#reshaping them to his liking in order to impose his own values

[ilus1on]

this might be extremely unpopular but i think the aizen rhetoric that fixates on godhood is a bit trite

[eaglesnick]

“Each promise broken is a paper cut on the soul; with enough of them, trust bleeds dry.” - Anon

Since his election as party leader Starmer, like all authoritarian politicians,  has been ruthlessly reshaping the Labour Party to ensure his continued supremacy. He began by doubling the number of nominating MP’s needed by prospective candidate to enter a leadership contest. – from 10% to 20%. He then set about

“a merciless crackdown on the mildest forms of internal dissent”. (Oliver Eagleton: The New York Times:03/07/24)

Oliver Eagleton is a  left-wing commentator and would say that wouldn’t he!

Yes he would, but so does that bastion of left-wing politics the Financial Times.

“Keir Starmer has carried out a radical realignment of the Labour Party…he has been ruthless in his methods to remould the party in his own image." (FT: 07/06/23)

Having consolidated his power over the party’s ruling national executive committee, he then drew up:

“a list of unideological or centrist candidates to run for parliament, purging those suspected of holding radical left views”  (FT: 07/06/23)

The purge of individual candidates often took place at the last minute.

“The swiftness and brutality of the purge takes the breath away. Candidates guilty of wrongthink have been despatched at the last moment, when there is no time for their supporters to organise to defend them, while a phalanx of loyalists have been imposed on local Labour parties without consulting their members." (Independent: 20/05/24)

We all witnessed the dreadful treatment of Diane Abbott by Starmer. Right up to the eleventh hour Starmer was insisting that no decision had been made as to whether the suspended Abbott would be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate.

“Starmer insisted no decision has yet been taken about whether Abbott will be allowed to defend the seat she has held for 37 years. And asked if he was blocking left-wingers from standing, he said: “No. I’ve said repeatedly over the last two years as we’ve selected our candidates that I want the highest-quality candidates.” (inews:30/05/24)

When it was finally revealed that Diane Abbott's case had been finalised five months before Starmer insisted the case was still ongoing, the massive embarrassment this revelation caused forced him to endorse her as a Labour candidate.

The success of Starmer’s ruthless planting of like-minded candidates in Labour constituencies means he has surrounded himself with people who all think alike. This is good authoritarian politics but terrible government.

Starmer’s speech on the steps of Number 10 promised: “country first, party second”. A decent enough sentiment but as Starmer himself also pointed out the success of any government depends “upon politicians” and the characteristics they bring to the job. Johnson brought us deceit, lies and empty sound bites. Truss brought us ideological economic suicide, and Sunak was just too weak to bring about any change at all.

Starmer promised to bring back "trust" in the political system but what he really brings is self-serving opportunism. He began his rise to the top by promising Labour Party members during his leadership campaign he would “maintain our radical values.” He lied.

“Fact Check: Yes, Keir Starmer has broken or rowed back on a large proportion of his Labour Leadership Pledges already.”  (EVOLVE POLITICS: 02/11/20)

Since then Starmer has moved further and further to the right, breaking pledge after pledge. Having purged the Labour Party of anyone vaguely left wing he is determined to take us back to the days of Tony Blaire. Starmer may of may not genuinely believe he is putting country before party, but his vision of country is the maintenance of the status quo.

Having campaigned on the slogan “change” he then reveals his commitment to maintaining the established order by describing himself as a man who believes in  “stability and moderation”.

This is typical Starmer behaviour. Promise one thing but deliver another. Starmer has no intension of upsetting the established social-economic order. The rich will continue to get richer and the poor will continue to become poorer. The demands of big business will take precedent over needs of ordinary working men and women, the wealthy will maintain their privileges, and nothing will have changed except the name of the man running the country.

[insightmyanmarpodcast]

Reclamation of an Identity

The words of Jesse Phenow, taken from a recent podcast conversation, encapsulate the profound significance of refugees reclaiming their identity and pride. The story of his friend, who had to assume a Thai identity to fit in and be treated well, highlights the challenges faced by refugees in navigating their sense of self in unfamiliar environments. It speaks to the pressure to conform, to shed their heritage, and to blend in seamlessly with the dominant culture.

Forced to conceal their true identities, these individuals experience a sense of shame and loss, as if their history, culture, and people are somehow diminished or unworthy. It is a struggle that many refugees face, compelled to adopt an easier, more socially acceptable narrative that erases their unique heritage and backgrounds.

However, as Jesse's friend discovered, the power of connection through social media and witnessing the ongoing conflict in their home country can ignite a transformative awakening. It rekindles the flame of belonging, inspiring them to reclaim their land, their people, and their cultural heritage. They realize that they have a rich history worth preserving, and that their identity should be cherished, not hidden away.

The emergence of organizations like 'I Am Knyaw' demonstrates the resilience and determination of these refugees to assert their equal worth. It signifies a collective movement towards reclaiming their true selves, shedding the labels imposed upon them, and demanding recognition for their unique identities. Through this process of reclamation, they aim to reshape societal perceptions, challenging the notion that their culture is lesser or insignificant.

The journey of refugees in reclaiming their identity and pride is a beautiful and transformative process. It reminds us of the resilience of the human spirit and the enduring power of culture and heritage. It also highlights the importance of acknowledging and honoring the stories, struggles, and aspirations of refugees worldwide. Ultimately, this movement serves as an inspiration and a call to action, urging us all to recognize the equal worth and dignity of every individual, regardless of their refugee status.

“Really strengthening this feeling of reclamation, the desire to be valued as Knyaw, not to be called Karen, and to be seen as equal. It’s just beautiful!”

— Jesse Phenow

“I want to speak to this reclamation of identity. I won't share this person's name, but I have a beloved friend, a brother, who is Knyaw. He grew up in the refugee camp, and then was able to go to a Thai school that was near the refugee camp. And while he was at Thai school, he had to assume a Thai identity in order to fit in, and to be treated well. Then eventually he resettled in New York.

And when he's in New York, he's one of the first Knyaw people there! He’s going to school and people are asking him, ‘Where are you from?’ And this guy goes on to share that he's from Thailand. I think after the first couple of times, he starts to realize that it's just so much easier, rather than identifying yourself as Karen, where most people will say, ‘Oh, you're Korean?’ he would actually just identify himself as Thai. And I think he kind of went on to share with me that he felt ashamed. He felt ashamed to be identified as a refugee, as someone who is stateless, who didn't have a land.

So really his entire early years and into high school, and then eventually college, just telling people he was Thai! And I think, again, that the proximity that social media has created to the conflict in Myanmar has, in this individual in particular, ignited a sense of like, ‘No, you know, what? I do have a land. I do have a people that are my own; I do have a history and a culture, that's worth reclaiming.’ Because there are people who are fighting and dying to reclaim it, to stake it, to value it as not lesser than but equal to.

They have just completely done a 180°! Now they are co-leading an organization called ‘I Am Knyaw.’ Really strengthening this feeling of reclamation, the desire to be valued as Knyaw, not to be called Karen, but to be referred to as Knyaw, and to be seen as equal. It's just beautiful! It's a special thing, especially here at The Urban Village, to be a part of that movement to help, programmatically and logistically, in that movement. It is a cool thing to witness and to be a part of.”

Listen from Insight Myanmar Podcast Blog - Insight Myanmar https://ift.tt/VCwOmvD

[alexsmitposts]

How US Think Tanks Reshape the World We Live In For the longest time the so-called “think tanks” have been an indispensable element of the American political system. These days there’s well over two thousand such “analytical centers” operating in the US, which exceeds the combined total in other major international players such as India, China, Argentina, Germany and the UK. The first noticeable spike in the number of think tank across America occurred in the post-WWII years, when such “analytical centers” assumed the duty of upholding the emerging unipolar world order within which Washington reigned above all other nations. In fact, most of them were created primarily by the military, interested in developing a strategy for accumulating large volumes of politically relevant information, which would have been impossible without the employment of civilian specialists possessing diverse skill sets that allowed them to become proficient at geostrategic analysis. Thus, in 1956, the US Secretary of Defense headed by Charles Erwin Wilson demanded that a total of America’s five largest universities join their efforts in establishing a non-profit research organization called the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA). In less than a decade, this entity grew into a massive scientific institution employing well over 600 people. In the 1960s, there were over 200 think tanks operating simultaneously all across America. The most famous and influential among them were the so-called “government-funded centers”, among them the RAND Corporation, the Institute for Defense Analysis, the Institute for Naval Analysis, and the Aerospace Corporation, all of which were directly supported by the US Congress, which would allocate up to 300 million dollars annually to support their operations. However, in addition to those thinks tanks funded by the state there was a rapidly growing number of privately-owned analytical centers that were funded by special interests who decided to use these entities to advance their own agendas, thus indirectly influencing American domestic and foreign policies by launching various campaigns. There where various charitable foundations that came in handy, providing gifts and public donations and allowing their analysts to profit from various publications. During the period from 1957 to 1964, when the very term “think tanks” was coined, the total turnout of those entities increased to 15 billion dollars annually. At the peak of the think tank craze in the United States — from 1960 to 1970 — more than 150 billion dollars were spent on their operations. Today, the budget of the RAND Corporation alone exceeds the threshold of 12 billion dollars a year. Initially, this American think tank empire was used to overcome crises and develop long-term strategies, with custom-tailored recipes provided to American politicians for approaching various regions of the world. In the 1960s, they were tasked with finding solutions to the problems associated with the Vietnam War, the declining role of the US dollar in global financial markets and the internal instability of the United States. That’s when globalist projects were born which were designed in such a way that they would divert the attention of the general public from the most acute social problems at home. Thus, by the end of the previous century American think tanks turned themselves into an active decision-making tool in the US, as they were not just using “external financing” to advance the agendas of their benefactors, but were also capable of putting forward respected analysts supporting their cause, with the controlled mass media promoting their narrative. The close inter-connection of the large think tanks and the US government structures is confirmed by American politicians and businessmen changing high-profile positions within the government with positions in these entities. From the point of view of political rotation, those think tanks serve as a training ground for future high-ranking officials of upcoming administrations, where the establishment hand picks and approves these figures who will eventually get elected. And while one party is in power, the other sends its front-liners back to the think tanks. A vivid example of this phenomenon is the track record of Donald Trump’s former advisor on matters of national security, John Bolton, who at different periods of his political career was employed by three different think tanks – the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Besides this, as you may know, he was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs under George W. Bush, a member of the New American Century (PNAC), and in 2007 joined the American Enterprise Institute (AE), that is also an NGO. Upon receiving specific tasks from behind the scenes interests, elites and various departments, these think tanks began developing various foreign policy concepts, training experts and representatives, while preparing public opinion for certain developments through the media, like the advancement of “color revolutions” or the reemergence of some “evil powers” attempting to compete with Washington. Aside from the well-publicized example of the RAND Corporation, you can look at at StrategEast, which is described as the strategic center for political and diplomatic decisions. The main stated objective of StrategEast is the development of programs for specific states on the basis of their susceptibility to various Western (American) values. Behind this idealic concept hides the following: StrategEast analysts collect information on the possibility of creating a pro-American society within targeted territories that are of interest to the United States. For instance, from the mid-80s onwards, Washington was interested in the Soviet Union, and its republics, which resulted in the Baltic states, and then Georgia and Ukraine joining the list of US allies due to the programs developed by StrategEast. Today, they are busy researching the Central Asian states, so it doesn’t take much imagination to predict what will happen next. In the initial stages, StrategEast programs provide a recipe to drive a country away from its traditional cultural values, so that it can be turned into an anti-Russian stronghold (as was done in the Baltic countries, Georgia, and Ukraine) or into their anti-Chinese equivalent (like is happening now with the countries of Central and Southeast Asia). In Central Asia, for example, American “experts” have begun to impose the idea of translating the national alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin under a very strange pretext that it would then make life easier for local Internet users (while failing to explain why the incredibly complex Japanese and Chinese characters do not impede the ability of users in Japan and China to use the Internet). In parallel with linguistic and cultural Westernization, the local public is being prepared for the possibility of massive protests so that it won’t object to “color revolutions” that engineered to follow. As we’re witnessing the new Cold War going into full swing, there must be an objective assessment of the activities of US think tanks, as their “concepts” and “projects” should be approached with a clear understanding of the fact that they advance certain interests that do not necessarily correspond with the national interests of other countries.

[undttype]

Interview on practice

1. Can you give me a brief summary of your professional persona? Who you are, what education or experience do you have? I am a type designer, graphic designer, tutor and researcher based in London. I have been involved in a wide range of graphic design projects, in both commercial and cultural spheres. I have also developed and participated in projects that critically challenge the relationship between intellectual property (e.g. copyright) and creativity. This has included collaborations with The Libre Society and Remix Brighton as well as being partner/art director of LOCA Records. The works produced by these collectives was released under copyleft licences, which means they are free to copy, edit, and distribute, the only condition being, any derivative works must remain equally open and attribution is given. From 2001–2009 I worked with the internationally renowned Barnbrook studios, designing cultural identities, numerous publications and several typefaces. In 2006 I returned to university, completing an MA in Cultural and Critical Theory (2008) and later a Post Graduate Certificate in Education (2011). This lead to a shift in my career, as I became much more interested in research and education. I am a senior lecturer on the Graphic Design BA at Kingston University and Associate Lecturer on the MA Visual Communication at Royal College of Art My work, both as a practitioner and researcher, explores the contemporary and historical interplay between typography, technology, and society. I am especially interested in the discursive norms of three distinct groups: typographers (type designers); graphic designers; and coders and the effects that has on the visual-materialisation of language. This research draws on the theories and practices associated with these fields, including: History of Typography, Graphic Design, Media Theory, Communication Theory, Cybernetics, combined with insights from Critical Theory, Digital Humanities, Critical Code Studies, and Aesthetic Philosophy. This research has been published and presented at a number of international conferences, including: McLuhan Galaxy: Understanding Media, Barcelona, ATypI Reykjavík; xCoAx in Porto; and more recently at Face Forward in Dublin. 2. What are your strengths? 3. What are your weaknesses? I’m not interested in responding to these questions as they are part of a managerial interviewing system that is geared towards identifying a candidates capacity to manipulate language and their experiences so that they are always positive. I have interests that I consider important and that informs my research and work. See previous answer. 4. Are there any highlights from your career so far?/ What are some of your greatest accomplishments? To date, the highlight is undoubtedly my work with LOCA Records closely followed by my teaching/research. LOCA was a project instigated by musician and critical thinker, David M Berry, that I got involved with at the outset. LOCA was very much a laboratory for exploring methods and approaches and building communities and networks–and in that sense it was as much about the people/culture as the work we produced. It radically reshaped my understanding of design and transformed my career. From a personal perspective, it gave me the confidence to do an MA in a subject that I had very little knowledge of which in turn lead to me getting involved in higher education. From the perspective of graphic design discourse, it remains one of the most profound critical approaches, and one largely ignored by the design press. 5. What design software are you most familiar with and which one do you wish to experiment with further? Adobe Illustrator is my go to application. I do more or less everything in there. I have been thinking a lot about this recently, as tools shape what we communicate. I have recently begun to invest more time in InDesign, as I want to explore the epub format and digital publishing more broadly. I always liked print because as a designer I had control over the elements I worked with. Digital books have come into their own and I am interested in looking at them in more detail. 6. What have you learned from your mistakes as a graphic designer/ designer in general? My mistakes was to think of design in solely critical and aesthetic terms with little regard for finance or business more broadly. In the commercial environment I found it valuable to have a working knowledge of contracts, budgeting and planning, as it informed my decision making more.

7. What are your graphic design career goals? Finish the projects I have started. Write more, publish more. Pursue collaborations. 8. What has been your favorite project, brand or company in which you have worked with or for? LOCA – see above. 9. What have you done to improve your knowledge of graphic design? - e.g. Books, Websites, Tutorials and classes? I have a working knowledge of graphic design (albeit one that is Eurocentric and Modernist). That said, I find it a challenge to read graphic design texts as there are not that many that are written from a critical position and those that are often confuse criticality with superiority. Indeed, the emergence of a certain judgmental/moralising attitude is something I have become aware of in many younger critiques. They rely too much on secondary research and fail to analyse the contexts and conditions which produces the work they condemn.

That said, teaching a subject is a great way to learn about it. 10. What kinds of print media have you worked with? If not any which would you like to? Heavily involved with print a large array of formats and techniques (stationary, editorial, book, poster, etc.). While a lot of my research explores computational  techniques I am less familiar with contemporary approaches to design (coding a website). 11. What type of media is your favourite and why? I am interested in the transmission of ideas and so I remain fascinated by books (print and digital, audio etc.) and other reading and writing platforms. I still think there is more to be discovered, particularly from a postdigital perspective and in a time when attention is being stolen by the stacks. 12. What made you chosen this career in the first place/ why did you want to become a Designer/ Artist? When I was younger I understood world problems as design problems. That is, problems could be overcome if things (such as products like chairs, cars, etc.) were designed more thoughtfully. To give you an example, I remember designing an automated braking system when I was about 10 years old. It would have worked by emitting an infrared beam that would automatically adjust the speed when it came too close to an object in front of it. It would save lives by making decisions based on objective reality not human judgment or desire. I was highly idealistic and wanted to impose order through design, technology and systems. I am now critical of such positions. The second, more recent, aspect was an interest in exploring forms of communication. I am interested in texts, but also in the medium that transmits them (language, history, bodies, books, typography, print etc) and how these have changed over time. While many of these techniques are designed to be efficient or confer certain symbolic value, I am interested in using things that goes against that intentionality – that flags up the conventions, norms and infrastructures that construct it in the first place. 13. Finally, to you, what separates an artist from a designer/ what is Art and what is Design? While they may share certain formal similarities, their differences are much more interesting. Indeed one could go further and say that equating them is part of an ongoing trend to make all things equivalent, and so exchangeable. I find the critical theorists, Theodor Adorno’s notion of art useful here. His argument is extremely complex and builds on work of other philosophers (particularly Kant and Hegel) to argue for art that is critical of society, not just in its content but also in its form and its method (mimetic). Design has a different discourse and often attracts students backgrounds and educational experiences that diverge widely from those of fine art. Our tools, technologies, techniques differ also, producing methods and approaches that frame how work is produced. Designers tend to facilitate others content, whereas for artists content and form are entangled. I could write a lot more here, but I simply don’t have the time..

.. all the best,

Marcus Leis Allion

[olko71]

New Post has been published on All about business online

New Post has been published on http://yaroreviews.info/2021/06/u-s-and-eu-agree-to-suspend-airbus-boeing-trade-fight

U.S. and EU Agree to Suspend Airbus-Boeing Trade Fight

BRUSSELS—The U.S. and the European Union agreed to suspend their trade dispute over government subsidies to Boeing Co. and Airbus SE, EADSY 0.28% significantly easing trade tensions amid a broader effort to improve trans-Atlantic relations.

The agreement would suspend for five years tariffs that have been authorized by the World Trade Organization, U.S. Trade Rep. Katherine Tai told reporters on Tuesday. The tariffs had been temporarily suspended in March.

“We have resolved these disputes because we are putting away our litigation briefcases,” said Ms. Tai. The U.S. and EU are now focused on “what is going to be best for competition between us in the context of a world where our industries and workers will be facing competition like we’ve never seen before,” she said.

President Biden crossed his fingers as he answered questions about the deal on Tuesday.

Photo: kenzo tribouillard/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

The 17-year trade fight is the longest and most costly in the history of the WTO. U.S. importers have paid more than $1.1 billion of tariffs since the duties in the dispute took effect in 2019, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Setting aside trans-Atlantic differences on the aviation dispute allows the allies to jointly focus on China. “Instead of fighting with one of our closest allies, we are finally coming together against a common threat,” Ms. Tai said.

China is pursuing heavily subsidized efforts to develop large passenger jetliners. The country faces challenges catching up with Boeing and Airbus, but both companies are concerned that Chinese-made airliners would pose a big commercial threat to their large sales in the world’s most populous country and others in Beijing’s economic orbit. China currently accounts for a quarter of their aircraft deliveries.

Separate tariffs that the U.S. imposed on imported steel and aluminum under former President Donald Trump remain in place and will likely take longer to unwind, officials have said.

Progress on aviation tariffs follows a recent preliminary agreement among members of the Group of Seven largest rich countries to overhaul international tax rules.

The agreement includes details on how the EU and the U.S. will work together to push for a global level playing field for competition, which would likely include taking on large-scale subsidies provided by China for their aircraft sector.

Ms. Tai said Tuesday’s agreement will allow the two sides to start addressing these challenges after Brussels and Washington had “been at each others’ throats fighting” for the past two decades over Boeing and Airbus.

“We have been too busy fighting each other to pay attention,” she said.

Newsletter Sign-up

Notes on the News

Today’s headlines, news in context, and good reads you may have missed, with Tyler Blint-Welsh.

European Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said the agreement details information sharing arrangements, coordination and exploring common approaches for outward and inward investment in the sector.

Mr. Dombrovskis acknowledged the two sides still have a lot of work to do to come up with an agreed approach ensuring that neither the U.S. nor the EU unfairly helps their own aircraft manufacturers.

He said in coming months, a working group will jointly define what kind of support can be given and in what ways.

The deal comes at a crucial time for the two plane makers, wrestling with the pandemic-driven downturn in air travel that has left many customers unwilling or unable to take new jets.

Boeing is also deciding whether to launch a new jetliner, with much of the longstanding dispute linked to government loans, contracts and other support for clean-sheet aircraft.

Spokesmen for Airbus and Boeing said their companies welcomed the settlement.

Airbus said it would “provide the basis to create a level-playing field which we have advocated for since the start of this dispute.”

Boeing said it would “fully support the U.S. Government’s efforts to ensure that the principles in this understanding are respected.”

The U.S. and EU agreed in March to a four-month suspension of tariffs on aircraft and a range of other goods including wine and whiskey in an effort to hammer out a deal and improve strained bilateral ties. Ms. Tai said that as part of Tuesday’s deal, the U.S. maintained the ability to reimpose aviation tariffs should the EU violate the terms of the agreement.

The now-suspended tariffs were imposed following twin cases at the World Trade Organization. The suspension reflects the easing of trade tensions between Washington and its trading partners following the aggressive trade policies of Mr. Trump, who contended that global trading partners had long been taking advantage of the U.S.

The Airbus-Boeing dispute started in 2004 when the U.S. filed a complaint with the WTO, claiming the EU’s subsidies for Airbus put Boeing at disadvantage. Under the Trump administration, the dispute turned into a tariff fight that snared food and beverage industries unrelated to aircraft manufacturing. Washington imposed tariffs on $7.5 billion worth of European wine and food items in late 2019.

The EU hit back with levies on U.S. whiskey, nuts and tobacco valued at around $4.5 billion. The U.S. stepped up the sanctions on Dec. 31 with additional tariffs, placing virtually all wine imports from France and Germany under its 25% tariff.

As the coronavirus pandemic rocks the aviation industry, two industry giants are fighting to protect their legacies. WSJ’s Jaden Urbi explains what Boeing and Airbus are doing to survive this unprecedented crisis – and how it could reshape the future of aviation. Photo Composite: George Downs (Originally published May 11, 2021)

The duties had weighed on industries that were also struggling with a collapse of business during the pandemic, who lauded the deal to remove the tariffs.

“Lifting this tariff burden will support the recovery of restaurants, bars and small craft distilleries across that country that were forced to shut down their businesses during the pandemic,” said Chris Swonger, president of the Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S.

In the aircraft manufacturing industry, jetliner deliveries are well below pre-pandemic levels as cash-strapped airlines defer or cancel orders. However, some customers have said the tariffs—and who pays them—remain a constraint on the number of deliveries.

Delta Air Lines Inc.’s expansion of its Airbus fleet made it among the U.S. carriers most affected by the EU action, while Ryanair Holdings PLC’s Boeing 737 MAX planned delivery schedule made it the most exposed European airline this year. Ryanair is still waiting for its first MAX because of quality issues that forced Boeing to pause deliveries.

Carriers haven’t disclosed whether they or the manufacturer previously paid the tariffs.

—Paul Hannon, Josh Zumbrun and Laurence Norman contributed to this article.

Write to Daniel Michaels at daniel.michaels@wsj.com, Andrew Restuccia at andrew.restuccia@wsj.com and Doug Cameron at doug.cameron@wsj.com

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

[geygan]

REFLECTION FOR MARCH 19TH

It has been a while since I posted the last Tumblr post. It became a good opportunity for me (and assuming for other students, as well) to think more about this project and adjust to a new ‘system’ that we are learning. I am not sure if this is just me applying the current situation from what I have learned from readings or the readings were just happen to be relevant to the current situation; however, either way, I am glad that I am still learning something invaluable. Papnek opened his first chapter by introducing his definition of ‘design’ which is that design is the conscious effort to impose meaningful order. From what I understood from his book, ‘design’ does not have to a physical/tangible object. It also certainly does not have to be grand or crucial. Papnek gave us some examples like educating a child or cleaning a desk drawer. His definition of ‘design’ sounded a lot like a definition of ‘system’ to me. By reading not only his book but also various articles written by other designers, I learned that the boundary between system and design is blurred. They could be interchanged. Or they both have a complicated and intertwined relationship. Design cannot be survived its own without system, and system cannot be survived its own without design. Mau highlighted the crucial elements of successful design: achieving ubiquity and becoming banal. The highway, the air conditioner, the airplane….we use and look at them almost every single day. However, it is true that we do not really appreciate their beauty. It is so natural (and essential) to us that we do not often think about their importance until an issue is found or occurred. 

The system that we live in everyday life is made for us to be interactive. We appreciate people by shaking hands. We express love by kissing or hugging others. We talk, shout, yell, and cheer when we feel sad, happy, and angry. We (or at least I) never appreciated these little things on a daily basis. Like Mau explained, perhaps, these are the invisible activities that people normally do not notice. It is a natural form of expression. We did not think about or appreciate the beauty of it until the current situation became worse for us to discourage such behaviors. I still do not know the ‘design’ or ‘system’ behind everything, but I do know that people are focusing on the negative side of it. It is difficult for us to find good news these days. Every time I log into my Twitter or every time I turn on my TV, people often discuss the current ‘broken health system’, ‘mask design’, ‘grocery store system’, etc. These little things were the ‘systems’ or ‘designs’ that we have been using and developed for years, and they never received this much attention until the issue has occurred. I do not blame people for demanding changes in ‘design’ and ‘system.’ In fact, ‘design’ and ‘system’ have to be changed based on the current time period, culture, and technology. That is a great process development for a successful design. Perhaps, the ‘change’ might be the beauty of it even though it is challenging. However, the change cannot be made in a blink of an eye - especially if that was the system that people have been utilizing for many years. I was happy to read Mau’s book to see there are designers out there who accept changes and appreciate/value invisible activities for reshaping the future. This is the mindset that all designers (but ALL men are designers) should have.

[megadarkbouquettidalwavethings]

The Man Who Knew Too Little

GLOUSTER, Ohio — At first, the experiment didn’t have a name.

Right after the election, Erik Hagerman decided he’d take a break from reading about the hoopla of politics.

Donald Trump’s victory shook him. Badly. And so Mr. Hagerman developed his own eccentric experiment, one that was part silent protest, part coping mechanism, part extreme self-care plan.

He swore that he would avoid learning about anything that happened to America after Nov. 8, 2016.

“It was draconian and complete,” he said. ��It’s not like I wanted to just steer away from Trump or shift the conversation. It was like I was a vampire and any photon of Trump would turn me to dust.”

It was just going to be for a few days. But he is now more than a year into knowing almost nothing about American politics. He has managed to become shockingly uninformed during one of the most eventful chapters in modern American history. He is as ignorant as a contemporary citizen could ever hope to be.

James Comey. Russia. Robert Mueller. Las Vegas. The travel ban. “Alternative facts.” Pussy hats. Scaramucci. Parkland. Big nuclear buttons. Roy Moore.

He knows none of it. To Mr. Hagerman, life is a spoiler.

“I just look at the weather,” said Mr. Hagerman, 53, who lives alone on a pig farm in southeastern Ohio. “But it’s only so diverting.”

He says he has gotten used to a feeling that he hasn’t experienced in a long time. “I am bored,” he said. “But it’s not bugging me.”

CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times

It takes meticulous planning to find boredom. Mr. Hagerman commits as hard as a method actor, and his self-imposed regimen — white-noise tapes at the coffee shop, awkward scolding of friends, a ban on social media — has reshaped much of his life.

Extreme as it is, it’s a path that likely holds some appeal for liberals these days — a D.I.Y. version of moving to Canada.

Democrats, liberals and leftists have coped with this first year of the Trump presidency in lots of ways. Some subsist on the thin gruel of political cartoon shows and online impeachment petitions. Others dwell online in the thrilling place where conspiracy is indistinguishable from truth. Others have been inspired to action, making their first run for public office, taking local action or marching in their first protest rally.

Mr. Hagerman has done the opposite of all of them.

The fact that it’s working for him — “I’m emotionally healthier than I’ve ever felt,” he said — has made him question the very value of being fed each day by the media. Why do we bother tracking faraway political developments and distant campaign speeches? What good comes of it? Why do we read all these tweets anyway?

“I had been paying attention to the news for decades,” Mr. Hagerman said. “And I never did anything with it.”

At some point last year, he decided his experiment needed a name. He considered The Embargo, but it sounded too temporary. The Boycott? It came off a little whiny.

Mr. Hagerman has created a fortress around himself. “Tiny little boats of information can be dangerous,” he said.

He decided that it would be called The Blockade.

Behind the Blockade

For a guy who has gone to great lengths to essentially plug his ears, Mr. Hagerman sure does talk a lot. He is witty and discursive, punctuating his stories with wild-eyed grins, exaggerated grimaces and more than the occasional lost thread.

I recently spent two days visiting his farm on the condition that I not bring news from the outside world. As the sun set over his porch, turning the rolling hills pink then purple then blue, he held forth, jumping from English architecture to the local pigs’ eating habits to his mother’s favorite basketball team to the philosophy of Kant. He can go days without seeing another soul.

This life is still fairly new. Just a few years ago, he was a corporate executive at Nike (senior director of global digital commerce was his official, unwieldy title) working with teams of engineers to streamline the online shopping experience. Before that, he had worked digital jobs at Walmart and Disney.

“I worked 12-, 14-hour days,” he said. “The calendar completely booked.”

But three years ago, he decided he had saved enough money to move to a farm, make elliptical sculptures — and, eventually, opt out of the national conversation entirely.

He lives alone and has never been married. As for money, a financial adviser in San Francisco manages his investments. Mr. Hagerman says he throws away the quarterly updates without reviewing them.

Mr. Hagerman grew up in southeastern Ohio, and after years spent in Brooklyn warehouses, San Francisco tech bubbles and Nike-land in Portland, Ore., the idea of a quiet life became more and more appealing. His mother lives nearby; he sees her a lot since he moved back in 2015. She reluctantly adheres to The Blockade, although they do discuss the Cleveland Cavaliers.

Mr. Hagerman drives from his home into Athens for his morning rituals.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times

Mr. Hagerman sits down with his sketch book, in his regular seat, in the same room, with his same triple, whole milk latte and cranberry scone he has each day at Donkey Coffee.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times

Mr. Hagerman begins every day with a 30-minute drive to Athens, the closest city of note, to get a cup of coffee — a triple-shot latte with whole milk. He goes early, before most customers have settled into the oversize chairs to scroll through their phones. To make sure he doesn’t overhear idle chatter, he often listens to white noise through his headphones. (He used to listen to music, “but stray conversation can creep in between songs.”)

At Donkey Coffee, everyone knows his order, and they know about The Blockade. “Our baristas know where he’s at so they don’t engage him on topics that would make him uncomfortable,” said Angie Pyle, the coffee shop’s co-owner.

Mr. Hagerman has also trained his friends. A close friend from his Nike days, Parinaz Vahabzadeh, didn’t think he was quite serious at first and, in the early days of The Blockade, kept dropping little hints about politics.

The new administration compelled her to engage more deeply in politics, not less. She had only recently become a United States citizen, and she was passionate about the immigration debate. She did not let Mr. Hagerman opt out easily. “I was needling him,” she said.

And in response, she received, for the first time, a stern text message. “I’m now officially cross with you,” he wrote. “As you know very well I don’t wish to hear about current events. I know you don’t agree with my wishes but I do expect you to respect them.”

They now speak on the phone several times a week, but never about the news. “I’ve gotten used to it,” she said. “It’s actually nice to not talk about politics.”

Conversations with Mr. Hagerman can have a Rip Van Winkle quality. He spoke several times about his sister, Bonnie, an assistant professor, who lives in, of all places, Charlottesville, Va.

While he and I were talking, I looked over at him at every mention of Charlottesville to see if the name of the city, home to perhaps the ugliest weekend of the Trump era to date, made him flinch.

“So, do you associate Charlottesville” — I would say the name deliberately and with emphasis — “with anything besides your sister?”

He didn’t bite. I think he really didn’t know about the Nazis.

Later, he pointed to a house on a hill and said that before the election, the neighbor had decorated his lawn with an effigy of Hillary Clinton behind bars. I wanted to point out that the recently unveiled Mueller indictment found that a Russian troll had paid for a Hillary impersonator at a Florida rally. But I bit my tongue — Mr. Hagerman didn’t know about Mueller, or Russia, or trolls.

Above Mr. Hagerman’s bed is an art piece from a series he is currently working on at his home.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times

Mr. Hagerman works on creating a prototype for a new art project in his wood shop in a barn on his property.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times

Last winter, Mr. Hagerman spent several weeks visiting his twin brother, a tech C.E.O., in San Francisco. Strict arrangements had to be made — the Sunday newspaper kept out of sight, the TV switched off, his teenage niece and nephew under special instructions.

“The bigger challenge was when we would have friends come over and visit,” said his brother, Kris. “We had to have Erik not be there, or we would give them a heads up that Erik has this news blockade going and we gave them the guidelines.

“They were always a little bemused by it. And to some extent a little envious,” he said. “The prospect of just chucking all that for a period of time felt somewhat appealing.”

To be fair, Mr. Hagerman has made a few concessions. He reads The New Yorker’s art reviews, but is careful to flip past the illustrated covers, which often double as political commentary. He watches every Cavaliers game, but only on mute.

He counts a few boats that have sailed past The Blockade. He saw a picture of Kim Jong-un on a newspaper at the coffee shop, signaling that something was up with North Korea. And he overheard someone saying something about Obamacare, which meant health care was back in the news. His brother alerted him to the Equifax breach for his own protection.

“But the blockade has been pretty damn effective,” Mr. Hagerman said.

He said that with some pride, but he has the misgivings about disengaging from political life that you have, by now, surely been shouting at him as you read. “The first several months of this thing, I didn’t feel all that great about it,” he said. “It makes me a crappy citizen. It’s the ostrich head-in-the-sand approach to political outcomes you disagree with.”

It seems obvious to say, but to avoid current affairs is in some ways a luxury that many people, like, for example, immigrants worried about deportation, cannot afford.

“He has the privilege of constructing a world in which very little of what he doesn’t have to deal with gets through,” said his sister, Bonnie Hagerman. “That’s a privilege. We all would like to construct our dream worlds. Erik is just more able to do it than others.”

What if, he began to think, he could address his privilege, and the idea of broader good, near to home?

He has a master project, one that he thinks about obsessively, that he believes can serve as his contribution to American society.

He calls it The Lake.

At the Lake

On a recent spookily warm day, Mr. Hagerman clambered up a steep bank of woods, pushing past vines and stepping past fallen logs.

Wide-eyed, giddy with excitement, he led the way to a flat stretch of brush where he spread his arms and began talking even faster than usual. “This is where we’ll build a giant barn. It will feel like a cathedral. The cloister will be here,” he said, making reference to Chartres, and Oxford, and the grandeur of medieval cathedrals.

About nine months ago, he bought some 45 acres of land on the site of a former strip mine. The property, untouched for decades, has been reclaimed by nature — deer, beavers, salamanders and canopies of majestic trees are thriving.

We walked further to the edge of a steep drop-off. Below, a bright blue lake shimmered in the February heat like a secret. He’ll debate as long as you want whether the body of water counts as a lake or a pond. It’s easier if you just agree it’s a lake.

“You wouldn’t believe how great it feels to go swimming there,” he said. He added, with almost rapturous glee, that the lake sits in the spot where the mining company dug deepest.

Mr. Hagerman chats with Gary Conley, left, a landscape ecologist working with him to conserve wetland habitats on his property outside Athens.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times

Mr. Conley holds a juvenile salamander from a vernal pool.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times

Mr. Hagerman sees this land as his life’s work. He plans to restore it, protect it, live on it and then preserve it for the public. “I will never sell this land,” he said.

He wouldn’t put it exactly this way, but he talks about the land in part as penance for the moral cost of his Blockade. He has come to believe that being a news consumer doesn’t enhance society. He also believes that restoring a former coal mine and giving it to the future does.

“I see it as a contribution that has civic relevance that aligns with my passions and what I do well,” Mr. Hagerman said. “I’m going to donate it. It’s going to take most of my net worth. That’s what I’m going to spend the rest of my money on.”

He has filled an entire room of his house with a 3-D rendering of the property to better envision his plans. He has hired Gary Conley, a local landscape ecologist, to advise on the project. Mr. Conley, a gentle bearded outdoorsman who can speak at length about the preferences of the local amphibians, believes that the land could become something special.

Mr. Conley indulges Mr. Hagerman’s fantasies for the land — a walkway modeled on an ancient Mayan ballgame! Land art inspired by “Spiral Jetty”! Windows and concrete blocks, so many blocks! — but Mr. Conley mainly serves as the straight man to inject ecological reality into the plan.

Mr. Conley respects The Blockade. After all, the project of The Lake might not exist without it.

CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times

In those carefree pre-Trump days, Mr. Hagerman would settle into the coffee shop with his newspaper and dig in. But after The Blockade, he could only read the weather — “For elderly men it’s endlessly interesting” — and the real estate listings.

It was during one of those long boring mornings, with no news to read, that he found the listing for The Lake.

“The first time I saw it, I said, ‘This is it,’” he said.

SAM DOLNICK

The post The Man Who Knew Too Little appeared first on dailygate.

[tragicbooks]

Reddit's co-founder explains why Lady Liberty's light is dimming in an emotional letter.

<br>

This post, written for Reddit on Jan. 30, 2017, was intended to be an open letter to encourage other American Redditors to share their own or their family's immigration stories. Within nine hours, it had a record score of over 90,000 points and over 25,000 comments. Many of these stories were far more eloquent and moving than my own. You can read them here.

After two weeks abroad, I was looking forward to returning to the U.S., but as I got off the plane at LAX on Sunday, I wasn't sure what country I was coming back to.

President Trump’s recent executive order is not only potentially unconstitutional, but deeply un-American. We are a nation of immigrants, after all. In the tech world, we often talk about a startup’s "unfair advantage" that allows it to beat competitors. Welcoming immigrants and refugees has been our country's unfair advantage, and coming from an immigrant family has been mine as an entrepreneur.

Protesters hold signs during a demonstration at LAX on Jan. 29, 2017, against the immigration ban imposed by Trump. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

I am the son of an undocumented immigrant from Germany and the great-grandson of refugees who fled the Armenian genocide.

A little over a century ago, a Turkish soldier decided my great-grandfather was too young to kill after cutting down his parents in front of him; instead of turning the sword on the boy, the soldier sent him to an orphanage. Many Armenians, including my great-grandmother, found sanctuary in Aleppo, Syria — before the two reconnected and found their way to Ellis Island. Thankfully they weren't retained, rather they found this message:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

My great-grandfather didn’t speak much English, but he worked hard, and was able to get a job at Endicott-Johnson Shoe Company in Binghamton, New York. That was his family's golden door. Though he and my great-grandmother had four children, all born in the U.S., immigration continued to reshape their family, generation after generation. The one son they had — my grandfather — volunteered to serve in World War II and married a French-Armenian immigrant. My mother, a native of Hamburg, Germany, decided to leave her friends, family, and education behind after falling in love with my father, who was born in San Francisco.

She got a work visa as an au pair in the U.S., uprooting her entire life for love in a foreign land. After she and my father married, she received a green card, which she kept for over a decade until she became a citizen. I grew up speaking German, but she insisted I focus on my English in order to be successful. She eventually got her citizenship and I’ll never forget her swearing-in ceremony.

If you’ve never seen people taking the pledge of allegiance for the first time as U.S. citizens, it will move you: a room full of people who can really appreciate what I was lucky enough to grow up with, simply by being born in Brooklyn. It thrills me to write reference letters for enterprising founders who are looking to get visas to start their companies here, to create value and jobs for these United States.

My forebears were brave refugees who found a home in this country.

I’ve always been proud to live in a country that said yes to these shell-shocked immigrants from a strange land, that created a path for a woman who wanted only to work hard and start a family here.

Without them, there’s no me and there’s no Reddit.

We are Americans. Let’s not forget that we’ve thrived as a nation because we’ve been a beacon for the courageous — the tired, the poor, the tempest-tossed.

Lady Liberty’s lamp is dimming, which is why it's more important than ever we speak out and show up to support all those for whom it shines — past, present, and future.

I ask you to do this however you see fit, whether it's calling your representative (this works, it's how we defeated SOPA and PIPA), marching in protest, donating to the ACLU, or of course, voting — and not just for presidential elections.

Our platform, like our country, thrives the more people and communities we have within it. Reddit, Inc. will continue to welcome all citizens of the world to our digital community and our office.

<br>

Disclaimer: Alexis Ohanian is an investor at Upworthy.

This post first appeared on Reddit and is reprinted here with permission.

[movietvtechgeeks]

Latest story from https://movietvtechgeeks.com/tom-price-gives-clues-future-healthcare-repeal/

Tom Price gives clues on future healthcare repeal

Health secretary selection Tom Price has been put through the Democrats paces with questions, and he’s given a few clues about the upcoming healthcare repeal and replace plan. The biggest takeaway is when Price suggested that the Obamacare replacement plan might not be as close as Donald Trump has suggested.

As we learned this weekend from Kellyanne Conway about the Trump administration’s ‘alternate facts,’ Price refused to say if the president did actually ‘alternate fact’ about working with him directly on a replacement plan. It has been suggested that this plan would kick in shortly after Price was confirmed to run the federal health department.

“President Trump said that he’s working with you on a replacement plan for the ACA, which is nearly finished and will be revealed after your confirmation. Is that true?” asked Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

Price, a medical doctor and congressman from Georgia, said, “It’s true that he said that, yes.”

Price’s dodge was met by laughter in the hearing room, including by his own wife, who was sitting behind him.

“Not that he’s ever done this before, but did the president lie?” Brown continued.

“Did the president lie about this, that he’s not working with you on this?” Brown continued. “He said he’s working with you. … Did he lie to the public about working with you?”

Price didn’t budge.

“I’ve had conversations with the president about health care, yes,” Price said.

Brown later said, “I’m still not sure if the president lied, not to you, but to us, the public, about whether he’s actually working with you.”

“It sounds like he did,” Brown said.

Overall, the Republican congressman and doctor had an easier ride in the Senate Finance Committee hearing than the one he received last week at the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is stocked with many of the Democratic Party’s more combative figures, including Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken.

Still, the Finance Committee’s Democrats grilled Price over his personal trading in health stocks while voting on legislation affecting the health care industry. His past support for dramatically cutting Medicaid also came in for scrutiny.

Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon blasted Price for underreporting the amount of stock he directed his broker to buy in an Australian pharmaceutical company, Innate Immunotherapeutics, last year. Price said a “clerical error” caused him to underreport the $250,000 in stock he owned as about $50,000. He learned about the company from his GOP colleague Rep. Chris Collins of New York, who is on the company’s board, and purchased some of the stock at a special, discounted rate. Price insisted he had been transparent and ethical and would divest himself of the stock if confirmed.

None of the committee’s Republicans appeared troubled by the stock issue, suggesting the Democrats, who are in the minority, will be unsuccessful in blocking Price’s nomination on this issue. “I feel like I’ve been asked to be a character witness in a felony trial,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, arguing the Democrats were exaggerating their objections to Price.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, the committee’s chairman, criticized his Democratic colleagues for “overly partisan” treatment of Trump’s cabinet nominees. Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri, pushed back on that, noting that Trump’s first nominee was confirmed 98 to 1 and more than 80 senators backed his second choice.

Price stressed that he would act in a bipartisan way as secretary and that he wanted to make sure the new, not-yet-formed health care plan would insure more Americans than Obamacare now does. But he was evasive when asked if no one would lose coverage after Obamacare is repealed, and he refused to flesh out the president’s plan for the senators.

Democratic senators said they were worried the president’s plan would mirror Price’s past support for health care and budget reforms that cut Medicaid and Medicare. At one point Price denied telling a Politico reporter in 2012 that requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions was a “terrible idea.” Price did, however, commit to continue allowing women to access contraception for free, an Obamacare reform.

President Donald Trump’s selection to become health secretary told a Senate committee Tuesday that the new administration believes people with existing illnesses should not be denied health insurance, but committed to no details on that or any aspects of how Republicans will reshape President Barack Obama’s health care law.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., who would be at the center of GOP efforts to scuttle Obama’s statute and create new programs, frustrated Democrats probing for details of what Republicans will do. Instead, he repeatedly told them that the GOP goal is making health care affordable and “accessible for every single American” and to provide choices.

At a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Price’s nomination, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., told him the upcoming Republican drive to scrap Obama’s overhaul will garner no Democratic votes and warned: “What we have after the repeal is Trump care.”

Democrats also condemned Price, a 12-year House veteran, for purchasing stocks in health care companies that could benefit from legislation he pushed. Top panel Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon called that “a conflict of interest and an abuse of his position.”

Price, an orthopedic surgeon, told Wyden: “The reality is everything I did was ethical, above board, legal and transparent.”

Wyden questioned Price about the congressman’s purchase of around 400,000 shares last August of Innate Immunotherapeutics Ltd., an Australian drug company. Wyden said Price had bought the stock at prices only available to insider investors, had understated the value of those shares in papers filed with the Finance Committee, and had obtained the stocks at a time when he could affect congressional legislation.

Price appeared a day before Republicans head to Philadelphia for meetings on how to revamp the nation’s health care system. After solidly opposing Obama’s law since Democrats pushed it through Congress in 2010, Trump’s White House victory puts them in a position to deliver their pledge to repeal and replace it, but they’ve not decided how.

Democrats questioned Price about whether a Republican replacement would continue requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing illnesses. Before Obama’s law, insurance companies did not have to do that because such consumers can be extremely costly to cover, though Trump has said he supports continuing such coverage.

“Nobody ought to lose insurance because they got a bad diagnosis,” Price said.

He said one way to cover people who are already sick is with high-risk pools, in which people with high medical costs are pooled together to avoid having their expenses drive up premiums for healthier consumers. That hasn’t worked well in the past, providing costly coverage to limited numbers of people.

His appearance also came days after Trump used Inauguration Day to issue an executive order that federal agencies curb fiscal burdens imposed by Obama’s overhaul and give states more flexibility to interpret it.

Asked by Wyden for assurances that no consumers will be hurt by that order, Price said he’d work with Congress to ensure people that “every single American has access to affordable health care.”

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, praised Price and said he’ll schedule a committee vote on sending Price’s nomination to the full Senate as quickly as possible.

Obama’s health care law has expanded coverage by 20 million Americans, including around half benefiting from the statute’s expansion of Medicaid to more lower-income people.

Previous GOP proposals to revoke Obama’s law have eliminated that Medicaid expansion, which 31 states – including many headed by Republican governors – have adopted. Price repeatedly sidestepped Democrats’ questions about whether the forthcoming Republican plan would erase that expansion, saying it would be up to lawmakers.

He also avoided directly answering whether Republicans will propose turning Medicaid – currently provided to anyone who qualifies – into “block grants.” Those are lump sums of money that would go to states so they can make coverage decisions.

Until recently chairman of the House Budget Committee, Price has supported turning Medicaid into a block grant. The House’s most recent budget proposed cutting the program by $1 trillion over the next decade.

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., told Price that GOP proposals on Medicaid send signals that they want to “cut the federal government’s commitment of access to minorities” for health care.

Price said judging Medicaid’s effectiveness by money is “measuring the wrong thing.” He said instead, its success should be judged by “outcome, whether people are covered.”

Separately, health insurers told Congress there’s a workable alternative to getting Americans covered, without an unpopular federal mandate.

The lobbying group, America’s Health Insurance Plans, said the coverage requirement in Obama’s law is likely to be repealed.

An alternative could work like this: In 2018 there would be a one-time opportunity for uninsured people to enroll. After that, customers would have to show they had been covered for 12 months to get the same terms as everyone else. Otherwise they’d face higher premiums or a six-month waiting period.

Movie TV Tech Geeks News