newyorker--2020-08-21--Joe Biden, America’s Un-Trump: The Nominee Makes His Case at the Democratic National Convention

For Joe Biden , the 2020 election has always been about Donald Trump—his outrages and lies , his attacks on the very foundations of American democracy .
Biden is not running for President to reform American health care , or to rebuild our infrastructure , or to restore our overseas alliances , although he hopes to do all those things .
He is running to be the un-Trump .
This is what Biden began his campaign with a year and a half ago , and it is undoubtedly what he will end it with , seventy-five days from now .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprisingly effective acceptance speech to the all-virtual Democratic National Convention , on Thursday night , it took Biden barely a sentence before he got to the point .
“ The current President has cloaked America in darkness for much too long , ” he said , staring directly into the camera , a wall of sixteen American flags behind him .
“ Too much anger .
Too much fear .
Too much division.
” For the next twenty-four minutes or so , the former Vice-President talked of character and decency , of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrenching test that it now faces .
It ’ s a message that has changed very little—except in its urgency—since the spring of 2019 , when Biden announced his campaign in a video in which he called Trump a “ threat to this nation .
.
.
unlike any I had ever seen in my lifetime ” and warned that the 2020 election would be a “ battle for the soul of the nation.
” “ Everything that has made America America is at stake , ” Biden said then , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resulting economic crisis , before a wave of national protest over racial injustice that Trump has exploited as no President before him .
On Thursday night , Biden was even clearer and more assertive : Trump , he said , is a “ President who takes no responsibility , refuses to lead , blames others , cozies up to dictators , and fans the flames of hate and division.
” Trump believes “ the job is all about him , never about you , ” Biden said , and he has brought America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ life-changing election ” from which there is no turning away .
Without this clarity , Biden would not be the Democratic nominee .
As it is , he almost wasn ’ t .
Nearly thirty other Democrats opposed him for the nomination , and many of them offered more , better , and sharper policy visions for a post-Trump America .
They offered Midwestern practicality or youth or bank accounts with billions of dollars .
Biden had none of that .
He came in fourth in Iowa and fifth in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory by Bernie Sanders and his promised socialist “ revolution , ” consolidated around the gabby career politician , an empathetic , glad-handing son of the white working class , as the best choice to take on Trump .
Beating Trump was the Party ’ s priority , as it has been Biden ’ s , from the start of this most unusual of campaigns .
Now seventy-seven and a two-time loser in Presidential politics , Biden has finally won the nomination that he first sought nearly four decades ago .
And , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans to run against Trump this fall , by making the case against him in simple , factual , devastating terms : five million Americans infected with COVID-19 , more than a hundred and seventy thousand dead , fifty million unemployed—and “ the President still does not have a plan.
” Biden signalled that he will make it a choice not between Republicans and Democrats but between Trump and not-Trump .
The President was the inescapable menace around which the Democratic Convention—Biden ’ s Convention—was organized , in a way that , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have been the threat of another 9/11 or the spectre of McCarthyism .
To the extent that speeches were memorable enough to transcend their occurrence in the disembodied Zoomverse which took the place of an in-person gathering , they mostly involved one-line zingers aimed at Trump or moving testimonials to Biden that described him in unmistakable contrast to the President .
Almost all the speeches mentioned Trump ’ s indifference to the plight of coronavirus-stricken Americans .
The words “ chaos ” and “ ignorance ” and “ incompetence ” were thrown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was Biden who marshalled the strongest , most complete , and most passionate case against Trump .
He was eloquent and simple and stark when he concluded , “ Our current President has failed in his most basic duty to this nation .
He failed to protect us .
He failed to protect America .
And , my fellow-Americans , that is unforgivable.
” All of the speakers , and Biden most of all , faced an almost impossible task : capturing the crazy context of the Trumpian moment while also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is hard—very hard—to do both .
The vast bulk of the speeches this week highlighted a progressive Democratic policy agenda that has little to do with the divisive President and everything to do with motivating the Party ’ s core constituencies to come out and vote .
But this is not what animates Biden ’ s candidacy , and it is not , in the end , how he will be judged .
He had to find a way to speak to America about the reality of a Presidency that defies our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after all , in which Trump praised QAnon conspiracy theorists , who believe that Democrats are part of a secret plot involving pedophiles and cannibals and the “ deep state ” —because they support him .
A week in which Trump demanded that Americans boycott Goodyear , the Ohio-based tire company , because it does not want Trump-backers , or anyone else , showing up to work in political attire .
A week in which Trump cheered on his voters for refusing to abide by the public-health guidelines that are meant to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A week in which the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee found that Trump ’ s 2016 campaign did , in fact , actively welcome Russian help .
Hours before Biden ’ s speech on Thursday , Steve Bannon , who served as Trump ’ s chief strategist in the White House , was hauled off a twenty-eight-million-dollar yacht owned by a Chinese billionaire and arrested , by U.S .
Postal Service inspectors , for bilking pro-Trump contributors to We Build the Wall , a charity endorsed by Trump and his children .
The arrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s plans to cut the Postal Service ’ s budget , in advance of an election that may well depend , for its outcome , on the Postal Service ’ s ability to deliver ballots to voters who have to stay at home because of a pandemic that Trump has so mishandled .
How was Biden , or anyone else for that matter , supposed to fully convey the shit-show essence of this moment ?
He couldn ’ t , of course .
Because you can ’ t make this up .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago , at Hillary Clinton ’ s Convention , in Philadelphia , Democrats were well aware of who and what Trump was , but they did not want to believe—could not believe—that he would win .
It was still possible then to laugh at Trump , to treat him as a joke who had managed to secure the Republican nomination .
“ I think it ’ s fair to say this is not your typical election , ” President Barack Obama said then , to audible titters from the packed arena .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ him as “ the Donald ” and said he ’ s “ not really a plans guy ” and “ not really a facts guy , either.
” Both lines drew laughs .
At one point , mocking the notion that Trump , a wealthy septuagenarian , had somehow managed to market himself as a “ champion ” of the working class , Obama stopped reading his speech for a second to laugh at the absurdity of the point himself .

For Joe Biden, the 2020 election has always been about Donald Trump—his outrages and lies, his attacks on the very foundations of American democracy. Biden is not running for President to reform American health care, or to rebuild our infrastructure, or to restore our overseas alliances, although he hopes to do all those things. He is running to be the un-Trump. This is what Biden began his campaign with a year and a half ago, and it is undoubtedly what he will end it with, seventy-five days from now. In his rousing, emotional, and surprisingly effective acceptance speech to the all-virtual Democratic National Convention, on Thursday night, it took Biden barely a sentence before he got to the point. “The current President has cloaked America in darkness for much too long,” he said, staring directly into the camera, a wall of sixteen American flags behind him. “Too much anger. Too much fear. Too much division.”
For the next twenty-four minutes or so, the former Vice-President talked of character and decency, of the “soul of America” and the wrenching test that it now faces. It’s a message that has changed very little—except in its urgency—since the spring of 2019, when Biden announced his campaign in a video in which he called Trump a “threat to this nation . . . unlike any I had ever seen in my lifetime” and warned that the 2020 election would be a “battle for the soul of the nation.” “Everything that has made America America is at stake,” Biden said then, and that was before a deadly pandemic and its resulting economic crisis, before a wave of national protest over racial injustice that Trump has exploited as no President before him.
On Thursday night, Biden was even clearer and more assertive: Trump, he said, is a “President who takes no responsibility, refuses to lead, blames others, cozies up to dictators, and fans the flames of hate and division.” Trump believes “the job is all about him, never about you,” Biden said, and he has brought America to an “inflection point,” a “life-changing election” from which there is no turning away.
Without this clarity, Biden would not be the Democratic nominee. As it is, he almost wasn’t. Nearly thirty other Democrats opposed him for the nomination, and many of them offered more, better, and sharper policy visions for a post-Trump America. They offered Midwestern practicality or youth or bank accounts with billions of dollars. Biden had none of that. He came in fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire before the Party, fearing a victory by Bernie Sanders and his promised socialist “revolution,” consolidated around the gabby career politician, an empathetic, glad-handing son of the white working class, as the best choice to take on Trump. Beating Trump was the Party’s priority, as it has been Biden’s, from the start of this most unusual of campaigns.
Now seventy-seven and a two-time loser in Presidential politics, Biden has finally won the nomination that he first sought more than three decades ago. And, on Thursday, he showed how he plans to run against Trump this fall, by making the case against him in simple, factual, devastating terms: five million Americans infected with COVID-19, more than a hundred and seventy thousand dead, fifty million unemployed—and “the President still does not have a plan.” Biden signalled that he will make it a choice not between Republicans and Democrats but between Trump and not-Trump.
The President was the inescapable menace around which the Democratic Convention—Biden’s Convention—was organized, in a way that, in an earlier era, the overarching context might have been the threat of another 9/11 or the spectre of McCarthyism. To the extent that speeches were memorable enough to transcend their occurrence in the disembodied Zoomverse which took the place of an in-person gathering, they mostly involved one-line zingers aimed at Trump or moving testimonials to Biden that described him in unmistakable contrast to the President.
Almost all the speeches mentioned Trump’s indifference to the plight of coronavirus-stricken Americans. The words “chaos” and “ignorance” and “incompetence” were thrown around. But, in the end, it was Biden who marshalled the strongest, most complete, and most passionate case against Trump. He was eloquent and simple and stark when he concluded, “Our current President has failed in his most basic duty to this nation. He failed to protect us. He failed to protect America. And, my fellow-Americans, that is unforgivable.”
All of the speakers, and Biden most of all, faced an almost impossible task: capturing the crazy context of the Trumpian moment while also inspiring Americans to rise above it. It is hard—very hard—to do both. The vast bulk of the speeches this week highlighted a progressive Democratic policy agenda that has little to do with the divisive President and everything to do with motivating the Party’s core constituencies to come out and vote. But this is not what animates Biden’s candidacy, and it is not, in the end, how he will be judged. He had to find a way to speak to America about the reality of a Presidency that defies our political vocabulary.
This was a week, after all, in which Trump praised QAnon conspiracy theorists, who believe that Democrats are part of a secret plot involving pedophiles and cannibals and the “deep state”—because they support him. A week in which Trump demanded that Americans boycott Goodyear, the Ohio-based tire company, because it does not want Trump-backers, or anyone else, showing up to work in political attire. A week in which Trump cheered on his voters for refusing to abide by the public-health guidelines that are meant to keep them safe from the coronavirus. A week in which the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee found that Trump’s 2016 campaign did, in fact, actively welcome Russian help.
Hours before Biden’s speech on Thursday, Steve Bannon, who served as Trump’s chief strategist in the White House, was hauled off a twenty-eight-million-dollar yacht owned by a Chinese billionaire and arrested, by U.S. Postal Service inspectors, for bilking pro-Trump contributors to We Build the Wall, a charity endorsed by Trump and his children. The arrest came amid a national outcry over Trump’s plans to cut the Postal Service’s budget, in advance of an election that may well depend, for its outcome, on the Postal Service’s ability to deliver ballots to voters who have to stay at home because of a pandemic that Trump has so mishandled. How was Biden, or anyone else for that matter, supposed to fully convey the shit-show essence of this moment? He couldn’t, of course. Because you can’t make this up. And it is happening nonetheless.
Four years ago, at Hillary Clinton’s Convention, in Philadelphia, Democrats were well aware of who and what Trump was, but they did not want to believe—could not believe—that he would win. It was still possible then to laugh at Trump, to treat him as a joke who had managed to secure the Republican nomination. “I think it’s fair to say this is not your typical election,” President Barack Obama said then, to audible titters from the packed arena. Later in his speech, Obama mocked him as “the Donald” and said he’s “not really a plans guy” and “not really a facts guy, either.” Both lines drew laughs. At one point, mocking the notion that Trump, a wealthy septuagenarian, had somehow managed to market himself as a “champion” of the working class, Obama stopped reading his speech for a second to laugh at the absurdity of the point himself.
But, even four years ago, Obama was not under any illusions about his successor, calling the dark disruption that Trump promised a “deeply pessimistic vision of a country where we turn against each other.” Obama clearly understood Trump as a politician even then, and he warned Americans about Trump’s “fanning of resentment and blame and anger and hate.” This was not an election about two competing ideologies, in the grand American tradition, Obama said in 2016, but “a more fundamental choice about who we are as a people.” He was right. So was Biden, who, during his own speech at the 2016 Convention, bitingly and accurately hit Trump for his “cynicism” and his “lack of empathy and compassion”; warned about Trump’s belittling of allies and his embrace of dictators; and called “malarkey” on Trump’s bogus claim to care about the middle class.
The problem is not that Obama, Biden, and the others did not get Trump. It’s that they did not get America. They were absolutely sure that he could not win. The country described by Trump, in which someone like Trump could become President, “is not the America I know,” Obama had said, during his proud valedictory at the 2016 Convention, the same speech in which he said, “I am more optimistic about the future of America than ever before.” This week, you did not hear Obama or Biden—or anyone, really—talk about optimism. This is a sober Party for sober times.
Their warnings about Trump are now, by necessity, more urgent and more dire, suggesting that democracy itself is on the ballot in a way it never has been. In just four years of Trump, Sanders said on Monday night, “the unthinkable has become normal.” With four more years, he warned, America would have a President “leading us down the path of authoritarianism.”


newyorker--2020-08-22--What to Stream: “Alexandria: Again and Forever,” a Masterpiece Hiding on Netflix

Though the selection of movies on Netflix isn ’ t as adventurous as the world of movies over all , there ’ s an international masterwork hiding in plain sight there that , among other things , expands the very concept of personal filmmaking .
“ Alexandria : Again and Forever , ” the 1989 film by the Egyptian filmmaker Youssef Chahine , is a bold combination of many genres : it ’ s a romantic melodrama and a riotous comedy , a political drama , a memory piece , and a work of self-referentiality set in the milieu of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a passion for Shakespeare .
What ’ s more , it features the sixty-something director himself ( who died , in 2008 , at the age of eighty-two ) in a lead performance that ’ s both floridly exuberant and unreservedly intimate .
The film ’ s opening credits alone blaze with artistic imagination : the onscreen text is accompanied by a voice-over performance of Hamlet ’ s “ to be or not to be ” monologue , in Arabic—and sung , with a theatricality between opera and drama that , from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lyrical exaltation , of high seriousness and artistic audacity , quickly developed by the action .
A middle-aged filmmaker named Yehia ( Chahine ) is having a stressful meeting at his apartment in Cairo with a younger actor named Amr ( Amr Abdulgalil ) , the Hamlet in Yehia ’ s planned film of the play .
Amr storms out of the apartment , declaring that he ’ s quitting the project because he can ’ t stand “ the rumors , ” the nature of which becomes evident when Yehia ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , threatens to leave if the director runs after the actor .
Yehia and Amr have had a productive but tense collaboration for ten years ; the actor is something of the director ’ s muse and also his stand-in , playing him in a movie that they made together a decade earlier .
Their bond is deeply intimate , though the extent of its sexuality remains unclear .
Regardless , Yehia ’ s adoration of Amr is unabashed—and Chahine evokes the power of their relationship in an exquisite leap of cinematic memory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yehia flees his family apartment , in Cairo , for a hotel room in his home town of Alexandria , where he holes up to work on a new script .
There , sitting alone , he listens to music on a Walkman : Nat King Cole , singing “ Walkin ’ My Baby Back Home , ” which sparks a flashback to events from a decade earlier , when , at the Berlin Film Festival , he ’ s won a major prize for a movie in which Amr stars .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as their relationship , do a deftly exuberant soft-shoe number to the same song , in a Berlin street ( daffily re-created on a studio set , complete with studio snow ) .
The scale and the scope of the movie are enormous , involving crowd scenes and political meetings , colossal fantasy sequences and films-within-the-film , that the director parses with a keenly personal focus that renders the collective action inseparable from individual artistic vision .
At a teeming streetside carnival , Yehia—now in the company of an actress named Nadia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambitions will , he hopes , take the place of Amr in his work—dances again , in front of a cheering crowd , with an audacious flair that smolders with homoerotic undertones .
Yehia ’ s cinematic life and imagination also burst onto the screen with wild audacity , as in scenes of Yehia ’ s extravagant bio-pic of Alexander the Great , in which he himself performs—a majestic seaside musical burlesque that features an antic trio wearing mortarboards , a king chewing bubble gum , an armed guard in a Batman outfit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cult of personality to Yehia ’ s own romantic agonies and disillusionments .
( Another scene from that fantastic film-within-a-film borrows slapstick tropes from silent comedies to ramp the burlesque up to outrageous heights of whimsy . )
One of the strains running through “ Alexandria : Again and Forever ” is the corruption of Egypt ’ s film business by what Yehia calls “ petrodollars , ” the financing that goes into the production of TV series that the movie presents as both enticingly lucrative and woefully mediocre .
( For instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satire , Yehia ’ s alternative version of “ Hamlet , ” starring a handsome young TV actor of giddily inexpressive incompetence . )
The theme is no mere throwaway : one of the movie ’ s central story lines involves Yehia ’ s involvement in a hunger strike by filmmakers and actors who occupy the artists ’ -union offices , demanding a change in government policy , and their bold action involves confrontations with police and high officials that resonate through Egyptian society at large .
( What ’ s more , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a passionate storm of his reminiscences and gives rise to another of his vital artistic collaborations . )
“ Alexandria : Again and Forever ” is based on events in Chahine ’ s own life and career ( including his award at the Berlin festival in 1979 , for the film “ Alexandria .
.
.
Why ?
” and his celebrated performance in his own 1958 film , “ Cairo Station ” ) .
In August , 1987 , the sit-in and hunger strike at the artists ’ -union offices actually happened—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Its subject was seemingly minor—a law overturning the term limits of union leaders—but the law ’ s obvious purpose was to extend the government ’ s control over the arts .
In a closing title card , Chahine dedicates the film to “ all the Egyptian movie makers and artists ’ fight for democracy.
” “ Alexandria : Again and Forever ” is one of the great political films , not least in its emphasis on the totality of political struggle—its inseparability from sexual freedom , artistic imagination , open-minded cosmopolitanism , uninhibited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy .

Though the selection of movies on Netflix isn’t as adventurous as the world of movies over all, there’s an international masterwork hiding in plain sight there that, among other things, expands the very concept of personal filmmaking. “Alexandria: Again and Forever,” the 1989 film by the Egyptian filmmaker Youssef Chahine, is a bold combination of many genres: it’s a romantic melodrama and a riotous comedy, a political drama, a memory piece, and a work of self-referentiality set in the milieu of Egyptian filmmaking, all held together by a passion for Shakespeare. What’s more, it features the sixty-something director himself (who died, in 2008, at the age of eighty-two) in a lead performance that’s both floridly exuberant and unreservedly intimate.
The film’s opening credits alone blaze with artistic imagination: the onscreen text is accompanied by a voice-over performance of Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” monologue, in Arabic—and sung, with a theatricality between opera and drama that, from the very start, sets a tone of lyrical exaltation, of high seriousness and artistic audacity, quickly developed by the action. A middle-aged filmmaker named Yehia (Chahine) is having a stressful meeting at his apartment in Cairo with a younger actor named Amr (Amr Abdulgalil), the Hamlet in Yehia’s planned film of the play. Amr storms out of the apartment, declaring that he’s quitting the project because he can’t stand “the rumors,” the nature of which becomes evident when Yehia’s wife, Gigi (Menha Batraoui), threatens to leave if the director runs after the actor.
Yehia and Amr have had a productive but tense collaboration for ten years; the actor is something of the director’s muse and also his stand-in, playing him in a movie that they made together a decade earlier. Their bond is deeply intimate, though the extent of its sexuality remains unclear. Regardless, Yehia’s adoration of Amr is unabashed—and Chahine evokes the power of their relationship in an exquisite leap of cinematic memory. After Amr’s departure, Yehia flees his family apartment, in Cairo, for a hotel room in his home town of Alexandria, where he holes up to work on a new script. There, sitting alone, he listens to music on a Walkman: Nat King Cole, singing “Walkin’ My Baby Back Home,” which sparks a flashback to events from a decade earlier, when, at the Berlin Film Festival, he’s won a major prize for a movie in which Amr stars. The two men, celebrating their triumph as well as their relationship, do a deftly exuberant soft-shoe number to the same song, in a Berlin street (daffily re-created on a studio set, complete with studio snow).
The scale and the scope of the movie are enormous, involving crowd scenes and political meetings, colossal fantasy sequences and films-within-the-film, that the director parses with a keenly personal focus that renders the collective action inseparable from individual artistic vision. At a teeming streetside carnival, Yehia—now in the company of an actress named Nadia (Youssra), whose own Shakespearean ambitions will, he hopes, take the place of Amr in his work—dances again, in front of a cheering crowd, with an audacious flair that smolders with homoerotic undertones. Yehia’s cinematic life and imagination also burst onto the screen with wild audacity, as in scenes of Yehia’s extravagant bio-pic of Alexander the Great, in which he himself performs—a majestic seaside musical burlesque that features an antic trio wearing mortarboards, a king chewing bubble gum, an armed guard in a Batman outfit, all the while linking the royal cult of personality to Yehia’s own romantic agonies and disillusionments. (Another scene from that fantastic film-within-a-film borrows slapstick tropes from silent comedies to ramp the burlesque up to outrageous heights of whimsy.)
One of the strains running through “Alexandria: Again and Forever” is the corruption of Egypt’s film business by what Yehia calls “petrodollars,” the financing that goes into the production of TV series that the movie presents as both enticingly lucrative and woefully mediocre. (For instance, Chahine offers, as a scathing satire, Yehia’s alternative version of “Hamlet,” starring a handsome young TV actor of giddily inexpressive incompetence.) The theme is no mere throwaway: one of the movie’s central story lines involves Yehia’s involvement in a hunger strike by filmmakers and actors who occupy the artists’-union offices, demanding a change in government policy, and their bold action involves confrontations with police and high officials that resonate through Egyptian society at large. (What’s more, Yehia’s political engagement also unleashes a passionate storm of his reminiscences and gives rise to another of his vital artistic collaborations.)
“Alexandria: Again and Forever” is based on events in Chahine’s own life and career (including his award at the Berlin festival in 1979, for the film “Alexandria . . . Why?” and his celebrated performance in his own 1958 film, “Cairo Station”). In August, 1987, the sit-in and hunger strike at the artists’-union offices actually happened—and Chahine was its most prominent participant. Its subject was seemingly minor—a law overturning the term limits of union leaders—but the law’s obvious purpose was to extend the government’s control over the arts. In a closing title card, Chahine dedicates the film to “all the Egyptian movie makers and artists’ fight for democracy.” “Alexandria: Again and Forever” is one of the great political films, not least in its emphasis on the totality of political struggle—its inseparability from sexual freedom, artistic imagination, open-minded cosmopolitanism, uninhibited self-assertion, unsparing self-questioning, and joyful energy.


newyorker--2020-08-21--The Democratic Convention, Online and United

This week , the Democratic Party presented its first-ever virtual nominating Convention .
Over three nights , a host of @ @ @ @ @ Clinton and Michelle Obama , to progressive figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , @ @ @ @ @ Kasich and Colin Powell—promoted a big-tent movement to defeat Donald Trump in November .
John @ @ @ @ @ discuss what the Democratic Convention tells us about the general election , and what to @ @ @ @ @ Republican Convention next week .

Download a transcript.|||
Photograph by Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
This week, the Democratic Party presented its first-ever virtual nominating Convention. Over three nights, a host of speakers—from establishment Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama, to progressive figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to moderate Republicans like John Kasich and Colin Powell—promoted a big-tent movement to defeat Donald Trump in November. John Cassidy joins Eric Lach to discuss what the Democratic Convention tells us about the general election, and what to look forward to from the Republican Convention next week.


newyorker--2020-08-21--Will Ahmaud Arbery Get Justice?

Will Ahmaud Arbery Get Justice?

HBO ’ s “ Watchmen ” was a critical hit that garnered twenty-six Emmy Award nominations .
This week ’ s guest host , Vinson Cunningham , calls the show ’ s musical score a character in its own right , and he talks with the composers Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross , also of Nine Inch Nails .
And we ’ ll investigate why the killers of Ahmaud Arbery were allowed to walk free until the shooting became a national scandal , and what the failure to prosecute says about the power of district attorneys .
The composers ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explain how their score becomes a character on the show , which is nominated for twenty-six Emmy Awards .
Everyone Knew Who Shot Ahmaud Arbery .
Why Did the Killers Walk Free ?
In February , a young Black man was shot by three white men while jogging .
His killers were known .
But it took seventy-four days for them to be arrested .
What were prosecutors thinking ?
A year after her death , we revisit a conversation with the Nobel laureate about her last novel , writing in the modern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her understanding of the world .

Illustration by Golden Cosmos; Source photograph courtesy the family of Ahmaud Arbery / Alamy
HBO’s “Watchmen” was a critical hit that garnered twenty-six Emmy Award nominations. This week’s guest host, Vinson Cunningham, calls the show’s musical score a character in its own right, and he talks with the composers Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, also of Nine Inch Nails. And we’ll investigate why the killers of Ahmaud Arbery were allowed to walk free until the shooting became a national scandal, and what the failure to prosecute says about the power of district attorneys.
Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross on HBO’s “Watchmen”
The composers (and members of Nine Inch Nails) explain how their score becomes a character on the show, which is nominated for twenty-six Emmy Awards.
Everyone Knew Who Shot Ahmaud Arbery. Why Did the Killers Walk Free?
In February, a young Black man was shot by three white men while jogging. His killers were known. But it took seventy-four days for them to be arrested. What were prosecutors thinking?
Toni Morrison Talks with Hilton Als
A year after her death, we revisit a conversation with the Nobel laureate about her last novel, writing in the modern era, and how her father shaped her understanding of the world.


newyorker--2020-08-21--From Paul Manafort to Steve Bannon, a Brief History of MAGA Money-Grubbing

Four years ago yesterday , Paul Manafort resigned as Donald Trump ’ s 2016 campaign manager , just days after the New York Times reported that ledgers discovered in Kiev indicated that the veteran Republican political consultant and influence peddler had received $ 12.7 million in cash payments from a pro-Russian party controlled by Ukraine ’ s former leader , Viktor Yanukovych .
Eric Trump told Fox News that his father didn ’ t want the “ distraction ” of Manafort ’ s troubles looming over his White House bid .
To replace Manafort , Trump appointed Kellyanne Conway as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bannon , the right-wing-media provocateur , who was then head of Breitbart News , as the campaign ’ s chief executive .
Today , Manafort is a convicted felon .
He is currently in home confinement , serving a seven-year sentence for tax fraud and conspiracy , witness tampering , and foreign-lobbying violations .
In May , the Bureau of Prisons released him from a federal prison in Florida , because of health concerns related to the coronavirus .
Earlier this week , he returned to the news when a Senate Intelligence Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election described him as a “ grave counterintelligence threat , ” partly because one of his longtime business partners was , in fact , a Russian intelligence officer .
Bannon isn ’ t in prison , but he is facing accusations of fraud and money laundering that could land him in the slammer for up to forty years .
On Thursday , federal agents arrested him on a luxury motor yacht docked off Westbrook , Connecticut .
Later in the day , he appeared handcuffed in a Manhattan court , where he pleaded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three other men had covertly diverted millions of dollars that had been donated to an online GoFundMe campaign supposedly meant to fund construction of Trump ’ s wall across the southern border .
A judge released Bannon on a five-million-dollar bond , ordering him to say away from yachts and private jets .
The most remarkable thing about the indictment that the Southern District of New York unsealed on Thursday is how grubby the wrongdoing it alleges is .
For years , Bannon , who started out as a Naval officer and Goldman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself as a right-populist thought leader , a man deeply interested in history , philosophy , and economic supply chains , as well as the nefarious business of day-to-day politicking , and putting the screws to Democrats .
If the charges contained in the Southern District ’ s complaint are true , the would-be philosopher king is just another grifter looking to exploit Trump supporters for his own financial benefit .
Manafort , who , along with Roger Stone and Charles Black , virtually invented the business of lobbying in Washington for rancid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course .
To give him his due , though—or perhaps more than his due—he didn ’ t try to portray his money-grubbing as part of a broader political cause .
Even his involvement in the Trump campaign seemed to be largely a business arrangement—or perhaps a service to some of his East European benefactors , from whom he was seeking payments that he believed he was owed .
Days after his appointment to the campaign , he e-mailed a colleague in Kiev : “ How do we use to get whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump campaign , he portrayed himself , and Trump , as defenders of an American working class , which had been sacrificed on the altar of globalization .
After being booted from the Trump White House , in August , 2017 , at least in part for making critical comments about the Administration to journalists , he expanded his ambitions to Europe , where he sought to build a network of far-right parties .
( He didn ’ t get far . )
He also teamed up with an exiled Chinese billionaire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regime change in China .
( According to news reports , the yacht that Bannon was arrested on belongs to Guo . )
He also continued to agitate in this country , putting out a regular podcast , which morphed from “ War Room : Impeachment ” to “ War Room : Pandemic.
” The indictment from the Southern District provides a window into some of Bannon ’ s less visible activities .
In December , 2018 , it recounts , Brian Kolfage , an Air Force veteran , triple amputee , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ page that was originally called “ We the People Build the Wall.
” As Congress had frustrated Trump ’ s designs , the campaign attracted a lot of attention from the conservative media , and money poured in .
According to the indictment , the GoFundMe page quickly raised about twenty million dollars from hundreds of thousands of different donors .
( Ultimately , it raised about twenty-five million dollars . )
Concerns arose about Kolfage ’ s background and how the money would be used to build the wall .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Kolfage that , unless he could identify a legitimate nonprofit organization that would receive the funds raised , the site would return the money to the donors .
The indictment goes on to describe how Bannon and another right-wing activist , a venture capitalist named Andrew Badolato , got involved with Kolfage and “ took significant control of the fundraising campaign ’ s organization and day-to-day activities , including its financing , messaging , donor outreach and general operations.
” More specifically , working with Kolfage , they set up a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) not-for-profit , We Build the Wall , Inc. , “ to which they proposed that the money that had been raised by ‘ We the People Build the Wall ’ could be transferred.
” Having navigated this obstacle , the alleged conspirators set out to raise more money .
To this end , they promised potential donors that a hundred per cent of the cash donated would go directly to the construction project , with neither Kolfage nor anyone else taking a cut .
“ These representations were false , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than $ 350,000 in funds that had been donated to We Build the Wall for his personal use , while BANNON , through a non-profit organization under his control , received over $ 1,000,000 from We Build the Wall , which BANNON used to , among other things , secretly pay KOLFAGE and to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in BANNON ’ s personal expenses.
” Among the items that the defendants spent the money on were “ travel , hotels , consumer goods , and personal credit card debts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also allege that the defendants tried to disguise the payments they received by routing some of them through a shell company under the control of Timothy Shea .
They further claim that , in late 2019 , after the defendants discovered that We Build the Wall was under criminal investigation , they “ took additional steps to conceal the fraudulent scheme detailed above , ” including using encrypted-messaging services and removing from the fund-raising campaign ’ s Web site the claim that Kolfage wasn ’ t being compensated .
A press release stated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering , each of which carries a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison.
” In a move as predictable as the sun rising in the east , Trump quickly sought to distance himself from the We Build the Wall group , and from Bannon .
Even for a dissembler as practiced as he is , though , this was a tough sell .
In July of last year , the President ’ s son @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fund-raising event for the group , alongside Bannon and various other right-wing activists .
On Thursday , the Trump Organization issued a statement claiming that Donald , Jr. , ’ s “ previous praise of the group was based on what he was led to believe about their supposed intention to help build the wall on our southern border and if he and others were deceived , the group deserves to be held accountable for their actions .
”

Four years ago Thursday, Paul Manafort resigned as Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign manager, just days after the New York Times reported that ledgers discovered in Kiev indicated that the veteran Republican political consultant and influence peddler had received $12.7 million in cash payments from a pro-Russian party controlled by Ukraine’s former leader, Viktor Yanukovych. Eric Trump told Fox News that his father didn’t want the “distraction” of Manafort’s troubles looming over his White House bid. To replace Manafort, Trump appointed Kellyanne Conway as manager of his campaign, and Steve Bannon, the right-wing-media provocateur, who was then head of Breitbart News, as the campaign’s chief executive.
Today, Manafort is a convicted felon. He is currently in home confinement, serving a seven-year sentence for tax fraud and conspiracy, witness tampering, and foreign-lobbying violations. In May, the Bureau of Prisons released him from a federal prison in Florida, because of health concerns related to the coronavirus. Earlier this week, he returned to the news when a Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election described him as a “grave counterintelligence threat,” partly because one of his longtime business partners was, in fact, a Russian intelligence officer.
Bannon isn’t in prison, but he is facing accusations of fraud and money laundering that could land him in the slammer for up to forty years. On Thursday, federal agents arrested him on a luxury motor yacht docked off Westbrook, Connecticut. Later in the day, he appeared handcuffed in a Manhattan court, where he pleaded not guilty to charges that he and three other men had covertly diverted millions of dollars that had been donated to an online GoFundMe campaign supposedly meant to fund construction of Trump’s wall across the southern border. A judge released Bannon on a five-million-dollar bond, ordering him to say away from yachts and private jets.
The most remarkable thing about the indictment that the Southern District of New York unsealed on Thursday is how grubby the wrongdoing it alleges is. For years, Bannon, who started out as a Naval officer and Goldman Sachs investment banker, has been promoting himself as a right-populist thought leader, a man deeply interested in history, philosophy, and economic supply chains, as well as the nefarious business of day-to-day politicking, and putting the screws to Democrats. If the charges contained in the Southern District’s complaint are true, the would-be philosopher king is just another grifter looking to exploit Trump supporters for his own financial benefit.
Manafort, who, along with Roger Stone and Charles Black, virtually invented the business of lobbying in Washington for rancid foreign governments, was a grifter too, of course. To give him his due, though—or perhaps more than his due—he didn’t try to portray his money-grubbing as part of a broader political cause. Even his involvement in the Trump campaign seemed to be largely a business arrangement—or perhaps a service to some of his East European benefactors, from whom he was seeking payments that he believed he was owed. Days after his appointment to the campaign, he e-mailed a colleague in Kiev: “How do we use to get whole?”
Bannon was different. During the Trump campaign, he portrayed himself, and Trump, as defenders of an American working class, which had been sacrificed on the altar of globalization. After being booted from the Trump White House, in August, 2017, at least in part for making critical comments about the Administration to journalists, he expanded his ambitions to Europe, where he sought to build a network of far-right parties. (He didn’t get far.) He also teamed up with an exiled Chinese billionaire, Guo Wengui, to press for regime change in China. (According to news reports, the yacht that Bannon was arrested on belongs to Guo.) He also continued to agitate in this country, putting out a regular podcast, which morphed from “War Room: Impeachment” to “War Room: Pandemic.”
The indictment from the Southern District provides a window into some of Bannon’s less visible activities. In December, 2018, it recounts, Brian Kolfage, an Air Force veteran, triple amputee, and Trump supporter, set up a GoFundMe page that was originally called “We the People Build the Wall.” As Congress had frustrated Trump’s designs, the campaign attracted a lot of attention from the conservative media, and money poured in. According to the indictment, the GoFundMe page quickly raised about twenty million dollars from hundreds of thousands of different donors. (Ultimately, it raised about twenty-five million dollars.)
Concerns arose about Kolfage’s background and how the money would be used to build the wall. According to the indictment, the crowdfunding Web site told Kolfage that, unless he could identify a legitimate nonprofit organization that would receive the funds raised, the site would return the money to the donors. The indictment goes on to describe how Bannon and another right-wing activist, a venture capitalist named Andrew Badolato, got involved with Kolfage and “took significant control of the fundraising campaign’s organization and day-to-day activities, including its financing, messaging, donor outreach and general operations.” More specifically, working with Kolfage, they set up a new Section 501(c)(4) not-for-profit, We Build the Wall, Inc., “to which they proposed that the money that had been raised by ‘We the People Build the Wall’ could be transferred.”
Having navigated this obstacle, the alleged conspirators set out to raise more money. To this end, they promised potential donors that a hundred per cent of the cash donated would go directly to the construction project, with neither Kolfage nor anyone else taking a cut. “These representations were false,” the indictment states. “KOLFAGE covertly took more than $350,000 in funds that had been donated to We Build the Wall for his personal use, while BANNON, through a non-profit organization under his control, received over $1,000,000 from We Build the Wall, which BANNON used to, among other things, secretly pay KOLFAGE and to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in BANNON’s personal expenses.” Among the items that the defendants spent the money on were “travel, hotels, consumer goods, and personal credit card debts,” the indictment says.
The prosecutors also allege that the defendants tried to disguise the payments they received by routing some of them through a shell company under the control of Timothy Shea. They further claim that, in late 2019, after the defendants discovered that We Build the Wall was under criminal investigation, they “took additional steps to conceal the fraudulent scheme detailed above,” including using encrypted-messaging services and removing from the fund-raising campaign’s Web site the claim that Kolfage wasn’t being compensated. A press release stated that the four defendants were “each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, each of which carries a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison.”
In a move as predictable as the sun rising in the east, Trump quickly sought to distance himself from the We Build the Wall group, and from Bannon. Even for a dissembler as practiced as he is, though, this was a tough sell. In July of last year, the President’s son, Donald, Jr., appeared at a fund-raising event for the group, alongside Bannon and various other right-wing activists. On Thursday, the Trump Organization issued a statement claiming that Donald, Jr.,’s “previous praise of the group was based on what he was led to believe about their supposed intention to help build the wall on our southern border and if he and others were deceived, the group deserves to be held accountable for their actions.”


newyorker--2020-08-21--Trump Calls Biden’s Pro-Empathy Message Offensive to Sociopaths

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —Calling it “ hurtful and insulting , ” Donald J. Trump on Friday said @ @ @ @ @ pro-empathy speech at the Democratic National Convention was “ deeply offensive ” to the nation @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s incendiary pro-compassion rhetoric , Trump said that the “ roomful of sociopaths @ @ @ @ @ the speech found it “ alienating and divisive.
” “ I was watching with Jared @ @ @ @ @ Mitch McConnell , and when Biden started in on the empathy stuff , we all @ @ @ @ @ he said .
“ He said that he wants to be a President for all @ @ @ @ @ that doesn ’ t include sociopaths.
” Calling Biden “ a puppet of compassionate extremists @ @ @ @ @ the former Vice-President apologize to every sociopath in the country .
“ Sociopaths have feelings @ @ @ @ @ people , ” he said .

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Calling it “hurtful and insulting,” Donald J. Trump on Friday said that Joe Biden’s pro-empathy speech at the Democratic National Convention was “deeply offensive” to the nation’s sociopaths.
Blasting Biden’s incendiary pro-compassion rhetoric, Trump said that the “roomful of sociopaths” with whom he watched the speech found it “alienating and divisive.”
“I was watching with Jared, Stephen Miller, and Mitch McConnell, and when Biden started in on the empathy stuff, we all felt very alone,” he said. “He said that he wants to be a President for all Americans, but I guess that doesn’t include sociopaths.”
Calling Biden “a puppet of compassionate extremists,” he demanded that the former Vice-President apologize to every sociopath in the country.
“Sociopaths have feelings, just not for other people,” he said.


newyorker--2020-08-21--The Many Lives and Quiet Death of a Good Communist

The death of Fernando Barral , on May 4th , in Havana , slipped by without notice under COVID-19 lockdown , but at another time his colorful life story would have merited a string of prominent obituaries .
A child of the Spanish Civil War , who fled with his mother to Argentina at age eleven and was deported to Hungary as an “ international subversive ” by Juan Perón ’ s regime eleven years later , Barral grew up without an official nationality or even a passport .
After living through the 1956 Budapest uprising and the Soviet invasion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the early days of Fidel Castro ’ s revolution , at the invitation of Ernesto ( Che ) Guevara , a boyhood friend from Argentina .
Cuba became his home for the rest of his life .
He spent his career in Cuba ’ s Interior Ministry , founding a psychiatric clinic and conducting sensitive social research .
At the height of the Vietnam War , he travelled to Hanoi , where he conducted an interview with John McCain , while McCain was a prisoner of war .
An old-school Communist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public commitment to Castro ’ s socialist experiment , despite private misgivings .
Barral ’ s life began in Madrid in 1928 .
He was eight when the Spanish Civil War erupted , and he spent the next three years living under bombardment by Francisco Franco ’ s Fascists .
Tragedy struck when his father , Emiliano Barral , a prominent sculptor and anarchist , was killed in a mortar attack on Madrid ’ s defensive lines .
He became a martyr of the Republic , with an official postcard issued in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ composed verses for his epitaph .
In the spring of 1939 , as the Republic began to collapse , Barral and his mother were evacuated by sea , alongside other refugees , to French Algeria .
As “ Reds , ” they spent months in an internment camp before being allowed to leave for Argentina , where a relative lived .
They sailed aboard the last ship evacuating Spanish Republican refugees from Europe on the eve of the Second World War , a rescue operation organized by the Chilean poet and diplomat Pablo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his mother settled in the city of Córdoba .
There , he became friendly with Guevara , whose family lived nearby .
María del Carmen ( Chichina ) Ferreyra , who dated Guevara as a teen-ager , recently recalled Barral , telling me of her adolescent fascination with his tragic youth .
“ It all swirled around him in a romantic aura , ” Ferreyra said .
“ He had very sad eyes and never smiled .
When I was thirteen or fourteen , at a birthday party , he came up and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collar of my shirt with a pencil .
I was mute with excitement.
” Argentina was ruled by a string of right-wing generals during the Second World War , and afterward one of them , the proto-fascist Perón , emerged as the country ’ s strongman .
Already firm about his own political beliefs in high school , Barral joined the Argentine Communist Party in college , where he studied medicine .
He oversaw political-propaganda activities for the Party ’ s youth wing , printing subversive leaflets and organizing flash protests and graffiti @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an armed struggle , as well , but was thwarted by his Party comrades , who , at the time , were opposed to violence .
He began plotting his return to Spain , to join the Republican Maquis still fighting Franco there , but before he could he was arrested by Perón ’ s secret police and imprisoned with other “ international subversives , ” pending their deportation as undesirable aliens .
Fearing a dire outcome if Barral was sent back to Spain , Guevara tried to help , asking Ferreyra , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see if any of them could intercede .
In the end , thanks to a last-minute arrangement , Barral was sent instead to Communist Hungary , which had agreed to grant him political asylum .
In Budapest , Barral forged a new life , learning Hungarian , completing medical school , and becoming a doctor .
He also married a Hungarian woman , a fellow medical student named Isabel Dubecz , and , keeping up the faith , joined the Spanish Communist Party cadres who were in exile in Budapest .
In 1956 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was crushed by Soviet invading forces , Barral felt torn by what he saw , but he adapted and even prospered after the crackdown .
Granted a laissez-passer , signed by a Soviet military officer , he was allowed to move around the city after curfew and allocated a sizable new apartment .
Despite his comfortable life in Budapest , Barral eventually began feeling restless and morally adrift .
“ I was becoming bourgeois , ” he confessed in his memoir , “ My Successive Lives , ” from 2010 .
He longed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but Franco had smashed the Republican Maquis , and there was no longer any question of his returning to Spain .
A way out of his dilemma came in 1961 , in the form of an unexpected letter from Guevara , who had become Castro ’ s right-hand man and a senior minister in Cuba ’ s revolutionary government .
Guevara encouraged Barral to come and work in Cuba , while simultaneously warning him to expect “ some chaos , ” because “ the Revolution is shaking everything up.
” Barral arrived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a month after the failed C.I.A.-backed Bay of Pigs invasion .
Castro had seized the moment to proclaim that his revolution was “ socialist in nature.
” Having broken swords with the United States , Cuba had entered the Soviet orbit .
Barral threw himself fully into Cuba ’ s heady socialist swirl .
He lectured medical students at a teaching hospital , and he took the opportunity to study modern psychiatry , which had been taboo in Soviet satellites like Hungary .
He was thrilled to be given a front-line role as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deployed in southeastern Havana—a role that came with a uniform and a gun—during the October , 1962 , missile crisis .
His rendition of the episode speaks volumes about his state of mind at the time : “ The people were not cowed by the imminent danger , because they were unanimously on the side of Fidel , their Commander in Chief .
Rarely in history has a people so closely and enthusiastically identified with their leadership.
” Barral went on to participate in combat operations against C.I.A.-backed counter-revolutionary rebels , in what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 1963 , on Guevara ’ s recommendation , Barral was recruited by the Ministry of Interior to found its first-ever psychiatric clinic .
Barral ’ s wife Isabel gave birth , to a daughter , but they divorced soon afterward , when he fell in love with Laly Cusido , a Cuban medical student .
They were married and went on to have two sons , and Laly became a child psychiatrist .
While at the Ministry of Interior , Barral was a person of trust .
He wore a uniform and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a soldier in the fight against imperialism .
For the first time in his life , Barral felt as though he really belonged somewhere ; he would do anything for Cuba and its Revolution .
In the mid-sixties , informed that he was the recipient of a sizable Spanish inheritance , consisting of a spacious Madrid apartment and a hundred thousand dollars in cash , Barral did not think twice : he donated it all to Cuba ’ s government .
In later years , when times were tough , Laly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but he told her not to mention it .
“ That was how he was , ” Laly recalled recently , laughing ruefully .
“ He never cared about money or material possessions.
” But she also noted that the Cuban government never gave him any official receipt for his generous gift and wondered if it had gone into a corrupt official ’ s pocket .
“ Fernando was the kind of man Che had in mind when he talked about the new socialist man , ” Laly said .
“ The only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
”

The death of Fernando Barral, on May 4th, in Havana, slipped by without notice under COVID-19 lockdown, but at another time his colorful life story would have merited a string of prominent obituaries. A child of the Spanish Civil War, who fled with his mother to Argentina at age eleven and was deported to Hungary as an “international subversive” by Juan Perón’s regime eleven years later, Barral grew up without an official nationality or even a passport. After living through the 1956 Budapest uprising and the Soviet invasion of Hungary, he moved to Cuba, in the early days of Fidel Castro’s revolution, at the invitation of Ernesto (Che) Guevara, a boyhood friend from Argentina. Cuba became his home for the rest of his life. He spent his career in Cuba’s Interior Ministry, founding a psychiatric clinic and conducting sensitive social research. At the height of the Vietnam War, he travelled to Hanoi, where he conducted an interview with John McCain, while McCain was a prisoner of war. An old-school Communist loyalist, Barral never wavered in his public commitment to Castro’s socialist experiment, despite private misgivings.
Barral’s life began in Madrid in 1928. He was eight when the Spanish Civil War erupted, and he spent the next three years living under bombardment by Francisco Franco’s Fascists. Tragedy struck when his father, Emiliano Barral, a prominent sculptor and anarchist, was killed in a mortar attack on Madrid’s defensive lines. He became a martyr of the Republic, with an official postcard issued in his honor, and the poet Antonio Machado composed verses for his epitaph.
In the spring of 1939, as the Republic began to collapse, Barral and his mother were evacuated by sea, alongside other refugees, to French Algeria. As “Reds,” they spent months in an internment camp before being allowed to leave for Argentina, where a relative lived. They sailed aboard the last ship evacuating Spanish Republican refugees from Europe on the eve of the Second World War, a rescue operation organized by the Chilean poet and diplomat Pablo Neruda.
In Argentina, Barral and his mother settled in the city of Córdoba. There, he became friendly with Guevara, whose family lived nearby. María del Carmen (Chichina) Ferreyra, who dated Guevara as a teen-ager, recently recalled Barral, telling me of her adolescent fascination with his tragic youth. “It all swirled around him in a romantic aura,” Ferreyra said. “He had very sad eyes and never smiled. When I was thirteen or fourteen, at a birthday party, he came up and drew a hammer and sickle on the collar of my shirt with a pencil. I was mute with excitement.”
Argentina was ruled by a string of right-wing generals during the Second World War, and afterward one of them, the proto-fascist Perón, emerged as the country’s strongman. Already firm about his own political beliefs in high school, Barral joined the Argentine Communist Party in college, where he studied medicine. He oversaw political-propaganda activities for the Party’s youth wing, printing subversive leaflets and organizing flash protests and graffiti campaigns. He longed to kick off an armed struggle, as well, but was thwarted by his Party comrades, who, at the time, were opposed to violence. He began plotting his return to Spain, to join the Republican Maquis still fighting Franco there, but before he could he was arrested by Perón’s secret police and imprisoned with other “international subversives,” pending their deportation as undesirable aliens.
Fearing a dire outcome if Barral was sent back to Spain, Guevara tried to help, asking Ferreyra, who had politically influential friendships, to see if any of them could intercede. In the end, thanks to a last-minute arrangement, Barral was sent instead to Communist Hungary, which had agreed to grant him political asylum.
In Budapest, Barral forged a new life, learning Hungarian, completing medical school, and becoming a doctor. He also married a Hungarian woman, a fellow medical student named Isabel Dubecz, and, keeping up the faith, joined the Spanish Communist Party cadres who were in exile in Budapest. In 1956, when Hungary’s anti-Communist uprising was crushed by Soviet invading forces, Barral felt torn by what he saw, but he adapted and even prospered after the crackdown. Granted a laissez-passer, signed by a Soviet military officer, he was allowed to move around the city after curfew and allocated a sizable new apartment.
Despite his comfortable life in Budapest, Barral eventually began feeling restless and morally adrift. “I was becoming bourgeois,” he confessed in his memoir, “My Successive Lives,” from 2010. He longed to participate in a genuine revolutionary struggle, but Franco had smashed the Republican Maquis, and there was no longer any question of his returning to Spain. A way out of his dilemma came in 1961, in the form of an unexpected letter from Guevara, who had become Castro’s right-hand man and a senior minister in Cuba’s revolutionary government. Guevara encouraged Barral to come and work in Cuba, while simultaneously warning him to expect “some chaos,” because “the Revolution is shaking everything up.”
Barral arrived in Cuba in May, 1961, a month after the failed C.I.A.-backed Bay of Pigs invasion. Castro had seized the moment to proclaim that his revolution was “socialist in nature.” Having broken swords with the United States, Cuba had entered the Soviet orbit.
Barral threw himself fully into Cuba’s heady socialist swirl. He lectured medical students at a teaching hospital, and he took the opportunity to study modern psychiatry, which had been taboo in Soviet satellites like Hungary. He was thrilled to be given a front-line role as the medical officer for a military battalion deployed in southeastern Havana—a role that came with a uniform and a gun—during the October, 1962, missile crisis. His rendition of the episode speaks volumes about his state of mind at the time: “The people were not cowed by the imminent danger, because they were unanimously on the side of Fidel, their Commander in Chief. Rarely in history has a people so closely and enthusiastically identified with their leadership.” Barral went on to participate in combat operations against C.I.A.-backed counter-revolutionary rebels, in what Castro dubbed the War Against Bandits. In 1963, on Guevara’s recommendation, Barral was recruited by the Ministry of Interior to found its first-ever psychiatric clinic.
Barral’s wife Isabel gave birth, to a daughter, but they divorced soon afterward, when he fell in love with Laly Cusido, a Cuban medical student. They were married and went on to have two sons, and Laly became a child psychiatrist. While at the Ministry of Interior, Barral was a person of trust. He wore a uniform and had a military rank and felt proud to be a soldier in the fight against imperialism.
For the first time in his life, Barral felt as though he really belonged somewhere; he would do anything for Cuba and its Revolution. In the mid-sixties, informed that he was the recipient of a sizable Spanish inheritance, consisting of a spacious Madrid apartment and a hundred thousand dollars in cash, Barral did not think twice: he donated it all to Cuba’s government. In later years, when times were tough, Laly reminded him about his forsaken inheritance, but he told her not to mention it. “That was how he was,” Laly recalled recently, laughing ruefully. “He never cared about money or material possessions.” But she also noted that the Cuban government never gave him any official receipt for his generous gift and wondered if it had gone into a corrupt official’s pocket. “Fernando was the kind of man Che had in mind when he talked about the new socialist man,” Laly said. “The only problem was they couldn’t clone him.”
In spite of Barral’s proven revolutionary loyalties, the encroaching Soviet influence in Cuba placed him under unwelcome scrutiny. Newly arrived Soviet advisers considered his Western-influenced form of psychiatry to be anti-Marxist, and it did not take long before he suffered the consequences. Accused of an administrative disobedience, he was stripped of his leadership of the clinic and sent to eastern Cuba to work as a clinician for six months. He was still there in October, 1967, when the news came of Guevara’s death, at the age of thirty-nine, in Bolivia, where he was fighting a new guerrilla war.
After his six months of punishment ended, Barral was offered his old job back, but he refused it on principle and was granted permission to do social research instead. For the next two decades, he stayed at the Ministry and conducted secret research among Cuba’s most problematic communities, including political prisoners, prospective émigrés, and members of the criminal underclass. After studying their behavior, he often came up with prescriptive approaches for dealing with them that were at odds with the given Party line, which, more often than not, involved punishment. Time and again, his reports were buried or ignored.
Barral plowed on, determined to be of value to the revolution. He entered an essay in an official competition on “the role of the revolutionary intellectual” and won first prize. His reward was a trip to North Vietnam, which he took in late 1969, at the height of the war with the United States. Keen to see how the Vietnamese were resisting the American military onslaught, he asked to be shown their wartime rearguard organization. He was deeply impressed with the role of Vietnam’s Communist Party, which, he noted, carried out “deep educational and ideological work throughout the population, without dogmatism or sectarianism.” Barral did not spell it out, but that was the exact opposite of what was happening back in Cuba.
While he was in Hanoi, Barral asked to meet with a P.O.W. In an unprecedented gesture, the Vietnamese assented and arranged a meeting with their prize prisoner, the American fighter pilot John McCain. Shot down over Hanoi two years earlier, McCain was also the son of the commander of U.S. military forces in Vietnam. During the meeting, Barral concealed his Cuban affiliations, introducing himself instead as a Spanish psychiatrist. In their meeting, McCain spoke proudly of his father’s command duties, his family’s long military tradition, and his own flying prowess. Despite their amiable conversation, Barral regarded McCain as a war criminal, and when he published his interview in Cuba’s official daily, Granma, a few weeks later, he excoriated him. “From the moral and ideological point of view, he showed that he is an insensitive individual without human depth, who does not appear to have thought about the criminal acts he committed against a population from the near absolute impunity of his airplane,” Barral wrote. “I believe that he bombed densely populated areas for sport. I noted that he was hardened, that he spoke of banal things as if he was at a cocktail party.”


newyorker--2020-08-21--Daily Cartoon: Friday, August 21st

Daily Cartoon: Friday, August 21st

© 2020 Condé Nast .
All rights reserved .
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement ( @ @ @ @ @ Policy and Cookie Statement ( updated 1/1/20 ) and Your California Privacy Rights .
may @ @ @ @ @ from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with @ @ @ @ @ this site may not be reproduced , distributed , transmitted , cached or otherwise used @ @ @ @ @ written permission of Condé Nast .
Ad Choices

“But on your profile you said that you were looking for someone kind, caring, and nonconforming to social norms!”


newyorker--2020-08-22--The Criterion Channel Presents the Legendary Director Peter Bogdanovich on the Lasting Influence of

The Criterion Channel Presents the Legendary Director Peter Bogdanovich on the Lasting Influence of “Austin Powers in Goldmember”

Movies are a curious thing , aren ’ t they ?
They have the power to transport us , often against our will , to another world entirely .
Sometimes , a movie transports you so thoroughly that you say , “ Please , take me back home .
I no longer want to live here .
It ’ s quite depressing , and I have many important errands to run later this afternoon .
My driver ’ s license is about to expire.
” When I think about that phenomenon , I think first and foremost of Jay Roach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Goldmember.
” I ’ m a bit of a tinkerer in the cinema myself , both as a film critic and as the director of “ The Last Picture Show ” and “ Paper Moon.
” I could sit here and rummage through the attic of my career , but I find such things quite immodest .
Needless to say , I have a few baubles boxed up from my past , such as a handwritten letter from Vivica A .
Fox , who worked with me on the ABC telefilm “ A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discuss myself , though .
Rather , I was charged with waxing lyrical on the enduring legacy of the final film in the “ Austin Powers ” trilogy .
What a fine example of a filmmaker and an actor clicking on all levels of the craft—writing , performance , art direction , audible flatulence .
Comedy is not a simple genre to dabble in , either .
I made a bit of a name for myself with a trifle you possibly have seen called “ What ’ s Up , Doc ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you ’ d like to check it out .
Sorry , I probably shouldn ’ t have said that , since this is for the Criterion Channel , which is like Netflix for smart , attractive people , if you ask me .
Anyway , I ’ m reminded of something John Ford told me .
Ford was prone to these sorts of grandiose pronouncements .
Also , fits of alcoholic rage before noon .
He said to me , “ Find a place for a nice , funny wig in your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is not the actor ’ s real hair and react with both fear and intrigue.
” I believe that Jay Roach took that to heart when crafting the character of Goldmember ( Mike Myers ) , a Dutch pervert who eats his own skin as a snack .
Believe it or not , that isn ’ t his real hair .
“ Goldmember ” is , above all else , a film about fatherhood .
Austin Powers ( Mike Myers ) is an accomplished , womanizing British spy who has a fraught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Michael Caine ) .
The primary antagonist , Dr .
Evil ( Mike Myers ) , has his own issues with his son , Scott , brought to life with gusto by Seth Green .
Green is absolutely sublime in this picture .
He has the gravitas and the simmering menace of a young Jimmy Cagney .
Michael Curtiz tells a great story about Cagney forgetting his wallet at the Warners cafeteria .
Cagney liked to buy lunch for the grips and the transpo crew .
I think it ’ s because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blue-collar guy , even if he was the biggest movie star in the world .
Cagney came from nothing , as many of us did back then .
His father was a real Irish lout—a bartender and an amateur boxer .
He loved nothing more than to get into a drunken piss-up with the Italians down the street .
Boy did he hate Italians .
Out of some misplaced need to apologize for his dad ’ s boorish behavior , one day Cagney buys lunch for all the Italians on the crew on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the picture that finally won Cagney his Oscar .
So Cagney roars in that distinct Cagney voice , “ Alla ya meatball subs and lasagnas are on me , ya filthy animals !
” I mean , that was Cagney .
What can I say ?
He flings his hands in the air and his beautifully crafted , monogrammed leather wallet goes flying .
I wasn ’ t there , but I heard that it spun at least seven or eight times before returning to earth .
No one can confirm where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ended up in Joan Blondell ’ s minestrone .
That shows you how influential Cagney ’ s father was on his career .
I ’ d be remiss if I didn ’ t heap some praise on the character of Fat Bastard ( Mike Myers ) , who undergoes a dramatic transformation in the course of this picture .
He loses about seven hundred pounds for the purposes of the dénouement , in which Austin Powers and Foxxy Cleopatra ( Beyoncé ) share a chaste kiss at the première of a movie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bastard is a controversial character when looked at through the lens of today ’ s culture .
Our society frowns on such things as casual misogyny , body shaming , and eating babies , which were quite acceptable in the late nineties and early two-thousands .
Times change .
Tastes evolve .
But , you know , if Orson Welles were here today , he ’ d have no problem with a gentle ribbing about his weight .
Orson had a wonderful sense of humor about himself .
This reminds me of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Beachwood Canyon .
Polly had prepared some finger sandwiches , olives stuffed with blue cheese , pot roast .
You know , light snacks .
There was some iced tea out , but Orson demanded wine .
He slammed his meaty paw down on the dining-room table and screamed , “ If I don ’ t have a glass of sherry right now , I will carve the word ‘ asshole ’ into the side of your Rolls-Royce with a bowie knife and micturate in your gas tank , you little shitface @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back when you couldn ’ t just order wine with your phone , so I made Polly drive down to Sunset with fifteen dollars in cash in her pocket to get the poor soul some hooch .
While we waited , we talked about the cinema , as we were wont to do .
He said something about how they should have printed “ Midnight Cowboy ” on a roll of toilet paper “ so I could rub my bum on it more easily.
” He was an angry man , not unlike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revisit “ Austin Powers in Goldmember , ” streaming this month on the Criterion Channel .

Movies are a curious thing, aren’t they? They have the power to transport us, often against our will, to another world entirely. Sometimes, a movie transports you so thoroughly that you say, “Please, take me back home. I no longer want to live here. It’s quite depressing, and I have many important errands to run later this afternoon. My driver’s license is about to expire.” When I think about that phenomenon, I think first and foremost of Jay Roach’s incomparable “Austin Powers in Goldmember.”
I’m a bit of a tinkerer in the cinema myself, both as a film critic and as the director of “The Last Picture Show” and “Paper Moon.” I could sit here and rummage through the attic of my career, but I find such things quite immodest. Needless to say, I have a few baubles boxed up from my past, such as a handwritten letter from Vivica A. Fox, who worked with me on the ABC telefilm “A Saintly Switch.”
I was not asked to discuss myself, though. Rather, I was charged with waxing lyrical on the enduring legacy of the final film in the “Austin Powers” trilogy. What a fine example of a filmmaker and an actor clicking on all levels of the craft—writing, performance, art direction, audible flatulence. Comedy is not a simple genre to dabble in, either. I made a bit of a name for myself with a trifle you possibly have seen called “What’s Up, Doc?” It might be on Netflix, if you’d like to check it out.
Sorry, I probably shouldn’t have said that, since this is for the Criterion Channel, which is like Netflix for smart, attractive people, if you ask me.
Anyway, I’m reminded of something John Ford told me. Ford was prone to these sorts of grandiose pronouncements. Also, fits of alcoholic rage before noon. He said to me, “Find a place for a nice, funny wig in your picture. The audience will see that it is not the actor’s real hair and react with both fear and intrigue.” I believe that Jay Roach took that to heart when crafting the character of Goldmember (Mike Myers), a Dutch pervert who eats his own skin as a snack. Believe it or not, that isn’t his real hair.
“Goldmember” is, above all else, a film about fatherhood. Austin Powers (Mike Myers) is an accomplished, womanizing British spy who has a fraught relationship with his estranged father, Nigel (Michael Caine). The primary antagonist, Dr. Evil (Mike Myers), has his own issues with his son, Scott, brought to life with gusto by Seth Green.
Green is absolutely sublime in this picture. He has the gravitas and the simmering menace of a young Jimmy Cagney. Michael Curtiz tells a great story about Cagney forgetting his wallet at the Warners cafeteria. Cagney liked to buy lunch for the grips and the transpo crew. I think it’s because Cagney fancied himself a bit of a blue-collar guy, even if he was the biggest movie star in the world. Cagney came from nothing, as many of us did back then. His father was a real Irish lout—a bartender and an amateur boxer. He loved nothing more than to get into a drunken piss-up with the Italians down the street. Boy did he hate Italians.
Out of some misplaced need to apologize for his dad’s boorish behavior, one day Cagney buys lunch for all the Italians on the crew on “Yankee Doodle Dandy,” which is the picture that finally won Cagney his Oscar. So Cagney roars in that distinct Cagney voice, “Alla ya meatball subs and lasagnas are on me, ya filthy animals!” I mean, that was Cagney. What can I say?
He flings his hands in the air and his beautifully crafted, monogrammed leather wallet goes flying. I wasn’t there, but I heard that it spun at least seven or eight times before returning to earth. No one can confirm where it landed, but Hollywood legend says it ended up in Joan Blondell’s minestrone. That shows you how influential Cagney’s father was on his career.
I’d be remiss if I didn’t heap some praise on the character of Fat Bastard (Mike Myers), who undergoes a dramatic transformation in the course of this picture. He loses about seven hundred pounds for the purposes of the dénouement, in which Austin Powers and Foxxy Cleopatra (Beyoncé) share a chaste kiss at the première of a movie based on Powers’s life. Bastard is a controversial character when looked at through the lens of today’s culture. Our society frowns on such things as casual misogyny, body shaming, and eating babies, which were quite acceptable in the late nineties and early two-thousands. Times change. Tastes evolve.
But, you know, if Orson Welles were here today, he’d have no problem with a gentle ribbing about his weight. Orson had a wonderful sense of humor about himself. This reminds me of the time Orson came over to the house in Beachwood Canyon. Polly had prepared some finger sandwiches, olives stuffed with blue cheese, pot roast. You know, light snacks. There was some iced tea out, but Orson demanded wine. He slammed his meaty paw down on the dining-room table and screamed, “If I don’t have a glass of sherry right now, I will carve the word ‘asshole’ into the side of your Rolls-Royce with a bowie knife and micturate in your gas tank, you little shitface coward.”
This was before Postmates, back when you couldn’t just order wine with your phone, so I made Polly drive down to Sunset with fifteen dollars in cash in her pocket to get the poor soul some hooch. While we waited, we talked about the cinema, as we were wont to do. He said something about how they should have printed “Midnight Cowboy” on a roll of toilet paper “so I could rub my bum on it more easily.” He was an angry man, not unlike Fat Bastard.
I do hope you revisit “Austin Powers in Goldmember,” streaming this month on the Criterion Channel.
“What’s Up, Doc?” isn’t, but that’s fine.