newyorker--2020-03-12--The Coronavirus and the Ruptured Narrative of Campus Life

A college course is a narrative form , a story told collaboratively , over time .
Ideally , the professor establishes early the story ’ s shape , pacing , and tone , and the syllabus gives the students ideas of where to look for what happens next .
But no course—no good , dynamic course—knows ahead of time what story it will tell .
Courses can be strangled by too much narrative rigging : a syllabus that spells out too much ; a professor who keeps steering the story toward insights hatched ahead of time , months ago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a course can lose its way by telling no story at all : the students merely wander in , wearing enormous parkas and hats , do their time , write their essays , and wander out , four months later , wearing shorts and T-shirts .
In between is a kind of parallel play , as in a sandbox .
I always make a point , whatever I ’ m teaching , of synchronizing my syllabus to the changes in the seasons , the light , and the weather .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , with math : in November , you can get a class to look out the window by reading them Wallace Stevens ’ s “ The Green Plant , ” which describes how the “ lion-roses ” of October maples have “ turned to paper.
” I have poems for late September , for early October , for the first turning leaf or the first snow .
In the spring semester , you can flip the hourglass and start to monitor , poem by poem , the first cracks in the earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon darkness and cold .
Probably every student I have ever taught has heard me quote Stevens , in “ The Poems of Our Climate , ” on “ the end of winter when afternoons return.
” And so a spring syllabus tells an especially thrilling and encouraging story , whatever the subject matter .
It operates like a rope out of darkness .
If it ’ s a poetry syllabus , the content can be made to interpret—even , seemingly , to rally behind or goad—the action outside the window .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the poetry of Emily Dickinson , such as the one I am teaching just a hundred or so miles from where she lived and wrote , you can see for yourself more or less what she saw , in the temporal order in which she saw it .
“ The Robin ’ s my Criterion for Tune , ” Dickinson writes .
At the window , voilà : a robin .
You can even tell the time of day by her work : “ The Birds begun at Four o ’ clock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the dawn chorus began to swell , and “ Their Voices did expend / As Brook by Brook bestows itself / To multiply the Pond.
” As I write this , the college where I teach , like many colleges in the country , is trying to figure out its way forward in a story in which meanings have suddenly , drastically , and frighteningly changed .
The coronavirus has taken the narrative shape away from both students and professors .
Now every course—indeed , every community—has to decide how to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On campus , the season builds to certain milestones : spring break , which in New England often falls with snow piled to the sills ; the first semi-warm day , when students implore their professors to teach outside and everyone regrets it ; and then the glorious interval of time when the flowers appear , as in a children ’ s pageant—crocuses , daffodils , tulips .
Then trees blossom and the fragrance in the air returns ; then bees , fireflies , exams .
Then a lull ; then you meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billowing robes off the peg in your office , and listen to the speakers at commencement .
Everyone depends on these regular phases , these narrative turns , to manage their sadness at saying goodbye .
The very term “ commencement ” is a cunning rhetorical reframing of what is otherwise , for many people , a time of mourning : you ’ ll never be a college student again ; you may never be so close to these people or this landscape .
College means different things to different students .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject , or an author , or a form of attention or concentration .
It might mean having a safe place where nobody is insulting you .
It might mean coming out , or transitioning .
Or it might mean , for the first time , good and nourishing food .
And so the idea of calling it off , cutting it short , could mean that a student might face violence at home sooner than she ’ d anticipated .
It could mean , for an immunocompromised person , the fear of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I keep thinking especially of students who are in love , and who may be in love in ways not permitted in their homes or communities .
The person you became infatuated with last Thursday is now suddenly going to be on the other side of the world .
I think of students whose identities needed the entirety of spring to play out .
What will they face when sent abruptly home ?
They ’ d just got started .
Greeting the spring often means tallying losses .
If you have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I do , you take a look at the roof and see how it ’ s fared , see what ’ s up with the trees , and see if the patio table can withstand another summer .
If spring means the end of something—as it does for college students , and especially for seniors—the losses are more painful , but somehow the orderly ceremonies of the term can compensate .
For that stately process to be undermined by a panic is obscene ; for the panic to be over a virus—a form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergence and thriving in mind—seems especially frightening .
The virus has taught us all not to touch one another .
It ’ s hard for me to imagine doing a lot of cheek-kissing when I see a friend in the produce aisle anytime soon .
And we may see verbal language , that old reliable , fill in for the “ nonverbal ” ways of marking arrivals and departures .
But , as students get ready to say goodbye to one another , maybe for a long time , it seems a special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not supposed to come into contact .
Not a hug , not even a handshake .
The old ways of holding your body in relation to another person must , apparently , be redesigned , and under conditions in which a show of personal warmth or connectedness seems especially crucial .
I keep thinking of Keats ’ s makeshift sign-off in what is known as his “ last letter ” : “ I can scarcely bid you good bye , even in a letter , ” he writes .
“ I always made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak .
How much of the world is likely to be quarantined ?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus .
The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available .
We are all irrational panic shoppers .
The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome .

A college course is a narrative form, a story told collaboratively, over time. Ideally, the professor establishes early the story’s shape, pacing, and tone, and the syllabus gives the students ideas of where to look for what happens next. But no course—no good, dynamic course—knows ahead of time what story it will tell. Courses can be strangled by too much narrative rigging: a syllabus that spells out too much; a professor who keeps steering the story toward insights hatched ahead of time, months ago, in the cold of January. Or, a course can lose its way by telling no story at all: the students merely wander in, wearing enormous parkas and hats, do their time, write their essays, and wander out, four months later, wearing shorts and T-shirts. In between is a kind of parallel play, as in a sandbox.
I always make a point, whatever I’m teaching, of synchronizing my syllabus to the changes in the seasons, the light, and the weather. This is easier to do with poetry than, say, with math: in November, you can get a class to look out the window by reading them Wallace Stevens’s “The Green Plant,” which describes how the “lion-roses” of October maples have “turned to paper.” I have poems for late September, for early October, for the first turning leaf or the first snow. In the spring semester, you can flip the hourglass and start to monitor, poem by poem, the first cracks in the earth, the little gains made every day upon darkness and cold. Probably every student I have ever taught has heard me quote Stevens, in “The Poems of Our Climate,” on “the end of winter when afternoons return.”
And so a spring syllabus tells an especially thrilling and encouraging story, whatever the subject matter. It operates like a rope out of darkness. If it’s a poetry syllabus, the content can be made to interpret—even, seemingly, to rally behind or goad—the action outside the window. And, if it’s a course on the poetry of Emily Dickinson, such as the one I am teaching just a hundred or so miles from where she lived and wrote, you can see for yourself more or less what she saw, in the temporal order in which she saw it. “The Robin’s my Criterion for Tune,” Dickinson writes. At the window, voilà: a robin. You can even tell the time of day by her work: “The Birds begun at Four o’clock,” she wrote one morning, as the dawn chorus began to swell, and “Their Voices did expend / As Brook by Brook bestows itself / To multiply the Pond.”
As I write this, the college where I teach, like many colleges in the country, is trying to figure out its way forward in a story in which meanings have suddenly, drastically, and frighteningly changed. The coronavirus has taken the narrative shape away from both students and professors. Now every course—indeed, every community—has to decide how to think about elapsing time made suddenly terrifying. On campus, the season builds to certain milestones: spring break, which in New England often falls with snow piled to the sills; the first semi-warm day, when students implore their professors to teach outside and everyone regrets it; and then the glorious interval of time when the flowers appear, as in a children’s pageant—crocuses, daffodils, tulips. Then trees blossom and the fragrance in the air returns; then bees, fireflies, exams. Then a lull; then you meet people’s parents, take the billowing robes off the peg in your office, and listen to the speakers at commencement.
Everyone depends on these regular phases, these narrative turns, to manage their sadness at saying goodbye. The very term “commencement” is a cunning rhetorical reframing of what is otherwise, for many people, a time of mourning: you’ll never be a college student again; you may never be so close to these people or this landscape. College means different things to different students. It might mean falling in love with a subject, or an author, or a form of attention or concentration. It might mean having a safe place where nobody is insulting you. It might mean coming out, or transitioning. Or it might mean, for the first time, good and nourishing food.
And so the idea of calling it off, cutting it short, could mean that a student might face violence at home sooner than she’d anticipated. It could mean, for an immunocompromised person, the fear of a reunion with her daughter or granddaughter. I keep thinking especially of students who are in love, and who may be in love in ways not permitted in their homes or communities. The person you became infatuated with last Thursday is now suddenly going to be on the other side of the world. I think of students whose identities needed the entirety of spring to play out. What will they face when sent abruptly home? They’d just got started.
Greeting the spring often means tallying losses. If you have a house and a little yard, as I do, you take a look at the roof and see how it’s fared, see what’s up with the trees, and see if the patio table can withstand another summer. If spring means the end of something—as it does for college students, and especially for seniors—the losses are more painful, but somehow the orderly ceremonies of the term can compensate. For that stately process to be undermined by a panic is obscene; for the panic to be over a virus—a form of life with only its own spring-like emergence and thriving in mind—seems especially frightening.
The virus has taught us all not to touch one another. It’s hard for me to imagine doing a lot of cheek-kissing when I see a friend in the produce aisle anytime soon. And we may see verbal language, that old reliable, fill in for the “nonverbal” ways of marking arrivals and departures. But, as students get ready to say goodbye to one another, maybe for a long time, it seems a special kind of irony that they’re not supposed to come into contact. Not a hug, not even a handshake. The old ways of holding your body in relation to another person must, apparently, be redesigned, and under conditions in which a show of personal warmth or connectedness seems especially crucial. I keep thinking of Keats’s makeshift sign-off in what is known as his “last letter”: “I can scarcely bid you good bye, even in a letter,” he writes. “I always made an awkward bow.”
A Guide to the Coronavirus
What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak.
How much of the world is likely to be quarantined?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus.
The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available.
We are all irrational panic shoppers.
The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome.
How pandemics change history.


newyorker--2020-03-12--An Underheralded Pianist Whose Life’s Work Is on YouTube

When a Twitter acquaintance put out a call the other day for followers to “ Describe Your Taste in 10 Female Voices , ” I was game , because it was as much a chance to learn from others ’ choices of noteworthy artists as to share enthusiasms of my own .
The list I offered ranged from Mary Lou Williams and Dawn Powell to Marguerite Duras and Gena Rowlands , and also included one lesser-known artist whom I similarly revere : Eunice Norton , a classical pianist ( who was born in 1908 and died in 2005 ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with almost exclusively from YouTube clips , of which there are more than a hundred .
The Eunice Norton Archive , her YouTube channel , carries listeners straight to an astounding performance , one that , had it been well known in its time , would likely have been history-making : her 1942 recording of Bach ’ s “ Goldberg Variations , ” which the site calls the first ever done on a piano rather than a harpsichord .
( Claudio Arrau ’ s recording of it on piano was made in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t released until 1988 . )
Norton plays the vast and intricate composition with glittering angularity and tactile intensity , intellectual grandeur and joyful energy that make it , from the start , no less bracing and imaginative than Glenn Gould ’ s celebrated 1955 recording .
It should have made her a name to reckon with , rather than one of the thrilling obscurities of artistic history .
The site offers extended recordings of discussions with Norton , too ( fans of the podcast format will delight in Norton ’ s voice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written interviews , such as one with Bernard Jacobsen , from 1997 .
A child prodigy , Norton was whisked from her native Minneapolis to London when the great pianist Myra Hess arranged for the young Norton study with Hess ’ s own piano teacher , Tobias Matthay .
While still a teen-ager , Norton launched her concert career ; in 1932 , she heard Artur Schnabel play Beethoven ( he was in the midst of an epochal project , the first complete recording of Beethoven ’ s thirty-two piano sonatas ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
But then she married a British chemist , Bernard Lewis , and , as one obituary reported , “ settled in .
.
.
to raise a family ” and “ shifted her emphasis to teaching.
” An unsigned article on the Norton site gives the rest of the story , which is depressingly exemplary of many great female artists ’ trajectories : “ Ultimately it was Norton ’ s management , Columbia Artists , who dealt the decisive blow when they took her off their roster of represented artists.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concert performances with major orchestras “ did not protect her from the idea that a woman should not have a career and a husband simultaneously.
” Norton nonetheless continued to perform and to record ( including privately—Lewis himself made sure that her playing was preserved ) , as in a pair of spectacular , idiosyncratic recordings from 1949 .
One features Sonata No .
21 in B flat , D. 960 , the last sonata by Schubert , a composer whose music ( including this piece ) she performed ( as Schnabel did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This early recording is unique—brisk and pugnacious , a stormy , bitter Schubert raging against his earthly fetters and then distilling his passions , in the last movement , into headlong lunges , dazzling whirls , and delicate pirouettes .
( Its boldness is matched , four decades later , by the reckless thrust and the chorale-like rapture of her 1987 concert performance of Schubert ’ s Sonata No .
17 in D , D. 850 , from Pittsburgh ’ s Frick Auditorium . )
Two other early recordings indicate the power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The 1949 performance of Chopin ’ s Preludes , Op .
28 , is a modernistic , whirlwind interpretation of the composer ’ s fiery romanticism and visionary complexities .
( She sustained this ardent view of the composer throughout her career , as in a 1979 recording of Chopin ’ s Nocturne in G , Op .
37 , No .
2 . )
And Norton ’ s devotion to twentieth-century music is seen in her 1950 recording of transcriptions of two movements from Stravinsky ’ s “ Petrushka , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abruptness that characterize his later work .
But the center of Norton ’ s career , like the center of Schnabel ’ s , was Beethoven .
In one of the discussions featured in the archive , Norton cites and demonstrates what she deemed “ the most unique feature of Schnabel ’ s teaching , ” namely , “ to think in shapes.
” She adds , “ When you think in shapes , you ’ re getting very close to the process of the composer , you feel that you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Other analysis , she says , is “ too abstract , ” whereas “ when you think in shapes , it ’ s not abstract at all.
” Norton and Lewis had a summer house in the small town of Peacham , Vermont , and she turned it into a hive of musical activity , teaching small groups of students there , launching a summer music festival , and giving concerts in the town church .
Many of her later recordings come from Peacham , and they make clear both the ferocious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she derived from Schnabel ’ s insights .
This 1977 performance from Peacham of Beethoven ’ s last sonata , No .
32 , in C minor , Op .
111 , has a terrifying , apocalyptic fury to match its celestial wonder .
Her last recording of Beethoven ’ s colossal Diabelli Variations , Op .
120 , his ultimate piano masterwork ( a vast and comprehensive work that bookends Bach ’ s Goldberg Variations ) , spans the hushed momentousness of the occasion—a private 1989 concert at her home after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ titanic essence of Beethoven ’ s creative power .

Eunice Norton played with ferocious spiritual devotion and rugged physical intensity. Photograph from Ullstein Bild / Getty
When a Twitter acquaintance put out a call the other day for followers to “Describe Your Taste in 10 Female Voices,” I was game, because it was as much a chance to learn from others’ choices of noteworthy artists as to share enthusiasms of my own. The list I offered ranged from Mary Lou Williams and Dawn Powell to Marguerite Duras and Gena Rowlands, and also included one lesser-known artist whom I similarly revere: Eunice Norton, a classical pianist (who was born in 1908 and died in 2005), whose work I’ve become familiar with almost exclusively from YouTube clips, of which there are more than a hundred.
The Eunice Norton Archive, her YouTube channel, carries listeners straight to an astounding performance, one that, had it been well known in its time, would likely have been history-making: her 1942 recording of Bach’s “Goldberg Variations,” which the site calls the first ever done on a piano rather than a harpsichord. (Claudio Arrau’s recording of it on piano was made in the same year, but it wasn’t released until 1988.) Norton plays the vast and intricate composition with glittering angularity and tactile intensity, intellectual grandeur and joyful energy that make it, from the start, no less bracing and imaginative than Glenn Gould’s celebrated 1955 recording. It should have made her a name to reckon with, rather than one of the thrilling obscurities of artistic history.
The site offers extended recordings of discussions with Norton, too (fans of the podcast format will delight in Norton’s voice and reminiscences), as well as written interviews, such as one with Bernard Jacobsen, from 1997. A child prodigy, Norton was whisked from her native Minneapolis to London when the great pianist Myra Hess arranged for the young Norton study with Hess’s own piano teacher, Tobias Matthay. While still a teen-ager, Norton launched her concert career; in 1932, she heard Artur Schnabel play Beethoven (he was in the midst of an epochal project, the first complete recording of Beethoven’s thirty-two piano sonatas) and spent the next three years studying with him. But then she married a British chemist, Bernard Lewis, and, as one obituary reported, “settled in . . . to raise a family” and “shifted her emphasis to teaching.” An unsigned article on the Norton site gives the rest of the story, which is depressingly exemplary of many great female artists’ trajectories: “Ultimately it was Norton’s management, Columbia Artists, who dealt the decisive blow when they took her off their roster of represented artists.” The piece adds that her many acclaimed concert performances with major orchestras “did not protect her from the idea that a woman should not have a career and a husband simultaneously.”
Norton nonetheless continued to perform and to record (including privately—Lewis himself made sure that her playing was preserved), as in a pair of spectacular, idiosyncratic recordings from 1949. One features Sonata No. 21 in B flat, D. 960, the last sonata by Schubert, a composer whose music (including this piece) she performed (as Schnabel did) obsessively and audaciously throughout her life. This early recording is unique—brisk and pugnacious, a stormy, bitter Schubert raging against his earthly fetters and then distilling his passions, in the last movement, into headlong lunges, dazzling whirls, and delicate pirouettes. (Its boldness is matched, four decades later, by the reckless thrust and the chorale-like rapture of her 1987 concert performance of Schubert’s Sonata No. 17 in D, D. 850, from Pittsburgh’s Frick Auditorium.)
Two other early recordings indicate the power and range of Norton’s art. The 1949 performance of Chopin’s Preludes, Op. 28, is a modernistic, whirlwind interpretation of the composer’s fiery romanticism and visionary complexities. (She sustained this ardent view of the composer throughout her career, as in a 1979 recording of Chopin’s Nocturne in G, Op. 37, No. 2.) And Norton’s devotion to twentieth-century music is seen in her 1950 recording of transcriptions of two movements from Stravinsky’s “Petrushka,” where she brings out the dissonances and abruptness that characterize his later work. But the center of Norton’s career, like the center of Schnabel’s, was Beethoven. In one of the discussions featured in the archive, Norton cites and demonstrates what she deemed “the most unique feature of Schnabel’s teaching,” namely, “to think in shapes.” She adds, “When you think in shapes, you’re getting very close to the process of the composer, you feel that you’re entering into his imagination and his creativity.” Other analysis, she says, is “too abstract,” whereas “when you think in shapes, it’s not abstract at all.”
Norton and Lewis had a summer house in the small town of Peacham, Vermont, and she turned it into a hive of musical activity, teaching small groups of students there, launching a summer music festival, and giving concerts in the town church. Many of her later recordings come from Peacham, and they make clear both the ferocious spiritual devotion and the ruggedly physical intensity that she derived from Schnabel’s insights. This 1977 performance from Peacham of Beethoven’s last sonata, No. 32, in C minor, Op. 111, has a terrifying, apocalyptic fury to match its celestial wonder. Her last recording of Beethoven’s colossal Diabelli Variations, Op. 120, his ultimate piano masterwork (a vast and comprehensive work that bookends Bach’s Goldberg Variations), spans the hushed momentousness of the occasion—a private 1989 concert at her home after her recovery from surgery and injury—and the titanic essence of Beethoven’s creative power.


newyorker--2020-03-12--Joe Biden Is Giving the Donald Trump White House Reasons to Be Worried

When Joe Biden entered the Democratic Presidential primary , last spring , he put forward a straightforward case for why he would be the best choice for the Party .
In addition to gaining the support of the Democratic Party base , which consists of minority voters and highly educated whites , Biden argued that he could win over some white working-class Americans , particularly in the industrial Midwest , who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 .
Appearing before a crowd of Teamsters and firefighters in Pittsburgh , Biden said , “ If I ’ m going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s going to happen here.
” The results from Tuesday ’ s primary in Michigan , a state that Trump carried in the 2016 general election by eleven thousand votes , provided the strongest evidence yet that Biden ’ s electoral strategy may be a viable one .
Having already scored important primary victories in South Carolina and other Southern states , where black voters form the biggest portion of the Democratic electorate , the former Vice-President defeated Bernie Sanders by a sixteen-point margin in Michigan , where , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ college degrees were the largest single voting bloc .
In the 2016 Michigan primary , Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton narrowly .
A key element of his victory , as evidenced by an exit poll carried out at the time , was that he got fifty-seven per cent of the white non-college vote , to Clinton ’ s forty-two per cent .
Sanders ’ s populist message clearly resonated with white working-class Democrats in Michigan—and , in retrospect , Clinton ’ s weakness in this demographic augured badly for the general election .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win Michigan : he carried all of its eighty-three counties , including many rural ones .
He captured fifty per cent of the white non-college vote , according to the exit poll , while Sanders got just forty-three per cent .
There was also something of a gender gap .
Among white women with no college degree , Biden got fifty-five per cent of the vote ; Sanders got forty-two per cent .
Among white men who don ’ t have college degrees , Biden tied Sanders , at forty-four per cent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ did considerably better than Clinton did in 2016 .
Of course , you can ’ t directly translate the results of a Democratic primary to a general election , where the voting pool is much bigger and more conservative .
In 2016 , about 4.8 million people voted in the general election in Michigan , compared to 1.2 million who voted in the Democratic primary .
But you can ’ t ignore the results of primary elections , either .
“ You have to be careful about the signal-to-noise ratio , but there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ruy Teixeira , a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and an expert on electoral demographics , told me on Wednesday .
“ It seems to fit the proposition that Biden is putting forward .
If I was part of the Trump campaign , I ’ d be a little concerned.
” That might be an understatement .
In a recent analysis of what it will take to win the Presidency in 2020 , Teixeira and a colleague , John Halpin , pointed out that in November , 2016 , whites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per cent of the electorate , making them the largest single group , and Trump carried them by more than twenty points .
In 2020 , Trump is once more basing his campaign on appealing to these voters and getting more of them to turn out .
The good news for the Democrats—and the worrying thing for the President—is that they don ’ t need to eliminate Trump ’ s advantage with white working-class voters , which would be a huge task .
Given the Democrats ’ advantage in other demographics , merely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group to more manageable levels could be sufficient to carry Biden to the White House .
Take Michigan again .
In 2016 , Trump ’ s extremely narrow victory there relied on a margin of twenty-one points among whites without college degrees .
( He got fifty-seven per cent , and Clinton got thirty-six per cent . )
In their analysis , Teixeira and Halpin show that , if Biden can replicate Barack Obama ’ s performance in 2012 , and reduce this margin to ten points , it would help boost his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage points .
That would virtually guarantee Biden sixteen votes in the electoral college .
“ The same analysis applies , with different levels of difficulty , to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin , ” Teixeira told me .
In Pennsylvania , which Trump won by forty-four thousand votes in 2016 , white non-college voters made up fifty-one per cent of the electorate , and Trump carried them by thirty points .
According to Teixeira and Halpin ’ s study , if Biden could reduce this margin by even five points , it “ would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state.
” In Wisconsin , which Trump won by twenty-three thousand votes , whites without college degrees formed an even bigger share of the November , 2016 , electorate—fifty-eight per cent—and Trump ’ s margin was eighteen points .
Of course , gaining more support among white working-class voters is only part of the 2020 equation for Democrats .
Just as important is boosting turnout in minority communities and pressing home the advantage in suburban precincts that the Party enjoyed in the 2018 midterms .
The winning strategy requires two parts : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while minimizing Trump ’ s advantage in his favored demographic .
In terms of the Democrat-leaning groups , there have also been some encouraging signs for Biden .
In South Carolina and other states across the South , he has attracted a great deal of support from African-American voters .
( In Hispanic communities , where Sanders has run strongly , Biden needs to improve his performance . )
In many suburban areas , too , the former Vice- President has done well .
In Missouri , on Tuesday , he got more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the suburban parts of Jackson County , around Kansas City , and it was a similar story in the areas around St. Louis .
In Michigan ’ s Macomb County , once known as the home of the “ Reagan Democrats , ” he finished ahead of Sanders by about seventeen points ; in neighboring Oakland County , his victory margin was almost twenty-three points .
Both of these results represented a big improvement on Clinton ’ s performance in 2016 .
To repeat , this only was a primary election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ go until November 3rd .
There are legitimate worries about Biden ’ s capacity to sustain a long campaign , and he needs to bring Sanders supporters on board .
As the election gets closer , Trump and his allies will bombard the electorate with personal attacks and disinformation .
Anything could happen .
But at least on Tuesday , as Kate Bedingfield , the deputy manager of the Biden campaign , pointed out to MSNBC , “ Joe Biden won the votes we have to win to beat Donald Trump .
”

When Joe Biden entered the Democratic Presidential primary, last spring, he put forward a straightforward case for why he would be the best choice for the Party. In addition to gaining the support of the Democratic Party base, which consists of minority voters and highly educated whites, Biden argued that he could win over some white working-class Americans, particularly in the industrial Midwest, who voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Appearing before a crowd of Teamsters and firefighters in Pittsburgh, Biden said, “If I’m going to be able to beat Donald Trump in 2020, it’s going to happen here.”
The results from Tuesday’s primary in Michigan, a state that Trump carried in the 2016 general election by eleven thousand votes, provided the strongest evidence yet that Biden’s electoral strategy may be a viable one. Having already scored important primary victories in South Carolina and other Southern states, where black voters form the biggest portion of the Democratic electorate, the former Vice-President defeated Bernie Sanders by a sixteen-point margin in Michigan, where, according to an exit poll, whites without college degrees were the largest single voting bloc.
In the 2016 Michigan primary, Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton narrowly. A key element of his victory, as evidenced by an exit poll carried out at the time, was that he got fifty-seven per cent of the white non-college vote, to Clinton’s forty-two per cent. Sanders’s populist message clearly resonated with white working-class Democrats in Michigan—and, in retrospect, Clinton’s weakness in this demographic augured badly for the general election.
On Tuesday, Biden didn’t just win Michigan: he carried all of its eighty-three counties, including many rural ones. He captured fifty per cent of the white non-college vote, according to the exit poll, while Sanders got just forty-three per cent. There was also something of a gender gap. Among white women with no college degree, Biden got fifty-five per cent of the vote; Sanders got forty-two per cent. Among white men who don’t have college degrees, Biden tied Sanders, at forty-four per cent. But, in both cases, he did considerably better than Clinton did in 2016.
Of course, you can’t directly translate the results of a Democratic primary to a general election, where the voting pool is much bigger and more conservative. In 2016, about 4.8 million people voted in the general election in Michigan, compared to 1.2 million who voted in the Democratic primary. But you can’t ignore the results of primary elections, either. “You have to be careful about the signal-to-noise ratio, but there is certainly some signal there,” Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and an expert on electoral demographics, told me on Wednesday. “It seems to fit the proposition that Biden is putting forward. If I was part of the Trump campaign, I’d be a little concerned.”
That might be an understatement. In a recent analysis of what it will take to win the Presidency in 2020, Teixeira and a colleague, John Halpin, pointed out that in November, 2016, whites without college degrees made up about forty-four per cent of the electorate, making them the largest single group, and Trump carried them by more than twenty points. In 2020, Trump is once more basing his campaign on appealing to these voters and getting more of them to turn out. The good news for the Democrats—and the worrying thing for the President—is that they don’t need to eliminate Trump’s advantage with white working-class voters, which would be a huge task. Given the Democrats’ advantage in other demographics, merely restricting Trump’s advantage with that group to more manageable levels could be sufficient to carry Biden to the White House.
Take Michigan again. In 2016, Trump’s extremely narrow victory there relied on a margin of twenty-one points among whites without college degrees. (He got fifty-seven per cent, and Clinton got thirty-six per cent.) In their analysis, Teixeira and Halpin show that, if Biden can replicate Barack Obama’s performance in 2012, and reduce this margin to ten points, it would help boost his over-all vote in the state by five percentage points. That would virtually guarantee Biden sixteen votes in the electoral college.
“The same analysis applies, with different levels of difficulty, to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin,” Teixeira told me. In Pennsylvania, which Trump won by forty-four thousand votes in 2016, white non-college voters made up fifty-one per cent of the electorate, and Trump carried them by thirty points. According to Teixeira and Halpin’s study, if Biden could reduce this margin by even five points, it “would give the Democrats a several-point cushion in the state.” In Wisconsin, which Trump won by twenty-three thousand votes, whites without college degrees formed an even bigger share of the November, 2016, electorate—fifty-eight per cent—and Trump’s margin was eighteen points.
Of course, gaining more support among white working-class voters is only part of the 2020 equation for Democrats. Just as important is boosting turnout in minority communities and pressing home the advantage in suburban precincts that the Party enjoyed in the 2018 midterms. The winning strategy requires two parts: enthusing and turning out the Obama coalition while minimizing Trump’s advantage in his favored demographic.
In terms of the Democrat-leaning groups, there have also been some encouraging signs for Biden. In South Carolina and other states across the South, he has attracted a great deal of support from African-American voters. (In Hispanic communities, where Sanders has run strongly, Biden needs to improve his performance.) In many suburban areas, too, the former Vice- President has done well. In Missouri, on Tuesday, he got more than sixty per cent of the vote in the suburban parts of Jackson County, around Kansas City, and it was a similar story in the areas around St. Louis. In Michigan’s Macomb County, once known as the home of the “Reagan Democrats,” he finished ahead of Sanders by about seventeen points; in neighboring Oakland County, his victory margin was almost twenty-three points. Both of these results represented a big improvement on Clinton’s performance in 2016.
To repeat, this only was a primary election. There is a very long way to go until November 3rd. There are legitimate worries about Biden’s capacity to sustain a long campaign, and he needs to bring Sanders supporters on board. As the election gets closer, Trump and his allies will bombard the electorate with personal attacks and disinformation. Anything could happen. But at least on Tuesday, as Kate Bedingfield, the deputy manager of the Biden campaign, pointed out to MSNBC, “Joe Biden won the votes we have to win to beat Donald Trump.”


newyorker--2020-03-12--Coping, Camaraderie, and Human Evolution Amid the Coronavirus Crisis

Across the globe , a coronavirus culture is emerging , spontaneously and creatively , to deal with public fear , restrictions on daily life , and the tedious isolation of quarantine .
“ This is a bad science-fiction movie that is real , ” Agustín Fuentes , an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Notre Dame , told me , in a late-night discussion this week , about how COVID-19 may alter the human journey .
He envisions a profound evolutionary process to insure the survival of the species as pandemics become more common .
It ’ s already visible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humanity is connection .
The kind of quarantines—in New York and Seattle , and what will happen in thousands of other places in the United States—will require people to connect in other ways , ” he said .
“ One of the amazing things about the human species—once harmless critters not much more than monkeys running around—is that , over time , we have become very creative .
We ’ ve adapted to survive .
That ’ s what people will rely on now—coming up with incredibly imaginative ways to find connections even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same physical space together.
” In these early days of the global pandemic , human creativity has centered largely on simple forms of relief and release .
In China , the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak and a nation where almost eight hundred million people have experienced some form of lockdown , night clubs that were forced to shut their doors have turned to virtual “ cloud clubbing.
” Viewers can watch d.j .
sets on streaming platforms and send in messages to be read live , to create the illusion that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Home Karaoke Station ” features famous singers taking requests , engaging with viewers , and performing—from self-quarantine in their own homes .
Shuttered gyms have offered workout classes online or via the popular WeChat social-messaging app .
Other Chinese people on WeChat created a group looking for love under lockdown .
In one of the twenty-plus mass-quarantine centers in Wuhan , the megacity where this coronavirus first emerged , women have turned to karaoke to lift the spirits of sequestered groups .
At night , echoes of “ Wuhan Jiayou ” —or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard as Chinese shout encouragement at each other from their windows .
In Iran , another of the COVID-19 “ red zones , ” doctors and nurses—individually and in groups—have participated in a coronavirus dance challenge , posting videos of themselves dancing to lively music in hazmat suits .
Other medical staff in quarantine serenaded each other or brought instruments to perform for sequestered patients .
A third-grade teacher in Khuzestan Province improvised to keep her classes going online after schools were closed nationwide .
Stuck at home , she used the side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With a blue marker , she wrote out the rules , with diagrams , to explain how to calculate the area of squares , rectangles , and triangles .
A photo of her lesson went viral on Twitter .
Over time , the impact of the novel coronavirus may be so sweeping that it alters human rituals and behaviors that have evolved over millennia .
“ This could change everything from the way we conduct our economy to our greeting and grieving rituals , ” Fuentes said .
“ We ’ ve had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before , although this is on an unprecedented scale.
” One of the keys to stemming the Ebola epidemic in West Africa , between 2013 and 2016 , was changing long-standing traditions about dealing with the dead , including touching a corpse before burial .
In just one case , in 2014 , twenty-eight people became ill with Ebola from the three-day funeral of a prominent pharmacist in Sierra Leone ; eight later died .
“ The Ebola virus causes a horrific death .
You bleed all your fluids out , ” Terrence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the University of California , Berkeley , told me .
“ The worst thing you can do with Ebola is to touch the dead , because their bodies are filled with virus-filled fluids .
People had to go in with guns to prevent families from interacting with their dead.
” Behavior changed ; the epidemic eased .
Traditions develop because they fit the ecology and biology of the times—and get passed on because the people who do them are better off .
The evolution of rituals has already begun in small ways—not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meetings virtually .
Around the world , many people have stopped shaking hands , a tradition that originated as a sign of trust but is now the most common way of transmitting the disease .
“ We ’ re such a social species that it ’ s hard not to touch each other , ” Deacon said .
“ So much of our communication is about touch .
We don ’ t have conventions about how to behave under circumstances like these .
We ’ ll develop new cultural habits , new tricks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re already experimenting.
” After the coronavirus outbreak , he attended a workshop of his peers at Stanford .
“ People were bowing or touching elbows .
We didn ’ t know what to do , ” he said .
“ But we knew we had to avoid shaking hands.
” I asked Deacon if he thought COVID-19 would mark the end of the handshake .
“ It could be , ” he replied .
“ Behaviors are driven by the context .
Shaking hands is about trust .
If that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then it affects our trust markers.
” Last week , Sylvie Briand , the director of the Department of Pandemic and Epidemic diseases at the World Health Organization , tweeted a cartoon of “ handshake alternatives , ” captioned “ the elbow , ” the “ Thai wai ” bow with hands together in front , and a sort of queenly wave .
“ We need to adapt to this new disease , ” Briand wrote .
In China , the so-called Wuhan shake—a kind of foot-shake , tapping shoes together—emerged initially in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ceremonial opening of a bridge in Tehran last month , the mayor and the provincial governor traded fist-bump gestures , coming close but not touching their hands .
In Europe , adaptations to COVID-19 even crept into Fashion Week last month .
Giorgio Armani cancelled his show at Milan Fashion Week , and instead débuted his winter collection from an empty theatre to an online audience .
Even with no viewers , he opted to wear a face mask .
At Paris Fashion Week , models for Marine Serre strode the catwalk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the front row of Dries Van Noten ’ s show were photographed wearing their own masks .
In Croatia , the designer Zoran Aragović , of the BiteMyStyle brand , created mask accessories in bright colors inspired by comic books , Pop art , and Disney characters .
They ’ re more fashion accessories than medical protection .
The need to adapt almost certainly will not end with a vaccine for COVID-19 .
“ The Darwinian story here is that we are in environments where these viruses mutate .
The common cold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Viruses are evolution in action—on steroids , ” Deacon said .
In the twenty-first century , changes in the pattern of human existence—from global commerce and travel to climate change—could produce viruses that breed faster and move farther .
But Darwinian evolution is not necessarily all bad , Samuel Paul Veissière , an evolutionary anthropologist and the co-director of the Culture , Mind and Brain Program at McGill University , told me .
Quarantines date to Neolithic times—and the transition from hunter-gathering to sedentary agricultural life—when zoonotic pathogens transferred from animals to humans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Communities eventually developed immunities to local diseases , but not to others nearby .
“ It ’ s quite possible that we evolved into being fearful of diseases and of strangers , ” he said .
For millennia , people have been overly attentive to potential threats , because “ our psychological bias makes us assume that there are pathogens in other humans .
”

Across the globe, a coronavirus culture is emerging, spontaneously and creatively, to deal with public fear, restrictions on daily life, and the tedious isolation of quarantine. “This is a bad science-fiction movie that is real,” Agustín Fuentes, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Notre Dame, told me, in a late-night discussion this week, about how COVID-19 may alter the human journey. He envisions a profound evolutionary process to insure the survival of the species as pandemics become more common. It’s already visible.
“What is so important to humanity is connection. The kind of quarantines—in New York and Seattle, and what will happen in thousands of other places in the United States—will require people to connect in other ways,” he said. “One of the amazing things about the human species—once harmless critters not much more than monkeys running around—is that, over time, we have become very creative. We’ve adapted to survive. That’s what people will rely on now—coming up with incredibly imaginative ways to find connections even when they’re not in the same physical space together.”
In these early days of the global pandemic, human creativity has centered largely on simple forms of relief and release. In China, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak and a nation where almost eight hundred million people have experienced some form of lockdown, night clubs that were forced to shut their doors have turned to virtual “cloud clubbing.” Viewers can watch d.j. sets on streaming platforms and send in messages to be read live, to create the illusion that they are connected. The new reality show “Home Karaoke Station” features famous singers taking requests, engaging with viewers, and performing—from self-quarantine in their own homes. Shuttered gyms have offered workout classes online or via the popular WeChat social-messaging app. Other Chinese people on WeChat created a group looking for love under lockdown. In one of the twenty-plus mass-quarantine centers in Wuhan, the megacity where this coronavirus first emerged, women have turned to karaoke to lift the spirits of sequestered groups. At night, echoes of “Wuhan Jiayou”—or “Stay Strong Wuhan”—have been heard as Chinese shout encouragement at each other from their windows.
The new reality show “Home Karaoke Station,” in China, features famous singers taking requests and performing from self-quarantine in their homes. Source: iQiyi
In Iran, another of the COVID-19 “red zones,” doctors and nurses—individually and in groups—have participated in a coronavirus dance challenge, posting videos of themselves dancing to lively music in hazmat suits. Other medical staff in quarantine serenaded each other or brought instruments to perform for sequestered patients. A third-grade teacher in Khuzestan Province improvised to keep her classes going online after schools were closed nationwide. Stuck at home, she used the side of her refrigerator as a whiteboard. With a blue marker, she wrote out the rules, with diagrams, to explain how to calculate the area of squares, rectangles, and triangles. A photo of her lesson went viral on Twitter.
Over time, the impact of the novel coronavirus may be so sweeping that it alters human rituals and behaviors that have evolved over millennia. “This could change everything from the way we conduct our economy to our greeting and grieving rituals,” Fuentes said. “We’ve had plenty of things thrown up at us before, although this is on an unprecedented scale.”
One of the keys to stemming the Ebola epidemic in West Africa, between 2013 and 2016, was changing long-standing traditions about dealing with the dead, including touching a corpse before burial. In just one case, in 2014, twenty-eight people became ill with Ebola from the three-day funeral of a prominent pharmacist in Sierra Leone; eight later died. “The Ebola virus causes a horrific death. You bleed all your fluids out,” Terrence Deacon, a professor of biological anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, told me. “The worst thing you can do with Ebola is to touch the dead, because their bodies are filled with virus-filled fluids. People had to go in with guns to prevent families from interacting with their dead.” Behavior changed; the epidemic eased.
Traditions develop because they fit the ecology and biology of the times—and get passed on because the people who do them are better off. The evolution of rituals has already begun in small ways—not congregating, not travelling, or attending meetings virtually. Around the world, many people have stopped shaking hands, a tradition that originated as a sign of trust but is now the most common way of transmitting the disease.
“We’re such a social species that it’s hard not to touch each other,” Deacon said. “So much of our communication is about touch. We don’t have conventions about how to behave under circumstances like these. We’ll develop new cultural habits, new tricks, new mnemonics to get by. We’re already experimenting.” After the coronavirus outbreak, he attended a workshop of his peers at Stanford. “People were bowing or touching elbows. We didn’t know what to do,” he said. “But we knew we had to avoid shaking hands.”
I asked Deacon if he thought COVID-19 would mark the end of the handshake. “It could be,” he replied. “Behaviors are driven by the context. Shaking hands is about trust. If that behavior passes on a deadly virus, then it affects our trust markers.”
Last week, Sylvie Briand, the director of the Department of Pandemic and Epidemic diseases at the World Health Organization, tweeted a cartoon of “handshake alternatives,” captioned “the elbow,” the “Thai wai” bow with hands together in front, and a sort of queenly wave. “We need to adapt to this new disease,” Briand wrote. In China, the so-called Wuhan shake—a kind of foot-shake, tapping shoes together—emerged initially in jest but soon in seriousness. At the ceremonial opening of a bridge in Tehran last month, the mayor and the provincial governor traded fist-bump gestures, coming close but not touching their hands.
In Europe, adaptations to COVID-19 even crept into Fashion Week last month. Giorgio Armani cancelled his show at Milan Fashion Week, and instead débuted his winter collection from an empty theatre to an online audience. Even with no viewers, he opted to wear a face mask. At Paris Fashion Week, models for Marine Serre strode the catwalk in outfits with matching masks. Women in the front row of Dries Van Noten’s show were photographed wearing their own masks. In Croatia, the designer Zoran Aragović, of the BiteMyStyle brand, created mask accessories in bright colors inspired by comic books, Pop art, and Disney characters. They’re more fashion accessories than medical protection.
The need to adapt almost certainly will not end with a vaccine for COVID-19. “The Darwinian story here is that we are in environments where these viruses mutate. The common cold is a coronavirus that keeps mutating. Viruses are evolution in action—on steroids,” Deacon said. In the twenty-first century, changes in the pattern of human existence—from global commerce and travel to climate change—could produce viruses that breed faster and move farther.


newyorker--2020-03-12--A President Unequal to the Coronavirus Moment

Crises clarify .
The bigger the crisis , the more the clarity , which is why the incompetence , dishonesty , and sheer callousness of the Trump Presidency have been clearer in recent days than ever before .
As the coronavirus , as of Wednesday an official pandemic , spreads , the lives of Americans depend on the decisions made—or not made , as the case may be—by a President uniquely ill-suited to command in this type of public-health catastrophe .
In that sense , the last few weeks may well have been the most clarifying of Donald Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the nation on Wednesday night , Trump declared war on the “ foreign virus , ” blaming first China and then the European Union for spreading it , and insisting that it carried “ very , very low risk ” for Americans .
The starkly militaristic and nationalistic tone of the address sounded scary and ignorant and utterly inadequate at a time when the country is being radically upended , with travel halting , workplaces and schools shuttering , and hospitals bracing for impact .
The “ foreign virus ” will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European travel ban , which the President announced , any more than it was by a China travel ban , which he had previously decreed .
It is already here in states across the nation , and experts warn that it could infect millions and kill hundreds of thousands in a worst-case scenario .
Trump spoke little about that , beyond a vague nudge to Congress to pass a payroll tax cut and a warning to “ elderly Americans ” to be “ very , very careful ” and avoid “ nonessential travel.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ address the shocking lack of testing of Americans—a stark contrast to the response by other countries—and did not warn the public about or advise them on how to handle the difficult days ahead .
Even the major measure that he announced , the European travel ban , required immediate clarification and correction from Administration officials who said it did not apply to trade , as Trump indicated in his remarks , or permanent residents .
His former homeland-security adviser , Thomas Bossert , immediately panned the ban as a “ poor use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump was detached from the unfolding reality of a global crisis that is unlike any in memory .
I ’ ve watched Presidential speeches for a few decades now .
I can not recall one that was less equal to the moment .
Trump spoke from the Oval Office exactly five weeks to the day since the end of his impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate , which left him with essentially unchecked power after the Republican-led Senate voted against his removal .
So much has happened since the trial , which already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era , but there is a through-line : Trump himself , constantly conflating the national interest with his personal interest .
As the coronavirus spread and the President initially ignored , downplayed , and lied about it—even dismissing coverage of the risks as a media-inflamed “ hoax ” —the costs of the Senate ’ s impeachment decision have been cast in sharp relief .
It will be a long time before we can reckon with the full damage done by an Administration whose incompetence , disinformation , and sheer bungling in the early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once predictable and breathtaking .
The critics were quick to declare this to be Trump ’ s Katrina , Trump ’ s Chernobyl , even Trump ’ s “ Pandumbic , ” as “ The Daily Show ” named it .
What is striking to me , however , is how much the last few weeks represented Trump merely being Trump .
This wasn ’ t a situation in which the folly of the system or the depth of mismanagement was suddenly revealed to the man at the top , but a case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the folly .
It ’ s almost unbelievable from the vantage point of the present moment , when we are in the midst of an officially designated global pandemic and a consequent economic crisis that threatens to plunge the United States and the rest of the planet into a recession , but consider how the President of the United States has spent his time since the coronavirus infection reached America in mid-January .
He has : • None Publicly attacked the judge , prosecutors , and jury forewoman in the case of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political associate who was convicted of lying to Congress and other offenses .
• None Fired his Ambassador to the European Union and a National Security Council adviser on Ukraine , and purged others who figured in the impeachment investigation as he fulminated to aides about “ snakes ” in his Administration .
• None Fired the acting director of National Intelligence , after an intelligence briefing to Congress about Russia ’ s ongoing efforts to interfere in the 2020 election .
• None Nominated as his new director of National Intelligence a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to withdraw from the exact same job last summer for inflating his résumé .
• None Sued , through his campaign , the Times , CNN , and the Washington Post for publishing opinion articles that he did not like .
• None Installed a new , twenty-nine-year-old personnel chief in the White House who had been previously fired and marched off the premises , and gave him a mandate to revamp the vetting process for Administration officials , with a new emphasis on loyalty .
As the novel coronavirus spread from China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States , Trump used his Presidential Twitter feed , his four campaign rallies , his trip to India , and various public appearances in February to attack by name dozens of targets , including the Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor ; “ Crazy Nancy Pelosi ” and her “ impeachment hoax ” ; the “ failed ” and “ sanctimonious ” Senator Mitt Romney ; the “ puppet ” Senator Joe Manchin ; the “ lightweight ” Senator Doug Jones , a “ Do Nothing Stiff ” ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Federal Reserve ; John Kelly , his former White House chief of staff , who was in “ way over his head ” ; and Jeff Sessions , his former Attorney General .
The President , who has made name-calling such a signature of his boorish public persona that it is rarely even pointed out any more , also found time to demean the Democratic Presidential candidates running against him— “ Mini Mike ” Bloomberg came in for particular animus before he dropped out , belittled by the President as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weak and unsteady ” “ 5 ’ 4 ” mass of dead energy.
” As criticism of his response to the virus escalated , Trump doubled down on his attack on journalists as “ the enemy of the people ” and targeted individual journalists by name , calling them “ wacko ” and talentless .

Crises clarify. The bigger the crisis, the more the clarity, which is why the incompetence, dishonesty, and sheer callousness of the Trump Presidency have been clearer in recent days than ever before. As the coronavirus, as of Wednesday an official pandemic, spreads, the lives of Americans depend on the decisions made—or not made, as the case may be—by a President uniquely ill-suited to command in this type of public-health catastrophe. In that sense, the last few weeks may well have been the most clarifying of Donald Trump’s Presidency.
In a prime-time address to the nation on Wednesday night, Trump declared war on the “foreign virus,” blaming first China and then the European Union for spreading it, and insisting that it carried “very, very low risk” for Americans. The starkly militaristic and nationalistic tone of the address sounded scary and ignorant and utterly inadequate at a time when the country is being radically upended, with travel halting, workplaces and schools shuttering, and hospitals bracing for impact. The “foreign virus” will not be contained or shut out by a European travel ban, which the President announced, any more than it was by a China travel ban, which he had previously decreed. It is already here in states across the nation, and experts warn that it could infect millions and kill hundreds of thousands in a worst-case scenario. Trump spoke little about that, beyond a vague nudge to Congress to pass a payroll tax cut and a warning to “elderly Americans” to be “very, very careful” and avoid “nonessential travel.” He failed to explain or even address the shocking lack of testing of Americans—a stark contrast to the response by other countries—and did not warn the public about or advise them on how to handle the difficult days ahead. Even the major measure that he announced, the European travel ban, required immediate clarification and correction from Administration officials who said it did not apply to trade, as Trump indicated in his remarks, or permanent residents. His former homeland-security adviser, Thomas Bossert, immediately panned the ban as a “poor use of time & energy.”
In short, Trump was detached from the unfolding reality of a global crisis that is unlike any in memory. I’ve watched Presidential speeches for a few decades now. I cannot recall one that was less equal to the moment.
Trump spoke from the Oval Office exactly five weeks to the day since the end of his impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, which left him with essentially unchecked power after the Republican-led Senate voted against his removal. So much has happened since the trial, which already seems as if it happened in another era, but there is a through-line: Trump himself, constantly conflating the national interest with his personal interest. As the coronavirus spread and the President initially ignored, downplayed, and lied about it—even dismissing coverage of the risks as a media-inflamed “hoax”—the costs of the Senate’s impeachment decision have been cast in sharp relief. It will be a long time before we can reckon with the full damage done by an Administration whose incompetence, disinformation, and sheer bungling in the early stages of the crisis have been at once predictable and breathtaking.
The critics were quick to declare this to be Trump’s Katrina, Trump’s Chernobyl, even Trump’s “Pandumbic,” as “The Daily Show” named it. What is striking to me, however, is how much the last few weeks represented Trump merely being Trump. This wasn’t a situation in which the folly of the system or the depth of mismanagement was suddenly revealed to the man at the top, but a case in which the man at the top was the folly.
It’s almost unbelievable from the vantage point of the present moment, when we are in the midst of an officially designated global pandemic and a consequent economic crisis that threatens to plunge the United States and the rest of the planet into a recession, but consider how the President of the United States has spent his time since the coronavirus infection reached America in mid-January. He has:
Publicly attacked the judge, prosecutors, and jury forewoman in the case of Roger Stone, Trump’s longtime political associate who was convicted of lying to Congress and other offenses.
Fired his Ambassador to the European Union and a National Security Council adviser on Ukraine, and purged others who figured in the impeachment investigation as he fulminated to aides about “snakes” in his Administration.
Fired the acting director of National Intelligence, after an intelligence briefing to Congress about Russia’s ongoing efforts to interfere in the 2020 election.
Nominated as his new director of National Intelligence a highly partisan Republican congressman who was forced to withdraw from the exact same job last summer for inflating his résumé.
Sued, through his campaign, the Times, CNN, and the Washington Post for publishing opinion articles that he did not like.
Installed a new, twenty-nine-year-old personnel chief in the White House who had been previously fired and marched off the premises, and gave him a mandate to revamp the vetting process for Administration officials, with a new emphasis on loyalty.
As the novel coronavirus spread from China across Asia and Europe and to the United States, Trump used his Presidential Twitter feed, his four campaign rallies, his trip to India, and various public appearances in February to attack by name dozens of targets, including the Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor; “Crazy Nancy Pelosi” and her “impeachment hoax”; the “failed” and “sanctimonious” Senator Mitt Romney; the “puppet” Senator Joe Manchin; the “lightweight” Senator Doug Jones, a “Do Nothing Stiff”; Jay Powell, his appointee as chairman of the Federal Reserve; John Kelly, his former White House chief of staff, who was in “way over his head”; and Jeff Sessions, his former Attorney General.
The President, who has made name-calling such a signature of his boorish public persona that it is rarely even pointed out any more, also found time to demean the Democratic Presidential candidates running against him—“Mini Mike” Bloomberg came in for particular animus before he dropped out, belittled by the President as a “stumbling, bumbling,” “weak and unsteady” “5’4” mass of dead energy.” As criticism of his response to the virus escalated, Trump doubled down on his attack on journalists as “the enemy of the people” and targeted individual journalists by name, calling them “wacko” and talentless.
All of this he did while the epidemic spread. At the same time, Trump was claiming that the illness was being contained; that it dies in warmer weather; that it was not coming to the United States; that it was about to disappear; and that it was not very serious. Indeed, had you read only communications from the President about the spreading coronavirus, you would have been subjected to a barrage of lies and misinformation and self-serving bombast, information that even at the time it was being said was clearly and unequivocally untrue.
I reviewed all of the one thousand and forty-nine tweets and retweets that Trump sent in the five weeks between his impeachment acquittal and Wednesday afternoon, counting forty-eight that mentioned coronavirus. By far the largest number of these—twenty-one—bragged in some way about the Administration’s response to a crisis that Trump claimed was being contained because of his fast, early action to shut the “boarders” with China. The next largest group of tweets attacked Democrats or the media or both for not giving him credit, or for seeking to create panic, rather than recognizing what a good job he has been doing. It was only on February 24th that the President sent his first tweet about the illness arriving in America. “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA,” Trump tweeted. At the time, there were fifty-three confirmed cases in the country, a number that by March 1st had risen to more than a hundred. Just last week, Trump told Americans that coronavirus cases were “going very substantially down.”
Amazingly, these statements continued throughout this week, as the World Health Organization finally declared the novel coronavirus to be pandemic and chided nations—read the United States—for “alarming levels of inaction.” On Sunday, Trump claimed, “We have a perfectly coordinated and fine tuned plan at the White House for our attack on CoronaVirus.” On Monday, before the stock market crashed and a congressman who had flown with him on Air Force One had to quarantine himself, the President began the day by blaming the media and Democrats for seeking “to inflame the CoronaVirus situation, far beyond what the facts would warrant.” By the end of that catastrophic day, an unrepentant Trump appeared at a White House press conference and said, “We have been handling it very well” before promising a major, very, very big economic recovery proposal with no specifics. He concluded, “This blindsided the world, and I think we’ve handled it very, very well.” On Tuesday, he returned to this theme after visiting the Capitol for a private lunch with applauding Republican senators. “It will go away,” Trump said of the virus, on the day that more than a thousand cases were registered in the United States. “Just stay calm. It will go away.”
We don’t know whether this is Trump’s long-delayed reckoning, the overdue moment of accountability for a man who has escaped such reckonings his entire life. The election is not for many months. The dizzying events of just the last few weeks—the remarkable upending of the Democratic Presidential race, the hubris and foolishness of the Administration’s initial response to the virus—may be long forgotten by then.
That does not make this any less of a significant milestone in this most unbelievable of American Presidencies. On Wednesday, the respected government medical expert Anthony Fauci told Congress that the worst is yet to come. “Yes, yes it is,” he said. Trump cannot tweet this virus away or lie it into oblivion. The virus does not care if he gives tax cuts to friendly oil barons or bails out his own hotels with federal dollars, possibilities that have been floated in recent days. Trump may believe that only Republicans matter to his political fortunes, but he has yet to find a doctor who can insulate his base, and his base only, from the ravages of this disease. Nor will he.
Trump has spent years devaluing and diminishing facts, experts, institutions, and science—the very things upon which we must rely in a crisis—and his default setting during the coronavirus outbreak has been to deny, delay, deflect, and diminish. His speech on Wednesday night was a disappointment but not a surprise. He told us what we already knew: America is in big trouble.
A Guide to the Coronavirus
What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak.
How much of the world is likely to be quarantined?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus.
The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available.
We are all irrational panic shoppers.
The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome.
How pandemics change history.


newyorker--2020-03-12--Nation Baffled That Former Reality-Show Host Not Prepared for This

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —Millions of Americans are mystified that a former reality-show host is not prepared for this , Americans confirmed on Thursday .
In interviews across the country , individuals expressed shock and bafflement that the vast skill-set necessary to headline a prime-time entertainment program would somehow not be adequate to address a global pandemic .
Harland Dorrinson , a resident of Lexington , Kentucky , said , “ On his TV show , he sat in a big leather chair and barked lines of dialogue that other people had written for him .
I assumed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he ever had to manage an intricate and daunting public-health emergency.
” Tracy Klugian , of Akron , Ohio , was equally puzzled .
“ When I first heard about the coronavirus , I thought , O.K.
, here ’ s his chance to draw on all his years of being an empty vessel for TV producers , ” he said .
“ What went wrong ?
” Daniela Kartpin , of Minneapolis , said that the reality-show host ’ s handling of the pandemic had left her shaken .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faced an existential threat , the best person to grapple with it would be someone who had abused celebrities for our entertainment , ” she said .
“ This whole thing is starting to make me wonder .
”

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Millions of Americans are mystified that a former reality-show host is not prepared for this, Americans confirmed on Thursday.
In interviews across the country, individuals expressed shock and bafflement that the vast skill-set necessary to headline a prime-time entertainment program would somehow not be adequate to address a global pandemic.
Harland Dorrinson, a resident of Lexington, Kentucky, said, “On his TV show, he sat in a big leather chair and barked lines of dialogue that other people had written for him. I assumed that that experience would come in handy if he ever had to manage an intricate and daunting public-health emergency.”
Tracy Klugian, of Akron, Ohio, was equally puzzled. “When I first heard about the coronavirus, I thought, O.K., here’s his chance to draw on all his years of being an empty vessel for TV producers,” he said. “What went wrong?”
Daniela Kartpin, of Minneapolis, said that the reality-show host’s handling of the pandemic had left her shaken. “I always thought that if the country ever faced an existential threat, the best person to grapple with it would be someone who had abused celebrities for our entertainment,” she said. “This whole thing is starting to make me wonder.”


newyorker--2020-03-12--The Day the N.B.A. Games Stopped Because of the Coronavirus

Wednesday morning in Boston was springlike .
Early daffodils bloomed along the Charles River , and , outside my window , children played in the park .
I checked Twitter and saw that , the day before , the number of confirmed cases of the novel coronavirus in Massachusetts had risen , sharply , to ninety-two .
Seventy of the cases were connected to the annual meeting of a pharmaceutical company that is headquartered two miles from my house .
Two miles from me in the other direction , Harvard students had been instructed to vacate their dorms for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other local news , the Boston Celtics had beaten the Indiana Pacers , 114–111 , and clinched a playoff spot .
The game was played in Indiana , in front of an announced crowd of seventeen thousand people .
In Washington , Anthony Fauci , the head of the infectious diseases division at the National Institutes of Health , was testifying before Congress , and he was asked about basketball .
Specifically , he was asked to compare the courses of action that had been followed by the Ivy League , which had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s basketball tournaments , and the N.B.A.
, which had thus far resisted calls to disrupt its games .
“ We would recommend that there not be large crowds , ” Fauci said .
“ If that means not having any people in the audience when the N.B.A .
plays , so be it .
But as a public-health official , anything that has large crowds is something that would give a risk to spread.
” I read his comments around lunchtime , along with the news that the World Health Organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , describing “ alarming levels of inaction.
” Then I checked ESPN.com .
The homepage featured a ranking of the best available NFL free agents .
There was a story about whether the basketball player Zion Williamson ’ s mechanics heightened the risk of injury , and one about the pitcher Yu Darvish ’ s party trick of guessing a person ’ s blood type .
If you squinted , you could find a report about N.B.A .
executives discussing whether to move games to cities that did not have confirmed cases of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and conferences—and church , synagogue , and mosque services—were being cancelled across the country .
A large tennis tournament had been called off , too .
But , otherwise , an industry that brings , collectively , millions of people from distant places into close quarters for the purposes of entertainment largely appeared to be going along as if everything was fine .
The mayor of San Francisco , London Breed , had called , on Friday , for cancelling “ nonessential events , ” and had specifically mentioned sporting events .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State Warriors had hosted the Los Angeles Clippers in San Francisco .
There were “ pockets of empty seats , ” ESPN noted , and signs at the arena asking people who had symptoms of the coronavirus not to enter , but there were still thousands in attendance .
“ I was surprised it was that many fans , ” Doc Rivers , the coach of the Clippers , said .
As colleges had moved courses online and sent students home , N.C.A.A .
officials had reiterated their commitment to holding the March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Spring training games were being played in front of packed crowds that drew significant numbers from local retirement communities—people who are among those most vulnerable to the coronavirus .
Leagues and teams were “ monitoring the situation , ” they said , and consulting with experts .
Players were exchanging more fist bumps and fewer high fives .
On Monday , the N.B.A.
, N.H.L.
, Major League Baseball , and Major League Soccer issued a joint statement banning media members from locker rooms , as if the crucial thing was how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from athletes who play contact sports in front of thousands of people .
Later that day , while speaking to the press in the designated area , the Utah Jazz center Rudy Gobert made light of the new rules by ostentatiously touching each one of the microphones in front of him .
On Wednesday , shortly after Fauci ’ s testimony , San Francisco banned gatherings of more than a thousand people , including Warriors and San Jose Sharks games .
The ownership group of the Washington Wizards and Capitals , citing “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NHL , ” declared that the franchises would be ignoring the recommendation of the local Department of Health against gatherings of that size in D.C. Games were set to continue elsewhere , too , including in places , such as New York and Massachusetts , that were officially in states of emergency—although there were reports that N.B.A .
owners , who had a conference call on Wednesday , were now leaning toward holding games without fans .
The N.C.A.A .
finally revised its plans , announcing that March Madness would be played without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dollars at stake , of course .
Hour by hour—and then , it seemed , minute by minute—developments were accelerating .
By the end of the day , it was hard to keep pace .
On Wednesday night , the Utah Jazz had a game against the Oklahoma City Thunder , in Oklahoma .
Gobert was not going to play ; the reason given was illness .
The starting lineups were announced , and the game was about to start , when , ESPN ’ s Royce Young reported , Donnie Strack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human and player performance , sprinted to the court and stopped the officials .
The players were pulled off the court and told to head back to the locker rooms .
A half hour passed before the crowd in the stands were told that , “ due to unforeseen circumstances , ” the game had been postponed .
Fans booed .
Within the hour , Shams Charania , of the Athletic , reported that Gobert had received a preliminary positive result in a test for COVID-19 .
Minutes later , both Charania and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on Twitter , that the N.B.A .
season had been suspended .
What was unimaginable a month ago had become merely unthinkable , and then , in the course of a single day , inevitable—and still , when the news arrived , it was a shock .
It has always been a race , trying to contain a fast-spreading virus .
Only no one knows precisely when the race began , or how long it will be , or where it will end .
A game between the New Orleans Pelicans and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played on Wednesday night .
When the Pelicans players , having heard the reporting about Gobert , learned that one of the refs had recently officiated a Jazz game , they stayed in their locker room .
Eventually , that game was also postponed .
In the meantime , players who had faced the Jazz during the previous ten days—members of the Celtics , the Cleveland Cavaliers , the New York Knicks , the Detroit Pistons , and the Toronto Raptors—had been told to self-quarantine , ESPN reported .
The N.H.L.
, which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced that it is “ continuing to consult with medical experts and is evaluating the options.
” When the sun is shining , and kids are at the park , and no one you know is sick , it can be hard to imagine how one sick person becomes seventy sick people , let alone a thousand , or tens of thousands , or millions .
It can be hard to grasp why something that may only be experienced as a mild illness by many people must be treated with such drastic measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and—short of a vaccine or a cure , which will not be here very soon—social distancing is how they are slowed down .
It is among the best of human impulses to unify in times of trouble , and sports are a powerful mechanism for bringing people together , sustaining and strengthening weary spirits .
It is one of the worst aspects of this crisis that coming together can itself be a source of harm .
The best that sports may be able to offer right now is an example for how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay apart .
What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak .
How much of the world is likely to be quarantined ?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus .
The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available .
We are all irrational panic shoppers .
The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome .

Wednesday morning in Boston was springlike. Early daffodils bloomed along the Charles River, and, outside my window, children played in the park. I checked Twitter and saw that, the day before, the number of confirmed cases of the novel coronavirus in Massachusetts had risen, sharply, to ninety-two. Seventy of the cases were connected to the annual meeting of a pharmaceutical company that is headquartered two miles from my house. Two miles from me in the other direction, Harvard students had been instructed to vacate their dorms for the remainder of the school year. In other local news, the Boston Celtics had beaten the Indiana Pacers, 114–111, and clinched a playoff spot. The game was played in Indiana, in front of an announced crowd of seventeen thousand people.
In Washington, Anthony Fauci, the head of the infectious diseases division at the National Institutes of Health, was testifying before Congress, and he was asked about basketball. Specifically, he was asked to compare the courses of action that had been followed by the Ivy League, which had cancelled its men’s and women’s basketball tournaments, and the N.B.A., which had thus far resisted calls to disrupt its games. “We would recommend that there not be large crowds,” Fauci said. “If that means not having any people in the audience when the N.B.A. plays, so be it. But as a public-health official, anything that has large crowds is something that would give a risk to spread.”
I read his comments around lunchtime, along with the news that the World Health Organization had classified the outbreak as a pandemic, describing “alarming levels of inaction.” Then I checked ESPN.com. The homepage featured a ranking of the best available NFL free agents. There was a story about whether the basketball player Zion Williamson’s mechanics heightened the risk of injury, and one about the pitcher Yu Darvish’s party trick of guessing a person’s blood type. If you squinted, you could find a report about N.B.A. executives discussing whether to move games to cities that did not have confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Festivals, parades, and conferences—and church, synagogue, and mosque services—were being cancelled across the country. A large tennis tournament had been called off, too. But, otherwise, an industry that brings, collectively, millions of people from distant places into close quarters for the purposes of entertainment largely appeared to be going along as if everything was fine. The mayor of San Francisco, London Breed, had called, on Friday, for cancelling “nonessential events,” and had specifically mentioned sporting events. But, on Tuesday night, the Golden State Warriors had hosted the Los Angeles Clippers in San Francisco. There were “pockets of empty seats,” ESPN noted, and signs at the arena asking people who had symptoms of the coronavirus not to enter, but there were still thousands in attendance. “I was surprised it was that many fans,” Doc Rivers, the coach of the Clippers, said.
As colleges had moved courses online and sent students home, N.C.A.A. officials had reiterated their commitment to holding the March Madness basketball tournament in the usual fashion. Spring training games were being played in front of packed crowds that drew significant numbers from local retirement communities—people who are among those most vulnerable to the coronavirus. Leagues and teams were “monitoring the situation,” they said, and consulting with experts. Players were exchanging more fist bumps and fewer high fives. On Monday, the N.B.A., N.H.L., Major League Baseball, and Major League Soccer issued a joint statement banning media members from locker rooms, as if the crucial thing was how far a few dozen beat writers stood from athletes who play contact sports in front of thousands of people. Later that day, while speaking to the press in the designated area, the Utah Jazz center Rudy Gobert made light of the new rules by ostentatiously touching each one of the microphones in front of him.
On Wednesday, shortly after Fauci’s testimony, San Francisco banned gatherings of more than a thousand people, including Warriors and San Jose Sharks games. The ownership group of the Washington Wizards and Capitals, citing “the current direction of the NBA and NHL,” declared that the franchises would be ignoring the recommendation of the local Department of Health against gatherings of that size in D.C. Games were set to continue elsewhere, too, including in places, such as New York and Massachusetts, that were officially in states of emergency—although there were reports that N.B.A. owners, who had a conference call on Wednesday, were now leaning toward holding games without fans. The N.C.A.A. finally revised its plans, announcing that March Madness would be played without fans in attendance. There were billions of dollars at stake, of course. Hour by hour—and then, it seemed, minute by minute—developments were accelerating. By the end of the day, it was hard to keep pace.
On Wednesday night, the Utah Jazz had a game against the Oklahoma City Thunder, in Oklahoma. Gobert was not going to play; the reason given was illness. The starting lineups were announced, and the game was about to start, when, ESPN’s Royce Young reported, Donnie Strack, the Thunder’s vice-president of human and player performance, sprinted to the court and stopped the officials. The players were pulled off the court and told to head back to the locker rooms. A half hour passed before the crowd in the stands were told that, “due to unforeseen circumstances,” the game had been postponed. Fans booed. Within the hour, Shams Charania, of the Athletic, reported that Gobert had received a preliminary positive result in a test for COVID-19. Minutes later, both Charania and Adrian Wojnarowski, of ESPN, reported, on Twitter, that the N.B.A. season had been suspended.
What was unimaginable a month ago had become merely unthinkable, and then, in the course of a single day, inevitable—and still, when the news arrived, it was a shock. It has always been a race, trying to contain a fast-spreading virus. Only no one knows precisely when the race began, or how long it will be, or where it will end.
A game between the New Orleans Pelicans and Sacramento Kings was also meant to be played on Wednesday night. When the Pelicans players, having heard the reporting about Gobert, learned that one of the refs had recently officiated a Jazz game, they stayed in their locker room. Eventually, that game was also postponed. In the meantime, players who had faced the Jazz during the previous ten days—members of the Celtics, the Cleveland Cavaliers, the New York Knicks, the Detroit Pistons, and the Toronto Raptors—had been told to self-quarantine, ESPN reported. The N.H.L., which shares multiple venues with the N.B.A., announced that it is “continuing to consult with medical experts and is evaluating the options.”
When the sun is shining, and kids are at the park, and no one you know is sick, it can be hard to imagine how one sick person becomes seventy sick people, let alone a thousand, or tens of thousands, or millions. It can be hard to grasp why something that may only be experienced as a mild illness by many people must be treated with such drastic measures. But this is how epidemics work, and—short of a vaccine or a cure, which will not be here very soon—social distancing is how they are slowed down.
It is among the best of human impulses to unify in times of trouble, and sports are a powerful mechanism for bringing people together, sustaining and strengthening weary spirits. It is one of the worst aspects of this crisis that coming together can itself be a source of harm. The best that sports may be able to offer right now is an example for how we might learn, temporarily, to stay apart.
A Guide to the Coronavirus
What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak.
How much of the world is likely to be quarantined?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus.
The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available.
We are all irrational panic shoppers.
The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome.
How pandemics change history.


newyorker--2020-03-12--A Brief History of Sports

A Brief History of Sports

The first instance of sports occurred three hundred thousand years ago .
A group of incredibly advanced Homo sapiens were days away from discovering electricity , inventing history ’ s most complex language , and perfecting a political system light-years ahead of democracy .
The rock crested over a tree .
An onlooker , Paul , was overtaken by the violent urge to do whatever Edgar had just done , but better , or else he would .
.
.
die ?
Lose his penis ?
He wasn ’ t sure .
Instead of throwing like Edgar , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his hip .
A woman whistled from afar .
“ You did it wrong , ” Edgar said .
“ Didn ’ t you see how I did it ?
” “ I did , ” Paul said , “ and I thought your method could use some oomph.
” A crowd grew .
Alliances formed .
The community split into two factions : those who agreed with Edgar ’ s traditionalism and those who supported Paul ’ s novel approach to the game .
Political scholars tabled their research to debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be throwing rocks .
Kids quit school to focus on tossing rocks for sport .
“ In a few years , ” they told themselves , “ our feats will be known by all.
” That winter , the community starved to death .
The first woman to participate in sports was Lara , a teen-ager in 2400 B.C .
who spent her days watching boys pelt one another with onions until someone either died or yielded .
Suffice it to say , Lara was impressed .
Eventually , Lara decided she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some onions and went to the field .
When the boys arrived , their faces grew red .
“ I smell onions , ” whispered Isaiah , a boy who didn ’ t fully understand wheels .
“ She wants to play with us !
” “ A girl ?
Standing in the field ?
With an armful of onions ?
” said Abraham , a boy who ’ d die in his twenties after mixing up the good fruit with the bad fruit .
“ I ’ m going to vomit !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But right as Isaiah was about to throw the first stone , Lara ’ s instincts kicked in .
She removed one of her seven burlap tunics and began cheering maniacally for the boys .
“ What ’ s she doing ?
” Isaiah said .
“ She looks ridicu— ” “ Stop , ” Abraham said .
“ I can ’ t explain why , but I ’ m pretty sure she ’ s going to have sex with the most impressive player.
” The game began , and Lara continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until the boys were done abusing one another .
Lara ’ s act of survival—applauding boys—remains , to this day , the most common role for women in sports .
Though it might seem like athletes have always had it easy , many of them faced disapproval at home .
“ He could ’ ve been a sculptor , or a warlord , but he threw it all away , ” Constantina , the mother of Georgius , wrote in a diary entry , in 1598 .
“ And for what ?
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” The famous Georgius Galilei , it should be known , was unparalleled at lobbing cantaloupes through bamboo hoops .
His less athletic brother , Galileo , gained fame posthumously .
Though athletes are often injured while playing sports , the risk of physical harm isn ’ t always contained to the game .
One such example is the Great Pine-Cone Toss of 1748 , when Edmund James and George Francis engaged in an epic battle to determine who could hit a target with a pine cone from farthest away .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes promoting the event , during which thirty-four prostitutes were arrested , twelve pounds of opium were confiscated , and seventy-eight carriages were overturned .
None of the town ’ s horses survived the night .
You ’ ve probably heard of Billie Mack McTavern , the world-famous darts player who hit the bull ’ s-eye not once , not twice , but ninety-eight times in just under forty-six seconds .
But here ’ s what you don ’ t know about Billie—aside from having incredible depth perception , he routinely beat his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sadly , some athletes have used sports to talk about things outside of sports .
When athletes get like this , the response from sports fans is resoundingly clear : “ You really think non-sports things are more important than sports ?
” Unsurprisingly , most of those athletes aren ’ t allowed to play sports anymore .
People don ’ t like being distracted from their most beloved pastime : watching a group of men in red chase a group of men in blue .

The first instance of sports occurred three hundred thousand years ago. A group of incredibly advanced Homo sapiens was days away from discovering electricity, inventing history’s most complex language, and perfecting a political system light-years ahead of democracy.
Then Edgar threw a rock.
The rock crested over a tree. An onlooker, Paul, was overtaken by the violent urge to do whatever Edgar had just done, but better, or else he would . . . die? Lose his penis? He wasn’t sure.
Instead of throwing like Edgar, though, Paul tossed the rock and whacked it with his hip. A woman whistled from afar.
“You did it wrong,” Edgar said. “Didn’t you see how I did it?”
“I did,” Paul said, “and I thought your method could use some oomph.”
A crowd grew. Alliances formed. The community split into two factions: those who agreed with Edgar’s traditionalism and those who supported Paul’s novel approach to the game. Political scholars tabled their research to debate whether the twenty-four-year-old Edgar was too elderly to be throwing rocks. Kids quit school to focus on tossing rocks for sport.
“In a few years,” they told themselves, “our feats will be known by all.”
That winter, the community starved to death.
The first woman to participate in sports was Lara, a teen-ager in 2400 B.C. who spent her days watching boys pelt one another with onions until someone either died or yielded.
Suffice it to say, Lara was impressed.
Eventually, Lara decided she wanted to play, so she gathered some onions and went to the field. When the boys arrived, their faces grew red.
“I smell onions,” whispered Isaiah, a boy who didn’t fully understand wheels. “She wants to play with us!”
“A girl? Standing in the field? With an armful of onions?” said Abraham, a boy who’d die in his twenties after mixing up the good fruit with the bad fruit. “I’m going to vomit!”
The boys decided to stone Lara. But right as Isaiah was about to throw the first stone, Lara’s instincts kicked in. She removed one of her seven burlap tunics and began cheering maniacally for the boys.
“What’s she doing?” Isaiah said. “She looks ridicu—”
“Stop,” Abraham said. “I can’t explain why, but I’m pretty sure she’s going to have sex with the most impressive player.”
The game began, and Lara continued to dance and clap on the sidelines until the boys were done abusing one another. Lara’s act of survival—applauding boys—remains, to this day, the most common role for women in sports.
Though it might seem like athletes have always had it easy, many of them faced disapproval at home.
“He could’ve been a sculptor, or a warlord, but he threw it all away,” Constantina, the mother of Georgius, wrote in a diary entry, in 1598. “And for what? A life of lobbing cantaloupes through bamboo hoops?”
The famous Georgius Galilei, it should be known, was unparalleled at lobbing cantaloupes through bamboo hoops. His less athletic brother, Galileo, gained fame posthumously.
Though athletes are often injured while playing sports, the risk of physical harm isn’t always contained to the game.
One such example is the Great Pine-Cone Toss of 1748, when Edmund James and George Francis engaged in an epic battle to determine who could hit a target with a pine cone from farthest away.
The townspeople spent six years’ worth of taxes promoting the event, during which thirty-four prostitutes were arrested, twelve pounds of opium were confiscated, and seventy-eight carriages were overturned. None of the town’s horses survived the night.
You’ve probably heard of Billie Mack McTavern, the world-famous darts player who hit the bull’s-eye not once, not twice, but ninety-eight times in just under forty-six seconds. But here’s what you don’t know about Billie—aside from having incredible depth perception, he routinely beat his wife. Forty-six seconds, people!
Sadly, some athletes have used sports to talk about things outside of sports. When athletes get like this, the response from sports fans is resoundingly clear: “You really think non-sports things are more important than sports?”
Unsurprisingly, most of those athletes aren’t allowed to play sports anymore. People don’t like being distracted from their most beloved pastime: watching a group of men in red chase a group of men in blue.