newyorker--2020-02-04--The Playful Propaganda of “The History of Ukraine”

Late last year , Ukraine ’ s Ministry of Culture released a succinct new take on the country ’ s national narrative , via YouTube : a five-minute animated music video unpithily titled “ The History of Ukraine—Complete and Uncompromising , Unadorned and Pop.
” With rap from the venerable Ukrainian hip-hop group TNMK , lyrics by the activist poet Artem Polezhaka , and nostalgic hand-drawn animation by Sashko Danylenko , the video is post-Soviet “ Schoolhouse Rock !
” for digital natives .
Released in the heat of the U.S. Presidential impeachment hearings , it ’ s also a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine than phone calls from Donald Trump .
Viewers should keep in mind , however , that every national story has a political slant .
In this case , the politics are a holdover from Ukraine ’ s previous administration , led by President Petro Poroshenko , who was elected after the 2013–14 Maidan protests , in Kyiv .
One of Poroshenko ’ s priorities was to counter Russia ’ s propaganda war : tactics included suppression of media deemed anti-Ukrainian , new requirements for the use of the Ukrainian language in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foster patriotism .
The music video was funded by the Ministry of Information Policy , a department hastily established in 2014 and instantly denounced as an Orwellian “ Ministry of Truth ” by Ukrainian journalists concerned about threats to freedom of speech .
( Under Ukraine ’ s new President , Volodymyr Zelensky , it has been subsumed into the Ministry of Culture , Youth and Sport . )
The video is also part of a more personal political project : Polezhaka told me that he wrote his lyrics as part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Memory Works ” —songs dedicated to the memory of a teen-ager killed during the 2015 bombing of a pro-Ukrainian march in the eastern city of Kharkiv .
Since Ukraine became independent , in 1991 , state-sponsored historical commemoration has mostly taken the form of sombre remembrance of vanished heroes , with plenty of grandiose metal statuary .
Ukraine ’ s far-right nationalists , meanwhile , prefer black balaclavas and torchlight rallies .
The latter mode seeped into government policy after the Maidan protests , as part of an official move toward militant nationalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brand of nationalism can be off-putting .
The enthusiastic response to “ The History of Ukraine , ” which quickly went viral , suggests that many Ukrainians are eager for a more positive , less menacing take on their national history .
In comments on YouTube and Facebook , many viewers joked that the video could replace the entire history curriculum in Ukrainian schools .
The video opens with three Hutsuls , the fedora-wearing cowboys of the Carpathian Mountains , blowing their long wooden horns .
We leap between churches and cottages , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left , look to the right , ” Oleh Mykhailyuta raps .
“ This is your land , this is your state !
” But who , exactly , is “ you ” ?
We start to understand as bouncy golden bubbles spell out “ Glory to Ukraine ” and “ Glory to heroes ” This nationalist slogan was often heard on Maidan , sometimes with the less friendly “ Death to enemies !
” Mykhailyuta continues , “ In the beginning there were no birds or fish .
And then came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ imagined communities ” be damned : Ukraine started when the Earth did .
This is the mystical aspect of nationalism , in which identity springs from the primordial soil .
The Big Bang is followed by the Neolithic Trypillians , who are rendered as chatty people bearing pottery .
Next we encounter the battle-ready Cimmerians , a mysterious , likely Indo-European group described in Homer ’ s Odyssey as living “ shrouded in mist and cloud , ” in an “ endless , deadly night , ” at the edge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lived north of the Black Sea , giving rise to the idea that they were early inhabitants of Ukraine .
A land of “ endless , deadly night ” is perhaps not the most inspiring national model , but it ’ s an opportunity for a gag : Homer Simpson appears in a toga only to have his head erased , replaced by something more Greek .
Next come the eastern Slavs and the founding of Kyivan Rus ’ , the kingdom that both Russia and Ukraine claim as their ancestor .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Slavs do battle with monotone hordes , and then with each other .
This inter-Slavic battle is sadly familiar .
In Ukraine , the American impeachment scandal has been overshadowed by the long-running war with Russia-backed separatists in the east of the country .
Last April , Ukraine elected Zelensky , a comedian whose only previous political experience was on the hit sitcom “ Servant of the People , ” in which he played a schoolteacher who is elected President after becoming an accidental social-media star .
Zelensky was elected in part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and reintegrate the separatist-held regions into Ukraine .
( His election may also have been a sign of Ukraine ’ s desire to laugh again . )
A big part of Zelensky ’ s project is the promotion of a more inclusive , pluralistic version of national identity .
Poroshenko , who is from southwestern Ukraine , ran for reëlection on the slogan “ Army !
Language !
Faith !
” Zelensky , by contrast , is from an industrial city in Ukraine ’ s southeastern Dnipropetrovsk region , and , as for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary language is Russian .
( He also has a Jewish background , though he doesn ’ t emphasize that part of his identity . )
In order to be elected , Zelensky had to prove his commitment to the Ukrainian language ; his campaign featured humorous videos in which he studied obscure Ukrainian vocabulary words .
Though he won in a landslide , his willingness to consider compromising with the eastern Ukrainian separatists and with Russia on a peace deal has elicited vituperative criticism from the most nationalist factions in Ukrainian society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is working hard to undermine his successor .
Zelensky ’ s enemies like to paint him as a Russian pawn ready to betray the motherland .
Despite its upbeat aesthetic , “ The History of Ukraine ” reflects the idea , more characteristic of Poroshenko ’ s politics than of Zelensky ’ s , that Ukraine is defined by its enmity with Russia .
A high-speed journey through the pantheon of Ukraine ’ s political and cultural national heroes—the Cossacks , the itinerant philosopher-poet Hryhorii Skovoroda , national bards Taras Shevchenko and Lesya @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Russian heroes like Pushkin .
Danylenko ’ s gently colorful cartoon figures are so disarming that it ’ s easy to overlook the video ’ s more tendentious aspects .
The Bolsheviks are described as a “ plague , ” represented by a sinister red bird-man wielding a hammer and sickle—an efficient personification that could also be described as a willful forgetting of the participation of working-class Ukrainians in the Revolution .
Lenin is nowhere to be found , as if Ukraine ’ s recent “ decommunization ” campaign , which entailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country , extended even to the telling of history .
Hitler makes only a brief appearance , referred to as one of several “ sneaky ” problems , and Ukrainians are described as fighting on “ two fronts ” in western Ukraine , against the Soviets as well as the Nazis .
This last is a relatively subtle celebration of Ukrainian nationalist movements in the Second World War—made official policy under Poroshenko , but highly controversial because these groups participated in ethnic cleansing of Poles and Jews .
Most striking is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ethnic minorities .
One would have loved to see how the ingenious Danylenko would have portrayed the writer Sholem Aleichem , author of the Yiddish-language stories that inspired “ Fiddler on the Roof , ” or Isaac Babel , who immortalized Jewish Odessa .

Late last year, Ukraine’s Ministry of Culture released a succinct new take on the country’s national narrative, via YouTube: a five-minute animated music video unpithily titled “The History of Ukraine—Complete and Uncompromising, Unadorned and Pop.” With rap from the venerable Ukrainian hip-hop group TNMK, lyrics by the activist poet Artem Polezhaka, and nostalgic hand-drawn animation by Sashko Danylenko, the video is post-Soviet “Schoolhouse Rock!” for digital natives. Released in the heat of the U.S. Presidential impeachment hearings, it’s also a reminder that there’s more to Ukraine than phone calls from Donald Trump. Viewers should keep in mind, however, that every national story has a political slant.
In this case, the politics are a holdover from Ukraine’s previous administration, led by President Petro Poroshenko, who was elected after the 2013–14 Maidan protests, in Kyiv. One of Poroshenko’s priorities was to counter Russia’s propaganda war: tactics included suppression of media deemed anti-Ukrainian, new requirements for the use of the Ukrainian language in the media, and assorted projects intended to foster patriotism. The music video was funded by the Ministry of Information Policy, a department hastily established in 2014 and instantly denounced as an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” by Ukrainian journalists concerned about threats to freedom of speech. (Under Ukraine’s new President, Volodymyr Zelensky, it has been subsumed into the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport.) The video is also part of a more personal political project: Polezhaka told me that he wrote his lyrics as part of the ongoing series “That’s How Memory Works”—songs dedicated to the memory of a teen-ager killed during the 2015 bombing of a pro-Ukrainian march in the eastern city of Kharkiv.
Since Ukraine became independent, in 1991, state-sponsored historical commemoration has mostly taken the form of sombre remembrance of vanished heroes, with plenty of grandiose metal statuary. Ukraine’s far-right nationalists, meanwhile, prefer black balaclavas and torchlight rallies. The latter mode seeped into government policy after the Maidan protests, as part of an official move toward militant nationalism. But the angry aesthetic of this brand of nationalism can be off-putting. The enthusiastic response to “The History of Ukraine,” which quickly went viral, suggests that many Ukrainians are eager for a more positive, less menacing take on their national history. In comments on YouTube and Facebook, many viewers joked that the video could replace the entire history curriculum in Ukrainian schools.
The video opens with three Hutsuls, the fedora-wearing cowboys of the Carpathian Mountains, blowing their long wooden horns. We leap between churches and cottages, castles and factories. “Look to the left, look to the right,” Oleh Mykhailyuta raps. “This is your land, this is your state!” But who, exactly, is “you”? We start to understand as bouncy golden bubbles spell out “Glory to Ukraine” and “Glory to heroes” This nationalist slogan was often heard on Maidan, sometimes with the less friendly “Death to enemies!”
Mykhailyuta continues, “In the beginning there were no birds or fish. And then came the Big Bang.” Benedict Anderson’s “imagined communities” be damned: Ukraine started when the Earth did. This is the mystical aspect of nationalism, in which identity springs from the primordial soil.
The Big Bang is followed by the Neolithic Trypillians, who are rendered as chatty people bearing pottery. Next we encounter the battle-ready Cimmerians, a mysterious, likely Indo-European group described in Homer’s Odyssey as living “shrouded in mist and cloud,” in an “endless, deadly night,” at the edge of Hades. Herodotus later wrote that they lived north of the Black Sea, giving rise to the idea that they were early inhabitants of Ukraine. A land of “endless, deadly night” is perhaps not the most inspiring national model, but it’s an opportunity for a gag: Homer Simpson appears in a toga only to have his head erased, replaced by something more Greek. Next come the eastern Slavs and the founding of Kyivan Rus’, the kingdom that both Russia and Ukraine claim as their ancestor. (They will not agree to share.) Slavs do battle with monotone hordes, and then with each other.
This inter-Slavic battle is sadly familiar. In Ukraine, the American impeachment scandal has been overshadowed by the long-running war with Russia-backed separatists in the east of the country. Last April, Ukraine elected Zelensky, a comedian whose only previous political experience was on the hit sitcom “Servant of the People,” in which he played a schoolteacher who is elected President after becoming an accidental social-media star. Zelensky was elected in part on his promises to end the conflict and reintegrate the separatist-held regions into Ukraine. (His election may also have been a sign of Ukraine’s desire to laugh again.) A big part of Zelensky’s project is the promotion of a more inclusive, pluralistic version of national identity. Poroshenko, who is from southwestern Ukraine, ran for reëlection on the slogan “Army! Language! Faith!” Zelensky, by contrast, is from an industrial city in Ukraine’s southeastern Dnipropetrovsk region, and, as for many residents of eastern Ukraine, his primary language is Russian. (He also has a Jewish background, though he doesn’t emphasize that part of his identity.) In order to be elected, Zelensky had to prove his commitment to the Ukrainian language; his campaign featured humorous videos in which he studied obscure Ukrainian vocabulary words. Though he won in a landslide, his willingness to consider compromising with the eastern Ukrainian separatists and with Russia on a peace deal has elicited vituperative criticism from the most nationalist factions in Ukrainian society and from followers of Poroshenko, who is working hard to undermine his successor. Zelensky’s enemies like to paint him as a Russian pawn ready to betray the motherland.
Despite its upbeat aesthetic, “The History of Ukraine” reflects the idea, more characteristic of Poroshenko’s politics than of Zelensky’s, that Ukraine is defined by its enmity with Russia. A high-speed journey through the pantheon of Ukraine’s political and cultural national heroes—the Cossacks, the itinerant philosopher-poet Hryhorii Skovoroda, national bards Taras Shevchenko and Lesya Ukrainka—is peppered with battle rap-appropriate disses directed at Russian heroes like Pushkin.
Danylenko’s gently colorful cartoon figures are so disarming that it’s easy to overlook the video’s more tendentious aspects. The Bolsheviks are described as a “plague,” represented by a sinister red bird-man wielding a hammer and sickle—an efficient personification that could also be described as a willful forgetting of the participation of working-class Ukrainians in the Revolution. Lenin is nowhere to be found, as if Ukraine’s recent “decommunization” campaign, which entailed the removal of Lenin monuments all over the country, extended even to the telling of history. Hitler makes only a brief appearance, referred to as one of several “sneaky” problems, and Ukrainians are described as fighting on “two fronts” in western Ukraine, against the Soviets as well as the Nazis. This last is a relatively subtle celebration of Ukrainian nationalist movements in the Second World War—made official policy under Poroshenko, but highly controversial because these groups participated in ethnic cleansing of Poles and Jews. Most striking is the total erasure of the history of Ukraine’s ethnic minorities. One would have loved to see how the ingenious Danylenko would have portrayed the writer Sholem Aleichem, author of the Yiddish-language stories that inspired “Fiddler on the Roof,” or Isaac Babel, who immortalized Jewish Odessa.
When I spoke to Polezhaka, he told me that he thought that, if cartoons of this kind had been released in Ukraine many years ago, “The Moscow empire would have fallen long ago, and Ukraine would have regained all the occupied territories.” He added, “our cause is just, and Carthage must be destroyed.” Carthage, of course, is Russia. Polezhaka’s belligerent attitude is hardly in keeping with Zelensky’s message of peace and reconciliation. But Zelensky’s administration is in dire need of some points for patriotism. In October, armed representatives of the far-right Azov Movement (infamous for its use of a Wolfsangel-inspired logo) occupied Zolote, an eastern Ukrainian town where troops were scheduled to withdraw as part of a ceasefire agreement. The Azov men vowed to remain and protect the local population, in defiance of government orders. Zelensky felt compelled to make a personal visit to defuse the situation. In a video of the encounter he looked nervous, like a man trying to avoid a bar fight.
“I’m the President,” he burst out, “I’m not some sucker!” As a comedian, Zelensky used his small stature to his advantage—for example, in a sketch in which he played a possessive but diminutive father meeting his daughter’s hulking new boyfriend. But in the Zolote video, he looked like a man in over his head. He perseveres in his peace efforts—in mid-December, he met with Vladimir Putin, Angela Merkel, and Emmanuel Macron in Paris to try to negotiate a potential resolution—but he is faced with constant criticism and protests at home.
As the animated history draws to a close, a bobble-headed, gray-lipped Putin crawls across Ukraine, pushing his toy tank and soldiers—but a Ukrainian fist shoves him back. (If only it were so easy.) A golden bird flies into the blue sky, and viewers are reminded that the future of Ukraine depends on them. Danylenko closes with an optimistic image: a festive meal being shared by, among others, a miner, a beekeeper, a priest, a Cossack, a female police officer, and a hipster with a laptop. This, at least, is a vision of peace.


newyorker--2020-02-04--The Unreality of the Iowa Caucuses

The Unreality of the Iowa Caucuses

Toward 11 p.m. on Monday , an atmosphere of unreality settled over the Iowa caucuses .
In rented hotel ballrooms across Des Moines , candidates emerged from backrooms , smiled broadly , pronounced the race “ too close to call ” ( Elizabeth Warren ’ s words ) , and launched into their stump speeches .
Joe Biden looked more energized than he had in weeks .
Bernie Sanders ’ s crowd was raucous .
Of course no one had any idea whether the race was too close to call , because the app that precinct officials were supposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headquarters had failed , and no one seemed able to get through on the emergency hotline .
The candidates were winging it and , after a year of warning about the urgent threats to American democracy posed by Donald Trump , blithely ignoring the chaos that had engulfed their own party .
Pete Buttigieg came out last , his crowd raucous too , and said , “ Iowa has shocked the nation.
” Was that an acknowledgment , even a winking one , of the confusion around the vote ?
Maybe , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subtle , because he then launched into a victory speech .
“ Tonight , an improbable hope became an undeniable reality , ” Buttigieg said .
In truth , it was obviously deniable and maybe not real at all .
No one had counted the votes .
Two months before the caucuses , the Iowa Democratic Party had torn up its prior plan for reporting caucus results—which asked precinct officials to call in their counts—in favor of a mobile app .
According to the Times , the app had never been tested at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in just two months , by a company with the magnificently ominous name Shadow , Inc. Last night , once the app failed , precinct officials tried to call in their votes , but they could not get through to Party headquarters .
The Iowa Democratic Party held a conference call with the campaigns , and , when that got contentious , it hung up on them .
There was a report out of Polk County that precinct chairs had been told to take pictures of the vote totals ( presumably with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive director of the county Party , who was planning to drive the images over to state Party headquarters .
None of this sounded reassuring .
A spokeswoman for the Iowa Democrats promised a resolution on Tuesday and insisted , maybe a little ominously , there is “ a paper trail.
” That phrase usually appears near the beginning of a mystery , not just before the end .
In the vacuum , an opportunistic chaos reigned .
Buttigieg ’ s campaign released a partial tabulation , saying that Buttigieg would win .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders would .
Warren ’ s campaign wasn ’ t quite so confident , but it put her in the top three , with Buttigieg and Sanders , and called Biden “ a distant fourth.
” Biden ’ s campaign released a letter saying that it wanted assurances about “ quality control ” before any results were released .
By Tuesday morning , Buttigieg was bounding out of a coffee shop with the mayor of Nashua , New Hampshire .
Had he won in Iowa ?
No one could say .
The only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout , which was uninspiring .
The word from the state Party was that about as many voters participated as had in 2016 ( a hundred and seventy thousand ) , when the Democratic base was pretty listless , and far fewer than had in 2008 ( two hundred and forty thousand ) , when Iowa voters were excited .
It seems likely that will still be the most salient result of the Iowa caucuses even later this week , when we know who won .
Or think we know who won .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ separate stories—the unresolved matter of who won and by how much , and the administrative chaos of the vote itself .
By this morning , they seemed to have something to do with each other .
For much of the past year , the Democratic candidates for President have stressed that the threats to democracy have become profound and there is a need for systemic repair .
Nearly every candidate has insisted that Republicans in Georgia did not deserve to win the gubernatorial election there in 2018—that it was stolen from the Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why they are so sure that is so .
There have been proposals to expand the Supreme Court ; to eliminate the filibuster ; to institute a national popular vote and abolish the Electoral College ; to extend the franchise to those who have been excluded , such as felons ; and to seek statehood for Puerto Rico .
Over and over , when the candidates are asked how they will achieve such broad changes to such an entrenched system , they have expressed confidence in the power of the Presidential election this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the verdict decisive .
There will be a wave .
Where is that wave ?
There wasn ’ t any evidence of it in Iowa .
Not only were the over-all participation numbers low , but , over this past year of campaigning , no star emerged .
For Biden , the political establishment ’ s pick , the early signs were ominous .
Support for Sanders , whose path to the nomination depends on historic turnout from young voters , seemed to be rising in recent weeks , but his campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into this last stretch and made millions of phone calls into Iowa , and still the number of new voters was unexceptional .
Whoever wins the primaries will try to run in the general election as a defender of popular democracy against Trump ’ s authoritarian instincts .
But , in Iowa , the Democrats did not seem to be especially democratic or especially popular .
“ They can ’ t even run a caucus and they want to run the government , ” Trump ’ s campaign chair , Brad Parscale , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just seven days before the New Hampshire primary , Buttigieg declined to answer shouted questions about why he ’ d prematurely announced a victory .
Was he the night ’ s winner , and a front-runner , or its loser , and an also-ran ?
He didn ’ t know .
Like his party , he was just winging it .

Toward 11 p.m. on Monday, an atmosphere of unreality settled over the Iowa caucuses. In rented hotel ballrooms across Des Moines, candidates emerged from backrooms, smiled broadly, pronounced the race “too close to call” (Elizabeth Warren’s words), and launched into their stump speeches. Joe Biden looked more energized than he had in weeks. Bernie Sanders’s crowd was raucous. Of course no one had any idea whether the race was too close to call, because the app that precinct officials were supposed to use to deliver their results to Party headquarters had failed, and no one seemed able to get through on the emergency hotline. The candidates were winging it and, after a year of warning about the urgent threats to American democracy posed by Donald Trump, blithely ignoring the chaos that had engulfed their own party. Pete Buttigieg came out last, his crowd raucous too, and said, “Iowa has shocked the nation.” Was that an acknowledgment, even a winking one, of the confusion around the vote? Maybe, but, if so, it was awfully subtle, because he then launched into a victory speech. “Tonight, an improbable hope became an undeniable reality,” Buttigieg said. In truth, it was obviously deniable and maybe not real at all. No one had counted the votes.
Two months before the caucuses, the Iowa Democratic Party had torn up its prior plan for reporting caucus results—which asked precinct officials to call in their counts—in favor of a mobile app. According to the Times, the app had never been tested at a statewide scale and had been developed in just two months, by a company with the magnificently ominous name Shadow, Inc. Last night, once the app failed, precinct officials tried to call in their votes, but they could not get through to Party headquarters. The Iowa Democratic Party held a conference call with the campaigns, and, when that got contentious, it hung up on them. There was a report out of Polk County that precinct chairs had been told to take pictures of the vote totals (presumably with their phones) and text them to the executive director of the county Party, who was planning to drive the images over to state Party headquarters. None of this sounded reassuring. A spokeswoman for the Iowa Democrats promised a resolution on Tuesday and insisted, maybe a little ominously, there is “a paper trail.” That phrase usually appears near the beginning of a mystery, not just before the end.
In the vacuum, an opportunistic chaos reigned. Buttigieg’s campaign released a partial tabulation, saying that Buttigieg would win. Sanders’s campaign was sure that Sanders would. Warren’s campaign wasn’t quite so confident, but it put her in the top three, with Buttigieg and Sanders, and called Biden “a distant fourth.” Biden’s campaign released a letter saying that it wanted assurances about “quality control” before any results were released. By Tuesday morning, Buttigieg was bounding out of a coffee shop with the mayor of Nashua, New Hampshire. Had he won in Iowa? No one could say. The only result anyone seemed confident about was the turnout, which was uninspiring. The word from the state Party was that about as many voters participated as had in 2016 (a hundred and seventy thousand), when the Democratic base was pretty listless, and far fewer than had in 2008 (two hundred and forty thousand), when Iowa voters were excited. It seems likely that will still be the most salient result of the Iowa caucuses even later this week, when we know who won. Or think we know who won.
Overnight, there seemed to be two separate stories—the unresolved matter of who won and by how much, and the administrative chaos of the vote itself. By this morning, they seemed to have something to do with each other. For much of the past year, the Democratic candidates for President have stressed that the threats to democracy have become profound and there is a need for systemic repair. Nearly every candidate has insisted that Republicans in Georgia did not deserve to win the gubernatorial election there in 2018—that it was stolen from the Democrat Stacey Abrams—though they haven’t explained why they are so sure that is so. There have been proposals to expand the Supreme Court; to eliminate the filibuster; to institute a national popular vote and abolish the Electoral College; to extend the franchise to those who have been excluded, such as felons; and to seek statehood for Puerto Rico. Over and over, when the candidates are asked how they will achieve such broad changes to such an entrenched system, they have expressed confidence in the power of the Presidential election this fall. The coalition will be broad, the verdict decisive. There will be a wave.
Where is that wave? There wasn’t any evidence of it in Iowa. Not only were the over-all participation numbers low, but, over this past year of campaigning, no star emerged. For Biden, the political establishment’s pick, the early signs were ominous. Support for Sanders, whose path to the nomination depends on historic turnout from young voters, seemed to be rising in recent weeks, but his campaign had poured tens of millions of dollars into this last stretch and made millions of phone calls into Iowa, and still the number of new voters was unexceptional. Whoever wins the primaries will try to run in the general election as a defender of popular democracy against Trump’s authoritarian instincts. But, in Iowa, the Democrats did not seem to be especially democratic or especially popular. “They can’t even run a caucus and they want to run the government,” Trump’s campaign chair, Brad Parscale, tweeted, gleefully. In Nashua, just seven days before the New Hampshire primary, Buttigieg declined to answer shouted questions about why he’d prematurely announced a victory. Was he the night’s winner, and a front-runner, or its loser, and an also-ran? He didn’t know. Like his party, he was just winging it.


newyorker--2020-02-04--Taylor Swift’s Self-Scrutiny in “Miss Americana”

Perhaps the biggest downside of being rich and famous is that no one will ever feel sorry for you again .
Once a gleaming black S.U.V .
has deposited you directly at the foot of a stairway leading to a private jet , you are suddenly and irrevocably beyond compassion .
Most celebrities seem to understand this fact instinctively , though occasionally , in interviews , it ’ s possible to catch a brief but vivid flash of panic in a star ’ s eyes when she is asked about how many days she has to spend on the road @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to feel the constant adoration of a fan base .
Still , no matter how miserable or inhumane the circumstances of her life have become—no griping !
Forced gratitude can feel like a modern plague , but most people still bristle when a celebrity suggests that perhaps she is also a victim .
“ Miss Americana , ” a new documentary about the pop singer Taylor Swift , premièred on Netflix last Friday .
The film was directed by Lana Wilson , and takes its title from “ Miss Americana & the Heartbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lover , ” Swift ’ s most recent album .
( “ No cameras catch my pageant smile / I counted days , I counted miles , ” she sings , presumably describing the time she spent settling down with her boyfriend , the English actor Joe Alwyn , and attempting to avoid public scrutiny . )
The film covers Swift ’ s entire life and career , but it lingers on recent events , including a political awakening , which was apparently hastened by an incident in 2013 , in which she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greet by a radio d.j .
named David Mueller .
( He later sued her , for defamation , and lost . )
Swift is known for her expertise at persona creation , so it would be reasonable to expect that “ Miss Americana ” might feel like hagiography in a cloak of quasi-confessionalism .
That stance , after all , is now the default mode on social media , where the smartest celebrities figure out a way to artfully portray themselves as accidental heroes .
But “ Miss Americana ” is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reckoning with what she ’ s capable of , and , more interestingly , what the culture will accept from her .
“ As I ’ m reaching thirty , I ’ m , like , I want to work really hard while society is still tolerating me being successful , ” she says .
Ouch .
Because she is young , white , and conventionally pretty , Swift has enjoyed some degree of privilege her entire life .
Yet , though her background has buoyed her in some very obvious ways ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her mother , a former marketing executive , moved their family from Pennsylvania to Tennessee , so that Swift could work Music Row ) , it has also been a funny sort of albatross .
From the start of her career , Swift has radiated a kind of frantic ambition , which made it especially easy for critics to dismiss her as a high-achieving cheerleader type , rather than a visionary , a savant , or a mogul .
Swift is right to be frustrated by this—it ’ s another brutal example of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patriarchal strictures can be punished for their victories .
“ Miss Americana ” reframes Swift ’ s hunger for validation as nearly pathological .
“ I wish I didn ’ t feel like there ’ s a better version of me out there , ” she says .
The film opens with her showing the camera her early journals , a pile of notebooks in shades of pink and purple , some with tiny locks .
At one point , Swift says , she used a quill and ink to write .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my life , my career , my dream , my reality ” on one cover .
She described her earliest ideology as “ do the right thing , do the good thing , ” which might seem admirable but quickly became punishing .
( Swift identifies as Christian in the film , but her idea of goodness has less to do with morality than with the overwhelming demands of late capitalism—for Swift , goodness is mostly just synonymous with commercial achievement . )
Swift is certainly not exceptional in her yearning for approval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unprecedented scale .
In one scene , the camera follows her as she prepares to appear onstage at one of the stops on her “ Reputation ” tour .
She stands on a platform , and someone raises a sequinned hood over her head .
A barrier slowly parts , and suddenly Swift is facing an arena full of people fully losing their minds .
It is hard to imagine what it must feel like to stare down that sort of hysterical , churning energy , especially alone .
Watching her , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merely terror .
Swift is candid about her gradual decline into disordered eating .
“ There ’ s always some standard of beauty that you ’ re not meeting , ” she says .
“ It ’ s all just fucking impossible.
” She turned her perfectionism on her own body , and , for a while , made comprehensive lists of everything she ’ d consume in a day .
“ There are so many diet blogs that tell you that that ’ s what you should do , ” she says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unflattering photo of herself , she says , she simply stopped eating altogether .
She is similarly punitive when her album “ Reputation ” doesn ’ t earn any Grammy nominations in the major categories .
“ This is fine , ” she tells her publicist .
“ I just need to make a better record.
” Later , on the set of the music video for “ ME !
, ” the first single from “ Lover , ” Swift and the video ’ s director , Dave Meyers , play a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a really slappable face , ” Swift observes .
( Meyers , for his part , looks deeply uncomfortable with the remark . )
“ Miss Americana ” contains enough tiny , revealing details to make Swift seem weirder and more human than she usually does .
She admits that she didn ’ t try a burrito until she was in her mid-twenties .
She dumps ice cubes in her white wine .
She will pour her cat a generous mound of Temptations-brand treats right on the kitchen table .
But perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follows her decision to speak out against Marsha Blackburn , the Tennessee Republican who ran for Senate during the 2018 midterm elections .
Swift ’ s interest in politics feels earnest and impassioned , even as she receives absurd pushback from her management team , a pair of slumped older gentlemen , and her father .
“ Does Bob Hope do it ?
Does Bing Crosby do it ?
” he asks , of endorsing political candidates .
Of course , Swift ’ s apolitical stance was hurting her , too .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Dixie Chicks being villainized for speaking out against the Iraq War , in 2003 , but the juxtaposition feels sneaky : when “ Miss Americana ” started filming , fifteen years had passed , and the world looks wildly different now .
Besides , Swift is no longer a country star , nor is she reliant on country radio ; pop stars routinely make bold political statements without career-ending backlash from fans .
Ultimately , in an Instagram post , Swift encouraged her followers to register to vote , and wrote that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appalls and terrifies me.
” Blackburn still won , and Swift ’ s career didn ’ t suffer from her disclosure—even Trump ’ s response to her post was limp .
When a reporter asked the President about Swift ’ s comments , he at first seemed unaware of what she ’ d said , then quipped , “ I like Taylor ’ s music about twenty-five-per-cent less now.
” On “ The Man , ” a song from “ Lover , ” Swift wonders how much simpler her life might be and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if she ’ d been born male .
( For the grammarians among us , the most harrowing moment of the entire film is when Swift and one of her producers , Joel Little , are methodically working out the song ’ s chorus , and Swift starts to second-guess her own phrasing : “ If I were a man , ” she says , then pauses .
“ If I was a man ?
” Little , who also does not quite seem to know which way is right , simply nods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a consistent pleasure to watch Swift work , and to behold the joy that spreads across her face as she puzzles through a verse or melody .
Each time she completes a song , she appears to regard it with genuine wonder .
Swift has never allowed outside cameras in the studio with her before , and her choice to let Wilson film her as she works feels like the right way to reveal something true about who she is and what she does .
In the end , it is far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview , or paparazzi photo .
It ’ s beautiful .

Perhaps the biggest downside of being rich and famous is that no one will ever feel sorry for you again. Once a gleaming black S.U.V. has deposited you directly at the foot of a stairway leading to a private jet, you are suddenly and irrevocably beyond compassion. Most celebrities seem to understand this fact instinctively, though occasionally, in interviews, it’s possible to catch a brief but vivid flash of panic in a star’s eyes when she is asked about how many days she has to spend on the road, or what it’s like to feel the constant adoration of a fan base. Still, no matter how miserable or inhumane the circumstances of her life have become—no griping!
Forced gratitude can feel like a modern plague, but most people still bristle when a celebrity suggests that perhaps she is also a victim. “Miss Americana,” a new documentary about the pop singer Taylor Swift, premièred on Netflix last Friday. The film was directed by Lana Wilson, and takes its title from “Miss Americana & the Heartbreak Prince,” a track on “Lover,” Swift’s most recent album. (“No cameras catch my pageant smile / I counted days, I counted miles,” she sings, presumably describing the time she spent settling down with her boyfriend, the English actor Joe Alwyn, and attempting to avoid public scrutiny.) The film covers Swift’s entire life and career, but it lingers on recent events, including a political awakening, which was apparently hastened by an incident in 2013, in which she was sexually assaulted at a meet and greet by a radio d.j. named David Mueller. (He later sued her, for defamation, and lost.)
Swift is known for her expertise at persona creation, so it would be reasonable to expect that “Miss Americana” might feel like hagiography in a cloak of quasi-confessionalism. That stance, after all, is now the default mode on social media, where the smartest celebrities figure out a way to artfully portray themselves as accidental heroes. But “Miss Americana” is a compelling and thoughtful portrait of an artist reckoning with what she’s capable of, and, more interestingly, what the culture will accept from her. “As I’m reaching thirty, I’m, like, I want to work really hard while society is still tolerating me being successful,” she says. Ouch.
Because she is young, white, and conventionally pretty, Swift has enjoyed some degree of privilege her entire life. Yet, though her background has buoyed her in some very obvious ways (her father, a stockbroker, and her mother, a former marketing executive, moved their family from Pennsylvania to Tennessee, so that Swift could work Music Row), it has also been a funny sort of albatross. From the start of her career, Swift has radiated a kind of frantic ambition, which made it especially easy for critics to dismiss her as a high-achieving cheerleader type, rather than a visionary, a savant, or a mogul. Swift is right to be frustrated by this—it’s another brutal example of how even women who hew close to patriarchal strictures can be punished for their victories.
“Miss Americana” reframes Swift’s hunger for validation as nearly pathological. “I wish I didn’t feel like there’s a better version of me out there,” she says. The film opens with her showing the camera her early journals, a pile of notebooks in shades of pink and purple, some with tiny locks. At one point, Swift says, she used a quill and ink to write. When she was thirteen, she scribbled “my life, my career, my dream, my reality” on one cover. She described her earliest ideology as “do the right thing, do the good thing,” which might seem admirable but quickly became punishing. (Swift identifies as Christian in the film, but her idea of goodness has less to do with morality than with the overwhelming demands of late capitalism—for Swift, goodness is mostly just synonymous with commercial achievement.)
Swift is certainly not exceptional in her yearning for approval, but her life has unfolded on an unprecedented scale. In one scene, the camera follows her as she prepares to appear onstage at one of the stops on her “Reputation” tour. She stands on a platform, and someone raises a sequinned hood over her head. A barrier slowly parts, and suddenly Swift is facing an arena full of people fully losing their minds. It is hard to imagine what it must feel like to stare down that sort of hysterical, churning energy, especially alone. Watching her, I felt neither envy nor curiosity, merely terror.
Swift is candid about her gradual decline into disordered eating. “There’s always some standard of beauty that you’re not meeting,” she says. “It’s all just fucking impossible.” She turned her perfectionism on her own body, and, for a while, made comprehensive lists of everything she’d consume in a day. “There are so many diet blogs that tell you that that’s what you should do,” she says. Sometimes, when she saw an unflattering photo of herself, she says, she simply stopped eating altogether. She is similarly punitive when her album “Reputation” doesn’t earn any Grammy nominations in the major categories. “This is fine,” she tells her publicist. “I just need to make a better record.” Later, on the set of the music video for “ME!,” the first single from “Lover,” Swift and the video’s director, Dave Meyers, play a take from the shoot. “I have a really slappable face,” Swift observes. (Meyers, for his part, looks deeply uncomfortable with the remark.)
“Miss Americana” contains enough tiny, revealing details to make Swift seem weirder and more human than she usually does. She admits that she didn’t try a burrito until she was in her mid-twenties. She dumps ice cubes in her white wine. She will pour her cat a generous mound of Temptations-brand treats right on the kitchen table. But perhaps the most moving stretch of the film follows her decision to speak out against Marsha Blackburn, the Tennessee Republican who ran for Senate during the 2018 midterm elections. Swift’s interest in politics feels earnest and impassioned, even as she receives absurd pushback from her management team, a pair of slumped older gentlemen, and her father. “Does Bob Hope do it? Does Bing Crosby do it?” he asks, of endorsing political candidates.
Of course, Swift’s apolitical stance was hurting her, too. As she deliberates, Wilson intercuts footage of the Dixie Chicks being villainized for speaking out against the Iraq War, in 2003, but the juxtaposition feels sneaky: when “Miss Americana” started filming, fifteen years had passed, and the world looks wildly different now. Besides, Swift is no longer a country star, nor is she reliant on country radio; pop stars routinely make bold political statements without career-ending backlash from fans. Ultimately, in an Instagram post, Swift encouraged her followers to register to vote, and wrote that Blackburn’s “record in Congress appalls and terrifies me.” Blackburn still won, and Swift’s career didn’t suffer from her disclosure—even Trump’s response to her post was limp. When a reporter asked the President about Swift’s comments, he at first seemed unaware of what she’d said, then quipped, “I like Taylor’s music about twenty-five-per-cent less now.”
On “The Man,” a song from “Lover,” Swift wonders how much simpler her life might be and how differently her work would be received if she’d been born male. (For the grammarians among us, the most harrowing moment of the entire film is when Swift and one of her producers, Joel Little, are methodically working out the song’s chorus, and Swift starts to second-guess her own phrasing: “If I were a man,” she says, then pauses. “If I was a man?” Little, who also does not quite seem to know which way is right, simply nods along.) Still, it is a consistent pleasure to watch Swift work, and to behold the joy that spreads across her face as she puzzles through a verse or melody. Each time she completes a song, she appears to regard it with genuine wonder. Swift has never allowed outside cameras in the studio with her before, and her choice to let Wilson film her as she works feels like the right way to reveal something true about who she is and what she does. In the end, it is far more interesting than any acceptance speech, red-carpet interview, or paparazzi photo. It’s beautiful.


newyorker--2020-02-04--Stop, Thief! My Cartoon Gets Appropriated

I drew this cartoon twenty years ago , for a friend who was writing an essay on conceptual art for an art magazine , and , as has happened so often in the time of Trump , what was once a joke has turned into reality .
A real artist has stepped into the role of the artist in my cartoon .
His name is Karl Haendel .
His crime ?
Not bank robbery but image robbery—the legal , but nonetheless nefarious , conceptual theft ( a.k.a .
appropriation ) of another cartoon of mine , this New Yorker drawing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawing of the cartoon .
Haendel took my cartoon and reproduced it exactly in a different medium : graphite , as opposed to my pen and ink .
He then framed the drawing and hung it on a wall with four other appropriated drawings , and titled the work “ Mazel Tov Group.
” Ironically , were I to reproduce his drawing of my drawing without permission , I ’ d probably have legal problems .
To quote from Haendel ’ s Wikipedia page , he “ appropriates , copies , and re-makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage the long process of language building.
” Huh ?
Haendel is quoted as saying that , as an artist , his role is to “ honestly present a vision of the world ” that he “ believes to be true.
” To quote from myself , “ As an artist , I created this cartoon to honestly present a vision of the world that I believe to be true.
” Now , I ’ m not totally ignorant .
I spent a considerable portion of my adult life in the art world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m fairly well informed about the whole notion of appropriation .
I know about Sherrie Levine and Richard Prince , Barbara Kruger and Jeff Koons .
I ’ m familiar with the philosophical underpinnings of artistic appropriation , and I ’ ve done my reading of Roland Barthes .
Here ’ s a New Yorker cartoon of mine from the early two-thousands : I ’ ve even done a bit of appropriating myself : To quote Wikipedia again , appropriation art is “ the use of pre-existing objects or images with little or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a venerable history , going back to the Cubists , followed by , among others , Marcel Duchamp ’ s readymades ( think of a snow shovel hanging in a museum ) , Robert Rauschenberg ’ s “ combines , ” and the work of artists such as Andy Warhol and Jasper Johns .
In recent times , many artists have turned to appropriation to amplify theories about the nature of art and to comment on social issues .
But it ’ s one thing to understand appropriation and quite another to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s work , and my unexpected part in it , when a friend e-mailed me a photograph of “ Mazel Tov Group.
” I found that no amount of understanding of the theory behind the work could diminish how much it irritated me .
On a simple , human level , I wuz robbed .
A 2019 commentary about Haendel ’ s “ Mazel Tov Group , ” published in conjunction with its installation at the Henry Art Gallery , at the University of Washington , describes my appropriated drawing as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yorker.
” Notice that the name of the cartoon ’ s artist is nowhere to be found in this description .
However , it does appear in the lower-right corner of the drawing , in the form of my appropriated signature .
Is that supposed to make it all right ?
I guess what ’ s also supposed to make it all right ( and , with several other factors , leaves me without a legal leg to stand on ) is that Haendel has reportedly redrawn my cartoon by hand , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be overly impressed with his ability as a copyist .
I ’ m willing to bet every penny I ’ ve earned granting permission to reprint the cartoon in question that Mr. Haendel is , even now , bent over a light box , tracing someone else ’ s work of art , perhaps even another New Yorker cartoon .
( According to the cartoon-related Web site Attempted Bloggery , to date Haendel has appropriated at least twenty-seven New Yorker cartoons . )
The other four appropriated images in the “ Mazel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a famous circus clown named Emmett Kelly , a performer standing on an elephant , a breaching whale , and a drawing of the lyrics to Bob Dylan ’ s “ Jokerman.
” Apparently , the juxtaposition of these images is what the piece is all about , but what ’ s also apparent is that this arrangement has an unfortunate consequence for my cartoon ( and for the other images as well ) .
Displayed in a group with the intention of making some kind of cultural , political , or artistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to exist as an idea and is reduced to the status of a thing .
We cartoonists know all about juxtaposition .
Juxtaposition is the secret ingredient in most cartoons—for example , a cartoon that combines a Christmas tree and a menorah !
If there ’ s one thing I ’ m certain about in regard to Haendel ’ s juxtaposition of the five appropriated images in “ Mazel Tov Group , ” it ’ s this : if I were to arbitrarily choose a sixth image—say , a meticulously hand-drawn , graphite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Katz ’ s Delicatessen—and were I to hang it on a wall with the others , some critic would have no trouble finding deep meaning in its relation to the piece as a whole .
In my research for this essay , I came across an auction estimate for the “ Mazel Tov Group ” of between forty thousand and sixty thousand dollars .
Yikes !
My original drawing of the “ Jewish-American themed cartoon from The New Yorker ” was bought a few years ago , for a tiny fraction of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was only the real thing .
I ’ ll get over it .
One friend tells me that I should be “ flattered ” to be used in this fashion .
Obviously , I ’ m not there yet .
Meanwhile , here ’ s my final thought on the matter :

“My client pleads not guilty by reason of the fact that the bank robbery was a piece of conceptual art.” Copy link to cartoon Copy link to cartoon Shop Shop
I drew this cartoon twenty years ago, for a friend who was writing an essay on conceptual art for an art magazine, and, as has happened so often in the time of Trump, what was once a joke has turned into reality. A real artist has stepped into the role of the artist in my cartoon. His name is Karl Haendel. His crime? Not bank robbery but image robbery—the legal, but nonetheless nefarious, conceptual theft (a.k.a. appropriation) of another cartoon of mine, this New Yorker drawing from 2006:
Copy link to cartoon Copy link to cartoon Shop Shop
This is my original drawing of the cartoon. Haendel took my cartoon and reproduced it exactly in a different medium: graphite, as opposed to my pen and ink. He then framed the drawing and hung it on a wall with four other appropriated drawings, and titled the work “Mazel Tov Group.” Ironically, were I to reproduce his drawing of my drawing without permission, I’d probably have legal problems. To quote from Haendel’s Wikipedia page, he “appropriates, copies, and re-makes images into new representations” to “engage the long process of language building.” Huh? Haendel is quoted as saying that, as an artist, his role is to “honestly present a vision of the world” that he “believes to be true.” To quote from myself, “As an artist, I created this cartoon to honestly present a vision of the world that I believe to be true.”
Now, I’m not totally ignorant. I spent a considerable portion of my adult life in the art world as a sculptor, and I’m fairly well informed about the whole notion of appropriation. I know about Sherrie Levine and Richard Prince, Barbara Kruger and Jeff Koons. I’m familiar with the philosophical underpinnings of artistic appropriation, and I’ve done my reading of Roland Barthes. Here’s a New Yorker cartoon of mine from the early two-thousands:
“This artist is a deeply religious feminist and anti-smoking advocate, who made a lot of money in the computer industry before going off to paint in Paris, where she now lives with her husband and two little girls.” Copy link to cartoon Copy link to cartoon Shop Shop
I’ve even done a bit of appropriating myself:
“Another glass of absinthe—that’s your answer to everything.” Copy link to cartoon Copy link to cartoon Shop Shop
To quote Wikipedia again, appropriation art is “the use of pre-existing objects or images with little or no transformation applied to them.” It has a venerable history, going back to the Cubists, followed by, among others, Marcel Duchamp’s readymades (think of a snow shovel hanging in a museum), Robert Rauschenberg’s “combines,” and the work of artists such as Andy Warhol and Jasper Johns. In recent times, many artists have turned to appropriation to amplify theories about the nature of art and to comment on social issues.
But it’s one thing to understand appropriation and quite another to be appropriated. I first discovered Haendel’s work, and my unexpected part in it, when a friend e-mailed me a photograph of “Mazel Tov Group.” I found that no amount of understanding of the theory behind the work could diminish how much it irritated me. On a simple, human level, I wuz robbed.
A 2019 commentary about Haendel’s “Mazel Tov Group,” published in conjunction with its installation at the Henry Art Gallery, at the University of Washington, describes my appropriated drawing as “a Jewish-American themed cartoon from The New Yorker.” Notice that the name of the cartoon’s artist is nowhere to be found in this description. However, it does appear in the lower-right corner of the drawing, in the form of my appropriated signature. Is that supposed to make it all right?
I guess what’s also supposed to make it all right (and, with several other factors, leaves me without a legal leg to stand on) is that Haendel has reportedly redrawn my cartoon by hand, but, please . . . don’t be overly impressed with his ability as a copyist. I’m willing to bet every penny I’ve earned granting permission to reprint the cartoon in question that Mr. Haendel is, even now, bent over a light box, tracing someone else’s work of art, perhaps even another New Yorker cartoon. (According to the cartoon-related Web site Attempted Bloggery, to date Haendel has appropriated at least twenty-seven New Yorker cartoons.)
The other four appropriated images in the “Mazel Tov Group” are a portrait of a famous circus clown named Emmett Kelly, a performer standing on an elephant, a breaching whale, and a drawing of the lyrics to Bob Dylan’s “Jokerman.” Apparently, the juxtaposition of these images is what the piece is all about, but what’s also apparent is that this arrangement has an unfortunate consequence for my cartoon (and for the other images as well). Displayed in a group with the intention of making some kind of cultural, political, or artistic statement about who-knows-what, my cartoon ceases to exist as an idea and is reduced to the status of a thing.
We cartoonists know all about juxtaposition. Juxtaposition is the secret ingredient in most cartoons—for example, a cartoon that combines a Christmas tree and a menorah! If there’s one thing I’m certain about in regard to Haendel’s juxtaposition of the five appropriated images in “Mazel Tov Group,” it’s this: if I were to arbitrarily choose a sixth image—say, a meticulously hand-drawn, graphite appropriation of a poster advertising salami from Katz’s Delicatessen—and were I to hang it on a wall with the others, some critic would have no trouble finding deep meaning in its relation to the piece as a whole.
In my research for this essay, I came across an auction estimate for the “Mazel Tov Group” of between forty thousand and sixty thousand dollars. Yikes! My original drawing of the “Jewish-American themed cartoon from The New Yorker” was bought a few years ago, for a tiny fraction of that estimate. But, then again, it was only the real thing. I’ll get over it. One friend tells me that I should be “flattered” to be used in this fashion. Obviously, I’m not there yet. Meanwhile, here’s my final thought on the matter:


newyorker--2020-02-04--Florida Offers to Help Iowa Count Votes

Florida Offers to Help Iowa Count Votes

TALLAHASSEE , Florida ( The Borowitz Report ) —Calling the delay in the release of the Iowa caucus results “ @ @ @ @ @ ” the state of Florida has offered to help Iowa with the vote-counting process .
@ @ @ @ @ for Florida ’ s official electoral commission , said on Tuesday morning that “ Florida @ @ @ @ @ restore credibility to Iowa ’ s vote-tabulation procedures.
” Dorrinson added that Katherine Harris , @ @ @ @ @ of state , was eager to “ roll up her sleeves and clean up Iowa @ @ @ @ @ Just say the word , Iowa , and Katherine Harris will be on the next @ @ @ @ @ said .
For their part , Iowa Democratic Party officials said that they were already @ @ @ @ @ the caucus results , and that early returns indicated that a white person had won @

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (The Borowitz Report)—Calling the delay in the release of the Iowa caucus results “a threat to democracy,” the state of Florida has offered to help Iowa with the vote-counting process.
Harland Dorrinson, a spokesman for Florida’s official electoral commission, said on Tuesday morning that “Florida stands ready and willing to restore credibility to Iowa’s vote-tabulation procedures.”
Dorrinson added that Katherine Harris, Florida’s former secretary of state, was eager to “roll up her sleeves and clean up Iowa’s mess.”
“Just say the word, Iowa, and Katherine Harris will be on the next plane out,” he said.
For their part, Iowa Democratic Party officials said that they were already making great progress in counting the caucus results, and that early returns indicated that a white person had won.


newyorker--2020-02-04--Suggested Revisions to Etiquette

Suggested Revisions to Etiquette

Wedding attendees do not give gifts .
What happens instead : They receive gifts .
Why : To make up for the time , expense , and attention wedding attendees are forced to lavish on others .
Going to a wedding is annoying enough to make most of us wonder whether it ’ s worth having friends or a family at all .
This might soften the blow .
Those who receive gifts don ’ t send thank-you notes .
What happens instead : The person who receives a gift thanks the gift giver with the cash value of said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad writers , and it ’ s impossible to quantify gratitude .
It is , however , easy to determine the exact amount of money a gift is worth .
Let ’ s just give that to the gift givers and move on with our lives .
You need not avoid replying to an e-mail with only a “ Thanks !
” What happens instead : You initiate e-mail chains with total strangers by saying nothing more than “ Thanks !
” and don ’ t sign the e-mail or explain why you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People like to feel appreciated , even if they don ’ t know what for or by whom .
You need not refrain from discussing finances with people you don ’ t know well .
What happens instead : Though you generally still shouldn ’ t bring up finances with those to whom you ’ re not close , if someone shows you a picture of something expensive—like a boat , a nice apartment , or a premium chocolate bar—you get to ask that person how he makes his money .
Why : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not need to bring something for the other guests to eat or drink .
What happens instead : Party attendees bring everything they themselves are going to consume .
Why : Efficiency .
You don ’ t have to put away your cell phone at dinner .
What happens instead : You can and should use your cell phone , but you must loudly narrate everything that you ’ re doing on your phone to everyone at the table .
Why : We all want to know the Mets score .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ score !
Sometimes I find the Mets frustrating .
You need not wait until everyone is seated to start eating .
What happens instead : Everyone should hurry to the table and eat as quickly as possible—it ’ s every man for himself .
Why : We will all die someday , and the future is uncertain .
Every second you spend not eating is a second you will never get back .
Anyone who gets between you and your food is causing you irreparable harm .
The person who sneezes does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens instead : The sneezer apologizes .
Why : Sneezes are loud and spread germs .
Sure , they ’ re involuntary , but you could at least have the decency to be ashamed of them .
It ’ s not proper to merely hold the door for others .
What happens instead : You remove the door with a crowbar and drive it to a landfill .
Why : Now everyone—not just the person right behind you—will be able to easily enter and exit the room .
You don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boss ’ s office , screaming wordlessly , and then smashing all of her belongings .
What happens instead : You do it .
Why : You ’ ve been having a rough morning .

Wedding attendees do not give gifts.
What happens instead: They receive gifts.
Why: To make up for the time, expense, and attention wedding attendees are forced to lavish on others. Going to a wedding is annoying enough to make most of us wonder whether it’s worth having friends or a family at all. This might soften the blow.
Those who receive gifts don’t send thank-you notes.
What happens instead: The person who receives a gift thanks the gift giver with the cash value of said gift.
Why: Most people are bad writers, and it’s impossible to quantify gratitude. It is, however, easy to determine the exact amount of money a gift is worth. Let’s just give that to the gift givers and move on with our lives.
You need not avoid replying to an e-mail with only a “Thanks!”
What happens instead: You initiate e-mail chains with total strangers by saying nothing more than “Thanks!” and don’t sign the e-mail or explain why you’re contacting them.
Why: People like to feel appreciated, even if they don’t know what for or by whom.
You need not refrain from discussing finances with people you don’t know well.
What happens instead: Though you generally still shouldn’t bring up finances with those to whom you’re not close, if someone shows you a picture of something expensive—like a boat, a nice apartment, or a premium chocolate bar—you get to ask that person how he makes his money.
Why: You’re curious.
Party attendees do not need to bring something for the other guests to eat or drink.
What happens instead: Party attendees bring everything they themselves are going to consume.
Why: Efficiency.
You don’t have to put away your cell phone at dinner.
What happens instead: You can and should use your cell phone, but you must loudly narrate everything that you’re doing on your phone to everyone at the table.
Why: We all want to know the Mets score. What is the score? Tell me the score! Sometimes I find the Mets frustrating.
You need not wait until everyone is seated to start eating.
What happens instead: Everyone should hurry to the table and eat as quickly as possible—it’s every man for himself.
Why: We will all die someday, and the future is uncertain. Every second you spend not eating is a second you will never get back. Anyone who gets between you and your food is causing you irreparable harm.
The person who sneezes does not receive a “bless you.”
What happens instead: The sneezer apologizes.
Why: Sneezes are loud and spread germs. Sure, they’re involuntary, but you could at least have the decency to be ashamed of them.
It’s not proper to merely hold the door for others.
What happens instead: You remove the door with a crowbar and drive it to a landfill.
Why: Now everyone—not just the person right behind you—will be able to easily enter and exit the room.
You don’t have to stop yourself from running into your boss’s office, screaming wordlessly, and then smashing all of her belongings.
What happens instead: You do it.
Why: You’ve been having a rough morning.


newyorker--2020-02-03--Oscars 2020 Spotlight: The Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress Nominees

Before we discuss this year ’ s Oscar-nominated actresses , let ’ s take a moment to remember those whom Julie Andrews might call the “ egregiously overlooked.
” This year ’ s biggest snub ( a word to be used advisedly ) was Jennifer Lopez , who brought star power and cunning to “ Hustlers.
” Why didn ’ t she land in the best-supporting-actress race , after months of being hyped as a front-runner ?
It ’ s possible that Academy members dismissed “ Hustlers ” as a trashy stripper movie , when in fact it has less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with “ GoodFellas , ” a film that also portrays the thrill of the outlaw life and the betrayals that come when the jig is up .
The difference , crucially , is the type of people doing the glamorous lawbreaking , and at whose expense .
A ring of pole dancers scamming Wall Street guys out of their wealth may not seem like prestige fare , but that ’ s what was dispiriting about this year ’ s nominations : a lack of imagination about what an “ Oscar movie ” looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nyong ’ o ( “ Us ” ) , Awkwafina ( “ The Farewell ” ) , and the cast of “ Parasite , ” leaving Cynthia Erivo , of “ Harriet , ” as the sole performer of color in any acting category .
The fact that she plays Harriet Tubman , an unimpeachable historical figure , harks back to the days when Sidney Poitier was garlanded for playing “ exceptional ” black men , the kind that white Hollywood felt comfortable embracing .
The Academy has radically changed since the sixties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of policing for acceptability , the end result of which is sameness .
Just look at “ Judy , ” for which Renée Zellweger appears to have the best-actress prize in the bag .
It ’ s the kind of performance that attracts trophies like moths : a bewigged impersonation of a legendary show-biz figure , with extra points for singing and self-destruction .
( See : Rami Malek in “ Bohemian Rhapsody.
” ) Oscar prognosticators will tell you that the acting categories are all locked up for Zellweger , Laura Dern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That may be so .
But remember that , at this time last year , Glenn Close was on a smooth sail to victory , and the last person to expect Olivia Colman onstage was Olivia Colman .
Can anyone cause an upset this year ?
Since her breakout role , in the 2015 Broadway revival of “ The Color Purple , ” Erivo has been on an ascent .
Her casting in Kasi Lemmons ’ s bio-pic initially received some backlash : Should a British actress be the one to embody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Erivo ’ s portrayal of Harriet Tubman has all the strength and gravity you ’ d expect .
The film rarely strays from the familiar beats of historical drama , and it can feel more like a monument than a movie .
Similar to “ The Imitation Game ” and “ The Danish Girl , ” “ Harriet ” falls into a subcategory of bio-pics that seem to exist to do justice to a historical pioneer—and the world-changing bravery of the subjects tends to give an Oscar sheen to the actors playing them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but Tubman deserves more than what a film can give her .
She deserves the twenty-dollar bill .
Johansson is a polarizing performer , even aside from the controversies that often attend her interviews .
Her mahogany-voiced sensuousness comes hand in hand with a stilted quality that can make her seem remote .
Both qualities are at work in Noah Baumbach ’ s gutting film , in which she plays Nicole , an actress trying to restart her life amid an ugly divorce from Charlie ( Adam Driver ) .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives Johansson a stunner of a monologue , in which Nicole tells her divorce lawyer ( Laura Dern ) the story of her marriage and her compromised selfhood .
But , as the film goes on , its bravura moments go increasingly to Driver : while Nicole finds stability , Charlie falls apart ( and sings a Sondheim showstopper ) .
This is good news for her character , but it ’ s an anti-climax for Johansson .
Still , her performance is full of lovely grace notes , like the single tear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lies in bed .
At twenty-five , Ronan is on her fourth Oscar nomination , putting her ahead of Kirk Douglas , who in his hundred and three years has managed only three nods .
In Greta Gerwig ’ s film , Ronan plays Jo March , Louisa May Alcott ’ s beloved , strong-willed heroine .
Gerwig ’ s adaptation gives Jo a challenging assignment : she must keep pace with her unpredictable heart , but she ’ s also a shrewd and forward-thinking author , trapped in an era incapable of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Women , they have minds and they have souls as well as just hearts , ” she says in one scene .
“ And they ’ ve got ambition , and they ’ ve got talent as well as just beauty.
” Ronan makes these pronouncements feel lived-in and almost modern in their neurosis , without betraying the trappings of the period .

Before we discuss this year’s Oscar-nominated actresses, let’s take a moment to remember those whom Julie Andrews might call the “egregiously overlooked.” This year’s biggest snub (a word to be used advisedly) was Jennifer Lopez, who brought star power and cunning to “Hustlers.” Why didn’t she land in the best-supporting-actress race, after months of being hyped as a front-runner? It’s possible that Academy members dismissed “Hustlers” as a trashy stripper movie, when in fact it has less in common with “Showgirls” than with “GoodFellas,” a film that also portrays the thrill of the outlaw life and the betrayals that come when the jig is up. The difference, crucially, is the type of people doing the glamorous lawbreaking, and at whose expense. A ring of pole dancers scamming Wall Street guys out of their wealth may not seem like prestige fare, but that’s what was dispiriting about this year’s nominations: a lack of imagination about what an “Oscar movie” looks like.
Also left out were Lupita Nyong’o (“Us”), Awkwafina (“The Farewell”), and the cast of “Parasite,” leaving Cynthia Erivo, of “Harriet,” as the sole performer of color in any acting category. The fact that she plays Harriet Tubman, an unimpeachable historical figure, harks back to the days when Sidney Poitier was garlanded for playing “exceptional” black men, the kind that white Hollywood felt comfortable embracing. The Academy has radically changed since the sixties, but there is still an undercurrent of policing for acceptability, the end result of which is sameness. Just look at “Judy,” for which Renée Zellweger appears to have the best-actress prize in the bag. It’s the kind of performance that attracts trophies like moths: a bewigged impersonation of a legendary show-biz figure, with extra points for singing and self-destruction. (See: Rami Malek in “Bohemian Rhapsody.”)
Oscar prognosticators will tell you that the acting categories are all locked up for Zellweger, Laura Dern, Joaquin Phoenix, and Brad Pitt. That may be so. But remember that, at this time last year, Glenn Close was on a smooth sail to victory, and the last person to expect Olivia Colman onstage was Olivia Colman. Can anyone cause an upset this year?
Best Actress
Cynthia Erivo, “Harriet”
Photograph by Glen Wilson / Focus Features
Since her breakout role, in the 2015 Broadway revival of “The Color Purple,” Erivo has been on an ascent. Her casting in Kasi Lemmons’s bio-pic initially received some backlash: Should a British actress be the one to embody the African-American slave experience? Nevertheless, Erivo’s portrayal of Harriet Tubman has all the strength and gravity you’d expect. The film rarely strays from the familiar beats of historical drama, and it can feel more like a monument than a movie. Similar to “The Imitation Game” and “The Danish Girl,” “Harriet” falls into a subcategory of bio-pics that seem to exist to do justice to a historical pioneer—and the world-changing bravery of the subjects tends to give an Oscar sheen to the actors playing them. Erivo is impressive, as always, but Tubman deserves more than what a film can give her. She deserves the twenty-dollar bill.
Scarlett Johansson, “Marriage Story”
Johansson is a polarizing performer, even aside from the controversies that often attend her interviews. Her mahogany-voiced sensuousness comes hand in hand with a stilted quality that can make her seem remote. Both qualities are at work in Noah Baumbach’s gutting film, in which she plays Nicole, an actress trying to restart her life amid an ugly divorce from Charlie (Adam Driver). In the first half of the movie, Baumbach gives Johansson a stunner of a monologue, in which Nicole tells her divorce lawyer (Laura Dern) the story of her marriage and her compromised selfhood. But, as the film goes on, its bravura moments go increasingly to Driver: while Nicole finds stability, Charlie falls apart (and sings a Sondheim showstopper). This is good news for her character, but it’s an anti-climax for Johansson. Still, her performance is full of lovely grace notes, like the single tear that rolls down her face as she lies in bed.
Saoirse Ronan, “Little Women”
At twenty-five, Ronan is on her fourth Oscar nomination, putting her ahead of Kirk Douglas, who in his hundred and three years has managed only three nods. In Greta Gerwig’s film, Ronan plays Jo March, Louisa May Alcott’s beloved, strong-willed heroine. Gerwig’s adaptation gives Jo a challenging assignment: she must keep pace with her unpredictable heart, but she’s also a shrewd and forward-thinking author, trapped in an era incapable of making space for her desires. “Women, they have minds and they have souls as well as just hearts,” she says in one scene. “And they’ve got ambition, and they’ve got talent as well as just beauty.” Ronan makes these pronouncements feel lived-in and almost modern in their neurosis, without betraying the trappings of the period.
Charlize Theron, “Bombshell”
Photograph by Hilary Bronwyn Gayle
Theron won the 2004 best-actress prize for “Monster,” in which she stripped herself of all glamour and polish. In Jay Roach’s “Bombshell,” she transforms again, this time with the help of prosthetics, into the telegenic form of Megyn Kelly. The likeness, as well as the voice, is unnervingly accurate—Kelly herself revealed that her six-year-old son was confounded at the sight of the movie poster. In “Bombshell,” Kelly is a conflicted central player in the sexual-harassment scandal that brought down Roger Ailes, at Fox News. Theron gives a convincing portrait of corporate rebellion, though the film never quite reconciles Kelly’s courage with her complicity in a venal media machine. She’s a hard character to root for, despite the film’s insistence that we do so—and despite Theron’s magnetism.
Renée Zellweger, “Judy”
How can anyone match Judy Garland’s monumental talent, her rattling fragility, her voice? Rupert Goold’s film portrays Garland at the fraying finale of her life, in which she stumbles through a series of concert dates in London. There’s something salacious about this portrait of Garland at her frailest, but Zellweger’s task is so Olympian that her triumph is having done it at all. If she wins, as predicted, her performance will be only part of the reason. In flashbacks to Garland’s teen-age dealings with a handsy Louis B. Mayer, “Judy” attempts to atone for Hollywood’s oldest sins. And Zellweger’s comeback, at fifty, also gives Hollywood a chance to make up for her relative absence for most of the past decade. An Oscar would signify some pain-free penance for the way Hollywood shuns women after their ingénue years, whether Garland or Zellweger.


newyorker--2020-03-30--Daily Cartoon: Monday, March 30th

Daily Cartoon: Monday, March 30th

© 2020 Condé Nast .
All rights reserved .
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement ( @ @ @ @ @ Policy and Cookie Statement ( updated 1/1/20 ) and Your California Privacy Rights .
Do @ @ @ @ @ may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as @ @ @ @ @ with retailers .
The material on this site may not be reproduced , distributed , @ @ @ @ @ used , except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast .
Ad Choices

“Are you talking about the new normal of an hour ago, or is there a new new normal right now?”


newyorker--2020-03-30--Fauci Warns Trump That If Everyone in U.S. Dies It Could Affect His TV Ratings

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —In a conversation over the weekend that reportedly left the President “ shaken , ” Dr. Anthony Fauci warned Donald Trump that if everyone in the United States dies , it would adversely affect his television ratings .
Although Fauci was quick to add that the everyone-dying scenario was purely hypothetical , he stressed that , from a medical perspective , alive people were more likely than dead ones to watch television .
According to a source familiar with the conversation , the possible impact of COVID-19 fatalities on Trump ’ s ratings “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately convened an emergency meeting of the White House Coronavirus Task Force .
“ It ’ s time you losers started taking this situation seriously , ” Trump reportedly barked .
“ Especially you , Pence.
” In what was described as an increasingly rancorous session , Trump reprimanded the group for “ not doing enough ” to safeguard his TV ratings .
“ I like the numbers being where they are , ” he thundered .
Shortly after the meeting , Trump signed an executive order requiring all Americans to be quarantined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a conversation over the weekend that reportedly left the President “shaken,” Dr. Anthony Fauci warned Donald Trump that if everyone in the United States dies, it would adversely affect his television ratings.
Although Fauci was quick to add that the everyone-dying scenario was purely hypothetical, he stressed that, from a medical perspective, alive people were more likely than dead ones to watch television.
According to a source familiar with the conversation, the possible impact of COVID-19 fatalities on Trump’s ratings “totally blindsided” the President, who immediately convened an emergency meeting of the White House Coronavirus Task Force.
“It’s time you losers started taking this situation seriously,” Trump reportedly barked. “Especially you, Pence.”
In what was described as an increasingly rancorous session, Trump reprimanded the group for “not doing enough” to safeguard his TV ratings. “I like the numbers being where they are,” he thundered.
Shortly after the meeting, Trump signed an executive order requiring all Americans to be quarantined in their living rooms until further notice.