Latest news with #InterestingTimes
Daily Maverick
4 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Crossed wires — Musk, his children and the population decline crisis
As has been periodically (and slightly breathlessly) reported for some time, Elon Musk has had 13 children with (at least) four mothers. No, wait, it may be 14 because a paternity suit is under way. For any average person, this would seem a little eccentric, even with some leeway for his richly displayed narcissism. But Musk has gone on record many times, urgently warning about population collapse. Perhaps this is simply his contribution to mitigating what he sees as a global crisis. Is it a global crisis? According to sociologist Dr Alice Evans of King's College, it is indeed. She has been studying the subject for a long time and has been very vocal about it. I listened to her on a recent podcast titled Interesting Times, and she went out of her way to disabuse her host (as well as me) of a common misconception. Most people believe that, as secularism and education (both male and female) spread across the world during the previous century, they were accompanied by reproductive education (and rights), which have been the main contributor to the falling rates of childbirth. Reproduction rate All true. However, in the past 15 years, something curious and alarming has emerged. The reproduction rate has fallen off a cliff, not only in liberal Western societies, but in conservative or authoritarian societies such as Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia, Nepal and China. Worse still, those societies most supportive of child-rearing, like Sweden, which offers a ton of perks (like long maternity and paternity leave), have seen no uptick in childbearing at all. Even attempts to nudge populations into child-rearing with generous financial incentives have seen little success. Singapore, France and Hungary (which really pushed the boat out with a tax holiday for life after two children) have seen little positive effect and even continuing declines. The obvious question here is – so what? It turns out there are serious consequences resulting from population decline, which can only be arrested by women having an average of 2.1 children (this odd number stems from children who die before reproducing, as well as the slightly larger male population). Some countries, like South Korea, have seen their rates drop below 1.0. Do a little math and you end up with schools closing, empty commercial buildings, struggling universities and hospitals and the disappearance of child-focused stores (Toys 'R' Us is now a fond memory – it closed 735 stores in 2017, citing declining reproductive rates). The economic impact is frightening. Smartphones What is going on here? Evans has a theory, backed by data. Here is the big surprise – the sudden plummet in childbearing began at the same time as the ascendance of smartphones and personal digital entertainment. Her claim is simple. People (particularly young people) disappeared into their screens and stopped going out, meeting each other, having sex, and bearing children. Playing Call of Duty and scrolling TikTok are far less stressful than trying to meet and bond with strangers. She calls it the 'coupling crisis.' Forming a sustaining relationship takes energy, some sacrifices and sometimes a bit of luck. Being digitally entertained on your device, including being titillated by online porn, is much easier. None of the messy pitfalls of human interaction need to be negotiated. She even points to a sort of real-world control group, which is Africa. Smartphone adoption is late on the continent – it has only just begun. And guess what? Birth rates in Africa have not yet fallen. And then there is marriage. Evans says: '…in the US, over half the people between 18 and 34 are neither cohabiting nor married, so they're single. And that's the same case in much of Latin America, East Asia, Korea, in China, in South Korea… If we look at the data, the decline in people being married or coupled is almost one-to-one with the decline in children.' I am not sure whether the evidence is robust, or correlatory rather than causal – it looks like a difficult hypothesis to prove – but the decline in birth rates and the associated fall-off in marriages is real and vertiginous. Musk's motivation Let's return to Musk for a moment. There has been an attempt to tie Musk's position to the 'great replacement theory,' which is a racist view that whites are being replaced by non-whites, with correspondingly extreme proposals to respond to this presumed threat, including breeding programmes. I don't buy this. I do not believe that Musk aligns with this position at all. I believe his motivations are more, er, personal, if a little weird. I think he just wants lots of little Elons around, who he hopes will be as smart as he is. There is a related question. While birth rates around the world are plummeting, alarming economists and data-aware politicians, it is also the case that they are falling more slowly in religious and conservative jurisdictions. Again, a little high school maths suggests that political power will shift quickly and irrevocably toward the conservative and the religious. There have been some Silicon Valley types reaching for technological solutions – artificial wombs, medical and pharmaceutical science to delay the onset of menopause, and so on – but this all seems a stretch to me. The shrinking of our population seems to be baked into our recent global cultural evolution. What a strange irony, given the panic about overpopulation mere decades ago. People who think about these matters have two substantial shifts in society to consider – the hollowing out of consumer spending as population growth goes negative, and the fast political muscling up of family-minded traditionalists. As though we didn't have enough to worry about. DM Steven Boykey Sidley is a professor of practice at JBS, University of Johannesburg and a partner at Bridge Capital and a columnist-at-large at Daily Maverick. His new book, It's Mine: How the Crypto Industry is Redefining Ownership, is published by Maverick451 in SA and Legend Times Group in the UK/EU, available now.
The Herald Scotland
28-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Neither Trump nor Vance want the Supreme Court to do its job
Vance is not politically ignorant like Trump is, but he sure acts as if he learned nothing in his time at Yale Law School. While Trump opposes things that stand in his way, Vance has an ideology of how he wants to shift the balance of power within our federal government, but only when Republicans are in power. Trump has surrounded himself with voices that insist the presidency is in a stronger position than it is, and as a result, the courts are being strained when he exceeds his authority. JD Vance is wrong about the role of the presidency For Vance, the executive branch is the motor meant to power our federal government. This goes against what conservatives have historically understood, which is that Congress is the branch that ought to power our government, despite some administrations giving in to the temptation of executive rule. "You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for," Vance recently told New York Times opinion columnist Ross Douthat on the "Interesting Times" podcast. To him, an electoral victory means the American people elected that administration to act with impunity for four years. This is a majoritarian view in which the American people give broad mandates to the politicians they elect, rather than those elections being reflections of the choices in front of Americans. Opinion: Don't call me a Republican. I'm a conservative. Trump and his MAGA GOP aren't. As I have argued before, the people do not elect a president because they trust whatever that individual's whims are for four years, but rather because they trust that person within the framework of American government more than the alternative. I highly doubt the vice president would be making the same argument of an executive mandate in the case of former President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness scheme. Vance doesn't actually believe these arguments (he's far too intelligent to). It's simply partisan politics. Trump's administration is causing unnecessary conflict The vice president's view ties in perfectly with his hostility to the courts. "I think that the courts need to be somewhat deferential," Vance said on the podcast. "In fact, I think the design is that they should be extremely deferential to these questions of political judgment made by the people's elected president of the United States." The job of the Supreme Court is to settle what the law is, rather than make political judgments. In this sense, Vance is correct that political matters should be left to the discretion of the executive branch. However, that is not what is happening with the Trump administration's deportation plans. Opinion: GOP keeps pretending Trump has a mandate. Americans are clearly saying otherwise. While there are some legitimate examples of activist judges hindering the administration's deportation actions, the ones that have made broader headlines involve the administration's legally sketchy decisions. Thus far, the Trump administration has launched a hostile collision course with the courts by: Reinterpreting a 1798 wartime statute to consider illegal immigrants as foreign invaders. Mistakenly deporting a suspected gang member to El Salvador, though he had an American court order against being removed, and refusing to facilitate his return - despite a court order demanding the administration do so. Signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship, a constitutionally protected policy upheld by several court precedents. Repeatedly questioning whether suspected illegal immigrants are entitled to due process before being deported. Called for the impeachment of a judge who ruled against Trump. The Supreme Court has been way too active It is not simply a matter of political judgment for the court to block policies that run afoul of the law. You would think that an administration that believes in deference to the executive branch would act in good faith with the court, but that is not what has happened. Instead, the Trump administration has worked with open contempt for both the judicial branch and the Constitution. An administration looking for deference on any number of policies should at least act like it cares about what the Constitution says. The Supreme Court is not meant to be in the news this much, and one of the reasons it is is because of this administration's very aggressive view of the executive branch. When an administration runs afoul of the law as much as Trump's has, the Supreme Court gets bogged down in the political world, where it is not meant to be. When an administration forces the Supreme Court to routinely rule on its policies, it politicizes the judicial branch in ways that it was never meant to be. Both in their rhetoric and in their attempted policies, White House officials are stressing the role of the judicial branch. As I've written before, Congress isn't helping the problem with inaction, but Trump is taking a far more active role in the erosion of our federal government than any other recent president. One can argue about the merits of the chief justice's statements about the administration and its rhetoric, and there are debates to be had. However, the fact that Roberts even feels the need to comment publicly on the Trump administration's bad faith says a lot about where the court is. The Trump administration has raised the temperature in the power struggle between the judicial branch and the presidency, and White House officials complain when judges meet them at the rim to check against their power. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
USA Today
22-05-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
'Profoundly wrong sentiment': JD Vance criticizes John Roberts over role of courts
'Profoundly wrong sentiment': JD Vance criticizes John Roberts over role of courts Vice President JD Vance responds to Chief Justice John Roberts' recent public comments that courts should 'check' the other two branches of government. Show Caption Hide Caption JD Vance gives Pope Leo a special American gift Pope Leo XIV was given a Bears jersey by Vice President JD Vance at their first official meeting. Adding to the brewing conflict between President Donald Trump's administration and the judiciary, Vice President JD Vance criticized recent comments by Chief Justice John Roberts that courts should "check the excesses of Congress or the executive." "I thought that was a profoundly wrong sentiment," Vance said in an interview with New York Times columnist Ross Douthat for his "Interesting Times" podcast. "That's one-half of his job," the vice president added. "The other half of his job is to check the excesses of his own branch. You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for. That's where we are right now." Courts have repeatedly ruled against the Trump administration's deportation efforts, drawing the administration's ire. The Supreme Court on May 16 continued to block the Trump administration from deporting a group of Venezuelan migrants, sending the case back to a lower court for further review. On May 21, a federal judge in Boston ruled the administration violated a court order preventing deportation of migrants to countries not their own without adequate time to challenge the move. Trump has expressed growing frustration with the rulings. He complained on social media after the Supreme Court's latest decision that the court "is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do." "I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people," Vance told Douthat. More: Called out by Trump for how he leads the Supreme Court, John Roberts is fine keeping a low profile Vance was responding to remarks Roberts made during a judicial event in Buffalo, New York, on May 7. The chief justice was asked about the importance of an independent judiciary and said "it's central." Acting as a check on the executive and legislative branches "does require a degree of independence,' Roberts said, drawing sustained applause from the audience. Roberts earlier pushed back against Trump's call to impeach a judge who ruled against him in an immigration case. 'For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,' Roberts said in March. Trump has pushed the limits of executive power in the first four months of his second administration. With Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress, the judiciary has been the main check on his authority. Democrats and other critics have raised concern's about Trump's approach to the judiciary and whether he is respecting the constitutional separation of powers. Lower court judges have ruled the administration disobeyed court orders. The Supreme Court ordered Trump to "facilitate" the return of a Maryland resident wrongly deported to El Salvador, but so far the administration hasn't brought him back.
New York Times
22-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
A Conversation With Vice President Vance
Hosted by Michael Barbaro Featuring Ross Douthat Produced by Caitlin O'Keefe and Stella Tan Edited by Lisa Chow Original music by Dan Powell and Marion Lozano Engineered by Chris Wood and Pat McCusker Vice President JD Vance met with the new pope a few days ago. He then sat down with The Times to talk about faith, immigration, the law and the partisan temptation to go too far. Ross Douthat, an opinion columnist and the host of the new podcast 'Interesting Times,' discusses their conversation. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Ross Douthat, an Opinion columnist and the host of the 'Interesting Times' podcast. Ross's conversation with JD Vance. There are a lot of ways to listen to 'The Daily'. Here's how. We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode's publication. You can find them at the top of the page. Special thanks to Annie-Rose Strasser, Jordana Hochman, Katherine Sullivan, Andrea Betanzos, Sophia Alvarez Boyd, Elisa Gutierrez, Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker, Jonah M. Kessel, Marina King and Shannon Busta. The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon M. Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez, Brendan Klinkenberg, Chris Haxel, Maria Byrne, Anna Foley and Caitlin O'Keefe. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam, Nick Pitman and Kathleen O'Brien.
Axios
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Vance says Chief Justice "wrong" that judiciary should check executive branch powers
Vice President JD Vance characterized Chief Justice John Roberts' recent statement that the judiciary can "check the excesses" of the executive as a "profoundly wrong sentiment" in a New York Times interview published Wednesday. Why it matters: His comments add to the heaps of criticism the administration has levied against the judiciary as district court judges have issued injunctions and orders to halt some of the president's sweeping federal actions. Roberts, in a rare statement in March, rebuked GOP calls to impeach a federal judge who ordered deportation flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members to turn around. And earlier this month, he defended the courts' independence before a New York audience, saying the job of the judiciary is to "obviously decide cases but in the course of that to check the excesses of Congress or the executive." Driving the news: " I saw an interview with Chief Justice Roberts recently where he said the role of the court is to check the excesses of the executive," Vance said on the NYT's "Interesting Times" podcast. "I thought that was a profoundly wrong sentiment." To Vance, checking the power of the executive is "one-half of" Roberts' job. "The other half of his job is to check the excesses of his own branch," the vice president said. "You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for," he continued. What he's saying: Vance said the courts were making an effort to " quite literally overturn the will of the American people." However, he noted, "it's not most courts," before offering his critique of Roberts' comments. Context: Federal courts have blocked Trump's orders at a particularly high rate. And since the beginning of the Obama administration, Axios' Sam Baker reports, there has been a rise in judges ordering nationwide injunctions. But blatantly defying orders — even if they go against what a president says his supporters voted for — would undermine the nation's system of checks and balances. Critics say that's already happening in some cases. Catch up quick: Vance has previously advocated for the power of the executive branch if legal hurdles from the judiciary stand in the way of exercising presidential authority. In February, he wrote that "[j]udges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." The bottom line: It is the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the law — and, when necessary, declare it unconstitutional if it poses a violation. Judicial review, established in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, allows the court to determine a legislative or executive act in violation of the Constitution. What's next: Vance told the Times' Ross Douthat that the administration would "keep working it through the immigration court process, through the Supreme Court as much as possible."
