Daily-Dose

Contents

• From New Yorker
• From Vox
• From The Hindu: Sports
• From The Hindu: National News
• From BBC: Europe
• From Ars Technica
• From Jokes Subreddit

From New Yorker

• Who Ordered a Smear Campaign Against Andrew Cuomo’s First Accuser? - When Lindsey Boylan first publicly accused New York’s governor of sexual harassment, in December, damaging government documents about her were leaked to the press. - link

• L.A.’s Disorganized Vaccination Rollout and the Dream of Universal Health Care - The failures to reach the hardest hit populations are another reminder of how the system neglects so many. - link

• Biden Has Few Good Options for the Unaccompanied Children at the Border - The new Administration is coming under fire for a policy it says protects young migrants. - link

• The Link Between the Capitol Riot and Anti-Abortion Extremism - The importance of an anti-abortion stance to the anti-government far right has received new attention since January 6th. - link

• Is There Anything Funny About the Climate Crisis? - Comics have way better timing than C.E.O.s. - link

From Vox

• Harry, Meghan, and the ghost of Diana: “What I was seeing was history repeating itself” -

  

  “What I was seeing was history repeating itself.”

  There’s a story about Meghan Markle, Kate Middleton, and Princess Diana that feels like it should be fake because it fits the way we talk about them too well. This is how the story goes.

  When Prince William proposed to Kate Middleton in 2010, he gave her Diana’s old engagement ring, the one Charles gave her after he proposed, when Diana was 19 and Charles was 32. It’s an enormous blue sapphire, said to be inspired by one of the brooches Prince Albert gifted Queen Victoria. Kate continues to wear the ring regularly, as seen in most photos taken of her out in public.

  But when Prince Harry married Meghan Markle in 2018, he gave her another piece of jewelry from Diana’s collection: an emerald-cut aquamarine ring his mother commissioned from the British jeweler Asprey, using a stone her friend Lucia Flecha de Lima gave her following her separation from Prince Charles (to replace that sapphire engagement ring). Meghan wore it to her wedding reception.

  If this were a fairy tale, you could say after that: And thus their fates were sealed. Kate, the princess who would be alternately mocked and celebrated for her dutifulness, inherited the ring of obligation. Meghan, the princess who would ultimately break with the royal family and take Harry with her, was granted the ring of freedom.

  And ever since then, Harry and Meghan have worked to align themselves with Diana’s legacy. Specifically, they have positioned themselves as heirs to the idea of Diana as the one who almost got out — the royal escapee whose freedom was tragically cut short.

  During their much-discussed CBS interview with Oprah that aired March 7, Harry and Meghan further established that alignment, presenting a subliminal argument about Diana. They are carrying on her story, the part about freedom and escape, they suggested. And they are going to give Diana’s story a happy ending at last.

  ---

  Meghan didn’t wear Diana’s aquamarine ring to the Oprah interview, but she did have on another token that belonged to her husband’s mother: one of Diana’s diamond bracelets. That choice set the tone for the conversation, invoking Diana’s ghost without even needing to mention her name. The explicit parallels would come later.

  Because Diana was everywhere in the discussion. Early on, Meghan brought up Diana’s famous 1995 interview with Martin Bashir, when the princess — then separated from Charles — infamously said “there were three of us” in her marriage. Meghan was drawing an implicit parallel: Diana went to the press to speak hard truths about the royal family, and now she and Harry were doing the same thing.

  The parallels kept coming. Meghan said that while she was struggling inside the walls of the palace with no help from her in-laws, she turned to an unnamed friend of Diana’s. (“Because it’s like, who else could understand what it’s actually like on the inside?” she told Oprah.) Harry repeatedly invoked the idea that Meghan’s trials within the royal family — press harassment, struggles with depression, lack of support — were exactly what his mother went through, only worse, because this time there was racism and social media trolls to worry about.

  “What I was seeing was history repeating itself,” Harry said, adding, “When I’m talking about history repeating itself, I’m talking about my mother. When you can see something happening in the same kind of way, anybody would ask for help.”

  The pair mentioned the family’s attitude toward Meghan changing after their royal tour of Australia in 2018. And Oprah, leaping on the parallel, brought up The Crown, which in its just-aired fourth season depicts a jealous Charles becoming disenchanted with Diana after she “bedazzles” the populace on her own Australian tour. (Have Harry and Meghan watched The Crown? Oprah asked. Some of it, they said.)

  “It was the first time that the family got to see how incredible she is at the job,” Harry said of Meghan. “And that brought back memories.” Memories, the implication was, of Diana.

  Harry also said he was completely cut off financially after he stepped back from the royal family in early 2020. “I’ve got what my mum left me, and without that, we would not have been able to do this,” he said. “I think she saw it coming.”

  ---

  The world is in a period of reenchantment with Diana. The Crown’s fourth season offered us a sympathetic portrait of the late princess as a beautiful naif who thought she was walking into a fairy tale when she married Prince Charles, only to find herself caught in a nightmare — and audiences sat up and took notice. (The British tabloids reported that Charles tried to squash the season out of fear it would undo all of the PR work he’s invested in over the past three decades to try to rehabilitate his public image following his divorce from Diana.)

  And pop culture is currently in the throes of a fascination with reexamining the sins of decades past, particularly with its own misogyny: what we did to Britney, what we did to Mia Farrow, what we did to Diana. We are entranced with all the beautiful women we have harmed. So Harry and Meghan are invoking an incredibly powerful mythology when they link themselves to Diana.

  But they’re also offering their audience something new and powerful: the chance for absolution. They’re offering us the chance to see Diana’s story put right, through the power of their love for each other and the power of their Hollywood glamour.

  “I’m just really relieved and happy to be sitting here, talking to you with my wife by my side,” Harry told Oprah near the end of their interview. “I can’t begin to imagine what it must have been like for [Diana] going through this process by herself all those years ago. Because it has been unbelievably tough for the two of us, but at least we have each other.”

  Earlier on in the interview, Meghan mentioned she was glad she had been married once before and had a career of her own before her marriage to Harry. “Thank god I had that life experience,” she told Oprah. “Thank god I had known the value of working. My first job was when I was 13, at a frozen yogurt shop called Humphrey Yogart. I’ve always worked. I’ve always valued independence.”

  That life experience is in sharp contrast to Diana’s state when she entered the royal family. Back then, Diana was a sheltered 19-year-old with absolutely no life experience of her own, who never had the chance to start either a career or a meaningful relationship before Charles. (During their engagement, Diana’s uncle infamously told the press: “Diana, I can assure you, has never had a lover.”) She was so awkward on camera that the tabloids nicknamed her Shy Di. She had very limited resources to draw from when she wanted to push back against the royal family.

  Meanwhile, Meghan, as she reminded us on Sunday, was a working actress when she started dating Harry. She’d had relationships before and she’d had jobs before. So when she married into a family business, she knew what she was willing to put up with in her romantic and professional lives — and when to draw a line. And as her interview with Oprah proved, Meghan is poised and comfortable on camera, and both she and Harry are very skilled at setting a compelling narrative.

  In the story Harry and Meghan are telling, they were both caught in the trap that ruined Diana’s life. But unlike Diana, they have each other, as well as access to resources outside of the royal family.

  They can give Diana’s story a happy ending. They can redeem the aquamarine ring’s promise of freedom. They can escape the royal family, finally and at last.

• In a victory for progressives, the DCCC ends its consultant blacklist -

  

  The controversial policy had prevented the DCCC from using vendors involved in progressive Democratic primary campaigns.

  When current New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez secured a stunning win in her 2018 Democratic primary over longtime Rep. Joe Crowley, progressives and digital consultants alike celebrated. Her historic campaign combined youth outreach with innovative digital marketing strategy, and a cottage industry of progressive, high-tech consulting groups popped up in her wake.

  But the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — House Democrats’ campaign fundraising arm — had a different reaction. Under a controversial 2019 policy known as the “DCCC blacklist,” consultants and firms that worked with primary challengers were barred from contracting with the DCCC in a bid to protect incumbents and help reelect existing Democratic House members.

  Now, newly elected chair Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) has followed through on a campaign promise to reverse the policy, as first reported by Politico’s Ally Mutnick.

  “This policy change means that the only criteria for a vendor to be listed in the directory are our standards for fair business practices related to use of organized labor, critical diversity and inclusion standards, and other minimum qualifications,” DCCC spokesperson Chris Taylor told Vox in a statement.

  For two years, groups like Justice Democrats, a progressive political action committee that supported the successful challenges of Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Jamaal Bowman, and Middle Seat Consulting, a digital consulting firm that has successfully used social media and text message canvassing in electing progressives like Reps. Ayanna Pressley and Cori Bush, were sidelined from working with or being recommended by the DCCC.

  Justice Democrats created a website naming 30 groups that were on the blacklist. Progressives decried the policy for discouraging women and people of color from running for office or consulting on campaigns. And Ocasio-Cortez declined to pay DCCC dues altogether, creating her own PAC to support her preferred candidates.

  Progressive members of Congress and consultants praised Maloney’s decision.

  Ended the @dccc blacklist ✔️ https://t.co/aklz5b3ssv

  — Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) March 9, 2021

Sean McElwee, the executive director of the previously blacklisted progressive polling firm Data for Progress, said the reversal would strengthen House Democrats’ campaign efforts. (Vox partners with DFP to provide exclusive polling on key policies under Joe Biden’s administration.)

“The blacklist treated progressive consultants as a group that should be crushed, but some of the most innovative firms were barred from key districts because of it,” he tweeted. “The party would be stronger if it worked with progressive firms.”

In an interview with Politico, Ocasio-Cortez called the decision an “enormous win” for the progressive movement.

“The escalation and aggression against the progressive wing of the party with an explicit forward-facing ‘blacklist’ created a lot of dissuasion against candidates even considering grassroots organizing firms,” she said.

Maloney, a centrist Democrat himself, sought the DCCC chair position on a platform of improving Democrats’ digital marketing. He promised to overturn the ban as a means of bolstering Democrats’ social media outreach capabilities after the party lost 13 House seats in the 2020 elections.

Democrats squabbled internally after the election over what to make of their House losses. Some argued that support of language like “defund the police” over the summer allowed Republicans to hammer Democrats in swing districts. But progressives like Ocasio-Cortez, who had long advocated for reversing the DCCC ban in order to give the most innovative strategists access to more Democratic campaigns, had a different take, blaming Democrats’ lacking digital presence.

“The party — in and of itself — does not have the core competencies, and no amount of money is going to fix that,” she told the New York Times in an election postmortem interview, blaming the poor digital strategy of the DCCC, then led by Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL) for the losses.

In an interview with Politico, Maloney made clear the DCCC’s top priority is still protecting incumbents — and that he would be evaluating the best policy to do that. The DCCC sends paying members lists of recommended vendors, and even without an explicit ban, they could still ice out firms that have worked with primary challengers.

“No one should be looking for work around here if they want to go after one of our members at the same time,” Maloney told Politico. “But I don’t think the blanket ban ever made sense. And we’re gonna replace it with a new approach.”

Waleed Shahid, the spokesperson for Justice Democrats, applauded the DCCC’s decision. But he took Maloney’s warning to heart, noting that Justice Democrats only consults on campaigns in safe districts so as not to benefit Republicans.

“This is an important victory for progressives, but we should ensure that a formal ban isn’t simply replaced with an informal ban,” Shahid told CBS News’s Aaron Navarro. “When over 70 percent of congressional districts have no competitive general election, primaries are often the only venue where voters can have a real say in our democracy.”

• When to expect your stimulus check, and other questions, answered -

  

  Congress has passed a third stimulus package, including $1,400 direct payments.

  On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed a $1.9 trillion stimulus package by a vote of 220 to 211. The bill was approved by the Senate last Saturday and is expected to be signed into law by President Joe Biden this week.

  That means a third round of direct cash payments will soon be on the way, but there are a few differences from the stimulus bill Congress passed in December.

  Specifically, this round of payments will be quite a bit larger for most of those who received checks previously. Instead of the $600 that was sent out in December, individuals will receive as much as $1,400, depending on their income. However, the income threshold to receive a check will also be stricter this time around, after moderate Senate Democrats used their leverage to negotiate a lower maximum eligible income with the Biden White House.

  Those changes mean that about 17 million fewer people will receive a third round of stimulus payments than would have under the House-passed version of the bill, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, but some 280 million people will still be eligible.

  Here’s what you need to know:

  Who qualifies for a $1,400 direct payment?

  Unlike previous rounds of payments, eligibility for the new $1,400 checks may be determined based on either 2019 or 2020 tax returns, depending on whether you’ve filed yet for 2020 — and whether the IRS has processed your return. In general, the federal government will use the most recent income information it has on file to determine eligibility.

  Here’s who’s eligible for a payment:

  • Adults who earned $75,000 or less in their most recent tax year will receive the full $1,400, as will married couples who earned $150,000 or less, and heads of household who earned $112,500 or less.
  • Adults who earned more than $75,000, but less than $80,000; married couples who earned more than $150,000, but less than $160,000; and heads of household who earned more than $112,500, but less than $120,000, will be eligible for a reduced payment.
  • Online calculators can give you an idea of how much to expect, based on variables like your filing status and number of dependents.
  • Adults who earned more than $80,000, married couples who earned more than $160,000, and heads of household who earned more than $120,000 will not be eligible for checks.
  • Parents will also receive an additional $1,400 check for each dependent claimed on their tax returns. Unlike with previous direct payments, all dependents — including college students and some people with disabilities, not just children under 17 — will be eligible.
  • Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive direct payments. Households in which one adult has legal residency and the other does not would be eligible for at least one check, however.
  • If you didn’t file a tax return in 2019 and haven’t yet done so in 2020, you may be able to use the IRS’s free file fillable form to do so in order to receive a stimulus check.

  When will I receive a direct payment?

  It’s still unclear exactly when the latest Covid-19 relief package will be signed into law, but it’s expected to happen before March 14, when federal unemployment benefits are currently set to expire. That means checks will likely start showing up in the second half of March, depending on a few factors.

  • As was the case with the last two stimulus checks, direct-deposit recipients are likely to get their checks the fastest. As CNET notes, direct deposit payments began registering in accounts about two weeks after the last stimulus package was passed. So if the relief bill is signed on the expected schedule, the first payments could start showing up in bank accounts the week of March 22.
  • Physical checks are expected to take about a week longer than direct deposits, and should begin to go out starting March 29 or so.
  • Economic impact payment, or EIP, cards could take the longest. The prepaid debit cards may begin to go out the week of April 5, depending on when the stimulus package is signed into law.

  Is there anything I need to do to get a check?

  As Vox’s Fabiola Cineas and Ella Nilsen explained after Congress passed its previous round of direct payments, most people don’t need to do anything to get a stimulus check. If you filed taxes in 2019 or 2020, meet the eligibility requirements, and included your direct deposit information, the payment should show up in your account in the coming weeks.

  If your direct deposit information isn’t on file with the IRS yet, you can still provide those details using IRS’s “Get My Payment” tool before the latest wave of payments starts going out.

From The Hindu: Sports

• After year-long layoff, Federer returns with a win in Doha - It was the Swiss star’s first match in 405 days after having knee surgery following the 2020 Australian Open.

• West Indies beat Sri Lanka by 8 wickets in first ODI - The match had become ill-tempered in the 21st over.

• PSG draws 1-1 with wasteful Barcelona to reach Champions League quarters - It is the first time since 2005 that neither Messi nor his great rival Cristiano Ronaldo have reached the last eight of the competition, following Juventus’ exit on Tuesday.

• Sharath’s campaign ends - Sharath Kamal’s campaign in the World Table Tennis Star Contender event came to an end after running into World No. 12 Dmitrij Ovtcharov in the pre-qu

• Sania and Klepac beaten - The combination of Sania Mirza and Andreja Kelpac of Slovenia was beaten 6-3, 6-3 by seventh seeds Hayley Carter and Luisa Stefani in the second round

From The Hindu: National News

• Punjab study links rise in farm incomes to FPO membership - A study at the Ludhiana-based Punjab Agricultural University to track the impact of Farmer Producer Organisations (FPO) on the income and employment o

• Congress launches ‘5-guarantee’ Yatra in Assam - The programme will reach every corner of State, the party says.

• Bihar Minister Ram Surat Rai “involved” in illicit liquor trade: Tejashwi Yadav - “Chief Minister appeared “weak and helpless” and, therefore, unable to act and stem the rot,” claimed Tejashwi Yadav.

• Kanchi Kamakoti CHILDS Trust Hospital adjudged best paediatric hospital - The survey was done in partnership with Statista Inc., a global data research firm.

• Cyber fraud | Assets of criminal gang members attached - They cheated people by siphoning off funds from their bank accounts.

From BBC: Europe

• Oxford-AstraZeneca: Denmark suspends vaccine ‘as a precaution’ - The decision follows a death and reports of blood clots, but the health minister says no link is established.

• Amanda Gorman’s Catalan translator dropped because of ‘profile’ - The publishers said they wanted “a woman, young, activist and preferably black” translator for the poem.

• Russia slows down Twitter over ‘banned content’ - The US company is accused of failing to remove 3,000 posts relating to suicide, drugs and pornography.

• Stutthof Camp: Holocaust guard Harry S found unfit to stand trial at 96 - The court says there is a “high degree of probability” Harry S is guilty and he must pay legal fees.

• Audio cassette tape inventor Lou Ottens dies aged 94 - The Dutch engineer’s invention transformed the way people listened to music in the 20th Century.

From Ars Technica

• Researchers measure the gravity exerted by a 90 milligram object - We’ve measured the pull between two gold spheres, each two millimeters across. - link

• The googly eyes of the mantis shrimp inspire new optical sensors - Small enough to fit on a smartphone, capable of hyperspectral and polarimetric imaging. - link

• Twitter sues Texas AG to stop “retaliatory” content-moderation probe - Texas targeted Twitter because of protected content moderation, suit claims. - link

• Adobe Photoshop now runs natively on M1 Macs - Other M1-native apps that hit this week include 1Password and DaVinci Resolve. - link

• Amazon Vesta project seems to be ramping up for production - Do you want a wheeled camera following you around the house? Amazon bets “yes.” - link

From Jokes Subreddit

• A monkey is smoking a joint -

  A monkey is sitting in a tree, smoking a joint, when a lizard walks past. The lizard looks up and says “Hey! what are you doing?” The monkey says “Smoking a joint, come up and join me” So the lizard climbs up and sits next to the monkey and they have another joint. After a while the lizard says his mouth is ‘dry’, and that he’s going to get a drink from the river.

  At the riverbank, the lizard is so stoned that he leans too far over and falls in. A Crocodile sees this and swims over to the stoned lizard, helping him to the side.

  He then asks the lizard, “What’s the matter with you?!” The lizard explains to the crocodile that he was sitting in the tree, smoking a joint with the monkey and his mouth got dry, and that he was so wasted that, when he went to get a drink from the river, he fell in!

  The inquisitive crocodile says he has to check this out. He walks into the jungle and finds the tree where the monkey is sitting, finishing a joint.

  He looks up and says “Hey, MONKEY!” The Monkey looks down and says OMG!!!! DUUUDE …. HOW MUCH WATER DID YOU DRINK?’"

  submitted by /u/tkum
  [link] [comments]

• Why are there no highly credited esteemed flat-earthers? -

  Because flattery will get you nowhere.

  submitted by /u/allovia
  [link] [comments]

• A mum and son are driving on a highway and out of no where, -

  A red rubbery dildo comes flying , hits the windshield and goes away, so the mum trying to save the boy’s innocence says, ‘wow that was a huge bug’ , and the boy says “Dang! How does it fly with a cock that big!”

  submitted by /u/EntirelyPerson
  [link] [comments]

• Nothing is built in the USA anymore… -

  Just bought a new TV…says “Built in Antennae”

  Hell, I dont even know where that is….

  submitted by /u/LongHaulPilot
  [link] [comments]

• I was in Russia listening to a stand-up comedian making fun of Putin. -

  The jokes weren’t that good, but I liked the execution.

  submitted by /u/JTRuno
  [link] [comments]