newyorker--2020-02-08--A Former Google Executive Calls for a New Emphasis on Human Rights

Ross LaJeunesse , the former global leader of international relations at Google , joined the company in 2008 , after working as an aide to California ’ s then governor , Arnold Schwarzenegger .
LaJeunesse was the head of government affairs for Asia and the Pacific in 2010 , when the company abandoned its Chinese search engine , after deciding it was no longer willing to censor search results in accordance with the government ’ s wishes .
During the next several years , as LaJeunesse advanced at Google , he became concerned that the company was increasingly willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 , he learned that Google was building a new search engine , called Dragonfly , to comply with Chinese censorship regulations .
( The company has said that it has terminated the project . )
Later that year , Google announced that it had opened an artificial-intelligence center in Beijing , raising concerns that Google ’ s research would contribute to China ’ s cyberintelligence capabilities .
LaJeunesse began “ to advocate for the adoption of a company-wide , formal Human Rights Program , ” as he wrote in a recent Medium @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior executives to do so .
LaJeunesse also describes reporting the use of racist , sexist , and homophobic language to Google ’ s human-resources department , and then being accidentally copied on an e-mail from an H.R .
director who “ told a colleague that I seemed to raise concerns like these a lot , and instructed her to ‘ do some digging ’ on me.
” Last year , LaJeunesse ’ s role was eliminated , and he declined to accept a different position .
He believes that he was pushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A spokesperson for Google denied that claim , and said , “ The truth is that Ross wanted a centralized human-rights group to address these issues , and he wanted to lead this group.
” Since leaving Google , LaJeunesse has reëntered politics , and is running in the Democratic Senate primary in Maine ; the winner of the primary , which is in June , will face the Republican Susan Collins this fall .
I recently spoke by phone with LaJeunesse .
During our conversation , which has been edited for length @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Google , how Big Tech companies have changed over the past decade , and how they should deal with authoritarian governments .
Do you think that the tech world changed , and that Google , specifically , changed ?
Or do you think you changed ?
I feel very certain that I never changed , but I do feel Google changed .
I raised an eyebrow at the marketing and P.R .
that they would use to recruit people in the early days : “ Come work with us—you ’ ll change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined , I realized that people actually talked and acted that way .
And I look at the 2010 decision which I executed , to stop censoring search in China , as a very clear example of that .
[ A spokesperson for Google said that LaJeunesse was not involved in the decision to stop censoring search in China , in 2010 . ]
That was something we did that was against the company ’ s financial interests .
It didn ’ t make business sense , but it made sense from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing .
It ’ s really tech that ’ s changed .
Accepting your premise that tech has changed , do you think that what changed was some larger cultural shift , and that it influenced Google the way it ’ s influenced other places ?
Or do you think that what changed is that different people started running Google , or the people who were running Google themselves changed ?
I believe that Google itself changed and it wasn ’ t primarily influenced by broader changes in the external environment .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies and you look at how they start and who typically starts them , they were not businesspeople—they were engineers .
Some of them were idealistic , maybe some of them were not , but they were all passionate about whatever it is that they were building , their product , their platform .
Fundamentally , they didn ’ t start out as businesses .
Even when Google started , it was , like , “ Oh , well , we ’ ll figure out how to make money off this later , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best product and users will follow , and we ’ ll do right by our users and everything else is going to follow.
” That was very much the ethos of Larry [ Page ] and Sergey [ Brin ] .
But then they get to a point where they ’ re big—they were making enormous sums of money—and then the people who start really making the decisions are different people .
They ’ re business leaders , they ’ re C.F.O.s , and then they change the focus of the company to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Right , but , at a place like Facebook , Mark Zuckerberg is still running the company , and there have been some issues .
Yeah .
I don ’ t know Mark personally , and I don ’ t know the internal dynamics , but I do know that a lot of original Facebook people aren ’ t there , either .
And they certainly brought in a lot of people from the outside to run the show , regardless of what Mark ’ s continued influence is .
The reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when I read early coverage of tech and Google , it feels very naïve to me , because people really believed that Google was going to follow the “ don ’ t be evil ” mantra , etc .
Part of me thinks that of course this was all inevitable .
I really don ’ t believe that .
Believe me , I ’ ve thought about this myself .
I think of some of the conversations I had , even when they were recruiting me , and I can tell you—when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a half years , we were fighting the good fight in the sense that the Indian government would come to us saying , “ Hand over your user data , ” or , “ Hand over your encryption tools , ” and we would say , “ No , we ’ re not doing that.
” There was a mission here to connect people and the belief that tech was making the world a better place .
And I think it ’ s easy to forget that , in many ways , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place .
I grew up working-class in rural Maine , and my ability to speak to the world or to understand the world was so limited .
We had a set of encyclopedias in the living room .
I ’ d go to the public library .
I did a report on Japan in , like , the eighth grade , and we had , like , those blue Encyclopædia Britannica or whatever .
It was , like , look up Japan .
It ’ s , like , three or four pages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a samurai—and , I mean , that was it .
And I could go to the library , but the options there weren ’ t much better .
I think about my nieces , who are now studying Northern Africa , and their parents are guiding their work online , because you have to keep these kids safe , but they are using translation tools to look at stuff in native North African languages , in Tunisia in Arabic .
The wealth of information available to them is astounding .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s an equalizer , because wealthy families always had access to more resources .
But , if you were , like , a poor kid in Maine , in rural Maine , you ’ re kind of stuck , and tech changed that .
Yes , and if you are a gay kid in rural Maine you probably realize you ’ re not alone now in a way you didn ’ t .

Ross LaJeunesse, the former global leader of international relations at Google, joined the company in 2008, after working as an aide to California’s then governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. LaJeunesse was the head of government affairs for Asia and the Pacific in 2010, when the company abandoned its Chinese search engine, after deciding it was no longer willing to censor search results in accordance with the government’s wishes. During the next several years, as LaJeunesse advanced at Google, he became concerned that the company was increasingly willing to compromise with the Chinese government. In 2017, he learned that Google was building a new search engine, called Dragonfly, to comply with Chinese censorship regulations. (The company has said that it has terminated the project.) Later that year, Google announced that it had opened an artificial-intelligence center in Beijing, raising concerns that Google’s research would contribute to China’s cyberintelligence capabilities.
LaJeunesse began “to advocate for the adoption of a company-wide, formal Human Rights Program,” as he wrote in a recent Medium essay, but was unable to persuade senior executives to do so. LaJeunesse also describes reporting the use of racist, sexist, and homophobic language to Google’s human-resources department, and then being accidentally copied on an e-mail from an H.R. director who “told a colleague that I seemed to raise concerns like these a lot, and instructed her to ‘do some digging’ on me.” Last year, LaJeunesse’s role was eliminated, and he declined to accept a different position. He believes that he was pushed out because of his human-rights advocacy. A spokesperson for Google denied that claim, and said, “The truth is that Ross wanted a centralized human-rights group to address these issues, and he wanted to lead this group.”
Since leaving Google, LaJeunesse has reëntered politics, and is running in the Democratic Senate primary in Maine; the winner of the primary, which is in June, will face the Republican Susan Collins this fall. I recently spoke by phone with LaJeunesse. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed his time at Google, how Big Tech companies have changed over the past decade, and how they should deal with authoritarian governments.
Do you think that the tech world changed, and that Google, specifically, changed? Or do you think you changed?
I feel very certain that I never changed, but I do feel Google changed. I raised an eyebrow at the marketing and P.R. that they would use to recruit people in the early days: “Come work with us—you’ll change the world.” But, after I joined, I realized that people actually talked and acted that way. And I look at the 2010 decision which I executed, to stop censoring search in China, as a very clear example of that. [A spokesperson for Google said that LaJeunesse was not involved in the decision to stop censoring search in China, in 2010.] That was something we did that was against the company’s financial interests. It didn’t make business sense, but it made sense from a human-rights perspective and from doing the right thing. It’s really tech that’s changed.
Accepting your premise that tech has changed, do you think that what changed was some larger cultural shift, and that it influenced Google the way it’s influenced other places? Or do you think that what changed is that different people started running Google, or the people who were running Google themselves changed?
I believe that Google itself changed and it wasn’t primarily influenced by broader changes in the external environment. I think when you look at these tech companies and you look at how they start and who typically starts them, they were not businesspeople—they were engineers. Some of them were idealistic, maybe some of them were not, but they were all passionate about whatever it is that they were building, their product, their platform. Fundamentally, they didn’t start out as businesses. Even when Google started, it was, like, “Oh, well, we’ll figure out how to make money off this later,” or “We will build the best product and users will follow, and we’ll do right by our users and everything else is going to follow.” That was very much the ethos of Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin].
But then they get to a point where they’re big—they were making enormous sums of money—and then the people who start really making the decisions are different people. They’re business leaders, they’re C.F.O.s, and then they change the focus of the company to higher stock price, making more money.
Right, but, at a place like Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg is still running the company, and there have been some issues.
Yeah. I don’t know Mark personally, and I don’t know the internal dynamics, but I do know that a lot of original Facebook people aren’t there, either. And they certainly brought in a lot of people from the outside to run the show, regardless of what Mark’s continued influence is.
The reason I keep asking about this is that, when I read early coverage of tech and Google, it feels very naïve to me, because people really believed that Google was going to follow the “don’t be evil” mantra, etc. Part of me thinks that of course this was all inevitable.
I really don’t believe that. Believe me, I’ve thought about this myself. I think of some of the conversations I had, even when they were recruiting me, and I can tell you—when I decamped for Asia for those two and a half years, we were fighting the good fight in the sense that the Indian government would come to us saying, “Hand over your user data,” or, “Hand over your encryption tools,” and we would say, “No, we’re not doing that.” There was a mission here to connect people and the belief that tech was making the world a better place. And I think it’s easy to forget that, in many ways, tech has made the world a better place.
I grew up working-class in rural Maine, and my ability to speak to the world or to understand the world was so limited. We had a set of encyclopedias in the living room. I’d go to the public library. I did a report on Japan in, like, the eighth grade, and we had, like, those blue Encyclopædia Britannica or whatever. It was, like, look up Japan. It’s, like, three or four pages of stereotypical imagery—a woman in a kimono, a samurai—and, I mean, that was it. And I could go to the library, but the options there weren’t much better.
I think about my nieces, who are now studying Northern Africa, and their parents are guiding their work online, because you have to keep these kids safe, but they are using translation tools to look at stuff in native North African languages, in Tunisia in Arabic. The wealth of information available to them is astounding. And that is a good thing. And it’s an equalizer, because wealthy families always had access to more resources. But, if you were, like, a poor kid in Maine, in rural Maine, you’re kind of stuck, and tech changed that.
Yes, and if you are a gay kid in rural Maine you probably realize you’re not alone now in a way you didn’t.
Absolutely. And I’ve talked to some trans leaders, and they look at tech as a savior for their community because, if it did nothing else, it let little kids questioning their gender identity, questioning who they are—it allowed them to connect to a community in a profound way that the trans leaders will say literally has saved lives. So I don’t want a very necessary and very important, and perhaps maybe even overdue, conversation about “O.K., what is tech really doing to our society?” to overshadow some very real good things that have happened as a result of it.
Do you view your disputes with Google about how to interact with China and other governments as something as simple as them essentially saying, “We care more about money,” or did they have a different idea about engaging governments? Perhaps that, in the long run, making deals with China was the right thing to do, and that there were uncomfortable compromises but this was the only way that these benefits of tech could be shared across the world?


newyorker--2020-02-08--The Democratic Candidates Clashed but Kept Trump Front and Center at the New Hampshire Debate

Following the virtual dead heat between Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg in Monday ’ s star-crossed Iowa caucuses , it looked like Friday ’ s Democratic debate , at St. Anselm College , in Manchester , New Hampshire , might mark the beginning of a two-way battle for the nomination , with Sanders representing the insurgent left and Buttigieg acting as the standard-bearer for more moderate Democrats .
But with seven candidates still on the stage , some of them badly needing a lift , it didn ’ t turn out like that .
It was more interesting .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign manager , Faiz Shakir , went on MSNBC and accused Buttigieg of “ kowtowing ” to his billionaire donors .
But when things got going on the debate stage Sanders himself largely stuck to his own message , talking up his plans to raise the minimum wage , to end tax breaks for corporations , and to include dental care and eye care as part of his Medicare for All plan .
He even mentioned hearing aids .
( Perhaps he had noticed that an entrance poll in Iowa showed him getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
Reflecting his healthy position in the polls , and at the bank , Sanders also sought to cast himself in the role of party unifier .
“ No matter who wins this thing , we are all going to stand together ” to defeat Trump , he said early on .
A bit later , when asked about Hillary Clinton ’ s statement in a new documentary that “ nobody likes him , ” Sanders said it is time to move on from what happened in 2016—an instruction that must have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his online warriors , who have spent the last four years fulminating about Clinton and the Democratic National Committee .
As Sanders sailed serenely on , Buttigieg didn ’ t spend much time attacking him , either .
He was too busy fending off attacks from other candidates who are still vying to occupy the space to the right of Bernie on the Democratic spectrum : Joe Biden , the former Vice-President ; Senator Amy Klobuchar ; and Senator Elizabeth Warren .
After Buttigieg issued one of his airy generalizations about the need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past in the past , ” Biden began the assault .
“ I don ’ t know what about the past of Barack Obama and Joe Biden was so bad , ” he said , pointing out that , among other things , he had supported federal programs that delivered billions of dollars to South Bend , Indiana .
Klobuchar , who finished fifth in Iowa , intensified the attack .
First , she poked fun at Buttigieg ’ s youthfulness , saying “ fifty-nine ” —her age— “ is the new thirty-eight.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s impeachment in a cynical effort to pose as a political outsider .
Citing a comment that he made last month , in which he said he found the impeachment trial so exhausting that it made him want to flip channels and watch cartoons , Klobuchar said , “ It is easy to go after Washington , because that ’ s a popular thing to do .
It is much harder to lead and much harder to take those difficult positions.
” Klobuchar went on , “ I think this going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it ’ s popular to say and makes you look like a cool newcomer—I don ’ t think that ’ s what people want right now .
We have a newcomer in the White House , and look where it got us.
” Klobuchar had attacked Buttigieg before , but comparing him to Trump was a big escalation .
Although the other candidates didn ’ t quite go that far , the billionaire Tom Steyer also piled on Buttigieg ’ s thin résumé , saying , “ that ’ s why I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , rarely seems worried about Mayor Pete .
As usual , he exuded confidence and eloquence .
Even when Sanders did eventually bring up his billionaire donors , claiming there were forty of them , Buttigieg stayed cool .
Donald Trump raised twenty-five million dollars just “ today , ” Buttigieg said , and he added , “ we need to go into that fight with everything that we ’ ve got.
” Then he went into a little spiel about the need to build a broad coalition to defeat Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inclusion , not exclusion , ” and “ addition , not subtraction.
” The only time Buttigieg appeared to get rattled was when one of the moderators , Linsey Davis , of ABC News , asked him about an increase in the arrests of black South Bend residents for marijuana possession during his time as mayor .
( He now supports decriminalizing marijuana . )
At first , he claimed that the number of “ over-all arrests ” fell during his tenure as mayor .
But after Davis insisted they didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug arrests were part of an effort to combat gangs .
Cases were prosecuted “ when there was a connection to the most violent group or gang connected to a murder.
” After this convoluted answer , Davis asked Warren , who also supports legalizing pot , whether Buttigieg ’ s response was “ substantial.
” Warren offered a one-word answer : “ No.
” That was probably Buttigieg ’ s worst moment .
His best came when Davis brought up Republican efforts to investigate Hunter Biden and asked if “ there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to nominate a candidate who is still under the threat of investigation ?
” “ No !
” Buttigieg replied .
“ And we are not going to let them change the subject .
This is not about Hunter Biden or Vice-President Biden , or any Biden .
This is about an abuse of power by the President.
” The crowd applauded , and Buttigieg went on about Trump : “ Look , the Vice-President and I and all of us are competing , but we ’ ve got to draw a line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of President , to be the kind of human being , who would seek to turn someone against his own son , who would seek to weaponize a son against his own father , is an unbelievably dishonorable thing that is just one more example of why we , as a party , have to be completely united in doing whatever it takes .
.
.
to make sure that this President does not get a second term.
” Buttigieg is often accused of offering up canned lines .
But this was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly followed by another one involving Biden himself .
Changing the subject to Friday ’ s frogmarching out of the White House of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman , the National Security Council official who testified in the House impeachment inquiry , Biden said that Trump “ should be pinning a medal on Vindman and not on Rush Limbaugh.
” His voice rising , Biden went on .
“ I think that what we should be doing now , I think we should all stand and give Colonel Vindman a show of how much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clap for Vindman .
Get up there !
” he said .
The crowd did as it was asked .
As it started clapping and cheering , Biden said , “ That ’ s who we are .
We are not what Trump is.
” The applause got louder .
At long last , Biden had brought a Democratic crowd to its feet , and for good cause .
Maybe it wasn ’ t enough to turn around his campaign , although he had some other good moments , too .
But , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began with the fiasco in Iowa , proceeded through Trump ’ s acquittal , and ended with the purge of Vindman and others , it was a powerful reminder of what the 2020 election is really about : confronting Trump .
In this debate , at least , that reality was kept in its rightful place—front and center .

Following the virtual dead heat between Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg in Monday’s star-crossed Iowa caucuses, it looked like Friday’s Democratic debate, at St. Anselm College, in Manchester, New Hampshire, might mark the beginning of a two-way battle for the nomination, with Sanders representing the insurgent left and Buttigieg acting as the standard-bearer for more moderate Democrats. But with seven candidates still on the stage, some of them badly needing a lift, it didn’t turn out like that. It was more interesting.
Just before the debate, Sanders’s campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, went on MSNBC and accused Buttigieg of “kowtowing” to his billionaire donors. But when things got going on the debate stage Sanders himself largely stuck to his own message, talking up his plans to raise the minimum wage, to end tax breaks for corporations, and to include dental care and eye care as part of his Medicare for All plan. He even mentioned hearing aids. (Perhaps he had noticed that an entrance poll in Iowa showed him getting just five per cent of senior voters.)
Reflecting his healthy position in the polls, and at the bank, Sanders also sought to cast himself in the role of party unifier. “No matter who wins this thing, we are all going to stand together” to defeat Trump, he said early on. A bit later, when asked about Hillary Clinton’s statement in a new documentary that “nobody likes him,” Sanders said it is time to move on from what happened in 2016—an instruction that must have come as a shock to some of his online warriors, who have spent the last four years fulminating about Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.
As Sanders sailed serenely on, Buttigieg didn’t spend much time attacking him, either. He was too busy fending off attacks from other candidates who are still vying to occupy the space to the right of Bernie on the Democratic spectrum: Joe Biden, the former Vice-President; Senator Amy Klobuchar; and Senator Elizabeth Warren. After Buttigieg issued one of his airy generalizations about the need “to leave the politics of the past in the past,” Biden began the assault. “I don’t know what about the past of Barack Obama and Joe Biden was so bad,” he said, pointing out that, among other things, he had supported federal programs that delivered billions of dollars to South Bend, Indiana.
Klobuchar, who finished fifth in Iowa, intensified the attack. First, she poked fun at Buttigieg’s youthfulness, saying “fifty-nine”—her age—“is the new thirty-eight.” Then she accused him of minimizing Trump’s impeachment in a cynical effort to pose as a political outsider. Citing a comment that he made last month, in which he said he found the impeachment trial so exhausting that it made him want to flip channels and watch cartoons, Klobuchar said, “It is easy to go after Washington, because that’s a popular thing to do. It is much harder to lead and much harder to take those difficult positions.” Klobuchar went on, “I think this going after every single thing that people do because it’s popular to say and makes you look like a cool newcomer—I don’t think that’s what people want right now. We have a newcomer in the White House, and look where it got us.”
Klobuchar had attacked Buttigieg before, but comparing him to Trump was a big escalation. Although the other candidates didn’t quite go that far, the billionaire Tom Steyer also piled on Buttigieg’s thin résumé, saying, “that’s why I am worried about Mayor Pete.”
Buttigieg, however, rarely seems worried about Mayor Pete. As usual, he exuded confidence and eloquence. Even when Sanders did eventually bring up his billionaire donors, claiming there were forty of them, Buttigieg stayed cool. Donald Trump raised twenty-five million dollars just “today,” Buttigieg said, and he added, “we need to go into that fight with everything that we’ve got.” Then he went into a little spiel about the need to build a broad coalition to defeat Trump, to embrace a politics of “inclusion, not exclusion,” and “addition, not subtraction.”
The only time Buttigieg appeared to get rattled was when one of the moderators, Linsey Davis, of ABC News, asked him about an increase in the arrests of black South Bend residents for marijuana possession during his time as mayor. (He now supports decriminalizing marijuana.) At first, he claimed that the number of “over-all arrests” fell during his tenure as mayor. But after Davis insisted they didn’t, he relented and said that the drug arrests were part of an effort to combat gangs. Cases were prosecuted “when there was a connection to the most violent group or gang connected to a murder.” After this convoluted answer, Davis asked Warren, who also supports legalizing pot, whether Buttigieg’s response was “substantial.” Warren offered a one-word answer: “No.”
That was probably Buttigieg’s worst moment. His best came when Davis brought up Republican efforts to investigate Hunter Biden and asked if “there’s a danger for the Democratic Party to nominate a candidate who is still under the threat of investigation?” “No!” Buttigieg replied. “And we are not going to let them change the subject. This is not about Hunter Biden or Vice-President Biden, or any Biden. This is about an abuse of power by the President.” The crowd applauded, and Buttigieg went on about Trump: “Look, the Vice-President and I and all of us are competing, but we’ve got to draw a line here. And to be the kind of President, to be the kind of human being, who would seek to turn someone against his own son, who would seek to weaponize a son against his own father, is an unbelievably dishonorable thing that is just one more example of why we, as a party, have to be completely united in doing whatever it takes . . . to make sure that this President does not get a second term.”
Buttigieg is often accused of offering up canned lines. But this was a genuinely uplifting moment, and it was quickly followed by another one involving Biden himself. Changing the subject to Friday’s frogmarching out of the White House of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council official who testified in the House impeachment inquiry, Biden said that Trump “should be pinning a medal on Vindman and not on Rush Limbaugh.” His voice rising, Biden went on. “I think that what we should be doing now, I think we should all stand and give Colonel Vindman a show of how much we supported him. Stand up and clap for Vindman. Get up there!” he said. The crowd did as it was asked. As it started clapping and cheering, Biden said, “That’s who we are. We are not what Trump is.” The applause got louder.
At long last, Biden had brought a Democratic crowd to its feet, and for good cause. Maybe it wasn’t enough to turn around his campaign, although he had some other good moments, too. But, at the end of a week that began with the fiasco in Iowa, proceeded through Trump’s acquittal, and ended with the purge of Vindman and others, it was a powerful reminder of what the 2020 election is really about: confronting Trump. In this debate, at least, that reality was kept in its rightful place—front and center.


newyorker--2020-02-08--Once Before a Time: A Roundup of Upcoming Prequels

Tagline : “ Before being little , they were tiny .
I mean , really tiny.
” Four teen-aged sisters and their mother , Marmee , living in eighteen-sixties New England , are inadvertently shrunken to the size of peanuts by their eccentric inventor father .
Left on their own , while the father desperately pursues possible remedies , mother and daughters take refuge in a teapot and carry on as best they can .
The most outspoken of the daughters , Jo , wants to become a writer , but instead marries a potato bug who encourages her to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Eventually , the father returns them to their normal size and , while preparing to depart for the Civil War , inadvertently steps on Jo ’ s husband .
Tagline : “ Before the big fish , there was a small fish.
” Santiago , a young Cuban fisherman , befriends a feisty marlin , and the two join forces to liberate thousands of fish from an overcrowded aquarium in Miami .
But , when Santiago ’ s fishing buddies discover the unlikely alliance and tease him , he ends his friendship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time we meet , ” Santiago says , in the final shot of the film , “ I will have to kill you.
” In a dystopian future , Guy Montag works as a government-censor chef for an authoritarian regime .
While boiling confiscated magazines , he notices a page bubble briefly to the surface , and he is unable to resist reading an item about a celebrity .
This leads him to seek out more magazines .
He is eventually detected by the authorities and forced to flee to the surrounding forest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exiled intellectuals who have memorized different magazine profiles of Reese Witherspoon in anticipation of a time when society is ready to rediscover print media .
They remain in the forest forever .
“ Where the Heck Are You , Godot ?
” Tagline : “ Before waiting for him pointlessly , they were waiting for him with a purpose.
” Two high-school seniors , Vladimir and Estragon , have a problem : Godot .
Whenever they agree to meet up by the big tree after school , Godot ’ s always late !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ do stuff , such as skateboarding or hanging out at the mall , without him , he inevitably shows up , right after they leave !
Finally , one day after school , Vlad and Estie decide that this time they ’ re going to wait until Godot shows up , even if it means missing the senior prom !
And graduation !
And the rest of their lives !
Their determination backfires when they end up as broke , jobless tramps .
On the damp morning of June 15 , 1904 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residence and strides briskly across wet cobblestones , a steely look in his eyes .
Unbeknownst even to his wife , whom he left in bed , Bloom is a secret operative for the I.R.A .
He meets his contact , Stephen Dedalus , at a remote tower in Sandycove , setting in motion events that will alter not just the history of the Irish Republic but also the history of the world .
By the evening of this fateful day , the great nations of Europe will be on an unalterable course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s knowledge of these events constitutes a critical security risk , the two agree to be hypnotized by government agents , who replace memories of their secret identities with prosaic memories of walking around Dublin .
Tagline : “ Before there were boys going crazy on an island , there were babies going crazy on an island.
” A flight transporting orphans crashes on a remote island , stranding a group of toddlers .
A fair-haired toddler named Ralphie turns a pacifier into a whistle that he uses to convene all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go awry , as some of the three-year-olds poop their pants , while others refuse to eat anything but pizza , and still others can ’ t get to sleep without elaborate bedtime rituals .
They all die .
Tagline : “ Before ‘ Once Before a Time , ’ there was ‘ Once Way Before a Time.
’ ” Following a quote from the Times , various nonexistent prequels are described , including “ The Puppies of War , ” “ Oedipus the Prince , ” and “ A Clockwork Clementine.
” @ @ @ @ @ @

“Prequels have become a mainstay of the cultural landscape. Studios, network executives and publishers are risk averse, and prequels provide yet another way to cash in on an existing work.”
—New York Times.
“Tiny Women”
Tagline: “Before being little, they were tiny. I mean, really tiny.”
Four teen-aged sisters and their mother, Marmee, living in eighteen-sixties New England, are inadvertently shrunken to the size of peanuts by their eccentric inventor father. Left on their own, while the father desperately pursues possible remedies, mother and daughters take refuge in a teapot and carry on as best they can. The most outspoken of the daughters, Jo, wants to become a writer, but instead marries a potato bug who encourages her to put an end to her silly ambitions. Eventually, the father returns them to their normal size and, while preparing to depart for the Civil War, inadvertently steps on Jo’s husband.
“The Young Man and the Sea”
Tagline: “Before the big fish, there was a small fish.”
Santiago, a young Cuban fisherman, befriends a feisty marlin, and the two join forces to liberate thousands of fish from an overcrowded aquarium in Miami. But, when Santiago’s fishing buddies discover the unlikely alliance and tease him, he ends his friendship with the marlin. “The next time we meet,” Santiago says, in the final shot of the film, “I will have to kill you.”
“Fahrenheit 212”
Tagline: “Before they burned books, they boiled magazines.”
In a dystopian future, Guy Montag works as a government-censor chef for an authoritarian regime. While boiling confiscated magazines, he notices a page bubble briefly to the surface, and he is unable to resist reading an item about a celebrity. This leads him to seek out more magazines. He is eventually detected by the authorities and forced to flee to the surrounding forest, where he meets a group of exiled intellectuals who have memorized different magazine profiles of Reese Witherspoon in anticipation of a time when society is ready to rediscover print media. They remain in the forest forever.
“Where the Heck Are You, Godot?”
Tagline: “Before waiting for him pointlessly, they were waiting for him with a purpose.”
Two high-school seniors, Vladimir and Estragon, have a problem: Godot. Whenever they agree to meet up by the big tree after school, Godot’s always late! And, when they go off and do stuff, such as skateboarding or hanging out at the mall, without him, he inevitably shows up, right after they leave! Finally, one day after school, Vlad and Estie decide that this time they’re going to wait until Godot shows up, even if it means missing the senior prom! And graduation! And the rest of their lives! Their determination backfires when they end up as broke, jobless tramps.
“Yester-Bloomsday”
Tagline: “Before nothing happened, everything happened.”
On the damp morning of June 15, 1904, Leopold Bloom steps out from his Dublin residence and strides briskly across wet cobblestones, a steely look in his eyes. Unbeknownst even to his wife, whom he left in bed, Bloom is a secret operative for the I.R.A. He meets his contact, Stephen Dedalus, at a remote tower in Sandycove, setting in motion events that will alter not just the history of the Irish Republic but also the history of the world. By the evening of this fateful day, the great nations of Europe will be on an unalterable course toward world war. Because the men’s knowledge of these events constitutes a critical security risk, the two agree to be hypnotized by government agents, who replace memories of their secret identities with prosaic memories of walking around Dublin.
“Lord of the Mites”
Tagline: “Before there were boys going crazy on an island, there were babies going crazy on an island.”
A flight transporting orphans crashes on a remote island, stranding a group of toddlers. A fair-haired toddler named Ralphie turns a pacifier into a whistle that he uses to convene all the survivors, but attempts at self-governance quickly go awry, as some of the three-year-olds poop their pants, while others refuse to eat anything but pizza, and still others can’t get to sleep without elaborate bedtime rituals. They all die.
“Once Way Before a Time”
Tagline: “Before ‘Once Before a Time,’ there was ‘Once Way Before a Time.’ ”
Following a quote from the Times, various nonexistent prequels are described, including “The Puppies of War,” “Oedipus the Prince,” and “A Clockwork Clementine.” Definitely better than the original.


newyorker--2020-02-08--Money Talks in the Democratic Race

Money Talks in the Democratic Race

“ Money , money , money , ” Elizabeth Warren said on Wednesday in Nashua , New Hampshire .
She had noticed the governing force in the Democratic Presidential contest .
“ I ’ ve got ta tell you , I ’ m pretty upset about parts of that—that Kamala Harris gets pushed off the debate stage on the very same day a billionaire buys his way onto it , ” she said .
“ That ’ s not right—that Cory Booker gets pushed off because of money.
” All week in New Hampshire , the changes in the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rich in endorsements but low on funds , may have to cancel his private plane by Super Tuesday , The Atlantic reported .
Warren ’ s own campaign , which has raised a lot of money but has spent aggressively on national organizing , had to cancel a half million dollars worth of ads reserved for Nevada and South Carolina because of a cash crunch .
Pete Buttigieg , whom polls showed to be closing the gap on Sanders in New Hampshire , came out of Iowa looking uncharacteristically ashen and drained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York for a fund-raiser on Wednesday night , to keep the money coming .
Michael Bloomberg kept rising in the polls , without having made an appearance in New Hampshire , during the week he ’ d aired a Super Bowl ad that reached a hundred million people .
And Bernie Sanders ’ s campaign announced that he had raised twenty-five million dollars in January alone , a sum fit for a front-runner .
In Iowa , the campaigns and the press rightly denounced the Democratic Party establishment for the total shambles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Hampshire , you could see how weak the establishment really is : most of the money was held by the socialist and the billionaires , Bloomberg and Tom Steyer , none of whom have typical Democratic bona fides .
New Hampshire is usually the last moment in which the primary race is still intimate , before it fully transitions to a blockbuster televised affair .
But this week has had an unusually subdued , almost hungover feeling , bracketed by the uncertainty of the Iowa caucuses on one end and the demoralization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The senators Amy Klobuchar , Sanders , and Warren have been in Washington , for the end of the impeachment trial , and so , even as the press corps blanketed New Hampshire , the candidates were scarcely to be found .
Biden held only a couple of events on Tuesday .
At lunchtime on Thursday , with nothing else to do , reporters flocked to a roundtable on veterans issues that Buttigieg was holding in a small hall in Merrimack , which could not fit them all .
Buttigieg appeared outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward at the waist , inclining his head to the right to tell the small number of voters being turned away that he cared very much about their vote , that he was grateful for their interest , that he knew Granite Staters were hard to please .
To the candidate ’ s left , locked out of the event , was a far larger cadre of the press .
When he went inside , the reporters quietly packed up and headed back for their cars .
Maybe , after Iowa , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It has been a wintry , subdued , worried week for Democrats , made more so by the President ’ s boisterous State of the Union , in which , before cheering Republicans , he celebrated a booming economy and granted the gifts of American bounty : a scholarship for a young kid , a returned husband for a military wife , a Medal of Freedom for a despicable radio host .
This was Trump as Mitch McConnell might have sketched him .
The character won ’ t last , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Hampshire , there were a few hints that the candidates might be trying to account for the possibility that the economy will still feel sturdy by the general election .
At a CNN town hall in Manchester , Sanders riffed : “ If we were a poor country , we would not say , ‘ Hey , everybody can have health care , everybody can have a quality education , we ’ re a poor country.
’ We are not a poor country.
” He went on , “ In the richest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is not all that hard to say that all of our people can have a decent standard of living.
” Sanders spoke more about climate change than he usually does .
It sounded like a sketch of a general-election message—that our inheritance was being squandered on the rich and the old .
A Democratic socialism for a time of plenty .
Is that where the Democratic primary is headed , toward Sanders ?
If the other candidates want to prevent it , now is the time .
The attack ads are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , released by the campaign of Tom Steyer—he of the 1.6-billion-dollar bank account and the tartan tie—criticized Biden for being an insider , Buttigieg for being untested , and ( without naming Sanders ) “ socialists ” for exposing the Party to Trump ’ s attacks .
During a rally in New Hampshire , Biden echoed the latter two critiques : Trump , he said , “ is desperate to pin the label ‘ socialist ’ on our party—we can ’ t let him do that.
” Nor , Biden went on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk ” of a figure as untested as Buttigieg .
Of course , Sanders has called himself a socialist for decades , and that has not hurt him much in these Democratic primaries .
The latest polls show him holding steady in New Hampshire and beginning to lead in national surveys , too .
Sanders ’ s opponents will have to do better than “ socialist.
” Watching Warren from the press risers at her events this week , I kept listening for a sharper critique of Sanders or Buttigieg—a clearer description of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came .
She followed the same format she has all year : fifteen minutes of biography , forty-five of questions , the selfie line .
At the beginning of the campaign , Biden was the favorite of the political establishment , and Warren of the intellectual one , but by this week it was clear how little that had bought them .
The sensation this week in New Hampshire was less one of a new phase in the Presidential contest than one that the candidates were simply being swept along , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it goes national , belongs to Sanders , the billionaires , the hustling Buttigieg—those with the money .

“Money, money, money,” Elizabeth Warren said on Wednesday in Nashua, New Hampshire. She had noticed the governing force in the Democratic Presidential contest. “I’ve gotta tell you, I’m pretty upset about parts of that—that Kamala Harris gets pushed off the debate stage on the very same day a billionaire buys his way onto it,” she said. “That’s not right—that Cory Booker gets pushed off because of money.”
All week in New Hampshire, the changes in the race have registered in cash. Joe Biden, rich in endorsements but low on funds, may have to cancel his private plane by Super Tuesday, The Atlantic reported. Warren’s own campaign, which has raised a lot of money but has spent aggressively on national organizing, had to cancel a half million dollars worth of ads reserved for Nevada and South Carolina because of a cash crunch. Pete Buttigieg, whom polls showed to be closing the gap on Sanders in New Hampshire, came out of Iowa looking uncharacteristically ashen and drained. Nevertheless, he went down to New York for a fund-raiser on Wednesday night, to keep the money coming. Michael Bloomberg kept rising in the polls, without having made an appearance in New Hampshire, during the week he’d aired a Super Bowl ad that reached a hundred million people. And Bernie Sanders’s campaign announced that he had raised twenty-five million dollars in January alone, a sum fit for a front-runner. In Iowa, the campaigns and the press rightly denounced the Democratic Party establishment for the total shambles of the caucuses. But, in New Hampshire, you could see how weak the establishment really is: most of the money was held by the socialist and the billionaires, Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, none of whom have typical Democratic bona fides.
New Hampshire is usually the last moment in which the primary race is still intimate, before it fully transitions to a blockbuster televised affair. But this week has had an unusually subdued, almost hungover feeling, bracketed by the uncertainty of the Iowa caucuses on one end and the demoralization of the impeachment trial on the other. The senators Amy Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren have been in Washington, for the end of the impeachment trial, and so, even as the press corps blanketed New Hampshire, the candidates were scarcely to be found. Biden held only a couple of events on Tuesday. At lunchtime on Thursday, with nothing else to do, reporters flocked to a roundtable on veterans issues that Buttigieg was holding in a small hall in Merrimack, which could not fit them all. Buttigieg appeared outside, looking slight and solicitous and bent forward at the waist, inclining his head to the right to tell the small number of voters being turned away that he cared very much about their vote, that he was grateful for their interest, that he knew Granite Staters were hard to please. To the candidate’s left, locked out of the event, was a far larger cadre of the press. When he went inside, the reporters quietly packed up and headed back for their cars. Maybe, after Iowa, we were grateful for the break, too.
It has been a wintry, subdued, worried week for Democrats, made more so by the President’s boisterous State of the Union, in which, before cheering Republicans, he celebrated a booming economy and granted the gifts of American bounty: a scholarship for a young kid, a returned husband for a military wife, a Medal of Freedom for a despicable radio host. This was Trump as Mitch McConnell might have sketched him. The character won’t last, but the strong economy very well might. In New Hampshire, there were a few hints that the candidates might be trying to account for the possibility that the economy will still feel sturdy by the general election. At a CNN town hall in Manchester, Sanders riffed: “If we were a poor country, we would not say, ‘Hey, everybody can have health care, everybody can have a quality education, we’re a poor country.’ We are not a poor country.” He went on, “In the richest country in the history of the world, it is not all that hard to say that all of our people can have a decent standard of living.” Sanders spoke more about climate change than he usually does. It sounded like a sketch of a general-election message—that our inheritance was being squandered on the rich and the old. A Democratic socialism for a time of plenty.
Is that where the Democratic primary is headed, toward Sanders? If the other candidates want to prevent it, now is the time. The attack ads are finally starting. A new spot this week, released by the campaign of Tom Steyer—he of the 1.6-billion-dollar bank account and the tartan tie—criticized Biden for being an insider, Buttigieg for being untested, and (without naming Sanders) “socialists” for exposing the Party to Trump’s attacks. During a rally in New Hampshire, Biden echoed the latter two critiques: Trump, he said, “is desperate to pin the label ‘socialist’ on our party—we can’t let him do that.” Nor, Biden went on, could the Democrats afford the “risk” of a figure as untested as Buttigieg. Of course, Sanders has called himself a socialist for decades, and that has not hurt him much in these Democratic primaries. The latest polls show him holding steady in New Hampshire and beginning to lead in national surveys, too. Sanders’s opponents will have to do better than “socialist.”
Watching Warren from the press risers at her events this week, I kept listening for a sharper critique of Sanders or Buttigieg—a clearer description of how her progressivism differed from theirs—but none came. She followed the same format she has all year: fifteen minutes of biography, forty-five of questions, the selfie line. At the beginning of the campaign, Biden was the favorite of the political establishment, and Warren of the intellectual one, but by this week it was clear how little that had bought them. The sensation this week in New Hampshire was less one of a new phase in the Presidential contest than one that the candidates were simply being swept along, and that the power to shape the race, as it goes national, belongs to Sanders, the billionaires, the hustling Buttigieg—those with the money.


newyorker--2020-02-08--Ambassador Bill Taylor on Impeachment, Russia, and the Law of the Jungle

Ambassador Bill Taylor gained fame for a text message in which he challenged President Donald Trump ’ s decision to withhold aid to Ukraine until it announced an investigation into Hunter Biden .
“ I think it ’ s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign , ” Taylor wrote to Ambassador Gordon Sondland , on September 9th .
The text became a key piece of evidence in the impeachment of Trump on charges of abusing power for political gain .
Taylor testified on the first day of the House impeachment hearings that he had adamantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I could not and would not defend such a policy , ” Taylor said .
Among his colleagues , Taylor is also famed for a small notebook he carries with him , in which he takes copious notes on meetings and conversations .
The notebook chronicled how Ukraine policy played out during the suspension of U.S. military aid after President Trump ’ s call to President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25th .
Taylor has served the United States—as a soldier , in senior positions at the Pentagon and the State Department , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century .
He graduated in the top one per cent of his class at West Point and served in Vietnam , where he was awarded a Bronze Star and an Air Medal with a “ V ” device , for valor .
After the war , he received a master ’ s degree in public policy from Harvard ’ s Kennedy School .
He spent most of his life dealing with conflict or post-conflict environments .
In the course of his career , he coördinated U.S. aid efforts to Eastern Europe and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq .
The George W. Bush Administration deployed him to Jerusalem as the U.S. special representative to the Quartet peace process and to Kyiv as the U.S .
Ambassador from 2006 to 2009 .
President Obama appointed him to coördinate aid to Middle Eastern countries in transition after the Arab Spring .
In June of last year , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo personally asked Taylor to return as acting Ambassador after Marie Yovanovitch was abruptly recalled .
Taylor did so despite having serious doubts and a warning from his wife not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taylor has been my guide on Ukraine and many issues in the Middle East and Afghanistan .
We sat down on Friday to discuss the impeachment drama , Russia , the Ukraine crisis , U.S. foreign policy , and the dangers that the world will return to the law of the jungle .
The text has been edited for length and clarity .
Today , Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman , another key witness in the impeachment hearings , was dismissed from the National Security Council and escorted off the grounds of the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said in a blunt statement , “ There is no question in the mind of any American why this man ’ s job is over , why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House .
L.T.C .
Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth.
” His twin brother , Yevgeny , who also worked at the White House lawyer , was fired , too .
Are you concerned about the dangers of retribution , whether it ’ s overt or implicit , against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who testified at the impeachment hearings ?
The House hearing and the Senate trial are now over .
What was it like being in the middle of the impeachment of President Trump , as one of the first witnesses in the hearings ?
It felt like a duty that needed to be accomplished .
It was not as emotional as you might have thought , in that I was there not to make a judgment on the President ; I was there to tell people what I knew , what I had heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they had heard from the President .
I ’ ve talked to some of my colleagues who testified or gave depositions , and they told me it was the most stressful thing they ’ ve ever been through .
But I felt comfortable and pretty relaxed .
It was a little amusing , frankly , to walk into that House hearing room and see this big bank of cameras and photographers .
I ’ ve never experienced that .
You returned to Ukraine in June at the request of—and as a favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emotions when you discovered what was happening in U.S. policy about Ukraine ?
How did it dawn on you ?
Ukraine is an important place for our security .
If Ukraine succeeds , we succeed .
If Ukraine fails , then it ’ s bad for us .
So I was glad to be back to be able to make some kind of contribution .
The Embassy was shaken with the departure of Ambassador Masha Yovanovitch .
No one really understood why she was pulled out so quickly .
And so the Embassy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I got there with assurances from Secretary Pompeo that the policy that I was familiar with , of strong support for Ukraine , would continue .
I told him that I couldn ’ t execute a policy that didn ’ t have strong support for Ukraine .
When I got out there , it became clear to me gradually that there was another channel that was also forming , maybe even executing some of U.S.-Ukraine policy .
Ambassador Gordon Sondland introduced me into that channel on occasion .
Some of these texts are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But every now and then , I would get a glimpse into that , and on phone calls as well .
A lot of that conversation had the goal of good U.S.-Ukraine relations and a good relationship between the new President Zelensky and President Trump , which I agreed with .
I ’ ve met President Zelensky a couple of times , found him to be very competent , very promising , very charming .
I thought that a meeting would be a good thing and would help U.S. support for Ukraine to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when they were talking on the phone , there were references to certain things that President Zelensky or his team had to do in order to get that phone call .
These were veiled and vague , but it was clear that people in that other policy channel knew what they were referring to .
Gradually , I began to realize that there were some things that I was not part of but that were real , and there were steps to be taken before a phone call would take place .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Security Council was spending “ a lot of energy ” on the question of the U.S. purchasing Greenland .
Were you concerned that Ukraine might be betrayed , forgotten , or abandoned as that discussion went on in Washington ?
No , I wasn ’ t .
That was more amusing than concerning .
The joke at the time in Ukraine was “ We should sell Crimea to the United States , and then they can give it back to us.
” I was confident that , for good and bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of attention .
So the Greenland thing was not something I worried about .
What might have happened if Washington had withheld military aid any longer ?
How dependent is Ukraine on the United States ?
Ukraine counts on the United States for a range of things , most importantly in Ukraine ’ s confrontation with the Russians .
Ukraine is trying to defend itself , and therefore us , against Russian attack .
So when they heard that military support , security assistance was held up , they couldn ’ t understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They made it clear to me in phone calls and questions about what ’ s going on .
And , of course , I couldn ’ t tell them .
I didn ’ t know why .
Because I thought , at the time , it was just a mistake .

Ambassador Bill Taylor gained fame for a text message in which he challenged President Donald Trump’s decision to withhold aid to Ukraine until it announced an investigation into Hunter Biden. “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Taylor wrote to Ambassador Gordon Sondland, on September 9th. The text became a key piece of evidence in the impeachment of Trump on charges of abusing power for political gain. Taylor testified on the first day of the House impeachment hearings that he had adamantly opposed the decision to withhold aid. “I could not and would not defend such a policy,” Taylor said.
Among his colleagues, Taylor is also famed for a small notebook he carries with him, in which he takes copious notes on meetings and conversations. The notebook chronicled how Ukraine policy played out during the suspension of U.S. military aid after President Trump’s call to President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25th.
Taylor has served the United States—as a soldier, in senior positions at the Pentagon and the State Department, and finally as an Ambassador—for a half century. He graduated in the top one per cent of his class at West Point and served in Vietnam, where he was awarded a Bronze Star and an Air Medal with a “V” device, for valor. After the war, he received a master’s degree in public policy from Harvard’s Kennedy School.
He spent most of his life dealing with conflict or post-conflict environments. In the course of his career, he coördinated U.S. aid efforts to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Republic, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The George W. Bush Administration deployed him to Jerusalem as the U.S. special representative to the Quartet peace process and to Kyiv as the U.S. Ambassador from 2006 to 2009. President Obama appointed him to coördinate aid to Middle Eastern countries in transition after the Arab Spring. In June of last year, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo personally asked Taylor to return as acting Ambassador after Marie Yovanovitch was abruptly recalled. Taylor did so despite having serious doubts and a warning from his wife not to take the assignment.
For years, Taylor has been my guide on Ukraine and many issues in the Middle East and Afghanistan. We sat down on Friday to discuss the impeachment drama, Russia, the Ukraine crisis, U.S. foreign policy, and the dangers that the world will return to the law of the jungle. The text has been edited for length and clarity.
Today, Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman, another key witness in the impeachment hearings, was dismissed from the National Security Council and escorted off the grounds of the White House. His lawyer, David Pressman, said in a blunt statement, “There is no question in the mind of any American why this man’s job is over, why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House. L.T.C. Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth.” His twin brother, Yevgeny, who also worked at the White House lawyer, was fired, too. Are you concerned about the dangers of retribution, whether it’s overt or implicit, against the career or lives of the seventeen witnesses who testified at the impeachment hearings?
I’ve not experienced any retaliation.
The House hearing and the Senate trial are now over. What was it like being in the middle of the impeachment of President Trump, as one of the first witnesses in the hearings?
It felt like a duty that needed to be accomplished. It was not as emotional as you might have thought, in that I was there not to make a judgment on the President; I was there to tell people what I knew, what I had heard, what people have told me, what they had heard from the President. I’ve talked to some of my colleagues who testified or gave depositions, and they told me it was the most stressful thing they’ve ever been through. But I felt comfortable and pretty relaxed. It was a little amusing, frankly, to walk into that House hearing room and see this big bank of cameras and photographers. I’ve never experienced that.
You returned to Ukraine in June at the request of—and as a favor to—the Trump Administration. What were your emotions when you discovered what was happening in U.S. policy about Ukraine? How did it dawn on you?
Ukraine is an important place for our security. If Ukraine succeeds, we succeed. If Ukraine fails, then it’s bad for us. So I was glad to be back to be able to make some kind of contribution. The Embassy was shaken with the departure of Ambassador Masha Yovanovitch. No one really understood why she was pulled out so quickly. And so the Embassy was discombobulated, disrupted, uncertain.
I got there with assurances from Secretary Pompeo that the policy that I was familiar with, of strong support for Ukraine, would continue. I told him that I couldn’t execute a policy that didn’t have strong support for Ukraine. When I got out there, it became clear to me gradually that there was another channel that was also forming, maybe even executing some of U.S.-Ukraine policy. Ambassador Gordon Sondland introduced me into that channel on occasion. Some of these texts are now famous, sad to say. But every now and then, I would get a glimpse into that, and on phone calls as well.
A lot of that conversation had the goal of good U.S.-Ukraine relations and a good relationship between the new President Zelensky and President Trump, which I agreed with. I’ve met President Zelensky a couple of times, found him to be very competent, very promising, very charming. I thought that a meeting would be a good thing and would help U.S. support for Ukraine to consolidate and go forward. So then, when they were talking on the phone, there were references to certain things that President Zelensky or his team had to do in order to get that phone call. These were veiled and vague, but it was clear that people in that other policy channel knew what they were referring to. Gradually, I began to realize that there were some things that I was not part of but that were real, and there were steps to be taken before a phone call would take place.
In your testimony, you described how the National Security Council was spending “a lot of energy” on the question of the U.S. purchasing Greenland. Were you concerned that Ukraine might be betrayed, forgotten, or abandoned as that discussion went on in Washington?
No, I wasn’t. That was more amusing than concerning. The joke at the time in Ukraine was “We should sell Crimea to the United States, and then they can give it back to us.” I was confident that, for good and bad reasons, Ukraine was getting a lot of attention. So the Greenland thing was not something I worried about.
What might have happened if Washington had withheld military aid any longer? How dependent is Ukraine on the United States?
Ukraine counts on the United States for a range of things, most importantly in Ukraine’s confrontation with the Russians. Ukraine is trying to defend itself, and therefore us, against Russian attack. So when they heard that military support, security assistance was held up, they couldn’t understand it. They were clearly worried. They made it clear to me in phone calls and questions about what’s going on. And, of course, I couldn’t tell them. I didn’t know why. Because I thought, at the time, it was just a mistake.


newyorker--2020-02-08--Thirteen (Well, Ten) Ways of Looking at an Impeachment and Acquittal

1 .
Impeachment was , despite it all , essential .
The purpose of impeachment was never political .
It was never meant to be undertaken , and never should have been undertaken , with an eye to the Democrats being in a better political position after it was over .
On those grounds it was , as Nancy Pelosi clearly felt , up to the very brink , a gamble not worth taking .
The reasonable argument for why it had to be attempted was that to not impeach Donald Trump was not , well , reasonable .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to collaborate in it .
Impeachment was undertaken out of principle—the principle that the rule of law matters , and the corollary principle that political parties are not put in office to practice passivity .
And it was , it must always be remembered , undertaken not at the political behest of a few radicals but in response to the collective and appropriate panic of national-security and intelligence professionals within the executive branch , who blew whistles and gave testimony because they believed that the President ’ s behavior was as wrong as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politically advantageous or not in the short run , it would have been politically disastrous in the long run to crawl away from such a conflict begun in such patriotic good faith .
Right really should matter here .
2 .
Yes , but Trump won , and the consequences are terrifying .
As some people said at the time , the one good thing about an attempted impeachment was that at least the Republican senators , who all know exactly who and what Trump is , would at last be forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one properly understood was that they had no consciences left to own—that their recognition of Trump ’ s obvious guilt would be overwhelmed by their fear of his opposition and that of his followers ; exactly because they knew how bad he was , they would be compelled to redouble their irrational allegiance .
They could not even look at any evidence , because they knew what it would show .
Bad money always gets thrown in after good , as the gamble becomes ever more desperate .
The trouble is that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a party made passive by adherence to him , with his wounded narcissism leaving him more evidently deranged than before .
His behavior during his post-impeachment appearances might have seemed extreme to Ludwig II of Bavaria , or caused Caligula to raise an eyebrow .
Meanwhile , Attorney General William Barr will protect Trump while allowing the Justice Department to be used as a weapon against his enemies .
Of all the truly frightening moments of the process , the worst might have been the attempt at reassurance by Senator Lamar Alexander , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been mistaken to ask a foreign President to investigate his political rivals , he will now know that the right thing to have done would have been to ask his Attorney General to start investigations .
That this idea—in itself a betrayal of every imaginable American constitutional principle—was proposed as more appropriate is a true mark of the defeat of the rule of law .
Nothing now stands between Trump ’ s id and Trump ’ s actions .
Trump is an inherently weak President—one with a narrow base of support and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of now , one who is too chaotic to be much good at suppressing dissent .
His acts and their intended consequences are further apart than our fears and his unhinged rages make us believe .
Imagine if the plot had succeeded and the President of Ukraine actually announced investigations into the Bidens—would anyone have actually been fooled about the origins of those investigations , aside from those among Trump ’ s followers who live to be fooled by him ?
The true pattern of Trumpism—oafish chaos with self-defeating results , evil talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has altered .
The best efforts of Trump are horribly ugly but ultimately meaningless .
All that has happened is that we are exactly where we were before , but with one side marginally less passive and the other marginally more enraged .
Allowing Trump to have gotten away with his “ perfect ” phone call would seem to us now far worse as policy , while having exactly the same effect of creating an ever more unbounded Trump .
A Trump not called to order would be no different than one who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Actually , Trump lost .
The idea of a “ verdict of history ” is an absurdity .
But the verdict of verdicts is not .
In this regard , Mitt Romney ’ s speech was , however impotent judicially , dispositive morally .
Scoffing at the idea that Trump ’ s behavior was not impeachable , showing that it obviously was , Romney ended all ambiguity and spoke for the truth , and to history .
4 .
Adam Schiff ’ s eloquence will always be remembered .
Certainly , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lay in Schiff ’ s performance before the Senate as the lead House manager .
Often speaking extemporaneously , with a sobriety and a carefully paced intelligence that one might have thought had vanished entirely from the American lectern , let alone American politics , he was , without exaggeration , Lincoln-like .
Lincoln-like , that is , in a highly specific , formal way : he laid a careful , even tedious foundation of elaborate law and evidence , and then rose to moral exhortation only on that basis .
He turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be too late for anyone to act on this truth , but , if the Democratic Party could vote its conscience and its honor right now , it would surely end , en masse , by nominating Schiff for President .
5 .
And so will Romney ’ s courage .
John F. Kennedy ’ s famous book “ Profiles in Courage ” would be better off called “ Profiles in Collaboration , ” since , as all now know , it was largely written by his doppelgänger , Theodore Sorensen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while the courage of many of Kennedy ’ s subjects , especially those who voted to acquit Andrew Johnson in his impeachment trial , now seems less conclusive than it once did .
No matter—the central idea is that democratic politics , though designed to conform legislator to constituency , sometimes demand a legislator who refuses to conform .
This idea , of nonconformity through principle , is essential to the difference between demagogic democracy and liberal democracy , and Mitt Romney , whatever his flaws and faults , defined it for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more moving by his being inspired by that most echt American of scriptures , the Book of Mormon . )
6 .
There was a truly shocking collapse of conscience .
The real story was not the complete collapse of conscience among the Senate Republicans .
That was to be expected—after all , the first vote for impeachment ever offered by a senator of the same political party as the President was Romney ’ s .
The real collapse was among the higher-ranking politically appointed military and national-security professionals who had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before departing it , voluntarily or not .
John Bolton ’ s behavior , in particular , was inexplicable .
Clearly filled with contempt for Trump ’ s manifest unfitness , he refused to speak openly against him , apparently out of some bizarre mix of distaste for the Democratic Congress and a will to sell books in the fall .
The passivity of the Republicans was to be expected ; that of Bolton was not .
Nor was that of other high-ranking former officials , including respected retired generals like James Mattis—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who spoke softly , but not sharply .
Though they weren ’ t in the White House at the time of the Ukraine phone call , they know the character of the President .
Yet they remained largely silent , seemingly out of a misplaced sense of professionalism and discretion .
( Misplaced because of the unique gravity and urgency of the circumstance .
Though it ’ s good for soldiers to be discreet , there are moments when their duties as citizens are more important than their habits as officers .
@

(With apologies to Wallace Stevens, and in descending order of despair—though, perhaps, ascending order of importance.)
1. Impeachment was, despite it all, essential.
The purpose of impeachment was never political. It was never meant to be undertaken, and never should have been undertaken, with an eye to the Democrats being in a better political position after it was over. On those grounds it was, as Nancy Pelosi clearly felt, up to the very brink, a gamble not worth taking. The reasonable argument for why it had to be attempted was that to not impeach Donald Trump was not, well, reasonable. To allow obvious heedlessness to pass unchallenged was to collaborate in it. Impeachment was undertaken out of principle—the principle that the rule of law matters, and the corollary principle that political parties are not put in office to practice passivity. And it was, it must always be remembered, undertaken not at the political behest of a few radicals but in response to the collective and appropriate panic of national-security and intelligence professionals within the executive branch, who blew whistles and gave testimony because they believed that the President’s behavior was as wrong as wrong could be. Whether it was politically advantageous or not in the short run, it would have been politically disastrous in the long run to crawl away from such a conflict begun in such patriotic good faith. Right really should matter here.
2. Yes, but Trump won, and the consequences are terrifying.
As some people said at the time, the one good thing about an attempted impeachment was that at least the Republican senators, who all know exactly who and what Trump is, would at last be forced to own their bad consciences. What no one properly understood was that they had no consciences left to own—that their recognition of Trump’s obvious guilt would be overwhelmed by their fear of his opposition and that of his followers; exactly because they knew how bad he was, they would be compelled to redouble their irrational allegiance. They could not even look at any evidence, because they knew what it would show. Bad money always gets thrown in after good, as the gamble becomes ever more desperate. The trouble is that Trump is now left in firmer control of a party made passive by adherence to him, with his wounded narcissism leaving him more evidently deranged than before. His behavior during his post-impeachment appearances might have seemed extreme to Ludwig II of Bavaria, or caused Caligula to raise an eyebrow. Meanwhile, Attorney General William Barr will protect Trump while allowing the Justice Department to be used as a weapon against his enemies. Of all the truly frightening moments of the process, the worst might have been the attempt at reassurance by Senator Lamar Alexander, who insisted that, though Trump might have been mistaken to ask a foreign President to investigate his political rivals, he will now know that the right thing to have done would have been to ask his Attorney General to start investigations. That this idea—in itself a betrayal of every imaginable American constitutional principle—was proposed as more appropriate is a true mark of the defeat of the rule of law. Nothing now stands between Trump’s id and Trump’s actions.
3. Actually, Trump won, but it’s trivial.
Trump is an inherently weak President—one with a narrow base of support and zero persuasion skills, and, as of now, one who is too chaotic to be much good at suppressing dissent. His acts and their intended consequences are further apart than our fears and his unhinged rages make us believe. Imagine if the plot had succeeded and the President of Ukraine actually announced investigations into the Bidens—would anyone have actually been fooled about the origins of those investigations, aside from those among Trump’s followers who live to be fooled by him? The true pattern of Trumpism—oafish chaos with self-defeating results, evil talk, and impotent action—will continue. Nothing has altered. The best efforts of Trump are horribly ugly but ultimately meaningless. All that has happened is that we are exactly where we were before, but with one side marginally less passive and the other marginally more enraged. Allowing Trump to have gotten away with his “perfect” phone call would seem to us now far worse as policy, while having exactly the same effect of creating an ever more unbounded Trump. A Trump not called to order would be no different than one who has been.
And you know what? Actually, Trump lost.
The idea of a “verdict of history” is an absurdity. But the verdict of verdicts is not. In this regard, Mitt Romney’s speech was, however impotent judicially, dispositive morally. Scoffing at the idea that Trump’s behavior was not impeachable, showing that it obviously was, Romney ended all ambiguity and spoke for the truth, and to history.
4. Adam Schiff’s eloquence will always be remembered.
Certainly, the most permanent moment of the entire impeachment lay in Schiff’s performance before the Senate as the lead House manager. Often speaking extemporaneously, with a sobriety and a carefully paced intelligence that one might have thought had vanished entirely from the American lectern, let alone American politics, he was, without exaggeration, Lincoln-like. Lincoln-like, that is, in a highly specific, formal way: he laid a careful, even tedious foundation of elaborate law and evidence, and then rose to moral exhortation only on that basis. He turned legal argument into moral practice. It may be too late for anyone to act on this truth, but, if the Democratic Party could vote its conscience and its honor right now, it would surely end, en masse, by nominating Schiff for President.


newyorker--2020-02-10--Valentine’s Day Gifts for Flu Season

Valentine’s Day Gifts for Flu Season

A dozen roses accompanied by a written description of their scent , because , God knows , you haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ for days .

A dozen roses accompanied by a written description of their scent, because, God knows, you haven’t been able to smell for days.


newyorker--2020-02-10--Can Farming Make Space for Nature?

Can Farming Make Space for Nature?

One day last summer , Jake Fiennes was lost in a cloud of butterflies .
He was on a woodland path near Holkham Beach , on the north coast of Norfolk .
Every decade or so , ten million painted-lady butterflies , which are orange , black , and white , migrate to Britain from tropical Africa .
The hot summer meant that it was a bumper year for native species , too , and the painted ladies mingled with red admirals , peacocks , and common blues , feeding on bushes set back a few yards from the path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of flittering , fluttering butterflies , ” Fiennes told me later .
“ I was in awe .
These flowers were just exploding.
” Two friends of mine happened to be passing at that moment .
They saw a figure in the swirl .
Fiennes , who is forty-nine , has bright-blue eyes and a shaved head , except for an irregular flap of white hair , which is jagged with gray .
He is an arresting presence , with an abrupt , avid way of speaking .
He combines the correct jargon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ditches are grubbed , the grass is the sward—with a lot of swearing .
He starts sentences in the middle .
He began to talk to my friends , at them , about the painted ladies , about how they floated on gusts from the Atlas Mountains ; how if you looked closely enough you could see the faded wings of the older creatures ; and how they got tired flying over the sea , and sometimes rested , like a settling of dusty stars , on fishing boats in the English Channel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a while .
Then they carried on , leaving the butterfly man behind .
Fiennes is the conservation manager of the Holkham Estate , one of Britain ’ s most important private landholdings .
The estate covers about twenty-five thousand acres and includes a nature reserve , which is visited by almost a million people a year , and a farming business that grows potatoes , sugar beets , and barley , for beer .
In 2018 , Fiennes was hired by Holkham ’ s principal landowner , the eighth Earl of Leicester @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from its intensively farmed arable land to its wetland bird habitats .
Fiennes describes what he does as “ multifunctional farming ” or “ environmental farming.
” He believes that farmers in the twenty-first century must cultivate as much as they can on their land—fungi for the soil , grasses for the pollinators , weeds for the insects , insects for the birds , pasture for the livestock—for the long-term goals of carbon capture and food production .
“ How do we feed the nine billion ?
” Fiennes said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fiennes has spent his adult life in British farming , but he is not quite of it .
He is the twin brother of the actor Joseph Fiennes , and one of six siblings in one of Britain ’ s best-known bohemian families—the Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes , who choose to simplify their surname .
( Jake ’ s eldest brother is Ralph ; his sisters , Sophie and Martha , are filmmakers ; his third brother , Magnus , is a music producer , based in Los Angeles ; Ranulph Fiennes , the polar explorer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is profoundly dyslexic and almost entirely self-taught .
Last year , he was an adviser to Britain ’ s first major review of its national parks since 1947 , which was chaired by Julian Glover , a journalist and a former speechwriter for David Cameron .
“ There ’ s an element of Jake which looks like he could have taken up farming or heroin , ” Glover told me .
“ There ’ s no one else quite like him.
” Fiennes lives in an old blacksmith ’ s house with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historian , in the village of Burnham Thorpe , a few miles from Holkham .
On the wall above his stairs are the heads and antlers of Britain ’ s six deer species , which Fiennes has shot and eaten .
On a beautiful afternoon last September , Fiennes drove me from his house to the grounds of Holkham Hall , which was built by the Coke family , who were ennobled as the Earls of Leicester by King George II , in 1744 .
( The name is pronounced “ Cook.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face the gates and the arrow-straight drive leading into the park , and rolled a black cigarette .
“ This is the front door of Holkham , ” he said .
“ This is Coke of Norfolk saying , ‘ This is how big my cock is.
’ ” Holkham was one of the birthplaces of the agricultural revolution .
At the beginning of the nineteenth century , the estate , which included some seventy farms , set new standards for food production , instituting regular four-course crop rotations , long-term leases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cover crops , such as clover , which fix nitrogen in the soil .
Though many of these techniques originated earlier , they were publicized to great effect by Thomas William Coke , a prominent politician .
Coke of Norfolk , as he was known , staged annual sheep shearings that drew hundreds of landowners to the estate .
In July , 1820 , Prince Potemkin of Russia , along with visitors from Baltimore and Paris , learned about Arabian sheep , tricks to stop mice from eating cornstalks , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to south ) .
The “ Norfolk rotation ” was replicated across Britain ’ s lowland farms and increased food production , liberating workers from the land to take their chances in the mines and factories of the industrial revolution .
When Coke died , in 1842 , a stone column with a wheat sheaf on top was erected at Holkham .
Fiennes drove his truck across the grass to show it to me .
The pedestal is decorated with sculptures of sheep , seed drills , and sayings apposite for our frightening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is this , ” Fiennes said , pointing at an inscription below a plow .
It read “ Live and Let Live.
” Fiennes told me to close my eyes .
The monument stands in a corner of Jane Austen-style parkland , a dreamlike England .
“ What can you hear ?
” Fiennes asked .
I was struck by the silence .
After a moment , I could make out the small sound of a couple of birds , singing in the distance .
“ Generally , not a lot , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifetime , Britain has lost about forty-four million breeding birds .
“ This has become a natural , day-to-day thing that is not there , ” Fiennes said .
“ This is what it is.
” The United Kingdom is a farmed country .
Almost seventy-five per cent of the land is given over to agriculture—compared with some forty-five per cent in the United States .
After the privations of the Second World War , the country joined a continent-wide push to banish hunger from Europe .
Between 1935 and 1998 , aided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and crop science , British farmers more or less tripled their per-acre yields of wheat , oats , and barley .
Milk production doubled .
The amount of chicken meat offered for sale increased by a factor of twenty-five .
Traditional farming methods , such as the Norfolk rotation , fell away .
Many seminatural habitats were drained or plowed under .
An estimated ninety-seven per cent of hay meadows were lost .
Between 1990 and 2010 , the area of crops treated with pesticides in the U.K. increased by fifty per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Britain ’ s intensive agriculture has only recently been properly understood .
In 2013 , twenty-five nature organizations published the first “ State of Nature ” report .
“ Even the most casual of observers may have noticed that all is not well , ” Sir David Attenborough wrote in the foreword .

One day last summer, Jake Fiennes was lost in a cloud of butterflies. He was on a woodland path near Holkham Beach, on the north coast of Norfolk. Every decade or so, ten million painted-lady butterflies, which are orange, black, and white, migrate to Britain from tropical Africa. The hot summer meant that it was a bumper year for native species, too, and the painted ladies mingled with red admirals, peacocks, and common blues, feeding on bushes set back a few yards from the path. “Just sat in a haze of flittering, fluttering butterflies,” Fiennes told me later. “I was in awe. These flowers were just exploding.”
Two friends of mine happened to be passing at that moment. They saw a figure in the swirl. Fiennes, who is forty-nine, has bright-blue eyes and a shaved head, except for an irregular flap of white hair, which is jagged with gray. He is an arresting presence, with an abrupt, avid way of speaking. He combines the correct jargon of the English countryside—hedges are flailed, ditches are grubbed, the grass is the sward—with a lot of swearing. He starts sentences in the middle. He began to talk to my friends, at them, about the painted ladies, about how they floated on gusts from the Atlas Mountains; how if you looked closely enough you could see the faded wings of the older creatures; and how they got tired flying over the sea, and sometimes rested, like a settling of dusty stars, on fishing boats in the English Channel. My friends stood and gawped for a while. Then they carried on, leaving the butterfly man behind.
Fiennes is the conservation manager of the Holkham Estate, one of Britain’s most important private landholdings. The estate covers about twenty-five thousand acres and includes a nature reserve, which is visited by almost a million people a year, and a farming business that grows potatoes, sugar beets, and barley, for beer. In 2018, Fiennes was hired by Holkham’s principal landowner, the eighth Earl of Leicester, to bolster wildlife across the estate, from its intensively farmed arable land to its wetland bird habitats. Fiennes describes what he does as “multifunctional farming” or “environmental farming.” He believes that farmers in the twenty-first century must cultivate as much as they can on their land—fungi for the soil, grasses for the pollinators, weeds for the insects, insects for the birds, pasture for the livestock—for the long-term goals of carbon capture and food production. “How do we feed the nine billion?” Fiennes said. “We feed them through functioning ecosystems.”
Fiennes has spent his adult life in British farming, but he is not quite of it. He is the twin brother of the actor Joseph Fiennes, and one of six siblings in one of Britain’s best-known bohemian families—the Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes, who choose to simplify their surname. (Jake’s eldest brother is Ralph; his sisters, Sophie and Martha, are filmmakers; his third brother, Magnus, is a music producer, based in Los Angeles; Ranulph Fiennes, the polar explorer, is a cousin.) Fiennes is profoundly dyslexic and almost entirely self-taught. Last year, he was an adviser to Britain’s first major review of its national parks since 1947, which was chaired by Julian Glover, a journalist and a former speechwriter for David Cameron. “There’s an element of Jake which looks like he could have taken up farming or heroin,” Glover told me. “There’s no one else quite like him.”
Fiennes lives in an old blacksmith’s house with his partner, Barbara Linsley, an agricultural historian, in the village of Burnham Thorpe, a few miles from Holkham. On the wall above his stairs are the heads and antlers of Britain’s six deer species, which Fiennes has shot and eaten. On a beautiful afternoon last September, Fiennes drove me from his house to the grounds of Holkham Hall, which was built by the Coke family, who were ennobled as the Earls of Leicester by King George II, in 1744. (The name is pronounced “Cook.”) Fiennes turned his Ford Ranger to face the gates and the arrow-straight drive leading into the park, and rolled a black cigarette. “This is the front door of Holkham,” he said. “This is Coke of Norfolk saying, ‘This is how big my cock is.’ ”
Holkham was one of the birthplaces of the agricultural revolution. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the estate, which included some seventy farms, set new standards for food production, instituting regular four-course crop rotations, long-term leases, systematic breeding programs, and the use of cover crops, such as clover, which fix nitrogen in the soil. Though many of these techniques originated earlier, they were publicized to great effect by Thomas William Coke, a prominent politician. Coke of Norfolk, as he was known, staged annual sheep shearings that drew hundreds of landowners to the estate. In July, 1820, Prince Potemkin of Russia, along with visitors from Baltimore and Paris, learned about Arabian sheep, tricks to stop mice from eating cornstalks, and the correct direction for drilling seeds (north to south). The “Norfolk rotation” was replicated across Britain’s lowland farms and increased food production, liberating workers from the land to take their chances in the mines and factories of the industrial revolution.
When Coke died, in 1842, a stone column with a wheat sheaf on top was erected at Holkham. Fiennes drove his truck across the grass to show it to me. The pedestal is decorated with sculptures of sheep, seed drills, and sayings apposite for our frightening ecological age. “What I love is this,” Fiennes said, pointing at an inscription below a plow. It read “Live and Let Live.”
Fiennes told me to close my eyes. The monument stands in a corner of Jane Austen-style parkland, a dreamlike England. “What can you hear?” Fiennes asked. I was struck by the silence. After a moment, I could make out the small sound of a couple of birds, singing in the distance. “Generally, not a lot,” he said. During Fiennes’s lifetime, Britain has lost about forty-four million breeding birds. “This has become a natural, day-to-day thing that is not there,” Fiennes said. “This is what it is.”
The United Kingdom is a farmed country. Almost seventy-five per cent of the land is given over to agriculture—compared with some forty-five per cent in the United States. After the privations of the Second World War, the country joined a continent-wide push to banish hunger from Europe. Between 1935 and 1998, aided by chemicals, subsidies, heavy machinery, and crop science, British farmers more or less tripled their per-acre yields of wheat, oats, and barley. Milk production doubled. The amount of chicken meat offered for sale increased by a factor of twenty-five. Traditional farming methods, such as the Norfolk rotation, fell away.
Many seminatural habitats were drained or plowed under. An estimated ninety-seven per cent of hay meadows were lost. Between 1990 and 2010, the area of crops treated with pesticides in the U.K. increased by fifty per cent. The environmental damage caused by Britain’s intensive agriculture has only recently been properly understood. In 2013, twenty-five nature organizations published the first “State of Nature” report. “Even the most casual of observers may have noticed that all is not well,” Sir David Attenborough wrote in the foreword.
Researchers studied more than three thousand species and found that sixty per cent were in decline. Modern farming has been a nightmare for the familiar creatures—mole, rat, toad, and badger—of the British landscape. The 2019 “State of Nature” report concluded, “Farmland birds have declined more severely than birds in any other habitat.” More than half have disappeared in the past fifty years. We have one turtledove where we used to have ten. Sixty-eight per cent of starlings have gone, along with a quarter of our moths. In 2014, scientists found that lots in the city of Leicester contained a third more organic carbon—a standard measure of soil fertility—than the surrounding farmland.