newyorker--2020-09-15--Bob Woodward’s Bad Characters

Bob Woodward’s Bad Characters

Why would President Trump coöperate with Bob Woodward—and not only coöperate but participate in eighteen interview sessions , one of which included his now infamous admission that he understood that the coronavirus was serious but intended to “ play it down ” ?
One possibility is that Trump simply enjoyed the prestige of the project .
Woodward ’ s second book on Trump , “ Rage , ” is his eleventh work on the Presidency since the Clinton Administration , and a continuation of the genre that he and Carl Bernstein inaugurated with their account of the collapse of Nixon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Days.
” The books always reflect a remarkable level of access , contain a number of scoops that rarely depart from conventional wisdom but do frequently make headlines , and are written and published with a speed that insures their popularity .
After two accounts of the George W. Bush Administration—one of which was so admiring that the Republican National Committee recommended it on its Web site—Woodward published “ State of Denial , ” in 2006 , capturing and entrenching the burgeoning conventional wisdom that the Administration ’ s Iraq policy was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s coronavirus blunder , Bush ’ s strategist Karl Rove said last week that “ every Administration participates with Bob Woodward and lives to regret it.
” Another answer to the question of why a person might think that engaging with Woodward would be beneficial can be found in the prologue to his latest book , in which he introduces Robert O ’ Brien , Trump ’ s national-security adviser ( who , according to a whistle-blower complaint , recently instructed the head of Homeland Security to stop providing intelligence assessments about election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied the accusation ) .
“ O ’ Brien believed the national-security adviser had to try to see around corners , a duty to warn of an impending disaster , ” Woodward writes , adding that , by late January , O ’ Brien was deeply concerned about the coronavirus and “ felt passionate that the outbreak was a real threat.
” Woodward also describes O ’ Brien as putting forward his opinions “ deliberately ” and “ strongly.
” We are only two pages in , which is usually about the moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guess whether a subject has coöperated : if he has , he almost certainly comes out looking well .
Three pages later , a week has passed , and Woodward casually notes that O ’ Brien , appearing on CBS , has just said about the virus , “ Right now , there ’ s no reason for Americans to panic .
This is something that is a low risk , we think , in the U.S. ” Another author might note the dissonance between O ’ Brien ’ s public and private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to it .
But this is typical of Woodward ’ s White House-centric narratives : inconsistencies pile up ; narrative threads are dropped and then recovered without any notice of the ways in which they have altered in the interim .
In a 1996 review of his books , Joan Didion wrote , “ Those who talk to Mr. Woodward , in other words , can be confident that he will be civil ( ‘ I too was growing tired , and it seemed time to stand up and thank him ’ ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make connections between what he is told and what is already known , that he will treat even the most patently self-serving account as if untainted by hindsight.
” “ Rage ” is really two books of about equal length .
The first covers much of the same territory as Woodward ’ s first effort on the Trump Administration , “ Fear , ” offering another account of the “ adults ” around the President trying to manage and moderate him in 2017 and 2018 .
Trump ’ s former aide Rob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cohn were the central figures in that effort .
( Remember Cohn removing papers from Trump ’ s desk in a valiant attempt to prevent Trump from withdrawing from a trade agreement with South Korea ? )
In “ Rage , ” former Secretary of Defense James Mattis , former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson , and former director of National Intelligence Dan Coats are the lodestars .
We follow each of them from their first meetings with Trump , during the transition period , to their inevitable firings or resignations , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country under Trump .
What is so hard to decipher about these early sections is to what extent Mattis , Tillerson , and Coats were as naïve as Woodward portrays them , to what extent they feigned cluelessness in order to justify their willingness to work for Trump , and to what extent their depictions are Woodward ’ s own infantilizing spin , intended to create bildungsromans out of the lives of men in their sixties and seventies .
In the second part of “ Rage , ” which covers the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Woodward himself comes face to face with Trump in their long interview sessions and begins offering up many of the same fears and concerns as Mattis , Tillerson , and Coats .
“ After I finished reporting for this book on President Trump , I felt weariness , ” he writes .
And yet Woodward appears as unequipped to grapple with Trump as the erstwhile members of his Cabinet were .
Whether Woodward and his sources are aware or disengaged , cynical or naïve , takes on extra importance because of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in which a willingness to abide Trump has sat side by side with an inability to understand his malignancy .
Of Woodward ’ s three main characters , Coats ’ s journey is the most pathos-filled .
A lifelong Republican and devout Christian from Indiana , he accepts the job despite the reservations that he and his wife , Marsha , have about Trump ’ s character .
After an early briefing with Trump , Coats tells Trump that he intends to speak the truth , even if the President does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the kindly Marsha is “ stunned ” —despite a psychology degree— “ at her husband ’ s reports about the president ’ s arrogance ” and asks , “ ‘ Who could go into this office of being president and not realize how inadequate they are ?
” After Trump wanted to pull troops from Afghanistan and South Korea , Woodward writes that Coats felt “ troubled by the absence of a plan or consideration of the human dimension—the impact on the troops , the allies , the world—or a sense of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coats finds comfort in a remark that Eisenhower once made , about the White House being “ the loneliest house I ’ ve ever been in.
” Maybe that ’ s the problem : Trump just needs a little company , although this would not be entirely consistent with Coats ’ s initial moral hesitations about Trump .
Regardless , Woodward seems to have granted Coats a degree of credulousness unfitting in a director of National Intelligence .
Credulousness is not a quality one associates with men who run multinational oil companies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the C.E.O .
of ExxonMobil , had spent time with a number of world leaders , including Vladimir Putin , before his first meeting with Trump .
In Woodward ’ s recounting , Tillerson talked through most of that session , in December , 2016 , presenting rather clichéd views about world affairs .
“ If you want to understand Russia , they haven ’ t changed much culturally in 1,000 years , ” he tells Trump .
“ They are the most fatalistic people on the face of the earth.
” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes on to attribute Putin ’ s dislike of Barack Obama to Putin being a racist , adding , “ All Russians are , generally.
” ) A little later , Tillerson and Mattis are talking about Russia , and Tillerson pipes up to say that “ the new president would have an opening with Putin and could perhaps even develop a constructive relationship.
” Tillerson attributes this idea to the geopolitical situation , not to the fact that Russia had just helped Trump get elected or that Trump had shown admiration for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Woodward , in turn , does the same , by mentioning none of this context , and the principals go on having conversations about Russia and Putin and Trump as if they had been asleep for the previous year .
It is pretty clear that these men all talked to Woodward , in other words , but it is less obvious that he challenged these almost absurdly guileless versions of events .
Mattis , a retired Marine Corps general and Trump ’ s first Secretary of Defense , is the biggest name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but his journey to a realization about Trump ’ s character is arguably the farthest-fetched .
Similarly , Mattis ’ s role in an operation in Falluja that left an estimated thousand civilians dead goes unmentioned and does not cloud any judgments the reader might make about Mattis ’ s dedication to the Marine Corps ethos and his love of democracy and our allies .
“ He wanted to persuade Trump to question his positions on NATO and torture , ” Woodward explains , as Mattis—whose “ bright , open and inviting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meet with the President in late 2016 .
The problem that immediately suggests itself here is that both Woodward and Mattis , in Woodward ’ s telling , view Trump ’ s opinions about torture as being a “ policy ” matter .
Trump is pro-torture because he is a bigot with authoritarian leanings and because he sensed that some elements of the Republican electorate would be gratified by tough talk about roughing up Muslims .
Woodward solemnly explains that Mattis follows the Marine code and believes in actions that preserve America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might as well be a phrase from a different language as far as Trump is concerned .

Why would President Trump coöperate with Bob Woodward—and not only coöperate but participate in eighteen interview sessions, one of which included his now infamous admission that he understood that the coronavirus was serious but intended to “play it down”? One possibility is that Trump simply enjoyed the prestige of the project. Woodward’s second book on Trump, “Rage,” is his eleventh work on the Presidency since the Clinton Administration, and a continuation of the genre that he and Carl Bernstein inaugurated with their account of the collapse of Nixon’s Presidency, “The Final Days.”
The books always reflect a remarkable level of access, contain a number of scoops that rarely depart from conventional wisdom but do frequently make headlines, and are written and published with a speed that insures their popularity. After two accounts of the George W. Bush Administration—one of which was so admiring that the Republican National Committee recommended it on its Web site—Woodward published “State of Denial,” in 2006, capturing and entrenching the burgeoning conventional wisdom that the Administration’s Iraq policy was a disaster. In response to Trump’s coronavirus blunder, Bush’s strategist Karl Rove said last week that “every Administration participates with Bob Woodward and lives to regret it.”
Another answer to the question of why a person might think that engaging with Woodward would be beneficial can be found in the prologue to his latest book, in which he introduces Robert O’Brien, Trump’s national-security adviser (who, according to a whistle-blower complaint, recently instructed the head of Homeland Security to stop providing intelligence assessments about election meddling by Russia; he has strongly denied the accusation). “O’Brien believed the national-security adviser had to try to see around corners, a duty to warn of an impending disaster,” Woodward writes, adding that, by late January, O’Brien was deeply concerned about the coronavirus and “felt passionate that the outbreak was a real threat.” Woodward also describes O’Brien as putting forward his opinions “deliberately” and “strongly.” We are only two pages in, which is usually about the moment in a Woodward book when you can guess whether a subject has coöperated: if he has, he almost certainly comes out looking well. Three pages later, a week has passed, and Woodward casually notes that O’Brien, appearing on CBS, has just said about the virus, “Right now, there’s no reason for Americans to panic. This is something that is a low risk, we think, in the U.S.” Another author might note the dissonance between O’Brien’s public and private statements; Woodward does not even allude to it. But this is typical of Woodward’s White House-centric narratives: inconsistencies pile up; narrative threads are dropped and then recovered without any notice of the ways in which they have altered in the interim. In a 1996 review of his books, Joan Didion wrote, “Those who talk to Mr. Woodward, in other words, can be confident that he will be civil (‘I too was growing tired, and it seemed time to stand up and thank him’), that he will not feel impelled to make connections between what he is told and what is already known, that he will treat even the most patently self-serving account as if untainted by hindsight.”
“Rage” is really two books of about equal length. The first covers much of the same territory as Woodward’s first effort on the Trump Administration, “Fear,” offering another account of the “adults” around the President trying to manage and moderate him in 2017 and 2018. Trump’s former aide Rob Porter and his former economic adviser Gary Cohn were the central figures in that effort. (Remember Cohn removing papers from Trump’s desk in a valiant attempt to prevent Trump from withdrawing from a trade agreement with South Korea?) In “Rage,” former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and former director of National Intelligence Dan Coats are the lodestars. We follow each of them from their first meetings with Trump, during the transition period, to their inevitable firings or resignations, in narratives that track their disillusionment in serving the country under Trump. What is so hard to decipher about these early sections is to what extent Mattis, Tillerson, and Coats were as naïve as Woodward portrays them, to what extent they feigned cluelessness in order to justify their willingness to work for Trump, and to what extent their depictions are Woodward’s own infantilizing spin, intended to create bildungsromans out of the lives of men in their sixties and seventies.
In the second part of “Rage,” which covers the White House’s response to the coronavirus, Woodward himself comes face to face with Trump in their long interview sessions and begins offering up many of the same fears and concerns as Mattis, Tillerson, and Coats. “After I finished reporting for this book on President Trump, I felt weariness,” he writes. And yet Woodward appears as unequipped to grapple with Trump as the erstwhile members of his Cabinet were. Whether Woodward and his sources are aware or disengaged, cynical or naïve, takes on extra importance because of the unique challenges and outrages of our era, in which a willingness to abide Trump has sat side by side with an inability to understand his malignancy.
Of Woodward’s three main characters, Coats’s journey is the most pathos-filled. A lifelong Republican and devout Christian from Indiana, he accepts the job despite the reservations that he and his wife, Marsha, have about Trump’s character. After an early briefing with Trump, Coats tells Trump that he intends to speak the truth, even if the President does not like it. Several months later, the kindly Marsha is “stunned”—despite a psychology degree—“at her husband’s reports about the president’s arrogance” and asks, “‘Who could go into this office of being president and not realize how inadequate they are?” After Trump wanted to pull troops from Afghanistan and South Korea, Woodward writes that Coats felt “troubled by the absence of a plan or consideration of the human dimension—the impact on the troops, the allies, the world—or a sense of the weight of the office.” Fortunately, Coats finds comfort in a remark that Eisenhower once made, about the White House being “the loneliest house I’ve ever been in.” Maybe that’s the problem: Trump just needs a little company, although this would not be entirely consistent with Coats’s initial moral hesitations about Trump. Regardless, Woodward seems to have granted Coats a degree of credulousness unfitting in a director of National Intelligence.
Credulousness is not a quality one associates with men who run multinational oil companies, and, indeed, Tillerson, previously the C.E.O. of ExxonMobil, had spent time with a number of world leaders, including Vladimir Putin, before his first meeting with Trump. In Woodward’s recounting, Tillerson talked through most of that session, in December, 2016, presenting rather clichéd views about world affairs. “If you want to understand Russia, they haven’t changed much culturally in 1,000 years,” he tells Trump. “They are the most fatalistic people on the face of the earth.” (After this cascade of stereotypes, he goes on to attribute Putin’s dislike of Barack Obama to Putin being a racist, adding, “All Russians are, generally.”) A little later, Tillerson and Mattis are talking about Russia, and Tillerson pipes up to say that “the new president would have an opening with Putin and could perhaps even develop a constructive relationship.” Tillerson attributes this idea to the geopolitical situation, not to the fact that Russia had just helped Trump get elected or that Trump had shown admiration for dictators the world over, especially Putin. Woodward, in turn, does the same, by mentioning none of this context, and the principals go on having conversations about Russia and Putin and Trump as if they had been asleep for the previous year. It is pretty clear that these men all talked to Woodward, in other words, but it is less obvious that he challenged these almost absurdly guileless versions of events.
Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general and Trump’s first Secretary of Defense, is the biggest name of the book’s early sections, but his journey to a realization about Trump’s character is arguably the farthest-fetched. Similarly, Mattis’s role in an operation in Falluja that left an estimated thousand civilians dead goes unmentioned and does not cloud any judgments the reader might make about Mattis’s dedication to the Marine Corps ethos and his love of democracy and our allies. “He wanted to persuade Trump to question his positions on NATO and torture,” Woodward explains, as Mattis—whose “bright, open and inviting smile softened his presence”—prepares to meet with the President in late 2016. The problem that immediately suggests itself here is that both Woodward and Mattis, in Woodward’s telling, view Trump’s opinions about torture as being a “policy” matter. Trump is pro-torture because he is a bigot with authoritarian leanings and because he sensed that some elements of the Republican electorate would be gratified by tough talk about roughing up Muslims. Woodward solemnly explains that Mattis follows the Marine code and believes in actions that preserve America’s “moral authority,” which might as well be a phrase from a different language as far as Trump is concerned.
The first hints that Woodward, too, thinks that Trump’s Presidency might be somehow salvageable occur on the first page, when Woodward suggests that Trump might be too “consumed” by impeachment to pay attention to his job. (In classic Woodward fashion, he contradicts himself—or perhaps lets slip the absurdity of the entire formulation—when he mentions, four pages later, that the Super Bowl was also consuming Trump’s attention.) Many of these scenes—and this attitude toward Trump—will be familiar to readers of “Fear,” but the second half of the narrative is distinct because of the presence of Woodward himself. He has never been shy about using himself as a character in his books, whether in some memorable tête-à-têtes with Donald Rumsfeld or his famous account of a deathbed conversation with William Casey, in which the former C.I.A. director admitted having known that money from Iranian arms sales was being funnelled to the Nicaraguan Contras. (Others have questioned the story.)
But Woodward has never written about such sustained engagement with a President—which takes the form of formal sessions and impromptu phone calls from Trump. The combined effect of these interviews is definitive proof that there is such a thing as too much access: chapter after chapter shows Trump ignoring questions and ranting about the media, Obama, and his poll numbers. Woodward recounts one rambling conversation with Trump at the end of 2019 and then tells the reader, “I was struck by the vague, directionless nature of Trump’s comments. He had been president for just under three years, but couldn’t seem to articulate a strategy or plan for the country. I was surprised he would go into 2020, the year he hoped to win reelection, without more clarity to his message.” Opinions may vary about whether Woodward was truly surprised, just as opinions may vary about whether one would prefer the most famous journalist in Washington to be wide-eyed or disingenuous.
The reductio ad absurdum of these scenes comes in a brief discussion between Woodward and Trump on racial justice, amid interviews that are ostensibly about the coronavirus. (Woodward understandably has trouble keeping them on track.) “There is a spiritual dimension to this,” Woodward tells Trump about leading the country on race. “I think people want somebody to get up and say hey, I get it. I really am moving forward getting my feet in your shoes. I know you wouldn’t like this, but remember Hillary Clinton went on a listening tour? Do you need to go on a listening tour and listen to people?” Trump responds by talking about his “great economy,” and the conversation continues without much progress. In fairness to the President, there are probably few questions that would unite fanatical Trump supporters and Black Lives Matter activists more than whether Donald Trump should go on a “listening tour” to hear from Black people across America about their experiences.
One of the issues that marred Woodward’s Bush books, despite their interest, was his willingness to believe less-than-honest people. That is an even bigger problem in the Trump era, which has outdone the Bush years in dishonesty and features an outrageous number of people whose only motive for serving in government seems to be personal glory or wealth. If this is not enough to make anyone pine for Dick Cheney, the lying at least makes it even more vital that journalists doubt what they hear and think carefully about what to weed out or explain. I somehow have trouble believing that Lindsey Graham is, as Woodward recounts, worried that the judiciary is becoming “too partisan” or that much can be gleaned from Jared Kushner’s endless monologues on leadership. The problem goes beyond the details. In one conversation, Mattis and Tillerson discuss the importance of State and Defense working together and beefing up the diplomatic corps; a reader who did not follow the news in 2017 would be surprised to learn that Tillerson was simultaneously embarking on gutting the State Department.
There is, however, a revealing scene early in Woodward’s interviews with Trump, in which the journalist tells the President, “I want to do policy. Because having done nine presidents, the policy is what matters. It’s the spine and definition.” Trump says he agrees and then adds, “Policy can change, also, though, you know? I like flexibility.” In the moment, Woodward doesn’t respond, but in the epilogue, he makes the confession that all of his central characters have made. Woodward writes, “But now, I’ve come to the conclusion that the ‘dynamite behind the door’ was in plain sight. It was Trump himself. The oversized personality. The failure to organize. The lack of discipline. The lack of trust in others he had picked, in experts. The undermining or attempted undermining of so many American institutions. The failure to be a calming, healing voice. The unwillingness to acknowledge error. The failure to do his homework. To extend the olive branch. To listen carefully to others. To craft a plan.” Woodward has never been great with character—he calls it a “paradox” that Trump can be both “friendly” and “savage”—but character, even he must admit, is the whole story here. Most of this Administration’s greatest disasters have been policy-related—but policy of this sort was inevitable with a person like Trump. What his racism did not infect, his corruption most certainly did; we are left with nothing except Trump himself and the political party that was broken enough to nominate such a man.


newyorker--2020-09-15--The Thrills and Frustrations of a Rediscovered Thelonious Monk Recording

“ Palo Alto , ” a new release of a previously unissued concert recording of Thelonious Monk and his quartet , from 1968 , embodies some of the vexing paradoxes of his majestic artistry and his radically influential career .
The album , scheduled for release in July from Impulse Records , was delayed , reportedly owing to contractual issues ; it will now be released on September 18th , on CD and vinyl by Impulse and digitally by Sony Legacy .
Monk , a pianist and composer , was fifty-one at the time of the concert .
He was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said—of modern jazz , i.e.
, bebop , alongside Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie , in the early nineteen-forties , most famously at jam sessions at a Harlem club called Minton ’ s .
Yet , while those musicians also had jobs with famous big bands , Monk—the house pianist at Minton ’ s—was composing , theorizing , and mentoring .
Those musicians , and others in their circle , recorded copiously , starting in 1945 , but Monk ’ s recorded output remained scant until the nineteen-fifties .
Though musicians had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas and performances , it wasn ’ t until a 1957 gig , at the Five Spot , in the East Village—where his main sideman was the saxophonist John Coltrane—that his central place in modern artistic life became widely acknowledged .
Some reasons are bitterly practical and political .
New York had a law at the time requiring club musicians to hold a police-issued “ cabaret card , ” which some , including Monk , lost after drug convictions ( one for marijuana , another when he was wrongly charged ) , resulting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for many years .
( Another arrest , in 1958 , after from his ejection from a hotel lobby in Jim Crow-enforcing Delaware , led to yet another suspension from club dates . )
At the same time , Monk endured the widespread rejection of critics and audiences , who long failed to recognize his greatness , whether in public performances or on records , even as his peers from Minton ’ s were widely acclaimed .
Whereas Parker , Gillespie , and the pianist Bud Powell were conspicuously virtuosic , their solos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and execution , Monk , though no less skilled on his instrument , had a different way of showing it .
He traded speed for space , which he punctuated with percussive , angular figures that matched their distinctive harmonic complexity ( and , sometimes , harmonic starkness ) with extraordinary micro-timing and a variety of attacks .
His style was no less difficult to achieve than those of his peers , but its brilliance was less evident even to ostensible cognoscenti .
As a result , his recordings were slower to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( which is to say , white critics ) were even slower to appreciate them as more than merely idiosyncratic and eccentric .
Musicians , nonetheless , knew all along that he was a decisive creator of musical forms ; Teddy Hill , a bandleader who managed Minton ’ s , said , “ Monk seemed more like the guy who manufactured the product rather than commercialized it.
” Monk ’ s peers in modern music , such as Parker , Gillespie , and Powell—who , as a teen-ager , studied with Monk—also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widely performed by other musicians .
But Monk is likely one of the two most important composers of jazz , second only to Duke Ellington .
What ’ s more , his own compositions were the basis for most of his recordings and concerts .
He rarely recorded compositions by other jazz musicians , with the exception of Ellington ; he delved only secondarily into the Great American Songbook .
In his compositions , as in his improvisations , he dealt himself severe limits , distilling and fragmenting his own melodies , each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phrases from the preceding ( usually saxophone ) soloist .
Within this framework , the liberating force of inspiration was ecstatic—yet the danger of narrowness lurked .
In 1957 , Monk ’ s quartet with Coltrane ( who ’ d been fired from Miles Davis ’ s quintet because of his heroin addiction , which he was struggling to kick ) held a six-month residency at the Five Spot .
A visit to the club to see them play became de rigueur for New York artists and intellectuals .
( Robin D. G. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detail , in his essential and extraordinary biography of Monk . )
In an odd and depressing way , though , Monk was a victim of his own success , modest and belated though it may have been .
Monk ’ s new acclaim enabled him to form a working quartet , but Coltrane returned to Miles Davis ’ s group , in 1958 ; Monk hired the saxophonist Charlie Rouse , who was a fine musician , with the skill to negotiate Monk ’ s terse but complicated compositions and the imagination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t an original soloist at a level to challenge Monk .
As Monk grew popular , he and the quartet spent much of the year touring .
This left him , he said , with little time or energy to compose ; from the late fifties on , Kelley estimates , Monk worked with a core repertory of only “ about fifteen to twenty ” pieces .
In 1962 , Monk signed a contract with Columbia Records that provided both financial stability and publicity .
In 1964 , he made the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new generation of avant-garde musicians , such as Ornette Coleman , Eric Dolphy , Cecil Taylor , Albert Ayler , and the ever-advancing Coltrane himself , made Monk seem like a holdover from the previous revolution .
Throughout the sixties , Monk concerts ( many of which were often recorded unofficially , as in the case of the Palo Alto gig ) more or less followed the same format , and their quality is mainly in the extent of Monk ’ s and Rouse ’ s degree of inspiration on the given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this quartet is from a European concert tour , in 1969 , when he brought along a seventeen-year-old New York drummer named Paris Wright , who , through innocence or bravado , uninhibitedly challenged Monk on the bandstand , stoking Monk ’ s creative fires to a high blaze . )
The Palo Alto concert doesn ’ t reach such heights , but it offers its own distinctive and illuminating pleasures .
The story behind its very existence ( which Kelley tells in the Monk biography and expands on in liner notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was organized by Danny Scher , a sixteen-year-old senior at Palo Alto High School and a white jazz fan , who held the concert as a fund-raiser for his school ’ s International Club , and whose promotion of it in the predominantly Black neighborhood of East Palo Alto apparently played a role in easing tensions between the communities .
The recording is only forty-seven minutes long , featuring six pieces .
The band was staying in San Francisco and had to rush back there for a club date that night ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family van to pick them up and drive them back .
Rouse and the drummer , Ben Riley , launch into the opening number , Monk ’ s ballad “ Ruby , My Dear , ” at an unusually bouncy tempo , and Monk makes his entry in double time , soloing with a sense of voluble relaxation .
He kicks off the second , up-tempo piece , “ Well , You Needn ’ t , ” energetically , and , after Rouse ’ s vigorous solo , Monk winks at his final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off from it in long , whirling phrases , which he then takes apart and rebuilds as hypnotic fragments .
Monk pares the legato theme of “ Don ’ t Blame Me , ” the third track , to gaunt melodic stalagmites , linked by the deep reverberations of his startling bass line , and resolves to a jaunty , sped-up , stride-like , glitteringly percussive development .
“ Blue Monk ” starts with Monk remaining in the same stride-piano vein ; after Rouse ’ s solo , Monk returns with drolly fragmented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skitters up the keyboard , dissolving to a series of driving , funky chords strutting down the keyboard with an exuberant heft .
By the time this recording was made , many of the musicians closest to Monk—Davis , Coltrane , Sonny Rollins—had changed their playing significantly , moving ahead into the wilder waters of jazz modernity .
Monk spoke ill of the avant-garde .
He didn ’ t perform with its luminaries ( there were one or two brief , belated , unrecorded exceptions ) , and he didn ’ t seek @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vastly accomplished musicians who were making their mark in bop-rooted styles .
It ’ s hard to know whether his taste congealed or whether his belated success prompted him to stay the course until he fell out of fashion .
Also , in the mid-sixties , he began to endure the exacerbated effects of bipolar disorder , and his behavior became increasingly erratic .
His activity dwindled in the nineteen-seventies ; he gave his final concerts in 1976 ( I was at the second to last ) and died , of a stroke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is woven into the very core of jazz history .
His compositions continue to be widely played—and their performance has a strange , singular , and powerful effect .
Their ideas and , for that matter , their melodies are inseparable from his unique , utterly and instantly distinctive way of playing the piano—they seemingly transmit his very presence .
Monk doesn ’ t just influence modern jazz ; he inhabits it .
His music is the virtual gene-splicer of modern jazz .

“Palo Alto,” a new release of a previously unissued concert recording of Thelonious Monk and his quartet, from 1968, embodies some of the vexing paradoxes of his majestic artistry and his radically influential career. The album, scheduled for release in July from Impulse Records, was delayed, reportedly owing to contractual issues; it will now be released on September 18th, on CD and vinyl by Impulse and digitally by Sony Legacy. Monk, a pianist and composer, was fifty-one at the time of the concert. He was one of the prime creators—the creator, he said—of modern jazz, i.e., bebop, alongside Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie, in the early nineteen-forties, most famously at jam sessions at a Harlem club called Minton’s. Yet, while those musicians also had jobs with famous big bands, Monk—the house pianist at Minton’s—was composing, theorizing, and mentoring. Those musicians, and others in their circle, recorded copiously, starting in 1945, but Monk’s recorded output remained scant until the nineteen-fifties. Though musicians had long been aware of his powerfully original ideas and performances, it wasn’t until a 1957 gig, at the Five Spot, in the East Village—where his main sideman was the saxophonist John Coltrane—that his central place in modern artistic life became widely acknowledged.
Some reasons are bitterly practical and political. New York had a law at the time requiring club musicians to hold a police-issued “cabaret card,” which some, including Monk, lost after drug convictions (one for marijuana, another when he was wrongly charged), resulting in Monk being barred from jazz clubs for many years. (Another arrest, in 1958, after from his ejection from a hotel lobby in Jim Crow-enforcing Delaware, led to yet another suspension from club dates.) At the same time, Monk endured the widespread rejection of critics and audiences, who long failed to recognize his greatness, whether in public performances or on records, even as his peers from Minton’s were widely acclaimed. Whereas Parker, Gillespie, and the pianist Bud Powell were conspicuously virtuosic, their solos thrillingly outpacing lesser artists both in invention and execution, Monk, though no less skilled on his instrument, had a different way of showing it. He traded speed for space, which he punctuated with percussive, angular figures that matched their distinctive harmonic complexity (and, sometimes, harmonic starkness) with extraordinary micro-timing and a variety of attacks. His style was no less difficult to achieve than those of his peers, but its brilliance was less evident even to ostensible cognoscenti. As a result, his recordings were slower to come along—and, when they did, critics (which is to say, white critics) were even slower to appreciate them as more than merely idiosyncratic and eccentric. Musicians, nonetheless, knew all along that he was a decisive creator of musical forms; Teddy Hill, a bandleader who managed Minton’s, said, “Monk seemed more like the guy who manufactured the product rather than commercialized it.”
Monk’s peers in modern music, such as Parker, Gillespie, and Powell—who, as a teen-ager, studied with Monk—also composed, and their compositions quickly became widely performed by other musicians. But Monk is likely one of the two most important composers of jazz, second only to Duke Ellington. What’s more, his own compositions were the basis for most of his recordings and concerts. He rarely recorded compositions by other jazz musicians, with the exception of Ellington; he delved only secondarily into the Great American Songbook. In his compositions, as in his improvisations, he dealt himself severe limits, distilling and fragmenting his own melodies, each time differently, often picking up on phrases from the preceding (usually saxophone) soloist. Within this framework, the liberating force of inspiration was ecstatic—yet the danger of narrowness lurked.
In 1957, Monk’s quartet with Coltrane (who’d been fired from Miles Davis’s quintet because of his heroin addiction, which he was struggling to kick) held a six-month residency at the Five Spot. A visit to the club to see them play became de rigueur for New York artists and intellectuals. (Robin D. G. Kelley tells the story, in fascinating detail, in his essential and extraordinary biography of Monk.) In an odd and depressing way, though, Monk was a victim of his own success, modest and belated though it may have been. Monk’s new acclaim enabled him to form a working quartet, but Coltrane returned to Miles Davis’s group, in 1958; Monk hired the saxophonist Charlie Rouse, who was a fine musician, with the skill to negotiate Monk’s terse but complicated compositions and the imagination to reëxplore them nightly, but he wasn’t an original soloist at a level to challenge Monk. As Monk grew popular, he and the quartet spent much of the year touring. This left him, he said, with little time or energy to compose; from the late fifties on, Kelley estimates, Monk worked with a core repertory of only “about fifteen to twenty” pieces. In 1962, Monk signed a contract with Columbia Records that provided both financial stability and publicity. In 1964, he made the cover of Time—at exactly a moment when a new generation of avant-garde musicians, such as Ornette Coleman, Eric Dolphy, Cecil Taylor, Albert Ayler, and the ever-advancing Coltrane himself, made Monk seem like a holdover from the previous revolution.
Throughout the sixties, Monk concerts (many of which were often recorded unofficially, as in the case of the Palo Alto gig) more or less followed the same format, and their quality is mainly in the extent of Monk’s and Rouse’s degree of inspiration on the given day. (My favorite Monk recording of this quartet is from a European concert tour, in 1969, when he brought along a seventeen-year-old New York drummer named Paris Wright, who, through innocence or bravado, uninhibitedly challenged Monk on the bandstand, stoking Monk’s creative fires to a high blaze.) The Palo Alto concert doesn’t reach such heights, but it offers its own distinctive and illuminating pleasures. The story behind its very existence (which Kelley tells in the Monk biography and expands on in liner notes for the album) is remarkable: it was organized by Danny Scher, a sixteen-year-old senior at Palo Alto High School and a white jazz fan, who held the concert as a fund-raiser for his school’s International Club, and whose promotion of it in the predominantly Black neighborhood of East Palo Alto apparently played a role in easing tensions between the communities. The recording is only forty-seven minutes long, featuring six pieces. The band was staying in San Francisco and had to rush back there for a club date that night; Scher’s older brother borrowed the family van to pick them up and drive them back.
Rouse and the drummer, Ben Riley, launch into the opening number, Monk’s ballad “Ruby, My Dear,” at an unusually bouncy tempo, and Monk makes his entry in double time, soloing with a sense of voluble relaxation. He kicks off the second, up-tempo piece, “Well, You Needn’t,” energetically, and, after Rouse’s vigorous solo, Monk winks at his final phrases before revisiting the melody and spinning off from it in long, whirling phrases, which he then takes apart and rebuilds as hypnotic fragments. Monk pares the legato theme of “Don’t Blame Me,” the third track, to gaunt melodic stalagmites, linked by the deep reverberations of his startling bass line, and resolves to a jaunty, sped-up, stride-like, glitteringly percussive development. “Blue Monk” starts with Monk remaining in the same stride-piano vein; after Rouse’s solo, Monk returns with drolly fragmented countermelody and continues with mercurial, polyrhythmic skitters up the keyboard, dissolving to a series of driving, funky chords strutting down the keyboard with an exuberant heft.
By the time this recording was made, many of the musicians closest to Monk—Davis, Coltrane, Sonny Rollins—had changed their playing significantly, moving ahead into the wilder waters of jazz modernity. Monk spoke ill of the avant-garde. He didn’t perform with its luminaries (there were one or two brief, belated, unrecorded exceptions), and he didn’t seek much contact with the new generation of vastly accomplished musicians who were making their mark in bop-rooted styles. It’s hard to know whether his taste congealed or whether his belated success prompted him to stay the course until he fell out of fashion. Also, in the mid-sixties, he began to endure the exacerbated effects of bipolar disorder, and his behavior became increasingly erratic. His activity dwindled in the nineteen-seventies; he gave his final concerts in 1976 (I was at the second to last) and died, of a stroke, in 1982. Yet his artistry is woven into the very core of jazz history. His compositions continue to be widely played—and their performance has a strange, singular, and powerful effect. Their ideas and, for that matter, their melodies are inseparable from his unique, utterly and instantly distinctive way of playing the piano—they seemingly transmit his very presence. Monk doesn’t just influence modern jazz; he inhabits it. His music is the virtual gene-splicer of modern jazz.
My Five Essential Monk Albums
1. “The Best of Thelonious Monk,” selected Blue Note recordings, 1947–1952
2. “Piano Solo,” Paris, 1954
3. “The Complete 1957 Riverside Recordings,” with John Coltrane / “Monk’s Music,” 1957
4. “Live at the Jazz Workshop,” 1964
5. “Paris 1969,” live from Salle Pleyel, Paris, France, 1969


newyorker--2020-09-15--An Anonymous Anti-Masker, Deep in the Vermont Woods

Sometimes , when I talk to people about my work on climate change , they ’ ll ask , “ How do you keep from being depressed all the time ?
” I usually offer some variation of “ I live in the woods , and so I go for a hike most days , and that helps.
” Which is more or less true : I do live in the woods , and I do go for hikes , and it does often help .
At the very least , it keeps me off the Internet for a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mental hygiene in the twenty-first century .
Last week , I set off , with my dog , for a two-hour hike up a trail I ’ ve taken a hundred times before .
It rises steeply through the woods until it connects to the Long Trail , a north-south hiking path that stretches the length of Vermont .
I was meandering along , admiring the first hints of fall color on the maples , when my eye was caught by what looked like a handful of little yellow labels tacked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tree .
Upon closer inspection , I saw that they were tags of the sort you ’ d see at the bottom of a flyer posted outside a shop , except that , instead of offering dog-walking services or enrollment in a trial of a new medicine , they bore the words “ Facemask Exemptions Facemask Science ” and the URL for a video featuring a “ doctor.
” I ’ m not going to tell you the “ doctor ” ’ s name or link to his video , but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a series that also includes anti-vax messages .
It posits that face-mask laws are the result of letting people “ with no educational requirements whatsoever—bureaucrats , legislators , governors , etc.
” make the rules .
In the past , the doctor says , “ when there have been actual outbreaks of true infectious diseases , ” you quarantined the diseased , “ not the entire population.
” This “ attack on the world ’ s healthy population ” shows how “ docile ” we have all become—even in Las Vegas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , and where , he claimed , even though there was no mandate ( there is ) , “ thirty per cent of the people were still walking around with their masks on.
” He expresses outrage that the “ lowliest bag clerk in the grocery store ” has “ now been elevated to the rank of junior G-man .
.
.
.
Minimum wage and I get to join Youth for Hitler.
” And so on , for twenty-nine minutes and forty-nine seconds .
If only everyone would ignore the mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our lives would be today , ” he concludes , before urging viewers to catch his next video , about the “ evils of contact tracing.
” Material like this does real damage—the flyer sent me to watch the video on a service called BitChute , which the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have described as a locus of racist , anti-Semitic content .
( It ’ s where Alex Jones and InfoWars retreated to when YouTube had finally had enough . )
Such videos also serve as a transmission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Millions of people have used the site to view “ Plandemic , ” a “ documentary ” that insists that Bill Gates helped create the coronavirus so that he could sell you the vaccine .
But I confess that I was disturbed less by the content of the video than by the fact that someone had taken the time to post ads for it along a lightly used trail through a federally designated wilderness in backwoods Vermont .
Every few hundred yards , I found another little cluster of the tags tacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there a day or two , because the last rainfall hadn ’ t touched them .
I did my best to collect all of them , but I bet I missed some ; in any event , my hike was not the restful escape from the world ’ s cares that I ’ d been counting on .
Instead , I was right back in the world .
It reminded me of the plans that resurface from time to time to beam ads onto the surface of the moon , making them visible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at any given moment .
( If that ever happens , I ’ m moving underground . )
And it made me reflect anew on just how incredibly hard it is for anything useful to happen in our country right now .
Between the President tweeting ( sometimes a hundred times a day ) , Fox News shouting nightly , and Facebook serving as a right-wing echo chamber , it ’ s no wonder that we ’ ve become confused about basic facts .
Do masks help ?
In the right-wing world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President said that they did .
Are vaccines a useful addition to the modern world ?
The President used to have his doubts , but now he seems to be pinning his reëlection on one .
Government agencies have become founts of misinformation—even the C.D.C .
has apparently knuckled under , granting the White House the right to review information that it sends to health professionals .
This is not , of course , new .
We ’ ve delayed action on the climate crisis for decades as a result of campaigns of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was a profit motive : the goal was to keep the business model of the oil industry alive for a few more decades , even at the cost of breaking the planet .
This other kind of freelance falsehood is more baffling .
And it ’ s not entirely confined to the right .
In Vermont , outbreaks of measles in past years tended to center on small , independent schools favored by people who would count themselves as environmentalists and progressives but don ’ t trust doctors about vaccines .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Pediatrics asked me to make a video a few years ago , trying to convince such people that—well , that science is good .
I was happy to do it , but I did feel as if I ’ d been called to explain that gravity meant that if you leaned forward far enough you ’ d fall on your face . )
It takes lots of patient , careful labor to make a society of any kind work .
I ’ ve written about Vermont ’ s success in containing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas of the country .
Part of that success is attributable to high levels of public trust , which have made mask-wearing almost ubiquitous , even without a government mandate—precisely the kind of social solidarity that the wilderness pamphleteer was attempting to undercut .
We ’ ve let our governor and his bureaucrats do their jobs , and followed their advice , and it ’ s gone pretty well—at the moment , there ’ s no one in the state hospitalized for Covid-19 .
That same kind of hard work seems to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have not become the coronavirus hot spots that we ’ ve seen elsewhere in the nation .
Middlebury College , where I work , sits down the hill from the trail where I found the flyers .
It has managed to welcome back more than two thousand students , from all fifty states , with only two testing positive for COVID-19 so far ; both were immediately quarantined and have now recovered .
Administrators have worked for months with public-health officials to establish tight protocols ; they ’ ve had to send a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked-out rules , but for the most part the students have been champs , understanding that normal college life isn ’ t in the cards right now .
Our local public schools have begun to open without incident , though with lots of masks .
Expertise actually matters ; coöperation in a joint task is still possible .
We can do this—or , we could , if there weren ’ t constantly people insisting that somewhere there lurks a conspiracy , or the Gestapo , or George Soros .

Sometimes, when I talk to people about my work on climate change, they’ll ask, “How do you keep from being depressed all the time?” I usually offer some variation of “I live in the woods, and so I go for a hike most days, and that helps.” Which is more or less true: I do live in the woods, and I do go for hikes, and it does often help. At the very least, it keeps me off the Internet for a time, which may be a reasonable approximation to mental hygiene in the twenty-first century.
Last week, I set off, with my dog, for a two-hour hike up a trail I’ve taken a hundred times before. It rises steeply through the woods until it connects to the Long Trail, a north-south hiking path that stretches the length of Vermont. I was meandering along, admiring the first hints of fall color on the maples, when my eye was caught by what looked like a handful of little yellow labels tacked to the smooth skin of a young beech tree. Upon closer inspection, I saw that they were tags of the sort you’d see at the bottom of a flyer posted outside a shop, except that, instead of offering dog-walking services or enrollment in a trial of a new medicine, they bore the words “Facemask Exemptions Facemask Science” and the URL for a video featuring a “doctor.”
I’m not going to tell you the “doctor” ’s name or link to his video, but it’s No. 708 (!) in a series that also includes anti-vax messages. It posits that face-mask laws are the result of letting people “with no educational requirements whatsoever—bureaucrats, legislators, governors, etc.” make the rules. In the past, the doctor says, “when there have been actual outbreaks of true infectious diseases,” you quarantined the diseased, “not the entire population.” This “attack on the world’s healthy population” shows how “docile” we have all become—even in Las Vegas, where he had just sojourned for a week, and where, he claimed, even though there was no mandate (there is), “thirty per cent of the people were still walking around with their masks on.” He expresses outrage that the “lowliest bag clerk in the grocery store” has “now been elevated to the rank of junior G-man. . . . Minimum wage and I get to join Youth for Hitler.” And so on, for twenty-nine minutes and forty-nine seconds. If only everyone would ignore the mask mandate, think “how much better our lives would be today,” he concludes, before urging viewers to catch his next video, about the “evils of contact tracing.”
Material like this does real damage—the flyer sent me to watch the video on a service called BitChute, which the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have described as a locus of racist, anti-Semitic content. (It’s where Alex Jones and InfoWars retreated to when YouTube had finally had enough.) Such videos also serve as a transmission mechanism for massive quantities of scientific disinformation. Millions of people have used the site to view “Plandemic,” a “documentary” that insists that Bill Gates helped create the coronavirus so that he could sell you the vaccine.
But I confess that I was disturbed less by the content of the video than by the fact that someone had taken the time to post ads for it along a lightly used trail through a federally designated wilderness in backwoods Vermont. Every few hundred yards, I found another little cluster of the tags tacked to another tree—they’d only been there a day or two, because the last rainfall hadn’t touched them. I did my best to collect all of them, but I bet I missed some; in any event, my hike was not the restful escape from the world’s cares that I’d been counting on. Instead, I was right back in the world. It reminded me of the plans that resurface from time to time to beam ads onto the surface of the moon, making them visible to half the residents of the Earth at any given moment. (If that ever happens, I’m moving underground.)
And it made me reflect anew on just how incredibly hard it is for anything useful to happen in our country right now. Between the President tweeting (sometimes a hundred times a day), Fox News shouting nightly, and Facebook serving as a right-wing echo chamber, it’s no wonder that we’ve become confused about basic facts. Do masks help? In the right-wing world, they didn’t, until the President said that they did. Are vaccines a useful addition to the modern world? The President used to have his doubts, but now he seems to be pinning his reëlection on one. Government agencies have become founts of misinformation—even the C.D.C. has apparently knuckled under, granting the White House the right to review information that it sends to health professionals.
This is not, of course, new. We’ve delayed action on the climate crisis for decades as a result of campaigns of organized lying. But in that case there was a profit motive: the goal was to keep the business model of the oil industry alive for a few more decades, even at the cost of breaking the planet. This other kind of freelance falsehood is more baffling. And it’s not entirely confined to the right. In Vermont, outbreaks of measles in past years tended to center on small, independent schools favored by people who would count themselves as environmentalists and progressives but don’t trust doctors about vaccines. (The Vermont chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics asked me to make a video a few years ago, trying to convince such people that—well, that science is good. I was happy to do it, but I did feel as if I’d been called to explain that gravity meant that if you leaned forward far enough you’d fall on your face.)
It takes lots of patient, careful labor to make a society of any kind work. I’ve written about Vermont’s success in containing the coronavirus, at least compared with other areas of the country. Part of that success is attributable to high levels of public trust, which have made mask-wearing almost ubiquitous, even without a government mandate—precisely the kind of social solidarity that the wilderness pamphleteer was attempting to undercut. We’ve let our governor and his bureaucrats do their jobs, and followed their advice, and it’s gone pretty well—at the moment, there’s no one in the state hospitalized for Covid-19.
That same kind of hard work seems to be paying off in our colleges, which have not become the coronavirus hot spots that we’ve seen elsewhere in the nation. Middlebury College, where I work, sits down the hill from the trail where I found the flyers. It has managed to welcome back more than two thousand students, from all fifty states, with only two testing positive for COVID-19 so far; both were immediately quarantined and have now recovered. Administrators have worked for months with public-health officials to establish tight protocols; they’ve had to send a few students home for disobeying the carefully worked-out rules, but for the most part the students have been champs, understanding that normal college life isn’t in the cards right now. Our local public schools have begun to open without incident, though with lots of masks. Expertise actually matters; coöperation in a joint task is still possible. We can do this—or, we could, if there weren’t constantly people insisting that somewhere there lurks a conspiracy, or the Gestapo, or George Soros.


newyorker--2020-09-15--Trump Says Earth Will Cool Down If Everyone Just Turns On Air-Conditioning

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —Blasting “ dumb scientists for not thinking of this before , ” Donald J.
@ @ @ @ @ would cool down “ right away ” if everyone would just turn on the air-conditioning @ @ @ @ @ with their lab coats and test tubes and act like the planet is burning up @ @ @ @ @ “ I guess those beauties have never thought of turning on the A.C. ” “ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
“ It ’ s the hydroxychloroquine of climate.
” Arguing that @ @ @ @ @ on math , ” Trump illustrated what would happen to the planet ’ s temperature @ @ @ @ @ all turned on the air-conditioning at the exact same time .
“ Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ turned down the A.C. four degrees , ” he said .
“ Just like that @ @ @ @ @ eight billion degrees cooler.
” Trump disclosed that he did not come up with this @ @ @ @ @ , acknowledging the assistance of the Secretary of Education , Betsy DeVos .

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Blasting “dumb scientists for not thinking of this before,” Donald J. Trump said that the planet would cool down “right away” if everyone would just turn on the air-conditioning.
“Scientists go around with their lab coats and test tubes and act like the planet is burning up,” he said. “I guess those beauties have never thought of turning on the A.C.”
“Air-conditioning is the answer,” he said. “It’s the hydroxychloroquine of climate.”
Arguing that his theory was “based on math,” Trump illustrated what would happen to the planet’s temperature if people around the world all turned on the air-conditioning at the exact same time.
“Let’s say two billion people each turned down the A.C. four degrees,” he said. “Just like that, the planet would be eight billion degrees cooler.”
Trump disclosed that he did not come up with this mathematical equation all by himself, acknowledging the assistance of the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos.


newyorker--2020-09-15--Broadcasting Joe Biden’s Economic Program

A few days ago , Bernie Sanders warned Joe Biden ’ s campaign that it needed to broaden its focus from attacking Donald Trump .
“ You got to give people an alternative or reason to vote for you other than saying , ‘ I ’ m not Donald Trump , ’ ” Sanders , who is supporting Biden , told PBS .
“ And that means talking about an economics program , which Biden has .
It ’ s not as strong as I would like it—it ’ s not the Bernie Sanders program , despite what Trump will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong program that will improve the lives of many millions of people.
” Given the lead that Biden holds in the opinion polls , it can be argued that he must be doing something right .
Still , Sanders ’ s point is a legitimate one .
Even if focussing on the incumbent—a strategy that was on full display at the Democratic National Convention—is the best way to challenge a rogue President like Trump , it shouldn ’ t preclude Biden and his running mate , Kamala Harris , from emphasizing how their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans that are struggling to get by .
As the Democratic Party increasingly becomes the party of highly educated voters who are horrified by Trump ’ s daily outrages , it also needs to attract working-class voters who perhaps don ’ t follow politics as closely .
I ’ m talking about working-class Black voters in places like Philadelphia and Milwaukee , working-class Hispanic voters in places like Florida and Nevada , and working-class white voters in places like western Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin .
Members of the working class have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ globalization , technological change , the private health-care system , and , most recently , the coronavirus pandemic .
“ They are looking for a leader who will make big changes in health care , fight for working people over big business , and unite the country to defeat the current economic and public-health crisis , ” Stan Greenberg , the veteran Democratic pollster , wrote in an article for The American Prospect , last week .
In this passage , Greenberg was referring specifically to white working-class voters , whom he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surveys .
But he pointed out that economic concerns and anger at the political establishment also runs “ deep into the Democratic base of Blacks , Hispanics , unmarried women , and millennials , too.
” As Sanders noted , the good news for Biden is that his policy plans do , in fact , have a good deal to offer working people of all races—especially compared to Trump ’ s platform , which is essentially bare in this area .
The former Vice-President would raise taxes on the rich to finance programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incomes in a number of different areas , including education , health care , housing , and Social Security .
Taken individually , none of Biden ’ s proposals has the transformative appeal of Sanders ’ s Medicare for All plan , Elizabeth Warren ’ s wealth tax , or Andrew Yang ’ s universal basic income .
But if Congress passed Biden ’ s economic policy agenda , and it worked as designed , it would make life easier for countless working Americans who need a helping hand .
Here are some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kids under school age and are struggling to afford day care , Biden has proposed a national pre-K program for all children ages three and four .
( Other rich countries , such as France and Germany , already have such a program . )
For people nearing retirement age who can ’ t find an affordable health-care plan , Biden has pledged to lower the eligibility age for Medicare from sixty-five to sixty .
For low-income families struggling to find an affordable place to live , he has promised to make rent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Section 8 federal-housing-voucher program .
For young people who want to go to college but are worried about racking up student debt , he has pledged to eliminate tuition payments entirely at two-year community colleges and to eliminate tuition payments at four-year public colleges and universities for students from families that earn less than a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars a year .
In budgetary terms , the sums involved in rolling out these and other Biden programs would be considerable .
According to a new study by economists at the Wharton School @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone would cost $ 1.9 trillion over ten years .
All told , his economic plans would “ raise $ 3.375 trillion in new tax revenue ” between 2021 and 2030 , “ while increasing spending by $ 5.37 trillion , ” the study says .
On an annual basis , the proposed spending increase is equivalent to about 2.5 per cent of current G.D.P.
, or roughly twelve per cent of total federal spending .
You might ask where all this money would come from .
A Biden Administration would raise most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for corporations and high-income households that were enacted in the feed-the-rich tax bill that Trump and the Republicans pushed through in 2017 , and also by raising some other taxes targeted at the wealthy .
Under Biden ’ s plan , according to the Wharton study , households in the top one per cent of the income distribution would see their effective federal tax rate rise from 30.7 per cent to 37.4 per cent .
Super-rich households—those in the top 0.1 per cent—would see their effective tax rates go from 30.6 per cent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the bottom ninety-five per cent ( those who make up to $ 282,663 a year ) , there wouldn ’ t be much of a change at all .
Biden gave a series of speeches back in July in which he laid out his economic agenda .
And last week , in Dunmore , Pennsylvania , he unveiled a series of proposals to boost American manufacturing .
But in this addled news climate , policy proposals rarely get the coverage they deserve in the venues that most voters rely on—television and online-news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump noise , Biden , Harris , and other Democrats need to be out there every day ballyhooing their spending plans , as well as other proposals that wouldn ’ t affect the federal budget but that would boost the budgets of working families .
The Biden-Harris ticket wants to guarantee all Americans twelve weeks of paid medical and family leave .
It would increase the national minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour , which would have a big impact on low-paid workers in places like Pennsylvania and Texas , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7.25 ; in Florida , where its $ 8.56 ; and in Ohio , where its $ 8.70 .
Biden ’ s agenda includes an expansion of home and community-based care for the elderly , and provisions to insure that , as the number of caregivers increases , they are well-paid and have the right to join a labor union .
He has also vowed to strengthen labor laws and unions more broadly .
Among other things , he supports the Protecting the Right to Organize Act , which the Democrat-controlled House of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this type would take a while to have a macroeconomic impact .
Over time , though , restoring some of the bargaining power that workers have lost in recent decades could help raise wages and reduce inequality .
Of course , Biden ’ s policy platform could be better .
A couple of personal quibbles : it doesn ’ t address the self-dealing and greed of top corporate executives , which has been evident again during the pandemic ; and it doesn ’ t adequately confront rising monopoly power , especially in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of other progressive proposals , and compared to the alternative—four more years of plutocracy thinly disguised as populism—it ’ s infinitely preferable .
Between now and November 3rd , everyone associated with the Biden campaign , and , indeed , everyone who wants to see the back of Trump , should seize every opportunity to make this clear .
Read More About the 2020 Election • Can Joe Biden win the Presidency based on a promise of generational change ?
• The fall and rise of Kamala Harris .
• When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sacrosanct American ritual like an election , you should listen .
• To understand the path Donald Trump has taken to the 2020 election , look at what he has provided the executive class .
• What happens if Trump fights the election results ?
• The refusal by Mitch McConnell to rein in Trump is looking riskier than ever .
• Sign up for our election newsletter for insight and analysis from our reporters and columnists .

A few days ago, Bernie Sanders warned Joe Biden’s campaign that it needed to broaden its focus from attacking Donald Trump. “You got to give people an alternative or reason to vote for you other than saying, ‘I’m not Donald Trump,’ ” Sanders, who is supporting Biden, told PBS. “And that means talking about an economics program, which Biden has. It’s not as strong as I would like it—it’s not the Bernie Sanders program, despite what Trump will tell you. But it is a strong program that will improve the lives of many millions of people.”
Given the lead that Biden holds in the opinion polls, it can be argued that he must be doing something right. Still, Sanders’s point is a legitimate one. Even if focussing on the incumbent—a strategy that was on full display at the Democratic National Convention—is the best way to challenge a rogue President like Trump, it shouldn’t preclude Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris, from emphasizing how their Administration would make things better for ordinary Americans that are struggling to get by. As the Democratic Party increasingly becomes the party of highly educated voters who are horrified by Trump’s daily outrages, it also needs to attract working-class voters who perhaps don’t follow politics as closely. I’m talking about working-class Black voters in places like Philadelphia and Milwaukee, working-class Hispanic voters in places like Florida and Nevada, and working-class white voters in places like western Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Members of the working class have borne the brunt of wage stagnation, globalization, technological change, the private health-care system, and, most recently, the coronavirus pandemic. “They are looking for a leader who will make big changes in health care, fight for working people over big business, and unite the country to defeat the current economic and public-health crisis,” Stan Greenberg, the veteran Democratic pollster, wrote in an article for The American Prospect, last week. In this passage, Greenberg was referring specifically to white working-class voters, whom he has been studying in focus groups and through surveys. But he pointed out that economic concerns and anger at the political establishment also runs “deep into the Democratic base of Blacks, Hispanics, unmarried women, and millennials, too.”
As Sanders noted, the good news for Biden is that his policy plans do, in fact, have a good deal to offer working people of all races—especially compared to Trump’s platform, which is essentially bare in this area. The former Vice-President would raise taxes on the rich to finance programs targeted at those with low and moderate incomes in a number of different areas, including education, health care, housing, and Social Security. Taken individually, none of Biden’s proposals has the transformative appeal of Sanders’s Medicare for All plan, Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax, or Andrew Yang’s universal basic income. But if Congress passed Biden’s economic policy agenda, and it worked as designed, it would make life easier for countless working Americans who need a helping hand.
Here are some specifics. Targeting working parents who have kids under school age and are struggling to afford day care, Biden has proposed a national pre-K program for all children ages three and four. (Other rich countries, such as France and Germany, already have such a program.) For people nearing retirement age who can’t find an affordable health-care plan, Biden has pledged to lower the eligibility age for Medicare from sixty-five to sixty. For low-income families struggling to find an affordable place to live, he has promised to make rent subsidies more widely available by expanding the Section 8 federal-housing-voucher program. For young people who want to go to college but are worried about racking up student debt, he has pledged to eliminate tuition payments entirely at two-year community colleges and to eliminate tuition payments at four-year public colleges and universities for students from families that earn less than a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars a year.
In budgetary terms, the sums involved in rolling out these and other Biden programs would be considerable. According to a new study by economists at the Wharton School, the Democrat’s education proposals alone would cost $1.9 trillion over ten years. All told, his economic plans would “raise $3.375 trillion in new tax revenue” between 2021 and 2030, “while increasing spending by $5.37 trillion,” the study says. On an annual basis, the proposed spending increase is equivalent to about 2.5 per cent of current G.D.P., or roughly twelve per cent of total federal spending.
You might ask where all this money would come from. A Biden Administration would raise most of it by reversing the tax cuts for corporations and high-income households that were enacted in the feed-the-rich tax bill that Trump and the Republicans pushed through in 2017, and also by raising some other taxes targeted at the wealthy. Under Biden’s plan, according to the Wharton study, households in the top one per cent of the income distribution would see their effective federal tax rate rise from 30.7 per cent to 37.4 per cent. Super-rich households—those in the top 0.1 per cent—would see their effective tax rates go from 30.6 per cent to forty-three per cent. For people in the bottom ninety-five per cent (those who make up to $282,663 a year), there wouldn’t be much of a change at all.
Biden gave a series of speeches back in July in which he laid out his economic agenda. And last week, in Dunmore, Pennsylvania, he unveiled a series of proposals to boost American manufacturing. But in this addled news climate, policy proposals rarely get the coverage they deserve in the venues that most voters rely on—television and online-news feeds. To break through the cacophony of Trump noise, Biden, Harris, and other Democrats need to be out there every day ballyhooing their spending plans, as well as other proposals that wouldn’t affect the federal budget but that would boost the budgets of working families.
The Biden-Harris ticket wants to guarantee all Americans twelve weeks of paid medical and family leave. It would increase the national minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour, which would have a big impact on low-paid workers in places like Pennsylvania and Texas, where the hourly minimum is currently just $7.25; in Florida, where its $8.56; and in Ohio, where its $8.70. Biden’s agenda includes an expansion of home and community-based care for the elderly, and provisions to insure that, as the number of caregivers increases, they are well-paid and have the right to join a labor union. He has also vowed to strengthen labor laws and unions more broadly. Among other things, he supports the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, which the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed in 2019. Legislative changes of this type would take a while to have a macroeconomic impact. Over time, though, restoring some of the bargaining power that workers have lost in recent decades could help raise wages and reduce inequality.
Of course, Biden’s policy platform could be better. A couple of personal quibbles: it doesn’t address the self-dealing and greed of top corporate executives, which has been evident again during the pandemic; and it doesn’t adequately confront rising monopoly power, especially in the tech sector. But it contains a lot of other progressive proposals, and compared to the alternative—four more years of plutocracy thinly disguised as populism—it’s infinitely preferable. Between now and November 3rd, everyone associated with the Biden campaign, and, indeed, everyone who wants to see the back of Trump, should seize every opportunity to make this clear.
Read More About the 2020 Election


newyorker--2020-09-18--Ask Kim Kierkegaardashian: Gulfstreaming the Emotional Distance

Ask Kim Kierkegaardashian is an advice column by a mashup of the nineteenth-century existentialist philosopher Søren Kierkegaard and the reality star and fashion maven Kim Kardashian West .
Are you suffering an existential crisis ?
Vexed about what to wear ?
Send your questions to kimkierkegaard1 @ gmail.com ( or address them to @ kimkierkegaard on Twitter ) .
Questions may be edited for clarity and length .
My boyfriend is an essential worker , while I ’ m a keyboard jockey and able to work remotely .
Our friends have decided to exercise caution , so we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that my boyfriend ’ s social-interaction meter overflows daily at work , while I have spiralled into loneliness and despair within the confines of my apartment , where I live alone .
The worst part is , he ’ s become disengaged , as though he doesn ’ t care to see me .
My guy has always been adoring in the past—good about giving me unexpected gifts and surprising me—so I know that he knows how to show affection .
I ’ ve been very clear with him about how my needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve just become needy ( whereas , in fact , I ’ m living in a city that I never thought I ’ d stay in , because of him ) .
My guess is that he is stretched very thin , but , in true fifties-dad fashion , he won ’ t admit to being overwhelmed .
Before the pandemic , I wouldn ’ t mind several days to myself to recharge and create , so it ’ s particularly confounding to be this person who ’ s reached the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ ve made a serious effort to spend more time talking to girlfriends and picking old projects back up .
But I want my sweet , adoring man back , and I don ’ t want to set a precedent in our relationship that it ’ s O.K .
to check out and not depend on each other .
Is this just a quarantine thing ?
Or am I giving CPR to a dying relationship ?
Kim , I ’ m so scared to lose him that I ’ m writing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this pandemic , I used to love spending long hours alone in my study , poring over the Old Testament and back issues of Vogue—happy in the knowledge that my household staff of seventy-three was waiting on the other side of the door , for whenever I needed company .
These days , the mansion is quieter .
I find myself having to take selfies without even a lighting technician or wardrobe stylist—a challenging exercise in relating to myself through my own self .
Pandemic isolation is tough , even for us natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and long-lasting , like a juice cleanse that never ends .
In your case , the juice cleanse is made worse by a boyfriend who has started hoarding his emotional superfood and attention antioxidants .
Why is this happening ?
Some people enjoy company in times of stress ( I always try to bring a friend to high-stakes meetings or painful waxings ) , but others tortoise up .
Withdrawing into himself , even while you seek his attention , might be bae ’ s way of exerting control in the face of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your reactions might be making the other ’ s worse—like when I bought my B.F.F .
a Gulfstream for Christmas , totally blanking on the fact that she ’ s afraid to fly , so she bought me a Bentley , somehow forgetting my endorsement deal with Maybach .
Will your relationship get back its usual glam when normal life resumes ?
Let ’ s not simply wait it out , because that ’ ll take too long .
Besides , this Fyre Festival of a year is life ; crazy , unexpected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quiet times .
And you want your boo to be your ride-or-die during the shitty festivals of life , not just by your side to watch Beyoncé from the V.V.I.P .
booth at Coachella .
Here ’ s the upside of chaos : it strips away the veil of illusion that shrouds existence and reveals the naked reality of things—giving you and B.B .
a chance to finally get your naked reality into swimsuit shape .
You ’ ve already got a great start on your workout-and-diet plan , by clearly stating your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to encourage your man to discuss what you ’ re both going through .
The fifties-dad look is great when it means cool fedoras , but not when it entails a refusal to open up with one ’ s cutie .
You ’ ve made a lot of compromises in this relationship—staying in a second-choice city , giving your man lots of space .
Can he acknowledge this , and talk about how or when he can give you what you need in return ?
I know from experience that times of stress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But if you can build a bridge of calm communication , you might end up coming out of this with a timeless new look .
Whether or not this works , now is the time for you to do an existential detox .
Glance into the terrifying void you refer to as being “ so scared to lose him.
” What is it , precisely , that scares you so ?
Is it losing your active love for the actual person he is ?
Or is it a fear of Gulfstreaming solo through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live with , and love , yourself ?
Fear and anxiety are in the air all around us these days .
No P.P.E .
can protect us from them .
It ’ s tempting , in our dread , to cling hard to what ’ s familiar .
But taking control of fear gets rid of wrinkles and dark under-eye circles , preparing your face for any look you decide to put on .
Remember that our deepest loneliness is something no boyfriend can assuage , however brainy , buff , or Grammy-winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be lessened in the luxury spa called love of self .
So don ’ t let fear make you forget the person you are , Emotionally Distanced .
Your desires and dreams extend beyond this moment , and even beyond this relationship .
Many people may lose many things before this pandemic is over , but your private jet will make a safe landing so long as you don ’ t lose yourself .

Ask Kim Kierkegaardashian is an advice column by a mashup of the nineteenth-century existentialist philosopher Søren Kierkegaard and the reality star and fashion maven Kim Kardashian West. Are you suffering an existential crisis? Vexed about what to wear? Send your questions to kimkierkegaard1@gmail.com (or address them to @kimkierkegaard on Twitter). Questions may be edited for clarity and length.
Dear Kim Kierkegaardashian,
My boyfriend is an essential worker, while I’m a keyboard jockey and able to work remotely. Our friends have decided to exercise caution, so we’ve not been seeing them. This means that my boyfriend’s social-interaction meter overflows daily at work, while I have spiralled into loneliness and despair within the confines of my apartment, where I live alone. The worst part is, he’s become disengaged, as though he doesn’t care to see me.
My guy has always been adoring in the past—good about giving me unexpected gifts and surprising me—so I know that he knows how to show affection. I’ve been very clear with him about how my needs can be met, but he thinks I’ve just become needy (whereas, in fact, I’m living in a city that I never thought I’d stay in, because of him). My guess is that he is stretched very thin, but, in true fifties-dad fashion, he won’t admit to being overwhelmed.
Before the pandemic, I wouldn’t mind several days to myself to recharge and create, so it’s particularly confounding to be this person who’s reached the edge of what I can do alone. I’ve made a serious effort to spend more time talking to girlfriends and picking old projects back up. But I want my sweet, adoring man back, and I don’t want to set a precedent in our relationship that it’s O.K. to check out and not depend on each other.
Is this just a quarantine thing? Or am I giving CPR to a dying relationship? Kim, I’m so scared to lose him that I’m writing to a comedic advice column.
Signed,
Emotionally Distanced Social Distancer
Dear Emotionally Distanced,
Before this pandemic, I used to love spending long hours alone in my study, poring over the Old Testament and back issues of Vogue—happy in the knowledge that my household staff of seventy-three was waiting on the other side of the door, for whenever I needed company. These days, the mansion is quieter. I find myself having to take selfies without even a lighting technician or wardrobe stylist—a challenging exercise in relating to myself through my own self.
Pandemic isolation is tough, even for us natural loners, because it’s compelled and long-lasting, like a juice cleanse that never ends. In your case, the juice cleanse is made worse by a boyfriend who has started hoarding his emotional superfood and attention antioxidants.
Why is this happening? Some people enjoy company in times of stress (I always try to bring a friend to high-stakes meetings or painful waxings), but others tortoise up. Withdrawing into himself, even while you seek his attention, might be bae’s way of exerting control in the face of chaos. In fact, each of your reactions might be making the other’s worse—like when I bought my B.F.F. a Gulfstream for Christmas, totally blanking on the fact that she’s afraid to fly, so she bought me a Bentley, somehow forgetting my endorsement deal with Maybach.
Will your relationship get back its usual glam when normal life resumes? Let’s not simply wait it out, because that’ll take too long. Besides, this Fyre Festival of a year is life; crazy, unexpected messes are just as real as the quiet times. And you want your boo to be your ride-or-die during the shitty festivals of life, not just by your side to watch Beyoncé from the V.V.I.P. booth at Coachella.
Here’s the upside of chaos: it strips away the veil of illusion that shrouds existence and reveals the naked reality of things—giving you and B.B. a chance to finally get your naked reality into swimsuit shape. You’ve already got a great start on your workout-and-diet plan, by clearly stating your needs. Try to find low-stress moments to encourage your man to discuss what you’re both going through. The fifties-dad look is great when it means cool fedoras, but not when it entails a refusal to open up with one’s cutie. You’ve made a lot of compromises in this relationship—staying in a second-choice city, giving your man lots of space. Can he acknowledge this, and talk about how or when he can give you what you need in return?
I know from experience that times of stress take a painful toll on relationships. But if you can build a bridge of calm communication, you might end up coming out of this with a timeless new look.
Whether or not this works, now is the time for you to do an existential detox. Glance into the terrifying void you refer to as being “so scared to lose him.” What is it, precisely, that scares you so? Is it losing your active love for the actual person he is? Or is it a fear of Gulfstreaming solo through this pandemic and through life—of having to live with, and love, yourself?
Fear and anxiety are in the air all around us these days. No P.P.E. can protect us from them. It’s tempting, in our dread, to cling hard to what’s familiar. But taking control of fear gets rid of wrinkles and dark under-eye circles, preparing your face for any look you decide to put on. Remember that our deepest loneliness is something no boyfriend can assuage, however brainy, buff, or Grammy-winning he may be. It can only be lessened in the luxury spa called love of self.
So don’t let fear make you forget the person you are, Emotionally Distanced. Your desires and dreams extend beyond this moment, and even beyond this relationship. Many people may lose many things before this pandemic is over, but your private jet will make a safe landing so long as you don’t lose yourself.
XOXO
Kim Kierkegaardashian


newyorker--2020-09-18--Rice Is Both Culture and Comfort at FieldTrip

The thesis behind FieldTrip , which the chef and restaurateur JJ Johnson opened in Harlem last year , resounds .
The phrase “ Rice is culture ” is plastered everywhere in the small counter-service shop : on the wall , on employees ’ T-shirts and face masks , on snapback caps for sale .
The 2017 cookbook “ Between Harlem and Heaven , ” a collection of “ Afro-Asian-American ” recipes by Johnson and his former boss Alexander Smalls , includes an essay that argues , “ If we traveled the world from Africa to Asia and all the points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only rice and we would not starve .
On the contrary , we would feast.
” Rice , they note , accounts for more than twenty per cent of the diet of at least 3.5 billion people , and , outside of Asia , West Africans consume more rice than any other population in the world .
The West African dish known as jollof rice is so central to the region ’ s culture that there are memes devoted to the debate over whether Ghanaians or Nigerians make it better .
And so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of one of FieldTrip ’ s multicultural rice bowls—each featuring a different , carefully sourced variety , scooped with a wooden paddle from an enormous rice cooker and paired with a protein and sundry garnishes .
In Johnson ’ s jollof , fragrant , fluffy basmati is dyed red with tomato paste and palm oil and topped with roasted broccoli , cucumber coconut yogurt , and a flaky , paratha-like flatbread that ’ s an homage to the one his grandmother used to make .
In another bowl , glossy round grains of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antioxidants and fiber ) , fried with blistered edamame and nubs of pineapple , are a pedestal for a slim fillet of salmon , blanketed in a zesty piri-piri sauce the color of the ripest mango .
Carolina Gold , named for the golden fibrous strand visible on each raw kernel , gets fried , too , and matched with nuggets of fried chicken breast in a thick barbecue sauce that plays nicely off the seasonal wok vegetables that come in every bowl : on a recent visit , a tangle of slick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of sweet potato , and charred shishitos .
The barbecue-brisket bowl , with bits of fatty beef and chipotle black beans strewn across saucy Texas brown rice , made me feel like a cowboy sitting around a campfire .
For dessert , there ’ s a neon-pink version of a Rice Krispie treat—made from house-puffed rice spiked with dragon-fruit juice—and rice-milk soft serve ; to drink , there are several varieties of sake , including one that comes in a juice box , and a canned makgeolli , a Korean-style beer brewed from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the salad : a spoonful of cold red rice is nestled atop raw spinach with mandarin orange and red onion .
( This is the second-best thing to do with leftover rice , if you ask me ; the best is to fry it . )
Despite this , you could cobble together a meal absent of rice altogether , supplementing sides of meat or fish and vegetables with super-crunchy , salty-sweet fried yucca chips , laced with garlic , ginger , and chili ; rangoon-inspired crab pockets , gooey with garlic-herb cream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hot honey so that tiny strips of red pepper adhere to their surfaces .
Rice is culture , and rice is comfort .
There ’ s no outdoor seating at FieldTrip , and although Central Park and Marcus Garvey Park are both just a few blocks away , I found myself , on a recent visit , too hungry to make it to either .
Instead , I raced back to my car , where I slid the driver ’ s seat back as far as it would go and dug into my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a frothy virgin piña colada , and found a certain kind of contentment .
Around me , the neighborhood surged on .
A health aide pushed her elderly charge in a wheelchair .
A deliveryman piled packages onto a dolly .
Two women shouted at each other from a distance , seeming to argue heatedly until , suddenly , they burst into laughter , and I realized they were friends .
( Dishes $ 2.50- $ 13 . )
♦

The thesis behind FieldTrip, which the chef and restaurateur JJ Johnson opened in Harlem last year, resounds. The phrase “Rice is culture” is plastered everywhere in the small counter-service shop: on the wall, on employees’ T-shirts and face masks, on snapback caps for sale. The 2017 cookbook “Between Harlem and Heaven,” a collection of “Afro-Asian-American” recipes by Johnson and his former boss Alexander Smalls, includes an essay that argues, “If we traveled the world from Africa to Asia and all the points of the diaspora, we could eat only rice and we would not starve. On the contrary, we would feast.” Rice, they note, accounts for more than twenty per cent of the diet of at least 3.5 billion people, and, outside of Asia, West Africans consume more rice than any other population in the world. The West African dish known as jollof rice is so central to the region’s culture that there are memes devoted to the debate over whether Ghanaians or Nigerians make it better.
Each of the restaurant’s multicultural rice bowls features a different iteration of rice, paired with a protein and sundry toppings. Photograph by Lelanie Foster for The New Yorker
And so jollof is, naturally, the centerpiece of one of FieldTrip’s multicultural rice bowls—each featuring a different, carefully sourced variety, scooped with a wooden paddle from an enormous rice cooker and paired with a protein and sundry garnishes. In Johnson’s jollof, fragrant, fluffy basmati is dyed red with tomato paste and palm oil and topped with roasted broccoli, cucumber coconut yogurt, and a flaky, paratha-like flatbread that’s an homage to the one his grandmother used to make. In another bowl, glossy round grains of nutty Chinese black rice (high in antioxidants and fiber), fried with blistered edamame and nubs of pineapple, are a pedestal for a slim fillet of salmon, blanketed in a zesty piri-piri sauce the color of the ripest mango.
There’s no outdoor seating at FieldTrip, which is counter service only, but it’s within blocks of both Central Park and Marcus Garvey Park. Photograph by Lelanie Foster for The New Yorker
Carolina Gold, named for the golden fibrous strand visible on each raw kernel, gets fried, too, and matched with nuggets of fried chicken breast in a thick barbecue sauce that plays nicely off the seasonal wok vegetables that come in every bowl: on a recent visit, a tangle of slick, slightly smoky chopped collards, cubes of sweet potato, and charred shishitos. The barbecue-brisket bowl, with bits of fatty beef and chipotle black beans strewn across saucy Texas brown rice, made me feel like a cowboy sitting around a campfire.
At left: West African-style jollof rice topped with roasted broccoli, cucumber coconut yogurt, and fried flatbread. At right: fried Carolina Gold rice topped with fried chicken, wok-cooked vegetables, and barbecue sauce. Photograph by Lelanie Foster for The New Yorker
For dessert, there’s a neon-pink version of a Rice Krispie treat—made from house-puffed rice spiked with dragon-fruit juice—and rice-milk soft serve; to drink, there are several varieties of sake, including one that comes in a juice box, and a canned makgeolli, a Korean-style beer brewed from rice. There is even rice in the salad: a spoonful of cold red rice is nestled atop raw spinach with mandarin orange and red onion. (This is the second-best thing to do with leftover rice, if you ask me; the best is to fry it.) Despite this, you could cobble together a meal absent of rice altogether, supplementing sides of meat or fish and vegetables with super-crunchy, salty-sweet fried yucca chips, laced with garlic, ginger, and chili; rangoon-inspired crab pockets, gooey with garlic-herb cream cheese; and sweet plantains glazed in hot honey so that tiny strips of red pepper adhere to their surfaces.
Rangoon-inspired crab pockets are stuffed with crabmeat and herbed cream cheese and come with a sweet-and-sour dipping sauce. Photograph by Lelanie Foster for The New Yorker
Rice is culture, and rice is comfort. There’s no outdoor seating at FieldTrip, and although Central Park and Marcus Garvey Park are both just a few blocks away, I found myself, on a recent visit, too hungry to make it to either. Instead, I raced back to my car, where I slid the driver’s seat back as far as it would go and dug into my rice, alternating bites with sips of a frothy virgin piña colada, and found a certain kind of contentment. Around me, the neighborhood surged on. A health aide pushed her elderly charge in a wheelchair. A deliveryman piled packages onto a dolly. Two women shouted at each other from a distance, seeming to argue heatedly until, suddenly, they burst into laughter, and I realized they were friends. (Dishes $2.50-$13.) ♦


newyorker--2020-09-18--The New York Film Festival Goes Virtual

The New York Film Festival Goes Virtual

Lincoln Center is presenting the city ’ s main annual movie event , the New York Film Festival , at @ @ @ @ @ This year ’ s edition features the New York premières of Chloé Zhao ’ s @ @ @ @ @ starring Frances McDormand , and Garrett Bradley ’ s documentary “ Time , ” as @ @ @ @ @ of the first three installments of “ Small Axe ” —Steve McQueen ’ s five-part @ @ @ @ @ s West Indian community—including the musical romance “ Lovers Rock , ” set in 1980 @ @ @ @ @ pictured above ) .

Lincoln Center is presenting the city’s main annual movie event, the New York Film Festival, at virtual and drive-in screenings. This year’s edition features the New York premières of Chloé Zhao’s drama “Nomadland,” starring Frances McDormand, and Garrett Bradley’s documentary “Time,” as well as the world premières of the first three installments of “Small Axe”—Steve McQueen’s five-part film series about London’s West Indian community—including the musical romance “Lovers Rock,” set in 1980 and starring Micheal Ward (pictured above).