newyorker--2020-07-09--“The Old Guard,” Reviewed: Warriors Who Can Never Die, or Free Themselves from Genre Constraints

The fountain of youth is the affective counterpart to the Midas touch , a greedy fantasy that delivers a built-in punishment—everyone who stays forever young is doomed to bear the death of all of their loved ones .
The inescapable solitude of immortality gave rise to one of the greatest modern operas , “ The Makropulos Case , ” about a three-century-old woman , stuck at age forty-two , who longs to die .
( Leoš Janáček completed the opera in 1925 ; it had its Metropolitan Opera première , a tragic one , only in 1996 . )
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guard , ” coming to Netflix this Friday , is a supernatural action drama that ’ s built on the same premise and derives its emotional power from the pathos of lonely survival .
The director , Gina Prince-Bythewood , spotlights the melodramatic poignancy of the tale ’ s clever premise , yet does so all too briefly and glancingly—because of the film ’ s rigid genre framework .
The movie , based on a comic-book series by Greg Rucka ( who wrote the script ) and Leandro Fernández , is centered on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Marwan Kenzari ) , Nicky ( Luca Marinelli ) , Booker ( Matthias Schoenaerts ) , and the leader , Andromache , a.k.a .
Andy ( Charlize Theron ) .
A dapper and mysterious secret agent named Copley ( Chiwetel Ejiofor ) dispatches the four to South Sudan for a life-saving and time-sensitive mission : to rescue a group of child hostages who are being held in a remote compound before their captors disperse them to different hideouts , making rescue unlikely .
The mission turns disastrous—the four fighters are riddled with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t die , though .
Their wounds spontaneously and quickly heal , and they rise to fight another day .
A U.S. marine named Nile Freeman ( KiKi Layne ) , who ’ s grievously wounded in combat in Afghanistan , also spontaneously heals ; Andy kidnaps her and forces her to join the group .
Andy , the senior member , won ’ t tell her age , but she has seemingly been active since Homeric times .
Joe and Nicky , who are a couple , met fighting on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a veteran of the Napoleonic Wars ; and flashbacks show the horrific fate of the group ’ s erstwhile member , Quynh ( Van Veronica Ngo ) , who , around five hundred years ago , was entombed under the sea—and is unable to die , remaining instead awake and alert in eternal isolation and confinement .
( “ That ’ s the reason why we dread capture , ” one of the men tells Nile . )
Another tale of another absent member casts yet another shadow on these warriors ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , disclosed to Nile as part of her initiation , are amplified by tales of love and loss—of spouses and children aging and dying , of being unable to disclose the truth to friends who wouldn ’ t in any case believe it .
The premise and its emotional complexities offer ample and moving material to whip up , calmly but fervently , into powerful evocations of centuries and millennia , of existential terror , of agony endured for the sake of a higher principle .
But it never happens .
Instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fascinating and moving ideas from being developed ; they ’ re only glancingly suggested .
Genre forces the movie to instrumentalize them , to deliver them as a mere pretext for fight scenes and a humanizing adornment to the relentless and impersonal mechanism of the plot .
What ’ s made clear ( if too plain ) from the start is that this band of warriors , the old guard of the title , chooses its battles ; if the rescue mission in South Sudan is one that plays unimpeachably to likely viewers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more dubious battles in their past .
Upon meeting the three men , Nile asks whether they ’ re “ good guys or bad guys.
” Joe responds , “ Depends on the century.
” ( Nicky adds , even more ambiguously , “ We fight for what we think is right.
” ) Their centuries of life have brought them centuries ’ worth of experience , even of perspective ; what they ’ ve seen , what they know , how they learn languages , their view of the world and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself .
( It would be fascinating to hear Nile ’ s political discussions with the serious battlefield versions of the 2000 Year Old Man . )
Instead , the group is being set up : a greedy young pharmaceuticals mogul named Steven Merrick ( Harry Melling ) kidnaps all of them but Nile , in order to extract their DNA and distill their regenerative trait into a marketable therapy .
Tracing them to Merrick ’ s London skyscraper , Nile makes it her mission to free them .
The results are even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenes with a variety of weapons and familiarly acrobatic hand-to-hand combat , all amped up with blaring and thudding music by the yard .
Not only do their wounds heal quickly ; their clothing is seemingly stained beyond the hope of Tide , but they appear to have an endless supply of fresh garments stashed handily somewhere .
They travel internationally , but there ’ s never a question about their official identities ; they leave trails of carnage in very public places but never encounter media , police , or officials .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the characters ’ outer practicalities than with their inner lives , which count only to the extent that it advances the action .
( For instance , the warriors dream of each other , but only until they meet . )
Each of the characters gets an index card ’ s worth of traits and no more .
( For instance , Nile was raised on the South Side of Chicago , and her father died in combat when she was a child . )
The exposition—defining the supernatural traits of the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their connection to Copley , placing Nile in harm ’ s way in Afghanistan , and folding her into the group—occurs at a plodding pace of home-viewing distraction , as if to allow viewers to multitask without missing a beat .
The trade-off is disheartening : there ’ s scant sense of dramatic freedom or of wide-ranging attention to the varied imaginative implications of the material .
In “ Love & Basketball , ” Prince-Bythewood ’ s first feature , which she wrote and directed , she displayed both a passionate yet delicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action—it includes one of the most distinctive sports sequences ever filmed .
That film is also centered on the passing of time and its emotional power—and Prince-Bythewood crafted an unusual dramatic structure to heighten it .
The tight formatting of “ The Old Guard ” leaves little room for such originality or personality .

The fountain of youth is the affective counterpart to the Midas touch, a greedy fantasy that delivers a built-in punishment—everyone who stays forever young is doomed to bear the death of all of their loved ones. The inescapable solitude of immortality gave rise to one of the greatest modern operas, “The Makropulos Case,” about a three-century-old woman, stuck at age forty-two, who longs to die. (Leoš Janáček completed the opera in 1925; it had its Metropolitan Opera première, a tragic one, only in 1996.) A noteworthy new movie, “The Old Guard,” coming to Netflix this Friday, is a supernatural action drama that’s built on the same premise and derives its emotional power from the pathos of lonely survival. The director, Gina Prince-Bythewood, spotlights the melodramatic poignancy of the tale’s clever premise, yet does so all too briefly and glancingly—because of the film’s rigid genre framework.
The movie, based on a comic-book series by Greg Rucka (who wrote the script) and Leandro Fernández, is centered on a quartet of freelance warriors: Joe (Marwan Kenzari), Nicky (Luca Marinelli), Booker (Matthias Schoenaerts), and the leader, Andromache, a.k.a. Andy (Charlize Theron). A dapper and mysterious secret agent named Copley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) dispatches the four to South Sudan for a life-saving and time-sensitive mission: to rescue a group of child hostages who are being held in a remote compound before their captors disperse them to different hideouts, making rescue unlikely. The mission turns disastrous—the four fighters are riddled with gunfire and left for dead. They don’t die, though. Their wounds spontaneously and quickly heal, and they rise to fight another day. A U.S. marine named Nile Freeman (KiKi Layne), who’s grievously wounded in combat in Afghanistan, also spontaneously heals; Andy kidnaps her and forces her to join the group.
Andy, the senior member, won’t tell her age, but she has seemingly been active since Homeric times. Joe and Nicky, who are a couple, met fighting on opposite sides of the Crusades; Booker is a veteran of the Napoleonic Wars; and flashbacks show the horrific fate of the group’s erstwhile member, Quynh (Van Veronica Ngo), who, around five hundred years ago, was entombed under the sea—and is unable to die, remaining instead awake and alert in eternal isolation and confinement. (“That’s the reason why we dread capture,” one of the men tells Nile.) Another tale of another absent member casts yet another shadow on these warriors’ burdensome powers. These elements of backstory, disclosed to Nile as part of her initiation, are amplified by tales of love and loss—of spouses and children aging and dying, of being unable to disclose the truth to friends who wouldn’t in any case believe it. The premise and its emotional complexities offer ample and moving material to whip up, calmly but fervently, into powerful evocations of centuries and millennia, of existential terror, of agony endured for the sake of a higher principle.
But it never happens. Instead, the accursed bonds of genre prevent these fascinating and moving ideas from being developed; they’re only glancingly suggested. Genre forces the movie to instrumentalize them, to deliver them as a mere pretext for fight scenes and a humanizing adornment to the relentless and impersonal mechanism of the plot. What’s made clear (if too plain) from the start is that this band of warriors, the old guard of the title, chooses its battles; if the rescue mission in South Sudan is one that plays unimpeachably to likely viewers, there may have been other, more dubious battles in their past. Upon meeting the three men, Nile asks whether they’re “good guys or bad guys.” Joe responds, “Depends on the century.” (Nicky adds, even more ambiguously, “We fight for what we think is right.”) Their centuries of life have brought them centuries’ worth of experience, even of perspective; what they’ve seen, what they know, how they learn languages, their view of the world and its history—it’s all a movie in itself. (It would be fascinating to hear Nile’s political discussions with the serious battlefield versions of the 2000 Year Old Man.)
Instead, the group is being set up: a greedy young pharmaceuticals mogul named Steven Merrick (Harry Melling) kidnaps all of them but Nile, in order to extract their DNA and distill their regenerative trait into a marketable therapy. Tracing them to Merrick’s London skyscraper, Nile makes it her mission to free them. The results are even more shootouts-by-number, more whirlingly overchoreographed fight scenes with a variety of weapons and familiarly acrobatic hand-to-hand combat, all amped up with blaring and thudding music by the yard. Not only do their wounds heal quickly; their clothing is seemingly stained beyond the hope of Tide, but they appear to have an endless supply of fresh garments stashed handily somewhere. They travel internationally, but there’s never a question about their official identities; they leave trails of carnage in very public places but never encounter media, police, or officials.
The script is no more troubled with the characters’ outer practicalities than with their inner lives, which count only to the extent that it advances the action. (For instance, the warriors dream of each other, but only until they meet.) Each of the characters gets an index card’s worth of traits and no more. (For instance, Nile was raised on the South Side of Chicago, and her father died in combat when she was a child.) The exposition—defining the supernatural traits of the group along with their practical functions, displaying their connection to Copley, placing Nile in harm’s way in Afghanistan, and folding her into the group—occurs at a plodding pace of home-viewing distraction, as if to allow viewers to multitask without missing a beat. The trade-off is disheartening: there’s scant sense of dramatic freedom or of wide-ranging attention to the varied imaginative implications of the material. In “Love & Basketball,” Prince-Bythewood’s first feature, which she wrote and directed, she displayed both a passionate yet delicate dramatic sensibility and an inventive way with action—it includes one of the most distinctive sports sequences ever filmed. That film is also centered on the passing of time and its emotional power—and Prince-Bythewood crafted an unusual dramatic structure to heighten it. The tight formatting of “The Old Guard” leaves little room for such originality or personality.


newyorker--2020-07-09--Why Andrés Manuel López Obrador Went to Dinner with Donald Trump

Over breakfast one morning in the spring of 2018 , Andrés Manuel López Obrador spoke to me of his plans to transform Mexico .
He was running for the Mexican Presidency , and we were in Parral , the Chihuahua mining town where Pancho Villa had been gunned down ninety-five years earlier .
Where Villa ’ s revolutionary campaign had been bloody , López Obrador said , his would be peaceful , but it , too , would change history .
What about Donald Trump ?
I asked .
How was he going to deal with him ?
A veteran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be fervently opposed to everything that Trump stood for .
He had excoriated the outgoing President , Enrique Peña Nieto , for appeasing Trump in spite of his disrespectful remarks about Mexico and Mexicans , and he had vowed , by contrast , to defend Mexico ’ s sovereignty and the dignity of its people .
At one point , he had said that , if Trump continued to send troops to the U.S.-Mexican border , he would counter with a peaceful army of Mexican civilians , dressed in white .
And , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wall , he would launch a protest before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights .
In another conversation , the candidate had mentioned Trump and raised his eyebrows theatrically , as if to say , “ You ’ ve got a real crazy one on your hands.
” But , in Parral , López Obrador replied to my question about Trump with a certain ambiguity .
“ I am sending messages of tranquillity , and I am going to continue to do so , ” he said .
“ And , quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have treated him with respect.
” López Obrador has been true to his word .
Ever since that moment , right through his electoral victory , a couple of months later , and his Inauguration as Mexico ’ s President , in December , 2018 , AMLO , as he is known , has continued to be respectful of Trump .
Wednesday ’ s jovial White House meeting between the two leaders , which was convened to celebrate the implementation of the revamped North American Free Trade Agreement—now called the United States-Mexico-Canada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his strategy had paid off .
After the meeting in the Oval Office , Trump and AMLO emerged in the Rose Garden to sign their respective copies of the trade agreement .
Trump , as ever , did so with an oversized flourish , using what appeared to be a Sharpie ; AMLO signed his with distinctly more modest penmanship .
They also praised each other before a small audience and the television cameras .
Trump said that AMLO had been a “ tough negotiator ” but that , thanks to their agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ never been closer.
” AMLO expressed his gratitude for the “ understanding and respect ” Trump had shown to Mexico .
Perhaps wishing it were so , he also thanked Trump for being “ increasingly respectful ” toward Mexicans living in the United States .
Later on , at a working dinner in the White House , eleven Mexican business titans were on hand , including the telecom billionaire Carlos Slim .
Sea bass and saffron potatoes were served , with brown-sugar shortbread and toasted meringue for dessert .
White-rose bouquets adorned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , each of them decorated with hand-painted Mexican and American flags shown crossed in friendship .
At his daily press conference on Monday—López Obrador holds daily pressers , called mañaneras , in which he seeks to frame the day ’ s news—he had defended his decision to go to Washington to meet Trump .
“ My critics , our adversaries , ask how can I go if he has offended Mexicans .
I want to say to the people of my country that , in the time we ’ ve been in government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect , not just toward the government but especially toward the people of Mexico , ” he said .
Technically speaking , he was right .
Trump has been more respectful , rhetorically , toward Mexico since AMLO took office .
López Obrador ’ s critics say that this is because he has accommodated Trump in most of his demands : dispatching Mexico ’ s security forces to stop Central American migrants from reaching the U.S. border ; agreeing to allow those seeking asylum in the U.S. to stay in Mexico , rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their immigration hearings ; and acceding to Trump ’ s requests in the new trade deal .
Whenever Trump has mentioned AMLO , he has tended to speak favorably of him , and AMLO has gone out of his way to thank Trump for his kind words .
It all seems a far cry from the tone of things in 2015 , when Trump kicked off his Presidential campaign by vilifying Mexicans as “ drug dealers ” and “ rapists , ” and calling for the construction of a border wall that Mexico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stopped his racist dog-whistling , of course .
Indeed , at his Tulsa rally last month , he invoked the dangers of an unpoliced America by conjuring up a thinly veiled scenario for rape , in which a “ tough hombre ” breaks into an American home to find someone ’ s wife there unprotected and on her own , her husband away at work .
The former career U.S. diplomat Roberta Jacobson served as President Obama ’ s last Ambassador to Mexico .
She resigned her post in May , 2018 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointee .
This week , recalling her final meeting as Ambassador with López Obrador , Jacobson said , “ He told me his No .
1 priority as President would be to have a positive relationship with the United States .
I guess he ’ s achieved that , but I don ’ t know if it should have been at all costs.
” Jacobson questioned the timing of López Obrador ’ s visit , with just four months to go before the U.S. Presidential election , and expressed her dismay over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meet with the Democratic candidate and current front-runner , Joe Biden , nor with senior members of the Democratic-led House .
“ I guess the calculation is you don ’ t want to piss the President off and then have to deal with negative tweets , but that ’ s shortsighted , ” she said .
Biden did things differently , Jacobson told me .
In March , 2012 , she accompanied Biden , then the Vice-President , on a trip to Mexico .
Finding himself in the midst of that nation ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pains not to appear to play favorites and arranged to meet not only with the outgoing President , Felipe Calderón , but with three politicians seeking to replace him : Peña Nieto , who eventually won the election ; Josefina Vázquez Mota ; and López Obrador .
“ Biden even changed the color of his tie so as not to irritate anyone on the trip , ” Jacobson recalled .
AMLO ’ s inability to show Biden similar consideration is unfortunate , she added , because personal chemistry is important for Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the relationship will get off to a bad start.
” Another former Obama official , Juan S. Gonzalez , who is currently Biden ’ s senior adviser on Latin-American affairs , also expressed irritation at López Obrador ’ s visit .
“ For Trump , ” he said , “ this meeting is a timely distraction for his failure to respond to the pandemic and its economic impact , and somehow a way for his Administration to seem pro-immigrant.
” Gonzalez added that the reason that AMLO and his government have been assisting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need the U.S.M.C.A.
, and also because , like Putin and Xi and Erdoğan , they ’ ve figured out that , if you play to Donald Trump ’ s ego , he ’ ll give you what you want .
So AMLO does what Trump wants on immigration , because he doesn ’ t want him to close the border .
He panders to Trump to avoid poking the tiger , in other words .
”

Over breakfast one morning in the spring of 2018, Andrés Manuel López Obrador spoke to me of his plans to transform Mexico. He was running for the Mexican Presidency, and we were in Parral, the Chihuahua mining town where Pancho Villa had been gunned down ninety-five years earlier. Where Villa’s revolutionary campaign had been bloody, López Obrador said, his would be peaceful, but it, too, would change history. What about Donald Trump? I asked. How was he going to deal with him?
A veteran left-of-center politician, López Obrador appeared to be fervently opposed to everything that Trump stood for. He had excoriated the outgoing President, Enrique Peña Nieto, for appeasing Trump in spite of his disrespectful remarks about Mexico and Mexicans, and he had vowed, by contrast, to defend Mexico’s sovereignty and the dignity of its people. At one point, he had said that, if Trump continued to send troops to the U.S.-Mexican border, he would counter with a peaceful army of Mexican civilians, dressed in white. And, if Trump insisted on building his border wall, he would launch a protest before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. In another conversation, the candidate had mentioned Trump and raised his eyebrows theatrically, as if to say, “You’ve got a real crazy one on your hands.”
But, in Parral, López Obrador replied to my question about Trump with a certain ambiguity. “I am sending messages of tranquillity, and I am going to continue to do so,” he said. “And, quite apart from my differences with Trump, I have treated him with respect.” López Obrador has been true to his word. Ever since that moment, right through his electoral victory, a couple of months later, and his Inauguration as Mexico’s President, in December, 2018, AMLO, as he is known, has continued to be respectful of Trump. Wednesday’s jovial White House meeting between the two leaders, which was convened to celebrate the implementation of the revamped North American Free Trade Agreement—now called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or U.S.M.C.A.—seemed to show that his strategy had paid off.
After the meeting in the Oval Office, Trump and AMLO emerged in the Rose Garden to sign their respective copies of the trade agreement. Trump, as ever, did so with an oversized flourish, using what appeared to be a Sharpie; AMLO signed his with distinctly more modest penmanship. They also praised each other before a small audience and the television cameras. Trump said that AMLO had been a “tough negotiator” but that, thanks to their agreement, the United States and Mexico have “never been closer.” AMLO expressed his gratitude for the “understanding and respect” Trump had shown to Mexico. Perhaps wishing it were so, he also thanked Trump for being “increasingly respectful” toward Mexicans living in the United States. Later on, at a working dinner in the White House, eleven Mexican business titans were on hand, including the telecom billionaire Carlos Slim. Sea bass and saffron potatoes were served, with brown-sugar shortbread and toasted meringue for dessert. White-rose bouquets adorned each table, along with elegant menus, each of them decorated with hand-painted Mexican and American flags shown crossed in friendship.
At his daily press conference on Monday—López Obrador holds daily pressers, called mañaneras, in which he seeks to frame the day’s news—he had defended his decision to go to Washington to meet Trump. “My critics, our adversaries, ask how can I go if he has offended Mexicans. I want to say to the people of my country that, in the time we’ve been in government, there has been a relationship of respect, not just toward the government but especially toward the people of Mexico,” he said.
Technically speaking, he was right. Trump has been more respectful, rhetorically, toward Mexico since AMLO took office. López Obrador’s critics say that this is because he has accommodated Trump in most of his demands: dispatching Mexico’s security forces to stop Central American migrants from reaching the U.S. border; agreeing to allow those seeking asylum in the U.S. to stay in Mexico, rather than the United States, to await their immigration hearings; and acceding to Trump’s requests in the new trade deal. Whenever Trump has mentioned AMLO, he has tended to speak favorably of him, and AMLO has gone out of his way to thank Trump for his kind words. It all seems a far cry from the tone of things in 2015, when Trump kicked off his Presidential campaign by vilifying Mexicans as “drug dealers” and “rapists,” and calling for the construction of a border wall that Mexico would pay for. Trump has not stopped his racist dog-whistling, of course. Indeed, at his Tulsa rally last month, he invoked the dangers of an unpoliced America by conjuring up a thinly veiled scenario for rape, in which a “tough hombre” breaks into an American home to find someone’s wife there unprotected and on her own, her husband away at work.
The former career U.S. diplomat Roberta Jacobson served as President Obama’s last Ambassador to Mexico. She resigned her post in May, 2018, to make way for Trump’s appointee. This week, recalling her final meeting as Ambassador with López Obrador, Jacobson said, “He told me his No. 1 priority as President would be to have a positive relationship with the United States. I guess he’s achieved that, but I don’t know if it should have been at all costs.” Jacobson questioned the timing of López Obrador’s visit, with just four months to go before the U.S. Presidential election, and expressed her dismay over the fact that he made no effort to meet with the Democratic candidate and current front-runner, Joe Biden, nor with senior members of the Democratic-led House. “I guess the calculation is you don’t want to piss the President off and then have to deal with negative tweets, but that’s shortsighted,” she said.
Biden did things differently, Jacobson told me. In March, 2012, she accompanied Biden, then the Vice-President, on a trip to Mexico. Finding himself in the midst of that nation’s Presidential race, Biden had taken pains not to appear to play favorites and arranged to meet not only with the outgoing President, Felipe Calderón, but with three politicians seeking to replace him: Peña Nieto, who eventually won the election; Josefina Vázquez Mota; and López Obrador. “Biden even changed the color of his tie so as not to irritate anyone on the trip,” Jacobson recalled. AMLO’s inability to show Biden similar consideration is unfortunate, she added, because personal chemistry is important for Biden, and, if he wins, “the relationship will get off to a bad start.”
Another former Obama official, Juan S. Gonzalez, who is currently Biden’s senior adviser on Latin-American affairs, also expressed irritation at López Obrador’s visit. “For Trump,” he said, “this meeting is a timely distraction for his failure to respond to the pandemic and its economic impact, and somehow a way for his Administration to seem pro-immigrant.” Gonzalez added that the reason that AMLO and his government have been assisting Trump on immigration is “because they need the U.S.M.C.A., and also because, like Putin and Xi and Erdoğan, they’ve figured out that, if you play to Donald Trump’s ego, he’ll give you what you want. So AMLO does what Trump wants on immigration, because he doesn’t want him to close the border. He panders to Trump to avoid poking the tiger, in other words.”


newyorker--2020-07-09--A Good Week for the Climate Movement

A Good Week for the Climate Movement

This week , the Supreme Court rejected the Trump Administration ’ s request to expand construction on the Keystone XL @ @ @ @ @ climate-change task force formed by Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders urged politicians to “ treat @ @ @ @ @ that it is.
” Bill McKibben , an activist in the environmental movement for three @ @ @ @ @ to discuss whether the United States has hit a turning point in the battle against @ @ @

Photograph by Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
This week, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump Administration’s request to expand construction on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and the climate-change task force formed by Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders urged politicians to “treat climate change like the emergency that it is.” Bill McKibben, an activist in the environmental movement for three decades, joins Dorothy Wickenden to discuss whether the United States has hit a turning point in the battle against global warming.


newyorker--2020-07-09--Trump’s Impeachment Revenge: Alexander Vindman Is Bullied Into Retiring

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman , in full-dress Army uniform and with a Purple Heart pinned to his chest , ended his opening statement during the impeachment hearings on President Trump last fall by addressing his father .
“ Dad , my sitting here today in the U.S. Capitol , talking to our elected officials , is proof that you made the right decision , forty years ago , to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America , in search of a better life for our family , ” he said .
“ Do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth.
” It was one of the most memorable moments in the historic hearings .
With only the family ’ s suitcases and seven hundred and fifty dollars to his name , Vindman ’ s father had brought his three young sons and their grandmother to the United States in 1979 , shortly after his wife died .
All three Vindman boys ended up serving in the U.S. military , out of a “ deep sense of gratitude , ” as Vindman testified .
Over the next four decades , Vindman amassed impeccable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dozen medals for military valor , diplomatic posts at the U.S. Embassies in Russia and Ukraine , and positions as a Russia specialist for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and at the National Security Council .
Vindman and his twin brother , Yevgeny , were even featured in a PBS documentary by Ken Burns .
“ He was the whole package , just the right kind of person to have at the N.S.C.—under normal circumstances , ” Fiona Hill , his former boss at the National Security Council , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me this week .
Vindman had “ unique ” experience and expertise .
“ He was an obvious choice to bring on board , ” she said .
But the timing of Vindman ’ s arrival at the White House , in July , 2018 , on assignment from the Pentagon , was to prove fatal professionally .
It was a “ quirk ” of fate , Hill said .
Vindman was initially assigned to work on Russia defense issues—one of the priorities of H. R. McMaster , Trump ’ s second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in March , 2018 .
His successor , John Bolton , reorganized President Trump ’ s inner circle on foreign policy .
Because he also spoke Ukrainian , Vindman was switched to the Ukraine portfolio .
Vindman was not prepared , however , for the intense domestic politics inside the Trump Administration , Hill said : “ I wasn ’ t , either .
Alex had no clue .
He ’ s a distinguished soldier and was not involved in politics .
He was prepared to deal with the enemy outside , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He was pretty shocked as it played out.
” Vindman ’ s bad luck was to be party to Trump ’ s call with the Ukrainian President , Volodymyr Zelensky , on July 25 , 2019 .
Vindman had compiled the talking points for the conversation .
As the White House transcript later disclosed , Trump asked for a “ favor ” and urged the newly elected Ukrainian leader to launch a public investigation of the former Vice-President Joe Biden and his son Hunter— basically , to smear his political rival .
None @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original memo .
He testified that he viewed the request as “ inappropriate , ” and that it had “ nothing to do with national security.
” “ I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen , ” he said .
An investigation by Ukraine would be interpreted as “ a partisan play ” that could cost the besieged country bipartisan American support and ultimately hurt U.S. national-security interests in containing Russia .
He reported his concern to three officials—one in the intelligence community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the National Security Council ’ s lawyer .
Over the summer , Vindman was alarmed by White House moves to freeze almost four hundred million dollars in military aid to Ukraine , the front line of the West ’ s showdown with Russia .
Russian President Vladimir Putin had seized Crimea , a strategic peninsula , from Ukraine in 2014 , and was arming and supporting separatists trying to grab other parts of the former Soviet republic .
Vindman wrote a memo—later approved by Bolton—recommending that the White House release the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine to announce the Biden investigation first .
Throughout that period , Vindman was trapped “ in a toxic situation , ” Hill said .
“ When Alex was in Moscow , he monitored the Kremlin .
He never thought he would have to monitor the White House for politics , ” she told me .
After the call , Vindman went on vacation , in August .
When he got back , he was increasingly marginalized at the National Security Council .
After news broke of the President ’ s Ukraine dealings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress .
In his testimony , on November 19th , he expressed confidence that the fundamentals of American democracy would prevail .
“ In Russia , my act of expressing my concerns to the chain of command in an official and private channel would have severe personal and professional repercussions , and offering public testimony involving the President would surely cost me my life , ” he said .
Vindman expressed gratitude for the “ privilege ” of being an American citizen and a public servant “ where I can live free of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s safety.
” It was an illusion .
After Vindman ’ s testimony , Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist promised that the Department would protect Vindman from retaliation .
That proved untrue .
Two days after the Senate voted , on February 5th , to acquit Trump , the President fired Vindman .
Trump also fired Vindman ’ s twin brother , Yevgeny , who worked as an ethics lawyer at the White House and held the same military rank .
They were abruptly and unceremoniously escorted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vindman twins returned to the Pentagon , where they awaited new assignments and the promotions to colonel which had been recommended by their superiors .
“ Everyone acknowledged that the reality for Alex would forever be different in the Army , ” a person familiar with Vindman ’ s thinking told me .
“ They articulated that reality in different ways .
If Trump won reëlection , his career would go nowhere.
” One superior quipped that Vindman would be manning a radar station in Alaska .
Vindman expected to go to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take another foreign posting .
But , in a final act of revenge , the White House recently made clear that Trump opposed Vindman ’ s promotion .
Senior Administration officials told Esper and Ryan McCarthy , the Secretary of the Army , to dig for misconduct that would justify blocking Vindman ’ s promotion .
They couldn ’ t find anything , multiple sources told me .
Others in the military chain of command began to warn Vindman that he would never be deployable overseas again—despite his language skills and regional expertise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caught up in the future of the more than twelve hundred officers awaiting promotions .
The Pentagon explored options , such as putting forward all the other nominations , but keeping Vindman ’ s name on a separate list to submit after the Presidential election .
After reports about the White House retaliation circulated in Washington , Senator Tammy Duckworth , a Democrat from Illinois , announced last week that she would block the pending promotions until Esper confirmed in writing that the Pentagon did not , or would not , hinder Vindman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promotion .
Duckworth is a combat veteran and a double amputee , after a helicopter that she was co-piloting in Iraq , in 2004 , was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade .

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, in full-dress Army uniform and with a Purple Heart pinned to his chest, ended his opening statement during the impeachment hearings on President Trump last fall by addressing his father. “Dad, my sitting here today in the U.S. Capitol, talking to our elected officials, is proof that you made the right decision, forty years ago, to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America, in search of a better life for our family,” he said. “Do not worry—I will be fine for telling the truth.” It was one of the most memorable moments in the historic hearings. With only the family’s suitcases and seven hundred and fifty dollars to his name, Vindman’s father had brought his three young sons and their grandmother to the United States in 1979, shortly after his wife died. All three Vindman boys ended up serving in the U.S. military, out of a “deep sense of gratitude,” as Vindman testified. Over the next four decades, Vindman amassed impeccable credentials: a Harvard degree, a dozen medals for military valor, diplomatic posts at the U.S. Embassies in Russia and Ukraine, and positions as a Russia specialist for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and at the National Security Council. Vindman and his twin brother, Yevgeny, were even featured in a PBS documentary by Ken Burns.
“He was the whole package, just the right kind of person to have at the N.S.C.—under normal circumstances,” Fiona Hill, his former boss at the National Security Council, who also testified during the impeachment hearings, told me this week. Vindman had “unique” experience and expertise. “He was an obvious choice to bring on board,” she said. But the timing of Vindman’s arrival at the White House, in July, 2018, on assignment from the Pentagon, was to prove fatal professionally. It was a “quirk” of fate, Hill said. Vindman was initially assigned to work on Russia defense issues—one of the priorities of H. R. McMaster, Trump’s second national-security adviser. But Trump fired McMaster in March, 2018. His successor, John Bolton, reorganized President Trump’s inner circle on foreign policy. Because he also spoke Ukrainian, Vindman was switched to the Ukraine portfolio.
Vindman was not prepared, however, for the intense domestic politics inside the Trump Administration, Hill said: “I wasn’t, either. Alex had no clue. He’s a distinguished soldier and was not involved in politics. He was prepared to deal with the enemy outside, but not when the enemy was within. He was pretty shocked as it played out.”
Vindman’s bad luck was to be party to Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, on July 25, 2019. Vindman had compiled the talking points for the conversation. As the White House transcript later disclosed, Trump asked for a “favor” and urged the newly elected Ukrainian leader to launch a public investigation of the former Vice-President Joe Biden and his son Hunter— basically, to smear his political rival. None of it was in Vindman’s original memo. He testified that he viewed the request as “inappropriate,” and that it had “nothing to do with national security.” “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen,” he said. An investigation by Ukraine would be interpreted as “a partisan play” that could cost the besieged country bipartisan American support and ultimately hurt U.S. national-security interests in containing Russia. He reported his concern to three officials—one in the intelligence community, another at the State Department, and the National Security Council’s lawyer.
Over the summer, Vindman was alarmed by White House moves to freeze almost four hundred million dollars in military aid to Ukraine, the front line of the West’s showdown with Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin had seized Crimea, a strategic peninsula, from Ukraine in 2014, and was arming and supporting separatists trying to grab other parts of the former Soviet republic. Vindman wrote a memo—later approved by Bolton—recommending that the White House release the military aid. Trump balked. He wanted Ukraine to announce the Biden investigation first.
Throughout that period, Vindman was trapped “in a toxic situation,” Hill said. “When Alex was in Moscow, he monitored the Kremlin. He never thought he would have to monitor the White House for politics,” she told me. After the call, Vindman went on vacation, in August. When he got back, he was increasingly marginalized at the National Security Council. After news broke of the President’s Ukraine dealings, Vindman was subpoenaed to testify to Congress. In his testimony, on November 19th, he expressed confidence that the fundamentals of American democracy would prevail. “In Russia, my act of expressing my concerns to the chain of command in an official and private channel would have severe personal and professional repercussions, and offering public testimony involving the President would surely cost me my life,” he said. Vindman expressed gratitude for the “privilege” of being an American citizen and a public servant “where I can live free of fear for mine and my family’s safety.”
It was an illusion. After Vindman’s testimony, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist promised that the Department would protect Vindman from retaliation. That proved untrue. Two days after the Senate voted, on February 5th, to acquit Trump, the President fired Vindman. Trump also fired Vindman’s twin brother, Yevgeny, who worked as an ethics lawyer at the White House and held the same military rank. They were abruptly and unceremoniously escorted from the White House grounds.
The Vindman twins returned to the Pentagon, where they awaited new assignments and the promotions to colonel which had been recommended by their superiors. “Everyone acknowledged that the reality for Alex would forever be different in the Army,” a person familiar with Vindman’s thinking told me. “They articulated that reality in different ways. If Trump won reëlection, his career would go nowhere.” One superior quipped that Vindman would be manning a radar station in Alaska.
Vindman expected to go to the National War College this fall—a low-profile assignment—then take another foreign posting. But, in a final act of revenge, the White House recently made clear that Trump opposed Vindman’s promotion. Senior Administration officials told Esper and Ryan McCarthy, the Secretary of the Army, to dig for misconduct that would justify blocking Vindman’s promotion. They couldn’t find anything, multiple sources told me. Others in the military chain of command began to warn Vindman that he would never be deployable overseas again—despite his language skills and regional expertise.
Vindman’s fate then got caught up in the future of the more than twelve hundred officers awaiting promotions. The Pentagon explored options, such as putting forward all the other nominations, but keeping Vindman’s name on a separate list to submit after the Presidential election. After reports about the White House retaliation circulated in Washington, Senator Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat from Illinois, announced last week that she would block the pending promotions until Esper confirmed in writing that the Pentagon did not, or would not, hinder Vindman’s “expected and deserved” promotion. Duckworth is a combat veteran and a double amputee, after a helicopter that she was co-piloting in Iraq, in 2004, was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.
In the face of an increasingly dark future, Vindman tweeted on Wednesday that he was retiring, after more than two decades of service to the United States. “Today I officially requested retirement from the US Army, an organization I love,” he wrote. In a statement, David Pressman, Vindman’s lawyer and a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations for Special Political Affairs, was more candid. “Through a campaign of bullying, intimidation, and retaliation, the President of the United States attempted to force LTC Vindman to choose: Between adhering to the law or pleasing a President. Between honoring his oath or protecting his career. Between protecting his promotion or the promotion of his fellow soldiers,” Pressman wrote. Vindman did “what the law compelled him to do; and for that he was bullied by the President and his proxies.” In short, his patriotism cost him his career.
In Washington, the reaction in foreign-policy and military circles was outrage. “Alex is a decorated combat veteran and has served his country well and honorably,” Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, who was abruptly pulled out of Kyiv by Trump, told me. She was also a key witness at the impeachment hearings. She, too, was marginalized until she ended her career prematurely earlier this year. “Alex should have received the honor and thanks and recognition of the nation,” she said. “He deserved better than this. Our country deserved better than this.”


newyorker--2020-07-09--Dana Canedy, the New Head of Simon & Schuster, on Facts, Diversity, and the Future of Publishing

On Monday , Simon & Schuster announced that Dana Canedy , the administrator of the Pulitzer Prizes and a former reporter for the New York Times , will become its senior vice-president and the publisher of its flagship imprint .
Canedy won a Pulitzer two decades ago , at the Times , for her work on the series “ How Race is Lived in America.
” Canedy also published a book , “ A Journal For Jordan , ” in 2008 , about the death of her fiancé while he was serving in Iraq .
She will become the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publishing imprint .
Simon & Schuster , which is owned by ViacomCBS , is one of the largest publishers in the country , but it is also up for sale as changes and mergers continue to roil the book world .
I spoke by phone with Canedy on Wednesday , three weeks before she begins her new job .
During our conversation , which has been edited for length and clarity , we discussed the different types of diversity she hopes to usher in , the ways in which the publishing industry differs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publish President Trump ’ s memoirs .
What exactly will your job consist of , both in terms of , like , your larger conception of it and what you will be doing on a day-to-day basis ?
On a day-to-day basis , I think the most important thing initially will be getting to know the staff , getting familiar with the books that we have in the pipeline , and so forth .
I think , over all , what I bring to this is a vision for continuing to do the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the team in place are already doing , but to broaden the scope of it .
I ’ d love to see more narrative nonfiction books , for example , the kind of books that take hold of you in the middle of the night , and then you ’ re saying , “ O.K.
, I know I need to go to sleep , but just one more page.
” I think there ’ s a place for bringing in big-name authors but also emerging voices or unknown voices .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter—there ’ s always room for that , particularly now in this country .
So those are the things I think I ’ m thinking of initially .
I think in addition to that , Jonathan Karp , the C.E.O.
, and I agree that the most exciting books are ones that , when pressed , it ’ s hard to think of a list of comparable titles .
And there ’ s so much going on in the world right now that issues of politics , and climate , and race relations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the pandemic , if we were getting to that point , I think will be rich areas to explore .
Karp has talked about how interested people are in the Trump Administration .
And obviously Simon & Schuster has published a lot about the Trump Administration .
I noticed that you talked about a diversity of subject matter and narrative nonfiction .
Do you have some concern that the book world has been overly focussed , or maybe I should say readers have been overly focussed , on the President and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
I don ’ t think so .
I think people have broad interests , and I think that to some extent it ’ s the role of the publisher to lead in terms of what people are reading .
But it ’ s also the role of the publisher to respond to what people are already reading and asking for .
So there ’ s a place for both .
I mean , Trump ’ s a huge story , and he insists on being a huge story just in the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think it would be a dereliction of duty for journalists and authors not to focus on him to the extent that they are .
I noticed you said a diversity of subject matter .
You didn ’ t say , unless I missed it , diversity of authors .
I assume that ’ s important to you .
Oh , my gosh .
Of course .
That goes without saying .
You can ’ t have a diversity of subject matter without having a diversity of authors .
You just can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave in another interview about the book “ American Dirt.
” You were asked what you thought about people being offended , and I ’ m paraphrasing , but you said that , in some ways , the most important thing was not who writes these stories but that these stories are told accurately and representatively .
Can you talk a little bit more about what you meant by that ?
Absolutely .
Early in my career , when I was a reporter in Cleveland , Ohio , I went to a community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population , and I spent four days on Amish farms and wrote a series on the Amish .
I ’ m a Black woman from Kentucky .
And that series was very well received internally and by our readers at the time .
So the thing to do when you ’ re doing a story or a book where you are not the authority is to acknowledge that and then become the authority .
So it really doesn ’ t matter what the subject matter is .
If you ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be authoritative .
Whether you ’ re writing about climate or people , you have to present an authoritative , true , and accurate picture of what it is you are trying to say .
That ’ s just the baseline for a successful book .
What ’ s your relationship like with books ?
Have you always been a big book reader ?
Oh , gosh , yes , yes , yes , yes .
I started reading books when I was very young .
But I also started writing at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obsessed with it .
My son—he ’ s fourteen—gave me this nickname a few years ago of Word Nerd because I ’ m always reading .
We have books all over our house , and I read in bed .
I read at the beach .
I read in the kitchen .
And , years ago , I bought these glasses that have night lights attached on the side , because my son used to like to come into my room and curl up next to me to sleep .
And , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I needed to turn off the lights , but I didn ’ t want to stop reading .
He ’ s into anime right now , but books are a way to escape .
They ’ re a way to inform yourself .
They are a way to empower yourself , depending on what you ’ re reading and what your needs are at the moment .
I mean , there ’ s just nothing like them .
I even like the smell of books .
I like the feel of the pages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good heavy stock .
I remember , when I wrote my book , holding it for the first time , and there ’ s just something visceral about holding a book in your hands , especially a heavy book .
Who are your favorite authors , and who are you reading now that you really love ?
Do any names come to mind ?
Yeah , so I obviously love Maya Angelou .
My gosh , I just reread , given the moment that we ’ re in , the Frederick Douglass biography @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorite books is “ American Tapestry.
” Do you know that one ?

On Monday, Simon & Schuster announced that Dana Canedy, the administrator of the Pulitzer Prizes and a former reporter for the New York Times, will become its senior vice-president and the publisher of its flagship imprint. Canedy won a Pulitzer two decades ago, at the Times, for her work on the series “How Race is Lived in America.” Canedy also published a book, “A Journal For Jordan,” in 2008, about the death of her fiancé while he was serving in Iraq. She will become the first Black person to take over a major publishing imprint. Simon & Schuster, which is owned by ViacomCBS, is one of the largest publishers in the country, but it is also up for sale as changes and mergers continue to roil the book world.
I spoke by phone with Canedy on Wednesday, three weeks before she begins her new job. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed the different types of diversity she hopes to usher in, the ways in which the publishing industry differs from journalism, and whether she would publish President Trump’s memoirs.
What exactly will your job consist of, both in terms of, like, your larger conception of it and what you will be doing on a day-to-day basis?
On a day-to-day basis, I think the most important thing initially will be getting to know the staff, getting familiar with the books that we have in the pipeline, and so forth. I think, over all, what I bring to this is a vision for continuing to do the excellent work that Simon & Schuster and the team in place are already doing, but to broaden the scope of it. I’d love to see more narrative nonfiction books, for example, the kind of books that take hold of you in the middle of the night, and then you’re saying, “O.K., I know I need to go to sleep, but just one more page.” I think there’s a place for bringing in big-name authors but also emerging voices or unknown voices. That’s exciting. More diversity in subject matter—there’s always room for that, particularly now in this country. So those are the things I think I’m thinking of initially.
I think in addition to that, Jonathan Karp, the C.E.O., and I agree that the most exciting books are ones that, when pressed, it’s hard to think of a list of comparable titles. And there’s so much going on in the world right now that issues of politics, and climate, and race relations, and poverty, and the aftermath of the pandemic, if we were getting to that point, I think will be rich areas to explore.
Karp has talked about how interested people are in the Trump Administration. And obviously Simon & Schuster has published a lot about the Trump Administration. I noticed that you talked about a diversity of subject matter and narrative nonfiction. Do you have some concern that the book world has been overly focussed, or maybe I should say readers have been overly focussed, on the President and the Administration at the expense of other stories?
I don’t think so. I think people have broad interests, and I think that to some extent it’s the role of the publisher to lead in terms of what people are reading. But it’s also the role of the publisher to respond to what people are already reading and asking for. So there’s a place for both. I mean, Trump’s a huge story, and he insists on being a huge story just in the way he approaches his job. And so I think it would be a dereliction of duty for journalists and authors not to focus on him to the extent that they are.
I noticed you said a diversity of subject matter. You didn’t say, unless I missed it, diversity of authors. I assume that’s important to you.
Oh, my gosh. Of course. That goes without saying. You can’t have a diversity of subject matter without having a diversity of authors. You just can’t.
I heard an answer you gave in another interview about the book “American Dirt.” You were asked what you thought about people being offended, and I’m paraphrasing, but you said that, in some ways, the most important thing was not who writes these stories but that these stories are told accurately and representatively. Can you talk a little bit more about what you meant by that?
Absolutely. Early in my career, when I was a reporter in Cleveland, Ohio, I went to a community in Ohio that had a large Amish population, and I spent four days on Amish farms and wrote a series on the Amish. I’m a Black woman from Kentucky. And that series was very well received internally and by our readers at the time. So the thing to do when you’re doing a story or a book where you are not the authority is to acknowledge that and then become the authority. So it really doesn’t matter what the subject matter is. If you’re going to write about anything, you have to be authoritative. Whether you’re writing about climate or people, you have to present an authoritative, true, and accurate picture of what it is you are trying to say. That’s just the baseline for a successful book.
What’s your relationship like with books? Have you always been a big book reader?
Oh, gosh, yes, yes, yes, yes. I started reading books when I was very young. But I also started writing at the age of twelve, and I was obsessed with it. My son—he’s fourteen—gave me this nickname a few years ago of Word Nerd because I’m always reading. We have books all over our house, and I read in bed. I read at the beach. I read in the kitchen. And, years ago, I bought these glasses that have night lights attached on the side, because my son used to like to come into my room and curl up next to me to sleep. And, in order to get him to sleep, I needed to turn off the lights, but I didn’t want to stop reading.
He’s into anime right now, but books are a way to escape. They’re a way to inform yourself. They are a way to empower yourself, depending on what you’re reading and what your needs are at the moment. I mean, there’s just nothing like them. I even like the smell of books. I like the feel of the pages, especially a book made with a good heavy stock. I remember, when I wrote my book, holding it for the first time, and there’s just something visceral about holding a book in your hands, especially a heavy book.
Who are your favorite authors, and who are you reading now that you really love? Do any names come to mind?
Yeah, so I obviously love Maya Angelou. My gosh, I just reread, given the moment that we’re in, the Frederick Douglass biography by David Blight. One of my favorite books is “American Tapestry.” Do you know that one?
No, what’s that?
Rachel Swarns wrote a book called “American Tapestry,” about Michelle Obama’s white ancestors. It’s fascinating. One of my favorite other books is Katharine Graham’s “Personal History.” I love that book. I think I’ve read it three times. She’s a hero of mine.
Are you at all worried about how you’re going to keep that romantic notion of books now that you’re entering the book world and making it your work?
Well, no, I don’t think so. I find this work to be a calling. If I can keep a romantic notion about journalism, which I also have after working twenty-plus years at the New York Times, I can do the same with books being in the publishing world. I don’t worry about that. I’m somebody who lives with a lot of optimism, enthusiasm, and passion. And I don’t think there’s really anything that can rob me of that. If I can get through the tragedy I went through in my life, losing the man I love when our son was just six months old, and finding my way back, eventually, to a place of joy and happiness, I don’t think I’d be shaken up by being on the inside of an industry that I love, you know?


newyorker--2020-07-09--A Visitor to Ireland Finds Ballet in the Ancient Sport of Hurling

Before Rodriguez got to Ireland , a chance meeting with a woman from Wexford diverted him from his planned approach .
No matter how close they were emotionally , she warned , Irish families were unlikely to feel comfortable with the choreographed antics that the photographer had in mind .
Instead , he should get in touch with her brother , a hurler .
The sport of hurling has been played in Ireland , in some variation , for nearly three thousand years .
To the untrained eye , it is something like the meeting point of field hockey and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and strategic “ game of angles , ” as the poet Ciaran Carson put it .
Rodriguez began watching hurling matches on YouTube , slowing the game ’ s furious action of sliotar ( ball ) and camán ( stick ) to a delicate and surprisingly intimate ballet of shoving , grabbing , and hugging .
( The image of the vertical trio of players repeats a familiar on-field posture of despair at points missed or games lost . )
When Rodriguez came to photograph the hurlers , who have played together for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that their athleticism and camaraderie meant they adapted easily to his artistic requests .

Before Rodriguez got to Ireland, a chance meeting with a woman from Wexford diverted him from his planned approach. No matter how close they were emotionally, she warned, Irish families were unlikely to feel comfortable with the choreographed antics that the photographer had in mind. Instead, he should get in touch with her brother, a hurler. The sport of hurling has been played in Ireland, in some variation, for nearly three thousand years. To the untrained eye, it is something like the meeting point of field hockey and pure war, but primarily a fast and strategic “game of angles,” as the poet Ciaran Carson put it. Rodriguez began watching hurling matches on YouTube, slowing the game’s furious action of sliotar (ball) and camán (stick) to a delicate and surprisingly intimate ballet of shoving, grabbing, and hugging. (The image of the vertical trio of players repeats a familiar on-field posture of despair at points missed or games lost.) When Rodriguez came to photograph the hurlers, who have played together for parish teams since childhood, he found that their athleticism and camaraderie meant they adapted easily to his artistic requests.


newyorker--2020-07-09--Americans Overwhelmingly Favor Sending Trump Back to School in Fall

WASHINGTON , D.C. ( The Borowitz Report ) —Amid the debate over reopening the nation ’ s schools , a new poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans would like Donald J. Trump to go back to school in the fall .
Due to social-distancing requirements , those surveyed agreed that there should be limits on class size when Trump returns to school , but that his class should be large enough to accommodate other education-starved students such as Jared Kushner , Rand Paul , and Betsy DeVos .
Although Americans acknowledge that the logistics of sending Trump back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the cost of his continuing lack of education is far greater , the poll indicates .
Americans were split on which school subjects they would like to see Trump focus on most when he returns to the classroom .
Science and math received the strongest support , but a substantial number of respondents also favored history , geography , and English .
Finally , if Trump is ordered back to school in the fall , a vast majority of respondents urged that steps be taken to insure that he does not send @ @ @ @ @ @

WASHINGTON, D.C. (The Borowitz Report)—Amid the debate over reopening the nation’s schools, a new poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans would like Donald J. Trump to go back to school in the fall.
Due to social-distancing requirements, those surveyed agreed that there should be limits on class size when Trump returns to school, but that his class should be large enough to accommodate other education-starved students such as Jared Kushner, Rand Paul, and Betsy DeVos.
Although Americans acknowledge that the logistics of sending Trump back to school could be complicated and expensive, the cost of his continuing lack of education is far greater, the poll indicates.
Americans were split on which school subjects they would like to see Trump focus on most when he returns to the classroom.
Science and math received the strongest support, but a substantial number of respondents also favored history, geography, and English.
Finally, if Trump is ordered back to school in the fall, a vast majority of respondents urged that steps be taken to insure that he does not send someone else in his place.
Read More Satire from the Borowitz Report


newyorker--2020-07-09--Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

On June 22nd , visitors to Slate Star Codex , a long-standing blog of considerable influence , discovered that the site ’ s cerulean banner and graying WordPress design scheme had been superseded by a barren white layout .
In the place of its usual catalogue of several million words of fiction , book reviews , essays , and miscellanea , as well as at least as voluminous an archive of reader commentary , was a single post of atypical brevity .
“ So , ” it began , “ I kind of deleted the blog .
Sorry .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post was attributed , like virtually all of the blog ’ s entries since its inception , in 2013 , to Scott Alexander , the pseudonym of a Bay Area psychiatrist—the title “ Slate Star Codex ” is an imperfect anagram of the alias—and it put forth a rationale for this online self-immolation .
“ Last week I talked to a New York Times technology reporter who was planning to write a story on Slate Star Codex , ” the post continued .
“ He told me it would be a mostly positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gathering place for people in tech , and how we were ahead of the curve on some aspects of the coronavirus situation.
” In early March , Alexander had suggested that his readers begin to prepare for potential catastrophe , and his extensive review of the available medical literature led him to the conclusion that , despite the early guidance by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the contrary , masks were likely to prove more useful than not .
A month later , he looked back at his forecast and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ —not perfect , but at least more accurate than the news media , which , with some notable exceptions , he wrote , “ not only failed to adequately warn its readers about the epidemic , but actively mocked and condescended to anyone who did sound a warning.
” Journalists , in his view , were guilty of an inability or a refusal to weight the possible outcomes .
As he put it , if there was even a ten per cent risk of a ruinous pandemic , shouldn ’ t that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prefaces some of his own posts with an “ epistemic status , ” by which he rates his own confidence in the opinions to follow , thought the media , too , should present its findings in shades of gray .
The final post went on , “ It probably would have been a very nice article .
Unfortunately , he told me he had discovered my real name and would reveal it in the article , ie doxx me.
” Alexander explained that he has a variety of reasons to prefer that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ascertained with minimal investigation , be left out of the paper of record .
As a psychiatrist , he suspects that his relationships with his patients could be compromised if they were made aware of his “ personal ” blog , which gets six hundred thousand monthly page views .
The site , and the community it undergirds , has found itself embroiled in various disputes , and his longtime readers would have understood why he wished he ’ d done more to camouflage his identity .
He also worries about the fate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which he works decide to fire him .
There was also , he added , the “ prosaic ” matter of his personal safety .
One of his commenters had recently claimed to have been subject to a SWATting , a dangerous prank in which a police SWAT team is given false reason to descend with military force upon a victim ’ s home .
Alexander ’ s living arrangement is communal , and his responsibility extended to his household .
“ I live with ten housemates including a three-year-old and an infant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I would prefer this not happen to me or them.
” Alexander ’ s appeals to the reporter ’ s conscience had been ineffective .
“ He said that it was New York Times policy to include real names , and he couldn ’ t change that , ” he wrote .
“ After considering my options , I decided on the one you see now .
If there ’ s no blog , there ’ s no story.
” Alexander had taken his own work , and his site as a community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope that the Times would either cancel the story or permit the use of his pseudonym .
Should his readers like to help him , he went on , they might contact the technology editor , a veteran journalist based out of the paper ’ s San Francisco bureau .
In a parenthetical aside , he asked that his supporters remain courteous : “ Remember that you are representing me and the SSC community , and I will be very sad if you are a jerk to anybody .
Please just explain the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ random bloggers for clicks .
If you are some sort of important tech person who the New York Times technology section might want to maintain good relations with , mention that.
” This plea conformed with the online persona he has publicly cultivated over the years—that of a gentle headmaster preparing to chaperone a rambunctious group of boys on a museum outing—but , in this case , it seemed to lend plausible deniability to what he surely knew would be taken as incitement .
In the past seven years , S.S.C .
has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ rationalist ” community , a group of loosely affiliated writers and respondents who first coalesced , in the mid-two-thousands , on sites dedicated to the prospect that , with training and effort , our natural cognitive biases can be overcome .
Many of these people work in or around Silicon Valley—as mathematicians , programmers , or computer scientists—and their common interests tend to include artificial intelligence , transhumanism , an appreciation for the subtleties of statistical thinking , and the effective-altruism movement .
Alexander ’ s role in the community is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ S.S.C .
posts runs to about nine thousand pages—but one might credit him with two crowning contributions .
First , he has been instrumental in the evolution of the community ’ s self-image , helping to shape its members ’ understanding of themselves not as merely a collection of individuals with shared interests and beliefs but as a mature subculture , one with its own jargon , inside jokes , and pantheon of heroes .
Second , he more than anyone has defined and attempted to enforce the social norms of the subculture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only on the basis of data-driven argument and logical clarity but through an almost fastidious commitment to civil discourse .
( As he puts it , “ liberalism conquers by communities of people who agree to play by the rules.
” ) If one of the bedrock beliefs in Silicon Valley is that the future ought to be determined by a truly free market in ideas , one emancipated from the influence of institutional incumbents and untainted by the existing ideological polarities , Slate Star Codex is often held up as an example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like—a secret orchard of fruitful inquiry .
Alexander ’ s appeal elicited an instant reaction from members of the local intelligentsia in Silicon Valley and its satellite principalities .
Within a few days , a petition collected more than six thousand signatories , including the cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker , the economist Tyler Cowen , the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt , the cryptocurrency oracle Vitalik Buterin , the quantum physicist David Deutsch , the philosopher Peter Singer , and the OpenAI C.E.O .
Sam Altman .
Much of the support Alexander received was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writing .
The blogger Scott Aaronson , a professor of computer science at the University of Texas at Austin , wrote , “ In my view , for SSC to be permanently deleted would be an intellectual loss on the scale of , let ’ s say , John Stuart Mill or Mark Twain burning their collected works.
” Other responses seemed unwarranted by the matter at hand .
Alexander had not named the reporter in question , but the former venture capitalist and cryptocurrency enthusiast Balaji Srinivasan , who has a quarrelsome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the post appeared , at 2:33 A.M. in San Francisco—that this example of “ journalism as the non-consensual invasion of privacy for profit ” was courtesy of Cade Metz , a technology writer ordinarily given over to enthusiastic stories on the subject of artificial intelligence .
Alexander ’ s plea for civility went unheeded , and Metz and his editor were flooded with angry messages .
In another tweet , Srinivasan turned to address Silicon Valley investors , entrepreneurs , and C.E.O.s : “ The New York Times tried to doxx Scott Alexander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t change much .
They can afford it .
What will is freezing them out .
By RTing # ghostnyt you commit to not talking to NYT reporters or giving them quotes .
Go direct if you have something to say .
”

The temperature of the reaction only seemed to climb as rumors spread that Metz’s interest in Slate Star Codex might not be limited to Alexander’s early warnings about the coronavirus. Messages from Metz, published on Twitter and Reddit, revealed that his overtures to S.S.C. figures had referred to the blog’s readership with such adjectives as “powerful” and “interesting,” and noted that S.S.C. was a “hugely influential voice, not only with the tight-knit community in the comments, but with some very influential figures in Silicon Valley and beyond.” These neutral, noncommittal words were ominously interpreted, taken as a clue that the reporter might be working on something other than a light, flattering story. On July 1st, a Bay Area attorney whose Twitter bio reads “Into Stoicism, engineering, blockchains, Governance Econ, InfoSec, 2A,” tweeted, “Some inside sources tell me @CadeMetz is running around asking if @slatestarcodex meetups were ‘all white men’ and whether ‘commenters were trying to recruit people into white supremacy.’ Words cannot express how much I want to see @nytimes burn for this.” Alexander’s supporters were working themselves into a tizzy about a story that had not been published and, for all they knew, never would be. Alexander told me, via e-mail, that he’d “gotten word that more of my enemies and people connected to embarrassing incidents in my life were interviewed, all after I went public with my blog post.” After that, he chose to respond to only a few of my questions.
What would eventually become the rationalist community had its distant origins in the futurist Listservs of the very early Internet era. But it took shape as an identifiable movement on a blog called LessWrong, which was created in 2009 and maintained by a machine-intelligence researcher and former Orthodox Jew named Eliezer Yudkowsky, an acerbic autodidact best known for an endless ur-text called the Sequences, as well as a two-thousand-page fanfic series called “Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.” LessWrong was, among many other things, a forum for the expression of early concerns about the existential risk posed by runaway artificial intelligence, and it attracted such contributors as the Oxford researcher Nick Bostrom and the libertarian-leaning economist Robin Hanson, whose own blog, Overcoming Bias, served as a precursor. In time, the rationalist movement developed into a symposium for dispassionate, data-driven conversation about economics, philosophy, social science, and culture taken up in the spirit of logical serenity. Perhaps the largest share of its attention is devoted to metacognitive elucidations of the tools of reason, and the heroic effort to purge oneself of common biases and fallacies. The community grew comfortable with its own private lexicon, one almost designed to be daunting to outsiders unfamiliar with the concepts of “pareidolia” or the “motte-and-bailey fallacy.”
Under the influence of Bay Area counterculture, a prominent fraction of the community extended to the offline world their disinclination to observe convention: they often live in communal settlements, experiment with nootropics, and practice polyamory. In “The AI Does Not Hate You,” an excellent overview of rationalist history and debate, the British journalist Tom Chivers notes with an avuncular warmth that most rationalists seem constitutionally incapable of ordinary small talk. They do, however, have a tendency to make any idle assertion into the subject of a proposition bet, a pastime that embodies their conviction that you can only think clearly about the expected value of an outcome if you have “skin in the game,” or a personal stake. (Before the publication of Chivers’s book, Alexander wagered a thousand dollars that it would not present a negative image of the rationalist community, and won.)
Alexander began as a contributor to LessWrong, and the center of rationalist gravity followed him, in 2013, to Slate Star Codex. As a leading member of a community that views personal identity as theoretically immaterial to logical matters, he only occasionally finds it relevant to mention the details of his own life, but its contours are easy enough to find online. He is not yet forty. He grew up in Southern California and attended a leafy liberal-arts college in the Northeast, where he won scholarships for his undergraduate work in philosophy. He attended medical school abroad, did humanitarian service in Haiti, and lived in the Midwest before he fetched up in the Bay Area. Alexander has described himself as an “asexual heteroromantic,” and has also practiced polyamory, which is mentioned on the blog, and lives in some form of intentional community. He takes an annual survey of his readership and frequently reports on the patterns he discovers, especially when they diverge from expectations. “The average IQ is in the 130s,” he wrote, in 2016. “White men are overrepresented, but so are LGBT and especially transgender people.”
On the blog, Alexander strives to set an example as a sensitive, respectful, and humane interlocutor, and even in its prolixity his work is never boring; the fiction is delightfully weird and the arguments are often counterintuitive and brilliant. He has frequently allowed that a previous position he’s taken is wrong—his views of trans people are a major example—and has contributed to the understanding, among people who like to be right about everything, that the gracious acceptance of one’s own error (or “failure mode”) ought to be regarded as a high-status move rather than something to be stigmatized. Alexander’s terminal commitment, he has said repeatedly, is to the “principle of charity,” a technical term he has borrowed, from the analytic philosophers W. V. O. Quine and Donald Davidson, and slightly repurposed to mean, as Alexander once put it, “if you don’t understand how someone could possibly believe something as stupid as they do, that this is more likely a failure of understanding on your part than a failure of reason on theirs.”
Many rationalist exchanges involve lively if donnish arguments about abstruse thought experiments; the most famous, and funniest, example, from LessWrong, led inexorably to the conclusion that anyone who read the post and did not immediately set to work to create a superintelligent A.I. would one day be subject to its torture. Others reflect a near-pathological commitment to the reinvention of the wheel, using the language of game theory to explain, with mathematical rigor, some fact of social life that anyone trained in the humanities would likely accept as a given. A minority address issues that are contentious and at times offensive. These conversations, about race and genetic or biological differences between the sexes, have rightfully drawn criticism from outsiders. Rationalists usually point out that these debates represent a tiny fraction of the community’s total activity, and that they are overrepresented in the comments section of S.S.C. by a small but loud and persistent cohort—one that includes, for example, Steve Sailer, a peddler of “scientific racism.”
Alexander has long fretted over the likelihood that the presence of these fringe figures could tarnish the reputation of the blog and its community. In late 2013, he published “The Anti-Reactionary FAQ,” a thirty-thousand-word post now regarded as one of his first major contributions to the rationalist canon. The post describes the world view of a group, centered around a figure called Curtis Yarvin, also known as Mencius Moldbug, whose “neoreactionary” views—including an open desire for the restoration of feudalism and racial hierarchy—contributed to the intellectual normalization of what became known as the alt-right. Alexander could have banned neoreactionaries from his comments section, but, on the basis of the view that vile ideas should be countenanced and refuted rather than left to accrue the status of forbidden knowledge, he took their arguments seriously and at almost comical length—even at the risk that he might lend them legitimacy. Ultimately, he circumscribed or curtailed certain “culture war” threads. Still, the rationalists’ general willingness to pursue orderly exchanges on objectionable topics, often with monstrous people, remains not only a point of pride but a constitutive part of the subculture’s self-understanding.
They have given safe harbor to some genuinely egregious ideas, and controversial opinions have not been limited to the comments. It was widely surmised within the S.S.C. community, for example, that the arguments in the engineer James Damore’s infamous Google memo, for which he was fired, were drawn directly from an S.S.C. post in which Alexander explored and upheld research into innate biological differences between men and women. (As it turned out, the Damore memo was written before the post, but there was a noticeable overlap between them.) It remains possible that Alexander vaporized his blog not because he thought it would force Metz’s hand but because he feared that a Times reporter wouldn’t have to poke around for very long to turn up a creditable reason for negative coverage.
One of Alexander’s particularly controversial posts, written shortly after Donald Trump’s election, took up the question of whether it was accurate to call the President’s racism “overt.” Alexander, despite his unambiguous distaste for the President and endorsement (in swing states) of Hillary Clinton, presented evidence for the semantic claim that Trump’s actions did not qualify as “overt” racism. (Alexander is conscientious in his efforts to, as the community likes to put it, “update his priors,” and, since that post, he has not minced words about the President.) In 2017, Alexander identified himself as a member of the “hereditarian left,” defined as the ability to believe, on the one hand, that genetic differences play a determining role in human affairs and, on the other, that we ought to act as though they don’t. Often nothing at all appears to turn on such arguments. The rationalists regularly fail to reckon with power as it is practiced, or history as it has been experienced, and they indulge themselves in such contests with the freedom of those who have largely escaped discrimination.


newyorker--2020-07-10--Announcement: My Birthday Is Cancelled This Year

Just writing to let you know that , in light of everything going on , my birthday is cancelled this year .
( I mean , what isn ’ t ?
! )
It just doesn ’ t feel right to be celebrating at a time when there are so many more pressing matters at hand .
Obviously , I ’ ll still be doing a small family FaceTime , immediately followed by a larger Zoom with my college friends and maybe three work friends , max , but that ’ s really going to be it .
If each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say on the Zoom and wear an authentic Moroccan fez to make it festive , that would be terrific , but , honestly , it ’ s barely even going to be a thing .
I also read about a fun game where all of you hold up a sign saying which TV character I remind you the most of ( please , nobody pick Miranda ! )
, so we can do that at some point during the second or third hour .
Truthfully , I ’ ve never been someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birthdays anyway , so this isn ’ t even hard for me .
Cancelling my birthday was just the right thing to do , and I have not even for a second wavered on this decision .
For local people , I ’ ll be setting up a booth in Prospect Park on Saturday , from 1 to 4 P.M. , where you can wish me a happy birthday from a safe six-foot distance and , in return , I will use a T-shirt cannon to shoot you a T-shirt commemorating my cancelled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cannon yesterday , and it actually shoots pretty far , so you might want to come ready to run .
At 2:08 P.M. ( the time of my birth ) , we will be ceasing cannon use to blow bubbles .
Prior to that , at one-fifteen ( the time when I was almost born but my head went back in ) , all the park rangers will be lining up to deliver the traditional park-ranger birthday salute .
I ’ ve heard it ’ s incredibly moving .
I know this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birthday to most of you , but , honestly , I ’ m not thinking of it like that !
It ’ s just what I want this year .
I even told Daniel not to worry about a cake .
All I want is a small croquembouche , homemade from scratch , and for the first thing I see when I wake up to be a series of oil paintings depicting your favorite memories of us , followed by the release of balloons in the color of my birthstone .
Aside from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want a thing !
If anybody makes a fuss , I ’ m seriously going to be pissed .
For the birthday parade of cars that will be taking place at six-thirty ( and which I could care less about , frankly ! )
, the only thing I ’ d ask is that everyone stick to cerulean-shade vehicles , models 2016 and beyond .
I really don ’ t want to spend the entirety of my cancelled birthday looking at a bunch of old cars .
Anyway , hope you all understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and well in this crazy time .
( I meant to say that in the beginning , but I guess I forgot . )
Also , happy birthday , Alexander !
I can ’ t make your Zoom party , as I ’ m going to be lying down at that time .

Hi, Everyone,
Just writing to let you know that, in light of everything going on, my birthday is cancelled this year. (I mean, what isn’t?!) It just doesn’t feel right to be celebrating at a time when there are so many more pressing matters at hand.
Obviously, I’ll still be doing a small family FaceTime, immediately followed by a larger Zoom with my college friends and maybe three work friends, max, but that’s really going to be it. If each of you could prepare a few words to say on the Zoom and wear an authentic Moroccan fez to make it festive, that would be terrific, but, honestly, it’s barely even going to be a thing. I also read about a fun game where all of you hold up a sign saying which TV character I remind you the most of (please, nobody pick Miranda!), so we can do that at some point during the second or third hour.
Truthfully, I’ve never been someone who’s really “into” birthdays anyway, so this isn’t even hard for me. Cancelling my birthday was just the right thing to do, and I have not even for a second wavered on this decision.
For local people, I’ll be setting up a booth in Prospect Park on Saturday, from 1 to 4 P.M., where you can wish me a happy birthday from a safe six-foot distance and, in return, I will use a T-shirt cannon to shoot you a T-shirt commemorating my cancelled birthday. F.Y.I., we tested out the cannon yesterday, and it actually shoots pretty far, so you might want to come ready to run.
At 2:08 P.M. (the time of my birth), we will be ceasing cannon use to blow bubbles. Prior to that, at one-fifteen (the time when I was almost born but my head went back in), all the park rangers will be lining up to deliver the traditional park-ranger birthday salute. I’ve heard it’s incredibly moving.
I know this sounds like a real bummer of a birthday to most of you, but, honestly, I’m not thinking of it like that! It’s just what I want this year. I even told Daniel not to worry about a cake. All I want is a small croquembouche, homemade from scratch, and for the first thing I see when I wake up to be a series of oil paintings depicting your favorite memories of us, followed by the release of balloons in the color of my birthstone. Aside from that, I literally don’t want a thing! If anybody makes a fuss, I’m seriously going to be pissed.
For the birthday parade of cars that will be taking place at six-thirty (and which I could care less about, frankly!), the only thing I’d ask is that everyone stick to cerulean-shade vehicles, models 2016 and beyond. I really don’t want to spend the entirety of my cancelled birthday looking at a bunch of old cars.
Anyway, hope you all understand, and that you are staying safe and well in this crazy time. (I meant to say that in the beginning, but I guess I forgot.) Also, happy birthday, Alexander! I can’t make your Zoom party, as I’m going to be lying down at that time.