I reached out to Bina Venkataraman, the paper’s editorial-page editor. She told me by email that the editorial board has considered demanding Trump’s resignation, most recently over the Ukraine scandal that led to his impeachment, but to date it has refrained from taking that step. She said that an election year “raises the bar in terms of the rationale and timing that would justify doing so.” However, Venkataraman emphasized that the Globe has not ruled out the possibility. “When we deliberate about such questions,” she told me, “we consider all kinds of factors, including the timing, the potential to influence the outcome, whether it’s the best position to take for the country in the moment as well for institutions and democratic norms over the long run, [and] what precedents it sets for the editorial board.” She also pointed out that the paper had recently called on Attorney General William Barr to step down over what it alleged was his serial misconduct. (It’s worth noting, too, that the Globe columnist Michael Cohen, although not a member of the editorial board, has demanded Trump’s resignation several times.)The Princeton University historian Julian Zelizer thinks the fact that Trump so recently survived impeachment is probably another reason editorial pages and congressional Democrats have been loath to demand his resignation. But he suggests that deeper factors may also be at work. Zelizer says that after decades of anti-government rhetoric from the right, a lot of Americans have come to expect that Washington will fail them, and this has shaped how the country responds to incompetent leadership. “It’s this feeling that this is the best we can get,” he says. The degree to which we have become inured to failure, he says, was vividly demonstrated during George W. Bush’s presidency. Even though Bush presided over a series of historic disasters—9/11, the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, and the global financial meltdown—he served two full terms in office.Our political culture does seem to have developed a high tolerance for failure. As the CIA director under Bush, George Tenet oversaw two intelligence debacles: 9/11 and the Iraq War. Yet he kept his job until June 2004, more than a year into the Iraq fiasco, at which point he insisted that he was not leaving in shame or disgrace. He told CIA employees it was “a personal decision, and had only one basis—in fact, the well-being of my wonderful family—nothing more and nothing less.”Business culture has perhaps also numbed us to the prospect of failure without consequence. In the corporate world, poor performance is no impediment to lavish compensation. When the Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg was fired last December after two 737 Max planes crashed and the entire fleet was grounded, he walked away with a $62 million payout. Executives seem to rake in millions no matter how badly their companies fare.