In the days after his victory at Queen’s Club a week ago, a win that had maintained perfectly the momentum he had built with his French Open triumph, Carlos Alcaraz enjoyed his well-deserved two days of rest to the fullest. He spent his time away from the court wisely, playing golf with Andy Murray, strolling through central London and seeking out good food and good vibes. Then, on Wednesday, he returned to work with his sights on a singular goal.
A year that had started off for Alcaraz with such turbulent, challenging results now seemingly positions him at the height of his powers. After struggling initially with the elevated pressure and scrutiny during Jannik Sinner’s doping ban, along with the weight that comes with his immense achievements, Alcaraz will begin his title defence at Wimbledon against Fabio Fognini on Monday playing great tennis, enjoying himself and content with life on and off the court.
Should he convert his ascendant form into another triumph at Wimbledon, Alcaraz would elevate his status to even greater heights. At just 22, he is seeking to become only the fifth man in the open era to win three consecutive Wimbledon titles, which would mark the start of a true era at the All England Club. He would also become the fourth man to win the French Open and Wimbledon back‑to-back on multiple occasions in the open era, after Rod Laver, Björn Borg and Rafael Nadal.
With a career win-loss record of 29-3, another seven wins would also underline that this is his era at Wimbledon. It is of utmost importance for Alcaraz not to think about any of this. “I’m coming here thinking that, yeah, I really want to win the title,” he said. “I really want to lift the trophy. Not thinking about how many players have done it, winning three Wimbledons in a row.”
Right at the top of the draw, Sinner begins his tournament in a completely different position. Despite holding three consecutive match points to achieve this feat at Roland Garros three weeks ago, the 23-year-old world No 1 continues to seek out his first grand-slam title away from hard courts. Sinner remains far superior to all challengers bar Alcaraz right now, but he will have to offer a supreme demonstration of his resilience as he tries to bounce back from his French Open final defeat by Alcaraz and compete for his first title at SW19.
For Jack Draper, handling the pressure of his first Wimbledon as a top player, and particularly the innumerable questions the British No 1 has fielded and will continue to field about said pressure, is challenging enough, but he was also handed an extremely difficult draw on Friday.
If he reaches round three, Draper could face the in-form 28th seed, Alexander Bublik, the recent Halle Open champion on grass and his vanquisher at Roland Garros. If the fourth seed manages to produce his best tennis and reach the quarter-finals, Novak Djokovic, who continues to perform at an extremely high level at the grand slam tournaments, could await. At 38, Djokovic is attempting to become the oldest winner of a slam title.
Still, Draper is an extremely ambitious player who is determined to rise even higher than his ranking and those ambitions have been backed up by his recent success. This is an opportunity for the 23-year-old to demonstrate his ability in this challenging situation. Between his destructive, well-rounded game, the grass-court conditions that suit him, and the immense support he will receive on every point he plays, there are plenty of factors in his favour over the next two weeks.
The 23 home players across the men’s and women’s singles draw are the most Britain has had since 1984. A year after taking his first steps into the world of regular professional tennis after college during the grass-court season last year, the British No 2, Jacob Fearnley, returns to Wimbledon having enjoyed an astounding rise, breaking the top 50 with his first ATP quarter-final at Queen’s Club. However, Fearnley wants more and he has a daunting challenge ahead as he tries to take a further step forward at Wimbledon: he will face the 18-year-old Brazilian João Fonseca, the most highly touted teenager in the game, in the opening round on Monday.
A few weeks on from his resurgent run to the fourth round at Roland Garros, Cameron Norrie will also try to maintain his momentum. Alongside numerous British wildcards, the rise of the 21-year‑old British qualifier Oliver Tarvet is notable. At No 719, he is the lowest-ranked player in the draw as he spends most of his time playing tennis in college for the University of San Diego. He will take his place in the Wimbledon main draw alongside legends and future superstars in a tournament with history on the line.
Modern science is hard, complex, and built from many layers and many years of hard work. And modern science, almost everywhere, is based on computation. Save for a few (and I mean very few) die-hard theorists who insist on writing things down with pen and paper, there is almost an absolute guarantee that with any paper in any field of science that you could possibly read, a computer was involved in some step of the process.
Whether it’s studying bird droppings or the collisions of galaxies, modern-day science owes its very existence—and continued persistence—to the computer. From the laptop sitting on an unkempt desk to a giant machine that fills up a room, “S. Transistor” should be the coauthor on basically all three million journal articles published every year.
The sheer complexity of modern science, and its reliance on customized software, renders one of the frontline defenses against soft and hard fraud useless. That defense is peer review.
The practice of peer review was developed in a different era, when the arguments and analysis that led to a paper’s conclusion could be succinctly summarized within the paper itself. Want to know how the author arrived at that conclusion? The derivation would be right there. It was relatively easy to judge the “wrongness” of an article because you could follow the document from beginning to end, from start to finish, and have all the information you needed to evaluate it right there at your fingerprints.
That’s now largely impossible with the modern scientific enterprise so reliant on computers.
To makes matters worse, many of the software codes used in science are not publicly available. I’ll say this again because it’s kind of wild to even contemplate: there are millions of papers published every year that rely on computer software to make the results happen, and that software is not available for other scientists to scrutinize to see if it’s legit or not. We simply have to trust it, but the word “trust” is very near the bottom of the scientist’s priority list.
Why don’t scientists make their code available? It boils down to the same reason that scientists don’t do many things that would improve the process of science: there’s no incentive. In this case, you don’t get any h-index points for releasing your code on a website. You only get them for publishing papers.
This infinitely agitates me when I peer-review papers. How am I supposed to judge the correctness of an article if I can’t see the entire process? What’s the point of searching for fraud when the computer code that’s sitting behind the published result can be shaped and molded to give any result you want, and nobody will be the wiser?
I’m not even talking about intentional computer-based fraud here; this is even a problem for detecting basic mistakes. If you make a mistake in a paper, a referee or an editor can spot it. And science is better off for it. If you make a mistake in your code… who checks it? As long as the results look correct, you’ll go ahead and publish it and the peer reviewer will go ahead and accept it. And science is worse off for it.
Science is getting more complex over time and is becoming increasingly reliant on software code to keep the engine going. This makes fraud of both the hard and soft varieties easier to accomplish. From mistakes that you pass over because you’re going too fast, to using sophisticated tools that you barely understand but use to get the result that you wanted, to just totally faking it, science is becoming increasingly wrong.
What’s more, the first line of defense for combatting wrongness—peer review—is fundamentally broken, with absolutely no guarantees of filtering out innocent mistakes and guilty fraud. Peer reviewers don’t have the time, effort, or inclination to pick over new research with a fine-toothed comb, let alone give it more than a long glance. And even if a referee is digging a little too deeply, whether revealing some fatal flaw or sniffing at your attempt at fraud, you can simply go journal shopping and take your work somewhere more friendly.
With the outer walls of scientific integrity breached through the failures of peer review, the community must turn to a second line of defense: replication.
Replication is the concept that another scientist—preferably a competing scientist with an axe to grind because they would love nothing more than to take down a rival—can repeat the experiment as described in the published journal article. If they get the same result, hooray! Science has progressed. If they get a different result, hooray! Science has progressed. No matter what, it’s a win.
Too bad hardly anybody bothers to replicate experiments like this, and when they do, they more often than not find that the original results don’t hold up.
This is called the “replication crisis” in science. It first reared its ugly head in the 2010s in the field of psychology, but I don’t think any field is immune.
There’s a complex swirling septic tank of problems that all contribute to the replication crisis, but the first issue is that replication isn’t sexy. You don’t get to learn new things about the world around us; you just get to confirm whether someone else learned new things about the world around us. As an added ugly bonus, nonresults often don’t even get published. Novelty is seen as a virtue, and if you run an experiment and it doesn’t provide a positive result, journals are less likely to be interested in your manuscript. Additionally, because replication isn’t seen as sexy, when it is done, it isn’t read. Replication studies do not get published in high-impact-factor journals, and authors of replication studies do not get as many citations for their work. This means that their h-index is lower, which lowers their chances of getting grants and promotions.
Second, replication is becoming increasingly hard. With sophisticated tools, mountains of data, complex statistical analyses, elaborate experimental design, and lots and lots of code, in many cases, you would have no hope of attempting to repeat someone else’s work, even if you wanted to.
The end result of all this, as I’ve said before, is that fraud is becoming increasingly common, increasingly hard to detect, and increasingly hard to correct.
The lackluster mirage that is peer review doesn’t adequately screen against mistakes, and with the increasing complexity of science (and with it of scientific discourse), fraud just slips on by, with too many layers between the fundamental research and the end product.
It looks like science is getting done, but is it really?
Sure, retractions and corrections appear here and there, but they are far too few and far between given the amount of fraud, both hard and soft, that we know exists. The conditions in every field of science are ripe for fraud to happen, and nobody has developed a decent enough policing system to root it out—in one case, a journal issued a retraction 35 years after being notified. The kind of investigations that lead to full retractions or corrections don’t come often enough, and meanwhile, there’s just too much science being published. A perusal of the Retraction Watch website reveals instance of fraud after fraud, often coming too late, with little to no major repercussions.
Nobody has the time to read every important paper in their field. It’s a nonstop tidal wave of analysis, math, jargon, plots, and words, words, words. Every scientist writes as much as possible, without really digging into the existing literature, adding to the noise. Heck, take my field, astrophysics, for example. Every single day there are about forty to sixty brand-new astronomy and astrophysics papers birthed into the academic world. Every single day, even holidays! According to surveys, scientists claim that they read about five papers a week. In my not-so-humble opinion, that’s a lie, or at least a big stretch, because there are different definitions of the word “read,” varying from “reading the abstract, the conclusions, and the captions of the prettier pictures” to “absorbing this work into the fabric of my professional consciousness.”
The vast majority of science published is not being consumed by the vast majority of its intended audience. Instead, most scientists just skim new titles, looking for something that stands out, or dig up references during a literature search to use as citations. We’re just running around publishing for the sake of publishing, increasing our chances of striking gold (having a major paper stand out among the noise and get a lot of citations) or at least building a high h-index by brute force of an overwhelming number of publications.
This is exactly the kind of environment where fraud not only exists but abounds. Who cares if you fudge a number here or there—nobody’s actually going to read the thing, not even the referee! And the conclusions you draw in your paper will form the basis of yet more work—heck, maybe even an entire investigative line.
So why doesn’t it stop? We all know and agree that fraud is bad, that uncorrected mistakes are bad, that impossible-to-replicate results are bad. If we all agree that bad things are bad, why don’t we make the bad things go away?
Put simply, there’s no reason to do better. The incentive in science right now is “keep publishing, dang it,” not to waste your time doing careful peer reviews, making your code public, or replicating results.
I’m not saying that most scientists are attempting to pull off willful fraud. I do believe that most scientists are good people trying to do good things in the world. But with all the incentives aligned the way they are, it’s easy to convince yourself that what you’re doing isn’t really fraud. If you refuse to make your code public for scrutiny, are you committing fraud? Or righteously protecting your research investment? If you had to twist the analysis to get a publishable result, are you committing fraud? Or just finally arriving at the answer you knew you were going to get anyway? If you stop checking your work for mistakes, are you committing fraud? Or are you just… finally done, after months of hard work? If you withdraw your article from submission because the referee was getting too critical, are you committing fraud? Or are you protesting an unreasonable peer reviewer?
Scientists aren’t really incentivized to change any of these problems. The system is already in place and “works”; it allows winners and losers to be chosen, with the winners receiving grant funding, tenured positions, and fancy cars. Well, maybe not the fancy cars. Universities aren’t motivated to change these practices because, so long as their winners continue to bring in grants, it lets them roll around in giant taxpayer-funded money pits (I don’t know if this image is totally accurate, but you get the idea).
The very last people who aren’t really motived to change any of this are the publishers themselves. Most publishers make the scientists pay to get their research printed, and they don’t have to pay for the peer review that makes science all scientific. But the big bucks come from the subscriptions: in order to read the journal, you need to either cough up a few dozen bucks to access a single article or pay prohibitively high fees to get annual access. The only people who can afford this are the big universities and libraries, locking most of our modern scientific progress behind gilt-ivory doors.
Altogether, the scientific and technical publishing industry rakes in about ten billion dollars a year, often with double-digit profit margins. Of course they don’t want this ship to change course. I can’t really blame them; they’re just playing by the accepted rules of their own game.
Hannibal, Missouri made Mark Twain, and, in turn, Twain made Hannibal famous. Few American authors are as closely intertwined — and influenced — by their hometowns as Twain. The childhood years spent in this Missouri town gave birth to some of the most famous characters in American literature, an emotional and memory-filled well that Twain would return to again and again.
Twain came from humble origins
Samuel Langhorne Clemens was born in the tiny town of Florida, Missouri, on November 30, 1835, two weeks after Halley’s Comet made its closest approach to the Earth. He was the sixth of seven children born to John and Jane Clemens. He was a sickly youth, whose parents feared he might not survive, and the family was beset by the tragic early deaths of three of Twain’s siblings.
When Twain was 4 years old, his family moved to the Mississippi River port town of Hannibal, where John worked as a lawyer, storekeeper and judge. John also dabbled in land speculation, leaving the family’s finances often precarious. His son, who would become one of the wealthiest authors in America, would follow in his father’s financially-shaky footsteps as an adult and was prone to speculation and ill-advised investments that would repeatedly threaten his financial security.
Jane was a loving mother, and Twain would later note that he inherited his love of storytelling from her. His father couldn’t have been more different, and Twain later claimed that he had never seen the dour and serious John smile.
His years in Hannibal would be the most formative of his life
Hannibal would be immortalized as the town of “St. Petersburg” in Twain’s works. He would write of lazy days spent in the company of a group of loyal friends. They played games and spent hours and days exploring the surrounding area, including a cave just outside of town that was a favorite of Clemens’ real gang of friends, which would play a key role in Tom Sawyer as the cave where Tom Sawyer and Becky Thatcher nearly died.
Thatcher was based on Twain’s real-life childhood crush, Laura Hawkins. Like Twain, Hawkins had moved to Hannibal as a child, and her family lived on the same street as the Clemens family. She and Twain were schoolmates and sweethearts, and idealized versions of Laura made their way into several other Twain books, including The Gilded Age. Later in life, Twain and Hawkins rekindled their friendship, with Twain visiting with her in Hannibal and Hawkins traveling east to Twain’s Connecticut home just two years before his death.
Sawyer’s half-brother Sid was based on Twain’s younger brother Henry. The two were quite close, and when Twain began training as a riverboat pilot on the Mississippi, he encouraged Henry to join him. Tragically, Henry was killed in a steamboat explosion at the age of just 20. Twain never forgave himself, and Henry’s death haunted him for the rest of his life.
Twain said he based the character of Sawyer on himself and two childhood friends, John B. Briggs and William Bowen. But many believe that he nicked the character’s name from a hard-drinking, Brooklyn-born fireman named Tom Sawyer who Twain had befriended in the 1860s. Like Twain, Sawyer had worked on riverboats in his youth, and the pair bonded over a series of drinking benders and gambling adventures in San Francisco, Nevada and elsewhere.
Another childhood friend was the inspiration for Huck Finn
Although Twain initially claimed to have invented the character entirely, he later admitted that Finn was based on Tom Blankenship. The son of the town drunkard, Blankenship was nonetheless idolized by the boys of Hannibal, who relished his sense of freedom and easy ways.
As Twain later wrote in his autobiography, “He was ignorant, unwashed, insufficiently fed; but he had as good a heart as ever any boy had. His liberties were totally unrestricted. He was the only really independent person — boy or man — in the community, and by consequence, he was tranquilly and continuously happy and envied by the rest of us.”
The character of Finn, first introduced in “Tom Sawyer” before getting his own book in 1884, was Twain’s most indelible creation — and his most controversial. While enormously influential and still popular more than a century after it was published, the book is also one of the most frequently banned in America, criticized for its use of coarse language, ethnic slurs and its depiction of the runaway enslaved person, Jim, which many consider racist.
The novel shows Twain dealing with the impact of American slavery
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was one of the first American novels to be written entirely using an English vernacular language and dialect, as Twain recalled both the sights and sounds of his youth. It was also Twain’s attempt to reconcile both the darkness and light of his Hannibal years, which were filled with happy childhood memories as well as darker ones, reflecting the realities of the often capriciously violent world of a riverboat town and the lasting effects of racism and slavery.
Twain later admitted he had grown up unquestioningly accepting slavery, before becoming an avowed advocate for Black rights later in life. Missouri was a slave state, and both Twain’s father and several Clemens family members owned enslaved people. As a young boy, Twain spent summers on his uncle’s farm, listening to stories told by its enslaved workers, including an old man named “Uncle Daniel.” Twain also drew on similar stories he heard from formerly enslaved people who worked for his sister-in-law in upstate New York after the Civil War to create his portrait of Jim, and a long-ago story of the Tom Blankenship’s brother’s secret assistance to a runaway enslaved person would inspire Finn’s relationship with Jim.
Twain’s childhood ended early
When young Twain was just 11, his father died, pushing the family to the brink of economic collapse. Twain was forced to leave school and worked a series of jobs before becoming a printer’s apprentice, where he put his burgeoning love of words into tactical practice by setting type. After stints working for his brother’s newspaper and other publishers in the Midwest and East, Twain fulfilled another childhood love fueled by his Hannibal days by becoming a Mississippi River boat pilot. This brief, though happy, phase of his early 20s was also where he acquired the pen name that millions would soon know him by: “Mark Twain,” a term used by captains to mark a water depth of two fathoms, indicating safe passage for their ships.
Although Twain would only work on the Mississippi for a few years before the start of the Civil War, that period, like those in Hannibal before them, left a lasting impression. Twenty years after his riverboat career ended, Twain took a nostalgic journey along the river to New Orleans, inspiring much of his 1883 book, Life on the Mississippi. And as he made his way back up along the river, he made a return visit home to Hannibal, back to where it all began.
The philosophy that animates Ira Glass’s This American Life can be summed up by a simple come on: “Let me tell you a story.” News, almost by definition, rarely conforms to what Aristotle deemed the essential element of storytelling: plot. It consists of dispatches from geographically disparate locales and varying worlds (politics, foreign affairs, finance, sports), and it doesn’t adhere to a scenario.
Of late, the proliferation of offerings from online outlets has increased choices while fragmenting audiences, creating an age of hot takes and short attention spans. It’s hard to get consumers of TV and radio news to stay tuned. “Having a plot is a way to make people stick around and provide something that feels satisfying,” Ira Glass noted. “That’s the thing about it that’s helpful. If you have a plot, the story can be mundane. It can be incredibly everyday. But people just want to find out what’s gonna happen, and they’ll hang around.”
Not only this, but plot—or narrative, as its sometimes more grandly called—offers an antidote to the political and cultural polarization changing audience habits. As Glass put it: “The primary problem you have in doing a story about any of the big, emotional issues of our time—was the election stolen, does the vaccine work, what to think of Donald Trump, climate change—is that everybody already knows what they think. If you start any story, everybody’s like, ‘Yeah, yeah, I know.’ There’s an enormous hurdle to get over to get people to listen past even the first thirty-five seconds. What do you do? By having characters, scenes, and surprising moments and just letting the thing unfold, you can catch people up in the lives of the people you’re documenting. And then they’ll keep listening to hear how things work out.”
The apotheosis of the This American Life approach is its November 15, 2019, episode, “The Out Crowd,” winner of the inaugural Pulitzer Prize for audio journalism. When the staff of TAL began to put together this show, which focuses on how the Trump administration’s Remain in Mexico policy affected asylum seekers trying to cross into the United States, the basic facts of the matter were already familiar. “We knew this had gotten coverage in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and on the networks,” recalled Glass. “It’s out there—if you follow this. But all of the stories felt academic.” The goal was to capture the human dimensions of a policy that had stranded thousands in desolate shelters deemed unsafe by the US State Department.
“The Out Crowd” opens with a fourteen-minute prologue reported from a tent city in Matamoros, Mexico, just across the Rio Grande from Brownsville, Texas. In it, Glass introduces listeners to an unlikely protagonist—a nine-year-old Honduran refugee named Darwin who along with his mother is hoping to get to America. “I feel like if you said at the beginning that this was a show about immigration, nobody would listen,” said Glass. “The fact that the first few minutes of the show can just be a portrait of this completely charming kid, everybody’s favorite kid—you wanna hear more. Then you pull the camera back. Then you reveal: OK. Here’s what the show is about today.”
Since its debut, Glass’s brand of journalistic storytelling has resulted in countless superb installments of This American Life. It has also resulted in one devastating misfire.
The show is about the difficulties facing people like Darwin and his family. Some of these difficulties arose from Trump’s policies. As outlined by the Los Angeles Times reporter Molly O’Toole (TAL partnered with the newspaper on this episode), the United States was not just building a physical wall at its southern border but also a bureaucratic one. “We’ve been asked to do affirmative harm to people,” one asylum officer says in explaining rules that send even qualified migrants back to the dangers they are fleeing.
Meanwhile refugees faced a more imminent peril: as they awaited a resolution to their cases, cartel members bent on kidnapping them for ransom lurked just beyond their camp gates. To illustrate this part of the tale, Glass introduced Emily Green, a reporter for Vice, who’d latched onto some terrifying audiotape—cell phone recordings of negotiations between cartel members and the American sister of a Honduran businessman abducted near his border camp. The hostage was ultimately freed, but the exchanges spoke to why some migrants, among them Darwin’s mother, might choose what to most people would be an unthinkable option: sending her son on alone to the United States.
“She doesn’t want to let him go,” Glass concludes, “but given how things play out, she’s not sure what else to do.”
In the spring of 2020, when the Pulitzer committee presented its award to This American Life, it amounted not just to a recognition of “The Out Crowd” but of Glass’s philosophy. The prize saluted what the Pulitzer committee termed the value of “revelatory, intimate journalism.” As Glass sees it, work like “The Out Crowd,” unlike that of journalists who maintain traditional reportorial distance, does something rare. It encourages audiences to feel.
“A lot of so-called conventional sorts of reporting that aren’t built around narrative can end up treating people in sort of an anthropological way,” he said. “The reporters are just outside anthropologists who are coming in to diagnose questions like, ‘Have people been hurt by the economy?’ Their reporting doesn’t include the possibility of relating to the people. I think the fundamental advantage of narrative is that you can create a context where it’s possible to imagine being someone different from yourself.”
Over the years, This American Life has applied the technique to countless important subjects. In “The Giant Pool of Money,” an episode that aired in 2008, reporter Adam Davidson and producer Alex Blumberg make the financial crisis sparked by the collapse of the mortgage bubble comprehensible to just about anyone. In “The Night in Question” in 2015, reporter Dan Ephron and producer Nancy Updike unravel the previously inexplicable motives behind the assassination of Israeli prime minister Itzak Rabin.
The method also works for subjects that on the surface seem less profound. In “129 Cars,” a 2013 episode produced by Glass and Robyn Semien and reported by, among others, Sarah Koenig and Brian Reed (the mind behind S Town), TAL explores the lengths to which the staff of Town and Country Jeep Chrysler Ram in Levittown, New York, goes to hit its monthly sales quotas. (To get psyched, one salesman reads Sun Tzu’s The Art of War at his desk.) In “#1 Party School,” TAL examines the party-till-you puke ethos of students at Pennsylvania State University while annotating the psychological damage they inflict on themselves and the property damage they do to the town of State College.
“There is nothing in the journalism playbook to prevent a determined liar from getting one over now and again. It is partly because seekers of the truth expect the same in others.”
Since its debut, Glass’s brand of journalistic storytelling has resulted in countless superb installments of This American Life. It has also resulted in one devastating misfire. The nadir of the TAL approach is its January 6, 2012, episode, “Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory.” When it first aired, this show appeared to be yet another example of Glass’s artistry. A reworking of The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs, a stage production by the monologist Mike Daisey that had been selling out theaters around the country, the program investigates how Americans, in their zeal for iPhones and iPads, have ignored the inconvenient truth that these sleek implements are largely manufactured by workers toiling in brutal conditions at the massive Foxconn complex in Shenzhen, China.
Daisey, with the assistance of an interpreter named Cathy who becomes a major character in the story, had recently toured the facility, and he assured Glass of the accuracy of his descriptions of the brutal working environment. After vetting the basic facts about Apple’s production process, TAL aired his allegations.
“Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory” opens with the arrival of Daisey and Cathy at Foxconn. It’s the kind of simple, arresting scene typical of This American Life:
I get out of the taxi with my translator, and the first thing I see at the gates are the guards. And the guards look pissed. They look really pissed, and they are carrying guns.
More worrying than the guns is what Daisey describes next—the makeup of the labor force:
In my first two hours of my first day at that gate, I met workers who were fourteen years old, thirteen years old, twelve. Do you really think that Apple doesn’t know?
Everywhere Daisey looked, he claimed to have seen evidence of corporate disregard for worker welfare. Some laborers shake from exposure to n-hexane, a toxic chemical used to clean the screens of Apple devices. An elderly ex-worker proffers a hand mangled, Daisey says, during the manufacturing of an iPad case. Because there are few iPads in China, Daisey shows the worker his. The man’s eyes light up. According to Daisey, he told Cathy: “It’s a kind of magic.”
“Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory” is mesmerizing and flawlessly produced. It became the most-downloaded episode of This American Life. There was only one problem. In almost every salient detail, the story was a fabrication.
Glass might never have learned that he’d been bamboozled had not Rob Schmitz, at the time a reporter for Marketplace in Shanghai, listened to “Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory” and realized that key parts of it (Chinese private security guards are prohibited by law from carrying firearms) are untrue. At the suggestion of an executive at American Public Media, the then-distributor of both Marketplace and TAL, Schmitz called Glass, and Glass engaged him to investigate the entire broadcast.
Glass starts the March 16, 2012, This American Life, titled “Retraction,” by apologizing for airing “Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory.” The fault, he says, is not so much in Daisey as in himself. He didn’t press the monologist regarding a vital piece of intelligence—contact information for Cathy. “He had a cell phone number for her, but it didn’t work anymore. He said he had no way to reach her. Because other things Mike told us about Apple and Foxconn seemed to check out, we saw no reason to doubt him, and we dropped this. That was a mistake.”
“Times changed, and I became less interested in doing memoir, because memoir is sort of everywhere. Basically, the internet happened.”
Just how big a mistake becomes plain when Glass cues up act one: Rob Schmitz’s probe of Daisey’s story. “I decided to track down his translator,” the Marketplace reporter begins. “I could pretend finding her took amazing detective work. But basically, I just typed ‘Cathy and translator and Shenzhen’ into Google. I called the first number that came up.” Cathy answered. Schmitz met Cathy in Shenzhen, where the bulk of Daisey’s story unraveled. Child laborers? The translator says she and the monologist never saw any. Workers suffering from chemical poisoning? “No. Nobody mentioned n-hexane.” The man with the gnarled hand. “No, this is not true. Very emotional. But not true.”
Schmitz’s deconstruction of Daisey’s piece (he uncovered at least thirteen lies) remains one of the most unsettling segments ever broadcast on This American Life. No sooner did it conclude than Glass introduced an even more harrowing segment—an interview with Mike Daisey, who expresses only one grudging regret: he is sorry he permitted a program dedicated to journalism to air a piece written for the stage.
Everything I have done making this monologue for the theater has been to make people care. I’m not going to say I didn’t take a few shortcuts in my passion to be heard. But I stand behind the work. It’s theater. I use the tools of theater to achieve its dramatic arc, and of that arc and that work, I am very proud, because I think I made you care, Ira, and I think I made you want to delve.
As far as Daisey is concerned, the issue was one of inaccurate labeling. Glass didn’t buy it.
I understand you believe this, but I think you’re kidding yourself in the way that normal people go to see a person talk. People take it as literal truth. I thought the story was true.
For all that, the host seems less outraged than hurt.
I have such a weird mix of feelings about this, because I simultaneously feel terrible for you. And also, I feel lied to. And also, I stuck my neck out for you . . . I vouched for you. With our audience, based on your word.
For This American Life, Daisey-gate was a mortifying embarrassment. At first, a majority of critics went easy on the program. Seventeen years into its run, it had built a lot of goodwill. David Carr of the New York Times saw Ira Glass as the victim: “There is nothing in the journalism playbook to prevent a determined liar from getting one over now and again. It is partly because seekers of the truth expect the same in others.” James Fallows of The Atlantic praised Glass’s retraction, terming it “a superb unraveling of Daisey’s inventions” and an “exploration of real journalistic values and the difference between fact and metaphor.” Soon enough, the criticism hardened.
Some felt that the host’s mea culpa was pat. Responding to his comment about having “a weird mix of feelings” concerning Daisey’s deceits, David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun wrote, “Despite all the feelings, whoa, whoa, whoa feelings, feeling bad after the crime isn’t enough. Talking about your feelings and beating up the lying liar the way Glass did without offering specific actions is more performance and self-absorption than it is genuine contrition.”
More substantially, a few attacked the central idea of This American Life—narrative journalism. In an essay for The Baffler, Eugenia Williamson wrote, “Daisey exposed the fact that the aesthetics and conventions of the narrative journey Glass has patented . . . were never designed to accommodate harsh . . . truths . . . Daisey’s lies . . . exposed the limitations of This American Life’s twee, transporting narratives, the show’s habit of massaging painful realities into puddles of personal experience, its preference for pathos over tragedy.”
In the end, This American Life survived Mike Daisey. “Immediately after that we started working with professional fact-checkers,” said Glass. Also, the Daisey scam occurred as TAL was phasing out what had long been a staple—monologues by people like Daisey. In its early years the program had often featured works by the comically arch Sarah Vowell and the adventurous Scott Carrier. Later the lineup regularly included the twistedly fatalistic David Rakoff, the twistedly sweet David Sedaris, and the twistedly awkward Mike Birbiglia.
But by midway into the millennium’s second decade, Glass had decided that the genre was overexposed. “Times changed, and I became less interested in doing memoir, because memoir is sort of everywhere. Basically, the internet happened. People documenting their own lives on social media happened after that. The idea of, ‘Let’s document people’s everyday lives’ became less interesting.”
As for the larger issue of narrative journalism, not only was Glass not deterred by the harsh assessments of “Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory,” but he upped his bet on the form. “When I talk to journalism students they sometimes freak out when I say, ‘You’re gonna do a story with a plot.’ But all a plot means is: This happened. Then this next thing happened. And that caused this next thing to happen. That will be the thing that’s the spine. Then we can digress from there to talk about feelings and make jokes and describe things and have ideas about the world. But the fundamental thing will be: Here’s Point A. Here’s Point B. Here’s Point C. And that’s a powerful force. That’s part of what gives it such satisfaction at the end.”
This is the electronic media movement that Glass started, the one that is attracting not just mainstream journalism outfits like the New York Times and giving birth to podcasting pioneers—among them former TAL producer Alex Blumberg—but inspiring all those young imitators with iPhones and websites who, in the ultimate tribute to Glass, believe they do a better job than he does.
A federal judge on Tuesday rejected a $30 billion settlement designed to cap the fees Visa and Mastercard charge merchants for credit and debit card purchases. This decision disrupts an agreement reached in March aimed at concluding two decades of litigation over swipe fees. U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie of the Eastern District of New York denied preliminary approval of the settlement. Brodie instructed the plaintiffs to confer and respond to the ruling by Friday. Visa and Mastercard must now renegotiate with merchants or prepare for trial.
The rejected settlement intended to reduce the average swipe fee by at least 0.04 percentage points for three years and maintain it at least 0.07 percentage points below the current average for five years. It also proposed preventing any increase in swipe fees until 2030. The fees, typically ranging from 1.5 to 3 percent per transaction, are a significant cost for retailers.
Visa and Mastercard expressed disappointment. Mastercard spokesperson Will O’Connor called the settlement a “fair resolution,” and Visa spokesperson Fletcher Cook described it as an “appropriate resolution” from lengthy discussions with merchants. Retailers, however, felt the settlement fell short. Stephanie Martz, General Counsel for the National Retail Federation, criticized the settlement for not addressing long-term issues, indicating a willingness to go to trial. Doug Kantor, General Counsel at the National Association of Convenience Stores, echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that the settlement did not resolve fundamental problems.
The lawsuit originated in 2005 as an antitrust class action against Visa, Mastercard, and several U.S. banks, alleging excessive fees and price fixing. Retailers argued that the settlement provided only temporary relief and failed to address systemic issues. Credit card companies argue that swipe fees cover the cost of processing payments. Critics, however, believe that the proposed settlement allowed these companies to shift fees or increase them once the settlement period ended.
Christopher Jones of the National Grocers Association praised the judge's decision, noting that it’s rare for a preliminary settlement to be rejected, indicating the proposal's inadequacy. Retailers argue that swipe fees are a significant operating cost, second only to labor. Industry leaders are calling for legislative action. The Retail Industry Leaders Association advocates for the Credit Card Competition Act, which would mandate financial institutions to offer multiple network options for processing transactions, thereby increasing competition and potentially lowering fees.
The Credit Card Competition Act, sponsored by Senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall, faces opposition from the credit card industry, which argues it would harm card security and rewards programs. Proponents believe it would introduce necessary competition and break the Visa-Mastercard duopoly. Visa and Mastercard continue to assert that the rejected settlement was the best resolution achieved through extensive negotiations with merchants. As the industry awaits further developments, the focus now shifts to whether a new agreement can be reached or if the case will proceed to trial.
Beyond the immediate legal implications, the judge’s decision has broader ramifications for the financial sector and retail industry. Swipe fees, technically known as interchange fees, are charged by card-issuing banks to merchants for the processing of credit and debit card transactions. These fees are then split between the card networks (Visa and Mastercard) and the banks. They have been a contentious issue for years, with merchants arguing that the costs are excessive and lack transparency.
The ongoing litigation reflects a fundamental clash between two powerful sectors: financial institutions that profit from transaction fees and retail businesses that view these fees as an onerous burden. The rejected settlement was seen by many in the retail sector as a half-measure that did not address the root causes of their grievances. By rejecting the settlement, Judge Brodie has effectively given merchants another opportunity to push for more substantial reforms.
The implications of this decision could also extend to consumers. If Visa and Mastercard decide to pass on the costs of any future settlement or increased legal expenses to cardholders, this could result in higher fees or reduced rewards programs. On the other hand, a successful renegotiation that significantly lowers swipe fees could benefit consumers if retailers pass on the savings through lower prices.
The legal battle over swipe fees is part of a larger debate about the fairness and competitiveness of the payment processing market. Critics of the current system argue that Visa and Mastercard have created a duopoly that stifles competition and innovation. They point to the high barriers to entry for other companies and the lack of alternative networks that can handle the volume and security requirements of modern transactions.
Proponents of the Credit Card Competition Act argue that by requiring financial institutions to offer at least one alternative to Visa or Mastercard for processing transactions, the market would become more competitive, driving down fees and spurring innovation. Opponents, however, caution that such measures could lead to unintended consequences, such as compromised security and reduced incentives for card issuers to offer rewards programs that are popular with consumers.
In the wake of Judge Brodie’s decision, both sides are preparing for the next steps. Visa and Mastercard may seek to negotiate a new settlement that addresses the judge’s concerns, or they could choose to fight the case in court. Meanwhile, retail associations are likely to continue their advocacy for legislative changes that would bring more transparency and competition to the payment processing market.
As this legal saga unfolds, the stakes remain high for all parties involved. For Visa and Mastercard, the outcome could significantly impact their business models and profitability. For retailers, it represents a chance to reduce one of their major operating costs. And for consumers, the ultimate resolution could affect everything from the cost of goods to the availability of credit card rewards programs.
The next few months will be critical as negotiations resume and the case potentially heads to trial. The financial and retail sectors will be watching closely, as will lawmakers and consumer advocacy groups. The resolution of this case could set a precedent for how transaction fees are handled in the future, shaping the landscape of the payment processing industry for years to come.
A year has passed since actors took to the streets, demanding fair compensation and protection against artificial intelligence. The threat of AI remains a pressing concern for many in the industry. Some members of the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) report facing pressure to consent to the creation of digital replicas of their likenesses.
Nandini Bapat, an actor since 2012, experienced this firsthand. After last year’s lengthy strike, she secured a role in a Warner Bros. production. The contract asked her to consent to a digital replica of her likeness. Bapat refused, marking "no" on the contract, which led to threats of being sent home if she did not comply. Warner Bros. declined to comment on her claims, and a source noted that digital replicas are considered on a case-by-case basis.
On July 14, actors demanded fair pay and protections against AI. After 118 days of striking, SAG-AFTRA ratified a new contract. The agreement, described as a significant gain for the union, included a higher minimum wage and provisions for AI usage, requiring consent and compensation. However, many actors still see digital technology as a threat to their livelihoods.
Bapat was excited to return to work but felt disheartened when AI consent became a job requirement. Her refusal led to a standoff with Warner Bros., which eventually amended the contract. Bapat credits SAG-AFTRA for supporting her, acknowledging that she couldn’t have fought the battle alone. Marie Fink, a stunt performer, faced a similar situation. She was asked to consent to a digital replica for her role in "The Sex Lives of College Girls" but refused. Although assured by Warner Bros. that there would be no retaliation, Fink hasn’t been called back for the show and won’t receive residual payments or contributions to her health and pension.
The new contract stipulates that actors must be informed about the use of their digital replicas, and they have the right to decline. This wasn’t the case for Bapat, who alleges Warner Bros. did not provide a detailed description of the AI usage. Stunt performers, in particular, are concerned about AI reducing the need for their skills. With fewer opportunities since the strike ended, some have turned to television work to make up for the lack of film roles. The production decline has impacted many in the industry, making job security a critical issue.
Digital humans are not new. Lucasfilm’s 2016 "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" used existing footage to create a digital replica of the late actor Peter Cushing. While this was done with the estate’s permission, it sparked ethical concerns. More recently, AI has been used to fill stadiums and audiences in productions like "Daisy Jones & The Six" and "Ted Lasso." Justine Bateman, a SAG-AFTRA AI advisor, argues that digital scans have worsened job scarcity. The new contract allows the creation of digital replicas of deceased actors with consent from their heirs or a union representative. This has led to concerns about competition and job security for living actors.
Congress has taken notice, with bipartisan coalitions introducing bills like the NO FAKES Act to protect individuals from unauthorized digital replicas. Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, SAG-AFTRA’s national executive director, emphasizes the inevitability of technological progress. The union’s goal is to ensure informed consent and fair compensation. Crabtree-Ireland acknowledges reports of companies demanding consent for digital replication, which the union has addressed. He notes that the use of AI is gradually increasing and that the union is monitoring compliance with the new rules. SAG national board member Shaan Sharma is developing an AI rider to tighten existing protections. With the contract effective through June 2026, Sharma aims to prevent the replacement of performers.
Despite the challenges, some actors remain hopeful. Duncan Anderson, who consented to a digital replica for "The Sex Lives of College Girls," believes AI cannot replace human storytelling. He trusts that actors will adapt to the evolving landscape. The battle over AI in Hollywood is far from over. As technology continues to advance, the industry must balance innovation with protecting the livelihoods of its performers. The actors' strike highlighted the need for fair treatment, and the fight for these rights continues.
AI's presence in Hollywood is not just a concern for actors but also for the broader creative community. Writers, directors, and producers are increasingly aware of the implications of AI. As AI technology becomes more sophisticated, it raises questions about originality, creativity, and the human touch in storytelling. AI's ability to generate scripts and story ideas is both a boon and a bane. For writers, AI can serve as a tool to brainstorm and overcome writer’s block. However, there is also a fear that AI-generated scripts could replace human writers. The Writers Guild of America (WGA) has expressed concerns about the potential for AI to be used to cut costs, leading to fewer job opportunities for human writers.
Directors, too, are navigating the AI landscape. AI can assist in pre-visualization, special effects, and even editing. While these tools can enhance a director's vision, there is apprehension about AI potentially overshadowing human creativity. Directors are calling for a balanced approach, where AI is used to support rather than replace their artistic decisions. For producers, AI offers cost-saving advantages. Digital replicas and AI-generated extras can reduce the need for large casts and crew, significantly cutting production costs. However, this cost efficiency comes with the risk of compromising artistic integrity. Producers are now tasked with finding a balance between leveraging AI for financial benefits and maintaining the quality and authenticity of their productions.
Unions like SAG-AFTRA and the WGA are crucial in advocating for fair treatment and protections for their members in the face of AI advancements. These unions are not against technology but seek to ensure that it is used ethically and that members are compensated fairly for their work. The ongoing negotiations and contracts reflect a broader effort to adapt to technological changes while safeguarding the interests of creative professionals.
As AI technology evolves, ethical considerations become paramount. The use of AI to create digital replicas of deceased actors, for instance, raises questions about consent and respect for the deceased. Similarly, the potential for AI to manipulate or alter performances without an actor's consent poses significant ethical challenges. Industry stakeholders are increasingly recognizing the need for clear guidelines and regulations to address these issues.
Audience perception of AI-generated content is another critical factor. While some viewers appreciate the technological advancements, others may feel uncomfortable with the idea of digital replicas and AI-generated performances. The industry's challenge lies in integrating AI in ways that enhance the viewing experience without alienating audiences.
Looking ahead, the future of AI in Hollywood is likely to be shaped by ongoing dialogue and collaboration among industry stakeholders. Technological advancements will continue, but their impact will depend on how they are managed and regulated. The goal is to create an environment where AI enhances the creative process without undermining the contributions of human artists.
The integration of AI into Hollywood is an ongoing process with significant implications for actors, writers, directors, and producers. As the industry navigates these changes, the focus must remain on balancing innovation with ethical considerations and protecting the livelihoods of creative professionals. The fight for fair treatment and compensation in the age of AI is far from over, and the creative community must continue to advocate for their rights and interests.
The actors' strike and the subsequent developments highlight the need for vigilance and adaptability in the face of technological advancements. As AI continues to evolve, the industry must work together to ensure that the future of entertainment is both innovative and equitable.
Source
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Oregon city law designed to address homeless encampments. Some see the ruling as a victory for local control, while others worry it will worsen the homelessness crisis in Washington. The ruling allows cities and counties to outlaw sleeping outdoors in public places, a decision that has ignited fears of increased homelessness.
Michele Thomas, director of policy advocacy for the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, criticized the ruling. She argued that it allows for the punishment of individuals simply trying to survive without shelter. Thomas called on lawmakers in cities and counties not to arrest or punish homeless individuals or issue fines. She warned that this decision, along with potential cuts to homeless services, could lead to more people experiencing homelessness, which she described as devastating.
On the other hand, Camas City Councilmember Leslie Lewallen praised the ruling as a win for local control. Lewallen, a Republican candidate in the 3rd Congressional District, emphasized that local governments need the authority to help homeless individuals. She pointed out that people in southwest Washington work closely with the homeless community and understand that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
Local and state governments view the ability to limit outdoor sleeping as one tool to address the increase in unsheltered individuals. The 2018 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Martin v. City of Boise set the precedent that local governments could not punish individuals for camping if no emergency shelter beds were available. However, if a person was offered shelter and refused it, they could be cited or arrested. The recent Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson challenged an Oregon city's law that barred sleeping in public places due to a lack of available shelter capacity.
In response to the Martin decision, several Washington cities created ordinances requiring homeless individuals to accept housing, even if it was far away, to avoid punishment. These ordinances were put on hold pending the outcome of the Grants Pass case. Rep. Strom Peterson, D-Edmonds, chair of the House Housing Committee, expressed disappointment with the ruling, stating that arresting someone trying to survive is contrary to effective solutions for homelessness. He believes the decision will exacerbate the problem.
Sen. Patty Kuderer, D-Bellevue, who leads the Senate Housing Committee, also criticized the ruling, saying it pulls efforts backward rather than helping move forward. Kuderer highlighted the importance of balancing the needs of local governments with the dignity of the homeless, referencing a dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Both Peterson and Kuderer emphasized that addressing homelessness requires controlling rent costs, increasing affordable housing, and boosting funding for support services. They plan to revive legislation for a cap on rent increases and a new graduated real estate excise tax in the 2025 state legislative session.
Rep. Andrew Barkis, R-Olympia, a member of the Housing Committee, supported the ruling, stating that it gives cities the necessary tools to address the crisis. Barkis argued that the Martin decision limited cities' abilities to respond to new encampments effectively. He believes that instead of pouring more money into homeless programs or imposing rent caps, the focus should be on enhancing detox programs and mental health services, which many homeless individuals need.
State lawmakers have directed approximately $5 billion to expand housing and prevent homelessness since 2013, with over $4 billion allocated in the past two state budgets. Despite these efforts, Sen. Kuderer noted that people are falling into homelessness faster than they can be helped out of it. She believes the problem is solvable but that the recent Supreme Court decision does not contribute to solving it.
The Supreme Court's decision has sparked a debate on the best approach to address homelessness. While some see the ruling as empowering local governments to manage the issue, others fear it will criminalize homelessness and fail to address the root causes. The discussion highlights the complexities of balancing public order with compassion and support for the most vulnerable members of society. As cities and counties consider how to implement these new powers, the impact on homeless individuals remains uncertain. The ruling presents an opportunity for local governments to explore various strategies, but it also underscores the need for comprehensive solutions that address the underlying issues of homelessness.
Source
Georgism, also known as Geoism or the single tax movement, is an economic philosophy advocating for the public ownership of economic rent derived from land and natural resources. The ideology posits that individuals should own the value they generate, while the value derived from land and other natural resources should be shared among all members of society. Rooted in the writings of Henry George, an American economist and social reformer, Georgism's ideas are encapsulated in his seminal work, Progress and Poverty (1879), which argues that poverty and economic inequality stem from the private ownership of land rent. George believed that taxing the economic rent from land, rather than taxing labor or capital, would lead to a more just and efficient economy.
The main tenet of Georgism is the land value tax (LVT), which taxes the unimproved value of land. Proponents argue that this tax is fair and efficient because it does not penalize productive activities. Instead, it captures the unearned value that accrues to landowners from societal and natural developments. Revenues from LVT can potentially replace other taxes, reduce economic inequality, and provide public services or a basic income to citizens. Georgists argue that land, unlike other forms of wealth, is fixed in supply and its value is created by the community. Therefore, taxing land value does not distort economic incentives or reduce productivity. Economists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Milton Friedman have recognized that a land value tax does not cause economic inefficiency. In fact, it can lead to better land use, reduce speculation, and promote more equitable wealth distribution.
The concept also extends to other forms of economic rent derived from natural monopolies, pollution rights, and intellectual property. Georgists maintain that capturing these rents for public use can address broader social and ecological issues. The historical context of Georgism shows its rise in popularity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, influencing political movements and policies. Several communities and political parties, particularly in the United States and Europe, adopted Georgist principles. Notable examples include the Commonwealth Land Party in the U.S. and the Justice Party in Denmark. Despite its historical influence, the direct implementation of Georgist policies has been limited. However, the philosophy has left a lasting impact on economic thought, with land value taxation still considered by many economists as an effective and just means of raising public revenue.
Implementing a land value tax involves accurately assessing the unimproved value of land, which can be challenging. There is also debate over whether existing landowners should be compensated for the shift in tax policy. Some argue for full compensation, while others believe only new increases in land value should be taxed. Successful examples of land value taxation include regions in Australia, Hong Kong, and certain U.S. municipalities. These implementations have demonstrated benefits such as reduced property speculation and better land use, though challenges remain in broader adoption. Georgism also intersects with environmental economics. By taxing land value and capturing rents from natural resource use, it encourages the conservation of natural resources and reduction of pollution. Georgists advocate for policies that limit pollution through taxes or quotas, with revenues used for public benefit or environmental restoration. This approach aligns with ecological economics, which emphasizes the sustainable use of natural resources. By integrating these principles, Georgism offers a framework for addressing both economic and environmental challenges.
Henry George's influence extends beyond his time, as his ideas continue to resonate in modern discussions about economic justice and sustainability. George's assertion that the appropriation of land rent for private use contributes to persistent poverty and economic instability has been supported by various economists throughout history. His proposal for a land value tax was seen as a way to correct these imbalances by ensuring that the benefits of land and natural resources are equitably distributed.
One of the key economic arguments for Georgism is that land, as a fixed resource, gains its value from the community and societal developments around it. Therefore, capturing this value through taxation would not deter productive use but rather encourage it. By taxing land value, speculative holding of land would be discouraged, leading to more efficient and productive use of urban spaces. This would also help alleviate housing shortages and make cities more livable.
Furthermore, Georgism posits that replacing taxes on labor and capital with a land value tax would remove distortions in the economy. Taxes on income and sales are seen as punitive, discouraging work and consumption. In contrast, a land value tax is viewed as non-distortionary because land cannot be hidden or moved to avoid taxation. This makes it a more stable and reliable source of public revenue.
Despite the theoretical appeal of Georgism, practical implementation faces significant hurdles. Accurately assessing land values without including improvements can be complex and contentious. Additionally, the political will to shift from entrenched tax systems to a land value tax is often lacking. However, some regions have successfully implemented versions of land value taxation, showing it can work under the right conditions.
In environmental economics, Georgism's principles provide a compelling argument for sustainable resource use. By taxing the economic rent from natural resources and pollution, Georgism aligns economic incentives with environmental stewardship. This approach can reduce urban sprawl, encourage the preservation of natural areas, and fund environmental restoration projects.
Moreover, Georgism's emphasis on social justice is reflected in its advocacy for the redistribution of tax revenues. This could take the form of a basic income or citizen's dividend, ensuring that all members of society benefit from the collective value of natural resources. This concept aligns with modern ideas of universal basic income, providing a safety net and reducing economic inequality.
Georgist policies have influenced various social and political movements throughout history. In the early 20th century, Georgist ideas were incorporated into the platforms of several political parties and reform movements. These ideas contributed to debates on land reform, taxation, and social justice. Although the direct influence of Georgism has waned, its principles continue to inform contemporary discussions on economic policy and environmental sustainability.
The challenge of integrating Georgist principles into modern economies lies in overcoming the entrenched interests of landowners and the complexities of transitioning to a new tax system. However, the potential benefits of such a transition—reduced inequality, more efficient land use, and sustainable resource management—make Georgism an enduring and relevant economic philosophy.
In conclusion, Georgism offers a vision of economic justice and efficiency through the public capture of land rent. By advocating for a land value tax, Georgists propose a system that aligns economic incentives with social and environmental well-being. While implementation challenges remain, the principles of Georgism continue to inspire discussions on how to create a fairer and more sustainable economy. The legacy of Henry George and his ideas provides a foundation for exploring how economic policies can be designed to benefit all members of society and promote the responsible use of natural resources.
Tractor Supply, a major rural retailer, announced sweeping changes to its environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives. The company is eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) roles, withdrawing carbon emissions goals, and reducing support for LGBTQ communities. The move aims to align the company’s policies with the values of its rural customer base. These changes include ending sponsorship of Pride festivals and voting campaigns and ceasing data submissions to the Human Rights Campaign.
Historically, Tractor Supply has been recognized for its DEI and environmental efforts. The company had set ambitious targets, such as achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2040 and increasing the representation of employees of color in management by 50% by 2026. However, it now plans to focus more on land and water conservation, veteran causes, and agricultural education.
The decision comes amid growing anti-DEI sentiment, highlighted by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down affirmative action in college admissions. This ruling has emboldened conservative groups to challenge corporate DEI initiatives. Companies like Starbucks, Disney, and Target have faced similar backlash, leading some to quietly adjust their diversity programs.
Founded in 1938 as a mail-order tractor parts business, Tractor Supply has evolved into the largest operator of rural lifestyle retail stores in the United States. With over 2,250 stores across 49 states, the company offers a wide range of products, including livestock and pet supplies, hardware, and home improvement items. Its headquarters is in Brentwood, Tennessee.
Despite the backlash, Tractor Supply emphasized its commitment to listening to its customers and maintaining their trust and confidence. The retailer caters to a largely rural customer base, with 50,000 employees nationwide. The company's decision to pivot away from its previous ESG goals reflects a broader trend of companies reassessing their social and environmental strategies in response to public and political pressures.
The elimination of DEI roles and carbon emission goals marks a significant shift in Tractor Supply’s corporate policy. The retailer had previously earned high marks for its commitment to these areas, including a perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s Corporate Equality Index in 2022. The company’s withdrawal from these commitments has sparked diverse reactions, with some praising the move and others expressing concern over the abandonment of progressive values.
Conservative activists have welcomed the changes. Online campaigns have targeted companies like Tractor Supply, urging boycotts and criticizing their support for DEI and environmental initiatives. This pressure has led some businesses to reconsider their policies to avoid backlash.
However, advocacy groups like the Human Rights Campaign have criticized Tractor Supply's decision, arguing that it undermines inclusive practices and harms communities. The organization expressed disappointment, stating that the company is turning its back on its own neighbors. LGBTQ+ advocacy groups highlighted the potential negative impact on rural communities, where inclusivity efforts are crucial.
The broader context includes legal challenges and public pressure that have influenced corporate policies across various industries. The Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action has intensified these debates, leading to increased scrutiny of corporate DEI efforts. As a result, some companies have quietly adjusted their programs, while others, like Tractor Supply, have made more public and sweeping changes.
Tractor Supply’s focus on rural America remains a cornerstone of its business strategy. The company has invested millions of dollars in supporting veteran causes, state fairs, animal shelters, rodeos, and farmers markets. It is also the largest supporter of the Future Farmers of America (FFA), a nonprofit organization promoting agricultural education for middle and high school students.
The company's decision to shift its ESG focus is seen as a move to better represent the values of its customers. As Tractor Supply continues to navigate these changes, it faces the challenge of balancing diverse stakeholder expectations while maintaining its market position.
The coming months will reveal the impact of these policy shifts on Tractor Supply's operations and customer relations. The retailer’s commitment to listening to its customers and team members will be crucial in maintaining trust and confidence in a rapidly changing social and political landscape.
As the debate over corporate DEI and ESG initiatives continues, Tractor Supply’s actions highlight the complexities businesses face in balancing inclusivity, environmental responsibility, and customer values. The company’s future strategies will be closely watched as it adapts to these evolving dynamics.
Bronny James, the eldest son of NBA star LeBron James, has been drafted by the Los Angeles Lakers with the 55th pick in the NBA Draft. This marks the culmination of years of speculation and anticipation surrounding his entry into professional basketball. Bronny, one of the most closely watched amateur players, joins his father’s team, potentially setting the stage for an unprecedented father-son duo in the NBA.
Bronny’s journey to the NBA has been marked by scrutiny and challenges. After one year at the University of Southern California, where he averaged 4.8 points and 19.3 minutes in 25 games, questions about his professional prospects emerged, especially following a cardiac arrest last year due to a congenital heart defect. Despite this, Bronny expressed his long-held dream of making a name for himself in the NBA and creating his own legacy.
The Lakers, coming off a 47-35 season and a first-round playoff exit, are a fitting backdrop for Bronny's debut. His father, LeBron, had previously stated his desire to play alongside his son, a sentiment that has fueled much of the speculation about Bronny’s draft position. LeBron, entering his 22nd season, has until Saturday to decide whether to extend his contract with the Lakers or explore free agency.
Bronny's selection follows a notable pre-draft process where he worked out for only two teams, the Lakers and the Phoenix Suns. His agent, Rich Paul, confirmed that Bronny would not sign a two-way contract, emphasizing his readiness to compete at the NBA level based on his own merits.
Despite his challenges and an underwhelming college season, Bronny has shown flashes of potential. His health scare last July, when he collapsed during a USC practice, was a significant hurdle. However, his recovery and return to the court renewed discussions about his NBA prospects.
Experts have debated Bronny’s draft stock, considering both his performances and the influence of his father’s legacy. Some believed teams might draft Bronny to attract LeBron, but Bronny has maintained that his selection would be based on his own abilities and character.
Bronny's entry into the NBA is also a testament to the broader trend of second-generation players excelling beyond expectations. Historically, sons of NBA players have often outperformed their draft positions, and Bronny’s journey will be closely watched to see if he follows this trend.
LeBron's dream of playing with his son has been a significant narrative in Bronny’s career. While LeBron's agent, Rich Paul, has downplayed the certainty of this happening, the possibility remains an intriguing prospect for the basketball world.
Bronny finished his high school career at Sierra Canyon as a four-star recruit and a McDonald’s All-American, averaging 14.1 points, 5.6 rebounds, 2.4 assists, and 1.7 steals in his senior year. His draft selection by the Lakers not only fulfills a personal dream but also sets the stage for a unique chapter in NBA history.
As Bronny steps onto the professional stage, he carries the weight of his father’s legacy while carving out his own path. The coming seasons will reveal how this young athlete, bearing one of the most famous names in sports, will shape his career and potentially share the court with his legendary father.
This milestone in Bronny’s career is more than just a draft pick; it’s the beginning of a new narrative in the James family legacy and the NBA. Fans and analysts alike will be watching closely as Bronny embarks on his professional journey with the Lakers, aiming to prove his worth and live up to the expectations set by his father's illustrious career.