Linkage

This is interesting. A considerably less bleak conclusion than I would have expected.

I interviewed 30 chiefs of staff, legislative directors, and legislative assistants—the key players who shape nearly every policy decision that moves through Congress. What I learned challenges conventional wisdom about how scientific information flows on Capitol Hill and reveals why many well-intentioned efforts by academics fall short.

It’s widely understood that data alone rarely drive decisionmaking. But nearly all the staffers I spoke with described relying on a hierarchy of information sources in which guidance from party leadership, committee staff, and lobbyists takes precedence over expertise from universities, think tanks, and nonprofit organizations. After working in Congress, I was not surprised by the significance of party positions—but I did not expect academic and NGO scientists to have such a low priority.

The hierarchy I observed upends two common notions among scientists: that peer-reviewed findings speak for themselves, and that more information about science leads to more favorable policy outcomes for the science community. […]

“My whole day is people coming in telling me that they have a crisis that I need to address,” one legislative assistant shared. “Ninety-five percent of the time they’re not telling the truth, and I have to figure out the 5% of the time that they are.”

As a result, experienced staffers rely heavily on established networks, both inside and outside Congress. “A lot of the time, it’s individuals you know, or know indirectly … just a friends-of-friends sort of situation,” explained one legislative director. By developing sophisticated networks of trusted people on and off the Hill, staffers can quickly separate signal from noise.

[…]

This relationship-based approach often puts academic scientists at a disadvantage, as they typically lack the sustained presence and personal connections that successful industry lobbyists cultivate over years. Not a single person I interviewed said they would call a member of the scientific community first when they needed to learn more about a science-related issue. The first people they turn to are those closest at hand, including party leaders, staff colleagues in other offices, and industry lobbyists.

Almost two dozen researchers at a top medical journal have published a scathing scientific takedown of the Cass Review. Experts found that the NHS-issued report—a non-peer reviewed publication authored by Dr. Hillary Cass, a pediatrician without clinical or research experience with trans patients—was marred by “unexplained protocol deviations,” “methodological flaws,” and “unsubstantiated claims.”

Published on May 10 in BMC Medical Research Methodology, the report identified critical flaws in the study. The Cass Review led to a ban on puberty blockers targeting trans children in the UK. However, puberty blockers remain readily available to cisgender children, who may need them for conditions like precocious puberty.

“These issues significantly undermine the validity of the Cass Review’s recommendations, such that the Review fails to fulfil its aims as commissioned and should not be used as the basis for policy making,” the researchers said in a statement to Erin in the Morning.

The Cass Review has been rejected by countless medical organizations across the globe which oversee aspects of trans health care—including the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the Endocrine Society, The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, to name just a few.

Nonetheless, it continues to act as the vanguard for anti-trans lawmakers and leaders grasping at straws for a scientific basis to further an extremist political agenda.

You can't make this stuff up:

Insiders at Australia’s biggest private company – Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting – have lifted the veil on what they describe as a “bizarre” culture within the organisation that includes annual requests to thank Australia’s richest person.

While not compulsory, the thank you messages are encouraged by senior executives and are requested across the company, including from workers at its mine sites.

[…]

One former employee describes the thank you messages as a “wild concept”, particularly given that Rinehart has become the country’s richest person in part off the back of her staff’s work.

“We are encouraged to email her thanks for literally making her the richest person around,” he says. “Because the transaction where I work my guts out and she becomes even more rich is not enough – we should thank her yearly, apparently.”

[…]

Insiders have told Guardian Australia that staff are frequently exposed to political material, with an email seen by the Guardian encouraging workers to listen to Trump’s inaugural address.

The email, sent as an Australia Day message by Veldsman, talks about Rinehart’s visit to the US and Trump’s “strong commitment to creating a field that attracts investment into the US, something our government here in Australia could learn a thing or two about! While Australia has punched above its weight on the global stage, we are faced with increasing headwinds brought about by ill-conceived tape and tax that is stifling business.”

Guardian Australia understands that Hancock Prospecting distributes the conservative magazine the Spectator in the company’s office buildings and mining sites.

The central goal of much anti-transgender rhetoric is to make cisgender people believe that their interests and trans people’s interests cannot be met at the same time. It’s not just the accusation that trans people are different or weird or creepy; it’s that our rights, our healthcare, and our well-being must come at the expense of your well-being. As the infamous ad from Trump’s reelection campaign put it, transphobes want cis people to think that someone who cares about “they/them” could never be for “us.” It fits neatly into the central thesis of Trumpism—that someone else’s suffering will be your gain. It also feeds into the portrayal of the Democratic Party as feckless, effete, and obsessed with the abstractions of identity.

For any politician facing them, there are two ways of handling these attacks: by promising to care less about trans people or by promising to care more about everyone. If you are not responsive to the needs and interests of a broad coalition of working people, you can be more easily caricatured as dedicated to the interests of some nefarious (and often racialized) other. But if you do have a compelling vision for how to improve all people’s lives, the fact that not all of those people are the same carries less weight. It is true that many Americans would rather starve than share a table with someone they view as less deserving or too deviant from their own experience. But it’s especially true if all that’s on the menu is scraps.

[…]

I am exhausted with begging for help and pleading for others to recognize transgender people’s humanity. I’m also exhausted with the shallow brand of identity politics removed from the material concerns of most people–including trans people–adopted by the mainstream of the Democratic Party in the 2010s when it seemed a useful wedge against progressives like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. As Judith Butler told El País earlier this year, “Identity is a great start for making connections and becoming part of larger communities. But you can’t have a politics of identity that is only about identity. If you do that, you draw sectarian lines, and you abandon our interdependent ties.”

It is exactly those interdependent ties that Mamdani won on and that our political future depends on. The politics of forced scarcity being sold by Trump and seemingly bought into by many Democrats is a myth deeply ingrained in our politics, our communities, and our culture. Rewriting it is not simply the work of rhetoric, talking points, and being open to disagreement. It’s also the work of changing how people experience politics to begin with, and showing them their freedom and dignity need not come at the expense of someone else’s. And what I see in Mamdani’s campaign is not only a promise of solidarity with a marginalized group I happen to be a member of. What I see is a promise that nobody will have to do that work alone.

On Thursday evening, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported that the FBI is developing tools to identify transgender suspects and classify them as “nihilistic violent extremists.” Within hours, the Oversight Project at the Heritage Foundation—the same outfit driving Project 2025’s blueprint now being implemented inside the federal government—released a four-page memo urging the bureau to go even further. Its proposal: formally designate all transgender activism as “Trans Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism,” a new category of domestic terror threat. It’s important to note that the Heritage Foundation is not itself the federal government, and to our knowledge, its proposals are not yet in place. But the group’s influence is vast, especially in the wake of a Trump administration openly committed to implementing Project 2025. That makes its latest push far more than just a think-tank memo—it’s a roadmap for policy. Here’s what you need to know about the proposal.

[…]

We’ve seen this playbook before. The U.S. government has a long record of turning surveillance tools against civil rights movements. COINTELPRO, the infamous FBI program from 1956 to 1971, targeted Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and countless others in an effort to disrupt the civil rights movement. The same tactics were deployed against Vietnam War protestors and the gay rights movement of the ’60s and ’70s. After 9/11, Muslim communities bore the brunt of an expanded national security state, subjected to dragnet monitoring and infiltration. Now, under this proposal, those same techniques could be repurposed against transgender rights leaders and organizations—casting constitutionally protected advocacy as extremism to be neutralized.

"I have not seen anything like this anywhere else in the world," said Lisa Given, professor of Information Sciences from RMIT, who specialises in age-assurance technology.

"As people learn about the implications of this, we will likely see people stepping up and saying, 'Wait a minute, why wasn't I told that this was going to happen?'"

From December 27, Google — which dominates the Australian search market with a share of more than 90 per cent — and its rival, Microsoft, will have to use some form of age-assurance technology on users when they sign in, or face fines of almost $50 million per breach.

[…]

Despite the apparent magnitude of the shift, it has mostly gone unnoticed, in stark contrast to the political and media fanfare surrounding the teen social media ban, which will block under-16s from major platforms using similar technology.

As for why so few people have noticed, it may be because the changes took place away from the halls of parliament, in the relatively dry world of regulation.

[…]

Search engines will have a suite of options to choose from for checking the ages of their Australian users.

There are seven main methods listed in the new regulations:

• Photo ID checks
• Face scanning age estimation tools
• Credit card checks
• Digital ID
• Vouching by the parent of a young person
• Using AI to guess a user's age based on the data the company already has
• Relying on a third party that has already checked the user's age

This is a lot of fun. It really gets going at about twenty-five minutes in, where they start talking about ways that the government can can intervene in markets for essentials goods and services that don't function the way that undergrad textbooks say they should…

… which leads to this exchange about ten minutes later:

JON STEWART: So let's-- all these points go together in a larger thing. So let's take a step back. Lina Khan is redesigning the system of incentives. So we'll redesign the system for when markets don't really function that well, like with health care and utilities and broadband, those kinds of things that you say, the markets, even left to their own devices, we want them still to innovate, but they're not going to function properly on their own. How would you redesign the government's role in those? Would you advocate for always, as you said with the e-filing and that, for an always-accessible public option within those markets? 

LINA KHAN: I think when you look at markets that are really essential for the necessities of life, those need to be the first order area of focus for the government, these markets where people don't have a choice. Health care is an important one. Food and agriculture is an important one. Day-to-day transportation, especially in a place like New York City, where you're so reliant on infrastructure, those are the core parts of people's day-to-day infrastructure that we need to make sure they're not getting squeezed or price gouged. And so I would say that has to be the first layer of focus. And you need to figure out, are these markets where if we just take on illegal monopolistic practices, that'll be enough to make sure that companies aren't price gouging? Or do we need to have more of this public option?

Yay!

A petition is currently calling for the SLV management and government ‘to withdraw any proposed changes and hold a public meeting, where Victorians can have a say in how their library is run’.

What needs to be debated at such a meeting is as basic as the question: what’s a library for? It would appear that, under the current and immediate past leadership, a core function of this cultural institution includes “programs, scholarships and advice to budding entrepreneurs”. Indeed, Christine Christian donated $2 million to the Library for that purpose.

StartSpace, set up with Christian’s money, provides free membership for what it calls “co-working”, plus, for $350 a month membership, access to the “Loft” with conference and printing facilities, as well as training programs and mentor sessions. When then-CEO Kate Torney announced its opening in March 2020, her statement underlined that “StartSpace functions solely to benefit the community and does not operate for profit”.

Torney also mentioned that “leading international professional services firm PwC” (the company contracted but failing to review Robodebt in 2017) was, at that time, providing a training program on a pro-bono basis.

So, while the professional services of a company implicated in the illegal Robodebt scheme are acceptable, writers contracted to deliver workshops to teenagers were, on the advice of the Board led by Christian, not trusted to deliver their program without breaking the law.

For Norway, it’s a consistently rosy picture. The top 10 per cent rank second for living standards among the top deciles in all countries; the median Norwegian household ranks second among all national averages, and all the way down at the other end, Norway’s poorest 5 per cent are the most prosperous bottom 5 per cent in the world. Norway is a good place to live, whether you are rich or poor.

Britain is a different story. While the top earners rank fifth, the average household ranks 12th and the poorest 5 per cent rank 15th. Far from simply losing touch with their western European peers, last year the lowest-earning bracket of British households had a standard of living that was 20 per cent weaker than their counterparts in Slovenia.

It’s a similar story in the middle. In 2007, the average UK household was 8 per cent worse off than its peers in north-western Europe, but the deficit has since ballooned to a record 20 per cent. On present trends, the average Slovenian household will be better off than its British counterpart by 2024, and the average Polish family will move ahead before the end of the decade. A country in desperate need of migrant labour may soon have to ask new arrivals to take a pay cut.

Funny 'cos it's true:

Political novices put far too much value on winning. Think about a game of basketball against your eight-year-old son. You may have scored more points, but now his feelings are hurt. Wouldn’t it have been better to simply let him win? The same thing goes for the Democratic Party. When progressives like Mamdani are too focused on winning, they don’t consider the feelings of more-established candidates who deserve to win because they want to. Or because it’s “their turn.” Or their dying wish.

Let’s imagine that Zohran Mamdani does win, with a coalition of multi-class young people, immigrants, unions, renters, faith leaders, and pansexual mustache men. What does that mean for the losers? The investment bankers, the landlords, and the Wall Street guys who ask women on the street if “they’re sisters or something”? Was winning worth their tears?

As someone who won one time, I can tell you winning is often not worth it. You know what happens after you win? Governing. You know how hard that is? Who wants that kind of responsibility? Making people’s lives better by advancing policies? Responsibility is incredibly stressful.